Ableton Forum

4000 more US troops heading to Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/ ... index.html

yippee!

knotkranky wrote: Hmm, naw, that ain't it. I just think you don't like me very much

I think by now you would realize that I make zero connection between online personalities, people, and their politics in a discussion etc. I'm certain I would like you in person if there's even a slight connection between your online personality and how you present yourself IRL, but I think you were just fishing for compliments.

Obama is considering conscription to let a-hole countries know he'll do it if he has to. if you don;t see the value in that sorry, I can't put it to you any plainer than that. Tones post is certainly pertinent to my point. I think you maybe huffing the kool-aid though i for one like your politics and i'm mostly in agreement with you.

Right, but if McCain had said it, you would be all over it as a damming condemnation of his "war like" attitude. You're projecting, "well I think he was actually.." Take it for what it is, not what you want it to be. Letting a-hole countries know he'll become as draconian as them isn't what I would call cool at all.


Personal story here, my stepfather is 90% disabled from Vietnam. He voted for Obama because he wanted the boys to come home. It's not happening, period. I don't think I can even talk to him about it, because I'm sure like you he's hoping for some odd reverse miracle where presidents pretend they're back peddling on campaign promises, then actually come through with them, all the while probably depressed as hell that it's the mess it is. They watch a lot of TV, and were really rooting for Obama, like a lot of people. I pretty much have to be cool about it, because it's always like this, they get excited by these people TV props up as hope, who let them down. I can say that he's better than McCain, but that's too easy really, it's just crazy that it's always this way, that people accept it. Honestly it could be the only good thing to come out of a new depression, that people wake up a bit.

Machinesworking wrote: ....
Countries rattling their cages at the US is such total garbage it's not even funny. Look at casualty numbers in any recent war and realize that at this point trying to mount anything real against us is impossible. Think about how ridiculous all this must seem to other countries. How hypocritical and self serving.
Also realize this, terror attacks, are possible, it's the problem with fighting an enemy that has no real army, they only bomb shit here and there, it's all they can do, and no taking away of privacy or building up of the military etc. will stop that. What does is a respect for sovereignty, and clear ethics on our part. Rattling Iran's cage is not what I would call smart.

Really, put the Kool Aid down, and run!

Hmmm, I wouldn't call 9/11 a trivial attack. Almost 3,000 killed. In one day! I don't believe that countries rattling their cages at the U.S. can be cavalierly dismissed. Especially when those countries harbor terrorists. Or when those countries are actively developing nuclear weapons, and nobody is doing anything about it. "Clear ethics" could be defined by the strength of one's (or by extension, one's country's) survival instinct. Rattling Iran's cage? No- that cage is already being rattled from within, by Ahmadinejad. What's amazing to me is that, with his stated goal of wiping Israel from the map, that Israel hasn't preempted him and made a smoking radioactive slag heap of Iran's nuclear development facilities.

The 'terrorists' are the puppet masters. The people are the slaves.

Anyone who self-identifies with this or that war, or this or that country, this or that favorite special person, their particular family, a leader, role model, authority figure, value system, or thinking, is a slave.

If you do not understand who you are, you are, by definition, enslaved.

Reality is a projection of consciousness.

Incy wrote:to the right wing troll:

1) Philosophy is not science.

2) NPR gets 70% of it's information from government sources, that includes the pentagon. The rest of the time they are talking about car repairs, how fleas on rats caused the reformation, or what colors bees like best. If they are indeed a propagandist outlet of the left, they suck ass at it.

3) I was also going to say something that mass media is not simply biased to the left as though it had an agenda to beat down the right, but a variety of large corporations reflective of the values of each respective consumer demographic... but just forget it... this tread is a waste.

1. Oh, really? Philosophy and science are often used interchangeably- as in Ph.D degrees. Ph.D is from the Latin philosophiæ doctor, meaning "teacher of philosophy". This degree is often conferred in scientific fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy


phi·los·o·phy (f?-l?s'?-f?) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

• 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
  2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
  3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
  4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
  5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
  6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
  7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
  8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Science –noun

• 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
  2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
  3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
  4. systematized knowledge in general.
  5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
  6. a particular branch of knowledge.
  7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

As you can see, there are some accepted definitions of "science" which describe the study of philosophy - systematized knowledge in general; knowledge gained by systematic study; philosophy is a particular branch of knowledge. And the definitions of philosophy contain phraseology which describe the scientific pursuit of knowledge in several cases - such as "the pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means", "The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs", "The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts", etc.. In fact, I would go so far as to say that philosophy is the most noble science, because it questions itself. "Pure" science, by empirical method, does not. There may be hidden motives or an agenda in the research or presentation of scientific data, but philosophy questions the data and how it is arrived at- "The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs".

2. I can't cite you any figures on the left-leaning bias at NPR, but I have run across a few sources- one on NPR itself:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5334360
Of course, complaints about an ideological bias don't necessarily equate to the existence of that bias... I'll grant you that.

