Have you ever noticed how HOT Mahmud Ahmedinejad's wife is?

[Joe Seahawk]

:drool:
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_np/4980/5884980.jpg

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/9295037.asp?gid=229&sz=72299

[D2112]

ROFL

[NewPhin]

The irony being that she probably is smoking hot and dressed in a chic designer outfit underneath the burqa.

[BucEyedPea]

Wow! Does Joe Seahawk actually ever contribute to this forum with anything more than hate and prejudice of different cultures? Maybe you should read up on harem life...it was pretty luxurious for the ladies. And sensuous too....but even they still covered up outside. No western man can provide that for his woman....nor supply her a bunch of eunuchs to cater to her daily.

[mlyonsd]

Wow! Does Joe Seahawk actually ever contribute to this forum with anything more than hate and prejudice of different cultures? Maybe you should read up on harem life...it was pretty luxurious for the ladies. And sensuous too....but even they still covered up outside. No western man can provide that for his woman....nor supply her a bunch of eunuchs to cater to her daily.

What would happen to her if she decided to wear some cutoff shorts and a halter top even if he objected? I mean, if she decided it all on her own?

Just curious. What rights does Iran law afford her or him in a situation where she wants to wear what she wants?

[BucEyedPea]

What would happen to her if she decided to wear some cutoff shorts and a halter top even if he objected? I mean, if she decided it all on her own?

Just curious. What rights does Iran law afford her or him in a situation where she wants to wear what she wants?

Do you brownnose in your next door neighbor's life too?
The way of other cultures is not my business eventhough you advocate killing them for not doing as you see fit by allowing them to wear cutoff shorts. Like sees like.

[mlyonsd]

Do you brownnose in your next door neighbor's life too?
The way of other cultures is not my business eventhough you advocate killing them for not doing as you see fit by allowing them to wear cutoff shorts. Like sees like.

Wow. You're dumber than even I figured.

[Baby Lee]

Wow. You're dumber than even I figured.

You'd be upset too, if your country was spending TRILLIONS just to kill enough people so Doanbraikmah Acheybrakeyheart's wife could wear cutoffs!!!!

[noa]

Do you brownnose in your next door neighbor's life too?
The way of other cultures is not my business eventhough you advocate killing them for not doing as you see fit by allowing them to wear cutoff shorts. Like sees like.

It doesn't affect me personally, but it enforces the idea that men are such brutes that they cannot control themselves if they see a woman's real hair.

[BucEyedPea]

It doesn't affect me personally, but it enforces the idea that men are such brutes that they cannot control themselves if they see a woman's real hair.
So this demonizing gives us the right to invade and kill them to effect change? Demonizing of theother is part of the war dance that leads to war. How is this intelligent discourse? Does Joe Seahawk ever post anything substantive besides demonization and ridicule? I haven't seen it. Then he leaves.

I'd expect a liberal to think like this anyway, as they're more into changing attitudes and opinions of religious folks to more secular values. They've been doing it inside America for years even stomping on state's rights. So that I expect. I don't expect it from Republicans...unless they're liberal ones.

How is this any different than women in the west wearing veils in the middle-ages or later everyone having to wear hats and hats that show their station in life....even in the Renaissance? How is it any different than women in the west even as late as the 1800's having to wear gloves to a ball so her skin would not touch a man's? Or showing her ankles which was scandalous. Cultures change slowly...but they do change. In fact during the Iranian revolution many traditional women were involved in demonstrations bringing it about.

Lets' look at the facts and truth about Iranian women beginning with their dress:

Women do not have to wear the burka in Iran anymore. They have to be properly veiled. The hemline was originally at ankle length but is now standard at mid-calf and on the younger women grazes the knee. The scarf reveals more of the hair, with more transparent fabrics in vogue and appearing in a variety of colors and patterns. Pants are often jeans, and they are tighter, flared, split, brightly colored. In warm weather, they are transformed to capris. And they wear earrings. They even get plastic surgery. For many Iranian women the clothing is both the most important and at the same time, the least important issue of their lives. The Islamic revolution in Iran has had mixed results and this stuff was punished more severely in the early days of the revolution. Compared to other Islamic countries they have it less bad per our values anyway and they do not grow up with our values.


