green

Well, there has been a lot of brawling going on, that is for sure. And there are a number of us who do believe that Cusano and his attitude triggered the melee. I for one do not believe that this thread is an embarrassment to LBT. It has been a messy, a very messy debate but it has not been lacking in intellectual value. LapBandTalk is a most valuable resource for all of us who post here. This is a site that allows each and everyone of us to assist, educate and support our brothers and sisters in our travels with lapband surgery and with general issues concerning weight and weight loss. We are a global community and yet we all belong here. (I spend a lot of my time loitering in the various fora of this site and because I am a Canadian I appreciate that LBT has taken the trouble to set up a Canuck zone.) There are, however, a couple of fora where the chat will inevitably become more contentious, the Rant and Raves Forum is one of the two. I think that these two fora are valuable for it is here where members are able to discuss political, cultural, and social issues. While we are all individuals who are struggling with the physical and psychological issues of weight and weight loss we do have other concerns. Leatha, you must understand that Cusano posted in one of these 'gloves-off' discussion areas. He did not indicate that he was in need of assistance or advice from the members of LBT. He presented himself as fair game and he certainly did participate in the brawl. As for yourself, I see that you made approximately 3500 posts on this site. This would indicate that you are a long way from being a tongue-tied and intimidated individual yourself.

I have a great deal of trouble with the above quoted documents, that of Bigtimer and his respondent, iveseenitall. I consider both documents to be prime examples of passionate and yet unexamined thought or what I often like to call cheap sound bite philosophy. Let me explain: Bigtimer spends his opening paragraph by listing a disparate group of individuals: possible smokers, individuals who may or may not wear seat belts/helmets when driving the appropriate vehicles, folks who may or may not wear real fur and skins, and people who drive big rigs as contrasted with those who drive Volkswagons. Indeed Bigtimer does wander into the area of socio-economic standing in his lengthy list; he talks about the private-schooled, those who belong to exclusive clubs, and the folks who shop at 'high falutin' stores as contrasted to those who shop at Walmart. It is worth noting that he has already set up a folksy populist tone by the end of this list. It is clear that he has already chosen his audience and wants to make nice with them. And his audience is us, the average folk who do shop at Walmart and do not belong to clubs, who do not send our kids off to private schools and who are less likely to wear furs. Then he quickly seques into a rant about God and the cross without even troubling to start off with a new paragraph. The reader is left baffled. Who of the above listed individuals are the villains in the piece and what is it that they have done to attack Christian freedoms? He then asks an unspecified group to stop inflicting their lefty, commie, socialistic views on the country and on his children. At no time does he specifies who these people are and what attacks have been made. His allegations are passionate but vague. He simply doesn't back 'em up with any facts. The dude is nothing more than a gasbag. Then he follows up with a paragraph in which he tells all dissenting Americans to leave the United States. That he is comfortable announcing "that our forefathers and others have given their lives for our freedoms" sounds kinda funny considering his own attitude is that it is my way or the highway. And as a good Christian he closes his malevolant rant by telling those whom he finds disagreable that he would to run them out of the country and "never see the white of your evil eyes again." As for iveseenitall's contribution, well,...his complaint is that liberals can't "live and let live." This seems funny to me. Liberals have been voicing this complaint about the fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslim, or of any other totalitarian stripe for a long time now. I really haven't seen a liberal jihad. I would be interested to hear factual evidence of one.

Mouse, with a change in leaders you may well see America regain her international standing, you may see something done about the Patriot Acts, and you may see those prisoners who are currently being held without rights and under cloak of darkness dealt with in an American manner. I doubt that you would see your taxes skyrocket and I doubt that this continent would be overrun by Islamic fanatics either.

