dragonrider said:Well, funny. But the future president of the united states has, out of the blue, and for no reason but his own amusement, threatened to kill me amd everyone i know and love, and to burn all of my world down to the ground. Because that's what nukes do.pitubo said:First world problems...
And just because elsewhere there are people who don't have enough to eat, i should be happy to be bullied around like that?
If you think that being bullied around like that is not such a bad thing, that it's something a person shouldn't complain about, why don't we trade places then? You give me your nukes, and i make the jokes about using them against you.
I mean, if you think that being in such a position is not realy worth complaining...
1. We're in the same boat already.dragonrider said:why don't we trade places then? You give me your nukes, and i make the jokes about using them against you.
You are, as I read it, arguing for more bullying (back) by "Europe" (although it is unclear to me what you mean by "Europe"). This is known as an "arms race". We have only recently got rid of a tiny bit of that and already the warmongers are working overtime to start a new one.dragonrider said:I mean, if you think that being in such a position is not realy worth complaining...
pitubo said:People of the world need not stronger leaders wielding more dangerous armaments. They need more democracy, transparency and accountability.
I'm not arguing for bullying back. But we all know bullies. Bullies seek out the weak. That's what they're bullies for. Bullies don't bully anyone who could actually retaliate. They're bullies, not masochists. So if you don't want to be bullied, you have reasons to want to be at least strong enough to deter your bullies.pitubo said:1. We're in the same boat already.dragonrider said:why don't we trade places then? You give me your nukes, and i make the jokes about using them against you.
2. I don't have any nuclear weapons, nor do my "leaders" (although - against the wishes of the majority of the population - we did get them stashed here secretly.)
You are, as I read it, arguing for more bullying (back) by "Europe" (although it is unclear to me what you mean by "Europe"). This is known as an "arms race". We have only recently got rid of a tiny bit of that and already the warmongers are working overtime to start a new one.dragonrider said:I mean, if you think that being in such a position is not realy worth complaining...
Perhaps your intentions are not so bad, but you are in effect playing into the hands of the bullies.
People of the world need not stronger leaders wielding more dangerous armaments. They need more democracy, transparency and accountability.
dragonrider said:You see how that's puzzling? It's like poor white people who rally against obamacare...they're going against their own best interest with great zeal and conviction. I just don't get it. I realy don't.
dragonrider said:Well, funny. But the future president of the united states has, out of the blue, and for no reason but his own amusement, threatened to kill me amd everyone i know and love, and to burn all of my world down to the ground. Because that's what nukes do.pitubo said:First world problems...
And just because elsewhere there are people who don't have enough to eat, i should be happy to be bullied around like that?
Matthews: "So, can you take it off the table now? Can you tell the Middle East we are not using the nuclear weapon on anybody?"
Trump: "I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table."
Matthews: "How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe."
Trump: "I’m not going to take it off the table for anybody."
Matthews: "You might use it in Europe?"
Trump: "No. I don’t think so, but — I am not taking cards off the table. I’m not going to use nukes, but I’m not taking cards off the table."
Fact-checking Clinton's ad "Unfit"
Donald Trump is "too dangerous" to have access to the nuclear codes, Hillary Clinton emphasizes in a new ad. The ad featwww.politifact.com
Ufostrahlen said:Trump is a freaking troll. That's my analysis.
Ufostrahlen said:I think the Nexus should have a no-Trump policy. He shall not be named!
Wow...i didn't know that, but thanks for clearing this up.Psychelectric said:dragonrider said:You see how that's puzzling? It's like poor white people who rally against obamacare...they're going against their own best interest with great zeal and conviction. I just don't get it. I realy don't.
As much as I'd like to tackle more of what you've said, I'll stick with this one point.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I'll explain. First off to appeal to some ethos, I work in healthcare in the US and have been for over 5 years as a registered nurse, I deal with billing and insurance more than the phsycians (they're focused on patients). "Obamacare" is a cute name for the Affordable Healthcare Act, and it mandates that people have to have insurance or pay a fine (that's extortion). It's also collapsing the healthcare industry, doctors are currently denying services, basic services because insurance is cutting them out and making record profits. How insurance works is that many people pool their money and when someone gets sick money is taken out of that pool and used to benefit the sick person. The problem is that the money in that pool is of diminished value. This is because insurance money also pays for the insurance employees their advertising costs, their overhead and their CEOs. So while they profiteer, patients get charged for services that insurances don't cover and when insurance only pays for 30% of services hospitals and clinics can't afford to pay their staff and they desperately try to get money in other ways, which is collapsing healthcare. We have doctors who also don't take government insurance because government insurance doesn't fully pay for services. It's all a cash grab and sick people are caught in the crossfire. The affordable health care act was set up by the insurance lobby, who kind of has an interest in profiteering. Politicians even passed the bill without actually reading it. Clinics are closing and I know many of my colleagues who are dropping out of medicine because budget cuts are strangling their department as they aren't getting paid by insurance whether that's through the government or private insurance.
