Necessary Evils

[240 is Back]

Yes, I would give my life for a true world peace, a world in harmony.  That's a fiction, perfection cannot be attained but it can be reached for.  But if a magic wand could be waived and the world made safe for all, equal for all, I would take that trade.  I would live poor, lose a leg, lose my life.  It would not only be for those that I don't know, but obviously for those who I do know, my family and the generations to follow, my life would be a small thing for that trade.

fair enough, and very noble.

would you give your life so that TWO people on the opposite side of the earth wouldn't be killed by unnecessary violence?

[Hugo Chavez]

240, I think you are lost.  Not trying to insult you honest, but I really think you need to do some thinking.

[Hugo Chavez]

fair enough, and very noble.

would you give your life so that TWO people on the opposite side of the earth wouldn't be killed by unnecessary violence?

no

[240 is Back]

no

okay.  Then your number is somewhere between 3, and 6 billion, people you'd give your life to protect.

I guess I'm just saying we all have moral limitations.  We're all willing to sell out a "little" in order to keep what we have. 

WOuld anyone here choose a recession, over stopping the drug trade?  I wouldn't.  I don't use drugs, and I try to avoid crack neighborhoods.  But I sure as hell would see and feel a recession.  So I would rather have the drugs - and a good economy - than no drugs and another great depression.  Which would you prefer?

[Hugo Chavez]

I would risk my life to save two people, but that's just because I'm so cocky that I wouldn't think I would be in danger

[Hugo Chavez]

okay.  Then your number is somewhere between 3, and 6 billion, people you'd give your life to protect.

I guess I'm just saying we all have moral limitations.  We're all willing to sell out a "little" in order to keep what we have. 

WOuld anyone here choose a recession, over stopping the drug trade?  I wouldn't.  I don't use drugs, and I try to avoid crack neighborhoods.  But I sure as hell would see and feel a recession.  So I would rather have the drugs - and a good economy - than no drugs and another great depression.  Which would you prefer?

You changed the senerio bigtime

[Hugo Chavez]

You should also stop being so black and white 240. It's way more complex.  Because part of an economy is drug based, does not mean that the economy could not be healthy without drug money.  That's absurd when you stop to think about it.  Play it out, the money moves around, not being spent on drugs, it's going to be spent elsewere.  Other industries would fill the void, it is nearly impossible that wouldn't be the case.

[Decker]

Would anyone here live a life of homelessless if it meant crating peace on earth?

Would you give your left leg so that people you'll never meet will stop killing other people you'll never meet?

I wouldn't I doubt many here would.  ..... 

I suggest you look to veterans of WWII if they minded giving up their lives to secure our way of living.  I suppose you could go to a homeless Viet Nam vet and ask him if his sacrifice was worth it.

Point is, thousands of average joes have given their all to make this world a better place and you come along smug with the understanding that our country sometimes does barbaric things which coincidentally benefits the country in some manner and you are content with your hypocrisy.

It doesn't have to be this way and passive acceptance of the situation is feckless surrender.

[Hugo Chavez]

240 needs saved from the dark side   Come back over 240, it's not to late for you!!!

[240 is Back]

240 needs saved from the dark side   Come back over 240, it's not to late for you!!!

lol

I'm not saying you're wrong on anything.  we all know the idiots here refuse to argue the evidence of 911, war for oil, etc because its so overwhelming.

i just see the warring as inevitable, as part of out national cycle.  We warred under reagen and Bush1 (and strongarmed resources).  We healed under Clinton (got economy fixed).  We warred under Bush 2 (got oil from 2-3 countries under our thumb and set up new bases).  Next, possibly under Clinton2, we'll heal again.   We'll fix severed relationships.  Back off the mid east, just a lil bit.  Stop doing things like starting wars because we can.

I'm a global realist.  The neotaints are liars and scumbags.  The libs are unrealistic about the fact that wars do exist, and if it wasnt's us doing it, then another country would be. 