Mouse, do not forget that it is in the interests of all of western Europe as well as such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and much of eastern Europe (including Russia) to insure that the U.S. does not lose ground. America is the single most powerful global player today and she is founded upon white European and - dare I say it! - Christian values. These are the values with which the countries which form the power block are comfortable and it may be argued that these are values that do work for these are the countries which are stable, affluent, industrialised and more or less successfully democratic. (I have no doubt that Japan and South Korea are also heavily invested in seeing that the United States continues to prosper; these countries do live cheek by jowl with China, a huge land and an emerging powerhouse economy.) Certainly America has made many enemies in the international arena since the end of the Second World War. I would suspect that some of this is because of a moral arrogance and the resulting unwillingness to follow international protocols and a reluctance to finesse situations. And of course America has been the rich kid on the block. Europe was left in shambles after the Second World War. Both France and the United Kingdom were colonial powers before the War. Great Britain was able to spin her former holdings off into commonwealth countries during the late 40s and throughout the 50s without too much bloodshed or loss of face. France, on the other hand, had big problems with her former African colonies. Decolonialisation was a serious problem that was additional to the fact that these countries had been hollowed out by the war which had been fought on their lands. It is my understanding that all of Europe was nothing more than land that was pretty much smashed. Land and houses had been destroyed. People had gone missing. The local economies had been destroyed. It is my understanding that the geographical, ethical, linguistic, and moral structures of this land mass had been smashed. This is what happens to countries who find themselves in a war zone. It is understandable that the formerly powerful European countries, the cradle of modern civilization, might feel kinda sour and kinda jealous about seeing themselves eclipsed by a former colony. It is always fun to critique the rich and the powerful. Understand, however, that the continuing well-being of the United States does indeed guarantee global stability. Thus your comments, Mouse, strike me as being kinda over the top. Let me assure you, grrrl, that if push came to shove America would have the support of all of the industrialised world. It is in our interest to ensure that America continues to remain in good shape.

I believe that Mousecrazy has a point with respect to the U.N.'s current structure and I, for one, have no idea as to whether this is something that can be solved. In theory the fact that one nation has one vote is both good and just but many of these minor nations are ruled by tinpot dictators whose interests are not representative of their countrymen. Of course their representatives abroad and this includes the U.N. representative will represent the individual agendas of their strongmen. And too, who's to say that how these minor third world nations vote isn't often influenced by a visceral knee-jerk reaction against the proposals of the wealthy western countries? Of course this is where diplomacy comes in. Diplomats are merely lobbyists who function on an international level. Diplomacy consists of offering a blend of gifts and threats: Gifts would include such items as investment in the country's infrastructure and loan forgiveness; threats involve economic sanctions and worse. Nevertheless, there are a lot of small and hostile countries out there and everyone of them is guaranteed a vote. It should also be noted that the U.N. is in the hole financially and the U.S. has been carrying the organisation. While this does not mean that the States is owed votes it does mean that America is owed her props. While I agree with Mouse that the voting structure of the U.N. is skewed and grants the tiny players too much weight, I cannot see any other approach. This is what we call participatory democracy. I do, however, sense some paranoia present in your statement, Mouse, concerning your stated concerns over the interests of the United States being blocked on an international level. The truth is that Americans continue to enjoy an affluent life style, one that is only available to the wealthy in most countries. The truth is that although Americans endured the attack of 9/11 - an experience of profound horror and terror - upon their home soil, terrorists and their attacks are something that the United Kingdom and continental Europe have had to live with for a long time now. We who live inside continental North America live sheltered lives compared to the rest of the world. We are buffered by two major oceans. The fractious Muslims of the Middle East are not a threat; they are too busy squabbling amongst themselves, trying to destroy Israel, burning American and Danish flags, and the like. These people are not a united and coherent force. There are two emerging industrial economies who are, however, for these nations have huge labour pools who will work for less than ours can, they do not have any environmental or worker health controls in place and these countries will be competing with North America for the fossil fuel supply. These countries are India and China. (India, by the way, has an enormous middle class. Its population is greater than the entire population of Canada.) These are both politically stable countries with huge populations. They are already in the way of providing North America with cheap goods. They both have nuclear technology and they have both shown that they are anxious to engage with the west. These are countries which are embracing modern ways. It will be these countries who will be in need of fossil fuels. It will be these countries who will be taking environmental short cuts in order to assist production.

Wow! Bad news indeed! Hang in there, Bitter. I hope that you and your Mum make it through all of this.

