MESSAGE
| DATE | 2017-01-19 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Word of the Year for 2016
|
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:57:55PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com):
>
> > IF I FELT LIKE YOU I WOULD DO THE SAME....of course, yourwrong though so
> > it doesn't matter
>
> Despite what that orange fraud and his toadies have been saying, we
> actually do _not_ live in a post-factual world. Facts are real, and
> have sharp pointy consequences. Which we'll all be facing as even
> deluded people like you figure out that the orange con artist is just
> a chubby Howard Stern in a power tie.
>
>
You silly boy. we not only know that, but we are betting on it.
That would piss off Howard Stern though.
> > Please, stop acting like I wasn't there and that the reality I lived
> > through can be spun to a conveinet reality for a Clinton World View.
>
> You realise you were quoting _yourself_, there? You were literally
> arguing with yourself. http://imgur.com/gallery/91sn32Q
>
>
> > Ummm, yeah, since we are facing an rising nuclear threat.
>
> Listen, moron, you do not deal with a 'rising nuclear threat' by
> doubling the number of times this country and Russia can each kill off
> everything on the planet down to cockroaches. If you really cannot
> figure that out, kindly surrender your citizenship and go somewhere
> you're less likely to vote for mass-murder.
>
Of course, your well aware that the discssions about the use, upgrade,
and purpose of nuclear weapons does not induldge such idiotic rational.
What it does involve, though, is a clear and present deterent in the
face of a multitangental threat. The ICBMs and Nukes are going to need
an upgrade, increased mobility, and modern control and tracking, not to
mention that tactical weapons also need a large upgrade in order to
counter the growing world wide threat... not just from Russia.
The old view used to be that you can not fight a nuclear war and win.
that is a very old view. It is very possible to fight a nuclear war
with China and win. I don't want to. It would be horrendous,
espeically but not exclussively for the Chinese. and the same is true
about Russia. We can even fight with conventional weapons and defeat a
nuclear power. Nukes are a very blunt instrument and not necessarily
the most efficacious weapon.... especially if you have suprise on your
side.
What I don't want more than such a conflict, however, is a world where
China is dictating the terms of world trade, and is the abitraters of
international human rights, and the environment.
>
> > Yeah, well, Nato as it was formed is long dead.
>
> NATO has been key to peace in Europe and to all of us not getting killed.
> It's the most successful military alliance in human history. Thinking
> otherwise is failing Reality 101.
>
Yes, but I didn't disagree with that. What I said was that NATO is not
what it was originally designed for and I'm NOT certain that adding
states that line the Russian boarder was in any way smart. I did NOT
want to go to world wide nuclear war over Crimera, nor Latvia for that
matter.
> This is not playtime. This is the actual world we're talking about.
Indeed, and NATO is not the same organization that is was designed to be
in the late 1940's.
>
> _______________________________________________
> hangout mailing list
> hangout-at-nylxs.com
> http://www.nylxs.com/
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
