FYI 2A

[ranks66]

Is SFF hiding in here somewhere ? :evil:

[hurleyfan]

Maybe Tex and St Lou are lurking too :twisted:

[ranks66]

His name is no longer Tex, he is now known as Sniffer.......

[MadtownPacker]

Welcome to PR Ranks!

[Bretsky]

His name is no longer Tex, he is now known as Sniffer.......

Welcome to PR Ranks; do I dare ask why you call Tex "Sniffer" ?

[ranks66]

Thanks for the welcome guys......I will work on getting others here also if thet is OK with you. I don't think you really want to know why I call Tex, Sniffer. :smile:

[ranks66]

Brets,

Now that Craig Nall is gone from Packerland, who is the keeper of the Keishka ?

Also, Keep June 23-25 Open for the best of all the lakefront parties.......Polish Fest.

[Scott Campbell]

Ok, I'm going to fire the first shot. Dems suck!

(Though I'm voting for a democratic congressman in the next election just like the last.)

[GrnBay007]

OK folks.......start the betting!! Who will be the first FYI'er to use the word IDIOT? :razz: :wink:


Welcome aboard Ranks :D

[Bretsky]

Brets,

Now that Craig Nall is gone from Packerland, who is the keeper of the Keishka ?

Also, Keep June 23-25 Open for the best of all the lakefront parties.......Polish Fest.


I think that dang Ingle Martin, the new #3 QB, stole it from Nall.

Where is Polish Fest ?

[Bretsky]

OK folks.......start the betting!! Who will be the first FYI'er to use the word IDIOT? :razz: :wink:


Welcome aboard Ranks :D


If the Sniffer Joins I'm putting all my chips on him.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I think tex is now TenneseePackerBacker.

[retailguy]

OK folks.......start the betting!! Who will be the first FYI'er to use the word IDIOT? :razz: :wink:


Welcome aboard Ranks :D


My vote is 007. I WIN, I WIN, I WIN....

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Please, no TPB.

He brings nothing to the table. If you want his pollyanna viewpoints i'll assume that role.

Hmm, Packers will be 12-4. Carrol will be great, Ahman will come on strong, Mac is the second coming of Vince, Ted is a genius, the young players will ALL be MUCH better, the Vets will be GREAT, blah blah blah.

[esoxx]

Please, no TPB.

He brings nothing to the table. If you want his pollyanna viewpoints i'll assume that role.

Hmm, Packers will be 12-4. Carrol will be great, Ahman will come on strong, Mac is the second coming of Vince, Ted is a genius, the young players will ALL be MUCH better, the Vets will be GREAT, blah blah blah.

Sorry Tyrone, but you are far to "unpollyannaish" to be TPB. First of all, you didn't include that the Packers LB corps were just fine before drafting Hawk. Also, you forgot to mention that all you idiot detractors that pretend to be "realists" are a bunch of damn negative know nothings. Another thing, where is your Super Bowl talk?

I'm sure Tex would be quite annoyed by your portrayal of him. 12-4? Hell, ever hear of 16-0? It can be done you know.

[ranks66]

OK folks.......start the betting!! Who will be the first FYI'er to use the word IDIOT? :razz: :wink:


Welcome aboard Ranks :D

i think it is you 007

[red]

Please, no TPB.

He brings nothing to the table. If you want his pollyanna viewpoints i'll assume that role.

Hmm, Packers will be 12-4. Carrol will be great, Ahman will come on strong, Mac is the second coming of Vince, Ted is a genius, the young players will ALL be MUCH better, the Vets will be GREAT, blah blah blah.

Sorry Tyrone, but you are far to "unpollyannaish" to be TPB. First of all, you didn't include that the Packers LB corps were just fine before drafting Hawk. Also, you forgot to mention that all you idiot detractors that pretend to be "realists" are a bunch of damn negative know nothings. Another thing, where is your Super Bowl talk?

I'm sure Tex would be quite annoyed by your portrayal of him. 12-4? Hell, ever hear of 16-0? It can be done you know.

he also forgot to include the terms, commie, terrorist, and morons in that post

[red]

Ok, I'm going to fire the first shot. Dems suck!

(Though I'm voting for a democratic congressman in the next election just like the last.)
a wise move

time to break up the monopoly and maybe get things back under control

[Scott Campbell]

Ok, I'm going to fire the first shot. Dems suck!

(Though I'm voting for a democratic congressman in the next election just like the last.)
a wise move

time to break up the monopoly and maybe get things back under control


That and they can't fine a decent Repulican to run in this district. Utah Democrats tend to be more like moderate Republicans from other states.

[Deputy Nutz]

1,398 civilians killed in Baghdad in May
Highest monthly death toll since U.S. invasion, says Iraqi official
www.cnn.com

Last month, 1,398 bodies were brought to the Baghdad morgue, the Health Ministry official said. All were killed in attacks; in most of these, bodies were found strewn across the Iraqi capital, shot execution-style, the official said.

