That makes no sense at all. are you vying for membership in the non sequiter club?
I had just said than any organization staffed and run by people is inherently fallible, did i not? so how does distrust in government somehow morph into trust for corporations?
or are you merely succumbing to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy??
"Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."
"Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats
"People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom
I had just said than any organization staffed and run by people is inherently fallible, did i not? so how does distrust in government somehow morph into trust for corporations???
I have no idea how he got that impression, what with your constant whining about the evil gubmint and nary a comment about corporate excesses...
Edit: Also, you didn't say "organizations," you said "governments."
I come off as much more of a "hawk" than I really think that I am (we all think we're centrists, right?) due to the wording of the questions. If there is a terrorist group in country X that has a dirty bomb that is about to be shipped to the US, I absolutely want us to have the capability to 1) gather enough intel that we know about it in the first place, and 2) be able to perform an appropriate (drones, air attack, special ops insertion, etc) pre-emptive strike to protect ourselves. Maintaining that capability is incredibly expensive and inherently prone to mistakes and misuse, but I still believe that we are, in total, better off with that capability than without. However, just because I do think there are times that using those capabilities is appropriate does NOT mean that I favor using them in ALL situations where intervention would be the slightest bit in our interest. I don't think the questions did a very good job of capturing that subtlety.
If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?
I come off as much more of a "hawk" than I really think that I am (we all think we're centrists, right?) due to the wording of the questions. If there is a terrorist group in country X that has a dirty bomb that is about to be shipped to the US, I absolutely want us to have the capability to 1) gather enough intel that we know about it in the first place, and 2) be able to perform an appropriate (drones, air attack, special ops insertion, etc) pre-emptive strike to protect ourselves. Maintaining that capability is incredibly expensive and inherently prone to mistakes and misuse, but I still believe that we are, in total, better off with that capability than without. However, just because I do think there are times that using those capabilities is appropriate does NOT mean that I favor using them in ALL situations where intervention would be the slightest bit in our interest. I don't think the questions did a very good job of capturing that subtlety.
No prob. It took a half hour on the net looking for such a kind word as 'hawk'.
I think anyone less than a -10.0 feels we should address an eminent terrorist attack. I would also guess that the belief that the Iraq war was wrong is pegged at maybe +3.0, +4.0 or +5.0.
I am f*ed. I'm hardcore hawk and economy, but socially very liberal. I have no home. Once upon a time I thought Arnold was going to lead us into new times. the trashy bum. him. and then Romney seemed so upright and upstanding, handsome Michigan boy (not that they are not a dime a dozen back here in DeToilet, oops, I mean Michigan. now who do I vote for? Hillary? or some right wing whack job that the Republicans run?
Originally posted by mtu_huskies
"We are not too far away from a national championship," said (John) Scott.
Comment