Let's look at other areas of Iranian women's lives:
They have large numbers of women working in the civil service and education. Fourteen women being elected to the Islamic Consultative Assembly in 1996. 70% of Iran's science and engineering students are women.[23] Also there are women in the Iranian police who deal with crimes committed by women.[24][25] Women, make up 27% of the Iranian labor force and the percentage of all Iranian women who are economically active has more than doubled from 6.1% in 1986 to 13.7% in 2000.Women in Iran were granted right to vote in 1963 [30]. They were first admitted to Iranian universities in 1937.[31] Since then, several women have held high-ranking posts in the government or parliament. Before the 1979 revolution several women were appointed ministers or ambassadors. Farrokhroo Parsa, was the first woman to be appointed Minister of Education in 1968 and Mahnaz Afkhami was appointed Minister for Women's Affairs in 1976.Over recent years, women in Iran, whether Nobel laureates like Shirin Ebadi who became the first Muslim woman to win the prize, or young Ivy League professors such as Maryam Mirzakhani, have "achieved greatly in areas like education, political participation, and social mobilization, and have made great strides in terms of entering different fields of academia".


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_women)

Further, it is Iran's youth that wants to westernize and trade more with the west.


Frankly, I think some American men should wear burkas to cover up their overly hairy chests, backs and legs at the beaches here.

[mlyonsd]

You'd be upset too, if your country was spending TRILLIONS just to kill enough people so Doanbraikmah Acheybrakeyheart's wife could wear cutoffs!!!!

Yea I wasn't exactly sure how I or we got thrown into "advocate killing them" category. And they say Cheney and Bush use fear as a tool.

[noa]

Wow Buc, you really went off the deep end there. If you can do me the kindness of pointing out where I suggested invading and killing Iranians for their women's clothing, I would really appreciate that.

I was just pointing out one effect of the clothing, which is to reinforce negative sexual stereotypes.

[BucEyedPea]

Wow. You're dumber than even I figured.

Are projecting because you have nothing intelligent to add or just because?
Only a dumb Kool-Aid drinkin' sheep would back up a JSH contribution.

[BucEyedPea]

Wow Buc, you really went off the deep end there. If you can do me the kindness of pointing out where I suggested invading and killing Iranians for their women's clothing, I would really appreciate that.

I was just pointing out one effect of the clothing, which is to reinforce negative sexual stereotypes.

I am saying that liberals are into social engineering in general though to change attitudes and opinions in society by govt like they're social workers. Therefore your reaction or pov is not unexpected. I don't expect the GOP to be like that unless they're closet liberals. I wasn't trying to imply you were willing to go as far as killing them for it. That is part of the demonizing of the other before we transgress against them in war. Just look at the pattern of any war, or intervention in another country you will see this whether it's done by a D or an R.

[jettio]

Wow! Does Joe Seahawk actually ever contribute to this forum with anything more than hate and prejudice of different cultures? Maybe you should read up on harem life...it was pretty luxurious for the ladies. And sensuous too....but even they still covered up outside. No western man can provide that for his woman....nor supply her a bunch of eunuchs to cater to her daily.

So, is that why you hang out in the DC subforum?

[noa]

I am saying that liberals are into social engineering in general though to change attitudes and opinions in society by govt like they're social workers though. Therefore you reaction is not unexpected. I wasn't saying you were willing to go as far as killing them for it.

I didn't say that government should change anything. Like I said, it doesn't affect me personally, so I have no interest in intervening. But I do think that it has negative effects on their society, so I hope that it will change eventually, through internal reform, and as you pointed out, it is likely to if historical trends are an indicator.
So, perhaps your conclusion about liberals was a little over-reaching. You presume to know what I advocate just because I am a liberal, but your assumption was wrong.

[BucEyedPea]

Yea I wasn't exactly sure how I or we got thrown into "advocate killing them" category. And they say Cheney and Bush use fear as a tool.

Joe Seahawk based on what I have seen of his threads in this forum and some of his responses to other posts show he favors striking Iran and that was my point. You responded to my post about JSH was why I said that. This is just part of the demonization of the other phase which whips the unthinking rabble into a frenzy to get them on board for the next war we are already engaged in. Please follow.

