Sometimes it's hard to be nice to others...

[JINXR]

Lmao. Just had a funny encounter with this guy. I was chatting with an old college friend on Gmail. He came into my cube before I could minimize it (she was telling me about how she's going through a divorce and just talking about stuff that nobody else needed to see). So I switch tabs to another window while he was standing behind me, but at the top of the gmail tab it kept flashing "Michelle says..." Just so happens that's his wife's name. AND the tab I switched to was a webpage for divorce advice. I didn't think anything of it until he went back to his cube and immediately called his wife just to see what she was up to. LMAO

Poor guy thinks I'm chatting with his wife about getting a divorce.

[JINXR]

Back on topic. Nobody likes a neighbor, coworker, or even a friend that is always intervening into your life in order to control what you do under the guise of "helping" you or others.

It's plain as day. You keep sticking your nose in other people's business, they're going to retaliate or at the least despise and conspire against you. And it's exactly what America has done to many, many countries.

Why can't we be neutral? Let others deal with their own damn problems. We have enough we need to deal with in our own backyard.

[jasonn]

Originally Posted by JINXR

Lmao. Just had a funny encounter with this guy. I was chatting with an old college friend on Gmail. He came into my cube before I could minimize it (she was telling me about how she's going through a divorce and just talking about stuff that nobody else needed to see). So I switch tabs to another window while he was standing behind me, but at the top of the gmail tab it kept flashing "Michelle says..." Just so happens that's his wife's name. AND the tab I switched to was a webpage for divorce advice. I didn't think anything of it until he went back to his cube and immediately called his wife just to see what she was up to. LMAO

Poor guy thinks I'm chatting with his wife about getting a divorce.

PWNED!!!

[troth281]

Originally Posted by bush

So why don't we see people attacking Switzerland?

Think before posting.

Last time I checked, Switzerland wasn't a superpower.

[bush]

Originally Posted by troth281

Last time I checked, Switzerland wasn't a superpower.

You didn't answer the question.

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by bush

You didn't answer the question.

Be-cause it's a straw-man..

The Swiss exist thanks to our efforts combating predators around the world.

Without us they are conquered and by now there wouldn't be that many blond haired children left in that nation.

This is why Ron Paul is just Howard Dean pre- YEEEOWWWW!!!!

[TheSollyLama]

I think they're all a pack of hyenas. Voting for one is the same as voting for any of them.

I can relate to such difficulties. I'm into the entire skeptical movement but often find myself at odds with the majority of them on political issues.

For the record, while it claims to be independant, by and large the skeptical movement is left leaning. So while we agree on topics like Bush is a delusional asshole, and that we really did go to the moon- I find them sorely lacking in the same zeal for evidence on other, more right leaning issues.
This morning I battled a host of supposed skeptics over gun control. I was the only one that ever presented hard statistics, and had to point out as many logical fallacies in their arguments as I do in homeopathy believers. Mostly argument from Emotion and unstated major premise. But the Strawman made a couple appearances too.

Difficult to be on the side of science and skepticism when even alot of the skeptics are only so about specific things, and as gullible as anyone else on others. More difficult when you don't go along with the herd.
Such as global warming. Specifically man made global warming. No one argues global warming- hell the earth has been hotter and colder in the past. But the 'science' behind man made global warming the way Al Gore tells it- is about as shoddy as blurry bigfoot pictures. But the left eats it up.

I don't have co-workers, but it was just as bad when I did. One of the reasons I quit working. They just wouldn't leave me the fuck alone in my office.

As for the Swiss, Wakey. Hitler never invaded Switzerland, and as far as I know, neither did Kaiser Wilhelm nor Napolean. It's neutrality is taken, for the most part- quite seriously. If for no other reason than to fence plunder.........

Canada on the other hand..................................

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Wakey

Be-cause it's a straw-man..

The Swiss exist thanks to our efforts combating predators around the world.

Without us they are conquered and by now there wouldn't be that many blond haired children left in that nation.

This is why Ron Paul is just Howard Dean pre- YEEEOWWWW!!!!

Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. There's just nothing you can say in the face of such a massive failure of comprehension.

PhilB

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

I think they're all a pack of hyenas. Voting for one is the same as voting for any of them.

I can relate to such difficulties. I'm into the entire skeptical movement but often find myself at odds with the majority of them on political issues.

For the record, while it claims to be independant, by and large the skeptical movement is left leaning. So while we agree on topics like Bush is a delusional asshole, and that we really did go to the moon- I find them sorely lacking in the same zeal for evidence on other, more right leaning issues.
This morning I battled a host of supposed skeptics over gun control. I was the only one that ever presented hard statistics, and had to point out as many logical fallacies in their arguments as I do in homeopathy believers. Mostly argument from Emotion and unstated major premise. But the Strawman made a couple appearances too.

Difficult to be on the side of science and skepticism when even alot of the skeptics are only so about specific things, and as gullible as anyone else on others. More difficult when you don't go along with the herd.
Such as global warming. Specifically man made global warming. No one argues global warming- hell the earth has been hotter and colder in the past. But the 'science' behind man made global warming the way Al Gore tells it- is about as shoddy as blurry bigfoot pictures. But the left eats it up.

