Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 86347 times) |
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
  
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #200 on: Jun 15th, 2006, 10:28pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 15th, 2006, 7:48am, junkyardjake wrote:But if someone wants to make fun of the Pope or the Roman Catholic church (my particular affiliation) in a thougtful,clever and relevant way, I'll buy the drinks.
So Steg, if you feel an urge to call Senator McCarthy a 'flying dung-clump, stupid son-of-a-prick, whistling-weasal-ass-hat, pig-licker', go for it ! It's completely patriotic. |
|
Uhhhhhhhh... Okay... This is the hill you're willing to die on... 
...
The line between defending the right to freedom of speech of all kinds, which necessarily includes irresponsible/indefensible speech, and defending irresponsible/indefensible speech in and of itself is a VERY fine one (incidentally, like the line between bashing Bush (and Congress) on Iraq and being a Saddam apologist). Our constitution, as great of a document as it is,... now brace yourselves for this,... does NOT make reality. Reality makes it. (As for Who makes "reality",... well,... enjoy hammerin' that one out, fellas... Not a hill I want to die on.) Bottom line, if we become a country of mostly loud-mouth dumb-asses shooting our mouths off about shit we really do not have a clue about because of our "utmostly" imperative, albeit anachronistic, right to opine out loud, which, in light of our aforementioned (in my last post) lack of appreciation for education and the (inevitably) subsequent shambles we call an American education, is a path we are surely headed down, we are doomed as a nation, no less as a world leader. The great thing about our "free" nation is our right not to be (made) ignorant. If only I heard people boast our freedom to (free) education as much as our right to freedom of speech, what a greater place America could be. We, at least, still have the opportunity and resources to be self-educated. As short as life is, why, in God's name, would you ever want to waste any of it filling your mind with crap like Vonnegut when you can be reading, classics aside, Frankfurt's On Bullshit, Fogelin's Walking the Tightrope of Reason, Howard's The Death of Common Sense (which, though a little dated at this point, speaks to A LOT of what JYJ and sk have angst about, but in a way that isn't caustic and allows you to still be heady and independent in your thinking), The Dalai Lama's (Tenzen Gyatso) The Art of Happiness, John Paul II's (Karol Wojtyla) Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Hawking's A Brief History of Time, just to name a few modern works. ... If you subscribe to the wise, age-old adage "think before you speak", think of what that means in light of our "right" to freedom of speech...
Quote:| Generally true, but your notion of 'responsible' speech is starting to sound a little bizarre, and ironically very much unAmerican. |
|
 ... 
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #201 on: Jun 15th, 2006, 10:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 15th, 2006, 5:19pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:
SK's post have bothered me but not angered me. Your post has pissed me off jake, because you are a liar.
|
|
Hmmmm, Although I find it hard to believe you are unable to recognize sarcasm, and I'm offended by your unwarranted slander, I apologize if you misunderstood my post.
Here is exactly what you said to SK:
the underlying Christian bashing tones are glaring. I have the feeling that if you ever found yourself down and out, you'd suddenly have no problem taking charity from the Christian community you so dearly love to mock!!! Trust me in this...there will be no other organizations that will be there for you if you fall.
Obviously my post was an ultra-sarcastic parody of the above quote, it's not even a sloppy paraphrase, sorry if I somehow created the impression that I was directly quoting you.
Yes, I know SK is quite capable of defending himself, he's smarter than me too, he knew when to stop responding to you.
Cheers, once again, sorry if you misunderstood my sarcasm.
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #202 on: Jun 15th, 2006, 11:02pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Here's something a little off-the-"beaten"-track, fresh and light... and, what do you know,... related to here... I just made the following post on another thread with the cut-and-pasted content from "The REAL Feed"...
on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:51pm, StegRock wrote:Here's the LATEST... from "The REAL Feed":
NFL meets with Anaheim officials (AP)
Yahoo! News: Democratic Party (15.06.2006 21:37)
Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen is convinced the NFL needs a team in the Los Angeles area. Where and when remain the multimillion dollar questions. Bowlen and NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue were among league officials who held a luncheon meeting Thursday with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, other c... |
|
I've always wondered...  What's up with "Yahoo!" always pimping the "Democratic Party" in their AP, American football "rss-news feed" link???  It MUST be a(n  evil) conspiracy!!!  ...  In any event, I guess we know where their lobby dollars are going... 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #203 on: Jun 15th, 2006, 11:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:28pm, StegRock wrote:
The line between defending the right to freedom of speech of all kinds, which necessarily includes irresponsible/indefensible speech, and defending irresponsible/indefensible speech in and of itself is a VERY fine one (incidentally, like the line between bashing Bush (and Congress) on Iraq and being a Saddam apologist). |
|
Are you serious? that's almost an unconscionably wrong provincial perception. There are legitimate reasons for having grievances about an illegitimate war, with no clear purpose, based on lies, that costs 1 billion a week.
The fact that the voting populous was intentionally denied an opportunity to evaluate the real facts prior to committing to Iraq is not the moot point you make it out to be. Those of us who actually disagree with war, who consider war as a last resort only to used when absolutely necessary would have appreciated an honest debate, on the genuine merits, before invading Iraq and committing to such drastic measures.
Instead, what we got was Tony Snow'd, and George Tenet got the Presidential Medal of Freedom for serving up the bogus information. That's not the way America is supposed to work.
Now, I will grant you this, not in your scary argument that debate and criticism on critical national decisions should be surpressed, but in the actual execution of a legitimate and necessary war: The executive branch should be allowed to administer decisions free from interference. In fact, that is how it's prescribed in the Constitution, the president has the flexibility to act without interference in the event of war and national emergencies. Of course, this power has been abused, most notably by Richard Nixon, who invoked his executive privileges for many illicit activities, and by the current president, and you will be hearing much more about that in the near future.
on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:28pm, StegRock wrote:
Our constitution, as great of a document as it is,... now brace yourselves for this,... does NOT make reality. |
|
Yes our constitution is indeed a great document, and the reality is that public officials that swear to uphold it, and do not fulfill their obligations should be removed, either by elections or impeachment. Not very complicated.
on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:28pm, StegRock wrote:
Bottom line, if we become a country of mostly loud-mouth dumb-asses shooting our mouths off about shit we really do not have a clue about |
|
This is an interesting point, here is a remedial refresher on how to become a more constructive member of a democracy for anyone who needs it:
1) You have a hypothesis
2) You search for evidence to support that hypothesis (i.e. you know something like that four-letter word, a FACT)
3) You draw a conclusion
Here is the absolute inappropriate and irresponsible to contribute to the political arena:
1) Draw a conclusion (probably based on shit you happen to a priori agree with already, conveniently reinforced 195 times a day on FOX News or staged opportunist diatribes by Ann Coulter on the talk show circuit)
2) Delusionally reject any information that you encounter that happens to conflict with your preconceived conclusion.
3) Obfuscate with generalities, throw in personal attacks if necessary, rinse and repeat.
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #204 on: Jun 15th, 2006, 11:53pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:38pm, junkyardjake wrote:
Hmmmm, Although I find it hard to believe you are unable to recognize sarcasm, and I'm offended by your unwarranted slander, I apologize if you misunderstood my post.
Here is exactly what you said to SK:
the underlying Christian bashing tones are glaring. I have the feeling that if you ever found yourself down and out, you'd suddenly have no problem taking charity from the Christian community you so dearly love to mock!!! Trust me in this...there will be no other organizations that will be there for you if you fall.
Obviously my post was an ultra-sarcastic parody of the above quote, it's not even a sloppy paraphrase, sorry if I somehow created the impression that I was directly quoting you.
Cheers, once again, sorry if you misunderstood my sarcasm. |
|
Your "sarcastic" post did not pass my litmus test jake. If it was truly intended to be sarcasm then I am cool with that, and ooops I missed it........ but, if it was intended to deface me, as I suspect, then I really don't have anything more to say to you. I find myself wondering now if this is a sincere apology for a misunderstanding or just more sarcasm? I can tell you this, I did take your ultra-sarcastic parody as an attempt to deface me, hence, I called you out to be a liar. If this is truly a misunderstanding then I have no problem with you jake. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #206 on: Jun 16th, 2006, 2:33am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 15th, 2006, 11:35pm, junkyardjake wrote:
... 
There's NOTHING constructive (anymore, if there ever was) between me and you in this area. It's not even that we disagree, though we do. Ultimately, we just don't even speak the same language. You have put on display the sources your ideology is "inspired" by. I don't speak "Vonnegut", for one. Good luck sifting through that stuff and figuring it all out!  You need it, though, as it is, it seems like you've got a "strong and impressive" grasp on it,... or it on you,... or something like that.
 ... 
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 16th, 2006, 3:44am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #207 on: Jun 16th, 2006, 4:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
Smart man Plato, I'll take that as your latest concession that you are unable to support your position on any factual basis. 
In the meantime, let's summarize your latest political philosophy in a Constitutional amendment:
Steg's Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
It is hereby declared that all US citizens need to acknowledge the very difficult job that their elected officials have been asked to perform, and as such, 'free speech' will now be limited to gratuitous gestures of gratitude and complimentary platitudes only. Criticism including, but not limited to, irresponsible spending, exorbitant taxes, crappy schools, misguided foreign policy, war profiteering, support of oppressive governments, infringement on civil liberties, and stuff like breaking the Geneva convention are now prohibited. In other words, all you damn ignorant hippies that disagree with your government need to shut-up, especially about the Vietnam War, I mean c'mon get over it already, personally I thought that was a terrific idea. Oh, but pornographic smileys on messageboards are still considered responsible 'free speech'.
Is that about right ? Let's run that baby up the flag pole and see who sings the national anthem.
(Just messing with you 'bro) 
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #208 on: Jun 16th, 2006, 5:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 16th, 2006, 4:10am, junkyardjake wrote:| (Just messing with you 'bro) |
|
I hate that shit the most... It forces my hand... Up until that, I wasn't going to respond, or I was going to only VERY simply (with  ...  ). It's like putting that indemnification clause at the end is somehow supposed to nullify or mitigate what you've written. It doesn't, though. It's a hollow and transparent gesture. So, don't even bother appending it to the end of your message just to convolute things. It's like when a lawyer refers to or asks about something he's not supposed to and it is objected to and "stricken" from the record, but the bottom line is the jury's heard it. You claim you're just joking after the fact (why not put that parenthetical at the beginning, so I could have stopped reading right there, and people would be tipped off before reading the rest, which does affect the mindset of the reader?), but the damage is already done, in fact, still being done. The text on the screen remains unless you delete it, which you're not going to (unless it benefits you) because it's just a joke, right? Someone even suggesting you to would actually look like the pussy, who can't take a joke. I hate that passive-aggressive shit. The fact of the matter is you said it, and it's out there. I mean... much of the problem here is that, in a discussion I take to be serious, which I obviously take this one to be, I mean what I say (I think this applies to MC, as well)... That's not the case with you and sk. You guys start to joking and, as you admit, you're not always necessarily meaning what you're saying. That, to me, a true straight-shooter in a discussion like this, just makes for bullshit nonsense.
While your paragraph in bold may be "in jest" (like Steven Colbert speaking on Bush, right?), I can't see how your first sentence (below) can be...
Quote:| I'll take that as your latest concession that you are unable to support your position on any factual basis. |
|
In fact, I find it QUITE disrespectful given the amount of time, thought, heart and effort I put into my posts.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #209 on: Jun 16th, 2006, 9:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, since you obviously can't take a joke, and are still very much in denial as to what YOU YOURSELF have even written on your own board over the last week or so (longer for the Vietnam issue)... yeah, you know what, you are right, after re-reading the amendment that I imagine you would propose, I can't see how it's inaccurate, so I've changed my position to 'not joking'.
1) Did you not say that you refrain from criticizing the president and congress members because they have such 'an important job', seemingly in an unconditionally deferential fashion (i.e. no matter how bad they fuck up?)
2) Have you not suggested, in general, that the American populous places too high a priority on freedom of speech, yet many do not realize that they are too uninformed to voice opinions on critical national matters?
3) Have you not admitted that you thought the Vietnam War was a legitimate cause ?
4) Do you, or do you not use pornographic smileys on your message board?
Now don't go deleting the smileys and posts that prove these points, and since you seem to realize how the legal system works, you should also know that evasive, insufficient, or no responses to 1,2,3 above is interpreted as admission. (There is adequate prima facie evidence of #4 that would be impractical to remove).
( Just Kidding !!! Sounded pretty lawyerly didn't it ?)
But you know what? You DID say all that shit, so why are you playing stupid about it ? 
Now on to a more constructive issue:
As you may have noticed, I have acknowledged what I thought was one of your more relevant criticisms of my posts, and disgarded the myriad of links that noone gives a shit about.
Now, remember, this is meant as constructive criticism, but you always refer to this mysterious 'big picture', and then spend 2,000 words on tangential issues that are practically irrelevant.
A great example is the Golden Rule discussion which you belabored to the point where it was beyond sublime;
For example,
The Christian Golden Rule is phrased in the positive,
i.e. Bake your neighbor some chocolate chip cookies, because that is a nice gesture that you would like to be the recipient of.
Confucious phrased his Golden Rule in the negative,
i.e.Don't throw a rock through your neighbors window, because you would not like someone to bust up your window.
Now, if this was truly an important distinction, you would have us believe that:
For a Christian:
A) It is OK to throw a big rock through your neighbors window.
B) Just make sure you bake them some chocolate cookies after do it.
For a Buddhist:
A) Don't throw a big rock through your neighbors window.
B) Let them buy their own damn cookies, what do I look like, a Keebler Elf?
The fact is, it is NOT an important distinction, and that the Ethic of Reciprocity is already IMPLIED in both rules, and everybody knows it, including Kurt Vonnegut. (Who, by the way, I am not any great fan of, and could very well be the complete dumbass you think he is. I've read a total of 25 pages of Cat's Cradle and thought it sucked).
On one hand, it is impressive that you can hold you OWN attention while writing stuff like that, but on the other hand it is almost like you are deliberately avoiding the 'big picture' you say noone else gets, while proceding to bore the crap out of anyone who bothers to read your stuff, (like dumbass me).
Now, I'm not belittling your writing style for what you do, as a profession. It is probably quite necessary to explore all the metaphysical subtleties that the rest of us don't bother to think about. But, in the context of attempting to refute someones broad political arguments, it just doesn't work.
It's apparent to me, that if you really want to address the big picture, in the political context, not the ethereal black=gray and white=gray context, you will seek the answer to a question you yourself brought up:
on Jun 14th, 2006, 12:18am, StegRock wrote:| I still think the big reasons behind the war are "bigger picture" and can't be explained to the public for both security and philosophical reasons that your run-of-the-mill Joe citizen can't "process". |
|
I know the reasons behind the Iraq war, and that's why I'm pissed off, why don't you already know, or seem to care? (this is a rhetorical question, I understand your point that only YOU can change your own mind).
