|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 3, 2006 13:14:52 GMT -4
I think it all comes down to whether "arrogant prat" is an inaccurate accusation or accurate observation. We're all having conversations with imaginary people, here. Most of us only post when inflammed to do so, myself included, so I think we're all a bunch of arrogant prats. When I realized that I was as guilty of arrogance and prattling as the rest of you I stopped posting as often. Yet here I am, once again. It is not uncalled for to think that there was a connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda because the press had reported there was edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/people have short-term memories. The mantra might have changed because the majority of the press are politically against Bush, but people remember that it was the press who told them that Al Qaeda and Iraq were buddies and on the same side. Saddam Hussein offered bin Laden asylum. It was not uncalled for or unexpected or absurd to think that people who opposed the war in Iraq didn't know, at that time, what they were talking about and were, in fact, Unamerican and also to be regarded as the enemy if they addressed large crowds like that overseas. WTF does my quoted post have to do with your response?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 27, 2006 18:25:04 GMT -4
So you would be happy for me to describe you as an arrogant prat? I think it all comes down to whether "arrogant prat" is an inaccurate accusation or accurate observation. We're all having conversations with imaginary people, here. Most of us only post when inflammed to do so, myself included, so I think we're all a bunch of arrogant prats. When I realized that I was as guilty of arrogance and prattling as the rest of you I stopped posting as often. Yet here I am, once again.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 9, 2006 22:14:32 GMT -4
People who bitch about "liberals" and call the Democrats "socialist" are uninformed nitwits who let their opinions be pre-formed and spoon-fed to them by uninformed reactionary propagandists. Every Democrat I have met so far has been proud to consider themselves to be socialists. Do you have something against socialism? I'm neither democrat nor socialist. Reconsider your assumptions. I don't know the democrats you've met "so far," and I don't know what you mean by "consider themselves to be socialists." Socialism is an extreme end of a particular kind of social liberalism. Democratic party principles include some elements of social liberalism. Turn off the talk radio and think for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 9, 2006 21:45:41 GMT -4
People who bitch about "liberals" and call the Democrats "socialist" are uninformed nitwits who let their opinions be pre-formed and spoon-fed to them by uninformed reactionary propagandists.
"I know I am speaking in generalities. But it is a valid perspective, I think."
This is why political discussion is strictly forbidden on BAUT, I think. Clear, logical, informed thinking is the opposite of political discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 9, 2006 17:31:42 GMT -4
I've been running into comments like this, and in particular to the "sing kum-bay-ah" phrase, spelled in a multitude of ways, suggesting that the posters hear it, but are not reading it anywhere.
My question regarding this is: Is this phrase being bandied about on talk radio? And if so, by whom?
I've been reading on "military.com" lately, in preparation for National Guard service. I started out just researching the "WTC" program, for retraining Air Force and Navy prior service members to join the Army, sort of a stripped-down (and credit for time served) basic training.
But then I started reading the "in the news" forurm. Boy Howdy! The "personal comments" area by the user screen-name and avatar is used by the Mods to flag warnings and stuff. And even with a half-dozen moderators on duty a lot of stuff slips through.
The military, for those of you who don't know, is quite conservative in it's cultural makeup. The site, Military.com, is not "official" (run by or affiliated with actual defense department workers) but is a site for and about the military. As such, calling Bush a stupid monkey-boy (for example) is enough to get a user banned immediatly, since he's the Commander-in-Chief (CinC) of all armed forces, and questioning or criticizing one's superiors is forbidden. Freedom of Speech? Nope, not for you people in uniform!
Logic flaws seem really quite pervasive. In regard to the war in Iraq, for example, the "pro-administration" camp want to "Stay the Course" in the fight against "Islamofascists" in Iraq. The opposing viewpoint is dismissed as being a "Cut and Run" option. False dilemma, anyone?
Anyone who voices any opposition to the war, or how it's being run, or questions any of the decisions of the government is immediately called "traitor" or "neo-lib" or "socialist Demokrat". In fact, one user spells the names of the last two Democratic presidents "Klinton" and "Karter" reliably.
I've tried posting a few times there, but the level of discourse (on both sides of issues) is pretty low, and quite discouraging. Logic flaws, poor fact-checking, parroting of the latest talk-radio buzzwords and phrases - the work for a debunker is unending.
