sexual_chocolate

A wonderful synopsis of the level of current debate. One aspect was left out though, and that has to do with civilians.... WM: Plus, the civilians are living under torture imposed by Saddam. We need to save them. PN: So once we move in, they will welcome us. WM: Yes. PN: So we actually moved in, but the civilians keep throwing grenades at us. WM: Well, Saddam forces them to. PN: How about the reports of Shiites in the south claiming they hate Saddam, but they hate us even more? WM: Well, Saddam forces them to say that. PN: But they are saying they also hate Saddam. I thought that was a capital offense. WM: Saddam is tricky. PN: How about the protests in Cairo where people were chanting "Suicide bombing will defeat the enemy." WM: Well, Saddam forces them to say that. PN: But it's happening in Egypt! WM: Well, they are just ignorant civilians. PN: Are these the same "ignorant civilians" that would elect the leadership if democracy were brought to the middle east? WM: Well, they have to have their voice. PN: But all indications point to the probability that the politician who best exploits the virulent anti-americanism would be assured of victory. WM: Umm well perhaps we'll have to have another "war for peace" in the future! Haha! Just joking.... PN: Oh really?

Intelligence is a generic condition characterized by invisibility and post-mortem depression. Which means it's kinda silly to put too much stock into an IQ test, especially one that I did so poorly on.

But martians can't even speak english.

But to respond to the original question: The executions are accusations at this point. Which means no factuality has been established. If they did execute, I suppose anger might have something to do with it? But I do think they'd want to keep any pows alive at this point.

Just shaded to make the figgering harder?

Somebody getting their buttons pushed? Hmmm.... How ironic.

Oh shit. I knew my color-blindness would hurt me some day.

136. Anyone get I think question 35, with the colors in the squares and circles? Totally stumped me. Classification: Visual mathematician. I still call bullshit on the whole IQ test idea, although I dug the paragraph about the Egyptians: "Ancient Egyptians believed the heart was the center of intelligence and emotion. They also thought so little of the brain that during mummification, they removed the brain entirely from bodies." How our beliefs have changed, eh? Who be ignorant: Us or the Egyptians?

Ah gee, I can't believe I'm dragging this up again, but what you said above demanded comment, if for the last time. Perhaps you are simply a troll, and I've taken the bait; I don't know. But in case you are for real, your post expresses what to me seems to be one of the basic problems with many of the religious types, and that is self-righteousness. You have now decided who is evil and who isn't (with a rather poor analysis of the facts at hand), and now feel vindicated in casting the first stone. "Let ye who hath not sinned, cast the first stone." (I really hate quoting the bible, because one can read it so selectively and buttress almost any argument, but that quote came to mind.) I also just realized that you have no desire to think through the issues at hand, so I'm entirely done with this thread. Good Night!

Hey, leave the guy alone. He's a bible scholar, not a political analyst.

No. He's just studying the bible again. He's always struck me as a thoughtful religious type.

Who this rockin' guy? Not the guy leading an illegal assault on a pretty much defenseless country, I hope....

I think you are overly fascinated with this mysterious left, repeatedly lumping me in with Totalitarianism-adoring Stalinists. Maybe this makes your life simpler- you know, a paper tiger to attack with neo-liberal (oops!) rhetoric? Maybe expand your reading list a bit. And while you're doing that, I'm off to the UW rock, for all those wishing for a duel (or a friendly bouldering sesh!).

THanks for showing your true colors, you hypocritical sack of shit. "Hypocritical sack of shit." How quaint. I suppose this is more mild than "racist sexist caricature"? Perhaps Catbirdseat was simply of the opinion that people can actually change, something of an alien concept to you, I suppose?

We saw this with Bush Inc., but even after it was pointed out to them, they still went to war. What gives? Can you say "empery"?

Perhaps because I didn't see it?

You said before that you were "anti".

Hey, you don't know me. Until you get to know me, or talk to people on this site who do (there are about 5 who really know me), shut your motherfucking mouth. You piece of shit. You want to call me names, let's meet and you can do it face to face. Do you believe strongly enough to stand up for it? You fucking pussy, hiding behind your computer. Name the time and place or shut the fuck up. Greg W GregW, I think I have a pretty good idea about you. Of course that understanding is by no means static, yet you continually reinforce it. Your above response does nothing to dispel my general ideas. I also find it quite humorous that you so quickly challenge me with physical confrontation....Perhaps there is more than a grain of truth in what I said? Perhaps the UN should investigate this matter? (Or would you play it like Saddam?) Furthermore, I did not call you names. I was attempting to characterize your behaviour with descriptives that many might be offended by, but this doesn't make it name-calling. "You stinking dodo bird" is a better example of name-calling, since it is quite obvious you are not a dodo bird. Oh, and "You piece of shit" is also an example of name-calling, since we both know that beyond metaphor, this simply couldn't be true (unless I have one stinky keyboard). As to the challenge of confronting you in the physical dimension, I'm more interested in this: Why on earth might you be so incredibly incensed by a rather bland characterization by someone on the internet? A simple question.... And one last thing: Whether or not you are racist, sexist, or violent, probably has little import for me personally, beyond the fact that I would prefer racism, sexism, and violence to be done away with. And when pressed, I think I would qualify my previous assessment: I don't think you ARE, in any static way, a racist/sexist caricature, but I WILL say that I have noted behaviour on your part that reeked of both traits. This I stand by; I have no reason to announce it to you in a more personal way. (I find your challenge to a duel quite romantic, but I must confess: I hold very little respect for the antiquated notions of settling disputes with barbaric displays of violence. Perhaps if you argued with Trask, he'd be happy to oblige?)

I already made that argument, and he chose to ignore me. I was watching Peter Jennings last night. He spoke with a US minister who had recently spent time in Baghdad, and what he said was that the people he spoke to were unequivocally OPPOSED to a US armed invasion. He said that the people weren't necessarily all that happy with many things Saddam did, but this did NOT mean they wanted an invasion. They were more of the mind that they should be left to work out their own problems. Another interviewee was a professor of Political Science at Baghdad University. He was a former member of the Baath Party, some twenty years ago, but split with them for some reason. He has actually been a critic of the Regime, quite outspoken about abuses regarding ethnic minorities, in particular the Kurds in the north and Shias in the south. I really didn't know that any dissent was allowed, so to hear from an activist of sorts was really something. Kurds and Shias=Native Americans in the US? And again, should Cuban exiles dictate foreign policy regarding Cuba? Many favor an immediate invasion, justified mainly by hyperbole. I don't want to discount what Iraqi exiles say, yet I am cautious.

Do you ever embarrass yourself? Not that I necessarily favor group censure, but....

What defines the lowest common denominator in terms of human behaviour? Also, what causes it?

Nice one. Unfortunately a little too accurate, Trask (what I assume was a stab at humor?).

I have come to the conclusion that GregW is an insensitive racist caricature being manipulated by someone rather simple-minded. Perhaps Ronald Reagan is a visitor here? Ooops, but Ronald Reagan was simply an insensitive racist caricature being manipulated by dinosaurs (Go America!).

Dru, you seem a bit sensivitive about my rather innocuous question about the differences; your Canadian upbringing giving you some guilt w/r/t your avatar? Greg, I never even thought of it in the terms you presented, and I'm honestly having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean. My thinking is more along the lines that Chinese people have suffered much more from racism than have Russians. I think most of the ones offended by the Harry Pi caricature are simply sensitive to this fact, something that seems so incomprehensible to those who find humor in the characteristics that have been used to portray the Chinese in a negative light. I don't think Russians have ever been subjected to this.

There was quite an outcry about Harry Pi being an insensitive racist caricature, yet I haven't heard any outcry over the antics of Milosh what's-his-name. What gives? Curious as to your thoughts on this.