3. I think it partly depends on one's viewpoint; where one is on the ideological spectrum. The European poster earlier in this thread contends that Obama is somewhat right of center. Well, if one's "center" ideological reference point is Karl Marx, then maybe so. But to most of us in the U.S., he is definitely left-wing. His voting record as a Senator clearly shows this. As does his actions as President- greatly expanding government, etc.. http://spectator.org/archives/2008/07/1 ... -extremism

By the way, I saw an interesting definition/discussion of left-wing politics and right-wing politics in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
..as well as a meta-list of various positions in the political spectrum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:P ... l_spectrum

I don't think this thread is a waste- it's been interesting so far, and I hope it keeps going. I also think that we all do have some common ground- maybe more common ground than we recognize currently. We just need to keep the dialog open, not personally attack each other, but make an honest effort to see other posters' viewpoints, and then argue for or against them with logic and facts. Not just emotion.

db91977 wrote:Hmmm, I wouldn't call 9/11 a trivial attack. Almost 3,000 killed. In one day!

Nobody said it was, and in that case you have a ring leader in Bin ladin, whom we still have yet to catch. We have a real target yet 8 years later he's still out there. Too busy attacking minor dingbats like Saddam who was universally hated by the main terror cells that Bin ladin was a part of.

I don't believe that countries rattling their cages at the U.S. can be cavalierly dismissed. Especially when those countries harbor terrorists. Or when those countries are actively developing nuclear weapons, and nobody is doing anything about it.

All countries harbor terrorists, it's just that simple. The exception, the Taliban, were one of the few governments to openly support Bin Ladin, which made sense considering he helped put them in power. Beyond that there's really this little problem of defining and realizing that a terrorist has no standing army. A cell is not the same. Old school definition is/was just that.
problem is in recent history the term has been used to describe governments, which is just stupid. The Taliban were no more or less a terrorist organization than Stalin's regime. Honestly if we want to talk about this stuff, we should define what 'terrorist' means in terms of the discussion, because the media and various government officials have pretty much raped the term of any real meaning. It's become any country that has committed a war crime of some sort that we don't like, and by that definition, our own country could be considered a terrorist organization by countries that don't like us.

AFA rattling cages etc. what do you expect? The whole world was on our side after 911, (even Iran) and after Iraq, they all saw things differently. It's impossible it seems sometimes for people to recognize imperialistic actions when it comes to their own government. The incredulousness people have about other countries flipping the bird at us is just odd to me??

"Clear ethics" could be defined by the strength of one's (or by extension, one's country's) survival instinct.

Ethics - a set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
I would say the Constitution is a good place to start for our ethics would you not? We have violated that document continually in our foreign policies.

Rattling Iran's cage? No- that cage is already being rattled from within, by Ahmadinejad. What's amazing to me is that, with his stated goal of wiping Israel from the map, that Israel hasn't preempted him and made a smoking radioactive slag heap of Iran's nuclear development facilities.

The first words out of GWB's mouth after securing Iraq pretty much were "on to Iran". We didn't have the troops I assume, but shortly after the hard liners in Iran were able to replace the moderate president with Ahmadinejad. The population has two responses to threats of military actions from foreign powers with a history of meddling with their government, fundamentalism hard right swing, or capitulation. Capitulation just isn't that common of a response in sovereign nations.
Israel isn't that stupid to bomb Iran yet. Remember China and Russia both get oil from Iran, and have publicly condemned the US for being far too aggressive towards them. Maybe you missed that, but I pretty much would rather deal with Iran alone, than get those two pissed off.



AFA the philosophy comment, well you're digging your own grave there. Philosophy is not a hard science, and in no way could be in any way attached to fields like evolutionary biology. The scientific method is as used in philosophy as it is in religion, which is to say it's only used when convenient. This is really shaky ground to attempt to attach to science, and if academically suggested would have a dammed near unanimous condemnation from the scientific community. Not unlike what Intelligent design gets now.
In the end of the day religion and science are vastly different systems of understanding. It's obviously possible for people to embrace both, but mixing them is pretty much making a mockery of both. Faith and the scientific method are not compatible in relation to science.

db91977 wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: ....
Countries rattling their cages at the US is such total garbage it's not even funny. Look at casualty numbers in any recent war and realize that at this point trying to mount anything real against us is impossible. Think about how ridiculous all this must seem to other countries. How hypocritical and self serving.
Also realize this, terror attacks, are possible, it's the problem with fighting an enemy that has no real army, they only bomb shit here and there, it's all they can do, and no taking away of privacy or building up of the military etc. will stop that. What does is a respect for sovereignty, and clear ethics on our part. Rattling Iran's cage is not what I would call smart.

Really, put the Kool Aid down, and run!

