Obama - Officially next preident of the USA. - Page 12

**GilkyBear** · #**166** 11-06-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I they're only weak or strong in relation to each other, if you weaken the strong, the weak become less weak, relative to the strong. So you have strenghtened them

Not necessarily. In many cases, sure. But look at Russia. We weakened them tremendously after the cold war but what happened? They sensed that they were weakening and circled the wagons, aligned themselves with the mafia, and now the mafia and a sham government run the country resulting in the weak being in a worse position than they were before when there was at least stability. So the weakening of the strong (gov't) did not strengthen the weak in any way, just the opposite. It's those pesky little secondary effects.

OLIE_ROCKS_THE_80'S · #**167** 11-06-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilkyBear

Not necessarily. In many cases, sure. But look at Russia. We weakened them tremendously after the cold war but what happened? They sensed that they were weakening and circled the wagons, aligned themselves with the mafia, and now the mafia and a sham government run the country resulting in the weak being in a worse position than they were before when there was at least stability. So the weakening of the strong (gov't) did not strengthen the weak in any way, just the opposite. It's those pesky little secondary effects.

And you know this because you're Russian and lived in Russia right???

Rich · #**168** 11-06-2008, 02:24 PM

That analogy doesn't work. We weakened the USSR, which ended up breaking up into splinter states. Those splinter states are now stronger than they were when they were part of the USSR in that they have more individual power than they had as part of the union.

**GilkyBear** · #**169** 11-06-2008, 02:30 PM

Olie, yes, I have been to Russia and have friends serving there at this very moment. Estonia is quite gorgeous as well, great wine.

Rich, OK, fair enough, the splinters are in a better position (Georgia? Maybe not so much) but the rest (still in Russia) are worse off. So the logic still applies, it strengthened SOME of the weak, yet worsened it for others, proving again that it wasn't the SINGLE ACT of weakening the strong, it was the SECONDARY EFFECTS.

**GilkyBear** · #**170** 11-06-2008, 02:32 PM

Again, let me reiterate that I am not saying I agree with all or any of the principles (I don't), I'm just saying the arguments being put forth are based on incorrect interpretations of them.

OLIE_ROCKS_THE_80'S · #**171** 11-06-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilkyBear

Again, let me reiterate that I am not saying I agree with all or any of the principles (I don't), I'm just saying the arguments being put forth are based on incorrect interpretations of them.

And what makes "Your Interpretation" the "Correct" one...??? I'm just curious...

**GilkyBear** · #**172** 11-06-2008, 02:41 PM

Well Olie, that's why I'm giving examples of why I think I am correct. How about you put forth an opinion and back it up with a reason why you think it is the correct one

Am I supposed to think I am incorrect? SHOW ME that I am incorrect, if you do, I promise I'll admit it

OLIE_ROCKS_THE_80'S · #**173** 11-06-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilkyBear

Well Olie, that's why I'm giving examples of why I think I am correct. How about you put forth an opinion and back it up with a reason why you think it is the correct one

Am I supposed to think I am incorrect? SHOW ME that I am incorrect, if you do, I promise I'll admit it

I respect your point of view having said that I don't agree with it because your example is based on your opinion that Russians were better off before!!!

Again:

1)You are not Russian.

2)Being to Russia does not = living there and since you have never resided as a citizen in a communist country how can you say one way or the other...?!? I have many Eastern European friends, acquaintances and coworkers from Russia and its former states who lived there that would greatly disagree with your assertion.

**GilkyBear** · #**174** 11-06-2008, 03:14 PM

Olie, please, I NEVER said that having been there made me right. You brought up the issue and I answered your question. Yes, I have been there, yes I have friends who are there right now, yes I have plenty of former Eastern Block friends. Still doesn't make either one of us right.

Have you ever 'resided there as a citizen'? No? Then I guess that makes us equal, so let's get back to making points that support our positions.

And to be clear, all I said was that EvilTwin and Rich's arguments were based on incorrect interpretations, then I explained with examples why I thought that was so.

So, give us some examples to the contrary. We are talking about principles and fundamentals here, how do we really accurately gauge what is "better off" or not, by what yardstick do we measure that? There are a million different ways that would point in both directions. That's not what I am arguing, I am arguing that the PRINCIPLE that the single act of weakening the strong strengthens the weak is not correct. It is the secondary effects, how the weak exploit (or fail to exploit) that weakening and how the strong react to their weakness that would cause any change in either direction.

jb4674 · #**175** 11-06-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waylay00

Just because you can't vote doesn't mean you can't argue about the situation or have an opinion. You seem to always use the whole age thing against me. When you've got adults out there on both sides voting for candidates because of superficial reasons, I don't think age makes hardly any difference.

