Tim Craig wrote: Why go out of their way to foster a culture of us and them within the company? Because when The Big One hits, upper management is gonna need to know: Who's with them, and who's against them. The rogue elements like yourself will be cast out into the streets while the enlightened share Tootsie Rolls(tm) and day-old donuts in the bomb shelter in the basement. Sorry, but that's the way it's gotta be. Eco

Hey, you call me a goofball - and yet you use the most emotionally laden and manipulative language possible to describe the most inane things, for the sole purpose of hiding your poor writing and research skills, and almost total lack of logic. If I were trying to censor you I would just downvote the post - and this is much more fun. :-D Eco

So many years of experience and that's all you've got? A glib cliche insult? You should be disappointed in yourself. X| Eco

Hey, not all of us watch CNN religiously like you do. Just because you bow to it's warming light, doesn't mean we're all hunched near our own TV sets, anxiously waiting for them to tell us the latest 'facts' every hour of the day. Terry O`Nolley wrote: This is your opinion and you are welcome to it. What you wrote (concerning France): Idiotic - opinion, sure Biased - fact Unspecific - fact Conjecture - fact And something tells me you don't know anyone who's actually been raped, or you might have a slightly different outlook on the words you use to describe world economics. X| Eco

Shog9 wrote: a certain plant valued for its oil-yielding seeds Marijuana? :-D Eco

1. No source noted. 2. Unneccessary use of the word 'rape' which really kind of devalues the actual crime of rape. 3. Idiotic, biased, unspecific conjecture. Post analysis: CRAP :-D

Mike Gaskey wrote: There are absolutes, good and evil, to believe otherwise is be too cowardly to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. Ridiculous. If there are moral absolutes then it takes no courage whatsoever to stand up for what is 'good,' because everybody would agree that it is 'good.' Same for being against what is commonly accepted as evil. For example, in our society, taking a stand against something like pedophilia isn't really couragous. Courage comes from acting on your less popular set of morals and beliefs in spite of the fact that a vast number of people disagree. (say prayer in school, for example.) However, the line between courage and fanaticism is very, very, thin and depends on which side you're arguing. You'll only be couragous to those people who agree with your moral opinions. Eco

Mike Mullikin wrote: So much for your humanitarian efforts The will to survive is strong. If people really want to live free, then they will adjust. Do you really think so little of the Iraqi people? Mike Mullikin wrote: Sorry, if you and Canada want to play in the big leagues you foot the bill by yourselves. That's a compliment considering that you seem to consider the 'big leagues' to be invading countries. :P So much for the desire to 'help' the Iraqi people, huh? Oh, that's right - the US will only help if it benefits the US. Mike Mullikin wrote: Nice analogy, but Terry's was better. Yes, if you mean that it appealed to false sympathies instead of being realistic. Eco

Mike Mullikin wrote: the burden on your socialized services would have been suicide. Hey, I said they could make a living, not suck off the system. Do you know how much work it would be to make a living in Northern Canada? Besides, how much did y'all spend on Iraq? If it was really for humanitarian purposes, this would have cost even less to help out with. However, we both know the US has other interests in the Middle East. Mike Mullikin wrote: I'd say the consequences are still VERY significant. America's goals, ideals, or attitude appear to not have changed at all. If a man has to walk around a rock, but the path remains the same, the man has not changed; the path is longer, the destination is the same, the way he travels is the same, so in the long term, the rock was really inconsequential. Mike Mullikin wrote: Regardless of what Terry wrote Nah, I don't think I'll 'regardless' since my comment was directed at what he actually wrote. Eco