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 16th, 2006, 9:26am by junkyardjake » |
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #214 on: Jun 18th, 2006, 12:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
Holy hell! This shit's starting to spill over into my personal "real" life... I woke up yesterday morning... to read "this"... It put me in such a foul mood that I had a spat wife my lovely wife... Thank God she's a REASONABLE human being, and she let me off the hook, suspecting that someone was getting under my skin here (  ), and, furthermore, likely grossly misconstruing what I'm about ( again). Furthermore, this has ended up consuming me for the last 36 or so hours, "bleeding" into today and preying on my mind even while I'm busy doing other "real-life" stuff (and NOT doing the things I need to be taking care of around here). Bottom line, I'm pretty pissed off at, yet again, having my words get twisted (just enough) by this prankster to get me and where I stand pretty much ALL WRONG. BUT, I've gone about this fairly calmly and after long, deep breaths. I think there is some good, at least well-thought-out, stuff here...
I just ask, JYJ, if you think this is all (going to be) just a bunch of BS, then don't read it! Just don't act like you have and that you are really responding to "it". That's what I take greatest offense to. I take the time out of my life to produce something like this only for you to come off as though you've read "it" and are responding to "it" by basically dismissing "it" when the fact of the matter is, more likely, as per your own admissions, that you didn't even make it through it all, at least not mindfully, as you are being bored to death by it. In one breath you outline my points (to me) and interrogate me as if you've got what I've written down to a science while in the another breath you are indicating to me that you aren't even making it through my (admittedly long-winded) posts and don't really get where I am coming from. That's INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING!  If you just start responding AS YOU READ, the forest will yet again inevitably get lost in the trees. PLEASE make an attempt to at least read through IT ALL and "try" to "appreciate" whence I am coming before tearing it point-by-point to pieces.
So, all in all, I have spent at least FIVE hours thinking this through and writing and rewriting this, and by "rewriting" I don't just mean "revising", I literally mean "rewriting". The main reason this has bled into today is because I like to type these things right in the textbox here, occasionally cutting-and-pasting to "Notepad" and saving, but I got on a roll and didn't save for like two hours, had a problem and LOST all two hours of that writing, which was,... well,... NOT a fun experience. So, anyway, I can't be doing this,... taking HOURS out of my life writing for and in response to a chap who may not even read, no less "appreciate", it all, or even "consider"/"be considerate of" the effort,... who my writing admittedly bores. I MUST start trying my best at exercising restrain in responding to JYJ's... "deal". Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult when he embeds questions in his posts, like he did in this one, that he claims require a reply. Otherwise, he considers himself as having won the point, or that's how he presents it. So, I give you all my preemptory indemnification clause,... henceforth, if I do not address JYJ's posts and questions point-by-point, if at all, it does NOT mean he has "won" the point, no less, me over. It just means I can't take it anymore. So, in that very limited sense, I suppose, he has "won"... by bashing me over the head with his shit while dismissing anything I have to say. I suppose he has also "won" in the sense of dragging me down and making me pissed off like he is... in an aroundabout way, maybe not "about", but, via him, "as an extended result of" the policies of the Bush administration. I just regret that I can't feed JYJ what's in my head in the loose, short-attention-span way he likes his lies, eh-hem, "facts" fed to him. We just don't a) have the same approach (to life), and b) communicate in nearly the same way. It really is hopeless trying to bridge the gap. I've ultimately given up.
...
So, without further ado,... as regards this post of yours, JYJ, YOU and this post are an EMBODIMENT of my whole point (regarding education, at least)...
on Jun 16th, 2006, 9:25am, junkyardjake wrote:| Well, since you obviously can't take a joke... |
|
No, on this thread with you, I can't, and I've stated it, so... Why can't you honor it?
Quote:| and are still very much in denial as to what YOU YOURSELF have even written on your own board over the last week or so (longer for the Vietnam issue)... |
|
Screw you, dude! I'm in denial about nothing... Just because you don't understand me doesn't make that my problem. In fact, that is what you've shown to be your problem throughout this thread. If you can't understand it, me, whatever, a different take than yours on Iraq, etc., or if something can't be explained to you in a way that you can, you jump to the conclusion that it's wrong and go about "developing" your conspiracy theories and bash-sessions.
Quote:| 1) Did you not say that you refrain from criticizing the president and congress members because they have such 'an important job', seemingly in an unconditionally deferential fashion (i.e. no matter how bad they fuck up?) |
|
WRONG! Not "refrain"! And, not in an "unconditionally deferential fashion"! I use "restraint" (my exact word)! As I've written a number of times, I "acknowledge" some of the areas where the President has rather clearly gone awry, BUT ultimately I respect his office, realize these are difficult times, in which our politicians are really in a Catch 22, and don't feel the need to BASH the way you do and, furthermore, I suppose, feel the need to defend my fellow Americans from an onslaught like yours. Now, I am going to repeat myself, which pisses me off since I'm dealing with a guy who has me all figured out, lays my positions out to me (in feeble fashion) and chalks me up... I ultimately feel that the war is a just one. In the "bigger picture", if we end up with a "South Korea" in Iraq (and Afganistan) someday 20 to 50 years down the line, we will be a better world for it. I believe of the "stories" we do come to know about there are two sides of the coin. I don't believe that the picture FOXNews, e.g., paints is completely accurate (note: I haven't had nor watched FOXNews or CNN since I've been in Hawaii), but I sure as hell feel confident that the picture you paint is also inaccurate, and probably much more so given the sources you cite. I ultimately believe that we back here on American soil know less than 10%, and, at any rate, no more than 50%, of ALL the "facts" that are unfolding and have unfolded, i.e. 10% to 50% of the jigsaw-puzzle pieces necessary for completing the puzzle, and, mind you, that is amidst TONS of information, uninformation, misinformation, disinformation, etc., FROM ALL SIDES, and, thus, are not in a good position to go on a "fact-finding" mission so as to make a "fact-based" judgment. As such, I believe that working backwards from what one thinks are the possible outcomes here proves to be a more fruitful method of understanding than building, as I see it, a house of cards based on (an inadequate number of) "facts" (that are all over the place). NOW, OF COURSE, you could SEE/emphasize different possible outcomes, and then we at least would be disagreeing on the same terms. I digress... That's the fundamental problem with us... The further problem, though, is that I see WHENCE you are coming and realize and accept/am resigned to this, WHEREAS, you, de facto, don't even see, no less "get", because my writing bores you, WHENCE I am coming, so this further problem of your finding my responses inadequate gets perpetuated. I too don't find your "facts" adequate, but, on a point-by-point basis I've basically dropped that because I know it's hopeless. We just are NOT (even close to being) "on the same page"... in the WAY we are thinking about this. For you, it's not about refuting me philosophically, and, for me, it's not about refuting you point-by-point. Moving right along,... I think the "overall picture" painted by a reasonably informed cross-section/hodge-podge of the "sum total" of our reputable, accepted major mass media sources, from FOXNews to CNN, though I tend to lean, albeit rather decisively, toward the former (my politics, as I've stated elsewhere, ultimately lie somewhere among/between Bill Bennett and Dennis Miller; Sean Hannity is eh, a bit "much", too partisan, for my tastes, and Tim Russert is too diplomatic with his conservatism for my tastes; so, there you have it) is fairly accurate, i.e. as accurate as can be reasonably expected, and at the end of the day, the "overall picture" I see being painted along with what I think the war can accomplish/set out to accomplish/was "really" about, i.e. making for a "South Korea" in the middle east, makes me a supporter of the war and all the politicians who thought we should be there and all those who think we should not leave the job undone, which may takes SEVERAL YEARS (decades). Was that condensed and comprehensible enough for you, JYJ? (Really nothing new, mind you.)
Quote:| 2) Have you not suggested, in general, that the American populous places too high a priority on freedom of speech, yet many do not realize that they are too uninformed to voice opinions on critical national matters? |
|
Yes! I think this is the case in general in today's America. And,... you too are an embodiment of it (as you will see I think below).
