I still harbor hopes of getting back together with Madame Sissyl, ideological differences notwithstanding.
There, there, gobbo. Can't win them all. In related news, apparently the police busted a drug-fueled sex orgy at a Freemasons' place somewhere. =)The problem with the self-repressed right they do have the kinkiest sex parties....
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, multiple scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that the right is happier with their sex life than the left.
I don't get it either, but that's what the studies keep showing.
As far as how people have been programmed/indoctrinated, there's no point in detailing the examples here because the people who recognize such things already see it without my pointing it out, and the people who suffer from the syndrome are by definition incapable of recognizing it and will just get pissed off about it if it is pointed out.
Dude, this is a passive aggressive ad hom in the extreme.
And your view is rosy.
Most organisms have a point where they say enough is enough. Corporations, nations, and kings are never full. There's ALWAYS more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, multiple scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that the right is happier with their sex life than the left.
[Joins the Tea Party]
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem with this discussion is the very idea that we can "punish" Assad for using chemical weapons. This supposes that limited American strikes will actually harm him in some way, either by weakening him militarily or else by reducing his ability to use chemical weapons again soon.
Neither of those is likely. All we'd really be doing is striking to prove that the President wasn't lying when he called chemical weapons a "red line" way back when. It would merely be a transparent face-saving measure for the President. But who would care? Not Assad. He just cares about winning the war. And the kind of action being promoted by the executive branch right now would have virtually no effect on the larger war.
It's preposterous to think that we can just make some limited strikes and expect them to actually change anything. That means we're just setting ourselves up for much deeper intervention down the road. What do we do when it becomes obvious that our strikes have done nothing? What does that do for our "national reputation"? Or worse, what do we do when Hezbollah responds by attacking some of our embassies or ships? What do we do when Assad orders another chemical weapons strike next month? This is how escalation happens.
Strikes now mean a very good chance of boots on the ground sometime in the next 1-2 years. The congressional vote now might be our last chance to stop another Iraq situation.
There, there, gobbo. Can't win them all. In related news, apparently the police busted a drug-fueled sex orgy at a Freemasons' place somewhere. =)The problem with the self-repressed right they do have the kinkiest sex parties....As counter-intuitive as it might seem, multiple scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that the right is happier with their sex life than the left.
I don't get it either, but that's what the studies keep showing.
Maybe those of us are concerned for the enjoyment of others whereas the right are into selfsatisfaction...
A leftist would say "Was that good for you...could I have done this or that to make it better"
A Rightist would say "Was that good for me....Yes, Yes it was... MORE!!!!"
For some reason I imagined Jeermy Clarkson's voice for that.
As far as how people have been programmed/indoctrinated, there's no point in detailing the examples here because the people who recognize such things already see it without my pointing it out, and the people who suffer from the syndrome are by definition incapable of recognizing it and will just get pissed off about it if it is pointed out.Dude, this is a passive aggressive ad hom in the extreme.
Whatever. It's just not worth the fight, but it's fun to point out. Maybe it will cause one single person to question their assumptions. If so then it was worth it. :)
And your view is rosy.
Then you're not seeing it the same way I am.
Most organisms have a point where they say enough is enough. Corporations, nations, and kings are never full. There's ALWAYS more.
LOL, if my view is rosy, yours is overly pessimistic. Corporations, nations and kings do reach points where they are "full". Every corporation, nation and king is not a rapacious despotic overlord determined to rule the world. Explain to me how, for example, Switzerland has been a rapacious, never-satisfied, always demanding more nation. Or the UK, a nation that has deliberately DOWNSIZED for generations. Or the USA, a nation that could have literally conquered the world in 1945 but chose not to.
Pursuit of self-interest is how organisms survive. It's also how nations survive. There are always some nations that are aggressively expanding and dominating other nations but the vast majority of nations on the earth tend to accept their national borders and work within the limitations of a world which is already divided into other nations. When one nation does decide to become rapacious and despotic, that's when we have wars.
