Raven

quote: I don't know, they both sound sexy in thier own way Thank you darling, I canÔÇÖt help but agree, though most people wouldnÔÇÖt.

Well darling, I have no problem being defined by my actions, I see nothing wrong with the way I think and act, but as you no doubt know, not everyone shares this belief. Having others decide who I am by my ÔÇ£shiny thingsÔÇØ (a lovely way to put it, I must confess) tends to cause fewer problems. After all, I rather be viewed as ÔÇ£that attractive young lady with the nice ÔÇÿshiny thingsÔÇÖÔÇØ then as ÔÇ£that heartless young lady with her cruel and antiquated philosophyÔÇØ. I donÔÇÖt know, maybe you value honesty more then I do. As for changing, sure darling, itÔÇÖs possible, but how many people like me ever really change? And truly, I donÔÇÖt know how it is elsewhere, but on the west coast the destruction of the twin towers and the resultant retaliations are not often discussed anymore. And darling, no need to pity me, I will doubtlessly be vastly more successful then you.

LMAO! Thank you for the wonderful advice Commander Wolferz, I knew this discussion was going somewhere I can only wonder what you mean by predestination though. IÔÇÖm a determinist myself, but only because I believe that the universe operates in a logical manner (no matter how chaotic it may appear) and that all of the events of the future are based on the matter and energy reacting in an orderly way, with only one possible outcome (and humans, of course, being chemical computers, have no more free will then a photovoltaic cell). IÔÇÖm guessing you mean something different though, would you care to explain? [ 10-13-2002, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Well you could always choose to drink at a civilized establishment

quote: What basis? That it bloody well works. Im not arguing that its the right way (Ill save that for my next point) simply that it works, and it always has worked. Natural rights are great, but declaring that simply understanding natural rights will make me a believer in utter nonsense. I have studied philosophy, I know what natural rights are, and I think that it is very clearly that I dont believe in them. Anyway, I was a little offended that you would think that quote would explain anything to me. quote: I guess that would be hard to correlate. I would argue that humanity has an inherent desire for "good". Yea, some people do have such a desire, but they tend to realize that theyll get farther if they dont waist there time trying to better all of mankind. quote: I would suggest that most people believe in fair play on various levels and have a sense of justice True, but that sense of fair play doesnt extend much beyond them and there immediate acquaintances. quote: not for the sake of order but because it draws upon the nobility of the human spirit Nonsense darling, theres no such thing. quote: something that can define a person as nothing else can You mean like a dictionary? quote: I would further suggest that history has demonstrated the human sprit in many different environments but none that seek to develop the more advanced potentials in the majority of its people The more advanced potentials eh? I imagine this is another reference to people as being something more then resources, but a bit more explanation would be nice. You tend to assume that everyone knows what your talking about, but I havent more then the vaguest clue. quote: there is always an element that seeks to grab more than it's fair share while inhibiting the other sectors of the populous from developing Fair share darling? You take what you can get and you get what you can take, and thats it. Fair share is the mantra of those who dont have what it takes to succeed. And let me tell you something darling, if someone cant succeed then they deserve nothing. quote: but no matter how overt this repression, we always hear tales of the people who embrace the higher ideals of humanity and somehow manage to make something right out of a cruel and confusing world...often times against great odds Wow, very heroic, you should write a novel. Seriously though, what you mean by higher ideals is ideals that appeal to the failures and incompetents that make up most of the population. Promises of being able to equal those who can succeed, or government sanctioned theft of the resources such successful people have. A few people manage to succeed because of such changes, or perhaps they just scrape by, leeching off of the income of others, but some people will always succeed, and paying failures for being pathetic just encourages them to continue failing. quote: these tales stir the soul and speak directly to the human heart I dont know, I think it stirs my stomach more then my heart, rather nauseating really. quote: people strive for "good". Good being defined, of course, as the failing masses stealing from the successful and powerful few. Darling, thats good like being mugged is good. quote: We've seen special people come forward and offer glimpses of these possible futures before being silenced Yea, if someone was preaching about reducing me to the lowest common denominator I think silencing him would be a little kind. And thats what this is all about anyway, if you cant succeed, then you can at least make others fail. quote: these small glimpses will keep us moving forward Not forward darling, downward, for it is capitalism and self interest that have raised the average standard of living to what it is now. quote: and perhaps one day we will learn to live together in a relatively peaceful and sustainable manner Yea, right, all humanity reduced to peaceful and complacent cows. Im not a big fan of social change, but I like a little more dynamism and conflict then that. quote: I think to embrace the self gratification and ease of your position will, in the least, insure the needless suffering and dying of thousands of innocent people Good riddance. Some people will always succeed and some people will always fail, and failure comes at a price just as success comes with rewards. quote: and the most, end in the destruction of our planet. Im not an environmentalist by a long shot, but protection of our ecosystem is important. quote: There is the potential for good and evil in the human spirit....in this country forces move to keep people in a comfort zone of fear, materialism, and ego inspired competitive isolation all the while putting on the happy face and paying lip service to the higher ideals this nation was founded upon.....your up to your neck in themyou are them....I do applaud you for not just buying it like a coke....but I also pity you more..... Darling, I would tell you not to pity me and that Im happy being what I am, but I dont think that matters, you seam resolved to pity everyone. I shant tell you to save your pity for those more deserving, but rather simply to discard your pity, for surly there is no emotion that degrades both the person it is felt by and the person it is felt fore more. quote: We have got to move forward.this country should not fall to the wayside in global advancement If global advancement means bleeding out my hearts blood for everyone who suffers, then call me backwards and regressive. quote: and we should definitely not seek to be the strong arm of the greedyto end a great legacy of progress as a two bit thug with a bunch of shiny thingsthat would be an epic tragedy. I know darling, I should think we would at the very least be 128 bit thugs Anyway, our legacy of progress has been one of financial and military progress more so then social progress, and like I said before, I rather like shiny things, especially in the form of jewelry. And tragedies are nice too, I absolutely love reading, and tragedy is something that seams to be forgotten about these days.