Quote:| 3) Have you not admitted that you thought the Vietnam War was a legitimate cause? |
|
Kind of, but your 14-word question is loaded. I think hindsight is 20-20. I think JFK had reasonable cause getting us into Vietnam. I think Johnson and Nixon had good reason to want to fight it out. Miscalculations were made, for sure. We didn't win and the "Monday morning quarterback" mindset kicks in (with the know-it-alls like yourself). Again, exemplifying the difficulty of all political matters, what if we hadn't gone and bailed the French out? How come I have a sneaky suspicion there'd be (the same people, who take for granted the generally good life our leaders provide and have provided for us in America) bitchin' about that? How come I also have a sneaky suspicion that the protesting would have been largely stifled if we won? It wasn't so much the war itself as it was a timing issue relative to where we were both socially, i.e. taking the good life provided us in America for granted, and with respect to being a bit "war weary" (this is where mainly JFK and Johnson, and Nixon made their biggest miscalculations), all of which resulted in the key anti-Vietnam War catalyst, WE WERE LOSING and, ultimately, LOST!
Quote:| 4) Do you, or do you not use pornographic smileys on your message board? |
|
Yes,...  but I think you are using the word "pornographic" in a loaded fashion. It's not inconsistent with the "terms of service" of this site, which is not for children. What's your point? If you really "understood" my point about freedom of speech, you would "understand" that this doesn't speak to it at all. My problem with freedom of speech in America isn't so much with Eminem as it is with the likes of Jane Fonda. Wasn't that abundantly clear, JYJ? Does everything need to be this "spelled out" for you? No wonder you can't find any "peace" in yourself... and little "substance" in my posts...
Quote:| Now don't go deleting the smileys and posts that prove these points... (There is adequate prima facie evidence of #4 that would be impractical to remove). |
|
That's not MY M.O.!
Quote:| ...you should also know that evasive, insufficient, or no responses to 1,2,3 above is interpreted as admission. |
|
Screw you! Now, you REALLY ARE "forcing me" to respond! THIS SUCKS...
Quote:| ( Just Kidding !!! Sounded pretty lawyerly didn't it ?) |
|
Here we go with this cutesy bullshit, again. ... Just keep diggin' your grave... 
Quote:| But you know what? You DID say all that shit, so why are you playing stupid about it? |
|
Now, here you go answering for me... before even giving me a chance to,... AGAIN. Mind you, it's not (necessarily) my fault you don't "get" it, and, in any event, just because you don't get it or I can't communicate it to you doesn't mean it's not the case.
Quote:| As you may have noticed, I have acknowledged what I thought was one of your more relevant criticisms of my posts, and disgarded the myriad of links that noone gives a shit about. |
|
First,... "acknowledged",... not really,... as you show below, and, in any event, hardly even when you did... You did so only in parentheses, in which you make little of the point and before which, in any event, you say that what I wrote "was unable to refute any of your points". BUT, anyway, you then "disregarded" the "myriad of links (a "whole" four in all, mind you, Mr. Link-and-cut-and-paste-o-matic)" I provided, which you say "no one (meaning yourself, of course) gives a shit about"... At first when I read this, it seemed like you were trying to communicate something positive to me, but it ended obviously negative... The sentence doesn't even make sense, actually.
Quote:| Now, remember, this is meant as constructive criticism, but you always refer to this mysterious 'big picture', and then spend 2,000 words on tangential issues that are practically irrelevant. |
|
"2,000 words on tangential issues that are practically irrelevant"... Up yours, dude! Let's look at what you're saying here... Either you don't understand what I'm writing, or I'm a babbling idiot of epic proportions, among the stupidest the world has ever seen. Or, maybe, I am on the Bush payroll and part of the evil "conspiracy of stupidity", undermining America and the world, right? Of course, this is not the case. Believe it or not, Ripley's style, it's just what I believe. Now, again, for the millionth time, you'll retort that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't know the facts because I'm not consulting the right sources. And, now we've arrived at one of the biggest obstacles preventing us from having a meeting of the minds. Namely, each of us trusts in VERY different sources, and that doesn't seem to be likely to change anytime soon. So, we are back to square one. I see you as admitting that you are not even interested in reading my stuff, no less with the care it requires (and yet you got me all figured out ). But, you know what... If you just want to think of me as a babbling idiot, whose writing bores you and, thus, isn't worth "getting", you go for it. I couldn't give a rat's ass what you think. It's YOUR loss, not mine... Go keep up the "fight"!
Continued in next post...
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 18th, 2006, 12:43am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #215 on: Jun 18th, 2006, 12:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
...Continuation from prior post...
Quote:A great example is the Golden Rule discussion which you belabored to the point where it was beyond sublime;
For example,
The Christian Golden Rule is phrased in the positive,
i.e. Bake your neighbor some chocolate chip cookies, because that is a nice gesture that you would like to be the recipient of.
Confucious phrased his Golden Rule in the negative,
i.e.Don't throw a rock through your neighbors window, because you would not like someone to bust up your window.
Now, if this was truly an important distinction, you would have us believe that:
For a Christian:
A) It is OK to throw a big rock through your neighbors window.
B) Just make sure you bake them some chocolate cookies after do it.
For a Buddhist:
A) Don't throw a big rock through your neighbors window.
B) Let them buy their own damn cookies, what do I look like, a Keebler Elf?
The fact is, it is NOT an important distinction, and that the Ethic of Reciprocity is already IMPLIED in both rules, and everybody knows it, including Kurt Vonnegut. (Who, by the way, I am not any great fan of, and could very well be the complete dumbass you think he is. I've read a total of 25 pages of Cat's Cradle and thought it sucked). |
|
Muddling together the Confucians and Buddhists aside, here is where you really show your ignoramusness and lack of appreciation for education! "The fact is, it is NOT an important distinction." OH, MY GOD! You are SO off-base in saying this. You're REALLY just showing you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. I actually can't even believe you're going here, especially since you "acknowledged" this "relevant criticism", which makes that sentence above where you say that seem quite disingenuous (or sarcastic or whatever it is that you do to get under people's skin). Again, the fact that it is too "sublime" for you ISN'T my problem and doesn't make it not so. Analysis of the contrast between the negative "not" in English and the negative "wu" forms in classical Chinese aside, I'VE HAD FUCKING GRADUATE CLASSES WHERE WE WORK ON DISENTANGLING THE TWO "Golden Rules" so as to make sure we get the Chinese tradition right, a tradition which has been riddled with errors in interpretation by early (Jesuit) pioneers (who tended to Christianize Chinese philosophy inappropriately; mind you, this is where the rubber of the point Vonnegut is feebly trying to make meets the road; read Dr. Roger Ames, not some comedian). And, incidently, YES, the way the two "Golden Rules" end up working on a societal level ARE quite the way you describe above. America, e.g., is at heart and in mind a "second-chance (make up for breaking the window)", "(actively) make things right or, at least, happen", "freedom to (by baking cookies)" society. China, e.g., is at its heart-and-mind a "hands-off (the rocks and others' cookies)", "let it be", "(passively) let things run their natural course for better or worse", "freedom from (thrown rocks and others' unasked-for baked goods and the 'political pleasantries' that potentially go therewith)" society. (There's that "valuable" (to those who "get it") "freedom from", "freedom to" distinction rearing its head again... You know, Jake... The one you never could "understand", no less "appreciate", but the one, after much CONSTRUCTIVE discussion RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD (which is now acrimony-filled because of YOU), gridiron_legends, Ph.D. (ABD), did come around to "appreciating".) Constant JYJ-esque "political" analysis doesn't get you to this insight. That's why he doesn't "get it". Events here and there may be or seem inconsistent with this. There are exceptions. But, these societal patterns exist. Remember what happened to Michael Fay in Singapore. Here, he'd have gotten off relatively scot-free (second-chance, "freedom to" mentality). There, he was severely punished (hands-off others, "freedom from" mindset). We tip ("freedom to"). They don't ("freedom from"). Ultimately, the BEAUTY of the matter, which Vonnegut twists in an ugly manner to make a point JYJ is predisposed to "appreciate" to some degree (after all, he did crack the book and make the post), the two "Golden Rules", rather than competing for air-time, work together to make a wonderful whole, which one of those "myriad of links", including one from STANFORD UNIVERSITY, "that no one gives a shit about" according to JYJ, i.e. YOU, Jake, don't give a shit about because they DON'T SPEW OUT THE VENOM YOU THRIVE ON, actually explains this in a very lucid, simple way. But, in any event, I'm getting my PH.D. in this stuff. You'd think you'd think, "Ya know... This may be something Steg knows 'just a bit' more about than I do. Perhaps I should back off because if I don't, I, at least, run the risk of kind of fueling his point about ignorant, arrogant Americans speaking out of turn and out of our asses." My dissertion topic, for God's sake, is a comparing and combining of Chinese philosphy, primarily Daoism and Confucianism, with the Personalism is Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, which I will finally juxtapose with the Buddhist philosophy of Tenzen Gyatso, The Dalai Lama. You're just a little bit in my wheelhouse here, don't you think? Your arrogant ass probably doesn't. You probably think you can teach me a thing or two about all that... and then some,... just like you can teach our Executive branch and Congress a thing or two about how to run the country. And, mind you, this still doesn't counter the point regarding the roots of the ethic of reciprocity, which Vonnegut was tendentiously presenting so as to knock Christianity, in the process giving a one-up to the Far-East (which, I'm sure, he knows little about), when in fact "the Golden Rule" appears in the West, in Judaism, the precursor to Christianity, WAY before it appeared in Confucianism (and before that in Egypt,... more West than Far-East).
