Who was it that defined diplomacy as the art of deception? May as well apply that to politics as well. Misdirect, feint and the old bait and switch. Pathological lying indeed. Quite often I find myself nodding in agreement when reading your posts. My problem is I distrust my own government to make the right decisions and trust other countries even less. I fear losing what little wealth I have or getting my benefits cut.
I strongly disagree with your notion of a world vote. As a citizen of the most wealthy nation in the world(yeah, we still can claim that-if not for very much longer) I know it would be my standard of living that would suffer. I'm feeling defensive. I dislike the notion of invading other counties but I have to say I hate what amounts to paying protection money even more. I am not an isolationist but I fail to see any benefit to having the UN in the US anymore. Seems to me Brussels might be a better place. Besides, NYC could use the office space. Nobody has rebuilt the WTC yet. Peace is always preferable. Listening to the loudmouthed leaders of piss-ant countries makes me think it will be hard to achieve without military force. Which reminds me of a banner from the movie Dr. Strangelove. Peace Is Our Business. Hanging in an Air Force hanger I think. Let's hope civilization doesn't end the way that move did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU dj On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:38 AM, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > > Our legal system was so bad we can't be sure the 'terrorist' was any > such animal. The world is a very dirty place, and while I can easily > understand us just putting our heads down and being concerned with our > own, we make ourselves immoral in this. It may be that we should take > much firmer action, but we really don't seem to know what is actually > going on. I do think we have ended-up caught in a world of > pathological lying, probably excused by some 'dirty hands' philosophy > that we have to do nasty things for the ultimate right (means to ends > etc.) We could make a radical shift to take poverty out of the > equation, but this runs against the madness - which is about keeping > control through it and keeping rivals down. Remember the French > bombing Greenpeace (a murder)? The perp got early release on that one > too. The problem is almost that everyone is wrong and there is no > side to be on. Hitler, of course, wasn't going to be much of a > problem and would blow away in time, if we just ignored problems in > far away countries. We need peace rather than to 'live in interesting > times' - surely though we have to generate a more sensible attitude to > creating it, even if we have to swallow using power to create its > conditions? > > On 29 Aug, 07:54, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, since to me, >> having a view that sees the world as a place to be afraid of is an >> ilness, perhaps those who see it that way can reconsider their >> situation a little? -Orn >> >> Nah, I'd rather you changed your core philosophy to match mine... budda >> bump bump! >> >> I see it less as fear and more as wariness. To put it in perspective; I'm >> more worried about my son's grades this year then any fear Russia or N. >> Korea might try to bomb us soon. Intellectually I know that Obama wants a >> strong USA and his apparent lack of backbone is due to his naive attempt to >> develop a rapport with terror supporting rogue states. So far, I've seen >> nothing but embarrassment from this tactic. >> >> I think laying down and exposing your throat to the enemy is generally a bad >> idea. Putting terrorists on early release(couldn't resist, arch) and >> dragging our greatest war on terror assets(CIA) through the mud seems bad >> policy and, I hope, will end up being bad politics. Obama has condemned(to >> his credit) the early release but remains mute on the witch hunt going on >> against CIA agents. It can only have a negative effect on moral and could >> ruin our best chances of getting life saving information in the future. >> Time will tell but I think US Attorney General Eric Holder's days are >> numbered. There are many tire tread marked bodies in the wake of the Obama >> bus and I suspect Mr. Holder may soon decide to spend more time with his >> family. Or drop the case. >> >> dj >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM, ornamentalmind >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "... If I believed >> > like R. Kennedy and Molly that most folks wanted to help everyone else >> > I >> > might go right along with socialism with the rest of you guys. But I >> > don't. There's the rub." - DJ >> >> > Don't forget HHDL! He is among that esteamed group too. >> >> > Of course, how we 'see' and believe is based upon our life >> > experiences. Just because one was born into a family of means does not >> > mean that person will see nor find the world to be a friendly place. >> > Psychology and other sciences can support this. So, since to me, >> > having a view that sees the world as a place to be afraid of is an >> > ilness, perhaps those who see it that way can reconsider their >> > situation a little? >> >> > On Aug 28, 4:11 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > It sounds to me like you'd like to see the elimination of commerce. That >> > is >> > > impossible. Ever since the first caveman traded a dead rabbit for sexual >> > > favors we've had commerce and it is a part of society. Everybody working >> > > together and sharing everything equally might work if everyone WAS equal. >> > > Some folks are harder workers, smarter, more knowledgeable, better >> > looking >> > > and have better teeth then others. Until we're all clones of one >> > another >> > > we'll have commerce even if its some form of crude barter. and we'll >> > always >> > > want what others have. >> >> > > Ok, this question isn't even sarcastic. I'm being serious. How come I >> > > understand exactly what BB is talking about and others don't? If I >> > believed >> > > like R. Kennedy and Molly that most folks wanted to help everyone else I >> > > might go right along with socialism with the rest of you guys. But I >> > > don't. There's the rub. >> >> > > dj >> >> > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:28 AM, [email protected] < >> >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Can you prove that in order for such a system to work that people >> > > > > > would have to be forced to provied 'free stuff'? >> >> > > > > You have not provided even an inkling of a "system" let alone me >> > > > > being able to prove anything against it. You go ahead and show me >> > how >> > > > > it works and I will show you the force. >> >> > > > Sorry BB that is not how it works. Shall we remind ourselves what is >> > > > going on here? >> >> > > > I have given no system except to say lets ban money lets get rid of >> > > > the whole concept of it. I have admited that it is merely an >> > > > idealsitic propersition and that I have no idea how to implement such >> > > > a system. But here is the crux. You claimed that such a system would >> > > > be unethical, I asked how so, you replied because it would force >> > > > people into give you 'free stuff' >> >> > > > My request to you is simply this, proove to me that such a system >> > > > would force people into giving you free stuff. You said it, you must >> > > > belive it so show me why you belive it. There is no question of my >> > > > needing to proove any thing to you, I made no claims whilst you >> > > > certianly have. >> >> > > > > > Yes it is a legal requirment here in the UK to ensure that your >> > > > > > children are educated. I.E. If you let your child skip school you >> > can >> > > > > > be prosecuted. >> >> > > > > Another lovely step taken in the "spirit" of the controlling state. >> > > > > Are students jailed for failing to graduate? You might want to add >> > > > > that step next. And I think you should just force feed socialism and >> > > > > communism in the curriculum while you are at it, as it is obviously >> > > > > "correct" isn't it? Of COURSE it is! So why teach anything else? >> > > > > You need to control all those wrong thoughts. Don't even let those >> > bad >> > > > > thoughts start. >> >> > > > Come on now, lets not start with the 'unreasonable' leaps of >> > > > sillyness. Why would a legal requirment for parents to get their >> > > > children educated end in arrest for students who fail to graduate? >> > > > Get ahold of your temper man, and think about what you are putting >> > > > down in writting here. >> >> > > > > Deciding what is best for others is best! They don't "know" what is >> > > > > best for them. Forced education of forced ideas! What could be >> > > > > better than that? It is what is good for all. >> >> > > > Again where did this rant come from, what is it's porpuse and it's >> > > > relevance to what we are talking about?- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