[mlyonsd]

Are projecting because you have nothing intelligent to add or just because?
Only a dumb Kool-Aid drinkin' sheep would back up a JSH contribution.

LOL, you do realize you're not as smart as you think you are, right? I mean quoting from books and the internet doesn't necessarily mean you're bright enough to keep your mouth closed when following a manure wagon down the highway.

I understand the point you're making....it's none of our business. But that doesn't mean your point of view can't or shouldn't be questioned.

Then when you throw the advocate killing them card I'd say you don't have anything intelligent to add either.

[BucEyedPea]

I didn't say that government should change anything. Like I said, it doesn't affect me personally, so I have no interest in intervening. But I do think that it has negative effects on society, so I hope that it will change eventually, through internal reform, and as you pointed out, it is likely to if historical trends are an indicator.
So, perhaps your conclusion about liberals was a little over-reaching. You presume to know what I advocate just because I am a liberal, but your assumption was wrong.

Whether it has a negative effect on a society is a matter of one's values and opinion. I'd wager those who follow Islam think otherwise. If one grows up with those beliefs then they would not necessarily think like you including devout Muslim women that agree with wearing a burka. There are plenty. That's my point. I think Iran will change in due time anyway.

[BucEyedPea]

LOL, you do realize you're not as smart as you think you are, right?
In your opinion. What does this have to do about me or what I think of myself? You can't come up with a rebuttal based on the merits of the argument can you? Just like Joe SH who has to correct spelling and grammar for some of his posts

I don't consider myself as smart as you think anyways. You are speculating and conjecturing. I've always admitted what my weak subjects were. I do consider myself a curious person who reads and looks things up to find out things though. Wow! Just wow it's a crime to read and study up in issues from another pov. I hope you don't advocate book burning too.

I mean quoting from books and the internet doesn't necessarily mean you're bright enough to keep your mouth closed when following a manure wagon down the highway.
This coming from a Bush Kool-Aid drinker? And wanting to vote for more of the same? Lol. Projection.
You follow two dumb azzes now.
I understand the point you're making....it's none of our business. But that doesn't mean your point of view can't or shouldn't be questioned.
Where did I say it can't be questioned? Your's can likewise be questioned too which is what I did.
But all I am hearing from the Rs is about flag pins, symbolic gestures and how hot the wife is of a man that has no real power in Iran. Is this what the R has come down to for debate? Boy, you guys are really on the ropes and feel threatened judging by the defensiveness and lack of substance.

Then when you throw the advocate killing them card I'd say you don't have anything intelligent to add either.
I was talking about your use of ad hominem which shows you can't refute based on the merits of my points or JSH's or your own. You still haven't even addressed them but continue your obsession with me on a personal level include name calling and insults. Speaks volumes.

[mlyonsd]

What does this have to do about me or what I think of myself? You can't come up with a rebuttal based on the merits of the argument can you? Just like Joe SH who has to correct spelling and grammar for some of his posts

I don't consider myself as smart as you think anyways. You are speculating and conjecturing. I've always admitted what my weak subjects were. I do consider myself a curious person who reads and looks things up to find out things though


This coming from a Bush Kool-Aid drinker? And wanting to vote for more of the same? Lol. Projection.
You follow two dumb azzes now.

Where did I say it can't be questioned? Your's can likewise be questioned too which is what I did.


I was talking about your use of ad hominem which shows you can't refute based on the merits of my points or JSH's or your own. You still haven't even addressed them but continue your obsession with me on a personal level include name calling and insults. Speaks volumes.

I take offense when I'm automatically labeled something I'm not, which you did in your first reply to me.

I apologize if by calling you names I stepped on your ego but it's kind of hard not to since it's cluttering up the place.

[BucEyedPea]

I take offense when I'm automatically labeled something I'm not, which you did in your first reply to me.
Go take a look, I used NO label on you in my first post to you. I asked you a question that was related to getting involved in other people's business where they had NO legit business or jurisdiction. Govt only has rights we have as individuals. There is no harm in wearing a burkha especially since the woman involved is likely a devout Muslim. Live and let live or expect contention and conflict....and worse war.

I apologize if by calling you names I stepped on your ego but it's kind of hard not to since it's cluttering up the place.

I actually don't really care I am just pointing out how you can't rebut the points but instead cluttered the place up with nothing that could refute it...so stop projecting again with the "cluttering" point.