[militarymuscle69]

Yes, I would give my life for a true world peace, a world in harmony.  That's a fiction, perfection cannot be attained but it can be reached for.  But if a magic wand could be waived and the world made safe for all, equal for all, I would take that trade.  I would live poor, lose a leg, lose my life.  It would not only be for those that I don't know, but obviously for those who I do know, my family and the generations to follow, my life would be a small thing for that trade.

You should run for Miss America

[Eyeball Chambers]

Cool thread, nice posts Berserker!

[Hugo Chavez]

Cool thread, nice posts Berserker!

Must have been   I got MM69 horney

[Nordic Superman]

You should also stop being so black and white 240. It's way more complex.  Because part of an economy is drug based, does not mean that the economy could not be healthy without drug money.  That's absurd when you stop to think about it.  Play it out, the money moves around, not being spent on drugs, it's going to be spent elsewere.  Other industries would fill the void, it is nearly impossible that wouldn't be the case.

But you have NO evidence in the history of goverments!

I asked you simple questions earlier to see if you thought a government could run with being 100% true and good. You gave a canned answer of basically "yes I believe it's possible".

It might be poetic to say such things, but in reality there is no template for it and certainly no evidence for it.

[Hugo Chavez]

But you have NO evidence in the history of goverments!

I asked you simple questions earlier to see if you thought a government could run with being 100% true and good. You gave a canned answer of basically "yes I believe it's possible".

It might be poetic to say such things, but in reality there is no template for it and certainly no evidence for it.

actually I did answer you, I don't know what your extra beef is about???  First, I never claimed or have claimed instance of a perfect nation, I simply do not believe it's possible.  It's real simple, there never has been or ever will be pure benevolence.  There is evil, there is dark and there is nothing you can to do COMPLETELY eliminate it.  We are not perfect creatures and even the best of us will commit evil deeds sometimes not even being aware of the consequences of our actions, same on the national level.  Perfect just can't happen, but what can happen and what has happened at rare times is that people/nations have indeed reached high and obtained levels of good not known before.  All I am saying is just because you cannot attain 100% of a good goal does not mean you should not reach for it or even greater.  To just give in and say, aw hell, it's the nature of the beast is what will be man's downfall.

[Nordic Superman]

Well 100% was possibly a mistake on my part.

I did ask for governments being prosperous without acts of deceit etc, which I can't find any.

I assume your argument is that it's possible, mine is that it is not.

[Hugo Chavez]

Well 100% was possibly a mistake on my part.

I did ask for governments being prosperous without acts of deceit etc, which I can't find any.

I assume your argument is that it's possible, mine is that it is not.

haha, well I got you then because there are countless single acts by governments that end in good   There are also countless acts of evil done in the national interest that could have been attained through more benevolent means.  In the end, I do not believe a nation must be decitful to prosper.  That notion is disgusting, evil and just plain stupid especially when it's the first avenue pursued by a government which is to often the case.  Oh and why the hell would you say you assume my argument is that it's possible.  That indicates you have not read my posts in this thread because I have said at least twice that it is not purely possible but rather is should be the goal--I believe more often that it is not the goal which is wrong.

[Nordic Superman]

There are also countless acts of evil done in the national interest that could have been attained through more benevolent means.

How is it possible how you know what would be the outcome of events in the future?

You're a fucking time travelling Jew aren't yah?

Tell me, do the muslims conquer Europe, and do I rise to erradicate them and become the ruler of the known universe.

Thanks!

[Hugo Chavez]

How is it possible how you know what would be the outcome of events in the future?

You're a fucking time travelling Jew aren't yah?

Tell me, do the muslims conquer Europe, and do I rise to erradicate them and become the ruler of the known universe.

Thanks!

I know... I have a privately published copy of the future    In the future, there is to be no muslims, if that makes your day

[Nordic Superman]

Only makes my day if I'm the reason there are no muzzies!

[Hugo Chavez]

Only makes my day if I'm the reason there are no muzzies!

Sorry, in fact you'll be gone too.  If you're lucky, the best you'll get out of things to come is your offspring will go on to become an eloi--if that's what you would consider a good thing