Corporations actually act similarly, and also have to act within the laws the nations create for them to follow.
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, multiple scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that the right is happier with their sex life than the left.I don't get it either, but that's what the studies keep showing.
Maybe those of us are concerned for the enjoyment of others whereas the right are into selfsatisfaction...
A leftist would say "Was that good for you...could I have done this or that to make it better"
A Rightist would say "Was that good for me....Yes, Yes it was... MORE!!!!"
For some reason I imagined Jeermy Clarkson's voice for that.
Wow, you really have a negative view of entire groups of other people, don't you? And you have no problem trumpeting that negative view in public places.
I think there's a word for that...
A leftist would say "Was that good for you...could I have done this or that to make it better"
Well, if we're going to have a right vs. left bash-up, at least it's about schtupping.
Btw, Madame Sissyl [points to Comrade Dwarf quote and waggles eyebrows]
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, multiple scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that the right is happier with their sex life than the left.I don't get it either, but that's what the studies keep showing.
Maybe those of us are concerned for the enjoyment of others whereas the right are into selfsatisfaction...
A leftist would say "Was that good for you...could I have done this or that to make it better"
A Rightist would say "Was that good for me....Yes, Yes it was... MORE!!!!"
For some reason I imagined Jeermy Clarkson's voice for that.
Wow, you really have a negative view of entire groups of other people, don't you? And you have no problem trumpeting that negative view in public places.
I think there's a word for that...
Biased... Yep I loathe the right with a passion... Conservatives with a few exceptions s#&@ me.
I will own it....
I think you need to get a thicker skin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think right vs left in American politics is irrelevant.
Both of them are farther from idividual liberty than they should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biased... Yep I loathe the right with a passion... Conservatives with a few exceptions s!%% me.
I will own it....
I think you need to get a thicker skin.
Ha! My skin is plenty thick dude. I've found that it is the thin-skinned who resort to "loathing" entire groups of people. Because SOMETHING has gotten under that thin skin at some point and they can't quite get it out.
The idea that the right is basically composed of people who sexually self-satisfy at the expense of their partners while the left is composed of people who sacrifice their own pleasure to sexually satisfy their partners is so laughably ludicrous that it just makes me laugh Dwarf. It just amazes me that people can believe such nonsense, but even more so, it blows my mind that people think such things are so self-evident that they have no problem advertising their prejudice in the expectation that all "right thinking" people will just nod their heads in agreement.
Issues dude, issues....
I think right vs left in American politics is irrelevant.
Both of them are farther from idividual liberty than they should be.
What really intrigues me is that both think they are closer than the other to a goal of "individual liberty" but that's because they view "individual liberty" completely differently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think right vs left in American politics is irrelevant.
Both of them are farther from idividual liberty than they should be.
There is the problem right there... There is a constant emphasis on an individuals liberties and yet nobody will say anything about an individuals responsibilities.
Once you work out what an individuals responsibilities should be, then lets talk about liberties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think right vs left in American politics is irrelevant.
Both of them are farther from idividual liberty than they should be.There is the problem right there... There is a constant emphasis on an individuals liberties and yet nobody will say anything about an individuals responsibilities.
Once you work out what an individuals responsibilities should be, then lets talk about liberties.
And on this point, you and I are in complete agreement.
As an old school liberal, I guess that statement about right wing people should apply to me. I guess it does, too. No complaints. However, if by accepting the right wing label I have to suffer being dumped into the same group as amoeba-conservative statists, I guess I have to opt for the sexual satisfaction that anti-authoritarian people report. Ewww, statists.
The concept of individual liberties imply individual responsibilites as well.
What do you mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think right vs left in American politics is irrelevant.
Both of them are farther from idividual liberty than they should be.There is the problem right there... There is a constant emphasis on an individuals liberties and yet nobody will say anything about an individuals responsibilities.
Once you work out what an individuals responsibilities should be, then lets talk about liberties.
