Hi -- New here.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

Some people are 'collectors', they like to 'acquire' stuff. Not everyone is like YOU purport to be. Some people are 'status seekers' (Manafort and his peacock jacket come to mind). Why does Jim Cramer still hawk his schtick on TV, he has enough money to go play golf and lay on a beach somewhere, he enjoys what he does, it's a 'game'. Making money is 'fun', especially if it doesn't require manual labor, you know, actual physical work. We're all on different levels of the 'economic totem pole'. Many at the bottom 'run' all their lives just to survive, it's a hand-to-mouth existence. Many at the top could easily live off their Bond income stream for the rest of their lives, why don't they? People in the middle are happily fed and devour the Madison Avenue line "Keep up with the Joneses". So, your view, is simply that ... YOUR view.

It is true that some people enjoy growing their wealth. That is how they enjoy life. Ahh, but then sooner or later they have to do something else with their time because they get tired of doing the same thing all the time. And when they look to interacting with another human? They are seeking love.

!. "No, I disagree. There is so much more to life than money. Money is definitely NOT the reason I get out of bed in the morning."
Jack: That's easy to say when you HAVE money. If you were broke, had a wife and 5 hungry kids, would you tell them your theory about 'Love' to quench their empty bellies?

Stephen Paddock had lots of money. It wasn't enough for him. He went crazy and decided that the thing to do was to mow down a field of concert-goers.

He had lots of money but he had no love. His life was meaningless. Money didn't make him happy.

Somebody who loves other people would never do such a thing.

Of course, if one has nothing, then the very basics such as food and shelter are the things sought. And getting those things will cause happiness. Happiness to be together with that family and enjoy the security of having those basic needs. That happiness will never fade as long as that togetherness lasts, as long as those basics are met. That is basic happiness. The acquisition of more things above that will produce more happiness but it becomes a cycle of reduced reward. The happiness of acquisition beyond the basic needs is fleeting. And that is why it is said that money doesn't equal happiness. It must come from within.

 

[Jack]

Hello Jack,




It is true that some people enjoy growing their wealth. That is how they enjoy life. Ahh, but then sooner or later they have to do something else with their time because they get tired of doing the same thing all the time. And when they look to interacting with another human? They are seeking love.



Stephen Paddock had lots of money. It wasn't enough for him. He went crazy and decided that the thing to do was to mow down a field of concert-goers.

He had lots of money but he had no love. His life was meaningless. Money didn't make him happy.

Somebody who loves other people would never do such a thing.

Of course, if one has nothing, then the very basics such as food and shelter are the things sought. And getting those things will cause happiness. Happiness to be together with that family and enjoy the security of having those basic needs. That happiness will never fade as long as that togetherness lasts, as long as those basics are met. That is basic happiness. The acquisition of more things above that will produce more happiness but it becomes a cycle of reduced reward. The happiness of acquisition beyond the basic needs is fleeting. And that is why it is said that money doesn't equal happiness. It must come from within.

Hey Pol,

I'll give you MY view. At the subsistence level, you're a squirrel in a squirrel cage, just running to stay in one spot.
As you accumulate MORE money and actually have 'disposable income' you get to make decisions on what to DO with that money. Maybe you invest it in Stocks, maybe you buy a house, maybe you look for Love in all the wrong places, maybe you go to France? So, just to make this somewhat brief, let's say you've added a few chapters to your 'Book of Life', ... you've gone to France, banged a few babes, found one that's accommodating, bought a house and invested in stocks.
Let's assume no setbacks as far as health problems, divorce, job loss. Hey ... you've arrived. Now what? Where do you set your Priorities NOW? Bigger House? Newer car? Pool for the kids? Vacation in France? Yes, yes, yes, ... love is in the air ... but what do YOU do with the cash that's accumulating under your bed?

PoliTalker: "But then a strange thing happens. That happiness of having that thing you wanted so bad? It fades. You no longer desire that thing; because you already have it. So you set your sights on something else. And you think if you just had that other thing THAT would make you happy. You're caught in a loop, don't you see?"
Jack: Yes. I agree with that. You HAVE a house, ... and then you want a BIGGER house. You HAVE a car, ... then you want a NEWER car. It's all about the MONEY.

