What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2017, 05:01 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, not quite all good points.

-- ok which one don't you like?

Posted above in reply to Rags

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

& Tulsi does not make stuff up

[Ragnarök_62]

Eric the Green Wrote:About truth and deception: ultimately we DO need to go beyond our egos, and not just defend the ideas we have said before because we don't want to admit the we are wrong.

We have values, which are universal and which we all share, in varying degrees for each one. We also are fed ideologies, and we accept ideas based on them. They are based on values, but they are political ideas which we think policies must be based on. The important thing as I see it, is to be aware that we hold these ideologies, and be willing to be less attached to them. There is truth in every ideology, to one degree or another. When we make one ideology true, and the opposing ideology false, and defend and accept our ideology in a knee-jerk and unconscious way, that puts our nation in trouble. When we are aware of this, then we can be liberated from the ideology; thus able to see both its value and its limits.

Such ideologies include:

OK

Quote:1) racism or nationalism as opposed to multi-culturalism and respect for diversity and social justice. This is related to white vs. people of color

So in light of the latest technologies, how does one define "white" and "people of color".  Is one white if according to genetic tests, one is 100% Euro-American or does passing for white the answer?  Or does failing the 1 drop rule which is the StormFront/KKK
litmus test suffice in making one a "person of color"?

Racism and nationalism are not the same, Eric. Nations which comprise mostly of "people of color" can be nationalist as well. Cf. PRC.

Quote:2) militarism vs. pacifism, which relates to the values of peace and war.

You know where I stand on this.

Quote:3) religious right and cultural traditionalism, vs. secularism and modernism

You could add Sharia law as pretty much equal to the stuff the religious right supports. Traditionalism isn't confined to Christianity.

Quote:4) environmentalism vs. technological progress and materialism

False dichotomy.   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...142708.htm

Quote:5) human rights and democracy vs. authoritarian approaches

Freedom of speech is one of those obviously. I'd also add freedom from nagging, right?  SJW's infringe on my freedoms.

Quote:and in our society, the chief ideological conflict is:
6) free market, capitalist, trickle-down economics vs. socialism or social welfare programs, equality, etc. This one most relates to the rich vs. poor issue.

Add, freedom FROM religion and other assorted memes.  I don't like being nagged.

Quote:On #6 (about which I have also called the capitalist free market side "false ideology #1"), I take the social welfare side more often. But I can respect the virtues of self-reliance, non-dependency, less government, making money through free enterprise, lower taxes, and such. So where is the right balance? I suggest we can only find it if we don't hang on unconsciously and too tightly to one side or the other.

A decent safety net is needed. Think auto crash which can ruin almost anyone. The free market depends on government force to keep property owners' stuff safe. Now with that in mind, when someone of something abuses their property rights then some sanction is needed including corporate death by charter revocation. Also since many private property entities like corporations, LLC's whatever abuse other people, then some sort of regulation is required for that. In addition, no economic entity has the right to abuse my body with toxic pollutants, right?  That's the balance. In addition nobody should be allowed to abuse copyrights and patents either. Both are also enforced with the government's gun.

Quote:You may disagree with me if I say I'm not doing that. I just want people to let go of the free market ideology as if it were the only correct one, and my observation is that too many people today do this. People who grew up under Reagan or absorbed his ideals are the most likely to do this.

The correct balance must include, as I see it, to understand that government, taxes and redistribution of wealth is needed in some degree. Wealth is power, and too much power in too few hands leads to a society in which most people are struggling just to make a living. That's where I see the balance today. We do depend on each other; we can't all aspire to be independent of each other and hope to have a working civilization. We all need to contribute to society through taxes-- to protect ourselves, each other, and the economy. Concentration and hoarding of unearned and extorted wealth, and lack of regulation on economic behavior, leads to recessions and depressions and to gross inequality and poverty. Humans are not perfect enough yet that we can do without laws and regulations.

Nothing to disagree with there.

Quote:Independence and self-reliance are virtues, as well as compassion and fairness. I don't want taxes to be too high, or the government to run all business. Free enterprise allows people to innovate and create wealth on the basis of their own ambition and incentive. Government run enterprises are needed, but some are best left to the private sector. The right balance is needed. And the right balance is not necessarily the current moderate position in politics, if the current balance in a nation is too far to the right or left; today as I see it the balanced position in America is on the left, and pushing things to the left in general makes progress. But sometimes, in some places, progress means correcting policies that went too far in the socialist direction, as for example the revolutions that overthrew the Soviet Empire, and which tried to change China, in the 1989 era.

