A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wesley clark just entered the race



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 21st, 2003, 10:53 PM
Lexin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"ange"
the actions of aggressors during the second world war. But please

do
not try and take some kind of moral high ground about selfless

actions.
More than 30 million people died in that war, of which 285,000 were


"HealthNutz" wrote:
Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths

were
at the hands of totalitarian/socialists--


I'm not sure where you get this from, and I'm not sure if it stands up
to analysis - unless you count the Nazis as 'socialists' in which case I
point you to this link: http://www.lexin.co.uk/leftnazi.htm which is a
discussion of that very question from when I was active in political
newsgroups.

like it much! If it hadn't been for the United States and her

magnificent
Navy during WWII, you "Kiwi's" would be eating your mutton with

chopsticks
today.


As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries
fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece.
Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
credit.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)


  #22  
Old September 21st, 2003, 11:32 PM
Polliwogli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

HealthNutz I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something
understandable
to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability to
understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify. BRBR

Oh, now that is really silly. Why not keep these insults on the politics
boards where they usually live and multipy. But then maybe you are one of them
thar trolls!
  #23  
Old September 21st, 2003, 11:38 PM
Carmen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

Hi Jake,
On 21-Sep-2003, "Jake" wrote:

Um.. for same reason I never manage to vote. Maybe lazy was the
wrong word (although there's still a good chunk of people for whom
that it is the
problem): I always intend to vote, but I'm BUSY. I always end up
realizing the day is here when I'm at work and can't get away.

I don't feel disenfranchised- I know my vote would make a difference
if I got it out there. But my life is full, and frankly, remembering
when
the day comes, where to go, and to inform my boss I need it off,
driving
down there, etc. et al.... too much.


Jake. (who surely sounds quite worthless in the civic sense now)


It does make the "Bush in 2004" post you made sound pretty hollow.
Opinions aren't votes. Choosing not to vote is a form of self
disenfranchisement. As much as it kills me to say this, you should make
plans to vote, even if you're voting for Bush.

Take care,
Carmen
  #24  
Old September 21st, 2003, 11:59 PM
HealthNutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"Lexin" wrote in message
...
....
Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths
were at the hands of totalitarian/socialists--

I'm not sure where you get this from, and I'm not sure if it stands up
to analysis - unless you count the Nazis as 'socialists' in which case I
point you to this link: http://www.lexin.co.uk/leftnazi.htm which is a
discussion of that very question from when I was active in political
newsgroups.

You have a well found point. There is certainly room to question the
"exact" nature of what Hitler did or didn't believe as it applied to
socialism. While I think that there are differences, I'd submit that they
are so small in practice as to be moot. A despot is a despot--does it
really matter what's in his heart? Although you've made a valid point, I
think that it is akin to splitting hairs.

MILLIONS died at the hands of Hitler. MILLIONS died at the hands of Stalin
(not to mention Pol-Pot, Mao, etc.). Do you really think that exact and
dearly debated method of whose regime was "better" (or "worse") or which can
be explicitly defined, is reason to defend one over the other?

My generic point was any non-representative, non-beholding government under
a single un-elected ruler is never a good thing. This almost always becomes
oppressive. Some more, some less. Keep in mind that over the years many
monarchies were beneficial for their subjects. Although in principle they
are both totalitarian and socialist in nature...

When I said "... of totalitarian/socialists ...", I was combining--perhaps
inaccurately in a micro-view--totalitarian governments and socialist
governments. Neither serves the cause of freedom and individual liberty,
nor do they advance opportunity for their citizenry.

....
As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries
fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece.

Because most of the countries between them were already under subjugation or
control to one degree or another? Or they were already allies--even if for
only out of fear or for convenience?

Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
credit.

I recall doing no such thing. Besides which, I speak for myself, not my
"country". I wasn't "taking the credit", I was pointing out what seems to
have escaped so many reading/writing here.

But assuming for the moment that I did, would it also follow then that those
countries that were "rescued" from the self-constructed predicament they
keep finding themselves in, be called equally "graceless" for giving the US
no "credit" for having demonstrated TWICE that it had the might, will, and
means to effect their liberation and return them to sovereignty?

Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as
countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States has
already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only
itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in how
future events are carried out?

