I'm not sure what her job is (writer maybe?), but Clarise is the only person on this forum(Well With the exception of x_orion) who understands physics beyond the laymen's terms. Amongst other topics Clarise seems to have a good understanding of politics, current affairs and history. I would therefore rate her (in my opinion...) as one of the most intelligent people on this forum.

Not that it makes her argument for a presidential candidate stronger. This post is merely a rebuttal to claims that she is a "stupid bitch"

 

You really are amazing . You present your own extreme rightwing views not as your own but as some sort of treatise on why Ron Paul might not be some Americans' choice as President.

Why?

If that nonsense is what you believe then why not come out and say it and leave poor old Ron out of it.

 

Meaningless turn of phrase.

Fantastic. Such an attitude accepts, and even demands the same attitude from the rest of the world; the very attitude which led to the financial crisis here and in Europe. Take as much as you can and damn the consequences abroad, no? How wonderful it would be to watch everyone step on everyone else under the banner of self interest, no?

What utter jingoist nonsense. Our good ideas are worth replicating in the world and our bad ideas are worth a trip to the trash can, no different than anyone else. Only a blind and deaf fool could possibly exist in a singularly constructed world such as the one you represent. Do you really think our ideas are always better? Always worth replicating? And do you truly think no other country has any idea which we should pick up on?

It is as simple as asking who will be more intelligent: the man who says he has all the answers, and so he plugs his ears. Or the man who keeps his ears open, because he knows exactly how little he has.

You may as well say, "We can do it! Go team!" It is equally meaningful and slightly less pedantic.

Ahh yes. The "preemptive strike on terror." God bless Ronald Regan. There is no such thing as a war of defense which is also a war of aggression, the terms are oxymoronic. The fact that they can be spouted which such thoughtlessness and confidence tells you exactly how far critical thought has fallen in our age.

Every country has a right and obligation to defend themselves, and so when we intervene in other countries "preemptively," they have every right to defend themselves. Would you not agree? Yet, were an Iraqi general to lead an attack on American soil, I do not think he would be provided the benefit of a "defensible position," do you? I think he would be labeled a terrorist and a child murderer. But when we do the same in Iraq, without having even the excuse of a prior attack? Well...how nice to be the writer of history.

I have no idea as to where you are going with this, but it just sounds like more nationalist nonsense. You are everything to be loathed in a human being. How effortlessly you rationalize what would no doubt mean the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other people. But they are not really people, are they? Because the only people are American people. Right? And that line of thinking has been the cause of every war in our history. How many people should we kill for that dirt over yonder? If enough of them are like you, they'll no doubt wave their stupid flag around and try to take our dirt too. Oh dear! How you've evolved.

How?

Yes, well now you're back to the chaos of sheer self interest in an already chaotic and mostly self interested world. What sane being looks at the state of humanity and says, "You know what we need? With all this killing, and all this opulence among the few while the many suffer? We need MORE selfishness. We don't have quite enough of the thing yet, our children don't kill one another for the toys they want...yet. The last thing we need is to...oh god...look out for one another, work together, and share with each other. No--no--no, we need more self interest. There is not enough selfishness between Israel and Pakistan, as they die for their invisible borders, between the executive and the slave wage worker, between the west and the east, between the races... No sir, give me more of the thing. "

You strange creature. My only sorrow is that while you are strange...you are not rare.

And by that shining standard, no governing principle which prevents them from removing us. And I say to myself, what a wonderful world.

Exercising the military muscle(I do love the phraseology you prefer when speaking about things as serious as war. Or was it gym class?) leads to hatred and nothing more. That is something you should have learned from history, that is something every empire has learned eventually. The Roman's exercised until their hearts gave out and they had created plains full of enemies. As did the Greeks. The English exercised their muscles until their own colonists had had quite enough of it, and the French, whom they had been dropping barbells upon, decided to help give them a bit of a return. Napolean exercised the muscles of the French right into Waterloo, for some reason their biceps only shrunk. Cold weather, perhaps?