You know, it's that age old question "How many Yachts do you need?"
... and the answer 'Depends on how many boat docks you have at your numerous estates".

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

Very interesting conversation. Thanks for your view.

Hey Pol,

I'll give you MY view. At the subsistence level, you're a squirrel in a squirrel cage, just running to stay in one spot.
As you accumulate MORE money and actually have 'disposable income' you get to make decisions on what to DO with that money. Maybe you invest it in Stocks, maybe you buy a house, maybe you look for Love in all the wrong places, maybe you go to France? So, just to make this somewhat brief, let's say you've added a few chapters to your 'Book of Life', ... you've gone to France, banged a few babes, found one that's accommodating, bought a house and invested in stocks.
Let's assume no setbacks as far as health problems, divorce, job loss. Hey ... you've arrived. Now what? Where do you set your Priorities NOW? Bigger House? Newer car? Pool for the kids? Vacation in France? Yes, yes, yes, ... love is in the air ... but what do YOU do with the cash that's accumulating under your bed?

PoliTalker: "But then a strange thing happens. That happiness of having that thing you wanted so bad? It fades. You no longer desire that thing; because you already have it. So you set your sights on something else. And you think if you just had that other thing THAT would make you happy. You're caught in a loop, don't you see?"
Jack: Yes. I agree with that. You HAVE a house, ... and then you want a BIGGER house. You HAVE a car, ... then you want a NEWER car. It's all about the MONEY.

You know, it's that age old question "How many Yachts do you need?"
... and the answer 'Depends on how many boat docks you have at your numerous estates".

But at some point one has to cease efforts to accumulate more wealth and actually enjoy what one has accumulated, if at least, temporarily. Otherwise, the worth of a life can simply be expressed as a number? As if life is nothing more than a contest to see who can accumulate the biggest number? That doesn't seem like much of a reason to strive. I actually feel sorry for those people who spend their whole life accumulating wealth, and they never stop to enjoy it.

What would be the point of having all those yachts and estates if one never took the time to go and enjoy them?

If the time spent accumulating the wealth exceeds the time spent enjoying it, then there comes a trade-off. The average human only lives for so many hours, so many days. If one has already accumulated enough wealth to have all needs met, then further attempts to accumulate more wealth come at the expense of time which could be spent enjoying what has already been accumulated.

How many times have you seen somebody reach the non-working self-sufficiency point (interest on accumulated wealth supports the lifestyle,) but they don't stop working. He gets to retirement age, She is looking forward to spending some time together, but he has second thoughts. He LIKES running the business and doesn't know what he would do with himself if he wasn't the honcho. Then he announces he is not going to retire, and she feels betrayed.

I've seen so many people spend their whole lives earning money, taking very little time for anything else, and then when they retire, they think they are going to buy a yacht or whatever and know what to do with it. But if somebody spent his whole lives messing with money, his knowledge of boats is dwarfed by somebody who spent his whole life messing about with boats. Experience is something which has to be earned. It can't be purchased. It's not like you could simply go into a store and say: "Hey. I want that great golfer experience package, there." Then they simply buy this thing and presto they are a scratch golfer. That's not going to happen.

The scratch golfer had to put in lots of time to accomplish that level. The scratch golfer didn't buy that. No amount of money can give someone the feeling of empowerment that scratch golfer enjoys. That is a happiness which has to be earned with the investment of time and dedication. Money is not the end-all be-all of life. Neither is conspicuous accumulation. Jimmy Carter was right. A man's character is not measured by what he owns. It is measured by what he does. Our society has become too obsessed with money and image. And along the way substance is lost.

 

[Jack]

Hello Jack,

Very interesting conversation. Thanks for your view.



But at some point one has to cease efforts to accumulate more wealth and actually enjoy what one has accumulated, if at least, temporarily. Otherwise, the worth of a life can simply be expressed as a number? As if life is nothing more than a contest to see who can accumulate the biggest number? That doesn't seem like much of a reason to strive. I actually feel sorry for those people who spend their whole life accumulating wealth, and they never stop to enjoy it.

What would be the point of having all those yachts and estates if one never took the time to go and enjoy them?

If the time spent accumulating the wealth exceeds the time spent enjoying it, then there comes a trade-off. The average human only lives for so many hours, so many days. If one has already accumulated enough wealth to have all needs met, then further attempts to accumulate more wealth come at the expense of time which could be spent enjoying what has already been accumulated.

How many times have you seen somebody reach the non-working self-sufficiency point (interest on accumulated wealth supports the lifestyle,) but they don't stop working. He gets to retirement age, She is looking forward to spending some time together, but he has second thoughts. He LIKES running the business and doesn't know what he would do with himself if he wasn't the honcho. Then he announces he is not going to retire, and she feels betrayed.

I've seen so many people spend their whole lives earning money, taking very little time for anything else, and then when they retire, they think they are going to buy a yacht or whatever and know what to do with it. But if somebody spent his whole lives messing with money, his knowledge of boats is dwarfed by somebody who spent his whole life messing about with boats. Experience is something which has to be earned. It can't be purchased. It's not like you could simply go into a store and say: "Hey. I want that great golfer experience package, there." Then they simply buy this thing and presto they are a scratch golfer. That's not going to happen.

The scratch golfer had to put in lots of time to accomplish that level. The scratch golfer didn't buy that. No amount of money can give someone the feeling of empowerment that scratch golfer enjoys. That is a happiness which has to be earned with the investment of time and dedication. Money is not the end-all be-all of life. Neither is conspicuous accumulation. Jimmy Carter was right. A man's character is not measured by what he owns. It is measured by what he does. Our society has become too obsessed with money and image. And along the way substance is lost.

Hey Pol,
I'll give you two examples that I am personally acquainted with.

1. There's this Greek seaman, he's sailed all his life, never leaves the ship except to get a haircut and put money in the Bank. He seems driven to save money. He sleeps on the ship, he eats on the ship, never goes ashore when in Port. Now, what do you think this guy is going to do when his sailing days are over? My thoughts? ... he's going to be down at McDonalds stealing ketchup packets. He's going to die with lots of money in the Bank. All his life he's been a spendthrift, when he retires (even with a fortune in the Bank), he's still going to be a spendthrift.

2. Construction guy gets hurt on the job, after a lengthy time, there's a settlement, the guy hits the jack pot. He's about 30, married, has a kid, been a drone worker all his life. So what's he do? Buys a house (gets a 30 year mortgage), begins buying every fucking toy he lays his eye on, boat, 3-Wheeler, new car, jet ski, go-kart, etc.. Has lots of friends, a very popular guy. Three years later, ... he's broke, no friends, wife left him, lost the house and all the toys.

So, that is my view of how different people embrace life. One guy values the paper currency above anything else, the other guy values material possessions above anything else.
Do you think you could preach YOUR 'Love Message' to either of these guys? Why do that? Let them live their own life, let them choose their goal.

I have a 'third' person in mind, a better example of how to live a life. He's a Trust Fund baby. Not constrained by the tedious necessity of providing himself sustenance, he travels the world, experiencing Life.
He likes Indonesia, he likes the food, he likes the weather, he likes dressing in shorts and sandals, he likes the low cost of housing. He tells stories of South Africa and, unlike here where people will come up to you and produce a knife and say "Give me you money", there they just run up to you and stab you and take your money. Stories of India, different out of the way places.

Like the Trust Fund baby, you seem to have reached a point in life where you're not bound by 'Survival Constraints'. That's the ideal goal. At that point, you get to choose what you want to do with your Life.
Some Trust Fund babies volunteer, others join the work force even though they don't have too, some become creative and paint or write (or at least give it a try), some travel the world.

You could preach your 'Love Message' to those guys, but I doubt they would heed YOUR message over their OWN personal desire.

It's interesting the personal philosophy of each individual, we all like hearing about different outlooks. Probably it's not JUST about economic stage in life but about 'age'. I know when I was young, I could care less about money and just wanted to 'experience life'. As I got older my 'life experience folder' began to fill and I began to look more and more at my 'empty bank account folder'.

Always nice talking to you. PoliTalker.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

Hey Pol,
I'll give you two examples that I am personally acquainted with.

1. There's this Greek seaman, he's sailed all his life, never leaves the ship except to get a haircut and put money in the Bank. He seems driven to save money. He sleeps on the ship, he eats on the ship, never goes ashore when in Port. Now, what do you think this guy is going to do when his sailing days are over? My thoughts? ... he's going to be down at McDonalds stealing ketchup packets. He's going to die with lots of money in the Bank. All his life he's been a spendthrift, when he retires (even with a fortune in the Bank), he's still going to be a spendthrift.

2. Construction guy gets hurt on the job, after a lengthy time, there's a settlement, the guy hits the jack pot. He's about 30, married, has a kid, been a drone worker all his life. So what's he do? Buys a house (gets a 30 year mortgage), begins buying every fucking toy he lays his eye on, boat, 3-Wheeler, new car, jet ski, go-kart, etc.. Has lots of friends, a very popular guy. Three years later, ... he's broke, no friends, wife left him, lost the house and all the toys.

So, that is my view of how different people embrace life. One guy values the paper currency above anything else, the other guy values material possessions above anything else.
Do you think you could preach YOUR 'Love Message' to either of these guys? Why do that? Let them live their own life, let them choose their goal.

I have a 'third' person in mind, a better example of how to live a life. He's a Trust Fund baby. Not constrained by the tedious necessity of providing himself sustenance, he travels the world, experiencing Life.
He likes Indonesia, he likes the food, he likes the weather, he likes dressing in shorts and sandals, he likes the low cost of housing. He tells stories of South Africa and, unlike here where people will come up to you and produce a knife and say "Give me you money", there they just run up to you and stab you and take your money. Stories of India, different out of the way places.

Like the Trust Fund baby, you seem to have reached a point in life where you're not bound by 'Survival Constraints'. That's the ideal goal. At that point, you get to choose what you want to do with your Life.
Some Trust Fund babies volunteer, others join the work force even though they don't have too, some become creative and paint or write (or at least give it a try), some travel the world.

You could preach your 'Love Message' to those guys, but I doubt they would heed YOUR message over their OWN personal desire.

It's interesting the personal philosophy of each individual, we all like hearing about different outlooks. Probably it's not JUST about economic stage in life but about 'age'. I know when I was young, I could care less about money and just wanted to 'experience life'. As I got older my 'life experience folder' began to fill and I began to look more and more at my 'empty bank account folder'.

Always nice talking to you. PoliTalker.

Thanks for the insight.

I enjoyed the discussion.

Enjoy.

 

[evince]

Bingo. That is the fear most economics experts have currently. Despite their claim to be fiduciary hawks, Republicans are just the opposite. In modern times they have presided over our economic downturns, while (D) presidents have pulled us out of the economic ditch, time after time.

the right likes economic ditches

that is why they create them on purpose


the wealthy benefit from a boom and bust society


war is also good for business


so they dupe people into backing war and economic stupidity that creates a boom and bust society that the wealthy can benefit from

 

[Legion]

the right likes economic ditches

that is why they create them on purpose


the wealthy benefit from a boom and bust society


war is also good for business


so they dupe people into backing war and economic stupidity that creates a boom and bust society that the wealthy can benefit from

 

[evince]

your party lied about the Iraq war



you lied to her and all of us asshole

 

[evince]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller#Director_of_the_FBI



The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.[36] He had previously served as acting deputy attorney general of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for several months before officially becoming the FBI director on September 4, 2001, just one week before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.[7]


Mueller with President George Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, August 6, 2002
On February 11, 2003, one month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Mueller gave testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mueller informed the American public that "even countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba and North Korea—remain active in the United States and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans. As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material."[37][38] Highlighting this worry in February 2003, FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley wrote an open letter to Mueller in which she warned her superior that "the bureau will [not] be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq"[39][40] and encouraged Mueller to "share [her concerns] with the President and Attorney General."[40]

 

[evince]

WARMONGER​

DEMOCRATS who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq’s WMD programs were responsible for lying about Iraq’s alleged threat.