Given that the others have not demonstrated (at least not recently) such a
capability, why should those that have (the US), be made beholden to the
ideas and concepts that got the "beholdees" into the jam in which they
always seem to find themselves (those that had to be rescued from
subjugation)?

A bit less eloquently (but shorter (:-)!):
Since you guys seem to have a knack for getting your 'nads in a crack, why
should we listen to you? How come you're not listening to us? Pride?
Arrogance? Or ignorance...?


Later my friend,
DustyB
--
-= Remove CARBS to reply =-


  #25  
Old September 22nd, 2003, 12:00 AM
HealthNutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

Hi "Polliwogli";

Ran out of substantive things to say, did we...?

DustyB


"Polliwogli" wrote in message
...
HealthNutz I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something
understandable
to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability

to
understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify. BRBR

Oh, now that is really silly. Why not keep these insults on the politics
boards where they usually live and multipy. But then maybe you are one of

them
thar trolls!



  #26  
Old September 22nd, 2003, 12:13 AM
Bobo Bonobo®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

(GordySumner) wrote in message . com...
"Barry Smith" wrote in message ...
"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:25 -0700, "Jake"
announced in front of God and
everybody:

Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
know what month the election occurs in.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that is. Seriously. Why do
you think people don't care about elections? Why they don't bother to
vote on measures and tax increses and the like?

I submit -- and feel free to disagree -- that it's because they don't
think their voices make a difference. I think a great many people have
just rolled over and given up, because they believe that the vast
political machine is driven not by democracy but by money and power --
and that it'll continue to be corrupt and ****ed up whether they go to
the polls or not. So they shrug it off, don't bother to remember when
election day is, open another beer and watch some TV.

That's what I mean by "disenfranchised," by the way. I don't believe
it's mere laziness -- it's ennui borne of a feeling of hopelessness.

Dawn

I think a lot of people believe that the major political parties are just
the same.. like 2 different teams wearing different colours, but basically
the same, and that whoever wins the election, nothing will really change..


Yes, you are absolutely right. They do think that. It's hard to
believe they still think that after what has happened over the last 2
1/5 years though.


The American people--the most innovative and productive people on the
planet--seem retarded when it comes to politics.

--Bryan 198/152/155
  #27  
Old September 22nd, 2003, 02:27 AM
Cheri
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

Especially the voters in Florida. :-)

--
Cheri


Bobo Bonobo® wrote in message ...

The American people--the most innovative and productive people on the
planet--seem retarded when it comes to politics.

--Bryan 198/152/155



  #28  
Old September 22nd, 2003, 07:22 AM
M.W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

HealthNutz wrote:
Wrong! I have thought about it. And I didn't like the conclusions I came
to.


You had the last word.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President
www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith
  #29  
Old September 22nd, 2003, 08:05 AM
Lexin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"HealthNutz" wrote:
There is certainly room to question the
"exact" nature of what Hitler did or didn't believe as it applied to
socialism. While I think that there are differences, I'd submit that

they
are so small in practice as to be moot.


And I would disagree - Hitler didn't accept several of the basic
cornerstones of socialism, and that is hardly a small difference.

A despot is a despot--does it
really matter what's in his heart?


Yes, I think it does. If people make the repeated point that "political
and social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, as exemplified by tyrant
Z", it matters very much to political philosophers (and those interested
in correcting sloppy thinking) that tyrant Z did not follow X but some
other philosophy altogether. It's akin to saying, "The sky is blue,
therefore my cat is a microwave oven." In short, if you're going to
claim that social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, at least choose a
valid example.

Keep in mind that over the years many
monarchies were beneficial for their subjects. Although in principle

they
are both totalitarian and socialist in nature...


Monarchies are socialist? Since when? Do you have many examples of
socialist monarchies?

When I said "... of totalitarian/socialists ...", I was

combining--perhaps
inaccurately in a micro-view--totalitarian governments and socialist
governments. Neither serves the cause of freedom and individual

liberty,
nor do they advance opportunity for their citizenry.