So poor white people who can't afford insurance get heavily fined for not having insurance that they can't afford, that's in their best interest? Again you have no clue how this is actually playing out.
The US is a corporate oligarchy, lobby groups for pharm and insurance control healthcare and the impact is devastating. If you need further details I'll explain more, hopefully you get the gist.
I have pointed out before in this thread that you keep using the terms "Europe" and "Europeans" without properly qualifying them. I consider this irrational behaviour on your side.dragonrider said:If there's one thing that freaks me out, it's irrational behaviour.
When the terms of the discussion are based on mirages, the discussion can lead nowhere but into hysterical projections of disowned emotions of the participants in the discussion.dragonrider said:As long as people are rational, it's possible to work things out.
I don't think there is anybody here on the DMT-nexus, who doesn't know what i'm refering to when i use the word 'europe'. Especially when the word is being used in a political context.pitubo said:I have pointed out before in this thread that you keep using the terms "Europe" and "Europeans" without properly qualifying them. I consider this irrational behaviour on your side.dragonrider said:If there's one thing that freaks me out, it's irrational behaviour.
When the terms of the discussion are based on mirages, the discussion can lead nowhere but into hysterical projections of disowned emotions of the participants in the discussion.dragonrider said:As long as people are rational, it's possible to work things out.
Look, i'm being attacked here as if what i'm asking is realy such a strange question.pitubo said:I have pointed out before in this thread that you keep using the terms "Europe" and "Europeans" without properly qualifying them. I consider this irrational behaviour on your side.dragonrider said:If there's one thing that freaks me out, it's irrational behaviour.
When the terms of the discussion are based on mirages, the discussion can lead nowhere but into hysterical projections of disowned emotions of the participants in the discussion.dragonrider said:As long as people are rational, it's possible to work things out.
You may be underestimating yourselfa bit here. If you had to guess, what do you think i mean?DansMaTete said:I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "europe".
Am i stupid ?
dragonrider said:I don't think there is anybody here on the DMT-nexus, who doesn't know what i'm refering to when i use the word 'europe'. Especially when the word is being used in a political context.pitubo said:I have pointed out before in this thread that you keep using the terms "Europe" and "Europeans" without properly qualifying them. I consider this irrational behaviour on your side.dragonrider said:If there's one thing that freaks me out, it's irrational behaviour.
When the terms of the discussion are based on mirages, the discussion can lead nowhere but into hysterical projections of disowned emotions of the participants in the discussion.dragonrider said:As long as people are rational, it's possible to work things out.
It is not irrational at all to assume that people who can read and type, will know what is generally being refered to when people speak of 'europe'.
Therefore it is not irrational to use the term without any further specification.
You yourself for instance have, in this very thread used the words 'democracy', 'accountability' and 'transparency' without qualifying these terms.
Though they are at least as ambiguous, if not more, than the term 'europe'.
If you assume that people will understand, given the context of your words, what you meant when using those terms, then it's hard to believe that you realy think people won't understand what i mean with 'europe'.
That's a pretty bold statement about "anybody here on the DMT-nexus". I was until now not aware that you know all members (and anonymous readers too?) so well.dragonrider said:I don't think there is anybody here on the DMT-nexus, who doesn't know what i'm refering to when i use the word 'europe'. Especially when the word is being used in a political context.
Well maybe it is. In any case, it is quite irrational to demand that people "know" exactly the same as you think you do. It is certainly irrational to refuse to give further specifications when explicitly asked for.dragonrider said:It is not irrational at all to assume that people who can read and type, will know what is generally being refered to when people speak of 'europe'.
Therefore it is not irrational to use the term without any further specification.
If you think that my use of 'democracy', 'accountability' and 'transparency', in the way I use them in the current topic, makes no sense due to lacking clarification, you should simply point that out and ask for clarification. That is what I tried to do with regard to your use of the word "Europe".dragonrider said:You yourself for instance have, in this very thread used the words 'democracy', 'accountability' and 'transparency' without qualifying these terms.
Though they are at least as ambiguous, if not more, than the term 'europe'.
If you assume that people will understand, given the context of your words, what you meant when using those terms, then it's hard to believe that you realy think people won't understand what i mean with 'europe'.