North Korea Missile Fails

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If we’re ‘hostile’ to the Japanese in the months before the war, we are obviously trying to provoke them. If we’re friendly to the Japanese at that time, we’re obviously condoning their rape of China.

There is no winning with the Left: Just by being Americans, we are guilty of something.

To paraphrase from John Wayne: “No Prospects, you are a loo-loo!” (The Comancheros)

HH[/quote]

Do not group “leftists” in with Nominal over there. We were, and should have been, outright hostile to Japan (and Germany).

FDR, being the left leaning guy that he was, probably saw some problems with facism, and if he wanted to get us into the war…good! That’s where we needed to be, and we settled it.

Terrible posts Nominal. Even I’m not that cynical about the US, especially not in the WWII time period. That’s the one time that I will truly say the US was looking out for, and saving, the world.

I was thinking about us going to war with N Korea and was thinking Iran would probably join.
I think they both would probably team up and nuke us if they had nukes by now.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Do not group “leftists” in with Nominal over there. We were, and should have been, outright hostile to Japan (and Germany).

FDR, being the left leaning guy that he was, probably saw some problems with facism, and if he wanted to get us into the war…good! That’s where we needed to be, and we settled it.

Terrible posts Nominal. Even I’m not that cynical about the US, especially not in the WWII time period. That’s the one time that I will truly say the US was looking out for, and saving, the world.[/quote]

Damn it. You could have jumped in when I was trying to bait hspder.

We shot that missle down.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
DNP has been around for about 70 or 80 years. People have died when exposed to it. No one knows what dose will cause you to roast yourself to death. It destroys your mitochondria. Its in pesticides for a REASON. But, I guess death is a price worth paying in the spirit of research of a KNOWN POISON?

As I mentioned before, you clearly haven’t been around scientists much.

Headhunter wrote:
The second part of your post is still unclear. Explain how Coulter or Hannity and so forth, regard us as ‘scum’.

It’s fascinating how you keep making my point and missing it…

And no, I’m not going to spell it out for you. I have no doubt that the reason you’re missing it is not for lack of intelligence – it’s because of your dogmas – and to quote Dr. Phil, either you get it or you don’t. Clearly you don’t, so there’s no amount of explanation that will change that.

If that makes me sound like an elitist snob, well, so be it. You already believe I am an elitist snob, and there’s no amount of effort that will change that either, so there’s no point in me trying really hard not to sound like one… It’s actually much more fun to do the exact opposite.[/quote]

Well, Doc, I think you’re confusing me with someone else. Have I called you an elitist snob or insulted you (lately anyway)?

What kind of teacher tells someone who asks him a question: “You don’t get it, you never will, … blah, blah, blah.” ? Are you some sort of mystic or something?

Remember, sir, you’re on T-Nation, not talking to Dr. Sowell. We speak more plainly here with less PC bullshit. If you refuse to make something clear and look down your nose at me while doing so, I WILL call you names a lot worse than elitist snob.

Headhunter

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
DNP has been around for about 70 or 80 years. People have died when exposed to it. No one knows what dose will cause you to roast yourself to death. It destroys your mitochondria. Its in pesticides for a REASON. But, I guess death is a price worth paying in the spirit of research of a KNOWN POISON?

As I mentioned before, you clearly haven’t been around scientists much.

Headhunter wrote:
The second part of your post is still unclear. Explain how Coulter or Hannity and so forth, regard us as ‘scum’.

It’s fascinating how you keep making my point and missing it…

And no, I’m not going to spell it out for you. I have no doubt that the reason you’re missing it is not for lack of intelligence – it’s because of your dogmas – and to quote Dr. Phil, either you get it or you don’t. Clearly you don’t, so there’s no amount of explanation that will change that.

If that makes me sound like an elitist snob, well, so be it. You already believe I am an elitist snob, and there’s no amount of effort that will change that either, so there’s no point in me trying really hard not to sound like one… It’s actually much more fun to do the exact opposite.

Well, Doc, I think you’re confusing me with someone else. Have I called you an elitist snob or insulted you (lately anyway)?

What kind of teacher tells someone who asks him a question: “You don’t get it, you never will, … blah, blah, blah.” ? Are you some sort of mystic or something?

Remember, sir, you’re on T-Nation, not talking to Dr. Sowell. We speak more plainly here with less PC bullshit. If you refuse to make something clear and look down your nose at me while doing so, I WILL call you names a lot worse than elitist snob.