[Mr. Kotter]

Wow.

Someone needs to take their Midol. :rolleyes:

[BucEyedPea]

So, is that why you hang out in the DC subforum?

:LOL: ROFL
If ya' notice I am not here as much as before. I am today because I have nothing to do. Well I do but I don't enjoy doing it.

[BucEyedPea]

Wow.

Someone needs to take their Midol. :rolleyes:
I see you need to :whackit: again.
I am not really upset even if it appears that way. Just indignant at the lack of substance by some on the R who never contribute.

[Mr. Kotter]

I see you need to :whackit: again.
I am not really upset even if it appears that way. Just indignant at the lack of substance by some on the R who never contribute.

Lack of substance? :shrug:

In case you haven't noticed, never in the history of mankind has more words and keystrokes been used to expresss a such a complete lack of real substance....as this place we call D.C.

I'm just embarrassed that I contributed to it for so long, and it me 4-5 years to figure it out. :redface:

If you come here for entertainment, that's cool; if you come here for "substance"....eh, you really should go find a real life.

JMHO

:)

[BucEyedPea]

Lack of substance? :shrug:

In case you haven't noticed, never in the history of mankind has more words and keystrokes been used to expresss a such a complete lack of real substance....as this place we call D.C.

I'm just embarrassed that I contributed to it for so long, and it me 4-5 years to figure it out. :redface:

If you come here for entertainment, that's cool; if you come here for "substance"....eh, you really should go find a real life.

JMHO

:)

In your opinion. I come here because I like politics and this board has a lot of intelligent, politically posters usually, even those I disagree with like patteeu. I also can because I am self-employed.
Besides if people can comment on the lack of substance by certain posters that don't contribute repeatedly then why am I disallowed? I actually rarely do that. And if I can halt the demonization of the other process to avert a war, because I care about my country...then so much the better. T'is a noble endeavor.

[Mr. Kotter]

In your opinion. I come here because I like politics and this board has a lot of intelligent, politically posters usually, even those I disagree with like patteeu. I also can because I am self-employed.
Besides if people can comment on the lack of substance by certain posters that don't contribute repeatedly then why am I disallowed? I actually rarely do that. And if I can halt the demonization of the other process to avert a war, because I care about my country...then so much the better. T'is a noble endeavor.

Eh, whatever trips your trigger...I guess. :shrug:

It's still a free country, contrary to suggestions by some otherwise. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

Eh, whatever trips your trigger...I guess. :shrug:

It's still a free country, contrary to suggestions by some otherwise. ;)

Relatively free, but not as free...and keeping it takes constant alertness too.

I see my last post had a typo...I meant to say "politicaly savvy" posters. And it's true compared to other football boards that have an OT or political forum.

[little jacob]

What would happen to her if she decided to wear some cutoff shorts and a halter top even if he objected? I mean, if she decided it all on her own?

Just curious. What rights does Iran law afford her or him in a situation where she wants to wear what she wants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

[Hog Farmer]

Wow! Does Joe Seahawk actually ever contribute to this forum with anything more than hate and prejudice of different cultures? Maybe you should read up on harem life...it was pretty luxurious for the ladies. And sensuous too....but even they still covered up outside. No western man can provide that for his woman....nor supply her a bunch of eunuchs to cater to her daily.


I.m a western man and could supply all those things. How bout it buckeyed pea.

[Hog Farmer]

:drool:
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_np/4980/5884980.jpg

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/9295037.asp?gid=229&sz=72299


Actually that's a man under the robe. He is the proud owner of the only homosexual left in Iran.

[Calcountry]

In your opinion. I come here because I like politics and this board has a lot of intelligent, politically posters usually, even those I disagree with like patteeu. I also can because I am self-employed.
Besides if people can comment on the lack of substance by certain posters that don't contribute repeatedly then why am I disallowed? I actually rarely do that. And if I can halt the demonization of the other process to avert a war, because I care about my country...then so much the better. T'is a noble endeavor.No, you come here because you think your opinions matter and that we all give a shit. .

[BucEyedPea]

No, you come here because you think your opinions matter and that we all give a shit. .