Can we be free of ideologies as unconsciously-held dogmas, and see instead a good balance of ideas and virtues?

I'm of course free of dogmatic ideologies from both the left and the right.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

I was just "ragging" on the 1st point of what nationalism is about in general. I just consider nationalism without some qualifier as other issue neutral. It's when nationalism per se is added as a plank to some other agenda that it can be bad or good. Brexit for example is good because the EU is a failed project, IMO.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

I don't have much issue with the UN but some "world order" of some sort is silly.

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

See that's a difference right there. Our definitions of "war" are different.  I have a broad definition of what "war" is. War = any action involving force between political actors.  The US is conduction war in Syria by the insertion of special forces and bombing campaigns.

Quote:But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda.

That's another point of disagreement. I also have a broad definition of "wars of choice". Wars of choice are any war that:
1. Does not involve a direct threat to US citizens.
2. Retaliation against deaths/injuries to US citizens from a foreign actor.

Assad has done neither which means wars against him are invalid.

Quote:I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

Just because Tulsi's findings do a mindfuck to Eric's worldview does not in any shape or manner invalidate such findings.
It is up to warmongers like Mcstain to also go get verifiable facts like Tulsi did if he does not agree.

Quote:That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

That's one of the biggest problems since 'Nam. Undeclared wars which is exactly what's going on in Syria. Congress needs to man up and either declare war or defund anything they do not declare war on.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.


Yes. Mexico is a sovereign country and should be treated as such. Mexico should not pay for the wall either. It's our wall and we should pay for it.

Quote:4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

Of course, justice and fairness. Really. And that is more than the constitution; it's an inherent value. And we do need to focus on groups, but only because those who unjustly discriminate and profile focus on them. I don't have a problem with SJWs and snowflakes. I'm sorry you do, but it seems like a matter of taste regarding presentation, rather than a beef with justice itself. Anyone can go overboard with nagging and single-issue dogma. That has nothing to do with justice, right?

Guess why I have a problem with SJW's and snowflakes?  It's the exact same reason I have a problem with Jesusfreaks, your term.

Both of them try to TELL OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO THINK AND ACT!  I despise both of them and a pox on both houses.

[Eric the Green]

Good Rags. (the post two posts back I like, not the one above) Except I'm not sure that freedom from being nagged is a right, although you would like to declare it.
Fine, declare it! I'm not sure Judge Judy of any judge would agree though. You also have the freedom to ignore naggers.

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2017, 07:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

I was just "ragging" on the 1st point of what nationalism is about in general. I just consider nationalism without some qualifier as other issue neutral. It's when nationalism per se is added as a plank to some other agenda that it can be bad or good. Brexit for example is good because the EU is a failed project, IMO.

IMO, it is not. I guess you get my point about when nationalism is good, and when it is bad. You could call that a neutral, on balance, but the good is good, and the bad is very bad.

Quote:

Quote:The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

I don't have much issue with the UN but some "world order" of some sort is silly.

Actually, "world order" has been around for millennia. It just means the prevailing power constellation among nations and/or empires.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

See that's a difference right there. Our definitions of "war" are different.  I have a broad definition of what "war" is. War = any action involving force between political actors.  The US is conduction war in Syria by the insertion of special forces and bombing campaigns.

Baloney. The US has no bombing campaign or special forces fighting Assad, the supposed ruler of Syria. It has had for about a year now a small number of special forces and some bombing raids in what used to be eastern Syria fighting against the Islamic State. Most of the US campaign against the IS is in Iraq, helping the Iraqi army. I have pointed this distinction out to you dozens of times now. Why doesn't it sink in? The IS is a caliphate that controls a separate territory. It is not Syria. It is not a recognized government, but it is a defacto state nevertheless. It is a declared enemy of the United States and Europe, and it terrorizes us and our allies. It is a horrible disgrace to all values. It needs to be liquidated ASAP, if not fucking sooner.

Quote:

Quote:But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda.

That's another point of disagreement. I also have a broad definition of "wars of choice". Wars of choice are any war that:
1. Does not involve a direct threat to US citizens.
2. Retaliation against deaths/injuries to US citizens from a foreign actor.

Assad has done neither which means wars against him are invalid.

Yes, but the USA is not waging a war against him, and as far as I know, no country is. Why you bring that up to me as a "disagreement" is a complete mystery. Why do you do that? The USA is not at war with Assad.