Quote:| On one hand, it is impressive that you can hold you OWN attention while writing stuff like that, but on the other hand it is almost like you are deliberately avoiding the 'big picture' you say noone else gets, while proceding to bore the crap out of anyone who bothers to read your stuff, (like dumbass me). |
|
Whatever...
Quote:| Now, I'm not belittling your writing style... |
|
You're not...
Quote:| ...for what you do, as a profession. It is probably quite necessary to explore all the metaphysical subtleties that the rest of us don't bother to think about. But, in the context of attempting to refute someones broad political arguments, it just doesn't work. |
|
Bullshit, it doesn't! What... have you taken a fair and thorough poll on this to establish this "fact" (after all, you are ALL about your "facts")? As I stated before, I (personally) KNOW TWO Libertarians here YOU've turned off on and from this thread! What do you think... I don't speak with people about this stuff in "real" life or, in any event, find myself NEVER persuasive when I do? I think my aforementioned convo regarding the "freedom from"-"freedom to" distinction right here with gridiron_legends, PH.D. (ABD), someone who I do know personally from CUA, mind you, testifies to that's not being the case. It just doesn't work for you. I don't think you are stupid, so I can only surmise that it's because you are not a patient enough reader, especially of things that don't (obviously and easily) jive with your thinking. Mind you, I am willing to grant that maybe you just don't have the time to read all my shit. JUST DON'T CLAIM OR MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH YOU'RE REALLY "RESPONDING" TO OR DIALOGUING WITH ME if that's the case. But, that's something I've come to accept. I don't even care to change your mind or make you think. The only problem remaining is that I don't appreciate you using this thread as a platform for your Libertarian, angst-filled crusade, and that's really the bottom line of why I even keep this crap up. In any event, if you think this claim of yours through vis-a-vis my position, while I'll admit that my writing is very, let's say, "windy", your claim is for me yet more proof in the pudding of our apathetic attitude toward education and resultant poverty in our educational system. I digress, yet again... The solution to the woes in our educational system does not lie in reallocation of funding as you and many suggest (off the cuff). The people and our attitude towards education needs to change first. Otherwise, the push to improve/FIX it really won't be there,... and then neither will the money.
Quote:| It's apparent to me, that if you really want to address the big picture, in the political context, not the ethereal black=gray and white=gray context, you will seek the answer to a question you yourself brought up: |
|
I did, for the UMPTEENTH time, AGAIN, above. It's just not as convoluted as your story. If 20 to 50 years from now we have a South Korea in Iraq,... yadda, yadda, yadda,... for the MILLIONTH time! That's what I believe. End of story! I'm sorry it's not as "developed" the way you like and "supported" with "fact", like those someone who would even entertain reading Vonnegut and call Descartes a drunk fool would come up with.
Quote:| I know the reasons behind the Iraq war, and that's why I'm pissed off, why don't you already know, or seem to care? |
|
Oh, you do... You know THEM ALL... from chaps like Vonnegut and Colbert... And, I, of course, know nothing and, moreover, don't care. Fuck you, you arrogant shit! I feel pretty damn confident in saying that, while you may know a lot about things regarding the war in Iraq (from sources "you trust"), you probably don't know ALL there is to know that matters. You are not claiming otherwise, ARE YOU??? You're not even in the military. You haven't been there. You clearly have a bias as is evidenced on this thread. So, I know you don't know EVERYTHING. So, in that case, you are at a point where the "substance" of what you (think you) know has led you to where you are. ... I know what I know (with reasonable certainty and from sources "I trust") and, more importantly, think about the operation in Iraq. I know it isn't nearly ALL there is to know. I know that I'll probably never know "ALL there is to know" about it, at least not for years to come, and probably not even then (we can't even definitively come to agreement on who had JFK assassinated, for goodness sake). But, I do know that what I know I've given good thought to, and "that" has led me to where I am. Now, if I have a choice, based on what you've shown on this thread, between, to put this in a short, catchy way, what you think you know and what I know I think, I'm going with the latter.
Litmus test: JYJ, do you think that the explosion of TWA Flight 800 happened as "conventional" reports tell us, or are you of the opinion that it was due to a military bungle that is being covered up by our government?
Quote:| (this is a rhetorical question, I understand your point that only YOU can change your own mind). |
|
That's not "my point". As a matter of fact, it's "your hidden, CONDESCENDING point" to me (hidden and condescending in light of your arrogant question about my not knowing or, moreover, CARING about the reasons behind the war you have so "figured out"). People can surely affect others' thinking. It's just that we can't affect each others. Oh, well!
...
So, is JYJ going to read, no less "get", 50%, 25%, 10% or 1% of what I wrote before responding to "it"? Place your bets! Place your bets! Point, again, being, there is (obviously) a TON going on in this post. Most important, though, is that "through all the trees (details) there is a forest ('bigger picture')" being painted. Now, you claim to not understand what I mean when I say (something like) that. So, let me try putting it this way... Just don't purport, JYJ, that you are responding to me/"this post", if you haven't, at least, read through it ALL with a reasonable level of care and made a sincere attempt to understand it, and don't just chalk up as bullshit that which you don't understand or aren't willing to take/(to be more generous) simply don't have the time to wrap your mind around,... PLEASE!!! ... I digress... I mean... screw "politics"! Back in the day you were confounded by what I was doing on the "music" thread. I mean I don't really think that's actually the case. I don't think you're that dumb. I just don't think you were paying attention, and I'll even grant you that with my "long-winded" shit, you may not have the time to keep up with it. BUT, then, you had to see that I was going to great lengths to avoid mentioning the artists and the songs' titles. You'd think you'd play it safe then instead of going against the pattern I had set up and (kind of off-puttingly) asking me "what's the point"... I mean once you knew you were cool and complied. But, why wasn't that the initial assumption?
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 18th, 2006, 5:11am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #217 on: Jun 18th, 2006, 6:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quick case in point of one of the central points of my diatribe above I'd like to tag on here...
...