Bullying the world fetches nothing more than anger, and , eventually, revenge. Perhaps in your bubble our interventionist policies seem "preemptive" and "justifiable." But, if I might fathom a guess, the rest of the world; watching their cities destroyed, their neighbors run down, and American troops pacing their streets while American ships patrol their seas, may not see it exactly the same way.

It is ironic that you bring up world war II. It is always the goal of men like Hitler to spread their ideology, their power, and their "exceptionalism" over the entire globe. It seems a bit disingenuous to talk about how we must be prepared to stop such men by becoming such men...don't you think?

 

Once again I want to pick just one small part of your treatise to respond to.

I can probably agree that the ideas of the framers of the Constitution were enlightened, and that the U.S. may once have represented the "last, best hope of mankind. But we have strayed very far from the enlightened ideas reflected in that document, if we ever adhered to them in the first place. I mentioned slavery, which gives the lie to much of the egalitarian notions of fairness and justice we profess to hold dear. But many in this country (particularly, in my opinion, many on the right) no longer seem to value democracy, free market economics, or cultural pluralism. As we speak, there are earnest efforts afoot to make it more difficult for people to vote, and we already have an embarrassingly low level of voter participation. We think money is the equivalent of free speech, and we allow money to dominate our political culture. Corporations spend every waking moment figuring out ways to bribe Congress to limit competition and enable them to loot the Federal Treasury for their benefit. Cultural pluralism is anathema to those on the right, who seem to view the country as an army of white Christians defending the supremacy of white Christians.

Given all of that, I can't for the life of me imagine where this notion of "American Exceptionalism" took root, other than as a reflection of tribalism -- most people see their own country, their own culture, as better than everyone elses. The U.S. is hardly unique in that regard.

 

If you can not understand where "American Exceptionalism" took root, then you will never be able to understand that very concept,or where it actually took root.

American Exceptionalism is the very idea of individual rights and liberty,,it's not that hard to understand.

 

Consider the source of that claim:

 

Compared with the Social Democracies of Western Europe and the British Commonwealth the United States has exceptionally high levels of poverty, crime, infant mortality, unemployment, and income inequality.

 

At the time of the American Revolution and for a long time afterwards the United States was in many respects the most progressive country in the world. At the time of the American Revolution slavery was legal in each of the rebellious colonies. It was illegal in England. Nevertheless, suffrage was more widespread in the United States than in Great Britain. The only other representative democracy in the world was Great Britain. In other countries monarchs had absolute power.

When Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 contested elections had spread to other countries in Europe, but the United States was the only country where white male blue collar workers were allowed to vote.

The United States lead the way with universal and free public education.

Nevertheless, the very progressiveness of the American economy and political order in the past has caused the United States to lag behind in the present.

Because factory and farm workers were later to get the right to vote in Europe, when they were given the right they voted with a sense of accumulated grievance, and made their economic orders more egalitarianism.

Because the social order in Europe had always been aristocratic, they were less likely to succumb to the illusion that they would become rich before they died.

Finally, because the populations in Europe were more homogeneous employees were more likely to identify with each other. In the United States white employees often identify more with their white employers than with non white fellow employees.

 

Very interesting,,,,very interesting in deed,,now if you can inject the, 90% tax rate,,FDR,,The New Deal and the Bell Curve in to this thread in the next 20 posts or so,,you will then, have impressed the fuck out of me.

 

You mean, there were no individual rights or liberty before America was founded?

And were there individual rights and liberty for slaves AFTER America was founded? Did women enjoy the same rights as men?

 

Originally Posted by Hardrive in response to post by DL

"Are you crediting Obama with the killing of Osama and the fall of Kadafi?
Do you really think he did all that or did all those things just happen on his watch?"

HD

I take it that this is your way of agreeing with me. Obama can not take credit for the things that were set in motion before his time but happened on his watch, just as Ronald Reagan can not take credit for the fall of the Soviet Union.

In the same way, neither of the two parties can take credit or blame for the state of our economy. They are both responsible. Consequently my question to you and the other posters is: Why do you think that a change in parties or the person that is elected to the presidency is going to make a difference?