Quote:

Quote:I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

Just because Tulsi's findings do a mindfuck to Eric's worldview does not in any shape or manner invalidate such findings.
It is up to warmongers like Mcstain to also go get verifiable facts like Tulsi did if he does not agree.

You are really un-informed and mis-informed on this, and a number of other people I know are as well. Tulsi is deceived, and a deceiver. She has no facts at all. She just went there with her mind made up, and came back with what she wanted to believe. I trust AP and news reporters and Amnesty International, etc., and not Tulsi and other fantasy weavers.

The facts are objective. Assad has killed 400,000 of his own people, and tortured tens of thousands in unspeakable ways. He has driven millions of his people into exile, just because he doesn't want to hear any criticism. He is the worst human being I have known about in my lifetime. Defending him is defending the worst possible shit. Denying it is holocaust denial. Blaming any of his unspeakable crimes on the USA is disgusting. Thinking that the USA causes all wars and all problems is as stupid as thinking that it causes none of them. Conflating these truths with advocating a war of choice is just another form of this denial, and you ought to know better.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/0...es-exposed

Quote:

Quote:That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

That's one of the biggest problems since 'Nam. Undeclared wars which is exactly what's going on in Syria. Congress needs to man up and either declare war or defund anything they do not declare war on.

Since there is no war, there is nothing to declare.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

Yes. Mexico is a sovereign country and should be treated as such. Mexico should not pay for the wall either. It's our wall and we should pay for it.

The wall is nothing but a boondoggle, and really nothing more than a slogan Drump used to get votes. It is utterly pointless crap, and very comical and pathetic, as is almost everything Drump says and does.

Quote:

Quote:Of course, justice and fairness. Really. And that is more than the constitution; it's an inherent value. And we do need to focus on groups, but only because those who unjustly discriminate and profile focus on them. I don't have a problem with SJWs and snowflakes. I'm sorry you do, but it seems like a matter of taste regarding presentation, rather than a beef with justice itself. Anyone can go overboard with nagging and single-issue dogma. That has nothing to do with justice, right?

Guess why I have a problem with SJW's and snowflakes?  It's the exact same reason I have a problem with Jesusfreaks, your term.

Both of them try to TELL OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO THINK AND ACT!  I despise both of them and a pox on both houses.

But some people need to be told. At least, they need to be informed. This nation is full of reactionaries and un-informed dummies and ruled by an oppressive oligarchy that people just roll over and accept. A revolution IS needed. Being shouted at doesn't always work, I agree. But those who are shouting, you don't need to take it personally, since I doubt it's directed at you. Is it?

I salute the SJWs for telling the truth about the need for social justice.

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2017, 05:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 05:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

-- nope

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

Eric Wrote:sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

-- ok, yeah Assad's a pos, l get that & l don't recall Tulsi saying that he's not. What she did say is that you can't cut him out of any peace negotiations & she's right. This muthaf-ing pos thug's the Syrian head of state, you gotta deal with him. Otherwise the deal isn't legit. When she say we're @ war with Syria? The Telegraph doesn't say that

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.
[quote pid='21123' dateline='1486844983']


Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

<snip>
You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/
[/quote]



Perhaps  one of us or both of us is putting out chum. We're out to gaslight you. Maybe if we can discobabbalate ya, then you might listen to opposing views wrt cherished,   ... values.


And wrt to Bob's stuff.  It supposes on what "chum" is.  Chum is something to entice somebody into an emotional response. [Cf. Trumptweet]. Chum is not ad-homs.  I try to avoid those.

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2017, 10:46 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.
[quote pid='21123' dateline='1486844983']


Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

<snip>
You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

Rags Wrote:Perhaps  one of us or both of us is putting out chum. We're out to gaslight you. Maybe if we can discobabbalate ya, then you might listen to opposing views wrt cherished,   ... values.

--don't think that's possible Rags

[pbrower2a]

Freedom vs. fascism -- and this time the struggle will not be waged by Americans on foreign soil.

Who would have though 75 years ago that Germany, Italy, and Japan would be bastions of freedom and America would have the dictatorship?

[Eric the Green]

{quote]

(02-11-2017, 10:46 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

Perhaps  one of us or both of us is putting out chum. We're out to gaslight you. Maybe if we can discobabbalate ya, then you might listen to opposing views wrt cherished,   ... values.

