Originally posted by FMFbut she does not
And still he continues.
😴
she won't back up what she claims
who wins the point in that case?
we are to presume she's correct?
I don't think so
why do you tarry so?
what can possibly be your reason for following me around like a lovesick puppy from thread to thread, trying like some elementary school girl to shame me in some way?
seems very very queer to me -- downright Glenn Close.
Originally posted by ScriabinWho "wins" what point, Scriabin? You haven't addressed a single thing I've said. Just post after post of personal insults.
but she does not
she won't back up what she claims
who wins the point in that case?
we are to presume she's correct?
I don't think so
why do you tarry so?
what can possibly be your reason for following me around like a lovesick puppy from thread to thread, trying like some elementary school girl to shame me in some way?
seems very very queer to me -- downright Glenn Close.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by Palynka
Momentum and certainty propels the compulsion to have a bearing on decision making. Resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration.
It's not clear to me what you mean by this. For me, resonation (how I was using it) is important when it takes a degree of careful consideration that is shadowed by the competitive nature of an on-going argument. The fight then is not between your thoughts and the other guy's anymore, but within yourself.
Let's take the U.S. for example, resonance was attempted or achieved with...
Just say no which enabled Washington DC to conduct a 25 year War On Drugs which has been little more than wealth redistribution and fixes for dollar junkie point men in client states like Colombia. A resonating, simple 'idea' that appeared to garner public consent for a really extreme policy.
Making the world safe for democracy created a resonance which has allowed Washington DC to apparently set in stone the redistribution of $600,000,000,000+, every year, to various corporate entities in its orbit. A resonating, seemingly middlegound, 'idea' that has facilitated an unquestionably extreme and ongoingpolicy.
Mission Accomplished didn't pan out quite so well, but it was an earnest attempt to create middleground patriotic resonance. The extreme policies continued regardless.
Smaller Government is better government is a resonating 'idea' pitched at 'the middle', usually uttered - after careful consideration - by those about to expand government to a size hence unseen. All kinds of extremism and scarcely considered (by the public) corporate quid pro quos are hidden behind the downsizing and upsizing of programmes
Sorry to have ended up framing this in terms of soundbites, which are an extreme example of simplification, but I think it goes some way to illustrate my contention that resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration.
Originally posted by ScriabinI repeat,
has anyone professing this idea been in such a position to exercise power of the US federal government's regulatory apparatus?
....
"Framing the debate in a modern perspective, while novel, does not make it revelatory. "
Picasso's fresh take on old religous art this is not
Originally posted by Scriabinyour example seems to counter your original post about extremes. Do tell what your example has to do with this thread...
so inflexible -- one wonders how you manage with a take it or leave it attitude. perhaps getting to yes isn't all that appealing to you.
I disagree with your outlook because it is unnecessarily negative.
I agree with, for example, Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which voted 15-8 to approve a sweeping ...[text shortened]... these boards who is a complete drag. why don't you and FMF go off and start a club?
Originally posted by MelanerpesNot allowing a war to happen is the same as forcing peace to happen. Your idea is just the mirror image of what I have stated. I don't think we disagree, i think we just frame our point differently.
You will also find a bunch of string pulling behind peace - peace doesn't "just happen".
You often see conflicts develop among different groups of people who want very different things and tensions build. But these different groups usually find a way to resolve their differences peacefully because war causes so many bad things, even for the eventual vi ...[text shortened]... are the wars, you come away with a very pessimistic view of mankind's ability to get along.
Originally posted by ScriabinSettle down there Professor Higgins
my dear, yoy speak nonsense, not I.
You would deprive the word militant of all its meaning and make it a mere subjective term applicable at your whim.
I am rather militant with respect to the language. Words have not only meanings but consequences flow from those meanings.
Therefore, I have to insist you are mistaken.
Give us the derivation of the word militant please - just write it out or quote it, please
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFRelax, it seems our dear friend scarabin has finally decided to watch a decent movie, or, god forbid, read a decent book and has discovered the mind of one Mr. George Bernard Shaw. We no doubt by now have seen scarabin put the pyg in pygmalion but I must admit I was somewhat amused to see the thinly veiled reference to Henry Higgins' rantings to my favourite literary character of all time; Miss Eliza Doolittle, played imepceccably, of course, by the ravishing Audrey Hepburn.
Who "wins" what point, Scriabin? You haven't addressed a single thing I've said. Just post after post of personal insults.
Hazah, scarabin....may you one day find the originality you so lack and the inspiration to find your own spark of devine fire!
Adieu
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabinyou telling me Obama doesn't have a clip of this sitting on his desktop so he can double-click at any time?
this is a good point, especially that concerning the effect of TV.
but, to be equally trivial, it is hardly a new thought.
In fact, Obama again demonstrated the rather breathtaking scope of his intelligence, his mastery of the medium, and his unflappability when NBC's Brian Williams asked him if he ever watched the talking heads on cable channels when , but journalism as I practiced it for many years before joining government is dying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mathews#Author_and_talk_show_host
"During MSNBC's Potomac Primary coverage on February 12, 2008, Matthews was discussing Barack Obama's speech with Keith Olbermann. Matthews stated, "I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." "
In the interests of everyone else's sanity, rhp admin has taken the unusual step of whipping the hat around to organise a room for certain deadlocked combatants who militantly seek to argue their subjective standing of merit. That erstwhile glorious mantle of gravitas notwithstanding, given that no objective arbitration could ever effectively resolve this quandry and given that no answer to the unasked question - 'why do we care who of you considers themselves to be correct anyway?'- beckons, in order that the rest of the forum is spared the general tedium of a full agm of hairsplitters anon, agonising over which inflexion of the correct subjunctive form of the ablative should have been called upon to more accurately articulate the core essence of a given random topic, one that in the main will have little resonance other than in the dye it will infuse into someone's order of fish and chips at some point, one would hope that in the spirit of harmony and cross cultural exchange, both Screwball and FHM (great mag, those gals have great legs, even though I do read it for the articles 😛 ) will avail themselves of the hats passing largesse, and check into the suite booked. If only all that passion and energy can be re-directed into something as synergistically though euphamistically described as a full and frank exchange of ideas and values, then I dare say the tone of debates around here might rapidly improve, instead of the usual bog down into inannity ( no not that talking head that lumberingly attempts to *foil* Coombs).
Anyway on behalf of rhp we wish you a great weekend and pls ffs relax, unwind and enjoy yourselves. Bottoms up! 😀
Originally posted by ScriabinThe best way to tame extremists is to force countries to abide by international law.
The White House's top regulator, Cass Sunstein, tackles an impossible task, according to Christopher Caldwell in the June 15, 2009, edition of SLATE.
Caldwell says, "Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. ... He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromi ...[text shortened]... ernment's authority to use the power of regulation and regulatory enforcement, is it not?
That way Israel and America wouldn't get up to half the crap they're up to at the moment.
Originally posted by shavixmirHeck no. The best way is to take over the media and get the public more knowledgeable about what is going on with their own government. Let the people end the crap. I have an idea that the crap that is going on is perpetuated by international entities. Don't need a UN.
The best way to tame extremists is to force countries to abide by international law.
That way Israel and America wouldn't get up to half the crap they're up to at the moment.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThe only way to tame extremists is to beat the hell out of them, judge them with a kangaroo court, and send them to jail.
The best way to tame extremists is to force countries to abide by international law.
That way Israel and America wouldn't get up to half the crap they're up to at the moment.
Or just execute them by firing squad.