Headhunter
[/quote]

I have to write things for laymen all the time, so I’ll do my best to translate his “snobby elitist mumbo-jumbo” into words that you AND Bush could understand:

I think he meant that conservatives obviously dont’ think hardworking people are scum, and saying so is as ludicrous as whatever it was that was said about liberals.

As for you not “getting it”, I don’t think it has anything to do with “mysticism”. HS is right - you are SO CLOSED MINDED that you refuse to think outside the box, and this is why you just don’t “get it”. Reading the answers to the crossword puzzle and saying “oh, now I get it” doesn’t make you smart, and it doesn’t mean that you solved the puzzle, even if you “get it” after seeing the answer. I think his point was inredibly obvious, and I got it right away. It’s not because I’m a smarter than you (frankly, I have no idea if I’m smarter than you or not), it’s because we have entirely different thought processes - you assume that your initial perception of reality is accurate, whereas I assume that it is not necessarily so. This is quinticential to critical thinking. (sorry, I spoke “snobbily”. I’ll rephrase) “You just think that you’re right, and I think that I, and everyone else, might not be.”

…get it?

[quote]knewsom wrote:

As for you not “getting it”, I don’t think it has anything to do with “mysticism”. HS is right - you are SO CLOSED MINDED that you refuse to think outside the box, and this is why you just don’t “get it”. Reading the answers to the crossword puzzle and saying “oh, now I get it” doesn’t make you smart, and it doesn’t mean that you solved the puzzle, even if you “get it” after seeing the answer. I think his point was inredibly obvious, and I got it right away. It’s not because I’m a smarter than you (frankly, I have no idea if I’m smarter than you or not), it’s because we have entirely different thought processes - you assume that your initial perception of reality is accurate, whereas I assume that it is not necessarily so. This is quinticential to critical thinking. (sorry, I spoke “snobbily”. I’ll rephrase) “You just think that you’re right, and I think that I, and everyone else, might not be.”

…get it?[/quote]

If I’m not supposed to trust my own mind and judgment, then whose mind and judgment should I trust?

Ah, its a rhetorical question. Just skip it.

HH

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Thank God I haven’t missed much in my absensce from the politics forum…it appears you are still delusional. Not that I thought that it would change, of course.[/quote]

No need to come back from vacation.

HH

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Thank God I haven’t missed much in my absence from the politics forum…it appears you are still delusional. Not that I thought that it would change, of course.

No need to come back from vacation.[/quote]

So, knewsom went ahead and spelled it out for you (by the way, he put it better than I every could, and he was right on the money) – and you proceeded by making our point yet again.

Thank you for that. It was very kind of you.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
knewsom wrote:

As for you not “getting it”, I don’t think it has anything to do with “mysticism”. HS is right - you are SO CLOSED MINDED that you refuse to think outside the box, and this is why you just don’t “get it”. Reading the answers to the crossword puzzle and saying “oh, now I get it” doesn’t make you smart, and it doesn’t mean that you solved the puzzle, even if you “get it” after seeing the answer. I think his point was inredibly obvious, and I got it right away. It’s not because I’m a smarter than you (frankly, I have no idea if I’m smarter than you or not), it’s because we have entirely different thought processes - you assume that your initial perception of reality is accurate, whereas I assume that it is not necessarily so. This is quinticential to critical thinking. (sorry, I spoke “snobbily”. I’ll rephrase) “You just think that you’re right, and I think that I, and everyone else, might not be.”

…get it?

If I’m not supposed to trust my own mind and judgment, then whose mind and judgment should I trust?

Ah, its a rhetorical question. Just skip it.

HH

[/quote]

I’m not saying to blindly follow ANYONE, least of all yourself. A thinking man must CONSTANTLY re-evaluate his assumptions and the information that those assumptions were built upon. Failure to do so could lead to him making incorrect assumptions and looking like an idiot on a political forum on a bodybuilding website.

…not that I’m naming names.

coughcough*

[quote]knewsom wrote:

I’m not saying to blindly follow ANYONE, least of all yourself. A thinking man must CONSTANTLY re-evaluate his assumptions and the information that those assumptions were built upon. Failure to do so could lead to him making incorrect assumptions and looking like an idiot on a political forum on a bodybuilding website.

