Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[Stargazer]

America, through its military supported proxies, held an iron grip on the economies of most South American countries so that we could eat cheap bananas and could exploit their natural resources. Just about a wash I guess.

No, I don't think so. And besides, it wasn't US force of arms that held them in any grip. Although of course the desire to sell goods to their big customer might have had its attractions.

Much like America's NATO alliance (not to mention our alliances in the Pacific)?

The NATO alliance, as I pointed out in case you missed it, represented one quarter the size of the Warsaw Pacts forces that claimed to be defending against it. Slightly asymetric. You don't station a million troops along a border that side, facing a quarter of a million and claim that you are in a defense posture. Not without cracking a smile, anyway. If we had packed up and gone home, they would have steamrollered everything all the way to France, whose own nukes would have made them pause. Those teddy bears were soooooo peaceful.

And NATO wasn't funding terrorist groups (like Baader-Meinhof and the Rote Brigade) within the borders of the Warsaw Pact.

My point was America did what it thought was in its own best interest. Why would any other country not do the same if they felt seriously threatened?

That isn't what it sounded like.

[The Nehor]

Of course their recent threat to initiate a first nuclear strike if their demands weren't met has nothing to do with any danger from the Russians. They're just our good buddies.

http://seattletimes....iledefense.html

And don't tell me we need to just "understand" their concerns. They control a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. They are clearly ready to use them to achieve their political goals. They are dangerous. I'd say it is YOU who is dangerously out of touch with the real situation.

The United States has a vast military and an even more recent history of using it to achieve our political goals. If the United States could realistically negate Russia's (and China's) nuclear threat the United States would have defacto global hegemony and could dictate any terms they wanted to any nation they chose. Russia is right to be worried. Their interests worldwide would be at risk and they would have little choice but to enter into an arms race. Do we really want one?

You can argue that we have a history of more moral use of force and make better world peacekeepers then the Russians ever could. I would even agree but I see little reason for them or anyone else to believe that it will always be this way.

[Stargazer]

Not an assertion. A conclusion. It offends both sides when I share it which leads me to believe I'm on to something. Everyone seems much more forgiving of extremists if they are 'our extremists'.

A faulty conclusion. I know who these people are, because some of them are acquaintances. They are not in any way shape or form "extremists". They want to preserve the Constitution, stop government encroachment on the liberties of the people. The words I have heard from the mouths of the OWS folks are quite different: they want to tear down the existing order, meaning Constitutional government, and foment a Bolshevik-style revolution. And even if many or most of them do not wish this, a sizable minority of them have.

How many Tea-Partiers have been arrested for plotting blow up bridges?

Selek's list of OWS actions that were not done by TPers speaks for itself when it comes to "extremism".

[Bond...James Bond]

No, I don't think so. And besides, it wasn't US force of arms that held them in any grip. Although of course the desire to sell goods to their big customer might have had its attractions.

America's best soldier since World War II has been its wallet. Why invade a country when we can buy off a portion of that population to do our bidding?

The NATO alliance, as I pointed out in case you missed it, represented one quarter the size of the Warsaw Pacts forces that claimed to be defending against it. Slightly asymetric. You don't station a million troops along a border that side, facing a quarter of a million and claim that you are in a defense posture. Not without cracking a smile, anyway. If we had packed up and gone home, they would have steamrollered everything all the way to France, whose own nukes would have made them pause. Those teddy bears were soooooo peaceful.

That's only because the Iron Curtain was ten thousand miles away. If Canada had been part of the Warsaw Pact and the Russians had bases a few hundred miles from America's northern continental border how many soldiers would be on the border? Probably enough to outnumber the other side 4-1.

And NATO wasn't funding terrorist groups (like Baader-Meinhof and the Rote Brigade) within the borders of the Warsaw Pact.

Well America funded groups like the Contras which were basically terrorist groups. . . In America's "Own Backyard" according to the Monroe Doctrine.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Bond...James Bond]

How many Tea-Partiers have been arrested for plotting blow up bridges?

That was some Anarchist group =/= to OWS.

Selek's list of OWS actions that were not done by TPers speaks for itself when it comes to "extremism".

He hasn't responded to my CFR on half that stuff. Safe to assume he was pulling a lot of his hyperbole from his crevasse.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Libs]

I remember that statement and having a puzzled "really?? When did that happen?" thought pass my mind. The idea of the past coloring our view of the present is weird to me. When the wall came down I was a year old. Russia's just another nation with some major problems for me.

