Thread: The ton of things he's crushing it on

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if everybody wasn't so worried about what others think of them.

So if a a bunch of apes swing over to the other trees and take the bananas from the other apes, is that wrong? I know we can share the bananas but what if the bananas are running out? Population control? How about let the other apes build a big bomb so they blow each other up and then there will be enough bananananansas?

Just an idea.

I gotta get me some bannannas. I'm super hungry. Problem is, I'm also super wasted and I'd have to drive live 1/2 hour to get to said bannannas. Oh well.

Originally Posted by greg

we talked about this earlier and i really don't see how i could help you to overcome your ignorance. the west did not stand for freedom in the region they stood for their very strategic interest, allying with the worst regimes, dictators and suppressors if it deemed to serve their purpose. so why the hell should they love you or us?

please take some time and learn some history on the middle east, especially iran.

We stood with allied with the Russians to defeat Hitler, was that wrong? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's how it works sometimes. Hindsight is 20/20 and you never have the luxury of knowing what would have happened had you NOT done A,B, or C.

I don't care if other countries governments like us. They will do what's in their best interest, like us or not.

We can only change their behavior if they fear us. So, do we want to change their behavior or not? (Maybe not) If we do, they won't always LIKE us.

The common person around the world generally loves American's and the idea of American freedom, Iran included. Governments don't care about that but the people on the street will take any moral support they can get from America.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's how it works sometimes. Hindsight is 20/20 and you never have the luxury of knowing what would have happened had you NOT done A,B, or C.

See, this is one of the main problems with a lot of unicorn jockeys: they always want the ideal, which more often than not doesn't even exsist. Sometimes you have to settle for a little spleen.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Nah.

If European public opinion was supportive of your monism you'd be linking articles about it in every other post and claiming it as significant.

Please show me where I have ever placed any significance on what the public thinks, in this country or abroad. Ever, in any context.

Good luck with that search.

Originally Posted by greg

well yes, actually you did. here is a quick reminder.



if you didn't mean to talk about the worlds opinion you might need to learn to articulate yourself a bit more precisely. but it's ok, coming from you i'm quite used to you not really knowing what you are talking about.

This is the problem with interrupting a conversation between two countrymen from a country that is not your own. You likely do not understand everything that is being said even though you may understand the words they are using.

The two articles I linked to are significant for the fact that there is nothing at all like them in the domestic American media. You wouldn't know that would you? But gonehuckin would. So instead of recognizing the limits of your understanding, you issue insults.

you mean the snippy comments by sarkozy that "unintentionally" leaked? all i have to say it happens all the time. especially when it comes to sarkozy. there was a whole snippy comment fight going on for month between sarkozy and merkel. but also obama is mastering this discipline perfectly. it is business as usual during tough negotiations and part of the tactics. as for example right now the restructuring of the financial markets.

if that comes as a surprise to you, then welcome to international affairs.

Thanks for the condescension. But my post had nothing to do with the reality of international affairs and everything to do with the fascination the domestic American press seems to have with the POTUS that compels them to avoid negative reporting about him, a fascination not shared by those outside this country as evidenced by the two articles I linked to. But again, you wouldn't have the context to understand that.


Observing a country from a distance is no substitute for experiencing the day to day events in that country first hand. Please try to remember this the next time you bubble over with opinions about people in a foreign country in which you do not live.

Originally Posted by Jer

Dip'nStick + 13 = Dutch Rudder

Did you lay off the meth yet, toothless wonder?

Dutch rudder? That's not even original, Jerry.

Christ, you people need some good tacos.

Originally Posted by rideit

Christ, you people need some good tacos.

You need to manup and learn to engage people in discussion.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Actually let's try this. Show me a country that has the type of government you would like to see. You know one that doesn't interfere with social programs or private enterprise or banking or education or whatever it is you want government out of.

Open question to all, I would be very interested to see what you are looking for in government. If you can’t give some examples I guess there really is no point in further discussion on big government is bad thing.

Still lookinmg for a good example here. Jer, you got anything? Other than the USA. Rubi?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Actually let's try this. Show me a country that has the type of government you would like to see. You know one that doesn't interfere with social programs or private enterprise or banking or education or whatever it is you want government out of.

Open question to all, I would be very interested to see what you are looking for in government. If you can’t give some examples I guess there really is no point in further discussion on big government is bad thing.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Still lookinmg for a good example here. Jer, you got anything? Other than the USA. Rubi?

Well I don't think you're gonna find that anywhere outside of fantasy land.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Well I don't think you're gonna find that anywhere outside of fantasy land.

I wonder why conservatives strive to change the U.S. into a system such as the one Rip describes then?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I wonder why conservatives strive to change the U.S. into a system such as the one Rip describes then?

No one who thinks clearly believes we can manage a modern society without gov't. It's the degree at which they legislate and tax (and what we get for those taxes) that are the main issues with most conservatives.

