QUOTE (ustrader @ Apr 8 2005, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE
Wasn't "The Sky Is Falling" the reason we went into Iraq to begin with, USAtrader?
Isn't "The Sky Is Falling" why Bush is pushing for Soc. Sec. reforms?
Why does these not count? Is it because you[i] think the sky actually is falling? just curious... Which bemoaning, lifeless creatures are you talking about? The ones you happen to agree with? Is there another standard I'm missing?
Last point first, the inert creature I speak of are those that, complaint of an aggrieved act being committed.
Then when vindicated, by an authoritative source, eminently more knowledge to the facts, instead, as would be normal for most, voice positive pride at the vindication and correctness as to their allegation of transgressions, they dollop negatively in response in this vindicatation.
This regression into the transcendental world of the melodramatic grievance. Is yet another opportunity to share that dark drab world of never being satisfied.
A world sureond by a negative shell of realism always seeking imperfect, in a cadavers search for the holly grail of human perfection that will never be met.
Yes it is this type of person I strongly disagree with and would hope any rational person would as well.
As to Iraq, when you lot get the idea, that it is but a diminutive superficial issue and person, that still obsesses over the relevance and or importance as to why we went there two years after the fact.
One day, far from this freak side show of has been idealism as to why we went to Iraq, you lot will awake from this trance of whyism and go into the main tent. where the show is what do we accomplish since we are already there. Followed by when do we complete the task and leave. That is the big show in the main tent of the vainglorious act we called Iraq while you lot play on th fringes in the freak shows with the carneys.
As to Social Security, the issue is one of recognizing a problem and having the courage, will and conviction to device some solution.
It is not a brave man who pears from behind his shades and watch a young girl being raped in the court yard and call’s the police notifying them of the THE PROBLEM but then slithers back into the shadows. But when ask to resolve the crime says he heard nor saw nothing because he lacked the courage to involve himself in a solution to THE PROBLEM.
It is a courage man who calls the police to notify them of the problem and as well steps out into the fray and attempts, as a compassionate caring human being, to stop this dastardly act. Even if to do nothing else but voicing overtly attention to all nearby to this unacceptable act of committal.
That is all!
In other words, if you can't answer the question, blather and hope noone actually reads what you say. If I interpreted your last post, you merely said "It isn't good to be a pessimist."
But you utterly failed to address my question. I did not ask for the most complex definition of pessimist you could come up with - I asked why are some people defined as pessimists while others are defined as realists for quite similar action?
QUOTE
As to Iraq, when you lot get the idea, that it is but a diminutive superficial issue and person, that still obsesses over the relevance and or importance as to why we went there two years after the fact.
This is not a sideshow. Many of us are still discussion *why* we went in because it is a moral debate as to what we should be doing as a county - what we should be spending our hard earned tax dollars on.
People like you think that the best possible use for money is in aggressive acts - (even if it can hurt people) Other people think there are better uses.
It is not a side show. There are real moral and philosophical justifications for the war that the neocons DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL NOT AGREE. So they lied and created a smokescreen of threats to do what they think ought to be done.
You happen to agree with them. Most people do not. Don't bother me with vote tallies. You go out onto the street and in plain words ask "Does might make right, and should we use might to enforce our interests?" You will see how many people agree with you. Bush is a master politician and is great at obfuscating issues to his advantage, while seeming to do otherwise.
You liken social programs to a girl being raped. And here I thought might makes right. This dopes indeed mean you don't like social programs, but it ought to mean that if the rapist is more powerful, than he can, indeed, rape the woman. That is the way of the world, is it not?
Would you like to qualify your support of "Might Makes Right"?
Personaly, I think you are laboring under a big misconception. You think "might makes right" means that because strong people are stong, then can do what they want to do. this is not what it means. That is "Might makes strong." "Might makes Right" means "Might makes correct." If you have the power, you are free to use it - indeed, you [i]should it is what you want to do. Using your power is right and just and understandable.
Really, I find this reprehensible. I would like to give you as much benefit of the doubt as I can. Unlike some other people on the board, but much less so than others, I suspect you mostly parrot the lines of others. I would like to give you a chance to actualy think about the moral repercussions necessitated by "might makes right"
- some find tickling one's brains by elaborate lengthy flowery monologues much more stimulating !