I recall trying something like that and it not working, but that was a while ago.

quote: If I had to pick between his arrogance or yours I think I'd have to go with his... Yes, well, the difference is that there is at least some basis for my arrogance, I dont just stand up on my pulpit and yell you will believe, which is ultimately what he was saying. quote: History would seem to suggest an ongoing struggle to improve....those in power usually resist this change because of fear, narrow-mindedness, and complacency. Well darling, for the last few centuries I would agree, but the same cannot be held true for the dark ages, and this is simply looking at western culture. Im not an expert on eastern culture, but I doubt we could say that china or Japan was striving toward the same ideals of equality for all and such not (in the case of china, that hasnt changed much). Now, lets look at Native Americans. Again, Im not an expert, but they had a very long time in which they accomplished very little as far as developing western ideals (which is basically what you are referring to). I agree that western ideals have been spreading in the last few centuries, but this is because the western countries had to power necessary to spread there ideals, not because of any natural development of mankind. quote: This struggle to promote the good in people is not just a way to keep people in line....that is true cynicism Of course not darling, it was possible to keep people in line centuries ago, on the other hand how many democracies spring up around the world for no purpose but bringing one group or another to power? Its not a way to keep people in line; its a way to use people to gain power. quote: I would guess that seeking to improve as an individual and as a society is the ultimate challenge The ultimate challenge eh? Darling, the ultimate challenge is to strive for ultimate personal gain. quote: more fulfilling then owning some new shiny thing or trying to play master of the universe in the ultimate foot ball game I dont know, I rather like shiny things, especially when I can wear them, as for playing master of the universe in the ultimate football game, well, that just makes no sense. quote: but one wouldn't know it when barraged by propaganda that strokes the ego and promises "success" if you live only for yourself. And how much propaganda is there to do what is best for society? In our youth, how many stories are we bombarded with about what great upstanding people the various historical figures of this country are, and how many films have you seen that promote the idea of doing whats best for humanity rather then for yourself, and how many books have your read with a similarly heroic plot? Sure, you see wealthy people and you wish you had that much money and such not and so fourth, but you also loath them because they have all that money and you dont. Its called envy, darling. quote: I don't think we will ever reach perfection but if we do not try then we will most likely not survive. Hogwash! Humanity has been successfully subjugating itself for thousands of years; nothing has changed except the scope. And if you are referring to WMDs, then yes, there is a danger of an apocalyptic war, but in truth that has more to do with common sense and less to do with humans striving for some ethereal perfection. quote: There are only so many resources to be gathered in current forms and this planet can only take so much abuse. Again, common sense, and nothing to do with striving toward freedom or any similar nonsense. quote: just because a person is born with a golden spoon up their arse doesn't make them fit to do much of anything but try to gather more spoons Oops I thought the point was to gather the whole silverware set quote: but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and let people be turned into exploitable assets because a small group of greedy sociopaths thinks their games are part of some manifest destiny Not manifest destiny darling, just a fair approximation there of. Anyway, how many people do you know that are good for much besides becoming exploitable assets (or was that expendable assets, so hard to remember) quote: I picked up the notion somewhere that people were born equalnot just AmericansI dont know where.maybe all that liberal education Yep, that must be it, all I ever got was that all American citizens are suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law, and only then if they happen to have enough money to pay for a good lawyer.