In response to what I wrote here...
on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:28pm, StegRock wrote:| Our constitution, as great of a document as it is,... now brace yourselves for this,... does NOT make reality. Reality makes it. |
|
You wrote...
on Jun 15th, 2006, 11:35pm, junkyardjake wrote:| Yes our constitution is indeed a great document, and the reality is that public officials that swear to uphold it, and do not fulfill their obligations should be removed, either by elections or impeachment. Not very complicated. |
|
...TOTALLY non-responsive to and missing MY point. In fact, you are pulling that same move again noted long ago where you take something I or somebody else writes and just take it in YOUR direction. Mind you, it is fine that you go in your direction, but that technique makes it seem like you are actually "responding" to what the person wrote when you are TOTALLY NOT! As a matter of fact, like in this instance, you go in a direction that is ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY to what MY MAIN point was and belief is. I mean the direction you go in doesn't even "speak to" it. It's like we're not even conversing with each other. It's like I said, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," and you in all seriousness responded with "Huh, you don't say?!?! My neighbor actually works for the Lawn Doctor, and, you're right, Steg, his grass really is always greener!"  Now, you've not only missed the point and got me wrong and taken the conversation out into left field, but you've actually "responded" in a way that is TOTALLY contrary to my point and yet makes it seem as though you're in agreement with me. I mean... that's a skill, man! ... Again, here above, you take, mind you, the peripheral part of my sentence there, a mere appositive, a small step above a parenthetical, THE ONLY THING THAT I WROTE THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO YOU THOUGH, and go on with your deal. As a constitutional revisionist, which I've clearly stated I am on this thread, I believe that our focus should be on the "living" nature of our constitution. Upholding it is important; maintaining its "spirit" is more important,... but, for me, it's all secondary to our upDATING it and making sure that it continues to live and breath. THAT, I believe, is its strength. So, if I may use your words here, "Jake, great post, as usual, few words, but unable to refute any of my points." I mean... it's not that you were really unable to refute or show legitimate disagreement with my point. It's that you didn't even try,... BUT (did so in a way that) made it seem like you did. Mind you, Jake, I too don't really (do a good job of) "respond(ing)" to, no less countering, your stuff anymore. IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T PRETEND TO!!! I see that we speak a different language. That's why I don't question you (on already established positions). I barely address you in the interrogative at all anymore. It's just your "stream of consciousness" versus my "stream of consciousness". It's not the most productive path, but I can accept it. Just don't make it seem like it's anything more than that. Stop with the "refutational" rhetoric like we're actually refuting each other. We aren't. We're just talking at each other. The only caveat from my side, again, is that I wish you'd stop using this thread as a stage for your Libertarian political agenda and just let people give their positions and views on various issues like we were doing WAY BACK at the outset of this thread.
On that  , as per that "lost" post of mine above, what do yous make of the connection between "Yahoo!" and the "Democratic Party" on my "American football" news feed???
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #218 on: Jun 18th, 2006, 10:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
Steg, thanks for your thoughful response(s), I apologize if I caused you an ulcer and put you in a foul mood. I think we should call a truce on the Iraq issue. I appreciate your position that we should be a benefactor in the world, but I promise you democracy in Iraq was not our primary policy reason, and obviously WMD's had no relevance. No, I'm not in the military, but I know and have talked to people who have gone back and forth on different missions, and one thing I can tell you is that it is absolutely true that we are building permanent bases there. As far as the underlying reasons, we can table that discussion for another time, if you have an honest curiousity, follow the money.
Has Iraq been a total unmitigated disaster... no, for example, I've tried to determine the death rate per 100,000 pre and post Saddam, and although there are no truly reliable sources for this, I think a very rough estimation is:
Pre-Saddam - Annualized 60 per 100,000 (Alot of this was the result of the adverse effect of UN sanctions, i.e. infant mortality).
Post-Saddam - Annualized 30 per 100,000.
Now if this is anywhere near true, then obviously you can't put a price tag on a result like this.
However, also consider that approximately 60% of the world is oppressed by some kind of authoritarian regime, and Saddam's reign was our creation, and one of the least dangerous and destructive of them all. In pratical terms, the cost/benefit does not make sense when you consider that positive developments in Iraq could have been achieved in other, far more humanitarian ways. Now our resources are severely constrained by the Iraq war, and our credibilty as a benefactor in the world has been arguably damaged, maybe permanently.
Also consider that Osama Bin Laden got exactly what he wanted as a result of Iraq war, we removed our bases from Saudi Arabia, meanwhile THAT oppressive regime now has more direct control over the world's oil supply. (While Iraqi oil formerly constituted a competing supply to OPEC, now they are under direct control of OPEC. If you want the reason for $3.00 a gallon gas, there it is.)
Quote:| Muddling together the Confucians and Buddhists aside....etc |
|
I know I did, I realized afterwards that they are not the same, it was really to illustrate a broader point (I got the right continent though !). Still, I can appreciate that the difference is important to you as a student of philosophy, but the Ethic of Reciprocity IS implied in the Christian faith no matter how many sources from Stanford University you wish to cite. What Confucious really meant (or really said for that matter), is irrelevant to me and probably to most Christians. If that sounds provincial and ignorant, so be it.
Quote:we can't even definitively come to agreement on who had JFK assassinated, for goodness sake
|
|
No we can't, but it's definitely not who The Warren Report said it was. Can we trust the 9/11 Commission ?
Quote:| Litmus test: JYJ, do you think that the explosion of TWA Flight 800 happened as "conventional" reports tell us, or are you of the opinion that it was due to a military bungle that is being covered up by our government? |
|
Honestly, I haven't looked into that at all. I have looked into the 9/11 flights 77 and 93, and there are some very interesting theories floating around concerning those crashes.
Check out 'The New Pearl Harbor' if you get the chance. It's authored by David Ray Griffin (Professor, Philosophy of Religion at Claremont School of Theology, you may have heard of him).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565529/sr=8-1/qid=1150641843/ref=pd _bbs_1/103-3880613-5402214?%5Fencoding=UTF8
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #219 on: Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 18th, 2006, 10:41am, junkyardjake wrote:| ...but the Ethic of Reciprocity IS implied in the Christian faith no matter how many sources from Stanford University you wish to cite. |
|
What the hell is going on here??? I NEVER said it wasn't. This is what I wrote...
on Jun 8th, 2006, 6:17am, StegRock wrote:| In any event, the two are talked about respectively as the "positive Golden Rule" and the "negative Golden Rule", both of which are contained NOT in Confucianism, but in Judaism and by extension Christianity, and the whole ball of wax is considered the "Ethic(s) of Reciprocity". FURTHERMORE, the appearance of the "Golden Rule" in either form, i.e. the "Ethic of Reciprocity"... |
|
 Are you "fact-finding conspiracy theorists" always this lax about your... "facts"??? 
Quote:| What Confucious really meant (or really said for that matter), is irrelevant to me and probably to most Christians. |
|
YIKES!  Did you even read what I wrote... at all???
Quote:| No we can't, but it's definitely not who The Warren Report said it was. Can we trust the 9/11 Commission ? |
|
Here you again taking, of ALL I wrote, something I put in parentheses, and using it for tread... While the Warren Commission Report may not paint the "whole picture" (read, not the "bigger picture"; again, "bigger picture" does not = "sum total of facts" just like a "team" does not = the "sum of its parts"), I think the picture it paints is accurate to a degree/in general and, in any event, I AM NOT suggesting (by my little parenthetical) that it should just be scrapped. The analogy I would go with,... I see it as (at least) a coloring book, which, then, depending on your predisposition, is only partially colored in or has yet to be colored in. I may be willing to grant that it's like a paint-by-numbers book with a number here or there out of place (PLEASE don't isolate this line, though; connect it to what I've written below in the next section), but I will not go as far as to suggest that I think that the outlines are fundamentally inaccurate or, moreover, intentionally made so. Like the level-headed, fair-minded, even-handed reviewers, who by and large go by real names and indicate proper locations,... unlike reviewer mtspace "Reader, Cook, Gardener, Critic", who resides "Somewhere in NJ USA", and his conspiracy buddy iAmerican - Concerned Citizen, neither of whose reviews are found very helpful,... I think the WCR is not only a good place to start your JFK assassination studies, but "the" place to start:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312082576/qid=1150695058/sr=2-1/ref=pd _bbs_b_2_1/104-7218936-0379148?s=books&v=glance&n=283155.