Grrl, you are so right! But I regret that I couldn't resist going over there again for another cat fight this PM. And catfight it is! We have just taken in a small stray who is happy to be here but who cannot resist brawling with our large and peaceful neutered tom. The stray is a tiny female who is gonna get neutered in due course. Her name is now Little Orange - she is orange and white. Just call me Big Green, eh.:paranoid

I don't understand....I really don't. When the other side attempts to introduce material in order to support its side in this serious debate you dismiss this information as being nothing more than the findings of a few left-wing fringe kooks. In fact this material enjoys mainstream acceptance. In fact your approach to debate is to dismiss any information which does not agree with your world view; you have no regard to its academic and intellectual qualifications. Your notion of a debate is heads, I'm right, tails, you're wrong, nicht war? You will continue to believe that you are right. Your ego is invested in this. You will continue to alienate those with whom you might have a dialogue or possibly even convert. Nobody likes a self righteous bully. Nobody likes a bully for that matter. Your psychological approach towards your religion has much in common with everything that many westerners dread about Islam - that is to say a forced, aggressive, and bullying approach towards conversion. You stop short of threatening death. There has been nothing in your behaviour that would lead a thoughtful, sensitive individual to investigate your religion. It is obvious that you are a cat who is set in his ways. You have given yourself over to your own belief set. I have spent a little bit of time loitering on your website in order to get to know you better. I don't agree with your beliefs and I find this business of Messaniac Judaism to be disturbing - indeed, I find it to be a form of racism - but this is your chosen trip. Your beliefs are not offensive. Your aggressive attempts to proselytise are offensive as is your utter lack of respect towards those who have chosen different paths from yourself.

I did apologise for using the P-word. It was excessive and, well, Yiddish of me to have plowed that word into the conversation. On the other hand, your own conversational tactics have been less than clean. (Please read the above quote.) I guess we might call this an eye for an eye, eh.:heh: I don't think that any of us here have any trouble with your message. Indeed there are some very impressive Christians who routinely post here. These are individuals who do believe and whose ongoing engagement in life is, by virtue of their belief, shown to be most attractive to the casual observer. These are individuals who sometimes cause Green to regret her inability to believe. Cusano's approach towards his fellow men and women is very much different. This is an individual who seems to believe that folks will be attracted to the word of God by a campaign of harrassment, arrogance, and belittlement. The message is not the problem; the messenger is.

Thanks for posting this, Laurend. The gang over at this atheist website where I hang out are reading his book and are big fans of him. They are also fans of Sam Harris. I haven't read either author yet though I really should. BJean, Green is always pleased to amuse. (Deep down she is very shallow, you know. ) I guess by now you have seen my poor anger management skills displayed over at the other thread, eh?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4974292897754689388&q=sam+harris

Though the sentiment of be reasonable, see it my way, is powerfully seductive for all of us it is imperative that the United States understand that many other countries operate with different social values. I will cite as an example this business of socialized medicare. Industrial Europe has universal medicare in place as does Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. These are states which are highly industrialized and which are democratic. These are countries that function under the principles of capitalism. They have modified it is all. Nevertheless, Canada has come under attack from the American right wing. We have been called the home of the "Commu-Nazis" and we have been referred to as "Soviet Canuckistan." Canada has chosen to follow a European model both politically and socially. This is not surprising. The country is much, much younger than yours and our ties to Europe are much more profound. Canada has also prospered by virtue of being sheltered by the power and the wealth of the United States. We are lucky to be sheltered, I think, by the wealth and the power of our neighbour to the south and we are anxious to see that you continue to prosper. Nevertheless, it occurs to us and it occurs to those nations who are less favourably disposed to America that your power structure is prone to paranoia and international meddling; indeed there are dirty stories about American sponsored activities in Africa that date back to the early 60s. This would be around the time that the European colonial powers were withdrawing from Africa. Though I am often critical of American policy in my posts I must tell you that I am a fan of the United States and I am very anxious that America retain her power and her status. I do, however, have many, many concerns. I would not like to see this country destroy itself over this Iraqi war. I would not like to see those wild and whacky fundamentalists overrun the fundamental freedoms of this big country. And I would certainly not like to see my Godless country, Soviet Canuckistan, invaded either and I am talking about our neighbours from the south, the ones who don't like our politics.