Mike Mullikin wrote: I've yet to hear a credible alternative action that makes sense. Well, keep in mind I still suffer from idealistic-disease, but I would have announced to the people of Iraq that anyone who wants to can come live in Northern Canada, where there's lots and lots of opportunity to live a decent, hardworking, life, free from oppression (as long as you can put up with the cold). Then (if we had the resources) I would have had a whole bunch of boats and trucks pick up the people who wanted to come over here. Those who want to stay should remain in Iraq; then it would have been their choice. Live free peacefully, or stay oppressed in your home. We took a similar stance with slavery, (I _think_ - I'm not sure what the immigration policies were at that time, it's extremely possible our history books have romanticized it.) (Oh, and my only issue with what Terry wrote was that I just resent the implication that the US are acting as the 'police', because that implies that they're acting on behalf of orders from a higher governing body, which just isn't true.) Mike Mullikin wrote: No real consequences??!! People are dying! Soldiers, civilians, diplomats, aid workers! Iraqis, Americans, Brits, etc... The consequences are enormous. Seen individually, the consequences are horrible. But as a _whole_, has America really been affected by it? Courage on the part of the soldiers, diplomats, aid workers, Iraqis, and all the rest who are risking their lives - yes. Courage on the part of the country - I just don't see it. The smattering of American lives affected by Iraq has minimal effect on the country, mostly because most of those lives aren't in America anyway. Eco

This is the analogy I was commenting on, Mike: Specifically (Police != USA). Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid. Mike Mullikin wrote: From my POV it takes US courage to tell the world what we're gonna do and then go out and do it while it shows a decided lack of will/courage for the people whining about it to do nothing more than whine. It's not courage when there's no real consequences to a decision. By your logic, the terrorists are courageous for fighting back against the US for the wrongs they believe were done to them, in the only way available to them. Shall we applaud the actions of the 9/11ers too, for their courage in standing up to the 'Great Satan?' Eco

Ummmmm... no. Terry was drawing a specific analogy between 'the police should be blamed for the suffering of victims as a result of police action' and 'the USA should be blamed for the suffering of Iraqi victims'. Again, for the third time, this specific analogy is flawed because (Police != USA). Mike Mullikin wrote: That would be the lack of courage speaking. I agree - the lack of courage of the US to take responsibility for it's actions on a global scale. Eco

Mike Mullikin wrote: His analogy stands. Wrong! The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. He was drawing an analogy using the USA as the police (which is false), not the UN (which would have been closer). But thanks for paying attention. Mike Mullikin wrote: They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. Yeah, sure. The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. Eco

(Police != USA) The police do not write the law, they enforce it. The laws are decided upon (indirectly) by the people who must obey it. The law is very clear on the powers that the police may exercise in pursuit of enforcement. Then, punishment is decided by a different area of the system. In your example, the police themselves have decided what the appropriate response is to the given transgression(s) (i.e. regime change). In addition, if the police are deemed to have exercised undue force or unjust means in the pursuit of enforcement, then the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. So your analogy is flawed. Eco

:) Eco

Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. Which just goes to show you can prove anything with a ridiculously contrived example. Eco (Props to Joel)

nssone wrote: School is really your last chance to be yourself without truly risking your career or reputation. If you actually believe this, then you're going to have a really boring life. Having some responsibility doesn't take away from who you are, it just means you can't be a lazy asshole and suffer no change in lifestyle. Eco

nssone wrote: Read my post that's lower lower down the page and you'll see how wrong you are with that statement. Which post, brainiac? I'm not a friggin' mind reader, and if you don't have time to directly address my point, I'm sure not gonna make time to discuss it with you. ;P Eco

The education system has less to do with dealing with kids as individuals and more to do with dealing with kids as a distinct sociological group. I could know 500 kids individually and it wouldn't really matter. As a parent, it's _your_ job to foster their individuality. The school's responsibility is to give the kids the skills and lessons and access to resources they need to succeed in the world. And I contend that one of those lessons should be to not to judge on appearance; I contend that uniforms help that lesson, I contend that if parents don't teach that lesson (and many don't because they're as easily manipulated as their kids with respect to rampant consumerism) then the school system should at least try. And I've been getting a little snarky, I apologize. :) Eco

Christian Graus wrote: Spot the man with no children. Or no clue. Or both. Spot the man with the "best children in the world." Geez, why do parents think they have the best insight into all kids? The only kids they ever really deal with on an extended basis are their own, which they think can then be extrapolated to all kids everywhere. Know why this doesn't work? Because kids are individuals. But if you really feel the need to play the 'this-argument-is-over-because-i-cant-be-logical-because-im-a-parent' card, then go right ahead. ;) Christian Graus wrote: Which TOTALLY negate any of the benefits you are trying to percieve here, Ya know, if you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that I was pointing out the opposite. Thanks for playing. Eco