BF2S Forums Modern Islam is a blight on humanity

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DST -- where posters discuss each other almost as much as they discuss issues.

Anyway....   I thought I already said that I prefer we stay out of most conflicts.  I'm not sure how that makes me a neocon.

All I'm saying is that I honestly don't care what happens in wherever the conflict occurs.   A lot of people like to pretend they care, but I don't bother with that.

lol, yer not just now noticing that are you?

Yeah...   I know how they jump on you as well.  I guess it's in their nature.

it is a common theme in here to ignore what was posted, and base your opinions and attitudes on WHO posted it, much like trashing a site nstead of discrediting the information posted on that site.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DST -- where posters discuss each other almost as much as they discuss issues.

Anyway....   I thought I already said that I prefer we stay out of most conflicts.  I'm not sure how that makes me a neocon.

All I'm saying is that I honestly don't care what happens in wherever the conflict occurs.   A lot of people like to pretend they care, but I don't bother with that.

lol, yer not just now noticing that are you?

Yeah...   I know how they jump on you as well.  I guess it's in their nature.

i've just gradually lost a lot of respect and esteem for you the more and more i have posted in d&st. there was a time when you seemed to have the appearance of a reasoned and intelligent right-wing perspective, putting forward some good points... but when pressed or challenged, you just shrug and 'i dunno, lol' and then roll back on some cod-philosophy about nihilism or misanthropy or some other such catch-all pessimistic safety net. poor show.

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol, yer not just now noticing that are you?

Yeah...   I know how they jump on you as well.  I guess it's in their nature.

i've just gradually lost a lot of respect and esteem for you the more and more i have posted in d&st. there was a time when you seemed to have the appearance of a reasoned and intelligent right-wing perspective, putting forward some good points... but when pressed or challenged, you just shrug and 'i dunno, lol' and then roll back on some cod-philosophy about nihilism or misanthropy or some other such catch-all pessimistic safety net. poor show.

Right-wing?  What?  Look, we must define left and right very differently.  Anyway, I'm not surprised you've lost respect for me.  I'm surprised you respect anyone with this elitist snobbery you typically display.

But yeah, in the beginning, I thought I could relate to you as well.  Clearly, we don't.  My only point in all this is that it doesn't really matter.  I just don't get why you care as much as you do.

You call it pessimistic.  I call it realistic.   When the power is there, it will be used.  It doesn't make it right, but when has it ever really been about right or wrong?

I doubt Mohammed cared much about the morality of his conquests.  I doubt the Romans did either.   America is just one more empire in a long line of them.  The rules are different, the technology is different, the culture is different, but the one constant is human nature.

What I said about interventionism isn't a statement of support.  I really have no interest in getting involved in all these uprisings in the Middle East.  All I was explaining earlier was how it seemed that we entered all these conflicts.  I was trying to figure out the logic behind it.

We may have evolved technologically over time, but in the end, we have the same tendencies and character failings we always have had and always will have.

This is why I enjoy topics like foreign policy as a hobby, but I have no sincere interest in getting involved.  Because ultimately, the mundanities of everyday life matter a lot more.  How you affect your friends and family matters more than whatever is going on in Libya.

By the same token, what matters in the life of a Libyan has everything to do with his immediate surroundings and very little to do with what happens in say, LA.

For those that are confused...

A neo-con is a liberal that applies cold reason rather than emotion when choosing his positions.

A liberal wants to invade foreign countries to free the people and establish democracy.
A neo-con wants to invade foreign countries to free the people and establish democracy because he or she knows that like governments generally trade freely.

A liberal wants to spread the wealth via social programs because he or she feels it is the right thing to do.
A neo-con wants to spread the wealth via social programs because he or she feels that it is the best way to keep the poor from revolting.

Ever wonder why American political parties resemble two sides of the same coin? Now you know. Both sides essentially want the same things, just for superficially different reasons.


A libertarian bitches about both on the internet.

Last edited by Jay (2011-04-05 12:38:49)

Jay wrote:

For those that are confused...

A neo-con is a liberal that applies cold reason rather than emotion when choosing his positions.

A liberal wants to invade foreign countries to free the people and establish democracy.
A neo-con wants to invade foreign countries to free the people and establish democracy because he or she knows that like governments generally trade freely.

A liberal wants to spread the wealth via social programs because he or she feels it is the right thing to do.
A neo-con wants to spread the wealth via social programs because he or she feels that it is the best way to keep the poor from revolting.

Ever wonder why American political parties resemble two sides of the same coin? Now you know. Both sides essentially want the same things, just for superficially different reasons.


A libertarian bitches about both on the internet.

and for those that are now even more confused.