I think the 9/11 Commission Report is an even tighter document, so...
Quote:
This part I can't even believe I'm going to dignify with a response...  It and your posting it speak volumes... First off, even though I think Vonnegut is a moron when he steps outside his comic realm and I am working toward my Ph.D. (in Philosophy) and point to people like Dr. Roger Ames (of whom I am a student) and Bill Bennett, I emphatically do NOT believe that a Ph.D. in and of itself exempts one from being a moron. For one, refer to my "UH fire - firefighters versus professors" story above, and note my admiration for and agreement with Dennis Miller, comedian. My prodding about Vonnegut's being a comedian is just to indicate that that is where I think his talent/brilliance cashes out, i.e. that he shouldn't "quit his 'day' job" as comic. Being a professor doesn't make you right... or even smart for that matter, and being a comedian doesn't make you wrong... or dumb. Some Ph.D.'s are just Piled Higher and Deeper and that's it. Dr. Griffin, who's cleverly carved a niche for himself and capitalized on 9/11 writing this kind of stuff, and whose book(s) I can't find a review for from a legit(imately unbiased), time-tested, well-reputed source aside from the one up at Amazon, which concludes, "Even many Bush opponents will find these charges ridiculous, though conspiracy theorists may be haunted by the suspicion that we know less than we think we do about that fateful day," is "Piled Higher and Deeper". It didn't take little old ME long to catch "Doc" here being very tendentious, if not in a bold-faced lie, or, at least, not having done his homework. He writes, "The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never." I guess he didn't know about the Chicago's McCormick Place Convention Center fire of 1967. But, WHATEVER, you look at (some of) the stuff and see what you think...
Griffin's "tale":
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html;
unbiased material/neutral commentary:
http://www.PBS.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/,
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC5 88EF21,
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/New_York/Cities/Manhattan/Ente rtainment_and_Arts/Architecture/Buildings_and_Monuments/World_Trade_Center/Structural_Collapse.
ANYWAY,... there is no dearth of conspiracy theories "floating" around out there... There are conspiracy theories about TWA Flight 800, the Moon Walk, something I just found out about while digging for a "legit" review/criticism of Griffin's book - (the real) Pearl Harbor (FDR was a real scumbag according to these theories), and the list goes on and on and on, but one of my favorites, which truly is plausible (I mean... plausibility is the name of the conspiracy game, after all) and is, in any event, much more relevant to the goings on here at "the Gridiron @FantasyFootballer.com", the New York Jets victory over the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III, as presented at the Griffin-loving site Disinfo.com, which I can only surmise would be a regular stop for JYJ, in the article "the nfl: professional fantasy football?". Now, THAT'S a conspiracy that rings TRUE. And, to think of all the Jets fans out there who think they really "won" a Super Bowl. ...
In any event, I find that conspiracy theories generally assume that individual (groups of) men have and exert WAY MORE control than Man does. Man is not in this much control of the world. Man isn't even that intelligent. Conspiracy theories are really all about rational man, who, in his mental feebleness, cannot grasp all the world's complex interrelations and interconnections, but seeks out that feeling of being in control, trying to make sense of a world that all too often just doesn't make sense. It's about man seeking out a plan, an intelligent design if you will, when there just isn't one (at least not in the realm of Man). So, the irony,... it is the conspiracy theorists themselves who are obsessed with control... just as much as, if not much more so than the people/politicians they theorize about desire/wield. On top of all that, conspiracy theories assume a fundamental misanthropy that in itself is implausible.
Bottom line, there is SO MUCH in the world to read. Any one person will be lucky to touch upon a billionth of a percent of all there is. As such, the key skill is to be able to discern what's worth reading and what's not. I'm surely not putting down Wojtyla's The Acting Person, which will help me to acquire that keen discernment, for that get-me-nowhere junk (just reading the material at the link I give above was enough of a waste of my time and mental energy).
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 19th, 2006, 7:06am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #220 on: Jun 19th, 2006, 9:33am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am, StegRock wrote:
What the hell is going on here??? I NEVER said it wasn't. This is what I wrote...
|
|
Oh, ok, so now you are finally admitting that you wasted your time, and my time (surely I was the only one who read that nonsense) with your grandstanding,belligerent, drama queen  explanation on how the Christian golden rule and the alledged Confucious version are soooooooo different, that the substitution of one over the other constitutes an egregious affront to all that is rational, decent and moral.
 Super-Duper, alrighty then....
on Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am, StegRock wrote:
Are you "fact-finding conspiracy theorists" always this lax about your... "facts"???
|
|
I'm not completely sure you would know a fact if it landed on your head and built a nest. 
on Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am, StegRock wrote:
I think the 9/11 Commission Report is an even tighter document, so...
|
|
Yes, maybe you are right, that could be why it was necessary to remove 28-pages. Too much truth might be dangerous for the ignorant masses.
on Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am, StegRock wrote:
This part I can't even believe I'm going to dignify with a response... It and your posting it speak volumes....... I guess he didn't know about the Chicago's McCormick Place Convention Center fire of 1967. |
|
Well, this is a first, you are actually citing a tangible example to support your point. I'm impressed.
Here's the Chicago Convention Center after the fire in 1967:
Does that look like a 110-story steel-reinforced skyscraper to you ? It kind of looks like a Wal-Mart that collapsed after the Slurpee machine at the snack bar blew up. I have no idea what really happened to the Twin Towers, but attempting to rebut Griffin's argument with this comparison, if indeed you even know what his argument is, just seems silly.
Here's a tip, not everything that you disagree with is called a 'conspiracy theory', and not everyone who maintains a view that differs from yours is a 'liar'.
Gore Vidal once suggested that whenever you hear the government apologists getting all worked up over some information that conflicts with the institutional story-line, and begin to generously toss around the term 'conspiracy theory'....'conspiracy theory' might be code for 'unspeakable truth'. 
Maybe that guy isn't so crazy after all.
The definition of a 'conspiracy' is the agreement of 2 or more parties to perform a illegal act.
That makes you a conspiracy theorist, except you evidently choose to believe the official theory about 19 hijackers with safety pins and pocket knives.
I happen to believe flying monkeys  armed with rocket propelled grenades caused the Twin Tower collapse. Be careful not to disagree with me, I might start calling you a liar and a conspiracy theorist.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 19th, 2006, 9:38am by junkyardjake » |
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #221 on: Jun 19th, 2006, 5:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
(Expletives by and large (trust me... there were a TON MORE) removed after LONG and DEEP breaths...)
Of ALL YOUR junk, I'm just going to quote this because it's personal...
on Jun 19th, 2006, 9:33am, junkyardjake wrote:| Oh, ok, so now you are finally admitting that you wasted your time, and my time (surely I was the only one who read that nonsense) with your grandstanding,belligerent, drama queen explanation on how the Christian golden rule and the alledged Confucious version are soooooooo different, that the substitution of one over the other constitutes an egregious affront to all that is rational, decent and moral. |
|
F U, you TWISTED a-hole!!! God, I'm tired of waking up to and starting my day off with your shit... You twist my words and others' around just enough to sling it back at us. You are, as is evidenced right here, just as obstinate about "facts" that don't agree with your position as you claim I am... so much so that you, with your belief that you have a right to have an opinion about everything and that your opinion has the RIGHT to equal consideration even if you are pulling it out of your ass, even go up against an expert in an area! What hubris! ... Except, as per your own assertions about me, I don't really even know about the facts of these political matters you, Dr. Know-it-all Jackweed, know ALL about. Point being, I have an excuse for my obstinance... according to you. Vonnegut, who you are obviously willing to go down both for... and on, STARTS his spiel off there with a "half-truth" (not even half true, in fact, mind you), "facts" twisted just enough to fool the average-Joe reader, commencing his campaign to discredit Christianity. If you can't see his clearly DISINGENUOUS and UNSCRUPULOUS modus operandi and twisting of the facts, God help you! In any case, I NEVER said it was "an egregious affront to all that is rational, decent and moral." It's the VERY FIRST thing he presents, and I just called it what it was,... INCORRECT on TWO fronts! MIND YOU, ONE OF THE TWO FRONTS, THE ONE THAT REGARDS THE HISTORY OF THE ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY, YOU LEAVE COMPLETELY UNADDRESSED, BURIED UNDER YOUR HYPERBOLE OF THE OTHER PART, THE ONE ABOUT THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO "GOLDEN RULES", BECAUSE WHILE THE LATTER TOOK MORE EFFORT AND SPACE TO EXPLAIN GIVEN ITS LOGICAL INTRICACY MAKING IT SOMETHING YOU CAN CONVOLUTE, THE OTHER ONE IS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND YOU JUST CANNOT REFUTE IT. You're stuck so you try and bury it. Your mind isn't supple enough to appreciate the logical intricacy, no less the philosophical and anthropoligical beauty, of the latter, but the fact of the matter, though, in any event, is that you're ultimately stuck on both fronts.
In any event, let's replay this...
You wrote...
on Jun 18th, 2006, 10:41am, junkyardjake wrote:| ...but the Ethic of Reciprocity IS implied in the Christian faith no matter how many sources from Stanford University you wish to cite. |
|
And, in response, I wrote...
on Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am, StegRock wrote:| What the hell is going on here??? I NEVER said it wasn't. This is what I wrote... (refering back to earlier quote) |
|
And, in response to that, you wrote the above...
What the...??? ...
...
VERY briefly, regarding the Chicago fire, it's a comparison made in one of the sources I linked to above. I'm not sure of the guy's credentials, but the comparison, regarding the effects of fire and heat on steel, I think are fairly cogent and, in any event, reasonable. In fact, as you go to point out, Griffin's point, as per the link (to the "alternative" (there, is that better?) theory site) I provide above, is PRECISELY that this has NEVER happened to ANY steel structure EVER. It's you who I wonder whether or not understand his point (at least regarding this). The fact that the World Trade Center was 110 stories (Is that a proven fact? Or, was that part of the "conspiracy" or whatever you want to call it for us to claim the tallest building in the world at the time?) is exactly what he wants to sidestep the importance of as that would speak to the EXTRAordinary nature of the event, which he wants to play down. He wants to say that it's the FIRST-EVER collapse of a steel structure OF ANY SIZE due to fire and that is proof that it could not have happened the way the "conventional" theories suggest.
Regarding my use of the word "conspiracy",... that's the word ALL OVER the sites pimping the likes of Dr. Griffin's works. What can I say? Griffin does the same thing you're trying to do here, turn the term "conpiracy" back around on the "conventional" government theories. I ultimately say, "WHAT-EVER!" If the shoe fits, where it. If you think the shoe fits on me or others, put it on us. To those looking on, it'll be clear whose shoes fit well and whose don't. You're a "free market" kind of guy... We'll see how this all washes out in the market, right? Or, are you suggesting we're all just a bunch of lemmings for the government, in which case... ???
And, his implosion argument... If you buy that load,... there, again, just isn't any hope... No "unmotivated" demolition expert accepts that...
And, by the way, another Piled, Higher and Deeper moron,... Ward  "Littlefoot" Churchill. 
Anyway,...
GO JETS!!! J-E-T-S,... Jet, Jets, Jets!!! "Winners" of ONE Super Bowl, Super Bowl III that is!!! ... There's definitely "Evidence that 'DEMANDS' a Verdict"!!! 
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 19th, 2006, 7:35pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #222 on: Jun 20th, 2006, 12:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
Jake, you(r tack) anger(s) me so that sometimes I forget to comment on areas where there is a middle ground on which I am willing to meet you, for sure. On the other hand, in fairness to my position, I get the strong feeling from you that "victory" is not "meeting in the middle", whereas, it is (or at least can be, as is borne out below) for me. It's absolute persuasion to your side, all or nothing,... and until then it's that we're not there yet out of our own ignorance. In fact, I think the side you are on/advocating necessitates such one-sidedness. Since these theories are so intricately woven together, the middle ground may often be tantamount to giving up the theory,... and that ain't no good... In this sense, I see your position as inherently (and unnecessarily) contentious/acrimony-laden... not because of you, but because of it... (hearkens back to my whole "you become it"/"it doesn't become you" thing). Anyway...
on Jun 18th, 2006, 10:41am, junkyardjake wrote:| As far as the underlying reasons (regarding the war in Iraq), we can table that discussion for another time, if you have an honest curiousity, follow the money. |
|
I am not going to say that there is NOT dirty business (involving politicians even) going on. I am sure there is. You should by way of this thread and discussion know that I am not a fan of capitalism, moreover, the American brand thereof, which I do think there are unsavory characters at the controls of. I'm not going to say that there aren't capitalist opportunists around and a lot of quid pro quo going on on every corner, and Washington D.C. is DEFINITELY no exception. But, what's new there? Furthermore, we do tend to give work to our friends who we know and trust, and there isn't necessarily anything dirty in that. That's the way of capitalism. But, in any event, I don't roll dirty business deals back to being complicit to events the likes of 9/11. There's "business" to be done in Iraq, and unsavory opportunists will be lining up with their back-scratchers and willing to cut ethically questionable deals. I believe that the money trail can lead back to some ugly business transactions, ugliness that has existed since time immemorial, though, in my mind. In other words, in short, I am willing to meet you halfway that the money trail will lead you to some capitalist scoundrels, but not to 9/11 conspirators.
Furthermore, being a constitutional purist and patriotic American on the one hand and one who bashes our current leadership, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, on the other is a very tight rope to walk. Things don't just change overnight. Our current leadership is a product of a long history coming out of The Constitution. It could be argued that the seed from which these current politicians who, as you claim, don't uphold The Constitution is IN The Constitution itself. It probably can't be pointed out/to right in the document. Maybe it's a gestalt of the (spirit of the) document. I don't know. But, (since you say you are a Reagan apologist) the Clinton and Bush administrations and Congress during those periods didn't just plop into existence out of thin air, and The Constitution (along with the antecedent Declaration of Independence) is our founding document. ... Now, if I say that Benjamin Franklin was the one who planted that fateful seed,... now we got ourselves a "conspiracy" theory...  ...  ...
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 20th, 2006, 12:32am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #223 on: Jun 20th, 2006, 3:05am » |
Quote Modify
|
Just to get this out there...
I would defend Hillary Clinton if she were our President and the target of these over-the-top accusations.
My wife, wondering if this BS is what's still causing me to be in a bit of a funk, wanted to discuss this with me and read through the thread. Her one comment, "This guy needs to live in China for a year."
...
Now, again, more back toward what was supposed to be the original spirit of this thread,... there is still that pending question of mine... What do yous make of the connection between "Yahoo!" and the "Democratic Party" on my "American football" news feed???
Another question I'd like to throw out there,... what do you guys think of Tucker Carlson? I ask because I don't quite know what to make of the guy...
And, what the hell,... I'll throw this one out there for Jake... JYJ, why do you think that theories like Griffin's don't really take hold?
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 20th, 2006, 4:51am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