Aware of that. I decided to keep it short or I would have mentioned that as well. I was more interested in the overall patter, which was unsustainable change from extreme actions. Though I disagree about the racist social structure basically still remaining. Ive lived the majority of my life in either Virginia (albeit northern...they're not known for their southern pride) or Texas. Though there are places that I'd definitely never live in because cultural boundaries surrounding race (racial construct is too black or white for someone who is adamantly black and white and neither....get's on your nerves after a while) it's a bit of a pull to states it's basically the same.

Yep...in a sense. My major point was that the second time around it was a movement that was largely from the inside out.

With luv,

BD

The changes were sustainable and very much needed during the 60's (and before that, as someone mentioned). It was well past time for these changes and they have been very well sustained, even though they were gained by the reactionaries of the day. I very strongly disagree that wrongs should be tolerated for any period of time. Often there is a big price for standing up for what is right (ask our Lord Jesus Christ).

[wenglund]

Are you comparing the desire to see women ordained to animals being ordained?

No, I am not equating them in the way you may suspect.

Wow. Just wow.

Apparently, you assumed the wrong answer. No "wow" about that. Jumping to false conclusions seems to be your MO.

Perhaps you, too, might want to buy yourself a sense of humor. May I recommend you include a pride suppressor?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 4, 2012 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

A faulty conclusion. I know who these people are, because some of them are acquaintances. They are not in any way shape or form "extremists". They want to preserve the Constitution, stop government encroachment on the liberties of the people.

I know some of the OWS people because some of them are acquaintances. They just want the ability to live in society. They want jobs, opportunities, and an equal chance. Yet you reduce them to Fox News caricatures bent on violent revolution. Here is the caricature of your acquaintances:

Translation: They want lower taxes then this nation has ever had since World War II because they imagine that was how the good old days were even though they never existed. They want to be patriots without it costing anything other then some flag waving and a bumper sticker. They also want to avoid losing liberties by giving up any liberty necessary so we can beat those terrorists. Even those from the Bill of Rights.

See how easy it is?

The words I have heard from the mouths of the OWS folks are quite different: they want to tear down the existing order, meaning Constitutional government, and foment a Bolshevik-style revolution. And even if many or most of them do not wish this, a sizable minority of them have.

I've also known of Tea Partiers who belong to the KKK and other White Supremacist movements including Neo-Nazi groups. Do you really want it to come down to who has the worst people supporting them?

How many Tea-Partiers have been arrested for plotting blow up bridges?

Selek's list of OWS actions that were not done by TPers speaks for itself when it comes to "extremism".

Tea Partiers instead want lower taxes then have ever been since World War II and yet still want to play at foreign wars. They want to argue over drop in the bucket social safety net expenditures as if that is why we are in debt. I'd call that extremist too. It may even be more dangerous extremism. I don't know.

Again, it is the silliness of: "They are worse!!!!!!"

[Stargazer]

That was some Anarchist group =/= to OWS.

Oh, was it? You have a deep understanding of the mechanics of the OWS movement, then? How do you know this? Who is funding this outfit? Who is organizing it? It isn't spontaneous -- it's too widespread and too well-coordinated for that to be believed. The fine lads who caused millions of dollars worth in damage in Seattle on May Day weren't affiliated with OWS, you think? Some more anarchists?

So what is it? OWS is peaceful, and all the violence is committed by someone else? I call BS on that one.

He hasn't responded to my CFR on half that stuff. Safe to assume he was pulling a lot of his hyperbole from his crevasse.

Perhaps he is assembling the material in response. Perhaps he feels it is a useless exercise.

In any case, I am pretty certain it is useless. I am leaving this thread, largely because this is in fact pointless.

[selek1]

That was some Anarchist group =/= to OWS.

False.

http://www.usnews.co...ay-day-protests

According to an affidavit unsealed on Tuesday, five Cleveland men—at least three whom are self-described anarchists—were recently arrested for plotting to blow up a bridge as part of the May Day protests, according to the Daily Mail. A member of Occupy Cleveland revealed that some of the men had ties to the group as well, but their media coordinator denied any knowledge of the planned attacks.