I don't care if anyone gives a shit or not but you obviously do if your frequent impassioned responses are any indicator. ( not to mention a few others) You can't bear to hear it and want it shut down it matters to you that much.

Get ready bunny:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cWGUdwr2L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

[Joe Seahawk]

Joe Seahawk based on what I have seen of his threads in this forum and some of his responses to other posts show he favors striking Iran and that was my point. You responded to my post about JSH was why I said that. This is just part of the demonization of the other phase which whips the unthinking rabble into a frenzy to get them on board for the next war we are already engaged in. Please follow.

I didn't intend this to be a "lets nuke Iran " thread.. Geez! Lighten up BEP.. :shake:

BTW, I think she's HOT

[Joe Seahawk]

Wow! Does Joe Seahawk actually ever contribute to this forum with anything more than hate and prejudice of different cultures?

WTF? :LOL:

[jettio]

Wow! Does Joe Seahawk actually ever contribute to this forum with anything more than hate and prejudice of different cultures? Maybe you should read up on harem life...it was pretty luxurious for the ladies. And sensuous too....but even they still covered up outside. No western man can provide that for his woman....nor supply her a bunch of eunuchs to cater to her daily.

IIRC, Joe Seahawk started a thread with an article about a male figure skater who tested positive for estrogen. That was pretty funny.

[Carlota69]

Hey Buc I have a question:

Why do you think it's the liberals who want to change the lay of the land in the ME?

If I recall, it's the current Administration, and the believers, who were all for making damn sure they had our democracy. I wouldn't call Dubya liberal.

I consider my self fairly liberal, and all of my friends are liberal for the most part, and none of them were all about us going over there and getting the barqas off the womens back, so to speak.

[Baby Lee]

Hey Buc I have a question:

Why do you think it's the liberals who want to change the lay of the land in the ME?

If I recall, it's the current Administration, and the believers, who were all for making damn sure they had our democracy. I wouldn't call Dubya liberal.

I consider my self fairly liberal, and all of my friends are liberal for the most part, and none of them were all about us going over there and getting the barqas off the womens back, so to speak.

She couches liberal in terms of 'using the tools of government to actively effect change.'
It's a valid prism, though not the only one.
In those terms, an economic liberal seeks to redistribute wealth through taxation and entitlements.
IMO, and I'm sure it'd be hotly debated, a social liberal is more like what social conservatives are, making laws to guide human social behavior, such as mandated marriage counseling, intelligent design in the curriculum, outlawing porn and smut and violent video games. What's colloquially thought of liberal falls into that mindset as well when they outlaw transfats, smoking, seek to tax obesity, set MPG standards for cars, set aside wetlands from private ownership or restricting their use. This is the most sticky wicket because in the realm of social interaction, the term conservative has a side definition of traditional or against change and people get the sense that smut/sex/violence/hedonism are the things changing and the proposed laws are preserving/conserving the past. It's a chicken egg thing, are you changing or preserving society with new laws?
A classic liberal foreign policy would seek to restructure policies in other lands through trade or war or active diplomacy. Conservative would be isolationist or at least more humble in their aspirations.

[Carlota69]

She couches liberal in terms of 'using the tools of government to actively effect change.'
It's a valid prism, though not the only one.
In those terms, an economic liberal seeks to redistribute wealth through taxation and entitlements.
IMO, and I'm sure it'd be hotly debated, a social liberal is more like what social conservatives are, making laws to guide human social behavior, such as mandated marriage counseling, intelligent design in the curriculum, outlawing porn and smut and violent video games. What's colloquially thought of liberal falls into that mindset as well when they outlaw transfats, smoking, seek to tax obesity, set MPG standards for cars, set aside wetlands from private ownership or restricting their use. This is the most sticky wicket because in the realm of social interaction, the term conservative has a side definition of traditional or against change and people get the sense that smut/sex/violence/hedonism are the things changing and the proposed laws are preserving/conserving the past. It's a chicken egg thing, are you changing or preserving society with new laws?
A classic liberal foreign policy would seek to restructure policies in other lands through trade or war or active diplomacy. Conservative would be isolationist or at least more humble in their aspirations.

Wow, nice job. thanks for the insight.

[BucEyedPea]

Hey Buc I have a question:

Why do you think it's the liberals who want to change the lay of the land in the ME?

