That last statement "We have rules of engagement for this sort of thing."  Speaks of the trite stupidity so many young people have who have never sacrificed and whose world view is limited to, well, what they can see from their bedroom window after a harsh night of Halo3 on an Xbox.

There is the assumption, that soldiers and leaders act as automatic machines and simply "respond" when a certain invisible line has been crossed.  As if our soldiers were walking land mines.  Of course one can understand such ignorance, after all if you have never had any real exposure to the military or people in military leadership, you might assume everyone is a Rambo with target acquisition as their first and only duty.  In fact it is much different from that.

Consider that the military leadership in the Straits of Hormuz know for a fact that Iran will be provocative and attempt to create provocation, this is partly due to the present mini power struggle going on between mullahs and civilian government, the lack of a possible immediate invasion by the US is causing further divisions within Iranian leadership.  The gunboats by the way, carry both explosives, launchers and 50 caliber cannons.  These self same gunboats also dropped "boxes" in the water, whether these boxes carried small rapid torpedos, or plastic with mines attached, or wether hey carried mines that submerged in the water and were separated from the box after being sumberged are all considerations that military leaders look at when their crew and ship are threatened.  People, their people, could die based on the decision.... Of course the ignorant will say "we have rules of engagement for that sort of thing".  As if the rules of engagement account for all possible actions or reactions by other groups. 

Now these weren't Iranian military ships, they belonged to an independent revolutionary guard (arm of the mullahs) which can claim they were civilians if attacked. 

But of course we have "rules of engagement for that sort of thing".... 

bumped 

I am sure barney is all about the matrix.

But if he chooses to reject any hint of revelation, because all such things to him are chemical brain activity, then he must also reject science since its interpretation is also based on the same brain activity and therefore also flawed.  After all, barney is assuming we are at the apogee of knowledge (otherwise he would have to be honest and assume that at one time in the future, further knowledge will indeed prove the existence of god or non existence if you will, thus taking away his positive declaration of there being no god), and therefore since we haven't proven god at this apogee, nothing else will exist.

And attacking revelation as brain chemical analysis, is the equivalent of attacking all philosophical thought as being nothing more than deranged chemical activity.

Aside from that, the very idea that the logic we have now is unassailable as the ulitmate indicator of truth is itself a delusion that barney holds most dear.

Oooh what a come back, wow, you must have originated that remark, I cannot believe how new and creative that was..... You must be peachy keen with your friend. 

Seriously, is that your best shot?

I don't even think you rise to barney's ignorant mumblings.

I just finished several books.  But the two of note I will present are:

Russia's Capitalist Revolution:  Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed - Anders Aslund.

US Taxation of Foriegn Income by Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Ariel Assa

Gee Perrin, didn't know you were ignorant of Gore the bore's background.

Read a book sometime.    It does wonders for your vast wasteland.

Barney posts a great deal when he flails in this forum Perrin, if you choose to say stupid things, and have bad logic, I am sure I can discourse with you too.  But then you don't say much.  Kind of like an audience member, very passive eh?

As far as boasting, often people assume accomplishments made known is boasting, but those people usually have no accomplishments to boast of  .  I am sure however that you are still young, perhaps one day you will accomplish something and someone else will have the opportunity to accuse you of boasting. 

I wonder, did Stalin think god was speaking to him?  Or did Mao?  Or did they come to the same utilitarian conclusion barney is racing for?

Look up the definition of transcending before you state that transcending cause outside the universe is stretching it.  If fact many scientists do believe there is a transcending cause to the beginning of this universe.  Whether that cause has a sentient source or not does not discount it being outside this universe.

Not angry atheist, try stupid.  Hey you lit the fuse, don't get all passive aggressive about it now.

Angry atheists are very good at putting together "fleshed out" arguments.

The fact is yours is a very nihilistic view in which it certainly is "all about you".  Recall how I was searching for the truth and a religion I would like to adhere to and you called it cowardice.  Are you now attempting the same thing you call others cowards for? 

Atheism, unlike barney's characterization, need not be self centered or nihilistic.  But atheists themselves falter when it comes to explaining how self sacrifice, or sacrifice for others, or putting others above themselves, is justified from an atheistic standpoint.  I do not, for example, recall the charitable works of atheist hospitals among the poorest of the poor, or atheist organizations (dare we say monastaries) in which lives are dedicated to helping others.

So in world of atheists, given what we have seen atheists accomplish, does morality, ie the morality of self sacrifice for others really have a place?

I like the way atheists reject other people's faith based belief system while simultaneously promoting theirs.

An atheist cannot prove his belief system is based on fact.  It is pure supposition, just as that of theists.  Which is fine I respect that.  Its the bigots that get my craw, seen 'em all my life, and fought against them.

So why don't atheists admit their supposition is faith based and simply attempt to convince us their system has virtues that others would desire?  Well if you listen to barney, there aren't any virtues that others would desire in atheism.  Only by attacking other groups can he somehow justify his own belief system.

I think that pretty much sums up barney's position.  Is there a rebut to this?

Certainly sarcasm.

Unlike you, though, I do indeed respect women.  I respect them because I know the greatness in business and in life they are capable of.  I don't give a pass to an individual because she has a vagina.  Apparently you do.  Now lets look at he points I raised that you haven't refuted.

 
Did she?  She had the dem party give her New York and no one can deny that.

 
In other words, based on her dependency upon a man, she claims authority of knowledge.  Again another blow against a meritocracy.

 

Are you stating that Bill did not help her get New York?  That Bill Clinton did not abuse his relationship with her?  That her campaign manager Terry McCauliffe who was Bill Clinton's campaign manager and the dem party chair that controlled the bucks is there because of Hillary or because of Bill Clinton?

If that makes me a mysoginist.  Then you, for even questioning Obama's ability are a racist.  Or maybe just maybe you are too stupid to realize legitimate criticism when its placed before you.  If you can't defend your points and retreat immediately behind the iron skirt, that yourself are telling us that women are incapable.

They certainly don't represent god, anymore than poor barney is anykind of real representation of atheists.

Al Gore, whose grades were lower than Bush's and who even failed graduate school, and whose house proved to be a sign of his hypocrisy (not repaired until after it was made public) and whose movie was rife with errors.  He still hasn't accounted for that, making him an idiot.