If you die there is no way to recover your game, your just dead, start anew.

More then just occasionally darling [ 10-12-2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Very well said darling, I couldnÔÇÖt have done better myself.

quote: "The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice." Alexander Hamilton I ask for an explanation and you quote this arrogant bastard. I know perfectly well what natural rights are, and I simply dont believe in them because that would require intrinsic meaning, and no meaning is intrinsic. I honestly would like it if you could at least try to explain how people can care about what happens outside of the group of people they know and like. quote: I was talking about the privileged class that uses massive imbalances in wealth to keep a certain people one top and running things while everyone else is looking for crumbs, praying for a chance to sell out and be part of the tiny fold.... An absolutely delightful system, I dont really see anything wrong with it. quote: "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams Well darling, that is a rather idealistic quote, not to mention rather inaccurate. The purpose of government is to create a framework in which people may work together (both in concert and in conflict), both to increase the standard of living of all and to allow some to rise to the top. quote: There is a great hypocrisy infecting this country. One that will not go away by pretending it doesnt exist. It will only grow stronger as the evidence and casualties mount.... Yes, you said this before, but what is wrong with a little hypocrisy? Or a few casualties for that matter? quote: "No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." Samuel Adams It makes sense, though I would like to see evidence before I believed this unilaterally. quote: We claim to be courageous and educated as Americans yet we are manipulated by fear in almost every way and have one of the worst education levels in the industrialized world.there is a pervasive lie going around. I am a vicious and educated American, which is better then being a courageous one. The masses though, well, it is for the better that there level of education is limited to what is necessary, and courage is highly overrated (besides being another trait that Im glad the masses do not have). quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Franklin eh? Wasnt that the chap who came up with daylight savings time? He had a lot of good ideas, but that only extends so far. Trading liberty for temporary for safety often does result in an absence of either, but that doesnt mean that they dont deserve safety. Perhaps Im just feudalist at heart, but I believe that if youre willing to take someones liberty in trade for there safety, then you are obliged to grant said safety in return.

I donÔÇÖt know what to say darling, you came up with something even I find lothesome.

quote: Dragon Lady That's beneath you . Do you really expect me to believe someone who writes as well as you would really utter such a stupid remark? Quantify your remark. For example " a lot of the liberals I know" or "the liberals around here.." something to that effect because in truth you are proably don't know " a lot of liberals" Progressive political thought is not monolithic. You got me on this one darling, I would never do anything as crude ask someone if they were on welfare, and I donÔÇÖt usually discuss politics face to face often, so no, I donÔÇÖt really know many liberals (or donÔÇÖt know if I do). Anyway, IÔÇÖll concede the point for the moment as I donÔÇÖt really have any solid evidence to back me up. quote: Did I hurt your feelings? I must have and if thats the case my apologies. Well thank you darling, though I wasnÔÇÖt more then a little miffed. quote: I have a good job and my wife is even more well heeled and even if I was on welfare , it is nothing to be ashamed of. You right wingers need to read up on the cost of welfare. It accounts for less of your tax dollar than you have been lead to believe , a lot less. First of all, I wonÔÇÖt trying to say that you were on welfare, and no, itÔÇÖs not really something to be ashamed of, after all who could blame someone for taking advantage of such an obvious resource. WhatÔÇÖs shameful is that itÔÇÖs available to begin with. I donÔÇÖt have any evidence on way or the other on cost, but that really isnÔÇÖt the main point for me anyway, the simple idea of being made to pay for someone else is disgraceful, and whether that it is a lot of money is immaterial. If someone canÔÇÖt manage for themselves (and they donÔÇÖt have someone willing to help them out) then they shouldnÔÇÖt be able to do what is in effect stealing from others. That they do is not the problem, I canÔÇÖt blame them, but that they are allowed to is truly vile. quote: And if you have ever been to college and recived a Pell grant YOU TOOK MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT! A Pell grant darling? Oh please, the only conceivable way I could get a Pell grant is if I lied, Pell grants are rather hard to get as I understand it (admittedly I have never even been in the financial aid office of the college IÔÇÖm going to, so I donÔÇÖt really know with 100% certainty, but I doubt I could get a grant). quote: You don't get to choose where your tax dollar goes or else I would insure so much of mine wouldn't end up in some corporate exec's golden parachute after his company goes under or in the pocket of some rich guy begging the public to pay for his football stadium. Well, I wont pretend knowledge of such things, I donÔÇÖt care much for football (as in, I wouldnÔÇÖt care much if every single football player suddenly keeled over dead), as for the execs, I donÔÇÖt think that is exactly approved government spending. You may not always be able to decide where your taxes go, but that is no excuse for not trying (or at least complaining about it). quote: Tough Ti**y! If you don't like it run for office , campaign for a candidate or move. But please no more stupid remarks that can't possibly be representative of the agile mind and sharp tongue I had come to respect. I donÔÇÖt have much of a future in politics darling, I really donÔÇÖt, and as for my ideas, well, you simply misinterpreted some of what I was saying. I just reread my post, and yes, it does appear as though IÔÇÖm suggesting youÔÇÖre on welfare, my apologies, that wasnÔÇÖt my intent. The rest of what I had to say, however, still stands. It is still ridiculous to be able to take my money and give it to the poor and disadvantaged, and the US government is still in the right about raining hell of Afghanistan (and please, no more of your graphic descriptions, one was quite enough). If you want to make donations, be my guest, but I happen to be related to one or two of these disadvantaged individuals, and it really is there fault. [ 10-11-2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Oh dear, thatÔÇÖs truly hilarious!

quote: The first reason why 'might makes right' is hypocritical: It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing. And read my response again darling. This specific argument against might makes right is invalid, because the inverse is true as well, when you donÔÇÖt have sufficient might the argument of might makes right is unappealing. ItÔÇÖs just a matter of which side youÔÇÖre on, nothing more. quote: In what way does your response indicate that it's hard to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might? Better yet, in what way does your response indicate that that's not hypocritical? ItÔÇÖs just as hypocritical as arguing that might doesnÔÇÖt make right when you are on the side without might. Anyway, I donÔÇÖt care much about hypocracy, everyone is a hypocrite at some level, and I see no reason to pretend this isnÔÇÖt the case. quote: Can you be more specific? That sounds like the EU to me. The EU? Not at all, IÔÇÖm not well versed with whatÔÇÖs on with the European Union at the moment, but if anything that is not what IÔÇÖm talking about. Rather, IÔÇÖm referring to all of the nations as being a relatively small group of entities (especially when you consider how truly pathetic most of them are), and thus they can successfully function with the premise that might makes right. quote: Catch-22. 'Might makes right' is contrary to moral law. You believe that 'might makes right' is possible within the boundaries of moral law, but one needs morals in order to make those laws. If everyone supports the concept of 'might makes right', then there would be no moral lawmakers to set those boundaries. The result is lawlessness and self-destruction. Well, yes, that is possible, but I donÔÇÖt think it would happen. A government that recognized might as making right would be well within its rights to create laws so as to maintain order and keep things working well. This would include laws against killing, and theft, and all of that, but because such activities are detrimental to society (and thus the government) rather then because of morality. IÔÇÖm not certain it would work, a test would be required, but it seams functional. quote: Explain how it would be bad for minorities, or how it would be "more infeasible" in large groups. Darling, please, how could you ever hope to implement that kind of system? I canÔÇÖt think of any way of objectively determining how much impact something has on someone, and running a government with some kind of subjective measure of voting power is ridiculous, not to mention a wide open pathway for corruption. As for the potential harm to minorities, well, if the aggregate affect on the majority group was greater then the aggregate affect on the minority (however this is calculated) then it would allow the majority to harm the minority. If you need an example, darling, imagine the government wanted to put a highway through the land of a bunch of hick farmers, only the farmers (being hicks) didnÔÇÖt want to sell, and so the government wants to evict the farmers. Ok, letÔÇÖs decide this democratically. The highway would be beneficial to hundreds of people, cutting thousands of man hours off of travel times every month, thatÔÇÖs a big benefit for a lot of people (never mind trying to decide who is affected, and who will never use the highway in there lives, itÔÇÖs near impossible), and the hic farmers will be put off of there land, a major affect, but nothing they couldnÔÇÖt survive (whether or not there was compensation), so the people who want the highway have a massively greater aggregate affect simply because of there numbers. This is another form of might makes right, this time political might rather then military (though should the farmers decide that they werenÔÇÖt giving up there land, it would get violent). Admittedly better then Athenian democracy, but none the less a potential for taking advantage of minorities. Rather hypocritical wouldnÔÇÖt you say darling? quote: By the way, my name is not darling. It's Nick. Oh dear, IÔÇÖm so sorry darling, I didnÔÇÖt know. quote: 'Might makes right' argues that the usage of more powerful force is right simply because the force is more powerful. It's a circular argument, hence it's illogical. What makes the enforcement of morals right is the morality, not the force. And who, pray tell, decides what is moral and what is not. I have my own version of morality, and it isnÔÇÖt anything like the social norm, so who decides whether or not to use my sense of morality? Why, the people with the most might of course, in this case both political might (because there are so many of them my vote counts as nothing in comparison) and more physical might (because there are more of them, and thus I canÔÇÖt really do anything to stop them). And darling, if I may turn your attention to your earlier point where you were berating the concept of might making right because it was hypocritical, you will note that by arguing against hypocrisy you simply become more of a hypocrite. quote: That's the way the world works, whether you choose to see it or not. Exactly right darling, though a lot of people would like to pretend otherwise.

quote: In both cases it's self interest, but that doesn't nullify the hypocrisy of the former. No darling, but it nullifies your first point admirably. quote: It's destructive on all levels. 'Might makes right' rationalizes any forceful action, including the most irrational, and dare I say the most amoral too. Small groups (and small nations) that use such tactics successfully don't stay small for long either. Soon they're running the whole society into the ground. Such a group wouldnÔÇÖt stay small (at least if it didnÔÇÖt self destruct), but when I was referring to nations I was talking about each nation being an entity in a relatively small group of other nations (certainly of powerful nation). quote: That's one of the reasons why we have morals in the first place, to help determine the usage of might that upholds justice for all. You may not believe that it's possible to have justice for all, but that does not justify or even rationalize supporting an anti-social movement that guarantees justice for none. Of course not darling, I would never support a movement that supported lawlessness, that would be counter productive (after all, what advantage is there in being amoral when everyone is amoral). It is perfectly possible, however, to believe that might makes right while acting inside (or outside, but only very carefully) the law, but so long as law exists the kind of self destruction you are talking about. But this is an aside, I donÔÇÖt really have any interest in changing how the world views law and morality, my point is simply that small groups (of people, of nations, or whatever) can interact with each other with the premise that might makes right without self destruction or such not. quote: No, it's not. Your definition of 'true' democracy is that everyone votes on every issue that is put forward, which is hypocritical because it's not really democratic. I follow a libertarian socialist definition, which is that everyone has decision-making power in proportion to the degree that they are affected by the issue put forward. I refuse to argue nomenclature with you Menchise. I was referring to Athenian democracy as being true democracy, but it doesnÔÇÖt matter, your method is an even better example, being even more infeasible in large groups while still being bad for minorities.

Oh dear, that didnÔÇÖt even occur to me. Your right, absolutely ghastly. [ 10-11-2002, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Probably, and I have to say they cast the wrong animal as female. Cats and foxes work ever so much better. Better the beaver then the turtle though, the last time I saw a cartoon with a female turtle (and this was a while ago) it had a pink bow affixed to its head (and donÔÇÖt ask my how it was suppose to be affixed, super glue is a good guess though). Of course, it could just be that the cartoonist had a tooth fetish; that would explain the selection of a beaver quite nicely. [ 10-11-2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: 1. It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing. And its even easier to say that might doesnÔÇÖt make right when you are on the side without might, itÔÇÖs called self interest. quote: 2. The argument is frequently used very selectively in an attempt to rationalize particular injustices, but is never applied by such advocates as a fundamental guiding principle, since it runs the risk of backfiring in their faces. If 'might makes right' became the core value of society, it would rationalize lawlessness and the rule of thugs along any line of interest or prejudice. The result would be a brutal and utterly destructive anti-society. Well darling, I agree that such a society would be rather chaotic, and could very well self destruct, but thatÔÇÖs why the principle isnÔÇÖt applied on a societal level. In a small group it works just fine though, or in this case between nations (for truly, the number of powerful nations is small). LetÔÇÖs compare the principle of might makes right to democracy. A small group (or group of groups) can succeed in a true democracy, but it fails with larger numbers. I do not, however, hear you complaining about how democracy is ÔÇ£totally hypocriticalÔÇØ. Oh, and to make the democracy comparison for your first point, true democracy is only nice when you happen to agree with the majority, it can really suck for minorities of any sort. So by your logic democracy is totally hypocritical.

lol Another good reason not to watch television.

quote: As for piercings in girls that I date when I'm actually in personable mood and into dealing with relationships, I don't mind ear piercings, even multable ones as long as they're not stretched, I don't mind the nose inluding the septum, and I don't mind the tongue. I donÔÇÖt know, tongue piercings are just unpleasant, and nose piercings arenÔÇÖt bad, but there not exactly nice either. I agree about ear piercings though, as long as they arenÔÇÖt stretched out everythingÔÇÖs good (well, ok, perhaps a two inch hole is just nasty, but thatÔÇÖs something else entirely). quote: I just have this fear of accidently snagging one and ripping it out in the heat of the moment (especially those thin little hoops). Then again, maybe I'm just too wild Or perhaps thatÔÇÖs the idea Anyway, IÔÇÖm not an expert on body piercing, but I rather doubt you have to leave them in all the time. Oh yea, congrats on the move Grayfox