A liberal wants to "share the wealth" because its the right thing to do"  because they have no rational argument against earning it yourself.

A conservative wants everyone to be free to choose their own destinies without govt. intervention. The only interference from govt. being that when someone tries to hinder another's right to life liberty and happiness.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-05 12:52:54)

nukchebi0 wrote:

Exactly. That is what 11 B was trying to suggest, that you can't associate religious reliefs with economic development.r

Thats not what I said.  My point was that you cannot look at the middle east and all of it's problems and blame a religion for it.  Just like you cannot look at the United States and other "Christian" nations and say they are peaceful and orderly and educated because they are "Christian".  And nowhere did I say anything about Latin America and other third world countries.  My post talked specifically about Afghanistan and their specific problems (which are similar to other nations in the region)

To 11 B... Of course Bin Laden was rich.  So what?  That has nothing to do with what I actually said.

now now galt don't be elitist and smarmy. that's why you find nothing to like in me

Oh, gosh...this is getting kinda schmaltzy.

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

so what?  third world he said. right?  so basically he is saying poor = violent...and that aint true.

You wouldn't classify Mexico as a violent place?

well people vacation there still....

but my point is its the rich cartels who are violent

Nouveau riche are the same the world over.

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

For those that are confused...

A neo-con is a liberal that applies cold reason rather than emotion when choosing his positions.

A liberal wants to invade foreign countries to free the people and establish democracy.
A neo-con wants to invade foreign countries to free the people and establish democracy because he or she knows that like governments generally trade freely.

A liberal wants to spread the wealth via social programs because he or she feels it is the right thing to do.
A neo-con wants to spread the wealth via social programs because he or she feels that it is the best way to keep the poor from revolting.

Ever wonder why American political parties resemble two sides of the same coin? Now you know. Both sides essentially want the same things, just for superficially different reasons.


A libertarian bitches about both on the internet.

and for those that are now even more confused.

A liberal wants to "share the wealth" because its the right thing to do"  because they have no rational argument against earning it yourself.

A conservative wants everyone to be free to choose their own destinies without govt. intervention. The only interference from govt. being that when someone tries to hinder another's right to life liberty and happiness.

What world do you live in? That is the fairy tale Fox and the Repubs spin but you have to be utterly stupid and/or blind to think they give a shit about any of it. Your idea of what it means to be conservative is childish enough to be a belief held by a five year old. Wake the fuck up and stop being such a retarded shill.

I live in a world where I live by the decisions I made in life. I do not live in a world where your problems stemming from your stupidity is supposed to shared by me.. I have my problems, I solve them. You have yours, go figure it out.

Not sure how my views of conservatism are childish. I am making a great living, have a great house with money in the bank. and I did it by EARNING a living, not by sitting on the couch waiting for my govt. cheese, because I figure it is wrong for the man to let me starve.

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

You wouldn't classify Mexico as a violent place?

well people vacation there still....

but my point is its the rich cartels who are violent

Nouveau riche are the same the world over.

...uh, no.  They really aren't.

Some of our new rich can be dicks, but they don't take it as far as drug cartels.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I see people working longer hours, taking on bigger debts and achieving lower educational standards than ever before.

Working longer hours because they are trying to catch up for the debt they incurred. Both of those things are a personal decision. It is not mandatory. Taking on bigger debt, again, a personal decision, achieving lower education standards, once again, a personal decision.

Get back with me when, you can come up with a personal problem, that has nothing to do with the decisions you make in life.

It's not a matter of a decision being unrelated to your own motivation -- it's a matter of how the odds can be stacked against you by things out of your control.

For example, tuition rates in most American states have risen much faster than inflation.

Inflation has outpaced median wages in most professions by a considerable amount.

These external factors don't preclude success, but they certainly make it harder than before.

Why has tuition risen?

Why has inflation outpaced wages?

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Working longer hours because they are trying to catch up for the debt they incurred. Both of those things are a personal decision. It is not mandatory. Taking on bigger debt, again, a personal decision, achieving lower education standards, once again, a personal decision.

Get back with me when, you can come up with a personal problem, that has nothing to do with the decisions you make in life.

It's not a matter of a decision being unrelated to your own motivation -- it's a matter of how the odds can be stacked against you by things out of your control.

For example, tuition rates in most American states have risen much faster than inflation.

Inflation has outpaced median wages in most professions by a considerable amount.

These external factors don't preclude success, but they certainly make it harder than before.

Why has tuition risen?

Why has inflation outpaced wages?

I can surmise that tuition has risen mostly because people are willing to pay...so as a university, why not price yourself out of the 'lower' groups if you want to be an exclusive institution.