I'm sorry for being so bitter. It's just that I have to tell the truth. There is no debate about these facts. It's not a matter of opposing views in this case. Sometimes, it's just a matter of getting the information, and being willing to receive it instead of denying it.

from:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-ske...rica-18558

....After a halting of airstrikes on eastern Aleppo for nearly a month, the Syrian Air Force has returned to the skies with a vengeance. It’s not uncommon for hundreds of airstrikes to be conducted across Aleppo’s eastern district on a single day, a rate that translates roughly into a couple of strikes every hour. At least three hundred civilians have been killed in these bombings since the Assad regime’s offense restarted, after Moscow called off its moratorium on air activity over the city.

The Syrian government has targeted the last few working hospitals in the city deliberately, no doubt as a way to further put the squeeze on the eight thousand rebel fighters still ensconced in the area and to convince east Aleppo’s 250,000 residents to either surrender to the government’s authority or die. Doctors Without Borders reported that the hospitals and medical facilities it supports have been hit on thirty separate occasions since the regime offensive resumed. Bashar al-Assad, for all intents and purposes, continues to spit in the face of the entire United Nations system—as he has done throughout the war.

There is an important and healthy debate going on in Washington about whether it’s a wise course of action for the United States to plunge deeper into the conflict. But whichever side one is on regarding that question, surely we can all agree that transitional justice and accountability for the world’s most heinous crimes is an essential component of any future resolution to Syria’s civil war.

The United States took a giant leap forward earlier this month towards a possible international war crimes prosecution of Syrian military and intelligence officials after the conflict subsides. For the first time, the United States’ UN ambassador, Samantha Power, publicly released the names of six Syrian commanders who either lead or direct units of the Syrian Armed Forces that have shelled schools, destroyed hospitals, dropped chemical weapons on civilians, tortured and executed prisoners, and imposed starvation sieges on entire city districts. While acknowledging that these commanders won’t be hauled into a courtroom to answer for their crimes anytime soon, Power reminded the Security Council that Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic felt the same way. And looked what happened to both of them.....

[Eric the Green]

(02-11-2017, 10:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 05:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

-- nope

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

Eric Wrote:sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

-- ok, yeah Assad's a pos, l get that & l don't recall Tulsi saying that he's not. What she did say is that you can't cut him out of any peace negotiations & she's right. This muthaf-ing pos thug's the Syrian head of state, you gotta deal with him. Otherwise the deal isn't legit. When she say we're @ war with Syria? The Telegraph doesn't say that

OK, that's better;

you can say "we have to deal with him," and people including the USA have been trying. It doesn't work, though. There is no solution to the Syria mess as long as he's in power. But the USA does not have the ability or willingness to depose him. And Trump is not likely to do anything about it either. The USA has effectively turned the matter over to Turkey and Assad's allies now. It's up to them; the USA has failed. Whatever they decide will have to do for now. But Assad in power is not going to bring Syria back. His people have had it with him. They will fight him, or leave him.

[Marypoza]

(02-12-2017, 06:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 10:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote='Marypoza' pid='21136' dateline='1486853020']
[quote='Eric the Green' pid='21123' dateline='1486844983']

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,


Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.


Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

-- nope

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

Eric Wrote:sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

-- ok, yeah Assad's a pos, l get that & l don't recall Tulsi saying that he's not. What she did say is that you can't cut him out of any peace negotiations & she's right. This muthaf-ing pos thug's the Syrian head of state, you gotta deal with him. Otherwise the deal isn't legit. When she say we're @ war with Syria? The Telegraph doesn't say that

Eric Wrote:OK, that's better;

you can say "we have to deal with him," and people including the USA have been trying. It doesn't work, though. There is no solution to the Syria mess as long as he's in power. But the USA does not have the ability or willingness to depose him. And Trump is not likely to do anything about it either.

--believe it or not Eric, that's a good thing. Unless you like creating quagmires in the MidEast.. or the world for that matter

Eric Wrote:The USA has effectively turned the matter over to Turkey and Assad's allies now. It's up to them; the USA has failed. Whatever they decide will have to do for now. But Assad in power is not going to bring Syria back. His people have had it with him. They will fight him, or leave him.

--- wharever. It's their decision. Nor ours

[Eric the Green]

(02-12-2017, 07:51 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-12-2017, 06:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 10:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 05:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,


Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda. I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.


Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.

-- l thought he wants to build a wall

You guys really need to keep up on the news. Didn't you know he promised Mexico to send US troops there to help them with their drug war?

-- nope

Quote:& Tulsi does not make stuff up

Eric Wrote:sigh

Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

-- ok, yeah Assad's a pos, l get that & l don't recall Tulsi saying that he's not. What she did say is that you can't cut him out of any peace negotiations & she's right. This muthaf-ing pos thug's the Syrian head of state, you gotta deal with him. Otherwise the deal isn't legit. When she say we're @ war with Syria? The Telegraph doesn't say that

Eric Wrote:OK, that's better;

you can say "we have to deal with him," and people including the USA have been trying. It doesn't work, though. There is no solution to the Syria mess as long as he's in power. But the USA does not have the ability or willingness to depose him. And Trump is not likely to do anything about it either.

--believe it or not Eric, that's a good thing. Unless you like creating quagmires in thd MidEast.. or the world for that matter  

Eric Wrote:The USA has effectively turned the matter over to Turkey and Assad's allies now. It's up to them; the USA has failed. Whatever they decide will have to do for now. But Assad in power is not going to bring Syria back. His people have had it with him. They will fight him, or leave him.

--- whatever. It's their decision. Nor ours

It is, although the quagmire in Assad's Syria already exists, even though it's not ours.

What is truly cruel and tragic is Trump's approach to Syrian refugees.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We face a polarization and conflict in our country. Though essentially beyond the partisan labels, it does cluster around Republicans and Democrats, which we now call red and blue.

What is this contest, or conflict?

I like to see it on many levels. I prefer most of the time to frame it as a contest between ideas, not people. The people on the other side are not my enemies, I like to think. It's the ideas, the delusions and deceptions they hold that must be dispelled.

Bob Butler likes to frame it as a contest between values; we can't hold the values of those we oppose, so we must accept this and accept that people have different values.

I think there's some truth in that, but on the other hand, framing it this way makes it harder to resolve; it says things can't be changed, because values are too hard to change. Whereas if one has a delusion or has been deceived, all one has to do is wake up from it.

Of course, framing the conflict in terms of deceptive ideas, also has its problems. Reading me saying to dispell the deceptions, sounds like I'm saying that I am right and the other person is wrong. Once in a while, a person can be in what's called a contemplative mode, and is willing to listen. In our society today, it appears that less than 10% of the people are capable or willing to listen to the other side. The rest have their minds made up.

When I speak of deceptive ideas, it is not just my ego speaking, because it is not only myself who "knows the truth" and others who don't. It is myself and many others, opposing another and many others. And I like to say that, if I know the truth, it is because I have been open and willing to listen. But the divide remains. If another person is not in contemplative mode, there is little chance I can convince them that I know the truth, and that they are deluded. And they may take is as an insult if I tell them that they have been deceived, and that I know the truth and they don't.

Let's see in my next post if I can frame the contest we are in a little differently.

You know the truth as it relates to yourself and those who are closest to you. I think Bob's framing it right. However, I'm not sure that Bob understands values or knows much about them at this point.

[Eric the Green]

“People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people.” – Carl Jung

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-13-2017, 01:59 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote pid='21176' dateline='1486942811']
[quote pid='21153' dateline='1486870037']

Quote:Why don't you stop saying that to me? I have gone over and over that with you and Rags. She has made up a US war with Assad that does not exist, and blamed this non-existent war by the USA for millions of dead and displaced and tortured Syrians; a new holocaust. NO, the USA is NOT to blame for this horrific war crime. Assad is. But the USA is not fighting Assad anyway. Tulsi is a fantasy weaver, and I will never trust anything she says again. My opinion of her is about the same as your opinion of "that hildabitch."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/...-since-nu/

I keep saying this to Eric because he hasn't grasped reality yet.   Newflash, the purpose of the US military is not to be a virtual international fire fighting brigade to stamp out every fucking "humanitarian" [crisis ] in the world.  Such is mindless Wilsonian idealism that falls on its ass when implemented.
So, are there US special forces in Syria? Are there private forces like Blackwater? I'm guessing so. Our nose is under that tent somehow and the US Neocons and others who support this nonsense need a one way trip to pre-K so they can learn what "keep your hands to yourself" means.


Btw, butterball, Tulsi speaks the truth, no matter how inconvenient it is for Eric.

Maryposa
-- ok, yeah Assad's a pos, l get that & l don't recall Tulsi saying that he's not. What she did say is that you can't cut him out of any peace negotiations & she's right. This muthaf-ing pos thug's the Syrian head of state, you gotta deal with him. Otherwise the deal isn't legit. When she say we're @ war with Syria? [i Wrote:The Telegraph[/i] doesn't say that

Eric Wrote:OK, that's better;

you can say "we have to deal with him," and people including the USA have been trying. It doesn't work, though. There is no solution to the Syria mess as long as he's in power. But the USA does not have the ability or willingness to depose him. And Trump is not likely to do anything about it either.

--believe it or not Eric, that's a good thing. Unless you like creating quagmires in thd MidEast.. or the world for that matter  

The above is correct.

Eric Wrote:The USA has effectively turned the matter over to Turkey and Assad's allies now. It's up to them; the USA has failed. Whatever they decide will have to do for now. But Assad in power is not going to bring Syria back. His people have had it with him. They will fight him, or leave him.

--- whatever. It's their decision. Nor ours
---Bingo.

[/quote]
It is, although the quagmire in Assad's Syria already exists, even though it's not ours.

Somebody,not Someguy... Wrote:What is truly cruel and tragic is Trump's approach to Syrian refugees.

Do you seriously think the US ought to accept every refugee/immigrant there is in the whole wide world?  I don't.  There are limits. Have you read the Population Bomb?  Humans have already overbred and the mother nature will do the usual things to correct it.  War,famine,pestilence, and death will ride again, like it's always been.[/quote]






wars , wars,  justified by anything,
cries go out for all glory to sing,
but in fact death arrives from disease, famine, and pestilence.
The warmongers make the peace makers go to silence.
War for human rights
War for each and every one to fights
White phosphorus bombs land on flesh and alight.
The big fire for all
To the stratosphere the mushroom clouds make balls.
The grave yards fill
And we all pay the ultimate bill.

[Eric the Green]

(03-01-2017, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Do you seriously think the US ought to accept every refugee/immigrant there is in the whole wide world?  I don't.  There are limits. Have you read the Population Bomb?  Humans have already overbred and the mother nature will do the usual things to correct it.  War,famine,pestilence, and death will ride again, like it's always been.

No, I only mentioned the Syrians. And most of them are going elsewhere anyway. Today's most horrible, dangerous genocide going on is in Syria. Thus, a concern for refugees, which is what this country is based on. All Americans are refugees.

Overbreeding is a problem, but it's irrelevant to this question.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-01-2017, 09:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Do you seriously think the US ought to accept every refugee/immigrant there is in the whole wide world?  I don't.  There are limits. Have you read the Population Bomb?  Humans have already overbred and the mother nature will do the usual things to correct it.  War,famine,pestilence, and death will ride again, like it's always been.

No, I only mentioned the Syrians. And most of them are going elsewhere anyway. Today's most horrible, dangerous genocide going on is in Syria. Thus, a concern for refugees, which is what this country is based on. All Americans are refugees.

Overbreeding is a problem, but it's irrelevant to this question.

1,  "All Americans are refugees" is not correct.  Some were migrants that came a long time from Asia. Some came to move closer to family, a bunch were just born here, some came in chains, some came assorted places as *voluntary immigrants, and of some were/are refugees.

2. Soooo... The question is a matter of quotas. Overbreeding fits here.  There is no American exceptional-ism  wrt physics.  There's a natural limit to the number of folks who can fit within US borders.  The borders have been the same since say, 1955.  The population is of course larger than it was in 1955. So the question and since it's a physics question, then the ultimate carrying capacity has to be taken into account. 

That means we must ask ourselves if all existing citizens are allocated sufficient resources to have a habitable situation that the US considers adequate.

3. So first, make sure all homeless veterans' lives are adequate.
4. Next make sure all homeless regulars' lives are adequate.
5. Move the folks who are in prison due to mental illness to a proper case facility.  Prison isn't the proper place to treat mental illness.
6. Release non violent criminals on a case by case basis.  Make sure they get some help in going straight.
7. Now, and only now can we get to refugees. After all of those other people are taken care of, look at immigration budget and see if said refugee has some sort of sponsor. If OK on resources, let that 1 in and so forth.
8. Next go through legitimate yearly legal immigration queue and consider on one to one basis.
9. Now, Eric can decide on how to process legal immigration queue and or that along with resident aliens as he pleases. Do we agree on the process outlined above?
10. Would you agree with the either legal immigrant/resident alien option?

10 Is where I don't care which Eric can pick. If Eric agrees to said process, then all we have to discuss is
a. What the yearly quota is.
b. Which process items Eric wants some modification on.

You see, Eric,  I'm assuming you agree that physics has the final word on the US population limit. That's because all resources are limited. That's what Earth Day stuff in grade school told Rags when he was a little boy.

And... What limit do you think is correct wrt population limit for the space the US has?