Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 170

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I will bet that Hillary is going to be our next President. Anyone willing to give me odds?

I'll take the bet, although I am not sure why you get odds. She is the frontrunner for the dimwit nomination and given the last two election cycles she should start off the race with at least 50M votes, which gives her about an even up shot.

We should put it writing though, because if she wins you will need some proof to show the executor of my will.

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society. That is what "dictatorship of the prolietariate" is all about. If our rights come from man, then those rights can be taken away by man. So when government wants to improve on the state body politic, and can suspend individual rights to do so, that is when you can justify killing millions of people.

Y'know, spouting this load of crap on the same day that you advocated threatening the USSR with nuclear annihilation unless Stalin agreed to free elections makes you sound....

Well, like Penske without Photoshop.

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Gattigap:

You just don't get it. How many times do I have to say it? I am the epicenter of the world, and I am always right. How long is it going to take for you to come to terms with that reality?

The thing is, I had to read that three times before I was sure you were joking.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
As were noted leftists Winston Churchill, Lord Beaverbrook, Henry Luce, and Bob Hope.

Refresh my recollection, did Churchill argue for a harder line at Yalta and get shot down by the leftie or am I confusing that with a scene from one of the Hope-Crosby Road movies?

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Y'know, spouting this load of crap on the same day that you advocated threatening the USSR with nuclear annihilation unless Stalin agreed to free elections makes you sound....

Well, like Penske without Photoshop.

And the other 58,999,998 American Patriots are standing right behind us, ready to bring the bomb to bear on the oppressive infidels abroad.

bilmore · 10-10-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't have it both ways folks.

You muddy the waters.

You want this to be a battle between good and evil, between right and wrong. It's not that simple.

One system of thought holds that the greater good is served by serving the greatest number. Stalin embodied that.

Another holds that the greatest good is what serves ME. That was Saddam, among others.

A third holds that each individual is properly his own greatest value.

Until you can point me to a burning bush that screams out "Pick the third choice! Pick the third!", I'm left to believe, simply, that we all need to fight for what we value.

For me, and, I'm guessing, for you, that would be the right of each individual, even those ignorant brown peoples in funny foriegn countries, to have a say in their fate. I suspect that we both would cross a street to stop a bully beating up a child. We would reject objections of "that's all he knows", or "sure, you stop the beating now, but what do you have to replace it?" as meaningless drivel. But, that's not some higher law at work - that's just our own individual choice.

Thankfully, I'm guessing that the choices we make, and the values that we hold, make us more effective in this continuing battle than the people in the first group, and our numbers and resolve make us more effective than the people in the second group. Logically, I think we eventually win, because our philosophy is more conducive to life and happiness for all.

Might makes right, I guess, in a Randian sort of way.

Not Bob · 10-10-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Refresh my recollection, did Churchill argue for a harder line at Yalta and get shot down by the leftie or am I confusing that with a scene from one of the Hope-Crosby Road movies?

No, Sir Winston was the one who tried to cut a "sphere of influence" deal with Uncle Joe at Yalta, trading Poland for Greece.

bilmore · 10-10-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"If you don't hold elections, we will bomb you into oblivion.

That's silly.

I might say "if you don't allow your subjects to take part in the decision-making, and continue to kill them in great numbers, we are going to depose you and your co-thugs, and then step back and let your subjects choose how they want life to be."

I can't believe that you think we're forcing Iraqis into something. We stopped the guy beating up the little kid. In doing so, we haven't forced the little kid into anything.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Allende in Chile? Chavez in Venezuala? Putin in Russia? Mossadeq in Irag? The guy whose name escapes me in Guatamala or Hondurus in the 1950s?

Was Allende a communist? I thought he was a socialist. He may have been a communist but he definitely did not run as a communist. Same with Chavez. I don't think Chavez ran as a communist. I know Putin did not run as a communist and he is not a communist. Wasn't Massadeq in Iran? And I don't think he ran as a communist either.

I know who you are referring to in central america in the 1950s but again I think that guy ran as a socialist.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob Oh, and we didn't actually have the bomb after Nagasaki -- IIRC, that blast exhausted our stockpile. Given what we know about Klaus Fuchs, et al, Stalin may have known that, too. It would have meant permanent garrisons in Western Europe, and that act alone may well have resulted in a mutiny along the lines of what the French faced in 1917. (Don't think US troops would ever do that? Ever heard of the post-war "we wanna go home" riots on US military bases?)

Actually I think we had a few left, and we were definitely in massive production. May have take a few months. Didn't we leave Garrisons in Western Europe.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob Plus, I don't think that the American people would have tolerated it. For better or for worse, the Soviets were portrayed (even in the then-Republican media outlets like Time and Life) as our gallant friends and allies. It would be a little too 1984-ish to assume that our allies could instantly be converted into our enemies.

I agree with you on this. Sidd just asked me if we should have. I don't think it would have been politically reasible for the reaons you mention, but it would still have been the right move.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Y'know, spouting this load of crap on the same day that you advocated threatening the USSR with nuclear annihilation unless Stalin agreed to free elections makes you sound....

Well, like Penske without Photoshop.

So what you are saying is I need to brush up on my photoshop.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
No, Sir Winston was the one who tried to cut a "sphere of influence" deal with Uncle Joe at Yalta, trading Poland for Greece.

He had no choice at that point but to cut the best he could under the circumstances, he knew the senior partner in the Atlantic Coalition was mentally incapacitated. It doesnt' undercut his history of warning of the danger of trusting Stalin and his sadness and disgust at the sell out at the end of the war.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You muddy the waters.

You want this to be a battle between good and evil, between right and wrong. It's not that simple.

One system of thought holds that the greater good is served by serving the greatest number. Stalin embodied that.

Another holds that the greatest good is what serves ME. That was Saddam, among others.

A third holds that each individual is properly his own greatest value.

Until you can point me to a burning bush that screams out "Pick the third choice! Pick the third!", I'm left to believe, simply, that we all need to fight for what we value.

For me, and, I'm guessing, for you, that would be the right of each individual, even those ignorant brown peoples in funny foriegn countries, to have a say in their fate. I suspect that we both would cross a street to stop a bully beating up a child. We would reject objections of "that's all he knows", or "sure, you stop the beating now, but what do you have to replace it?" as meaningless drivel. But, that's not some higher law at work - that's just our own individual choice.

Thankfully, I'm guessing that the choices we make, and the values that we hold, make us more effective in this continuing battle than the people in the first group, and our numbers and resolve make us more effective than the people in the second group. Logically, I think we eventually win, because our philosophy is more conducive to life and happiness for all.

Might makes right, I guess, in a Randian sort of way.

About ten years ago, I used to think that way. But now I subscribe to the unversal moral code craziness. I was going to explain why, but realized that it would take a few pages and I am lazy. So as long as our interests line up what the hell..

bilmore · 10-10-2005, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
About ten years ago, I used to think that way. But now I subscribe to the unversal moral code craziness.

It's like the NYT Select. Only works for those who are already True Believers.

Replaced_Texan · 10-10-2005, 05:47 PM

For Penske. Cuz I'm too lazy to PM and someone else might find municipal dog laws interesting and I'm still staying away from this place.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
That's silly.

I might say "if you don't allow your subjects to take part in the decision-making, and continue to kill them in great numbers, we are going to depose you and your co-thugs, and then step back and let your subjects choose how they want life to be."

I can't believe that you think we're forcing Iraqis into something. We stopped the guy beating up the little kid. In doing so, we haven't forced the little kid into anything.

2.