Hmmm, I wouldn't call 9/11 a trivial attack. Almost 3,000 killed. In one day! I don't believe that countries rattling their cages at the U.S. can be cavalierly dismissed. Especially when those countries harbor terrorists. Or when those countries are actively developing nuclear weapons, and nobody is doing anything about it. "Clear ethics" could be defined by the strength of one's (or by extension, one's country's) survival instinct. Rattling Iran's cage? No- that cage is already being rattled from within, by Ahmadinejad. What's amazing to me is that, with his stated goal of wiping Israel from the map, that Israel hasn't preempted him and made a smoking radioactive slag heap of Iran's nuclear development facilities.

Could not agree more here. The most dangerous situation I can imagine is iran equipped with nuclear weapons and the zealot Mullahs with their finger on the button. These lunatics who want a global Islamic Ummah + Nuclear weapons? No way. The Mullahs believe that the more dire the world is and more screwed up everything is in it, their divine saheb ul zaman will then come down from the heavens and turn the world into a beautiful place (as long as you are muslim of course). So, the more chaos and destruction they do, they believe the better the chances of their holy Saheb ul zaman coming down to earth. This would be equal to Obama thinking that if he nuked japan & europe and killed 50 million people that Jesus Christ would return. Iran cannot obtain nuke weapons and I can't believe that the entire world isn't up in arms stopping them. I guess it will take a mushroom cloud looming over London, New York or Berlin before anyones going to do anything about it.

Machinesworking wrote: In the end of the day religion and science are vastly different systems of understanding. It's obviously possible for people to embrace both, but mixing them is pretty much making a mockery of both. Faith and the scientific method are not compatible in relation to science.

You fail at being Mr. Smarty Pants. You are not asking the right questions.

Chang wrote: Could not agree more here. The most dangerous situation I can imagine is iran equipped with nuclear weapons and the zealot Mullahs with their finger on the button. These lunatics who want a global Islamic Ummah + Nuclear weapons? No way. The Mullahs believe that the more dire the world is and more screwed up everything is in it, their divine saheb ul zaman will then come down from the heavens and turn the world into a beautiful place (as long as you are muslim of course). So, the more chaos and destruction they do, they believe the better the chances of their holy Saheb ul zaman coming down to earth. This would be equal to Obama thinking that if he nuked japan & europe and killed 50 million people that Jesus Christ would return. Iran cannot obtain nuke weapons and I can't believe that the entire world isn't up in arms stopping them. I guess it will take a mushroom cloud looming over London, New York or Berlin before anyones going to do anything about it.

Fighting the zealotry of others with your own zealotry only leads to more suffering. Free yourself from your preconceptions.

Chang wrote: I guess it will take a mushroom cloud looming over London, New York or Berlin before anyones going to do anything about it.

Are you Condaleeza Rice?

Chang wrote:
The most dangerous situation I can imagine is iran equipped with nuclear weapons and the zealot Mullahs with their finger on the button. These lunatics who want a global Islamic Ummah + Nuclear weapons? No way. The Mullahs believe that the more dire the world is and more screwed up everything is in it, their divine saheb ul zaman will then come down from the heavens and turn the world into a beautiful place (as long as you are muslim of course). So, the more chaos and destruction they do, they believe the better the chances of their holy Saheb ul zaman coming down to earth. This would be equal to Obama thinking that if he nuked japan & europe and killed 50 million people that Jesus Christ would return. Iran cannot obtain nuke weapons and I can't believe that the entire world isn't up in arms stopping them. I guess it will take a mushroom cloud looming over London, New York or Berlin before anyones going to do anything about it.

Christ, you'd make Anne Coulter blush with that drivel.

That was easily one of the most clueless and ignorant things I've ever read.

smutek wrote:

Chang wrote:
The most dangerous situation I can imagine is iran equipped with nuclear weapons and the zealot Mullahs with their finger on the button. These lunatics who want a global Islamic Ummah + Nuclear weapons? No way. The Mullahs believe that the more dire the world is and more screwed up everything is in it, their divine saheb ul zaman will then come down from the heavens and turn the world into a beautiful place (as long as you are muslim of course). So, the more chaos and destruction they do, they believe the better the chances of their holy Saheb ul zaman coming down to earth. This would be equal to Obama thinking that if he nuked japan & europe and killed 50 million people that Jesus Christ would return. Iran cannot obtain nuke weapons and I can't believe that the entire world isn't up in arms stopping them. I guess it will take a mushroom cloud looming over London, New York or Berlin before anyones going to do anything about it.

That was easily one of the most clueless and ignorant things I've ever read.

Since everything about the Mullahs (who control ahmadinejad) beliefs are true in my post, can easily be found anywhere on the net and are common knowledge, where is the cluelessness?

If I've learned anything over the years here and there, it's that sometimes - often times, unfortunately, it's just not worth the time nor the energy to get into it. Believe what you want to believe, nothing I am going to say is going to change your mind.

what honeymoon ?

b0unce wrote:longest. honeymoon. ever.

fixed.