I notice Lunatic was not given decimal-level warnings. Geez, that took a while. Anyway, if things get really dull around here, try reading over there for a day. You'll come back here just for the spelling and grammar!
{edit - posted to save and complete after interruptions}
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 9, 2006 22:02:08 GMT -4
This is possibly the least informed analysis of liberalism and socialism (Two Different Things!) I will read all year. And I'm reading at a site where you can hear the accent in people's spelling - you know, the accent where "it" and "ignorant" are both pronounced with two syllables.
Here's the Unibomber's theory on Liberals in a nutshell: he suggested that liberals suffer from poor self image and need to find someone more pathetic than themselves to take pity on, in order to make themselves feel better.
Ted was politically naive and socially disfunctional, yet I'm willing to give his theory more time as a working hypothesis in my Deep Agnostic approach than I am to yours.
I suggest you meditate on that, and do some googling. You seem intelligent, despite being a Sofa King, Red Hearted. Stop listening to talk radio. It feeds belief, not knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 9, 2006 18:39:56 GMT -4
Are the women presented to start this "thread" neo-cons or just Republicans? There is a difference, just as there is a difference between Democrats and (dare I say it?) liberals.
Democrats, by the way, are not socialists, as you mentioned in another thread, and many right-wingers seem to believe.
I would argue that the Neo-conservative philosophy is tacked on to the Republican party, but that the neo-cons are not really Republican.
By the way, Bill, care to share any sexy pin-up pix of Paul Wolfowitz with us?
Whether threaded left or right, a wingnut is a wingnut.
{edit for spelling}
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 17, 2006 18:05:43 GMT -4
Don't know about the fish you link to, but in tropical fish the irridescence is caused by guanine deposits in the scales and/or skin layers just beneath the scales. Guanine is made in the fish out of urea, or uric acid, in the fish. In other words, the shiny stuff is crystallized fish p!ss.
In some collectable/showable fish, the fish has to develop irridescence as they grow, and you can't keep the water excessively clean or the fish will stay bland. The fish is fed a high protein diet and the water is maintained in a manner that allows some amount of urea build-up in the water.
Also, some fish can "change color" by changing the distance between the layers of guanine in their skin.
I love google. I found that last fact today.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 27, 2006 17:37:30 GMT -4
On this forum? Hardly.
BTW, your image tag doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 26, 2006 18:14:47 GMT -4
Funny. At least he is more protected from horns and violent moves. I think I need to change my avatar - I frequently feel like a monkey in a stupid hat, strapped to the back of a dog.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 12, 2006 20:58:17 GMT -4
And my boyfriend leaves to go over there any day now. No, Gillian's not twitchy at all! Were I Christian of any stripe, I'd say "he's in my prayers," but I'm agnostic with pagan tendencies, and you're pagan, so I'll just let you know I'm thinking about him, and you, and hoping all turns out well. What's his MOS, if I may ask?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 24, 2006 18:38:06 GMT -4
On the other hand, if nobody here really cares, then why should I bother?
Obviously, arguing over dusty thumbprints on Gene Cernan's visor is more interesting.
For some of you.
I've been reading elsewhere lately, about current events.