Originally Posted by OSECS

No one who thinks clearly believes we can manage a modern society without gov't. It's the degree at which they legislate and tax (and what we get for those taxes) that are the main issues with most conservatives.

I don't think Rip'n was asking you point out a country where there is no government. That would be easier than actually answering his question.

The founders original intent as spelled out in the Constitution is the correct model to strive toward.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I don't think Rip'n was asking you point out a country where there is no government. That would be easier than actually answering his question.

Well other than managing a military that's about all that would be left to control. If he's being literal in saying gov't would stay out of all social, business and educational areas.

Having said that there are no gov'ts operating that way now (I don't believe), we do however have a Constitution that lays out rules for how our gov't should function, but I don't believe we're following those very well anymore.

I still would disagree about the comments that basically there is nothing wrong with big government. Besides then all I've got to bitch about are the comics in my local paper they keep fuckin' with !! "Sally Forth" replacing "Opus" ?? Fuck that !!!!

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

The founders original intent as spelled out in the Constitution is the correct model to strive toward.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Well other than managing a military that's about all that would be left to control. If he's being literal in saying gov't would stay out of all social, business and educational areas.

Having said that there are no gov'ts operating that way now (I don't believe), we do however have a Constitution that lays out rules for how our gov't should function, but I don't believe we're following those very well anymore.

I still would disagree about the comments that basically there is nothing wrong with big government. Besides then all I've got to bitch about are the comics in my local paper they keep fuckin' with !! "Sally Forth" replacing "Opus" ?? Fuck that !!!!

I wonder if the Founders envisioned the U.S. as being a static society that would never change? Or even the Constitution for that matter? Personally I think not. There is no way that the Founders could plan for all things that are part of a modern society let alone the international politics that affect the country domestically. I think they probably envisioned the constitution as a starting point off of which to modernize as times changed.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I wonder if the Founders envisioned the U.S. as being a static society that would never change? Or even the Constitution for that matter? Personally I think not. There is no way that the Founders could plan for all things that are part of a modern society let alone the international politics that affect the country domestically. I think they probably envisioned the constitution as a starting point off of which to modernize as times changed.

Modernization is one thing, ignoring the basic tenents of what they set out as the way they envisioned gov't working, as in the federal gov't should be kept in check and not become too powerful is another thing all together.

They did foresee changes, and they provided an avenue, "amendments".

Originally Posted by OSECS

Modernization is one thing, ignoring the basic tenents of what they set out as the way they envisioned gov't working, as in the federal gov't should be kept in check and not become too powerful is another thing all together.

They did foresee changes, and they provided an avenue, "amendments".

What I mean is by following the constitution and expecting everything to be relevant today is sort of like the Amish approach to religion/life. Things change...with or without amendments. To think we should simply follow the constitution to the letter and that will then solve all problems is a bit naive

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Jer, you got anything? Other than the USA. Rubi?

You're asking an anti-government anarchist nihilist what kind of government he'd like to see? Why don't you ask me an easier question like what's my ideal rollerblade or fribee golf disc or Greatful Dead song?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

What I mean is by following the constitution and expecting everything to be relevant today is sort of like the Amish approach to religion/life. Things change...with or without amendments. To think we should simply follow the constitution to the letter and that will then solve all problems is a bit naive

No dude, it's not naive. Those guys knew what big governments do to people and they learned thier lessons well from personal experience and history.

Freedom and liberty and oppression and tyrany don't change over time. The Constitution is as valid today as ever.

They were smart enough to build in the amendment process to keep up with societal changes, but also smart enough to know to permanently lock out Tyrrany by strictly limiting the scope of the federal government.

Governments are like organisms that seek to grow. They cannot stop themselves. The founders knew that sooner or later, the government would AGAIN, engulf the freedoms of the people if not limited.

We are at the tipping point right now into a government that is no longer controled "by the people", because we forgot or ignored why the founders set it up the way they did.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

What I mean is by following the constitution and expecting everything to be relevant today is sort of like the Amish approach to religion/life. Things change...with or without amendments. To think we should simply follow the constitution to the letter and that will then solve all problems is a bit naive

It's not meant to be followed to the letter. It was meant a s broad set of rules, chief among them was the check on federal power. Please for the love of god, if you ever learn anything about the Constitution know that this is the chief aim of the document. The Constitution was formed by 13 independent states that gave limited power to the federal gov't.

Originally Posted by OSECS

It's not meant to be followed to the letter. It was meant a s broad set of rules, chief among them was the check on federal power. Please for the love of god, if you ever learn anything about the Constitution know that this is the chief aim of the document. The Constitution was formed by 13 independent states that gave limited power to the federal gov't.

For the love of god please don't be so dramatic! It's only a skiing forum.

Here I thought this was Polyasshat.

Anybody got any other ideas about what ski I should get for this winter? I think the last consensus was Lhasa Pows.