Wade, don't get me wrong. I enojy reading your posts along with the rest of the community here but, when you suggest that we'll be attacked within a year of Barack Obama's presidency, I simply have to call you out on that. There are many things you don't know that go on behind the scenes in the government with regard to national security that simply can't be discussed. I can't comment on such things because I'm not at liberty to say or discuss it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim777

I think he's shown enough good judgment on enough other issues to have his opinions respected. You don't have to agree with him on all of his points, but I think it is shortsighted to dismiss him out of hand. I certainly don't.

jim

I agree with you Jim. For his early age, Wade has earned the respect of many people in Jemsite, mine included. I just don't think it's very relevant for him to post statements that simply are not accurate and, that he has no knowledge of.

Jimmy

**GilkyBear** · #**176** 11-06-2008, 03:24 PM

Let me try another example...

Let's say that tomorrow Russia fires 5 percent of it's miltary troops. That would weaken the strong government.

But if they still have way more than enough troops to crush any internal uprising, then it did not strengthen the weak.

BUT, if the weak manage to gather up those 5 percent that were fired and get information from them on weaknesses in military installations, infrastructure, and weaknesses in the 'strong's' military tactics, and used that information to launch successful attacks against them, then it did benefit them. If the weak knew that by blowing up a particular petroleum, oil, and lubrication facility would weaken the strong's ability to use it's vehicles for say, a week, and they knew that by taking out a few cell phone towers and a mountaintop retransmission site would limit the strong's ability to communicate as quickly as they need to, then it would give them an advantage.

So it isn't the single act of weakening the strong, it is what both sides do in reaction to that which causes the result.

eviltwin · #**177** 11-06-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilkyBear

Eviltwin, you are making a lot of suppositions there.

What the quotes mean, for example, "you can not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", is that the act of weakening the strong does not in and of itself strengthen the weak. They are still in the exact same place they were before. Now, if you want to apply that to reality, there are a million ways that the weakening of the strong benefits the weak, for example, the strong may have less means to pressure or exploit the weak. But that is a secondary effect. The single act of weakening the strong itself didn't change the position the weak were in.

I'm not AT ALL saying that I agree with those principles either, I'm just saying that your argument isn't a convincing one because at their core, the principles are true. It's the secondary effects, and their proper application that can lead to the changes.

I'm saying that at their core, all of these principles are false

They only serve to justify inequalities and put down those less fortunate, while protecting the strong. You have to look at them not only individually and as a whole. You have to look at where they came from, who used them as a base for their policies and who quoted them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilkyBear

Well Olie, that's why I'm giving examples of why I think I am correct. How about you put forth an opinion and back it up with a reason why you think it is the correct one

Am I supposed to think I am incorrect? SHOW ME that I am incorrect, if you do, I promise I'll admit it

Which is why I took them apart one by one...all of them are false and can easily be proven to be so.

Quote:

"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

You said that applies only to those with the ways and means to do it.

Umm, I'm pretty sure that's what "could" means, no?

You are definitely reading something else in the quote than I am, but my interpretation is more in line with the other nine quotes. Again, the fact that Reagan dusted off these quotes leads me to believe that my interpretation is more apt.

The quotes are used to defend laisser-faire economics and the resulting huge inequalities between haves and have-nots, while serving as moral grounds to depict those of less means as subhuman by their own choice, exactly what Reagan did.

The quotes were put forth as abolute truths by a staunch conservative (while defending conservative socio-economic policies and serving some kind of pseudo-christian base against socialism). I'm trying not to see things as black and white. That starts by rebuking these improper principles.

Gilky, you claim they are irrefutable principles
AND simultaneuously plead us not to take them literally
AND say we are incorrectly interpreting them
AND say you don't agree with all ten points

I really don't see how you can combine these points of view.

**jemsite** · #**178** 11-06-2008, 03:32 PM

guys, please stay on topic to the thread title..

instead of debating about stuff in this thread that's gonna get it locked in this thread please read something like the 48 Laws of power by Greene then also realize for any rule there is an exception .. glen

**GilkyBear** · #**179** 11-06-2008, 03:45 PM

"Gilky, you claim they are irrefutable principles"

Someone needs to seriously re-read what I said, cause that ain't it.

But like Glen said, let's get this back on topic before it turns into another "Tone is in your fingers" pointless argument...

Davey · #**180** 11-06-2008, 03:45 PM

Well you may as well lock it then. I think that the rules here sometimes get blurry if I'm to be truthful as to what someone can and can't post. That's not a knock, that's just the truth.

Earlier in the thread I tried to say "Hey I hope you guys don't get too much trouble around this time" and more importanly, tried to give a talking point which is something I try to do whilst remaining inside of the rules and then I get told that its not relevant? WTF? Again, I think they're getting a little hazy and not just in a thread like this.

I could particularly care less if I'm to be frank because I said my piece: "Good luck Obama", so don't think I've got my knickers in a twist. I just think that if nobody tried pushing conversation you'd end up with a bunch of '+1' posts and the like (just like happened a few years ago until people started getting ridiculed for it... and quite rightly too.)