If I recall, it's the current Administration, and the believers, who were all for making damn sure they had our democracy. I wouldn't call Dubya liberal.

I consider my self fairly liberal, and all of my friends are liberal for the most part, and none of them were all about us going over there and getting the barqas off the womens back, so to speak.

I was referring to the liberal/progressive penchant for social engineering here at home and to a degree abroad as in Woodrow Wilson's vision of creating democracies abroad. Ds and liberals supported the Balkan interventions. During the Balkan interventions it was the Rs who were the isolationists. Now it's the D liberal base because their guys in congress aren't doing it.

In the case of the current wars in the ME the liberals don't support it but I have posted before that these things tend to along with whoever's man is in the WH. Naturally people tend to trust their guy more. I have also posted that the Ds will support military intervention if they perceive it to be humanitarian whereas they perceive Bush's intervention to be about oil and capitalism. Those are really the only differences. Look at who supports intervening in Dafur as an example. It's been the liberals on this board and Samantha Power's, one of Obama's former advisors who supports muscular intervention abroad as well.

One reason I switched parties was because the Ds had gotten us in more wars than the Rs, with Rs getting elected on campaign platforms to get us out of those interventions more so. Ds like Wilson and FDR were elected on campaigns to not get into them and did otherwise. ( with WWII being the only legit exception due to later events.)

The original conservative movement has its roots in the anti-war coalition that developed during WWI. It gets promoted as just being the socialists but it was actually a coalition with included socialists, populists and the beginnings of libertarianism which the the old right has it's roots in. The conservative movement really emerged more during FDR's New Deal which separated them from the socialists. But conservatism has anti-war roots. That is one reason I call myself a "paleo" con ( for old right) or traditional conservative as opposed to the modern thing you see in the today's pro war crowd. Hence the "neo" prefix that I use to lump them all under as a 2nd definition.

[Carlota69]

I was referring to the liberal/progressive penchant for social engineering here at home and to a degree abroad as in Woodrow Wilson's vision of creating democracies abroad. Ds and liberals supported the Balkan interventions. During the Balkan interventions it was the Rs who were the isolationists. Now it's the D liberal base because their guys in congress aren't doing it.

In the case of the current wars in the ME the liberals don't support it but I have posted before that these things tend to along with whoever's man is in the WH. Naturally people tend to trust their guy more. I have also posted that the Ds will support military intervention if they perceive it to be humanitarian whereas they perceive Bush's intervention to be about oil and capitalism. Those are really the only differences. Look at who supports intervening in Dafur as an example. It's been the liberals on this board and Samantha Power's, one of Obama's former advisors who supports muscular intervention abroad as well.

One reason I switched parties was because the Ds had gotten us in more wars than the Rs, with Rs getting elected on campaign platforms to get us out of those interventions more so. Ds like Wilson and FDR were elected on campaigns to not get into them and did otherwise. ( with WWII being the only legit exception due to later events.)

The original conservative movement has its roots in the anti-war coalition that developed during WWI. It gets promoted as just being the socialists but it was actually a coalition with included socialists, populists and the beginnings of libertarianism which the the old right has it's roots in. It really emerged more during FDR's New Deal which separated them from the socialists. But conservatism has anti-war roots. That is one reason I call myself a "paleo" con ( for old right) or traditional conservative as opposed to the modern thing you see in the today's pro war crowd. Hence the "neo" prefix that I use to lump them all under as a 2nd definition.

Fair enough. The Dem party pisses me off half the time too. I get ya...

[BucEyedPea]

She couches liberal in terms of 'using the tools of government to actively effect change.'
It's a valid prism, though not the only one.
In those terms, an economic liberal seeks to redistribute wealth through taxation and entitlements.
IMO, and I'm sure it'd be hotly debated, a social liberal is more like what social conservatives are, making laws to guide human social behavior, such as mandated marriage counseling, intelligent design in the curriculum, outlawing porn and smut and violent video games. What's colloquially thought of liberal falls into that mindset as well when they outlaw transfats, smoking, seek to tax obesity, set MPG standards for cars, set aside wetlands from private ownership or restricting their use. This is the most sticky wicket because in the realm of social interaction, the term conservative has a side definition of traditional or against change and people get the sense that smut/sex/violence/hedonism are the things changing and the proposed laws are preserving/conserving the past. It's a chicken egg thing, are you changing or preserving society with new laws?
A classic liberal foreign policy would seek to restructure policies in other lands through trade or war or active diplomacy. Conservative would be isolationist or at least more humble in their aspirations.