Have fun, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 12, 2006 12:06:38 GMT -4
See that doesn't sound overly facist to me. I don't really have as much time lately to post, so I'll try to make this quick. No, it doesn't sound overly fascist, because the neocon theories are not overtly fascist. The neoconservative movement has some surprisingly "libereral" elements. None the less, it seems to me that for the neocon agenda to succeed they will eventually need to use sociopolitical methods that could be associated with fascism. They start with "Homeland Security" and "USA Patriot Act." If that's as far as it gets, that's great, it's just democracy at work. Your quote is from the "overview" paragraphs on the Wikipedia page about neoconservatives. I've read considerably more on the subject, from several directions. I've also been reading quite a bit on fascism and fundamentalism lately. And I think I know what the American population is capable of deciding to believe. I admit I haven't done a "who is more fascist" grid with neocons, Iran, al Qaida, Egypt, Syria, etcetera. I'm kinda still going off gut reactions to the information as I read and digest. The thing about "Islamofascist" that bugs me, though, is that it lumps all the Islamic militant movements and states together under one banner, it demonizes the enemy, and it gives Americans a simplistic understanding of a complex situation. Like when Bush says "they hate us because they hate freedom," it's simplistic enough to border on being just plain wrong. On the other hand, it's simple in the way that zen koans are simple, and the enlightened and unenlightened are going to understand it differently. The American population as a whole is pretty unenlightened, both on the left and the right. Most of us lack the depth and breadth of education of someone like Paul Wolfowitz. Americans, (and others around the world probably, but I don't know) have an understanding of what "fascist" means that is incomplete and as a result actually incorrect. Most people just know the totalitarian/brutalitarian parts, and obviously the Taliban fit the bill. Iran does, somewhat, but not entirely. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, is actually quite a close fit on many levels. Saddam's Iraq was actually very fascist. Fascism ideally replaces all religion and all civil society with The State, so that the nation-state IS the religion. The Taliban flipped that on it's head, so that the religion is the state. The Iranian revolution (1978) started the trend, but despite trying to sponsor revolutions around the middle east it never really took off. One of the defining characteristics of fascism is the power/authority structure. Hitler, Mussollini, Moctezuma I (of the Aztec empire) and Saddam were charismatic leaders at the tip-top of a power pyramid that extended down to the people by use of military force and fear. As a result, when the leader is toppled, the empire collapses. Fascism arises out of stress and conflict, giving the people a focus for their unhappiness and fear of an "other" and also a focus for their hopes on the nation-state and on the great leader. Fascist leaders arise to leadership through the normal channels like elections or royal inheritance (in the case of the Aztecs, and probably many kings over the centuries), but then subvert the system to maintain power. Okay, this hasn't been quick, and I've been interrupted so many times that I've finally lost my train of thought. Perhaps others can respond with criticisms of the above analysis to guide me back to the neocons, and I'll pick it up again tomorrow. edit to fix dopey typing errors
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 10, 2006 17:10:20 GMT -4
A goodly number of the neocon politicians and theorists are "newly" conservative, meaning that they started out as liberals of some variety. Most of them found conservatism during the '80s
New converts to any faith, ideology or nationality tend to be rigidly orthodox in their interpretation of the rules and beliefs of the idea set, highly vocal about their beliefs and very reactionary to the oppositional idea set or culture. Sometimes called the "reformed whore" effect with people who quit smoking or drinking. Newly converted jews are often the most uptight about observing kosher and sabbath rules.
Neocon is not a pejorative term, it's a technical term with a specific set of ideas. Neocons are conservative with regard to adherence to tradition and religion, but "liberal" in an old sense of the "lessez-faire" or "let it be" approach to regulating business and industry.
"Islamofascist" is, on the other hand, a pejorative and technically incorrect way of associating the religious fundamentalists within Islam with the totalitarian state-worship of Italian and German personality-cult autocracies.
Neocon tendencies lean more toward fascism than Islamic Fundamentalism does.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 28, 2006 13:23:13 GMT -4
I would like most to meet JayUtah, but I doubt we would have much to talk about after "hello, I'm from the ApolloHoax forum." But I admire his writing quality and patience, although I also wonder how many words per minute he types. Some of his posts are quite long, and he seems to be doing them "on the clock" during his day job.
I don't feel that anyone here is my "friend," since you're all imaginary until proven otherwise.
I don't need to miss Margamatix, since I'm pretty sure Vince Coventon still reads here, and posts under several names. The only one I've back-confirmed on another forum is Mitrabor, but I have a long list of names I suspect he's registered. Like "wanker," with one post, and several with none. But also several more verbose posters, in a "character-actor" mode.
Somebody came in using the name "grampa simpson" for a few posts, that was funny. I wish they'd come back.
Bill Thompson said "Too many of us come here because we have failed to make friends in the real world," and I'm not sure I can agree with that. A few here seem bitter and friendless, but many here, like Jason Thompson said, seem to sneak a moment here during the therblig "unavoidable delay," such as waiting for machinery or for other processes to complete, or waiting for client's input or needs before being able to continue.
I keep coming here because sometimes goofy comments send me off into new thinking. I can only read the newspaper comics once a day, but sometimes the comic antics here provide a bit of amusement several times a day. And I have a boring job, with DSL available, and the freedom to spend my time more-or-less as I see fit as long as the clients' daily and weekly needs are met.
|
|