LeviF Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Vice is acceptable but archaic. Are you a language snob or just very old, did you know Mohammad personally? I don't think he did, but he was childhood friends with Mohammad's 9-year-old wife.
/dev/null Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Vice is acceptable but archaic. Are you a language snob or just very old, did you know Mohammad personally? I'm not a language snob, but I do get kind of irritated when I see the improper application of affect/effect. I didn't use vice because I'm a language snob (read thru my many posts for evidence). I used it because the word was appropriate and also I like to see which posters it beffudles, perplexes, or frustrates And no, I do not know Mohammed personally, or his 9 year old wife. However I have met a man named Jesus and and another named Moses
....lybob Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 I'm not a language snob, but I do get kind of irritated when I see the improper application of affect/effect. I didn't use vice because I'm a language snob (read thru my many posts for evidence). I used it because the word was appropriate and also I like to see which posters it beffudles, perplexes, or frustrates And no, I do not know Mohammed personally, or his 9 year old wife. However I have met a man named Jesus and and another named Moses pretty much the colloquial definition of a snob as for Jesus and Moses me too - Jesus Godoy, and Moses Malone
LeviF Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 I'm not a language snob, but I do get kind of irritated when I see the improper application of affect/effect. I didn't use vice because I'm a language snob (read thru my many posts for evidence). I used it because the word was appropriate and also I like to see which posters it beffudles, perplexes, or frustrates And no, I do not know Mohammed personally, or his 9 year old wife. However I have met a man named Jesus and and another named Moses Jesus cleans my boat.
LeviF Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Ya right! like you have a boat. I do, and Jesus works for the marina. Nice dude. It's no yacht, but it works for a good time and water skiing/tubing with friends.
Dan Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Dude you are acting like the result of intensive political and economic academic and practical study spent over the course of 60 years, which is the Communist theory...before it was ever applied, not to mention after = Kill all the Black people cause we ain't like them! Now get me a beer! Seriously? You honestly think that this extremist Muslim ideology, where all you have to do is replace "Black people"(I will never use that other word) with Jews, and, beer with hash, should be treated the same as Communism? Really? Apparently all ideas and ideologies, regardless of whether they are the result of years of intensive study, or derived while taking a crap are the same, and should be treated equally? Man, I have spent all these years perfecting my designs, when all this time all I had to do was write something out in crayon, and I could have had the same result. By definition, you cannot be a religion of peace, if your religion's holy books are interspersed with instructions on how, when and why to make war. Once again, words mean things. Instructive words, by definition, mean what they say. I made the leap? You are the one that brought up Reagan/Communism? So, WTF are you talking about? WRT math and science: I don't remember learning Achmedean Geometry. I remember learning Euclidean. Right, OK, so if the angle isn't to engage "Muslim nations in general", so that they are less likely to support extremist views, then what is the angle? Randomly spending tax-payer dollars, via NASA, of all things, on "Muslim nations in general's" self esteem? What possible, logical, purpose does that serve? You are acting as if the ideas espoused by our enemies are worthy of considering as anything other than babble. I am saying we don't acknowledge babble, we ignore it, and we certainly don't legitimize these ideas, or these people, by "engaging or confronting" them as though they are somehow worthy of our time. We give them what they deserve: our scorn. OK... I think you've confused me again. Just to make sure I'm clear.. who's legitimizing our enemies? And when exactly did we do that? Are you suggesting that all Muslims are our enemies and therefore we shouldn't acknowledge anything positive that any muslim has ever done? Oh, and I'm fairly certain Muslim ideology, extremist or not, has a slightly longer history than 60 years. So what was your point again?
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 All I got from this was robble, robble, robble. As expected. The Old Testament is very similar to the Koran in the way it addresses many things, not the least of which is the ridiculous number of things for which worshipers/non-worshippers are put to death. The fact you don't recognize that tells me that you're simply regurgitating the same tired right wing bull **** because you've never read either !@#$ing book. Before you respond to this, think very carefully about how big of an ass whipping you want on this subject. Reading comprehension is important, especially for a mod, and especially for a guy who thinks he can give me a whipping on any subject. (see I can be just as dismissive and arrogant, it doesn't change the strength, or weakness in your case, of the argument) Re-read this thread and find me one place where I referred to the Old Testament, or, find me a place where I wasn't talking about Jesus. Every single time I have compared what Jesus taught, to what Mohamed taught, as in, New Testament vs. Koran. So, please cut the crap already. You are arguing against points I am not making. I'm completely consistent on pretty much everything having to do with large entities, whether its business, government, or religion. It has nothing to do with "nuance". Religion for the most part is organization for money and power. It has little do do with spirituality and much to do with control. I rarely use absolutes to describe anything, though I'm not surprised that you're trying to attribute something in such a pathetic manner because you got !@#$ing exposed and you've never been able to deal with any real criticism. Ha! Now this is hysterical. Let's put aside the facts that you don't know me, what I do for a job, or that it involves constant, withering criticism, because your statement is so absurd it's funny. Yes, let's try and deal with the first part, and your ridiculous assertions that go with it: We both served in the Army. In what reality is the Army being a large entity not a good thing? Would you rather it be small? The fact is that some large entities are necessary, no matter what, so your assertion that all large government entities are bad is retarded. Some are, some are not, and that's the nuance you are missing. The simple fact is that "scope creep" is what kills large government entities and/or the political belief that large government is always the answer. Another fact is: often a large business model is the only way to go. How many Fortune 500 companies have you done work for? I assume 0, so I will tell you: while many are bloated, the majority simply need that many people to fulfill their mission. The assertion that St. Gobain, or Boeing, or GM, or Citi(group when I was consulting them), or Morgan Stanley, and many others, would better serve their customers/partners if they were small, or divided up into smaller companies is just as retarded as asserting that the Army would be better. I can say that with absolute certainty, because I know their business processes cold. No way, not ever, would any of them be better as smaller entities. Since we are talking about ass whippings, go ahead and test me.... With regard to religion: You keep extrapolating my simple point, and it's annoying. Is it possible for you to imagine that I may not care for big, organized religion any more than you do? The truth is I haven't made any lasting decisions about religion, yet, and I am not sure if I ever will. I highly doubt I will become a Muslim, because of my objections to what's in their book. I am simply stating the facts about what is written in these 2 books, as they are. My point is limited to: one talks about killing your neighbor, the other says just the opposite. Stop with the extrapolation. It's boring me. Good one, Conner. You act like conner, you get treated like conner, it's as simple as that. Another argument of convenience and stupidity. Surprising. Another argument you have no rational response to. Not surprising. Go ahead and tell me how some idiot's bastardization of "turn the other cheek" and the Golden Rule and everything else Jesus said...justifies the literal instruction of "kill thy neighbor, and make sure to cut off his head, burn his skin and belly" and the rest of the crap, in the Koran. One has nothing to do with the other. Again, before you start, stop extrapolating and arguing points I am not making. Confine your response to what I am saying, or stop wasting my time. (Darin brings up the crusades and the Old Testament, again, in 5...4...3...)
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 OK... I think you've confused me again. Given your intentional obfuscation here and elsewhere? I am not buying this. Just to make sure I'm clear.. who's legitimizing our enemies? And when exactly did we do that? One(1) example: Obama is legitimizing the regime in Iran, who CLEARLY doesn't have the support of its people, and whose "ideology" is: kill the Jews, and take on the Americans if they try to stop us killing the Jews. That's not what I, or any rational person, would call an "ideology". That's not the work of a deep thinker, that's the work of an idiot. That's what the KKK and the Iranian leaders have in common: abject stupidity. If they attack anyone with a nuke, or so much as think about at giving it away to terrorists we will end them. Backing us into a corner is sheer stupidity on their part. Every time anyone has ever backed us into a corner, because they thought we were weak(same old story) they have paid heavy. They are stupid for not learning their history. Why are we arguing with idiots, and legitimizing them by doing so? Are you suggesting that all Muslims are our enemies and therefore we shouldn't acknowledge anything positive that any muslim has ever done? Of course not. Are you suggesting that all Muslims are not terrorists, that in fact only a few are, but we should be engaging ALL Muslims, using NASA, of all things, and treat them all the same? This is illogical, plain and simple. Why do we need to "engage Muslim countries in general" if there are only a few Muslim terrorists? Either the premise that "only a few Muslims support terror" is false, or, we don't need to be engaging whole countries of people and treating them all the same. Did anybody ask us to make Muslims feel better about themselves? Was there a UN resolution that I missed? Have you even considered how condescending this is? The assumption here is that somehow Muslims have a massive inferiority complex that needs to be addressed. Where is the evidence of that? Even if there is some, why on earth should we feed into it with blatant condescension? How exactly is an NASA engineer supposed to go about making a Muslim feel better about himself? Do a GoToMeeting? Oh, and I'm fairly certain Muslim ideology, extremist or not, has a slightly longer history than 60 years. So what was your point again? Hehe, knew you'd say this. Islam has had 1300 years to produce wisdom, knowledge, anything even close to a positive result. Communism lasted a little over 120 years(the 60 part was before it was actually implemented, get it?), and produced the T-34 tank, the first man in space, and the unholy AK-47, for Pete's sake. It's not even close. 1300 years and what do we get? Kill the heathen and make the Jews and Christians pay taxes! How long did it really take to come up with that one? Here we are 1300 years later, and how much wisdom or advancement has Islam given us, compared to anything else(Edit: they were able to make good steel in Damascus, forgot about that one)? The nuts, mind you THE NUTS, only, are saying the same things they were in the beginning, and all that has brought them in the modern era is getting their azz colonized by European powers, and the Jews whipping them with 5-1 against. Time to change the music. The results speak for themselves. Clearly the more closely you follow Islam, the more likely you are to get smoked, at everything. Your position is that all ideologies are =, and should be treated as such. Clearly they are not, especially when we judge them based on results. I don't want any American, and especially not NASA, to encourage bad behavior, or delusions of grandeur, or any more living in the past, for a bunch of people that are facing serious, TODAY, economic, political and social problems...in "Muslim nations in general" or anywhere.