This is the difference between freedoms and rights. And the stuff we want is freedoms. Both American parties keep harping on and on about rights, but they aggressively attack any freedom they can reach. Funny how freedoms in this instance is such a difficult concept for so many.
Biased... Yep I loathe the right with a passion... Conservatives with a few exceptions s!%% me.
I will own it....
I think you need to get a thicker skin.
Ha! My skin is plenty thick dude. I've found that it is the thin-skinned who resort to "loathing" entire groups of people. Because SOMETHING has gotten under that thin skin at some point and they can't quite get it out.
The idea that the right is basically composed of people who sexually self-satisfy at the expense of their partners while the left is composed of people who sacrifice their own pleasure to sexually satisfy their partners is so laughably ludicrous that it just makes me laugh Dwarf. It just amazes me that people can believe such nonsense, but even more so, it blows my mind that people think such things are so self-evident that they have no problem advertising their prejudice in the expectation that all "right thinking" people will just nod their heads in agreement.
Issues dude, issues....
You take things way to seriously, I laugh at myself first and others second.
The "self repressed" right wing politician is excellent fodder for the comedian...
The British have turned it into an artform...
Although your Weiner is the exception that proves the rule.
Silvio Bursceloni is so far from repressed that he is unleashed....
As for issues you have seem to have the vitriol levels at 11 when you interpreting what people have posted... Assign my vitriol a 2-3 and maybe you might be able to get the joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
May I suggest that we get back to Syria...or, at least, schtupping?
This is the difference between freedoms and rights. And the stuff we want is freedoms. Both American parties keep harping on and on about rights, but they aggressively attack any freedom they can reach. Funny how freedoms in this instance is such a difficult concept for so many.
One of the major problems with the current emphasis on "rights" is that many of these "rights" imply some sort of restriction on someone else's freedoms. At least the way that they are currently pursued by both parties. Plus whenever anyone has a pet issue, they manufacture some "right" to justify it and suddenly everyone is clamoring for a "right" they never even realized they needed before.
It is axiomatic to me that the more power you give government, the less free the people are. That used to be considered a fundamental civic principle in the USA. No longer.
Biased... Yep I loathe the right with a passion... Conservatives with a few exceptions s!%% me.
I will own it....
I think you need to get a thicker skin.
Ha! My skin is plenty thick dude. I've found that it is the thin-skinned who resort to "loathing" entire groups of people. Because SOMETHING has gotten under that thin skin at some point and they can't quite get it out.
The idea that the right is basically composed of people who sexually self-satisfy at the expense of their partners while the left is composed of people who sacrifice their own pleasure to sexually satisfy their partners is so laughably ludicrous that it just makes me laugh Dwarf. It just amazes me that people can believe such nonsense, but even more so, it blows my mind that people think such things are so self-evident that they have no problem advertising their prejudice in the expectation that all "right thinking" people will just nod their heads in agreement.
Issues dude, issues....
You take things way to seriously, I laugh at myself first and others second.
The "self repressed" right wing politician is excellent fodder for the comedian...
The British have turned it into an artform...
Although your Weiner is the exception that proves the rule.
Silvio Bursceloni is so far from repressed that he is unleashed....
As for issues you have seem to have the vitriol levels at 11 when you interpreting what people have posted... Assign my vitriol a 2-3 and maybe you might be able to get the joke.
I take people at their word Dwarf. Especially when they say things like "I loathe" and "I own it."
Don't project at 11 and then claim to be at 2-3 and we'll be fine.
May I suggest that we get back to Syria...or, at least, schtupping?
Butbutbut I don't know how sexually satisfied I am, since I am an anti-authoritarian...
Butbutbut I don't know how sexually satisfied I am, since I am an anti-authoritarian...
Baby, get back with me and let's find out together...
May I suggest that we get back to Syria...or, at least, schtupping?Butbutbut I don't know how sexually satisfied I am, since I am an anti-authoritarian...
But that means you won't recognize the authority of a Sex Life Quality-defining institute! Therefore, you are eternally destined to not know where in a particular subjective scale made by guys in fancy suits your sexual satisfaction is.