quote: Are you a CEO...Republican or both? At the moment darling, neither (and I think I mentioned earlier that IÔÇÖm not really too fond of either political party). quote: I'm not sure your capable of understanding what I'm talking about....I think the part of you that can make a human great has somehow been removed, crushed, or neglected.... Well, some explanation might be nice, I truthfully am curious. As for something inside be having been excised, I havenÔÇÖt a clue, I have never really felt much for others, though I do remember being more compassionate when I was younger, but honestly I have always worked to not care much about others. quote: Actually, I find her individualism refreshing. too many socialists in this country. Thank you, darling, itÔÇÖs nice that someone here finds me refreshing (other then Litvyak that is). quote: There is a level of callous inhumanity in so many of the threads in this post I'd feel sorry for you if it wasn't so sickeningly repulsive. Since when did it become a sign of weakness to care about the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves? To joke about terrorism being acceptable against some groups(Palestinians) is the same rationale they use to justify their actions. Darling, thatÔÇÖs more then a little rude, and I canÔÇÖt help but get the impression itÔÇÖs directed at me. And honestly darling, I donÔÇÖt want to know what it suggests about you that I have to tell you to be a little more polite. As for the actions against the Palestinians, besides a couple of jokes with Litvyak, I have been perfectly serious. Oh, I add a little humor here and there, makes things more interesting, but IÔÇÖm not saying stuff to be funny (and I didnÔÇÖt notice anyone else doing it either). quote: If anyone wants to convince themselves that this war is about protecting ourselves from immenient danger,fine. But don't piss down my back and tell me its rain. Thank you for the wonderful image darling. And no, itÔÇÖs not an imminent danger, but it is danger none the less. By reacting swiftly and harshly with regards to Afghanistan and the Taliban as a whole we set an example of how we will react to future terrorists, and thereby reduce the danger of a repeat. quote: I'm sure it is much easier picking on us liberals by saying we are spending all your money on people who don't deserve it as if it isn't our money too. Ever hear these words? "What so ever you do to the least of my brothers , that you do unto me" Even if you are not a Christian the ideal of empathy is divine. Not a phrase IÔÇÖm familiar with, though I assume it is a bible quote from your reference to the Christian ideal of empathy. As for it being your money, well, sure, do whatever you like with your money, but I would rather see my money doing something useful besides propping up some dumb hobo. But the truth is, itÔÇÖs not your money, or at least not most of it, because a lot of liberals are liberal because they are getting money from the government rather then the other way around. Now, I guess I canÔÇÖt really blame someone who is benefiting from welfare for not objecting too hard, there being paid not to object after all, but for those of us who arenÔÇÖt busy bleeding there hearts (and our wallets) out for the poor and disadvantaged (and might I remind you that even the poor and disadvantaged are better off for of capitalism, with a much higher quality of living do to the reduced prices of luxuries and consumer goods) the idea is anathema.

Body piercing is not my thing. As far as IÔÇÖm concerned you can encrust your ears in silver and jewels, but anywhere else (with the possible exception of intimate areas, if it appeals to a lover) is just tasteless. ItÔÇÖs like: ÔÇ£Ooo, ÔÇÿook aÔÇÖ me, I caÔÇÖ ÔÇÿalk sÔÇÖaight ÔÇÿcuz I goÔÇÖ ÔÇÿis ÔÇÿig ÔÇÿunk oÔÇÖ ÔÇÿetal ÔÇÿuck ÔÇÿough ÔÇÿy ÔÇÿoungÔÇØ

I donÔÇÖt really go for the goth look much myself, I have something of a dated (and rather artistic) sense of style and itÔÇÖs pretty much impossible to reconcile the two. There is something to be said for elegance, after all, and I just canÔÇÖt see anything elegant about looking like a vampire wannabe.

lol