The figure does not include civilians who died in explosions, the official added.

At least 400 of the bodies could not be identified and should be buried by the government in three weeks, if they are not claimed, the official said.

The number of Iraqis who have died in Baghdad alone in the first five months of the year stands at 6,025, or more than 1,200 a month, according to CNN's calculation.

If this monthly death rate continues, 2006 would exceed last year -- with some 10,150 bodies received by the morgue -- as the deadliest year in the capital since the war's beginning.

Heads found on highway
Iraqi police found nine heads Tuesday along a highway in Hadid, a town just west of Baquba about 37 miles (60 kilometers) north of Baghdad, police and hospital officials said.

The heads were wrapped in black plastic bags and shoved into fruit boxes, authorities said. Their identities could not be immediately confirmed.

It was the second such discovery in four days.

On Saturday, eight other heads were found in Hadid and also had been stuffed into fruit boxes.

Also Tuesday, a roadside bomb exploded at Allawi bus station in central Baghdad, killing a woman and wounding a child, Iraqi police said. Police said the blast was targeting a passing U.S. military convoy.

Three mortar rounds landed at the Nadha bus station in central Baghdad later Tuesday, killing two civilians and wounding seven others, police said.

The bus facility is near the Iraqi Interior Ministry, and police said the compound was the target of the attack.

Gunmen also shot and killed a Baghdad neighborhood council member and two of his bodyguards Tuesday morning, an Interior Ministry official said.

According to the official, Sha'ban Nidham was traveling by car in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Jihad when gunmen opened fire.

Meanwhile, there was no word on the fate of 50 people kidnapped Monday in Baghdad.

The kidnappers were wearing the uniforms of Iraqi police commandos and driving at least 13 vehicles with Iraqi police markings when they raided three transportation companies, an Interior Ministry official said. (Full story)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess we're finally making progress in Iraq. Just think in a few short years everyone who is anyone will want to holiday in the worlds new vacation hot spot!

[red]

at least the oil is flowing out of there

oh wait!

at least their lives are better now then they were under that brutle dictator sadamn

hmm, scratch that

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Please, no TPB.

He brings nothing to the table. If you want his pollyanna viewpoints i'll assume that role.

Hmm, Packers will be 12-4. Carrol will be great, Ahman will come on strong, Mac is the second coming of Vince, Ted is a genius, the young players will ALL be MUCH better, the Vets will be GREAT, blah blah blah.

Sorry Tyrone, but you are far to "unpollyannaish" to be TPB. First of all, you didn't include that the Packers LB corps were just fine before drafting Hawk. Also, you forgot to mention that all you idiot detractors that pretend to be "realists" are a bunch of damn negative know nothings. Another thing, where is your Super Bowl talk?

I'm sure Tex would be quite annoyed by your portrayal of him. 12-4? Hell, ever hear of 16-0? It can be done you know.

LOL.

You must be one of those EVIL liberals that is stopping us good normal patriotic MERICANS from enjoying the PACK.

I like to think of TPB as Voltaire's Candide....this is the best of all possible worlds. Someone could piss on you and he would tell you its raining.

[ranks66]

Please don't let Tex ( Sniffer ) hear you say that so many people died in Iraq. According to Sniffer those are collateral losses. :neutral:

[ranks66]

at least the oil is flowing out of there

oh wait!

at least their lives are better now then they were under that brutle dictator sadamn

hmm, scratch that

Don't forget that the Middle East is such a safe place now that bush attacked Iraq.

I brought this up on the other forum...... No response so I will try here. Did you know that bush is the first US president to ever attack a country that was NOT involved in any acts of aggression against another country. What will that do to the legacy of the little traitor ?

[swede]

That is too funny. Your high school social studies teacher taught you that "fact", right?

[ranks66]

I think Lou will stop by for a visit..... Lamboo will just to spite me.

[MadtownPacker]

BUILD THE FENCE, PLEASE!!!

I can't afford for all my family to stay with me!

[Bretsky]

I think Lou will stop by for a visit..... Lamboo will just to spite me.

I think Lamboo and St L might already be members but rarely post. Tex, for whatever reason, seems to be the one who dislikes us the most.

B

[red]

I think Lou will stop by for a visit..... Lamboo will just to spite me.

I think Lamboo and St L might already be members but rarely post. Tex, for whatever reason, seems to be the one who dislikes us the most.

B
yeah, he really hates you guys, i read a thread where he blasted you guys, over and over again.thank god he's too senile to remember me

[mraynrand]

at least the oil is flowing out of there

oh wait!

at least their lives are better now then they were under that brutle dictator sadamn

hmm, scratch that


Actually, the U.S. purchased 190 million barrels of oil from Iraq last year. They produce about 1-2 million each day, depending on whether Saddam loyalists or al Qaeda islamofascists target the pipelines for attacks.

If you compare the carnage following the demise of other coutries in which a minority ruled a majority through terror (like Yugoslavia or Rwanda), Iraq has had very little carnage in comparison. Also, prior to the U.S. overthrow of Saddam, an estimated 5,000 Iraqi children were being starved to death each month. Also, with Saddam's sons out of the picture, women are less likely to be captured on the street, raped by Uday or Queasy, and then, if they discovered the raped women was married, accused her of adultery, cut off her head, and nailed to her front door as a warning to other "would-be-adulterers." Finally, Saddam can no longer have as his personal guest the terrorist chemist who mixed the explosives for the first WTC bombing, in which 6 Americans were slaughtered and 1,000 others wounded. Perhaps that might count as an attack against the U.S. 'Ranks' - or at least it is condoning it, and blatantly protecting those who carry out such attacks. But hey, I guess you like the old Iraq better. Maybe you could go out and starve some children to death for old time's sake.

[red]

the oil numbers are getting better, but they are still below pre war output

100,000 women report being raped in the us every year, and the police figure on 16% of the cases come forwards. that means almost 1,000,000 women are raped here in the us every year. and some of our own troops have raped women over there

is saddam to blame for the children starving, on the un sanctions that were slapped on in 1990? its probably a bit of both, wether you want to admit it or not, we probably had just as much to do with the starving children as saddam did

and why not help end the children from starving here in the us. or in africa where starvation was a much more serious problem?

we execute people in the us all the time in the name of justice, when they break our laws. why is it only considered evil when they do the same execute someone for breaking their laws? bush himself had 150 people executed in texas while he was the gov

we've gone in and tried to whipe out a race because they were in our way (native americans), just like saddam did and was blasted for. we killed and beat the hell out of black people are treadted them like shit for hundreds of years, and executed them at will. women had next to no rights in the us for a lon period. people like george custer and bufalo bill are somehow still considered heros in this country for trying to whipe out a group of people. christopher columbus is still considered a great hero in this country, yet he had 5 million natives killed in three years after arriving in the new world. who are we to say saddam is evil for doing that when we still love our american heros that have done the same thing?

we support isreal everytime blew up a city block, or kicked out families and plowed over their houses, and said "get out, you're homeless now, this is now our land". i would expect that saddam would meet with a fellow enemy of the us. that still doesn't mean he every attacked us

who are we to say something is evil, when we've done the same damn things in our history?

who are we to play world savior, when we have plenty of problems at home that need to be addressed?

how can we call ourseves a savior when the war we started has cost almost 50,000 innocent lives. chances are if there was no war most of those people would still be alive

[mraynrand]

who are we to say something is evil, when we've done the same damn things in our history?


You've convinced me. The U.S. is just as despicable and evil, if not moreso, than any nation in the history of the world, simply because some in this country have also committed acts of evil. Thanks for setting me straight. You're a tribute to moral relativism.

[red]

who are we to say something is evil, when we've done the same damn things in our history?


You're a tribute to moral relativism.

i'm sorry i tried to have a rational discusion, only to have someone resort to name calling instead of making a real intelligent response

i forgot this was called FYI

[Deputy Nutz]

As long as we keep trusting Bush and his handling of Iraq and the Middle East, we could have all this. The next vacation paradise, where instead of water, we could swim in the oceans of oil the Bush Administrations has sanctioned for us loyal Americans.

http://www.reefnews.com/reefnews/oceangeo/grndturk/gtbch1.jpg

[mraynrand]

who are we to say something is evil, when we've done the same damn things in our history?


You're a tribute to moral relativism.

i'm sorry i tried to have a rational discusion, only to have someone resort to name calling instead of making a real intelligent response

i forgot this was called FYI

I saw nothing of intelligence in your post. What I did see was moral relativism. You compared the rape of women by individual criminals in the United States to the institutionalized rape by the heirs to Saddam's reign. If you can explain to me how those two are equivalent, I'd like to hear it. If you can explain to me why people living in the United States can't label something as evil simply because our predecessors were guilty of acts of evil, I'd like to hear you explain that too. If you also hold the position that the United States is no better than any other country on the planet, I'd like to see you defend that position. I suspect you can' because as I succinctly noted, you are a moral relativist.

[red]

you don't see the slightest bit of hypocrasy in the fact that not only did our forfathers perform these same kind of evil deeds and used them to their advantage to turn this country into what it is today, but we still celebrate those deeds? it would be totaly different if those people were labeled as evil men in history, but they are not, we are tought growing up that they were great heroes and that they did good deeds

when the enemy flies 2 planes into the world trade center and kills thousands of innocent people in the name of their cause it is considered evil. but when we nuke 2 cities off the face of the earth and burn another entire city down to the ground killing hundreds of thousands of inocent people, we consider it something that had to be done

can't you see that there is something wrong there, can't you see where most of the world hate us for our hypocrasy?

we're gaining enemies around the world everyday, instead of just going out and trying to kill them all an in the process make even more, why not try and pull our heads out of our asses, and figure out what we can do to calm the rest of the world down, and try and get rid of all that hatred?