Not a bad stab at it except for the chicken n' egg thing. Govt is force, so it's laws are force. Yes law is necessary but laws that reflect the values and customs of the people are easier to enforce. So those laws are less contentious. It's when the "do gooder" comes along and says your way is bad and mine is better to engineer the society per their world view. Intellectuals do this and run against the common people's values who they consider provincial or unenlightened, even if they claim to sometimes speak for them. I've seen some liberals say, change the law so a change in values and customs will follow.

This is no different than using war for progressive purposes and where pre-emptive war could be categorized in the absence of an imminent threat. I prefer the other way around as in my former paradigm: laws based on the values and customs of the people are easier to enforce. This creates for less conflict and contention and certainly less war. This is not to say there are never exceptions to using force or law first ( Like Rosa Parks and institutional racism) but it shouldn't be the common routine way either. That is what the current wars in the ME really are, wars for progressive purposes ( democracy) the exception being Afghanistan somewhat. Hence today's conservatives are really just a different type of progressive/liberal.

[Baby Lee]

Not a bad stab at it except for the chicken n' egg thing. Govt is force, so it's laws are force. Yes law is necessary but laws that reflect the values and customs of the people are easier to enforce. So those laws are less contentious. It's when the "do gooder" comes along and says your way is bad and mine is better to engineer the society per their world view. Intellectuals do this and run against the common people's values who they consider provincial or unenlightened, even if they claim to sometimes speak for them. I've seen some liberals say, change the law so a change in values and customs will follow.

This is no different than using war for progressive purposes and where pre-emptive war could be categorized in the absence of an imminent threat. I prefer the other way around as in my former paradigm: laws based on the values and customs of the people are easier to enforce. This creates for less conflict and contention and certainly less war. This is not to say there are never exceptions to using force or law first ( Like Rosa Parks and institutional racism) but it shouldn't be the common routine way either. That is what the current wars in the ME really are, wars for progressive purposes ( democracy) the exception being Afghanistan somewhat. Hence today's conservatives are really just a different type of progressive/liberal.

The chicken/egg thing was where the status quo is representing the values and customs of the people without law, then when people rebel against those values and customs, people go to codifying what was previously assumed, or tightening restrictions as rebellion increases. You're not trying to engineer change, you're trying to engineer stasis.

[GoChiefs]

I'm happy to see Darth Sidious has found love.

[Joe Seahawk]

Joe Seahawk based on what I have seen of his threads in this forum and some of his responses to other posts show he favors striking Iran and that was my point. You responded to my post about JSH was why I said that. This is just part of the demonization of the other phase which whips the unthinking rabble into a frenzy to get them on board for the next war we are already engaged in. Please follow.

I've never supported invading Iran, I do however think a military airstrike would be warranted if they ever developed a nuclear bomb and a way to deliver it. That's my opinion.

I don't know why you are so irritated by this thread, I'm sorry if it offended you, but please quit making shit up about what I support, or don't

I really have better things to do than argue politics, that is why I rarely enter the political debates any more. I have found it more interesting to read the various opinions on here whether I agree with them or not. I've actually always found your posts (even though i don't agree most of the time) interesting and i respect your opinions.

You need to lighten up a little though..

[Moobs]

Leave it to a whack job Paulie to make a big deal out of a fuggin' joke. Thanks for posting Joe, gave me a chuckle.

[RaiderH8r]

Her nose is PHENOMINAL! So hot, so sexy.

[Kraut]

:drool:
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_np/4980/5884980.jpg

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/9295037.asp?gid=229&sz=72299

:thumb::whackit: HOTTTT:LOL:

[tooge]

Her nose is a bit large for my taste, but otherwise, yeah, she is hot, smokin!

[RaiderH8r]

Her nose is a bit large for my taste, but otherwise, yeah, she is hot, smokin!

Dude, she's got serious talent. You know what they say about Iranian women with large noses poking out of their doo hickeys. She's a kinky gal.