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions which the US government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a US invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems.

DEMOCRAT presidential nominee John Kerry chose to make such demonstrably false statements and voted in favor of the resolution. Kerry was not alone.

Hillary Clinton, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, falsely insisted that Iraq’s possession of such weapons was “not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” Despite her lies, Obama named her his first secretary of State.


https://truthout.org/articles/democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war/

based on Bush and Cheneys lies

 

[evince]

Then that money was used to help the poor world wide

 

[Gotcha68]

based on Bush and Cheneys lies

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...-say-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran.html

Her whole quote wasn't given. As usual.

"ABC’s Jake Tapper reported, on 22 April 2008, that Hillary had said that day on ABC’s Good Morning America, «I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them».

CNN headlined «Obama: Clinton’s ‘obliterate’ Iran statement too much like Bush», and quoted that very excerpt from her statement, providing some of the important surrounding context behind it.

More recently, the ‘alternative news’ ‘journalist’ Stephen Lendman headlined «Hillary Clinton: ‘If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them’», and he implied that this statement by Clinton was made while «she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention». Nothing like that was in her speech there (nor at any other AIPAC convention). So, Lendman’s report was made-up, even if its source, Tapper’s account, might also have been made-up (which, as I’ll explain, I doubt to have been the case).

Furthermore, Tapper’s news-report provided essential context for that statement of hers (context which was also reflected in CNN’s report that was based on his), and this essential context changes in a very important way the meaning of the excerpt just cited: «Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on ‘Good Morning America’ Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. ‘I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,’ Clinton said. ‘In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.’» That news-report by Tapper included a streamer saying, «Watch the full interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on ‘GMA’ Tuesday», but it’s actually dead (there’s no link there), and ABC provides no transcript at all, nor even a video with that segment; so, Tapper’s account is the only remaining source regarding the interview. However, from the veracity-checks I routinely do, I have found that Tapper, unlike Lendman (and unlike Establishment ‘reporters’ in general), can be trusted, because I’ve found the assertions that he makes to be true, at least so far as they go, even if at a deeper level some of his statements are misleading (in favor of the standard misconceptions, of course – but that’s not involved here)...."

 

[evince]

lies are all they have left in their quiver

 

[Oneuli]

That is the biggest pant load I have heard for awhile. You sound like you are teaching a psych class. But using your theory you never living through the Vietnam era understands what the Vietnam War veterans went through better than those of us who fought there.

I think you misunderstand what I said. I'm not claiming that someone who didn't experience a particular thing understands better what that thing was like. I'm saying that someone who didn't live through a part of a very broad and dispersed phenomenon can't make the error of mistaking her personal corner of that phenomenon as necessarily representative of the whole.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose I can illustrate the same idea with Vietnam, since you brought that up. Let's say you served in Vietnam, but your role was six months in Saigon in the summer and fall of 1964, acting as an MP at a command facility, and you never even got within hearing range of gunshots. How good of a feel for what the Vietnam War was really like would you have, really? Yet even though your role was utterly unlike that of, say, someone who served as a front-line rifleman during the Tet Offensive, or, say, a tunnel rat whose job was to crawl through tunnels dismantling booby traps, it would be very hard not to think of the war in terms of what your little corner of it looked like. That's the problem with judging a large phenomenon by one's personal key-hole view of it. That's a problem I'd have to struggle with if we were discussing, say, Brooklyn in 2017, but not a problem I have to struggle with when it comes to discussing the 1980s or before.

 

[Oneuli]

Oneuli: "Yes, the same applies equally to all skilled American workers whose investments in their productivity are being negated by way of importing low-cost foreign competitors with the same skills. As for those who are finding themselves displaced by unskilled foreign labor, though, I have some advice: step up your game."
Jack; I have another theory. Each person is a result of 'the genetic roll of the dice'. Meaning none of us are responsible for what are genetic make-up is. Some are blessed, others, not so much.

