Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Ah, I see. Like the Bush administration, you created your own reality.

Nah, I don't have the money or resources to create my own realities. All I did was associate a term with a particular group of posters. The term is not quite as nasty as other terms commonly applied to others including myself.

Originally Posted by zilch

The Phillippines? That's American bully imperialism at it's worst.

Yep. It was part of America's foray into imperialism during the latter part of the Age of Imperialism. But a funny thing happened. After WW I, and particularly after WW II, the natives got restless and it became untenable for the various imperial powers to hang on to most of their colonies. And so the Age of Imperialism came to and end.

Just like today's Middle East, we had no business being there in the first place.

Yep. And nowadays the natives get restless before you can even get your proconsul into place or set up your puppet government.

But you will remain firmly fixed in the world of sixty or even a hundred years ago and believe it can all come back.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Who said anything is definitely going to work?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

When you win the argument, you gleefully state that you have won the biggest one of all time. When you lose it you trivialize the loss. There's a word for that in debate; it is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Admiral Halsey was known for one fault: he predictably took the most aggressive course of action. During most of World War II engagements of the US Navy, such was appropriate. To be sure, a comparison of current political leaders to Admiral Halsey is inapt; Halsey would have been right at any other time, as has been shown in his record. But his plan for Midway would have been a catastrophe. That would have been the worst possible time for failure, in view of the significance of the naval battle.

Gotcha!

PB, you are aware that the battle plan for Midway was actually Nimitz's not Halsey's. Oh, one other thing, as far as the opening quivels are concerned, I don't recall ever personally celebrating a win or trivializing a loss.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Nah, you're just at a loss for a pertinent response, and clueless about how to properly flirt with a chick. Maybe The Perv could be of some assistance here.

I'm not going to help another guy, especially to flirt with you. Still, thanks for the compliment.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eliminating the qualifier ignores the political motivations of those trying to make the distinction of Afghanistan being "right" and Iraq being "wrong." Perhaps I would replace "liberal" with "anti-Bush" or "Democrat," but that's about it.

Besides, you and I don't have to agree on everything.

It is all too easy to say "conservative -- good" and "liberal -- bad", or vice-versa. Partisanship is usually a harmless tendency on the whole because it implies countervailing forces that keep things from going too far in destructive, corrupt, and dehumanizing directions. The absence or irrelevance of countervailing force in politics can lead to the accretion of such political vices as cozy relations between economic interests and the government, to the groupthink that precludes reflection and ensures that a folly once started will not go away, the inability to recognize falsehood, the attitude that dissent is disloyalty to the political system on the whole, and a contempt for the concerns of 'outsiders'.

We have had nearly seven years of an administration that has accreted one vice after another. The Bush administration has demonstrated a chronic contempt for anyone 'failing' to share its vision or recognizing flaws in that vision. It seems to recognize a perverse "higher truth" more precious than objective reality -- the Will of the leader or of his hangers-on. It has used the public treasury to enrich supporters more than to improve the lives of most Americans. I see a leadership style that tells underlings to tell the Boss what he wants to hear irrespective of the falsity of such desired material.

If I seem cynical about Dubya it is because Dubya has given me no cause for faith. I have seen behavior more characteristic of some capricious tin-horn dictator or a spoiled-brat monarch. I see Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hugo Chavez more than I see ... Dwight Eisenhower. I see novel verbiage like "unitary Presidency" to describe something new -- and without precedent in the role of the Presidency. I see the lockstep relationship between the Congressional GOP and the Presidency, one that effectively rendered the opposition irrelevant as if in a single-party system devoid of democracy -- and then the pretense that the electoral results of 2006 have no relevance. I see the unusual role of Karl Rove until this year -- one in which he wields powers that the Constitution never delegated to elected officials, appointed officials, or (by reasonable derivation) civil servants -- in the manner of a Party Boss in a single-Party system.

Dubya did not need to re-invent the Presidency. George Washington did an adequate job in setting the parameters for his successors, and even Lincoln and FDR recognized limits to Presidential power in America's direst times -- enough to save the system, and no more.

I cannot state with 100% certainty that the Democrats are incapable of similar vices in politics, only with different style and coloration. If the Democrats highly likely to gain control of the Presidency and solidify control of the Senate are as bad, then our nation has become so pervasively corrupt that it is doomed to ruin. But that said -- they can't be worse. The latter part of this so-far dreary decade, and the 2010s, is likely to be a great time in which to be a liberal, even if not for personal gain from being well-connected to the leadership.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Yeah. Boy, do I have egg on my face... Especially considering how well that whole 'blowing up innocent goatherders with their families' idea worked out. Paul's idea would never have gotten the bad guy as quickly, as efficiently, or with as little ancillary damage as the path you guys have advocated all along.

Your idea was totally the right way; history has proven it out.


----------------

By the way, apologies for the late response. We're in the last week of prep before our factory opens up and our first truck starts down the line. It's mad-busy.

