Hollywood vs. Terrorism

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Monday, August 21, 2006 23:06
VIEWED: 5166
PAGE 5 of 6

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 21, 2006 2:55 AM

Quote:
"it's to give clarity and truth to an otherwise misinformed array of fellow browncoats."Hmmm, an arrogant attitude not too dissimilar to that of a religious fundamentalist, you have the universal truths, any who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Exactly as I thought, you aren't interested in discussing anything; you are interested in silencing dissent. I guess that means anyone who comes here for a discussion (me and most other people here) should now ignore you completely

More empty rhetoric by you from across the pond. First, you mistakenly veiw my comments as 'arrogant' . All i've DONE is discusss the facts, but all YOU'VE done is your usual. Play the role of contrarian, say the opposite of what ever I say, and not ONCE have you ever dealt w/ my comments on a substantive level. Ignore me all you want, if it makes you sleep better at night. If you can't run w/ the big dogs, stay on the porch, brother.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor,

I thought I'd way in here.

I disagree with what you post most of the time, mostly I think you put to much faith into the idea that Bush is doing the right-wing thing, or what's best for us, but you're opinions are certainly welcome here. The more thought you put into them the better. You're not a troll, and it's the not a trol aspect of your argument that makes it welcome. Keep saying what we don't want to hear, but do us the favor of listening to the rest of us when we say what you don't want to hear. All of us are going to be wrong some of the time, and life never gives us the hint of letting us know beforehand what we're going to be wrong on, we just find it out as we go along.

It's clear that Bush is doing what HE thinks is best for the country. I was under the false impression that he was more of a right winger, but alas, he's too much like his father. I get that now. I think what is rubbing 'some' folks here the wrong way is that , in general, I HAVE thought a great deal about my comments, and don't often speak unless I'm certain of what I'm saying has some, or all basis in attainable fact. One of my favorite motto's is something Carl Sagan said -

" I do not want to believe, I want to know. "

Where I DON'T know, and am simply tossing out pure opinion, I'll try to make that clear. If I'm full of it, and can be shown that my view point is flawed, I have no problem learning from my mistakes or retracting anything false I've stated.

What annoys me, as it would anyone, is how some completely ignore what I'm saying, and instead accuse me of being a racist, bigot, etc..., simply because they have nothing but emotion guiding their view, and not fact.

If failing to fall in line w/ everyone else or trying to get along just to go along is how some define being a 'troll', then some folks need to open their eyes a bit more.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

HKCAVALIER

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
What I'm getting at is you have to accept one as a possible threat living here on earth. The other should never happen.. that threat should be zero. Secondly, there are millions of lightening strikes a year. Only 2000 unlucky souls get hit. Not very good odds on lightening's behalf. Terror on the other is a direct hit every time, and as a result over 50% of the time it's lethal. It is (ridiculous) to compare or equate the two. Surely, you must see that. Third, terror strikes are aimed at a very small group of people, manly the west, lightening strikes are random for all of humanity.

Few things in life are more frustrating than trying to have a rational argument with someone who constantly changes the context of the discussion to suit their rhetoric and make their opposition look foolish--Hey, lightning and terrorists aren't the same thing, you big dummy!

The only problem with your ever shifting position, USB, is that there is only one specific context in which SevenPercent meant the comparison between terrorism and lightning to mean anything, and that was the context of relative threat to human life. Period. It's an analogy, not a tautology.

A man tells you your house is as tall as a certain tree and you come back with all the ways in which trees and houses are different. "A house has people inside while a tree has squirrels--NO PEOPLE, SQUIRRELS!"

The problem with the way you frame the argument, is that there are only ever two options in your head. Either terrorists are like lightning or they are not; Either terrorists are dangerous, or terrorists are totally unimportant; either you fight terrorists by waging wars on several uninvolved Middle Eastern countries, or you give the terrorists an open invitation to cut off our heads and enslave our women.

Terrorism's been around a lot longer than 5 years. No one is arguing that terrorism isn't a problem. 9/11 caught us with our pants down. All we're asking is that we pull up our dang pants and pay attention from now on, not start ancillary wars of agression, torture people based on their ethnicity and their geographical location, kill Brazillians on buses, use fear to win elections, etc.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:53 PM

Auraptor,

Quote:
It's clear that Bush is doing what HE thinks is best for the country.

I agree with this. I don't btw, think that Cheney and co (who are mostly not conservatives at all, and a fair # of them are democrats, and many are rinos, and former communists) I don't think *they* actually give a damn what's best for the country, but I think Bush (mistakenly) trusts them, and that he believes it's best for the country.

Quote:
I was under the false impression that he was more of a right winger, but alas, he's too much like his father. I get that now.

I think he's not enough like his father. His father was a weak conservative, but he was a lot stronger than the son. I don't think W. Bush is much of a conservative at all. I think people mistake his hawkishness for conservatism, but there have been a large number of prominent democrat hawks (more than republicans actually) and commies are often hawkish. It's not a partisan thing.

Quote:
I think what is rubbing 'some' folks here the wrong way is that , in general, I HAVE thought a great deal about my comments, and don't often speak unless I'm certain of what I'm saying has some, or all basis in attainable fact. One of my favorite motto's is something Carl Sagan said - " I do not want to believe, I want to know. "

Sure. And some of it is partisanship, but I think you state things too definitely. Definite stance should be reserved for things like evolution, stuff you're very sure of.

Quote:
Where I DON'T know, and am simply tossing out pure opinion, I'll try to make that clear. If I'm full of it, and can be shown that my view point is flawed, I have no problem learning from my mistakes or retracting anything false I've stated.

