Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In practice the distinction between whether basic human rights are gifts from God or are simply inherent in human nature (the formulation of the French Revolution) is moot. It is not faith in God that makes people good.

But which religion? Democracy seems to work very well in Japan, a very un-Christian country. Morality does not depend upon religion. I could also make the case that America is more moral than it used to be now that Jim Crow practices are outlawed. That Americans are less observant? No -- they are just less superstitious.

Overall, a good rebuttal.

My own belief is that many pack hunter species will behave well towards members of their own pack, but fight other packs to control territory and resources. Humans have the same basic behavior, but they have large abstract packs that often include people they barely know or know not at all. Humans have to use symbols and reason to figure out whether an individual is 'one of us' and thus protected, or one of them.

These behaviors have to be taught. It might start with mothers teaching toddlers to share. Sunday school teachers have a role to play. One learns about laws that police enforce as well. Organizations as diverse as football teams and debate clubs have rules, punishments and means to enforce. It can be hard to be a human. When is one bound to support one of one's own? When is it all right to threaten someone who is pressing one of one's own? If someone wearing the other color hockey uniform whams someone wearing your color into the boards, it is morally required to get in the other guy's face and posture?

JPT has a religious perspective on things, and exaggerates the role of religion in moderating human behavior. From his perspective, religion and threat of the Wrath of God are or ought to be central to learning and maintaining moral behavior. Religion has a significant role in defining and enforcing moral behavior in some cultures, but not all cultures are alike and not all religions are alike.

Religion can also divide. If one is Christian or Muslim or Jewish, and the other guy isn't, there are conflicting moral codes and a tendency to say that other guy isn't one of us, he's one of them. He is outside the group, a possible threat, someone to be guarded against. If one member of the other religion transgresses one's moral code, a hostile reaction to the transgressor is natural, but the feeling can also overflow to all members of the other guy's religion.

Of course, a different language or a different skin pigmentation can play the same role in labeling someone as 'the other'.

Anyway, I'm pretty much with you, but couldn't resist embellishing.

I just finished watching the video of Romney and now I am just fucking ENRAGED at this silver-spoon SOB. How can any sane working class person vote for this vile, sneering POS?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm puzzled as to why you think the Obama administration is responsible for who is running Egypt. Do you think that we should have sent in our army to keep propping up Mubarek? That is what it would have taken to avoid the current leadership.

Yep. If one supports true democracy in a land with strong autocratic and religious traditions and values, there is apt to be a rocky road for several generations. How long and how many civil wars and revolutions were required before the Anglo-American civilization ironed out the kinks? Have we ironed out all the kinks even today? While I'm all in favor of democracy, it takes generations for a people to figure out what might work and what might not given their country's history and culture. In the meanwhile, things can be more than a little rough.

Originally Posted by Odin

I just finished watching the video of Romney and now I am just fucking ENRAGED at this silver-spoon SOB. How can any sane working class person vote for this vile, sneering POS?

Just confirming that you are just stand outside the embassy, yell, and maybe throw shoes enraged, not grab one's RPG and machine gun and storm the embassy enraged.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Like playdude, you don't see.
My liberal friends are very pro-labor.

... and you are obtuse. Gotcha is boring. Be a bit less opaque, OK?

http://www.politicususa.com/built-th...ama-47-39.html

"More evidence that the roof is caving in on Mitt Romney came today from a poll of small business owners conducted by George Washington University School of Political Management, which found Obama leading Romney, 47%-39%."

Originally Posted by Odin

I've just read that the "Opposition researcher" who got a hold of that video is Jimmy Carter's Xer grandson!

A little payback for Reagan's October Surprise.

That is pretty cool.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Straight from the Wiki:

Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. Two other terms often associated with Isolationism, but not necessarily the same as Isolationism, are:

1. Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.
2. Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

Simple enough, or do you use different dictionaries in your magic pony land?

