[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

they save american lives

dramaybaz

why should i care about anywhere else (in terms of war at least)? it's idiotic to want war to be fair. if it was up to me the other guys would have sharpened sticks while we have tanks, that's an ideal situation (except from an economic stand point. the only time i would want an evenly matched war would be to jump start the economy Ala ww1 and ww2.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is absurd. Ron Paul would have made a far better president than Obama, Romney, or anyone else running except for Gary Johnson perhaps. Look at what Obama is doing to this country. You cannot seriously believe that educated and intelligent people voted for a populist like Obama, who received 51% of the vote. He was pandering to the ignorant masses.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Laihendi

while i beleive the welfare system is idiotic, i do beleive it can be useful on a case by case basis under heavy government scrutny. Not the "poor people deserve money" mentality we got going now.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

today: I was walking home after a busy day, got to my bus stop at a park and then I remembered that an old friend of mine who I hadn't seen in some time (like 5 or 6 months) lived like a block away from the bus stop.I called her and asked her if she wanted to come down to the park. So the girl arrives, and she is now ridiculously hot, i've always had a crush on her, but she pretty much went from 8.5 to 9.9 out of 10 in those 5 months. And she was wearing one of those small tops which only cover half of the torso, so you could see her belly, which was beautifully sculpted from work out sessions. She told me she was single and that she wasn't looking out for anything serious. I just lost it by then, and I pretty much said "OK you're pretty bucking hot now and you dont want anything serious, neither do I, lets make out".

She laughed and rejected saying how she couldn't bring herself up to make out with me (tfw she has you friendzoned) because im her friend (even though I know she has made out with several friends in the past).Then I was walking her home, and I asked her abut the gym, she told me that she had even asked her instructor for exercisses to increase her butt size (all innuendos aside) and I just said "you already have enough" and I grabbed her ass, again, I dont even know what I Was thinking. It didn't end with me being charged of sexual assault btw...she did told me she wants to go out next week, but I came home and realized it was a pretty dumb and sh(tty move.

Now im kind of at a stalemate...what can I do? She pretty much said she doesn't want to make out with me, but I dont know if she said it because of the extremely lame and stupid proposition I did while on the park. Should I try it again anyway when we go out next time? or just let it slide?

Laihendi

ever considered stand up comedy?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] I didn't quote a Wikipedia article I quoted a definition from Bing when I searched " 'said term' 'define' ". You are right. The military industrial complex is not the same thing as the military but the MIC cannot exist without the military and out of all the military expenditures in the world the USA spends 50% of it. The significance of that is that the USA is the beacon of democracy. "The Republic" is the most abstract philosophical work of democracy there is. Be a little more modern.lo_Pine

Regardless of where you got the quote you misinterpreted it.

I don't see what the US having a well funded military has to do with anything.

"The Republic" is not abstract it is a logical discussion of the failings of democracy and tyrants and of the merits of the ideal government;technocracy (called philosopher kings in platos terms)

The military as we are talking about it has little to do with a technocratic government, other than that a technocratic government would have a strong military.

And what gives you the impression that man was intellectually different 2000 years ago then he is now?People are no smarter now than they were 2000 years ago.more technologically advanced? yes. but we have gone through no biological changes which altered our intelligence or basic behavior since platos time.Plato was a genius and a visionary regardless of his time period.

ever done math? most of the geometry and arithmetic we use now is over 1000 years old.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] My book will mostly be about the US public education system and its influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections, so it is only loosely relevant to drone strikes.Laihendi

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Yes, Obama is a populist and a manipulator of the ignorant, but so is Ron Paul. Democracy is terrible and this last election is proof of this. I can only imagine that the logical among us voted for Obama in the hopes he would expand the federal government, which he has failed to do. But this is the best we can hope for in a democracy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Way to resort to insults. If reading the works of Plato were not the way to understand government/politics then what would you suggest I read?lo_Pine

I was just irritated that you resorted to quoting a Wikipedia article to cover your mistake and then go on to misinterpret that quote.

You also continue to claim that the military industrial complex is the same as the actual military, which is flat out wrong.

"The Republic" leaves no room for misinterpretation when describing technocracy, thus why i suggested it.

Regardless of where you got the quote you misinterpreted it.

I don't see what the US having a well funded military has to do with anything.

"The Republic" is not abstract it is a logical discussion of the failings of democracy and tyrants and of the merits of the ideal government;technocracy (called philosopher kings in platos terms)

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] No thanks. Reading a 2300 year old dialogue written by a man who is regarded insane by many scholars is out of my realm and irrelevant. Even if it was relevant other scholars have built upon his works and are more useful for me to read.lo_Pine

hmmm...lack of independent thought. put that next to your already lacking critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and you've got yourself a grade A ignoramus. Forget what i said, books are beyond you.

I was just irritated that you resorted to quoting a Wikipedia article to cover your mistake and then go on to misinterpret that quote.

You also continue to claim that the military industrial complex is the same as the actual military, which is flat out wrong.

"The Republic" leaves no room for misinterpretation when describing technocracy, thus why i suggested it.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Technocracy does have everything to do with technology or else it's definition would not be "a philosophy promoting technocracy: a philosophy that advocates the enlistment of a bureaucracy of highly trained engineers, scientists, or technicians to run the government and society" And a technocrat would not be "1.engineer or economist as bureaucrat: a bureaucrat who is intensively trained in engineering, economics, or a form of technology". If technocracy has nothing to do with technology then a technocrat would not be the definition I just quoted, which in fact, it is. MIC = military. Look more into the iron triangle.lo_Pine

I'm starting to think you are an idiot. Go rea "the republic" and come back.

hmmm...lack of independent thought. put that next to your already lacking critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and you've got yourself a grade A ignoramus. Forget what i said, books are beyond you.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] The military is based soley on meritocratic and technological principals. IT does not operate on 'quasi' technocratic principles. The military is based on meritocracy and its superiority to foreign militaries is based on its technology. lo_Pine

technocracy has nothing to do with technology.

MIC=/=military

I'm starting to think you are an idiot. Go read "the republic" and come back.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Explain.lo_Pine

There is nothing democratic about technocracy.

And the MIC (if you mean the military industrial complex) has nothing to do with technocracy nor technocratic principles. Though the military itself does operate on quasi technocratic and meritocratic principles.

technocracy has nothing to do with technology.

MIC=/=military