Yeah, I've had that problem as well. Secular humanism grew out of the left as an alternative to religion, but it did not bother to question its own premises in the process, and is thus still mired in liberal/egalitarian/socialist thought.

PhilB

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

As for the Swiss, Wakey. Hitler never invaded Switzerland, and as far as I know, neither did Kaiser Wilhelm nor Napolean. It's neutrality is taken, for the most part- quite seriously. If for no other reason than to fence plunder.........

Canada on the other hand..................................

Perhaps Hitler would have left them alone due to the blond haired types but if they had Jews...

Anyway I reject neutrality because I honestly believe that naked aggression could give a fuck about it.

The Swiss do have money so there is your probable cause.

[TheSollyLama]

Phil, it's why I don't use the label Secular Humanist despite Paul Kurtz's best efforts. Too often that label is used to promote things I don't personally agree with.

While I think Secular Humanism is mostly right- and if they'd run one for president, I bet I'd actually bother to vote- like the libratarians- they still have their own demons to deal with before being taken seriously as a political entity. I think the newest Point of Inquiry is out though on iTunes, I'll have to look.........I do enjoy the work of the Center for Inquiry quite a bit.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Wakey

Anyway I reject neutrality because I honestly believe that naked aggression could give a fuck about it.

Neutrality does not at all assume pacificism. No one here is advocating in any way that we not defend ourselves when attacked or threatened, and Ron Paul does not in any way advocate that either. So if that's your straw man, you can go stand in the corner with Jim until a flash of rational comprehension hits you both.

The Swiss are both neutral AND heavily armed, thus (a) no one has a reason to fuck with them, and (b) those without reason are deterred. And that is where we should be standing. We are certainly strong enough that very few people would screw with us out of "naked aggression"; if we stopped giving people reasons to hate us, it wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is. Yes, there would still be the occasional problem; utopia is not an option. But there wouldn't be nearly as many problems, and we could defend ourselves *much* more effectively and at *much* less cost if we restricted our military scope to doing that, only that, and that very well in a very focused manner.

PhilB

[TheSollyLama]

The 'focused manner' of which you speak, Phil, doesn't exist though. There simply is no organization equipped to deal with the task of Nation Building. So it falls to our military and those we hire in a quasi-military form.

We excel at kicking ass. Our military is far and away the best in the world. But it is not a police force, nor the United Way- although we're forced to use it as such. To remove any threat gov't (whether you think Iraq was or not) is to completely shatter the infrastructure of a nation. With despots like Saddam or Kim Jong Il, the nation and it's infrastructure ARE the leadership. You cannot separate the two.

When we dismantled the entire Iraqi gov't- as I believe we were forced to do because of the Baathist dominance of it- we all but made Iraq another US state.

But the fact of nation building cannot dominate our foreign policy either. It's a risk that must be taken at times (and again- whether this was one of those times, I'll leave to the individual) despite the long term fallout.

The invasion of a country and the toppling of it's gov't means we are taking de facto responsibility to rebuild that country after. It's hard, expensive, and riddled with issues. Certainly it wasn't all roses and candygrams with the Marshall Plan in Europe, but there we also had the support of the world, where today that support is gone- and not just from us starting wars.
Long ago the UN and Euro Union stopped representing what's 'best' for the world in favor of what's best for themselves.

Simply- we cannot remove a dictator from the job so easily. It's not like the US where we go happily along changing leadership. There, the entire system IS the leader and his cronies (yeah I know, we suffer from that here too, but less so) and removing them plunges the entire country into chaos.

Nation Building is a losing effort 99% of the time. People might point to the Marshall Plan, but given the recent problems we've had with france and germany- I'd hardly call Marshall a victory for the US.

It just can't dictate our policy though to avoid nation building. We want change in the world, and that ain't free.

[Wakey]

Phil, we entered the middle east in the 40's to guarantee the free flow of oil and to stand against the aggression of the lunatics that either wanted the oil or wanted to eat those that dared to sell it to us.

How in the hell does Ron Paul's stances protect our strategic interests?

I guess when the oil is cut off from us in the Ron Paul world we can wrap ourselves in the constitution to keep us warm at night.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Wakey

Phil, we entered the middle east in the 40's to guarantee the free flow of oil and to stand against the aggression of the lunatics that either wanted the oil or wanted to eat those that dared to sell it to us.

How in the hell does Ron Paul's stances protect our strategic interests?

I guess when the oil is cut off from us in the Ron Paul world we can wrap ourselves in the constitution to keep us warm at night.

That makes our whole mid-East strategy out as one big corporate welfare program. (And, oddly enough, supports the contention of the liberals that "it's all about oil".) Maybe the oil companies should be assessed for the costs of keeping their oil flowing. Then the real market cost of oil would become apparent, and development of other energy sources might suddenly seem a lot more economically viable. Although (again as pointed out multiple times) we don't get all that much of our oil from there; certainly not enough to be worth the lives and costs of all the military action in the area.

PhilB