The primary point is I think you're still dreaming; you don't. Let's leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

http://www.politicususa.com/built-th...ama-47-39.html

"More evidence that the roof is caving in on Mitt Romney came today from a poll of small business owners conducted by George Washington University School of Political Management, which found Obama leading Romney, 47%-39%."

Holy cow! Is this a sign that Kansas is waking up?!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How about going around with me on it, then?

"Sport" is irrelevant here; obviously that isn't why we kill wogs. We kill wogs because they inhabit land that's full of oil and we haven't been self-sufficient in oil production since 1970. If the people there were, you know, spics or chinks or nigras or something instead of wogs -- hell, even if they were whiteys -- we'd still kill them. It's not directed against wogs specifically. They just happen to be the ones in the way.

So we support dictators of one kind and another (the Romans used to call this kind of critter a "client king") who will sell us their oil nice and cheap, and/or with a good profit for our own oil companies, and those dictators kill wogs. Or, when a dictator gets uppity like Saddam Hussein did, we'll go the more expensive route, bomb, invade, and kill wogs our own selves instead of by proxy. It's perfectly understandable that this ticks folks off. Then they do things like fly airplanes into our buildings, and we do more bombing and invading to hunt down those responsible (supposedly).

I know they like to talk religion when they say why the hate our guts, but you'll notice that they don't equally hate the guts of other countries who are at least equally infidelish if not more so. That being the case, one is justified in questioning whether they are fully sincere in this expression of religious motivation. An alternative explanation isn't that hard to find.

We're the biggest target, the world champions and we're in the position to draw the most attention as far as their attacks. We kill those who are active in the game of killing and/or destroying us.

Brad, hits it out of da park

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Has Shot Itself in the Head Department

The most fascinating thing about Romney is that he has fallen for a fake statistic created by the Wall Street Journal editorial page as what they call "boob bait for the bubbas"--something that they hope low-information voters will hear, get outraged about, and vote Republican. As Ezra Klein writes: "Among the Americans who paid no federal income taxes… 61 percent paid payroll taxes… 15.3 percent of their income.… Another 22 percent were elderly. So 83 percent… are either working… or they’re elderly…"

Yet Romney clearly thinks that the following are identical:

The 47% of the population who are the Democratic base.
The 47% of the population who pay no income taxes.
The 47% of the population who are "dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… [the people whom we] will never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives…"

But Romney was not supposed to fall for this fake statistic, and make policy based on it--he was supposed to have economic advisors who would brief him, and rapidly deprogram him of fake right-wing talking points that lodged in his brain as things that really were true.

I wonder why they did not do so…

bada-bing bada-bam

Originally Posted by Odin

I just finished watching the video of Romney and now I am just fucking ENRAGED at this silver-spoon SOB. How can any sane working class person vote for this vile, sneering POS?

H-m-m-m. Your problem is, you fail to take strong positions. When you have one, speak up!

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

We're the biggest target, the world champions and we're in the position to draw the most attention as far as their attacks. We kill those who are active in the game of killing and/or destroying us.

We, kima saba???

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

We're the biggest target, the world champions and we're in the position to draw the most attention as far as their attacks. We kill those who are active in the game of killing and/or destroying us.

And where are they killing us again?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And where are they killing us again?

Outside of what happened in Libya, that would be Afghanistan -

Two Marines assigned to the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz., were killed during an insurgent attack on an air base in Afghanistan, the Defense Department announced.

The dead Marines were identified as Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27, Kokomo, and Lt. Col. Christopher K. Raible, 40, North Huntingdon, Pa. Eight coalition military members and a civilian contractor were wounded in the attack. None of those injuries was considered life-threatening.

- just makes the front page these days, but usually below the fold. I pay a little bit more attention that most for obvious reasons.

Maybe it's time we started to leave?

Oh wait, we are -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-pullout-plan/

White House: Obama sticking to Afghan pullout plan

- with the usual chicken hawks getting all hysterical over it

Originally Posted by The Rani

Man, my feelings is really hurt now. Don't think I'll ever recover from that one.
<EYE-ROLL>

I think for the eye rolls you use the ":" as "bookends" instead of the "<"

I'm trying to promote this with everyone - a forum can not have too many eye rolls!