Originally Posted by zilch

Uh, but you were human, too, as I recall... something about your reaction to 9/11 (a quaint re-telling of the "no big deal") struck me as odd, but of consistent character to a determined libertarian. Odd, but at least not human...

Your inconsistent humanity only snuck through when, as I pressed you on the matter, you sought to excuse your reaction (something about your car) rather than defend it.

My reaction was what it was. I wasn't there the day 9/11 happened, and so missed out on all the visceral reactions that kicked the country into lunatic-mode.

An interesting postscript to this occurred, by the way, this last 11 September. They usually leave the cafeteria teevee on a news program at lunchtime, and I happened to be looking when they ran their stock footage of the plane hitting the WTC building and then another clip of the people jumping out of the windows.
I had literally never seen this before -- particularly not in real time, and with no idea of what to expect. And even with the several year of fore-warning, when the big fireball blew out the side of the tower, beyond the "holy shit!" I immediately blurted out, I was literally speechless. I can appreciate why people reacted at first the way they did. But as shocking as the moment may have been, the reality remains that I had (as I mentioned in the response I suspect you are referencing) more personal connection to -- and was therefore much more strongly affected by -- the outbreak of war in Cote d'Ivoire, where my sister was periodically going while living in Bamako, practically right across the border from it.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Nah, I don't have the money or resources to create my own realities. All I did was associate a term with a particular group of posters. The term is not quite as nasty as other terms commonly applied to others including myself.

The sad thing is that I think you know better, but you've chosen to play word games rather than engage in serious discussion. As I've seen with other participants here, it's about tweaking people rather than addressing their arguments. If that's truly what floats your boat, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If one never ever uses profanity, can one sell one's allocation of obscenities like one sells carbon credits?

hey, that's my idea

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

(L)iberal means one who is etremely anti-Bush to the point of being irrationally destructive in my personal dictionary. I suggest you read it, memorize it and learn how to cope with it from this point forward. So, with that definition now available for the Liberal public consumption, Mustang was viewed by me as being a liberal poster as well.

Your vandalism of your dictionary has rendered your dictionary useless. Get a new one, and keep your pen away from the book except to write your name on its title sheet.

You have used a word in a manner completely contrary to any other known use. The word liberal has been in existence since long before George W. Bush took his first breath, and, barring some tragedy that ensures the demise of civilization, the word will long be in use after Dubya is dead. Your novel treatment of a word may not be uniquely yours -- it could be from Rush Limbaugh, for all I know.

No nutcase, irrespective of ideology, has made a known attempt on the life of our current President. Nobody so far has been caught preparing to assassinate him. Most of us liberals seem resigned to outlast him. Including today (30 November 2007), that's 317.

Besides, when I find political madness, it is rarely a "liberal" who displays it. Fascists? Commies? Sure. I don't know how irrational Usama bin Laden is -- but he is surely no liberal.

Some of us liberals seem to think Dubya the destructive one in American politics -- someone who has introduced alien norms of governance devoid of necessity and appropriateness. I think that he has shown himself a pathological liar and a sell-out to people of unlimited greed and little compassion for those other than intimates.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If one never ever uses profanity, can one sell one's allocation of obscenities like one sells carbon credits?

I'm starting to getting used to you cracking jokes, but only starting to.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... And the people that Usama or whatever is name is now "hangs with" wouldn't be the ones to turn him in. Duh.

OK. So, who would you select for the honor? There are few if any others around to do it. After all, tribal groups tend to be pretty insular and homogeneous.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The sad thing is that I think you know better, but you've chosen to play word games rather than engage in serious discussion. As I've seen with other participants here, it's about tweaking people rather than addressing their arguments. If that's truly what floats your boat, then so be it.

Kiff, tweaking is a fundamental part of an objective (purpose) based or type of argument. Tweaking removes the BS, maintains integrity and focus's or shapes the argument on or around the primary issue or primary interest at stake. As you may be aware, I'm a pretty good tweaker.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Who said anything is definitely going to work?

Of course there are no guarantees in life, but recommending something that has already proven inadequate doesn't help. I assumed you weren't aware of the offer, and made that known. If you still feel it's the right course, then I might have a different and stronger opinion to offer.

Originally Posted by The Rani

..anti-Bush sentimentality trumps all logic with some of you guys.

I'm sorry, Rani, you are just wrong. Deal with it.

(or don't...that's your MO, eh?)

I want to hear from the Merry Pranksters how wonderful George W. Bush is. Give me Dubya's greatest hits!

Can't wait.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Yeah. Boy, do I have egg on my face... Especially considering how well that whole 'blowing up innocent goat herders with their families' idea worked out. Paul's idea would never have gotten the bad guy as quickly, as efficiently, or with as little ancillary damage as the path you guys have advocated all along.

Your idea was totally the right way; history has proven it out.