…not that I’m naming names.

coughcough*[/quote]

What is it that you use to constantly review your assumptions and information?

You, like most libs, are a social metaphysician. This means that you wait for others to name your assumptions and information for you. Since they, like you, are too cowardly to form their own judgments, they lurk around and finally announce: “There ARE no objective standards. All morality is relative. Everything is relative!” — not realizing that they are finally making an absolute judgment.

You do not understand how a human mind works. We spend childhood inductively, with reason as our guide. We then form axioms and use these deductively, to form judgments and opinions, provided that the person had the courage to think (which most libs don’t). Look at the opening line of the Declaration of Independence : ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’ The Founding Fathers are stating AXIOMS, because they were rational men.

I appear as stupid and evil to you because I have the courage to make statements about what is wrong or right. Because you have no axioms, except that there are none, you have no values. Someone with values must then appear as ‘wrong’ to you.

So I end with how I began this post…what do you use to review your assumptions and information?

HH

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You, like most libs, are a social metaphysician. This means that you wait for others to name your assumptions and information for you. Since they, like you, are too cowardly to form their own judgments, they lurk around and finally announce: “There ARE no objective standards. All morality is relative. Everything is relative!” — not realizing that they are finally making an absolute judgment.

You do not understand how a human mind works. We spend childhood inductively, with reason as our guide. We then form axioms and use these deductively, to form judgments and opinions, provided that the person had the courage to think (which most libs don’t). Look at the opening line of the Declaration of Independence : ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’ The Founding Fathers are stating AXIOMS, because they were rational men.[/quote]

I really don’t know how to put this nicely. I tried, I gave it a lot of thought, by I simply can’t. So I’ll say it in the nicest possible way I could find:

That is the biggest load of BS I’ve read in a long time.

OF COURSE liberals have moral principles and work based on axioms. They’re just different from yours. And, trust me, very few liberals are moral relativists. I, for one, am not a moral relativist.

You however… I’m pretty sure your ONLY axiom is that the Left’s axioms are eViL – every single one of your conclusions is rooted in that one dogma.

You cannot blame me for fundamentally taking issue with that.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You, like most libs, are a social metaphysician. This means that you wait for others to name your assumptions and information for you. Since they, like you, are too cowardly to form their own judgments, they lurk around and finally announce: “There ARE no objective standards. All morality is relative. Everything is relative!” — not realizing that they are finally making an absolute judgment.

You do not understand how a human mind works. We spend childhood inductively, with reason as our guide. We then form axioms and use these deductively, to form judgments and opinions, provided that the person had the courage to think (which most libs don’t). Look at the opening line of the Declaration of Independence : ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’ The Founding Fathers are stating AXIOMS, because they were rational men.

I really don’t know how to put this nicely. I tried, I gave it a lot of thought, by I simply can’t. So I’ll say it in the nicest possible way I could find:

That is the biggest load of BS I’ve read in a long time.

OF COURSE liberals have moral principles and work based on axioms. They’re just different from yours. And, trust me, very few liberals are moral relativists. I, for one, am not a moral relativist.

You however… I’m pretty sure your ONLY axiom is that the Left’s axioms are eViL – every single one of your conclusions is rooted in that one dogma.

You cannot blame me for fundamentally taking issue with that.
[/quote]

State the axioms held by liberals.

CaN I help you? Since conservatives believe as a fundamental axiom that each man’s life, work and property are his (think about that and its implications before you write), and since liberals disagree with that, it therefore follows that they believe they may dispose of an owner and his property or work without his consent. They may pass regulations, taxes, directives and we must obey. Liberals also believe in the right to initiate violence — if you don’t wish to surrender your property or work, these will be seized at gunpoint (and you’ll be thrown into prison). They believe in force against powerless victims.

Notice how when Rainjack talked about reducing taxes, you laughed at him. “How dare you want to keep any of YOUR money? It’ll upset my social planning!”

If you don’t see that giving any government power over individuals who’re not harming any other person doesn’t lead to disaster (as it has repeatedly throughout history), maybe its not me who’s blinded by my dogmas.

And BTW, the dogma crap is getting old. I accept my axioms through a process of reason ,except for my faith. Time to turn the record over, Charlie.

HH

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
State the axioms held by liberals.[/quote]

Here they are:

Axiom 1: Guaranteed liberty – the undeniable right of freedom in private life for individuals.
Corollaries: a) Limitations on power, especially of government and religion are necessary to ensure liberty; b) The rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected much be guaranteed. c) Sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life are also unalienable rights. This includes opposing government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances (including, of course, anabolic steroids, pro-hormones and stimulants).

Axiom 2: Since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries are to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages (“minimum wage laws.”) It also expects governments to provide a basic level of welfare, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, to prevent revolution, or simply “for the public good.”

That’s it. 2 simple axioms.

If you want to know more, I suggest starting by reading the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, the guys that most influenced modern liberal thinking at its infancy.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What is it that you use to constantly review your assumptions and information?

You, like most libs, are a social metaphysician. This means that you wait for others to name your assumptions and information for you. Since they, like you, are too cowardly to form their own judgments, they lurk around and finally announce: “There ARE no objective standards. All morality is relative. Everything is relative!” — not realizing that they are finally making an absolute judgment.

You do not understand how a human mind works. We spend childhood inductively, with reason as our guide. We then form axioms and use these deductively, to form judgments and opinions, provided that the person had the courage to think (which most libs don’t). Look at the opening line of the Declaration of Independence : ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’ The Founding Fathers are stating AXIOMS, because they were rational men.

I appear as stupid and evil to you because I have the courage to make statements about what is wrong or right. Because you have no axioms, except that there are none, you have no values. Someone with values must then appear as ‘wrong’ to you.

So I end with how I began this post…what do you use to review your assumptions and information?

HH[/quote]

Oh please, you make it sound like liberals are a bunch of moral relativists and sophists. Like we have no values at all. Dude, are you INSANE!? Don’t you know WHY we want a basic level of opportunity and general well-being for the populace? it’s not because we want to quit our jobs and get in line at the welfare office, it’s because we have through reason and logic deduced that it would result in greater public good! We aren’t environmenalists because we own stock in Jimmy’s solar cell company, it’s because less pollution is a good thing and needs to be implimented when there’s a viable alternative technology that isn’t prohibitively expensive. Anti-trust laws and minimum wages are IMPORTANT in a society that doesn’t wish to see huge numbers of people living in abject poverty.

There are things in this world that make moral sense to me, and that I can use reason to justify paying for. Sure, I’d love to pay no taxes, but I realize that there are important things that the money goes for, like to protect our national security, educate our population, etc. Hspder has summed this whole axiom nonsense pretty nicely, please refer to that.

As to what I use to constantly re-evaluate my assumptions about reality, I use a constant influx of new information, critical thinking to analyze that information, and a variety of reasoning techniques and thought processes INCLUDING Sophism, Deconstructionism, Moral Relativism, etc. (using a Sophism or Moral Relativism tool as but one tool of reasoning does not make you a Sophist or a Moral Relativist - it makes you thorough), but when it comes down to it, when I’ve had my fill of mental masterbation, and its time to make a moral decision, I go with my gut. I constantly analyze what my gut is telling me, but I usually come to the same logical conclusion that my gut has, and in the end, one has to do what one thinks and feels is right. “To thine own self, be true.”

I have NEVER called you evil, and only implied that you were foolish (not stupid), but I’m coming to the conclusion that you are just a sad, small, selfish, petty little man who bases his political decisions on his knee-jerk responses to the sophistry preached by selfish, petty little leaders, that they use soley for their own personal gain.

I’m not saying Democrats are perfect. I’m not saying there aren’t some in the party out only for themsleves. What I AM saying is that the values that we collectively share are POSITIVE values, ones that are right in line with the constitution and declaration of independence. Truths that we hold to be self-evident, and have come to individually through our own personal growth and thought. Sharing in these values has allowed us to accomplish a great many things in this nation - we have protected a great many natural resources for genrations to enjoy. We have incredible libraries, some incredible schools (and many which could be a lot better, sadly), amazing art and science museums (as well as amazing artists and scientists, of which we desperately need more), and in some places, efficient mass transit, all of which are paid for by the general public, and all of which contribute to a greater good. This society we live in is AMAZING, and I gladly pay my part for that. I’d gladly pay more to make it even better.

If you don’t want to pay taxes, bucko, tough. Your party is spending even more money than mine, and we’re not getting as much for it. If you really think that a government and a society can function without taxes, you’re nuts. If you just want personal exemption, well, I think you may be just as sad and petty as I thought you to be.