Though you could always go with the alternative "Yeah, well, we do stuff".
On the schtupping thing, nuance is important. The studies I refer to do not actually measure the objective quality of either side's sex lives. It measures their stated satisfaction with the sex life they have. That's an important distinction to recognize.
I am biased and I accept that... Anybody that says they are unbiased is lying.
Back on topic... I would like to see the death and carnage in Syria stopped. I think the UN should step in.
I do think the rest of the world should take responsibility... If the US provided logistics I would happily see other nations do their bit.
OTOH, with no restrictions on anyone you wind up with a complete free-for-all in which many wind up with no practical freedoms.
The freedom to starve to death in the gutter isn't really important to me. The freedom to die of treatable medical problems isn't high on the list either.
Nor is the freedom to discriminate against people of other races, genders, sexual orientations. Especially when that reduces their freedom to live how and where they want.
This is where the rubber meets the road in the freedom vs rights thing. The reason people argue is that different people have different priorities on these issues, and view the economic, humanistic and societal consequences quite differently.
Whatever. It's just not worth the fight, but it's fun to point out. Maybe it will cause one single person to question their assumptions. If so then it was worth it. :)
There's a few terms for having fun by insulting people but the good ones are frowned on by the moderators.
If you're unable to articulate your position I think you need to reconsider whether your position is actually so well evidenced as to warrant an accusation of mental illness for disagreeing with you.
LOL, if my view is rosy, yours is overly pessimistic. Corporations, nations and kings do reach points where they are "full". Every corporation, nation and king is not a rapacious despotic overlord determined to rule the world. Explain to me how, for example, Switzerland has been a rapacious, never-satisfied, always demanding more nation.
There is a vast difference between what you want and what you CAN get. Switzerland has never been in a position of total power disparity over its neighbors.
Or the UK, a nation that has deliberately DOWNSIZED for generations.
Its a falling empire, its what they do. It TRIED to take everything, dear gods did it try. Its been downsized because it simply doesn't have the ability: its technological advantage dwindled as the rest of the world caught up. Without that enormous advantage its a tiny island with a small population that can only do so much.
Or the USA, a nation that could have literally conquered the world in 1945 but chose not to.
We could have taken over europe, but what would the point be? Our corporations make money no matter who's nominally in charge of the countries governments and there was't much point in spending the money to own europe at that point.. since it wasn't worth much.
Pursuit of self-interest is how organisms survive. It's also how nations survive. There are always some nations that are aggressively expanding and dominating other nations but the vast majority of nations on the earth tend to accept their national borders and work within the limitations of a world which is already divided into other nations. When one nation does decide to become rapacious and despotic, that's when we have wars.
And oddly enough they seem to decide to become rapacious and despotic once they have the power to do so.
Corporations actually act similarly, and also have to act within the laws the nations create for them to follow.
Which isn't exactly a sacrifice since corporations have the laws created to suit them.
On the schtupping thing, nuance is important. The studies I refer to do not actually measure the objective quality of either side's sex lives. It measures their stated satisfaction with the sex life they have. That's an important distinction to recognize.
I hazily recall one of those newspaper montages the Dead Kennedys used to put in their liner notes.
I think it was from Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death, but, anyway, it had the results of a survey asking the interviewees whether or not they were bored with sex.
As of 1978 (or whatever), Democrats were more bored with it than Republicans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As of 1978 (or whatever), Democrats were more bored with it than Republicans.
Duh. Republicans have gay meth-addict prostitutes. Democrats just have interns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally! A post in this thread I can favorite!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As of 1978 (or whatever), Democrats were more bored with it than Republicans.Duh. Republicans have gay meth-addict prostitutes *and HAWT Church Secretaries*. Democrats just have interns.
modified a bit for you. :)
Mmmm...church sex...
Anyway, I'm glad we're back on schtupping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that allowing the use of chemical weapons without consequences is a Pandora's box. It isn't (just) what has happened, but what might happen.
Mmmm...church sex...
Ah... memories.... summer evenings behind the choir box....
[looks around suddenly]
uh... did I say that out loud?
"'Tell you what--I used ta get the people jumpin' an' talkin' in tongues and glory-shoutin' till they just fell down an' passed out. An' some I'd baptize to bring 'em to. An' then--you know what I'd do? I'd take one of them girls out in the grass, an' I'd lay with her. Done it ever' time....'
"Joad smiled and his long teeth parted and he licked his lips. 'There ain't nothing like a good hawt meetin' for pushin' 'em over,' he said."
There's something to the notion of forbidden fruit...
Back on topic... I would like to see the death and carnage in Syria stopped. I think the UN should step in.And by the UN you mean the security council, right? Thus Russia and China get to stop anything if they want to.
It's all well and good to say, "It should be done, but the UN should do it." The UN won't do it.
And the US will? (Stop the death and carnage, that is, not step in.)
I know none of us are exactly international relations experts (that I am aware of), but I am curious if anyone has any thoughts about the Luttwak piece I posted above and have reposted below.
|
I read on another thread that my dear friend the Goblin wished to discuss this issue, so here we go.
Talking points:
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States pending intervention?
Discuss.
1. No.
2. No. Nobody wants them to.
3. Yes. There is obviously something about nobody else wanting to help.
Hi. I wonder how you did all miss that the USA have France's support on this one ? Did your wonderful news networks manage to obmit this piece of fact ?
Chemical weapons have been used, that's a fact. We are quite sure Assad is holding the smoking gun (evidence has been declassified and published on our DoD's website for citizens' perusal). Heck, he even announced beforehand he would use "all" means available to crush the rebellion after a failed attempt to take his life in the forst week of august.
Chemical weapons have been banned since 1925 for good reason. They are more a terror weapon than an effective battlefield one : you see, smell or fell nothing, you just drop dead where you are if you are dosed enough. Using them on civilians to cow them into submission is an abomination.
Well, if the USA don't go, we won't either. We can't do it by ourselves. But you should try a "juste cause" for a change.
Yeah, sorry, still bitter over the fact that the states (NATO, but the U.S. primarily) dropped bombs on my country, and hit civilian targets even though they promised that they will only hit military targets before the aggression started.
Oh and France helped them, even though we've been allies since before WW 1.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If i remember correctly, Japan has a limit on military strength that was very much written into their laws by the US. Just like Germany.
You know, you could just look these things up instead of shooting in the dark.
The language was probably influenced by the US military/civilian advisers at the time, but it was still written by a Japanese official and was ratified by the Japanese parliament, which had been in existence for over 50 years.
Also, the German constitution was written by Germans. It was done in the tradition of the Constitution of the German Empire (1871) and the Wiemar Republic (1919). The Germans had already done work themselves to establish democratic institutions in their country for over 70 years. There had obviously been failures in those institutions, but the foundation for a democratic process had already taken root without outside intervention.
You could argue that Germany was pressured to write it into their constitution, but I think that does the German people some discredit. Look at the efforts to build stronger political and economic ties within the European community over the past 60 years. German leaders were active participants, trying very hard to ensure that the links between countries were stronger, so as to avoid future wars, the idea being that countries that rely on each other for their economies are less likely to go to war with each other.
This is absolutely not the case, a breif glance at history shows this.
Chemical/Biological weapons are comparatively easy to manufacture and incredibly destructive, requiring very little in the way of technical capacity.
History doesn't help you here. They're a pain to DEVELOP but once you have them using them is pretty cheap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm inclined to agree that intervention seems like the least-bad bad choice. :(
There, there, gobbo. Can't win them all. In related news, apparently the police busted a drug-fueled sex orgy at a Freemasons' place somewhere. =)The problem with the self-repressed right they do have the kinkiest sex parties....As counter-intuitive as it might seem, multiple scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that the right is happier with their sex life than the left.
I don't get it either, but that's what the studies keep showing.
To quote a song from a MadTv skit: "Lowered expectaaations."