Actually, your way and the Bush way were tried, and neither succeeded. Claiming that bribery failed because we acted like bullies is disengenuous and you know it.

As I said, your idea and that of George the Lesser may have been tried, but not mine. I was in favor of a quick insertion in force, and as quick an exit after we dealt with al Qaeda. How much bombing and other mayhem may have been required would have been restricted to Tora Bora. And yes, I know that innocents would have died. Unlike you, I am a realist. Allowing your totally hands-off approach would have granted a free pass to every harebrained wacho to try their hand at killing Americans.

I'm not an advocate for using miltary force, but when it's the least bad thing to do, we need to be ready and willing.

Originally Posted by Justin

By the way, apologies for the late response. We're in the last week of prep before our factory opens up and our first truck starts down the line. It's mad-busy.

Good luck with that.

(Edit) Never mind. Sorry for backsliding.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Nah, you're just at a loss for a pertinent response, and clueless about how to properly flirt with a chick. Maybe The Perv could be of some assistance here.

It wasn't a flirt, it was a diagnosis.

Two similarities from the literary world come to mind:

From "Terms of Endearment" -

Garrett Breedlove: You're gonna need a lot of drinks.
Aurora Greenway: To break the ice?
Garrett Breedlove: To kill the bug you have up your ass.

and from "Hello, Vietnam!" -

Cronauer: "You know, you're in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history."

Just please don't tell the one you get to provide the relief that it was my suggestion. I got enough people wanting to kill me!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of course there are no guarantees in life, but recommending something that has already proven inadequate doesn't help. I assumed you weren't aware of the offer, and made that known. If you still feel it's the right course, then I might have a different and stronger opinion to offer.

I was aware of the offer, but I didn't know it had been upped.

FWIW, you don't need to address your different and stronger opinion to me, at least. We can go on and on about this, but unfortunately I have no interest to do so... since frankly, I don't have much interest in the subject or in debating the hypothetical. Thanks anway.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's even sadder is that I think you DON'T know better. It's completely obvious what KIA is saying ... anti-Bush sentimentality trumps all logic with some of you guys. But you absolutely refuse to see it, preferring a high school mentality whereby you and your little buddies gang up on the "enemy" and congratulate each other on your brilliance. How ridiculous.

Well, both of you repond to real points with snark and accusations. I'd say you are both in a poor position to criticize. If you respond with ideas, I repond with ideas. If you repond with snark, I whack ya!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Your vandalism of your dictionary has rendered your dictionary useless. Get a new one, and keep your pen away from the book except to write your name on its title sheet.

You have used a word in a manner completely contrary to any other known use. The word liberal has been in existence since long before George W. Bush took his first breath, and, barring some tragedy that ensures the demise of civilization, the word will long be in use after Dubya is dead. Your novel treatment of a word may not be uniquely yours -- it could be from Rush Limbaugh, for all I know.

No nutcase, irrespective of ideology, has made a known attempt on the life of our current President. Nobody so far has been caught preparing to assassinate him. Most of us liberals seem resigned to outlast him. Including today (30 November 2007), that's 317.

Besides, when I find political madness, it is rarely a "liberal" who displays it. Fascists? Commies? Sure. I don't know how irrational Usama bin Laden is -- but he is surely no liberal.

Some of us liberals seem to think Dubya the destructive one in American politics -- someone who has introduced alien norms of governance devoid of necessity and appropriateness. I think that he has shown himself a pathological liar and a sell-out to people of unlimited greed and little compassion for those other than intimates.

Are you a liberal based on principle or a liberal based on comformance or likeness of someones written definition or a liberal simply based on opportunity, projected image or popularity.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Well, both of you repond to real points with snark and accusations. I'd say you are both in a poor position to criticize. If you respond with ideas, I repond with ideas. If you repond with snark, I whack ya!

My diagnosis did conclude that the patient is definitely in need of her "la petite mort" (as in the French rather than the Islamic or Tibetan use of the term); perhaps not her first but some considerable time since the subject's last can be inferred. I had offered the prescription of her locating a boyfriend, but perhaps more is needed ---

I had not picked up on this need for a "whack." As laid out (pun intended) in "Über den sado-masochistischen Komplex," your reading would seem to explain much of the subject's behavior. Perhaps with the additional data from her certainly assured responses, we can make some further discernment (e.g. if bondage may be one of the subject's preferences) and more specific prescriptions in type of boyfriend (or, otherwise) can be provided.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Are you a liberal based on principle or a liberal based on comformance or likeness of someones written definition or a liberal simply based on opportunity, projected image or popularity.

So, in other words, if pbrower2a or any other liberal refuses to fit the kookie's definition of a liberal only being a Bush-hater, then he is adrift and made sport by every wind of others' definitions or that he is an opportunist only concerned about his own projected images and/or popularity.

I can only imagine all the disappointments your world must provide you each and every day - very sad.