And do you count Britain in that? This is a country which has a lot of
the things you classify as socialist (comparatively high taxes, a
comprehensive welfare system, a national health service) but in which a
reasonably hardworking person can have a good life, and in which
entrepreneurial effort can be rewarded, at least as much as in the US.
I have to say that given the lack of a fully comprehensive welfare
system and a national health service, I wouldn't live in the US if you
paid me to come - and I'm currently a net payer for those services
rather than a user of them.

As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two

countries
fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and

Greece.

Because most of the countries between them were already under

subjugation or
control to one degree or another? Or they were already allies--even

if for
only out of fear or for convenience?


After the fall of France, Greece and Britain happened to be the last two
unconquered nations who were already in the war. Remember, this was
before the US joined. Remember also, that the US's first attitude
towards this European conflict was to let the Europeans get on with it
unaided. This was pretty prevalent up until (and even sometimes as far
as the European theatre was concerned, after) Pearl Harbour. It could
even be argued that the US joined not to ensure freedom for Europe, but
because it saw its European markets about to disappear - Hitler did not
like the US, which he saw (wrongly) as a land ruled by a Jewish elite,
too much contact with which would undermine the purity of the German
race.

Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
credit.


I recall doing no such thing. Besides which, I speak for myself, not

my
"country". I wasn't "taking the credit", I was pointing out what

seems to
have escaped so many reading/writing here.


You said, "You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you
and Norway by American blood and material wisely" and repeated the same
argument in this part of the thread. The implication was that the US,
acting alone, gave Norway and the rest of Europe this freedom out of the
goodness of their hearts, when in fact it was hard won by the peoples of
several nations, among them the USSR. And as the USSR lost 13,000,000 of
their fighting forces, and the US lost something like 295,000 it could
more properly be said that the OP should be grateful to the USSR for
their sacrifice and the blood which was shed in the cause of freedom.
Which is delightfully ironic, I'm sure you'll agree.

But assuming for the moment that I did, would it also follow then that

those
countries that were "rescued" from the self-constructed predicament

they
keep finding themselves in, be called equally "graceless" for giving

the US
no "credit" for having demonstrated TWICE that it had the might, will,

and
means to effect their liberation and return them to sovereignty?


Graceless would be not thanking those who helped - and that, as I've
commented twice now, includes but is not limited to the USA. It could
even be argued that without the help of the USSR, keeping Hitler's
forces involved in pointless and unwinnable battles (Stalingrad,
anyone?) the USA could not have helped to anything like the extent they
did, and loss of US life would have been that much greater. It is even
possible that loss of US life would have been so great that US public
opinion would not have tolerated it, even in a fight for freedom.

Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as
countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States

has
already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only
itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in

how
future events are carried out?


I don't believe, so, no. Freedom is worth nothing if those for whom it
has been won do not have the right to dictate their own future. That, I
would argue, applies even if they then go and do with it something the
givers don't like. It's akin, I think, to a parent denying their
grown-up children the right to go their own way and to make their own
mistakes. The problem with freedom is that it's not divisible or
limitable - you can't say to a country, any country, "OK, so now you are
free from this tyranny, but you can only be free if you now accept that
our philosophy is the best." Of what use is that kind of freedom? It
wouldn't be freedom at all, but a different species of tyranny, at least
from the point of view of those for whom it has been won.

We might think that representative democracy is the best method of
running a country, we might be able to demonstrate it by example, but
that does not mean that other countries have to accept that as a
self-evident truth, or even apply it to themselves. And it does not
matter how many lives have been lost winning this 'freedom' for that
country, freedom has to mean freedom to return to a method of rulership
that we might not like, just as giving your children freedom may mean
that they marry someone you detest and live in a trailer park. You
might hate it, you might resent it, but you can't stop them. Whether to
interfere again in their affairs is a decision you have to make again -
and sometimes again and again - something which sadly applies both to
grown-up children and other nations.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)


  #30  
Old September 22nd, 2003, 08:19 AM
Barry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race


"HealthNutz" wrote in message
eastern Germany. Until just recently, they couldn't do what you are

doing.
And that same fate was AND STILL IS the goal of the international

communist
party today.


Do you have a link for this international communist party?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to eat before a 5k RACE? Phil M. General Discussion 4 April 26th, 2004 03:12 AM
Training for the race? estella General Discussion 23 April 19th, 2004 01:26 AM
race report 3-6-04 JMA General Discussion 20 March 9th, 2004 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.