Your conclusions are appreciated as is the tenacity of your response, however do not put imagined words into my mouth expecting me to choke and swallow them:) It is easy to assume I do, but I have very little hidden meaning in my writing and less harmful intent than you might imagine.
Idealistic and Appealing outlook - Allways. Everyone has an agenda and vested interests are the only coin beside the sword, eh? I am happy to join the ranks of Idealism and as for being bombastic and prone to hyperbole...well, this is a public forum and we all have personalities and I will not apologize for mine as repugnant as it may get. *<<<<I am not so naïve as to think that the US military industrial complex does not hold great sway over how resources are used here and elsewhere, however the current result of the Madness of King George is clear to all now. Add to this that Clinton had DAILY meetings on terrorism while 'W' had only ONE IN FOUR MONTHS!!!! . . . well, you get my drift. I clearly believe that since we knew who was doing the attacking and why and where they were - we even had airport pictures that the reason that 'things are different since 9/11' would never have been an issue with a different administration.>>>* As for the above - it is extremely lovably niaive to imagine we can know all the cards and players in this international playground of bullies. I have been unable to join the conspiracy that "W" caused the 9/11 strike by action or inaction, and if/when we cause agression from other countries of this retaliatory nature, that does not mean they are right for attacking in this manner. This is not a cadre of bio-altruist we are talking about here, but murderous fundamentally bent cruelty experiments masquerading as humans. *<<<As an admitted child of the 60s (and before), it appears that the lessons of the futility of imposing might (and 'democracy') upon others seem to be fading fast. So, yes, in an ideal world since we are using hypotheticals here, our intel and influence would have rendered most if not all military adventuring of the last 8 years null and void.>>>>* ** Nicely put, but I have to bring up the perspective that we have to learn the same lessons over and over thoughout history. The lauded 60's era of peace is but a repeat of centuries of same such. Why do you think that is? I am not saying we havent improved from the sacrifice of children and slavery of ancient Rome, but really, we deal with the same human foibles, time removed. *<<<'Moving On' we will have little choice. The US has long passed it's zenith and 'W' has wiped out most advancements and means gained from the last 80 years.>>>>* Aren't you giving Bush a bit too much credit here? be specific with me when you have time about all that has been ruined? At least he never overturned Roe vs. Wade.... *<<< Not only this, the four horseman are at our door and, even though I don't walk around with a sign 'The End Is Near!', in fact, a clear case can be made that it is.>>>* Having no belief in the 4 horsemen, I have no fear of them either, just an overriding bio-altruistic fire to make things better right here, right now - for you, for me. * <<<<When you ask about "possession of weapons a bait to attack from any kind of outside force?", I would say not necessarily. However, the history of how the US has dealt with other countries easily has been the attraction for such attacks. Seldom is it mentioned about how many countries 'we' have military bases firmly and permanently planted therein.>>>* We do have many bases, but so many have closed or downgraded. Our military has been stripped of many bases, maybe for the better as logistics and economy goes, as it is a business of sorts. Stop loss has not prevented the best talent from retiring or moving on, and much money goes to machinery and supply, not into the pockets of GI's. But, it also goes into local economies from what I hear from a soldier or two. Not all countries boo them as they walk by either. *<<<Regarding "…living breathing people volunteering to be deluded…"; I think you are getting closer to the mark here. As has been the case 'forever', ignorance causes suffering. >>>* I mean deluded by "W" not by the very fact of enlistment itself. I know several soldiers with master's degrees, that do not feel deluded by the idea of what the military represents. Understanding violence is not the same as being attracted to it. If you are refering to me as a violence monger, you would be incorrect. I am however very passionate by nature. Your reference to heroes probably includes the brilliant work of Ghandi, No? We can agree there. *<<<but as many times as I've marched for peace, I've never heard Darwin mentioned. Maybe it is a West Coast thing? : - )>>>* You didnt hear him mentioned, but to me his method was there in the very nature of your physical form:) After living in Northbay, I would have to say it is a prominent West Coast thing, but by no means born or owned by it:) Thanks for the interaction! ditto:) On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > WE is inclusive of countries responsible for global survival by nature > of position of influence -money, location, etc. Of course ideally, > carefully wrought vice-grip sanctions, or smart military maneuverings, > should be priority, not horsehockey as practiced by the Bush Brigade, > who I think all conclude has demostrated idiocy. Do not presume to pin > a "W" on my shirt. I will also caveat that some ends never justify the > means. The "We" I project includes all countries capable of compromise > for greater good. > So, if "W" was not in office do you suggest all military missions in > the last 8 years would be extremely different? Very few would be > deemed necessary or helpfull? Ultimately what do you suggest we do > moving onward? Disband the military? give them taser guns? is > possession of weapons a bait to attack from any kind of outside force? > What do you propose other than this cancerous canker? or, can you say, > living breathing people volunteering to be deluded by the Bush > Administration or any other President working in conjunction with a > bunch of geeks in Congress? > Aren't analogies tools of examining similar - but not necessarily > completely related items...not a statement of truth, but a path to > some form of it? Poor analogies, how I do love to examine the world > through them...and anyone's truth will only be built of sets of > probabilities. Absolutism is not my bag. > Just to clarify, the "peace-niks" I refer to are people I've met who > are oblivious to all counter-arguement against peaceful means to an > end, and consider darwinian combat a thing of the past.... > > > > "I will also caveat that some ends never justify the means." – cross > > So, I take it that the following is a justified means to you? … or at > least a de facto manifestation of 'Might Makes Right'? > > "…I know this little note is a spoof, but in a global society how can > we Not police the planet?…" – cross > > Further, as idealistic and appealing as your collective of 'countries > capable of compromise for greater good' may appear, upon further > analysis, in almost all such contracts the reality is manifested by > the imposition of vested interests by using force of one type or > another upon the rest, no? > > Even though I accept your rather bombastic and filled with hyperbole > questions as being just that, I'll do my best to respond. > > I think that IF Bush (and his cadres) were not in charge, the role of > the US military would have been quite different over the last 8 years. > I am not so naïve as to think that the US military industrial complex > does not hold great sway over how resources are used here and > elsewhere, however the current result of the Madness of King George is > clear to all now. Add to this that Clinton had DAILY meetings on > terrorism while 'W' had only ONE IN FOUR MONTHS!!!! . . . well, you > get my drift. I clearly believe that since we knew who was doing the > attacking and why and where they were - we even had airport pictures > that the reason that 'things are different since 9/11' would never > have been an issue with a different administration. > > As an admitted child of the 60s (and before), it appears that the > lessons of the futility of imposing might (and 'democracy') upon > others seem to be fading fast. So, yes, in an ideal world since we are > using hypotheticals here, our intel and influence would have rendered > most if not all military adventuring of the last 8 years null and > void. > > 'Moving On' we will have little choice. The US has long passed it's > zenith and 'W' has wiped out most advancements and means gained from > the last 80 years. Not only this, the four horseman are at our door > and, even though I don't walk around with a sign 'The End Is Near!', > in fact, a clear case can be made that it is. Not only for the US > which already is owned by the Chinese, OPEC and Canadians, among > others, but for humanity as a whole. > When you ask about "possession of weapons a bait to attack from any > kind of outside force?", I would say not necessarily. However, the > history of how the US has dealt with other countries easily has been > the attraction for such attacks. Seldom is it mentioned about how many > countries 'we' have military bases firmly and permanently planted > therein. > > Regarding "…living breathing people volunteering to be deluded…"; I > think you are getting closer to the mark here. As has been the case > 'forever', ignorance causes suffering. > > Yes, I know how analogies are used in an attempt to know what is. It > is one of 3 commonly used methods. This said, when your feign > rejecting absolutism, I can't help but review "…and anyone's truth > will only be built of sets of probabilities…". Personally, while I do > recognize the ancient notion of possibilities, it is not the > centerpiece of my epistemology let alone ontology. It is only one of a > set of such gnoses. > > As to your personal experience and view of those who are not attracted > to violence and appear to be naïve to you, what can I say? Little if > anything. They are your views. I will suggest that seeing a dialectic > between peace and war perpetuates the process. In a way, those who are > so committed to peace as to, in a sense, put themselves 'on the line' > and demand it, rejecting that which is omnipresent and hyped by the > apparent opposing view, are heroes to me. A necessary balance to the > hatreds that produce fanaticism of all types. Perhaps I run in > ignorant circles, perhaps they are more based on the 'now'….but as > many times as I've marched for peace, I've never heard Darwin > mentioned. Maybe it is a West Coast thing? : - ) > > Thanks for the interaction! > > > On Oct 28, 7:09 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > interesting that so many think war can go away just like that...do > > people really believe that? I know this little note is a spoof, but in > > a global society how can we Not police the planet? that is like > > letting the guy down the street corner beat the shit out of his wife > > and kids in his front yard and watching without response. Oh, yeah > > diplomatic relations...sanctions.... > > > > yes, there are bad choices made for engagement, but total peace-niks > > seem delusional to me. Does anyone else think humanity is hardwired > > for war in at least 10 different levels? > > > > On Oct 27, 6:48 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > great one. thanks. > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:32 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > > > > Jessica > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:19 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: [skeptics-145] Fwd: Enjoy the read! > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:47 AM > > > > Subject: Enjoy the read! > > > > > > Dear Red States: > > > > > > We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and > we're > > > > taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that > > > > includesCalifornia, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, > > > > Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will > be > > > > beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new > country of > > > > New California. > > > > > > To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. > We get > > > > stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of > Liberty. You > > > > get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get > Harvard. > > > > You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and > > > > entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, > you > > > > get to make the red states pay their fair share. > > > > > > Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the > Christian > > > > Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of > single > > > > moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and > anti-war, > > > > and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If > you need > > > > people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're > apparently > > > > willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care > if you > > > > don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do > wish you > > > > success in Iraq , and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not > willing to > > > > spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. > > > > > > With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent > of the > > > > country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and > lettuce, 92 > > > > percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality > wines > > > > (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all > cheese, 90 > > > > percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, > all > > > > living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister > schools > > > > plus Stanford , Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other > hand,you > > > > will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their > > > > projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, > nearly 100 > > > > percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of > all > > > > Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush > > > > Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of > Georgia. We > > > > get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. > > > > > > Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was > > > > actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred > unless > > > > we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that > > > > evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in > 9/11 and > > > > 61 percent of you crazies believe you are people with higher morals > then we > > > > lefties. > > > > > > Peace out, > > > > > > Blue States > > > > > > -- > > > > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to > everyone on > > > > this mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > This message was sent by Jessica ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) from The > Olive > > > > Branch Atheists Meetup Group <http://skeptics.meetup.com/145/> . > > > > To learn more about Jessica , visit his/her member profile > > > > <http://skeptics.meetup.com/145/members/5834540/> > > > > To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here > > > > <http://www.meetup.com/account/comm/> > > > > > > Meetup Support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 632 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 USA- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