While Occupy Cleveland as a whole had no knowledge of the conspiracy, the conspirators were part of the Occupy movement.

He hasn't responded to my CFR on half that stuff. Safe to assume he was pulling a lot of his hyperbole from his crevasse.

He hasn't responded because he's trying not to feed the trolls (and obviously meeting with only limited success in that regard).

Fine- after all of thirty seconds on Google, here is an article and collection of links which answer the CFR.

http://townhall.com/...ence_on_may_day

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ginaloudon/2012/05/02/occupy_alabama/page/2

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/10/17/nazi_party_supports_occupy_wall_street&sa=U&ei=hVCjT4q3Cajx6AGIn6US&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEb4-Hl0wMxDtqaQWPkxHouqo1uww

Any good Google search will turn up hundreds of images of anti-Semetic signs and videos taken at Occupy activities.

These things simply cannot be denied by an objective observer.

Edited May 4, 2012 by selek1

[Bond...James Bond]

Oh, was it? You have a deep understanding of the mechanics of the OWS movement, then? How do you know this? Who is funding this outfit? Who is organizing it? It isn't spontaneous -- it's too widespread and too well-coordinated for that to be believed. The fine lads who caused millions of dollars worth in damage in Seattle on May Day weren't affiliated with OWS, you think?

It's interesting. The Koch brothers who supported all those "astroturf" faux grass roots Tea Parties are the same people who supported OWS. They did it just to eff with you.

Some more anarchists?

Yup the Seattle rioters were anarchists.

So what is it? OWS is peaceful, and all the violence is committed by someone else? I call BS on that one.

You're calling all protesters OWS. Belief it or not there are different groups on the left. Everyone who protested Vietnam wasn't in SDS either.

Perhaps he is assembling the material in response. Perhaps he feels it is a useless exercise.

In any case, I am pretty certain it is useless. I am leaving this thread, largely because this is in fact pointless.

Perhaps he can't find all of it and his tongue ranneth over.

[selek1]

Perhaps he is assembling the material in response. Perhaps he feels it is a useless exercise.

Option C- all of the above.

In any case, I am pretty certain it is useless. I am leaving this thread, largely because this is in fact pointless.

Quoted For Truth.

In any case, I'm done here, too.

[Bond...James Bond]

http://www.usnews.co...ay-day-protests

While Occupy Cleveland as a whole had no knowledge of the conspiracy, the conspirators were part of the Occupy movement.

Oh wow then you're saying someone went rogue? I guess I won't tar the whole "right to life" movement by the actions of the few people who take it upon themselves to assassinate abortionists.

Fine- after all of thirty seconds on Google, here is an article and collection of links which answer the CFR.

http://townhall.com/...ence_on_may_day

Far-right wing source. Still waiting on photos of Occupiers handing out Mein Kampf.

[Bond...James Bond]

Anyway I'm out for the night. Will get to any responses on Saturday (assuming thread hasn't been closed for politics).

Obama 2012 ~ Forward

[selek1]

The Koch brothers

You know, according to some Democrats of my acquaintance, if you chant their name three times, you can open a portal directly to Hastur and their other co-conspirators.

Of course, brandishing hard-Left Democrat talking points and invoking Left-wing boogie-men does nothing to support your cause.

As much as you might wish to demonize the Koch Brothers, it is not yet a crime to spend your money and your time in opposition to Caesar Obama's agenda.

In point of fact- for all the hatred and venom heaped upon the Koch Brothers, there's no evidence that they or their associates have broken any law.

The same cannot be said for outfits like MoveOn.org, George Soros, and other vote-fraud mills.

Worse, waving your hands and announcing "Avada Cadavra" or "Right Wing websites" does not show that their reporting is inaccurate or false.

No matter how loudly or forcefully you try to whistle your way past the graveyard, the facts are hot on your heels and cannot be denied.

I DO think something needs to be made crystal clear.

Not all of the OWS protestors are violent insurrectionists. There are a lot of innocent dupes, useful idiots, and fellow travellers who've gotten roped in.

But unless and until OWS takes the time to denounce the radicals and extremists among them, they are tacitly endorsing them.

Unless and until they differentiate between their sane members and the lunatics, it is the lunatics who will be seen as their public face.

And now I really am done.

I'm going to turn off the computer and walk away.

Any second now...

Edited May 4, 2012 by selek1