Winky, smilies are good-to-go as well!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Man, my feelings is really hurt now. Don't think I'll ever recover from that one.
<EYE-ROLL>

Jeesh, I guess sincerity is a flop. I won't try that again.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Outside of what happened in Libya, that would be Afghanistan -

And if patrols of armed Afghanis were roaming around your east side neighborhood (don't worry, they are on a "peace keeping mission") occasionally killing your neighbors, your goats and maybe a family member or two would you maybe-kinda-sorta have to resist the occasional urge to take a pot shot at them?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Outside of what happened in Libya, that would be Afghanistan..

HAR!!

1) That's not "us" they're killing. That's mercenaries-for-hire. At best, "our" mercenaries, but still... mercenaries get paid to get killed. That's part of the job they sought out.

2) Oh yeah, and those mercenaries they're killing are also the same people (and exclusively the people) who... busted into their houses and hurt and killed their friends and families. So it's not so much like these Bad Guys are out there searching for Us to kill; rather those Bad Guys are killing the people who are in their home against their desires, plausibly there to kill them.

The only 'protection' that's ever necessary against the sort of killing you described is.. not to go around hurting people or busting into their homes. Of course, there's already some water under the bridge there, but at least a good move actually in the direction of helping protect us would be to at least stop engaging in that sort of thing from now on. Whatever grudges and debts have been earned are going to need to be dealt with, but step one is to stop making more of them.

At least, if the job we want done is the protection of us-the-people, not us-the-empire.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Jeesh, I guess sincerity is a flop. I won't try that again.

OMG that emoticon is really an escalation.

This could get crazy, and it will be you to blame.

I kinda like that - the escalation and blaming you.

Gad, my smile looks so impotent now.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

We're the biggest target, the world champions and we're in the position to draw the most attention as far as their attacks. We kill those who are active in the game of killing and/or destroying us.

We kill those who are active in the game of not letting us control their oil supplies. We also kill those who are active in the game of killing us in retaliation for doing so.

Then there's our support for Israel, which is also a factor given the way Israel treats the Palestinians and its neighbors. We are disliked for perfectly rational, perfectly good reasons. Our hands are not clean. We're also disliked for some bad reasons, but they won't matter if we stop giving them good ones.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you "sincerely" think that I'm obtuse and boring, here's a solution for you ... don't read my posts.

Maybe I could consider shifting my POV ... or not.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

HAR!!

1) That's not "us" they're killing. That's mercenaries-for-hire. At best, "our" mercenaries, but still... mercenaries get paid to get killed. That's part of the job they sought out.

2) Oh yeah, and those mercenaries they're killing are also the same people (and exclusively the people) who... busted into their houses and hurt and killed their friends and families. So it's not so much like these Bad Guys are out there searching for Us to kill; rather those Bad Guys are killing the people who are in their home against their desires, plausibly there to kill them.

The only 'protection' that's ever necessary against the sort of killing you described is.. not to go around hurting people or busting into their homes. Of course, there's already some water under the bridge there, but at least a good move actually in the direction of helping protect us would be to at least stop engaging in that sort of thing from now on. Whatever grudges and debts have been earned are going to need to be dealt with, but step one is to stop making more of them.

At least, if the job we want done is the protection of us-the-people, not us-the-empire.

Gad, it would be fun to accompany you to a bar outside of Quantico or Ft. Bragg and have you explain that to the other patrons.

It's been a while since I've seen a good stompin.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Maybe I could consider shifting my POV ... or not.

My god, all these years I just knew there was a camera behind that mirror in my bathroom taping me!

Now I'm thirsty!

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And if patrols of armed Afghanis were roaming around your east side neighborhood (don't worry, they are on a "peace keeping mission") occasionally killing your neighbors, your goats and maybe a family member or two would you maybe-kinda-sorta have to resist the occasional urge to take a pot shot at them?

I don't take pot shots even when I'm drunk.