We don't need the same cosmetic change we always settle for, we need radical change. We need to stop supporting parties and politicians and start supporting new people with new ideas that will shake things up and loosen the grip that special interest has on our government. Because we are a democracy the change has to begin with us... the voters. We have to change our old patterns of voting by putting aside party politics and concentrate on a few critical issues.

1) Taking corruption out of our government by putting a legal barrier between special interest and our government representatives.

2) Reestablishing our industrial base by bringing back our industries and our jobs.

3) Establishing a more equitable distribution of wealth by limiting corporate greed and influence.

4) Holding accountable those people and companies that have damaged our economy through their greed, and our democracy through their corrupting influence.

There are a lot more things that need to be done but first we have to take control of our government and our economy.

I know a lot of posters will criticize me for pointing out areas that need change without proposing specific solutions. to those people I say....

When a person is lost they need to do three things. The first thing is they have to admit that they are going the wrong way. Second they have to stop walking in the wrong direction. Third they have to look around and assess why they've been going the wrong way and what they have to do to identify the new direction they will take....

Those that admit that we are lost but advocate for continuing in the same direction, they fall under Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.

HD

 

Working backward:

I, too, find religiously fervent objectivists to be as pathetic as religiously fervent atheists. Then again, I tend to question the judgment of people who believe too strongly in just about anything.

Ayn Rand was a conundrum who did not practice what she preached. We have come to agreement on that point in past scuffles.

As to your first paragraph....

You might be correct that most women would feel the worse off for being dumped, and left with nothing, by a middle aged man who comes into wealth and runs off with some cheap little twenty-something poptart.

Despite the fact that those women, almost certainly, would get the children and child support funds, at the very least.

If you are right, I suppose I would also have to concede most women would not deem themselves suddenly emancipated and at liberty to live their dreams. I would have to believe that most women who have been around the block and back aspire to nothing higher than comfort, and value money over love.

Sorry. I do not believe that. I think more of women, on the whole. And so should you.

BTW (since we are sparring), speaking of Ayn Rand and Charles Murray: you know, Mr. DL, you really did let me down when you dumped Live69Evil from your friends list. Here are some reasons, in ascending order:

1. He/She is an XNXX friend of mine.

2. You've ranted in the past that Stumbler nixed you from his friends list over some big to-do-about-nothing, so for you to dump Evil over nothing seems hypocritical.

3. Live69Evil's rants over "niggers" is clearly tongue-in-cheek, and he is clearly an Archy Bunker styled sockpuppet for some unnamed member who has a head on his/her shoulders behind all the theater, which in turn makes it likely that despite the rants, he/she is not really a racist.

4. You, on the other hand, hold a deep enmity to entire groups, and are clearly racist, which you eloquently conceal behind a veil made of shamelessly cobbled and duct-taped factoids. Your eloquence and genteel facade, however, are woefully inadequate attempts to mask a heart that is bitter, vindictive, and cruel.

5. Given #3 and #4, your nixing of Live69Evil from your friendship is clearly all part of your act, and therefore a cheap, cynical move. It is beneath you. You should invite him back, lighten up, and grow up. Just saying.


Now, then.

Whatever happened to Ron Paul? CFH420 seems to be the only dude still on topic. He's crazy as a bedbug, but I like him! He calls me an "it!" I like his spunk!

 

*not_secure_link*www.thedailybeast....israel-s-women-linked-to-arab-inequality.html

 

Clarise likes CHF420's spunk??

Is it rich and creamy?

 

It tastes like pâté and Velveeta on a soggy Ritz cracker.

 

How can he do that, now that Evil is banned?

 

Huh?

Huh.

You know, I was beginning to wonder why Evil hasn't been PM'ing me with requests to have me over to his lair and cook me over hot briquets with a cheap chianti on the side.

Well, as XNXX-friends go I've had better and worse, but I suppose I should not be surprised.

What did he get banned for? Racism? That would be a laugh, considering the company on this thread.

Sheesh.

 

He posted a picture of a black man who'd been lynched.

 

bump.