Jysfors ?I'm wondering what the "word" for the product line will be. Remember, it shouldn't be an actual english word, and probably not a real scandanavian one either. It should just "sound" scandanavian... kind of.
Jysfors ?I'm wondering what the "word" for the product line will be. Remember, it shouldn't be an actual english word, and probably not a real scandanavian one either. It should just "sound" scandanavian... kind of.
http://www.meforum.org/166/the-arab-betrayal-of-balkan-islamAnd what did Albania do that was so horrible?
Even more telling was the pro-American position taken by many Balkan Muslims as the "war on terror" unfolded. The Albanian government, which had been extremely active in helping the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency break up a pro–bin Ladin cell composed of Egyptians, put bin Ladin in the same category as Milosevic: "Enemies of civilization like Milosevic or bin Ladin should end up in the defendant's dock … bin Ladin will soon be held accountable alongside the "Butcher of the Balkans.""
The Islamic leaders in Albanian-speaking territories, including Kosovo and western Macedonia, were even more outspoken in support of the United States. The day after the September 11 attacks, Haxhi Dede Reshat Bardhim, world leader of the Bektashi sect, which is headquartered in Tirana and has at least two million Albanian adherents, sent a message to President George W. Bush referring to America as "the pride of this world" and declaring, "May Allah be, as always, on the side of the American people and the American state!"
[DOUBLEPOST=1489616314][/DOUBLEPOST]There's also a pretty good subreddit called magicalskyfairy that just constantly shits all over them when they crawl too far up their own asses.“Just to be clear, I’m not a professional ‘quote maker’. I’m just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.
‘In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.’"
#4 really says it, and I'm right there with #8.
He's leaving that for Frank Oz.Total missed opportunity to go for the Yoda quote.
"HELLO"
She should start worrying when it starts flashing "CHILD."
--Patrick
That's how western dragons work in Shadowrun, though. They invest their hoards.
Bruh. That is way to real.Cold to its core
Appeals to the common denominator
Cheap
A nostalgic throwback to a time that is nothing like what you remember
I think that's a pretty accurate summation of the Libertarian philosophy."If you aren't free to make bad choices (providing you're not directly harming anyone else) you aren't really free."
Also "I have no moral responsibility to anyone but myself."I think that's a pretty accurate summation of the Libertarian philosophy.
--Patrick
This seems more objectivist than libertarian. I'm a Christian and a libertarian, and I absolutely think I have a moral responsibility to those less fortunate. There may be a philosophical difference with modern liberals over how the most good is done (private charity vs government benefits), but to state that libertarians are fundamentally uninterested in providing for the welfare of others is flat wrong.Also "I have no moral responsibility to anyone but myself."
Wouldn't a Libertarian's ideal be to help/guide other people to become Libertarian, being as how Libertarians view maximizing personal liberty as the best possible outcome?to state that libertarians are fundamentally uninterested in providing for the welfare of others is flat wrong.
Perhaps some might see it that way, but for me it isn't a religion. I see it as the best political philosophy, so I try my best to affect change in that direction. I know it isn't perfect, and that some concessions must be made for the sake of practicality. I also acknowledge that for pure libertarianism to work, it requires a well-informed AND moral populace. Since we don't seem to have one of those (and never really have) I don't see pure libertarianism ever working - but if I can provide some pressure on the R-D pendulum by my actions and votes, I don't see that as a bad thing.Wouldn't a Libertarian's ideal be to help/guide other people to become Libertarian, being as how Libertarians view maximizing personal liberty as the best possible outcome?
--Patrick
To expand upon this, I would say that the following is true to (most) libertarians: It is wrong for the government (or anybody really) to take your wealth/money/whatever away and give it to another (or even back to you... bribing people with their own money is old-hat to governments IMO) because they/you "deserve" it according to the government, but it is absolutely not a conflict to choose to give your money away for a cause you believe in.This seems more objectivist than libertarian. I'm a Christian and a libertarian, and I absolutely think I have a moral responsibility to those less fortunate. There may be a philosophical difference with modern liberals over how the most good is done (private charity vs government benefits), but to state that libertarians are fundamentally uninterested in providing for the welfare of others is flat wrong.
Speaking as someone who did a year of national service, pic 8 is so accurate it gave me whiplash just from the memories.
"I" do not have any measurable agency in the outcome of government (see that Princeton study from 2014) actions. Thus it is not "us" or "we" it is "them."See, the part I have difficulty with is the concept of "my" money. I would not have had this money nor had the opportunities to earn it if not for the communal actions and wealth of people and institutions around me. I also fond it quite difficult to think of the government as a "they". For better or worse, it's an "us".
I have to say that the tribalism of politics is what frustrates me the most. I am inclined to agree with Fade, in that the government is "us". To me that means that a democratic government is composed of people, like my family and community are composed of people. By making government a "them", I think the danger one falls into is believing that "they" are lesser and that one is better than "them". But that isn't true, I think fundamentally so. I prefer to think of a democratic government as "like me" in that, while it is flawed, it conforms to our societies values. The people in the government are capable of compassion as well as of greed. The more we think of the government as the "other", the more the government becomes closed off, actually becoming the other. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep the government recognizably human: Transparent, open to contributions from the constituents, and fair. Granted, it is not always those things. But that is somewhat my point. It isn't policy that makes government other. It is we who do not participate because we already do not trust the government."I" do not have any measurable agency in the outcome of government (see that Princeton study from 2014) actions. Thus it is not "us" or "we" it is "them."
As for the other part of the argument, I usually go to the idea that any that are directly responsible for my wealth/income usually also have a rather direct relationship with me. And thus we are supporting each other. While the government is a PART of that, it is certainly not 30-50% (or more) of that, and thus entitled to that percentage of my income by default. Government is not the society, it is a necessary evil to have as a part of that society.
There's an old OLD saying that I can't remember exactly, nor whom said it originally: If people were angels, we wouldn't need government, and if government were made up of angels, you wouldn't worry about if what they were doing was right.
Necessary Evil. Anything else is conflating "society" with government, which is itself dangerous for many many reasons.
See: democratic government and shares our societies values.Prison populations are also comprised of people. Terrorist organizations are also comprised of people.
That's our fault as much as it is theirs. Which was the whole point of my post.That doesn't make them "us." And as sure as power corrupts, you can bet that very few, if any, in government count us as "us."
Everything past the first 3 sentences was a mixture of wishful thinking and a fairy tail. I think you also vastly overestimate the inherent morality of "human."If you are just going to respond to the first three sentences and ignore the rest, I'll stick to just writing three sentences in the future. Or maybe 140 characters.
No, you vastly overestimate YOUR inherent morality. That was also part of my point. You think you are better than the government. I think I am as base as they are.Everything past the first 3 sentences was a mixture of wishful thinking and a fairy tail. I think you also vastly overestimate the inherent morality of "human."
I think I am less capable of harm than the government, that's for sure - if only because I don't have the power to do so.No, you vastly overestimate YOUR inherent morality. That was also part of my point. You think you are better than the government. I think I am as base as they are.
Sure, but that's not what I said. "They" will be corrupted. You will not. The language you use suggests superiority.I think I am less capable of harm than the government, that's for sure - if only because I don't have the power to do so.