I hope you read this carefully - I know its a lot, but I think there’s a small amount of truth and wisdom in there somewhere. I can’t be totally sure that what I’ve said is right, but it feels right, and that’s about the best I can hope for. Seriously, read through it again. Read what Hspder said in his last post too. Then think about it for a day, think about the assumptions you have about life in general, and then come back and explain to me what you think, WHY you think it, and how it makes you feel.

Take care.

-K

[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
State the axioms held by liberals.

Here they are:

Axiom 1: Guaranteed liberty – the undeniable right of freedom in private life for individuals.
Corollaries: a) Limitations on power, especially of government and religion are necessary to ensure liberty; b) The rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected much be guaranteed. c) Sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life are also unalienable rights. This includes opposing government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances (including, of course, anabolic steroids, pro-hormones and stimulants).

Hoh, hoh, hoh!! “We just want a LITTLE regulation. It’ll never Grow! It’ll NEVER spiral out of control! It may have happened in every country that ever tried that, but WE’RE different!”

I’m having trouble typing, laughing too hard!

Axiom 2: Since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries are to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages (“minimum wage laws.”) It also expects governments to provide a basic level of welfare, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, to prevent revolution, or simply “for the public good.”

Benefits provided by whom? In exchange for what? Who decides who gets what benefits? Something is appropriate here about the road to hell…

That’s it. 2 simple axioms.

If you want to know more, I suggest starting by reading the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, the guys that most influenced modern liberal thinking at its infancy.
[/quote]

Its been many years since I’ve read these guys. Mill was trying to justify altruism in a capitalist society, which can only lead to destruction, as you’re seeing now, a federal monstosity that’ll ruin this great country.

[quote]knewsom wrote:

I hope you read this carefully - I know its a lot, but I think there’s a small amount of truth and wisdom in there somewhere. I can’t be totally sure that what I’ve said is right, but it feels right, and that’s about the best I can hope for. Seriously, read through it again. Read what Hspder said in his last post too. Then think about it for a day, think about the assumptions you have about life in general, and then come back and explain to me what you think, WHY you think it, and how it makes you feel.

Take care.

-K[/quote]

“I don’t go by my head but by my heart. I FEEL that you’re wrong, so I know you must be!” said the woman with the earrings.

“Madam”, said Francisco,“when we’ll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won’t be of any earthly use to save them. And I’m heartless enough to say that when you scream 'But I didn’t know it!, you will not be forgiven.”

      --- Atlas Shrugged

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
knewsom wrote:

I hope you read this carefully - I know its a lot, but I think there’s a small amount of truth and wisdom in there somewhere. I can’t be totally sure that what I’ve said is right, but it feels right, and that’s about the best I can hope for. Seriously, read through it again. Read what Hspder said in his last post too. Then think about it for a day, think about the assumptions you have about life in general, and then come back and explain to me what you think, WHY you think it, and how it makes you feel.

Take care.

-K

“I don’t go by my head but by my heart. I FEEL that you’re wrong, so I know you must be!” said the woman with the earrings.

“Madam”, said Francisco,“when we’ll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won’t be of any earthly use to save them. And I’m heartless enough to say that when you scream 'But I didn’t know it!, you will not be forgiven.”

      --- Atlas Shrugged

[/quote]

…as I suspected. You really ARE a just sad, selfish, petty little man. What a pity you assume everyone else is as well.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Its been many years since I’ve read these guys. Mill was trying to justify altruism in a capitalist society, which can only lead to destruction, as you’re seeing now, a federal monstosity that’ll ruin this great country.[/quote]

So, I thoroughly and thoughtfully answer your question, laying out exactly what liberals immutably believe in, and your answer is the above, the same canned response that you keep repeating.

Congratulations. You have once proven my previous points very well. Thank you.

By the way, this is the last time I am going to spend more than 10 seconds answering to any post of yours. And every time you complain about that, I will refer you back to this answer of yours.

You and steveo sure make a great couple… you should definitely move in together. At a minimum, start some club where you can throw canned responses both at each other and at anyone who dears to cross your paths.

[quote]Plus it’s not like the Chinese see the North Koreans as being human. Yes, that might sound shocking to you, but I’ve had a few Chinese people admit as much.

[/quote]

It’s funny how I talked to south koreans the other day and they don’t see mainland chinese people as human, but rather midget beings.