I suspect we're pretty much all doing the same. I suspect you're tenative opinion is coming across as beliefs or fact, do to language points, which I haven't really been counting that closely, so I don't have specific examples. I know for me, it took a long time to learn not to open with "No, you're wrong." I think Dale Carnegie straighten me out on that one. Language is tricky, there are an endless number of little pitfalls.

Quote:
What annoys me, as it would anyone, is how some completely ignore what I'm saying, and instead accuse me of being a racist, bigot, etc..., simply because they have nothing but emotion guiding their view, and not fact.

That's typically a defense of someone who doesn't want to counter the argument. I got furious recently at the latest "George Allen" post. I disagree with senator allen on a fair number of points, a) I think he's too personally abrasive, which doesn't help his points when he's right, and b) he supports the globalist position, and I'm much more of a Taft Internationalist, and not a big fan of neocon globalist. Mainly I thinke that neocons are too liberal in the way they want to change the definition of conservative. Conservative evolves, but one point at a time. At the moment I think a large number of missteps have been taken. It's something which happened before, when Hoover tried to restructure the GOP philosophy based on european socialism, which led to the great depression (yeah I can prove this was the principle cause) Afterwards, the GOP rejected Hooverism completely, and needed to go back to Coolidge and build on that. I think we're in the same situation. The neocons have been filtering into power ever since watergate, implementing a very wide range of changes. I think that Nixon is probably the base we should use as "where conservative was before neocons" and then look at Reaganism and say "okay, one step at a time, which of these ideas is good" for instance, I like lowering the tax burden on business, that was a good idea. Even in Bush Sr.'s day there were some good new conservative ideas, like privatization, particularly privatizing the internet was a good idea, there was talk of privatizing schools, I like that one too. Whether anything good came out of Bush jr., I don't know yet, but privatization of soc. security was a good

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What a non-event.

I'm with you here. More folks taking using terrorism in the news to get their names in the paper?

I am also quite disturbed by the "all costs" aspect.

And whew...Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell aren't on the list...

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
IIRC from the bet, the number of strikes from the 2003-2004 year (terrorist) was something like 2000 with a total death count of 650 (might have been 950 - been awhile since I looked this up). Oddly, the number of strikes from lightning were nearly identical - 2000/650.

Thanks. Does put things into perspective, doesn't it?

Not that I disagree with your general concept, but critics would argue terrorism has the potential to make a two or threefold leap in a single year (when one gets a major attack off killing thousands), whereas lightning strikes do not. THAT is what people fear, what drives them to the firm, protective arms of Bush....

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
More empty rhetoric by you from across the pond. First, you mistakenly veiw my comments as 'arrogant' . All i've DONE is discusss the facts, but all YOU'VE done is your usual. Play the role of contrarian, say the opposite of what ever I say, and not ONCE have you ever dealt w/ my comments on a substantive level. Ignore me all you want, if it makes you sleep better at night. If you can't run w/ the big dogs, stay on the porch, brother.

More empty rhetoric and pathetic attempts at insults from you from across the pond. Bet you wouldn't do it to someone standing in front of you...

It's not arrogant for you to assume you are always right?

Wow way to prove me right, thanks.

You haven't discussed a thing, you never do, you say "this is the way it is" and if anyone DARES to discuss it with you you call them an idiot. That's not a discussion (though you obviously think it is).

The funniest thing is that you are so obsessed with the idea that you are always right that since I disagree I can only be acting contrarian. I have dealt with your comments, while you've argued against someone else entirely mistaking them for me (by your own admission no less). You are truly priceless.

Big dogs? I care not for your species, though dog seems about right for your level of cognative reasoning

.

Well look, I say you're going to start hurling insults in my very first post, and look what happens. You really are easy to predict.

You go on about not being emotional, it's really funny because you're very first post was chock full of an angry emotional reaction, accusing me of being an ignorant idiot.

"I'm not being emotional BUT how DARE you have an opinion different to mine you IDIOT!" LOL, priceless.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In my short time here, I've come to expect your frankness. Carry on.

I apologise, what I meant to say is that there's a lot going on here which I don't think you get (because you've not been here long) and I don't trust your impartiallity here, because it's plain that AU says things you agree with. my responce was too glib.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In my short time here, I've come to expect your frankness. Carry on.
I apologise, what I meant to say is that there's a lot going on here which I don't think you get (because you've not been here long) and I don't trust your impartiallity here, because it's plain that AU says things you agree with. my responce was too glib.

You can't stand it when anyone happens to agree with, or hell, even just understands my point of view.

Talk about being obsesssed!

And as for your prior post..... you got yourself so off track so far back that it's simply not worth trying to deconstruct and reconstruct all over again. You've weren't able to contradict anything I've said on the matter of New Orleans and Katrina, so we'll just leave it at that. I'll leave the insults for you to deal out.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
In my short time here, I've come to expect your frankness. Carry on.
I apologise, what I meant to say is that there's a lot going on here which I don't think you get (because you've not been here long) and I don't trust your impartiallity here, because it's plain that AU says things you agree with. my responce was too glib.

You can't stand it when anyone happens to agree with, or hell, even just understands my point of view.

Talk about being obsesssed!

And as for your prior post..... you got yourself so off track so far back that it's simply not worth trying to deconstruct and reconstruct all over again. You've weren't able to contradict anything I've said on the matter of New Orleans and Katrina, so we'll just leave it at that. I'll leave the insults for you to deal out.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE