I don't understand people

[Sillyman]

I really just don't. The whole planet is full of nutjobs.

 

[Guest]

Need a hug? I owe a few.

 

[Never]

I really just don't. The whole planet is full of nutjobs.

You seem to have a pretty firm grasp on people.

 

[Sillyman]

Need a hug? I owe a few.

Sure thing.

 

[Sillyman]

Most people seem selfish. It's not in an evil way, it's just in a way that they can't see beyond the second step. There is this sense of entitlement that cuts them off from seeing how anything that benefits somebody else could benefit them.

 

[Rhys]

I really just don't. The whole planet is full of nutjobs.

Um what was the genesis of this revelation? Slade said it best with

Mama we're all crazze now....

 

[Rhys]

Most people seem selfish. It's not in an evil way, it's just in a way that they can't see beyond the second step. There is this sense of entitlement that cuts them off from seeing how anything that benefits somebody else could benefit them.

yep.

I call it "I want to get what is coming to me. I want my fair share" disease.

 

[Sillyman]

Re: Re: I don't understand people

Um what was the genesis of this revelation? Slade said it best with

Mama we're all crazze now....

Liberal Fatalism really.

 

[Cleopatra]

Most people seem selfish. It's not in an evil way, it's just in a way that they can't see beyond the second step. There is this sense of entitlement that cuts them off from seeing how anything that benefits somebody else could benefit them.

I tend to believe you with this observation, Silly. Most, but not ALL, thank God.

 

[Gusty Wind]

 

[Gusty Wind]

[

 

[flawed_ethics]

Most people seem selfish. It's not in an evil way, it's just in a way that they can't see beyond the second step. There is this sense of entitlement that cuts them off from seeing how anything that benefits somebody else could benefit them.

Perhaps that's why good-natured efforts exist. Good reason(s) for hope.

 

[dragonfly27]

originaly posted by me yesterday on the official blurt it out page

I don't know how you people live within this world. I try to live like you do but I can't bring myself to do it. the more I think of your behaviors the less I want to be of this world, your lives consist wholey of lies and half truths. Even to the very ones whom you love the most, you keep secrets. you say that money is the root of all evil yet you crave to have more and hate those who have more than you do. everything is taken for granted. you have your gf or bf or husband or wife and you still see the need to better your own self. If I were ever lucky enough to have a gf I would do everything within my measly power to make her life easier/better. but more than likely she would be like all of you and one day she too would see a reason to lie to me, to make me feel fully useless. As we all know useless things are discarded and within this example, "one man's trash is another man's treasure" does not apply. People tell me that I am shy and perhaps at one time that could have been an honest statement. Now I see no reason to find a somewhat significant other because that's all I would be to them. Something to pass the tiem with so that they're not alone to feel this loneliness I see as daily life. there is more but I'm bored with stating the obvious to the oblivious

 

[Debbie]

I don't claim to understand most people either.
Everyone is different, but not everyone is a nutjob.


There are many people who have good hearts
and help smooth those times when you feel like
the whole world has gone crazy.


dragonfly27?
You could miss out on a fantastic person in your life
if you keep that attitude. You get the good with the
bad in any relationship. Not EVERYONE is a dishonest
user.

I hope things improve in what you say is the loneliness
you see as daily life.

 

[dragonfly27]

I worte that originaly a few years back in my journal and from time to time I feel that way simply because I'm 23 and never been kissed or as some may say I'm an ultravirgin, typically I maintain a positive attitude as I feel that there is some goo din the world but when you're constantly told no even when you're patient with the person and then they go out with some asshole who cheats on them I don't see any good anywhere cuz the girl was too dumb to be with me and even dumber for going to some one who wouldn't be faithful but what do I know about relationships I've never had the chance to be in one

 

[SilkyCaramelThighs]

I worte that originaly a few years back in my journal and from time to time I feel that way simply because I'm 23 and never been kissed or as some may say I'm an ultravirgin, typically I maintain a positive attitude as I feel that there is some goo din the world but when you're constantly told no even when you're patient with the person and then they go out with some asshole who cheats on them I don't see any good anywhere cuz the girl was too dumb to be with me and even dumber for going to some one who wouldn't be faithful but what do I know about relationships I've never had the chance to be in one

What can I say? Women are stupid at times. We only like assholes because we think we can change them. Eventually we learn. It just takes a while. Hold on to yourself, and you will soon see that not *all* of us are bad. Good luck.

~Silky

 

[Gusty Wind]

:

 

[Gusty Wind]

.

 

[Somme]

Lets get really confuzzled...
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous
PeaceNik: Why are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security
council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a
smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had
no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that
has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the
early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry
lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is
the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our
ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the
invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could
sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden
himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden
on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could
easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory
in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of
Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector,
Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution
1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security
council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security
council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its
will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they
were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of
mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade
to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons
exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can
reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow
the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way
we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color- coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change
the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has
called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He
must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as
find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the
Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France,
with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up!
SOURCE: <http://www.cronus.com/warmonger/>

 

[Sandia]

Somme: beautiful.

Sillyman, I agree.