You ain't no Curly.
 

I thought Hank's crowd was still in denial. You know, Iraq is going well but the media isn't covering the good news.

You ain't no Curly.
 

you still like your version- you want everyone to just leave it be, like how you would have Israel treat Lebanon, or how you admire the way Billy handled Afghanistan? status quo?

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

I find "The Fountainhead" tedious and nearly incomprehensible, but you can tell from my posts that I don't like to think hard.

"Babar the Elephant" is a fine book, but (being several decades old) is in my view a bit too violent to read to very small children without editing as you go along. A 2 year old does not need to know that Mommies can be shot to death, or that people can fall over dead from eating mushrooms.

S_A_M

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

I find people who like to talk about "The Fountainhead" tedious and nearly incomprehensible, present company excluded of course.

Interesting article about Beirut
 

Thought you all might be interested in this. The author isn't sympathetic to either side--particularly the Israelis--but the description of Beirut and its history is vivid, humanizing and thought-provoking.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-dep...166583302.html

CDF

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

So what's your take on the "Art of War" versus "A Bear called Paddington"?

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Haven't read "Art of War." Not sure I've ever met anyone who has. I assume most copies are purchased by MBAs whom I would find tedious and nearly incomprehensible and who don't read them.

I don't really know much about Paddington at all, apart from the fact that he originally came from Darkest Peru.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Any old sot worth his cream bun with jam knows the answer to this one.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Sure you have. Before Wall Street, and again after, it was popular with those of us who studied certain martial arts.

(Whenever I tell my colleagues that my authority over associates needs to be similar to that of Sun-Tzu when he was drilling the concubines, I get very uncomfortable looks. I wish the translator had used a different verb.)

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

He He - I can't help myself.

After I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged I was totally confused by Objectivism. What I didn't understand was that if the 'ultimate good" was selfishness, why wouldn't an objectivist steal from his neighbor, especially if he or she could get away with it (I understand the idea of the social contract, that one didn't steal from some else because they didn't want people to steal from them. However, if someone could steal from someone else and never have any one else find out about it, why shouldn't he or she do it?). There was a part in one of her books where the hero was starving to death, but refused to steal fruit from a stand when he could get away with it - that struck me as ridiculous.

So the head of the Ayn Rand institute spoke at a local Republican function and I asked him about it. His answer:

Human beings are hardwired to take care of themselves. If we don't take care of ourselves then it is bad for us psychological. It does damage to us. So it is not immoral for us to steal because we are hurting someone else, it is bad for us to steal because it is bad for us. It is self destructive.

Of course I had to point out a few problems with this concept:

1) The entire Objectivist philosophy relies on this one view of human psychology, that it is bad for us not take care of ourselves. Ayn Rand was not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and as far as I know, never did any sort of scientific research to determine this, so how could she base her entire philosophy on this one assumption:

His answer: She was a genius, and had deep insights into the human psyche and if you follow her logic in reaching this conclusion it is impeachable

2) Then I said, following this philosophy, a paraplegic, or anyone else that can't take care of themselves can never be happy because they depend on other people so they can survive.

His answer: Yes that is true - someone like a paraplegic can never be truly happy.

3) Then I said that, if I could figure out a way to fix my brain so that it would not be psychologically damaging to me to take from other people for my survival, then once I had accomplished that, I should go out and steal.

His answer: Yes - but the need to take care of ourselves and not exploit other people is so deeply ingrained in us, and part of being human, that you couldn't do that ( the obvious retort was - how the hell could you know that - but I just let it go).

4) Then I said that, for the rest of nature, it is beneficial for all animals and plants to steal and exploit other living beings, even among their own species so they can survive. And as humans, we exploit other animals to survive, what makes humans different. Or another way of looking at it, why is it okay for Orangutans, Apes and Monkey to steal and exploit each other to live, where we, who are not very different, it is psychologically damaging for us.

Humans: He said human beings are totally special and we have a totally different psychological make up from Apes.

5) I then asked, if I was starving to death and I need to steel to survive, shouldn't I steal?

His answer was yes (although I think Ayn Rand may have had a different answer) but he did say that after you had stolen that you should turn yourself in.

I of course asked, but if you are a truly selfish person, and being a selfish person, why would I want to be punished for something I had to do.

His answer: for your own psychological well being. You would have to go through the punishment in order to feel good about yourself.

At that point I just let it go. It was getting so absurd I just let it drop.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

It's funny -- usually you try to disprove Ty's points.

Here, let me help you clean that up.
 

I stopped reading this a third of the way through, when the urge to gouge my eyes out became overwhelming.

CDF

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Or annoy him - which I think I have done very successfully here.

Here, let me help you clean that up.
 

Did you at least take out one eye?

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

I'm now waiting with bated breath for your take on "Babar the Elephant"

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Don't remember that one very well. I did read all the Paddington storys, and then when I lived in London I actually lived in Paddington (right on the cricle line).

When I lived there I used to joke all the time about the bear, but no one appreciated my sense of humor. Some things never change.

Gobble de gook. Bleh.
 

Nope. But I want reparations for the neurons that died choking on your prose. There should have been a black box warning.

CDF

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

I think you are confusing me and cheval de frise. He has three names. I have two. He's better looking.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Better? He's less green, and not constantly on the go, but kinda skeletal.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Skull-fucking Chevy, and getting no friction.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

IRL, I'm betting.

for Spanky
 

Brent Scowcroft: Dick Cheney asked for planning for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraqi troops before the First Gulf War.

(Scroll towards the bottom of the post.)

Attributed to a Republican and shit!

for Spanky
 

Again - there is a big big difference between asking for "a plan to use" and "planning to use" tactical nuclear weapons. I don't think the current administration ever has or ever will "plan" on using nuclear weapons unless some sort of WMD is unleashed on the US. Otherwise that option is out. They may look into it, but they will never seriously plan on doing it.

for Spanky
 

I appreciate your gracious acknowledgement that you misunderstood my original post. Thank you.

Did I?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
Again - there is a big big difference between asking for "a plan to use" and "planning to use" tactical nuclear weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your gracious acknowledgement that you misunderstood my original post. Thank you.


Post #1859

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
is why the White House told the Pentagon to plan for the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Again, thank you.

two educated Americans, who live in the same city, work in the same profession and both seem to have rather nasty little alcohol problems, if the two of you have this much diffuculty communicating- once elected how can we really hope Hillary will be able to work out acceptable term for a cease fire with Osama bin Laden?

Cease fire? Who's talking cease fire?

I thought the plan was to invade another country or two where he wasn't. I mean, after the six-week occupation, reconstruction, and democratization of Iraq is finished.

A question or two.
 

When the dust settles and the fires stop burning, is Israel going to be any happier with who is occupying the other side of its northern border? Is Israel doing anything to reduce support for Shi'a radicalism of Hezbollah's kind or to legitimize and strengthen the alternatives to Hezbollah?

A question or two.
 

Quite possibly. The notion of either an international force, or international assistance for Lebanon to try and control the country and implement the security council resolution re disarming Hezbollah, has been raised. And that would certainly be an improvement.


Probably not. But pulling out of Lebanon did not have that effect either. Nor did pulling out of Gaza. Nor would anything else, I believe.

On the other hand -- and this is historic -- Arab powers have already spoken out against Hezbollah. Will Saudi and Egyptian pressure have some effect? Will those countries be able to pressure Syria to tighten up its borders and to cut off its own support for Hezbollah?

As for strengthening the alternatives.... I'm not sure what alternatives you mean. I suspect that in the next Lebanese elections, Hezbollah's claim to stand against Israel will be less convincing.


Finally, there is the question you didn't ask: Will Israel have killed enough trained Hezbollah fighters, destroyed enough weapons, and damaged enough infrastructure to make Hezbollah less of a threat for a few years? Ultimately, I think this is the only question that matters. I do not think that the broad desire to destroy Israel is going anywhere -- and I don't think that Israel can really do much to allay that desire, except at the margins. Ultimately the issue is not Gaza or West Bank or Golan or Synai or Southern Lebanon. It's Israel, the fact of its existence. And the only people who can do anything about that sentiment -- the "destroy Israel" sentiment -- are Arab and Muslim leaders. Given that, simply damaging the army that attacks it is a worthwhile goal for Israel to pursue.


And before you ask -- attacking the civilians who were fleeing in accordance with Israeli instructions was a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.

I'm planning to respond to Sidd, but I figured I'd keep quiet for a little while to see what others say.

Meanwhile, here's a little quiz to test how blue or red you are.

I score a 7, which makes a swing-stater, just shy of red. Who'd have thunk it? (Me, actually.)

All the boards are a little dead today. I blame the heat. (But not "global warming." Everyone knows that's just something the Worldwide Conspiracy of Scientists thought up.)




I got an 8 -- red, enough said. With all due respect, that is the dumbest quiz I've ever seen. Really stupid questions, and far too many "none of the above" answers.

So is Audi red-state, or is that Saab? WTF?

A question or two.
 

You have to hand it to Isreal; this plan is brilliant. It looks now like they are going to bomb the hell out of their neighbor, effectively invade, and then leave someone else (probably us) to handle the occupation. If only the Bushies had thought up such a scheme for Iraq.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone could answer TS's second question with a yes.

Even if the answer is yes (which probably is over short enough horizon), how long will it last, and will it have been worth it?

Look, just because the quiz didn't include "Brie!" as a response to every fucking question doesn't necessarily point to the fault of the quiz-makers.

That thing is ricockulous.


I scored an 8 (red, enough said) which couldn't be much more wrong.











Discovery Channel is more conservative than Court TV? On what planet? Liberals like tennis and soccer and not college football?

A question or two.
 

It's not as if Israel just came up with the idea of bringing in international troops. This is something that others called for many times before. Apparently, though, without the bombing and the invasion no one considered this worth actually acting upon.

I guess a few rockets launched into Israeli towns just didn't merit attention -- yours included, right?




I didn't, dipshit.

But -- I repeat -- when was the last time an Arab state said anything negative about Hezbollah?

And what brilliant ideas do you have, by which the sworn enemy of a significant portion of the Muslim world would be able to bolster a moderate alternative to Hezbollah? Simply being seen as favored by Isreal would likely be the kiss of death for any Lebanese party.

A question or two.
 

we've had peacekeepers in Lebanon before. it didn't go well.

A question or two.
 

If authoritarian governments are criticizing a group with substantial support, where does that leave the notion of supporting democracy? And the more Israel bombs Lebanon, the harder and harder it gets for Arab states to keep criticizing Hezbollah. Before too long, Hezbollah looks like the only resistance to unjust force -- the David, if you will, to Israel's Goliath. (Irony intended.)

Israel's bombing looks like the kiss of death for Lebanon's government, for a variety of different reasons. Not too long ago, you had protests against Syria's meddling in Lebanon. What's the over/under on when we'll see one of those protests again?

A question or two.
 

Compared to what?

Israel seems to think the idea has greater merit now. Possibly this is due to finding a whole bunch of heavily entrenched Hezbollah positions.