Genetics matter, but much, much less so than surrounding circumstances. Genetically, for example, Chinese Americans are fundamentally the same as Chinese Chinese. Yet look at their relative median incomes. The difference between those two gene pools is probably statistically meaningless, yet the median income in China is less than $3,000 dollars.

Jack: I'm guessing the 'average' American is a High School graduate. Maybe he works as a Roofer. The "out-competing" is the Wage issue. The 'Third World Immigrant' will 'out-compete' the American on 'Wage'.

That's my point, though. A typical American will have an educational foundation and native skill set (fluency in English and in American culture) that should make it possible to develop much higher-order skills than just being a hammers-and-nails guy on a roof. If an American is being out-competed on wage by someone who lacks those things, it's a lot of squandered potential. We should be focused not on protecting the American from having his under-utilizing job taken from him by an immigrant competitor, but rather by helping him acquire the additional skills to fill a job that would more fully tap what he can bring to the show.

 

[Oneuli]

Mmmmm, that's very humanitarian of you. Amazing how you empathize with people on the other side of the Planet, ... rather than your fellow American down the street.

I try to empathize with all human beings. Your notion that I empathize more with people on the other side of the planet than fellow Americans is backwards. Although I struggle not to be so prejudiced, my natural tendency is to empathize with those more like me, such as fellow Americans.

 

[Oneuli]

WARMONGER​

DEMOCRATS who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq’s WMD programs were responsible for lying about Iraq’s alleged threat.

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions which the US government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a US invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems.

DEMOCRAT presidential nominee John Kerry chose to make such demonstrably false statements and voted in favor of the resolution. Kerry was not alone.

Hillary Clinton, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, falsely insisted that Iraq’s possession of such weapons was “not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” Despite her lies, Obama named her his first secretary of State.


https://truthout.org/articles/democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war/

Do you know the context of that quotation about attacking Iran? She was speaking of what the US response would be if Iran launched an attack on Israel. I think leaving that context out is deliberately deceptive.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Do you know the context of that quotation about attacking Iran? She was speaking of what the US response would be if Iran launched an attack on Israel. I think leaving that context out is deliberately deceptive.

Being deliberately deceptive is, to echo Evince, all that they have.

Besides, the continual attacks on Clinton are their way of distracting us from discussing the *real* problem -- the boorish, mentally-deficient, dangerous bully in the WH.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I think you misunderstand what I said. I'm not claiming that someone who didn't experience a particular thing understands better what that thing was like. I'm saying that someone who didn't live through a part of a very broad and dispersed phenomenon can't make the error of mistaking her personal corner of that phenomenon as necessarily representative of the whole.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose I can illustrate the same idea with Vietnam, since you brought that up. Let's say you served in Vietnam, but your role was six months in Saigon in the summer and fall of 1964, acting as an MP at a command facility, and you never even got within hearing range of gunshots. How good of a feel for what the Vietnam War was really like would you have, really? Yet even though your role was utterly unlike that of, say, someone who served as a front-line rifleman during the Tet Offensive, or, say, a tunnel rat whose job was to crawl through tunnels dismantling booby traps, it would be very hard not to think of the war in terms of what your little corner of it looked like. That's the problem with judging a large phenomenon by one's personal key-hole view of it. That's a problem I'd have to struggle with if we were discussing, say, Brooklyn in 2017, but not a problem I have to struggle with when it comes to discussing the 1980s or before.

Oh I understood perfectly. You believe that you can have a better understanding of something you never experienced by reading reports and articles better than people who experienced it. As in your other arguments it's all assumptions on your part.
As far as your argument about Vietnam goes your 1st mistake how long a tour was. For 99% a tour was anywhere from 12 to 14 months. Your second mistake was the VC used gorilla tactics so even those in noncombat positions were still targets as Charlie would snipe or throw a grenade while riding down the streets on motorcycles. Yes even in Saigon. So you just proved my point that you cannot completely understand a subject by just reading about it. FYI I did serve in Nam during the 60's.

 

[Oneuli]

One interesting question is to what extent Stein understood herself to be doing the Kremlin's work.