Adam Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I hate to say this- but the things mentioned that we don't like have been legit for years. Saying they aren't legitimate doesn't make it so.
....lybob Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 If people like OCinBuffalo don't want to engage Muslims well C'est la vie but the Chinese will have no problem engaging them.
finknottle Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Now it's about how the message is constructed, and not the message itself? WTF? Again, we aren't talking about some peripheral nuance here. Were are talking about the PRIORITIES of NASA as set by the President, and you don't localize the friggin mission statement of NASA to suit a bunch of people who will have exactly 0 bearing and relevance on its operations. Again, this is an example of bad leadership, and frankly? This is ego-maniacal hubris, as in: "I am so big, my political agenda goes everywhere, even in places others' can't, like NASA". This is retarded, and you know it, and I am starting to think that you are simply making excuses for voting for Obama. The fact that he is saying this to Al Jeezera makes it worse, not better, and certainly doesn't provide a rational explanation as to why the #1 priority of NASA has been changed. : I have strong competing feelings on this topic. Over a year ago I decried in these forums the cutting of NASA's budget on foreign policy grounds. It was my experience that for PR, NASA is the best thing we have going for us. I've meet many people in the middle east - young technical people - who were hostile to this country, but would do an about face whenever our space program was brought up. NASA, with its leading role, helps this country's image more then all the presidential apologies and foreign aid ever will. They look at NASA's successes and see what a free and fairly run country can accomplish. But this business of a targeted outreach is IMO precisely the wrong way to go about it. You lead by example, by inspiration. Not by taking an apolitical endeavor seen as working on behalf of the entire world, and visibly turning it into a tool of foreign policy. When you go to pains to tell them how great they are and pretend they are technical partners, they no longer ask themselves what is right with America and wrong with their own societies that we can accomplish such things and they cannot.
3rdnlng Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 I have strong competing feelings on this topic. Over a year ago I decried in these forums the cutting of NASA's budget on foreign policy grounds. It was my experience that for PR, NASA is the best thing we have going for us. I've meet many people in the middle east - young technical people - who were hostile to this country, but would do an about face whenever our space program was brought up. NASA, with its leading role, helps this country's image more then all the presidential apologies and foreign aid ever will. They look at NASA's successes and see what a free and fairly run country can accomplish. But this business of a targeted outreach is IMO precisely the wrong way to go about it. You lead by example, by inspiration. Not by taking an apolitical endeavor seen as working on behalf of the entire world, and visibly turning it into a tool of foreign policy. When you go to pains to tell them how great they are and pretend they are technical partners, they no longer ask themselves what is right with America and wrong with their own societies that we can accomplish such things and they cannot.
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 But this business of a targeted outreach is IMO precisely the wrong way to go about it. You lead by example, by inspiration. Not by taking an apolitical endeavor seen as working on behalf of the entire world, and visibly turning it into a tool of foreign policy. When you go to pains to tell them how great they are and pretend they are technical partners, they no longer ask themselves what is right with America and wrong with their own societies that we can accomplish such things and they cannot. Worse...it's pandering. Generally, people really do not like being pandered to (the average American voter excepted, of course).
OCinBuffalo Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 If people like OCinBuffalo don't want to engage Muslims well C'est la vie but the Chinese will have no problem engaging them. Little Barry's "engagement" plan has worked exactly as well as his "oil spill response" plan, his "provide leadership on health care" plan, and his "Keep Iran from getting nukes" plan. Abject failure. You really think that telling NASA to engage Muslims is going to produce results? Is it going to stop Iran from getting nukes? Is it going to stop Saudi Arabia from stoning women to death? Is it going to stop Syria from sending terrorists to train/equip in Venezuela? Russia, China, hell the Balkan countries are LAUGHING at your/Obama's idiocy when it comes to "engagement". They cannot believe anybody would be dumb enough to play Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale all over again. What happens if Iran gets nukes? Should we boycott the Olympics, and send the UN a nasty little note, Jimmy? Oh that's right, we aren't supposed to judge this administration on it's results. Far-left loons don't believe in judging anybody/thing by results, except Republicans of course, so I supposed we aren't allowed to judge this President by his 90% failure rate.
Recommended Posts