are you saying we went to war because saddams sons were rappists? we have of people in positions of athority that have done the same thing (troops, politicians, cops, etc). you said we can't blame the whole country for what a few did, you're right, and we can't also punnish everyone in iraq for what some of their leaders did. but we did with un sanctions after the first gulf war, and we're doing it now by turning their country into a complete mess

[Tyrone Bigguns]

at least the oil is flowing out of there

oh wait!

at least their lives are better now then they were under that brutle dictator sadamn

hmm, scratch that


Actually, the U.S. purchased 190 million barrels of oil from Iraq last year. They produce about 1-2 million each day, depending on whether Saddam loyalists or al Qaeda islamofascists target the pipelines for attacks.

If you compare the carnage following the demise of other coutries in which a minority ruled a majority through terror (like Yugoslavia or Rwanda), Iraq has had very little carnage in comparison. Also, prior to the U.S. overthrow of Saddam, an estimated 5,000 Iraqi children were being starved to death each month. Also, with Saddam's sons out of the picture, women are less likely to be captured on the street, raped by Uday or Queasy, and then, if they discovered the raped women was married, accused her of adultery, cut off her head, and nailed to her front door as a warning to other "would-be-adulterers." Finally, Saddam can no longer have as his personal guest the terrorist chemist who mixed the explosives for the first WTC bombing, in which 6 Americans were slaughtered and 1,000 others wounded. Perhaps that might count as an attack against the U.S. 'Ranks' - or at least it is condoning it, and blatantly protecting those who carry out such attacks. But hey, I guess you like the old Iraq better. Maybe you could go out and starve some children to death for old time's sake.


1. The oil being pumped outta Iraq is not at pre war levels. And, whether the oil fields, pipelines, etc. are targeted for attack isn't relevant. We were told by the administration that we would be pumping full bore within months and the war would be financed by their oil. That hasn't happened.

2. Carnage. Please give some empirical evidence to support this assertion. Not saying you are wrong, but I would definitely like to see facts on this. I am truly interested. What is plainly evident to me is you are comparing Iraq to two countries that underwent a civil war. Iraq wasn't a civil war, so it seems like a poor comparison.

3. Starving children. That may be true. I don't know anything about it. But, there are starving children all over the world. Funny, we don't seem to be helping them..including those in our own country. Millions of starving N. Koreans yet we didn't do anything to help them.

4. Rape. Wow, we went to war to stop Rape? I didn't know that. It is great that we achieved an ANCILLARY benefit, but hardly a reason to go to war. If so, let's wage war on half of africa for the barbaric rituals they impose on women. Maybe in India as well. Your point is a red herring.

5. Terrorists. Another ridiculous point. You don't attack a country because a terrorist is living there. Under your rationale, Russia shoulda attacked us because we had known Nazi's living here as well as Nazi sympathizers like Henry Ford. And, i would classify those bombing abortion clinics as terrorists.

[mraynrand]

you don't see the slightest bit of hypocrasy in the fact that not only did our forfathers perform these same kind of evil deeds and used them to their advantage to turn this country into what it is today, but we still celebrate those deeds? it would be totaly different if those people were labeled as evil men in history, but they are not, we are tought growing up that they were great heroes and that they did good deeds

What same evil deeds? Were ALL actions against native Americans evil? Were all founding fathers the same in their attitudes towards the native Americans? Sorry, but you're way off base here. There were many atrocities committed against native Americans and I wish things had worked out differently. But there is little if any hipocrisy, since those same people are not making the decisions now. I would hope we've learned from that. Still, the norm for that time was that expanding nations and countries appropriated land. Sometimes Natives were well paid off, other times they were cheated, and orther times still the land was grabbed. The Natives got their shots in too with massacres here and there against the French and English in colonial times and against relatively helpless migrants (undocumented workers) during the expansion.

I don't see much similarity between gassing of Kurds by Saddam, or his mass graves filled with political dissidents, compared with an expanding United States dealing with Indian tribes. I see more a comparison with Stalin Mao and Kim Jong Il.



when the enemy flies 2 planes into the world trade center and kills thousands of innocent people in the name of their cause it is considered evil. but when we nuke 2 cities off the face of the earth and burn another entire city down to the ground killing hundreds of thousands of inocent people, we consider it something that had to be done

It's too bad you don't know or understand history here. I think you have a point that nuking two cities was brutal, but context is important. Japan was digging in for a protracted battle. Women and children had stocked thousands of bunkers with provisions and armaments to fight to the end against invading U.S. soldiers. Many military minds estimate at leat 100-400 thousand U.S. soldier deaths and perhaps millions of civilian Japanese dead from a 'standard' invasion. Also, at the same time realize that Japanese scientists were experimenting on Chinese in ways more brutal than even Hitler's scientists at the concentration camps. Japanese soldiers were raping and slaughtering civilians by the thousands in occuied SE asia. What's worse: Nuking two cities at the cost of about 100,000 Japanese - or continued Japanese slaughter and millions dead following invasion.

Now let's compare that to Osama'a motivation: Infidels were living in Saudi Arabia and other ME coutries. Israel continues to exist. The west was a threat to the continued expansion of Taliban-like regimes. The same regimes that deny education to women, behead adulteresses, and enjoy throwing dissidents into waterfilled graves while still alive and bulldozing earth over their heads (read the accounts of the Taliban 'pacification' of northern Afghanistan).

In other words, the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was an attempt to reduce overall loss of life, and Osama destroyed the WTCs because he wants pure wahabi-type rule throughout the ME and the U.S. is a threat to that.


can't you see that there is something wrong there, can't you see where most of the world hate us for our hypocrasy?

Given the choice of U.S. or Osama/Taliban, I'm guessing the vast majority of the world, except the islamofascists, will choose the U.S.


we're gaining enemies around the world everyday, instead of just going out and trying to kill them all an in the process make even more, why not try and pull our heads out of our asses, and figure out what we can do to calm the rest of the world down, and try and get rid of all that hatred?

I would say that trying to establish democracies, where religious tolerance is practiced, is the best chance we have of getting rid of hatred. Exterminating islamofascists wherever we find them will help too.


are you saying we went to war because saddams sons were rappists? we have of people in positions of athority that have done the same thing (troops, politicians, cops, etc). you said we can't blame the whole country for what a few did, you're right, and we can't also punnish everyone in iraq for what some of their leaders did. but we did with un sanctions after the first gulf war, and we're doing it now by turning their country into a complete mess

No, we went to war in the interest of national security - Bush followed the Wolfowicz plan to overthrow Saddam. 80% of Iraq was on our side right from the start. We are punishing no one in Iraq, except the murderous insurgents and al Qaeda operatives. These same scum are the people that are punishing their own coutrymen (slaughtering women, exploding children and booby-trapping dolls, etc.)in an effort to re-capture control. Saddamn was a brutal corrupt dictator and was harboring terrorists, including those who attacked us at home (Yasin, WTC), and those who attacked us in Afghanistan (Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi).

About the people in positions of authority that have done evil - In the U.S. and with soldiers and others in Iraq, when they are discovered, they are punished. In Iraq, under Saddam, they were rewarded. Big difference. It's pathetic that you can't see this. That's what I'm referring to when I say you're a moral relativist.

[mraynrand]

1. The oil being pumped outta Iraq is not at pre war levels. And, whether the oil fields, pipelines, etc. are targeted for attack isn't relevant. We were told by the administration that we would be pumping full bore within months and the war would be financed by their oil. That hasn't happened.

We're taking on a determined enemy, that has the radical left in the U.S. as his ally. The only chance the enmy has of winning, is a change in U.S. policy. That will only happen if democrats are elected, and troops are withdrawn. That is what the enemy is counting on because it is totally outmatched and can only generate terrible images with the slaughtering of innocent women and children.

Also, the simple answer is that shit happens. Iraq still pumped out almost 600 million barrels last year, despite the problems with ancient infrastructure and terror attacks. 2/3 of their oil went to our allies.


2. Carnage. Please give some empirical evidence to support this assertion. Not saying you are wrong, but I would definitely like to see facts on this. I am truly interested. What is plainly evident to me is you are comparing Iraq to two countries that underwent a civil war. Iraq wasn't a civil war, so it seems like a poor comparison.


You made my point for me here. Without the U.S. in Iraq, overthow of Saddam would likely have resulted in massive backlash bloodshed by Shiites against Sunnis who brutalized them for a generation under Saddam. In a similar fashion, there was backlash killing in Rwanda (at least 800,000 died). The carnage in Iraq is relatively light in comparison.


3. Starving children. That may be true. I don't know anything about it. But, there are starving children all over the world. Funny, we don't seem to be helping them..including those in our own country. Millions of starving N. Koreans yet we didn't do anything to help them.


We aren't helping them? The U.S. citizens donate more than any other country in the world. The U.S. military polices international waters and protects international shipping an commerce, which ensures that donated food gets safely to it's destination. Advanced farming techniques, developed inthe U.S. help millions every day.

And what would you have us do about N. Korea? Invade with food trucks. What do you think China would do if we invaded her client state. Using N. Korea as an example of how we 'don't help the starving' is a pathetic example. The point anyway, about Saddam starving his own people was to make the obvious point that Iraq is better off now than before, simply in the dramitic reduction in child starvation deaths. Also, Saddam was starving his own people, even though he was getting big bucks from the Oil for food program. France and Russia were getting kickbacks from Saddam from the same program funds (Does anyone even doubt now why they opposed the U.S. led liberation of Iraq?).





4. Rape. Wow, we went to war to stop Rape? I didn't know that. It is great that we achieved an ANCILLARY benefit, but hardly a reason to go to war. If so, let's wage war on half of africa for the barbaric rituals they impose on women. Maybe in India as well. Your point is a red herring.

Again, this was to make the obvious point that Iraq is much better off now and to make the second point that the Saddam-led government was corrupt with the heirs engaging in state-sponsored rapes and killings.



5. Terrorists. Another ridiculous point. You don't attack a country because a terrorist is living there. Under your rationale, Russia shoulda attacked us because we had known Nazi's living here as well as Nazi sympathizers like Henry Ford. And, i would classify those bombing abortion clinics as terrorists.

Here I was referring to specific people that carried out terrorist acts in the U.S. 6 Americans were killed and 1,000 wounded at the WTC in 1993, and the terrorist who mixed the chemicals was Saddams' honored guest in Bahgdad. Zarqawi fought against our soldiers in Afghanistan, then fled to Baghdad. I don't know what your standard is - how many U.S. civilians it's okay to slaughter before your dander is up. But 6 is enough for me. Also, deposing Saddam is a lot different than going after a nuclear state, so don't be absurd with the USSR analogy

[red]

well i'm not going to call you an idiot or ignorant, because you at least present your side with well thought out answers (which is more then you would get from many others in a political discusion). but i'm not going to go on in this conversation, because i've had it plenty of times before and i know where its going, nowhere. we'll sit here and piss away all our time trying to make the other realise our side, and it won't happen

as long as you have your info that you see as the truth, and i have my info that i see as the truth, we won't agree on anything



i left the old FYI thread because it made the packer furom suck because it took up all my time and got me worked up, and i'll leave this FYI thread before that happens. I'm here to talk about football and the packers. I've wasted enough of my life on political forums trying to have discusions with others

i would suggest you guys do the same. have fun with this site and don't turn it into something serious. i think the FYI thread divided the JSO forum, and lead to its downfall, and it might happen here. this thread was started as a joke, and i think we should let it die, before we have packer fans hating packer fans on a packer forum.

theres enough stupid shit in the world to get worked up about, use this site to take your mind off of it, and enjoy something for a few minutes or hours a day

[Tyrone Bigguns]

well i'm not going to call you an idiot or ignorant. but i'm not going to go on in this conversation, because i've had it plenty of times before and i know where its going, nowhere. we'll sit here and piss away all our time trying to make the other realise our side, and it won't happen

as long as you have your info that you see as the truth, and i have my info that i see as the truth, we won't agree on anything



i left the old FYI thread because it made the packer furom suck because it took up all my time and got me worked up, and i'll leave this FYI thread before that happens. I'm here to talk about football and the packers. I've wasted enough of my life on political forums trying to have discusions with others

i would suggest you guys do the same. have fun with this site and don't turn it into something serious. i think the FYI thread divided the JSO forum, and lead to its downfall, and it might happen here. this thread was started as a joke, and i think we should let it die, before we have packer fans hating packer fans on a packer forum.

theres enough stupid shit in the world to get worked up about, use this site to take your mind off of it, and enjoy something for a few minutes or hours a day

I concur with you.

Really is no point arguing with someone about this, especially someone that apparently thinks Ayn Rand is a great thinker.

[ranks66]

You should go on and on. That is America and this is the point of a forum like FYI, You get things off your chest, you inteligently argue with people without really getting pissed off or pissed on. Keep going you guys. That is what makes that fun. Maybe we do need Tex ( Sniffer ) here to stir things up.

[ranks66]

Brets,

Now that Craig Nall is gone from Packerland, who is the keeper of the Keishka ?

Also, Keep June 23-25 Open for the best of all the lakefront parties.......Polish Fest.


I think that dang Ingle Martin, the new #3 QB, stole it from Nall.

Where is Polish Fest ?

Well he has until Thanksgiving to give it up...... Polish Fest is at the Summerfest Grounds. That is the best beer drinking get together on the planet. You know what they say about Polacks.

By the way Bretz did you figure out why I call tex sniffer yet. ?

[mraynrand]

Really is no point arguing with someone about this, especially someone that apparently thinks Ayn Rand is a great thinker.

Interesting that you bail out of a debate with a parting shot at a great thinker. I often wonder how different people come to like or dislike Rand. I understand the position of those who find Rand (as a person) somewhat distasteful. She had incredible scorn and anger for the poor in spirit and for those who 'contributed little' to society. It was a failing of hers. But she was a philosopher and many philosophers throughout history have been somewhat detatched from the real world. Also, pure philosophy requires an abstract treatment of reality which overlooks human 'messiness' And since Rand promoted rationalism, and very few (if any) people are capable of being totally rational, her philosophy can't apply perfectly in the real world.

However, if you have read her work on epistemology and metaphysics, you will find it very clear and logical. Figuring out how humans perceive the world around them and form concepts and ideas is the basis of all philosophy and has repercussions throughout our world. Her simple concept that "existence is primary" serves as a counter the Descarte's "I think therefore I am." You might want to answer this question: Which side of this argument do you think radical Islam falls on and what effect does that have on their society? What do most Americans think about their existence, and how does it affect our society?

[mraynrand]

as long as you have your info that you see as the truth, and i have my info that i see as the truth, we won't agree on anything


Does this mean you think there is no objective reality, or just that your version is correct and you can't convince me to change my mind?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Really is no point arguing with someone about this, especially someone that apparently thinks Ayn Rand is a great thinker.

Interesting that you bail out of a debate with a parting shot at a great thinker. I often wonder how different people come to like or dislike Rand. I understand the position of those who find Rand (as a person) somewhat distasteful. She had incredible scorn and anger for the poor in spirit and for those who 'contributed little' to society. It was a failing of hers. But she was a philosopher and many philosophers throughout history have been somewhat detatched from the real world. Also, pure philosophy requires an abstract treatment of reality which overlooks human 'messiness' And since Rand promoted rationalism, and very few (if any) people are capable of being totally rational, her philosophy can't apply perfectly in the real world.

However, if you have read her work on epistemology and metaphysics, you will find it very clear and logical. Figuring out how humans perceive the world around them and form concepts and ideas is the basis of all philosophy and has repercussions throughout our world. Her simple concept that "existence is primary" serves as a counter the Descarte's "I think therefore I am." You might want to answer this question: Which side of this argument do you think radical Islam falls on and what effect does that have on their society? What do most Americans think about their existence, and how does it affect our society?

Puhleeze. I remember when i was in my twenties and had to listen to deluded youngsters talk about her. That is a joke. She is hardly considered to be one of the great thinkers of our time.

As for her philosophy, most intellectuals are open to submit their work to their peers and let them ask questions. Not so with Rand. Her attitude is summed up in her own quote, "I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer.... What I am looking for is intelligent agreement."

Rand is probably one of the first philosophical writers many high school students would have encountered in their studies, during the last several decades. It is on the young, philosophically untrained mind, that her prose has the most sway; and once swayed, it is very hard to overcome her misperceptions, bitterness, and straw arguments. Lucky me, I encountered real philosophers before I ever heard her name, and so I could easily
dismiss her claptrap, and especially Piekoff's, as inconsistent, irrational, and preachy.

She preaches a Howard Roark, but delivers a Gail Wynand and a Peter Toohey. Her thought implicitly leads to the same uniformity of thinking and
living which she so ardently opposed, and that is due to the very basic assumptions with which she works.

For one example, if the senses are to be taken as necessarily valid, and if it is assumed that the senses perceive "facts," then there is hardly much room left for any type of creativity, or even slight difference of perception and opinion, is there? Each moment of perception from each person would be bound to the same truth, governed by a strict determinism, and no one would be capable of the least bit of freedom. There would not be the very possibility of an individual, to experience freedom in the first place.

Her thought boils down to a very clever type of religion, or pseudo-philosophy cult, in that it preys upon the unsuspecting mind and feeds it with lots of "newspeak" about individuality, honesty, consistency and happiness, when on closer inspection, it leads to the same totalitarianism, mysticism, and blind faith which it claims to avoid.

As for your existence point: She and Piekoff claim if one were to be rational, and honest, then one would have to take as granted that the fundamental edifice of Objectivism is the fact that existence exists. They further argue, if one were to deny this claim, then one is being irrational and dishonest, since it is a self-evident truth. This is a laugher.

First, I must refute "existence exists," and refute that one would be irrational to deny a fundamental tenet, qua tenet, since a tenet is not
an axiom. Then we should provide offensives against repetition, by challenging the value of such an edifice, in light of the very aims of Objectivism, and by turning the moralizing table on the Randists, by questioning the name calling function of "irrational and dishonest."

You see, the fact that you or I may need a complex system, is no indication of its universality to all humans, or that it should be applied in the same manner. This is one of my beefs with Randism; that once she set up the universal need for a system, it is all too easy to start dictating the characteristics of that system. From there, it is a skinny step to totalitarianism, or some kind of ethically justified power technique. This is in direct conflict with individualism, of which Rand claimed to be in support.

Couple of easy (way to easy points) about Objectivism.

There is no flaw in the fundamental principles of Objectivism,
but there is a very great flaw in some of Ayn Rand's applications and
interpretations of the fundamental principles of the Objectivist ethics.
This flaw is based on Rand's seeming inability to separate philosophy
from psychology, and her insistence on making unrealistic and
inappropriate moral judgments about other people. She makes claims
about human psychology that are never proved or defended. The claims
are simply asserted as self-evident philosophical truths.

These claims fall into 3 main areas:
1.Inherently dishonest ideas
2. Evasion
3. Evil

W/o going into each, The concepts of 'evil,' 'evasion,' and 'inherently dishonest ideas' are psychological concepts that do not belong in philosophy. These concepts merely serve to give Objectivists unrestricted license to morally condemn other human beings. As a result, Objectivists end up treating their intellectual opponents (and each other) as people who can be despised and hated. This is what has torn the Objectivist movement apart for the last thirty years, and will continue to do so. The players change, but the game remains the same.

The power of moral judgment is enormous. The power to pronounce
someone as an evil evader is the greatest power of all. By making such
power available, subject only to whim, with no objective facts or principles to restrain it, Ayn Rand has unleashed a reign of intellectual terrorism. She has transformed many honest, well-meaning individuals into unjust dogmatic moralizers.

This propensity to engage in unjust moral condemnation is also what
keeps Objectivism a tiny, insignificant intellectual movement that has all
the appearance of a religious cult, and is seldom taken seriously in the
academic world.

Moral judgment of others is quite different from personal moral judgment. Unlike the contents of your own mind, the thoughts, reasoning, and volitional processes of other men are not available to you. Any attempt to morally judge someone else that depends on knowing the contents of his mind, will never be anything more than a guessing game. And it's an unjust game, guaranteed to alienate everyone in your sphere of influence.

Moral judgment that requires us to determine the mental state of another
man, is worthless. Ever since Rand proposed this impossible standard,
Objectivists have been scrambling to find ways to implement it. Their method...guessing.

Any proper moral judgment of other men must rely on facts that are readily available to anyone; not facts that only a trained psychiatrist could hope to obtain. What are the facts that can be used for moral judgment?

Ayn Rand wrote that, "Morality is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions, that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Accordingly, judging the morality of others requires that we judge how well they are adhering to a code of rational values, rather than trying to discern the actual motivations of another man's mind (as Rand and Peikoff would have us do).

Judgments are not always easy to make, and they can never be made quickly, but none of them requires us to determine if a man is 'evading,' or is advocating an 'inherently dishonest idea,' or is 'evil.' To try to answer any of these last three questions, is to push moral judgment into the realm of unjust fantasy.

How much more would you like me to go on about the ridiculousness of her philosophy. Sanctioning!!! LOL

She is a second rate thinker, a writer of pulp-fiction sensibilities with a knack for euphemizing greed in a spirit of self-help profundity.

[mraynrand]

As for her philosophy, most intellectuals are open to submit their work to their peers and let them ask questions. Not so with Rand. Her attitude is summed up in her own quote, "I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer.... What I am looking for is intelligent agreement."

This is untrue. There are published works with the texts of Rand answering questions and challenges from peers. As I said above, Rand had personal inconsistencies, and her philosophy can be challenged (and your discourse outlines some of the typical challenges)

About "Existence exists" - How do you define axiom and tenet and how do you apply each to the fact of existence? If existence exists is an axiom and not a tenet, does that change things? Does existence require thought?

About your idea that eliminating differences in perception would lead to determinism - that's an interesting view. I think you may be right, but only if people acted completely rational in response to objective reality. Humans aren't machines (a point that Rand seemed to believe and reject all at the same time - another huge problem in her philosophy - Roark and Galt were rational machine/humans, but others were irrational to varying degrees), and therefore some humans will reject objective reality or color it with their own experiences. That's easily explained by the fact that each person has a different experiential background and also experiences stochastic processes in brain function. But that variability still doesn't refute that there is an objective reality, only that it can be perceived differently.

I'm not a philospher by trade, so I don't have all the jargon down. I thought Kant was God's punishment for learning how to read, and I reject the idea that a good act is only good if a person gets no benefit from it.

I maintain that my point is still valid - that Rand was a great thinker. I don't know if she was a great philosopher - perhaps in that field she might be more middle of the road. But I think her writing and philosophy is more logical and sensical than say Richard Rorty or John Rawls. And on a completely personal level, I liked reading her novels. That may just be my personal opinion, but I thought they were interesting and well-written - the works of a talented mind, despite the problems with her philosophy.

It was interesting to read what you thought about Rand. I've read some of the objections to her work before, and I find it interesting to see other perspectives. But if you really want to have a discussion, you might want to leave out the latin - I can never follow that "qua non qua" stuff! But, when I have some time, I'll try to answer a few of your deeper questions about the primacy of existence.

[MJZiggy]

I thought Kant was God's punishment for learning how to read,

Hilarious. (Yet true...)

[mraynrand]

There is no flaw in the fundamental principles of Objectivism,
but there is a very great flaw in some of Ayn Rand's applications and
interpretations of the fundamental principles of the Objectivist ethics.



By the way, I forgot to comment on this - I completely agree. I might want to split hairs on some of the items you wrote below, but it is in APPLICATION of objectivism that the philosophy suffers it's greatest defeats, and many of these problems Rand introduced have not been answered.

Again, great post. i enjoyed reading it.

[ranks66]

Stock up on gasoline now. A tropical storm is heading towards Florida. Gas Prices should start rising any day now.

Well at least bush, rice and cheney will be happy about the higher oil profits.

[MJZiggy]

Florida mocks tropical storms. All they do for a ts is throw the lawn furniture in the pool and pull the trash cans in.