Green is wildly amused and she wants to tell everyone who might care to know that her giant knickers are, like her bed sheets, one hundred percent cotton and have a high thread count. This is the trade-off that comes with age: no synthetics, a current passport, high thread counts, and real jewellery. The downside makes for dreary reading.:cry

Green was in a state of high snittery and did have her size extra large atheist bloomers in a twist.:cry

But these activities have been carried out by al-Quaeda and the Hezbollah for the most part. I see no evidence of Iraq's involvement with these activities. Hezbollah is present in Lebanon and Palestine and is backed by Syria, I believe. Al-Qaeda has its roots in Wahhabism, a fundamentalist sect which originated in Saudi Arabia and seems to be linked up with the Taliban. There are a lot of these folk who are to be found in the border lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these activities are some distance away from Iraq.

Bill Maher said that America would be better off with a President who reads than a President who prays.

I, too, have read that jury selection has become a real art and that lawyers hire experts in this in order to assist them in obtaining a panel that comes with a bias.

Starbucks and Balinese cuisine...how heavenly! And beaches!! We could go swimming. A holiday like this would be splendid. I've just come back from brawling over at the Anti-Semitism in France thread. I didn't comport myself with any grace or serenity at all. *blush* I think I need a holiday.....:phanvan

I just wanted to see if you really are hanging out with Jewish folk. I guess you are. My heart-felt apologies for the very rude Yiddish. With respect to the question, what are your thoughts on the topic of anti-Semitism in France? I would be interested to know. It is an important issue. I will mention that I lost most of my father's side of the family in the Holocaust and, as I have previously mentioned, I have been personally interested in the situation in France.

You only love those who reflect your own beliefs. You are a bully. And you have still not engaged in the topic which allowed you entrance into LBT, the issue of anti-Semitism in France, ya putz.

I think you know that we three are all on the same page, kiddo. Hey, do you and you wife want to go to Bali with us? I come from a Brit background and promise never to hug her.

There is a lot of interesting reading material here for those who are interested.

So, Cusano, what is your feeling about the life that your fellow Semites live in France?

Grrlfriend, it seems to me that you have anorexia by association or second-hand anorexia. Mary-Kate Olsen looks like Nancy Reagan! She looks my age for gawd's sake! and I am 57 years old! Come to think of it, I have much more hair than she does. Now, the reason that I said that you have anorexia by association is because it is evident that you don't see that that young woman looks like an antique. What I would suggest you do as being in the way of a reality check is show the above photo of her to all your friends and ask them for their opinions. Do this without giving them any previous input from yourself. Let them walk into experiencing that photo cold, ask them what they think, record their impressions, and then let us know their responses. (Well, at least Green and Carlene, eh.) The reason I ask you to do this is because the truth is that pretty well all young women suffer from self-loathing and hold a more or less distorted vision of what they actually look like. Yep, this means that even the babes think that they are dogs. One of the most psychologically profound cartoons that Green has ever seen has a babe looking at a horny guy and saying, "well, I'll take off my clothes if you promise not to laugh at me." This is how women feel. We do suffer from body dysmorphia to a greater or lesser extent. This is why beautiful young women starve themselves into skeletal freaks and still can look at themselves in a mirror and see themselves as being too fat. And of course the thing that has both Carlene and myself in a flap is that although we view Mary-Kate as looking old, bony, hairless and dessicated when she is still only in her twenties you seem to be unable to see this. And you know that we bandsters have our own big time body issues to deal with. Being a fatty is utterly horrible but shedding the protective coat of weight brings with it a separate set of issues. You have shown yourself to be a very interesting individual through your posts on these boards. Though it is a fine thing that you have lost weight and you should continue on this road, do not allow yourself to become overly obsessed with this. There are some terrible unhappy skinny chicks and some very, very happy big grrls out there. Green will mention her sister and her mother-in-law at this point. Both of these women were very, very beautiful when they were young. Both of them have suffered a lot of anxiety seeking to conserve this as they grew older. Personality, wit, intelligence, curiosity, and education age much better. My advice to you is to keep on posting, have fun, keep on hanging with the gay guys (Green has always had a lot of gay friends), keep on learning, lose weight, travel as much as you can. If you like yourself and find your life interesting, others will, too. *End of sermon, eh*

LOL Yah, I agree. :heh: