Actually this is untrue. Several primates practice oral sex, and there are references to it in Egyptian and Roman writings.
As far as human beings go, it is widely accepted that it was invented by Oonga the Toothless somewhere in the Mesozoic.
Forget not that the Spanish were on our side, and they brought us both Antonio Banderas and the Lambada.
How can you stay mad at the Land of Chocolate?
Better not let the Brazilians hear you call their dance Spanish, Scylla.
**
If somebody fucks me over on a deal at a workplace it’s going to go without saying that payback will be a bitch, and I usually make a point of making good on that payback as a matter of credibility.
Who said anything about being uncorteous? One may smile and smile and be a villain.
**
I see no problem managing payback appropriately. It is nothing if not prudent. An unreliable person that works against me will not be put in the position to do it again, by me.
I am actually doing something like this right now. Someone has attempted to interfere in my area of responsibility behind my back. It got back to me. I have withdrawn my support of this person’s dealings in such a fashion that this Friday those dealings will abandon that person and come directly to me instead.
The person in question will likely be upset and come to me to complain that I cut the rug out from under him for my own benefit. If and when he does I will tell him politely that I could no longer in good conscience support the efforts of an ally that does not reciprocate.
This kind of stuff goes on all the time in the real world.
[/quote]
**This shit should be comedy, but its really happening. Next, I expect to see Bush in the Oval Office, waggling his tongue at a photo of Chirac. This administration has just regressed from high-school politics to grade-school politics. **
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand this. We favor those who support us, and remove favor from those who do not. This is the way it is. This is the way human beings work together.
It’s a cutthroat world.
I don’t think I have to worry about any Nation stepping forward to claim responsibility for the Lambada.
And to take issue with the other part of this, France did not “fuck over” the U.S. in this deal. They expressed their opinion. Our government officials may not have liked that opinion, but France had every right to express it. You might say it was their job.
No, it’s the way human beings foster and maintain ideological division.
This is more than “removing support.” This is the leaders of our country actively finding ways to exact punitive measures against another country… a country they are supposed to be working with.
Human beings do not work together by trying to “punish” someone or exact revenge on them from a disagreement. Human beings work together by overcoming differences and reaching compromise.
Petty backstabbing may be the way of the world, Scylla, but it remains petty backstabbing nonetheless. And it certainly cannot be described as trying to work together. This is politics at its worst.
And with that in mind, I am definitely glad I don’t work where you do, Scylla. Sounds like a hellhole. My workplace fosters a much more healthy, cooperative atmosphere, which I far prefer.
Only if it’s made that way out of pettiness and spite. Even with the annoyances softwood lumber causes all the time, I’m surprised with the nuttiness about France coming out of the US these days.
Bullshit guys. You’re living in the fantasy world where ideology replaces reality wherever it conflicts. I live and work in the world as it is not as I would like it to be.
Avalonian, I don’t want to know where you work, but what planet.
Sounds to me like they are paving the way for future generations of Bushies to be able to make war on France.
If I remember correctly, the meeting that was the “source” of the discussion on punishment was originally supposed to include Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell. They all sent representatives instead.
This has got to stop. Cutthroat world? Is that what you see or is that what you want?
The concept of punishing France (and that is the word that is being used by the Administration) is the most shortsighted suggestion since Nixon decided it would be a good idea to tape his conversations in the Oval Office. Only this time the idea is potentially very dangerous to our stability.
[Dubya, lurking behind the scenes at the SDMB]Of course! Why didn’t I think of this before? It’s the perfect plan![/Dubya]
So Yahoo! writes an article about unnamed government officials gathering to discuss US policy towards France without giving any specific action which are being planned, and you guys are up in arms about it?
Most of the things which the article mentions are rather innocuous. For instance, the US might not invite France to some conferences. Ooh, scary.
If France had the right to disagree with the invasion of Iraq, then surely the US has the right to disagree with France. And it’s not like France was doing this out of completely pure motives.
Just saw the Daily Show where he showed the commercial agains the republicans agains the tax cut. Aparently now being French is considered bad.
So let me sum up what I think I’m hearing in this thread.
Bush had a task that he felt was in the U.S.'s vital national interest to get accomplished. He tried to get international cooperation, but France led the way in blocking him.
France has their own national interests & that’s all well and good. This time, though, it ran counter to ours.
So now that it’s all over, we’re just supposed to kiss & make up or forget about it. Why?
If there are no repercussions for France, what’s to stop them from opposing anything we want to do. If we let other countries get away with stepping on our interests, then more countries will step on our interests more often.
This has nothing to do with “I hate the French” or anything stupid like that. This is just “those who oppose us will be looked at less favorably than those who assist us”.
Ah: so, the French surrendered, and then ambushed us? That second part sure doesn’t sound like the French.
Methinks you’d have to be pretty deranged to compare this situation to the non-communicative prisoner’s dilemna. If that’s all you learned about game theory, then you must have watched A Beautiful Mind instead of reading the book or delving deeper into Neumann.
Scylla, if someone were going behind your back to ‘fuck you over’, then your payback might be justified.
If somone hears your idea and says in front of everyone “I disagree with your decision and I’m not supporting it” then your need for payback is petty, immature and just plain stupid.
Now which one of these situations do you honestly think applies here?
Oh, and this:
Is right up there with “I’m not a rude, obnoxious asshole, I just tell it like it is” on the list of all time rolleye-inducing cop-outs.
Why is it that half the pro-war people are saying pragmatism is better than idealism, while the other half are saying “But Saddam was soooo evil, we had to save the poor Iraqi people no matter what the cost - that’s why we did it”[cue violin music]?
The French invented oral sex
I thought the French were primates but maybe they are protestants?
>> Forget not that the Spanish were on our side, and they brought us both Antonio Banderas and the Lambada.
It wasn’t the lambada but the macarena which itself is a crime against humanity.
Hmmm - I’m having a hard time seeing how the French/US relations re Iraq fit into a prisoner’s dilemma scenario. december, can you perhaps tell me what makes you think it’s a good model ?