LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Making Baby Jesus Cry (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=691)

Spanky 08-02-2005 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
You don't get to tell me what to do or who to respond to. As I've said before, you are welcome to ignore me. But I choose not to ignore you. So sometimes I may reply to some of your assinine shit. If you have me on ignore, you won't notice it.

It is so 2003 to discuss who is on your ignore list anyway.
You said you found my posts unpleasant. I just don't get why you read them if you find them so unappealing. Of course you are free to do what you want, but if you find my posts so particularly heinous and yet you continue to read and respnd to them, your issues are more serious than I originally thought.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2005 03:26 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
In an amoral world might is right. I don't believe in moral relativism so I don't believe in an amoral world. I believe right is right. If you are a moral relativist, by definition, then you believe might is right.
No. I don't. I believe morals are unique to different countries, cultures, etc.

Shades, my man. Life is all about shades. There are very few absolutes out there, particularly in an area like geopolitics. Trying to compartmentalize everything into black and white is a fool's errand.

You follow this algebraic "If X = y and Y = Z, then..." simplistic approach to an area of life to which formulas can't be applied.

And add an insult or two. We are here for entertainment, not preaching.

Shape Shifter 08-02-2005 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You said you found my posts unpleasant. I just don't get why you read them if you find them so unappealing. Of course you are free to do what you want, but if you find my posts so particularly heinous and yet you continue to read and respnd to them, your issues are more serious than I originally thought.
Do I have issues, too? I read all of Hank's posts.

notcasesensitive 08-02-2005 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You said you found my posts unpleasant. I just don't get why you read them if you find them so unappealing. Of course you are free to do what you want, but if you find my posts so particularly heinous and yet you continue to read and respnd to them, your issues are more serious than I originally thought.
When I reply to your posts, I do so for my own amusement. Sometimes Hank or Shifter may find them funny also. I am not generally replying for your edification. My one post this morning was the exception that proves the rule.

taxwonk 08-02-2005 03:28 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
In an amoral world might is right. I don't believe in moral relativism so I don't believe in an amoral world. I believe right is right. If you are a moral relativist, by definition, then you believe might is right.
You just directly contradicted yourself. I was responding to an earlier post of yours where you said might is right. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even keep your own opinions straight?

Spanky 08-02-2005 03:33 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You just directly contradicted yourself. I was responding to an earlier post of yours where you said might is right. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even keep your own opinions straight?
When did I say might is right?

I said in an Amoral world might is right. But I don't believe we live in an Amoral world.

Spanky 08-02-2005 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Do I have issues, too? I read all of Hank's posts.
With out a doubt

Spanky 08-02-2005 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Do I have issues, too? I read all of Hank's posts.
How come you don't refer more to Star Trek episodes to back up your political arguments?

Shape Shifter 08-02-2005 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
How come you don't refer more to Star Trek episodes to back up your political arguments?
I had to bite my tongue to keep from mentioning the Prime Directive in regard to our relations with Cuba.

While my avatar does come from Star Trek, I am not a trekkie. Inispiration for my moniker comes from here: http://www.davidicke.com/icke/temp/reptconn.html I thought the Star Trek creature (called the Gorn) provided a pretty good representation of a reptilian humanoid. Now I'm sort of attached to it, after the tattoo and all.

Still think I have issues?

notcasesensitive 08-02-2005 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I had to bite my tongue to keep from mentioning the Prime Directive in regard to our relations with Cuba.

While my avatar does come from Star Trek, I am not a trekkie. Inispiration for my moniker comes from here: http://www.davidicke.com/icke/temp/reptconn.html I thought the Star Trek creature (called the Gorn) provided a pretty good representation of a reptilian humanoid. Now I'm sort of attached to it, after the tattoo and all.

Still think I have issues?
None that some heavy gauge speaker wire and a fifth of tequila won't cure.


ETFS

Sparklehorse 08-02-2005 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I had to bite my tongue to keep from mentioning the Prime Directive in regard to our relations with Cuba.

While my avatar does come from Star Trek, I am not a trekkie. Inispiration for my moniker comes from here: http://www.davidicke.com/icke/temp/reptconn.html I thought the Star Trek creature (called the Gorn) provided a pretty good representation of a reptilian humanoid. Now I'm sort of attached to it, after the tattoo and all.

Still think I have issues?
You never admitted you have an advice column.

Spanky 08-02-2005 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I had to bite my tongue to keep from mentioning the Prime Directive in regard to our relations with Cuba.

While my avatar does come from Star Trek, I am not a trekkie. Inispiration for my moniker comes from here: http://www.davidicke.com/icke/temp/reptconn.html I thought the Star Trek creature (called the Gorn) provided a pretty good representation of a reptilian humanoid. Now I'm sort of attached to it, after the tattoo and all.

Still think I have issues?
My sister talks about the Lizard people a lot.

Didn't you know that the Prime Directive becomes moot when another advanced civilization infects the planet in question. Didn't you see the Trek episode where the Klingons started arming the village people. So the Federation started arming the hill people (they had been peaceful with eachother before). Bones said this is crazy, but Kirk and Spock pointed out that they did not have any other choice. Once the Klingons got invovled and started arming one side we had to help the other. I think Gene was trying to tell us something about the Cold War.

taxwonk 08-02-2005 03:57 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
When did I say might is right?

I said in an Amoral world might is right. But I don't believe we live in an Amoral world.
So then you are saying we live in a moral world? What is our morality? By "our" I mean the world's morality.

Shape Shifter 08-02-2005 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
My sister talks about the Lizard people a lot.

Didn't you know that the Prime Directive becomes moot when another advanced civilization infects the planet in question. Didn't you see the Trek episode where the Klingons started arming the village people. So the Federation started arming the hill people (they had been peaceful with eachother before). Bones said this is crazy, but Kirk and Spock pointed out that they did not have any other choice. Once the Klingons got invovled and started arming one side we had to help the other. I think Gene was trying to tell us something about the Cold War.
Okay, now who has issues?

This is for penske:

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articl...s/aniclint.gif

Spanky 08-02-2005 04:07 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. I don't. I believe morals are unique to different countries, cultures, etc.

Shades, my man. Life is all about shades. There are very few absolutes out there, particularly in an area like geopolitics. Trying to compartmentalize everything into black and white is a fool's errand.

You follow this algebraic "If X = y and Y = Z, then..." simplistic approach to an area of life to which formulas can't be applied.

And add an insult or two. We are here for entertainment, not preaching.
I don't think it is to hard to discern if elections are free and fair. It is also not hard to determine if an economy is growing (through practical experience we now know what macroeconomic policies work and which ones don't).

The more prosperous democracys there are in the world, the more stable and peaceful it becomes. We should do what we can to see that as many counties in this world become developed democracys. Thankfully most world leaders now understand what it takes to create growth and prosperity. The vast majority of countrys are now focusing on growth and are growing. Does not matter if they have historically been socialist, like India, or are headed by so called socialists, like Brazil, they are all instituting pro-growth economic reforms (obviously some more successfully than other). Inda, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia are all experience strong growth. In my view the future is looking pretty bright but there are a few bad eggs that could ruin things for everyone.

I think we should do whatever we can to promote democracy and responsible government in these few bad eggs.

Bad Eggs = Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus and a bunch of Subsaharan Countrys. Subsaharan Africa is a sticky wicket, but I don't think it is that hard to figure out what needs to happen everywhere else. These bad eggs need regime change or they ain't going to get any better and will continue to cause problems.

Spanky 08-02-2005 04:08 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
So then you are saying we live in a moral world? What is our morality? By "our" I mean the world's morality.
The international convention on human rights is a good place to start.

Hank Chinaski 08-02-2005 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Okay, now who has issues?

This is for penske:

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articl...s/aniclint.gif
You forgot to mention how Ickes gave Michael Moore the first 30 minutes of Farenheit 911. Ickes got the fat guy a seat next to an-ex President for goodness sakes,.

sgtclub 08-02-2005 04:36 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
So then you are saying we live in a moral world? What is our morality? By "our" I mean the world's morality.
Here we go again . . .

robustpuppy 08-02-2005 04:39 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The international convention on human rights is a good place to start.
To what extent do you think a country's refusal to ratify a human rights treaty demonstrates that the country's government is less moral than those that have ratified the treaty?

Shape Shifter 08-02-2005 04:40 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
To what extent do you think a country's refusal to ratify a human rights treaty demonstrates that the country's government is less moral than those that have ratified the treaty?
I smell a trap. Nicely played.

taxwonk 08-02-2005 04:45 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
To what extent do you think a country's refusal to ratify a human rights treaty demonstrates that the country's government is less moral than those that have ratified the treaty?
You started reeling the line in before I had the hook fully set. Now the slippery bastard will get away.

Sparklehorse 08-02-2005 04:51 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You started reeling the line in before I had the hook fully set. Now the slippery bastard will get away.
Is this like a Politics version of whiff?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2005 05:03 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think it is to hard to discern if elections are free and fair. It is also not hard to determine if an economy is growing (through practical experience we now know what macroeconomic policies work and which ones don't).

The more prosperous democracys there are in the world, the more stable and peaceful it becomes. We should do what we can to see that as many counties in this world become developed democracys. Thankfully most world leaders now understand what it takes to create growth and prosperity. The vast majority of countrys are now focusing on growth and are growing. Does not matter if they have historically been socialist, like India, or are headed by so called socialists, like Brazil, they are all instituting pro-growth economic reforms (obviously some more successfully than other). Inda, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia are all experience strong growth. In my view the future is looking pretty bright but there are a few bad eggs that could ruin things for everyone.

I think we should do whatever we can to promote democracy and responsible government in these few bad eggs.

Bad Eggs = Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus and a bunch of Subsaharan Countrys. Subsaharan Africa is a sticky wicket, but I don't think it is that hard to figure out what needs to happen everywhere else. These bad eggs need regime change or they ain't going to get any better and will continue to cause problems.
For a man who seems to hint at belief in a natural law, you sure seem ignorant of the concept of Social Darwinism (which is the most easily proven natural laws out there).

Its like John Cougar wisely sang, "There's winners, and there's lo-hoo-sers." Somebody's gotta be down for somebody to be up. Its the human condition. What you're espousing - a rising tide lifting all boats to the same level - is called socialism.

taxwonk 08-02-2005 05:22 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sparklehorse
Is this like a Politics version of whiff?
No. Whiff is sooooo 2003. It's like schtick, something else I don't do.

robustpuppy 08-02-2005 05:25 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. Whiff is sooooo 2003. It's like schtick, something else I don't do.
Are you saying that you don't whiff, or that you don't say whiff when others do? Because if you are suggesting that I whiffed here, that's just patently ridiculous.

Shape Shifter 08-02-2005 05:27 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Are you saying that you don't whiff, or that you don't say whiff when others do? Because if you are suggesting that I whiffed here, that's just patently ridiculous.
No, it's wonk. He's still catching up and he's now up to 2003.

wonk Politics Spoiler:

Bush wins

paigowprincess 08-02-2005 05:37 PM

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Good on you that you are proud of them. I am proud for you. Excellent foreshadowing of your overall PB persona.

I have never bothered to reply seriously to you because your posts do speak for themselves (that is, you look like an ass, though you apparently don't realize this), but in light of your pride in your early work, let me fill you in on a thing or two.

My first post to you was a joke post. It was a combination penske riff (that is why there were a number of acronyms in it) and Hank not-so-inside reference to his signature block at the time (the constructive criticism thing). I don't generally reply substantively to people on the politics board because I come to these boards for amusement, not to bicker with people about partisan politics. Frankly I think both political parties in our country could stand some serious competition based on their failure to do much beside pander to their loudest constituencies, but I digress. In addition, it was clearly a slow day for me, because I only read the PB on slow days.

So I posted a joke post and you flipped your lid. Fine. You are nothing if not a literalist. So I engaged a bit and then you go off on this rant making some assumption that you know anything at all about me, my personality off the boards and my ability to hold pleasant conversation. Interesting engagement style. Seems defensive to me. Others pointed this out to you and you jumped their shit too. Good times.

The reason why I reposted yesterday is that paigow thought I was being mean to you with the "social cripple" bit. I thought she should understand that you are the one who threw that around initially. Just some context, if you will. Paigow has told me in the past that my dealings with you amused her, and I'm sure she was curious as to why I am so mean to you, because generally I get along with most people here. Mainly because fighting with people would decrease my enjoyment of the boards, so I have no particular interest in doing so.

But, your arguing style on this board in particular is offensive. I am not the only one telling you so. I may have been the first person you were an asshole to, but I am by no means the last. A prime example would be your engagements with dtb and Ty yesterday. You have a condescending, know-it-all demeanor here and you consistently mischaracterize the viewpoints of those arguing with you. Just not pleasant to be around. You characterized dtb's arguemnts as pro-Castro when her posts yesterday clearly established that she is personally quite anti-Castro and his regime for reasons far more developed than the shit you spew here. All she was telling you was that from her personal experience he is quite popular there. And in you view that makes her pro-Castro. Maybe you should look more for nuances and shades of gray in people's viewpoints instead of reading positions counter to yours in some sort of absolutist light. People here are smart (sebby excluded) so you should give them some credit instead of playing "liberals are evil" absolutist games. And you shouldn't condescend to them unless your goal is to look the fool.

So it turns out social cripple fits. Well played, playa.

This is as much energy as I intend to expend on you today, so don't count on some PB debate over whether or not you are in fact an ass with me. I'm heading over to the FB to enjoy myself with people I actually like.
Point of Clarification. When you said "social cripple" I thought you were being mean to those who cannot walk in the way God intended.

paigowprincess 08-02-2005 05:45 PM

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
It is funny you say this because when I find people unpleasant to be around I avoid them. Yet ever since our little exchange you follow me like the plague. Every time I started a new thread you were one of the first to show up. I suggested that you go away before but as I remember it you told me I would have to get used to you.

The great thing about this board if you don't like someone's posts you can simply ignore them and not respond. If people find my posts so offensive they can ignore them. I know I ignore many people's posts.

You clearly don't like reading my posts. So here is a suggestion - don't. Why don't we just pretent that the other one doesn't exist? Then we can each go our merry way. Deal?
Uh oh, he is busting out the Ignore List. I invented that.

And, I cannot ignore Megalo's post, whichi s grossly unjust but part of his despotic polityical prisoner system.

Shape Shifter 08-02-2005 05:59 PM

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 
Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Uh oh, he is busting out the Ignore List. I invented that.

And, I cannot ignore Megalo's post, whichi s grossly unjust but part of his despotic polityical prisoner system.
Perhaps the U.S. will invade. The Insurgency doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Hank Chinaski 08-02-2005 06:28 PM

I want a t-shirt that says "Free Gavrilo Princip"
 
Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Uh oh, he is busting out the Ignore List. I invented that.
An olive branch of tribute, maybe?

Spanky 08-02-2005 07:52 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Its like John Cougar wisely sang, "There's winners, and there's lo-hoo-sers." Somebody's gotta be down for somebody to be up. Its the human condition.
John Cougar has never said a wise thing in his life. And when did he and Huey Lewis and the News become Classic Rock? Don't have you to be good before you can be considered a Classic?

Spanky 08-02-2005 07:53 PM

Amoral Relativsim
 
Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
To what extent do you think a country's refusal to ratify a human rights treaty demonstrates that the country's government is less moral than those that have ratified the treaty?
Depends on their reasons for not ratifying.

paigowprincess 08-02-2005 08:00 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
John Cougar has never said a wise thing in his life. And when did he and Huey Lewis and the News become Classic Rock? Don't have you to be good before you can be considered a Classic?
John Melloncamp has said a lot of wise things including for example "I need a lover who won't drive me crazy." "Will you marry me" to Elaine Irwin, "Lets do Farm Aid", and "Its a lonely old night. can i put my arms around you?". And he put out one of my alltime favorite albums, The Lonesome Jubilee. Paper and Fire is some good shit.

ANd he is my father.


Can someone else handle the Huey Lewis part? Is Patrick Bateman in the house?

ETA: My apologies in advance if I have open the door to a farm subsidies debate. I am firmly against corn syrup and the Fats that it grows.

Hank Chinaski 08-02-2005 08:04 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess

Can someone else handle the Huey Lewis part?
The entire catalog is genius.

Huey is to 80's music revivals as chips/salsa are to the quality of a Mexican restaurant. They are all that really matters.

Gattigap 08-02-2005 08:08 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
And when did he and Huey Lewis and the News become Classic Rock?
Huh. I thought the lyric called out Motley Crue.

paigowprincess 08-02-2005 08:14 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Huh. I thought the lyric called out Motley Crue.
I wonder what sebby thinks about John C Melloncamp's use of non traditional musical instruments (well they are traditinoal , but not to music of its era) in Paper in Fire? I bet he agrees with me it was well done.

Sebby. Crowes are in town this weekend. Thanks again for the NYC hookup. Well worth it.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2005 08:43 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I wonder what sebby thinks about John C Melloncamp's use of non traditional musical instruments (well they are traditinoal , but not to music of its era) in Paper in Fire? I bet he agrees with me it was well done.

Sebby. Crowes are in town this weekend. Thanks again for the NYC hookup. Well worth it.
First, thanks for the corn syrup/J. Cougar posts. The funniest thing in the last month.

I like John Cougar. He incorps the alternative instruments perfectly. Underrated. Pink Houses is a better slice of Americana than the Boss could write in 100 albums.

Crowes played Atl City last weekend. Couldn't get tix.

You're welcome, of course. Glad to help.

Spanky 08-02-2005 09:05 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
First, thanks for the corn syrup/J. Cougar posts. The funniest thing in the last month.

I like John Cougar. He incorps the alternative instruments perfectly. Underrated. Pink Houses is a better slice of Americana than the Boss could write in 100 albums.

Crowes played Atl City last weekend. Couldn't get tix.

You're welcome, of course. Glad to help.
For the love of God - isn't there anyone else on this board who wretches every time they hear Mr. Mellancamp? These people not only like John Cougar but they admit it openly. Isn't that the first sign of the apocolypse or something?

Hank Chinaski 08-02-2005 09:53 PM

Ain't That America
 
Quote:

Spank sezFor the love of God - isn't there anyone else on this board who wretches every time they hear Mr. Mellancamp? These people not only like John Cougar but they admit it openly. Isn't that the first sign of the apocolypse or something?
How I knew PLF was riffing on us was when his top 5 all time albums had ZERO JC/M on it. Have you ever been to his flat? Its like a shrine, or I guess is one. the first time he masturbated was to the Jack and Diane video.

bilmore 08-02-2005 10:58 PM

Anyone?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'd call him a despot, but I don't know WTF illegitimate means in the context of the statement. Yeh, he grabbed power in a revolution. But that doesn't make him illegitimate.
No, his illegitimacy is based, not on how he grabbed power, but on how he retains it. Legitimacy is a concept rooted in the belief that power is derived from the governed, not the governing, and Castro derives next to nothing from his people. He is the new Lenin, the older Pol Pot, the original banana-republican. People who express admiration for Castro are the same people who deplore unfairness while pushing socialism, and, if that doesn't cause logical clashes within your brain, well, stay way over there, please.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com