|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 24th, 2004, 1:18am Yup, politics! [smiley=ohshit.gif] Oh, brother! :-X BUT, done "the Gridiron" way, :) i.e., keep it personal,... uh,... no,... I mean, let's stick to "sharing" our "personal" political beliefs, and let's NOT get into political debate, i.e., let's not "politicize" this thread. After a bit of a politically epiphanous evening, I think my post about my "politics" will serve as a solid model (not content-wise, ;) structurally). All I would ask is that you "reflect on things and think things through reasonably thoroughly" (tell me that ain't a tongue-twister [smiley=tonguetied.gif] ) kind of like I have before posting on this thread. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 24th, 2004, 1:34am Well, guys, I HIGHLY suggest you sit down as you go to read this. For those who have come to know (an approximation of) my "politics" here, which actually are way more elusive than that which may be determined merely by way of my stance(s) on the upcoming Presidential election and Iraq, this will be a bit of a shocker (though my "bottom line" hasn't changed [smiley=patriot.gif] ... [smiley=proudAmerican.gif] )! :o While watching Bill O'Reilly tonight, I, for the first time, saw Michael Moore speak in an interview for himself. Granted it was an interview done back in February of 2002, which is kind of a "political age" ago, BUT I must say the guy was not an incoherent ranter. He did kind of blow it in the end with a rather frivolous jibe toward George W. that wasn't apropos, well-founded or called-for. However, regarding the bulk of what was discussed, which was Bill Clinton and mainly economics, taxes in particular, his arguments were very sound and he was not a hypocrite (while O'Reilly wants to be taxed less than the 50% he already is, Moore thinks taxes for those in their (high) bracket should be higher, like 60 to 70%, which he himself would gladly pay). Moreover, I was in agreement. This prompted an evening of productive political reflection for me, "through" which I came to a greater understanding of how to think about "politics in general" and after which I can now better articulate where I stand as a political being... There are three general areas on which people stand "politically". Here's where I stand "on them":
So, there you have "the political" me, as my move down to D.C., of all places, for graduate school and the '04 (Presidential) election become increasingly "on the horizon" with each passing day. Now, how about you? ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 24th, 2004, 11:11am Interesting (at least semantically) tidbits... on 06/24/04 at 01:34:22, StegRock wrote:
To be a "liberal" with respect to guns and gun laws means to be conservative when it actually comes to guns and gun laws. I am a "moderate" when it comes to abortion mainly because in today's religious, socio-econmic "real" world we, ironically, do not have "a choice"; this is "moderation by proxy", in a sense. Regarding separation of church and state/Church and State, I am "moderate" primarily in the sense that I am somewhere between a "moderate" and a "conservative" when it comes to separation of "small c" church and "small s" state, but a "liberal" when it comes to separation of "big C" Church and "big S" State; however, most of the debate today revolves, incorrectly with respect to the spirit of our Constitution, around the former probably because the latter is pretty much a done deal at this point in history (and we should be growing from it rather than still concerning ourselves with it; mission for the most part accomplished regarding this). To be a "conservative" regarding the death penalty is to want it to be liberally applied. To be a "conservative" when it comes to animal rights somewhat ironically means, de facto, being liberal about finding a cure for AIDS; the webs we weave. To be a "conservative" with respect to date rape in an around-about way is more consistent with a liberal sexual lifestyle and take on sexuality. ... Anyway, those were just for fun. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Jun 24th, 2004, 11:31am Well, let's give this one a go... Economics and Politics: Ultimately, I guess I am for a flat tax of about 25%. Let's be equitable across the board. Why should someone making $100k have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than someone making $10k? (And don't say, "because they can.") I earn a decent salary, however, I have friends making half as much as me who are in much better financial shape than I am. I believe the person making $100k is already contributing to the economy by participating in it more heavily. Here in New Jersey, the governor is promoting his millionaires' tax which would charge anyone whose gross household income is more than $500k (millionaires? we don't have the brightest governor) a higher percentage in order to lessen the tax burden of those making less than $500k. This Robin Hood economic system would, obviously, benefit me as I am nowhere near that financial Maginot line. However, I think it is ridiculous. International Affairs and Politics: Isolationism seems like the best option. Why spend countless billions of dollars helping countries who like nothing about us but our money? But, that's not a realistic stance. We are the world's superpower. As such, we have a certain responsibility to help others. If everyone left everyone to their own devices, the Iraqis would still live in fear of a dictator who raped/pillaged/plundered his own people in order to finance the construction of lavish palaces, weapons to establish power and steal commodities of neighbors (oil in Kuwait), etc. We cannot leave the corrupt leaders of the world unchecked or it will ultimately come back to haunt us. Social and Domestic Issues and Politics: Here is where things get a bit muddled. It's hard to take sides on many of these issues. I'll just list a number of the more prominent ones:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 25th, 2004, 11:34pm Well, I just got done watching the Peter Jennings special on Guantanamo. There was surely some substance and surely some "cry me a river". Peter was his usual tendentious, Canadian (sorry, I couldn't help myself) self, though, for the most part. For those who watched, I definitely "felt" for the family of the "one" Kuwaiti they profiled, which was particularly poignant as he was from Kuwait, a country we do have excellent relations with (of course, this report doesn't go to help that, and make know mistakes, they would have profiled more if they could, which at least raises a red flag). In any event, the thing that hit me the most... I realized an important corollary. One of the American authorities interviewed said that now two and a half years into holding people there (mind you, there are people coming and going, 146 of them, all the time, so not everybody has been there the whole time), there is really no "purpose" to holding these detainees "anymore". On the other hand, they showed the facility, which as detention facilities go wasn't that bad, and discussed the relatively soft interrogation tactics being employed (but, mind you, this is a war we are involved in, so the key word there is "relatively"). From there, the philosophical reasoning skills of sythesis kicked in... I... we don't... can't know ALL the "facts", "details", "truths", but we can employ our God/nature-given faculty of reason and apply it to what we do know (about/of). Bottom line, it only "stands to reason", ironically, that the "softer" you interrogate, the "longer" you will probably have to detain. And, here many of us citizens sitting in the comfort of our homes in tranquility, until the next attack of course, burn the candle at both ends, telling those putting it on the line for us to be "soft", but be "quick", without even realizing the inherent contradiction of such an edict. We put the squeeze on our own, to put it mildly, while "their own" for the most part "finds ways" to justify their actions. There HAS TO be at least a modicum of accountability ON ALL SIDES for this to work. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 30th, 2004, 3:15pm While hanging out and rapping with Markie (Skcus Redef) last night, a VERY intriguing way to approach the upcoming Presidential election FOR UNDECIDEDS came to me... The months, weeks and days leading up to the election will likely be some of the most dangerous and threatening times our country has seen since 9/11 and thwarting attacks is going to be no small task for our government. If you remain undecided as the election approaches (like Mark here) and ultimately find yourself in the voting booth without a significant, successful attack on our country having been pulled off in the period leading up to the election, you may just want to throw all the rhetoric out in the trash where it belongs and vote for the proof in the pudding, Bush. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jul 23rd, 2004, 5:14pm This is a very broad topic, so let me just put my own views, briefly, in the format that has already been started. (BTW, I just found this thread today.) Taxes: For personal taxes, I like a flat tax of 10% with a bottom number below which no taxes are paid. This number should be determined by base income plus number of dependents, education benefits and/or deductions, medical expenses, and all the usual methods to avoid double-dipping taxing. It would actually lower the taxes of the middle and lower income households while giving the upper income levels a fair tax structure without the usual sheltering of income (which of course would have to change in my perfect world). It won't happen, but I like the method. As for socialism and communism in any form, they may look good on paper but would never work in the real world. People are not all "just nice." Some wolf will always rape the sheep. By the way, this method would actually raise my personal taxes. International Politics: Isolationism cannot work in this century. Today's humans are territorial mammals with very sharp claws. We spend the billions of dollars in aid as flat out bribery. Without that, it would be more selfishly useful for our bribe targets to spend much less on helping our enemies. Not a very nice scenario, but it's what we have in this century. World leaders did not get into the positions they are in by being nice guys. They are no better or worse than Roman Caesars or Attila or Stalin or any other leader, respected or rejected, you can think of. But the veneer of civilization makes it possible to do it all with power and money instead of bloodshed and slavery and terror. Sorry boys and girls, it's reality. I like our bribery and humanitarian aid methods better than any other method humanity has come up with so far. And our "big guns" don't hurt. Social and Domestic Issues: I firmly believe that freedom goes as far as the next guy's toes. I also believe that honorable intentions feel nice, but we cannot expect to do feel-good recommendations without solutions as a "hand-cuff." (Hey, this IS a football forum!) Abortion is bad, so give those breeding kids an alternative and some education. And how many kids have we adopted lately? How much help do we give to single moms? What penalty does a disappearing father pay? Prisons for white-collar criminals are an unnecessary expense. So why are we not demanding laws that make these people pay back what they stole, per Philly? The environment seems to be nothing more than a political football (!) these days. Just an excuse to trash the other side by twisting any fact du jour. Where is the science? Big financial grants are politicized, not apportioned by value of results. Health Care: One of the most shameful things of our times. It's about power and money and politics. (Don't get me started. In an age when vitamins and preventive medicine and true cures are trashed in favor of prescription drug band-aids, it's disgusting.) Church and State Issues: As I said earlier, freedom goes as far as the next guy's toes. No more thought needed. Immigration: Again, all politics. Political parties fast-track immigrants from targeted demographic groups into this country to get a bigger voting base. I know a guy who is a great wage earner (now in Finland where he originally came from) who had to go home when his visa expired. He can't get back in unless he illegally does an end run (!) through Mexico. He would be here and paying taxes today if he could. Right now, he's a computer genius working in Finland. Finland's gain, our loss. Drugs: Freedom goes as far as the next guy's toes, once more. The problem is that people who over-do drugs often have no concern for anyone else's toes. And one more: The Media: They are not there for your benefit. They are there to make money. Not all the reporters, etc., some of whom are there for altruistic and/or professional reasons. But they are all in a system. It's not a problem, though, really. Just do your own thinking and listen to all sides. And I'm sorry, Steg. Michael Moore is a complete ass. He may have put on a persona for the O'Reilly show to avoid crucifixion, but do your own research. He's in it for the bucks by trying to be controversial and sucking up to the guys and gals who will give them to him. Oh, he also is desperate for the attention. As for the upcoming election, the Democrats are in disarray. The Clinton/McCauliff crowd has hijacked that party. For the moment, Bush is the only sensible answer. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 23rd, 2004, 7:37pm Great write-up, Callie! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] I am with ya! A couple points of clarification regarding how Callie's relates to mine... Regarding Michael Moore, MAKE NO MISTAKES I can't stand the guy and realize all too well that all "his" hubbub is more about "him" and his pocketbook than anything else. I think he was on his best behavior two years ago with O'Reilly and as a result did make some sense when it came to economic theory. However, he has obviously grown increasingly delusional, megalomaniacal, haughty AND, well, self-serving with time and is obviously "capitalizing" on the political season. I am the only one who holds somewhat socialist/(small "c") communist views and though Callie was not calling me on the carpet specifically, with regards to my economic "beliefs"/theories, please understand that I am much more with St. Thomas More, author of Utopia, than I am with Karl Marx: I firmly believe that it can't be forced (by way of a Marxist-style revolution); capitalism has to run its course (which we are probably not even near the end of) as More suggested. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jul 23rd, 2004, 7:47pm Thanks, Steg. But I honestly doubt that a utopia is available to us mammals, at least at this point in our evolution. Maybe for a millenium or so. You are a philosophy major. I was a psych major. It's great ideas versus biological nature. I think we need both. The idea is to reach up to the philosophy in spite of the biology. But always beware of the biology. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 27th, 2004, 7:50pm The plight of the philosopher... [smiley=wiseman.gif] Always seeing ahead of his time; forever condemned during his time. :-/ ... Peter Jennings is such a pussy! He, along with the rest of the "mainstream" liberal media, NEVER asks the tough questions! I could care less about Teresa Heinz-Kerry's employment of the phrase "shove it" and her subsequent slanderous, disparaging and... defensive comments about the reporter... if she were in the right and, mind you, I have no love loss towards journalists in general. She did in fact say "unAmerican". The reporter was right! Pete, the Canadian, had her right there tonight. He couldn't have treated her with softer kid gloves. How come, when asking her about the incident, he didn't ask her the "bottom line" question about the "truth" of the matter? Hell, "they" want us focusing on the fluffy, "debatable" part. Only on FOX News will you actually see the speech that she just made in which she in fact had said "unAmerican" and which the reporter's question regarded! ... This is SO tiresome! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jul 27th, 2004, 9:08pm Well, I just watched O'Reilly on Fox. I expected Ben Affleck to be a moron, but he actually conducted a reasonable discussion, made his points, and sounded intelligent. On the other hand, Michael Moore is an even bigger asshole than I thought he was. He sounded like a 10-year-old arguing with his parents just trying to "hobby-horse" one point to try to win in any way. And did you watch the eyes of Affleck and Moore as they talked? They both know how to control facial expressions due to Hollywood craft, but Affleck was solid and Moore was...oh, well...just an ass. [smiley=deadhorse.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 28th, 2004, 12:46am Callie, I couldn't agree with you more. What a TOTAL [smiley=moon.gif] Moore is! The question about whether Bill would send his kids to DIE in Iraq that he kept harping on represents the logical skills of a child. ::) First off, we have not implemented and will not implement a draft; serving in the U.S. military is a choice, moreover, a job and even a career. Secondly, it's a tendentious question the sole function of which is to play on heart strings; no parent wants to send his/her child to war, no less to DIE, BUT if one's child wants to go and serve, the answer to that question would probably be an, albeit instinctively reluctant, "yes" (I wish Bill would have thought of that retort). Thirdly, being sent to Iraq is hardly a death sentence; any loss of life is sad, but let's face it, we have lost roughly .05% of our soldiers in Iraq. Fourthly, it's just an erroneous hypothetical question with no basis in reality. ... However, regarding some good points for the Dems... Edward Kennedy's speech was solid. He spoke to a lot of positive truths of the Democratic party and he did little bashing of Bush in the process. MOREOVER, how about that Barak Obama??? That guy's the real deal. His speech was FANTASTIC!!! Of course, it was generalized and I don't agree with 100% of his positions, BUT overall it was VERY REASONABLE (reason-able), VERY INSPIRING (and INSPIRED) and just plain AWESOME (emphasis on AWE)!!! Depending on where we are in the future, I wouldn't put it past this guy's getting my vote for a "bigger" office someday. [smiley=ohshit.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 29th, 2004, 9:12pm I am not so scared by what Michael Moore, as an American, is claiming; I am scared that he, as an American, is claiming it. [smiley=soapboxer.gif] And, how about these idiot "anarchist" protesters [smiley=newbie.gif] today? ::) Would their parents "call them on their cell phones" and tell them it's time to come home already and ground them for a week... for behaving like imbeciles in public and burning the flag of their own country? Either that or pack 'em up and send 'em to Liberia for a few months and see how "life" elsewhere is! The grass is always greener... ... In any event, the parents of these children couldn't be expected to take such a stand with their children. It's a sad commentary on the state of parenting in America. Parents don't want to be parents; they want to be their child's "best friend". Isn't that sweet? Stop trying to be your teenagers' friend and just "raise" 'em, for goodness sake (in both senses of the phrase). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jul 29th, 2004, 9:31pm Dead Bang On, Steg. The people raising these kids were the spoiled Hippies of the 60's and 70's. THEIR parents (maybe that should have been Parents with a capital P) had seen WWI, were working just to FEED their kids after living through the Great Depression, and understood (even if they didn't want to) that their kids had to do WWII, which was just an extension of WWI. A lot of Boomers haven't quite figured out that they are now adults. They do the desperation things instead of helping their kids to go beyond them (which is what every good Parent wants for his/her kids). They are too often too busy trying to exceed their own parents (in terms of a selfish, lack of understanding mode) instead of letting their own kids be the best. They are a little too insecure. They need a bit of hardship to understand the world. They need a good kick in the Butt! Just my thoughts.... Modification: I am getting SICK of this re-writing of history I'm seeing in the Convention tonight. I have nothing against good liberals and good Democrats. But this is important. John Kerry went to Vietnam on his father's advice to get political points for a career in politics. He was there for something like four months. His father ordered his superior officers to award John medals. Then John Kerry went home and then went back to shoot some fake footage (which you saw some of tonight). By the way, how do you earn all of those medals in four months in a cushy, protected job as a photographer? Compare that with John McCain. He was a prisoner of war in, I believe, the Hanoi Hilton! His father made it possible for him to be traded for another soldier and go home. John McCain refused to get out of that situation at the expense of another man. And John McCain suffered until he could go home, on his own terms. John McCain is a man. John Kerry is a jerk. If you want me to consider voting for a Democrat, no problem. Just give me a real man. Not a Clinton or a Kerry. I don't know where they dug up these guys telling the world that they served with Kerry and he is their hero, but don't call yourselves the Band of Brothers. That totally disrespects some real men. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 29th, 2004, 11:45pm Wow! Pure diesel, Callie! ... My last "statement" on the night,... and I am only bringing this up because Kerry specifically did so again,... let's finally get this right... [smiley=coolit.gif] FOR THE RECORD, ENRON, a Texas company, flourished and partied on the backs of their people during the Clinton years and was exposed and toppled during the FIRST year of the Texan Bush's presidency!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jul 30th, 2004, 10:09am I got this in an email bouncing around the web, so I can't just put in a link. Here it is: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY! Send this to everybody you know..The media and networks won't do it. Why do you suppose that is? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 31st, 2004, 9:10pm Made ever more poignant by Callie's post above,... I have always basically supported our "effort" in Iraq and always thought there were "many" reasons for our going in there (WMD's and Saddam's non-compliance with the U.N. resolutions was just the "tangible", "provable", "arguable" argument that could be made), but after watching an episode of "Investigative Reports" today on A&E about the second holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, I now am absolutely 100% certain that we did and continue to do the right thing in Iraq. I am also even more convinced that the French and far (but not that far) left-wing liberal Americans are of the same ilk that doesn't know their assholes from holes in the ground. They are anti-American in a very real sense and France, where Pol Pot was educated, can hardly be called an ally. Actually, all they do is use (the) US to the hilt and back-stab (the) US at will (still upset over the Louisiana Purchase, I guess, the territory of which they got back off Spain by essentially lying). Our great Thomas Jefferson once coined France "our natural and habitual enemy" (granted that was back when Napolean was in power, but still... it's at least ironic, if not downright dead on the mark). The very foundations of our great country are predicated on a "fight" (for freedom). Cambodia could perhaps have been prevented (with our help) if it weren't for the French and American anti-war liberals. With regards to France's not supporting (the) US in Iraq, because of the timing, a lot has been made of what we sacrificed for them in the Battle of Normandy. But, even more ironic (say that fast ten times and you'll soon just be saying, "moronic") is Vietnam (the war we actually did win in a paradoxical sort of way as you will see below) where we were bailing the French out. Cambodia, a former French colony, was suffering the same kind of meltdown (when in stepped Pol Pot). Haiti to today suffers from France's not being able to "hold it together" (and then perhaps "give it back" in an orderly and peaceful fashion like the British have done with many of their colonies, namely Thailand and Hong Kong). So, with Vietnam, in steps far (but not that far) left-wing anti-war Americans (i.e. hippies, you know... the group that can't get a grip even to today) causing havoc and division. There are theorists that say that we could have won the war in Vietnam or at least pulled off "a Korea" had it not been for the anti-war protesters' fueling North Veitnamese propoganda and demoralizing our troops. Great job, hips! Go smoke 'em another peace pipe,... you ignoramuses. Needless to say, I concur with this analysis. Now, had we won in Vietnam or even perhaps just pulled off "a Korea", we might have been able to thwart Pol Pot and at least mitigate his atrocities or perhaps even defeat him altogether beforehand (I mean they were a rag-tag bunch who the Vietnamese kicked the shit out of, ending the regime in like two months in 1979 and sending Pol Pot and his cronies to live out their days in the remote rain forests of Cambodia from then on) and at least half the people there wouldn't be living in a third-world country if we just pulled off "a Korea" (the intimation, though, is that we would have just kicked their ass). Of course, ALL of this could have been avoided had the French gone about administrating their colonies better. Bottom line, we couldn't do a thing about Cambodia; our hands were tied when our left-wing hippies won Vietnam. So, in actuality, in the end, WE, Americans actually did win Vietnam, and our anti-war liberals along with their incompetent French friends actually helped set the stage for Pol Pot and the second holocaust. Great job! Way to think it through! It's a bit difficult to think, though, when you are in a 24-7 pot-induced haze (mind you, I am all for an occasional (social) toke, like an occasional (social) drink). Heck, Europe (except for the U.K. probably) would now go by the name Germany if it were up to the pussy French, who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, and the convictionless maxims of weakness by which American far (but not too far) left-wing liberals live by. ... [offtopic]The dude who recently ultimately caused the whole downtime situation with my web sites makes me think of the clueless wishy-washy mindset of far (but not that far) left-wing liberals. Their intentions may be good, BUT their lack of guiding principles and "thinking it through" leads to trouble. This guy from Canada (another one of our great French-influenced "friends") who had made that complaint was probably thinking he was asserting some individual cyber rights of some sort, doing his part to enforce the anti-spam laws and in the process sticking it to "the man". Meanwhile, the way this system works it is set up in a way that helps "the man", sticks it to the little guy and encourages Mafia-style enforcement by private agencies and, ultimately, this fool is unwittingly being used. If that scenario doesn't smack of well-intentioned, but not well-informed far (but not that far) left-wing liberal America, I don't know what does.[/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jul 31st, 2004, 10:26pm Some people never change: http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/collab.htm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 1st, 2004, 10:54pm Just thought I'd share this with you all here... I wrote the following to Ed Bradley and 60 Minutes about this report, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/60minutes/main604060.shtml, from tonight's show... Dear Mr. Bradley and staff of 60 Minutes, Regarding the story of the recently ordained Gay Episcopal Bishop, Gene Robinson, he's just got it so wrong, logically... The natural, biological purpose of human genitalia is procreation though we do not always use it in that way. Human life, however, cannot be conceived by way of homosexual relations. It follows then that an inherent "reality" of the homosexual lifestyle is that the act of sex is basically about enjoyment of the flesh, which is just fine for us common folk. But, as a man of the cloth, he is supposed to be above the temptations of the flesh or at least that is what he should (feel obliged to) "represent" if he were sincere in his vows. During the interview he states, "We've always had gay bishops. All I'm doing is being honest about it." That is so wrong and arguably politically-motivated and selfish. He should keep his sexuality to himself just as a (for argument's sake, (known) sterile) heterosexual priest should. ... And, I must digress... In a somewhat ironic twist, perhaps, in their ancient wisdom, this is why the Catholic Church decided to require abstinence of their priests and nuns (at least, officially). ... Is this not right? And, would not a line of questioning along these (not often pursued) lines been very revealing? Thank you for anticipatively reading this and hopefully responding. I am... ...Sincerely, Steve Stegeman ... Consistency and contentment in life is achieved by, more than anything, thinking it through and making sense out of your life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 4th, 2004, 5:57pm Callie, who's takin' this? ... I'll just say... Those are some cute, witty one-liners, but as a whole they paint a very inaccurate picture, just as any set of one-liners would to describe such a complex reality. on 08/04/04 at 13:57:17, junkyardjake wrote:
While I do partially agree with you with regards to our (cracking) bipartisan system and am intrigued by a more pluralist democratic set-up, I have to (once again :-/ ) fall back on my 7 years experience living overseas in Korea, a pluralist democracy which has HUGE problems (that, of course, if you never experienced, you would never know) and mindfully traveling, i.e. not necessarily "vacationing", abroad and say that such statements are more indicative of a lack of knowledge of what it is like "out there" in the rest of the world vis-a-vis a commentary on our overall situation in America. My oversimplified one-liner for all this: "The grass is always "greener" (ironic analogy) on the other side of the fence... until you hop over it." As regards the argument made in the link you provide there in the quote above, again, just snippets, but there is also a serious logical problem called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc or "after-so-because" fallacy, which I, as is the usual for philosophy students, had to learn as an undergraduate philosophy major. It describes the "disease" (of fascism) "from the symptoms in" (inductively... and in this case, tendentiously) as opposed to "out to the symptoms" (deductively), which is a very natural thing to do. I digress... Mind you, he doesn't even mention ALL the symptoms, tendentiously dealing with or altogether leaving out little things like MASS MURDER/GENOCIDE, a fascist regime's often coming to power by way of a violent revolution against its own people, the leader's specifically claiming to be God incarnate, extreme poverty which is ignored by those in power, etc., etc. Those "symptoms" wouldn't have helped him prove his point, though. Anyway, moving right along, the process of induction, the logical process most prevalently used in science, can be applied in a VERY dangerous and disingenuous way if not accompanied by sound and thorough application of the scientific method (which is NOT what's happening in the piece you linked to there), and, in any event, deduction is the usual, bottom-line logical method for analyzing non-scientific issues for non-sociological or non-psychological study, such as that of law. The aforementioned is why this fallacy is so dangerous... because it seems to make sense (it actually does within its own inductive line of reasoning and if the premises go unquestioned/are tacitly accepted) and, thus, is so convincing and easily sold (if not completely thought through by the "buyer"). This page you link to here is actually a quintessential example of this. If you are getting a headache trying to wrap your brain around this, here is a concrete example: the flu will (probably) be accompanied by a cough, BUT a cough does not necessarily mean it's the flu. It could be bronchitis (which I am currently just getting over a bout with [smiley=sick.gif] ), a common cold, a smoker's hack, pneumonia, mono, asthma... Need I go on? And, they all require different treatments. If you think what we have here in America is even remotely fascist, well,... I suggest you read some more "academic(ally)" (accepted) and thorough "books" on the issue and/or go live (anywhere) abroad for a few years and learn the language so as you can deeply and substantively communicate with the people. You could start simply by just tuning in to some poltical talk shows that challenge your beliefs (ironically a post about which I have been planning [smiley=wiseguy.gif] ) and documentaries on real fascist regimes like are often aired on PBS (which recently did an excellent one on North Korea), A&E (like the one on Pol Pot I reference in my second-to-last post above), The History Channel, etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 4th, 2004, 9:24pm I'm still here, Steg, and lurking whenever I can with fast eyes. As I told Steg with a back message, I'm not bailing from the Gridiron. I just have some work issues (GOOD ones) for a bit. But I had to stop and do a comment for this one. (I was a psych major. It's an easier read than philosophy is. More mammal, less smarts.) A lot of Jake's points above talk about our change-ups in dealing with foreign governments. The US does not just run in and take over a country and make it a territory and kill off whoever we don't like (at the usual level) and force everyone to do things in only one way like our enemies would. We set up some guy and try to get him to handle that country the way we want him to do it. That means freedom for the citizens. Sure it's self-interest. Did you like 9/11? Yeah, we're controlling it when we can. Who does't? It's like assistant coaches. (This is a football forum.) And as we see, sometimes they become lousy dictators. Then we go back and take them out. It may be just the way of the world, but we all have to try to survive here. A football fan should appreciate this concept. As for moral issues, give me a country or two who is more checks-and-balances about these topics. Sure, we're debating and fighting over ideas. But we're not putting people into rape rooms or through the chipper or mass murdering people who disagree with us. We duke it out like good forum guys who argue the point and try to prevail. But we haven't turned into total killers of all who differ. (Although the Insane Gang might bee worth watching on this!) Check out Saddam or Hitler or Stalin. (This is not about the Insane Gang. That was just a joke. Please don't kill me.) I'm sure all sides have some dirty secrets that no one at the top wants out. All sides. Hey, I'm not working on that level, thank God! I do like Clancey novels. There are a lot of things in the Universe that we would cringe from in terror if we only knew. We're mammals. That is going to happen until we evolve a bit more. (Can YOU get to the top now?) I have to admit that I didn't get to the site Jake linked; I'll try to get to it. ALL ideas should be put in the checks-and-balances if they do not hurt others. Our freedom goes as far as the next guy's toes and no further. That's the evolution. The 6 o'clock news has become shill sites for homers. When Bush, Sr., didn't know the price of milk it became the lead story on prime time news for days. When Teresa Kerry recently went to Wendy's and did not know what Chili was (poor deprived creature!), no prime time news reports were heard. It could just as easily go the other way. Prime time news is lead by whores. As for women, we just look for a level playing field like every non-preferred group does. We'll handle it. Just don't put us in a situation like they get in the Arab Fundamentalist world. Freedom goes only as far as the next HUMAN'S toes. Bill and Hillary Clinton are users of anyone they can use. Terry McCauliff is the same. They are a good match-up in their current business. As for homosexuals, in my own opinion, all animals evolve to band together against anyone from a different group. It was about survival and competition for territory and the food that was in it as the process evolved. I do not think that homosexuals are bad so long as they do not do things that would be wrong in any animal group, like harming others. However, Steg, the days of worrying if we can procreate enough are over. Religious leaders are also animal/mammal/human. Let the "stockholders" decide. Evolution. The Republicans are a corporation. (This does not necessarily mean that any corporation is good or bad. They are functional entities. Some are good and some are bad.) Let the stockholders decide. You are a stockholder, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc. Readers of this forum know where this stockholder stands. Oh, and the United Nations members are groups trying to get their own selfish wants when they are not capable of grabbing enough for their own self-interested desires. They are not the wonderful organization we learned about in Civics class. So, for a wrap-up: Try seeing the world as herds and troupes and whatever else groups of animals are called. That's what it is. Whether you like it or not, you are the product of millions of years (and maybe more) of basic evolution, and you are one member of a herd or troupe or whatever. (Sorry, Fundamentalists. God made it that way even if the world has only existed for seven days or 6,000 years and the appearance of eons is just to test us for his/her/its own reasons. I am not omniscient enough to argue with him/her/it about it.) But what you will find if you want to argue politics is that it works just like groups of animals. Competition, cooperation, deception, education, hierarchy, sacrifice, domination, submission, success, failure. Do checks-and-balances and be a part of the great experiment. But watch out for the users who want to use YOU. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 4th, 2004, 9:28pm Crap. I have to go back and fix the apostrophes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 4th, 2004, 10:43pm on 08/04/04 at 21:24:19, Callie wrote:
[smiley=lickinmychops.gif] You always get me hot when you talk like this, all animalistic and shit. [smiley=dick.jpg] Quote:
I lost you here, Callie. I can see you are transitioning here and, of course, I grok the general point you are making, but specifically... [smiley=uh.gif] ... [smiley=shrug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 4th, 2004, 11:07pm GREAT NEWS!!! The two Filipino twins conjoined at the head have successfully been separated!!! Yea, that's indicative of and is happening/has happened in fascist nations. ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 5th, 2004, 6:55pm on 08/05/04 at 00:38:06, junkyardjake wrote:
I agree with that, brother. [smiley=awwgee.gif] ... ;) ... [smiley=bow.gif] Quote:
Well, I don't agree with that. I am more so heading the argument off at the pass (and from the ground up, so to speak) by putting into question its logica and the premises on which it is predicated. Once the foundation crumbles (to me) the point is no longer. You are looking at it from the "outside in" (or from the sky down), not from the "inside out". The proof of that is pretty much in the pudding of your claim above, brother. Quote:
I think it's an insightful and brilliant (though not completely the way you probably think it's brilliant) quote from one of our very wise founding fathers that is actually quite logically tight and cleverly-worded, but is also indicative of that point in time and history and should ultimately be put in context. In any event, my take aside, it is a conditional that has yet to come to fruition. MOREOVER, does NOT mean what I think you are suggesting it does, namely that: "If there is a guise of fighting a foreign enemy, (then) tyranny and oppression will come to this land," which 1) incorrectly necessitates (the affirmation of) B in the case of (the affirmation of) A, and 2) logically precludes or minimizes (the efficacy of) ALL other factors: If A, then B. = If ~B, then ~A. Or, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." = "If there is NO guise of fighting a foreign enemy, (then) tyranny and oppression will NOT come to this land," which 1) necessitates (the negation of) B in the case of (the negation of) A (which is NOT what you're arguing/what your argument is founded on), and 2) does NOT preclude or minimize (the efficacy of) ANY other factors, the "guise of fighting a foreign enemy" could be one of a number of factors. This "flexibility" to Madison's prediction is why I think it is both wise, clever AND brilliant. It's NOT the categorical statement or even a categorical statement (the way I think you are portraying it to be). Think through the logic like this: "If you go to the party, I will go to the party." = "If I do NOT go to the party, you will NOT go to the party." Many people make this error of thinking that the subordinate adverbial conditional "If" clause is the main clause. It is not; the main clause is the main clause; the subordinate conditional clause is the subordinate conditional clause. Besides the "illogic" here, the other problem I have with your presenting this quote here is its inconsistency with what you went on to write here, JYJ: Quote:
So, I gather you are saying that the founding fathers were, as can only be expected, speaking in terms of the world in which "they" existed and could not envision "our" world now, which was VERY FAR off in the future for them. I actually agree with that 100%, brother. But, doesn't that assertion inherently mitigate the value of Madison's statement you quoted above? Madison was speaking about "his" world "then", not "our" world "now". You can't have you cake and eat it to. Quote:
Again, I am sensing that you don't like the way taxes have evolved in America. But, again, aren't the recommendations of our founding fathers dated (for a time and a world that no longer exists) and, consequently, basically moot? Quote:
Generally speaking, I agree. Specifically, though, I think it's because of economics/our economic superiority (though I'd like to think it's more). Quote:
Well, :-/ , I don't think that's the case. I think it's a total misomer actually. I also think that the puzzle you then went on to try to put together, mainly as regards Israel, is missing MANY peices and is, thus, VERY speculative at best, likely quite questionable, and perhaps at worst (somewhat ironically) downright chauvinistic. In any event, JYJ, you've made a presentation here and now we're hashing it out (which is VERY FUN to me :) ). However, in doing so, I don't sense your "responding" to and presenting this "in light of" the theretofore (granted, pretty (glass half-empty) one-sided (glass half-full) unified) discussion (despite it's glass-half-empty one-sidedness/glass-half-full unity, there were some at least well-thought-out, at best absolutely brilliant points made that I don't see your presentation "considering"). I mean... Don't get me wrong. I know with your initial post you kind of tried to tie it in, but, let's face it, that was more of a (fabricated) segue than a substantive address. Also, it's fine to take things in a brand-new direction. But, when issues are brought up that were intelligently addressed beforehand, it is "nicer" (both to the person and in general) and, mind you, MUCH more efficient to "dialogue" than merely "present". Along these lines, I thought I (if not absolutely correctly) concisely, in a way that is not often considered, and at least intriguingly addressed the issue of separation of church and state that I think would be cooler "acknowledged"/"reacted to" rather than just "drown out"/"talked over": on 06/24/04 at 11:11:42, StegRock wrote:
And, please, JYJ, do understand that my point is not to disparage; it's to facilitate substantive progress and talking "with/to" each other and avoid people talking "at" each other. I mean, case in point, Callie and I are quite thoroughly and specifically addressing/reacting to/even dissecting your posts (whether it's in a/the way you want is not "really" of import). Secondarily, I am more interested in what we here of our own volition and by way of "responsive" dialogue come up with rather than presenting or proving party platforms. I mean the issues on this thread have been FAR FROM debated along partisan lines. It has not been a Republican versus Democrat (versus Green Party) thread. I present what I believe as what I believe, not the Republican Party's platform, which I obviously do not strictly adhere to, and, in any case, I am "really" not a party guy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Aug 5th, 2004, 11:09pm Quote:
Amen to that Callie, that's why I mentioned to Steg that I thought this board was a bad idea. Nobody wins a political debate (especially against a philosophy major). [smiley=deadhorse.gif] JYJ :^) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 6th, 2004, 2:59am on 08/05/04 at 22:30:27, junkyardjake wrote:
Funny! I think this thread is a great idea as long as people can keep it aboveboard. I take exception to what I quote above, though. I take the time to validly, thoroughly and thoughtfully, though perhaps/evidently not in a way that you are accustomed to (arguing), address your QUESTION and in turn you very directly make fun of me. I think it's a low blow. You know what people usually make fun of, right? Anyway, I could DEFINITELY find significant "jocularity" in your presentations/arguments and poke fun, but I restrain myself. Again, the point is that you don't "speak with" me about what I took my good time to write. You speak "at me", just dismissing what I wrote with a quick "Naaaaa, you're wrong," with ONE sentence and a personal jibe and then providing yet another link. Did you for just a moment think, "Wow, I've never thought through/about that quote that way before"? It is at least another interesting and valid take on something, which I for granted took to mean such and such, to take into consideration. Or, did you just think, "No! I'm right! He's wrong! And, that's that"? Of course, right now, you might knee-jerk be thinking the same thing about me, BUT it's not me whose arguing from the quote, i.e. using the quote in support of my argument. You are, so the burden (of proof, so to speak) is on you, not me. I don't accept your usage of that quote by James Madison as a premise for your argument and I have acceptably laid out why. So, with me at least, you've either got to abandon that premise or "really" refute me. Comparing directly, albeit jokingly, my lesson in logic, so to speak, with the dribblings of Anna Nicole Smith is absolutely insulting! Quote:
Whatever applies! Nothing is fixed, including religious dogma. Change is the only constant! Quote:
That was 8 words of what I wrote that fit your point and you decided to expound on with hundreds of words. Quote:
I mean believe what you want, but that's just so incorrect. I've learned to ALWAYS be cautious when I find myself easily throwing out words such as "simple" when it comes to political relations. Accordingly, I always look with a wary eye (at the premises and logic of an argument) when a political argument (at least one with as wide of a scope as yours here) seems too convincing too quickly and too easy to accept. Quote:
Sidebar... So, how do we deal with Muslim theorcracies? Of course, mind you, the American brand of separation of church and state is supposed to be an internal doctrine, not one that dictates our international policy because that's their business. According to your reasoning here, because we can't really "support" anybody over there because religion is so tied into all that they do, all we can do is just basically "completely" isolate ourselves from that whole part of the world and let the chips fall where they may. Mind you, Israel is not the theocracy many of the Muslim coutries are. Quote:
So, now 1 is essentially out the window (with respect to the development of your argument). Really, your argument just boils down to 2 -> then -> 3. That's not really an "argument", no less a logically valid one. A "real" sound argument (and what you actually mean) would be, MUCH MORE simply stated actually: 1a) We support Israel. 1b) The Arab-Muslim world hates Israel. 2a) We use oil from the Arab-Muslim world. 2b) The Arab-Muslim world thinks our use of oil creates problems for them that they hate. 3) So, the Arab-Muslim world hates us and our use of their oil. What was all that writing for? Anybody with a half a brain knows that old, over-simplified, over-generalized, hackneyed argument. Oh, and by the way, I am included, believe it or not, in the group of people with a half a brain. ... We're tying such knots here. The middle-eastern Muslim world represents the HUGEST block of THEOCRACIES and autocracies in the world. It's presented here as a one-way street as if Jews and Christians are the only zealously religiously-driven people in the world. Maybe if we were talking about Buddhist-oriented countries, this line of reasoning would be more palatable. But, we are talking about Islam here. Need I say more? Quote:
Short answer,... ENVY!!! PERIOD!!! We're the jocks of the high school. 9-11 is like the macrocosm of Columbine. I discuss this in slightly more detail in my sixth post on this page: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=58;action=display;num=1068119752;start=265. Longer, but still not really adequately detailed answer,... Just roughin' it, I would say about 30% of their hatred of us is rational and 70% is irrational (largely, ironically, religiously-grounded when it comes to the middle east). Even if we kowtow to them totally and, hypothetically, do exactly what is necessary to "take care" of that 30%, which is probably not even possible, there is absolutely nothing we can do about that 70%, especially, ironically, in middle-eastern Muslim theocracies. I mean you are not suggesting that the Muslim Arab street is getting even an approximation of what the rest of the world is like, are you? Do you think they have TV like we do? That is if they have a TV, period. Do you know what a (not all too unfriendly to us... yet) country like Uzbekistan is like? Your position regarding their hatred of us is inherently predicated on our being lied A LOT to by our powers-that-be and their being generally told the truth by their powers-that-be. I mean, ironically given the rest of your stance on church and state relations, Muslim theocracies are ALL about "sheltering" their citizens from influence from the outside non-Muslim world. That's the problem with religion and government, right? Oh, I'm confused... I'm getting sucked in... I'm starting to go all over the place with this because of all the fronts (premises) we are dealing with here and all the knots (in logic) being tied because of all the over-generalizations and over-simplifications we're dealing with here. Do you know how much people in countries form their opinion about America by way of American entertainment: movies and TV shows (not news shows)? I could tell you stories that would make your head spin about what many young Koreans believe about Americans based on "Hollywood" (another irony). I will now bite my tongue because I don't want to ask my next question, which can so easily be taken the wrong way and is ultimately useless if you are permanently set in your ways (not that I am saying you necessarily are) because you would just find what you want to find to prove your point/justify your belief. Again, in our "debate" here, I have not like a parrot spewed out ANY party "lines" (in both senses of the word). Have you??? on 08/05/04 at 23:09:31, junkyardjake wrote:
I'll take that as a (back-handed) compliment. Why do I feel like I just wasted three hours of my life here tonight? [smiley=frustrated.gif] Next... Kerry's put himself in a real bind with his claim back when he came back from and spoke about Vietnam. He said he committed atrocities similar to his fellow soldiers there. So, either he was telling the truth then and did, which he wants to kind of back out of or at least put a bit of a hush on, OR if he didn't, it once again illustrates that he is willing to tendentiously skew the facts for the purposes of what he happens to be arguing (for or against) at any given moment. And, what do these people mean when they say things like "Ashcroft is scary"? Give me a break. This is such a fruity thing to say. I didn't like Clinton, but I would NEVER term him as "scary". [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] That's such a loaded word. I mean Usama bin Laden is "scary" although I wouldn't use the word "scary", I would just say he's a moronic asshole. Planes going into buildings killing 1,000's of people in one fell swoop is "scary". Get a grip, folks! ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 6th, 2004, 10:21am NOW, I REALLY DISAGREE with you, JYJ ;) ... this thread is GREAT!!! ;D I am TOTALLY cool with your last post! Now, we're talking ("to" each other). Now, I feel like we have something we can "agree to disagree about" (which is something I see people to often use as a cop-out to "real understanding" (of one another)). [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Progress hath been made... and we got to know one another better in the process! EXCELLENT! ... Okay, I GOT to go... and get to the Hall! [smiley=dancin.gif] We're getting a bit of a late start! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 12th, 2004, 8:03pm on 08/06/04 at 08:49:05, junkyardjake wrote:
Semantics here... We don't "create" any tensions over there. They've existed since time immemorial. I think the word "exploitation" there, instead of "creation", would make your argument more cogent (though not to me ;) ). ... JYJ, you "indicate" "issues" with our bipartisan system; I even somewhat concur with you and suggest that a pluralist system intrigues me. I, though, don't take a "strict" approach to interpreting our Founding Fathers and their writings and recommendations. However, you found much of your "beliefs"/"arguments" on the words of our Founding Fathers and a "strict" interpretation and implementation of their writings, namely our Constitution. So, question... Do you think we need to abandon the bipartisan system for a pluralist one (or at least move in that direction)? ... Finally, a general observation... In the modern era, we have increasingly had this tendency to want to say that our politicians "personal" lives (oxymoron) should not be fodder for public scrutiny. Many believe that it doesn't matter what a politician does in his/her personal life. But, (based on the very nature of the "game") it does! My eyes were (once again) VERY poignantly opened to this reality today with the "situation" with our (now lame-duck) New Jersey governor McGreevey. In very short (as I, of course, don't know how ALL or should I say ANY of the specifics are going to shake out), "personal" indiscretions by "public" officials easily lead to bribery, extortion, kickbacks, special favors, special appointments, etc., etc. The idea that the personal lives and, I would like to add, integrity and consistency of our politicians doesn't matter is VERY wrong. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Aug 13th, 2004, 1:40am Just a quick question since I don't have time or energy to fully express myself on this topic now. How in the world can a fellow Libertarian consider voting for Ralph Nader? All of my (grantedly limited) exposure to him shows that he desires to limit our freedoms. Were you being sarcastic? If you are serious, could you point me in the direction of anything that shows he would reverse the trend in BIG government? I really am curious in this regard, although I have to admit I reread that statement several times with an emotion approaching dread. I spent the time to go to his site and listen to at least one of his short speeches, "Americans deserve affordable housing, solar energy, affordable health care..." Can you say socialism? Or at the least an expansion of the current welfare state? Also taken from a written statement on his site, "we definitely need affirmative action for people of color and women to offset enduring historic wrongs as well as present-day inequalities." We do? What is wrong with freedom? The ones who lose when the best individual is not hired are the employers - yet we are going to demand that hiring practices are based on something other than qualifications? That is legalized, government enforced, racism (sexism) in a nutshell. Please tell or show me what would encourage you to vote for this guy other than a backlash against the two-party system. One other thing: I shuddered when I saw Steggie accuse Jake of spouting party lines. Yes, it has been about 3 years since I frequented the Libertarian forums. But then, and I would be surprised if it has changed much since then, one amazing aspect of the individuals active in those forums was the divergence of opinions that could be found there. "Party lines" is almost a joke when it comes to Libertarians (which is great in one sense and terrible in another). A lot of the rhetoric Jake is using is standard fare, but I can definitely verify that when taken as a whole he is not just following the crowd and spouting the lines. It just happens that this one issue of nonintervention or isolationism is the one being disected herein and on this issue he is regurgitating what he has heard. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 16th, 2004, 10:01pm So, how about that Iranian Judo Olympian, who, by the way, couldn't make weight, but, anyway, refused to go up against his Israeli opponent??? The guy's now being heralded as a national hero in Iran!!! Gee, that's the kind of cancer on the world we want to kowtow to, leave alone and let fester... and grow!!! ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 17th, 2004, 4:13pm This is where (intimate) knowledge is power... Regarding all the hubbub about our pulling (some) troops out of South Korea (which is (erroneously) consistent with what JYJ presents in one breath (pull out abroad and stop being the international police), (erroneously) inconsistent in another (work with and don't turn our back our historical allies)), all of their protesting up until now has been (based on some legitimate premises) about getting America('s troops) OUT! Now,... we're pulling some troops out, and... [smiley=no.gif] They get us comin' and goin' and people on this end with their "opinions" who really have no clue as to what is really up just set a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" stage. ::) If only there were more of these "gadflies" in the Arab-Muslim world... and abroad, period! (Well, exclamation point! [smiley=awwgee.gif] ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 17th, 2004, 9:12pm FINALLY a POINT! You guys are so busy with your rooster fight that you keep falling off any good points you make! (Especially Steg.) And both of you have made some good ones. And, Jake, you never responded to bgsgfan. As for North Korea, they're just China extended. China needs the US for most of their exports, and North Korea has China breathing down their necks and saving them from progress. The international business community can take better care of that than they can take care of the Middle East. Products vs Oil. We have more consumers, and we have some oil around that we're saving up. Plus we have some oil-free technologies in the wings, probably already developed, happy days. We need to address terrorist supporters. The real problem is that we have 21st Century thinking beating up against 5th Century thinking, which I think has been mentioned here before. That is not the point. How do we handle it. Stay on point! If you want to add Socialism vs Multinational Business, here's a plum...I heard that in France [smiley=cantcatch.gif] workers tend to get 6 weeks vacation per year, and it's almost impossible to fire them. How do you build an economy on that? Speak up. On point. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 17th, 2004, 9:42pm Sorry, guys (and sorry I'm not around much now, business) - I said to stay on point, but I didn't say why I said it. Jake is unhappy about a politics thread that feels like a philosophy thread. Steg wants to explore in the way he is trained. Philosophy looks at A, explores A, and tries to understand everything about A that there could possibly be. That is how a philosopher finds the truth about A. He plays with every A he can think of. A politician says I have A, I want B, what is the best A I can get to get to B. That is how a politician (well, maybe a Statesman) gets to A. He looks for processes and compares them. We need both. But in a discussion, we need direction or we just have platitudes and a contest. No learning or growth. In a political thread, we need to compare processes. [smiley=sunny.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Aug 17th, 2004, 11:30pm Hey Callie, I don't think our posts constitute a 'rooster fight' do they ? Well I didn't intend that, and I'm sure Steg didn't intend that, sorry if it sounds that way. Politics by it's very nature is a contentious topic, the best you can do is throw out facts and let them fall where they may. What I have found, especially most recently is an amazing polarization that separates diehard Bush-backers and probably a group that might be best described as bitter Democratic party apologists. (Bitter because they feel they were robbed in 2000 and are tired of defending the Clinton 'presidency'). I really just hope to convey an independent viewpoint as a disgruntled ex-republican whose tired of all the corruption, propaganda and abuse of the country by the privledged few. Here are some of the books that have shaped my recent political inclination if you are interested: 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' - Greg Palast 'Power and Terror' - Noam Chomsky 'Dreaming War' - Gore Vidal Thanks for reminding me about bgsgfan's post, I will reply to that. JYJ :^) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Aug 18th, 2004, 12:10am Hey bgsgfan, Quote:
In a nutshell, that's really the reason I intend to vote for Nader. I truly, in my relatively short voting history, cannot remember a principled politician since Ronald Reagan. Maybe this was because it was the first time I was allowed to vote and I was intoxicated with youthful enthusiasm, but at least he seemed to say what he meant, and did what he said he was going to do. In fact, I have abstained from voting ever since, with the exception of 1992, when I voted for Ross Perot. (Before I realized he was insane, but I'd probably vote for him again anyway). While the Libertarian Party is the closest venue consistent with my beliefs, I really don't think they produce viable candidates, and Nader is the only guy who makes sense to me in the present environment. For example, I think you are correct about his somewhat paternalistic government tendencies, however he is also the only notable public figure that has the guts to point out the reprehensible level of corporate influence on the political process. This problem is endemic to both parties, it's almost like the entire congress (as well as the current executive branch, with perhaps some notable exceptions like Colin Powell) is a brothel selling their wares to the highest bidder. Do I support principles like less government and less restrictive taxes ? Of course I do, but the more you observe the current system it's almost like we need to bulldoze Washington into the Potomac and start over. Just look at the current tax system, first of all, income taxes were prohibited by the Constitution, then when they were introduced in 1913, they were levied on only the top 1% of wealthiest Americans in the amount of 1% of income. How has that evolved ? Now the richest Americans have the resources to exploit the system and avoid taxes (this is most egregious when you look at some corporate loopholes, like setting up shop in Bermuda and paying 0%), while the middle class ends up getting screwed and having to work 2 jobs to survive. So in short, yes you are correct, voting for Nader is my insignificant way to revolt against the current system, a system with increasingly foreboding similiarities to the Roman Empire. JYJ :^) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2004, 3:32am Jake, you missed my question from way above... :'( Regarding North Korea and/versus Iraq, Jake, you once again didn't "meet" me. You took the issue out to "left field", so to speak, without "addressing" (and undressing [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] ... ;) ) what I had written. You just go ahead and give the "Politics 101" of the issue, mind you, not even with complete accuracy (you leave out a multitude of supporting and mitigating factors), which, in any event, anybody half-informed knows like the back of their hand and represents the mere "tip of the iceberg" of these complex issues. Moreover (and this is a bit insulting although I know (you have a good heart) and like you so whatever), you present it as a revelation of sorts or at least as if those basics have not already been considered and processed by me (and whomever else). Given this lack of "responding", it is impossible to make that progress to which Callie alludes and I get this feeling of being "talked at" again. So, Callie, with regards to your "rooster fight" allusion,... [smiley=shrug.gif] I, ultimately (and I know you know this... quite obviously from your post), am backing off because... [smiley=shrug.gif] , well, I don't want to get into a full-blown [smiley=arguing.gif] and tarnish any friendships. There's just very little "meeting of the minds" going on here, and, mind you, "meeting of the minds" does NOT mean agreement (as, again, I know you know). Anyway,... NORTH Korea and the politics that go with it and the historically (relatively speaking) SINGLE nations of Iraq and Iran and the politics that go with them are TOTALLY different despite President Bush's ill-advised inclusion of North Korea in his "axis of evil" (if I were one of his advisors or speech writers, I would have STRONGLY advised him against such an inclusion). That was a HUGE mistake! But, anyway, with KOREA, man, you literally have a dividing line that divides REAL-LIVE FRIENDS and, moreover, FAMILIES! You're talking about the South Koreans' "fending for themselves". While there surely remains some (waning) truth to that, the OVERWHELMINGLY pervasive mindset there is one of reunification of this divided people and their country, and they, North and South Koreans alike (but I am mainly referring to South Koreans as I have very intimate knowledge of that side of the border), very much so see the presence of the American military in South Korea as at least somewhat of a, if not the whole of the stumbling block to their reunification (something that was ABSOLUTELY INHERENT in my initial post to which you "reacted"). Bottom line, dealings with North Korea are VERY, VERY sticky because of this reality and military action almost impossible, especially with Kim Jung Il aging and the country's literally on the brink of imploding, and SO INCREASINGLY out-of-step with the rest of the world, including the third-world for that matter. Iran and Iraq, frankly speaking, do not need to be dealt with as delicately (or at least with delicacy regarding these very "personal"/"human"/"national" matters), with the exception of the "delicate issue" of oil, which, IRONICALLY, is the PRECISE reason we haven't gone into the middle east with absolute full force and kicked the shit out of these medieval-minded, green-with-envy, whining cry-babies years ago. The politics of oil is the reason we have a "presence" there, but, as genocide is not an option (for any evolved human), it is ALSO the reason we haven't totally put these assholes in their place. This is the "revelation" that you come to when you really (mentally) "wrestle" with it and not just let yourself get sucked into the "(anti-)reality" of sound bites and one-liners. ... ... But, now I am leap-frogging so far ahead in a way that now I feel like I am "talking at", which I do NOT want to do. I would rather have had the discussion evolve more naturally (and less acrimoniously) to "this point" (in both senses of the term), by way of more of a dialogue (than a lecture). ANYTHING can be spun and "half-truthed" to find fault and conspiracy if that is what you are seeking. bg, I don't know what you exactly meant by "I shuddered when I saw Steggie accuse Jake of spouting party lines." Instead of taking it personally and defensively, I just took it objectively as an observation of both what I stated and what made me state it and an even distribution of whatever (mild) blame you were issuing and decided not to respond. Bottom line, the terms "Libertarian" and "Libertarian Party" have been mentioned (moreover, as a platform) on this thread WAY more times than the other two (parties) and the "feel" of this thread has only taken on a VERY partisan and politicized feel since the infusion of this element. Callie, I think you know that your description of the philosopher is just a bit too rudimentary. I think it would be more accurate to say that the philosopher, as it relates to all this, tries to encourage you to think through and even question the tightness and ultimate cogency of your position (doggie [smiley=dog.gif] is always nice)/argument so as to help you make sure that what you think you believe/are arguing (for or against) is really what you believe/are arguing (for or against). Key to that goal is as you suggest, Callie, staying "on point" (in a strict Socratic dialectical fashion if need be) and not just incessantly presenting or even parroting a deluge of actually disparate statistics, quotes and facts (with some half-truths, misconceptions and debatable points mixed in), which no one can really "keep up with" (in all senses of the phrase), to assert or confirm this or that query or ("conspiracy") theory, made even more difficult if it is "negativist" (in the strict sense) and not a "positivist" (in the strict sense) as it is MUCH easier to claim "what is NOT" than "what is", or "deconstructionist" as it is MUCH easier to (pessimistically, cynically and iconoclastically) tear down things than to (optimistically and proactively) build things up. Ultimately, both sides are right!!! Like Jake, I can EASILY make an objective, logically-valid and quite thorough argument for why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. I can also just as readily, objectively, validly and thoroughly make an argument for why we should have. It's just that the latter is the one that "I" find more cogent and compelling. Is that how you are coming to your conclusion(s), Jake? Or, for you, is there only one (ultimately correct) argument that can be made? (As you probably know all too well, Jake, arguing both sides of an issue :P is a basic law-school exercise and fundamental legal skill.) Discussing politics (or religion) is only difficult when someone in the discussion is. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Aug 18th, 2004, 6:57pm Jake - I believe Nader is a solution that is worse than the disease. Not that it really matters, because he will not get elected. Perhaps votes for Nader from outside his political base will tend to emphasize the points you want to make. [smiley=shrug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2004, 7:09pm Here we go with more ABC World News tendentious oversimplifications. Regarding Kerry's (knee-jerk, political) opposition to Bush's (reasonable and generally historically appropriate) plan to reorganize and reduce our forces overseas from their current "cold war" deployment configuration, they (arbitrarily) add this ONE (very small) factor: that these countries don't like our pulling out because of the economic infusion our soldiers bring to their economies. BS! That is really such an insignificant factor. These guys do most of their day-to-day shopping right on base, countries like South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc., hardly need any small boost the presence of our soldiers gives their economies, and the land on which our bases exist, which we occupy in a sovereign way, is probably WAY more valuable to the respective countries (than anything our military presence brings them economically). A more "sweeping factor" that is more justifiably presented as a "one-liner": NO sovereign nation likes having an autonomous foreign military presence in their country, bottom line, no less one that numbers in the 10's of thousands!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Aug 18th, 2004, 7:36pm on 08/18/04 at 03:32:50, StegRock wrote:
I meant it literally. I was sitting in my chair and I shudderred. Why? I am not sure what the bottom line reason was. Probably because I was focused on the "voting for Nader" aspect and I didn't want people to see Nader as representative of my ideals (which is most closely represented by the Libertarian party). But, perhaps it was also because you seemed to be trying to dismiss all of Jake's arguments by simply saying "he is spouting rhetoric". Somehow that is supposed to negate everything. What does it matter where the arguments came from? They should be examined on their own merits (or lack thereof). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2004, 8:02pm Oh, brother! Here we go again taking one 6-to-10 word or whatever portion (upon your moment of shuddering) of ALL that I wrote (somewhat out of context, mind you) and blowing it out of proportion and making it the emphasis. It was ultimately a question, perhaps a bit of a rhetorical one, but one meant to make you think... or "respond" to. In any event, there is A LOT more MEAT in my posts and everything on this thread than that teeny, tiny little "point"/"query". [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Please, let's not let that take us away from focusing on the bigger themes and picture here,... as Callie suggests. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Aug 18th, 2004, 8:31pm Steg, I agree with bgsgfan on his point, I am beginning to understand your writing style (and you communicate quite well), but you sometimes tend to dismiss themes and factual points by dissecting language and scrutinizing the point of view. I can't say that I am innocent of such deflection (albeit in a different way), for example, I don't even want to know why you espouse 'communism' as a viable system, and therefore I never brought it up. (I understand it from an idealist point of view, but it has proven to be a disaster from a practical application vantage point, why deny the evidence ?). One thing I would like to hear about if you have time, what positive benefits do you feel we gained by eliminating Saddam Hussein, and was it worth the cost ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Aug 18th, 2004, 8:38pm Quote:
You may be right, maybe we can coax Ross Perot out of retirement ? (If he's not too busy chasing purple unicorns). JYJ :^) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2004, 9:43pm on 08/18/04 at 20:31:37, junkyardjake wrote:
I don't dismiss anything, brother. I'm just trying to encourage you to make your arguments (logically) tighter and more cogent, i.e., I am egging you on to convince me, so to speak, rather than just jumping around and covering more ground than any one person who is not contemplating the same "reality" can keep up with (as I stated before) and bombarding me with fact after one-liner after detail after quote after statistic after link after generality after platform after fact after one-liner... and so on. After reading some of your stuff, I don't know where to start, no less end. It just covers so much ground in such a general way. So, I do what is only reasonable: I pick out the few things I can and do have the time to digest and focus on them. To say that I am dismissing your writing is unfair. I have spent probably over 12 hours now all in all "responding" to your words, perhaps not all of them, though, because, as I stated, it's just not possible to do so with the amount of specificity and thoroughness that I firmly believe is required and that I in fact do, i.e., when I respond to your posts, the points to which I respond, I respond thoroughly, though I can't respond to them all, both practically and epistomologically. Quote:
Well, Jake, it's really for the most part just a lot of "the usual". What I would say is really just what anybody who supports our efforts in Iraq would say, which I am not going to insult your and anybody else's intelligence and waste our time by reiterating herein. However, for me the contemporaneous issues are not necessarily the ultimately important ones. My focus is more on the "long-term, bigger picture" and I think I concisely and soundly presented that "long-term, bigger picture" (the one that is important for me) in the following quote from "the Bleachers"... on 11/18/03 at 13:26:39, StegRock wrote:
It's an optimistic position, granted... :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 18th, 2004, 10:26pm Sorry to be out of the loop again, guys. I had major computer problems today, and I just got back on. Sounds like the discussion is getting interesting. First, Jake, I would like to read your book list and discuss the concepts in terms of current politics. I'll only be able to do them one at a time, but that's where it starts. Steg, two questions. One is about what the hell Jake was talking about when he said you agree in any way with communism. Is this a Utopian theory thing? With the human race at the mental and evolutionary place it is in today, there is no chance it could ever work. The wolves will eat the sheep. (Where is Philly's "Animal Farm" Smiley Theater when you need it?) Good intentions are often felt by honorable people, but this is a political, tribal, tooth-and-claw world. Trust me, I work for lawyers. They are not Socrates or Plato or Aristotle. They are the poster children for the most primal and unfortunate human potential for misery to Utopians as mammals. They spawn today's politicians. The second question is, do you have a three book list of the major influences of your political thinking? A third question (THREE - THREE QUESTIONS! My favorite Montey Python episode is the Spanish Inquisition.) I was under the impression that the North Koreans and the South Koreans hated each other's guts. I know families were separated, but I thought as groups they want to kill each other whenever possible. I don't think we need as many troups in there now. We have enough weaponry and economics to keep China in tow. (Turkey, Israel, South Korea - oh, the Phillipines - just geographic footholds). The Chinese want to sell us things so that they can use our money against us. The old communists will die off, and the young turks will be the next let's-make-a-deal guys. And the wheel turns round and round. bgsgfan - I'd like your top three book list, too. I think that Nader is a balancer, but he's like a lot of guys like Al Sharpton and many other 3rd party candidates, or their ilk in the same process. They put forth the ideas of a segment of the population, garner some voting blocks to trade to the 2 major parties for the power to do it again, and at least get their ideas some amount of attention and clout. But the people at the top of those groups tend to do personal power ploys instead of actually making promised change. More wolves eating sheep. Although, Nader is no Sharpton. Nader seems to be a relatively decent human - power hungry like the others, but not so much of a snake. He'll be used, though, if he let's them use him. I wish him well. He would succeed as a Utopian. And as for Iraq, we have already heard that documents are finally showing up that indicate that yes, in fact, just before the Iraqi War the WMDs were shipped off to Syria. As people are less afraid of getting put feet-first through the chipper, they will come out and tell more. Of COURSE it's a grand pre-election finale to reveal a few things. The guys at the top, all political parties, know it all already. It gets used. But some of it is kept quiet and the heroes work hard to let us go on with our happy, oblivious lives. (We have machines orbiting the earth that can spot radiation in a container ship anywhere in any ocean. They recently accidentallly pulled over a ship with radium for watch dials. During the 9/11 situation, we heard about New Jersey State Troopers stopping around 20 EMS vehicles on the turnpike that were loaded with explosives. They were headed for the bridges and tunnels around Manhattan. It gets hushed up to avoid panic and economic standstills. But they are on the job.) This is politics. But it is also true that the terrorists are trying as hard as possible to disrupt our elections this year. It's all human tribal mammal nature. We can either protect ourselves from a new, fatal "virus" of terrorism, barbarians riding over the next hill, or learn Arabic languages (like the fear of having to learn German a few decades or so ago - coulda happened) if we live through it. The radical terrorist leaders do not want to let us survive. However, the rank and file over there just want air conditioners, refrigerators, cars, and jobs. And no chippers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 19th, 2004, 12:12am on 08/18/04 at 23:49:54, junkyardjake wrote:
And, mind you, both sides or should I say all sides have their own set of statistics, bar charts, etc., etc. ::) ... Callie, I'll get around to responding to your questions at a later time. :) In short, I will quickly address the "Korea" issue now, though. The domestic American impression that the North and the South hate each other's guts and want to "end" one another is a TOTAL misconception. For the South, they are "their brothers and sisters to the North" and vice-versa for the North. A big South Korean movie this year, "As The Flag Waves", which I saw with Gino while in Korea in February, is VERY illustrative of this "reality". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Klockner on Aug 19th, 2004, 7:01pm Junk Yard Jake, your rant against Israel is fine. It's fine in the sense that you're entitled to whatever opinion you'd like. But it also happens to be factually incorrect. 1) We all know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we should know that our foreign-policy inclination is an almost completely one-sided support of Israel. Unfortunately, this policy is followed despite the fact that Israel is in violation of over 40 UN resolutions, is purported to have illegal nuclear weapons and insists on creating settlements on real estate that does not belong to them. (i.e. see Hebron) ANSWER: Only a half truth. The palestinians and arab world are also violating dozens of resolutions. The difference is that Israel does not control the General Assembly and has a tougher time passing nonsense resolutions. The Arabs, on the other hand, have undue control over the GA. How much control? Enough to make Sudan (the country perpetrating the current genocide) the head of the Civil Rights section of the UN!!! Israel is therefore in violation of one-sided resolutons only. 2) Israel is essentially an exclusionary society, in order to obtain the full rights of citizenry in Israel it is necessary to belong to the Jewish faith. In essence, Israel is a faith- based nation and has deemed itself 'ordained by G*d' to remove Palestinians from their homes and launch rockets into crowds whenever they protest too loud about it. (The term usually applied to this school of thought is 'Zionism') ANSWER: False. Part of the Israeli parliament is Arab. That is, there are arab representatives in parliament. Who do you think elected them? I'll tell you. It was Israeli-Arabs that have full voting/citizenship rights. Likewise, Bedouins have full voting/citizenship rights. Also, Zionism is as much, if not more, a secular institution, not a religious one. The founders of the modern israel were not religious jews, but secular/persecuted jews from around the world, mostly Europe. There are certainly many people that consider Israel the place for jews b/c it was so ordained. But upwards of 80% of the country is wholly secular and has no such belief. 3) So, here we have a nation in violation of numerous UN resolutions that acutely discriminates on the basis of religious beliefs and despite this, they are a permanent fixture on the US federal payroll. How does the support of a foreign entity based exclusively on a specific religion belief not represent a violation of the Constitution? ANSWER: The constitution does not bar aid to a country that has one or the other religous belief. It bars establishing a religion (in the U.S.) and it bars preventing freedom of religion (in the U.S.). Plus, as discussed above, your initial assumptions in this point are false. And, the U.S. also supports arab/muslim countries (Egypt, for example, is among the top 5 recipients of foreign aid by our government). 4) To put it another way, suppose that Utah decided to discriminate against residents if they did not comply with the practice of Buddhism. Not only would that disqualify them from federal funding, but I think it is safe to say that federal troops would storm in and shut down the state. When Israel engages in religious persecution, we send them more tanks, F-16's and large sums of money. ANSWER: the treatment of U.S. states and foreign countries is wholly different. Besides, israel does not engage in religious persecution. Indeed, Israel itself is the homeland of three of the world's major religiouns and nobody stops anyone from practicing Islam, Christianity, or any other religioun in the country. 5) And what do we get in return? Well for one thing, a lot of pissed off Islamic crazy people who are willing to compromise their lives in destructive ways in the name of religion. ANSWER: If you believe this is because of Israel than you're revealing your ignorance. This is a religous war against western civilization based purely on crazy radical thought. Israel is used as a scapegoat. Was there no terrorism in the world before Israel? Were there no wars in the world before the 1940s? And what do you blame those on? I presume that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the U.S. supported jews? 6) Ignoring the constitutional implications, wouldn't it be more prudent to remove ourselves from this ancient conflict and maintain a more impartial stance, if nothing else for the sake of national security? ANSWER: Without Israel in that region, there would already be Nukes in the hands of extermists. In addition, there is no reason to believe that there would be an improvement in national security. The real reason the arab world hates the U.S. is because of perceived intervention in arab affairs. This intervention occurs in the interest of oil, not jews. I fear that your willingness to accept false facts shows more than just your thoughts on foreign policy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 19th, 2004, 8:21pm Great points, Klockner, and welcome to the thread! I agree with you on many issues. I especially agree that Israel is playing point for the Western world in that region. Israelis are the guys the Arab world hates most, even more than they hate the US. The history of that region is even worse for that sort of thing than the Serbs and Bosnians. They really hate each other and have felt that way for over 1,000 years. In that region, it does not have to make our kind of sense. The Arab media is controlled, leaders use theocracy to get to dictatorship, the people are trained from the cradle to think that the only good government is anyone who puts the word "Allah" in front of everything they want. Mammal-pack-tribal. Kill the tribe over the hill that wants what you want. But in all fairness, that's been going on for a long time in the Christian and Jewish worlds, too. I also see hope for younger generations in the Arab world to understand what other nations, moving from despotism to democracy by generations, are trying to learn. We had it easy. We had the Revolutionary War at a time when world events between two oceans were much easier. If you read this thread, you will see that I prefer to put things in nutshells. That's my bad here, not enough reference. I'll work on it, since work issues are going to give me more time soon. Meanwhile, keep it coming. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 19th, 2004, 8:25pm [offtopic]Klockner, [smiley=welcome.gif] to... "the Gridiron". Very well-informed post! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Look forward to more... [smiley=bow.gif][/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Aug 19th, 2004, 8:42pm Welcome aboard Klockner! I liked your post in that it was fact-based. Links, sources, etc. would be appreciated; especially since we now have a difference regarding facts. In any case, I hope you continue to contribute and look forward to it. Steve, JYJ, Callie - I need to concentrate on some other things the next few days so I will be avoiding this thread... but I will return. I started to put together my political position when this thread first started and decided to shelve it. Maybe I will dig it up so that we can get this going in a different direction (or back to where it started). In some ways I am not satisfied with what I wrote (which is why I shelved it), but oh well. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Aug 19th, 2004, 8:50pm Edit: This also needs to be edited by me, its ugly (I wrote it in Word); but I need to go to bed and I think its decipherable. OK people, remember I wrote this a while ago and it isn't in any way a response to the current discussions... You may consider me a political idealist for several reasons. First, I am long on theory, but actual day-to-day politics tend to bore me. Secondly, although it is common to have beliefs similar to mine, the application of those beliefs is very unpopular. There are 3 legitimate purposes for Government: to protect individuals’ rights and freedom; allocate resources that cannot be owned by individuals; and to provide for those that truly cannot provide for themselves (mentally ill and children). All of my political beliefs stem from that one simple statement. ECOMOMICS: There are 3 legitimate purposes for Government: to protect individuals’ rights and freedom; allocate resources that cannot be owned by individuals; and to provide for those that truly cannot provide for themselves (mentally ill and children). All of these purposes are applied in the area of economics. My primary concern on this issue is that Government does way more than what it should do. First and foremost, no able-bodied, able-minded individual has the right to live by my labor, nor do I have the right to live by theirs. Virtually every form of modern welfare should be abolished. Social Security should be phased out. Get rid of Big Brother completely: no more Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, disability, socialized unemployment “insurance”, food stamps, WIC, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Once an individual reaches an age of responsibility (we have many different measures for this: 16, 18, 21 – I tend to agree more with 16 than the others, although I have no problem with differing interpretations) there should be no Government funding for education: no grants, scholarships, work-study, vocational schooling, re-education, etc.. The only area I waver on this is for those that truly cannot provide for themselves – although the definitions of many of these people have been expanded to the point where it is bizarre. Where possible, shared resources controlled by Government should be paid for in accordance with who uses them. Transportation costs can be funded by tolls, fuel taxes, and vehicle taxes. None of these perfectly correspond to the usage; however they are much closer than using income or sin taxes. The courts should be more aggressively funded by “court costs”. Jails and prisons should be funded (to the extent possible) by the prisoners. This still leaves a huge financial burden for elements of Governmental costs that are not so easily allocated – especially the military. I believe we all benefit from these remaining costs, in fact we all benefit from every area of “legitimate” Government. How can you tell who benefits more? I believe we all share equally in these benefits and we should pay for them by a flat per capita tax (i.e. I pay the same as Bill Gates, who pays the same amount as a bum in NY). OK, the application of that is almost ridiculous, so I am willing to suggest a reverse-graduated income tax (something like 30% up to $100,000, 20% from $100,000 to $500,000, then 15% above $500,000). The actual percentages would need to be determined so that there is neither a deficit nor a surplus (or as near as is possible). Truthfully, if we limit Government to its legitimate purposes and allocate the costs for shared resources as much as possible, the manner in which we pay for the remainder is of little concern to me (as long as it does not become ridiculously punitive to the producers). INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: There are 3 legitimate purposes for Government: one of these is to protect individuals’ rights. We face many threats to these rights from abroad (duh). These threats should be crushed. Our rights may be threatened in the future by others; therefore we should foster systems similar to our own (not necessarily by throwing money at them). This is the single most important element of a Federal Government. SOCIAL/DOMESTIC POLITICS: It is impossible to protect me from myself, quit trying. Legalize all drugs, and repeal ridiculous seatbelt and helmet laws. Don’t force me to pay unemployment insurance or disability insurance or for retirement (or at least give me the option to choose my own). I don’t know when a human becomes. It is somewhere between conception and birth, but I don’t know where. Therefore I tend to equate abortion used as birth-control as murder. Guns should be controlled; it is irresponsible for someone who carries them to not be able to use them properly. It is reprehensible for anyone to tell me I cannot protect myself. Funding is not the answer for education. I have recently seen a little 12 year-old girl who was expelled from school fly through 2 years of “classes” in a 3 month period. I believe the answer is individual attention supplied by parents or others (in that little girl’s case it was an “other” who tutored her). Public schooling is woefully inadequate for any children that stray from the norm – especially those that are “gifted”. You want to improve our society and push money to public education? Try funding educational efforts for the extremely gifted, the difference-makers. We need to protect the environment, but too often in the past this has been used as an excuse to penalize capitalism. Research the truth behind many environmental issues and you find the science is significantly lacking. BOTTOM LINE: It all comes down to freedom. I have the freedom to spend my time producing or not producing. If I produce – why should my production go to those who have decided not to? Government is there to protect my freedom. Destroy the terrorists. Kill the killers. SIDE ISSUES: Some time take a look at your actual payroll taxes. You pay twice the FICA that you think you do. You are taxed both federally and on a state basis for unemployment and disability compensation. All of this is hidden from us, the stupid masses. Find out how much you “really” make. I am sick of seeing people living extravagantly off the public dole. I regularly see people driving brand new cars, paying for their groceries with food stamps and then buying Marlboros, and on disability because of “nerves” or some other insanity. It is amazing how many day-to-day issues I agree with Steggie on given our entirely different framework for arriving at those answers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 19th, 2004, 10:24pm on 08/19/04 at 21:46:10, junkyardjake wrote:
This is a perfect example of my frustration (and, moreover, why I appreciate bgsgfan's attempting to bring this back around to where it started). With this part here, you are not "speaking to" Klockner's point; you are just "speaking at" him. It's good, old "bait and switch". The more appropriate or "effective" response would be: "Well, tell me... How many arab representatives are there in the Israeli government?" The answer to that question goes a long way to proving one of your points. Otherwise, it's just (endless) [smiley=arguing.gif] . In any event, I look forward to Klockner's response. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 20th, 2004, 2:08am Well, there isn't anything out there that condones, legitimizes or is even apologetic towards this legislation by the Knesset. Obviously, it would be very hard to defend (though I will be interested to see what Klockner has to say about it). The following are other pieces that present the issue, one in a more "objective-ish" or should I say "sterile" way, the second "comparing and contrasting" the FACTS of two big-media articles on it (the totality of which actually cuts right to the quick of "my bigger point"): http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/31/marriage_arabs030731 ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4325.htm. Again, though, it is more important to (be able to) see the forest through the trees. Each individual "issue", like this, is a tree. Though I don't (think I) agree with the Knesset on this individual issue, it doesn't shape, or perhaps better stated, blur my whole view of the greater "reality" of Israel, nor do I see it proving any greater point regarding that reality (at least not one that has been made cogently lucid to me). [smiley=shrug.gif] Does this or that piece of bad legislation and/or poor judgement make them totally wrong or wrong on all accounts or wrong overall and thus bad and "unsupportable". I mean you can put any country's "politics" and laws under the microscope and uncover some serious disease(s) (if that's what you are looking for... you could do the opposite if that was you predisposition). There are countries out there that permit "wife burning" as a punishment for adultery, for goodness sake,... mind you, Islamic countries, which are at the heart of this "situation". I mean if you scrutinize these Muslim country's governments to the degree that you have Israel's (and ours for that matter),... [smiley=ohshit.gif] you want to talk religious influence... control, medievalism, and totalitarianism... And, by not doing so, by not scrutinizing that side of the coin to an equal degree (or at least not presenting it that way here), you are in a way de facto supporting them (on this thread at least)... I mean I "get" that your ultimate point is something along the lines that we just need to get our hands the hell out of that WHOLE region, including Israel, and since Israel is the one country that pulls us back in that murky cesspool, for little other than ideological reasons, the case for ceasing our backing of Israel needs to be made more strongly because it is fairly plainly obvious why we should let the rest of the middle east go to hell and, in any event, we don't necessarily have any ideological ties with them anyway. The tie we have with them, though, that must be cut is oil and blah, blah, blah... the old oil argument. Got it! As many of my (economic) beliefs (in particular) may suffer from being too idealistic and optimistic, these are pessimistic and not comprehensive to the point of bordering on naive (at times). The oil and Israel argument is old, hackneyed and doesn't hold much water or produce much of an effect in the end because it is not broad enough and way too simple and, ultimately, does not capture the complexities, historical, political, social, economic, philosophical, religious, psychological, emotional, logistical, anthropological, territorial, etc., of it ALL. Of course, this lack of efficacy of the oil-and-Israel position creates paranoia among its proponents and now the stage is set for good, old conspiracy theory. ... And, here we go, (modern) "America's bad, gone astray; the system needs to be changed; we need to turn the clock back, well partially, and get back to the system of our Founding Fathers and we need to interpret our Constitution and Bill of Rights more strictly, literally, but that bipartisan system they put into place, well, that's probably got to go, this amendment's okay, that one's not, whatever fits,... blah, blah, blah." It's all dominoes... or should I say TREES. ... I was going to save this for another time and another place as it is really not about politics, it's about the individual and the cycle of life. It just seems so poignant right now though not exactly applicable. It's a quote from a stack of daily quotes and sayings my mom has been reading for MANY years now: "To be young and liberal is to show you have compassion; to be old and conservative is to show you have wisdom." ... Lastly, along the lines of bg's "bringing this on back (on point, to use Callie's words)". I guess what I was trying to say all along when bringing up "spewing party lines" is that what this thread is supposed to be is a "particular discussion on political issues", not a "political discussion on particular issues". I really don't care what anybody's party is or who they are voting for. I was hoping for us to "converse about politics", not "converse politically". I was hoping for us to just "share" our general positions on this or that political topic, theme or issue in a positive way, i.e. without the worry of attack, for the singular purpose of getting to know one another better, not trying to sway votes... kind of a "saying to yourself, 'Okay, I agree with this. Okay, I disagree with that,' and move on, but, in any case, I've gotten to know this person better" kind of attitude. :-/ That may be the idealist and optimist in me coming out too boldly again. But, hey, can't a bunch of already friendly adults pull this off? :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 20th, 2004, 5:20pm Klockner, I have an honest question for you. Jake is not around now, bg has time concerns for awhile, and Steg and I tend to get our world news from the same U.S. sources. The victors write the history, and current events are politically spun by the media in many cases. We have been seeing a lot of that for some time in the U.S. But you seem to have some specific knowledge about affairs in the Middle East, and specifically in Israel. Do you have access to and familiarity with the style and content of the press there? I'm really curious about what is happening over there in that sense. This is not a Socratic set-up. I really want to know. Do you have some info for us? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 20th, 2004, 6:32pm I just got this email floating around the web. Ed Koch's view on the current Presidential election. Your thoughts? Why Bush Must Be Re-elected Edward I. Koch,Democrat, former Mayor of New York City Thursday, July 22, 2004 I support the re-election of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the president's strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory. I do not agree with President Bush on a single major domestic issue, but in my view those issues pale in comparison with the threat of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the evil poster boys of mass murder, are revered and supported by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The stated goal of al-Qaida and its supporters is to kill or convert every infidel, and that means Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else who will not accept Islam's supremacy. These terrorists are convinced that non-Islamic nations do not have the will and courage to persevere in this ongoing struggle, which could last decades. They believe the democracies are weak-willed and will ultimately yield to whatever demands are made upon them. By withdrawing their troops from Iraq in response to terrorist attacks, Spain and the Philippines have already shown that, tragically, terror tactics, including suicide attacks, car bombings and the beheading of innocent civilians, do work. The terrorists also intend to destroy moderate Muslim governments that want to live in peace with countries that are not Islamic. Shortly after 9/11, President Bush announced his commitment to the struggle against Islamic fanatics, who believe they can destroy the values of Western civilization and democratic governments everywhere. On entering this war against terrorism after 9/11, President Bush said, "We shall go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them." This Bush Doctrine rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which limited the colonization efforts of foreign powers in the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which contained the spread of Communism. President Bush has proven that he is prepared to keep to his commitment to fight terrorism. If John Kerry were to win this presidential election, would he stand up to terrorism to the same extent as George Bush has? I don't think so. Regrettably, my party, the Democratic Party, now has a strong radical left wing whose members often dominate the party primaries. Those same left-wing radicals have an anti-Israel philosophy, reviling that democratic state which shares the values held by a majority of Americans. Kerry is a patriotic American who performed heroically in the Vietnam War. Regrettably, he surrendered his philosophical independence to the left wing in the recent primaries in order to prevail over the original darling of the radicals, Howard Dean. Kerry owes his nomination in large part to the supporters of Dean and the support of Senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy sadly demonstrated his loss of any sense of decency with his crude attacks on President Bush using unacceptable, abusive language. The hatred deliberately stirred by Kennedy directed at President Bush is contemptible and dangerous. It encourages our terrorist enemies with whom we are at war, and it incites the crazies in our own country. On July 9, a Kerry-Edwards fund-raising concert was held at Radio City Music Hall. During that concert Hollywood comedienne Whoopi Goldberg engaged in unprintable, despicable, sexual references to the president and the vice president. She combined the president's family name with allusions to the female anatomy, and she made a sexual reference to Vice President Dick Cheney's first name by referring to the male anatomy. Even worse was Kerry's thank-you from the stage to all of the performers saying that they conveyed "the heart and soul of our country." Shameful. Now a comment about the war in Iraq. Most Americans understand that few, if any, wars go smoothly. Just cast your mind back to the American Revolutionary War, during which New York City was occupied by enemy forces for seven years, or the American Civil War, in which Confederate armies won victory after victory on the battlefield, or even World War II, in which the Nazi menace was defeated at an enormous cost in human lives. Should we have gone to war with Iraq? I believe the answer is yes. During a daily briefing after 9/11, then CIA Director George Tenet told the president that Iraq had the ability to wage chemical and biological war on the U.S. He referred to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction as a "slam dunk." Had the president not engaged in the pre-emptive war against Saddam, and if this madman had subsequently released in the U.S. biological agents or poison gas, which he had already used against the Kurds and Iran, does anyone doubt that the president would have been impeached? The security agencies of nearly every democratic nation provided to their president or prime minister the same description of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capability. The U.S. Congress had the same information and concurred with the president's decision. The U.N. Security Council unanimously concurred, passing Resolution 1441. But it was President Bush who had the courage to take up arms in defense of the U.S. and our allies. That is what leadership is all about. A poll released by the Washington Post on July 14, 2004, showed that "55 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism" and "51 percent also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat." We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. At the U.N. Security Council and in the U.N. General Assembly, allies of the U.S. and others who are indifferent or hostile to our country have conveyed the view that if we end our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, they would welcome back the U.S. into their circle. President Bush has refused to abandon our ally Israel. In my opinion, the U.S. presidents who have been Israel's greatest friends are, in order, the current President Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. This November, we Americans in the Jewish community should remember our friends. We should thank President Bush for his courage in the war against terrorism and for his strong and consistent support for Israel and democracy. If you care enough please pass this around. Thanks on behalf of America. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 22nd, 2004, 10:49pm As for Whoopi, I loved her stand-up characters back in the day. Her political voice is probably just about getting attention. Like they say, any press is good press for the entertainment community. It's an ivory towered community in La-La Land. They only listen to and echo each other. I've been living on the RIGHT coast for some time, and I like Koch, Gullianni, and Bush. I do not like Kerry. He's a moron. In terms of all of the above named, it's easy to say let's all be friends and avoid wars and save the environment, and the world will be a wonderful place. Let's also have some rainbows and some hippy clothes and all go to college on Daddy's money while we avoid reality. The rest of the world is a very scarey place with some very scarey guys who do not care about rainbows. If Whoopi and her friends want to help the world, they can give millions to the starving and uneducated masses. I would like that very much and would give it if I could. But most starving masses entities are there because of some selfish bastard keeping them that way because he wants his own power and money. Those guys need to be taken out if the world will ever be full of rainbows. It takes some unpleasant things to do that. Edit: Koch is a politician with a New York Jewish Community base. He will respond accordingly, but that does not lessen him in other ways. It's politics. Second Edit: The French are collaborators. Self interested. Only want GIs in town to chase out their enemies for them after they've collaborated to save their own self interests, then get out. Very La La Land. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Aug 22nd, 2004, 11:17pm Quote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 24th, 2004, 3:40pm Just an observation... I just saw on the news Kevin Zeece (sp. ?) from VoteNader.org debating a representative from the Democratic Party regarding the Democrat's allegations (which are probably actually accurate) about the Republicans' trying to get Nader on the ballot here and there because Republicans (allegedly) stand more to gain. In any event, I'm not here to debate that topic. It is just that this guy Kevin came off as an indignant, irrational, belligerent, chauvinstic, desperate, rebel-without-a-real-cause loudmouth who is in denial of the fundamentals of our bipartisan system and just seeking out conspiracy and treachery. What he was spewing out regarding the issue, whether or not Nader should be on this or that states' ballot (I, personally, don't give a rat's ass), just defied common sense and reason. He was just losing his composure and coming off out of control, saying, "Prove it! Prove it," to the Democrat guy. It's like, dude, come on, get a grip! The Republicans' getting Nader on the ballot here and there makes sense for them and there appears to be at least some evidence supporting that that is what is happening. Why don't you, Kev, alternatively, at least point out something cogent, evidence or rationale, that supports that this is not happening (because what we do know by way of reason and evidence seems to at least lean in this direction) and address the issue at hand rather than just taking this TV opportunity to spew out the "party line" about how Republicans and Democrats are ruining the world and blah, blah, blah? Address the point, Kev, and stop going off out into left field. Ultimately, on my (the Democrat's) part, there is no amount of evidence or common sense that is going to cause a meeting of the minds here. You are just going to continue ranting and raving like a panicy moron thinking that Armageddon is around the corner because of America and our two majority parties. Anyway, this guy is just a whack-job, who is not doing the Libertarian Party any justice (by not calmly and cogently staying on point and addressing the issue at hand). Deep-down, he was just acting like a cranky kid whose parents weren't letting him go to some party or something. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Aug 25th, 2004, 12:56am on 08/24/04 at 15:40:09, StegRock wrote:
on 08/18/04 at 19:36:56, bgsgfan wrote:
I was worried about this, but I guess I did not make myslef clear. Nader does not represent the Libertarian Party, and his ideas are not representative of the Libertarian Party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 25th, 2004, 2:59am Just a couple notes in a different direction,... If you ever want an "education" on the dynamics of the Korean peninsula, a place that A LOT of things can be learned from, from international politics to culture to war and the cold war to economics to people and peoples to public transportation and on and on, I would highly advise trying to catch The History Channel's "Inside North Korea". I am going to try to tape it someday. I have mentioned on this thread the special on North Korea PBS did a couple years ago. I have that on tape. It too is fantastic. It's a bit more analytical and anthropological than The History Channel's, which is more, well, historical and factual, as to be expected. Both are very comprehensive and compelling, though. ... Also, on a different, but somewhat, remotely related note, what do you all think about this report, http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/internet_sensitive_info_040812-1.html, and what this guy is doing? :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 25th, 2004, 6:01pm As for the architect's website that shows security measures and infrastructure information: 1. The enemy already knows this stuff. They can look it up, too. 2. The real secrets are not public domain. 3. It is good for the public to understand and allow more security. True security efforts are not a denial of civil liberties (which is where I think you were going here), and the enemy already knows what this guy knows. Let the public become more aware of what the battle here is truly about and what it takes to protect ourselves against true believers who want to kill us. I actually work with people who ran out not too long ago and bought a bunch of plastic sheeting and duct tape. It took awhile to explain to them that those products are not made to guard against biological warfare and that anything that could would limit their air supply. Panic behavior. As for civil liberties, I understand that people are afraid of abuse in that area, but if everyone can look up what the enemy can look up there have to be some secrets. Checks and balances in our governmental structure are the only way to make it work. Founding fathers stuff. For the rest: I would love to see a good book that explains the Libertarians' political philosophy - a true synopsis. If you guys know of one, hook me up with a title, author and publisher. Not just a website, unless it does the job. I don't think I know enough about that to comment intelligently. All most of us see is the stuff used to discredit them. As for the Korean situation, same deal or show me the tape! A book you might know of might be more in-depth. As for the morons who blow up on TV, either they didn't get enough attention as a child, they are unprepared for the forum into which they've thrown themselves - or they are just narcisistic a**holes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 26th, 2004, 11:10pm Callie, regarding the issue of South Korea, really, those two shows I make mention of would give you a good picture of things and, ultimately, be a great start. The one on The History Channel, "Inside North Korea", should be able to be tracked down. The one from PBS will probably be more difficult. It's an episode of "Wide Angle". ... So, earlier tonight, amidst my crazy busy schedule, which did not even allow me to get on "the Gridiron" until now, I did catch a discussion between a member of "Muslims for Bush" and another conservative Muslim, who is changing colors, but not for Kerry; he is going to vote Libertarian. Anyway, when posed with pointed questions regarding the Patriot Act, which he had a problem with (and, mind you, so did the other guy, but to a much more "reasonable" degree), all he could do is "reach" for and draw allusions (I like to call them "illusions") to the WWII Japanese internment camps and then, halting the show in relative, dramatic fashion, to wish happy birthday to the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Dude, easy now. The Patriot Act and, moroever, how it has been employed is not even comparable. The clock is not being turned back. If you think it is, you really need to broaden your outlook and not give in to clandestine conspiracy theories and panic over the perceived power religious ultra-conservatives wield so easily. Look at our society... Come on! Now, the rich (white) elite businessmen of America, like those of Enron, need a VERY WARY eye turned toward them as our future unfolds. They are the true scumbags of our society AND, as I have stated earlier on this thread, it is a credit to the Bush administration for bringing them down. ... And, then, Jim Brown debating Dr. (of Philosophy (of Philosophy, if you follow ;) ), might I add [smiley=awwgee.gif] ) Bill Bennett was just silly. Brown just blathered away and, ultimately, conceded to the "appeal to reason" Bennett was making. Stay or get "on point", Jim! ::) ... And, now I am looking at protesters naively protesting our two-party system. I guess that part we need to toss. It's nice to see people arbitrarily deciding what works and what doesn't (based on what they want). Bottom line, it's just another domino: it's not enough to just be a liberal (democrat) anymore. ... And, now, naked protesters. [smiley=ohshit.gif] ... ::) These people need jobs, hobbies, LIVES, some dignity and pride or something. Meanwhile, all they are really accomplishing is causing all kinds of havoc for the "common folk". "Your freedom to speak is only as valuable as your freedom to educate yourself!!!" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 29th, 2004, 3:42pm Quote:
Excellent quote. Is anyone watching the protest marchers in New York on C-Span? Yeah, these are the people I want running a country...(We need a "Dripping Sarcasm" smiley.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 29th, 2004, 5:28pm on 08/29/04 at 15:42:18, Callie wrote:
That's a Steggie original, no less. ;D I've actually come up with a couple "inspired" ones lately. I'll save them for a more appropriate time, or at least let this one be fully enjoyed first. :D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 29th, 2004, 5:41pm I almost asked if that one was yours. Thought it might be. Very good. I'm looking forward to hearing more. As for the rest of it, don't get me wrong - I love a good peaceful demonstration. But this one was a) very organized by someone with an agenda because you can't get something like that done any other way, and b) using a lot of people who were doing young rebellion, a lot of people who don't think, and a lot of people who were just looking for a chance for a good party. I am sure some of the protesters were good thinkers and could discuss their views intelligently - just not most of them. Young rebellion is good if peaceful. That's how we learn. I respect the honest and thinking protesters there much more than I respect the people at my office who buy duct tape and plastic to protect themselves against biological warfare. The people at my office will never think, and therefore their thoughts will never grow and evolve. But a parade like that one is impossible to pull off without a very big organization behind it. Gee, I wonder who that might be..... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 30th, 2004, 9:12pm Here's a quote for you, Steg (and your Mom, too): Your soccer daughter plays on a soccer field instead of dying on one, because my child served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Nice bumper sticker, huh? Although it would take a pretty big bumper! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Sep 7th, 2004, 8:10pm Political guests at this year's mock draft: http://www.junkyardjake.com/samples/mock2004/teams7_8.htm JYJ :^) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 7th, 2004, 8:33pm on 09/07/04 at 20:09:13, junkyardjake wrote:
Yes, of course, they should. But, not necessarily as you state. They should make sure some even-tempered, reason-able, non-acrimonious and, yes, fair-and-balanced (hyphenated) political commentary is part of their diet, not just incendiary (pop-cultural), shortsighted hype...rbole. Quote:
So, how many billion does that make not protesting? ;) And, anyway, where was that "scientific" number gotten from (and I don't mean a source)? And, does that include the Korean protestors nowprotesting the American military's pulling out or the ones then protesting the American military's NOT pulling out? And, how many women protestors does that include in Iraq and Afganistan? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 7th, 2004, 9:44pm Okay, okay... ... My wife ALWAYS asks/reminds me, "Steve, you are developing your philosophy, not just regurgitating other's?" making sure my thought is mine and original. That just seemed like an appropriate thing to post here. All of these quotes... They are not weaved together into a cogent argument (not that it couldn't be). It's just a quote here, a quote there. And, in any event, your quote there addresses the issue of the right to protest or efficacy of protesting, anachronistically (and tendentiously) though, i.e. in light of a very different historical period and context (with some, general similarities to this one, but HUGE, overriding differences). It does NOT really substantively "respond" to/address me and my post. It's like it ignores it. But, whatever,... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 8th, 2004, 9:27am Oh, brother... Dude, I'm not questioning the right to protest. We don't need to defer to MLK (perhaps erroneously, but I, and you I am sure too, do NOT feel like nor have the time to argue out the generality and timelessness of his quote versus the specificity and contextual limitations of it). Hell, our country was founded by a revolution, a few steps up from a protest. I am putting under (due) scrutiny the how (and maybe why, when, where, who and what) of the protesting, not the protesting itself. You are twisting my words to pigeon-hole me into a category of people I do not belong. I just pointed out the billions of people not protesting,... period. I said those who do should go about it mindfully, not not go about it at all. In the modern day, when I see protestorrs, seven to nine times out of ten I go ::) , get a grip; go home to your two-story houses or college dorm rooms and think for a second before you go out and make a public disgrace of yourselves (and perhaps send the wrong message, moreover, to our enemies). [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Since you are always wanting to pose questions to me, how about ALL the questions I've laid out there on this thread that have gone specifically if not wholly unaddressed by you. How about the theory that the protestors of Vietnam during the 60's and 70's detrimentally affected our military effort in Vietnam... since we are going tit for tat? I got enough random facts to back up my paradigm as you evidentally do yours. I'm just not choosing to spew them out here (because, to be quite honest, it's rather boring and, more importantly, conducive to acrimony (because it comes down to whose facts seem better or are more popular (here) and tit for tat.)) If you want to persuade someone, you've got to weave everything into a cogent, logical argument, not just parade out or string together facts, hypotheticals, famous quotes and rhetorical questions, all of which may or may not be specifically interrelated or together applicable. The sum of the parts does not necessarily equal the whole. Quickly, regarding the Jesus thing, I hope you are not suggesting the "turn the other cheek" thing. In that case, your (anti-)argument really starts to fall by the wayside (should we have not revolted against the British? should we have not enter WWII after Pearl Harbor?). For one, he was speaking of personal ethics, not the state. Secondly, he never did specifically address what to do if you do turn the other cheek and that one gets, not slapped, but whacked with a hammer. As I see it, our "situation" in the middle east are more about envy, a percieved uneven distribution of wealth favoring America (because, mind you, they haven't built squat in the middle east in like 2,000 years... because they've been too busy blowing shit up) and general hatred of our way of life (which includes women having a voice and showing their hair and legs and tummies [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] ) and a lack of or a naive understanding of international matters and how they are interwoven and hegemony than any particular policy or issue or set thereof. None of this, though, mind you, was what this thread was supposed to be for, anyway, eh-hem, by the way. Anyway, good luck and go Nader! :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 8th, 2004, 5:35pm on 09/08/04 at 11:41:14, junkyardjake wrote:
Just a point of clarification and nuance,... I wasn't applying that part to the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that you cannot say what I wrote is not applicable to the situation in Iraq (it isn't). But, I want it to be clear that that is NOT what I was proposing. Quote:
Well, for the zillionth time, ::) bottom line, it is here where we disagree. We don't need to keep rehashing this over and over again. [smiley=deadhorse.gif] It's getting laborious... and unproductive. You are not persuading me and I don't have much interest in persuading you and, ultimately, this thread wasn't supposed to be about persuading, period, at least not overtly or in a very overtly political fashion. At least, let's be less obvious(ly partisan) and more subtle about it. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Sep 8th, 2004, 6:10pm 0-KAY... You don't want quotes, but how about Ben Franklin.... Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society. - Benjamin Franklin Genius without education is like silver in the mine. - Benjamin Franklin He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals. - Benjamin Franklin He that lives upon hope will die fasting. - Benjamin Franklin Hide not your talents, they for use were made. What's a sun-dial in the shade? - Benjamin Franklin If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect. - Benjamin Franklin So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. - Benjamin Franklin AND THE NUMBER ONE BEN FRANKLIN QUOTE: Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. - Benjamin Franklin Do you even get the points you have made that I am responding to? Both of you have many good things to say. Just say them. And remember, Franklin was one of the best politicians/diplomats/statemen who ever lived. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Sep 9th, 2004, 9:15am 2004 Sep 3-5 National Poll John Kerry and John Edwards (D) 45% George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (R) 52% Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo (I) 1% Neither/other/no opinion 2% The most recent Gallup Poll of likely voters in the 2004 election. Your boy Nader has a little catching up to do. Hopefully he'll get a big bounce from the Green Convention. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by captainpurple on Sep 9th, 2004, 10:26am on 09/07/04 at 20:09:13, junkyardjake wrote:
You don't seriously believe this part of your diatribe/argument do you? Let's see, it's common knowledge that al-Qaida or some related organization exists and is active in Indonesia, Iraq, Tanzania, Nairobi, Kenya, England, France, Turkey, Phillipines.... Further speculation that it is also in Chechnya, Kazakhstan, US, Spain... Frankly, I don't think you're paying attention if you cling to the foolish notion that the 2nd battle in a huge, possibly decades long war should've "solved" the problem. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Sep 9th, 2004, 10:35am Quote:
Is Nader really up to 1%?, cool ! Actually, I have decided I will be writing in an entire administration on election day, where Nader would be smaller but important part. (I mentioned this to him, and he seemed to be OK with it). President - Pat Buchanan Vice President - Mario Cuomo Secretary of State - Jimmy Carter Secretary of Defense - John McCain (R- AZ) National Security Advisor - Ron Paul (R- Texas) Secretary of Commerce - Jack Kemp Attorney General - Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill) SEC Chairman - Ralph Nader (You want to see corporate crime disappear for real ?) CIA Director - James McDermott (D -WSH), with a severely slashed budget adequate to support 3 per diem agents, Peter Falk, James Garner and Andy Griffth. Everytime I've watched Columbo, The Rockford Files or Madlock, I've never saw these guys blow a case, especially when really obvious stuff was involved, which the current clowns we have can't seem to grasp. FBI- Really just need two agents here, Bruce Willis and Steven Seagal; They never seemed to have a problem fighting scores of terrorists simultaneously under really adverse conditions with hardly any weapons. For all the other agencies, especially the Dept of Education and the Dept. of Homeland Security, as well as the miscellaneous useless ones I can't think of, I will recommend immediate disbandment. Anyway, I guess I need to get to the polls early, this could take a while. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by captainpurple on Sep 9th, 2004, 10:54am ;D Dude, you forgot Charlton Heston as head of the ATF! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Sep 9th, 2004, 11:12am Quote:
If we get the rest of the appointments, I have no problem with that, sometimes you have to compromise. Just remember not to take the family to Detroit, or South Central LA for vacation, it will probably look like this: [smiley=flamewar.gif] [smiley=firinback.gif] [smiley=gunsablazin.gif] [smiley=wagingwar.gif] [smiley=ready4war.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 9th, 2004, 11:46am on 09/09/04 at 07:50:47, junkyardjake wrote:
As you are as well, my friend. :) Don't present it as though it were a one-way street..., namely you against the/this world or whatever (at least that is somewhat how it appears you are stating it). [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Quote:
I fear that you are confusing truth with (a string of) facts. In any event, the certitude of factual data is epistomologically dubious. You are awfully confident and bold in your ability to perceive (ALL of) the facts "as they exist". Of course, again, this speaks nothing of truth. [smiley=zenmaster.gif] Quote:
Is this situation akin to your not knowing about/understanding my not wanting to devulge my songs on the music thread, i.e., you hadn't read/(mindfully/consider-ately) paid attention to it enough to understand what I was up to/going on? Most did and went along accordingly or at least grokked it to the degree that no explanation on my part was necessary if they did biff. Did you not read through the first handful of posts of this thread and see the pattern/what's going on here? bgsgfan surely did as per his post on the previous page and his point of trying to "bring this back around"? The approach was MUCH different than yours has been; it was much less acrimony-filled. Remember, as most forget, that on an on-line message-board forum reading is just as important, if not more so, than posting. People on these message-board forums tend to want to post their thoughts in a knee-jerk type of way in response simply to the "subject line" of a thread instead of reading through the thread first and seeing what is really going on. Quote:
Case in point,... ::) when (deductive and careful inductive) logic(al truth) is fleeting, just go with a fallacious ad hominem attack. :-/ ... Once again, I have presented (little to) nothing "political" in this thread. My "call" is more to you as a compatriot (and friend) to be more cogent, not for me or us, but for yourself mainly. I, again, ultimately, could care less where you wind up. I am just trying to (help you) make sure that HOW you ended up where you wound up is acceptable... to you, not me... especially as it, with your deluge of facts, etc., etc., herein, almost seems more like you are trying to convince yourself, not me or anybody else. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 9th, 2004, 12:25pm on 09/09/04 at 11:55:39, junkyardjake wrote:
GREAT! There is nothing further to discuss. :) Quote:
Go get some cogency and we'll talk. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 9th, 2004, 1:26pm I am not in any way, shape or form calling you indecisive. That is a miscontruing on your part. As for the rest, I am satisfied with the "conclusion" (especially vis-a-vis the time I can allot to this at this point in time... I have messed with this way too much today, bottom line). In any event, you said you are not trying to persuade me, so... I GOTTA GO! [smiley=onit.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 9th, 2004, 6:13pm on 09/09/04 at 17:20:38, junkyardjake wrote:
?.?.? ... Okay, I gotta go,... really. [smiley=getoff.gif] ... [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 9th, 2004, 6:49pm on 09/09/04 at 17:20:38, junkyardjake wrote:
?.?.? What is a Machiavellian Communist? [smiley=uh.gif] That's what I meant. Let's not waste precious hard-drive space with dictionary "quotes" now, please. As if... Haven't we enough cut-and-pasted quotes on this here thread? "the Gridiron" is (supposed to be) about original content! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 11th, 2004, 11:53am on 09/10/04 at 18:18:57, junkyardjake wrote:
To call my theory and notion (which we discussed in brief on the phone and which I have presented fairly adequately here on this thread) "communist" is to not pigeon-hole it into an "-ism" and, ultimately, not do it justice. For one thing, the word "Communism" just has way too many pejorative connotations (some justified, many not) at this point in history for "communism" to really be understood. As I have stated before (including on the phone with you), "Communism" based on a Marxian revolution (of sorts) was destined to be a failure. As per St. Thomas More, capitalism must first runs its course. The transition (to "mutual exchange") must be natural and not forced (and is not likely even possible for hundreds of years and absolutely impossible now). Quote:
For the millionth fuckin' time, I am not saying he lied. YOU are! Don't put words in my mouth, damn it! He might have played his hand... the hand he was dealt over-aggressively, and as any good card player does he definitely concealed what cards he could (assuming we are playing stud poker) or should (the degree to which I am Machiavellian, i.e., I don't think we/I should/need to know everything 1) for security and strategic military purposes and 2) because many to most laypeople are shortsighted and cannot see the bigger picture, unable to see the world... things beyond now, their lifetimes and their concerns), I do NOT think he boldly lied. And, in any event, I think his actions were consistent with a bigger truth/reality and according goal (which I have explained on this thread, at this site quite thoroughly and lucidly). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Sep 12th, 2004, 9:28pm All politicians lie. Period. If this isn't true, I'd like to see evidence to the contrary. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Sep 12th, 2004, 9:31pm Do a web search on Narcissist Personality Disorder. Of course they do. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Sep 16th, 2004, 7:01pm Here is an address for the Department of Justice: ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov It is not a web site or link. Just copy and paste it in as an email address. I did that tonight, and I told them that forgery of military documents is a federal crime and that the forgers should be pursued and tried for that federal crime - and if guilty, imprisoned. This does not necessarily mean that the Kerry campaign or Dan Rather are federal criminals. It means that someone is. This is another act of terrorism against our government, maybe more like Oaklahoma City, but an act of terrorism just the same. I am not over-reacting. Anyone with a word processor can attact any belief construct. There should be accountability. Make your voice heard. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 21st, 2004, 12:06pm on 09/21/04 at 11:54:39, junkyardjake wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 30th, 2004, 4:00pm The timing of your post is SO IRONIC given my plans here momentarily... Thanks for the substantive commentary and links, though. [smiley=tired.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Oct 30th, 2004, 4:16pm Oh you are quite welcome, feel free to actually read them to. I guess I scared away the crickets on this board, noone has said anything for over a month. So how's school going, and since when did you become interested in substance ? [smiley=LMFAO.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Oct 30th, 2004, 4:25pm I thought he meant he was about to break down a door. Not scared away, Jake. Just not able to do some of my favorite things for just a while. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 30th, 2004, 4:34pm on 10/30/04 at 16:16:50, junkyardjake wrote:
Whatever, dude, keep gettin' your fill of propaganda and patching together that bumper-sticker philosophy of yours... There is time in life only to read so much. Best to identify and weed out the garbage efficiently so "true substance" can be seen (by the contemplative mind). You did not "scare" anybody off. I was the main or perhaps even only person entertaining your "deal". When I no longer had time to, and still don't, it went dead. Your whole schtick is [smiley=violin.gif] and most even-tempered, level-headed people don't even want to bother with it/be bothered by it. School is great, by the way. Learning a lot about "substance", "truth-seeking" and "deduction", not "rhetoric" and "digging for examples", the art of lawyers. ... Anyway, on to a (long overdue and overdue long ;) ) post... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Oct 30th, 2004, 5:08pm Wow, you are grouchy [smiley=pirate.gif] I know, it's always propaganda and conspiracy when we hear things that we don't agree with. Just like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, evidently there is not a shred of factual material in that. Quote:
I hope not, I wasn't inferring that I did. Quote:
Terrific, that would be refreshing, I'll believe it when I see it. Quote:
Ouch, although I can't say you are completely inaccurate on the digging for examples part. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 30th, 2004, 5:18pm on 10/30/04 at 17:08:10, junkyardjake wrote:
Good lying is always entrenched in half-truths. The point is that the sum total of the half-truths presented do NOT equal the bigger claims being asserted. Sure, there may be a (tendentiously-selected) shred here and a(n equivocally-presented) shred there. But, they are just what they are... shreds, and which is what that movie should be cut up into. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 30th, 2004, 7:10pm I ran out of time to post my response to Callie's question below and elaborate on issues we were discussing back then regarding Israel prior to Klockner's post... I had hand-written the following back then. I am now going to type it on up and post. I had put much thought into it and feel that it is still worth sharing... on 08/18/04 at 22:26:50, Callie wrote:
(In response to the question...) Nothing directly or specifically, really, Callie. I tend not to read (destined-to-be) dated, albeit contemporary, stuff that is politically-skewed and books that can be largely told by their covers. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", gee, what's that book about? [offtopic]Look, there is an inherent, long-term contradiction between the political system of democrary and the economic system of capitalism, which is just starting to come out in western democratic, capitalist societies, and which, I betchya, is not even addressed in this "in-the-box", politically-motivated analysis/critique.[/offtopic] To answer your question with a bit more specificity, a couple contemporary pieces that might stand up for an extended while (in history) that I've perused, Peter F. Drucker's Post-Capitalist Society, Philip K. Howard's The Death of Common Sense and Billy O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out For You?. Mind you, these are not pieces I take from cover to cover as gospel (no book do I). For a little more comprehensive picture of readings that have affected my worldview more generally, take a look-see at the "G.T.K.Y.G. - Book Club (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=58;action=display;num=1037240341)" thread. I, moreover, also believe that the ancients and books that have stood (more of) the test of time have potentially more to say of value in general than people and books written contemporaneously. ... At any rate, prior to piling reading material up (to a degree that is unreasonable for the average human mind and within the average human lifespan to complete with a degree of intelligibility), you need to give your brain a workout. Just like you couldn't get on a football field without some serious physical training first, your brain needs training too. Incidentally, that's actually what I think Philosophy is about first and foremost; it is the weightroom for your mind. You want to hone your reasoning skills, phenomenologically almost. You want to make sure you can think straight, so to speak, and think "through" an issue "to" its truth. I believe that to really understand an "issue" you have to confront the issue head-on and learn about the "issue" itself, not the sides of the issue, which are competing for "popular" support. What I mean... For example, take the "issue" of Israel and Palestine. You read the Old Testament and the Talmud and the Koran. You read up on and watch shows about the relevant history from objective sources (that you can "tell" are not subjective or "motive-ated", like the ones I've mentioned here on this thread regarding North and South Korea). You make some Jewish/Israeli and Muslim/Palestinian friends and pick their brains. You perhaps even try to visit Israel, preferably with some Hebrew and Arabic under your belt so you can communicate with the locals. Then and only then if you find yourself leaning in one direction, you possibly pick up some material expressing the opposite position so as to challenge yourself. [offtopic]What the point is is that there is a serious, underlying epistomological question here, one that begs the question, "what/how much can we know certainly?" Is getting at the "truth" of something about collecting more and more "knowables" (setting aside the "unknowables", for argument's sake), no less those of just one side of the "debatable"?[/offtopic] (Back around to where I was before Klockner's post and, mind you, still am...) I actually do not feel very comfortable about my take on Israel. I have a take, but I feel it is generalized and surely incomplete. Bottom line, I myself waver between our needing to remain firm in our support of Israel and cutting our losses with Israel and backing off our supporting them. Ultimately, I just do not know, [smiley=shrug.gif] but what I do/can understand causes me to usually lean (very cautiously, i.e. dispassionately, i.e. not passionately like JYJ seems to be) in the direction of the former position of sticking beside Israel. However, I do have an intimate and more complete understanding and my finger on the pulse of what is going on on the Korean peninsula. And, my time in Korea along with some further travels amounting to significant experience outside America, I have somewhat of a general non-domestic/semi-global perspective that is transferable to some small degree (I like to think, given my study of the art of thinking (for itself)) and can give me just a sliver of insight into international issues in general, such as Israel. But, that would only be to the degree that I have done my homework on Israel, which, again, is not that much. And, yet, it takes A LOT (epistomologically, but I would like to simply say really, speaking)! Not many people really understand the issue of Israel even though many have opinions on it. And just because someone seems to have a firm stance doesn't mean they "really" do (have a firm foundation to this stance). They may just be speaking from a "platform", moreover, one, given our systemically bipartisan system, that must merely be contrary to the other's. Likewise, in kind, just because someone wavers does not mean they understand less. They may just be being humble and/or in the process of wrestling with the issue. ... That was where I finished writing back in mid-August... For Mr. Quotey, I'd like to include the following quotes which jumped out at me when I encountered them in light of the reasoning I left off with above; they are from this little-known guy, DESCARTES, from 375 or so years ago: "...many people do not know what they believe, since believing something and knowing that one believes it are different acts of thinking, and the one often occurs without the other." "And so I thought that since the sciences contained in books - at least those based upon merely probable, not demonstrative, reasoning - is compounded and amassed little by little from the opinions of many different persons, it never comes so close to the truth as the simple reasoning which a man of good sense naturally makes concerning whatever he comes across." "...so I learned not to believe too firmly anything of which I had been persuaded only by example..." "...in practical life it is sometimes necessary to act upon opinions which one knows to be quite uncertain just as if they were indubitable. But since I now wished to devote myself solely to the search for truth, I thought it necessary to do the very opposite and reject as if absolutely false everything in which I could imagine the least doubt..." (JYJ, my friend, a good dose of Cartesian "radical doubt", though not necessary for most, could be useful to you.) "Living here, amidst this great mass of busy people who are more concerned with their own affairs than curious about those of others, I have been able to lead a life as solitary and withdrawn as if I were in the most remote desert, while lacking none of the comforts found in the most populous cities." (That was brought up really just to juxtapose my experience(s) living in Korea for seven years to Descartes's nine in Holland.) - "Discourse on the Method", Parts 2, 3 & 4 ... Lastly, to bring this back around full-circle to the truer spirit of Callie's question and something I said I was going to post months ago before Callie's question... The following are TV shows that I would HIGHLY recommend to any right-minded person able to think on his or her own: "Dennis Miller" (CNBC) - http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/TV_Info/P72123.asp "Hard Ball with Chris Matthews" (MSNBC) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ "Meet The Press with Tim Russert" (MSNBC) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ "The O'Reilly Factor" (FNC) - http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly "FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace" (FNC) - http://www.foxnews.com/fns "Heartland with John Kasich" (FNC) - http://www.foxnews.com/heartland "ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" (ABC) - http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/WNT/ (but not with Koppel, one is enough; Jennings is ("relatively") better than the other choices) I didn't suggest "Hannity & Colmes", which, mind you, I do like, but is hardcore, and Sean Hannity, whom, mind you, I like a lot, is just way partisan even for me sometimes, and Colmes is just a wishy-washy liberal, whose role is so "staged". Dennis Miller would probably be my #1 choice, but I've watched more of Bill O'Reilly, my #2 man, in fact. Tim Russert is fantastic, but he has to take too much of a middle-ground approach given the format of his show(s) and conceal his truly "red" blood. In any event, from any of these shows or a combination thereof, one can get a pretty fair and balanced version of things. This is a little bit late in the going for this election. But, I guess that is good. It is more consistent with what the "original" point of this thread was supposed to be, i.e. no partisan flag-waving. ... Okay, that's it... I'm going home. [smiley=tired.gif] ... [smiley=RIF.gif] (mind you, according to JYJ, the book in front of "me smiley" there contains no substance) Oh, and by the way,... the irony... I still haven't received my absentee ballot, which I applied for two weeks ago, and probably won't in time. I guess the Democratic powers-that-be-for-now in New Jersey are holding it back. [smiley=annoyed.gif] ... [smiley=spstan.gif]-"They killed Steggie's vote!" "You, bastards!"-[smiley=spkyle.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Nov 1st, 2004, 1:06am Quote:
Have you even seen the documentary ? Are you really being intellectually honest in your opinion here ? You seem to harbor disdain for the regurgitation of partisan rhetoric, yet if you told me that this quote was directly attributed to Ann Coulter, I would be inclined to believe it. Maybe you should follow your own advice and actually form your own conclusion. By the way, it is common knowledge that Moore assembled an extensive team of lawyers and fact-checkers, and if you would like to reference the background material of all these facts they are conveniently listed on Moore's site: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16 Thank you for the Descartes quotes, it made me research him a bit. (Unfortunately, I believe I have to conclude he was a serious drinker, or maybe invented recreational mushrooms). Quote:
I'm really not sure what the relevance of this quote is. As you should know, Dr. Philosphophy, even Descartes himself had ultimately rejected his absurd hypothesis that certain knowledge was impossible. He reconciled his 'how do I know if I am just dreaming my conclusions ?' by making a cognitive decision that *od existed and that He would not deceive. In any event, is there not a difference between philosphical skepticism and scientific skepticism ? Philosophical skepticism - Obviously relates to some of the issues that Descartes wrestled with after consuming large quantities of his homemade spirits. What does it mean to think ? Is knowledge possible ? Does *od exist ? Do our perceptions match reality ? Why did I wakeup in my neighbors barn with a tattoo of Mighty Mouse on my ass ? Which fortunately contrasts with the far more practical form of skepticism: Scientific skepticism - Where one does not accept the veracity of a claim until solid evidence is produced. (which by the way requires examples and facts...however inconvienient that might be) For example, your assertation that America was attacked because of 'envy' is rather superficial when evaluated against the weight of actual testimony, facts and evidence. None of which I will bore you with here, lest I be accused of giving uninvited quotes and examples. As far as your media list, I think it is great, I like Tim Russert the best, as I have mentioned to you, and Chris Matthews is boisterous, but usually informative. John Kasich and Scarborough are rather partisan, but you can tell that they genuine in character, and that's important. I can't say anything nice about Bill O'Reilly, especially in light of his recent settlement of a sexual harrassment suit, so I won't. As far as Dennis Miller, he has pretty much lost his objectivity and the only reason he is probably still on the air is because 'Kudlow and Kramer' and 'The McEnroe Show' are somehow more embarrassing. However, he is still without question one of the funniest guys on the planet. Two sources you forgot to mention are: CSPAN, the only truly unbiased and non-partisan political media source. http://www.c-span.org/ and 'The Daily Show' with Jon Stewart - Even funnier than Miller, completely irreverent in it's lambasting of the entire political process and corporate media whores that make it even more unbearable. "Four correspondents! Zero credibility!.....Even better than being informed!" But the real joke? The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey reports that Daily Show viewers follow the presidential campaign more closely and are more educated than the average American. http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/ Also, don't forget to check out Stewart's book, 'America' (Currently number #1 on Amazon, as well as the NY Times nonfiction bestseller list). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Nov 1st, 2004, 1:32am Yeah, guys. I watch all of the shows you have both mentioned (except Jennings). You can argue that they are all pushing their points, and they are. But the thing that interests me most is that Steg is in the philosophy world, sounds like Jake is in the lawyer world, and I am in the psychology world. If politics is anything, it is the intersection of these three worlds. Philosophy, law, and psychology of human behavior. What do you guys have to say about that? Or do I get ignored? Unintentionally - to stay on your argument, I know. But what is the reality to you? That is what makes a difference to the morons who cannot think, so they need to know. This is not spin. This is actual thinking! Go from there? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Nov 1st, 2004, 8:27am on 11/01/04 at 01:32:08, Callie wrote:
That is the first really different (to me) and exciting thing I have heard in this thread. Thanks. Random Thoughts Quote:
I heard this quote in the movie The Gladiator. It sounds like something that probably came from another source, [smiley=shrug.gif]. Ayhow, I worry that we have become the mob. With such an emphasis on the democratc process, and an apparent ever declining morality, the rights of individuals in the minority are getting burried more and more. Quote:
One of the most moronic "Bumper Sticker" slogans ever. Thou shall not kill. Obviously the basis of law is morality. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 1st, 2004, 6:09pm Jake, I don't know what to say. You surely are a know it ALL! Descartes's end-game reconciliation NEVER changed his stance on the process (to get there), on the "method". ... But, I digress... You know it all. What am I thinking? You know ALL of your facts... and ALL of mine... and ALL of the facts necessary to get at the ABSOLUTE objective truth of it ALL. I don't know why I just don't go out and buy an idol of you and Justin McCareins and start lighting incense and bowing. [smiley=worship.gif] In any event, I was being a bit facetious ( ;) , Jeff) and using hyperbole regarding your need for "radical doubt" (obviously, Descartes's "radical doubt" is a source of major contention). The rest was completely sincere, the quotes that is. My whole point all along, Jake, is that the total often does not equal the sum of the parts; the trees themselves are not the forest, and you keep on beating me over the head with engine parts and trees. ... Callie, that surely is an interesting observation. Noted and worthy of further investigation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 1st, 2004, 6:30pm For those who remain undecided... on 06/30/04 at 15:15:39, StegRock wrote:
Election's tomorrow and NO HOMELAND ATTACKS (since 9/11). "Our" guys have either done a great job of protecting us and at least limiting the threat of al-Qaeda (like or lump "our" method) OR "our" actions haven't created as much more hatred in the Muslim world toward us as many so absolutely and confidently "know" and would have you believing, or should I say "knowing", too. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding of our very daily homeland lives since 9/11. DON'T OVER-THINK IT (tomorrow)! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Nov 1st, 2004, 9:39pm Quote:
I appreciate your conspicuously sarcastic flattery, but if I truly knew anything, I would not have picked the Minnesota Vikings defense in your CBFL league (they are good for a minus 50 points every week evidently, f&&king Ted Cottrell, I should have known after seeing him last year as Jets coordinator). I think I have finally figured out the stock market though, let me know when you are ready to invest and maybe I can save you some money with my horror stories. Quote:
I don't....Descartes was a drunken idiot. Quote:
Does this make Bill Clinton twice the super-fantastic President ? Afterall, 8 years transpired between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 2001 attack. Quote:
Great point Callie, in fact modern politics might be more realistically portrayed as mostly psychology, a whole lot of school-yard rock fight, and a very sparse amount of law and philosophy. I would venture to say that there seems to be a very strong parallel between the marketing of say, toothpaste, and a modern Presidential candidate. With toothpaste, you know the crap all does the same thing, but companies will spend millions on package design, fancy advertising and focus groups and surveys to determine sentiment and opinions. In the end, marketers are just looking for those subtle cognitive triggers to sell their new undifferentiated crappy product; the basis upon which you choose toothpaste is more likely based on who creates the best perception. The same thing applies to GW Bush and John Kerry, there are no discernible differences between these jackasses and they know it. So they rely on polls to figure what to support and say, and advertising to alter perceptions. In the end, it's totally about psychology and which line of bullshit you choose to believe. Quote:
Amen to that bgsgfan Quote:
You correct in a universal sense, but this adage tacitly assumes that reprehensible behavior that is dangerous to society (i.e. criminal offenses such as robbery), and behavior that results in damages to others without intention (i.e. negligence,such as a supermarket that doesn't pick up banana peels) are implicitly covered by legislation. The type of behaviors that this aphorism applies to involve those that present no harm to others, or should not be made obligatory because of our American value of individual autonomy. For example, it's certainly worthwhile to donate to charity, but should this behavior be mandated by law ? Also consider, if you see someone choking in a restaurant, intervening with the Heimlich Maneuver is of course the moral thing to do, but the law prescribes no obligation to do so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Nov 2nd, 2004, 12:07pm The "American value of individual autonomy:" ah, the great deceit. Our culture drives this notion into our mind at every turn. And yet this notion is really quite inconsistent. Clearly we're not totally autonomous: our actions are limited by law, and our very existence depends upon the action of others (we need food, shelter, etc.). So, our autonomy is limited (now there's a contradiction in terms). Man really is a social creature by nature; there is in man not only the dependency on others for the means of existence, but even a desire for companionship, for friendship. Community is a natural longing in man. So, we're not really all that "autonomous." As Frankl points out, each of us has true autonomy over our internal selves, that is, over our will. Conscience, will, etc. are all things that no one else can force one way or another. But is this all that can be said? Are we really free to choose anything we wish, to decide what is right for ourselves how we wish, etc? Clearly the answer cannot be an unqualified "yes," for most people would admit that, at the very least, our autonomy ends at the point at which we infringe upon the rights of another autonomous individual. I cannot decide that, for me, satanic worship is right and thus I must make human sacrifice. Every sane person would admit this. But look further: it is not only the external action of sacrificing a human being that falls outside the sphere of legitimate autonomy: the internal act of willing satanic worship, of desiring it, of declaring it "right" must also in some respect be outside of legitimate autonomy, for it naturally leads to the infringement upon another's "rights." This is where liberal society fails: it wishes to maintain total autonomy in internal actions of the individual, while restricting external autonomy to those actions which do not infringe upon the "rights" of another. Such a dichotomy is unmaintainable, for the internal actions (deciding what is right or wrong, desiring something, etc.) are the cause of the external actions. Therefore, if we are to limit the external actions, the internal actions must also be limited, albeit in a different way since no internal act can truly be coerced. So, ultimately, there is no pure autonomy. Man is held to a standard, with regard to both his external and his internal actions. In other words, true freedom is not the mere ability to choose whatever one wants. This is where "natural moral law" theory enters in. There must be a moral standard to which individuals hold themselves. One cannot dispense altogether with such a standard; though every aspect of it need not be legislated, clearly any society that wishes to function peacefully needs to legislate the basic demands of such a moral standard. How this is done is of course a huge topic of debate: ultimately, it seems to center around one's view of society and government. That is, do you see government as merely a negative institution, existing only to maintain peace in the society while allowing its citizens to decide however they want to live their lives? Or do you see it as a positive institution, as an integral part of society existing not only to maintain peace, etc., but also to promote the common good by means of positive legislation intended to perfect man, even through the positive legislation of virtue? The former view dispenses with the need for a common understanding of the nature of man and his happiness, while the latter view assumes that the well-being of society requires a unified agreement regarding these questions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by bgsgfan on Nov 2nd, 2004, 7:45pm What a tremendous way to enter the Gridiron, legends! I agree 100% that the question you pose is the overriding question we should each ask ourselves when analyzing our political positions. In answering the questions posed above, please think of the consequences of the "positive institution" of government. The road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Nov 2nd, 2004, 9:59pm Interesting post, (although I admit I had to read it four times to get the point). Quote:
I believe the answer here is 'Yes'. The government is hardly capable of fulfilling its real responsibilities of protecting our borders and efficiently providing public goods. Legislation is no substitute for personal responsibility, each citizen in a free society should act within his own moral parameters as prescribed by whatever spiritual guidance they wish to follow. Your personal transgressions are between you and *od. If you adversely affect anyone outside your sphere of misguided behavior, that is where the law applies. Would it be beneficial to society if all citizens espoused the virtues of kindness toward their fellow man, generous charitable works and a conscious acknowledgement of Judeo-Christian values ? Of course, but that's not the governments responsibility. If you have children, or you have a significant role in a child's life, it's your responsibility to teach and reinforce constructive values. Instead of contemplating what the government could do in it's commonly ill-fated attempts to strengthen the collective morals of society, we should be more interested in petitioning them to stop intervening where they should have no jurisdiction and usually end up causing additional harm. You want parent's to actually have the time to teach values to their children ? Stop taxing families to death so that both parents don't need to work just to maintain a standard of living. You want to promote the role of private charities and religious institutions in society as a supplementary safety net and an opportunity for well-meaning persons to pursue careers as philanthropists? Then aggressively encourage donations to charity by making these contributions 100% tax-deductible. You want individuals to espouse the values of personal responsibility, work ethic and contribute to society in some productive way ? Then don't encourage generations of welfare recipients by actually paying unwed mothers to have more children. (Unbelievable but true, thank you Newt Gringich for helping to eliminate this policy in 1995). I believe the same arguments apply to subsidized gambling (lotteries, Indian reservations) as well as subsidized abortions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by captainpurple on Nov 3rd, 2004, 8:48am I wanted to jump for joy and scream All is right in the world![ when I saw Bush win Ohio. But it really needs to be kept in mind that this is merely a step toward trying to make things closer to right. There is still plenty wrong in our own country let alone the world. With tremendous power, comes tremendous responsibility. Don't know who said it, don't feel like looking it up. But with a clear majority in all government now, and an increasing probability that Bush will be appointing another Supreme this term (surely a conservative), there's a real chance to accomplish some ideological change. I just hope Bush finds a spending bill he won't sign! Here's to America! What a great place to live! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Nov 3rd, 2004, 9:20am I'm not a Bush fan at all. I appreciate his stand on terrorism and protecting our country. I hope he spends the next four years working on getting our economy running strong again. I hope that his administration passes legislation that will temper skyrocketing healthcare costs. I hope that the preservation of the environment is an important issue. Bush has a lot of work to do. With that said, I'm happy that he won. I don't think Kerry would have been able to accomplish much with his lack of a firm (and consistent) stance on major issues. Finally, I'm happy that Michael Moore must be gagging on a Krispy Kreme right now. Yes, he has his cameras in Florida and Ohio documenting the election process, and I'm sure he'll spin the election in a way that shows that Bush didn't really win, but it's time to face the facts Mr. Moore. Now please put your politics aside and go back to making excellent documentaries that deal with issues instead of partisanship. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by captainpurple on Nov 3rd, 2004, 10:29am on 11/03/04 at 09:20:15, Philly wrote:
I can't find words to agree more. I especially appreciate the fact that you didn't even bring up Iraq. There is so much to do here in America to protect us from terror and make life better for our fellow citizens. While I don't want Bush taking his eye off the ball abroad, I sure hope someone takes the reigns domestically and tries to do something positively toward fixing social security, cutting discretionary spending, developing alternative fuel sources, improving our schools, reducing healthcare costs....and the list goes on. on 11/03/04 at 09:20:15, Philly wrote:
[smiley=gettinridden.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] on 11/03/04 at 09:20:15, Philly wrote:
[smiley=ragin.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Nov 3rd, 2004, 1:24pm Welcome to the Gridiron, legends! I enjoyed your first post very much. If I understand your post correctly, you are positing that internal wants and needs cause external behavior. Therefore if we legislate or otherwise restrict external autonomy, we effectively restrict internal autonomy. Since a society must restrict external autonomy in some ways, individual internal autonomy in a society is an illusion. Then further, you ask if we see government as external restrictions ignoring human nature, or do we see it as "positive legislation intended to perfect man." I believe that the problem with the dichotomy you present is in the fact that it is based on a false first premise - namely, that human internal drives are based on ANY idea of autonomy. You consider our need for community and tie it to societal needs, but then this is extended to a choice between external restrictions that do not consider human nature vs. external restrictions that not only consider human nature but also strive to "perfect man." I believe that the false premise is addressed by a nod to community and belonging as a basic drive, but then you seem to consider external restrictions to be somehow antagonistic to internal needs unless there is some humanism and some applied philosophy thrown in. One reason we package the candidates like toothpaste is that all marketing appeals to our basic needs for acceptance, and it works. We all need to belong to and be accepted by our "clan." Maslow states that physiological and safety needs must be met before humans can move on to fulfilling the need for love, acceptance and community. But individuals who become "stuck" at the level of a deficiency of safty and physiological needs are not bad or selfish or evil. They are emotionally "sick." That is not the natural state of human beings. Further, once belonging and then self-esteem needs are met, only then can humans seek what we consider higher ideals. So who gets to choose the methods for the humanistic healing of the emotionally stuck? That is the idealistic basis of our elections. And we vote for the person we feel is most like our own "clan." But most importantly, at the point of being able to seek higher ideals, my question is this: Who gets to choose which restrictions are going to perfect man? Our history is full of individuals who claimed to have the answer to how we should "perfect man." (I liked the school-yard rock fight comment in this thread because of a quote from Will Rogers: Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice kitty" until you can find a rock.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Nov 4th, 2004, 12:37pm Good news Philly, now that the election is over, I heard that Michael Moore will next address the far more relevant issue of Michael Vick's failure to master the 'West Coast Offense' and his inability to consistently throw for 200 yards a game. I believe the documentary will be called Vick or Fiction ? : The Unspeakable Truth Behind The Biggest Fraud in Fantasy Football. I also heard he's been snooping around that thread that you and Killer King Sting have been yelling at each other on for the last 2 months, so make sure that nipple-head doesn't mis-quote you on anything. Of course after the release of Vick or Fiction ?..., I would expect that Killer King would hire his own independant production company and counter-attack with his documentary- Unfit To Make Documentaries: Shut Up Michael Moore You Fat Bastard. It's all good though, as long as we finally get to the bottom of this perplexing issue. [smiley=smileytrash.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 6th, 2004, 2:13pm on 11/01/04 at 21:39:36, junkyardjake wrote:
Well, not that you are totally off-base, Jake,... but now ad hominem attacks on those I quote. Exasperating... I too think that he was a bit of a lazy ass with too much time on his hands to think about shit, and though he went about trying to reinvent the wheel oftentimes, he was brilliant and did come up with some brilliant ideas and systems (uh, analytic geometry) and to some brilliant conclusions. I just feel absolutely NO meeting of the minds with you, man (read, not agreement... meeting of the minds). Quote:
Oh, come on... 1) Pre- and post-9/11 are different worlds, apples and oranges largely; now we know their "fullest" capabilities/potential as well as their agenda more clearly; 2) 9/11/01 was barely into the Bush era; the Clinton regime was just as much if not more so asleep at the wheel or pussyfootish, however you want to look at it, with these jackasses on jackasses; 3) It is worth mentioning that there were significant non-wartime "terrorist" attacks against America abroad, the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy/consulate in Kenya, the military housing facility in Saudi Arabia, the Americans slain in the Philippines, etc. (what am I forgetting?); 4) And, oh, what about the Oklahoma City bombing; that was, eh-hem, terrorism on the homefront. ... You, at times, point out that you were both anti-Kerry and anti-Bush, but, boy, did you air your anti-Bush laundry here vis-a-vis your anti-Kerry sentiments like 100:1. I did not appreciate that (incessant) tack (where were your Kerry graphics?). ... Anyway, in my (peripheral) readings of late I came across these "QUOTES", which are worth MY reflecting on, and perhaps you all, too, will find them worth meditating on... "The Master said: 'The gentleman has universal sympathies and is not partisan. The small man is partisan and does not have universal sympathies.' The Master said: 'If one studies but does not think, one is caught in a trap. If one thinks but does not study, one is in peril.' The Master said: 'If one is attacked from different starting points, it is indeed damaging.' The Master said: 'You, shall I teach you about understanding something? When you understand something, to recognize that you understand it; but when you do not understand something, to recognize that you do not understand it-that is understanding.'" - Confucius, The Analects (Book 2, 14-17) Aside,... I love the Russellian and Socratic elements of the last quote. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Nov 6th, 2004, 8:31pm Quote:
This is an admittedly dismissive opinion on Descartes from someone who has not been subjected to the chinese water-torture of having to study him. Let me explain briefly why I've concluded that Decartes was a drunken idiot, and also why I do agree that his process was useful (although I imagine in perhaps a different way then you think it's useful). 1) Descartes seems to have expended a great deal of intellectual energy on a narcissistic and somewhat arrogant notion that all former conclusions should be abandoned and attempted to validate his thoughts by convincing himself that he wasn't being tricked by a 'wicked demon'. 2) Once he reintroduced the idea of a supreme being (i.e. *od, who would not deceive), this exposed his circuitous argument, and he could then trust that his thoughts were genuine. Now from my vantage point, I have never doubted the existence of *od, because personally I think there is ample evidence of a supreme being that is manifested in such things as, for example, us residing on a spinning mudball impeccably distanced from a giant ball of perpetual fusion. His process is interesting to me, because it illustrates how confusing and pointless existence might be to someone who has decided to follow an atheist/ agnostic viewpoint. Note to self: Never again comment on philosophy, it makes me dizzy and one Steg is clearly enough. Quote:
I was no fan of the Clinton administration, and I especially dislike Hillary Clinton, but this is a Republican party line that you may want to research the veracity of, here's a useful summary of what was happening to combat terrorism under Clinton: 1996 Clinton administration brokers an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart. 1998 -- Clinton gives the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means are necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States. -- The CIA, under Clinton, trains and equips five dozen commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The efforts collapse when a military coup overthrows the Pakistani government and installs a new one. -- Clinton signs a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against bin Laden and Afghanistan's Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since. -- Clinton's unleashes cruise missile attacks on bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- American forces miss killing bin Laden by only a couple of hours. 1998-99 -- Clinton sponsors legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, but it is killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. George Bush will later call for identical legislation -- but only after September 11, 2001. 1999-2000 -- Clinton Administration, through press spokesman Joe Lockhart, goes public with warnings of a "general" threat from Al Qaeda. Clinton's intelligence agencies then stop cold bin Laden's planned "millennium" bombing plot aimed against the Los Angeles International Airport. Quote:
Yes, that is true, the U.S.S. Cole, Kenya, the military installation in Saudi Arabia, and the Americans slain in the Philippines were all the result of Muslim extremists. The problem is, and I think your list is exhaustive, that was 4 events over 8 years, and now we have terrorist attacks every single day conducted against our troops in Iraq. I know you qualified your statement as 'non-wartime', but this distinction is irrelevant to me since I still believe the Iraq war was an unneccesary deversion to addressing the issue of terrorism. Also remember, that certain factions of the Bush administration and Bush himself were hellbent on invading Iraq regardless any connection to terrorism as per direct testimony by former officials Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. Quote:
This is your one example of a domestic terrorism event, but of course you know this has absolutely nothing to do with Muslim extremism. Timothy McVeigh was essentially a deranged individual that decided to protest what he thought was excessive use of federal authority in the Waco compound incident 2 years earlier. (This conclusion comports with McVeigh's own testimony) Quote:
That's a good point, but Kerry was, and is certainly now completely irrelevant. For one thing, I wouldn't even know where to start criticizing Kerry, because I could never figure out what the f&ck he stood for. Additionally, Kerry is not the guy who has somehow takes credit for combating terrorism, but has accomplished essentially nothing, expect vaporizing 100,000 Iraqi civilians in order to promote democracy in a country that never asked for it. Meanwhile, Bin Laden is still making homemovies and the Anthrax killer is a forgotten historical footnote. In fact, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Bush ordered federal agencies to "back off" the bin Laden family prior to 911, if true, what the f&ck is up with that ? I could go on and on, there's of course the fact that this adminstration has concealed more presidential records than any in history, they are responsible for the leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative involved with preventing terrorists from procuring dangerous weapons (remember Robert Novak ? this leaking was ostensibly done for political purposes because her husband told the truth about Iraqi's nuclear capabilities). The Bush administration also attempted to block the 911 commission, and if it weren't for four widows from your homestate of New Jersey (all former Bush supporters), we may never have even had that (although it unfortunately turned into somewhat of a pointless charade). Here's a quote from one of the 'Jersey Moms' that's fairly pertinent to this discussion: "The Bush people keep saying that Clinton was not doing enough to combat the Al Qaeda threat," said Ms. Kleinberg. "But nothing is less than not enough, and nothing is what the Bush administration did." Now I'm not saying that Bush doesn't sincerely care about the welfare of this country, I just don't appreciate the secrecy, the dishonesty and the political grandstanding with regards to the 'war on terrorism' over his first term. That said, I can't imagine that a Kerry presidency would be anything short of a disaster, so Bush was probably the better choice and maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Lastly, I think your quotes are awesome (perhaps the advice offered by these quotes will lead you to a more inquisitive approach to some of the nonsense you hear on Fox News ?) [smiley=smileytrash.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 11th, 2004, 5:23pm I just thought this was a neat, non-partisan, yet very appropriate quote to add (especially now after the dust is settling). It is from Descartes (again), his Discourse on the Method Part Two: "...a majority vote is worthless as a proof of truths that are at all difficult to discover; for a single man is much more likely to hit upon them than a group of people." Just a nice, non-acrimonious little ditty. :) It is worth noting that I think most of life, that is worth a damn, is difficult to discover, at first at least. [smiley=zenmaster.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 20th, 2004, 3:39pm I'm just going to throw this Steggie special I came up with today in the car [smiley=cruisin.gif] out atchyas (I've had one or two original goodies on here, I think): "All that 'tolerance' in America 'tolerates' is 'intolerance'." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 10th, 2005, 6:05pm Well, I am finally just getting this post in under the wire. With the semester starting up here today, I won't be dinkin' around this thread for a while. This is a story that happened to me quite awhile back (like in September). I have been wanting to tell it to you guys time and time again, but just could not make the time (to do it right, at least). I had locked my keys in my car and had to take a taxi back to my place where I had a spare set (yea, not on me, of course, [smiley=doh.gif] like a dipshit). The cab driver, a very nice chap, was from somewhere in Africa. I think it was Sudan, but don't quote me on that. It was the political season and some numskull just got elected to office in some special election in DC. His ensuing commentary about the state of things in general was "educational", especially since many in our society would never put such words in the mouth of someone from another country... He said that he wished that the world (including his homeland) could adopt the American system of government and general way of life... with the direct help of America. He pointed out that if this were so, the world would be at peace (again, he understands (and values) peace in a way that many an "average" American cannot). But, he pointed out the problem with and impediment to this (progress). You see, he said, leaders of these "governments", some quite primitive, want American money and aid, but they want to keep their complete power and autonomy in tact. So, they ignore the bigger-picture economic problems of the American system because they want that cash and help while emphasizing what they can to engender a dislike of the American way among their people, "nitpicking" (the exact word he used) that America did this "bad thing" here and this other "bad thing" there. This way they can take from America, but keep "their" power (thumbs) over "their" people. The truth is that our system and mix of democracy and capitalism and our resultant concept of freedom are quite ill (topic for a later discussion). We are not fixing these bigger-picture problems and, thus, killing ourselves from within while the smaller pictures are being blown out of proportion, exploited and used against us abroad. Then, here on the homefront we beat ourselves up with that fodder as well. Meanwhile, as my friend pointed out, it is not like these other countries do not have these kinds of skeletons, too. The scale may be smaller because the countries are and the scope of their influence is. However, the kinds of atrocities, like those taking place in his country, are in kind worse and more heinous. That's the short of the picture he painted and what I was able to see of it. Take it for what it's worth,... quite a bit, actually. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jan 11th, 2005, 10:09pm A lot of citizens of other parts of the world do not understand our checks and balances system. They are used to the idea that cheap shots actually mean something. They do not have a history of competing sides yapping at each other to end up somewhere in the middle (like the bad type of lawyers). To some, dissent against the ruling party means actually getting hurt - for real. I heard a great thing from Ann Coulter (sp?) tonight. It was like the George Will gate test - do you have gates to keep people out, or to keep people in. Ann mentioned the "It's a Wonderful Life" idea. What would the world be like without America. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 12th, 2005, 7:40pm Vice President Dick Cheney is speaking here at Catholic U. tomorrow! [smiley=dancin.gif] Admission is by invitation only. :'( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 15th, 2005, 4:02pm So who was on the invitee list? Probably some of the coke-heads from the MBA program, they might be the only ones potentially capable of staying awake for a two-hour exhilarating treatise on how to exploit third-world countries for imperialistic fun and profit. ::) (Actually, the real reason he stopped by was probably to sell your university a new Haliburton nuclear power plant) :) I wish I would have seen this before Friday, maybe you could have gotten him to sign this poster for me: http://www.junkyardjake.com/images/freedom.jpg It's from Dick's favorite website! http://www.whitehouse.org The website he tried to intimidate because they had the audacity to publish a very unpatriotic parody that included some unflattering and remarkably untrue items about his wife Lynne Cheney. http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/lynne.asp (Of course Dick must have forgotten all about that first amendment thing when he wasted probably around $5,000 in taxpayer money to have his counsel write that letter, but I can see why he wasn't pleased. At least it didn't turn into a 'frivilous' lawsuit, I hear real Republicans are against those.) http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/love_letter.asp But that's alright, being Vice President is a tough job, and that's not the only thing he's been wrong about: 'Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' Dick Cheney, 2002 Search Is Over For Weapons of Mass Destruction http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10631506.htm?1c 'Ooops, My Bad !' -Your Pal Dick, 2005 :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 15th, 2005, 4:47pm Ok, now that I have gotten all the obligatory sarcasm out of the way, I actually did see Mr. Cheney's speech at Catholic University on CSPAN, (because I am a geek and I watch those kind of things). Not surprisingly, what he addressed was the new privatization plan for Social Security, which to me in principle sounds like a fantastic idea. Of course in principle and in reality are two entirely different things. It sounds like the primary selling point right now focuses on the ability to invest your retirement savings in the stock market instead of the current trust fund, which is theoretically government bonds. The reason why this should be appealing is that 'government bonds only earn 2%, while in the stock market your savings will earn at least 7%, in a bad year !'. One thing to keep in mind about this selling point is that it is misleading, the stock market is essentially one big casino. Successful investing requires careful research, timing and patience....if you are not careful, the only certainty involved in equity investing is that you will get screwed. Another thing that doesn't make any sense is that the transition will cost $1-2 trillion now, to avert an alleged calamity in the system that experts say will happen anywhere from 2018-2050. Huh ? I don't understand how we are so damn certain that the most successful government program, perhaps ever, is so urgently in need of fixing, right now at such a high cost while the deficit is already an imminent problem. I heard another thing on CNBC that was pretty interesting, and potentially illustrative of what may happen under the private account plan: In the year 2000, evidently Sweden converted to a voluntary private account plan, 67% of citizens decided to make the transition, while 33% continued with the government retirement fund. The average return so far for the 67% that switched to private accounts ?..... minus 49 %. Anyway, here is my preliminary proposal to revamp Social Security: The social security trust fund is essentially designed to address two classes of citizens: 1) The disabled, or otherwise immediately less fortunate. -and- 2) Retired persons with inadequate savings. To address the disabled, or otherwise immediately less fortunate: 1) Reduce the size and scope of our government to the extent that taxes can be drastically reduced, this will allow more discretionary income to be contributed to charitable organizations. Private charities have always been more efficient in providing help to those in need when compared to a bureaurocratic, centralized, and predominantly clueless source like Washington DC. To encourage this redistribution from tax payments to charitable donation, the Federal government can provide more aggressive tax deductions for contributions to private charities. For the unavoidable problem of retired persons with inadequate savings: 2) Unfortunately, it is fair to say that the majority of Americans do not know the stock market from the flea market or treasury bills from phone bills. To allow even younger Americans, who theoretically have time to make up for their stock market blunders, the ability to invest their social security money in the markets is a foolish idea. Granted, over any historical 20 year period with proper diversification, the market can return 8% a year, however, an inexperienced investor could also lose 50% in some years if they pick the wrong investments without diversification. So given the speculative, and largely unreliable nature of the equity market, I would propose this: Under the supervision of the former social security administration, which should now be slashed to around maybe 100 bureaurocrats, a standardized financial aptitude test should be created. If you pass the test, you may opt out of social security, if you fail, or elect not to bother taking the test, your current social security contributions go directly towards the purchase of something like 10 year treasury notes, which have historical earned anywhere from 4% to 14%. Of course, the important thing is that there should be complete accountability, all contributions go to your personal account for this purpose, not subject to Congressional raiding to put up new $1,000 per square foot mushroom cloud wallpaper at the Pentagon. The financial aptitude test could be administered in the same place you renew your drivers license and would be used to ensure that those attempting to opt out of social security can actually demonstrate some sort of financial cognizance. For example they know what a P/E and debt to equity ratio is, they can read an income statement and balance sheet, they know the history of speculative free markets (i.e. they know that the Dow took 25 years to recover it's value after the 1929 crash, they are familiar with the Holland tulip-bulb bubble market of 1634-1637, etc..). But the point is, if you pass the test, you are free to save or invest anyway you choose, if not, you are involuntarily buying US T-Bills for your own retirement account that can't be touched by you or the jackasses in Congress until you retire. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Jan 18th, 2005, 2:01pm "Of course in principle and in reality are two entirely different things" Don't you think this distinction applies to your solution? It sounds ok in principle, but would never work in reality. Since when are standardized tests good indicators of someone's intelligence? Just take the pertinent preparation courses and you'll do well no matter your intelligence (unless you're abnormally slow). Unfortunately, in school many people take their tests, pass them, then forget the material they studied. This happens all the time. Even more idealistic is the notion of slashing back the bureaucracy. Good luck. Yeah, I agree that it's a good idea, but the only time this seems to happen is when Arnold is your governor, and even then it doesn't make as much progress as planned. Furthermore, it seems extremely naive to expect charitable giving to be able to cover all the costs for those who are "disabled, or otherwise immediately less fortunate." You seem to propose this as the only solution to this problem, but it is prima facie unrealistic as the sole source for the financial support of this class of people. But maybe I have misunderstood what you said. All this being said, I agree with much of what you've proposed. I think safer investments are the way to go to revamp the Social Security system. I don't see how we can lose with that reform: even IF the return is nil, you haven't lost anything. I would also like to see government cut back on bureaucracy, but like I said, good luck with that happening. However, I think that the revamping of Social Security should be limited to government bond investment and the like, and that invesment on the stock market should not be allowed, even for those who are financially savvy. If something goes wrong, it's a huge mess. Limit it to the safer, albeit less fruitful, kinds of investment. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 18th, 2005, 2:36pm Legends, yes I believe my plan is unrealistic in the face of our increasingly entrenched Federal government, but I still think it's the correct thing to do. The Bush proposal sounds like it will simply add more complexity and expense atop the current system, and what we really need is a fundamentally different approach that addresses two main issues: 1) The government is a soulless and inefficient mechanism that we have placed too much faith in for the social well-being of our society. Granted private charities, as a general idea or entity, are subject to the same waste, abuse and inefficiency, but when I say 'charity', I am also encompassing family members, local community religious leaders and other sources with a vested, or spiritual interest in the well-being of their community. The general idea is to let citizens keep more of their money, so that they can direct a portion of it to charitable purposes, as they see fit. 2) As far as the standardized testing, I agree with your points. However, I think those that are qualified to understand the risks and have the required financial acumen should be allowed to plan for retirement in any way they choose. This class of citizen should be allowed to opt out of Social Security, because it serves no useful purpose to them. The idea of testing will force a demonstration of the requisite understanding, in the same way someone does not become a Certified Public Accountant or an airline pilot without demonstrating their skills. Of course the advantage to the tax-payer when you have a percentage of the population handling their own retirement affairs, is less expense, and more focus on those that really do need the help. One last point I forgot to add about the privatization proposal, is that the administrations timing is, in my opinion, impeccable. If you observe the stock market cycles, specifically post-insane speculative market bubble crashes (i.e. March 2000 and October 1929), the market might be poised for an impressive increase over the next two years (afterwhich, my forecast has it crashing right back down to current levels). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 19th, 2005, 10:25pm Not to break up this tay-to-tay (sp. [smiley=shrug.gif] ?) or anything, but I just wanted to let you all know that it pays to pay attention and not ignore ALL the options and opportunities life... "living" offers up... Due to keeping himself remotely in the loop, Steg's headin' to George W.'s Inauguration tomorrow. [smiley=wave.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 20th, 2005, 11:30am Quote:
GW.'s 40 million dollar ($12 million for security) Inauguration http://www.junkyardjake.com/images/throwup.jpg |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 20th, 2005, 5:08pm Parade... rain onner,... literally! [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 20th, 2005, 8:09pm Sorry, what I meant to say was 'hope you had a great time and can someday share your special experience of attending GW's inauguration with your kids and grandchildren'. [smiley=mickey.gif] But really, as you know, I don't like the guy, and I think $40 million was excessive. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Jan 21st, 2005, 11:13am I also was at W's inauguration, Steg. I don't think 40 million is excessive. There aren't many occasions in our democratic republic for pomp and circumstance, since one of our characteristic traits is anti-monarchism. And since I'm a huge fan of "majestic fanfare," I relish such opportunities. There was nothing like being awestruck at the sight of the Capitol Building (which in itself is awe-inspiring) decked out with flags, arrangements, government officials, and our representatives. Beyond my personal tastes, I do think it is a good thing to have this sort of fanfare: such ceremonies lend solemnity to the office of the government (the President in particular), and solemnity is important if we are to respect the authority those offices hold (apart from the person who fills those offices). That is one advantage of monarchies: they tend more to engender respect for authority than do democracies. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 21st, 2005, 3:13pm Quote:
You are probably correct, to be fair, I've heard that Bill Clinton's inauguration parties, in inflation-adjusted terms, were even more expensive. Quote:
OK, I don't get that, the president works for you and his job is to uphold the Constitution, that's it (or in GW's case, reading the Constitution would be a good start). I'm personally not interested in paying for elaborate proxy-coronation parties. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jan 21st, 2005, 4:42pm I thought the $40 million was donated. I know, you would like to see it donated to a charity. But the political system is what it is. People donate to a political party to get attention and/or consideration when they are the ones who want something. They are not just going to say "Sure! Just name the charity!" They may donate to something on other occasions, same time each year, but this is a separate issue to them. They are not just giving to charity in this case. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 22nd, 2005, 10:07pm Thank you for pointing that out Callie. I hadn't considered that the entire event was paid for by donation, but sure enough you are correct, that appears to be the case. I was looking through the list of the contributors, and as you might imagine, the list is comprised primarily of energy, defense and large corporate conglomerates. The maximum donation allowed is $250,000, and much to my dismay, I found that my company had contributed that very amount. Oh well, I guess I did kind of indirectly end up paying for it anyway. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 25th, 2005, 9:51pm Just made it over to shake hands with Newt Gingrich a few minutes ago. He spoke at Catholic U. tonight. I, unfortunately, had class and was unable to attend the event... "universals and particulars in analytical metaphysics" got in the way... Who'd a thunk? ::) ... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 30th, 2005, 3:33pm Well, the Iraqi elections went off without much of a hitch (relatively speaking, of course). This is a great time in history for Iraq and its people(s). I really believe that when people go on about their opining on the issue of the war in Iraq (against Saddam), people, especially those dead-set against Bush's policy, really need to incorporate in their paradigms on the issue the views of Iraqi expatriates (living in the west). Their views are very,... well,... enlightening. ... Anyway, CONGRATULATIONS to the people of Iraq on the dawn of a bright new future for them and their country (not that there isn't still much work to be done). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 2nd, 2005, 5:10pm And,... how about the ultimate irony of Senator Ted Kennedy's HEATED criticisms of the war in Iraq? ... Hey, dude, it was someone pretty close to you that got us into Vietnam, that quagmire you incessantly compare Iraq to,... [smiley=whistle.gif] eh-hem... No, it was not a fellow Democrat Congressman or a friend or non-nuclear family relative like a cousin or something... No, no, no... It was your BROTHER!!! ::) Moron!!! [smiley=slap.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 6th, 2005, 3:09pm I do agree that Ted Kennedy's opposition to the Iraq situation may indeed be one of the only things he has gotten right in his 40 whatever years of public service, but the connection to John F. Kennedy makes little sense. In fact, it may be as relevant as blaming Frank Stallone for Sylvester Stallone's misquided movie choices like 'Stop ! Or My Mom Will Shoot', and 'Rhinestone'. For one thing, Ted Kennedy is no John F. Kennedy. JFK was the first modern president to see the merits of suppy-side economics, he was able to defuse the Cuban missle crisis while avoiding a dangerous conflict, he intended to splinter the CIA into a less powerful entity, he pioneered much of the important Civil Right's legislation of the 1960's, but most relevant to your point, Kennedy inherited Vietnam from Eisenhower, began to send limited troops, but before his death, JFK made it apparent that he wanted OUT of Vietnam. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5360.htm It was of course Lyndon Johnson that escalated the Vietnam War to the point that it became a diaster, not John Kennedy. Perhaps a more useful parallel to today's Iraq situation is the fact that there was a celebrated election in South Vietnam during the year 1967: U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2) WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Let's hope history does not repeat itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Feb 7th, 2005, 11:51am It was the French...both times. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 9th, 2005, 11:10pm So I just watched Bill Maher on Hannity & Colmes tonight "commenting" (as if...) on the latest FEMALE-teacher-banging-a-13-year-old-student situation. What a God damn moron this guy is! He was dead-seriously taking (to the extreme) the position of how this is every 13-year-old boy's fantasy and how awesome it would be... in fact is for it to become reality, and, mind you, the teacher involved in this latest case is straight-up [smiley=dick.jpg] HOT from the footage I've seen! He kept on saying how he wished he, when he was 13, could have had such a "problem". Great... I get the joke, Bill. I too, Bill, at age 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 would have welcomed with open arms molestation by my HOT 20-something-year-old teacher. I also would have welcomed it accompanied by a joint. [smiley=rasta.gif] [smiley=boobies.gif] This is surely true. But, this fool seems to miss the point that this CRIME, mind you, isn't supposed to be looked at from the boy's point of view (and whether or not he wanted "it"), but rather from the adult's or, should I say, from the "adult" point of view. That's for starters... Let's move on to or, better put, onto the high-road now, Bill Moron. He further predicated his argument on the difference between boys and girls, males and females, regarding sexuality that we often (dis)miss or, in common parlance, dis(miss) ;) (I think that is spelled with 2 s's, though). He does have a valid point here. Men and women are different kinds of sexual creatures and those lines get blurred by everything from certain tortured aspects of the feminist movement to the motives and dirty dealings of the porn industry. But, bottom line, his point was to mitigate the criminality or at least the immorality of these cases where a female teacher molests a boy vis-a-vis when a male teacher molests a girl based on this bogus a fortiori argument. [smiley=no.gif] First off, one simple, begged response... What about if she molested a girl student? What about if a male teacher molested a gay boy student? Hell, that should almost be legal by his line of reasoning. Ultimately, though, all of this little-point BS misses the greater point, the mental, emotional, moral and psychological/psycho-sexual (and even perhaps actual sexual) damage doled out to any mentally, emotionally, morally, psychologically, sexually immature birth-to-16-year-old (for sure) child by the crime of sexual molestation, no less when "real, long-term boyfriend-and-girlfriend" relationships are being implied in the wooing process. Namely among the future negative residual effects is, eh-hem, SEXUAL ADDICTION. Bill Moron, the fact that the 13-year-old male sexual creature may have liked it, moreover, vis-a-vis a girl and in light of some mistaken beliefs we have about the sexes and sex justifies, legitimizes or makes understandable NOTHING. This just goes to show how a good, albeit false argument is made to sound legit by mixing into your rhetoric a few general truths and half-truths. How does this mental midget get on TV, no less get paid for it? [smiley=nono.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Feb 17th, 2005, 2:32pm Interesting post, Steg. I agree that Maher is an idiot. Not just annoying and disturbing and offensive, but a mental idiot. He doesn't know what he's talking about, because all he does is throw around euphemisms. When the subject of God comes up, all he does is belittle those who believe in God and praise those who believe in science without believing in God. It's obscene. He invites like-minded leftists to his show, and usually one conservative to gang up on. Pardon my French, but it's all a big circle-yank (however it's spelled). On this issue of teacher molestation, you've got some good points, Steg. Whether the kid liked it is irrelevant. To argue that it's ok or cool because the kid liked it is ridiculously stupid: kids like the taste of candy, but if it contains poison it's not ok or cool for them to eat the candy. People like getting high on coke, but it doesn't mean it's ok because they like it. This is the problem with French Revolution "Enlightenment" principles of freedom: supposedly, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt someone else. Well, then, two people can engage in all the immoral activity they want as long as they both want it. This escalates to the question of drugs: according to this principle of freedom, you can get high whenever you want, and no one should have the right to stop you. To get back to the point, you're right Steg that we can't do this to our kids nor allow it to happen to them. They're still maturing, and they don't know what's best for them. That's why we have parents: to help us mature until we're capable of going on our own. It's absurd to think that we should just let kids do what they want: they don't know any better when it comes to lots of things, so they have to be told and they have to be constrained. This Rousseauistic and Deweyistic nonsense about not forcing young people to do or not do things, but rather allowing them to do things they want, to explore things without constraint, to be unfettered from authority -- all this is completely absurd. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 19th, 2005, 12:45am on 02/17/05 at 14:32:52, gridiron_legends wrote:
While I hear ya, brother, regarding this, I have for quite some time been advancing the theory that (moral/ethical) decay (in America) has, at its roots, an emphasis on "freedom to" and an ignorance of or even disdain for "freedom from". The latter (vis-a-vis the former) is precisely the brand of "freedom" I posit our forefathers were talking about in the Declaration of Independence, that is the few times they actually employed it knowing all too well the fragile nature of the word due to its dangerously wide range of interpretation, and were speaking in the spirit of in our Constitution (I wrote a piece back in '98 for the school I was working for in Korea on this whole issue titled "Freedom or Chaos"). My point here, T-Rave, is that... Would not even that (loosey-goosey) "Enlightenment 'principle'" you indicate above work if people took seriously that (granted, not-well-defined) "as long as you don't hurt someone else" part? I mean... If people REALLY took seriously/RESPONSIBILITY for all the (I am willing to grant just reasonably foreseeable) ripple effects of their actions, couldn't even that "principle" at least have some explanatory or descriptive value even if not one of a categorical maxim by which to conduct your life? I think it does express some level of truth. It's just not nearly enough to be an axiom by which to live. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 19th, 2005, 1:13pm Quote:
I think it's pretty clear that America was conceived on the premise of liberty without undue interference from a centralized federal government, so freedom 'to' or 'from' is probably an unnecessary distinction. However, there very well may be some truth to the fact that many Americans have grown apathetic with public affairs and their constitutionally granted ability to demand the redressing of grievances. Maybe they don't feel empowered to fight injustices when they witness them, maybe they just don't care, but it is probably fair to say that even when the government does something terribly egregious, it will generally go unchallenged unless it affects some personal liberty, like their freedom to hear Howard Stern on their favorite radio station. Of course with freedom comes the responsibility to scrutinize and diligently pursue answers when our government goes astray, there have been at least 10 scandals in the last 4 years that probably would have reduced the nascent federal government in 1789 to irrelevancy. It's a much different situation in 2005 America, as long as you tell everyone that you will cut their marginal tax rate from 50% to 49%, and they can afford to fillup their SUV, they will keep hitting the snooze bar. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 19th, 2005, 5:23pm on 02/19/05 at 13:13:41, junkyardjake wrote:
Thanks for "thoughtfully" "considering", "appreciating" and "responding to" my point (or maybe just not getting or even attempting to get it... again; however, apparently "getting it" just enough to use it as a springboard for your here-we-go-again hackneyed argument for taking up arms or whatever against our government), oh ye of all discernable political, diplomatic and socio-economic knowledge there is,... especially since I explicitly point out that this is a thesis I've been advancing for some time. I guess I am just a babbling fuckin' idiot without the reasoning ability to draw distinctions worthy of reflection and "consideration" by a superior intellect like yours. [smiley=worship.gif] Quote:
Maybe, just maybe, it's because we do in fact have it pretty good here in America and deep-down do not expect perfection from our government as humans are imperfect creatures and as long as we still have it better than anyone else living on this rock we call Earth. That doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth fixing and improving upon, BUT if there ever was a dude who could use a week or two in Manila or Ulaan-Baatar (to use reasonable, not over-the-top examples) to get a grip,... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 20th, 2005, 1:37am There you go flipping out again, I understood your distinction, and I personally don't think it's relevant. I imagine our difference in philosophy might be likened to perhaps John Locke vs. Rousseau. John Locke (me) believed that people are inherently rational and benevolent, and could be trusted with personal freedoms. Government does not ordain these natural rights, and exists only by the consent of the governed. Rousseau (you and seemingly Gridiron_Legends) place an emphasis on a 'social contract', which acknowledges natural rights, but sees the need for establishing reciprocal rights and duties as essential for the preservation of a political system. Thomas Jefferson, who you implicitly cited, emphasized natural rights as inextricable from the social contract. Hence, the distinction between freedom 'to' and freedom 'from' seems irrelevant in the context of the type of American democracy prescribed by Jefferson, at least to me. For example: The freedom to worship how you wish equals The freedom from government interference in your choice of worship Now if you are referring to something like: The freedom to beat your ex-wife and not pay alimony or child support. -or- The freedom to shoot smack all day, and deliver drugs for the Russian mafia. Well, there are laws against that kind of stuff, which creates an essentially coerced and involuntary social contract. Or, if you are referring to something like: The freedom to wear suggestive clothing and shake your booty in an MTV music video to promote your new CD. That's a bit of a gray area, but if this is indicative of the type of 'moral decay' you are concerned about, you may be wasting your intellectual energies. (and remember what Je*us said about judging.) But there is a bright side, although we can't, and should not attempt to control the moral choices fellow citizens make in their private lives, each individual can set useful moral examples: Shut off MTV and read with your kids Take a homeless person to lunch Arrange Frank Sinatra karote night at your local senior citizen center Adopt a stray puppie Quote:
And you should visit Amsterdam sometime to see how morality in America really isn't as bad as you think. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Feb 20th, 2005, 4:02pm Steg, regarding the "Enlightnement" principle of freedom as the right to do that which does not harm anyone else, I inveigh against such a principle because of its implicit rejection of any idea that natural law binds us morally. This is not to say that those who accept this principle accept this rejection, but rather that the ideas motivating this principle had this rejection in mind. I don't think that even if we took this principle seriously it would suffice as the foundation for morality. There is no intrinsic check on one's actions, but rather only an extrinsic one (their effect on others). So, according to this principle, our thoughts need not be checked: only our actions (or words) need to be checked. But common sense observation of human nature tells us that when we let our thoughts run wild, our actions tend to follow suit. Therefore, I find this principle acutely insufficient. In addition, take the case of suicide. According to this principle, everyone is free to kill himself/herself. Why then is it against the law? Because we recognize, in our heart of hearts, that there is a moral law deeper than this Enlightenment principle, a moral law that governs not only the effects of our actions on others, but our actions themselves, and our thoughts, words, etc. I'm not so sure the distinction between "freedom to" and "freedom from" is relevant here. I think the source of moral decay is rather the worship of "freedom to" and the rejection of "responsibility to". Everyone wishes to have freedom without responsibility; I think our Founding Fathers realized these were inseparable, and that once a people had abandoned responsibility, democracy would soon become anarchy. Jake, I would hate to fall under the general class of "Rousseau." The man's ideas were completely loony. Naturalism and the "noble savage" ideal are clearly iconoclastic mutterings of a sociopath. I think both Locke's and Rousseau's political philosophies are inadequate, and frankly, just plain wrong. The primary premise for both of them seems to be that man's natural state is individual and not societal or political, and that man enters into society (or government) only out of some constraint. I think Aristotle is much more true to human nature when he says that man is by nature a political being, and not just forced into society/government by external circumstances. We desire the company of others naturally -- speech points to this political/communal aspect of human nature. To say that we are individuals, and under the constraint of some external force surrender some of our rights to society -- as if society were arbitrarily formed -- seems to me arbitrary and artificial. Societies, rather, grow naturally and organically. In addition, I don't think we have any rights in our "state of nature" that we don't have once we "enter the social contract". What kinds of rights would they be? I don't have the right to kill someone or to lie or to malign someone in the state of nature nor in the social contract. The "social contract" doesn't take away some of our primal rights; rather, society gives concrete and specific guidelines and laws according to which our rights are to be exercised. In sum, I think that society is a natural and organic development that has its basis in human nature itself. Its purpose is both positive and negative: to foster and promote the welfare of man (material, communal, and spiritual), as well as to prevent ills by means of laws, punishment, etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 20th, 2005, 5:34pm Let's just say that you have a rather abrasive, undiplomatic and off-putting way of discussing politics, JYJ. I never see you synthesize antitheses. I have the perfect real-life story to exemplify what I mean here (it's not about you JYJ) to share with yous. Not that it is that long of a story, but I don't have time now... [smiley=ontheclock.gif] But, actually, JYJ, I totally see a paradox in the way you "respond" (like you did above to my post) in light of your not liking (or not completely getting) my distinction between "freedom to" and "freedom from" (as I get into below). There is a roughly analogous context going on there... on 02/20/05 at 16:02:53, gridiron_legends wrote:
I get you better now, T-Rave. The foundations of the "principle" ultimately fundamentally undercut any efficacy it could have, i.e., it's rooted in bad philosophy. Quote:
This is kind of semantics at this point, T-Rave. The point you make about "freedom to" and "responsibility to" is not completely different from my distinction between "freedom to" and "freedom from". Guys, ask people, without leading them, what "freedom" means (to them). Americans will typically answer in terms of "freedom to" without even a "consideration" for "freedom from". Now, what I mean by this distinction... The dude playing his stereo loud in the apartment next-door is only thinking (if he is thinking at all) about or quite naturally acting in accordance with his "freedom to" play his stereo at a volume he wants WITHOUT "consideration" for the people living around him who are supposed to have the "freedom from" having to hear his blaring stereo. I firmly believe there is something to (and, in my personal life, have seen the results of) this "turning this idea of 'freedom' (in America) on its head" for people. It isn't attacking the moral problem, which we are beating around here, from the perspective of societal change, which I kind of gather you two are more so talking about,... a top-down approach. I am more so talking about making/helping individual people, including myself, think and impacting the hearts and minds of individual people,... a bottom-up approach. Some great guy once pointed out something along the lines that a society is or can be no better than the individuals that comprise it. Quote:
I largely agree, T-Rave. I too think that putting me in the Rousseau camp (mind you, frankly speaking, I've barely even read any Rousseau) is a misdirected stab at what ends up being an incorrect generalization. Not necessarily in this specific context, but I consider myself much more in accordance with, for better or worse, with all of his faults, the idealist Utopian Karl Marx, who, along the lines of what we are discussing here, thought "self-consciousness" to be a foolish, misguided contrivance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 20th, 2005, 9:25pm Steg, might I suggest you evaluate your own style of debating demeanor, more often than not, you will retort to many of my points with some type of personal attack. If you want to be treated politely, it starts with the necessary decorum on your part. If you don't like your points being challenged, then don't post them. If you have no facts to refute what I'm saying, a personal attack like 'well you should spend a couple weeks in Cameroon' really isn't a valid substitute for a reasoned rebuttal. In fact it's kind of humorous how Gridiron_Legends and I both pointed out that we didn't see the practical relevance in your freedom 'to' and freedom 'from' distinction, but I got a rather rude response, and Gridiron_Legends was given a polite elaboration. (mind you, the distinction explained in your example is still not convincing to me personally, as although it would be nice that everyone played their stereo at a reasonable volume, the law provides a remedy for this situation under the theory of 'nuisance'. In essence, you do have the freedom 'from' unreasonably loud music if you call the police about it.) But let's really address the other underlying issue here, we don't agree politically. You resent my Libertarian views, and I don't have much fondness for your version of Imperial Socialism. That said, as long as we can refrain from name-calling and general insolence, I don't see why we can't have constructive discussions. Besides, I still think you are a cool guy outside of your warped political views. (OK, that was the last one.) [smiley=smileytrash.gif] Quote:
Gridiron, I didn't intend to paint your and Steg's views with the broad Rousseau brush, I just used that example to draw the 'natural rights' versus 'social contract' comparison. Quote:
That's a great point, but natural rights need not preclude the responsibility to be a productive member of society ? Quote:
No, of course not...I was referring to the 'natural rights' as generally prescribed by Jefferson, for example, the freedom to worship, the freedom to participate in a representative government and the freedom to own property. 'Natural rights' need not equal 'untempered hedonism' ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 21st, 2005, 12:52am on 02/20/05 at 21:25:50, junkyardjake wrote:
That is because I find that there is NO reasonable rebuttal with you. There REALLY is NO reasonable bouncing back-and-forth of ideas with you. If you disagree, you just militate, not even attempting to see and appreciate my thoughts. In VERY short, your response to my post was "No, you're wrong. Actually, the point you are making is rather stupid. I have nothing really to say about your dumb idea. So, let me take this opportunity to use your stupid thesis to segue to my usual (Libertarian) spiel." Now, how am I supposed to really "respond" to that? I find it impossible to have "constructive" discussions when being dealt with passive-aggressively. At least with me, you just get straightforward aggression. ;) Quote:
Another example of getting it wrong... I "really" couldn't give a rat's ass and, for God's sake, do not "resent" what flag you feel you need to wave and what "-ism" you limit yourself to or (erroneously) associate me with... What I do suppose I resent (and I have stated this before in almost exactly these words, but it was passive-aggressively deflected or ignored) is this "lone Libertarian against the world" path you have single-handedly taken this thread down. If you go back to the initial posts to this thread (been down this road before and was just talked back "at" without any appreciation for the "FACT" of this matter), back on page one, it was just dudes' sharing their views on general issues, which we typically associate with the area of politics, in a non-partisan, unacrimonious way. In the write-ups, there was obviously disagreeing going on, but we weren't dealing with the disagreeing qua disagreement or disagreeably. It was all so very civil. I get nostalgic just thinking back to those days. [smiley=touching.gif] I had set the thread up to function that way, actually. Not everybody's post, SURELY NOT MINE, need to be entrapped in this Libertarian web of yours that this thread has become so ensnarled in. To be honest with you, I have been trying to append posts to this thread that address a) someone else b) in a "different light" and that c) shouldn't step on your Libertarian heels. That was the ulterior motive of my last post. I was specifically addressing T-Rave and even consciously thinking to myself that this is a pretty innocuous post that should neither get under JYJ's Libertarian skin nor give him any fodder. And, then,... it's JYJ [smiley=soapboxer.gif] ... Mind you, I know for a "fact" of two fellow Libertarians of yours that you have turned off (from this thread). Out of friendship, I am not naming them, but they both have posted to this thread at least once and became disheartened (by you) and gave up. Quote:
Exactly, what you see as "humorous", I see as "case in point". ::) Quote:
Exactly, again,... it's not being understood at the level of the individual (thus, necessitating a societal response). I can appreciate your point on a societal level. You can't seem to appreciate my point on the level of the individual. ... No even remote chance of a meeting of the minds with the junkster, yet again,... Just more talking "at"... Why should I expect otherwise anymore? That's really the question. I should just take off too like the other disheartened ones. ... on 02/20/05 at 17:34:11, StegRock wrote:
Now,... as for the story,... So, I am sitting in some bar(ish-type place) in Ulaan-Baatar, Mongolia. I was the only western face in the place. There are not too many westerners in Mongolia. Then, this familiar-looking white face walks in. I give him the "what's up" knod (a dicey venture over in far-east Asia as many won't return the, ultimately, kind genture as they don't think they should "have to"... Oh, brother...) ::) and he doesn't respond like a freak (whew). I eventually go over and talk with him. The dude's in one of the weirdest expatriate situations I've ever come into contact with and that's saying a lot. He's a Brit whose wife is working in Mongolia; he's not. They recently had a child and he is, in "in-the-middle-of-nowhere" Mongolia, a stay-at-home western dad... and practicing neophyte Buddhist (yea, feel free to "roll eyes" here). He was also showing himself to be a disagreeable sort. So,... we start talking Buddhism. I know my share, but from a more genuinely interested academic-onlooker perspective, not that of a practitioner (though I did take a meditation class at the famous Hwa-gye-sa Temple, didn't much care for it actually, have visited a number of temples and could tell you the story of the Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Buddha, Siddharta Gotama, while walking around a Buddhist temple, and do actively apply useful Buddhist and Hindu principles in my life). Ultimately, I was more than willing to and in fact did assent to what he said. I then, being more interested in Buddhism from a global perspective than from the religious perspective of wanting to convert to Buddhism, at some point merely brought up one of the main differences between Theravada (old-school) Buddhism and Mahayana (new-school) Buddhism, their widely differing paths or ways to achieve Nirvana: Theravada (branches of) Buddhism tend(s) toward the mastery of the more "real-world" practices of the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Noble Eightfold Path" for the attainment of Nirvana; whereas, Mahayana (branches of) Buddhism tend(s) toward the belief that the achievement of enlightenment, i.e. Nirvana, comes by way of meditation and achieving high-level meditative states. Now, I know I am not crazy. I know what I am talking about and I have talked about it with others "in the relative know". But, this guy just chokes me off. He just goes on in a "disagreeable" way to ramble about how the main goal of Mahayana Buddhism (which is what he would likely be practicing in Mongolia) is not Nirvana, BUT the attainment of Buddhahood. Now, that doesn't really contradict what I had said, though he made it sound that way. Moreover, what I had said actually presented him with a great opportunity to "synthesize" the (degree of) truth of what I said with what he was going to "add" (of course, he was not thinking of "adding"; he was thinking of correcting). He could have, instead of being pretentious and pompous, took what I said and ran with it. I (unwittingly, mind you) built the perfect bridge for him to meet me (in the middle) and extend his hand to me on. All he had to do was point out, nay, exploit the affinity of our two points, i.e. that Mahayana's making Nirvana more readily attainable (as meditation is, so to speak, just one stop on the Noble Eightfold Path) could definitely have necessitated an even higher-level of enlightenment to strive for in Mahayana Buddhism, namely Buddhahood. Mind you, this is a point the validity of which I have confirmed with others. But, no, he just decided to be a know-it-all show-off, having the ultimate effect of turning me off (from whatever it was that he stood for, namely the righteousness of Mahayana Buddhism). And, no, it wasn't just his British accent. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 21st, 2005, 8:47am Quote:
Yeah, I would have to say that is a very accurate assessment of my initial response to your freedom 'to' and freedom 'from' idea. I must admit, although I didn't come right out and say 'What the fuck kind of dumbass thesis is that ?', the way I responded definitely had that 'passive-aggressive' tone. Quote:
Yup, bingo again. Well, despite the perception I created, I don't think your thesis is devoid of intellectual merit (as I find many of your theories interesting). If I did, I wouldn't have posted anything. Quote:
I do after your 'neighbor playing the loud stereo example', but what you are talking about is really a study in community ethics, and etiquette. (Both of which I agree have probably suffered an acute decline in recent years). I originally interpreted your idea more broadly, as 'Americans are becoming more egocentrically and provincially interested in their own personal, superficial freedoms, and are less interested in the manner in which they are being oppressed in the pursuit of more essential liberties, like freedom of speech and the freedom to petition their government'. Quote:
Good story, that's what you get for leaving the US, and then having the audacity to talk about religion, of all things, with a foreigner. You probably should have seen that coming. Thank goodness we don't have jerks like that in this country. [smiley=pirate.gif] [smiley=smileytrash.gif] On a different note, I saw the author/history professor Thomas Woods on CSpan yesterday, although I obviously haven't read it myself yet, this appears to be a very interesting book: 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History' http://www.regnery.com/regnery/041009_politically.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sexydexy on Feb 21st, 2005, 9:29am If you really wanted someone to be contrary, you should have just asked! For the most part in this thread, I find the subject matter to be pompous and irrelevant. But maybe that's just me... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 21st, 2005, 10:00am Quickly, first, JYJ, [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] As you are gathering, JYJ, I am much more concerned with the development of the individual person. Whereas, I perceive you to genuinely be more interested in politics as such. I really think that this simple difference in perspective accounts for much of the acrimony that (almost) came between us (double-entendre-ish thing alert). :) ... on 02/21/05 at 09:29:42, sexydexy wrote:
[smiley=uh.gif] ... We did not want nor ask. ;) Quote:
Aw, come on, friend... In the least, the timing of your comment here is way off. :P Quote:
Maybe... [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sexydexy on Feb 21st, 2005, 7:18pm All in good fun... [smiley=alcoholic.gif] [smiley=wiseguy.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Feb 22nd, 2005, 1:53pm on 02/21/05 at 09:29:42, sexydexy wrote:
I got lost when this topic turned into a graduate-level Political and Social Philosophy exercise. I find the subject matter here to be a bit too deep (for me) and, hence, irrelevant (again, to me). Besides, it's turned into an X vs. Y thread more than anything else. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Feb 25th, 2005, 1:47pm To get back to politics . . . :o My point with asking "what kind of rights would they be" was merely that I don't think there are any rights that man enjoys in the "state of nature" over and above those he enjoys in "the social contract." Therefore, I don't buy the view that when we "enter the social contract" we "give up" some of our "rights" that we had in the state of nature (before the social contract). Now, this doesn't men I'm denying natural rights. I think there are natural rights, but I think Locke's view of natural right has problems. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 27th, 2005, 8:36am Quote:
I agree with that Gridiron, you are probably correct that 'natural rights' vs. 'social contract' suggest only a very subtle distinction in the type of rights granted in a civilized culture. I thought this was at least sufficiently related to our recent 'freedom' discussions to post this. It's authored by perhaps the most principled member of the current Congress, Ron Paul, R-Texas. What Does Freedom Really Mean? Ron Paul, February 7, 2005 "...man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." - Ronald Reagan We've all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. George Orwell wrote about "meaningless words" that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like "freedom," "democracy," and "justice," Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words were "Often used in a consciously dishonest way." Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, "There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word "democracy" is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents? A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They're certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government. Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else.States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such "freedom" for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. "Liberalism," which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today's Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. "Conservatism," which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word "freedom" to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of "liberals" and "conservatives," in favor of an accurate term for both: statists. Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word. Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican, represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas, which encompasses the Gulf Coast region south and west of Houston. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 28th, 2005, 3:45pm That was a great post, JYJ. Democracy is not freedom, at least not per se. on 02/27/05 at 08:36:20, junkyardjake wrote:
Few, period, understand it and to point out to them that freedom without responsibility is not freedom, that freedom requires responsibility, is too vague a notion for most. Truth be said, it is not an easy relationship to understand, which brings me back to (my bailiwick)... [smiley=deadhorse.gif] (I am going to resurrect this sucker yet) ;) ... I am observing what is going on over in Lebanon. They are in the nascent stages of regaining, or at least fighting to regain, their autonomy and at this stage SO VERY focused on their "freedom from" (Syria). They are NOT thinking about rights or entitlements. They are just thinking about being "free from". Eventually, though, and this is just a natural progression, if people are successful in gaining their "freedom from", they start to take it for granted, which we in America have done. Granted, this takes a long time (at least in terms of human lives). But, eventually, people then start to become focused on their "freedom to"... now that they are "free from". They want to explore the far reaches of their freedom; they want to know all their freedoms: they want to push the limits of their "freedom to". This is where we currently are in America. Our feverishly pursuing "freedom to" lends itself to an inherent neglect of "freedom from", which, in any event, we already take for granted and has fallen into the deep recesses of the backs of our minds (though 9/11 was a bit of a wake-up call; I say "a bit of" because where we are in our history and with respect to "our" brand of freedom is stemming the lesson). But, in this context, eventually the "freedom to" mindset starts encroaching on people's "freedom from" and "freedom from" comes back into focus and the pendulum swings back. But, eventually, we once again become comfortable with our "freedom from" and "freedom from" gives way again to "freedom to". This back-and-forth, give-and-take quite literally, "to-and-fro" so to speak, is how freedom meanders through history. They seem to be two sides of a coin which have a difficult time coexisting. Maybe they just cannot. Or, maybe, just maybe, the (ubiquitous) realization of this phenomena (by many) can help us make them (better) coexist. The ultimate truth is that "freedom from" is the FUNDAMENTAL of the two: "freedom from" lays the necessary groundwork for "freedom to". "Freedom to" is a sufficient condition, but "freedom from" is the necessary condition: strictly speaking, without "freedom from" there is no "freedom to". This is a very fine distinction (if I must say so myself,... taken in the "other" sense that is). [smiley=awwgee.gif] Really, it is not a conspicuous distinction. It is not apparent to the untrained eye, especially to the one who does not/has not been trained to consider other's "freedom from" when he is acting (solely) on his "freedom to". That said, it is not a complex or complicated distinction. It is a simple realization, actually. The very fine line between the two and their ultimate interconnectedness is what makes the distinction difficult to see or "appreciate" (in both senses), though. It is not the kind of thing that is going to make you want to spit at the President or join this or that (off-the-beaten-track) political party or take to the streets or just "get angry" or whatever. It's not the kind of thing you march about. That does NOT in the least make it unworthy of recognition, no less unimportant and worthy of dismissal, however. QUITE THE CONTRARY! It is a more fundamental distinction than all that stuff that foments unrest and dis-ease. It actually has a calming effect. You come to realize that all we can do... you can do... one can do is recognize, accept and hopefully adjust and set the playing field aright for the long haul, for future generations, and that all this "sweeping" stuff is merely ephemeral (politics of the day). [smiley=bow.gif] ... But, what do I know? [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by gridiron_legends on Mar 10th, 2005, 8:12pm Well, what do you know? [smiley=steg.gif] I like the distinction between "freedom from" and "freedom to." My point was rather that I think there is a more fundamental distinction between rights and responsibilites. Jake, That little piece by the congressman was very interesting and quite insightful. There were many brilliant statements, most especially this one: "Unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good." That discussion of Orwell and meaningless language is all too true, a la words such as "diversity" and "tolerance." Any public statement that professes to make a truth-claim (outside the hard sciences) is taken as "intolerant." "Diversity" has collapsed into itself: it's "diversity for diversity's sake" now. Because no one can any longer claim to have the truth (in a fundamental way), and therefore there is no longer an arbiter of truth and falsity, all voices are equally valid. I also liked the quote "The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth." I do wonder, though, about the motives behind the political left's ideology -- is it altruism, or opportunism (to take office by means of this "platform")? I suppose the same can be said of the political right, or even of politicians in general. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jan 29th, 2006, 3:19pm Kurt Vonnegut's State of the Union Custodians of chaos In this exclusive extract from his forthcoming memoirs, Kurt Vonnegut is horrified by the hypocrisy in contemporary US politics Saturday January 21, 2006 The Guardian "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." A lot of people think Jesus said that, because it is so much the sort of thing Jesus liked to say. But it was actually said by Confucius, a Chinese philosopher, five hundred years before there was that greatest and most humane of human beings, named Jesus Christ. The Chinese also gave us, via Marco Polo, pasta and the formula for gunpowder. The Chinese were so dumb they only used gunpowder for fireworks. And everybody was so dumb back then that nobody in either hemisphere even knew that there was another one. We've sure come a long way since then. Sometimes I wish we hadn't. I hate H-bombs and the Jerry Springer Show. But back to people like Confucius and Jesus and my son the doctor, Mark, each of whom have said in their own way how we could behave more humanely and maybe make the world a less painful place. One of my favourite humans is Eugene Debs, from Terre Haute in my native state of Indiana. Get a load of this. Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was not yet four, ran five times as the Socialist party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, almost 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning: "As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. "As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. "As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all? When you get out of bed each morning, with the roosters crowing, wouldn't you like to say. "As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free." How about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes? Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. And so on. Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly George W Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld stuff. For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. "Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break! It so happens that idealism enough for anyone is not made of perfumed pink clouds. It is the law! It is the US Constitution. But I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened instead is that it was taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'état imaginable. I was once asked if I had any ideas for a really scary reality TV show. I have one reality show that would really make your hair stand on end: "C-Students from Yale". George W Bush has gathered around him upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka Christians, and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences. To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr Hervey Cleckley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia, published in 1941. Read it! Some people are born deaf, some are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. These were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything. PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose! And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And they are waging a war that is making billionaires out of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll George Bush, and not because he's against gay marriage. So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick (bastards). They have taken charge. They have taken charge of communications and the schools, so we might as well be Poland under occupation. They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don't give a fuck what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilise the reserves! Privatise the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass! There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nut cases want to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president. The title of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is a parody of the title of Ray Bradbury's great science-fiction novel Fahrenheit 451. Four hundred and fifty-one degrees Fahrenheit is the combustion point, incidentally, of paper, of which books are composed. The hero of Bradbury's novel is a municipal worker whose job is burning books. While on the subject of burning books, I want to congratulate librarians, not famous for their physical strength, who, all over this country, have staunchly resisted anti-democratic bullies who have tried to remove certain books from their shelves, and destroyed records rather than have to reveal to thought police the names of persons who have checked out those titles. So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or the media. The America I loved still exists at the front desks of our public libraries. And still on the subject of books: our daily news sources, newspapers and TV, are now so craven, so unvigilant on behalf of the American people, so uninformative, that only in books do we learn what's really going on. I will cite an example: House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger, published in early 2004, that humiliating, shameful, blood-soaked year. In case you haven't noticed, as the result of a shamelessly rigged election in Florida, in which thousands of African-Americans were arbitrarily disenfranchised, we now present ourselves to the rest of the world as proud, grinning, jut-jawed, pitiless war-lovers with appallingly powerful weaponry - who stand unopposed. In case you haven't noticed, we are now as feared and hated all over the world as Nazis once were. And with good reason. In case you haven't noticed, our unelected leaders have dehumanised millions and millions of human beings simply because of their religion and race. We wound 'em and kill 'em and torture 'em and imprison 'em all we want. Piece of cake. In case you haven't noticed, we also dehumanised our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class. Send 'em anywhere. Make 'em do anything. Piece of cake. The O'Reilly Factor. So I am a man without a country, except for the librarians and a Chicago paper called In These Times. Before we attacked Iraq, the majestic New York Times guaranteed there were weapons of mass destruction there. Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human race at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn't even seen the first world war. War is now a form of TV entertainment, and what made the first world war so particularly entertaining were two American inventions, barbed wire and the machine gun. Shrapnel was invented by an Englishman of the same name. Don't you wish you could have something named after you? Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people, too. I am a veteran of the second world war and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine. My last words? "Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse." Napalm came from Harvard. Veritas Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler. What can be said to our young people, now that psychopathic personalities, which is to say persons without consciences, without senses of pity or shame, have taken all the money in the treasuries of our government and corporations, and made it all their own? © 2005 Kurt Vonnegut Extracted from A Man Without a Country: A Memoir of Life in George W Bush's America, to be published by Bloomsbury on February 6, price £14.99 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jan 31st, 2006, 7:08am Quote:
JYJ, What a wonderful post. It may be the best non football post I have seen on this board ! Micheal Moore I loved the piece he did when he and several hundred of his constituents followed the verison CEO into a movie theater and had their cell phones randomly ring troughout the entire movie. Point is, He is a comedian. The most powerful comedian in politics for sure. As for Farenhiet 911, I remember the house majority leader suggesting that 90 % of the movie was lies. Shouldnt we have been very disturbed if even 10% was true? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Feb 1st, 2006, 12:48am Seems like Kurt Vonnegut has it in for those darn Christians... seems appropriate in light of the recent passing of Coretta Scott King, widow of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Feb 1st, 2006, 12:50am on 01/31/06 at 07:08:42, steelkings wrote:
I should be worried by the assertions of a man who, as it seems, lies 90% of the time? ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Feb 1st, 2006, 4:56am on 02/01/06 at 00:48:32, Philly wrote:
What?? ?.?.? Am I missing something here? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Feb 1st, 2006, 9:30am on 02/01/06 at 04:56:00, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Just employing a tiny bit of sarcasm. Vonnegut seems to be implying that Christians are a divisive group whose membership includes (at least the only ones that Vonnegut wants to mention) George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, and a bunch of white supremecists. From what I recall, MLK was a Christian too and was anything but a divisive white supremicist. But Vonnegut, of course, wouldn't mention that because it doesn't support his (scary) dogma. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 1st, 2006, 10:31am on 01/31/06 at 07:08:42, steelkings wrote:
Thank you SteelKings, please post any irreverent articles on the political fringe that you might find. [smiley=smileytrash.gif] on 02/01/06 at 00:48:32, Philly wrote:
I can't speak for Kurt Vonnegut, but I certainly wouldn't interpret his message that way. I believe he is referring to the use of religion, by Bush and his ilk, for exploitative and purely political purposes. For example, the shameless and unwarranted intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, and the strange fascination with State intrusion on stuff like abortion rights, gay marriage and school prayer. (btw, I personally do not favor abortion rights or state-sponsored gay marriage, but I also don't believe anyones personal views on these issues should be imposed on the entire country. Even if those personal views belong to the sitting president). To underscore the duplicity here, remember that when Bush was governor of Texas, he administered over the execution of 152 prisoners, typically spending around 15 minutes to contemplate their death row appeals. To put 152 executions in prespective, GW Bush presided over 62% of a total 244 Texas executions since 1974, in just 5 years as governor. Since 1974, the states with the closest number of executions, after Texas are Virgina with 84, and Florida with 51. So GW Bush managed to execute more prisoners (152) than two entire execution-prolific states (Virgina and Florida with 135) and took just 5 years to do it. And remember this is a guy who, when asked to assess the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq, responded as if he was just asked how many bananas were exported from Honduras last week; then proceeded to crack a joke: Here's the actual exchange from the WH press conference: Press Question: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators. THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq. THE PRESIDENT: I'll repeat the question. If I don't like it, I'll make it up. (Laughter and applause.) on 02/01/06 at 00:50:40, Philly wrote:
Michael Moore has, and I think I have posted this here before, very careful delineated his factual evidence for the content in Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16 As far as this goes, I think it is very safe to say that: 1) If you think you can find something untrue in Fahrenheit 9/11, go ahead and email Michael Moore about it: mike@michaelmoore.com I'm sure he will set you straight. 2) There is no doubt that while the great majority of facts in F9/11 are true, many of these facts are presented in absolutely the most unfavorable light. If there are still partisan GOP congressman who are whining about this, they will have plenty of time to play with their Michael Moore dart board and inflatable Bop Bag after November 2006. 3) To be fair, it is a shame that there are no talented Republican-party supporting film-makers that have decided to create an expose of the Clintons. There is certainly enough material there to create a very interesting documentary.... Maybe if Hillary is stupid enough to run for president in 2008. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Feb 1st, 2006, 4:27pm on 02/01/06 at 10:31:23, junkyardjake wrote:
I think Mr. Vonnegut is implying exactly what Philly says he is implying. It's total sarcasm...and in it there lies a hint at what is true or what is "perceived to be true" about Christianity. I think Kurt's implications are a clear barometer for his anti-Christian belief system. His system is tearing down the very foundation of Christianity at any cost without a true knowledge of what Christianity is all about. That knowledge can only be found in a PERSONAL relationship with God, through Christ. Mr. Vonnegut is not a believer, and in that simple fact alone, he will never understand it. Quote:
I am thankful that I live in Texas........there is as well as there should be a price for taking someone elses life, especially in a brutal fashion. I like most Texans, would like to see the number rise and in a quarter of the time!! Quote:
Anyone who gets their facts from Mr. Moore should expect to recieve half truths. Quote:
You said a mouthfull when you said "create an expose" ....No need for one.....their downfalls were ridiculously obvious! They exposed themselves! The sad thing was that all the liberals loved the debauchery of it all. Bottom line for me...I love my president and I love America! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Feb 2nd, 2006, 7:09am Quote:
Maybe I'm reading to much into this however, is seems as if you are saying that if you dont love your current president then you dont love America. You can say thats not exactly what you meant however, in this country, the left doesnt like the right and vice versa. If they were hands they would never get washed. I had a very good friend of mine tell me I should never question the decisions of G. Bush. I should support the president at all times. "We have to have unwavering support". I'd say "What if I dont?" He'd reply that I was unamerican. Hurting my country. This from the same guy that darn neer organized the british everytime Clinton spoke during his presidency. Was he unamerican? No! He considered himself a patriot. House divided, Senate divided, country divided. Quote:
All KV is saying here is that people fill all kinds of agendas, support all kinds of rule, defend major points of interest in the name of God. IE KKK. " White people are better because god says so" Embreonic stem cell research is bad because god says so! No matter how many lives it saves. We need prayer in school, we need the 10 commandments on the lawns of every federal building in the country. Because god says so. People sling around the term "Liberal" Question of the day: Does liberal equal Communist ? Sorry gang for my mispellings....God said it was ok. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Feb 2nd, 2006, 9:52am on 02/02/06 at 07:09:50, steelkings wrote:
Here in-lies the problem with communication. I know your not getting personal here. I can see that you are putting out your opinion, which is great. What I meant when I wrote "Bottom line for me... I love my president and I love America" is exactly that. Bottom line for ME!! All too many times we (yes including me) jump to defend something before our mind has fully engaged the statement. Knee-jerk reactions are usually the outcome of "not listening" and is the unfortunate outcome resulting in communication breakdown. Quote:
No......liberal equals permissiveness which in the end will equal man's downfall. We should all have freedoms, but even that should come with some restraint. Freedom does not infer power...it bestows responsibility. In other words...we are free to do what we ought to do...not what we want to do. If we are living an honorable life, the things we want to do should be lining up with the things we ought to do anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Feb 2nd, 2006, 10:34am Quote:
If that is true then consider: Here's a reality TV show you will never see. Brought to you by the same people that brought you, The Nanny, The Biggest Loser, Mommy Swap and Home Makeover. This new show thrusts everyday people into the problem solving position of , "THE SOCIAL WORKER." This show is based in the large Midwest City of India-no-place. Here are samples of what our contestants will be dealing with. These situations are real and legit. 1. Out of the warm and into the cold A family of 4 lives in government-subsidized housing. Mom 43 and white, works at a Waffle House and brings home about 9 grand a year. She has 3 sons, 15, 12 and 5. After being laid off from his line job at GM, dad fell Ill with stomach cramps. He chooses to ignore the cramps due to a lack of medical insurance. He died when his youngest son was three. Colon cancer. Now after he was laid off they applied and received government-subsidized housing. Making ends meet on 9 grand a year. After her husband died she applied for and received social security for her children. Another 9 grand to live on. 18 grand total. Now the area that she lives in, her children would go to the school with the highest rate of drug and violence suspensions and expulsions in the city. She decides to rather than wait for her children to get vacuumed into the world of drug and violence, she would use the ss money to pay the tuition for her kids to enroll at a suburban school system. She insists that they involve themselves in all the extra curriculars that they can in an effort to keep them away from the neighborhood. The kids are thriving. A/B students. Then suddenly it all came crashing down. Its seems as HUD decided to require the community to upgrade the apartments in an effort to better the living conditions. New floors, New cabinets, frig Ect. This community decided to do this building by building. They forced people to transfer to different units in order to empty a building for rehab. Unfortunately when people transfer addresses HUD makes them reapply. With her husbands SS she no longer qualifies. The only place she can afford is the same complex she was at before. She pays for it now. The kids are back at the area school. No extra curriculars there. The school doesn't offer them. The kids at home now just hang out in front of the building with the gang. 3 more lives lost. 2. The poor get poorer Center township schools decide to take the best and brightest students from the public schools and send them to a charter school for higher education. They take the best teachers and students in order to give those with superior core group skills a better chance at a major scholarship. The problem was that after stripping the center township of the best teachers and students the istep scores dropped significantly at many schools. With the "no child left behind" legislation in effect these schools lost funding. Funding where its needed most. Out went programs like. Adult literacy education, Assisted school lunch and breakfast programs, many after school extra curriculars. These are two of millions of social problems in this country. We choose to not peek out from under the covers and confront domestic issues. " Not with my money" should be our national slogan. When several Enron execs basically stole people's pensions and life savings we were ready to hang them all. But when "Big Oil" Raises the price for fuel to record levels because of alleged shortages then turns the highest profits in history we hide under the covers. Our governmental leaders stand on the razors edge of violating our constitutional rights everyday, breaking numerous laws in the name of freedom and we don't say a word. Wire-tapping? Are you kidding me? Nixon would roll over in his grave. Perhaps Bush should invoke a "No term limits " Legislation. Our founding fathers had the foresite to look 200 years into the future when they wrote the constitution. Time is up! We as a country must look to the future. We must look at ourselves and find a better way. I look at our country and its domestic policies. I look and see how we treat our poor. I look and see how we theat our minorities. I look and see the values we teach our children. It's absurd. It's disgusting. It kind of makes you want to pull the covers back over your head. We have one of the highest crime rates in the world when considering countrys of wealth. We have domestic policies that force people to steal or sell drugs to survive. Yet we will spend billions of dollars chasing the worlds criminals rather than feed our starving brothers and sisters." NOT WITH MY MONEY!" USA! USA! USA! We sit and wonder why the rest of the world looks at us with judgemental eyes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Feb 2nd, 2006, 11:51am on 02/02/06 at 10:34:09, steelkings wrote:
Sorry steel..I'm not sure that I see the equation here between your response and my statement about freedom. Yes, I see where policy, redtape, and unwanted governmental involvement screws certain geographic, demographic, ethnic, and other socially bankrupt groups. Yes certainly, BIG GOVERNMENT has a huge part in the problem. However, we as a nation of people, also share in the burden that you speak of. You sk are, no matter where you live, most certainly someone's neighbor. As such, are you then NOT also responsible for their well-being? Sure, you pay your taxes and some of your money is earmarked for these social issues, but as an American with the freedom to do what you ought to do(incidentally, this is what my whole response was actually about and why I don't see the equation) shouldn't you also be spending your time as well as your finances to be a better neighbor. We/You are the hands...we/you are the feet....we/you are the engines who ultimately make the difference. We/You drive the programs you seek. If you don't like something going on, then get your butt out of the chair and get your feet moving instead of just running your mouth. (I am not personally saying you sk the individual, but you sk the citizen...as pertains to we, the citizens) Quote:
Quote:
Lost??? Forced??? They are neither lost nor forced..they have made a decision! Just because the poison is in the vile sitting on my kitchen counter doesn't mean I have to drink it. Granted...it is difficult when it stares you in the face and you feel like you have no alternative....but the fact is and always will be...you have a choice. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Feb 2nd, 2006, 4:29pm MC, Its all good. I love this shit Quote:
My grandfather who is 98 will tell you that you dont know about hard choices until you spend the day in a bread line only to find out they are out of bread. Its not that bad for most these days, but for some the choice remains quite clear....Live or die Quote:
Ah, That quote was my favorite. I truely am a good nieghbor. I do more than most. You/we still have the problem of the covers being pulled tightly over our heads. Even though you hear your neighbors screams you dont see that its actually the whole nieghborhood screaming for help. Quote:
Liberals are indulgent and lax? Liberals are going to be the downfall of man? All this time I thought it ment Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. I Guess not. What should the liberal restrain? should they restrain from speaking their minds when they dont agree. Like Bob Knight said " If your rape in inevitable, shut up and enjoy it" What ever! Quote:
In other words...If you want to eat, get a job |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Feb 2nd, 2006, 6:05pm Quote:
The following is an award winning poem written by the young Vanessa German. Dont worry about Mr. President, He's already seen it. Goggle sent it to him. ;D Let the wire tapping begin :-X Alrighty then Jake, here it is. Thank you George Muthaf@%#king Bush thank u for makin it easier for meto get a tech9 or AR14 than a pap smear & a good education thank u from the first boy i kissed who u sent off to fight your war in iraq he returned home only by telegram & in a box thank u from me from my body from the woman i love that i want to marry & call my wife without u bible thumpin daggers & demanding constitutional amendments to prevent us from loving this revolutionary love (az tho we cud soil the sanctitiy of marriage) u cud nevah touch my love or fuck with my love its just the right u seek to deny us so we must fight for it in the end it's all a matter of voice of exercising choice & flexing the muscle of democracy which shudn't be pigeon holed marginalized or constitutionaly compromised under the pretense that who i love kiss fuck hold hands & make family with iz destructive to the fiber that quilts the fabric of america which ironically happens to be cotton that notoriously bloody lily white thread that my grandfather & hiz fathers fathers before picked by hand in mer rouge louisiana i hav not forgotton that i am america that my blood iz in these rivers & at the roots of these redwood treesi know that this country was built on the backs of blacks that were shackled strapped & stacked slashed gashed taxed & then cashed in onlike cattle i hav not forgotton that i am america & even tho u want me to be quiet & invisible i will not i hav decided that if u r not with US then u r against US US the 99% of the population that makes less than 1.2 million dollars a year the 43 million people that hav no health care the 14 million children that got left behind that go to bed hungry every night if u r not with US then u r against US & we understandthat terror iz not always guns & knives & otherwise explosive devices of evil sometimes terror iz just making no living wage going day to day pay check to pay check praying that no one gets sick terror iz not knowing which of ur sons will fit the description & die while reaching back pocket for identification to prove he iz american but not american enuf to live free terror iz being 13 having no access no choice & taking matters into ur own hands terror iz being a woman begging for emergency contraception when u've been raped taken by force & foresaken just like the constitution after the presidential election of 2000 which u did not winu stole like a purse off the shoulder of an old lady making america ur bitch didn't anyone ever tell uwhen u take shit that's not urs u give it back & apologize but no. we realize that u mr bushr just the figure head the smoke screen the sony nike gmc tommy hilfiger blue jeans brand name of a regime of evil so vicious & arrogant u hav the audacity to murder in my name & call it justice call it liberation long time come when all it really iz iz economic imperialism or occupation which iz the same thing hitler did in poland austria & hungry ... if u really wanted to liberate u cud hav liberated delbert or r africa janine holloway africa micheal sims africa or mumia abul jamal it wasn't 6 weeks it waz 17 thousand lives not just american lives but human lives how sacred are they tell me answer me tell me how sacred are they stop trying to convince us that justice iz always this bloody that liberation costs babies & mothers & homes & sons & lovers & fathers & dignity& truth & purity & hope & democracy thank u mr bushfor showing us that we must fight everyday for our freedom as tho we r fighting for our lives obviously u r not going to beat a path of justice to our front doors this is my requiem for the last four years my premptive strike on the next four years this iz my love poemto america even tho he took u by force violated u forsook u before the eye of god made u barely recognizable to the rest of us i still love u baby he can not shame u before my eyes u r beautiful i will fight & die for u r the people & i am u this iz my love poem to america |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Feb 2nd, 2006, 6:53pm on 02/02/06 at 16:29:41, steelkings wrote:
sk...steel sharpens steel my brother! I appreciate the engagement. Quote:
That's what has me concerned sk...progress towards what? Tolerance of what? Any ideas and behaviors outside the lines of what is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praise worthy is not the kind of progress mankind needs. Quote:
Absolutely not. I would say restraint should be practiced before one of the aforementioned ideas or lines of behavior is crossed. And that basic rule should apply to one and all, not just liberals. Quote:
More or less. I would say if you want to eat and are able-bodied, get a job ;D P.S. I'm not too sure about the poem...but I DO HEAR it's message. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Feb 3rd, 2006, 11:42pm Quote:
Awesome Poem Steel ! And don't worry about the wiretapping, that's been exposed for what it is, and the screws should be turning pretty tight soon enough. Quote:
I agree GW Bush seems like a cool guy, in fact had I made it to the polls in Nov 2000 I would have voted for him. (To give you prespective on where I'm coming from, I think Ronald Reagan was the most important president of the 20th century, and I am sometimes guilty of being a Reagan apologist). However, I must admit when I saw that statement, I got the same impression as SteelKings, not pertaining to you personally Mordeci, but to a certain stubborn faction in this country that refuses to objectively seek the truth about what is going on. A certain faction in this country that could witness GW Bush on CNN high on crack, robbing a liquor store, and still make apologies for his behavior. Quote:
I think you are absolutely correct. And one of the greatest responsibilities as a member of a democracy is to objectively seek the truth, and then act in the best interest of the country. Our system of government depends on this, and it can't be emphasized strongly enough. You seemingly dismiss Michael Moore as irrelevant, in spite of his careful compilation of information that support his facts. Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to side with someone like Michael Moore, but right now I think Moore is one of the true patriots acting in the best interest of truth. You seemingly dismiss Vonnegut as mocking Christianity, why ? Because his personal version of faith does not include retribution and the state-sponsored killing of civilians? If you read some of Vonneguts interviews and essays in the interest of true objectivity, it may cause you to conclude differently. And you seemingly have the impression that GW Bush is acting in the best interest of the country. You may be right, but personally, what I see is a president with very little accomplished in the best interest of the country, and someone with a difficult time telling the truth. Is being truthful part of 'living an honorable life', especially in an enormously important capacity like US president, or is it subject to compromise because you claim that you are a 'Christian'? My value ranking for assessing a government official is real simple 1) Upholding the Constitution and 2) Honesty, that's it. Anybody that can respect the Constitution in an ethical manner is ok by me, that puts GW Bush, and the majority of current Congressman for that matter, on my shitlist. [smiley=demonstration.gif] Personally, I can list the very short list of Bush accomplishments as: 1) Tax cuts and 2) Finding two very qualified Supreme Court justices with impressive credentials. Conversely, his failings, his attempts to conceal information about his failings, his inability to follow-through on much of what he promises, and his inability to tell the truth about most everything in general, far outweigh those modest accomplishments. Of course most prominent amoung his failings is the Iraq war, a fiasco with no legitimate purpose, at least not a legitimate purpose in the best interest of the country, unless you count the defense industry, the oil industry and the beneficaries of the rampant corruption that is going on over there. In my opinion, there is no conceivable way to justify spending $2 billion a week on the arrogant attempt to transform a country to democracy. It's looting the treasury pure and simple. US taxpayer subsidized free health care for all Iraqis? How is that in the best interest of America? [smiley=patriot.gif] I bet if we diverted just half that $2 billion a week to some of the brilliant scientists in this country, they could have invented a car that runs on corn chips and junk mail by now. Wouldn't that have been a more constructive use of the money? Then our Middle East policy could be real simple: 1) Nobody gets nuclear weapons -and- 2) Try to play nice. (you idiots)[smiley=dunce.gif] But Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people and had no respect for the rule of law, heck, he did stuff like torturing political enemies and detaining prisoners without due process. Who the fuck does he think he is ? Hmmmm....in fact...killing civilians, torturing prisioners and violating the Geneva convention, wait,that's our job ! [smiley=uh.gif] Brave Americans fought a revolution against much greater odds to obtain their own freedom from tyranny, couldn't Iraqis have done the same? And now we are still over there, almost three years after 'Mission Accomplished', and the ingrateful Iraqis want us out of their shooting gallery. Then again, I guess I'd want us out too, after all, we were the fucking idiots that allowed Suddam to rise to power in the early 80's, and still have the receipt for many of the imaginary WMD's. Of course, Bush sealed all the presidential records so nobody could easily document how stupid our foreign policy has been over the last thirty years. [smiley=wiseguy.gif] And how badly did the administration want to cover it's tracks concerning it's propaganda campaign leading us into the Iraq war? So bad that they intentionally revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative involved in the prevention of actual WMD's wandering into the wrong country. All to undermine her husband Joe Wilson, for reminding everyone that Suddam hadn't been a threat to anyone since 1998. Don't believe Joe Wilson ? How about Colin Powell, who said this in 2001: "And frankly [the sanctions] have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of it's powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State. --Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels in his diary But Bush didn't know anything about the CIA leaker, right ? Oh wait..... Columnist Says Bush Knows Who Leaked Name By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 15, 2005; Page A07 Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has repeatedly declined to discuss his role in disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, said in a speech this week that he is certain President Bush knows who his mystery administration source is. Ah shucks, I guess that promise to 'fire whoever was found to have leaked Plame's name' was all bullshit too. But that's me disagreeing with policy. There is of course a remote chance that Iraq is transformed into a functional democracy. Then again, also consider the administration promised that Iraq was some kind of threat to America, and that we would be greeted as liberators, and the war would cost no more than $60 billion. Have these guys really earned our trust? Oh wait, silly me, that's right I forgot, we need to 'fight them over there, so we don't need to fight them here', and '9/11 changed everything', and 'You're with us or against us', and 'We'll get Osama dead or alive' and 'freedom is on the march' and all that bullshit. Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. --Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials Hmm, this is interesting.... [smiley=mustread.gif] Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane' By Andy McSmith Published: 03 February 2006 George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece See the pattern here? Propaganda, deception, manipulation, whatever it takes.[smiley=hmmmm.gif] "...there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires...a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." - GW Bush, 2004 Oh shit, I guess that wasn't true either. [smiley=scared.gif] Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edge sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. --Julius Caesar So Mordeci, I hope you are correct about our president, I obviously have my concerns. [smiley=joker.gif] [smiley=twocents.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Feb 4th, 2006, 6:57am Quote:
Thats number 2 on my list. I dont have lots of time now to support this but its got to be: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND A poor inner city school that struggles with Istep scores, gets funding taken away. Now the kid that struggles in school also can do it hungry. Some of the first programs to go are substidised lunches. Last year two kids went to the hospital from heat exustion due to no summer A/C. That school lost funding due to poor scores. Huh? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: BAD American Post by MordecaiCourage on May 6th, 2006, 5:11pm Not sure where this should go but I think this would be the correct spot Very seldom do I agree with George's philosophies and/or ideals. This, however, strikes me as right (not completely sold on his Jackson comment though because I don't listen to his plight)...and I never argue with what I feel in my GUT to be right....so, without further ado..... by: George Carlin I Am Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD American. I am George Carlin. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican! I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way! I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American. I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, try to do it in English. I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to. My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer. I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time arguing about it. I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I didn't wander forty years In the desert after getting chased out of Egypt. I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already. I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson practices, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one? I think cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are. And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good.. and I'm proud that "God" is written on my money. I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years. I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents. And what is going on with gas prices... again? If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: BAD American Post by StegRock on May 6th, 2006, 11:54pm Fun post, MC... [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] Well-placed too, if I may add... ;) AGREE... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] on 05/06/06 at 17:11:09, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Agreed,... but I'm not so sure George and I mean this in exactly the same way. I mean this in a rather "liberal-ly" way. Quote:
I believe I have the credentials/experience to speak on this (more or less in four languages ;))... While I agree that anybody planning to live in a country for an extended period should make a hardy attempt to learn that country's tongue (I surely did, but only after realizing that a) I was likely going to be there for more than 1 or 2 years and b) speaking the native language meant getting way more pussy), how hard learning a foreign language is must be appreciated, and Americans unfortunately tend not to paradoxically because of our own regretful lack of appreciation for and consequent ineptitude at foreign languages. Quote:
MC, you expressed reservations regarding this one... There is NO need to... Definitely, if you switch out Jackson's name and insert Reverend Al's, [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] there isn't!!! Quote:
[smiley=yes.gif] ... [smiley=bullseye.gif] DISAGREE [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] Quote:
No,... but they surely make it easier to kill and, thus, become a killer... While I agree on a NUMBER of fronts that banning guns is FAR from being the clear-cut issue some people want to make it out to be, I do think that our gun laws are way outdated and need to be updated and that guns generally are a bad thing,... a necessary evil given the current state of affairs, not all too different from abortion. I'm not even all too sympathetic with the "hunting" argument, which I think is as antiquated as the laws themselves. Quote:
If these are absolutes, that's deplorable... I don't hate the rich merely qua rich. I do pity many of the poor. I am not a fan of capitalism, especially, frankly speaking, the American brand thereof, but think capitalism is a necessary step in the evolution of economics and that, unlike Marx (who got A LOT right, but not this), but like Sir Thomas More (who got A LOT wrong, but not this), capitalism needs to run its course (before we can move toward a healthy socialism). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 17th, 2006, 7:22pm Now,... that's what Papa Steg likes to hear... From "The REAL Feed": ;) Steelers' Porter to Bush: Uhh, never mind (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/wires/05/17/2020.ap.fbn.steelers.porter.bush.0352/index.html) SI.com: NFL (17.05.2006 17:00) Better to be a wise man than a wise guy... [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on May 19th, 2006, 12:10pm Anyone happen to see the most recent copy of Newsweek? I didn't read any of it, but the cover had a picture of the White House with dark, ominous-looking clouds overhead and a big telephone receiver sitting on top of the building. The headline was something to the effect of "Spying on Your Phone Calls"... My goodness... talk about a partisan view. From a number of different polls I've seen, Americans are split about 50/50 on the issue of the NSA receiving phone records (and that's with a lot of the misinformation being promulgated by both sides). Why couldn't the headline have read "Protecting You from Terrorists" instead? Or, more appropriately, why couldn't a media outlet take a completely unbiased view and just share the facts as known? I happen to work in an educational field, one that has prospered quite significantly as a result of No Child Left Behind legislation under the current federal administration. Yet nearly every car in the parking lot still has a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker - they did lose the election, right? Our kitchen bulletin board is covered with propaganda regarding the events in the middle east, or a hunting accident, etc. Yet when I post a newspaper article questioning whether my state's new governor (a member of the "trendy" political party) is merely continuing the corrupt business as usual, it is taken down almost immediately. Sheesh. Sorry... just had to vent some. Feel free to comment if you feel compelled. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on May 19th, 2006, 1:53pm Quote:
Heres one! http://static.flickr.com/29/48033252_8223d6b4ae_m.jpg |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 8th, 2006, 6:17am Well, I am finally getting around to the response I promised (MC) way back (I'm going off of four-month-old notes here, which seem more like hieroglyphics at this point, so... :-/) regarding this extract from comedian Kurt Vonnegut's "memoirs" that JYJ posted and the subsequent "discussion". This won't be too "Steggie" lengthy as to entertain the extract line-by-line would be to entertain the asinine. I guess Vonnegut's still miffed about losing his class president election in high school. ;) Bottom line, WHAT GARBAGE!!! Sorry, sk, I see you liked it, but... it is what it is,... namely a bunch of fringe, angst-filled, biased, WAY over-generalized "junk" (you find in a junkyard ;)) written just to rile people... and make a buck. I'm not going to say it's all false. It's not. That's the insidious part of it, like Michael Moore's modus operandi, facts packaged as truths and mixed with a lot of falsities all to make for one big falsehood. But, I'll get to that later. I was tipped off at the very outset that Vonnegut's spiel about the facts of the matter was going to be garbage as it starts off with a not insignificant factual error. He writes... Quote:
The FACT of the matter is that Confucius's is worded in the negative, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself (references: http://plato.STANFORD.EDU/entries/confucius/ and http://www.crystalinks.com/confucius.html)," and that the two "versions", Confucius's and Jesus's, work as two halves of a whole, as per this "non-politically-motivated and non-inflammatory" piece: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/golden.html. When you really think them through, each needs the other to really be efficacious (unlike what Vonnegut is tendentiously suggesting). In any event, the two are talked about respectively as the "positive Golden Rule" and the "negative Golden Rule", both of which are contained NOT in Confucianism, but in Judaism and by extension Christianity, and the whole ball of wax is considered the "Ethic(s) of Reciprocity". FURTHERMORE, the appearance of the "Golden Rule" in either form, i.e. the "Ethic of Reciprocity", in Confucius is PREceded by at least four others, the first of which is attributed to the Egyptian philosophical tradition and the second of which comes from Judaism, of which Christianity is a branch, albeit a broken one (reference: the "History" section on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity). YIKES! HOW WRONG, comin' out of the gate, could this guy have been, Jake? BUT,... I digress... You guys know what a quintessential bullshit artist is, right? It's the guy who isn't just full of shit all the time but especially when he knows that his audience is not well-versed in, better yet totally ignorant of, what he is bullshitting about. YUCK! You see... ever since JYJ made this his personal "Libertarian" propaganda thread, that's the kind of bullshit that this thread has become laced with, which, for the umpteenth time, is NOT what this thread was supposed to be nor had to be about (except according to Jake). Mind you, all this bullshit is not Jake's (as is testified to by Vonnegut's, not Jake's, inaccurate "golden rule" bullshit). But, it is JYJ who does SO MUCH of this cutting-and-pasting and linking to of articles (that are ALL OVER THE PLACE, but, mind you, all from this one-sided point of view). NOBODY could know ALL this bullshit, not even Jake ;) (again, as is testified by Vonnegut's opening bullshit line about the "golden rule", which neither Vonnegut nor Jake really had a clue about), and all of this is what makes for that aforementioned "bullshit artist" ambience. ... Side note: in an ironic twist of fate, I was actually warming up to the Libertarian Party (via other "Libertarian" friends, a couple of whom I mention on this thread who have also been turned off by Jake) prior to Jake's "pitch" here. That's something you've got to seriously reflect on, JYJ. You're kind of defeating your purpose. A Steggie motto to remember: "When you get this over-zealous about divisive, fringe politics, it doesn't become you, in fact, you become it!" Next, I want to,... the philosopher in me needs to respond to "truth vs. fact" in light of... Quote:
Quote:
Before we deal with this 10%-90%-whatever percent business, let's hammer out some basics... What do we mean by "truth" here, and what do we mean by "fact" here? Let's deal with the latter, easier one first,... "fact"... Here we are dealing with statements/perceptions/opinions/etc. relative to "what is". (Here we won't even get into the abstruse, but not irrelevant, issues of the metaphysical and ontological commitments that go into just contemplating "what is". Anyway...) After all, "what is" is "fact". If an opinion is "factually accurate", we think of it as being consistent with "what is". Otherwise, we think of it as "factually inaccurate". Now, while being "factually accurate" is a bottom line of sorts, that's not where the picture ends. It's actually just where it begins. There is something, an "accuracy" if you will, beyond "factual accuracy",... namely "truth" (mind you, I am not just talking about "truth" in the trivial [smiley=pinocchio.gif] sense of "factual accuracy" like is exhibited in sk's use of the word "true" in the quote above). Something can be 99%, even 100% "factually accurate" and NOT be true. "Truth" is where human cognition, our human way of cognizing, comes into play. It involves discerning which facts are important/necessary and which are unimportant/superfluous in the "bigger picture"/given a certain "bigger picture", the understanding of which is being sought after, which fact(ors) link/combine like jigsaw puzzle pieces and which don't and need to be kept separate, the number of factual pieces the given jigsaw puzzle has, what facts are sufficient to establish a truth and which are merely necessary, etc., etc. Let me give an example that will make what I'm talking about here a little more clear... I live in Hawaii. I am registered to vote here. I have my driver's license here. My wife works here and I will be during the summer. We pay Hawaii state income tax. I will be paying in-state tuition. We are thinking we would like to settle here someday. In the same sense that someone who lives, works, etc., "lives their life" in New Jersey can say he is a New Jerseyian, I am a Hawaiian,... again,... in that sense. BUT, we all know that it would be, at best, tendentious, if not downright false, for me to go around referring to myself as a Hawaiian... or a New Jerseyian at this point for that matter. I mean... if you want to make this a little more clear, replace me with a hypothetical child Gino and I have here in Hawaii. It's just not true that I am, or even that this hypothetical child would be, Hawaiian, except in a VERY qualified (tendential) sense. But, 100% of the facts I state above are (at least arguably) 100% factually accurate. The fact of the matter, though, is that the truth of those matters goes beyond the simple few facts I outline above. With respect to my claim that I am Hawaiian, there are more that need to be considered (like the history of Hawaii as a state vis-a-vis other mainland states and how being Hawaiian entails "more than the usual") and there are some that need to be ignored or at least put in perspective (like,... well,... ALL the ones I mention above) to get to the truth of the matter. "Truth" involves putting together the correct and only the correct "factual accuracies" that make up the "bigger picture". Truth is that bigger picture. It is (at least in a sense) factually accurate to say that I, or if that is a stretch for you, that aforementioned hypothetical child of mine and Gino's, is Hawaiian, but we KNOW that's NOT the truth. This is what we call "half-truth". In fact, it's NOT true at all even though the facts of the matter mentioned are. Truth does not merely equal the sum of its parts. The parts themselves, the facts, really have no meaning in and of themselves considered in isolation. Truth is a gestalt. That's a trivial little real-world example. So, what about that 90%, as per sk's post, of Fahrenheit 9/11 that is a lie and the 10%, as per sk's post, or that "great majority" of facts, as per JYJ's post, that is true? JYJ captures, in short, the idea I'm getting at here when he wrote that the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 are "presented in absolutely the most unfavorable light." But, he just states it in a way that makes it seem like that is still legit. What I am saying is that the "bigger picture" this movie paints is NOT the truth regardless of all of its factual accuracies (which I don't think are all that accurate, actually), and THAT is more important, i.e., truth is more important than individual factual accuracies. Facts qua facts have no meaning (read Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid if you want this teased out for you ad nauseam). Truth lies in meaning and, therefore, in context. A fact is just datum. Facts can be combined and configured in ALL kinds of erroneous ways, and, furthermore, ALL kinds of things can be referred to as facts. But, the truth is the truth. It just takes more rigor and discipline to find/formulate (however you want to word it depending on your metaphysical commitments) what the truth is. I can weave a story where ALL the facts are true, but if they are not the important ones and I've left a bunch out, the truth will remain hidden... OR be presented as whatever I want it to be. YIKES! [smiley=yikes.gif] So, going back to sk's breakdown, if only 10% of the facts of the movie were inaccurate, not only should we not be very disturbed, but we should realize that the likelihood that the movie presents something that even just resembles the truth is probably NIL. Hell, even if the great majority of facts were accurate, as JYJ states, even if ALL the facts presented were accurate, the bottom line is that it doesn't present the truth, which JYJ also (unwittingly) admits. In closing,... some briefs thoughts and notes... Fact-finding, as opposed to truth-seeking, is a mark of the short-sighted man, and the short-sighted man has trouble seeing "outside the box" while convincing himself of many a conspiracy inside it. The facts are the trees. The truth is the forest. The trees grow so fast in these posts above that you become so disoriented and you don't even know you're in a forest, a completely fabricated one, mind you, that there is no hope of escape until you just simply realize that it's merely a fabricated forest that in no way represents truth. You can't try to go "tree-for-tree" with JYJ because he has an endless inventory of other people's trees he can easily throw at you without thinking it all through and making sure it all adds up... to something, anything cogent, which he apparently doesn't care to do,... as per his implicit acceptance of the first line of Vonnegut regarding the (history of the) "Ethic of Reciprocity". I wonder how MANY more factual inaccuracies his stuff is laced with. My guess,... he doesn't even know! And, that is not even to mention, then, the truth of a) what he is trying to get at and, moreover, b) what he himself is doing. JYJ says he is a Reagan apologist, and yet a "follower of truth and the constitution"... I love the old gipper,... but are you kidding me??? (I'm more of a constitutional reconstructionist, so... I have an out.) JYJ's response to MC's (and Philly's) dismissing Vonnegut, "Because his personal version of faith does not include retribution and the state-sponsored killing of civilians?", is... non-responsive. Furthermore, it's an inappropriately LOADED response. Okay,... I can't take any more... There is just TOO MUCH here that needs "unpacking"! Needless to say, I'm sure Vonnegut's "memoirs" won't be being read,... well,... period, relatively speaking, no less a year from now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now, 1,000 years from now... I have a sneaky suspicion Descartes, that drunken fool as JYJ puts it, will be. So, go right ahead and base some part of your world-view on some fool comedian who is a mere product of the counter-culture of his time and doesn't even have the sense to make sure the FIRST LINE of his spiel is correct. [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 8th, 2006, 11:12am on 06/08/06 at 06:17:30, StegRock wrote:
Thanks...I've been looking forward to hearing the "Stegosophical" side to this debate. ;) Quote:
I am a simple man. I do not use philosophy as eloquently as others can, so I don't even try. I can follow a being's philosophical train of thought...I just can't speak it! That being said, Steg you are right on the mark [smiley=bullseye.gif] with your response. In your closing statement about "fact-finding", the part of the statement I outlined in bold is exactly the point I was trying to convey to JYJ and sk in the first place. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Drew Rosenhaus on Jun 8th, 2006, 5:23pm on 06/08/06 at 06:17:30, StegRock wrote:
For a second there I flashed to the truth of WMDs in Iraq. [smiley=thinking.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 8th, 2006, 6:38pm [smiley=deadhorse.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 13th, 2006, 1:54pm http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_flying_saucer.jpg http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/bush_bj.jpg Bush's Response to Hurrician Katrina http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/bushfishing.jpg http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/BushCountry.jpg ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 13th, 2006, 4:05pm [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 13th, 2006, 4:24pm Ditto Steg!!! [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] and may I add this sk, even though your post is a Bush bashing campaign, the underlying Christian bashing tones are glaring. I have the feeling that if you ever found yourself down and out, you'd suddenly have no problem taking charity from the Christian community you so dearly love to mock!!! Trust me in this...there will be no other organizations that will be there for you if you fall. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 13th, 2006, 6:55pm Great post SteelKings ! [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] I'd nominate you for the Presidential Medal of Freedom for your thoughtful act of patriotism, [smiley=eagle.gif] but evidently they only give that out to liars and war criminals these days. Mordecai, chill out man. Nobody is lambasting Christians, that cartoon is only pointing out that there are easily manipulated people out there, evidently around 30% of the US population these days, who believe that government equates to religion, and that GW Bush somehow represents the personification of their religious convictions. To many of us, this is obviously silly, as it's kind of like saying that Larry the Cable Guy would be a great spokesperson for Abercrombie and Fitch, and we should book Rosie O'Donnell to sing the national anthem at the 2006 Super Bowl. Government involvement in religion is prohibited by the Constitution, as I'm sure you know, and for a very good reason. Do you recall why ? Steg, great post, as usual, lots of words, but unable to refute any of my points. (Although you did pick up on Vonnegut's inaccurate positive-that-should-have-been-negative quote of the golden rule. Nice work Grammar-Queen!) 'I'm sorry, I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist, telling us what is or isn't true, or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American! I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.' -Stephen Colbert SteelKings, if you have not seen the transcript to Colbert's White House Correspondents Dinner speech, click here: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002461887 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 13th, 2006, 8:20pm on 06/13/06 at 18:55:44, junkyardjake wrote:
By chill out do you mean silence my opinion? Or maybe you mean for me to NOT stand up for what I believe in! I do not care what side of the fence anybody is on Jake. I respect everybody's belief system and do not bash them for what they stand for. I do not agree with many of the sysytems out there, but that doesn't give me the right to bash them does it? What I am tired of is the pounding that Christianity takes again and again, because of high profile people who claim to be Christians. Posts like sk's are biased, anti-Christian fodder because they shed nothing but negative sentiments towards the Christian faith because it assumes that every Christian is exactly like our President. Take the sign on the Baptist Church picture for instance. That sign likely does not exist. You can tell it is either computer animated, or if it's real, some prankster put it up. But....the image sticks...and that image is foul. How many times has that picture circulated around the world. Someone reading that could summize that Baptists are a foul people because they believe they are responsible for putting that up. Far-fetched you say? If you say that then you are naive. Bottom line JYJ...I give you a resounding NO I will not chill out! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 13th, 2006, 10:35pm Quote:
You are right, organizations like our federal government wont be there. Not there for our elderly. Not there for our poor. Not there for me if I need them. They are to busy blowing shit up and killing people in the name of capitalizm. To busy justifing attempts or plans to violate numerous civil rights in the name of Christianity. Opp's sorry, moneys all gone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 13th, 2006, 10:48pm Purhaps this will make you guy's feel better http://www.iconoclast.ca/images/clintonandarafat.jpg http://www.lukasland.com/humour/Visual-Nice/Political-01/Clinton.gif http://www.cockedandlocked.net/images/HillaryMaoComparison.JPG |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2006, 12:18am Steg finally responds... 2 to 3 hours spent... sk posts some silly pics... 2 to 3 minutes spent... JYJ compliments sk on his picture-book and throws out yet another link... PRICELESS! Or, should I say, worthless? ... on 06/13/06 at 18:55:44, junkyardjake wrote:
I didn't even (want to) try to... I thought with just a little reading between the lines that was clear... I get where you stand. I see how deep you are dug in. I see how you "argue". And, all in all, I see that there is little to no hope of a meeting of the minds. So, there is little to no reason for me to address your stuff with any degree of thoroughness. It's not like you do mine,... so I don't know where you come off... And, mind you, as I also pointed out,... it's hard to refute YOU because so much of what you post is other people's shit. I did not just refute,... I DEMOLISHED this [smiley=clown.gif] Vonnegut on the "golden rule" point, and he is a guy whose words you identify with, so... :-/ When all you expose yourself to (at least in that post, which, mind you, was the catalyst of and was what framed the ensuing "discussion") is indirect refutation, all I can do is refute "you" indirectly, i.e. refute what you've posted, which just so happens to be someone else's words, someone else's words, though, that YOU chose to post! ::) Quote:
At least that's a "confirmed" error, and I would go as far as to say dastardly LIE because of the way Vonnegut is "using" that (erroneous) "fact". This is no insignificant error, moreover, again, in the context that he is presenting it. You seem to minimize my commentary on this parenthetically concluding with what seems to be a potshot, "Nice work, Grammar Queen!" But, there is no refutation there... as you seem to like to point out about me. But, hey, I'm not the one subscribing to garbage that is academically, severely unsound, right in the first sentece no less. But, hey, I guess he thinks he is catering to a readership of mental midgets, who he can just say any old shit to. If you don't understand that this confirmed error in fact of this clown's is quite significant and should cause you to take pause in everything the guy says, then, as aforementioned, there's is nowhere to go here, and, moreover, reason for me not to respond to your posts point-by-point. Mind you, what I pointed out about this "golden rule" LIE is just the tip of the iceberg. You see how much effort it took JUST to unravel that relatively minute mess. That's yet another reason I'm not bothering refuting you point-by-point anymore. It's impossible to "refute" you point-by-point. There just aren't enough hours in day, days in a week, weeks in a month, months in a year, and years in my life... I spoke to this when I wrote about the distinction between "fact" and "truth". What I wrote there either speaks to you or it doesn't. It obviously doesn't speak to you. Oh well! [smiley=shrug.gif] I believe in things in a targeted manner, making sure all my ducks are reasonably in a row along the way because JUST ONE, SMALL out-of-place duck can lead to a garbage paradigm. In all honesty, George Bush himself AND THE MAJORITY OF POLITICIANS at the time look to have unfortunately made this kind of error (of not making sure all the ducks are in a row) with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the promises that could reasonably be made to the American people regarding the logistics of a war in Iraq, and we are seeing some of the negative consequences of those miscalculations. That having been said, I still think the big reasons behind the war are "bigger picture" and can't be explained to the public for both security and philosophical reasons that your run-of-the-mill Joe citizen can't "process". The bottom line (for me) is that this operation is not going that badly and, for the millionth time right here on this thread, if we have planted the seeds of like a South Korea in Iraq (and Afganistan) with these operations, we've done the middle east and the world a service, the fruits of which humanity will enjoy for centuries to come, long after we can thank George Bush for addressing the "bigger picture" instead of playing to small-minded "politics of the day" even though there were some mistakes made at crucial points. Mind you, THOUGH, this "ducks in a row" technique I'm talking about does not really regard making specific decisions that need to be made faster than all the details of an "operation" can be thought through. It more so regards forming general paradigms and world-views, about which Bush and America I think are in the right ballpark regarding the middle east and the tack we've taken. ... A side point,... I was watching Russert a few weeks back and a revealing statement was made... just in the natural course of the discussion. This guy said that WE, the American public, can't handle all the casualties, both to Americans and Iraqis, that WE're still seeing... The revealing part there that went right by the panel is the "WE"... When Saddam was doing it, WE Americans didn't have to see it then, right? We didn't have to "deal with it". But, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. We're turning into such a bunch of ostriches. Again, this isn't an argument about the war, per se. It's just that even the brightest of US don't even realize the absurd things WE're even saying anymore,... furthermore, in such a natural way that it goes by unnoticed. Saddam-cam circa 2001... That would have been some good "reality" TV, huh? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2006, 12:44am Yes, sk, your pics show that you are at least "even-handed"... BUT... on 06/13/06 at 22:35:06, steelkings wrote:
...with the pics and the quote above are you suggesting other countries have this down any better??? How about spending some time living abroad (not on a military base) for a significant amount of time,... in South Korea,... no less, Russia, China, North Korea, the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America, etc., etc.??? The list of options, even from the average American's "buffered" vantage point, grows small, no? Australians,... [smiley=thinking.gif] perhaps they've "figured it all out". Point being, this self-loathing, which has become SO American, is getting US nowhere. Federal government qua federal government,... hell, for that matter, government qua government (no need to qualify) is never going to be a popular institution... anywhere. It's the nature of the beast. That said, "federated"/"representative" government is the price we humans have to pay for liberal (republican) democracy. ... The grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side of the fence, right? But,... trust me,... after just 6 months in Nokpon-dong, South Korea, you (two) would be fighting your way back over the fence... (while, ironically, though I surely prefer it on this side, wouldn't need to, but did,... because I "get it"). So, why don't you two go grab yourselves an American flag and a box of matches and have yourselves a party? Just don't do it here and expect NOT to be called out on the carpet for it. ... Or, JUST DON'T DO IT HERE!!! Just share more "moderate" and/or "specific" thoughts on "this or that" particular issue LIKE, by and large, THOSE THAT WERE BEING SHARED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS THREAD BEFORE JAKE SHOWED UP!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2006, 1:04am on 06/13/06 at 22:48:01, steelkings wrote:
LOL.......sk....I love you man! You are hilarious. ;D Don't get me wrong about my prior post. I'm not looking to "protect" or "defend" what you guys call the Religous Right. I actually enjoy your sense of humor. The problem lies with people (like yourself) bashing things that they truly do not understand. Nor do they always realize they are even bashing something. Your posts here on the politics thread have an obvious anti-Christian slant. At some point in your life "religion" has soured you it seems. If this is so, I can tell you the probable reason for it is that you never personalized it between yourself and God. In all likelyhood you looked at what "man" has done with, and in his faith (or lack thereof), and made a judgement about who Christ is. If you try to determine who He is by watching man, then you are doomed to "miss" Him. The same can be said of most any figurehead you can name that people follow as a religion. People just don't get it...or they get it the way they want to hear it. If you want the truth go straight to the source! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2006, 1:50am on 06/13/06 at 22:35:06, steelkings wrote:
Do you really believe that? All of this in the name of Christianity? Are you sure that Christianity is at the root of all you suggest? I guess if we were a Muslim nation you'd have suggested it was all in the name of Islam. Or if we were a Buddhist nation it would all be in their name..etc. etc. etc. Let me suggest to you that you have put the carriage before the horse here. We just happen to be a Christian majority nation. That is as close to blaming Christianity as you can get in this, that we just happen to be!. Your suggestion is yet one more attempt by yourself to bash Christianity, which you clearly do not comprehend. P.S. The fact is, sk, that a certain sector of impoverished Americans are poor by choice. This sector has no excuse to be poor because they CAN work but have chosen not to. These people must share in the blame for failures that you suggest the federal government takes sole responsibilty for. They have helped drain the system for those who really need and deserve the help, like the elderly and the sick. True, money is taken from here and there to fund the war machine, but that is not the only reason there is a lack of money for the needy....but it is the only reason you care to talk about. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2006, 2:05am on 06/14/06 at 00:44:16, StegRock wrote:
Though, I would never suggest that you don't voice whatever you have (want) to say here, I was going to suggest that you burn a flag!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2006, 2:37am Eh... I don't know about that, MC... This thread has "missed" the mark (I set for it)... Not that nothing has, but I think something much more productive could have been accomplished here if people exerted a little more "restraint" in getting "political". The original point was to have an unusual, mature discussion about "politics", not get "political". We know what politicians Jake, e.g., is willing to apologize for and which ones he isn't, which ones he would have voted for (if he went to the poles), and what his past and current political affiliations are. In the beginning of this thread, by and large, politicians and parties weren't even discussed; we weren't divulging our voting history, and so on. We were just sharing where we came down on this or that issue. As almost all of us here are Americans, I was looking to find where the "common ground" is, not spew "political positions and platforms" at each other and become a microcosm of the polarized "politics of the day". Compared with the posts prior, look at Jake's first post on this thread. Well,... you can't... because he deleted it... ?.?.? But, I "quoted" it in my post of August 4th, 2004. First thing he does,... announce his party affiliation... :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2006, 4:34am on 06/14/06 at 00:18:15, StegRock wrote:
Something else along these lines and sk's "beef" that struck me lately,... I was watching some show on the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, A&E or something like that examining and, ultimately, debunking claims made in The DaVinci Code. Anyway,... in this show, one of the "scholars" (and he was, mind you) pointed out how it was strange, given our maxim of separation of Church and State, that we established diplomatic relations with Vatican City. ?.?.? At that point in history, we already had history of diplomacy with countries in the middle east like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Siam (modern-day Thailand), and on and on. We get so "stuck" in our Americano maxims that basic reasoning skills go out the window. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 14th, 2006, 7:28am Quote:
Wow! I want to be very careful here. Very simple. Are you two actually supporting the idea that if I have a different opinion about the direction this country is going or I wish to question the decisions MY leaders are making, then that makes me unamerican? It just seems to me that you guys are simply saying, " If you dont like the way we do things then get out." I come to believe that you are both smarter than that. The problem in this country that scares me the most is that people are scared to voice a negitive opinion. This wasnt so 30 years ago. Its very scary. Right here, right now, I voiced a negitive opinion and you have me burning flags and hopping fences. Purhaps I should clam up and watch the green grass grow. We (our ) leaders foster that trend of keeping quiet. They tell you they are tracking google. They tell you they tap phone lines. I realize Its for my familys safety, but we must protect the most fundamental value this country has. We must remain an open democratic Society. I attend the Indy 500 every year. This year as thousands were moving towards the speedway there was a muslum middle eastern looking man voicing his displeasure over the iraqi war to a crowd of on lookers. I watched for about 5 minutes while waiting for other members of our party to catch up to the group. In that 5 minutes he was spit on , hit with a half of a beer, and pushed to the ground. All in front of several police officers who did nothing. I didnt hear exactly what he was saying, I was too far away. I do know he was strong in his convictions though. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 14th, 2006, 7:53am Quote:
Where you are right is that I don't have enough faith or religion in my life. Where you are wrong is that I bash the Christian faith because I don't understand it. People think its those without faith that don't want the 10 commandments on the lawns of courthouses. People without faith that don't want prayer in schools. That's not true. People without faith don't really care whether that's there or not. Its people with different faiths that have problems with it. Its people who want to tell you what you should or can believe in who care about those issues. I wasn't bashing the Christian faith at all. I was bashing those that hide behind it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2006, 10:33am on 06/14/06 at 07:28:58, steelkings wrote:
I am not suggesting that at all...I am saying that everything out of your mouth about America on this site, has been negative. A bunch of accusations, tyraids, rants, and complaints. The light I see you in sk, is that you are a bitter American who wants to find fault in everything his country does, but not offer a fix. You are quick to blame every problem this country has on the current administation. I am sure you understand that things were not broken overnight. Do you not know that all of these issues that America is currently struggling with have been around in some form or the other since it's inception? Not every administration has chosen to deal with the problems at hand. Quote:
Again, your fervant slant against the government has me believing you are capable of doing this. I am not saying that you do not love being an American sk. I'm just saying I have not seen anything in your posts that would suggest that you love it either. Quote:
Though that's an unfortunate event, you gotta wonder what this guy was thinking. You go to a G I A N T annual, uniquely American event, packed full of rednecks ;) and other passionate types, (not to mention the drinking) and you start spouting off about Iraq?????? Half those Indy fans have fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, and/or friends who are soldiers currently serving their country over there. I'd say he was lucky getting out of there alive. I wonder at what point the redneck who threw his half beer at the guy, realized he just wasted half of his beer on the guy? I'll bet if he had another chance to change his actions he would have put his cigarette in his mouth, held on to his beer with two hands, and gave the guy a good swift kick in the arse instead!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2006, 10:48am on 06/14/06 at 02:37:36, StegRock wrote:
Good luck with that Steg. If you want to hear what people really have to say with no "holds" barred..then merely mention politics and/or religion. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 14th, 2006, 4:09pm Quote:
On flag burning Quote:
Thats goofy! Most definatly insulting. So far you have accused me of hating America, god, Pres Bush and christians. Without knowing me you suggested Im capable of burning our flag. Its insulting. Theres nothing inspiring about anything you have written. Its just one insult after anouther. Sorry about the funny comics I posted. I should have considered the audience I was showing them to. I should have kept in mind the following quote from a different thread. Quote:
There is a lot about america that is wonderful . Its the best place to be in the world. Too many wonderful things to list. Theres some bad stuff too! Even if I had solutions to some of the bad stuff nobodys listening. Not with an open mind. Not here. In the words of our president who has managed to inspire 32% of the population. Mission accomplished. I surrender http://www.hdbeat.com/images/2005/11/surrender-1.jpg Now on to football |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2006, 7:55pm on 06/14/06 at 10:48:06, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Well, it had been going quite peacefully with VERY well-thought-out posts and respectful responses... on 06/14/06 at 10:33:42, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Furthermore, the point of my going international with this is to show that the problems aren't just here they're everywhere, and, in many cases MUCH WORSE elsewhere,... and, my other point, that many of these problems are just a function of the "style" of political system we have, a democratic republic that is. It's not easy being a politician in a liberal democracy where people have been endowed with an extreme version of freedom of speech (that no longer applies (200+ years later), mind you). Yes, there are some bad apples (old Senator McCarthy comes to mind) that need to be dealt with from time to time, but, by and large, our Congress and Executive branch are run by decent people doing a VERY difficult job. You see,... the irony given your "even-handedness" by showing both an anti-Bush and anti-Clinton sentiment,... the difference between you, sk, and me is that, by and large, while you show your "fairness" (in assessment) by bashing them both, I show mine by not bashing either. In fact, on this very thread, I acknowledge, mind you, not in an over-the-top, immature, hate-speech way, where Bush has been in error, and I have not done any Clinton bashing. (As a matter of fact, during the Clinton administration legislation was passed that would never have been by a Republican administration that was very advantageous to me working as an expatriate. I recognize and appreciate that, and, by doing so, gain insight into the inherent duplicity involved in politics, which allows me to "temper" my "temper" about politicians and politics of the day.) VERY unlike Vonnegut... and JYJ, I have a general admiration for our (history of) American presidents, the men who have stepped up to the plate to take on this daunting, to say the least, task and, moreover, a respect for the Office of the Presidency. To not do so,... well,... is at least just a bit,... well,... you call it what you want... While criticisms abound, well-informed, reasonable solutions are few and far between. Why? Because it's difficult,... period. Why do you think companies, generally, don't run this way? Or, better yet, surgeries? Everybody shooting their mouths off as if "freedom of speech" was God. Nurses telling surgeons where to cut. Every employee just as clueless as the last about what it takes to make a successful company telling Bill Gates how to make Microsoft the #1 software company in the world. It would be chaos... like the 60's and 70's, when we took for granted how good we had it, the discipline it took us to get there, and how hard it was being the leader in an ever-expanding modern free world. This was our lowest point as a country. It showed how fickle we were. Yes, maybe you felt more "free to speak" your mind. BUT, is that in and of itself a good thing? It just made for a ton of noise and confusion. Jane Fonda running around acting like the aforementioned mouthy nurse during surgery, emboldening the enemy. I pesonally prefer it when I am in a class or conversation and I am caused to take pause and exert restraint and listen up. That probably means I'm learning something... or at least thinking. I digress... Here's a story along the lines I was discussing about midway through the above paragraph that you will love, MC... [smiley=fireman.gif] There was a BIG fire up at UH yesterday afternoon. The news reported how "professors" were critical about the way the "firemen" were fighting the fire. The "professors" thought that the way the "firemen" were going about it, they were risking spreading the fire. Bottom line, the "firemen" did a) the job and b) a fine job. It's so easy to sit back with your thumb up your ass doing nothing to help get "the job" done and say to others, REPORTERS no less, what should be being done. It's WAY easier than (being in the heat, quite literally here, of the moment and) doing it... when snap decisions need to be made. Needless to say, this is my fight. This is not the kind of professor I will be and, furthermore, this is the kind of mindset I want to contribute to changing/at least chip away at. Anyway, to fold this a bit back into MC's point in a way, "Freedom of Speech" has become God in today's America... when, really, what was meant by it over 200 years ago was freedom of responsible speech. We also have, though not written for time immemorial in the Constitution, but in a much more natural way, the freedom of listening, learning and quietude. Anymore, though, considering the shambles our educational system is in and our general lack of respect for education and TEACHERS in America, with our God, "Freedom of Speech", it seems like we have rather adopted/"copped" an "attitude" upholding our freedom NOT to listen and learn. A poor educational system, which, mind you, is more a result of our general lack of appreciation for education than "the budget", which is just a result of the former, plus an extreme version of freedom of speech equals... not a good deal, to say the least, and a boisterous one at that! At this point, I think it is worth sharing with you all a very short article of mine that I mentioned to gridiron_legends right here on this very thread. I wrote it back in '98 for the university I was working for at the time in Korea. It was VERY well-received and, in any event, speaks in a general way to the broader issue, the "bigger picture" if you will, underlying much of this discussion... by Steven A. Stegeman In late years, the American notion of the "melting pot," an important concept to understanding freedom in America, has been undergoing undue scrutiny. Critics perceive a contradiction between a "melting pot" and the "land of the free." In other words, how can the country which boasts of the freedom it grants its citizens espouse conformity? This problem arises because they consider freedom something to which every person has a right. These critics might use a "mosaic" to metaphorically describe a society ideally upholding individual freedom rather than a "melting pot" which suggests blending. This blending, to them, is conformity. It is seen as a compromise of an individual's freedom. This mindset is also present among "otherwise proud" Americans and results in divisions along cultural and ethnic lines and an "I am free to do whatever I want" attitude. Rather than blending under the American ideal, people are becoming increasingly concerned with "the kind of" American they are. By diverting our attention away from responsibility and towards freedom as a right, this anti-"melting pot" mentality is separating us as distinctly as the tiles of a mosaic are divided. It is evident that the Founding Fathers foresaw this potential danger and used caution with regards to using the word freedom when composing the Declaration of Independence. Therein they state that "We hold these truths self-evident... that they (all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." There is no mention of "freedom." Liberty, the word most directly related to freedom, is typically defined in terms of "freedom from," not "freedom to;" it is quite clear that "freedom from" is the meaning intended by the authors. They were aware of the limitless philosophical implications of the word "freedom." In Aristotilean ethics, freedom is neither virtue nor vice. The extremes or vices could be labeled on one end "suppression (no freedom)" and on the other "chaos (absolute freedom)" with the base median being "corruption (irresponsible freedom)" and virtue being "liberty (responsible freedom)." They knew that freedom without responsibility is chaos. The Constitution, which lays out the process by which the unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are secured, is for the most part written in terms of "freedom (to)." These granted freedoms mold our behavior. Freedom is not an end in itself. It is the means. American freedom is not about people doing whatever they want. We do have a system of values, norms, etc., which grow out of The Constitution and are based on the freedom of individual expression or the free unfolding of the individual. It is the way of freedom which binds us, and a paradigm which does not promote the free development of the individual betrays the fundamental idea underscoring freedom in America. I expect JYJ's "response" to again be,... if anything,... "Steg, great post (obviously sarcastic as it is belied by what comes next), as usual, lots of words (which, mind you, I didn't even read, no less "take in"), but unable to refute any of my points (because I can only process hair-splitting point-by-point counter-examples, which I'm not going to really hear out anyway, and, moreover, do not "get" how your posts respond to mine or anything here in the overarching way they do)." [smiley=no.gif] Also, in closing, I think, given how I see myself being perceived in this discussion, at least by some, that it is incidentally worth noting that I have a degree in political science. It was one of my three undergraduate majors. I had a minor in history as well. Again, I am NOT at all one to flout degrees, per se. Yuck! I'm just throwing this out there to contextualize things. I think some of you, like JYJ, see me just as some "far-out" (wanna-be) philosopher. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2006, 10:47pm on 06/14/06 at 16:09:56, steelkings wrote:
You are right sk, it was very insulting of me to suggest you were capable of flag burning. I took that bit just a little far I guess. However, you have posted as I've suggested thus far..only in a negative manner on those subjects, leaving one to wonder just where you stand. Now, read this carefully sk. Respond to it or not, that is up to you. I will not bring up the subject again...you may have the last word on it and I will not give a rebuttal. I do apologize for saying it, but not because it is not an accurate assessment given the tone of every single post you have had on the subject matter, but because I do not know you personally and for that I'm sorry. Quote:
I wish you would have just stated something positive like this at some point in your political posts...so old MC wouldn't have had to insult you! Quote:
Save that for the GBRFL2 if you get there! ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 15th, 2006, 7:48am on 06/13/06 at 20:20:12, MordecaiCourage wrote:
No, that is absolutely not what I was saying. I was suggesting that you should back off your pretty strong dogmatic accusation that SteelKings was 'insulting Christianity and that he would face certain doom for his insidious transgression'. (Maybe if he sends $1,000 to your cable-access 'ministry' he will be forgiven?). I'm a Christian too, and I was not at all insulted by the cartoons, and I don't think SteelKings deserved to be personally attacked for posting them. On a side note, I personally feel that something like the DaVinci Code is blasphemous (this is not to say I advocate censorship in any form, this is just my personal feeling), and have absolutely no interest in seeing a movie like that. But if someone wants to make fun of the Pope or the Roman Catholic church (my particular affiliation) in a thougtful,clever and relevant way, I'll buy the drinks. on 06/14/06 at 19:55:38, StegRock wrote:
Generally true, but your notion of 'responsible' speech is starting to sound a little bizarre, and ironically very much unAmerican... criticism of the government, the ability to protest the acts of government, freedom to express dissent with public policy and publicly-elected officials are THE fundamental freedoms that were contemplated by the Founding Fathers as the central tenet of 1st amendment freedom of speech. So, to make this perfectly clear, criticism of government policy and public officials is not only very responsible behavior, but one of our most important American traditions. Moreover, the symbolic expression of political dissent, such as Flag-burning, is completely protected by the 1st amendment. 'Irresponsible', or speech not Constitutionally protected is largely limited to 'fighting words', defamation, and obscenity. 'Fighting words' - the speaker conveys a message with the intention of provoking lawlessness, and there is a genuine likelhood that this result will occur. This unprotected category hasn't been successfully used in a 1st amendment case since 1951. Defamation - More complicated, but if it involves a public figure, the public figure must prove that a false statement was made with actual malice. (Actual malice= reckless regard for the truth). Obscenity - If the average person applying contemporay community standards can find that the speech, taken as a whole, appeals to the pruient interest. (Patently offensive sexual themes with no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value). Hate-speech is a new invention that is absolutely distinquishable from political expression. Unprotected 'Hate-speech' is a very narrow category. Generally, to constitute unprotected speech, it must be used to intimidate or threaten an identifible minority. You may find surprising that even symbolic expression, such as cross-burning, has been found to be protected under the 1st amendment, if it is found to be 'content-based'. For example, a state cannot single out the expression of a particular viewpoint for punishment, even if that viewpoint is something ridiculously stupid like insulting someone because of race. So Steg, if you feel an urge to call Senator McCarthy a 'flying dung-clump, stupid son-of-a-prick, whistling-weasal-ass-hat, pig-licker', go for it ! It's completely patriotic. [smiley=eagle.gif] [smiley=patriot.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 15th, 2006, 5:19pm on 06/15/06 at 07:48:53, junkyardjake wrote:
Jake..why do you feel the need to always defend sk? He defends himself quite well, and honestly tries to figure out where and how he offends. While I do not agree with him at times, I do see him as honest. While your posts in his defense are always crap! True, I said and I still feel, insulted by that particular post. NOWHERE in my post did I ever suggest he would face certain doom for anything. You just bold faced lied about that! "Send $1000 to my cable-access ministry for forgiveness"??? Are you high? Where did that come from? I'll tell you where it came from...right out of your lying heart, via your lying lips!! You saying that you are a Christian in one part of the sentence and then lie in your very next breath...Jake this is...no wait...YOU are absurd! I have apologized to sk for my personal assumption of his character in my previous post. I think you should apologize to him, not for speaking on his behalf, but for speaking on his behalf using a big fat lie ! SK's post have bothered me but not angered me. Your post has pissed me off jake, because you are a liar. Hey if your quick enough Jake, maybe you can delete your post to cover the fact that you've been caught in a lie. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:28pm on 06/15/06 at 07:48:53, junkyardjake wrote:
Uhhhhhhhh... Okay... This is the hill you're willing to die on... [smiley=shrug.gif] ... The line between defending the right to freedom of speech of all kinds, which necessarily includes irresponsible/indefensible speech, and defending irresponsible/indefensible speech in and of itself is a VERY fine one (incidentally, like the line between bashing Bush (and Congress) on Iraq and being a Saddam apologist). Our constitution, as great of a document as it is,... now brace yourselves for this,... does NOT make reality. Reality makes it. (As for Who makes "reality",... well,... enjoy hammerin' that one out, fellas... Not a hill I want to die on.) Bottom line, if we become a country of mostly loud-mouth dumb-asses shooting our mouths off about shit we really do not have a clue about because of our "utmostly" imperative, albeit anachronistic, right to opine out loud, which, in light of our aforementioned (in my last post) lack of appreciation for education and the (inevitably) subsequent shambles we call an American education, is a path we are surely headed down, we are doomed as a nation, no less as a world leader. The great thing about our "free" nation is our right not to be (made) ignorant. If only I heard people boast our freedom to (free) education as much as our right to freedom of speech, what a greater place America could be. We, at least, still have the opportunity and resources to be self-educated. As short as life is, why, in God's name, would you ever want to waste any of it filling your mind with crap like Vonnegut when you can be reading, classics aside, Frankfurt's On Bullshit, Fogelin's Walking the Tightrope of Reason, Howard's The Death of Common Sense (which, though a little dated at this point, speaks to A LOT of what JYJ and sk have angst about, but in a way that isn't caustic and allows you to still be heady and independent in your thinking), The Dalai Lama's (Tenzen Gyatso) The Art of Happiness, John Paul II's (Karol Wojtyla) Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Hawking's A Brief History of Time, just to name a few modern works. ... If you subscribe to the wise, age-old adage "think before you speak", think of what that means in light of our "right" to freedom of speech... Quote:
?.?.? ... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 15th, 2006, 10:38pm on 06/15/06 at 17:19:31, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Hmmmm, Although I find it hard to believe you are unable to recognize sarcasm, and I'm offended by your unwarranted slander, I apologize if you misunderstood my post. Here is exactly what you said to SK: the underlying Christian bashing tones are glaring. I have the feeling that if you ever found yourself down and out, you'd suddenly have no problem taking charity from the Christian community you so dearly love to mock!!! Trust me in this...there will be no other organizations that will be there for you if you fall. Obviously my post was an ultra-sarcastic parody of the above quote, it's not even a sloppy paraphrase, sorry if I somehow created the impression that I was directly quoting you. Yes, I know SK is quite capable of defending himself, he's smarter than me too, he knew when to stop responding to you. Cheers, once again, sorry if you misunderstood my sarcasm. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 15th, 2006, 11:02pm Here's something a little off-the-"beaten"-track, fresh and light... and, what do you know,... related to here... I just made the following post on another thread with the cut-and-pasted content from "The REAL Feed"... on 06/15/06 at 22:51:43, StegRock wrote:
I've always wondered... [smiley=thinking.gif] What's up with "Yahoo!" always pimping the "Democratic Party" in their AP, American football "rss-news feed" link??? [smiley=hmmmm.gif] It MUST be a(n [smiley=evil.gif] evil) conspiracy!!! >:( ... [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] In any event, I guess we know where their lobby dollars are going... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 15th, 2006, 11:35pm on 06/15/06 at 22:28:40, StegRock wrote:
Are you serious? that's almost an unconscionably wrong provincial perception. There are legitimate reasons for having grievances about an illegitimate war, with no clear purpose, based on lies, that costs 1 billion a week. The fact that the voting populous was intentionally denied an opportunity to evaluate the real facts prior to committing to Iraq is not the moot point you make it out to be. Those of us who actually disagree with war, who consider war as a last resort only to used when absolutely necessary would have appreciated an honest debate, on the genuine merits, before invading Iraq and committing to such drastic measures. Instead, what we got was Tony Snow'd, and George Tenet got the Presidential Medal of Freedom for serving up the bogus information. That's not the way America is supposed to work. Now, I will grant you this, not in your scary argument that debate and criticism on critical national decisions should be surpressed, but in the actual execution of a legitimate and necessary war: The executive branch should be allowed to administer decisions free from interference. In fact, that is how it's prescribed in the Constitution, the president has the flexibility to act without interference in the event of war and national emergencies. Of course, this power has been abused, most notably by Richard Nixon, who invoked his executive privileges for many illicit activities, and by the current president, and you will be hearing much more about that in the near future. on 06/15/06 at 22:28:40, StegRock wrote:
Yes our constitution is indeed a great document, and the reality is that public officials that swear to uphold it, and do not fulfill their obligations should be removed, either by elections or impeachment. Not very complicated. on 06/15/06 at 22:28:40, StegRock wrote:
This is an interesting point, here is a remedial refresher on how to become a more constructive member of a democracy for anyone who needs it: 1) You have a hypothesis 2) You search for evidence to support that hypothesis (i.e. you know something like that four-letter word, a FACT) 3) You draw a conclusion Here is the absolute inappropriate and irresponsible to contribute to the political arena: 1) Draw a conclusion (probably based on shit you happen to a priori agree with already, conveniently reinforced 195 times a day on FOX News or staged opportunist diatribes by Ann Coulter on the talk show circuit) 2) Delusionally reject any information that you encounter that happens to conflict with your preconceived conclusion. 3) Obfuscate with generalities, throw in personal attacks if necessary, rinse and repeat. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 15th, 2006, 11:53pm on 06/15/06 at 22:38:38, junkyardjake wrote:
Your "sarcastic" post did not pass my litmus test jake. If it was truly intended to be sarcasm then I am cool with that, and ooops I missed it........ but, if it was intended to deface me, as I suspect, then I really don't have anything more to say to you. I find myself wondering now if this is a sincere apology for a misunderstanding or just more sarcasm? I can tell you this, I did take your ultra-sarcastic parody as an attempt to deface me, hence, I called you out to be a liar. If this is truly a misunderstanding then I have no problem with you jake. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 16th, 2006, 12:08am Quote:
Hey Mordecai, we obviously disagree on the issues, but I had no intention to offend you personally, so yes, my apology is sincere. [smiley=soldier.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 16th, 2006, 2:33am on 06/15/06 at 23:35:39, junkyardjake wrote: [smiley=shrug.gif] ... [smiley=yawn.gif] There's NOTHING constructive (anymore, if there ever was) between me and you in this area. It's not even that we disagree, though we do. Ultimately, we just don't even speak the same language. You have put on display the sources your ideology is "inspired" by. I don't speak "Vonnegut", for one. Good luck sifting through that stuff and figuring it all out! [smiley=stars.gif] You need it, though, as it is, it seems like you've got a "strong and impressive" grasp on it,... or it on you,... or something like that. [smiley=tired.gif] ... [smiley=sleepers.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 16th, 2006, 4:10am Smart man Plato, I'll take that as your latest concession that you are unable to support your position on any factual basis. [smiley=beaver.gif] In the meantime, let's summarize your latest political philosophy in a Constitutional amendment: Steg's Proposed Constitutional Amendment: It is hereby declared that all US citizens need to acknowledge the very difficult job that their elected officials have been asked to perform, and as such, 'free speech' will now be limited to gratuitous gestures of gratitude and complimentary platitudes only. Criticism including, but not limited to, irresponsible spending, exorbitant taxes, crappy schools, misguided foreign policy, war profiteering, support of oppressive governments, infringement on civil liberties, and stuff like breaking the Geneva convention are now prohibited. In other words, all you damn ignorant hippies that disagree with your government need to shut-up, especially about the Vietnam War, I mean c'mon get over it already, personally I thought that was a terrific idea. Oh, but pornographic smileys on messageboards are still considered responsible 'free speech'. Is that about right ? Let's run that baby up the flag pole and see who sings the national anthem. (Just messing with you 'bro) [smiley=smileytrash.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 16th, 2006, 5:31am on 06/16/06 at 04:10:10, junkyardjake wrote:
I hate that shit the most... It forces my hand... Up until that, I wasn't going to respond, or I was going to only VERY simply (with [smiley=laugh.gif] ... [smiley=silence.gif]). It's like putting that indemnification clause at the end is somehow supposed to nullify or mitigate what you've written. It doesn't, though. It's a hollow and transparent gesture. So, don't even bother appending it to the end of your message just to convolute things. It's like when a lawyer refers to or asks about something he's not supposed to and it is objected to and "stricken" from the record, but the bottom line is the jury's heard it. You claim you're just joking after the fact (why not put that parenthetical at the beginning, so I could have stopped reading right there, and people would be tipped off before reading the rest, which does affect the mindset of the reader?), but the damage is already done, in fact, still being done. The text on the screen remains unless you delete it, which you're not going to (unless it benefits you) because it's just a joke, right? Someone even suggesting you to would actually look like the pussy, who can't take a joke. I hate that passive-aggressive shit. The fact of the matter is you said it, and it's out there. I mean... much of the problem here is that, in a discussion I take to be serious, which I obviously take this one to be, I mean what I say (I think this applies to MC, as well)... That's not the case with you and sk. You guys start to joking and, as you admit, you're not always necessarily meaning what you're saying. That, to me, a true straight-shooter in a discussion like this, just makes for bullshit nonsense. While your paragraph in bold may be "in jest" (like Steven Colbert speaking on Bush, right?), I can't see how your first sentence (below) can be... Quote:
In fact, I find it QUITE disrespectful given the amount of time, thought, heart and effort I put into my posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 16th, 2006, 9:25am Well, since you obviously can't take a joke, and are still very much in denial as to what YOU YOURSELF have even written on your own board over the last week or so (longer for the Vietnam issue)... yeah, you know what, you are right, after re-reading the amendment that I imagine you would propose, I can't see how it's inaccurate, so I've changed my position to 'not joking'. [smiley=chair.gif] 1) Did you not say that you refrain from criticizing the president and congress members because they have such 'an important job', seemingly in an unconditionally deferential fashion (i.e. no matter how bad they fuck up?) 2) Have you not suggested, in general, that the American populous places too high a priority on freedom of speech, yet many do not realize that they are too uninformed to voice opinions on critical national matters? 3) Have you not admitted that you thought the Vietnam War was a legitimate cause ? 4) Do you, or do you not use pornographic smileys on your message board? Now don't go deleting the smileys and posts that prove these points, and since you seem to realize how the legal system works, you should also know that evasive, insufficient, or no responses to 1,2,3 above is interpreted as admission. (There is adequate prima facie evidence of #4 that would be impractical to remove). ( [smiley=smileytrash.gif] Just Kidding !!! Sounded pretty lawyerly didn't it ?) But you know what? You DID say all that shit, so why are you playing stupid about it ? [smiley=dunce.gif] Now on to a more constructive issue: As you may have noticed, I have acknowledged what I thought was one of your more relevant criticisms of my posts, and disgarded the myriad of links that noone gives a shit about. Now, remember, this is meant as constructive criticism, but you always refer to this mysterious 'big picture', and then spend 2,000 words on tangential issues that are practically irrelevant. A great example is the Golden Rule discussion which you belabored to the point where it was beyond sublime; For example, The Christian Golden Rule is phrased in the positive, i.e. Bake your neighbor some chocolate chip cookies, because that is a nice gesture that you would like to be the recipient of. Confucious phrased his Golden Rule in the negative, i.e.Don't throw a rock through your neighbors window, because you would not like someone to bust up your window. Now, if this was truly an important distinction, you would have us believe that: For a Christian: A) It is OK to throw a big rock through your neighbors window. B) Just make sure you bake them some chocolate cookies after do it. For a Buddhist: A) Don't throw a big rock through your neighbors window. B) Let them buy their own damn cookies, what do I look like, a Keebler Elf? The fact is, it is NOT an important distinction, and that the Ethic of Reciprocity is already IMPLIED in both rules, and everybody knows it, including Kurt Vonnegut. (Who, by the way, I am not any great fan of, and could very well be the complete dumbass you think he is. I've read a total of 25 pages of Cat's Cradle and thought it sucked). On one hand, it is impressive that you can hold you OWN attention while writing stuff like that, but on the other hand it is almost like you are deliberately avoiding the 'big picture' you say noone else gets, while proceding to bore the crap out of anyone who bothers to read your stuff, (like dumbass me). Now, I'm not belittling your writing style for what you do, as a profession. It is probably quite necessary to explore all the metaphysical subtleties that the rest of us don't bother to think about. But, in the context of attempting to refute someones broad political arguments, it just doesn't work. It's apparent to me, that if you really want to address the big picture, in the political context, not the ethereal black=gray and white=gray context, you will seek the answer to a question you yourself brought up: on 06/14/06 at 00:18:15, StegRock wrote:
I know the reasons behind the Iraq war, and that's why I'm pissed off, why don't you already know, or seem to care? (this is a rhetorical question, I understand your point that only YOU can change your own mind). [smiley=thinking.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 16th, 2006, 11:17am I love this politics forum, I really do! But honestly, I'm steppin' off this dizzy ride, at least for the moment! [smiley=stars.gif] I need a rest. So, until I'm called out, or pulled back into the gravitational pull of it all...my lips are sealed :-X |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by BarnabyWilde on Jun 16th, 2006, 1:02pm I don't know why, but I have the sudden urge to overbake some chocolate chip cookies and throw them through my neighbors window... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by rickgpin on Jun 16th, 2006, 10:30pm i am really out of touch, because i have always enjoyed kurt vonnegut. just never thought he was the second coming. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 17th, 2006, 12:40pm on 06/16/06 at 13:02:53, BarnabyWilde wrote:
[smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] I hear Donovan McNabb likes burnt cookies, maybe we can track down his address ? :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 18th, 2006, 12:41am Holy hell! This shit's starting to spill over into my personal "real" life... I woke up yesterday morning... to read "this"... It put me in such a foul mood that I had a spat wife my lovely wife... Thank God she's a REASONABLE human being, and she let me off the hook, suspecting that someone was getting under my skin here ( [smiley=bullseye.gif]), and, furthermore, likely grossly misconstruing what I'm about ([smiley=bullseye.gif] again). Furthermore, this has ended up consuming me for the last 36 or so hours, "bleeding" into today and preying on my mind even while I'm busy doing other "real-life" stuff (and NOT doing the things I need to be taking care of around here). Bottom line, I'm pretty pissed off at, yet again, having my words get twisted (just enough) by this prankster to get me and where I stand pretty much ALL WRONG. BUT, I've gone about this fairly calmly and after long, deep breaths. I think there is some good, at least well-thought-out, stuff here... I just ask, JYJ, if you think this is all (going to be) just a bunch of BS, then don't read it! Just don't act like you have and that you are really responding to "it". That's what I take greatest offense to. I take the time out of my life to produce something like this only for you to come off as though you've read "it" and are responding to "it" by basically dismissing "it" when the fact of the matter is, more likely, as per your own admissions, that you didn't even make it through it all, at least not mindfully, as you are being bored to death by it. In one breath you outline my points (to me) and interrogate me as if you've got what I've written down to a science while in the another breath you are indicating to me that you aren't even making it through my (admittedly long-winded) posts and don't really get where I am coming from. That's INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING! [smiley=frustrated.gif] If you just start responding AS YOU READ, the forest will yet again inevitably get lost in the trees. PLEASE make an attempt to at least read through IT ALL and "try" to "appreciate" whence I am coming before tearing it point-by-point to pieces. So, all in all, I have spent at least FIVE hours thinking this through and writing and rewriting this, and by "rewriting" I don't just mean "revising", I literally mean "rewriting". The main reason this has bled into today is because I like to type these things right in the textbox here, occasionally cutting-and-pasting to "Notepad" and saving, but I got on a roll and didn't save for like two hours, had a problem and LOST all two hours of that writing, which was,... well,... NOT a fun experience. So, anyway, I can't be doing this,... taking HOURS out of my life writing for and in response to a chap who may not even read, no less "appreciate", it all, or even "consider"/"be considerate of" the effort,... who my writing admittedly bores. I MUST start trying my best at exercising restrain in responding to JYJ's... "deal". Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult when he embeds questions in his posts, like he did in this one, that he claims require a reply. Otherwise, he considers himself as having won the point, or that's how he presents it. So, I give you all my preemptory indemnification clause,... henceforth, if I do not address JYJ's posts and questions point-by-point, if at all, it does NOT mean he has "won" the point, no less, me over. It just means I can't take it anymore. So, in that very limited sense, I suppose, he has "won"... by bashing me over the head with his shit [smiley=chair.gif] while dismissing anything I have to say. I suppose he has also "won" in the sense of dragging me down and making me pissed off like he is... in an aroundabout way, maybe not "about", but, via him, "as an extended result of" the policies of the Bush administration. I just regret that I can't feed JYJ what's in my head in the loose, short-attention-span way he likes his lies, eh-hem, "facts" fed to him. We just don't a) have the same approach (to life), and b) communicate in nearly the same way. It really is hopeless trying to bridge the gap. I've ultimately given up. ... So, without further ado,... as regards this post of yours, JYJ, YOU and this post are an EMBODIMENT of my whole point (regarding education, at least)... on 06/16/06 at 09:25:01, junkyardjake wrote:
No, on this thread with you, I can't, and I've stated it, so... Why can't you honor it? Quote:
Screw you, dude! I'm in denial about nothing... Just because you don't understand me doesn't make that my problem. In fact, that is what you've shown to be your problem throughout this thread. If you can't understand it, me, whatever, a different take than yours on Iraq, etc., or if something can't be explained to you in a way that you can, you jump to the conclusion that it's wrong and go about "developing" your conspiracy theories and bash-sessions. Quote:
WRONG! Not "refrain"! And, not in an "unconditionally deferential fashion"! I use "restraint" (my exact word)! As I've written a number of times, I "acknowledge" some of the areas where the President has rather clearly gone awry, BUT ultimately I respect his office, realize these are difficult times, in which our politicians are really in a Catch 22, and don't feel the need to BASH the way you do and, furthermore, I suppose, feel the need to defend my fellow Americans from an onslaught like yours. Now, I am going to repeat myself, which pisses me off since I'm dealing with a guy who has me all figured out, lays my positions out to me (in feeble fashion) and chalks me up... I ultimately feel that the war is a just one. In the "bigger picture", if we end up with a "South Korea" in Iraq (and Afganistan) someday 20 to 50 years down the line, we will be a better world for it. I believe of the "stories" we do come to know about there are two sides of the coin. I don't believe that the picture FOXNews, e.g., paints is completely accurate (note: I haven't had nor watched FOXNews or CNN since I've been in Hawaii), but I sure as hell feel confident that the picture you paint is also inaccurate, and probably much more so given the sources you cite. I ultimately believe that we back here on American soil know less than 10%, and, at any rate, no more than 50%, of ALL the "facts" that are unfolding and have unfolded, i.e. 10% to 50% of the jigsaw-puzzle pieces necessary for completing the puzzle, and, mind you, that is amidst TONS of information, uninformation, misinformation, disinformation, etc., FROM ALL SIDES, and, thus, are not in a good position to go on a "fact-finding" mission so as to make a "fact-based" judgment. As such, I believe that working backwards from what one thinks are the possible outcomes here proves to be a more fruitful method of understanding than building, as I see it, a house of cards based on (an inadequate number of) "facts" (that are all over the place). NOW, OF COURSE, you could SEE/emphasize different possible outcomes, and then we at least would be disagreeing on the same terms. I digress... That's the fundamental problem with us... The further problem, though, is that I see WHENCE you are coming and realize and accept/am resigned to this, WHEREAS, you, de facto, don't even see, no less "get", because my writing bores you, WHENCE I am coming, so this further problem of your finding my responses inadequate gets perpetuated. I too don't find your "facts" adequate, but, on a point-by-point basis I've basically dropped that because I know it's hopeless. We just are NOT (even close to being) "on the same page"... in the WAY we are thinking about this. For you, it's not about refuting me philosophically, and, for me, it's not about refuting you point-by-point. Moving right along,... I think the "overall picture" painted by a reasonably informed cross-section/hodge-podge of the "sum total" of our reputable, accepted major mass media sources, from FOXNews to CNN, though I tend to lean, albeit rather decisively, toward the former (my politics, as I've stated elsewhere, ultimately lie somewhere among/between Bill Bennett and Dennis Miller; Sean Hannity is eh, a bit "much", too partisan, for my tastes, and Tim Russert is too diplomatic with his conservatism for my tastes; so, there you have it) is fairly accurate, i.e. as accurate as can be reasonably expected, and at the end of the day, the "overall picture" I see being painted along with what I think the war can accomplish/set out to accomplish/was "really" about, i.e. making for a "South Korea" in the middle east, makes me a supporter of the war and all the politicians who thought we should be there and all those who think we should not leave the job undone, which may takes SEVERAL YEARS (decades). Was that condensed and comprehensible enough for you, JYJ? (Really nothing new, mind you.) Quote:
Yes! I think this is the case in general in today's America. And,... you too are an embodiment of it (as you will see I think below). Quote:
Kind of, but your 14-word question is loaded. I think hindsight is 20-20. I think JFK had reasonable cause getting us into Vietnam. I think Johnson and Nixon had good reason to want to fight it out. Miscalculations were made, for sure. We didn't win and the "Monday morning quarterback" mindset kicks in (with the know-it-alls like yourself). Again, exemplifying the difficulty of all political matters, what if we hadn't gone and bailed the French out? How come I have a sneaky suspicion there'd be (the same people, who take for granted the generally good life our leaders provide and have provided for us in America) bitchin' about that? How come I also have a sneaky suspicion that the protesting would have been largely stifled if we won? It wasn't so much the war itself as it was a timing issue relative to where we were both socially, i.e. taking the good life provided us in America for granted, and with respect to being a bit "war weary" (this is where mainly JFK and Johnson, and Nixon made their biggest miscalculations), all of which resulted in the key anti-Vietnam War catalyst, WE WERE LOSING and, ultimately, LOST! Quote:
Yes,... [smiley=deadhorse.gif] but I think you are using the word "pornographic" in a loaded fashion. It's not inconsistent with the "terms of service" of this site, which is not for children. What's your point? If you really "understood" my point about freedom of speech, you would "understand" that this doesn't speak to it at all. My problem with freedom of speech in America isn't so much with Eminem as it is with the likes of Jane Fonda. Wasn't that abundantly clear, JYJ? Does everything need to be this "spelled out" for you? No wonder you can't find any "peace" in yourself... and little "substance" in my posts... Quote:
That's not MY M.O.! Quote:
Screw you! Now, you REALLY ARE "forcing me" to respond! THIS SUCKS... Quote:
Here we go with this cutesy bullshit, again. ... Just keep diggin' your grave... [smiley=RIP.gif] Quote:
Now, here you go answering for me... before even giving me a chance to,... AGAIN. Mind you, it's not (necessarily) my fault you don't "get" it, and, in any event, just because you don't get it or I can't communicate it to you doesn't mean it's not the case. Quote:
First,... "acknowledged",... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] not really,... as you show below, and, in any event, hardly even when you did... You did so only in parentheses, in which you make little of the point and before which, in any event, you say that what I wrote "was unable to refute any of your points". BUT, anyway, you then "disregarded" the "myriad of links (a "whole" four in all, mind you, Mr. Link-and-cut-and-paste-o-matic)" I provided, which you say "no one (meaning yourself, of course) gives a shit about"... At first when I read this, it seemed like you were trying to communicate something positive to me, but it ended obviously negative... The sentence doesn't even make sense, actually. Quote:
"2,000 words on tangential issues that are practically irrelevant"... Up yours, dude! Let's look at what you're saying here... Either you don't understand what I'm writing, or I'm a babbling idiot of epic proportions, among the stupidest the world has ever seen. Or, maybe, I am on the Bush payroll and part of the evil "conspiracy of stupidity", undermining America and the world, right? Of course, this is not the case. Believe it or not, Ripley's style, it's just what I believe. Now, again, for the millionth time, you'll retort that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't know the facts because I'm not consulting the right sources. And, now we've arrived at one of the biggest obstacles preventing us from having a meeting of the minds. Namely, each of us trusts in VERY different sources, and that doesn't seem to be likely to change anytime soon. So, we are back to square one. I see you as admitting that you are not even interested in reading my stuff, no less with the care it requires (and yet you got me all figured out ?.?.?). But, you know what... If you just want to think of me as a babbling idiot, whose writing bores you and, thus, isn't worth "getting", you go for it. I couldn't give a rat's ass what you think. It's YOUR loss, not mine... Go keep up the "fight"! Continued in next post... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 18th, 2006, 12:42am ...Continuation from prior post... Quote:
Muddling together the Confucians and Buddhists aside, here is where you really show your ignoramusness and lack of appreciation for education! "The fact is, it is NOT an important distinction." OH, MY GOD! You are SO off-base in saying this. You're REALLY just showing you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. I actually can't even believe you're going here, especially since you "acknowledged" this "relevant criticism", which makes that sentence above where you say that seem quite disingenuous (or sarcastic or whatever it is that you do to get under people's skin). Again, the fact that it is too "sublime" for you ISN'T my problem and doesn't make it not so. Analysis of the contrast between the negative "not" in English and the negative "wu" forms in classical Chinese aside, I'VE HAD FUCKING GRADUATE CLASSES WHERE WE WORK ON DISENTANGLING THE TWO "Golden Rules" so as to make sure we get the Chinese tradition right, a tradition which has been riddled with errors in interpretation by early (Jesuit) pioneers (who tended to Christianize Chinese philosophy inappropriately; mind you, this is where the rubber of the point Vonnegut is feebly trying to make meets the road; read Dr. Roger Ames, not some comedian). And, incidently, YES, the way the two "Golden Rules" end up working on a societal level ARE quite the way you describe above. America, e.g., is at heart and in mind a "second-chance (make up for breaking the window)", "(actively) make things right or, at least, happen", "freedom to (by baking cookies)" society. China, e.g., is at its heart-and-mind a "hands-off (the rocks and others' cookies)", "let it be", "(passively) let things run their natural course for better or worse", "freedom from (thrown rocks and others' unasked-for baked goods and the 'political pleasantries' that potentially go therewith)" society. (There's that "valuable" (to those who "get it") "freedom from", "freedom to" distinction rearing its head again... You know, Jake... The one you never could "understand", no less "appreciate", but the one, after much CONSTRUCTIVE discussion RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD (which is now acrimony-filled because of YOU), gridiron_legends, Ph.D. (ABD), did come around to "appreciating".) Constant JYJ-esque "political" analysis doesn't get you to this insight. That's why he doesn't "get it". Events here and there may be or seem inconsistent with this. There are exceptions. But, these societal patterns exist. Remember what happened to Michael Fay in Singapore. Here, he'd have gotten off relatively scot-free (second-chance, "freedom to" mentality). There, he was severely punished (hands-off others, "freedom from" mindset). We tip ("freedom to"). They don't ("freedom from"). Ultimately, the BEAUTY of the matter, which Vonnegut twists in an ugly manner to make a point JYJ is predisposed to "appreciate" to some degree (after all, he did crack the book and make the post), the two "Golden Rules", rather than competing for air-time, work together to make a wonderful whole, which one of those "myriad of links", including one from STANFORD UNIVERSITY, "that no one gives a shit about" according to JYJ, i.e. YOU, Jake, don't give a shit about because they DON'T SPEW OUT THE VENOM YOU THRIVE ON, actually explains this in a very lucid, simple way. But, in any event, I'm getting my PH.D. in this stuff. You'd think you'd think, "Ya know... This may be something Steg knows 'just a bit' more about than I do. Perhaps I should back off because if I don't, I, at least, run the risk of kind of fueling his point about ignorant, arrogant Americans speaking out of turn and out of our asses." My dissertion topic, for God's sake, is a comparing and combining of Chinese philosphy, primarily Daoism and Confucianism, with the Personalism is Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, which I will finally juxtapose with the Buddhist philosophy of Tenzen Gyatso, The Dalai Lama. You're just a little bit in my wheelhouse here, don't you think? Your arrogant ass probably doesn't. You probably think you can teach me a thing or two about all that... and then some,... just like you can teach our Executive branch and Congress a thing or two about how to run the country. And, mind you, this still doesn't counter the point regarding the roots of the ethic of reciprocity, which Vonnegut was tendentiously presenting so as to knock Christianity, in the process giving a one-up to the Far-East (which, I'm sure, he knows little about), when in fact "the Golden Rule" appears in the West, in Judaism, the precursor to Christianity, WAY before it appeared in Confucianism (and before that in Egypt,... more West than Far-East). Quote:
Whatever... Quote:
You're not... ?.?.? Quote:
Bullshit, it doesn't! What... have you taken a fair and thorough poll on this to establish this "fact" (after all, you are ALL about your "facts")? As I stated before, I (personally) KNOW TWO Libertarians here YOU've turned off on and from this thread! What do you think... I don't speak with people about this stuff in "real" life or, in any event, find myself NEVER persuasive when I do? [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] I think my aforementioned convo regarding the "freedom from"-"freedom to" distinction right here with gridiron_legends, PH.D. (ABD), someone who I do know personally from CUA, mind you, testifies to that's not being the case. It just doesn't work for you. I don't think you are stupid, so I can only surmise that it's because you are not a patient enough reader, especially of things that don't (obviously and easily) jive with your thinking. Mind you, I am willing to grant that maybe you just don't have the time to read all my shit. JUST DON'T CLAIM OR MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH YOU'RE REALLY "RESPONDING" TO OR DIALOGUING WITH ME if that's the case. But, that's something I've come to accept. I don't even care to change your mind or make you think. The only problem remaining is that I don't appreciate you using this thread as a platform for your Libertarian, angst-filled crusade, and that's really the bottom line of why I even keep this crap up. In any event, if you think this claim of yours through vis-a-vis my position, while I'll admit that my writing is very, let's say, "windy", your claim is for me yet more proof in the pudding of our apathetic attitude toward education and resultant poverty in our educational system. I digress, yet again... The solution to the woes in our educational system does not lie in reallocation of funding as you and many suggest (off the cuff). The people and our attitude towards education needs to change first. Otherwise, the push to improve/FIX it really won't be there,... and then neither will the money. Quote:
I did, for the UMPTEENTH time, AGAIN, above. It's just not as convoluted as your story. If 20 to 50 years from now we have a South Korea in Iraq,... yadda, yadda, yadda,... for the MILLIONTH time! That's what I believe. End of story! I'm sorry it's not as "developed" the way you like and "supported" with "fact", like those someone who would even entertain reading Vonnegut and call Descartes a drunk fool would come up with. Quote:
Oh, you do... You know THEM ALL... from chaps like Vonnegut and Colbert... And, I, of course, know nothing and, moreover, don't care. Fuck you, you arrogant shit! I feel pretty damn confident in saying that, while you may know a lot about things regarding the war in Iraq (from sources "you trust"), you probably don't know ALL there is to know that matters. You are not claiming otherwise, ARE YOU??? You're not even in the military. You haven't been there. You clearly have a bias as is evidenced on this thread. So, I know you don't know EVERYTHING. So, in that case, you are at a point where the "substance" of what you (think you) know has led you to where you are. ... I know what I know (with reasonable certainty and from sources "I trust") and, more importantly, think about the operation in Iraq. I know it isn't nearly ALL there is to know. I know that I'll probably never know "ALL there is to know" about it, at least not for years to come, and probably not even then (we can't even definitively come to agreement on who had JFK assassinated, for goodness sake). But, I do know that what I know I've given good thought to, and "that" has led me to where I am. Now, if I have a choice, based on what you've shown on this thread, between, to put this in a short, catchy way, what you think you know and what I know I think, I'm going with the latter. Litmus test: JYJ, do you think that the explosion of TWA Flight 800 happened as "conventional" reports tell us, or are you of the opinion that it was due to a military bungle that is being covered up by our government? Quote:
?.?.? That's not "my point". As a matter of fact, it's "your hidden, CONDESCENDING point" to me (hidden and condescending in light of your arrogant question about my not knowing or, moreover, CARING about the reasons behind the war you have so "figured out"). People can surely affect others' thinking. It's just that we can't affect each others. Oh, well! [smiley=shrug.gif] ... So, is JYJ going to read, no less "get", 50%, 25%, 10% or 1% of what I wrote before responding to "it"? Place your bets! Place your bets! Point, again, being, there is (obviously) a TON going on in this post. Most important, though, is that "through all the trees (details) there is a forest ('bigger picture')" being painted. Now, you claim to not understand what I mean when I say (something like) that. So, let me try putting it this way... Just don't purport, JYJ, that you are responding to me/"this post", if you haven't, at least, read through it ALL with a reasonable level of care and made a sincere attempt to understand it, and don't just chalk up as bullshit that which you don't understand or aren't willing to take/(to be more generous) simply don't have the time to wrap your mind around,... PLEASE!!! ... I digress... I mean... screw "politics"! Back in the day you were confounded by what I was doing on the "music" thread. I mean I don't really think that's actually the case. I don't think you're that dumb. I just don't think you were paying attention, and I'll even grant you that with my "long-winded" shit, you may not have the time to keep up with it. BUT, then, you had to see that I was going to great lengths to avoid mentioning the artists and the songs' titles. You'd think you'd play it safe then instead of going against the pattern I had set up and (kind of off-puttingly) asking me "what's the point"... I mean once you knew you were cool and complied. But, why wasn't that the initial assumption? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sexydexy on Jun 18th, 2006, 4:47am The thing that amazes me about this thread is how seriously everyone takes themselves and their own political views. Interesting, indeed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 18th, 2006, 6:02am Quick case in point of one of the central points of my diatribe above I'd like to tag on here... ... In response to what I wrote here... on 06/15/06 at 22:28:40, StegRock wrote:
You wrote... on 06/15/06 at 23:35:39, junkyardjake wrote:
...TOTALLY non-responsive to and missing MY point. In fact, you are pulling that same move again noted long ago where you take something I or somebody else writes and just take it in YOUR direction. Mind you, it is fine that you go in your direction, but that technique makes it seem like you are actually "responding" to what the person wrote when you are TOTALLY NOT! As a matter of fact, like in this instance, you go in a direction that is ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY to what MY MAIN point was and belief is. I mean the direction you go in doesn't even "speak to" it. It's like we're not even conversing with each other. It's like I said, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," and you in all seriousness responded with "Huh, you don't say?!?! My neighbor actually works for the Lawn Doctor, and, you're right, Steg, his grass really is always greener!" :-X Now, you've not only missed the point and got me wrong and taken the conversation out into left field, but you've actually "responded" in a way that is TOTALLY contrary to my point and yet makes it seem as though you're in agreement with me. ?.?.? I mean... that's a skill, man! ... Again, here above, you take, mind you, the peripheral part of my sentence there, a mere appositive, a small step above a parenthetical, THE ONLY THING THAT I WROTE THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO YOU THOUGH, and go on with your deal. As a constitutional revisionist, which I've clearly stated I am on this thread, I believe that our focus should be on the "living" nature of our constitution. Upholding it is important; maintaining its "spirit" is more important,... but, for me, it's all secondary to our upDATING it and making sure that it continues to live and breath. THAT, I believe, is its strength. So, if I may use your words here, "Jake, great post, as usual, few words, but unable to refute any of my points." I mean... it's not that you were really unable to refute or show legitimate disagreement with my point. It's that you didn't even try,... BUT (did so in a way that) made it seem like you did. Mind you, Jake, I too don't really (do a good job of) "respond(ing)" to, no less countering, your stuff anymore. IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T PRETEND TO!!! I see that we speak a different language. That's why I don't question you (on already established positions). I barely address you in the interrogative at all anymore. It's just your "stream of consciousness" versus my "stream of consciousness". It's not the most productive path, but I can accept it. Just don't make it seem like it's anything more than that. Stop with the "refutational" rhetoric like we're actually refuting each other. We aren't. We're just talking at each other. The only caveat from my side, again, is that I wish you'd stop using this thread as a stage for your Libertarian political agenda and just let people give their positions and views on various issues like we were doing WAY BACK at the outset of this thread. On that [smiley=note.gif], as per that "lost" post of mine above, what do yous make of the connection between "Yahoo!" and the "Democratic Party" on my "American football" news feed??? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 18th, 2006, 10:41am Steg, thanks for your thoughful response(s), I apologize if I caused you an ulcer and put you in a foul mood. I think we should call a truce on the Iraq issue. I appreciate your position that we should be a benefactor in the world, but I promise you democracy in Iraq was not our primary policy reason, and obviously WMD's had no relevance. No, I'm not in the military, but I know and have talked to people who have gone back and forth on different missions, and one thing I can tell you is that it is absolutely true that we are building permanent bases there. As far as the underlying reasons, we can table that discussion for another time, if you have an honest curiousity, follow the money. Has Iraq been a total unmitigated disaster... no, for example, I've tried to determine the death rate per 100,000 pre and post Saddam, and although there are no truly reliable sources for this, I think a very rough estimation is: Pre-Saddam - Annualized 60 per 100,000 (Alot of this was the result of the adverse effect of UN sanctions, i.e. infant mortality). Post-Saddam - Annualized 30 per 100,000. Now if this is anywhere near true, then obviously you can't put a price tag on a result like this. However, also consider that approximately 60% of the world is oppressed by some kind of authoritarian regime, and Saddam's reign was our creation, and one of the least dangerous and destructive of them all. In pratical terms, the cost/benefit does not make sense when you consider that positive developments in Iraq could have been achieved in other, far more humanitarian ways. Now our resources are severely constrained by the Iraq war, and our credibilty as a benefactor in the world has been arguably damaged, maybe permanently. Also consider that Osama Bin Laden got exactly what he wanted as a result of Iraq war, we removed our bases from Saudi Arabia, meanwhile THAT oppressive regime now has more direct control over the world's oil supply. (While Iraqi oil formerly constituted a competing supply to OPEC, now they are under direct control of OPEC. If you want the reason for $3.00 a gallon gas, there it is.) Quote:
I know I did, I realized afterwards that they are not the same, it was really to illustrate a broader point (I got the right continent though !). Still, I can appreciate that the difference is important to you as a student of philosophy, but the Ethic of Reciprocity IS implied in the Christian faith no matter how many sources from Stanford University you wish to cite. What Confucious really meant (or really said for that matter), is irrelevant to me and probably to most Christians. If that sounds provincial and ignorant, so be it. Quote:
No we can't, but it's definitely not who The Warren Report said it was. Can we trust the 9/11 Commission ? Quote:
Honestly, I haven't looked into that at all. I have looked into the 9/11 flights 77 and 93, and there are some very interesting theories floating around concerning those crashes. Check out 'The New Pearl Harbor' if you get the chance. It's authored by David Ray Griffin (Professor, Philosophy of Religion at Claremont School of Theology, you may have heard of him). http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565529/sr=8-1/qid=1150641843/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3880613-5402214?%5Fencoding=UTF8 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 19th, 2006, 6:52am on 06/18/06 at 10:41:08, junkyardjake wrote:
What the hell is going on here??? I NEVER said it wasn't. This is what I wrote... on 06/08/06 at 06:17:30, StegRock wrote:
[smiley=uh.gif] Are you "fact-finding conspiracy theorists" always this lax about your... "facts"??? [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] Quote:
YIKES! [smiley=yikes.gif] Did you even read what I wrote... at all??? Quote:
Here you again taking, of ALL I wrote, something I put in parentheses, and using it for tread... While the Warren Commission Report may not paint the "whole picture" (read, not the "bigger picture"; again, "bigger picture" does not = "sum total of facts" just like a "team" does not = the "sum of its parts"), I think the picture it paints is accurate to a degree/in general and, in any event, I AM NOT suggesting (by my little parenthetical) that it should just be scrapped. The analogy I would go with,... I see it as (at least) a coloring book, which, then, depending on your predisposition, is only partially colored in or has yet to be colored in. I may be willing to grant that it's like a paint-by-numbers book with a number here or there out of place (PLEASE don't isolate this line, though; connect it to what I've written below in the next section), but I will not go as far as to suggest that I think that the outlines are fundamentally inaccurate or, moreover, intentionally made so. Like the level-headed, fair-minded, even-handed reviewers, who by and large go by real names and indicate proper locations,... unlike reviewer mtspace "Reader, Cook, Gardener, Critic", who resides "Somewhere in NJ USA", and his conspiracy buddy iAmerican - Concerned Citizen, neither of whose reviews are found very helpful,... I think the WCR is not only a good place to start your JFK assassination studies, but "the" place to start: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312082576/qid=1150695058/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7218936-0379148?s=books&v=glance&n=283155. I think the 9/11 Commission Report is an even tighter document, so... Quote:
[smiley=thumbsdown.gif] This part I can't even believe I'm going to dignify with a response... [smiley=nono.gif] It and your posting it speak volumes... First off, even though I think Vonnegut is a moron when he steps outside his comic realm and I am working toward my Ph.D. (in Philosophy) and point to people like Dr. Roger Ames (of whom I am a student) and Bill Bennett, I emphatically do NOT believe that a Ph.D. in and of itself exempts one from being a moron. For one, refer to my "UH fire - firefighters versus professors" story above, and note my admiration for and agreement with Dennis Miller, comedian. My prodding about Vonnegut's being a comedian is just to indicate that that is where I think his talent/brilliance cashes out, i.e. that he shouldn't "quit his 'day' job" as comic. Being a professor doesn't make you right... or even smart for that matter, and being a comedian doesn't make you wrong... or dumb. Some Ph.D.'s are just Piled Higher and Deeper and that's it. Dr. Griffin, who's cleverly carved a niche for himself and capitalized on 9/11 writing this kind of stuff, and whose book(s) I can't find a review for from a legit(imately unbiased), time-tested, well-reputed source aside from the one up at Amazon, which concludes, "Even many Bush opponents will find these charges ridiculous, though conspiracy theorists may be haunted by the suspicion that we know less than we think we do about that fateful day," is "Piled Higher and Deeper". It didn't take little old ME long to catch "Doc" here being very tendentious, if not in a bold-faced lie, or, at least, not having done his homework. He writes, "The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never." I guess he didn't know about the Chicago's McCormick Place Convention Center fire of 1967. But, WHATEVER, you look at (some of) the stuff and see what you think... Griffin's "tale": http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html; unbiased material/neutral commentary: http://www.PBS.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/, http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21, http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/New_York/Cities/Manhattan/Entertainment_and_Arts/Architecture/Buildings_and_Monuments/World_Trade_Center/Structural_Collapse. ANYWAY,... there is no dearth of conspiracy theories "floating" around out there... There are conspiracy theories about TWA Flight 800, the Moon Walk, something I just found out about while digging for a "legit" review/criticism of Griffin's book - (the real) Pearl Harbor (FDR was a real scumbag according to these theories), and the list goes on and on and on, but one of my favorites, which truly is plausible (I mean... plausibility is the name of the conspiracy game, after all) and is, in any event, much more relevant to the goings on here at "the Gridiron @FantasyFootballer.com", the New York Jets victory over the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III, as presented at the Griffin-loving site Disinfo.com, which I can only surmise would be a regular stop for JYJ, in the article "the nfl: professional fantasy football? (http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1634/pg1/)". Now, THAT'S a conspiracy that rings TRUE. And, to think of all the Jets fans out there who think they really "won" a Super Bowl. :-X ... [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] In any event, I find that conspiracy theories generally assume that individual (groups of) men have and exert WAY MORE control than Man does. Man is not in this much control of the world. Man isn't even that intelligent. Conspiracy theories are really all about rational man, who, in his mental feebleness, cannot grasp all the world's complex interrelations and interconnections, but seeks out that feeling of being in control, trying to make sense of a world that all too often just doesn't make sense. It's about man seeking out a plan, an intelligent design if you will, when there just isn't one (at least not in the realm of Man). So, the irony,... it is the conspiracy theorists themselves who are obsessed with control... just as much as, if not much more so than the people/politicians they theorize about desire/wield. On top of all that, conspiracy theories assume a fundamental misanthropy that in itself is implausible. Bottom line, there is SO MUCH in the world to read. Any one person will be lucky to touch upon a billionth of a percent of all there is. As such, the key skill is to be able to discern what's worth reading and what's not. I'm surely not putting down Wojtyla's The Acting Person, which will help me to acquire that keen discernment, for that get-me-nowhere junk (just reading the material at the link I give above was enough of a waste of my time and mental energy). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 19th, 2006, 9:33am on 06/19/06 at 06:52:48, StegRock wrote:
Oh, ok, so now you are finally admitting that you wasted your time, and my time (surely I was the only one who read that nonsense) with your grandstanding,belligerent, drama queen [smiley=dramaqueen.gif] explanation on how the Christian golden rule and the alledged Confucious version are soooooooo different, that the substitution of one over the other constitutes an egregious affront to all that is rational, decent and moral. [smiley=donut.gif] Super-Duper, alrighty then....[smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] on 06/19/06 at 06:52:48, StegRock wrote:
I'm not completely sure you would know a fact if it landed on your head and built a nest. [smiley=chicken.gif] on 06/19/06 at 06:52:48, StegRock wrote:
Yes, maybe you are right, that could be why it was necessary to remove 28-pages. Too much truth might be dangerous for the ignorant masses. on 06/19/06 at 06:52:48, StegRock wrote:
Well, this is a first, you are actually citing a tangible example to support your point. I'm impressed. Here's the Chicago Convention Center after the fire in 1967: http://www.exhibitoronline.com/spotlight/historygallery/images/largeviews/photo_4.jpg Does that look like a 110-story steel-reinforced skyscraper to you ? It kind of looks like a Wal-Mart that collapsed after the Slurpee machine at the snack bar blew up. I have no idea what really happened to the Twin Towers, but attempting to rebut Griffin's argument with this comparison, if indeed you even know what his argument is, just seems silly. Here's a tip, not everything that you disagree with is called a 'conspiracy theory', and not everyone who maintains a view that differs from yours is a 'liar'. Gore Vidal once suggested that whenever you hear the government apologists getting all worked up over some information that conflicts with the institutional story-line, and begin to generously toss around the term 'conspiracy theory'....'conspiracy theory' might be code for 'unspeakable truth'. [smiley=secret.gif] Maybe that guy isn't so crazy after all. The definition of a 'conspiracy' is the agreement of 2 or more parties to perform a illegal act. That makes you a conspiracy theorist, except you evidently choose to believe the official theory about 19 hijackers with safety pins and pocket knives. I happen to believe flying monkeys [smiley=monkey.gif] armed with rocket propelled grenades caused the Twin Tower collapse. Be careful not to disagree with me, I might start calling you a liar and a conspiracy theorist. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 19th, 2006, 5:36pm (Expletives by and large (trust me... there were a TON MORE) removed after LONG and DEEP breaths...) Of ALL YOUR junk, I'm just going to quote this because it's personal... on 06/19/06 at 09:33:36, junkyardjake wrote:
F U, you TWISTED a-hole!!! God, I'm tired of waking up to and starting my day off with your shit... You twist my words and others' around just enough to sling it back at us. You are, as is evidenced right here, just as obstinate about "facts" that don't agree with your position as you claim I am... so much so that you, with your belief that you have a right to have an opinion about everything and that your opinion has the RIGHT to equal consideration even if you are pulling it out of your ass, even go up against an expert in an area! What hubris! ... Except, as per your own assertions about me, I don't really even know about the facts of these political matters you, Dr. Know-it-all Jackweed, know ALL about. Point being, I have an excuse for my obstinance... according to you. Vonnegut, who you are obviously willing to go down both for... and on, STARTS his spiel off there with a "half-truth" (not even half true, in fact, mind you), "facts" twisted just enough to fool the average-Joe reader, commencing his campaign to discredit Christianity. If you can't see his clearly DISINGENUOUS and UNSCRUPULOUS modus operandi and twisting of the facts, God help you! In any case, I NEVER said it was "an egregious affront to all that is rational, decent and moral." It's the VERY FIRST thing he presents, and I just called it what it was,... INCORRECT on TWO fronts! MIND YOU, ONE OF THE TWO FRONTS, THE ONE THAT REGARDS THE HISTORY OF THE ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY, YOU LEAVE COMPLETELY UNADDRESSED, BURIED UNDER YOUR HYPERBOLE OF THE OTHER PART, THE ONE ABOUT THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO "GOLDEN RULES", BECAUSE WHILE THE LATTER TOOK MORE EFFORT AND SPACE TO EXPLAIN GIVEN ITS LOGICAL INTRICACY MAKING IT SOMETHING YOU CAN CONVOLUTE, THE OTHER ONE IS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND YOU JUST CANNOT REFUTE IT. You're stuck so you try and bury it. Your mind isn't supple enough to appreciate the logical intricacy, no less the philosophical and anthropoligical beauty, of the latter, but the fact of the matter, though, in any event, is that you're ultimately stuck on both fronts. In any event, let's replay this... You wrote... on 06/18/06 at 10:41:08, junkyardjake wrote:
And, in response, I wrote... on 06/19/06 at 06:52:48, StegRock wrote:
And, in response to that, you wrote the above... What the...??? ?.?.? ... [smiley=stars.gif] ... VERY briefly, regarding the Chicago fire, it's a comparison made in one of the sources I linked to above. I'm not sure of the guy's credentials, but the comparison, regarding the effects of fire and heat on steel, I think are fairly cogent and, in any event, reasonable. In fact, as you go to point out, Griffin's point, as per the link (to the "alternative" (there, is that better?) theory site) I provide above, is PRECISELY that this has NEVER happened to ANY steel structure EVER. It's you who I wonder whether or not understand his point (at least regarding this). The fact that the World Trade Center was 110 stories (Is that a proven fact? Or, was that part of the "conspiracy" or whatever you want to call it for us to claim the tallest building in the world at the time?) is exactly what he wants to sidestep the importance of as that would speak to the EXTRAordinary nature of the event, which he wants to play down. He wants to say that it's the FIRST-EVER collapse of a steel structure OF ANY SIZE due to fire and that is proof that it could not have happened the way the "conventional" theories suggest. Regarding my use of the word "conspiracy",... that's the word ALL OVER the sites pimping the likes of Dr. Griffin's works. What can I say? Griffin does the same thing you're trying to do here, turn the term "conpiracy" back around on the "conventional" government theories. I ultimately say, "WHAT-EVER!" If the shoe fits, where it. If you think the shoe fits on me or others, put it on us. To those looking on, it'll be clear whose shoes fit well and whose don't. You're a "free market" kind of guy... We'll see how this all washes out in the market, right? Or, are you suggesting we're all just a bunch of lemmings for the government, in which case... ?.?.???? And, his implosion argument... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] If you buy that load,... there, again, just isn't any hope... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] No "unmotivated" demolition expert accepts that... And, by the way, another Piled, Higher and Deeper moron,... Ward [smiley=chief.gif]"Littlefoot"[smiley=redskin.gif] Churchill. ::) Anyway,... GO JETS!!! J-E-T-S,... Jet, Jets, Jets!!! "Winners" [smiley=secret.gif] of ONE Super Bowl, Super Bowl III that is!!! ... There's definitely "Evidence that 'DEMANDS' a Verdict"!!! [smiley=coolit.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 20th, 2006, 12:25am Jake, you(r tack) anger(s) me so that sometimes I forget to comment on areas where there is a middle ground on which I am willing to meet you, for sure. On the other hand, in fairness to my position, I get the strong feeling from you that "victory" is not "meeting in the middle", whereas, it is (or at least can be, as is borne out below) for me. It's absolute persuasion to your side, all or nothing,... and until then it's that we're not there yet out of our own ignorance. In fact, I think the side you are on/advocating necessitates such one-sidedness. Since these theories are so intricately woven together, the middle ground may often be tantamount to giving up the theory,... and that ain't no good... In this sense, I see your position as inherently (and unnecessarily) contentious/acrimony-laden... not because of you, but because of it... (hearkens back to my whole "you become it"/"it doesn't become you" thing). Anyway... on 06/18/06 at 10:41:08, junkyardjake wrote:
I am not going to say that there is NOT dirty business (involving politicians even) going on. I am sure there is. You should by way of this thread and discussion know that I am not a fan of capitalism, moreover, the American brand thereof, which I do think there are unsavory characters at the controls of. I'm not going to say that there aren't capitalist opportunists around and a lot of quid pro quo going on on every corner, and Washington D.C. is DEFINITELY no exception. But, what's new there? Furthermore, we do tend to give work to our friends who we know and trust, and there isn't necessarily anything dirty in that. That's the way of capitalism. But, in any event, I don't roll dirty business deals back to being complicit to events the likes of 9/11. There's "business" to be done in Iraq, and unsavory opportunists will be lining up with their back-scratchers and willing to cut ethically questionable deals. I believe that the money trail can lead back to some ugly business transactions, ugliness that has existed since time immemorial, though, in my mind. In other words, in short, I am willing to meet you halfway that the money trail will lead you to some capitalist scoundrels, but not to 9/11 conspirators. Furthermore, being a constitutional purist and patriotic American on the one hand and one who bashes our current leadership, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, on the other is a very tight rope to walk. Things don't just change overnight. Our current leadership is a product of a long history coming out of The Constitution. It could be argued that the seed from which these current politicians who, as you claim, don't uphold The Constitution is IN The Constitution itself. It probably can't be pointed out/to right in the document. Maybe it's a gestalt of the (spirit of the) document. I don't know. But, (since you say you are a Reagan apologist) the Clinton and Bush administrations and Congress during those periods didn't just plop into existence out of thin air, and The Constitution (along with the antecedent Declaration of Independence) is our founding document. ... Now, if I say that Benjamin Franklin was the one who planted that fateful seed,... now we got ourselves a "conspiracy" theory... [smiley=stirthepot.gif] ... [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] ... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 20th, 2006, 3:05am Just to get this out there... I would defend Hillary Clinton if she were our President and the target of these over-the-top accusations. My wife, wondering if this BS is what's still causing me to be in a bit of a funk, wanted to discuss this with me and read through the thread. Her one comment, "This guy needs to live in China for a year." [smiley=shrug.gif] ... Now, again, more back toward what was supposed to be the original spirit of this thread,... there is still that pending question of mine... What do yous make of the connection between "Yahoo!" and the "Democratic Party" on my "American football" news feed??? Another question I'd like to throw out there,... what do you guys think of Tucker Carlson? I ask because I don't quite know what to make of the guy... And, what the hell,... I'll throw this one out there for Jake... JYJ, why do you think that theories like Griffin's don't really take hold? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 20th, 2006, 7:16am Just poking my head out of the fox hole Quote:
All I know about Carlson is he and Jon Stewart really went at it on the Daily show. I think he is sort of a money sponge, getting rich on taking a side that is overly controversial. A lot like what happens on this thread. [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] Wheres our Money? [smiley=money.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 25th, 2006, 4:51pm If you are a Democrat I apologize ahead of time. I know that this has a decidedly Republican slant. I am sure that the Republican party has just as many glaring faults within the FICA program. Do not shoot me, I am just a messenger. :) Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of The money we paid to the Federal government to "p u t away" -- you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically Controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, Even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the Dems. turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 26th, 2006, 2:24pm Mordeci, great post, yes the social security system is a debacle. Obviously, the program was well-intentioned, but it is a great example of why government should be as limited and unintrusive as possible, and that personal accountability in retirement planning would probably work best. There certainly have been many structural changes in the economy since the 1930's, the most significant of which as related to personal retirement planning is the accessibility of 401K savings accounts. Seemingly, you would think that there should be little reason for retaining the social security system in it's current albatross form. Of course, there still needs to remain some kind of safety net system for those who are incapable, or stubbornly refuse to save for their own retirements. I've always thought that there should be a completely voluntary opt-out process, where you could take a standardized test to demonstrate your financial acumen and absolve yourself of the whole mess. If you pass the test, which would primarily cover your knowledge of financial markets, retirement options, basic accounting etc...., you could elect to no longer pay into the system. If you fail the test, or otherwise decide to stay in the system, then you have your government account. One huge difference from the current system however, is that every dollar you put into the system should go to buying Treasury notes, which at worst earn around 3-4% a year (They have earned as much as 11% during periods of high inflation). Under the current system you don't see any direct correlation between your savings and a return of your savings. In fact, I've it was effectively around an annual 1% ? Speaking of 1%, it's also interesting to look at the origins of the federal income tax. According to Wikipedia, in 1913 when the first income tax was introduced 'Congress levied a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6% surtax on incomes of more than $500,000'. Look at what a monster that has turned into. The other real tragedy with the current system is the extent to which so much social security money is allocated to inefficient government spending, completely unrelated from it's original purpose. The macroeconomic consequences of this are not insignificant, government expenditure 'crowds out' productive investment. A simple example- instead of private capital that have been used to help finance the development of a solar powered car, we instead finance the building of a bridge in Alaska for a town with a population of 300 persons, or use more money to pay farmers not to plant anything. One thing though, I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to cast the blame on any one party. Let's face it, long are the days since the financial conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and even Newt Gringich. The current Republican party has proven that they can be as fiscally irresponsible as any loony democrat: http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040624_spending.gif |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 26th, 2006, 2:27pm on 06/19/06 at 17:36:13, StegRock wrote:
I would have to say, that is the most eloquent, well-reasoned 'fuck you' message I think I have ever seen. Not to say I didn't deserve it, I was just tired of hearing alot of my points trifled away as 'conspiracy theories', and then to top it off, you had to trash my Jets. In any event, you have a real gift. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jun 26th, 2006, 2:43pm on 06/20/06 at 03:05:53, StegRock wrote:
That kind of virtue goes above and beyond that which could be expected of any American. [smiley=angel.gif] on 06/20/06 at 03:05:53, StegRock wrote:
I just heard an interesting story the other day about the 'Chinese Death Van', evidently the oppressive totalitarian society equivalent of the 'Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol'. The key differences, of course, are that the probability of getting a visit from the death van are much higher than winning a sweepstakes, and when they stop by, there are no balloons, because their purpose is to snuff you out as a result of your political dissent or whatever other arbitrary reason. How any American is not ashamed of our free trade policy with that country is incomprehensible. on 06/20/06 at 03:05:53, StegRock wrote:
Really photogenic, well-prepared, smart guy, but completely partisan to the point where he almost reduces himself to irrelevancy. Carlson kind of reminds me of a cross between an articulate Sean Hannity, and Johnny Depp, if Johnny Depp was a homo who wore bowties. (Sorry, that was as complimentary as I could get with that guy). [smiley=beaver.gif] on 06/20/06 at 03:05:53, StegRock wrote:
If I had to guess, I would say the reason the American public does not pay sufficient attention to alternate media could be a general combination of three factors: 1) Optimism - For good reason, Americans are basically an optimistic bunch, residing in the greatest country in the world will certainly help enforce that kind of disposition. Civil servants in this country are afforded a very strong rebuttable presumption of good faith. Americans don't want to believe these people are not acting in the best interest of the country. 2) Stability of the political system - Our carefully crafted system of checks and balances, in most cases, ensures that when a breach of the public trust occurs, there will be consequences. Ironically, alternative media, independent research, unfettered free expression, and the media in general, is instrumental in making sure this happens. 3) Shortage of time and short attention span - Americans, especially in recent years, have incurred increased financial obligations, and the fact that so much of their income must be committed first to taxes (as alluded to indirectly by Mordeci above), makes it necessary to devote much of their time to attempting to attain financial stability. This means, for example, many more working couples, much less free time as they attempt to catch up with family obligations when they are not chasing the dollar bills. Bottom line, most Americans simply don't have time or patience to care about investigative reporting, and are generally content with relying on mainstream media sources, sources who generally try to remain as unprovocative, and sporadically sensationalistic as possible to balance the demands of their short attention audience, and their intolerant corporate sponsors. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Tucker Carlson Post by StegRock on Jun 28th, 2006, 5:22am Re: Tucker Carlson on 06/26/06 at 14:43:40, junkyardjake wrote:
No need to be sorry... In fact, I think we agree, and, furthermore, I think you have largely captured my sentiments about the guy that I couldn't put together... [smiley=bullseye.gif] Hannity, who I find that I happen to often agree with, is ultimately WAY TOO partisan for my (true) tastes, so I realize that we are coming to our conclusions, similar though they often may be, in VERY different manners. But, at least he is abundantly clear about his partisanness... For him, he is working absolutely, but at least admittedly, in our two-party political system and he is fighting for what he thinks is the right side. Again, I'm NOT endorsing that approach. I think it's [smiley=pig.gif]-headed. What I would like to add to your commentary JYJ is that Carlson, besides all that you said, also seems to have a "wolf in sheep's clothing" aspect to him that makes him also seem disingenuous. He is obviously partisan, but apparently wants to make it seem as though he entertains the ideas of the other side in a way that seems very insincere. Hannity, again, not my favorite, at least doesn't do that, not that that is an ultimate saving grace. I can surely appreciate where people who say they just can't stand Hannity are coming from. It seems like Carlson avoids such backlash by "appearing" to play the middle when really his m.o. is virtually no different than Hannity's. Maybe, all of what I'm saying here is what you were trying to capture when you threw in the Johnny Depp allusion. Anyway, I think we are on the same page here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Tucker Carlson Post by junkyardjake on Jun 28th, 2006, 1:53pm on 06/28/06 at 05:22:32, StegRock wrote:
That's an interesting observation. Honestly, I haven't paid attention to him all that closely, I tend to quickly tune out anyone of those talking heads who seem overly subjective. (Maybe too quickly). Carlson does seem overly subjective, but if he is also a phony, that makes him especially useless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Tony_O on Jun 28th, 2006, 2:47pm Just my opinion........ If you guys took as much time to read the BIBLE as you do to read the writings of umimportant political authors or conspiriacy theories, you would be much better off. Heres a tip......Stop reading the newspaper and Stop watching the news. The world is messed up and it's not going to get any better. Both parties have an agenda and both parties will lie, cheat, cover up, and kill to achieve it. (although I think the Democratic Presidents have been FAR greater for me as a person and my economic stability) All I "really"(and by really I mean spending a great amount of time on) focus on now is my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ, and my right standing with him. Granted, I love and honor my wife and kids, and I continue to work, provide, and have fun with my family. I still play Fantasy Football and have other interests, but they are secondary to my relationship with God, my helping others, spreading the gospel, and insuring that me and my family have attained salvation. Steg, I'm sure your wife knows that in China they Kill more Christians then they do political malcontents! Don't get my post wrong either....I'm not here to judge anyone. I just think there is a lot better things to do with your time than worry about what our government is doing or getting into dissagreements with someone else about their idea or view on the subject. For example, all it did for you Steve was make you upset and irritable in your house, in some way disturb your relationship with your wife, and waste countless hours of your time defending yourself to Jake. Take the time to enjoy yourself, enjoy your families, and focus on the things that really matter. WHERE AM I GOING WHEN I DIE?????? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 28th, 2006, 4:45pm Is this the same Tony_O who said at a time that if I were standing before him saying what I was saying I'd be picking my teeth up off the ground? ?.?.? ... ;) Maybe it is... Maybe it isn't... It's all good... I'm just going to say this... As long as it, the debate, the discussion, doesn't end acrimoniously/mentally unresolved in the end, it's all good. Yes, I was aggravated. But, through (exposing oneself to non-trivial (we can differ on what's trivial and not trivial;... for me, traffic - trivial; engaging and even contentious discussion on matters of life, including but not limited to politics, religion, philosophy, world-views, psychology, etc. - not trivial)) aggravation, and a panoply of other emotions, comes growth and really getting to know people (beyond the veneer). Truth be said, I only went out of my way to express the aggravation I was enduring... when, in fact, as things come to a head here and there on this thread and there's some give-and-take, even in just the slightest of ways, there is GREAT SATISFACTION... and not just in merely "winning", but in the feeling that you have come to understand another human being (moreover, someone who you are working somewhat closely with on a project) more deeply, and, furthermore, to a degree that outweighs the aggravation endured tenfold. It's a mental and emotional investment not all too different from a financial one. This place (from a strict financial perspective) does nothing but consume my time and money, but it all seems so worth it when someone throws me a 20 spot or whatever to "help the cause" because it "substantively" shows that they appreciate and endorse my efforts. If I wanted to really avoid aggravation, I'd have dropped "the Gridiron" like a hot potato long ago. [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] In fact, it is my "tolerance" for it that keeps this place alive... and well. Anyway,... now we're talking politics AND RELIGION! YIKES!!! [smiley=yikes.gif] My toes are feeling pretty raw! ;) But, I am going to keep this innocuous (though I know there is a caustic response to your post (especially the "WHERE AM I GOING WHEN I DIE?" part), which I truly do have NO interest in getting into (that's why I went with "politics" here with this thread rather than "religion", contentious, but not that contentious))... As for me,... I have a "deistish" approach to life which is VERY fulfilling... As for the American brand of Christianity,... it's all good... as can the Korean brand of Buddhism be... and so on. I lean toward what I was raised in, Roman Catholicism,... but whatever. My extended family covers the range of denominations from Roman Catholics to Born-again Baptists,... and via my wife's family, Buddhists. Mainly (as per my dissertational interests which I mentioned earlier), I am just a fan of the philosophy of Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II (popularly known as Personalism, but I think that is a limiting term). I am also a fan of the philosophy of Tenzen Gyatso, The Dalai Lama (popularly known as Tibetan Zen Buddhism, but, again, I think that is a limiting label). ... Anyway, I am sure that you are not saying that Christianity puts you in a state of ultimate and absolute beatitude. It just helps you find solace amidst the aggravations of the world. It doesn't eliminate them. It is just that mine are on display here on "the Gridiron" because,... well,... first off, this is my "home (away from home)" to some degree (a degree, though, with all due respect to the amount of time some of you guys hang out here, you cannot begin to fathom) but, furthermore, because I tend to deal with people in life and, in any event, run this place with my heart on my sleeve and, moreover, with the eye of a perfectionist wanting to (do his best to) do things the right and fair way. I appreciate the sentiments, at any rate, though, Toner. :D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 4th, 2006, 2:00am [offtopic]I'm just going to throw this little tidbit out there for those interested to chew on... Some people are "outside -> in" people, searching for the truth "outside" in the world or from above and bringing it in. VERY generally speaking, we in the West, e.g. Christians as well as scientists in the western tradition, tend in this direction. Other people are "inside -> out" people, searching for the truth "inside" themselves and extending it out to the world. Again, VERY generally speaking, people in the East, e.g. Buddhists, Confucians and Daoists, tend this way. I personally lean toward the latter (in fact, "from within" is where I believe it, the journey, must begin,... but understand that what I am talking about is NOT analogous to praying to God or having a "personal" relationship with Christ), but was raised in and have an appreciation of the former. Ultimately,... when it's all clicking,... it should be an outward spiral,... inside -> out and outside -> in and around and around, increasing in scope (understanding/enlightenment) with each cycle. Anyway,... I am not going to write it "ALL" out here and now. This is not the right place, both generally and specifically, nor the right time. In fact, displaying the "WHOLE" picture isn't even an option yet for me. It's a work in progress. The proof, in any event, does not come in the form of (persuasive) writing/discussion. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is life itself. Also, I really don't have a whole lot figured out, anyway. I am on the right path, I believe, a really good one, at any rate (in VERY short, that of the examined life). I think I have a great understanding of the "how" of things (which is what I think must be tackled first, in any case), but most of the "whats" and "whys" still elude me. So, someday I'll right my spiel on the deal (there go those rhymin' skillz again). The reason for waiting, again, is twofold. One, after (many) more years of living, I'll (potentially) have more "proof in the pudding" to present. Two, I'll (potentially) be more the wiser, having nailed the how and figured out some of the key whats and whys and being able to intelligibly relate it all. Furthermore, from a practical perspective, I will (God and me willing) have that Ph.D. in Philosophy to lend credence to my words. So, in lieu of "spelling it ALL out" as if,... I would surely welcome questions and conversation if you actually have a "sincere" interest in what Steggie's "deal" might be. We shouldn't do that here, however. If you want to shoot some questions my way or strike up a conversation about this "real life" stuff, it would be better to do so via this old thread: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=58;action=display;num=1037120039. Again,... I'm NOT up for a debate with this stuff. This is about living life and how I "live" mine, which I am absolutely content with and (as such) am willing to share (like I do this very site). This is NOT a "topic" up for debate, per se, BUT one that could be "conversed" about if for some "odd" reason you're interested... in seeing what makes the old Stegger here tick. So, if you want a little "Steggie" style dharma talk, head on over to that thread and let's talk... :) ... [smiley=zenmaster.gif][/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jul 6th, 2006, 12:31am The always incisive Ron Paul.... If only we had around 500 more congressman like him. [smiley=patriot.gif] http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst070306.htm A New Declaration July 3, 2006 On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth that they were free. They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away. In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the 'injuries and usurpations' that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights. One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been 'imposing Taxes on us without our Consent'. But 230 years later, taxation with representation has not worked out much better. Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes. In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans, work from January until early July just to pay their federal income taxes, state and local taxes, and the enormous costs of regulation. Only about half the year is spent working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or education. It is easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But blame also rests with those who expect Washington DC to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution and pass only constitutional spending bills, politicians would have no choice but to respond. Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th. Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best. When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 12th, 2006, 7:40pm Innocuous post here that is VERY appropriate for "the Gridiron" "politics" thread here... From "The REAL Feed": In run for Pa. governor, ex-football great finds footing a little slippery (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/wires/07/12/2020.ap.fbo.pennsylvania.governor.swann.0889/index.html) SI.com: NFL (12.07.2006 14:19) [smiley=elephant.gif] [smiley=towelwave.gif]... kind of... [smiley=drown.gif] :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 26th, 2006, 6:03am Koffe Annan has proclaimed that he thinks the Israeli strike that caused the death of the U.N. workers was "deliberate". Isn't that, at least, premature... if not downright irresponsible? That's what he thinks... Shouldn't he keep that to himself, [smiley=zipit.gif] though,... for fear of contributing fuel to the fire,... inciting war, a world war given his position. :-/ I mean it's one thing if it's JYJ sayin' that kind of thang here on the "G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics" thread on "the Sidelines" of "the Gridiron" forum at FantasyFootballer.com, but it's a WHOLE nother when it's the head of the U.N. ... ON THE OTHER HAND, I heard (on,... gasp,... FOXNews, Your World w/ Cavuto), unlike a lot of the unsympathetic, mean-spirited spewage I hear... "here and there", a VERY cogent anti-Israel argument... made by an ORTHODOX JEWISH RABBI!!! He pointed out the fatal flaw of the Zionist ideology. His main point, which was very cogent and straightforward, is that making a Jewish state (though at the time a well-intentioned response to the holocaust) goes AGAINST Judaism! Jews (as the chosen ones) are to live and be accomplished in all nations of the world. They are not supposed to have a "state" and be directly brought per se as a group into the political sphere. I worked as the Language Arts teacher at one of our many Hillel Academies that exist in America, and, as someone who's philosophically and academically interested in Messianic Judaism and has done some reading in the area and whose best man at his wedding was a Jew, what this rabbi was saying was jiving with my experience. I too have mentioned on this thread that perhaps we should cut our losses with "respect" to (and for) Israel, but that in doing so it has to be made sure that Islamists (as opposed to Muslims as I am going to start calling them) are NOT emboldened with some warped sense of righteousness. It's not an easy knot to untangle,... especially since, at its absolute core, there are well-intentioned people. It just goes to show yet again how "intentions" aren't good enough... if you want to live an ethical life. ... To top it off, I hear about this University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett, [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] who thinks that not just 9/11 was orchestrated by OUR governement, but just about everything since, including claiming current attacks in Iraq are performed by the CIA and special ops. Holy, moron! :-X This guy's got to be a disgruntled (Baltimore) Colts fan, huh? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by junkyardjake on Jul 26th, 2006, 1:28pm on 07/26/06 at 06:03:40, StegRock wrote:
I've never accused Israel of anything that wasn't absolutely true. If you recall, the posts that I deleted from this board made two points: 1) Although Israel, OF COURSE, has the right to exist without worrying about terrorist attacks on it's country (and of course an implied right to defend itself from said terrorist attacks), they have been in violation of numerous UN resolutions associated with their encroachment on, and destruction of Palestinian property, and on this basis alone we should not be sending them $3.5 billion a year. As a corollary to this issue, also note that Israel possesses unauthorized nuclear weapons. 2) Zionism, which is the idea that persons of the Jewish faith, should return to the 'homeland' is essentially the ideology which has created the modern state of Israel. Because the religious underpinnings of Zionism are inextricable from the secular objectives associated with statehood (i.e. it generally assumes that only persons of the Jewish faith are entitled to full citizenship), my second argument was that support of Israel, in the highly preferential manner currently conducted by the US government, is unconstitutional. I say the current 'highly preferential manner' in which we support Israel, because that is what is happening. Ideally, we should not be continuously supporting any country financially. or otherwise, but when we do, we should do so in a way that does not offend persons of any religion. A simple synopsis of the situation right now is: we support Israel unconditionally, send them $3.5 billion a year, and supply their military with essentially anything they ask for. What do we do for the state of Palestine ? Not much, I believe total annual aid may be a few $100 million, but essentially they are treated as an obstacle to our unconditional support of Israel. This form of foreign policy, I submit, violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution. When the Supreme Court rules on a case that involves legislation acting on US residents, one important general legal principal applied is, the legislation may not result in the preference of one particular religion over any other. There is no reason why this principal should be inapplicable to foreign policy, if we wish to support Israel with a certain level of funding, then we must treat all fundamentalist Islamic countries, all Christian countries, all Hindu countries, etc... the same exact way. Once again, ideally, we should not be supporting any foreign country with US tax money. Emergency situations are one thing, but regular $3.5 billion stipends to a country with higher per capita income than most areas of the United States is just ludicrous. In the context of current events, it should be evident that our foreign policy fallacy of supporting Israel no matter what they do, is not in the best interests of this country. While there is no argument that Israel has the right to defend itself, we should impartially assess the infractions of both Israel and Hezbollah and act as an honest mediator, or at least allow the UN to do so. This is not what is happening right now. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 26th, 2006, 5:50pm I (and that aforementioned rabbi FOXNews had on) don't disagree with you, Jake,... with these following (rather small) caveats (which I'm thinking you won't totally disagree with me on)... 1) All of that doesn't justify Annan's proclamation notwithstanding his mousy, after-the-fact response today. 2) It must be acknowledged that Hezbollah is, ultimately (i.e. the fact that they are a "political party" in Lebanon aside), a terrorist organization working within the sovereign state of Lebanon, not all too similar to the early days of the Taliban in Afganistan and needs to be "considered"/"dealt with" accordingly. 3) And, finally, as a slight mitigating factor to what I wrote about in my post above with respect to the what the anti-Israel rabbi had to say, for "19th/20th-century" Muslims,... before it was the Jews (of course, it has always been the Jews throughout this tormented history to one degree or another), it was the Hindus. They have just shown themselves not to be an "open-minded", "open-society" group, and this, again, would be a good point for those of you who haven't or those of you who have forgotten its point to give that article of mine, "Freedom or Chaos", which I copied and pasted on this very thread, a good read. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 27th, 2006, 8:32pm Didn't quite know where to post this, but I suppose here is the most apropos place... THIS I don't like to hear... Exxon/Mobil recorded like their biggest quarterly profit EVER this quarter... While we're all paying through the nose at the pump,... what the fuck is up with that??? What is up with that fucked-up picture??? [smiley=annoyed.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jul 29th, 2006, 8:16am ExxonMobil's Profits Take Us Backwards, says Exxpose Exxon For Immediate Release: July 27, 2006 Contact: Shawnee Hoover, 202-546-9707 (Washington, DC) - As ExxonMobil announces $10.36 billion in profits for its second quarter, over half a million people are actively pressuring the oil giant through the Exxpose Exxon campaign to invest those profits in alternative energy that will help lower energy costs and secure America's future. "We're not asking ExxonMobil to do anything its competitors are not doing," says Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for Exxpose Exxon - a coalition of some of the nation's largest environmental and public advocacy campaigns. "Unlike other oil giants, ExxonMobil refuses to invest the profits it's making off the American consumer in renewable energy, which would lower energy costs, strengthen our economy, create jobs, protect public health and combat global warming. ExxonMobil is reaping the profits but ignoring the needs of the nation." In 2006, the federal government invested $351 million in alternative fuels, according to The Stella Group. If ExxonMobil invested just one week's worth of its quarterly profit, it would more than double all federal spending on alternative fuels for 2006. Shell has invested $1 billion in alternative energies with investments in wind, solar, biofuels and hydrogen. BP anticipates investing $8 billion over the next decade. Both oil giants and ChevronTexaco have acknowledged the problems of global warming and oil addiction. In contrast, ExxonMobil argues that the U.S. should stop trying to become energy independent and funds 'climate skeptics' that confuse the facts and delay progress on reducing global warming pollution. In the past year, the Exxpose Exxon campaign has educated millions of people, half a million of which are actively boycotting ExxonMobil, tying up its phone lines, protesting, adopting gas stations, and pressuring Congress to rein in Big Oil profits, stop handouts and secure alternative energy sources. Since the campaign started, politicians have begun shunning the company to win elections, other companies have publicly distanced themselves from ExxonMobil, and ExxonMobil's funding of global warming skeptics has entered mainstream discourse. As the world's largest and most profitable private oil company ExxonMobil has the power to use its technological know-how and massive resources to positively impact the availability of alternative energies and reduce global warming pollution, says Exxpose Exxon. That's what the Exxpose Exxon campaign is all about. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jul 29th, 2006, 8:22am http://weblog.greenpeace.org/esso/archives/statue_1.jpg |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 29th, 2006, 2:24pm Nice post sk!!! We finally stand on the same side of the fence politically!!!!! Go figure??? ?.?.? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 29th, 2006, 10:17pm This seems like a good time for me to get this off my chest... Way back at the start of this thread I wrote, among a bunch of things, the following... despite my leaning to the right... toward the Republican party... on 06/24/04 at 01:34:22, StegRock wrote: Ultimately, this should (have) be(en) a fourth category...
Now, there is a(n albeit unlikely) generous view to take with the oil companies... The fact is that the oil companies, while having been great perpetrators against the environment (but great fuelers (literally and figuratively) of industrial revolution and, in that sense, helpers to humans), are in a position to make "a world" "of difference", so to speak. They could actually be trying to effect change on two fronts. IF (a HUMUNGOUS IF, mind you) this exorbitant profit were (being) "calculated" (in both senses) and being generated with research and development of alternative sources of energy in mind and, to be fair, or at least not overly idealistic, a consideration of the potential severe decrease in the profit margin during a long period of excessive expenditure transitioning to new energy sources, then, first front, in terms of the "bigger picture", it could be justified or, at least, "understandable" (in both senses), and, furthermore, second front, it could even be argued, then, that charging high prices at the pump is an attempt at beginning to wean us (Americans, the biggest guzzlers of petro on the planet, who are just now almost paying for gas what Koreans were paying FIVE YEARS AGO (my wife still thinks gas here is cheap [smiley=ohshit.gif])) off our oil/petroleum addiction. Granted, that is a HUGELY generous outlook, but it is the great opportunity that the world's BIG oil companies are presented with. Will they take it? I'm not optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic enough to ignore it (or get too conspiratorial about it). So, while I obviously ABSOLUTLEY AGREE that the issue of global warming MUST be addressed, if the aforementioned is NOT the case (which, I suppose, it probably isn't), then, at least, PASS THE SAVINGS ON TO THE CONSUMER, for God's sake (at least until it is the case). That's my take! [smiley=threed.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jul 30th, 2006, 8:38am Facts: If evry person in America would change 2 [smiley=gotanidea.gif] standard 60 watt bulbs to florecent bulbs 15% less coal would be consumed. If fast food consumers would go into the restaraunt instead of using the drive thru, The daily addition of fuel emitions would be reduced by 2%. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 30th, 2006, 2:39pm That's good information sk!! Now if we could only get that more than .00000002% of the population to participate! >:( That's the shame with these types of grass roots movements.....you can't find enough people that give a darn! [smiley=nono.gif] Especially in America where we just can't be inconvenienced as to actually get out of our cars and go in. And heaven forbid we spend the extra couple of bucks to go flourecent!! :( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 30th, 2006, 7:16pm While I have never been a drive-thru guy, Gino and I RARELY, virtually never, use the drive-thru window at the local McDonald's here which we go to on an average of once to 1.5 times a week (in fact, we've used it exactly ONCE; I/we just prefer walking in; I always have, nothing to do with saving the environment), and I drive a tiny Hyundai accent (yes, I had the FantasyFootballer.com mobile shipped here to Hawaii) (but that's pretty much out of necessity), I haven't yet converted over to flourescent bulbs. Nor have I yet evolved far enough to remember to pull the plug out on my TV or other electronic appliances that have a stand-by mode when they're not in use, but I often shut the power bar off when my computer's not in use and, despite being in sweltering [smiley=sunny.gif] Hawaii, currently don't have an air conditioner (mainly because of the falderal I'd have to go through with my landlord to have one). :o I used to recycle a lot until I learned that most recycling plants are, like most factory plants, not environmentally safe. Less CO2 is given off by your can laying in a land-fill than if it's processed by a recycling plant. So, I'm now on a half-half recycling plan. We should all grow our own vegetables and start farting less, too (methane, after all, is a green-house emission). ;) I mean... there is MUCH to be said about Americans having it TOO GOOD and being TOO motivated by doing things with EVER-INCREASING EASE and what that means both for the environment and us as a people... But, I don't think this is really the right forum to be (most effectively) discussing it, where everybody is hidden behind their computer screens. In this type of "environment" it's easy to make righteous proclamations and have pious attitudes. It's really in your homes, first, and, then, neighborhoods and local communities where this stuff needs to be pursued. People can say whatever the hell they want here. There's no accountability, and there's no really "adding it up" and seeing/knowing the "real motivations/reasons" for people's environmentally-conscious behavior patterns. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 11th, 2006, 7:12am I GOT TO keep this short... It's late... There's FOOTBALL... And, I have to be up at 2:15 a.m. my time to help my mom out with some computer problems she's having while she has a relative over on that end to assist... I don't have time for this... But, with this latest terrorist action... I am going to try to be pithy with this. I just hope the point/what I'm saying doesn't get lost (on you guys) in the "pith". [smiley=soapboxer.gif] Again, in VERY short,... Bill O'Reilly had some civil liberties lawyer on tonight. This civil libertarian is suspect of Britian's tactics and the tactics of any organization which cooperated with them in stemming this latest terrorist plot. Bill was suggesting that maybe Britain's threshold (pardon me if I fail to use the precisely proper legalese here) for search and seizure, "reasonable suspicion", may be better, in this day and age, than what ours has been, "probable cause" (or something like that), as the strictures of our burden would not have allowed such a plot to be foiled the way it was here. Mr. Liberte can only retort with something like "but that tramples on civil liberties," a term which loses all meaning when thrown around so much. Bill points out that Britain surely isn't a "police state" just because their search and seizure threshold is what it is. After dodging the point time and time again, Mr. Esqueer has to say that that's the path they're going down, though, and wips out some out-of-context, cut-and-pasted quote from Thomas Jefferson, an isolationist, mind you. [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Bill is suggesting that, here and now, in 2006, maybe we can learn a thing or two from countries who successfully thwart terrorist acts like this most recent one, and, of course, learning means implementing, and that moving from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause" (or whatever) isn't necessarily setting us out on a path to becoming a police state. Who knows? Maybe what the Brits mean today by "reasonable suspicion" may have been what was meant way back when by "probable cause". Anyway, Cybil Liberte continues to reply with inane, I will even go as far as to say, "philosophical," nonsense about it's being against our Constitution, BS that you can't pin down and that O'Reilly coins, "theory." This now steps on my toes and puts this guy in my wheelhouse. This guy's laughable attempts at trying to get at the "theory" of the matter make philosophy look bad. First off, don't the real philosophical aspects of this lie in how to "grow" our "living", breathing Constitution rather than in defending it like some dead document inflexible from rigor mortis. This guy couldn't "think" his way out of a cardboard box. It's not merely "security" versus "freedom" (hearkening back to the cut-and-pasted quote from T.J. that this schmuck (ab)used), which is how these numb nuts like to frame it,... thus, needlessly, polarizing the terms. THAT'S POLITICS!!! The deeper issue to confront is what is it about our system of freedom that is causing this "insecurity" (you can read that in both ways if you like). Maybe, just maybe, isn't there a relation between the appearance (to me and many) that these terrorists work within our system, even appealing to it to stimey us, and the fact that we have lawyers here, not just required to, but willing to defend them? Uhhh... Duhhh... Isn't there something ill about our need to defend the Constitutional rights and civil rights of people who seek to trample on people's HUMAN rights? Don't we have the order there bass-ackwards... Isn't it "LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", not "the Pursuit of Happiness, Liberty and Life"? Are our priorities not out-of-whack here? In any event, we speak about being an open-minded country to other cultures and the practices of other nations. That's okay when it regards the new Mosque being built down the road... in the name of The Constitution, but it's not okay when it comes to learning from, and perhaps adopting (a few), sound security tactics... in the name of The Constitution. They call the former defending their Constitutional rights while they call the latter defending the Constitution. YIKES!!! We are to defend the Constitution from that which can help it "live" on so that it, as it stands (still), can continue to provide the rights and, thus, the means to those who want to destroy it... I mean... how have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too, burning-the-candle-at-both-ends cockeyed is it for some of us Americans to actually theorize that our President and our people plotted 9/11 and, then, criticize Britain's tack in twarting this potential disaster and loss of innocent life? The only way will be to claim that it is a hoax. So, brace yourselves!!! Are the self-contradictions NOT stifling...??? My wife sums it up thusly, "You have too many lawyers in America," who, in short, "have big mouths, small brains, but think they're smart because of their law degree, wide :o [smiley=greedy.gif] eyes for the almighty [smiley=worship.gif] [smiley=money.gif] and need a cause/purpose/NICHE/...JOB." A lawyer friend of mine, who, never living outside the country, has said to me that, while flawed, our legal system is the best in the world (something, I guess, law school sold him on), once, since I returned to grad school aimed toward my Ph.D. in Philosophy, said to me, "You know... lawyers (having graduated from all of two years of law school) technically are Juris Doctors." I looked at him, smiled, knodded my head, and thought, "Yea, really, so what was your dissertation on? And, your foreign languages were...???" Let's face it! It's too damn easy to get a law degree in America. Step down... [smiley=wavinbye.gif] (Okay, that wasn't so short after all... [smiley=awwgee.gif], but it wasn't tooooo looooong. ;D ... I got to be "awake" in an hour... [smiley=yikes.gif]) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Feb 27th, 2007, 2:27am Boy.... I love this guy!! For as much as I love him, I know my boys JYJ and SK are gonna hate him!! Anyway, I liked what he said and see it the same way for what it's worth!!! Quote Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the "I Am Tired" letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. Unlike Bob McClellan, I will not continue to whine, twist and degrade our country's leaders on a weekly basis. Instead, this will be a one time input attempting to reach some of those who are confused by McClellan and his ilk's unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wro ng and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I'll never forget the language, "I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia". On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put sev eral F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!!? So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, "Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?" I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained. Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don't remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I'll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend. Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB Florida, and Ronald Regan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem.? We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left. Then, came everyone's favorite---Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, speakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America? Clinton's antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn't "real sex", and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual. Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln's prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat---one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation?? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing?? Is that an answer?? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS.? We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner. Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don't believe in political correctness. So, let's look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing with the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONSENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They couldn't care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late. What a re the real facts?? On the home front this country's economy is the strongest it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster's, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments?? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficit is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to "fix" all these domestic problems Bob and George, give me a break! On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within th e next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can't say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don't care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best h e can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think. I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, "This is a strong country!!!" It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I'll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, 'I-am-finally-somebody' grin from Nancy Pelosi's face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret. 349 Jib Lane Lakeside, Montana |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Feb 27th, 2007, 11:12am Oh no you dont, MC. :-X :-X :-X :-X Thats like running the count to 3 balls and no strikes then walking the next pitch down and setting it on a tee, Hoping I'll swing at it. Aint gonna happen my brother. Like Bob McClellan I too am tired. Tired of sporting an opinion that gets me gang tackled like a prison gaurd in the longest yard. http://necessaryroughness.org/img/avatars/personalfoul.png Unnecessary Roughness- Piling on Look MC. The only thing your gonna get out of me in this thread are sounds resembling the wild [smiley=crickets.gif]. Now all you right winged John Wayne wanna be's can jump up on your [smiley=soapboxer.gif] and debate the war without me. I'll be over here being quiet [smiley=silence.gif] as a church mouse. For those who were hoping to kick around a liberal........ http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n26/steelkings/eatme.jpg Now thats a bad ass post! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Feb 27th, 2007, 7:36pm A quiet liberal? What's that? ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Feb 28th, 2007, 6:50pm SK?.................I was KIDDING! (BTW, I gave you a great straight line.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Mar 1st, 2007, 6:34am SHHHhhh! [smiley=secret.gif] They will figure out I'm here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Mar 25th, 2007, 12:22am [smiley=crickets.gif] Sure got awfully quiet 'round here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Mar 26th, 2007, 11:29pm [smiley=clap.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Mar 28th, 2007, 9:42am http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2007/nq070324.gif Steelkings obviously didnt learn his lesson the last time dammit. LETS GET HIM!!!!!!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Mar 28th, 2007, 11:44pm For what it's worth Todd...I'm with you!! Maybe not as zealous...but..... I'm with you on the global warming issue. I don't believe alot of the hype surrounding this, but I can't deny some ice shelves are melting somewhere on this planet. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Mar 29th, 2007, 11:44am I guess I'm coming around to Todd's argument as well. I mean, it was just 1.8 million years ago that glaciers covered most of New York state and Western Pennsylvania. Now look how far those sheets of ice have receded. Heck, glaciers only exist in the Arctic and Antarctic circles now! Since I live in a town that is a mere 80 feet above sea level (with the ocean only about 30 miles away), I should probably think about putting my house up on stilts or moving to a much higher elevation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Mar 29th, 2007, 11:56pm on 03/29/07 at 11:44:25, Philly wrote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] So, all seriousness aside, we're either looking at the normal temperature of Earth, like it was during the days of the dinosaurs - tropical all over the place, or we're looking for that 12,000 year cycle of ice ages that last happened 12,000 years ago - the last time the CO2 levels were this high. Al Gore and his buddies will probably find a way to juke the Kool-Aid drinkers either way. ;D ....WAIT!!! WESTERN Pennslyvania??? My MOM lives there!!! I have to go there to save her from the DINOSAURS!!! Edit: WAAAAIT! I just learned that there are AT LEAST TWENTY glaciers in CALIFORNIA!!!! So, do I have to go to California to save the RAIDERS? Do I have to wonder why the glacier on Mount Shasta is actually bulking up? And why is Greenland's ice pack getting thicker? Is this a CONSPRIACY against CALIFORNIA??? CALL MICHAEL MOORE!!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Mar 30th, 2007, 10:42pm on 03/29/07 at 23:56:41, Callie wrote:
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Callie. But the Raiders seem to be fated to the same destiny as those cute baby seals floating around helplessly on stray ice floes in the now-sweltering Arctic climes. :'( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Mar 30th, 2007, 10:49pm All right, Philly. No more straight lines for you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Mar 31st, 2007, 6:33pm First read the text here, then click the link: HOUSE #1: A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South. HOUSE #2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape. http://www.snopes.com/politics//bush/house.asp |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Mar 31st, 2007, 8:02pm Very nice post Callie!! It doesn't surprise me at all. Texas, especially Central and West Texas, is very much in tune with making eco-friendly choices in outfitting their houses. We have alot of tax breaks that come with equipping your home with eco-friendly products. It is a growing phenonenom here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Mar 31st, 2007, 9:02pm Quote:
Thanks MC ! Not being worried about global warming is not having to worry about the consept of "ME" all the time. You know, The I want to drive my 8 cylinder Escalade because its cool! I dont want to recycle because the orange tubs take up to much room in my driveway once a week. I'll never believe a fucking democrate no matter what. Its funny Jeff and Cheryl. You guys are the exact opposite from Michael Moore. Yet you are exactly the same. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Apr 1st, 2007, 4:33pm on 03/31/07 at 21:02:57, steelkings wrote:
No, sk. We're the opposite of Michael Moore, period. We look at science to understand the truth, not to pervert the truth for personal gain. (As in the sun doesn't really revolve around the Earth, but at one time some people claimed that it did just for personal gain - even though they actually knew better.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Tyrone_Biggums on Apr 1st, 2007, 9:34pm on 03/31/07 at 18:33:54, Callie wrote:
George Bush could live in a gingerbread house powered by sunshine and rainbows, and he'd still be the worst president in the history of this great country. Oh and his environmental record ? Yeah, a complete disaster. Tax breaks for oil companies, promotion of nuclear power plants, a real friend of the environment. Maybe his environmental record, along with all his other fuckups, is the reason he just purchased like 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay. When his approval rating finally drops to 10%, he will try to make a quick getaway out of the country to avoid getting his ass thrown into Guantanamo. As far as global warming goes, yeah, there is no definitive answer, yes the world's temperature is increasing, and yes this coincides somewhat with the industrial age, but in the context of billions of years, it is probably pretty arrogant on the part of Al Gore to even pretend that we can say, with any measure of certainty, that modern human conduct is a direct cause. Of course that shouldn't exonerate us from acting responsibly, and at least Gore appears to be promoting a cause he truly believes in. So Donald Trump, what do you think ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Apr 2nd, 2007, 5:45am Welcome, Biggums!! [smiley=welcome.gif] Glad to hear you distrust politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle! They don't go into that line of work just because they're like Mother Theresa, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Apr 2nd, 2007, 11:33am Quote:
A more appropriate quote, or quotes would be: We look at science to ignore the truth, to pervert the truth to delay personal loss. I wont happen to me! Its not my problem. I'll be dead by then. Callie, 2 questions for you. 1. Will GW concern you more if Gore is not a canidate by 2008? 2. Of course keeping in mind that Fahrenheit 9/11 was sold as entertainment, and several facts were over blown. What if anything at all has our president done (with his actions) to dispute the overall tone of the movie? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Apr 2nd, 2007, 11:41am Quote:
http://everybodysweather.com/index.php/2005/10/09/2005_polar_sea_ice_cap_data_shows_greate#c6 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by vavictus on Apr 2nd, 2007, 5:16pm So here's my highly nuanced argument: First it requires the comprehension of this simple list of key components: :) = Americans & America >:( = Islamic Extremists ;) = US Military Forces :( = Sad Polar bears 8-) = Happy Polar bears :P = Scientists So, here's the deal. Right now a lot of >:( want to kill and conquer :) This is a fact and they say it over and over again daily in the arabic media. Now, we don't know exactly how many >:( there are, but it's been estimated the extremist population focused on murdering those who oppose them and Islamifying the world are about 15% of the Muslim population... a population that is 1.2 billion people.... You punch the numbers that's somewhere between 100-200 million nutjobs who would prefer to see us dead or at least living in submission to them. Now, :) needs oil to function and to attack the >:( It is true that :P tell us that global warming is a problem and therefore, we have many :( However, if the >:( kill us and the :P cannot get to work to invent NEW fuels because they will have no gas to do so, then we will not only fail to save the :( but :) will also perish. Hence, it's all good and fine to say we need alternative fuels and that there is global warming and :( and that we need to do our best to safeguard the environment. HOWEVER, the solution to getting new fuels and combating global warming presently *depends* on oil to get us there! And with >:( trying to kill us (not because we want their oil but because they really do hate us) we have to do everything we can to continue suppling the needed fuels to our ;) so they can kick some >:( ass. As long as ;) are kickin' ass and protecting us and the :P able to get to work and spend the mass amounts of energy needed to help develop and refine *new* energy sources, then we might just be able to make the :( into 8-) , and not just by giving them pairs of sunglasses because their icecaps are melting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Apr 2nd, 2007, 8:53pm That was great, vivictus!! And WELCOME!! [smiley=welcome.gif] And SK, I don't form opinions based on what Al Gore says or doesn't say. He has a history of unreliability, and I don't trust any politician on his or her word alone anyway. As for Michael Moore, he's just basically Michael Whore, based on his own past behavior. If either one of them can do something good and useful, I'm all for it. But at this point, for every scientist you can find who says one thing about global warming causes, you can find a pack of 'em who will say just the opposite. That indicates that the info available is not quite cooked just yet or is being distorted. And there is also the fact that all that yummy grant money isn't being awarded to scientists who say there is no problem. This is just a little off base, but it makes a point: I had a biology prof who told a story about the insidious red tide off the shore of New Jersey. Someone offered a great and expensive research vessel to research the problem and save us from the red tide. (Trust me, it was in all the papers.) Well, the scientists were asked if the red tide was really a deadly organism. They honestly said yes, it was. Then they snickered among themselves, since it was only lethal to a few species of marine life, and it wouldn't even come close to wiping them out or something. Most of them would just have something like the flu. Bottom line, they got the boat - and it did a lot of useful research. But the fact is, natural cycles are one possible explanation for what is happening today. And I still don't see any human activity explanation for CO2 levels that supercede levels of CO2 level equivalents even before humans existed. We're just not as important as we think we are. Core samples and things like that. That's the best we have. I have no problem with erring on the side of safety. I do have a problem with selfish politicians pandering and causing way more harm than good. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Apr 2nd, 2007, 9:30pm BTW - The Two Houses thing I posted was just for fun. Here's an even better Two Houses thing that speaks to our discussion: Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. From forth the fatal loins of these two foes A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life; Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows Doth with their death bury their parents' strife. The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, And the continuance of their parents' rage, Which but their children's end naught could remove, Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage; The which, if you with patient ears attend, What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend. Romeo and Juliet, opening. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Apr 3rd, 2007, 4:03pm http://www.gearthblog.com/images/shakespeare.jpg Places where the heat from hot ass Romeo and Juliet added to the growing problem of global warming ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 27th, 2007, 5:19pm Okay,... I've got to get this off my chest here on the eve of Memorial Day and the long-overdue and celebrated "weekend after" the Rosie resignation. I can't stand her, and I think the far-left, unresearched venom she spews is, at best, useless, at worst, harmful. However, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, bless her dear reasonable-minded, conservative heart (encased in that beautiful chest), [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] sounded like a total ditz in that shout-down with Rosie. Rosie may not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer, but Mrs. Hass makes her look damn near razor sharp. Again, if lines are drawn, I stand beside Hass (not to mention that she's got "the goods" and plays for the right team), ;) whereas, I do to Rosie what King Leonidas did to that smug messenger Xerxes sent. Yea,... I saw 300... and loved it!!! [smiley=warrior.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on May 27th, 2007, 11:42pm I'm very, very happy to say that I don't watch the View. I do like Hasselbeck though... he's still got some good years left in Seattle and should still be a #1 starter despite losing Darrell Jackson. As for O'Donnell, I think Neil's fantasy value disappeared when he retired. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on May 28th, 2007, 12:22am on 05/27/07 at 23:42:28, Philly wrote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] Never watched it, never will. However: Google the term "serial bully," Steggie. You will find Rosie there. Liz was being used by one, so she gets not only a pass but high praise for putting one of those creatures in its place. No wonder Liz is the wife of a football player (as in Tim, for those who don't know)! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 28th, 2007, 3:03pm on 05/27/07 at 23:42:28, Philly wrote:
As am I... I've just seen the instant replays about a thousand times now, though, and while O'Donnell [smiley=spcartman.gif] was surely out of bounds, the plays Hasselbeck [smiley=boobies.gif] was calling didn't even make sense. While O'Donnell is surely cussèd, Hasselbeck just looked concussed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on May 31st, 2007, 12:26am Quote:
Quote:
Disagree Stegger!! Liz, held her own against a pretty powerful voice in that session. She held true to her beliefs, while Rosie kept trying different angles to make her point and to make Liz look weak. Bravo Liz, you proved you are not Rosie's punk! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 31st, 2007, 6:40am Don't get me wrong... I too applaud her for standing up to that reckless biotch... It is true that she did not back down, and that in and of itself is a good thing. But, I wouldn't conflate that with pointed, well-informed argumentation. In terms of reasoning skills, mind you, informed by all the wrong information, Rosie seems to have a more supple mind than Liz... by, I regretfully have to say, a long shot. The one good move Liz made was sticking to the question Rosie was dodging. But, everything else she said was, and even that at a certain point became, more "cat fight" than "reasoned engagement". It's like she thought she had won by posing that one unanswerable question and didn't have any more logical work to do. She had her one triumph and left it at that, causing things to devolve into a cat fight, instead of "putting her away". And, I don't think she did that because she wanted to pull back. She just couldn't take the next logical steps. Anyway, I'm happy, like you guys, to have seen her, somebody, on the "right" stand up to these people. On the other hand, I wouldn't want "us" (whoever that is) to take Liz's performance as a model. Her "tack" (or lack thereof) is not going to get the job done. It will just lead us to a stalemate, at best. What she did is just beginning the fight back. Their "facts" need to be countered with sound and thoroughgoing reasoning, wielded like a hammer. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on May 31st, 2007, 10:46am OK... given all the hubbub this has been receiving, I decided to check the game tape. Rosie O'Donnell did come across as a belligerent bully, but she appears much, much more intelligent than her conservative counterpart. Elizabeth seemed to try to resort more to emotion than intellect -- a tactic oftentimes employed by the underinformed. I'm sorry to say I don't feel that Hass (do they call her that?) scored many points for the "right" side. Generally, the conservatives take the bully tactic and the liberals just start whining. Interesting to see the juxtaposition in this one. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on May 31st, 2007, 10:59am Quote:
Quote:
She did win BECAUSE she stuck with the original question. True to Rosie's (and other extremely liberal thinkers) modus operandi, the original question that she could not (excuse me..WOULD NOT answer) would have stopped the whole conversation rendering Rosie as the immediate, no doubt about it, LOSER! Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 13th, 2007, 5:46pm Conspiracy theories appeal to intellectual vanity! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jun 14th, 2007, 6:41pm I think that conspiracy theories are more of an after-market thing. People form a convenient opinion and then troll for "facts" to back it up. (My personal fave is the obvious and statistically proven fact that global warming is caused by the decline in the number of pirates. But now we have Johnny Depp, just in the nick in time. ;D ) <I regret this post already.> |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2007, 6:58pm Callie, I appreciate your take on conspiracy theories (and don't entirely disagree; I think the weakest of them are as you say). What I am expressing in that extremely condensed quote there, though, is a bit more pithy (and generous) of an observation (point being, the more generous you are to the opinion you're taking down, the more powerful is the take-down). I'm not getting "schooled" :-/ in Philosophy for nothing. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jun 14th, 2007, 7:07pm What do pithiness and generosity have to do with intellectual vanity? (Honest question) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2007, 7:31pm Absolutely nothing, why do you ask, i.e., how did you come to form that question, i.e., what about what I wrote made you think that they do? [smiley=shrug.gif] Getting the right answers is all about asking the right questions. [smiley=zenmaster.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 14th, 2007, 10:51pm [smiley=popcorn.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jun 15th, 2007, 1:48am on 06/14/07 at 18:58:03, StegRock wrote:
OK then, let's just talk about the generosity, since I obviously was not being pithy. (I like pithy.) How is it more generous to say that something is intellectually vain than to say that it is back-fill for an established opinion? (Come on, it's the slowest month in football... ;D ) <pass the popcorn, MC> |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 15th, 2007, 5:42am Okay, that question is somewhat better stated. Ultimately, though, the qualities "pithy" and "generous" regarded the "aphorism" itself as a whole, not just the direct object of the aphorism, "intellectual vanity". To attribute those qualities only to the direct object is to miss the point and, might I say, the beauty [smiley=awwgee.gif] of the aphorism. In any event, my aphorism is more "generous" (and, therefore, more robust of a critique/commentary) in the following way... I don't necessarily think that ALL conspiracy theories are baseless "convenient" conjecture for which the "convenient" facts are ALL found after the fact. In any event, that's merely the weakest form of conspiracy theorization and not much of a victory to "aphoristically" knock. I am willing to concede that some conspiracy theories are based in (genuinely, if not rigorously, uncovered) facts, after which are formulated a theory, for which more "(now) convenient" facts are sought and played up. (I digress... Once in a blue moon there is a conspiracy theory that basically has gotten it right, and, I would venture a guess that usually it is one that was formulated in this latter way I describe, not the former way.) The point, though, is that that latter stronger brand of conspiracy theory is the one to attack, and my aphorism leaves room for the critique of that more robust brand of conspiracy theorization. In that way I, with (the open-endedness of) my aphorism, am being more "generous" to the conspiracy theorist, granting him/her the best case conspiracy theorization process possible,... but, then, knocking it down. Again, the general point is that if you take your opponent's position in its weakest light, you run the (great) risk of getting it wrong (and definitely not advancing the discussion at all), whereas, if you are "generous" to your opponent and see his/her position in the best light possible, you a) open yourself to the common ground the two of you may actually share, from which the facilitation of truly healthy, productive and progressive dialogue can commence, or b) position yourself for a resounding victory. In fact, however, Callie, my aphorism was NOT written with that specifically in mind or to accomplish that job per se. It dispenses with both the weak and strong conspiracy theorists only insofar as it taps into an even more general sensibility, that being the confidence we have in ourselves "to figure things out", "to put the puzzle together", "to demystify the mysterious". That is what I am terming "intellectual vanity". It is the facet of the human character conspiracy theories play into. Whether the conspiracy theorist is theorizing "weakly" or "strongly", or, for that matter, rightly or wrongly, he/she is, in any event, partaking in probably the most "intellectually vain" of any endeavor the human mind can take on. Now, granted, I don't know when you first read my aphorism there, Callie, but, for the love of Friedrich Nietzsche, [smiley=wiseman.gif] ... ;) like the way you don't just chug down a good brandy; you swirl it around your mouth a bit, you gotta meditate on a good aphorism, swirl it around your mind for a bit, before responding to it. ;D After all, to bring this around full circle, you want to make sure you've given it the most generous reading possible. [smiley=yinandyang.gif] Bottom line, I don't think there is anything in that aphorism for you not to love, Callster. [smiley=yes.gif] [Honestly, perhaps the subtext I wrote along with that aphorism in my "Journal of Thoughts" would have made its meaning clearer. I just don't know if you guys have the stomach for it, so I'm witholding it (not that it's anything heinous, but... sometimes you gotta know when to say when). You guys are welcome to take some stabs at what that subtext is. It is another pithy one-liner, but, again, only insofar as it is a subtext to the main aphorism. On its own, frankly speaking, it would just be trash talk.] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 15th, 2007, 4:26pm on 06/14/07 at 18:41:43, Callie wrote:
Regret It! As well you should young lady. Did you know that after I started recycling, (It cost me 48.00 dollars a year to Rays trash service and, I know....I could recycle those bills to the Grid Iron...But..) by seperating the plastics, metals and paper products. I.E, newspaper, cereal boxes, shoe boxes, cardboard, yada yada. I have more than cut my trash that go's to the dump in half. Now Mrs. Callie, If I were govenor, It wouldn't cost me 48.00 dollars to recycle. It would cost 48.00 dollars if I didnt. Arent you glad you brought it up? As for you Popcorn Boy. [smiley=popcorn.gif] Make sure you toss that popcorn box in the paper pile along with the 200 dollars worth of 2007 Fantasy football magazines and that great big pile of cheet sheets your gonna use to fall in somewhere behind Dr. Karma (Me) in the 2007 duece league. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 15th, 2007, 5:22pm Maybe my recyclables can be used to make the coffin your boys are gonna need when they die in the duece!! ;) .........and yes Callie I'll pass the corn! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 20th, 2007, 10:41pm With all these candidacy announcements for President, I'd like to get out on the table a (celebrity) ticket (of sorts) I would vote for... in a heartbeat... Bill O'Reilly and Judith Sheindlin I don't know how everything would come out in the wash regarding the (so-called) "issues" (I don't agree with either of them 100% of the time), but I know that these two could deliver just the kind of "dripping with common sense", "reason-laiden", "back to the basics", "responsibility-focused" tongue-lashing we NEED as a society right now (and I'm not jerkin' you all's chains). [smiley=tonguetied.gif] O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!! [smiley=victory.gif] Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT! [smiley=yes.gif] Incidentally, I would suggest Bill [smiley=builder.gif] Cowher for Secretary of Defense! [smiley=drillsergeant.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by cwhams on Jun 21st, 2007, 1:22am [smiley=elephant.gif] have ya gone [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] a philosophy dude gone [smiley=goodrevil.gif] [smiley=goodrevil.gif] Well Stego, if O'Reily will make you the VP and minister of defense [smiley=commander.gif], well you got my vote! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jun 21st, 2007, 7:22am I think the better ticket would beNoam Chomsky and Joseph.A Wapner Better yet the wrestling match of the century. Winner gets the highest office! Wapner would love to get his I'm pretty sure that O'Reilly would give Chomsky what he gives to everyone. [smiley=gettinridden.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 21st, 2007, 10:53am on 06/20/07 at 22:41:07, StegRock wrote:
I'm thinking more along the lines of O'Reilly and Ted Nugent!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Jun 21st, 2007, 10:57am I wouldn't mind seeing Roger Goodell throw his hat in the ring. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 21st, 2007, 3:58pm Don't disagree with the Goodell suggestion. He hasn't had enough face-time for me, though. I don't feel like I've seen enough into the guy's soul yet. ... on 06/21/07 at 01:22:23, cwhams wrote:
This post, on a few different levels, made my day last night. This kind of talk can go a long way to keepin' the old Stegger at bay... if you follow. [smiley=stilldunno.gif] ... O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!! [smiley=victory.gif] http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/YaBBImages/avatars/billoreilly.jpghttp://www.fantasyfootballer.com/YaBBImages/avatars/judgejudy.jpg Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT! [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Jun 22nd, 2007, 9:26am I wanted to thank you for posting those pics Steg. Honestly, I had absolutely no idea who Judith Sheindlin even was. Is she a real judge or just someone playing a judge on TV? I've never seen her show. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 22nd, 2007, 2:45pm on 06/22/07 at 09:26:09, Philly wrote:
It's Judge Judy of Judge Judy, and, yes, she's really a judge, a really good judge by and large... from the New York City family court system [a noble area of judgeship as compared to, let's say, divorce court; "the family", after all, is the source of much, if not all, of the trouble in America and is what needs to be fixed (which, incidentally, accords with the philosophy of my boy Confucius [smiley=zenmaster.gif])]. She really shoots from the hip... like Bill. What I like is that they come from different perspectives ("left" and "right"), but end up at a similar commonsensical place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Jun 28th, 2007, 3:44pm Just as an FYI, divorce court is part of the family court system. A family practice attorney is usually a divorce lawyer. A judge working in the family court system hears divorce cases, among other things. I have never heard of a judge who only hears things like adoptions, for instance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 28th, 2007, 4:19pm Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the knowledge, Callie. In my case, I was thinking, though, in terms of how these court TV shows get categorized, i.e. typically into small claims on the one hand and divorce court on the other. Judge Judy's show, as most of yous probably know, is the former. ... O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!! [smiley=victory.gif] http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/YaBBImages/avatars/billoreilly.jpghttp://www.fantasyfootballer.com/YaBBImages/avatars/judgejudy.jpg Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT! [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 11th, 2007, 5:38am With ALL DUE respect, I must admit that I do not AT ALL agree with Mr. O'Reilly's position on health care. He's way too Libertarian about it. He exhibits all-or-nothing thinking about it. He minimizes the truly BAD state of affairs of our health-care system and then goes on to maximize what the tax burden would be. I rely on the unusual path of life I've taken for insight. South Korea has a brand of nationalized health care. It is very efficient and VERY affordable, and taxes in South Korea aren't a QUARTER or FIFTH of our taxes here (and, furthermore, they too have to blow a TON of money on the military to support mandatory service, protect their country from an imminent threat right across the border and help stabilize the peninsula). So,... WE COULD LEARN. Look, I'm not naive. I know we can't just snap our figures and, voila, by looking to another country, solve our problems. But, especially in the modern world, we need to get people on TV and the radio and in office who are less "provincially" minded. Adopting, say, South Korea's system isn't going to solve it all,... or anything, for that matter. We have our own set of problems and they run deep. But, we need to start putting people on TV and the radio and in office who, at least, know what I'm talking about here. I mean... I'm not so interested in solving American problems with, say, South Korean solutions. I'm more interested in pointing out a broader reality, say, that of a country that does something well, to affect the American mind in an immanent way. Now,... I digress... [smiley=soapboxer.gif] I have to use this as an opportunity to vent about Libertarianism. What a mess! It succeeds by packaging itself as the "have your cake and eat it too" party, hyper-conservative economics combined with a hyper-liberal ethics. This is bullshit! The best economics is a reasonably conservative economics. We need to cut the fat, for sure, but society requires its citizens to pool their resources to support infrastructure. But, its the hyper-liberal ethics that's REALLY got it wrong. We could learn A LOT from early Confucian as well as Wojtylian "ethics" here. In VERY short, a society that no less defends the "rights" of a show like Jackass, but is entertained by, say, looking inside the drawers of a dude who's shit his pants and watching the camera man puke or looking at a dude eating a snow cone made from his piss and puking (which is making me queasy just thinking about it), is a society on its way out. Our very own (in the West) Plato knew that a society can be no better than the individuals that make it up. What we in America have become individual-by-individual is... not that great anymore, and a "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't (directly, I guess) 'hurt' anyone else, i.e. lowest common denominator" ethics is only going to contribute to our becoming worse as a people. Moreover, this is more so the fodder that has us hated around the world, not so much George Bush or Republican politics, regardless of what Stuart Smally says. American hegemony is a bad thing only if what we're exporting is bad. The American way has spread. That used to be a good thing. But, now, peoples of other countries don't want poopy pants and his piss-flavored ice cone-eating friend and their over-the-top, messed-up, undisciplined, immature brand of freedom of speech coming to their country. And, yous know what? They're right. ... I may have to announce my own Presidential candidacy here soon... [smiley=awwgee.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Jul 11th, 2007, 9:24am on 07/11/07 at 05:38:58, StegRock wrote:
[smiley=yikes.gif] Ah, yes... that was the word I was looking for. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 13th, 2007, 6:26am on 06/13/07 at 17:46:54, StegRock wrote:
I've been meaning to say this, but kept on forgetting... I don't want sk to have any hard feelings... This aphorism of mine that I posted was completely non sequitur. I did not think of it nor post it with sk's global warming cry in mind. I hope that you knew that, sk. [smiley=fingerscrossed.gif] As regards the issue of global warming, unlike my position on health care, I'm very Bill O'Reilly about it. Global warming is happening. It really is undeniable. And, we humans should strive to minimize our contribution to global warming,... hell,... pollution, period, regardless of how much or how little we are actually an effectual factor, which, by the way, I think is overblown (convenient anthropocentrism as, I think, Callie noted). To whatever degree we are responsible (1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, whatever...), we should do our level best to reduce that percentage. ANYWAY, I leave yous with yet another "inspired" [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] aphorism... [smiley=thinking.gif] Freedom does come from the mere proliferation of choices. The litmus test of freedom is not "multiple choice", so to speak. In fact, the greatest freedom may be found when there is no choice. [smiley=ohshit.gif] Put that in you pipe or... [smiley=bonghit.gif] and smoke it! Okay,... I gotta go to bed... [smiley=onit.gif] -> [smiley=sleepers.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 25th, 2007, 12:34am Soooooooooooooo...........what did you Libs think about the Dems CNN YouTube debate the other day? :-X Loved watching them squirm a bit with some of the questions they were getting. I only caught the last 45 minutes or so. All in all though, outside of a homosexual question asked, no one asked them anything really tough that would show where they stood morally. Did anyone ask about their views on abortion, seperation of Church and State, religous beliefs?? I know a few offered up their faith within their answers, but it seemed everyone kinda dodged the personal issues. Just curious what ya'll thought. I do love that forum. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jul 25th, 2007, 7:31am Quote:
I think most are to concerned about the constant dismalting of the US constitution to worry about where canidates stand morally. Two Wolves One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence,empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Jul 25th, 2007, 7:44am Quote:
Steg, I'm very proud of you in the fight against global warming. We all know you drive a hybrid. http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/YaBBImages/cruisin.gif 1/2 the time it runs on gas......The other half you push it! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Oct 30th, 2007, 8:27pm Yes I remember where I'm at However, Is it lost on anyone that the Democratic Presidential debate is being televised on MSNBC tonite? NBC did not find it important enough to air it on free network TV. The Ironic part of the whole thing is what is being aired on NBC at the same time as the debate................ THE BIGGEST LOSER! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 21st, 2007, 8:49pm If you are looking for an enjoyable read....read pages 6 through 9 on this thread...just reread it..fun!!! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 13th, 2008, 5:52am This is yet again one of a handful of posts I've been wanting to make for quite some time, but just haven't had the time and/or energy to get around to writing up. The politics thread here, by definition, isn't actually the ideal place for this post, but, with somewhat of an eye towards specificity that precludes posting this in "the Bleachers", this thread is about as close as I can get. Moving right along... A couple months ago I was watching this show on ABC, "Primetime: What Would You Do?" In short, it's "Candid Camera", but for serious (hot-button) social issues. The "set-up" of the episode I caught was as follows... They had a guy behind the counter of a middle-America deli refusing service, very hostilely mind you, to a woman dressed in Muslim garb. The responses of the other patrons ranged from saluting the guy at the counter calling him a good American to cursing him out nastily. Some also tried to be of assistance to the woman. The majority, though, did nothing, and regretfully more people were supportive of the counter-worker than the Muslim patron. You can probably guess the demographic breakdown (let's say... it does nothing to help the serious problem we have in America of respect for elders, no less of holding our forefathers, moreover, of the "Greatest Generation" for all the great they accomplished, including making a safe and comfy country for us, in high esteem). There were post-interviews, and, of course, while the folks who did the "wrong thing" were wiping the egg from their red faces, the people who did the "right thing" basked in the sun of their moral righteousness. They were all pretty much a bunch of dipshits, in fact. No one had any sense of the middle ground. The depth of the comments were, to put it mildly, lacking. Don't get me wrong. It was a sad picture. I wonder, though, still in the wake of 9/11, is there not a sense of entrapment to this kind of "set-up"... brought on by this dis-ease of self-loathing we are suffering so terribly from in America anymore? Anyway, I'd like to answer the question posed by the show, "What would you do?" First off, I would ABSOLUTELY come to the defense of the Muslim girl. How exactly? I don't know, but it would be forcefully and persuasively. HOWEVER, (depending on when they revealed the "game" to me) I would also (want to) point out to her that a re"consideration" of the American side of her Muslim-Americanness is probably in order. As for the reporter and the TV people, when the "game" was revealed to me, they would get a good chewing out. I would point out that this brand of TV journalism is pouring salt on a nasty wound that America is still working on dressing and that what took place here bore an eerie resemblance to the modus operandi of "divide and conquer". I would say that, if they insist on doing this kind of thing, to be fair and balanced, they ought to also set one up in a deli in an Arab neighborhood with a redneck-ish white guy wearing a "pro-Bush, support our troops, bullseye on Bin Laden" t-shirt getting harassed by a Middle-Eastern guy working the counter. I'm safely guessing that, after that show, you could stick a fork in that sought-after political m.o. I digress, though... The irony would be that Iraqi-Amercians would probably come to the guy's defense. But, back to the Muslim-American woman, I would remind her of the great saying, which we are so quick to quote and admire... when it's easy, but just as quick to conveniently tuck away and forget about... when it challenges us, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I would point out that, during this difficult post-9/11 period America is enduring, perhaps she might want to consider what she could do for "her country" and fellow countrypeople [as opposed to the "what her country and 'countrypeople' can do for her (and 'her people')" attitude that a number of Muslim-Americans have exhibited post-9/11 and, in any event, that was the implication of this piece that she participated in]. I would point out that there is something very simple that she could do, a very doable, yet very meaningful sacrifice that she could make. In public, she could lose the Muslim garb, mainly the headdress, which actually exemplifies a backwards mindset, at any rate. She, like many of you may be provoked to think at this very moment, would probably quip back that it's "required" by her religion or, at least, that it's frowned upon by Muslims if women don't cover their heads and skin and that, in any event, it's her "right" as an "American" (to dress this way). On the one hand, I would direct her back to the J.F.K. quote that, I'm sure, she finds inspirational and point to the tension between the two sides of her Muslim-Americanness. I would say to her that she may want to decide on this one in favor of her country, which grants her that very freedom (of religion) she is claiming a "right" to. On the other hand, I would also point out to her that, if her Islamic religion would not let her lose the garb, then she may want to consider that maybe, just maybe, there is something problematically dogmatic about her religion, at least, the way she is practicing it. THAT would be to not skirt over things... At this crucial time in our history, given its particular nature, to be sensitive to J.F.K.'s great proclamation is of utmost importance. We have to be wary of people who "Ask not what they can do for their country, but what their country can do for them." Consider the political issues of the day in light of J.F.K.'s maxim, and see what you see... with your eyes opened. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by cwhams on Apr 13th, 2008, 10:53am I would probably not assume she gave a damn about my advice or thought concerning her garb or religion. Instead, I would probably quitely stand, take my food to the garbage, throw it away, gently smile at both the man at the counter and the woman, open the door for the woman and hope she would quietly walk out the door with me...gone, another smile and gone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 13th, 2008, 5:13pm To put this in the venerable framework of Classical Chinese thought, [smiley=bow.gif] the Daoist/Laoist in me wants to applaud your move, but the Confucian in me knows that it won't make a difference. In pursuit of the almighty... [smiley=money.gif], out of greed or just necessity mind you, we, capitalist Americans, have become an extremely mentally lazy country. I don't see your response as pushing the intellectual envelope that needs to be pushed at this point in our history and "getting people thinking". Granted, I guess I did not make this clear, but, in fact, since it was set up such that the Muslim woman was not taking no for an answer,... she was, though in a calmer manner than the counter-guy, standing her ground,... I think your move would have just led to your being lumped in with one of the many people obviously disgusted by the counter-guy's behavior but ultimately labeled as just walking away and doing nothing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by cwhams on Apr 15th, 2008, 9:22pm I think you are unfortunately correct...that is unless you were in the same restaurant and followed suit...and then rickpin did the same...hell we might even start a real movement here...thing is rickpin would probably be with his wife...and I'm thinking she would probably kick the shit out of the guy! ;D Then we would all be pretty amused...but would society really better off with either approach. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by rickgpin on Apr 15th, 2008, 10:27pm i was just passing through and saw this post. need to correct you cw.....sue would give the counter man a good talking to and then blackball the restaurant. i would probably be more passive and leave the establishment. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:51am on 04/15/08 at 21:22:50, cwhams wrote:
Well, assuming you are not lumping mine in there, I too don't think either of those approaches are the way to go. I have to digress just for a moment, though... If Rick, I and whoever followed your approach as you suggest, C-Dub, only a one-sided statement would be made. I don't see where the lesson is for the girl and, then, eventually for the reporter, and, mind you, those are the harder, deeper lessons. Your approach is ultimately only giving a lesson to the obvious bastard, the set-up guy, the straw man, so to speak. That's easy. But, that's to miss the depth of the issue. An approach that has any chance of making a difference must go deeper. While I'm not a megalomaniac, not even a revolutionary, insofar as I do not strive for immediate, sweeping, societal change, I am an optimist, at least about the philosophy I espouse and the person I am. So, while my approach may not be your taste, C-Dub, I do ask that you please not tacitly lump it in with other approaches ultimately dubbed ineffective (on a societal level) as your post seems to intimate you've done. This topic on which I "took my time" (in both senses) and effort to post in a thoughtful and earnest manner is now taking on a "throw our hands up in the air" feel, which I, in all honesty, don't find fun. Thing is, I do believe that I and my approach (to living) can make a difference. And, I know I am changing the world. Thing is, you are, too; we all are. It's just that you need to realize it,... and in the realization comes the efficacy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by cwhams on Apr 16th, 2008, 8:17am Well stated my friend! Fact is I do think we are changing the world and I hope in a positive direction. I do need to be reminded of that on occassion and thank you for pointing that out. It's pretty much been a life time battling the inequities in a system that seems unfair and tilted, can be easy to let the negative fibes set in on ones life. My purpose was not to interject a negative tone on your approach to the example, but to consider another way of achiveing the same goal...change in human attitude and action. I have been a vocal in your face kind of guy in my life...some say I still am. When I take the time to sit back and observe the fruit of those efforts, I'm not sure it has been all that effective. Even though the intent may be noble and correct...as I see it. The kinder gentler more patient approach...for me seems to accomplish the goal in a more effective way. That's what I'm trying to convey...perhaps I can learn from you a better or others here a philosophy of life and change that better effects our fellowship. I'm open to that discussion. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:12pm Backatchya, brother! Yours is nicely stated, too! [smiley=yes.gif] A few thoughts... [smiley=thinking.gif] First, one of the sublime keys to disabusing "the inequities in a system that seems unfair and tilted" is to not lose sight of the fact that it is OUR system. Once we start refering to it as "a", "the", "this" or whatever "other's or others'" system, we're already objectifying it in a way that puts severe limitations on the efficacy of our efforts. Quick digression,... this is where an understanding of old JPII's [smiley=priest.gif] distinction of the subjectivity of the "I" extended outward to the subjectivity of the "we" comes in handy. Overall, this philosophy is captured well by the Classical Chinese philosophers, [smiley=yinandyang.gif] the Tibetan Buddhists, [smiley=zenmaster.gif] and the Catholic Personalists, [smiley=spjesus.gif] but, notably for the philosophers in the crowd, not so well by Heidegger. [smiley=wiseman.gif] While his development of the concept of "Dasein" ("Being here"), the correlate to the former above, is absolutely thoroughgoing, he drops the ball halfway ("there") and does little with the idea of "Mitsein" ("Being with"), the correlate of the latter. Next, when I say that "with the realization comes the efficacy", what I do NOT mean is that, after the realization, you focus on changing "things" and "people (others)". What I DO mean is that, by seeing the world as a qualitative whole, by changing yourself, you, in fact, change the world; once that is realized, the groundwork for efficacy is in place. Now, you can extend (yourself) outward in that efficacious way that is the mark of Classical Confucianism. Finally, I (too) am of the mind that actions speak louder than words. And, yes, subtler, "quieter" actions can oftentimes be more effective. But, that is not a rule, either. You want to be able to discern when you need what kind of action. At the end of the day, it is "whatever works". In any case, though, speaking itself is a form of action. Hence, the mental cramp... when to use words and how to speak them efficaciously?!?! My approach above isn't so much "statement-making" as it is genuinely didactic and ultimately "thought-provoking" (and, thus, as somewhat of a matter of fact, "efficacious"). It is also even-handed and not... [smiley=protest.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:28pm I can only tell you this Steve. If you had come to my defense in a similar situation as you say you would have come to the Muslim girl's defense.... I would have thanked you for making that stance. That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident. But....the second you started telling me to (re)consider the American side of my Muslim-Americanness, I would probably start looking around for another hidden camera, believing I was on the new reality series titled "Who Asked You?" If this girl wanted a lesson in how to blend in to her new society, she probably would have taken a course somewhere or at the very least...asked for your opinion!!!! Most likely she is here because she doesn't want to have to justify why she practices a particular custom...she probably heard that about America, and it sounded pretty good to her. Isn't there enough Dr. Phils out there, or do we as a people think that we need to fix everyone? I don't see your response as even-handed, although I believe you do. Just asking..and yes I know it's a somewhat shallow response...not at all what you're looking for or hoping to gain from your thoughtful message above. I am hoping that you will not take this as an attack on you...but merely a view from different eyes. So......let me have it as you see fit. :( This is a good thought you have Steve...and is exactly what I would have said about all this if I only thought it first!!! "by seeing the world as a qualitative whole, by changing yourself, you, in fact, change the world" or as my (His) twist on it would be. First..remove the beam out of your own eye so you can see more clearly to help others remove the speck from theirs. Now that would change the world! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 16th, 2008, 11:32pm First off, I don't know what your problem is... Based on that post, I don't even know why you decided to chime in, Ken. That would be one I'd write... and then backspace over. But, that's okay. It's all good... I've got my sifter (read on)... Look, I'll take wisdom whencever it comes. In fact, I'm constantly seeking it. Anything that anybody has devoted some serious, well-organized thought to, especially if it's a present matter at hand, I'm open to hearing out. The peripheral point being, I don't go around to random Muslim women wearing their traditional garb and lecture them. But, as the saying goes,... "if the opportunity presents itself (which, for this particular issue, has not to me as of yet; that's why I "simply" share it as food for thought with you all here)..." Anyway, I, for one, am a big boy. I can sift out the valuable nuggets from the horseshit. As far as I can tell, the only people who would rather not hear someone, whose thoughts are reasonable and fair-minded, out are those who can't handle it, who don't want to be pressed to think about their actions critically, who don't want to engage in critical self-reflection, who are insecure, who are jealous, who aren't caring, who are generally speaking avoiders, and the reasons for that would be a mix: psychological, emotional, spiritually dogmatic, intellectual, mental, circumstantial and so on. I would rather live in a "world" where people feel free to share their thoughts, at least their well-thought-out ones, and, then, like mature adults filter out the good stuff from the not so good stuff than in a "world" where people just clam up (out of fear of,... eh-hem,... making someone THINK,... the [smiley=zombie.gif] horror). Heck, in this case, as you yourself say, it was the price to pay for the assistance I gave her, which she also did NOT "ask for" (as if that somehow gets us anywhere; that "Who asked you?" thing is ultimately just indicative of cynicism). But, when you wrote, "That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident," that turned out to not really be true. What you really meant to write was: "That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident as long as it was something soft and fuzzy and agreeable to me and didn't challenge me (to think)." Why put qualifications on what you want to hear (at least, in that kind of situation)? The only answer is that there are some things you don't want to deal with. As long as it is not mean-spirited, nasty name-calling or vulger trash-talking, which my spiel certainly was NOT, if someone had a genuinely thought-through thought on a present matter at hand, wouldn't you rather hear it and have the opportunity to process it than not hear it at all? In general, I would rather hear a person out and then discard the crap afterwards than cut off the path to understanding. Hell, I might just learn something. [smiley=dunce.gif] I mean, in a somewhat related manner of speaking, wouldn't you rather have tried and failed than not have tried at all? In a sense, your post just says, "Don't be you, Steve," and, "This is where my limit for people to be themselves around me lies." This post of yours, Ken, is very revealing. In closing... The sincere version... on 04/16/08 at 17:28:41, MordecaiCourage wrote:
The cynical version... Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Apr 17th, 2008, 12:19am on 04/16/08 at 23:32:10, StegRock wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In your closing remarks about the beam quote...you do realize you are calling God a cynic don't you? Those are His words, not mine. I just happen to be on board with it 100%! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 17th, 2008, 12:39am on 04/16/08 at 17:28:41, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Oh, come on... America, "the free for all" (that's going to spell our demise)... That doesn't justify not thinking things through and trampling on (common)sensibilities. In any event, wouldn't her heeding (something along the lines of) my suggestion be kicking it up a moral notch? And, wouldn't her being able to do so be substantive evidence of the openness and flexibility of her religion that many Muslims claim is the case and which the world oh, so would like to see? But, no, in aMErica it's all about ME, ME, ME and MY rights. Just another excuse to not be a little more thoughtful (on a truer, deeper level). America has been "de-MORAL-ized"! Has the concept of sacrifice lost all salience in aMErica? She can be a Muslim, and she can be so quite openly (MUCH more so than a Christian or Jew in an Islamic state). But, making a rather, relatively speaking, small sacrifice for the country she inhabits would be taking the high road and would put Islam in a good light, all in one fell, and fairly small, swoop. You know... the kinds of sacrifices that AmeRICA was built upon and her (America's, that is) rights are predicated upon. Going back in time on this very thread, it's that "freedom to"/"freedom from" distinction rearing it's head again (see pages 6 and 7 to see what I am referring to). Take all of aMErica's "freedom tos" without "consideration" for America's (implied) "freedom froms"! That's the ticket! Your freedom to practice your religion whatever it is implies others' freedom from you forcing your religion in (in unreligious venues), but we typically skirt that second, more challenging part. But, ultimately, it's all supposed to be low-key. Things will work just fine if it's kept low-key. Now, I'm not saying that the Muslim girl was forcing her religion on us. I'm just taking this a few more logical steps... Quote:
Thank you for the condescending "although I believe you do (as if I am stuck in my own little invalid world)," but, Ken, could you please explain to me how my response is NOT even-handed? Furthermore, what would be a more even-handed response, besides doing what amounts to nothing that is? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 17th, 2008, 2:13am on 04/17/08 at 00:19:29, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Uh-huh... Okay... Quote:
A little of both... Quote:
Yea,... okay,... whatever... The point is, in terms of making a difference, moot, and it, this "Who asked you?" mentality, is actually what has gotten us off the beaten track (see below). In the meantime, it's really a meaningless point (and, in any event, one you yourself are not even adhering to,... not that you should, but...). Quote:
Yea, I do... It's always, so to speak, "personal" (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way; it should be). We are persons, right? What else really can it be? The mirage is that it is not. As long as you can avoid name-calling and such, which we both to our credit [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] have done, and can hash it out man-to-man, person-to-person, so to speak, the "personal" side is irrelevant. It just is what it is. Quote:
Here we go with this inane "Who asked you?" BS again... I don't subscribe to it, so I can go on posting. If you really do, though, then silence (here and in general) is your only option. So, shut up! ;) Quote:
You canNOT (really) agree with that AND your "Who asked you?" philosophy. They are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Quote:
Yea, and my interpretation of what you said is accurate. You would have given me a few moments to speak, but you would have stopped listening or, perhaps, even walked away when you heard something you didn't like, despite its reasonableness. I digress... I guess right there we've hit on my frustration. We're stuck on all this peripheral stuff, not on my core argument, which I think is sound. We are arguing right now not about what I asserted (in response to the Muslim girl and the reporter), but rather that I made an assertion at all. That's where it definitely goes from being an objective argument to a personal attack. Quote:
That's your limitation, not mine. But, again, is it really even yours? Do you really subscribe to this "Who asked you?" philosophy, or would you rather live in a "world" where people feel free to share their thoughts, at least their well-thought-out ones, and, then, like mature adults filter out the good stuff from the not so good stuff than in a "world" where people just clam up? Again, the two don't mesh. Quote:
I don't quite understand the logic of all this. But, in specific response to the question you ask, YES, why not (as long as what I'm going to say is reasonable, fair-minded and not mean-spirited)? That's, in fact, how people across cultures learn about and from one another. Regardless of our litigiousness, you can't live life constantly worried about liability, so to speak, especially when you are not being unreasonable. Quote:
This got all screwed up because you yourself broke the very rule on which your post was predicated, your "Who ask you?" rule, right off the bat. I mean... I don't care that I didn't ask. But, for the record, I didn't ask. But, you still volunteered your quite critical opinion of that fact THAT I made an assertion, which is fine by me (though, I think, off-point), except that it is what you are accusing me of doing. Hence, the logical mess we find ourselves in, your positing the "Who asked you?" rule caused me to posit the "Don't be yourself" rule, which I then broke in the very same way you broke yours. The problem is, though, as I pointed out, with the rules themselves, not really our breaking them. In light of the circumstances here, that was inevitable given their nature. Quote:
GOOD!!! Getting to know you... Getting to know ALL about you... [smiley=note.gif] Quote:
Newsflash, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not on board, at least, not 100%. And, yes, more could be read into my "cynic" comment, but that's a WHOLE nother discussion. [smiley=yinandyang.gif] ... :P ... ;) Let's NOT go there "here" and now. [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 17th, 2008, 5:51am This may seem totally non sequitur, but, in a small, innocuous way, it pithily speaks to that frustration [smiley=frustrated.gif] of mine that I mention above... on 04/16/08 at 17:28:41, MordecaiCourage wrote:
(First, thanks [smiley=bow.gif] for the compliment, man.) Now, Ken, what is this "all this" to which you are referring??? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 17th, 2008, 7:45am Since I encouraged you all to revisit some past posts regarding the "freedom from"/"freedom to" distinction,... on 04/17/08 at 00:39:31, StegRock wrote:
... I thought I should add some points of further clarification, just in case. on 02/28/05 at 15:45:13, StegRock wrote:
(Picking up from there...) If there is "freedom to", there is "freedom from", and not vice-versa. For those logicians out there, remember how modus ponens and modus tollens work. (Putting this in slightly more concrete terms,...) Without "freedom to (sleep)" there can still be "freedom from (the noise that prevents you from sleeping)". (Maybe you have to go to work or you are hungry and cannot sleep or whatever.) This is derived from the conditional "if there is freedom to sleep" (the "sufficient" condition), there is "freedom from the noise that prevents you from sleeping" (and a bunch more factors; I'll get there in a sec) (a "necessary" condition). But, without "freedom from (the noise that prevents you from sleeping)" there is no "freedom to (sleep)" (by modus tollens). In that sense, "freedom froms" give you the (logically) necessary condition(s). "Freedom to sleep (at a given time)" entails "Freedom from all the factors that would prevent sleeping (at that given time)", but to say that the latter entails the former is a bit strange. Though, logically I suppose you could say it. Ultimately, they are logical equivalents. Here is the way to think about it: 1+1+1+1+1=5 where "1+1+1+1+1" is the "freedom from" and "5" is "freedom to". It is in this sense that "freedom froms" are prior to and, thus, comprise/predicate (you might, in a creative move, even be able to say "implicate") "freedom tos". Remove any one of those "1's", the "freedom froms", and you don't have "5", the "freedom to". "Freedom tos" do not comprise/predicate(/implicate) "freedom froms"; they imply them. BUT, all this is to hash out the logic of it all. BOTTOM LINE, the "freedom from/freedom to" distinction is a perspectival one. A "freedom to" frame of mind is one of entitlements, whereas, a "freedom from" mindset is one of responsibility. ... Okay,... moving right along... [smiley=whistle.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by steelkings on Apr 17th, 2008, 10:05pm Quote:
In a sense I would have been with the majority. I would have been taken by suprise. I would have felt sorry for both of them. Her because of the injustice being served upon her. Him for the acting out on the feeling of hate. I understand that feeling as I have prejudged people in the past based upon their outward appearance. Most of the time that feeling isnt proven one way or the other. I deal with alot of inner city children and its easy to prejudge peoples attitude based solely upon how they are dressed. However, When you are wrong it becomes hard to justify it. So by the time I would have figured all this out the situation would have gone full course and been over. Sorry. Now probably the best thing I can do in this situation is go home and share the experience with my kids. As our only hope as a civilization is through the education of our children. Quote:
Hey, Thats really cool Steve. With the irrational nature of children I fear you may be a little too educated to be a parent but then I remembered you and Gino had the practice chicken [smiley=chicken.gif] you rescued from the streets of Hawaii. So you will be fine. If you can take any advice from a guy that has raised three of his own, it would be a simple as this. If you provide your child with three things: Love, a sense of trust and a little fun in life, you will be eventually gifted a tee shirt that reads "Worlds Greatest Dad". Quote:
BTW. Howdy yall. Just checking in from far and away. For those that understand, Im still parked in the same spot.. [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 18th, 2008, 4:41am [offtopic] on 04/17/08 at 22:05:12, steelkings wrote:
Thank you for the kind words, sk. I must admit, though, that I am somewhat disappointed by your summing up my future fathering abilities, our parenting potential, with the birdie story :-/ (I almost wish I did not even share the birdie story with yous; not one person took it for the straightforward kind-hearted gesture it was; instead, I got bird shit lectures, and, in any event, here it comes up now to, in a sense, haunt me). But, I guess you were just kidding, so... But, then, there was also, "TOO EDUCATED to be a parent"... [smiley=no.gif] Again, a joke,... I guess... Ha-ha! It is a reminder of in this cyber world how really little we all know each other, even me some 13,000 by and large lengthy posts where I've worn my heart on my sleeve later. Understand, I am certain that there is no ill-will to this part of your post, sk. Yet, in all honesty, reading it wasn't the pleasure (I guess) you intended it to be. Insofar as that is the case, this also serves as a reminder of how difficult it is to communicate effectively and accurately in the cyber environment. And, mind you, sk, I think you express yourself well in this post. It's just not satisfying, though, and I KNOW that you aren't here to please me and we aren't here to stroke one another. But, then again, what are we doing here? Being a subtle mix of just nice enough to get by but also not so nice that we really open up and share genuine sentiments...??? Anyway,... I guess I'm just PMS-in'... by proxy... [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] But, there is something to be said for what I'm sayin'... :-/[/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 20th, 2008, 1:31am Okay, back to the "main" discussion,... which, mind you, is not really about politics,... which, mind you, I don't necessarily think is a bad thing. ;) Anyway, bottom line, the "Who asked you?" thing is a copout. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Apr 23rd, 2008, 3:31pm First off, it's easy for me to say that I would have done this or that, but not having the liberty of actually being in the situation, it's hard to say. I'd like to say that I'd tell the deli owner about his wrong-doings and stand up for the rights of the minority. Honestly, I'd probably get disgusted by the whole thing and just leave altogether and find another place to grab my lunch. (Or maybe I'd just wait quietly in line and when it was my turn I'd ask for shawarma. [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 25th, 2008, 6:43am In response to this post, I can already see you guys saying, "This is the politics thread. What do you mean we shouldn't discuss ISSUES?" Well, I mean that we shouldn't discuss the issues per se. In doing so we go too far too quickly and find ourselves in too deep. [smiley=drown.gif] When we jump to the "issue", we have skipped a (critical) step and in the process made an assumption that is very likely incorrect. Ideology must first be hammered out. If the thinking on whatever issue is messed up, biased, manipulative, coercive, jaded, not (well-)thought-through, misinformed, inconsistent, nutty, or whatever, ultimately, most importantly, ILLogical, what use is it? [offtopic]So, I'm talking to this Obama-supporting, global-warming, liberal Democrat... He's bitching to me about how he can't get a signal for his cell phone up at his vacation house somewhere in the mountains in Oregon. Playing to my conservative sensibilities, but still taking a shot at my philosophical training, he points out all the whacky "philosophical" reasons the "environmentalists" come up with to prevent the installation of a cell-phone signal tower in this mountain area. Of course, he points out all of the mostly silly shit that you can poke holes in easily: the signal tower will ruin the scenery (when, as he points out, they can make these towers anymore to look like trees) and potentially be a hazard to the wildlife, the frequencies will have an adverse affect on the wildlife, etc. And, then, of course, there was his "concern" for the safety for the growing community descending upon this area (mind you, he even points out that, though it is expensive, lan lines can be installed). He points out that they need to "progress" with the times. At the end of the day, bottom line, he wants to use his cellie in his mountain vacation home. Problem is,... making this mountain "cell phone-ready" requires energy,... electricity. This is going to turn this rural area not necessitating energy consumption for the purpose of fueling cell phones to now need it. What about global warming, though? Isn't it that if every American could reduce his or her energy consumption by even just 10%, we could make a small dent in our carbon footprint? Now, so that people can use their cell phones in their, by and large, vacation homes, we're talking about "electrifying" a whole mountain area that, heretofore, had very little carbon emission. [smiley=clap.gif] Thing is, the guy wants to use his cellie. What about that stance on global warming, though? As it turns out, it REALLY IS an inconvenient truth, isn't it? Mind you, this is not my position I am arguing. It's HIS. Therein lies the problem or, perhaps, should I say, the real "ISSUE"![/offtopic] And, so, the beat goes on,... more voices just add to the cacophony of nonsense. I mean... if the thinking underlying a take on an issue is no good, the take itself is not going to be any better, and such a person's freedom of speech is really just tantamount to noise pollution. Is it a cure for AIDS or the rights of (lab-test) animals??? Can't readily have them both!!! There are the webs of inconsistency and hypocrisy that I find burn-the-candle-at-both-ends liberals tend to weave... Don't get me wrong. There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle when it comes to personal matters. I'm talking about big-picture ideological hypocrisy, to which liberals seem to be much more susceptible than conservatives. "Philosophy is the unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly." - William James It is in that sense that we need more Philosophy, especially in America right now!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 26th, 2008, 7:04am Point being... It's not what you think. It's how you think it. If the thought that went into "what"ever is stinkin' thinkin', the conclusion is going to stink. However, if how something was thought up was good, "what"ever it is will be, at least, in the ballpark of good. I spent a few hours today (on a shopping run for work) with this really sharp guy who did his schooling at Cal Berkeley. This guy is NO dummy. I digress... He's doing The Conquest of Happiness as per my "Selected Readings" on the "Philosophy Corner" thread here on "the Sidelines". In any event, I was helping him make his position on the Iraq war, which, mind you, I do NOT share, (even) more reasonable (than it already was), tightening some nuts and bolts, and ultimately stronger. In VERY short, he was saying that 4,000 American lives have been needlessly lost in Iraq. His argument, as he was presenting it, was really emphasizing the numbers though, which, to someone reasonable who happens to be on the other side, is not the strength of his position. In fact, it's a weak point. It's not the point at which his position is persuasive. Its persuasiveness, even to a reasonable person on the other side of the proverbial aisle, lies in defining what exactly he means by "needlessly". At any rate, one (of my Republican-leaning cohorts) might ask, "Why in God's name would you do THAT?" It is because all I ultimately want to see is well-reasoned, level-headed, fair-minded discussion. Even though I rail against the "let's agree to disagree" mindset, I am actually NOT striving for agreement at all. Hell, with an issue like Iraq, there is no certainty. I know where I stand. But, I know just where my position can be legitimately disagreed with. I'm just pushing my interlocutor to (be able to) dissect his or her own position the same way and, then, meet me at these legitimately sticky points on both sides and, perhaps, THEN even push my position... to the point of my having to either improve it OR back off it, at least in part. But, I want/need my interlocutor to be able to get there (with me). If he or she cannot even get there with his or her own position, there is no hope because the depth of reflection and understanding will not match up. The better all parties representing all sides of the topic can articulate their positions, the better the conversation will be. Coming back around, it's just that "let's agree to disagree" is typically used as a mere lazy copout. This is what I've been bustin' hump trying to get across and facilitate here to, I'm not going to say no, but relatively little avail. While "what" to think cannot, should not, be taught, "how" to think can and, in fact, should. It's a skill, and enter Philosophy. As I once was told, "Philosophy regards the mastery of the art of thinking." For whatever it's worth, you've got a guy around here who's genuinely passionate about and, moreover, happens to have higher degrees in the stuff. If you've ever been trained in something, thought you acquired a level of expertise at it, and thought it made a difference and was valuable, consider that maybe, just maybe, my training has had the same kind of impact on me. [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 13th, 2008, 7:15pm on 11/18/03 at 13:26:39, StegRock wrote:
Real quick (I'm all riled up watching Meet The Press today),... once again,... regarding getting our troops out of Iraq,... HELLLL-LLO!!! Anybody who thought a BIG part of THE POINT wasn't to establish bases in Iraq... and Afganistan, so we're on both ends of and can begin to put the sqeeze and get a handle (in the long run) on the middle east, is fooling themselves. From day one, this was a "bigger picture" effort being explained to a small-minded constituency with a short attention span who need to be force-fed "facts" because they are incapable of seeing beyond right now. And, for those who want to hype-up the "lying" aspect of that, learn your history. Think, "Themistocles, and how he had to sell the Athenians on expanding the Navy in 483-482 B.C.!" Pulling active troops is one thing, but, folks, we ain't goin' anywhere for SOME time, and we shouldn't, not just in terms of the short term, but also the long term. We're probably not much more than 10% into the "bigger picture" mission, which a wussy, 21st-century American public can't even stomach anymore. Don't get me wrong... No one wants war, but we forget that during WWII the death toll in our military forces over a shorter period of time was close to 50,000 TIMES the number we've experienced in both Iraq and Afganistan. Let's, at least, get some perspective here... ... On another note, [smiley=wavinbye.gif] to and God bless both Tim Russert and Tony Snow... Wonderful human beings and good Americans to boot. You guys will be sorely missed,... especially vis-a-vis our present-day media culture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 28th, 2008, 11:25pm I am honestly very much so taken with Barack Obama's biography, and its presentation at the DNC, I thought, was powerful. But, is it me (probably, I know), or was his DNC acceptance speech (at least, somewhat) disappointing??? A LOT of "what, what, what, what, what, what,..." but not a whole lot of "how!" And, even when a little "how" was addressed it ended up being pretty much more "what." He even went as far as to say that he is going to facilitate a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. How the hell you gonna pull that off? By supporting a policy of social conservatism, cracking down on the envelope of sexuality, violence, etc. that our entertainment industry pushes. NOT! I don't know... For a guy whose speech at the last DNC I found VERY inspirational... and even inspiring, I thought his speech tonight lacked such inspiration. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer. The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon. Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich. The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow. Against whom does Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation. This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side. Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers. Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives; America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing. We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.. Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Callie on Aug 30th, 2008, 7:23pm I'm not sure if this will go in here. I keep crapping out. But, MC, that was a great post! With your permission, I'd like to send it to family. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 30th, 2008, 10:21pm on 08/30/08 at 19:23:46, Callie wrote:
SECONDED! That post was... [smiley=bullseye.gif], MC!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 4th, 2008, 3:51am Granted,... vis-a-vis MC's insightful post,... he is the leading esquire of the [smiley=elephant.gif]'s, but Rudy Guiliani's speech was awesome... "Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy." Great stuff! AND, THEN, Sarah Palin ROCKED THE HOUSE! [smiley=woohoo.gif] Old Johnnie Mac ain't gonna have to get his hands dirty at all. The hockey mom'll (GO DU!!!) do all the dirty work. She reminds me of a tough librarian you AIN'T turning in the book late to. [smiley=nownow.gif] You can see that she can be a bitch on wheels... [smiley=witch.gif] IN A GOOD,... GREAT WAY, mind you, when she needs to be!!! [smiley=yes.gif] She'll undress you without your even knowing it. GREAT wit!!! And, her resume, for a VP canidate,... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] just fine! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Sep 4th, 2008, 10:33am on 09/04/08 at 03:51:18, StegRock wrote:
This ticket is exactly what this country needs right now!!! I am so pumped up!! I don't see how anyone could even think Obama/Biden is a good fit, especially if they watched last night. Palin was dead on perfect. Guliani was remarkable...."Drill baby, drill" [smiley=laugh.gif] - priceless! [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Drew Rosenhaus on Sep 5th, 2008, 1:54am I have never found myself at this board so for me to actually post means MC really piqued my interest. I apologize I didn't get right to this (and now I am a bit behind) but here goes: on 08/29/08 at 22:59:33, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Really? Just the Dems? What needs to be accurately pointed out here is that the presidency of the United States is actually a party for lawyers. 25 of the 42 presidents have been lawyers - a whopping 59.5%. The more important observation on this lawyer issue is why is there such a strong relationship between the understanding (or believed understanding) of law and power itself (or the power structure of America at least)? on 08/29/08 at 22:59:33, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Is this really true or an ill-informed blanket statement? If you are talking about the U.S. being in a grossly inflated litigious society, I would completely agree with you and say the pendulum has left the building. However, in the same general timeframe, these highly regarded businesses and businessmen you hold in high regard have taken it on the chin (as well as deserted Americans): Enron (with very visible ties to the current administration), Qwest, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, WorldCom, Tyco, Sunbeam, Adelphia, Polaroid. Of course this isn't the full and final list, this is just a small group of businesses that have erred grossly and in many cases without regard for the American people they served or employed. And isn't that what we are really talking about here, the bottom line, the American people? It sounds like more than anything, money is the motivator for power here while including some combination of law. Maybe that is where this discussion should be heading, on why law and money are so intertwined and important when it comes to the entire political picture instead of specific party politics. Anyway, I am calling you out MC and asking for exact proof where "...The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America ." I just would like specific instances where this has taken place and in what exact context. on 08/29/08 at 22:59:33, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Again, really? What are your specific instances? I think it would be in everyone's best interest (as proof to Obama's incompetence) to have this information visible and easily accessible. on 08/29/08 at 22:59:33, MordecaiCourage wrote:
on 08/29/08 at 22:59:33, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Okay, there is my rant for this evening. Again, sorry for the delay in response! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 21st, 2008, 7:15pm I think MC was going "bigger picture", and I think forests were getting lost in trees. Big government and rampant litigiousness are surely products of lawyers... and more so the Democratic party. Our vast welfare "state", programs such as Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU surely receive their backing from Democrats, who tend to be lawyers trying to fix things with (legal) systems. Also, I don't think MC was looking for a history lesson. He was not talking about the history of the Office of the President. He is talking about the present state of affairs, and insofar as that is the case I think he has a point. A quick glance at the biographies of our Presidents tells you that there is no dearth of representation by this "noblest" of professions on both sides of the aisle. However, the present leadership of the Democratic party seems to be littered with lawyers, whereas, this is not so much the case with the Republican party. Just compare the present tickets: TWO lawyers against two NON-lawyers. And, anytime rich, Ivy League lawyers are the spokespersons for the poor, huddled masses, watch out! Now, where Markie has his point is in calling for scrutiny of the connection between money, lawyers and the power establishment, regradless of party affiliation. He words it thusly: "It sounds like more than anything, money is the motivator for power here while including some combination of law. Maybe that is where this discussion should be heading, on why law and money are so intertwined and important when it comes to the entire political picture instead of specific party politics." Honestly, while I absolutely appreciate the sensibility, the expression there is a bit muddled. I do think, though, that, while we can surely get lost in the nuances, the "bottom line" answer to all that is a bit simple. First of all, and this is Political Science 101, "democratic" governments do their work via "the Law", i.e. the creation, execution and review of laws and regulations, i.e. legislation, regulation and enforcement, and jurisprudence. But, on the governmental level, it is probably easily argued that legislation is job one. Secondly, that money and power go together should not be a mystery to anyone, anywhere, at any time in world history [and I don't think it, nor the Poli-Sci 101 lesson above, is to Markie, but given the way he expressed himself in that aforementioned quote I felt these (assumed premises) needed to be explicitly stated]. The involvement of lawyers in politics and the power structure is a very natural, and perhaps somewhat incidental, matter of job security. Legislation, while for the rest of us is (just) a matter of the so-called greater good, for lawyers it is also a matter of job procreation. While the (filing and motion) system is such that lawyers and judges can literally create work for themselves on the ground in small ways, federal and even state legislation is where the flood gates of litigation can be opened. Doctors, journalists, professors, etc., etc., etc., just to name a few so-called "high-end" professions, don't tend toward politics because, simply put, the cash incentive is low, and relative to lawyers, non-existent. Furthermore, the headaches are greater, insurmountable, if you don't share the view that "the Law" is the ultimate answer... because it IS in this system. Now, the group with the second-biggest incentive to get involved in politics, logically speaking, is BIG business, businesspeople involved in the big-ticket items of government, such as oil, military technology and banking, and this is where the ugliness on the Republican side of the aisle surely lies. So, why don't party politics overcome that? I, in retort, ask, "How can it?" It just is what it is. In large part, government = money, power and law. We do the best we can within that (ugly) framework. The more interesting investigation, then, would be into how it is that we come to think otherwise... And, the more intriguing speculation, what I am interested in, would be into how we can overcome it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Oct 8th, 2008, 11:17am Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago: We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That is the true genius of America, a faith a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted. --------------------------------------------------------------- People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. -------------------------------------------------------------- The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope? ----------------------------------------------------------- For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. ------------------------------------------------------------- B. Obama 2004 DNC B.Obama 2008 DNC |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 9th, 2008, 5:20pm Whence is the above? Is it a political/campaign speech that someone made? Are these copy-and-pastes from Obama's 2004-2008 DNC speeches (note that I thought Obama's 2004 DNC speech was spectacular, but I also thought Schwarzenegger's 2004 RNC speech was, as well)? Most importantly, though, what is the specific point (of this post) vis-a-vis the heretofore ongoing discussion? It seems non sequitur and "merely political", which is the only thing that frustrates me. There isn't even any commentary provided with the above (from what I can tell). It just looks like a copy-and-paste. Look... Just to get things straight, I much more so appreciate and respect a person who has and expresses a well-thought-out take different from mine and doesn't get offended by intelligent argumentation from that opposing vantagepoint than someone who holds a simpleminded position which just so happens to be in agreement with mine but isn't well-thought-through at all. Now with (all due) respect to the post, I am contemplating arguing with it. But, a) it's usually not a productive enterprise arguing with copy-and-pasted speeches of other people because they are not here to represent themselves and the words come with an "authority" impossible to match by anyone here, and b) by and large, the copy-and-pasted portions above express generalities and political platitudes that cannot be argued with with any degree of specificity, in fact much of it is just generally agreeable (political) rhetoric, and cannot be broken down without dialoguing with the person who said them [which, again, is a source of my frustrations about merely copy-and-pasted content (the brand of which JYJ used to be notorious for on this thread) because it gets US away from dialoguing WITH ONE ANOTHER and just has us posting long-winded bumper stickers of sorts in each others' faces, which is, especially during this heated political season, what I feel the above post merely is]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Oct 10th, 2008, 3:01pm Its prelude to a comment that I will deliver. It would have come with the cut and paste but I ran out of time. Im sunning in Florida and will bring it when Im ready for a discussion( fight). Now Im non stressing! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 12th, 2008, 2:52pm Now feel free to correct me if I am getting this wrong, guys and gals, as regards the current economic crisis we are enduring, but, as I am understanding it, there is equal blame to be placed at the feet of both Republican deregulation philosophy as there is Democrat welfare philosophy. HOWEVER, it seems to me that the Democrats actually took advantage of the Republican penchant for deregulation to advance their welfare agenda in the housing sector via (Clinton-appointed higher-ups in) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and block voting of congressional Democrats on the Securities Commission (or whatever it's called). :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 4th, 2008, 3:59am on 10/10/08 at 15:01:47, sk wrote:
Yea, that happened... ::) MOVING RIGHT ALONG,... my mother spoke to someone who is on the fence but ultimately has decided not to vote for McCain because he fears that McCain may not be all too long for the earth and doesn't want the reigns turned over to Palin. Although I disagree with the premise that planning on McCain's dying is a reason not to vote for him, I actually see this line of reasoning as a reason to vote FOR McCain. Palin is the ONE Washington outsider in this Presidential race. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that McCain passes away two or three years in. I would LOVE to see the Washington OUTSIDER, Palin, who also isn't afraid to give it to her own party mind you, do her thang for a year or two. In such a short amount of time, she couldn't do that much damage, BUT she could do quite a bit of good. Look, I'm actually pretty much 51-49 for McCain in this election. If it were only for a two-year term, I might actually be 51-49 for Obama, whose lack of experience gives me pause. But, in any event, my point here is that this sensibility is even stronger for a Washington outsider like Palin. Heck, on a two-year term, I wish she'd be heading the ticket. I think someone OUTSIDE the beltway, and even perhaps a little green, might be just what we need,... just not for a whole four years. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 4th, 2008, 7:02am on 11/04/08 at 03:59:57, StegRock wrote:
I'm running the Deuce league and just didn't seem to have the time. :D Actually I forgot about it. ------------------------------------------------------ I think Sara Palin, if McCain loses, Will become less a foot note in american politics than Geraldine Ferarro. In fact she will become the scapegoat of this general election. The Republican party would never take another chance on her and an independent cant win. She would be lucky to win any seat in her own State two years from now without the support of the RNC. I'm still holding out hope for the Heffner " Ladies of politics" issue. Somebodys paying for all those new clothes after the election. [smiley=bendover.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Nov 4th, 2008, 8:13am For what it's worth... I think that Barack Obama has less of a chance of surviving a four-year presidential term than John McCain has. [smiley=idontknow.gif] Honestly, I like Palin better than any of the other players in this election too. She's the real maverick and I like the fact that she's not a slave to party politics. But the last time I voted for a Washington outsider (Jon Corzine for Congress), he ended up becoming a Washington insider and the worst and most corrupt NJ governor I've seen in my lifetime. I'm thinking self-rule might not be such a bad option. Vote anarchy! ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 4th, 2008, 3:17pm For whatever it's worth, I think both of these "analyses" (boy, I miss seeing that word so prevalent around here as it once was up in "the Red Zone ;)) are very astute and the kind of thoughtful responses and dialogue I want "the Gridiron" to be about, and, mind you, it has nothing to do with their compatibility or agreement... The two commentaries are not compatible and in agreement, but are nevertheless well-thought-out, well-formed, pithy and ultimately solid takes... [smiley=bullseye.gif] ... [smiley=yes.gif] on 11/04/08 at 07:02:34, sk wrote:
on 11/04/08 at 08:13:34, Philly wrote:
Again, GREAT stuff... worth [smiley=howtoput.gif] posting, worth [smiley=RIF.gif] reading! [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] ... THAT SAID, the most astute statement of all was this... on 11/04/08 at 07:02:34, sk wrote:
;D ... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 5th, 2008, 1:27am My post-election insight on this historical election victory... [smiley=zenmaster.gif] First and foremost, congratulations and good luck to President-elect Obama! [smiley=bow.gif] As per my post above, I'm not unhappy that Obama won. (I sort of think it needed to happen... for a multitude of reasons.) On the other hand, had McCain won, note that I'm not going to say that I would have been happy; again, I would have been not unhappy. What I am happy about,... I am happy that this election is over, and went the way it did, because of the absolute unrelenting, unreasonable, over-the-top nasty vitriol liberals have embodied throughout this process and over the last few years. I will be happy to live without that out-of-control, unbalanced vitriolic negativity surrounding me. And, implicit in that claim is that I firmly believe that conservatives will not comport themselves in such an embarrassingly unsavory crazed, cry-baby, over-the-top unfair and biased manner. I, in fact, have much respect for Barack Obama. But, for liberal Democrats, this election is an, albeit needed, pacifier, [smiley=crybaby.gif] four or perhaps eight years to gather their senses. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 5th, 2008, 4:34pm Quote:
[smiley=fishing.gif] I was really hoping to not take the bait but......If you are saying that only the Dems ran a negitive campaign, then you missed half of it. The RNC called Obama everything but a nigger in the first half of this campaign. It wasnt until the liberal in sheeps clothing, (McCain) said enough is enough, that they slowed it down. [offtopic]McCain really is a good man with a moderate liberal back ground that simply got caught up in the systems ugliness. And it cost him the presidency. [/offtopic]Im also throwing fear into the negitive category. For the last 71/2 years this country has been governed by fear. If you cant beat them with Negitivity then throw in whats worked for 8 years. Drop in some fear. Dont think for a minute that the vitrolic little old lady that went on stage at that McCain town hall meeting and called Obama an Arab wasnt planted. Yes, McCain said The right thing. Saying that Obama was a good man with an Arab name, Yada yada. But the bitter sub-message was clear. Obama's an Arab. Lets scare people into voting for McCain. No fucking way is anyone gonna get handed a mic to ask a question that they dont already know what the question is. Not at an RNC forum, anyway. Every news channel in the world picked up on that sound bite. A little wag the dog by the RNC? I think it went something like this in the control booth.. Bob Rightwing: "That little lady over there thinks Obama is a Arab. Give her the Mic." Steve Redstate: Fuckin "A"!....Senetor hurry and Hand that ole bag the Mic. She thinks Obama's an Arab" Bob Rightwing: Thats not an old bag! Thats my aunt. This country stood up and said thats it! We are over that shit. The negitive tone of the RNC campain is exactly what got McCain beat. [offtopic] People arent tired of listening to the complaints. No, No! They are tired of being scared. Did you notice last night, during McCains concession speech, The rallys and cheers from around the world. Asia, Europe, PAKISAN, all were happy to see leadership change in America. These people all over the world were in the streets celebrating Americas decision. This isnt because they see this as a weaker America. Not at all. This is because it give the rest of the world hope that America will make more decisions based upon compassion and not greed. [smiley=greedy.gif] A world full of hope makes me feel much safer living right here in America. Is it possible we could see a day where people wont want to hurt us as much anymore? Not because they dont want what we have (Freedom) but because they are not scared of us anymore. Is there really anyone out there that doesnt think that hate doesnt accompany fear. [/offtopic] Purhaps I misunderstood . Now if you are refering to what would have been had Obama lost. You are right, the Libs of this country would have been upset. You would have heard it over and over. However, Check out the other side of the coin. Flip the radio dial over to the ole Rush Limbaugh show. I'm sure his mood is positive.Yikes. Check out Fox news. Yikes again. You are going to get plenty of "Vitrolic Negitivity" no matter what happend in this election. [smiley=doseofreality.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 5th, 2008, 8:33pm Interesting analysis, I guess, sk, on some points in general, but poor in specific response to my post, which means I have been misinterpreted yet again, :P which bums me out because that causes us to get away from speaking "with" each other in favor of speaking "at" each other. What causes people to speak "at" instead of "with" one another, besides blatant disrespect, is misinterpretation. "Getting" your interlocutor is the key to effective communication. "Assuming" is not, and "assuming you get your interlocutor (moreover, when in fact you don't)" (not that that is what you did here, sk; you actually hedged your language in an effort to express that you weren't) is even worse. One great exercise in the enterprise of more effectively communicating is to be generous in your interpretation and, perhaps, ask rather than assume and rail. Alternatively, if that's a bit much, just frame your post more "in general" as a general "since we are sharing our thoughts on x topic, this is the way I see things", and, at least, that'll remove the presumptuousness. The conversation then becomes one of sharing our thoughts in general on a topic, not as deep [and, I think, (intellectually) satisfying] of a venture, but at least we don't run the risk of getting one another wrong, and yet we would still be doing a sort of back-and-forth or building-upon, i.e. having a true conversation "with" one another. Another tip is to keep your focus narrow, keep it to what you (pretty much) know. That way you don't "expose" yourself (in both senses) to too much scrutiny (which is what you do below), which is what making a lot of assumptions and speaking in platitudes and sweeping, no less one-sided, generalities leads to. The more ground you try to cover, the more ducks you have to have in a row, both factually and logically, and this isn't even taking into consideration partisan talk. Along these lines, notice my praise for your last post, which was not overly broad in scope and not presumptuous with regards to my prior post and, yet, generally responsive to it. :) on 11/05/08 at 16:34:03, sk wrote:
I'm not talking about campaign tactics and rhetoric. I'm talking about my day-to-day. I'm talking about the gal in my class, the guy on my web site, ;) what's on my TV in general, etc., etc. In general, I don't know what to make of what you wrote (there's some admixture of truth and half-truth and non-truth and hyperbole), but, as a specific response to what I wrote, it's way off the mark. So, I can go ahead and delete a lot of it {as I have no interest in wading through flam[e][smiley=flamewar.gif]boyant [partisan(-seeming)] rhetoric}. It is what it is. You see what you want to see, at the end of the day. What I will say in response to this part of your post, sk, the fact that you think that I (or we) doN'T get subtle or subliminal negative (about the other) [or, for that matter, positive (about oneself)] political campaign tactics [and, moreover, need you to explain it] is presumptive in that lame way I just discussed above and, again, detracts from the conversation. That subtle negative/positive campaign bullshit happens on both sides of the aisle (and, if you're really objective and have not been bamboozled by one side, you should be able to see it and describe it on both sides). So, there's no reason to get caught up in it [I could actually sit here and rail, myself, against a handful of McCain's cheesy positive subtle (but actually not so subtle) campaign tacks, but it's not worth going there; it's actually too much work... to do absolutely fairly, when, at the end of the day, it already is, in a sense, fair as in evenly-distributed]. Again, I'm speaking beyond that merely political bullshit. Quote:
Speak for yourself, man. Who are these people? I know I'm not one of them. Quote:
There is A LOT being assumed there, sk, that I don't have the energy to unpack, and, frankly speaking, some naivety when it comes to things international. You are covering A LOT of ground there. Just speaking simply, i.e., this doesn't come close to "unpacking it all"... Are cheering Pakistanis really something to hang our hats on? Didn't they also cheer in the streets on 9/11? Is the Pakistani stamp of approval the barometer of good decision-making in American politics? You speak for whole continents, no less countries. Your take on how internationals look at and to America is, honestly, fanciful. There may be more than just a kernel of truth to what you say about the role of "fear" in all this, but what you say about "weakness" is rather off-base, man. In fact, logically speaking, not being afraid is indicative of your competitor's being weak. Now, that's a tight correlation, not some loosely pasted-together rhetoric (but, to your credit, at least not cut-and-pasted ;) ... ;D). This is not to say that our m.o. should be to actively instill fear in other countries, but do not underestimate the negative and envious feelings people in other countries have toward America and, mind you, (middle-ground alert) some of those feelings are legitimate and indicative of an ugly side of America('s presence abroad), but many are not rationally and fairly founded, and know that abroad there is some level of anticipation of the fall of the American empire (which was just as palpable under Clinton as anyone else). (Please, sk, understand that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. This comes with vast experiences to back it up that I'm not outlining here because I don't have ALL day to be doing this. That said, I'm sure I've hinted at stuff here and there, including previously on this very thread. In the very least, the truth is somewhere BETWEEN what you say and what I say, which, in and of itself, is enough to emasculate your point.) Now, generally speaking, greed in America is out of control. I couldn't agree more, sk. But, this is a MUCH BIGGER problem that neither this election nor any merely partisan paradigm is going to solve. The definition of "good" in America is "a pile of money", not "what I experience when I open my front door and look outside". Until that is no longer the case, it really doesn't matter, trickle down or tax hike. But, also, once it is no longer the case, and "good" in America isn't a "pile of money", but rather "what I experience when I open my front door and look outside", it, again, won't matter. The job will get done one way or the other. So, my point, the answer to the problem of greed in America doesn't lie in politics. It's just a different way of shifting the money around. The middle tends to lose no matter what. I don't know about your juxtaposition of greed with compassion. I mean I get your sensibility, but I think it is more partisan than objective. Regardless of what political administration has been in power, America has always been VERY charitable to other countries. As such, the only way I can make sense of your inclusion of compassion there is, unfortunately, in a partisan way, i.e. Republicans are mean and cold and full of ire and Democrats are warm and fuzzy and full of hope, which is partisan BS. As for hope, if "hope" is a code word for "different", then okay. If not, then it's partisanship. Either way, in any event, it's just fluff. Okay, I can't do this anymore. I've got to stop. My trying to respond to your spiel here, which is all over the place, is causing me to start to go all over the place and inherit all the holes/jumping around that is inherent in what you wrote, i.e., because you jump around and I'm trying to respond to you point-by-point, I'm starting to jump around and present arguments that aren't tight that I, myself, could argue against. But, brother, you've got to know that, setting the one-sidedness to the side, what you wrote is by and large just (partisan) feel-good talk. It's not weaved together tightly by fact and logic. There is just not a whole lot to sink one's teeth into,... which is fine. But, you've got to see it for what it is... if you are seeking to improve your intercommunications skills, at least in terms of writing, at least on THIS message-board forum. ;) (At least, I'm going to keep you on your toes.) Quote:
You did,... but not even in the way you think you did... as you go on... Quote:
Again, reading my rather unSteggie-like short, pithy post, I don't even know how this is what I even could have been interpreted as meaning, but, in any event, I just flat-out disagree. But, that's my subjective take, so it is what it is. I don't know about Rush. He's typically over-the-top to me too. But, Fox News I find to be far from vitriolically negative and, in fact, very even-handed and fair-minded overall and, moreover, in the wake of the election results, especially vis-a-vis MSNBC, CNN and the networks. But, I guess relative to the latters' champagne [smiley=onice.gif] bottle cork-popping, Fox News seems vitriolically negative, or, at least, sober. I counter your claim and state that I think that characterizing Fox News as vitriolically negative is more so partisan rhetoric than objective truth. I could argue it out, but again I, we don't have ALL day... month. All I can say is that I turn on Fox News and do not have the same experience as you. My post above was simply very personal. And, by the way, I don't identify myself as a Republican. It's just that I have come to identify with the Republican Party better. But, in fact, there was a time when I identified myself AS a Democrat. Then, I became my own person, no longer identifying myself "as" anything... political, nor do I get very excited or disappointed about elections and matters of politics. Put another way, politics is not a religion; it's not my religion, at least. Please, sk, before you go to respond in a knee-jerk fashion, try to get whence I am coming here, so as to, at least, permit me to justify in my mind the roughly four and a half hours I just spent writing this. Hear it out! See if you can argue against yourself a little bit. See if you can't argue some of my points for me. Then, after such a filtering process, see what you are left with... and then post (hopefully middle-ground pith that, moreover, doesn't get your interlocutor here [smiley=awwgee.gif] terribly wrong). Thank you for your anticipated consideration and due diligence in discourse. [smiley=bow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 5th, 2008, 9:17pm on 11/05/08 at 01:27:42, StegRock wrote:
In speaking about this stuff and sharing this post of mine with one of my colleagues today, I was afforded by her an interesting, even academic, and I think, in any event, accurate, explanation for what I say I've experienced in my post above... (A quick, but VERY IMPORTANT prefacing comment, remember the important distinction here between conservative and liberal politicians engaging in policy-making and partisan rhetoric and so forth and conservative and liberal people going about their day-to-day. Below, the latter is being talked about, not the former.) She said that it is because conservatives tend to treat people as individuals, as persons, on a case-by-case basis, whereas, liberals tend to treat of ideas and ideals, causes, "isms", and people as the masses to which to apply those ideas and ideals. So, while, case in point, I am able to afford Barack Obama and, before that, Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt "as persons", liberals are not so apt to because George Bush or Ronald Reagan are seen, not as persons, but as simply "that which" defeated and is against their cause. I don't know if the theory's right. But, it does ring true, and it does explain things. As a specific case in point, I was living and working in South Korea while both Clinton and Bush were President. I didn't vote for Clinton, either time. HOWEVER, when, for example, the Monica Lewinsky thing went down and Korean magazines were railing on Clinton, I got his back. In contrast, when was in Korea in 2002, when 9/11 was still a raw wound, liberal American flotsam were already trash-talking George Bush to their Korean friends, and this is pre-Iraq. Again, to use my colleague's model, they couldn't get over the 2000 election and just treat Bush as a human being. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 5th, 2008, 9:53pm Stegs reply: Quote:
That person is me. Its me every time a airplane flys over downtown Indy. Its me every time I go to the Airport and need to take my shoes off. Or how bout the worry of one of my sons or daughters classmates carrying their parents gun to school. A great man has been selected by the greatest union in the world. A man so great that his mear presence in the political landscape can change the whole world view. Purhaps in 4 years Im proven wrong, but for right now..... My HOPE is that things will get better in this great country. I hope that people will rally around something positive, Or someone positive and snowball it into something great. Rather than find something negitive to post right from jump street. Steve, I wish I could better respond to your post. I simply dont understand a lot of it. That is not your fault. It is mine. I dont want you to "dumb it down". It wouldnt be in your nature. I just cant be in the sword fight with out a sword. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 5th, 2008, 10:44pm on 11/05/08 at 21:53:46, sk wrote:
Nice, honest follow-up, sk... Let me jet a question back atchya... Just to narrow it down, I would like to focus on the sentence of yours I bolded and underlined in the quote above. The question is,... how does your fear manifest/what form does your "fear" take in that case, the case of the airport and the long security lines and having to take off your shoes? (Now we're conversatin'!) Quote:
Nice! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Fair enough! [smiley=yes.gif] Not just that, but I by and large share your sentiments. Quote:
Agreed. The only thing I would challenge you, sk, on is the possible implication here that you are lumping in my post as "something negative right from jump street". Maybe you are not. Please clarify! I don't take my post to be negative. Sober maybe! But, not negative. :-/ No? (Again, we're conversatin'!) :) Quote:
Don't sell yourself too short, man. Keep trying... as long as you can take it. I relish the day I sit back and read one of your posts and say, "Ooo. He got me good on that point," and I'll be the first to say so, brother. I mean... you've definitely gotten better at it, bro. [smiley=yes.gif] Now, I digress... Incidentally, I just saw a BEAUTIFUL expose on Fox News to start off Greta Van Susteren's show, a video montage of people's positive emotional reactions (save the one of Rush, [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] but, hey, fair and balanced, right? ;)) to Obama's election. It really is a touching event on many levels, and a big metaphorical sigh of relief. Along the lines of your stating wishes, sk, here's mine... I just wish some, just a little, of that love could be expressed toward or, at least, could be transformed into giving a little break to the outgoing President, who was in office at one of the most difficult times, if not the single most difficult time, in our country's history and didn't do half-bad getting us through it, at least, as I humbly see it. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 6th, 2008, 12:46am on 11/05/08 at 21:53:46, sk wrote:
Thought I'd contribute my two cents worth here . . . I don't know Barack Obama personally, so I can't ultimately say much about him, but I would dispute, based on his public moral actions, the claim that he is a great man. It's impossible to be a great man and at the same time a public proponent of mass murder, and since Obama is the most pro-abortion president we've ever had, that kinda excludes him from being a great man, at least as far as one's public actions show one's greatness (or lack thereof). Even setting aside the abortion and embryonic stem cell research problems, it's hard to state that Obama is a great man. What makes him great over and against other Democratic nominees -- Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, et al.? My point is this: people in this country, and even the media on many an occasion, are proclaiming Obama as the "savior" of our nation, ushering in the "morning" / "springtime" of our nation. All of this is unsubstantiated, uncalled-for, non-rational praise. I have a hard time believing Republicans would say this about McCain had he won the election. Somehow Obama is seen differently -- why? It doesn't make sense, unless the answer I'd rather not accept is true, namely, that it's because of sheer personality and charisma. But then wouldn't Bill Clinton also deserve the same adulation? But even Bill didn't get this type of hype. What is it? Is it because Obama is the first black president, achieving a milestone in American history? I certainly hope that's not the reason; while it is a great sign that Americans are at last able to look through someone's skin color and judge their ideas and actions rather than their color, if Obama gets all this adulation simply because he's black, it sure sounds like soft racism. If a president-elect is going to be given messiah-like adulation, he ought to deserve it, or at least show that he deserves it, and Obama certainly hasn't shown he deserves it and it sure seems like he doesn't actually deserve it. Has he displayed any original ideas for overcoming the Republican/Democrat divide on any issues? I'm not aware of any. Has he given us any evidence that he'll be any better than any other liberal Democrat? Not that I know of, unless by "better" you mean "more leftist." By the way, is America the greatest country in the world? Is it? Everyone keeps saying it without offering any reasons for it, as if it's a matter of faith. It's certainly debatable: our children's education is atrocious, we pollute the hell out of the atmosphere, we're one of the largest, if not the largest purveyor of pornography in the world, we're slowly but surely encroaching on religious freedoms with the homosexual lobby, we're growing increasingly anti-Christian, and we abort thousands of our own children every day. Given all this, and given the lack of explanation of statements like "America is the greatest country in the world," such statements ring jingoistic in my ears. I suppose I'm a little bitter about politics these days -- every time I check out any campaigning or public debates, all I hear is "blah blah blah maverick blah blah blah change blah blah blah hope blah blah blah maverick" -- buzzwords repeated over and over, and no substance given to back them up, and this by both candidates and by both parties. It's very disheartening. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 6th, 2008, 9:38am on 11/05/08 at 22:44:44, StegRock wrote:
Its more of a reminder of the evil you cannot see. Its like when I said that Hate accompanys fear. Imagine sitting on your porch in your lovely suburban Neighborhood when very slowly several Police cars drive by. obviously the police are there to serve and protect, however there is some uncomfort anticipating what that might bring with it. Lots of security is a reminder, a constant reminder, of the fact that we are not to assume saftey. Keeping your gaurd up is exausting. [offtopic]Definition: Paranoia is an exaggerated distrust of others that is not based on fact. As a psychotic feature of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia, paranoia may manifest as delusions of persecution. [/offtopic] Obviously fear generates a certain amount of paranoia. I think the equation would be something like this: Fear + Time = Paranoia = Fear+Time + Paranoia= Distrust = Fear + Time + Paranoia + Distrust = Hate. Heres something neat. [offtopic]My son, myself and my daughter took my mom to the airport. We hugged her goodbye at the security check point. My teenage son started to reminis about the old days when he could go to the gate and wave goodbye to the plane as it left the gate. This began a barrage of questions from my young daughter. [/offtopic] It dawned on me right then that she didnt ever experience the liberties that most american adults knew. Look how we have evolved. We have evolved into a sociaty that thinks we should embrace fear and use it to motivate security. Check this out [offtopic]"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety... deserve neither safety nor liberty." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 [/offtopic] Steve here is a question back to you. This is the task at hand. How can we convert fear and parinoia of the neighborhood into a dislpay of compassion for the neighbors? T-Rave Quote:
Its funny. Pro-lifers never use the term Pro-choice when speaking of abortion. Its always pro-abortion. I mean, saying Obama is pro abortion is just frankly a horse shit thing to say. Nobody is "Pro-abortion". Even the doctor that performs the procedure isnt pro-abortion. Do you think the doctor runs home and say's " honey, I had a great day! I did 3 abortions. " This thing is all about choices and freedoms. Its because we as a government dont know where to stop and start when it comes to limiting freedoms. Another quick story here. This involves the sex offender registry. [offtopic]I have a buddy of mine named Bruce. We were all camping in a state park. 12 of us. Camp fire going on a summer night. Several guys had there kids with them. Good time was being had by all. Oh yeah, I forgot. there was lots of beer. Unknown to us, off in the woods, looking in on us was a group of park rangers. They were looking for underage drinkers. The park restroom was about 200 yards from our camp. Bruce grabbed the nearest tree. This tree was in plain view of the rangers. About 10 minutes after Bruce urinated on the tree, the ranger came to our camp for a furthar inspection. Everything was ok until a smart ass comment was made by either Bruce or one of the rangers. The short of it is that tempers flaired and Bruce was arrested for indecent exposure. And because of the sex offender laws in Indiana, Bruce had to register as a sex offender. Its very expensive and difficult to get that overturned in Indiana. That follows him everywhere he goes. Its funny, if someone needs directions to his house, we usually print it off the sex offender map. Circle the yellow star. Not so funny for Bruce as he is in constant fear of losing his current job, as he knows it would be nearly imposssible to get another.[/offtopic] The moral here is that its really hard for big government to protect one group of people with out harming another. So when in doubt one must protect the constitution. Steg Quote:
Maybe in a few years. Some wounds need to heal before we can get a clear and objective view. Sorry for all the mis-spellings and typos. I ran out of time for proofing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Nov 7th, 2008, 10:49pm on 11/06/08 at 00:46:41, T-Rave wrote:
That's the nail, getting hit squarely on the head. Quote:
Spending almost 150 days in Congress isn't enough to earn that adulation? Quote:
No, even worse... "more socialist." Barack Obama thinks Robin Hood can save the world. Let's tax the heck out of those who work hard for their money and hand it out to those who don't. Quote:
I'm not interested in getting into any arguments about religion or abortion or homosexuality. But I'll still argue that America is the greatest country in the world. I appreciate my freedom and opportunities. I appreciate the ingenuity and resolve and compassion of the American people. I recognize that we have been destroying the environment, but I don't know any other country that is doing more to change its ways and right the past wrongs. (And don't throw the Kyoto Agreement back at me... the US didn't sign it because it was flawed and allowed other nations to continue their polluting ways without any recourse.) Americans are always at the forefront to stop genocide and other atrocities around the world and no country is as charitable as the US. America is far from perfect, but it's the greatest country in the world in this man's eyes. Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly on this. I'm just glad the campaigning and mudslinging is finished. The next four years will be interesting. I work in a very liberal field and have had to endure the whinings of the left regarding George Bush for the past 8 years. I look forward to the spin that I'll hear when Obama fails to become the "savior" that he's being proclaimed to be. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 7th, 2008, 11:57pm First, I want to address sk... [smiley=no.gif] Before even attempting to consider your post line-by-line, which with just a modicum of depth and specificity would be pretty much impossible within the confines of a day (now two days), I just need to give a "bigger picture philosophical" response. I just... [smiley=pray.gif], sk, or, should I "smiley",... [smiley=fingerscrossed.gif] that you will take the time to at least try to digest it lest I fear we will have some rough times ahead of us. :-/ In fact, that hope speaks to my first point... If you really aren't "getting (a lot of) it" when it comes to my posts as you, in an apparently stand-up fashion, admit above, then WHY doesn't more time elapse between your posts and why aren't your responses to me littered with more questions? [smiley=uh.gif] In the very least, it puts the genuineness of your admission into question and shows a lack of consideration for the extraordinary amount of time and effort I put into these responses to you. [To wit, this one here I spent all day yesterday jotting down in a notebook as I went about my errands for the day and am now typing up today (now tonight). It's really only been worth it for me, especially if you don't take it seriously, insofar as it is somewhat useful to me in terms of my formal studies in Philosophy, which only goes to show you the value of it and what you are potentially missing out on by not making a fair attempt at critically grasping at least some of it. Pieces of this stuff could find its way into a book someday, and, after all, it is directed to and in a sense inspired by you. So, go get some cups of coffee over however many mornings, evenings it takes, and try to give this one your best shot, man.] Incidentally, a meta-response to that question above is basically it is because (it is obvious) you're having a very hard time breaking through your subjective experiences and preconceptions. This is worth mentioning insofar as what I am going to go on to write is going to speak to that difficulty and that "holding on to and not letting go of". I'm actually going to give this thing a title... What I'm first going to talk about (and this is going to be the real nectar of this post) is fostering a proactive attitude of appropriateness, rather than a reactive mindset of tolerance, which has become so en vogue... and subtly damaging. Without question, people should be reasonably tolerant of others, but, coming prior to that, should be one's self-critical consciousness of the appropriateness of their own actions. Basic tolerance for your fellow man is the lowest common denominator. The fact that it, tolerance, is the level at which we are wrestling ethically is a sad commentary, no less, moreover, making it the virtue par excellence, which is downright dangerous. Emphasizing appropriateness over tolerance shifts the focus away from the other and back on the personal subject, oneself, and personal responsibility. Even though the virtue of tolerance is in its generosity to others and the various unfamiliar ways life can be lived, when it is turned back on oneself as acting subject "I should be tolerated (by others around me)," wins out over "I should be tolerable (to others around me)," in other words, "I should be appropriate." Tolerance, like everything in America anymore, becomes a matter of cost-benefit. In other words, I am tolerant of others, so I am "owed" the tolerance of others in return. YIKES! [smiley=nono.gif] The movement is surely away from personal responsibility (and, yet, not necessarily toward rights, but rather toward hubris, but, in any event, not toward responsibility). When you reflect appropriateness on yourself, it really doesn't lend itself to anything other than "I should be appropriate (around others)." A philosophy of appropriateness doesn't lend itself to the aforementioned easy way out (of responsibility) the way a "philosophy" of tolerance does, notwithstanding its virtue. Appropriateness, when you apply it to yourself, in contrast with tolerance, puts the (moral/ethical) burden squarely on your shoulders, and, at the end of the proverbial day, the only person you have (should have, no?) sovereignty over is yourself. You can only control yourself; you cannot (should not, right?) control others. This is why (but it's personally taken me a long time to arrive at this understanding, and this is, quite literally, my vocation) we have to get away from (and I am suspect of) a philosophy that pretentiously and arrogantly espouses what everybody should do/requires that everybody do this or that (even though we do it all the time) as if "everybody" is going to just "get it", totally agree AND fall peaceably in line... like a bunch of lemmings. Now, don't get me wrong! It's an innocent mindset to fall into. It's our Western philosophical legacy. It's what we in the West are accustomed to doing, devising philosophical systems that is. Systems treat of the "other", the masses; they don't treat of the particular, the individual/person (here it would be good to reflect back on my CIIS colleague's thoughts above). This is as opposed to the Eastern philosophical sensibility of a way (dao) of life to be lived by each person individually (de) (and, hence, the Dao De Jing). Also, we all know the wisdom of the adage "don't judge others," and the trouble judging others, practically speaking, can get us in. However, that ends up coming out in the wash in an overly simplistic and all too easy way because it's difficult and takes effort to really meet the call. Don't judge others becomes don't be judgmental, which is pejorative, and which ultimately translates into don't judge others negatively. Oh, could we make it more easy on ourselves (as individuals because, again, that avoidance of negative judgment is also something each of us is owed). Now, of course, that's not what it meant as that is irrational and self-contradictory and, thus, self-defeating because it affords us no way to negatively judge the negative "judger". It's like how those extremist militant Muslims in the Middle East use our (American/Western/European "liberal") virtues, like abstaining from torture as per the Geneva Conventions, against us without adhering, having to adhere to the higher (ethical) standard themselves. In other words, they make us look bad on our terms, when they themselves have no terms. This may be effective in argument, but shitty in reality when dudes are getting their throats sliced on camera and torched, dismembered bodies are hanging in the streets and we are getting beat up, nay, beating up ourselves for giving three squares to dudes opposing us on the field of combat. How droll! I digress... Those guys in Guantanamo get out eventually (moreover, to tell their stories... to lawyers licking their chops). The other guys I mentioned, the ones with the slit throats and charred bodies, DON'T! Anyway, back to my point about judging others vis-a-vis tolerance, don't judge others negatively is not what the adage says. It says don't judge others, period! However, the "philosophy" of tolerance forces us to judge others, albeit "positively", but with the same impossible (logical) ramifications. Absolute tolerance means no standards; no standards means no progress; no progess means no progressive thinking; no progressive thinking means no tolerance! Absolute tolerance is not the answer. Absolute tolerance is, in fact, self-defeating (as just illustrated). [offtopic]In light of this, I would like to share with you the kind of philosophy I am raising my baby daughter on... I understand she is not yet even three-weeks-old, but I'm hoping the words and ideas I get rattling around her head now sound osmotically familiar and, moreover, ring naturally true later when she's embarking on her life as an ethical being, being and acting together with others and self-reflecting on her actions. There are three (so far): 1) A la Sartre, always ask, "What if everybody did this," of yourself and what you have done or are about to do, and not so much of others. (Whereas we always use this wonderful insightful adage against others to prove our own "point", the real wisdom of the question, which Sartre understood, is to ask it of and act on it yourself, not use it to merely "make a point".) 2) At as many steps as possible in life, constantly ask yourself as you are about to do this or that, setting all traditional moral rules, norms, standards, mores, commandments, etc., aside, "Is this the person I want to be/become? Is this who I am?" [Mind you, this is not an assault on traditional morals; think it through (if you still don't get it, feel free to ASK me about it)!] 3) (At a glance, this is going to seem merely like a knee-jerk, protective father-to-daughter fashion statement, but, along the lines of what I am saying here, it is actually much deeper. It's about managing the manifestation of your subjectivity out in the world.) There is nothing you can put on or do to your body that will ever come close to showing who you really are on the inside, in your heart and in your mind. In fact, it is more likely to act as a detraction and distraction from that, not just for your onlookers but for you too as you get caught up in it. There is a wisdom to school uniforms (not that I ever wore one or my daughter ever will) and social norms when it comes to dress. Even though the simpletons don't get it, dress code is about putting as little as possible "between" you and others (get your minds out of the gutters here, fellas ;)); it's the middle-ground over which we meet and which is supposed to just not get in the way; it's about making for a level playing field so that what differentiates people is that which is beneath the skin, not on it, no less it itself (a poignant point at this point in our history, no?). You want to meet people as "bare", so to speak, (again, minds out of the gutters, guys ;)) as possible.[/offtopic] One last thing in addition to this part of my treatise here, concern for appropriateness in your life implies paying attention to situatedness and, to hearken back to another philosophical paradigm of mine, "freedom from". Tolerance, on the other hand, implies a focus on "freedom to" and individual rights without considering, in spite of, or, as is often the "case", in defiance of and combat with the bigger surrounding context. (By the way, sk, if you want to understand what I'm talking about with this "freedom from"/"freedom to" stuff, do a search for the terms on this very thread. I've already been there and done that, with success with those with whom I was dialoguing.) As, again, if that isn't bad enough in and of itself, tolerance is, accordingly, very anthropocentric. Appropriateness, however, isn't. Because it's about responding, not reactions, responsibility, not rights, acting appropriately is not just an enterprise directed toward other humans but also one's greater surroundings, the environment, animals, and so on. As it is inappropriate to smoke in a confined space around another person, it is around a dog, a plant, even a (nice, new) lampshade. Appropriateness gets you to that sensibility; tolerance definitely will not! Okay, next,... arguing by way of telling stories is a no-no. [smiley=nownow.gif] Stories require belief both of the story and in the storyteller, i.e. that the story happened but, moreover, that it happened the way it is being told and, thus, that the moral of the story is what it is being claimed to be. This is like church. This is preaching. Belief, which I think you would agree, Todd, is not a good foundation for an argument (you exude such a sensibility). Share your stories, but just don't line 'em up thinking that it presents anything sensible even if it seems to. That's why I explicitly try not to weave stories and my personal experiences, of which I have a multitude that cross the spectrum, my friend, into my arguments. I'll tell them sometimes. But they are almost always standalone. I don't want my position assented to based merely on (the weak argumentational foundation of) belief. I want it to be appreciated based on its cogency, not like we do in church (right?). Again, sharing stories is fine. The problem is when people draw sweeping conclusions based on these relative experiences, which is what you often do and, in any case, did in your last post. I don't think I'm saying anything here that, if you think it through, you wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with. (Continued in next post...) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 8th, 2008, 12:33am (Sorry for getting in your way here, Phil! I see you posted just a little before my "first" post here tonight.) :-[ Without wasting room with quotes, here's a little more of a specific address of your post, sk. What your post screams more than anything is "I have a problem with police," and everything falls from there, your whole "philosophy" and disposition. I would say, combining what you wrote along with my experience of you here, that you (seem to) have an issue with authority. In any event, you obviously have an axe to grind with officers of the law, and I think it's become quite self-fulfilling. What your stories about your daughter and your friend Bruce and your disposition towards police and authorities are indicative of more than anything is the fact that we've had it too good in America for too long. There is much in the way of hyperbole, generality, assumptions and, again, naivety in your story about your daughter and accompanying rhetoric. Franklin's quote, quoted as if I don't know it and, moreover, hasn't already been quoted on this thread (by JYJ back in the day, I think it was), is about as outdated as the Second Amendment. It speaks to a different time. I once heard some security dude from the NSA, CIA, FBI or some security agency on the news say that what it takes for us to keep America secure most people couldn't stomach. I personally think that is more applicable to today. But, whatever. If that story is the worst you and your daughter, me and my daughter ever have to endure, rip off my shoes and tell me to greet grandma outside the airport. The musings of a child are just that. Times change... for better and worse. Woe is me for not being able to breath the fresh air my great, great, great, great, great grandparents did. It's not always just gonna be "positive" change. I'll tell ya one thing... Don't do any extensive traveling with your family abroad, brother, unless you're in for a VERY rude awakening in many an airport around the world. In more specific response to your story, if only we had such security before 9/11. Then, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and you, your daughter, me and my daughter wouldn't have known any better. Oh, wait a minute. My daughter won't know any better, anyway, but she's safer, at least as I see it. Ah, and the realization yet again,... historical vantage point is all relative. Of course, I suppose the retort is that none of us "know any better" when the bomb rips through our bodies and takes us from life to the here after in a moment's time. [smiley=soapboxer.gif] Okay, deep breaths! Step down! The "modest" point here is that there are probably (I guess) many ways to go about securing our nation (post 9/11). Our jobs aren't to convince one another of our positions. It's to try to appreciate that fact and work together with the officials elected via our system and give the method they have chosen to try a fair shake, knowing that in four years we'll be given a choice again. I personally think Bush has done a great job securing our nation, post 9/11. I'm now willing to give Obama a fair shake. You hate "my guy". I don't hate yours. So, whose responsible for stopping the "hatred", which you are so concerned about? As for your question about converting fear and paranoia into compassion, it's fallacious and LOADED out of the gate. It's not about converting or even transforming fear and paranoia into compassion. I don't even know what that means. It's a platitude based on a false premise. You have stated the impossible, the not even comprehensible. Yet, you proclaim "it is the task at hand." Oh, all seer! [smiley=worship.gif] Thine eyes only lay themselves on the Truth of ALL things! [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] sk, all I'm trying to do with such hyperbolic language is engender a sense of humility in you. It's not that your heart is not in the right place. I don't think that you would come close to claiming that you know it all. But, you gotta make it sound that way (logically and objectively, i.e., I'm not talking about people's letting their inferiority complexes or whatever get the best of them when conversing with me). To this end, you gotta know the limitations of what you are wanting to express. Your story about Bruce is a shame, for sure, but in a twofold way that I don't think you think it is. I do appreciate your candor, sk, when relating it. But, it is littered with red flags, my friend, and it's being told strictly from you all's side. From the picture I get, from the way you yourself tell it, I'm thinking you sound like the kind of campers I wouldn't want to have pitched tent next to. Just apply the "philosophy of appropriateness" I explicated above to this situation. Look, I'm not saying the rangers/forest police acted appropriately. But, you can't do anything about that. You can only control what you do, and, while maybe it wasn't as inappropriate as the rangers' behavior, it seems that you all, and at least Bruce, didn't decide to proceed in an appropriate, swallow-your-pride-and-move-on kind of way. As a fraternity boy in college and as an adult, I've been in similar situations, and none ever came close to resulting in such a conclusion as yours and Bruce's, and in the case of, at least, the former, tons of, at least, weed, [smiley=kb.gif] shrooms [smiley=hippy.gif] and alcohol [smiley=ragin.gif] and underage drinking and legitimately rowdy and even felonious behavior, meriting punishment, were involved (ATO camp-outs in the Rockies). I mean, in that situation that you described, if the rangers were spooking us, we would have had one of the soberest among us go on over and say, "Hey, what's up, fellas? Are there any problems," and in a tactful, diplomatic, humble way apologize for drawing their attention and ask what we can do as a corrective so as to avoid having to have them hover over us. And, that's the fraternity party. As I've grown into an adult, such a situation hasn't even come close to happening, most notably because of the moderation of the use of intoxicants. In any event, it's not a bad thing to feel a little antsy around authorities. In fact, not doing so is a cause for some concern. Now, again, that doesn't give the police the right to abuse their authority, but that's out of your control. And, again, this story is yet again indicative of how we've had it too good in America for too long. Trust me, dude, America is FAR FROM a police state. Try South Korea on for size! And, it really ain't even close to being a police state. Now, I think your paranoia "equation" is interesting and potentially headed in a useful direction, but where it is at present is WAAAAAAAAAAY TOOOOOOOOOO simplistic. You need more of a calculus for such a complex, mult-faceted dynamism as paranoia. You're just working with arithmatic, the inadequacy of which for the purpose at hand comes out once you break it down mathematically, which was your choice of presenting it. All you are really, logically saying in the end is: Hate = Paranoia + Paranoia + Paranoia as Distrust = Paranoia + Paranoia because Paranoia = Fear + Time and Distrust = Paranoia + Fear + Time and, finally, Hate = Distrust + Paranoia + Fear + Time Follow? This is trivial. It looks neat, but doesn't work... unless you are just saying that hate is a worse level of paranoia than distrust and distrust, a worse level of paranoia than "basic", run-of-the-mill paranoia. One step up would be to rephrase it in terms of conditionals. But, even though I'm sure it is more accurate, it doesn't quite fit what you want to say because the necessary and sufficient conditions need to be reversed in a way that contradicts your original arithmetic rendering: (If) Paranoia -> (then) Fear + Time Distrust (sufficient condition) -> 2(Fear + Time) (necessary condition) Hate -> 3(Fear + Time) The problem is that what you want to say is something more along these lines: Fear + Time -> Paranoia 2(Fear + Time) -> Distrust 3(Fear + Time) -> Hate Besides the fact that this is all WAY TOO simplistic, what reversing the necessary and sufficient conditions back to what you would want to say exposes the problem: namely, while it could be said that paranoia necessarily does imply "fear over time", we all know that "fear over time" does not necessarily imply paranoia. "Fear over time" is also, actually probably more provably, the grounds for the Stockholm Syndrome (and many other things, probably mostly bad, but now we're at the level of the trivial). Now, you may wonder why I'm... [smiley=hammer.gif] with all this hardcore logic as, as you might point out, you "admit" above to "intellectual inferiority", which, however, I think you do tendentiously and which, in any event, I don't think you need to do. I'm just trying to engender a healthy sense of humility in you, not one where you somewhat passive-aggressively make unnecessary admissions, which you use, as far as I can tell, to bolster your "position" (in both senses) rather than to function as a case in point of your taking steps toward a more humble attitude. We're not even at the tip of the of the tip of the tip of the logical iceberg [smiley=cold.gif] here and things have fallen apart. Mind you, this is to totally eschew the valid argument (not that I wholeheartedly agree with it) that a little fear of the police, like as exhibited in many countries with much lower crime rates (South Korea, Japan, Singapore), is a healthy thing. Anyway, the point here really is to just illustrate how MUCH is really required to state something truly insightful in the way you are trying to and, again, hopefully engender in you a sense of awe and humility. As for your response to my query about ending the Bush hating, see above... I know I was asking it generally, but, as per the motif of my posts here (appropriateness, personal responsibility, and such), I was really asking you. And, I guess I am going to quote one thing,... of all things, a meta-comment you made... on 11/06/08 at 09:38:26, sk wrote:
Maybe, just maybe this means that you bit off more than you could chew... at the time. Again, as I suggested to you a couple posts ago, less can be more. Your shorter, tighter, more focused posts tend to be much more effective. When you start riffin' away [smiley=guitar.gif] is when you get in "trouble" (but, again, as long as you can take it, it's all good, I suppose,... although I don't think it's all too efficient). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 8th, 2008, 12:46am Now, I want to address T-Rave... :-/ I won't need to do anything line-by-line. I "get" whence you are coming, T, and, though I have some bones to pick with some of what you're saying, your point (disagreeble or not) is clearly laid out and well-communicated (although with a few run-on sentences here and there ;) ... [smiley=cantcatch.gif]). First, quickly, regarding the semantics of the abortion "debate", I pretty much agree with sk's take. The pro-abortion rhetoric does seem to me to be inflammatory more than substantive. But, in any event, our arguing the abortion issue is a waste of time. We are not coming from the same bases and premises. You've formulated your position on theological grounds, which I don't accept, and I, mine for socio-economic reasons, which you will not find acceptable, at least to the degree that they don't trump your theological reasoning as regards abortion. I'm not going to argue it theologically, and you are not going to socio-ecomincally, so we won't even be speaking to, no less with, each other. So, we're at a stalemate. Now, while I agree with sk's claim regarding pro-abortion rhetoric, I do agree with you that late-term abortion's being entertained by our legislators is absolutely hideous and whoever would be amenable to such legislation is surely up for being stripped of his "great man", no less messiah, [smiley=spjesus.gif] ... ::) status. More importantly, though, I want to address your take on the abortion issue as it relates to the characterization of America as the greatest country in the world. That claim merely comes from the same mindset that allows us to erroneously and pretentiously dub our Major League Baseball championship series the World Series. Though I absolutely agree with your sensibility, T, I don't think the claim is being thought-through at all, and, even though it is general food for thought for sk (and perhaps other readers here), I don't find it to be of particular import at the moment. BUT, to include on the list of what constitutes a truly great country some of the things you do, like the "right" stance on abortion, is naive, myopic and subjective and, insofar as it is strictly indicative of your position as a Catholic American, not much better than the "jingoistic" one you are (albeit correctly) critiquing, and, mind you, this is setting aside how the matter of separation of church and state arguably relates to the position you, an American, hold. Incidentally, pollution is about the only one you mention that I think is valid. In any event, regarding abortion specifically, one of the only countries in the world where abortion is outlawed is, ironically, Vatican City, a "country" full of celibates. There are slews of predominantly Catholic countries which do not outlaw abortion. But, at any rate, my point, how fair or, moreover, legitimate is it to evaluate the greatness of a country like, say, Thailand, which is like 98% (Theravadan) Buddhist, according to American, no less Catholic, no less Catholic-American, standards? Come on... You know better than that. Finally, I do think your point as regards the role of ethnicity (still falsely labeled "race") in all this is salient. I would like to briefly speak to it with this allusion... In the wake of the Obama election is our seemingly perennial "beat-ourselves-up"/self-loathing discussion (on ESPN) regarding the dearth of African-American head coaches, this time as it relates to college football. They point out that there are only 12 black head coaches coaching 119 Division I teams. That's 10%. They say how deplorable of a state of affairs that is given that black players number about 50%. But, wait a minute! Vis-a-vis the population, which is comprised of about 12% African-Americans, it's about right. Whites number about 70% of America's population. Couldn't it then be very reasonably argued that the problem is with the number of white players getting a chance? Surely, we can't argue soci-economics like people do with regards to basketball. Is it that African-Americans are just better athletes? Why is it that, relative to the population, there are SO MANY more black college football players and such a dearth of white college football players? Is it inherent/inherited superiority? But, if I start doing this from the "other side",... isn't that where we're not supposed to go? So, if it's not just that they are innately "better", what is it? Oh, for the love of Jimmy the Greek,... who tried to explain it in socio-economic, historical terms. But, that socio-economics and history is not "agreeable". We only attend to "agreeable" socio-economic and historical matters, moreover, "agreeably". SO, it MUST be reverse discrimination on the gridiron, NO? Or, we're just supposed to look past it... :-/ OR, the way America is set up, doesn't the American marketplace of talent just work itself out, and fuck the explanations, which really are just the source of ethnic frustration because they potentially involve unwelcome generalizations (which was back in the day Jimmy the Greek's main faux pas; it was a matter of sensitivity and, moreover, modern relevance)? It is what it is. The best player gets the opportunity. The best coach gets the opportunity. Let's get over it and move on and forward. The election of Barack Obama to President of the US should actually have US, the US, moving away from this kind of "status quota" mindset. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 8th, 2008, 5:36am Get this, fellas... I just happened on this tonight just as this happened: Chris Matthews on his show Hardball introducing so-and-so Democratic strategist and then so-and-so Republican strategist, prefacing "but he is one of the good kind". WTF? ?.?.? I've NEVER seen O'Reilly or anyone who runs a Hardball-type show on Fox News ever pull anything like that (against the Democrats). If they did, I'd flick it off, just like I flicked Matthews off moments after he said that. And, look,... I'm not saying that Fox News isn't in the tank for the Republicans [like MSNBC, et "AL(L)." are for the Democrats]. In fact, though, that goes to support the claim I made in my original post that got this discussion going that (Republican) conservatives are more apt to control themselves in the wake of this year's election than (Democrat) liberals are when they don't get their way,... which invariably sends them into an out-of-control frenzy. [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 8th, 2008, 3:32pm on 11/08/08 at 00:46:11, StegRock wrote:
Just thought I'd throw in a challenge here, for the sake of us grammar freaks - find me a run-on sentence in my post. There's not one there, unless we define "run-on" sentence differently. ;) on 11/06/08 at 09:38:26, sk wrote:
on 11/08/08 at 00:46:11, StegRock wrote:
Let me explain. It's one thing to say that abortion is an evil but the government shouldn't legislate one way or the other, so that the woman has the ability to choose an abortion if she so wishes. It's another thing to legislate abortion. Most pro-choice politicians follow the former path, but Obama follows the latter. Before I give the argument, let me give some facts that are indicative. Obama is (whereas most Democrats are not) in favor of partial-birth abortion and infanticide. He has publicly referred to getting pregnant and carrying a baby as a "punishment." These facts are at least indicative of something more than run-of-the-mill, milder pro-choice beliefs. Now for the argument: Obama supports a bill that would legalize and make an industry of embryonic stem cell research. Mass production of embryos would be the result, of course. Here's the catch: under Obama's bill, it would be a federal crime for a women to attempt to implant one of these embryos in her womb and carry it to term. There is no choice here (i.e., it's not pro-choice): abortion is the only option. This is clearly over the pro-choice line and into pro-abortion territory. on 11/08/08 at 00:46:11, StegRock wrote:
This is a misguided argument, Steg. I don't formulate my position on theological grounds. I formulate it on moral grounds that are non-theological; in fact, they're philosophical. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that I would not accept your socio-economic grounds. Characterizing the pro-life arguments as theological not only is false but also is "poisoning the well" against any pro-life argument. on 11/08/08 at 00:46:11, StegRock wrote:
I'm afraid, Steg, that I not only disagree with your position here but also think your argument is wrong-headed. I claimed that a country's stance on abortion is highly indicative of how great a country it is. You claimed that this is not only naïve and subjective but also equally jingoistic as the claim I was attempting to refute. This is impossible: jingoism is irrational patriotism that is extremist, and my including abortion among the qualifications for greatness neither regards patriotism nor is irrational. Nor is my claim naïve and subjective, unless everyone's claims in this regard are also naïve and subjective. Here's what I mean: there ARE some objective standards for how great a country is. How a country treats its children and its most weak and defenseless citizens is one such objective standard, since a thing's "greatness" is how well it accomplishes what it ought to accomplish, i.e., a thing's "virtue." Now if you want to limit that to "material greatness," fine, but "greatness" as such will have to include as its constitutive element MORAL QUALITY. Some may say that my opinion of the standard of greatness is my own, subjective opinion, no better than anyone else's. This would be rank relativism/indifferentism. It seems to me, Steg, that you're objecting to my inclusion of "theological" standards of greatness. Two things: first, the standards I listed as examples are, with one exception, not theological - they are moral and philosophical but not strictly speaking theological. A theological standard would be how well a country embraces and professes a particular religious faith or how well it favored religious denominations (I included one such standard - viz., that we are becoming increasingly anti-Christian). You may refer to my standards as naïve and subjective but only one thing matters: are they TRUE standards or not. This depends on whether Catholicism is true or not - if it is true in itself, then certain standards of greatness WILL be theological, or at least involve theological presuppositions. Your points about "Catholic" countries allowing abortion and about the irony of Vatican City are neither here nor there. The issue at hand is about standards of greatness, not about concrete details about how well such-and-such "Catholic" country meets those standards. Your last line, about not judging a non-Catholic, non-Christian country by Christian standards, smacks of fundamental relativism. If every country should be judged as great according to standards that EACH country dictates for itself, then EVERY country is "great." This is, of course, absurd, but it's what your position implies. For example, ought we to say, as you seem to be implying, that we can't judge a country composed of ancient Aztecs (who performed human sacrifice) according to OUR moral standards because that's unfair? Of course we can judge such a country - they killed innocent human beings regularly and according to their law. Their customs, and the laws that upheld them, were, in this regard, fundamentally unjust and corrupt and in this regard their "country" was the opposite of "great." Likewise, unless we are to embrace sheer relativism, we not only DO but MUST judge other countries according to SOME objective moral standards. I know that there are certain objective standards (many moral and philosophical, some theological) and that to be great a country must meet certain standards. This makes it possible to judge even countries that don't share those standards (whether it's Spain, Libya, Thailand, Iceland, etc.). Some countries fail to meet those standards because they don't know what the objective standards are, while some fail to meet them because they are, to a greater or lesser extent, corrupt. Either way, they fail to be great. Incidentally, regarding your aside about separation of church and state, I don't agree with the typical American position on this. I would also contest that the common contemporary secularist view of separation of church and state is fundamentally non-American. But that's a different can of worms. The point here is that certain moral standards must be applied to determine a country's greatness, and those moral standards (often enshrined in religious faith but separable from it as fundamentally human standards) apply whether or not the majority of a country's inhabitants accept those standards. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 8th, 2008, 10:45pm on 11/08/08 at 15:32:56, T-Rave wrote:
I think this is ultimately going to come down to differences in grammatical style/interpretation, T, and, furthermore, I must confess that I was actually mistaken about the particular sentence I had in mind. :-[ ... [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] But, at least as I interpret independent clause and comma rules, the following sentence is run-on... on 11/06/08 at 00:46:41, T-Rave wrote:
The commas before all the "we's" (of course, the use of that apostrophe right there is up for debate) should be semi-colons in my book. But, the sentence I really had in mind was this one,... Quote:
... which is not a run-on sentence. It's actually a beautifully constructed sentence. I just somehow [smiley=dunce.gif] kept reading right through the word "while" there, which I've italicized, bolded and underlined in the quote above. [smiley=doh.gif] ... Okay,... time to get to a wrestlin'... ;) ... [smiley=sumo.gif] ... ;D on 11/08/08 at 15:32:56, T-Rave wrote:
This is surely noteworthy information. I still don't know how I personally stand on this specific bill as I don't share your moral convictions/standpoint. BUT, I am NO supporter of late-term abortions, no less partial-birth abortions or infanticide. [smiley=yikes.gif] ... [smiley=no.gif] I can only "pray" (using the term loosely) that the groundwork for such an agenda is not laid from the Office of the President. Quote:
Why/How is it that a theological characterization necessarily "poisons the well"? (I just want to hear you wane philosophical, Ravenous...) [smiley=smitten.gif] (But, please, do answer...) [smiley=hearteyes.gif] Quote:
You're reading between the lines into what I wrote... [smiley=nownow.gif] I didn't say "in terms of jingoism". I actually made sure that is not what my sentence said. [smiley=awwgee.gif] I realize I'm walking a fine line there, but, strictly speaking, I didn't say what you say I said. [smiley=cantcatch.gif] ... ;) Quote:
Now, the genealogy of our moral perspectives surely diverges, but, T, you know me, good Confucian [smiley=bow.gif] that I am, [smiley=whistle.gif] that moral conduct, though I frame it quite differently than you, is absolutely paramount to me. I firmly believe that the greatness of a nation rests on its morals and ethics or, in other words, its goodness to its inhabitants and surroundings. To coin a phrase, goodness is prior to greatness. I just do not share the opinion that morals and ethics are primarily a matter of objectivity. In fact, my moral compass is directed by subjectivity, not of the relativistic kind, but rather the kind cultivated by a moral sensibility, shared in a very specific way by Wojtyla, Confucius and Gyatso, of self-authorship/determination, interrelational action and self-reflection. <{Although, believe it or not, I do think there is some slight, but not unimportant overlap in the two subjectivisms insofar as once a healthy subjective disposition [of the brand I'm, for example, raising my daughter on (see my digression above in the first of the two consecutive responses to sk; I take #2 to be intersubjective conscience in action or, perhaps better, the enactment of intersubjective conscience)] is acquired, egoistic relativism dissolves into an intersubjective realism.} I digress... I get away with my run-on sentences with ridiculous parantheticals.> ;) In any event, the question of the character(ization) of this "moral quality" still remains. Is societal greatness determined by the degree to which a society emulates or approximates some top-down, transcendent, objective moral ideal or set of ideals or by the quality of the bottom-up, subjective treatment of immanental moral dilemmas that come about and are, thus, addressed in relation to the given society's objective socio-economic state of affairs? In other words, in short, is it about most closely approximating some aspired-to ideal moral notion or the most effective, intersubjective response to societally relative moral dilemmas? Quote:
You've read me well, T. [smiley=bullseye.gif] And, I still think you are walking a very tight rope in your insistence on objectivity, as opposed to subjectivity, and truth, as opposed to circumstances, as paramount as those are surely the fodder of theology. I think this tight rope was somewhat exemplified when you wrote... Quote:
... Quote:
No, it's not, and, no, it doesn't. (Re-quote...) Quote:
Unless a country's/people's guiding belief system or way of life, religious or otherwise, is debauched, as long as they engage in sufficient, critical self-reflection, that's just not true, objectively or even relativistically. (That's probably the most pithy thing I'll ever write in my life.) [smiley=awwgee.gif] Quote:
Me too, but from a different perspective... on 03/17/08 at 01:02:30, StegRock wrote:
on 07/25/07 at 23:27:11, StegRock wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 11th, 2008, 11:46am Came across this Political/Religous piece. This is the only place this fits I think. No matter whether you believe in what the Bible has said about the "end times", or if you subscribe to another belief system...this is still interesting and thought provoking. America Cries, "Give us a King!" By Jan Markell There is a story in II Samuel 8 where we see Israel demanding a king. God was not sufficient for them, so they asked for a "real king." They got an evil one -- Saul. America has been in a similar mood. We want a "king" to solve our many problems starting with the economy. So Israel said to Samuel, "Now appoint a king to lead us such as all the other nations have" (II Samuel 8:5). But all the other nations had pagan kings. God lamented to Samuel and said, "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." Two years ago came a charismatic man named Barack Obama who was engulfed in a cult-like atmosphere. Some actually called him "the messiah." Shrines were built to him. A Web site said, "Obama is god." There has been a messianic fervor, adoration and a worship-like atmosphere surrounding him. At some rallies people fainted at the sight of him. Young children recorded on YouTube sang songs to him stating he would change the world. The intrigue with this man is global. Newsweek magazine had a headline recently titled, "The World Hopes for its First President." Imagine, a world president! Newsweek states, "In country after country, polls show a record-high fascination with the outcome of the U.S. elections." Newsweek basically said "The international audience really cared less about John McCain, Sarah Palin, or Joe Biden. Somewhere along the road to the White House, Obama became the world's candidate." Even for those with proper eschatology this sounds alarming. But on the positive side, a barometer as to how late the hour is has been revealed. Newsweek continues, "Obama is a 21st century man with whom the whole world can identify." In Obama's speech in Berlin, Obama said that we are all citizens of the world! Talk about a message on globalism. Will he establish the one-world system? America longs for a king to take care of us. We demanded change and change we will get! There are YouTube clips of people jumping for joy that Obama will take care of them. As one says, "Obama will pay my mortgage and buy my gas." The entitlement mentality reigns and it is cross-cultural. As Jack Kinsella says in his recent Omega Intelligence Digest, "In October capitalism passed away after a long illness." He is right. Socialism now is very appealing and being implemented in America. The government is buying up many industries and turning them over to a new Socialist president! None of the candidates who ran in "Campaign 2008" can save us! Only the Lord God of Israel can do that! But as in Samuel's day, God is not good enough for America. Thus, I believe He has allowed "strong delusion" to filter across the nation and around the world. It says in Isaiah 66:4, "I will choose their delusions." Thus, all has happened for a reason. God removes kings and establishes kings for His own purposes. (Daniel 2:21) Here's what we do know for sure. In spite of troubling and even perilous times, the Bible still has all the answers, the Holy Spirit is still active, God still inhabits the praises of His people, there will still be room at the cross, Jesus will still save the lost, and Jesus will still return to the holy city of Jerusalem to establish perfect government: A Theocracy for 1000 years. "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end...." Isaiah 9:6-7. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 11th, 2008, 3:18pm on 11/08/08 at 15:32:56, T-Rave wrote:
Your use of the word "fact" is slightly out of whack here. Yes, Obama voted against the 1997 federal bill banning partial and late term abortions. You dont say, or maybe what you dont know is, why he voted that way. It was for several reasons. 1. There was no provision within the bill to protect the health of the mother. Meaning, if a womans health was at risk carrying a baby to term, she could not choose her own health over that of the fetus. 2. Partial birth and late term bans could be, and should be governed at the state level. on 11/08/08 at 15:32:56, T-Rave wrote:
Thats twisted! He said that he would not want his daughters to be punished by being force to carry a crisis pregnacy to term. By crisis pregnacy, I hope you understand, he's refering to rape. on 11/08/08 at 15:32:56, T-Rave wrote:
True! It would be illegal to implant a manufactured embryo. Because of the genetic possibilities I dont think that would be a good idea. Can you say "Cloning". How many huge footed Michael Phelps babies do we need running around here. Seriously, there are thousands of frozen embryos that are discarded each year as infertile couples find alteratives. We have 400000 embryo's frozen in perminate storage now that will go unused. Millions of people are dying slowly from diseases such as ALS, Altzhiemers, spinal cord injuries, diseases of the blood, ect, that stem cell research shows great promise. We have to find moral middle ground here. We owe it to those who are suffering. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 5:35am In this post I am addressing MC's post specifically... Duuude... [smiley=dramaqueen.gif] Now, off the top, let me preface that I am not going to respond to the post with much in the way critical reflection because it's a waste of time. I'll get to that as I go on... Moving right along, what's good for the goose is surely good for the gander. If I am going to give it to sk like I did in my post back on October 9th, I got to give it to you here, MC, to the degree that I want to remain internally consistent. This post of yours is, first of all, non sequitur. But, I'm starting to realize I might have to start conceding this point except in the most egregious of cases. An on-line message board environment is what it is (as I myself as board administrator frame it here, it is hard to "cut in" on the thread on which your post, albeit bringing up something new, is apropos); there was a little lull in the (ongoing) conversation (although, for the record let it be noted, not nearly as long of a lull as sk had back on October 8th and I gave it to him pretty good), and you are correct that this was the right thread for your post (that's kind of the bottom line I've got to start giving in on, except in the most egregious of cases, if I want to maintain the somewhat strict thread organization I ask for). So, you (are all) off the hook there. [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] HOWEVER, the greater concern, as it was back with sk, is the lack of any commentary, no less critically thought-through commentary, accompanying the post. Without repeating myself YET AGAIN in toto, it gets US away from speaking WITH and even learning from EACH OTHER in favor of talking AT and merely lecturing one another... on 10/09/08 at 17:20:47, StegRock wrote:
I mean with relatively little brain work we can post competing copy-and-pastes from our favorite (biased) sources at each other all the live-long day and not get anywhere. Mind you, it's not just that we wouldn't be getting anywhere in just some general, unspecific way insofar as we aren't hearing each other out. That's, of course, true, but there is a deeper problem. It's because these articles give you something else to hide behind (as if we need MORE to hide behind in cyberworld). It's because for true interpersonal progress to be made you got to stick your neck out, no someone else's (i.e. an author's). Of course, on a more mundane note, most of what I would want to copy-and-paste, if I were so inclined, isn't available on the internet, i.e. BOOKS. Of course, you have to read a book in its entirety to truly get the whole picture (at least the kind of books I would recommend), which gets me to another point. Most "big picture" points, like the one of the article you posted, MC, require a book for the point to be adequately made. Otherwise, it's just propoganda. In any event, there is also another way of speaking to this, a little bit peripherally, but nevertheless, I think, usefully. We explicitly learn in graduate school not to litter our papers with too many quotes because, while quotes can be used as authoritative, direct support for your argument, oftentimes people use/fall back on quotations as a means to communicate that which they don't really understand themselves and, thus, cannot express in their own words. The point of that is one of certainty. Because you don't really understand it, there, a fortiori, is no certainty that 1) it says what you think it does/what you want it to, and, worse yet, 2) you would even agree if you did totally understand it (this will become an important point below). I wonder if you, MC, really understand what agreement with such a piece as the one you've copy-and-pasted (philosophically and theologically) commits you to. I mean if you really thought the position of the essay all the way through, MC, I'm sure you would see the ill-logic it commits you to. But, I digress... I'm asking the following questions of and bringing up the following food for thought for other readers because this is unquestioned dogma (I'll get to that below) to you, MC. And, look, I'm going to leave the egregiously ridiculous shit to the side, (okay, not totally) like when the writer writes, "In Obama's speech in Berlin, Obama said that we are all citizens of the world! Talk about a message on globalism. Will he establish the one-world system?" Oh, please... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] To take such a positive, humanistic statement promoting world harmony and spin it negatively, to me, is REAL evil. And, then, this... "Even for those with proper eschatology this sounds alarming. But on the positive side, a barometer as to how late the hour is has been revealed." Oh, please,... [smiley=weirdo.gif] I've officially just entered Nitwitville... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] But, I digress... Again, leaving that bullshit behind... 1) The article says that "the Bible has all the answers". For argument's sake, let's just grant that that is the case (but note that I don't think it is). A critical question remains. Why and how is that so? Does it mean that the Bible is the ultimate, tell-all oracle of sorts, OR is it that Biblical passages can be taken in so many various ways that it can be interpreted to say pretty much anything? In other words, is it its flexible interpretability or its oracular nature that makes this so? Considerations... The size of the Bible, my Bible is 508 pages written in about 6-point font with three columns per page. I also have a Tanakh (the Hebrew Holy Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament), and a "Good News for the Modern Man" version of the New Testament. The former is 1,624 pages; the latter is 651 pages. The point is this is a tome. Also, people use the Bible to make incompatible, even contradictory claims. I mean I've seen Christians spin Biblical passages to say that Bush is Satan. 2) The intimation/tone of the essay is that any public figure liked, no less loved, the world over, as Obama is (being claimed to be), is a sort of anti-Christ. Again, to be generous, we'll set aside our judgments on (ridiculous) "anti-Christ" rhetoric, the fact that this is simple-minded post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning (interestingly biased against Democrats who, whether appropriately or not, in the present era tend to be more well-liked abroad), and that it is just whack. Does the writer realize the deeper logical flaw upon which the position is predicated, the ill-logic of conflating the necessary and sufficient conditions? Or, worse yet, is the writer doing this on purpose so as to subtly and insidiously influence the reader? What, I'm sure, any reader who is empathetic with this writer's point but has half a brain is thinking is being said is "If so-and-so is an anti-Christ, then he or she will be loved the world over (like Obama is)." Though on its face somewhat philosophically, anthropologically and sociologically repugnant, it's not a ridiculous claim in terms of logic. The necessary and sufficient conditions are in their proper places. BUT, whether or not this writer even realizes it, that is not the picture being painted. According to the presentation, what is being asserted is, "If so-and-so is loved the world over, then he or she is the anti-Christ." YIIIKES! That is a subtle move, but extremely effective in promoting propoganda... and problematic from a logical standpoint. A little lesson in logic is required... The "if" clause is called the necessary condition; the "then" clause is called the sufficient condition. They canNOT be switched. For example (and forgive me for the double-negative, but the example is really about the simplest I can come up with), "If it is black, it is not white." TRUE! This is called modus ponens. Now, let's reverse it... "If it is not white, it is black." FALSE (i.e. not necessarily true; it could be orange or blue or whatever)! However, let's reverse it and NEGATE both sides, "If it is not not white (i.e., it's white), it is not black." TRUE! This is called modus tollens. The point is that when you reverse necessary and sufficient conditions you are not saying the same thing. In fact, if a certain "modus ponens" is taken to be true, then reversing the conditions makes for a falsehood. And, in this case, while I think any "level-headed" (Christian) reader of this essay is thinking, "If so-and-so is an anti-Christ, then he or she will be loved the world over," said reader is actually (being) lulled into thinking, "If so-and-so is loved the world over, then he or she is an anti-Christ," a much stronger and unacceptable position. The first one says that all anti-Christs/the anti-Christ will have the characteristic of being loved the world over and that "if so-and-so is not loved the world over, he or she is not the anti-Christ," which, though repugnant to most of us, is actually "reasonable". The second one, though, says that those loved the world over are anti-Christs or the person loved the world over is the anti-Christ and that "if so-and-so is not the anti-Christ, then he or she is not loved the world over," which is not merely repugnant, but ridiculous and, not just ill-logical, but downright illogical. It says that Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, arguably Ronald Reagan, and definitely Jesus are all anti-Christs, some of whom have been victimized by such rhetoric. But, of course, there is only one Biblical anti-Christ. In this case, the person fulfilling the role of the person loved the world over, the person being set up, is Barack Obama. Again, note, the contention of the piece is not (explicitly) that Obama is the anti-Christ and so he is loved the world over, which would offend most of our sensibilities but be logical. It is that Obama is loved the world over and so (implicitly) he is the anti-Christ. This is insidiously clever and extremely dangerous propoganda. 3) Finally, consider this part of the piece from the third-to-last paragraph, "But as in Samuel's day, God is not good enough for America. Thus, I believe He has allowed 'strong delusion' to filter across the nation and around the world. It says in Isaiah 66:4, 'I will choose their delusions.' Thus, all has happened for a reason. God removes kings and establishes kings for His own purposes." Setting aside the issue of claiming God as creator of delusions (I thought, in this type of context, that was Satan's or the anti-Christ's job) and taking Isaiah 66:4 TOTALLY out of context [I know... What's new about silly extremist (born-again) Christian rhetoric] (see Isaiah 66:3 and 66:5, which are respectively about false ritual and worship and disposition toward God, on the one hand, and deliverance of true believers in the True Lord, on the other) and, moreover, the bigger problem of who in the hell even knows what that even means, does it even contribute to the writer's point? In other words, besides being externally questionable to say the least, is it even internally consistent? Now, I'm not going to explicitly answer the questions (though you can probably guess my answers). It's just that any sincere seeker of the truth will want to ask these kinds of questions and critically think them through. What I wonder, MC, is what you think the effect this kind of post is going to have on this community's readership. What do you think you are going to accomplish? At least, using myself as the case in point, not that I'm at all vulnerable to evangelization (or the hynotic effects of Buddhist meditation practices), this kind of rhetoric does nothing but turn me more off from the kind of Christianity you adhere to and espouse. Yet, you'd think you'd think to yourself, as you've expressed to me, "Steg's a decent chap, heart in the right place; smart bugger who's really well-read and who I admire and, in any event, am attracted to along with his goofy web site, for whatever reason." From what I can tell, though, that gives you NO pause, and, while, in and of itself, that is fine, that is the practical definition of dogmatic. As many an astute politician and four-star general point out with regards to extreme Islamists, you can't sit down and talk with dogmatists and expect to get anywhere. Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That unfortunately applies here. Your position on these "richer" and deeper matters, MC, doesn't demand the critical (in both senses) reflection and allow for the open-mindedness that is required for authentic exchange that is meaningful, middle-ground and penetrating, and your heels are dug in deep. It's just preaching, and that so bums me out. I mean it's all good, though. I like you and surely enjoy hanging with you in arenas other than this. I just think that your last post is a waste of bandwidth. Fox News alert... ;) I saw a very fair and balanced piece by Brit Hume that poked fun at and exposed the ridiculousness of Republican Congressman Paul Broun and his concern that Obama is going to set up a Marxist dictatorship. Hume compared his rantings to the "derangement syndrome" liberal fanatics exhibited in relation to President Bush and Sarah Palin. Great stuff! [smiley=clap.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 10:33am This is what I wrote. There is not one single statement in my "own words" that support or disclaim the authors ideas. It simply stated that no matter what your belief system was, this article was interesting enough to provoke some thought.....which it evidently DID. on 11/11/08 at 11:46:40, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Yes, I DO understand that my post did not articulate my own commentary, and that in itself is not in the "spirit" of getting to know one another around here. My bad. My lead-in to this story made no suggestion as to which way I leaned on this article. However, your remarks about it suggests that you believe I posted this because, either I am a Christian and I am trying (like the writer) to spread my rhetoric, or because I just blindly subscribe to anything that "sounds" remotely Christian. Steve, give me some credit man. If I was sold on what the writer said, you'd better believe I WOULD MAKE IT EXTREMELY CLEAR that I endorsed what I was posting. Getting an endorsement from me would entail hours of self-study on the subject, not just how I felt about the subject. As far as the writer's take on Obama. I don't believe that Obama is THE anti-Christ, though I do believe he is anti-Christ(ian). Like Forrest Gump said "That's all I'm gonna say about that" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 12:48pm MC, with that said, before you posted your reply, I prepared a further follow-up, which, though a bit non sequitur now, I am going to post anyway... because I still don't think I totally understand your m.o. With all my cards on the table (which may seem bass-ackwards to some, but I actually think is the forthright way and is not "setting people up") and since I know you are a man of conviction, permit me to ask you the following... What about that essay speaks to you, speaks to your heart, rings true for (or is interesting to) you? And, secondarily, what about it do you think would speak constructively to followers of other belief systems? Now, I realize that at this point you may have already answered those questions in your last post (in fact I had to add the parenthetical "or is interesting to" to question one based on your prior reply), but I'd appreciate it if you could frame a response in terms of those two questions. :) I just strongly feel that such a post requires some context from the poster, especially when most of us know whence said poster is generally coming, lest it comes off as tendentious and sets people up. I mean you are a believer in what the Bible has to say about end times, so pardon the error of my ways, but I do think I was at least a little (mis)led there (by, at least, a lack of context)... :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 2:47pm on 11/12/08 at 12:48:45, StegRock wrote:
Steve, none of it speaks to my heart. I just find discussion on "end times" fascinating and extremely interesting. I did not send this out to "speak" to anyone in particular, I just thought any citizen of the world would find this author's take on the whole subject, interesting, irregardless of their belief system. What's constructive about it? Any time debate is open, and people talk, it's constructive in my thinking. With that being said, I do believe the premise on which this author spoke, I just don't see it quite like she does. In fact, I actually think she got lost a bit. For instance, I don't believe Obama, or any other charismatic world figure can be positively identified as the Anti-Christ at this moment. I don't believe that if someone speaks globally they are automatically anti-Christ either...that would be absurd. Yes, I do believe that there will be an Anti-Christ, but only after several prophecies (yes, from the Bible) that have yet to be fulfilled, have come to past. (For sake of not going there on the subject..I'm not going there! Just know that I do believe and follow what the Bible has to say about it. ;)) No man knows the hour, but we can recognize the season, and I personally think that we are in the season. I base my recognition on the many prophecies (from the Bible) that actually have come to past. Without going into detail, (which I know just pains you ;D) many prophecies predicting the "season" have already come to light and/or are directly on the horizon. (Meaning they are doable at this moment in history.) My only example will be this: the taking of a number on your hand or head. Completely comprehendable at this moment in time, even more comprehendable if we were to have a one-world system. Think along these lines for a moment. Identity theft is rampant worldwide. What better way to solve identity theft than to require your monies to be completely on-line with your proof that the one withdrawing your money is you, than to have a chip(bar-code if you will indulge me) imbedded in your hand? You have to be there to withdraw, right. Oops, I am a limblesss man, I can't recieve a chip!! Not so fast sir, take this mark upon your head...as long as you are alive your head (eyes, if you're thinking retinal scan)will be with you. ;) That is only one use for receiving your number. Kidnappings, finding murdered people, census, tracking terrorists, emergency contact info., etc... etc....all this possible through satellite tracking that would be encoded on the chip in your body. It all actually makes sense that we have that now, just think how much more sense it would make if you had to track every person in a one world society. Heck, even as we speak, my dog has a chip in her that has her vital information if I were to lose her. So, it's in use in some form already. In working for the DoD, I can tell you that much of this type of tracking is already taking place on me with a card. My fingerprints, my retinal scan, my medical info., my next-of-kin, etc. My "chip" is in my card currently. My card and myself can become seperated easily. The obvious next step to track me would be for me to get a chip inside me, don't you think. Steve-o, this just touches the tip of all that I could say about "end-times" and "end times" prophecies. Because I don't preach this stuff, I will not go on. I only preach the simple message of salvation through Jesus Christ. That is all I am called to do. If someone comes to this belief as I have, then they can study and examine the Scriptures for themselves. It is in that examination that they would be able to comprehend what I believe. Outside of that knowledge, argument on the subject is really rather futile don't you think? Respectfully, MC by the way...I have no modus operandi, but I suppose if I did, it would be.... Christ First. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 5:02pm on 11/12/08 at 14:47:51, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Come on... You don't see at least one problem with that... I actually see two, and I would actually call them contradictions or, at least, contradictory. Setting that aside, responding to just the first part above, so, ANYTHING that prompts discussion/debate is worth posting??? You can't be serious. I mean any dialogue may be able to be said to be good in and of itself, but surely not ANY impetus is. Come on! Think that through. You don't really think that. Right? Now, I'm not necessarily saying (right now) that your post crosses that line. But, it's one thing to say that. It is a whole nother to say that there is no line. That having been said, it does seem to cross your line since you are ultimately not willing to go there until or unless... Quote:
I just think, for the sake of more productive discussion, again, especially when you know that the guy comes from a particular mindset (which is, mind you, to the credit of the character of this community that we do have a more intimate knowledge of each other :)), your now-posted, after-the-fact commentary should (have) be(en) done at the point of posting so as to "frame" the issue for us. You should at least give us a hint as to where you stand and say that a commentary is forthcoming (and mean it, of course). Otherwise, it's just baiting, no, and perhaps tendentiously, even if unwittingly? In any event, even though you express the above in the first-person, doesn't that stand for pretty much anybody('s experience), man? I mean I don't necessarily think that has to be the case. But, if you do, to maintain internal consistency you've got to. The wall's are up and you've got to get inside the castle to comprehend what's within its walls. But, everybody is entitled to their castle, right? I'm willing to come out of mine and discuss others' stuff. I'm not going to make everybody have to do all the work I've done to get a glimpse of the "goods". [smiley=awwgee.gif] Of course, I'm going to go outside with a critical eye like I turn to my own "castle". But, as you state it, it's ultimately hopeless. So, just keep it at the level of jokey, jokey and the superficial. That's the only solution I can see. And, to wit, down through the years, I've heard you say things along those lines. But, then, why make the post above? For mere superficial discussion...??? I mean I hear you. I just don't 100% see that you hear yourself (not that you, in fact, don't). Maybe you need to just "lay it out there" and, the hell with etiquette, just lambaste me, or maybe you need to use that backspace button more often (which I, believe it or not, often do). I say this only because, in contrast with what I just said, I think you are fairly self-aware of what your convictions are and where you stand on things. I just think you get slipped up [smiley=tonguetied.gif] by the rhetoric. Like in the first quote I made above, I think who you really are is the second part, not the first. Get rid of the first part and at least the logical problem dissolves. I mean I personally still think that second part is problematic and, in all likelihood, a discussion stifler. But, at least, we can cut through the bullshit. Now, I'm willing to be wrong about my rhetorical assessment. But, I got to see it. Now we're getting into what I consider to be more productive waters. But, we didn't need Jan to get us here (I mean obviously I guess we did in an immanental, unfolding-of-subjectivity sense, but I don't think we necessarily did in a logical sense). Anyway, good luck with that end-times stuff and getting through the "season"... or not. ?.?.? [smiley=spjesus.gif] [smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=goodrevil.gif] [smiley=priest.gif] [smiley=demon.gif] [smiley=angel.gif] [smiley=hellhound.gif] ... ;) You absolutely do not have to worry about my going there. [smiley=popcorn.gif] I'm just along for the ride. [smiley=woohoo.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 5:34pm on 11/12/08 at 14:47:51, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Bottom line on the rest of it is that I am NOT going to tell someone how to believe in Christ, because I can't. It is personal and different for everyone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 5:49pm on 11/12/08 at 17:34:36, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Exactly... But, then, I still maintain that you have to seriously reconsider the appropriateness, vis-a-vis that stance, of your making a post such as the one above. If you are not willing to argue/critically discuss the intricacies of all reasonably directly related aspects of something you post, it's not fair to the rest of us, and it's back to what I originally dubbed it, preaching... insofar as there are, at least, (KEY) aspects of it that aren't up for critical discussion, no less outright debate, with you. That's by definition preaching. "KNOW"... Uhhhhh,... ooo-kay... But, anyway, I think your post is honest. So, fair enough, save for the qualification I stated above. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 5:59pm on 11/12/08 at 17:02:21, StegRock wrote:
Make no mistake about this, we (you and I) have already gone the route of who claims and who does not claim Christianity as their sole belief system. In that alone, we do not have the same mindset, I would not even call it similar to what you profess. Are you knowledgable of Christianity? Without a doubt! Is it personal for you? I doubt it! Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 6:01pm on 11/12/08 at 17:49:36, StegRock wrote:
Yes..... absolutely......I KNOW |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 6:35pm on 11/12/08 at 17:59:43, MordecaiCourage wrote:
It's not! (Not that you know this, obviously, but I'm not a "belief system" guy, period, no less a "Christian belief system" guy.) Quote:
It's not! (Not that you have the slightest clue about my "deal", though.) Quote:
And, once again, it's not. I've all but told (all of) you all this. That's no mystery. You're "meeting" me only on your terms, though. That's not what I'm even striving for. So, of course, it's not. Quote:
[smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] ... But, I have to admit that I don't understand your second sentence which I've bolded above. Could you rephrase or explain it, please? on 11/12/08 at 18:01:39, MordecaiCourage wrote:
More power to you, bro... [smiley=clap.gif] Rock on... [smiley=woohoo.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 6:45pm on 11/12/08 at 18:35:49, StegRock wrote:
It's laid out in the few sentences that follow that line, if that makes more sense...it's what the line was intended to mean, perhaps it doesn't quite fit the phrasing that follws ;D Example: We both have the same set of directions to build a bridge...you start from the East bank, I start from the West. We both comprehend the directions, but we build it differently. The end product is a bridge that gets us across the same river |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 6:59pm I still don't get it. The following sentences seem to say that you can go in different directions... based on the same sign, i.e. (human) comprehension. But, I'm guessing that the bottom line is that the direction is different only in terms of mere human understanding; in terms of the "bigger picture" of God's plan for your life, it's not different. It's not whether it's "orphans or widows" that's the point. It's the "helping". If I'm right, then I guess I do get the rhetoric. But, I know that it doesn't prove anything unique to Christianity. Christianity doesn't corner the market on such "signs", i.e. understanding. I digress... What about the sign earlier this year that said, "Help out Steg"? :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 12th, 2008, 9:59pm on 11/12/08 at 18:59:48, StegRock wrote:
[smiley=key.gif] It does for me |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 12th, 2008, 10:56pm And, there we are... [smiley=bow.gif] THE END!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am on 11/11/08 at 15:18:58, sk wrote:
These reasons are flawed. Regarding reason #1, by "woman's health" is meant such things as depression, emotional stability, etc., NOT life and death situations. The bill, as originally proposed, included a provision allowing for partial-birth abortions if it was necessary to save the mother's life. The infamous "health exception" would have allowed partial birth abortions not only when the mother's life was threatened but also when other, non life-threatening adverse health consequences would have followed. Regarding reason #2, I think you're misunderstanding Obama's quote on this subject. He said "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that." There's no indication here that Obama opposed the partial-birth abortion ban because it made a federal law out of what should be a state issue. In fact, he seems to be using the word "state" as equivalent to "national government," not as contradistinguished from federal government, as you are interpreting it. Besides, since when has Obama been in favor of state's rights? I'm sorry, but when you interpret such an extreme leftist and supporter of centralized government as claiming he opposes a law because it should be left up to the states, not the federal government, I tend not to believe your interpretation. But these reasons you give are ultimately irrelevant. He believes partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Period. on 11/11/08 at 15:18:58, sk wrote:
Completely false. Watch the video: Obama says "If they [his daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." There is no mention of "crisis pregnancy," only of "making a mistake." In fact, the context is sex education (abstinence and contraception), not rape. Your point here is COMPLETELY false and deceitful. [By the way, "crisis pregnancy" does NOT refer merely to rape. It refers to any pregnancy that is unwanted, whether because of financial or emotional reasons (or others).] on 11/11/08 at 15:18:58, sk wrote:
The reason is irrelevant: he wants to create thousands upon thousands (or is it more?) of human embryos and he wants to make it a crime to bring any one of them to its normal, natural completion through implantation. Besides, what "genetic possibilities" make implantation such a bad idea? It would be easy enough to mandate what kind of embryos are produced so that you don't have this "market demand" for "the perfect baby": just don't CREATE perfect embryos. on 11/11/08 at 15:18:58, sk wrote:
Irrelevant. That is to say, you're not answering my objection. When I state that Obama is in favor of destroying innocent human life, you have to address my argument. Saying "But doing so will help us find cures for diseases" isn't a real response to my original argument. It's like someone objecting to Hitler that he is intentionally murdering thousands of innocent Jews, Christians, and others, and Hitler responding "But it will help us achieve our national goals." In both cases, one is justifying intrinsically evil and brutal actions for the sake of some better good - it just so happens that we today think our reasons are better than Hitler's. We owe it to those who are suffering to kill those who are innocent? You describe human beings as "unused," just as a slave owner would have described a slave who was murdered before he was put to work as "unused." Sick. The bullsh** sentimentality that is so often used to justify killing human life - "we owe it to those who suffer," "so many people are dying from diseases," "the woman has a right over her own body," "the woman will be caused great emotional distress" - is disgusting. Let's face the facts. Such people want to kill the youngest, most innocent human beings so that those who actually HAVE a say in the matter can extend and/or improve THEIR lives. The same reasoning would favor someone who is sick killing someone who is healthy and rich so he could use his victim's money to ease his own illness and extend his own life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am on 11/13/08 at 00:08:03, T-Rave wrote:
Here is a direct Quote from Obama. I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that mental distress qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions. Washington Post on 11/13/08 at 00:08:03, T-Rave wrote:
If you look at the Obama quote above you will find You removed the letter "S' off the word State and changed the meaning of the sentance. He also said this during the South Carolina Primary Debate. I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. on 11/13/08 at 00:08:03, T-Rave wrote:
You are correct. I didnt check, nor consider the source I read that quote from. It was Freedompress. Comparitively speaking, they contort many qoutes to make their point. I parrotted those. Im Sorry. on 11/08/08 at 00:03:32, T-Rave wrote:
Can you give me a Bill number. Can you site a source. I have no idea what you are talking about. Now I will guess at what you mean. "Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos. From- Ontheissues. on 11/13/08 at 00:08:03, T-Rave wrote:
Theres the rub, right there. No question that the embryo is human life. If thats the case , then how can we justify the thousands of embryos we store frozen for families who hope to one day produce a child. Typically 10 to 12 eggs are fertilized to make embryo's, yet only 3 are returned to the womb. This leaves 7 to be distroyed or stored indefinatly. Are we against In Vetro too! With this logic: We can kill to make lives seems no better than killing to save lives. on 11/13/08 at 00:08:03, T-Rave wrote:
T-Rave, I understand the positions. I was responsible for a crisis pregnancy when I was young. Probably 18. I was there the day the baby was born. The baby's mother held him for about 10 minutes. Then the nurse handed him to me. She introduced us and then snached him away, off to his new adoptive parents. It was sad for us, but it was far better than the alternative. I was greatful to be able to make a choice based upon my beliefs and my faiths, and not those of others who feel that they hold the higher moral value. My choice. [offtopic]Government should not force or legislate moral values upon its people. But when and if Government decides that it does then like it or not, right after abortion come gun control.[/offtopic] Again, Back to my original stand. Nobody is Pro-Abortion. Not me. Not the president elect. Pro-abortion is a term used to promote your agenda. Shock and awe. I will argue to protect my family's right to make a choice based upon my moral values. My right to choose. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 13th, 2008, 1:43pm on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
Fair enough. My point still stands, however: Obama believes partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
I don't have the bill number off the top of my head. I'll have to look it up. I don't think the quote you provided refers to the bill I'm talking about. on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
Yes, I'm against in vitro fertilization, in part for the reasons you stated: it requires freezing and eventually killing human beings. on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
It's morally reprehensible to kill in order to make lives. It's morally reprehensible to kill in order to save lives. Both are morally offensive, reprehensible, and evil. on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
I honor your decision here. It was honorable taking the right path. But look at your logic: Is it ok to let someone make HIS OWN choice by killing a policeman to avoid being arrested? Choice is not the issue here - you can't choose to murder someone. on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
Again, there is NO right to choose when it comes to determining another human being's living or dying. Government SHOULD and DOES force/legislate moral values upon its people. There are laws against murder, robbery, rape, incest, fraud, etc. This is legislating morality. Abortion falls under murder, which the government DOES legislate against. Gun control is not the same thing as murder: it's not wrong to own guns, it is wrong to murder, rob, rape, commit fraud, etc. You're confusing two completely different issues here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 13th, 2008, 2:55pm I just want to comment on one very small, but not insignificant point in sk's post. I do want and plan to comment, actually fairly briefly, [smiley=whistle.gif] I hope, [smiley=fingerscrossed.gif] on the issue of ("legislating") morality in America (but I got to write a "real" paper today, [smiley=howtoput.gif] so I'm just a bit strapped for time [smiley=ontheclock.gif]). Although, I think yous should be able to figure out what I probably have to say on the issue by reviewing and... [smiley=thinking.gif] relevant posts of mine on this, the "Philosophy Corner" and "Book Club" threads (in fact, I think I'll throw a quick little nugget up on the "Philosophy Corner" thread right now that's inspired by discussions here). However, I do think Rave has fielded the ball, initially, superbly. I would only want to very briefly right now add this: that the term "legislate morality" is basically just as much a political hyperbolism as "pro-abortion". So, if one is going to critique another's political hyperbolisms, one should make sure to reflect that back on him- or herself lest that lack of self-reflection functions as an impediment to advancing the discussion. But, I digress... on 11/13/08 at 11:15:57, sk wrote:
I'm pretty sure a capital "S" would actually make the sentence mean the national or federal government, which supports Rave's position, not yours, sk. The meaning doesn't hinge so much on the "s" as it does the definite article "the". "The State", with the "the", in this (non-intrastate) context, to me quite clearly means the Federal Government. Now, mind you, there is an "s" that would really make a difference, the pluralizing "s". To clearly communicate the 50 united states, it should read "the states" or, even better yet for the particular sentence under the microscope, simply "states" minus the definite article. And, then again, maybe that's the point. That's what politicians do. They intentionally and calculatingly don't speak clearly. So, maybe we shouldn't take their specific words all too seriously and literally and focus on the "bigger picture" (that's precisely what I've done when forming my take on Barack Obama '08) (of course, that's a skill in and of itself,... the education of which I've tried to, in an immanental way, facilitate via this site). And, mind you, I'm not necessarily criticizing all the double-talk. I think it's the nature of the beast (at least in today's day and age). But, whatever, these are all hills I'm not willing to die on. My only point was to (instructively, usefully and constructively, helpfully) point out that sk's little point there actually helped Rave's position rather than his own, at least as I saw it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 13th, 2008, 3:43pm on 11/13/08 at 13:43:43, T-Rave wrote:
Can of worms number 1 , T-Rave. How do you feel about the US involvement in civilian casualties in the shock and Awe blanket bombing of Bagdad? on 11/13/08 at 13:43:43, T-Rave wrote:
Can of worms number 2. How do you feel about the death penalty? on 11/13/08 at 13:43:43, T-Rave wrote:
Look up "Urban Assault Rifle". Arent Companies making a profit selling guns to civilians that are used to kill people responsible? Isnt it the same as the bartender who goes to jail because he serves one to many to the guy who runs over the innocent kid on the sidewalk? I have never commited a felony. Therefore I could go to Don's Guns and buy an AK 47. But why would I want it? The only advantage it gives me is when I need to hit a target from a moving vehicle. Am I in favor of gun control? Absolutely! I am not in favor of abortion, yet I do not want government to limit my freedom of choice, yet I am in favor of gun control. What kind of an idiot are you guys dealing with here? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 13th, 2008, 4:32pm [offtopic] on 11/13/08 at 15:43:55, sk wrote:
Not that it speaks to the substance of your point, sk, but, for future reference, "to beg the question" does not, as it has erroneously come to mean in lay vernacular, mean "to prompt a further question", "makes me wonder" or "makes me curious about what your answer to this (other) question will be" or something like that. In fact, it's meaning is quite the opposite. It's reflexive back on the question itself. It's like someone saying that Neptune, god of the seas, is responsible for the tides, i.e. explaining away the tides by way of the god of the seas Neptune. Problem, who is this Neptune guy? The explanation itself "begs the question" of the existence of this god of the seas Neptune. That's begging the question. (Did I do that definition justice, T?)[/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 13th, 2008, 4:37pm Thank you! And now back to our regularly scheduled program! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 13th, 2008, 4:51pm on 11/13/08 at 16:37:29, sk wrote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=sinister.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 13th, 2008, 5:08pm Well said, Steg. I think your characterization of begging the question was spot-on. ;) on 11/13/08 at 15:43:55, sk wrote:
Here's the deal. A justified war is one of self-defense. Therefore it does not fall in the category of murder. The problem of collateral damage is indeed difficult. Here's a solution: if one is fighting a war, one intends to destroy the opposing army. If in so doing one inadvertently kills civilians, without intending to, it's not morally reprehensible. The problem REALLY gets tricky when the opposing army surrounds itself with civilians in order to make it more difficult (as Hezbollah did, and presumably, in this case, as the Iraqis did). Then it's a question of prudence: is the good attained (victory and the end of the war) of more "weight" than the evil that follows as a consequence (civilians killed)? To be a moral action, of course, the bombing can't INTENTIONALLY target civilians as such. on 11/13/08 at 15:43:55, sk wrote:
The same way I do about war: if it's justified self-defense, go ahead. In fact, sometimes both war and the death penalty are not only morally justified but morally necessary. If a criminal is such a threat to society that his existence cannot be tolerated without grave threat to that society, the death penalty can in fact be the best option. Of course, in our day and age, what with much more secure prisons, it's less and less likely that the death penalty is necessary, but I can see it in some cases still being necessary (perhaps in Saddam's case or in Osama bin Laden's, if we ever catch him). on 11/13/08 at 15:43:55, sk wrote:
Again, it's apples and oranges. You can never justify murder, rape, etc., but you CAN justify owning a gun. Now, like you, I am in favor of government control over CERTAIN TYPES of guns. But this is not of the same moral imperative as murder, rape, fraud, etc.: the latter are intrinsically wrong, whereas owning a gun is NOT. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 13th, 2008, 7:39pm on 11/13/08 at 17:08:12, T-Rave wrote:
[smiley=bow.gif] ... Let me preface that I don't really like this "framing" of morality. As could be expected from my philosophical emphasis on subjectivity and so forth, morality in general is not to be looked upon merely as reactive or, to pigeon-hole it even more, corrective or as a matter merely of punitive justice. To frame it merely in terms of correction, no less corrections, is not to do it justice. True morality, first and foremost, is proactive, not reactive. Even though the word "morality" is being thrown around here, what is really being discussed is the morality of matters where things have already gone awry, the morality of punishment, the morality of reactions to circumstances where people have already made a mess by prior poor judgment, the morality of playing clean-up. I'm actually not even sure if this is morality anymore though that's what it's conventionally considered to be. This is just debating how to best "clean things up". I don't think "morality", per se, should be denegrated thusly. That having been said... Quote:
... (to continue that last sentence of T's there) like as happened on 9/11! That said, T, first, what about situations where civilians are targeted as such, though perhaps not desirably so, sheerly because the size and scope of an attack like, say, a bombing, which, though aiming at a specific military target, is going to take out a nearby community because of, say, the size of the bomb? (I set up that hypothetical really only to provide a slightly more justifiable situation than the next real-world example.) Worse yet (and I ask this of you too, sk), what about a situation like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where, from what I know, civilians were targeted as such and regrettably, desirably so? But, hey, most don't argue with the ultimate result, the much-needed hastening of the end of WWII. ... Now, the answers to those questions aside, the meta-commentary here is that you can't really argue "issues" with other "issues" even though it is a knee-jerk sensibility we all have a tendency to manifest. I've been down this road with sk before, I know. It is not a legitimate argumentational tactic to argue issues with issues. It just serves to muddy the waters more than anything and gets us away from probing a particular matter more deeply. We could sit here all day going "what about this issue?", "what about that issue?" with one another and get nowhere. It's because, even though the situations seem similar or perhaps even the same, they are in fact DIFFERENT. So, we're really comparing apples and oranges. Even though they seem to be connected, it's fallacious to think that one's position on abortion must in any way be related to one's position on, say, the death penalty, no less be specifically relative to it, and no less, this abortion scenario with that one and that death penalty situation with this one, and, again, no less this abortion scenario with that death penalty situation. First, there is the (postmodern) qualm with the principle of non-contradiction and, thus, the value of consistency (not that I share said qualm, but it looms whether or not I like it). Second, everything is a matter of particular(izing) circumstances, which will have us chasing our inductive tails all the live-long day (this is why hypotheticals can serve more to conflate rather than clarify matters because they highlight the similarity of an issue while ignoring the reality of difference). Thirdly, as I've hammered in here, they're different issues, period. They do share somewhat of a common thread, but that common thread is not a valid identity claim. Similarities, no matter the number and degree of similarity, do not make for sameness. You can't just keep hitting someone up with issue after issue thinking that it advances (any of) the discussion(s on any of the issues)... unless you can prove or, at least, argue how the two issues are similar enough to merit consistency of response. Without, at least, an argument for that, no less proof, it's not a worthwhile enterprise. I mean, when someone does that to me, I want them to show me the connection that justifies the comparison first before I will even entertain the question (that is, unless I can expedite matters with the same positive result by way of just responding to the question directly). But, again, even then it is better discussed circumstantially rather than hypothetically. Comparing actual situations in real life is very difficult as we all know. Hypothetically comparing issues, though people do it all the time, is downright impossible and a waste of our good time. But, mind you, none of this is about morality. We're just discussing positions on difficult and challenging issues of our times. Morality is what you were confronted with, sk, when you had to respond to that "crisis" pregnancy. Morality, for sure, transcends law,... which will provide me with a nice segue when I get around to making that other post regarding "legislating" morality, which I will eventually get to. But, legislators do have to go about protecting peoples', first, "freedom froms" and then, second, "freedom tos". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 13th, 2008, 8:27pm Bullshit to both of you. You cant make this statement: Quote:
And then you said this Quote:
I really dont think you can have it both ways. Anyway, this was fun. I was enjoying the whatever this was. At least up until it became another forum where my literary techniques and weaknesses became as always an issue for display. It kind of sucked the joy out of it for me. I'm gonna go back over here and ride the crickets for a while. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 13th, 2008, 9:43pm Where the rubber meets the road on the critique of "argumentation" techniques, sk, is that poor technique can lead you to draw the kind of conclusion you just did... on 11/13/08 at 20:27:34, sk wrote:
The reality is, objectively (no less relativistically) speaking, you can... whether YOU like it or not, sk. I'm sorry we, I, whoever here doesn't agree with your dominoes set-up. But, you GOT TO know it's YOUR dominoes set-up, not one (necessarily) confirmed by an objective appeal to things as they are. But, seriously, I am sorry for hurting your feelings with this. [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] If you just take it for what it is and take it in, sk, this whole exercise helps you improve your argument and perhaps your position too. I mean no one is being nasty to you here, dude. In argumentation, facts are one front; technique and reasoning is another. It's all fair game, though, and you can't be thin-skinned about any of it, especially, again, when the people you are arguing with are NOT being nasty about it at all. Hell, I personally think it's an opportunity, man. With Ravenous T and me at least, you are rapping with two guys who have made great sacrifices to devote their lives to mastering that technique and reasoning side of things and, in fact, make it their livelihoods vis-a-vis working toward their doctorates in Philosophy, and Philosophy and Religion, respectively. In the least, you got to know that's the playing field here. Anyway, again, I didn't curse you out, though, in any of this, sk, as you did me, us. I guess I'll just take your apology for that as implicit :-/ ... ;) (as, again, I'm the bad guy around here who doesn't apologize or thank anybody for anything [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif]). Quote:
[smiley=wave.gif] [smiley=crickets.gif] ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 14th, 2008, 12:33am on 11/13/08 at 20:27:34, sk wrote:
Sk, you're not being fair. You're not really paying attention to what I said. It IS morally reprehensible to kill in order to save lives. Justified war is not murder, however; it's self-defense. Embryonic stem cell research is NOT self-defense (we're not threatened by the human embryos) so it's murder. You can't possibly think the two situations are the same. As far as my comment about "prudential decisions," you failed to note my clarifying remark in the original post, that INTENTIONALLY killing civilians (directing your aggression at them specifically) is never justified. The only thing that is (sometimes) justifiable is what we euphemistically call "collateral damage," in which you intend to kill the aggressors (military personnel) but in so doing also cause the death of civilians. on 11/13/08 at 20:27:34, sk wrote:
I'm sorry this is the case. But you have to admit, sk, this at the very least SOUNDS like a cop-out, especially since you're throwing one last punch and then "stopping the match." Literary techniques and weaknesses aren't the point; besides, as Steg said, having such discussions with people who are better at such things is an opportunity to learn (just like Steg and I having discussions with scholars is an opportunity to learn). We all have opportunities to learn -- and, yes, such opportunities often involve ourselves looking less polished or even somewhat bumbling. You just gotta swallow it (no comments, Steg ;)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 14th, 2008, 12:45am on 11/13/08 at 19:39:43, StegRock wrote:
I agree with most of the substance of this point. True morality starts from within and proceeds outward into action. Acting "morally" from fear of punishment or desire of gain isn't true morality. However, as Aristotle notes, political society uses the law in order to bring its citizens to their proper end, i.e., happiness, which requires moral action. Realizing that argumentation rarely compels inward moral conversion and action, Aristotle points out that the law uses fear of punishment and/or the promise of glory and honor in order to mold at least the EXTERNAL actions of its citizens, hoping that over time, such training will have the effect of forming inner habits so that true morality can be established. Of course, this isn't the modern understanding of the purpose of law. Ever since Locke, and Hobbes, the West has tended to understand the purpose of law as merely defensive and material-minded: law prevents others from infringing on my rights, it protects my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and it serves ultimately to make orderly and non-violent community living possible. This is a striking departure (and degeneration) from Aristotle's understanding of law as positive, as guiding citizens along the path to virtue and, thence, happiness. on 11/13/08 at 19:39:43, StegRock wrote:
If a bombing is aimed at a military target, then the citizens can't be said to be targeted as such. The military target is targeted, the nearby civilian population merely receives the effect of this targeting. It may sound like splitting hairs, but I'm convinced it's not. This view I'm espousing, of course, makes it difficult to see how using nuclear/atomic bombs is ever justified, since they are not intended to merely destroy a confined, precise target, but rather are intended to "shock and awe" with their built-in, large target zone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Nov 14th, 2008, 7:32am Quote:
True! Quote:
Did you just call me, Bumbling? Thats hitting after the bell! ;D Quote:
OMG [smiley=dramaqueen.gif] First off, Ive been around long eneough for you to know that "Bullshit to both of you" is not "Cursing you out" [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif]. All kiding aside, I didn't mean to offend . Listen, This topic started out as my objection to the reference of the term "Pro-Abortion". As I dont think anyone really is.Then it snowballed into something more uncomfortable for me. Purhaps by my own doing. But uncomfortable none the less. Now I have to go back over here. I just found out that all the crickets Ive been riding are pregnant. Talk about a crisis! :o |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 28th, 2008, 2:41pm Just curious... By this... on 11/12/08 at 21:59:33, MordecaiCourage wrote:
... which of the following do you mean, MC...??? "It does for me personally," OR "It does according to me." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: ERSON Post by MordecaiCourage on Nov 28th, 2008, 6:40pm Personally of course!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 28th, 2008, 8:04pm Nice, MC... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] That was the hopeful answer. That is the hopeful answer. In terms of (comparative philosophy or interfaith or even "political" or international) dialogue, each is problematic, of course, but... The other one... on 11/28/08 at 14:41:05, StegRock wrote:
... is ultimately (potentially) open, but conventionally only one-way [i.e. not an egress (to anything "Other")]. This one... Quote:
... is ultimately closed, but conventionally (potentially) open [to the move I term the "suspension of metaphysics" (which, mind you, has nothing to do with religious conversion,... quite the contrary)]. It is in that way that I mean hopeful. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 18th, 2008, 10:12pm on 10/12/08 at 14:52:31, StegRock wrote:
Did anybody catch on Hannity and Colmes tonight the debate on the sub-prime mortage crisis between Sean Hannity and Rebecca Diamond ([smiley=lickinmychops.gif], by the way)? Why does it take the political "experts" so long to catch up to the Steg? ;) ... Incidentally, something I've been meaning to announce for some time,... it's official... The political pundit whose politics I most share, I think fairly far-and-away, is Dennis Miller. [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 3rd, 2009, 8:56pm While I think that conservatives and Republicans and Americans in general are (in the) right to scrutinize [smiley=uponreview.gif] the contents of the Obama stimulus package or, rather, the lack of scrutiny and knowledge of the contents of the package on the part of Congress and probably Obama himself, [smiley=stilldunno.gif] I do think America is suffering from a much "bigger picture" predicament, namely free enterprise, on the one hand, versus consumerism/market-fueled greed, on the other. [smiley=goodrevil.gif] I do not think that the problem is capitalism writ large or per se. The problem is Americana market/consumer capitalism. Wall Street and the stock market, at least as we've come to know and depend upon them, have got to go. This is where I take it that Obama('s policy) has a point. Localism, more than Wall Street, is what we need. My proposal is,... would be reminiscent of the rugged individualism that America was built upon and made America great, but a contemporary version that better accomodates/responds to the reality of human interconnectedness and interdependence, call it cooperative capitalism from a politico-economic perspective, rugged personalism from an anthro-philosophical perspective. For somewhat of a model, think of what I was trying to do here on "the Gridiron". Anyway, just the... [smiley=twocents.gif] of a guy on his little fantasy football web site. [smiley=shrug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 19th, 2009, 3:17am F'n San Francisco... [smiley=annoyed.gif] On the NETWORK news tonight they reported about the anniversary of "George Bush's" commencing the war in Iraq. What we got: death counts, service and civilian, the latter of which looked to me to be an inflated Rosie O'Donnell [smiley=sumo.gif] type number, and cost, heretofore and estimated. NARY a mention of any of the good that has come out of the effort and NOT a shred of the end-of-the-day good news that it looks like we have finally basically prevailed. At least, Hannity, who I surely have my issues with mind you, doesn't hide the fact that he is in the tank for the Republicans. But, I digress... Maybe it's excusable. After all, Obama is in the state right now. They're all walking around with tingles running up their legs. They just need a little "Bush trash-talk" cherry to top off their orgasm sundaes. I realize... I don't watch FOX News because it is necessarily fair and balanced (not that I agree, but it arguably isn't), but rather because IT ITSELF IS the counterweight to the popular media. [smiley=threed.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 23rd, 2009, 5:04pm Go DU! You're alright in my book, Condoleeza. The reception by the NFL owners was great. You deserve it... From "The REAL Feed": Condoleezza Rice speaks at NFL annual owners meeting (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f659ec&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (23.03.2009 13:37) Condoleezza Rice finally got her chance to address the NFL. Judging by the numerous standing ovations she received, Rice scored atouchdown. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 18th, 2009, 4:49pm Harrison says, "No thank you," to a White House tay-to-tay... [smiley=idontwanna.gif] I understand that what he said made NO sense and there are matters of etiquette and respect with respect to both the Office of the President and Dan Rooney, the owner of the Steelers, a Republican who openly endorsed Obama, who, mind yous, (not that I agree with everything he has done, but) I think is doing a good job overall, BUT, nevertheless, it is somewhat refreshing to see someone not affiliated with FOX News, moreover, a black person (apparently or at least) possibly NOT gaga [smiley=hearteyes.gif] for Barack. [smiley=towelwave.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison says he'll skip White House visit (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4174143&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (18.05.2009 09:16) When the Steelers visit the White House as Super Bowl champions on Thursday, they'll be without their reigning defensive player of the year. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2009, 5:55pm Harrison's not budgin'... He didn't make the visit back in '06 when Dubs was in office, and he ain't makin' it now, and I say more power to him... if for no other reason than providing a little dose of reality [smiley=doseofreality.gif] and adding a little temperance to "Obama[smiley=gonecrazy.gif]mania". From "The REAL Feed": Harrison stands by decision to snub Obama visit (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4180181&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (19.05.2009 17:10) Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison can't believe there's so much fuss being made about him skipping the Super Bowl champions' White House visit with President Barack Obama on Thursday. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 22nd, 2009, 9:08pm I wasn't going to post this HERE... until I saw the second headline... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Don't get me wrong, though... This is not to say that I defend the "logic", or entire lack thereof, of Harrison's stated reasoning. With that said, I almost feel like the combined knee-jerk habitual ill will of vitriolically hateful liberals towards anybody who remotely snubs their messiah Barack caused this... A terribly sad story... from "The REAL Feed": Report: Pit bull owned by Steelers LB Harrison attacks young son (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81075af5&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (22.05.2009 15:56) A pit bull owned by Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison has reportedly attacked the player's young son, but police, hospital officials and team officials are releasing little information. [offtopic]This is the real "political" aspect of this post... Ross Tucker: Logic behind Harrison's White House snub more distressing (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/05/22/harrison-mail/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (22.05.2009 14:10) More puzzling than James Harrison's White House snub? The logic behind it, says Ross Tucker. You know... this VERY SAME player stood up G-Dubs as well. Oh, but I guess "that" doesn't matter.[/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 23rd, 2009, 7:27am I caught this interview with John McCain the other night. He was being asked about what informs his staunch position against torture/"enhanced interrogation", and his response is taken by the interviewer, and many others that I know of, to be very authoritative considering his personal military experiences as a P.O.W. He tells of an interrogation, obviously unenhanced, of a captured top-level al-Qaida operative, who, when asked (over a cup of tea and a danish, I can only guess) about what drives their recruiting, answers that American mistreatment of captured Muslims is what drives up recruitment more than anything. McCain cites this as not just support for an anti-torture position, but a fortiori "proof" of the correctness of such! After all, it is coming from the horse's mouth, moreover, in the "insider knowledge", "see even they're saying it" kind of way McCain is extrapolating it. Huh? YIKES... Worse yet, to the less savvy of us his "reasoning" seems to make some sense and, in any event, is surely taken to be well informed given his experiences. That there is the inside scoop we're getting, moreover, because former P.O.W., war hero John McCain says so. Double YIKES!!! With all due respect, Mr. McCain, but ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? You've got this totally bass-ackwards. Not only is this NOT a fortiori proof that the anti-enhanced interrogation position is the correct one, it is ACTUALLY a fortiori proof of the opposite. A captive al-Qaida operative,... gee, he has no incentive to make that claim... How droll? A higher-up no less,... gee, he's surely just telling the truth,... and he's surely not clever enough to deceive us... Truth really be said, he probably is telling a (very calculated) half-truth, i.e., he's telling us the truth without revealing the motive... They're thinking get these self-loathing Americans to stop making our captivity uncomfortable in the least by telling them mistreatment of captured combatants drives up recruitment, and, VERY LITERALLY, we will have nothing to fear... but fear itself! THE IRONY! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 3rd, 2009, 10:03pm I just saw a report on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson on the issue of grocery bags,... plastic, paper, recycled paper, reusable and even recycled reusable,... and the possibility of taxing the first two (or even three) kinds... to the tune of 33¢ a la Ireland. Why not, right? FOOLS RUSH IN (kind of per this paper of mine: http://www.internetstitute.com/Self-finalpaper.pdf)! It will kill off two birds with one stone. Our government surely needs the money, and, moreover, it will contribute to their social engineering goals, which are based in [liberal social(istic)] ideology [not personalism (note that I didn't say individualism)]. HOWEVER, there is such an EASY (at least partial, but nevertheless VERY EFFECTIVE) AND COST-EFFECTIVE solution to this that, granted, though, it took me my years in Korea to pick up on, you can act on it today. It is SO EASY that making this change is WAY EASIER than, say, converting to these TOXIC energy-saver light bulbs (which is pretty easy, that is if you want to take the chance with handling mercury in your house)! Here we go... Brace yourselves for this "revolutionary" suggestion... Use smaller garbage cans in your house and use, so to speak, reuse your grocery bags as your garbage bags! You'll save quite a bit of money by not buying, as I would surmise,... uh-duh,... plastic garbage bags (for the garbage you produce in your house, at least) and you'll also be,... eh-hem,... killing two birds,... and contributing to saving the environment insofar as, unless you walk around shedding Benjamins, you're probably using plastic bags anyway for your household garbage. Actually, there is even a potential third and fourth fold here, that is, less plastic will anticipatively be needed in the production of household garbage cans AND for garbage bags because grocery bags are typically WAY THINNER (but still sufficiently thick) than garbage bags you purchase, say, Hefty bags. At any rate, OF ALL the suggestions, I actually think REUSING your grocery bags as garbage bags is the best way of contributing to taking it easy on the environment, AT LEAST in terms of cost-effectiveness and making an easy, truly actionable, reasonable "first-step" transition, and instead of having "fools rush in" (to less affordable "green" options). [Ultimately, could it, a GASP, be that the "green" movement too is more hype than substance and but another way of making "the green"? [smiley=greedy.gif] BUT, I digress... I'm not here to bash the green movement. I'm just saying that progress usually happens step-by-step and not by rushing in like fools (isn't that what got us here?), and I am suggesting a very reasonable first step that you can quietly act on on your own without "announcing" your fart-sniffing superiority to others with your recycled reusable grocery bag.] Oh, and by the way (for those of you more sympathetic with bin Laden than Bush), in other news, Osama bin Laden has stated that "Obama and his administration have sowed new seeds of hatred against America. Let the American people prepare to harvest the crops of what the leaders of the White House plant in the next years and decades." Hay,... I mean,... hey, it's from the horse's mouth! ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 7th, 2009, 7:08pm In relation to the post right above about the "plastic grocery bag - garbage bag" option as a method of taking an EASY step toward a "greener" future, I just saw a commercial for "unscented" Hefty garbage bags. With it understood that you, of course, obviously have to collect the garbage a little more often, [smiley=gotanidea.gif] count that as yet another benefit of using grocery bags as garbage bags and smaller garbage cans,... combatting the smelliness that is. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 23rd, 2009, 11:24pm I suppose this is more so good news for the NFL as opposed to politics, but it seems to fit here well enough... From "The REAL Feed": NFLPA joining President Obama's national service initiative (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4351906&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (23.07.2009 17:02) The NFL players' union is joining President Barack Obama's national service initiative. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 19th, 2009, 3:20am Here's a real NFL football-politics post for yous... From "The REAL Feed": U.S. spending motivates Congress bid for San Diego Chargers offensive lineman Jon Runyan (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4755079&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (18.12.2009 13:41) Chargers offensive lineman Jon Runyan said Friday that concerns about federal spending are a main reason he wants to run for Congress as a Republican. In me home state, no less!!! [smiley=woohoo.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 28th, 2010, 2:19am I am so sick and tired of the tendentious befuddlement, especially from the left, about the terms un-American or anti-American. Let me just get a working definition out there for us... To be un- or anti-American is to reject or, at least, look with disdain or, at least, discomfort on OUR culture, traditions and history, loathe and deny American exceptionalism, and seek a radical transformation of America that requires such rejection, disdain, loathing and denial, which necessarily entails some self-loathing and a lack of love for our country. [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] There, you have it now! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 18th, 2010, 11:51am Thank you for giving your personally informed, truthful take... From "The REAL Feed": Ex-NFL star: NY GOP gov candidate isn't racist (http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/09/17/2082620/ex-nfl-star-ny-gop-gov-candidate.html) Fresno Bee: Football (17.09.2010 19:13) Former Buffalo Bills star Thurman Thomas is trying to do an end run around those trying to paint the Republican candidate for New York governor as a racist who doesn't care for the poor. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 2nd, 2010, 9:10pm Being taxed less stifles job creation, but collecting unemployment spurs job creation. [smiley=uh.gif] Botox aside, how does Nancy [smiley=dunce.gif] Pelosi say this stuff with a straight face? ?.?.? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 7th, 2011, 1:29pm O'Reilly and Obama to have at it again Super Bowl Sunday... according to "The REAL Feed": Fox to interview Obama on Super Bowl Sunday (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/01/06/obama.superbowl.ap/index.html?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (06.01.2011 19:42) WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama will sit for an interview with Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Jan 8th, 2011, 12:28pm on 12/02/10 at 21:10:05, StegRock wrote:
At least the first part is somewhat understandable. Look at Proctor and Gamble. A huge US employer in terms of white collar employees is bracing for large losses as the Fed announced a reduction in Fluoride in our water. Our government says that we no longer need it as our tooth paste and mouth washes are much better in this age.( nut shelled) However it doesnt go un-noticed that it costs the government approximately 11 dollars per tax payer annually. As we pay less taxes we will need to receive less entitlements. Cuts like these are sneaky in job elimination. Entitlements equal jobs. I understand that one doesnt necessarily out weight the other. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 10th, 2011, 4:40pm on 01/08/11 at 12:28:20, sk wrote:
I'm sure unwittingly and not tendentially, but there is an important distinction here not being made that often is not made in the rhetoric on the left, that is, unless it serves them to point it out, namely government subsidies/contracts versus government programs. Is the flouride thing an "entitlement"? I would not categorize it as such. As I am understanding, at least, your explanation, sk, that is a subsidized, in other words, not (even close to) fully funded, program. Privately generated funds are also going into the project. Proctor and Gamble is not a fully funded government agency. It is a company that brings its facilities and human resources to the table that has a contractual agreement with the government to get said job done. Strictly speaking - and not too long ago I had it out with "one" of my (MANY HARDCORE) liberal colleagues along these lines - you do not, in an organic free-enterprise sense, CREATE jobs with tax dollars. With tax dollars it is just fund (re)allocation. Bureaucrats do not create jobs; they just distribute the money. It is in this way that the public sector is so vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, like to the tune of the $10,000 per sign being flushed down the drain [smiley=downthetubes.gif] on those Obama Recovery Act road construction signs (now THAT is a subsidy - go look it up). Politicians do not "create" jobs. Job creation (ultimately) involves generating the revenue that funds the job. If you are not generating the revenue that "creates" a job, you are not "creating" a job. Also, job creation at its best involves generating the very need itself for the job. Government programs, strictly speaking, "create" appointments, not jobs. On a very different note, thoughts and prayers go out to Congresswoman Giffords, all those injured or slain on Saturday, and their families. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Jan 11th, 2011, 9:12pm Quote:
Yeah, Right on...You can go ahead and hook the electricity up to that SOB right now [smiley=doseofreality.gif]. Spare us the media coverage. Quote:
What is your point? Funding is funding, public or private. If you cut down on your potato chip intake, Lays will lay people off. I my case that would be Budwieser. The last big lay off there was a direct result of my 2 month liver break. Quote:
Theres a back side to that as well. Not creating a job creates a wealthier upper class. Case and point. My company like many others have laid off almost a half of their employees yet still manage to operate on or about the same bottom line as they did 5 years ago. In other words the economy trouble has proved to be a mirage in their business. Yet they have been able to get by on the backs of threatend employees. They cut salery's and tokk away all the benifits and told people to be glad they had a job. They will never hire those people they laid off back. They will continue to rake in huge profits and scream to not be taxed. Poor people without jobs dont give a fuck how much they are taxed. Its the rich people that want you out of their pocket. America's rich used to give money for everything. It used to be a very friendly nation. Not anymore! Its cut throat now. Its a nation of liars. [smiley=pinocchio.gif] Have you checked out "Celebration"? Thats Disneys town. It hilarious. The real fact is that there is only so much money out there. The richer some people get, the more in number people become poor. And when the poor people become large enough in number, well thats what revolutions are made of. [smiley=machinegun.gif] Quote:
They could have funded federal and state prisons instead. Thats where they keep the poor people who's unemployment has run out. [smiley=zombie.gif] They could have made licence plates. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Jan 12th, 2011, 7:30am [smiley=soapboxer.gif] Quote:
What does a us citizen need to own a simi automatic weapon for? Did you know that on average, each state averages 3 mass shootings involving simi automatic weapons each month. This month in Indiana has already hit the mark. 1.) 6 shot at a funeral that was attended by 600 people. Should have been much worse. 2.) Man hanging out of a monte carlo unloaded his usi into a house shooting several. Badly wounding a 11 year old girl and a 16 year old boy. Both honor students. 3.) Man upset because a pawn shop sold his goods before he could repay the loan opened fire in the store killing 1. Did you know that the largest single day sales of the glock simi automatic hand gun was the day after the Arizona shooting? Do you think that besides the BBC and PBS, all the other media outlets are scared to question the lack of gun control in this country as it relates to the killing of a nine year old girl? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 14th, 2011, 3:25pm I'm getting around to the rest as time permits... For now, I've got to post this... Harry Reid has said that there are no problems with Social Security. [smiley=uh.gif] Tell that to all the people relying on SSI, especially the aging, who have not received an increase since Obama took office. Now, I'm not saying that Obama is making the wrong choice here, but don't go saying there ain't no problem, Mr. Reid. Anyway, so much for those "Obama bucks". I remember the days when there was a little stimulus for the little guy, under G-Dub when for two years lower-income tax payers received about $600 per head. So, there was such a thing as Bush bucks. But, whatever... While FOX News has been somewhere between fair to and fawning over Obama in response to his speech at the Tucson memorial service, I expect one-sided lefties reading this to be as unfair to G-Dub as ever... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] and, of course, not see it as unfair at all, just like this idiot libbo chick at the Stewart-Colbert "Restoring Sanity" rally calling for a moratorium on comparisons to Hitler being speechless when asked about the greater prevelance of such allusions aimed at Bush, ultimately saying, "Well, he deserved it." [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 17th, 2011, 12:42am on 01/11/11 at 21:12:44, sk wrote:
Simply that systematically taking someone else's money through taxation and using it to pay someone's salary is not the same as building a business, needing employees, that is, certain roles to be filled for the business to run, and generating the revenue to fill those positions. Let me frame this in a different way... The Communist/Socialist ideal is equality of income, that is, for everybody to earn the same wage. Sounds good, but think the implications of that through. If the government/public sector bloats to 50% of the population, what would the tax on those working in the private sector have to be? The answer, 100%! 100% of the earnings of private-sector workers would have to be taken and given to public-sector workers (and/or government-program recipients) for there to be equal earnings across the board. Yikes! More generally speaking, it would have been nice if you had secured yourself an understanding of what my point is before trying to refute or respond to it and adding to the thicket. Quote:
Well, first off, this does not speak to my point (how could it have, right?). I mean, I understand what you are saying, namely that the private sector in consideration of profit has an incentive to cut jobs, moreover, in a way that the public sector does not. Now, again, aside from your not speaking to my point, that is erroneous on two counts. First off, from an ethical perspective, I think that is to have it bass-ackwards. If anything, as they are spending other people's money, the government should be mindful of the payroll (in a way that a business is not ethically bound). Secondly - and this is really the more important point - is what you are contending, sk, really the case in terms of economics? Doesn't it totally depend on the circumstances? Isn't the contrary to what you are claiming exactly how businesses go about expanding? I mean, to keep the example simple, if a business owner can employ somebody at (a total of) $20 an hour (that is, including benefits), 8 hours a day, to do something that brings in more than $160 a day, economics, that is the bottom line, dictates that that is a good hire, no? Your company is but one particular situation. I fear that you are committing a logical fallacy which many in politics, especially on the so-called bleeding-heart liberal left, commit, that is, universalizing a particular. But, I digress. As for me, don't get me on the salaries of public-school administrators, moreover, as compared to educators. It is absolutely sinful how many tax dollars we waste on school administration, and, moreover, how few we spend on educators. We could go tit-for-tat with that kind of stuff and talk past each other all day, though, and get nowhere. Bottom line, think the logic of what you've written through... No business or agency, as a matter of solvency, seeks to employ more people than needed or pay their employees more than can be afforded, nor should they, right? That does not make fiscal sense, right? No organization is bound to cut a check to someone just to sit around, right? So, if all that common sense is the case, what you are saying here, according to your own account, is that your company either had been employing too many people who were receiving too much in the way of pay/benefits (because of "generous" loose accounting) during good times or a bad economy really does make a difference. Either way, there is evidence of trickle-down, mind you, not pour-down, which is the unreasonable expectation the liberal "critics" gin up, economics. Now, look, if you've followed my thoughts on economics on this site, you know that I am no fan of Americano market capitalism, at least in its present-day form, and the egregious bonuses given to executives, especially those failures and cheats on Wall Street. But, that is beyond the immediate purview of this analysis, and, in any event, what I have argued here holds notwithstanding the factor of atrocious bonuses, which I suspect is not the case for your case in point anyway. The point is that your story may actually serve as a case in point of the opposite of what you are wanting to say. When the getting is good, it is largely good for all. When it's not, it sucks more for us folks at the bottom. Like it or lump it the way that works seems to make sense. But, look, I think it is more complicated than all this. However, that it is more complicated in and of itself speaks to and supports my point more than yours. Quote:
Holy hell... This took a turn for the way worse here. First, of course, "Poor people without jobs dont give a fuck how much they are taxed." That is not a revelation. If you don't have a job, you don't pay income tax and perhaps not any tax based on what government assistance you receive. In any event, that, in and of itself, surely does not make them the good guys, nor does it make the rich the bad guys. Look, I am and have always been for my whole life financially poor (though I've usually made the most of the hands I've been dealt), but somewhere along the way I learned, perhaps, paradoxically, from my truck-driver dad and secretary mom, that the rich being rich is not why I am poor. At least, if I so choose, I have a chance to become rich in America. Thing is, I know that money is necessary, but not sufficient for happiness/contentment, and to make the merely necessary one's goal is to live life according to the lowest common denominator. It is, if you are happy/content, then you have (enough) money, not, if you have (enough) money, then you are happy/content, no? That is why "money people" far from corner the market on contentment or happiness. They are going after the merely necessary, not the sufficient. Worse yet, their pursuit of money obfuscates the path to happiness and contentment. But, I digress. As for the rest, that is all just rambling conjecture and generalization, which I - and I think most other thoughtful people - do not think accurately characterizes our nation. Quote:
This is where the wheels are really coming off! First off, your "real fact" is not necessarily true, especially with the Fed flooding the economy with dollars. In any event, I just hope that what you are suggesting here is not a call to armed revolution, but just an observation. That said, given the overall tenor of your post and how you state this here, you seem to be making more of a rallying call than a sober cautionary observation and a call for pause. And, if you are calling for revolution, you surely are not calling for anything like the Russian or French revolutions, right? They really resulted in equal distribution of wealth,... not! But, just in case, on to the more troubling aspect of what you've written here... Who are these rich against whom the poor should revolt? Is it a certain level of lavishness that is the target? Who determines what's too much? Somehow I think the convoluted answer would boil down to something tantamount to the "bad rich guys" (as if there are no "bad poor guys"), which brings me back to my point right above... Of the rich, it is those who are intoxicated with money, the, so to speak, "bad rich guys", who are deluded and to be pitied. Mind you, this all stands for the poor as well. Their pursuit has just not gone as well. But, I digress. The point is that, even if the lines in the sand could be drawn in a way that is clear-cut and not arbitrary, which, of course, is not possible, of the rich, just like the rest of us, there are the good guys and the pitiable. Or, is it actually the "rich" in happiness and contentment that are the target? After all, they are too happy and content(ed) with the way things are to help with the radical change we "oh, so" need. Again, are you cautioning, or is this the path you are really wanting to go down? As for your following post... While I tend to agree with you about semi-automatic weapons, twisting free from our gun heritage is more complicated than one-sided slogans and statistics that are countered and refuted by the other side's slogans and statistics. As such, even if it is timely, I do not want this to be a place where people with axes to grind on hot-button issues come and post spam of a polemical nature. This is a place for rational and civil argumentation not tit-for-tat infomercial pissing contests. If you cannot handle the logical critique of your positions and can only go your "facts" against my "facts", this is not the place for you. The lesson to take away from this message-board forum is not "what" position to take (indoctrination) but "how" to even go about taking a position in the first place (self-cultivation). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Jan 17th, 2011, 4:51pm In reverse order Quote:
Even as I have read and re-read your statement above, I am not sure I understand it correctly. It could be that you in fact misunderstood my intentions or you simply would prefer I just go away. If its the latter I would prefer you just simply say, "Go Away!" As far as my gun control intentions concerned. It was simply to point out that in this country those type of killings are the daily norm. They just dont all involve a congresswoman, a judge, a nine year old and 2 political parties lobbing stones at each other. However almost all of them involve crazy desperate people who absolutely shouldnt own guns that are made for one thing only. It just doesnt make sence that in Arizona its ok to pull people over because the officer is suspicious that the person is not a citizen, yet it is some kind of freedom violation if we question the fact that a guy can go to every Walmart in the city buying up all the loose clips and glock ammo he can get in the same day. It doesnt make sense! I mean, in this country is not legal to own a live grenade. But I ask you, Steve. Could he have killed more by pulling the pin on a grenade instead of using a automatic hand gun? Quote:
I'll credit it you with the fact that I wasnt very clear in my statement. My reference to revolution was symbolic. As in your current President being elected by poor people who heard the word "change". They revolted by coming out to vote in droves. Its not an inditement or endorsement of the current administration. Just a symbol of what a motivated lower class can bring to the table. Quote:
Purhaps I was a tad harsh. Quote:
I'm talking about the other end of that rope. By not taking someone elses money, you are forced to cut back somewhere else. Somebody gets paid to perform the services that will need to be cut. You are a very smart guy Steve. I think it impossible to debate with you on the same level. I'm not in that league. However I would ask if you have pondered this aspect of the topic. Do you suppose the reason our very liberal president has allowed the war in Afganistan to continue could be tied to the negitive effects ending it would have on u.s. unemployment? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jan 17th, 2011, 9:37pm (I know you are going to start shaking when you read this, so I just want to tell you up front, "DON'T!") Go away, you dumb bastard! [smiley=flipoffangrily.gif] ... ;) You are not on the level of the Steg! [smiley=dunce.gif] ... [smiley=sophisticate.gif] Give me a break, Todd! [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] You (should) know me better than that! I'm just stating the fact of the matter for you... and all onlookers. I'm always thinking bigger picture. This last post of yours is quite well-stated. [smiley=yes.gif] I'd have to think it through, but I think your analogy between checking for immigration status and gun carrying might hold and, in any case, is persuasive. That said, analogousness aside, in reality, they may not be equally solvable, and being unable to solve one of the problems does not justify not trying to solve the other just because they are analogous. But, anyway, point well taken! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] I don't know if your grenade analogy works, though. For one, I do tend to think that more damage can be done with grenades. I also think there are other factors at play such as prevelance and enforceability, but anyway. Regarding revolting by way of the ballot box, I gotcha! This is the one part I am hazy on... Quote:
I am not quite sure what you are getting at or, to be hoenst, even exactly what you are plainly saying, no less in relation to my point(s). Other than that, though, well done! Thanks for taking your time to make the post, sk. [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] You are not the dummy you think you are, Todd. You sincerely care. That's half the battle! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 1st, 2011, 7:13pm [offtopic]Wouldn't it be nice if all the "haves" [smiley=greedy.gif] of the NFL, owners and players alike, could provide a much-needed example for Americans instead of being a microcosm of America??? I know, too much to hope for. :-/[/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 25th, 2011, 3:43pm I just made a post up "between the 20's", and this was part of it... on 04/25/11 at 15:31:28, StegRock wrote:
It just reminds me, yet again... Why does Yahoo! News's news feed say "Democratic Party"? I guess they are telling on themselves. I suppose I have to give them credit for being honest about their bias. :-/ But, they only deserve that credit if we take note of it! [smiley=pencil.gif] Yahoo! News LIES! [smiley=demonstration.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 25th, 2011, 7:20pm I literally just FLICK on over to MSNBC during a commercial break to see Michael Steele, who was trying to explain the Ryan Medicare Plan with some specificity, get shout down by the HOST Chris Matthews and the other guest, whom Matthews is obviously on the same side as, another smug leftist that is, with platitudes and utter hyperbole like saying that Ryan's plan is about granting the elderly "gift certificates". Are you kidding me? Generally speaking, you tell me who is trying to get the truth out, someone trying to speak in specifics or two guys on a bully pulpit shouting down that person with platitudes and hyperbole mob-rule style?!?! This happens all the time, actually. I check out what is going on elsewhere, and this almost invariably happens with MSNBC. I just shared it with you all this time because it did not require much elaboration and I had the time. MSNBC is so smug and so in the tank for leftism. MIND YOU, there was a time when I liked Chris Matthews. Such evidence can be found right here on this thread (2004)! This is when he was more of a center-left guy who helped maintain balance. That is no longer the case. Now he is a smug far-leftist befitting the network for which he works. With all this said, I ask you to take "the Gridiron" FOX News Challenge,... especially those of you who enjoy the Kool-Aid over at MSNBC. You do not have to convert. This is the challenge... Just, on occasion during a commercial break every now and then, flick over to FOX News and in the few minutes that you spend there see if you actually encounter ANYthing really objectionable (and in accordance with the way FOX News gets depicted by the left). Just give it a try, and please let me know what you find. I make this challenge because I hear people on the left, who criticize FOX News, (have to) admit that they do not watch it (because ultimately they typically cannot cite examples) and that they are just basing their impression off hearsay. In any case, based on whether or not you find anything objectionable and, if you do, what it is that you find objectionable, you will come to realize how much leftist Kool-Aid you have imbibed and whether you just need to stick with MSNBC or CNN for your political news coverage or not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 29th, 2011, 11:30pm Ed Schultz... "class act"... ::) All I can say is thank goodness GE no longer owns MSNBC and Comcast does. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 14th, 2011, 2:08am So, we got an army of left-wing reporters, many explicitly encouraged by the New York Times, headed all the way up to Alaska to sift through some 13,000/24,000 (who knows how many) e-mails to find something contemptible or at least embarrassing enough to prevent one politician from running for office, and meanwhile we have got a sitting New York Congressman caught red-handed through his own stupidity e-mailing young women lurid messages and PHOTOS OF HIS COCK who is staying put and, worse yet, being defended by many of the same people who are supporting and even financing reporters' trips to Alaska. [smiley=nono.gif] Are you kidding me? Are we really this stupid of a country? Yes, there are lurid stories on both sides of the aisle. That is just a tit-for-tat way of looking at it that gets us nowhere. The huge disparity depicted above is truer to the tenor of the conversation in the mainstream media and spirit of the coverage. ... Lifetime insight... Ever wonder why every empire collapses? The fall always comes with a decline in morals. Ever wonder why the trajectory of morality is always toward decay? All public figures, especially politicians, have a vested interest in moral decay. The lower the standards of the populace, the lower the standards those in the public eye are held to! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 16th, 2011, 11:29pm Regarding former Congressman Anthony Weiner and with all due respect to my friends at Fox News and all due scorn to most of the rest, the silly, feigning naive reportage and opinion discussions are sickening. All of it makes Alan Colmes, whose position on the matter is ridiculous, actually look semi-reasonable. It is because those on and, more importantly, in the right on this issue are not doing a good job of articulating the bottom line (and so here I am in my infinitesimal and off-the-beaten-politico-track corner of the cyberworld having to do it). I hate to break the news to all the sheltered prudes out there, but what we know of what Weiner did, if it were done with consenting adult females, is not a big deal. (That does not seem to be the case, but I am just saying if it were.) The thing is, this is not ultimately about lying, cheating, sexual perversion, cybersex addiction, using public resources for personal matters (which was a silly line of pursuit), and so on. It is about the reality that a government official, elected or not, who has access to sensitive information about our country and its policies and, moreover, is involved in the crafting of our national policies and legislation, canNOT do or have done (yes, including in the past) anything for which he or she can be blackmailed. In other words, you do not have to be truly morally upstanding; you just have to have nothing to lose (as far as you yourself are concerned). It is a pretty harsh way of stating the case, I know, but that is the bottom line. Weiner's lying is evidence and his resignation is confirmation that he felt he had something to lose. This argument is unassailable, and unfortunately it has not been presented, except for here at a FantasyFootballer.com. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Drew Rosenhaus on Jun 20th, 2011, 5:35pm on 06/16/11 at 23:29:21, StegRock wrote:
Our current political system actually supports and enforces this model. The large donors/lobbyists allowed to contribute all have their say and major influence in decisions by the people their money supports, whether we believe it or not. It may not be "blackmail" officially, but it comes awfully close. So, in my mind, your above assertion is actually a condemnation of our entire political system and ultimately a call for re-structure at the very least. And if that's the case, I am behind that way of thinking for sure. As for the original discussion...yes I do see your point. However, I'm undecided where this story would be had he been caught sending Mr. mini-Weiner to his wife. I'm not sure whether he would have been forced to resign under those circumstances. The blackmail issue might have been dramatically lessened in that situation. Just a couple of thoughts... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 20th, 2011, 8:21pm Here, here, DR! And, I agree with your last paragraph. The implication of my argument is that would be so on his end. I know I would not be "blackmailable" if I were caught doing such a thing, assuming I had a sufficient package that is. [smiley=laugh.gif] Changing gears real quick,... I wanted to get this up before O'Reilly tonight... Just for the record, I was just as appalled when I heard last week about this rapper who called Obama the biggest terrorist in the world. As if it were G-Dub, I jumped out of my seat and was like, "WTF!?!?" And, I meant it, and I did not mean it just out of respect for the "office" of the President, which is the en vogue cop-out thing to say these days. I meant it for the man, first and foremost, and our country, secondarily. Thing is, would a liberal in this day and age sympathize with Bush in the same way? And, mind you, with him it was not just some inane, relatively unknown rapper doing the trash talk. It was much higher-profile entertainers and "presumably LEGIT" sources such as the mainstream media, academics and fellow politicians. That is what reasonable conservatives such as myself, I like to think, have had to endure for the past eight or so years. Consider the character assassination of Sarah Palin that has taken place. Galling does not come near to capturing the sentiment. The liberal hatred is unthoughtful, that is to say, knee-jerk. ... And, I still jump out of my chair for Obama... for it is the right sensibility. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 21st, 2011, 3:02am (Boy, I am hitting the old politics thread here a lot lately. I guess that is what happens during an offseason lockout.) My post this time regards Jon Stewart... [smiley=soapboxer.gif] I do have a main point about Stewart, but I first want to make some prefacing comments, which actually serve to develop the point. Stewart does not think the New York Times is leftist. He does not even see that MSNBC is, at the very least, the left equivalent of what he believes Fox News to be. He must not watch Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz or have watched the, so to speak, late Keith Olberman. Schultz is obviously like the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, for goodness sake. Wasn't Olberman's firing a wake-up call to these people? No, it wasn't. At any rate, Stewart tendentiously wants to claim that he is not guided by his leftism, sort of. He still admits to the subjectivity of his humor, but he insists that is not the main thing. Entertainment is. The bottom line is Jon Stewart can chew gum and walk at the same time. Indeed, he blows bubbles and snaps his gum as he marches to the beat of the offstage left-handed drummer in his head. That leads me to my main point. What an arrogant piece of work this guy is! He very smugly says right to Chris Wallace's face how "you" and other conservatives will "never" understand him, that he is a comedian and, small disclaimer, although his humor is "subjective", he is going for laughs and entertainment, not left-wing activism, though he wants "his voice heard". Bunch of double-talk! Rather, I submit that you, Jon Stewart, will NEVER understand the de facto muting of the conservative voice by the leftist mainstream media and entertainment industry because you are so embedded in the Borg [smiley=borg.gif] that you are totally blind to it. At least there is some solid supporting evidence for such a claim. See above! I submit that it is you, Mr. Stewart, who does not "understand" the circumstances of the conservative "activist" more so than it is I who does not "understand" the modus operandi of a fairly far-left-leaning "comedian". BUT, this, acting as if we can get inside each other's head (double entendre, for once, unintended) and read minds, is not getting us anywhere. So, why go there? That is the bigger-picture point! I could only follow you there. It is funny. Telling people what they do and do not understand is itself an "I know what's better for you" lefty-type tack. But, telling people what they do or do not understand typically comes back to bite you because really you do not know what people do or do not understand, and it ends up just coming off and coming out in the wash as the smug mudslinging that it is. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 24th, 2011, 9:18pm So, Juan Williams is subbing for O'Reilly tonight, which I do not enjoy as much, and they are first talking about the Casey Anthony trial, which I could pretty much care less about, moreover, with Geraldo Rivera covering it, who gives credence to fringe arguments as if they were solid, and so I FLICK on over to MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell just in time to hear him, with reference to the situation with the debt ceiling, say that the "children" in the House - and by that he meant the Republicans - need a "time-out". This was reminscent of Peter Jennings back in 1994 condescendingly referring to the public as having had a "temper tantrum" because they, by election, gave control of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in 40, that is, FORTY YEARS! And, mind you, for 34, that is, THIRTY-FOUR of those years it was not split; Democrats held control of Congress, and from 1933 to 1955 held control of Congress for all but six years. So, in other words, the Democrats had held control of BOTH HOUSES of Congress for FIFTY of the last SIXTY YEARS prior to that 1994 election while the Republicans held it for a mere six (the remaining four years Congress was split). So, you tell me who ran this country into a ditch in the twentieth century! And, please, give me a break with the denial of media bias! You really need to look no farther than Jennings's comment vis-a-vis REALITY to confirm it! You do not call it a "temper tantrum" when "the people" give the underdog party who has not had Congressional power for FOUR DECADES a stab at things over the party who has monopolized that power over that time. If anything, a "temper tantrum" would characterize the lack of patience with and quickly voting out of that underdog party in favor of the monopoly party again. But, hey, Chris Matthews gets tingles up his leg and he still somehow has a job. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 27th, 2011, 6:38pm Just had to pass these on... From MSNBC, you know the outfit that has no left-wing bias (according to, say, Jon Stewart - see above): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-morning-joe-mocks-rick-perrys-weekend-speech-felt-like-an-alien/. I ask, "it's another world" different than what world? Then, more good times with Bill Maher and the New York Times libbos: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/folks_with_low_sloping_foreheads.html. How does that feel, middle America? Finally, I just stumbled on this blather... Get a load of the commenters... What a bunch of poop-eaters... I mean the inanity is at an all-time high: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/21/6907570-enter-texas-governor-rick-perry-the-movie-star-handsome-devout-evangelical-and-fearless-governor-of-texas-. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 27th, 2011, 8:15pm Forgot this in my last post of a little bit ago... In relation to Herman Cain's critique of the health-care bill, his campaign slogan, according to Jon Stewart, should be "Herman Cain - I don't like to read." A truer slogan would be "Nancy Pelosi - I don't want you to read." Really, what's worse,... the joke or the REALITY??? Comedian Jon Stewart, you are more silly than you are funny. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 5th, 2011, 7:41pm In the wake of the Casey Anthony verdict, it sickens me to see all the talking-head lawyers go on saying that our legal system is "the greatest system of justice in the world," as if they have actually studied the other legal systems of the world with the sufficient depth and breadth it would require to make such a claim. I swear it is such a canned thing for American lawyers to say that they must teach it in law school. Whatever the case may be, the claim is sophistry by definition, that is to say, they neither know the truth of the claim nor have a vested interest in its accuracy, in fact, quite the contrary (if you think it through). Out of one side of their mouths they extol and exaggerate the virtue of our legal system, that is, hindering prosecutorial railroading on the part of the state. Out of the other they admit that it is not about truth and justice but winning. So, when they, both sides, boldly tell us (as they did after the conclusion of today's fiasco) that it is about justice for the victim, that is a bald-faced lie. That is not what it is about, save for the fact that the presence of a victim justifies the proceedings. At any rate, call me crazy, but that means the score is one pro to one con. The fact that our system matter-of-factly rewards crime done well, by design or chance on the part of the criminal, makes it one pro to two cons. Look, I do not know all the answers as to how to construct an optimal system of justice (although I have some ideas based on both my experience abroad and my education in Philosophy), but I do know that the claim that ours is the best in the world is utterly arrogant and sophisticatedly ignorant. Changing gears, the speculation by the legal pundits about George and Cindy Anthony's hasty departure after the reading of the key verdicts today is likely to get out of hand. It will be taken as further evidence of family dysfunction, illustrative of defensiveness on their part, yadda, yadda, yadda. Let me just throw this moderate and beyond-the-surface observation out there. It seemed to me that what they were saying by walking out the way they did was "Well, Casey, you totally threw us under the bus and besmirched our family name to save your own hide and we let you and even aided you in doing it out of fear that you, our daughter, could receive the death penalty. Yet, you know that we know that you are not innocent and do not deserve to get off scot-free, moreover, at our expense the way you have. At the very least you created this mess, and now we wash our hands of you. Go enjoy your victory with your new family of loving lawyers. See if they let you throw them under the bus the way you did us if there ever comes a time that you need to do so." That seemed like the sentiment to me, and, if something like that is the case, that is not only not indicative of dysfunction and erratic behavior, but is actually a quite reasonable response. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 7th, 2011, 2:06am Again, I am hearing SCORES of legal pundits not talking about the right things here... To hell with the legalese... What is so vexing and infuriating to so many Americans is the defiance of common sense here. The coroner's office cannot establish a cause of death. The prosecutors cannot do anything about that. The FACT is that we do have a dead body, moreover, a VERY SUSPICIOUS dead body OBVIOUSLY a product of foul play. I mean it is not like this little two-year-old girl went into the woods, put duct tape on her own mouth, jumped into a couple plastic bags, and died of old age. COME ON! Next, let's just grant the position of the defense and all these legal lemmings that the forensic evidence does not point to anyone in particular (whatever, [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] I know). So what? That is it! You give up? No! At that point, confronted with a VERY SUSPICIOUS dead body OBVIOUSLY the product of foul play, moreover, that of a baby girl's, a half a brain and a little common sense would dictate that you let the (pretty darn good) circumstantial evidence lead you to the person(s) who likely committed the crime, the set of whom in this case OBVIOUSLY includes one, Casey Anthony. But, I digress... Our system of JUSTICE is not about achieving JUSTICE, but rather winning, no matter how many lawyers line up and give lip service to the idea of getting justice for Caylee,... but it is the best system in the world, you know. Give me a break! (Eh-hem, rinky-dink South Korea's, WAY better.) Look, I agree with the contention that the prosecution overshot with the charge of first-degree murder, but this girl Casey is guilty of something and, whatever it is, it is pretty bad and entirely prosecutable under the law and probably deserving of at least a good decade or two in the clink! But, hey, we made our bed long ago when we traded in common sense for legalese. [smiley=clap.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 7th, 2011, 9:22pm on 07/07/11 at 02:06:12, StegRock wrote:
Just in case it is not abundantly clear, my point, which mirrors Bill O'Reilly's, is that, because the coroner could not establish a cause of death, all the jury was left to go on was the OBVIOUS foul play!!! There was INDUBITABLY foul play, and, thus, there was UNDOUBTEDLY at least one foul player, and ONE person OBVIOUSLY fits the bill, that is, Casey. So, this argument that "there was no murder, so there is no murderer" is silly and, worse yet, specious. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 9th, 2011, 12:15pm This fits here insofar as, as America has traded in common sense for legalese, we have turned our backs on ethics in favor of social engineering, which is ALWAYS tied to a political agenda... It is so exhausting listening to ESPN commentators force the usage of the phrase "gay slur". The following rolled off "The REAL Feed" this morning: Eagles WR Jackson facing heat after gay slurs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6751846&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (09.07.2011 08:11) Five months after appearing on "The View" to support a 13-year-old boy who had been attacked by classmates, Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson is making off-the-field headlines of a different nature. Let's get this straight before we all walk like lemmings off the cliff of absolute tolerance,... which leads to no standards, which leads to no progress, which leads to no progressive thinking, which leads to (drum roll, please, [smiley=drummer.gif])... no tolerance... Just calling someone a homo or fag or whatever, whether it is in good taste or not (which depends on the circumstances, and given Jackson's here it may not have been in good taste or at least good judgment), is NOT a gay slur. A slur is an aspersion, that is to say, slanderous. Save for this incorrectly watered-down use of the word "slur" where it is being used to merely indicate name-calling in the broadest sense, a "gay slur" occurs when you know that the person toward whom you are directing the gay term is, indeed, homosexual or believed to be homosexual and your intention is to stain or sully the person's reputation in the community so as to discredit him or her and prompt scorn and even ostracism. Just calling someone, say, a "blankety, blanking homo" is not a gay slur. This subtle propagation of the incorrect employment of the more severe term "slur" by outlets such as ESPN, contributing to the narrative that makes such slips of tongue and colloquial usage an offense subject to hefty fines (as we saw lately with Joakim Noah and Kobe Bryant), serves to socially engineer our thinking (that is to say, brainwash us). You treat someone well because he or she is a person (ethics), not because he or she is a gay person (social engineering), and no one would need to be reminded of that if we taught ethics (NOT religion or theology, mind you) in our schools and/or our homes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 12th, 2011, 1:33pm I am going to try to make this pithy, and please understand that I realize that the following categories are not all totally mutually exclusive, but they are distinct. What hurts the lower and middle classes the most: higher fuel costs, higher grocery prices, higher home-energy costs, higher electric bills, higher lighting costs, higher automobile prices. How so, in particular? Because the rich will still be able to bear the extra expenditures without feeling the pinch. For the rest of us, just to use one example, buying mercury-filled bulbs that cost TEN to FIFTEEN times more but only last six to eight times longer (and that is according to them; it seems to me that they last two to four times longer, i.e., where my incandescent bulb lasts six months, these last about a year or two) (and as far as overall energy efficiency who the hell really knows) is noticeable when you have to live on a budget (and forget about it if you break one; $10 down the drain and a nightmare cleanup). What also hurts the regular folks is higher taxes, including on the rich because, insofar as a high number of the wealthy are business owners and, not even persons, but corporations, that tax burden (and/or the LEGAL and accounting costs of locating loopholes like Obama's cronies over at GE) gets passed on in the form of higher prices; increased (hair-splitting unreasonable) regulations because, again, the fines and LEGAL costs on companies to follow them is passed on to the consumer, and expanded bureaucracy, which is funded by tax dollars and a source of profound fraud, waste and abuse. Oh, and one brief digression, we are, by the way, going to get serious Medicare reform... as it turns out as part of (get this, drum roll please... [smiley=drummer.gif]) Obamacare. It was one of those hidden "goodies" Pelosi was talking about. The only way to get this "goodie" passed was to slip it (past the American people) in a 2,700-page bill that no ONE could reasonably be expected to read and comprehend all the implications and ramifications of. All the bashing of the Ryan Plan without attending to the actual details of it, despite its being of reasonable length and comprehensible, and this Obamacare "goodie", in section 3403 on page 1,000, you did not even know about, right? Does Dem stand for Democrat or Demagogue,... or is there even a difference anymore? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 15th, 2011, 12:25am I cannot stomach Greta Van Susteren's EXTENDED interview with the genius jury foreman for the Casey Anthony trial. I have been avoiding it, but today got a glimpse, just enough for me to puke in my mouth a little bit. This guy admits that the jury was convinced of foul play, going as far as to say, in the short segment I caught, that they believed that Caylee's dead body had been in the trunk of Casey's car, but that they wished that the prosecution could have shown who put Caylee's body there. Are you kidding me? How about the woman a) who did not report that she, her TWO-YEAR-OLD daughter that is, had been missing for THIRTY DAYS and b) whose car it is!!! Talk about the CSI theory on this being right on the mark! [smiley=bullseye.gif] I say kudos to Nancy Grace! All the flack she is getting, and I last weekend watched her show on the verdict after the first couple minutes of Fox News's Geraldo Rivera's coverage of it made me want to vomit yet again. [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 22nd, 2011, 4:25pm Besides lawyers, the other group killing our country is liberal political talk show hosts. I am out and about earlier and listening to the radio in my car. I hear this political talk show going on, so I stop and listen. It turns out to be a real far-lefty. First, he is ranting and raving about the Tea Party and their unrealistic and ridiculous stance on our national debt and deficit and the impending situation with the debt ceiling, calling them "morons" and such. Then, on the other hand, he condemns the "idiot" Republicans for their compromised proposal, which only cuts $4 trillion of spending moving forward, that is, of an anticipated $25-trillion debt estimate if we just go with the plan of the Democrats. His point is that that is all the Republicans are fighting for here. Call me crazy, but, while such debt totals moving forward are not what I want to hear, the Republican plan is at least around 20% better than the Democrats. Overall it is not what I want to hear from my government, but that difference is not nothing. Indeed, it is that kind of liberal Democrat-style thinking, which mind you many a Republican has adopted, namely that a difference in $4 trillion is nothing, that has gotten us to this point. But, that is not the real insidious part of the story. Don't you see what he is doing? He, on the one hand, is condemning the Tea Party for asking for too much in cuts (in fact, what the country needs), but, on the other hand, he is condemning the Republicans who are willing to compromise for fighting for what amounts to nothing. He characterizes the Tea Party as absurd and the rest of the Republicans as foolish. What he has done is put the squeeze on the Republicans, thus, leaving as the only "reasonable" "solution" that of the Democrats, which by the way is not a solution but just a continuation of the usual spineless "throw money at the problem" policy. All the time this talk show host is playing subtle mind games by now and then feigning a middle-ground position and saying things like, and I quote, "So as to keep us divided, the Democrats have to say things about the Republicans, and the Republicans have to say nefarious things about the Democrats." Notice the subtle psychology he is employing by putting the pejorative language in the mouth of the Republicans. We can't be this stupid, but this guy obviously thinks we are. That's that arrogance and condescension that comes with left-wing liberalism. PLEASE don't fall for this silliness! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 24th, 2011, 5:37pm Greedy Washington, especially the liberal Dems, based on how they are DEMagoguing the debt crisis, that is! Here is the rough monthly bottom line... Revenues, mainly from taxes of course, total $200 billion a month. The following: interest on our debt (despite all the Dems talking default), social security (which Obama himself has threatened), Medicare, Medicaid, active military salaries, and veterans' benefits TOTAL $134 billion per month! Call me crazy, [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] but, after covering those necessities, doesn't the math there [smiley=thinking.gif] put us $66 billion in the green... to, then, start spending on the luxury items??? That seems like more than enough for both the pork [smiley=pig.gif] barrelers and the military [smiley=eagle.gif] hawks. You are telling me we can't make some deep cuts!?!? As the kids say these days, "For reals!?!?" Please pass a link to this thread on to your friends who buy into the leftist DEMagoguery without doing their homework and who, thus, need a reality check [smiley=doseofreality.gif] on the basics! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 25th, 2011, 9:09pm If you weren't turned off by just the first few lines of Obama's speech about the debt crisis here tonight and couldn't see through the political DEMagoguery, you are drunk on the Kool-Aid of the left! He takes responsibility for NOTHING! Just what we need in a President! [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 26th, 2011, 2:33pm Have you heard about this new law being considered in San Francisco regarding ex-convict rights? They are considering affording "protected status" rights to ex-convicts. Instead of linking to sources of my choosing, I will let you do your own internet search and choose your own sources. But, even the moderate left-wingers have trouble with this one. That said, some people (like in comments threads) argue for it seemingly legitimately. However, such a law really just serves to compound the problem. What is needed is sober and honest reevaluation that is not guided by political correctness, not piling it on further with more legislation and compromising one group's "rights" for another's. That is the usual liberal left "solution", throw money or more laws at the problem. Meanwhile, that solves nothing. Really, all it does is increase government bureaucracy, just what the liberal left wants to do. Bottom line, you want our country to look like California and, in particular, San Francisco for the generations to come, keep electing (liberal) Democrats to office. [smiley=clap.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 26th, 2011, 3:14pm on 07/26/11 at 14:33:23, StegRock wrote:
(I would have to study the stats, but...) How about a commonsense limitation on criminal background checks by employers of five to ten years (perhaps depending on or in relation to the severity of the crime)? Then, to cover those initial "probationary" years, combine that with an optional government "work"/paid community service program, which, side note, could also be implemented in the cases of working-age food-stampers, the long-term unemployed, etc., etc. Yes, this also perhaps expands government, but in the right way, that is, away from entitlements, which engender feelings of failure and incapacitation and a "society owes me" mentality, and towards personal responsibility, the cultivation of self-esteem and an "I can" attitude. Side note, you tell me, based on his own words and deeds, which of those two kinds of government expansion Obama seeks... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 27th, 2011, 12:42am O'Reilly tonight (7/26) was enlightening! If you can catch it later tonight or on-line, do yourself a favor and do so! The first half of the show was TOTALLY on the mark. [smiley=bullseye.gif] The only weak segment - and it was very weak - was Bill's debate with Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, who really is a mental midget, but was victorious over Bill, who just couldn't figure out how to argue his point in a cogent way. Anyway, takeaway insight... Liberal fallacy - Entitlement programs produce prosperity. Reality check - Entitlement programs are (supposed to be) safety nets. Also on display,... on-point, logical, commonsense conservative straight talk versus change-the-topic, loose-logic, apples-and-oranges liberal fast talk (courtesy of Alan Colmes in the first segment). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 29th, 2011, 8:12pm Why is a balanced budget amendment, which is exactly what the country needs, so toxic to Democrats? All I can say is that the fact that it is is REVEALING!!! The thing is, it is only revelatory insofar as we pull our heads out of the sand and open our eyes to it!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 29th, 2011, 10:46pm on 07/29/11 at 20:12:20, StegRock wrote:
On the left, such as on outlets like MSNBC, all this talk of "mutiny" in the Republican party and character assassination of those conservatives who are cogently and persuasively stating the commonsense position of fiscal responsibility is a load of BS! TWO AND A HALF YEARS into the Obama administration and up until six months ago two years of Democrat control of the WHOLE federal government and the country still does not have a budget! Is that how YOU run YOUR household? The ONE federal budget proposal Obama presented in his two and a half years in office to HIS Democrat-run Senate was voted down by a vote of 97-0! That is right... 0, that is, ZERO Democrats voted for it! Now, THAT is mutiny! I don't usually, but I have to provide a link for the uninformed on this one: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget. At least they voted on that one, though! Mind you, the vote count on the, now, TWO House bills regarding the debt ceiling would not be THAT lopsided, and Mr. Reid refuses to even bring them up for vote in the Senate. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] When are we going to wake up??? on 07/26/11 at 15:14:31, StegRock wrote:
??? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 4th, 2011, 9:10pm So, I flick on over to MSNBC during a commercial break tonight just in time to catch this liberal pundit on the Rosie,... eh-hem,... Larry O'Donnell show actually say that cuts in the government "limit the government's access to the information it needs to lead the world effectively." [smiley=scared.gif] That is SO scary [smiley=scream.gif] on SO many levels, the LEAST of which is that such a philosophy allows for no decrease in government. The implication of his words is that there is only justification for increasing the size of government. Holy crap! Mind you, this pundit prefaced that what he is saying here is a very "small" point. YIKES!!! Imagine what his "big" points look like... [smiley=Freddie.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 6th, 2011, 1:05am Michele Bachmann must be laughing her ass off, while shaking her head, of course, and thinking, "I told yous so." With what has just happened this evening to America's credit rating, the following must be understood... When it comes to balancing a budget (something Obama has yet to give us, by the way), raising revenues, that is, by raising taxes is never a sure thing because we never know that the funds are going to make it through the gauntlet of government bureaucracy and to its destination to pay against the debt. The best, surest mechanism for balancing a budget is cuts. Yet, the Tea Party (with whom I do not absolutely agree, mind you) gets demonized! What the hell is wrong with us? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 6th, 2011, 8:33am on 08/06/11 at 01:05:11, StegRock wrote:
Michelle Bachmann is a complete and total idiot. Her beliefs are total nut job. I loved the tape of her company 'healing' the gays. What a whack job! I am not sure how anyone draws the conclusion that the only way to a balanced budget is cuts. The way to balance the budget is through revenue exceeding expenses. So yes, cuts need to be made.....but reveneue also needs to be generated. Tax increases have to occur...... Oil companies, subsidies, the super rich, etc all need to pay more. And while I am not necessarily for paying higher taxes, I get it. What really sucks is that I live in a part of the country where the cost of living is extremely high. So incomes are higher- negatively impacting me in taxes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 6th, 2011, 1:21pm on 08/06/11 at 08:33:25, DirkDiggler wrote:
Well, we're not on the same page there... I don't have the time to argue our way out of that, and, in any event, our toxic environment of political correctness silences a whole segment of our populace (me in this case). Suffice it to say, go live in the Bay area (Oz) for a year and tell me that is the vision of America you are signing on for. Michele Bachmann may ultimately be wrong on the matter, but, so to speak, vis-a-vis DeSean Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Joachim Noah, et al. (see above), she is kind of serving to balance things out. I hate that that has to be the case and our behavior cannot just be based in ethics, where every human being treats the other with dignity and where you take the other simply as he or she stands before you, but the social engineering and sexualization of our society that has taken place over the last thirty to fifty years have put us in a position where we cannot even think straight because the rewiring of our brains (against nature, common sense and *logical consistency) has led to tangled wires that are too gnarly for us to intellectually extricate ourselves from, both personally and moreover socially. I hate to break it to you, but there is a distinction between treating gays ethically and believing that homosexuality is psychologically, genetically, biologically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, socially and culturally healthy for the person and/or the society, and, moreover (brace yourself now), someone can very reasonably be for the former but against the latter. *(Academia, and, sadly to say, Philosophy in particular, has been a major culprit here. I know a professor who presents and is developing a thesis on a defense of hypocrisy. YIKES!!! That is going to do us good.) [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Quote:
No major disagreement here... I think it is a matter of emphasis. It is just that, at some fundamental fiscal (home economics) level, SPENDING is our problem. Taxing the rich is not a sustainable plan of attacking our nation's budget problems. Moreover, it is conducive to that caretaker mindset that underlies our entitlement culture of "what my country can do for me" instead of prompting a mindset of "what I can do for my country," that is to say, facilitating a sense of contributing to the country (something over 50% of our population does not do, indeed, does the opposite). The problem with just taxing the rich is that it does not spread out that feeling of investment, of being vested in. Taxing the rich is a SHORTSIGHTED "solution". The point ultimately is that taxing, while a possible temporary band-aid, is NOT, strictly speaking, our problem. Therefore, taxing the rich does not take care of nor even serve to address the PROBLEM. The philosophy of "throwing money at it", whether it is education (speaking against my own self-interest here; hell, as a poor guy, I am speaking against my self-interest across the board here, but I am speaking up for my self-esteem), welfare, or Pakistan, has to be evolved beyond. Forget about the fiscal, it is the psychological, philosophical and spiritual dimensions of the human experience that are being so damaged by the American culture of entitlement (which, I believe, has undergirded this distinctively American culture of ME, but I digress). Again, political correctness (and the fact that I have no time right now for this) prohibits me from going farther into my analysis, that is to say, simply saying what many people have identified as problematic and troublesome and are stuck discussing in their homes behind closed doors because of the ironic "Protestantism" and "evangelism" of the American left. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 8th, 2011, 1:28am on 08/06/11 at 01:05:11, StegRock wrote:
You know, I shouldn't just be attributing the view just to the newcomer Bachmann. Where is my old friend-turned-archenemy ;) (by way of this thread) Junkyard [smiley=ssoscar.gif] Jake now when I need him? JYJ's old pal Ron Paul [smiley=wiseman.gif] has been saying this stuff since time immemorial, it seems. Granted, I am nowhere near converting to libertarianism (I think social issues matter, and I think a generally isolationist international policy is much easier said than done, especially in light of inevitably increasing globalization). But, from a fiscal perspective, I think these guys are delivering or at least speaking the tough love we need so badly at this time in our history. [smiley=shrug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 8th, 2011, 6:54am on 08/08/11 at 01:28:08, StegRock wrote:
I agree we need tough love......but I don't think the tough love should come from the extreme right (or the extreme left). The solution is cutting spending AND raising revenue. Seriously.....we are still subsidizing the oil industry with their bazillions in profit. Let's start there. Other subsidies also need to be looked at....like those for farmers. At the same time, all the pork needs to be cut out. Some of the stuff we spend money on is a complete joke. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 8th, 2011, 8:18pm First, let's bring this around here... on 08/06/11 at 13:21:00, StegRock wrote:
on 08/08/11 at 06:54:38, DirkDiggler wrote:
First off, ironically I do not think the governing middle has the stomach to do this, that is to say, to do what needs to be done. Isn't the irony that we are at a point where, on this specific issue, it seems like precisely what we need is for BOTH extremes to succeed and for the establishment middle to get out of the way? [smiley=yikes.gif] Other than that, in spirit I am with ya, Double D... In particular, corporate welfare disgusts me, and so do the kind of profits that the big oil companies, like Exxon, rake in! [smiley=fumin.gif] That said, here is what I am concerned with... on 07/12/11 at 13:33:39, StegRock wrote:
The squeeze is always on the middle class. Furthermore, I must admit that I do not belief in the knee-jerk universal application of the old adage "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It simply does not accord with my experience of life. Indeed, I am of the belief that, when the economy is good, the rich get richer, but the poor are also better off. Also, from a philosophical perspective, I am concerned about the deleterious effects of a massive welfare system on the human psyche and spirit. I mean, surely you are not for further extending and even raising employment benefits, are you? Bottom line, regarding the side of the ball of generating revenue, did you happen to catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" tonight? What is wrong with a plan like that, which involves closing corporate loopholes (it is still going to trickle down "on" the middle man, but... [smiley=shrug.gif]), a flat tax, and a very small national sales tax? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 10th, 2011, 11:39pm Oh, my Lord, this Erica Payne of the "Agenda Project" (why don't you just come out and say you have an "agenda") is such an idiot! Keynesian economics is incompatible with the free market (not that that is exactly what we have in America). Indeed, it can only mean something different than supply-side economics to the degree that socialism pervades. In other words, supply-siders say that, when supplies increase, demand increases, and people can afford the goods because increased supply (presumably) means more jobs. The initial investment is made by the entrepreneur, and this means the government needs to, for the most part, back off. Keynesians, like Ms. Payne(ful to listen to), say that increasing demand prompts an increase in supply (which is ridiculous insofar as the market is free). If you are thinking this through, [smiley=thinking.gif] such an idea should cause you to scratch your head like me [smiley=uh.gif] and think, but wait, where does the money come from? How do the people afford the goods they "demand"? Well, option one, people are able to afford the goods by entrepreneurs putting them to work, and then see above; it is just supply-side (so that is not the answer). Option two, real Keynesianism, demand is increased by the government's doling out the money and forcing the supply. The key difference lies in who is responsible for making the initial "investment", individuals or the government. The former is free market while the latter is socialistic. Don't let all the smoke and mirrors fool you. That is the bottom line! Next, former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is actively inciting hatred of America in the middle east: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIuDPdLzDQ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx2bFTLRHRc. This woman praises some book written by Qaddafi on democracy and talks about how, while in America homes are being foreclosed on, in Libya homes are being built. What alternate reality does this nut-job live in? Why don't you go live in Libya for a few years, in one of their new homes, and tell me how that works out. But, hey, here, here to the Philadelphia mayor, Michael Nutter, speaking some much-needed tough love and moreover the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXwCOcBjpbg. [smiley=twothumbsup.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 21st, 2011, 1:24pm More success stories coming out of uber-left California... From "The REAL Feed": Violence breaks out as 2 fans shot after Raiders-49ers game (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-08-21-raiders-49ers-violence-two-shot_n.htm?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29) USA TODAY: Sports (21.08.2011 10:07) Violence erupted both during and after a preseason NFL game between the Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers. I often wonder why the psychological studies and philosophy of "enabling" that were quite popular and emergent about 20 years ago died out. It is because the lefties (in academia and politics) did not like its trajectory, which, heaven forbid for the leftist agenda, bends towards personal responsibility and tough love. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 21st, 2011, 9:32pm Look, I want to clarify up front that I am not saying that we should just up and totally do away with Social Security Insurance, especially for those who truly need it, such as senior citizens, and have done their due diligence paying into it their whole lives. BUT, does anybody ever consider the possible deleterious effects Social Security has had on the American family? (Put in Confucian [smiley=zenmaster.gif] terms, it undermines xiao!) If a moratorium were put on SSI, would not one of the effects be that we would take care of our aging parents, aunties (to think Hawaiian about it) and uncles better? Or, at least, that is the ethical situation into which we would be thrust and which I think would be good for us! On a side note, I saw a bumper sticker today that said, "The Labor Movement... The people who brought you weekends." What a bunch of liberal nonsense... reminiscent of the secular liberal lie that the "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution (the line comes from Jefferson's interpretation of the First Amendment as he states it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, which by the way can still be read to mean separation of church from state, but I digress). The labor movement did not give us weekends. Our Judeo-Christian heritage did, you morons! It is called the SABBATH! [smiley=nono.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 6th, 2011, 11:34pm on 07/12/11 at 13:33:39, StegRock wrote:
Boy, are we being hornswoggled! Mind you, let me preface that "my guy" Bush signed this bullshit into law. So, anyway, some months ago I have to change two of the four bulbs above our bathroom medicine cabinet above the sink. I use one energy-saver incandescent and one expensive-ass LONG-LASTING energy-saver fluorescent, and, mind you, two incandescent bulbs remained. Well, a few days ago one went out. Which one do yous think it was? Coming in a distant FOURTH... [smiley=drummer.gif] You guessed it... The energy-saving, long-lasting, expensive-ass fluorescent bulb! And, mind you, that is against two bulbs that were already in there for some time. And, I can already foresee the trouble lurking down the road because of the mercury these bulbs contain. It will come in the form of both class-action law suits over health issues due to exposure to broken bulbs (especially children) and environmental problems due to improper bulb disposal (which just about everybody is guilty of). Oh, and just to update, all three of the other CHEAPO bulbs continue to shed light on the world. In other "sunny" news, we have a McDonald's on campus. Given my schedule about a year ago, I used to hit it like twice a week. There was a young gal working there who carried herself well, was well-adjusted and personable, was trying hard and ultimately went about her job very well. I shared with her that I did my time at Mickey Dee's when I was going through college and would encouragingly compliment her regularly and say to keep up the good work. She was a student, and sometimes I would bump into her on campus. We formed a little acquaintanceship of sorts. Well, at the beginning of the summer, we bumped into her at Walmart. She was nicely made up, dressed business casual (a little much on the cleavage, but not too over-the-top) and was talkative and eager to tell me about the office (summer) job she had gotten (and was evidently headed to or from). I, of course, congratulated her and encouraged her to continue trying her best and pressing on as her efforts were obviously paying off. WELL, I bump into her a couple weeks ago, again, at Walmart. I was in a bit of a rush and kept moving. I noticed she had a nicely full cart, and so in passing I just made some quick general comment about doing grocery shopping. Her response, SHE SHAMELESSLY AND PRIDEFULLY SAYS - and, mind you, I had kept moving so we were a good distance from each other and there were a lot of people in earshot, "Yea, I finally got my Link card," at which point I got a little lightheaded, had to pick my jaw up off the floor and stopped and tried to remember what aisle I was headed to. Needless to say, I was speechless... and nauseous. :-X The welfare state has become so huge that it is now functioning as a further source of financial aid for school. Holy hell... because that is where we are headed. Quick hits, the dorks of the Graduate Assistant Union - yea, that shows you how far gone we are; my dad who was a truck driver and real union guy, a teamster, would be rolling over in his grave - is threatening to strike. ::) What a useless bunch of panty-wastes! I guess they aren't able to eat out EVERY night of the week. Mind you, we have a fine deal here at SIU, and that is setting aside the philosophy behind teaching and research assistantships. My FAMILY and I have gotten by just fine. Haven't seen a movie in years, and we hardly ever go out to eat, save for fast food, and even that isn't very often, but that's part of the deal. You don't become middle-class as a GA... or on public assistance (that's the fallacy). Obama was ultimately right when he recently said that we have lost our competitive edge and become soft, and conservatives condemning those comments are in denial and moreover missing the point. The problem is not the truth of what Obama said, it is much worse than that. It is the gall of his saying it and how droll he is in saying it... as it is the policies of HIS party that have facilitated this softness and loss of competitive edge. That is what I should be hearing from the conservatives, not condemnation of the comment itself, which is true, and moreover, is a comment the truth of which is what the conservative position is based on. As Chris Berman and the guys say on ESPN, "Come on, man!" [smiley=shootmyself.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 4th, 2011, 11:14am The new slogan for the "Occupy" movement... "This is what democracy smells like!" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 12th, 2011, 5:34pm I want to get this on the record based on today's news... I think politics should have been set aside and we should have left a base of, say, ten- to thirty-thousand troops in Iraq for the sake of both stability and influence. If Iraq falters because of chaos in the region, do not blame it on Bush or the Republican in power at the time if Obama is voted out. It is Obama who led this victory march (out of Iraq) (as Maliki boldly stated in his speech today as he back-stabbed Bush). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Dec 12th, 2011, 5:42pm on 12/12/11 at 17:34:29, StegRock wrote:
I agree with the sentiment.....That is like saying don't blame Obama for the economy, Carter for high gas prices,etc..... Americans and the media are incapable of this task!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 12th, 2011, 5:55pm Mind you, that is not to say that Bush deserves no blame. However, until we assign blame correctly (an important step in understanding the source of a problem) (which involves politicians, especially Presidents, stepping up and accepting blame,... eh-hem,... responsibility, mind you) and stop playing politics, we will not find solutions (because the sources are obfuscated). Indeed, I think the relationship between the former (assignment of blame/responsibility) and the latter (finding solutions) is one of direct proportion! [smiley=yikes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 12th, 2012, 4:22pm So, the hot push-button topics these days are high school bullying and gay rights... So, what do "they" make Mitt Romney out to be? Duhhh, the high school bully of a gay kid, of course! [smiley=nono.gif] The shots come no cheaper! We cannot be susceptible to this transparent level of emotions and mind control. If we are, we deserve the ruins they leave us in. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 6th, 2012, 11:13pm This liberal meme of class warfare and taxing the rich is not about the poor. It is about preserving public-sector jobs, and, first and foremost, make no mistakes, the highest paying ones! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 15th, 2012, 8:47pm You know who I think Mitt Romney should choose as his vice-presidential running mate -- now don't think me totally off my rocker; I think this choice would make A LOT of strategic sense, and, well, simply put, I like her: Star Parker out of California! If you do not know who she is, look her up! Her story is the precise narrative conservatives (should) want in the public consciousness and conversation. [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 19th, 2012, 8:30pm Just to let yous know, I have been doing much of my politico talk these days at YouTube. It is just commentary, but here it is if you happen to be interested: http://www.youtube.com/user/StegRock. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 20th, 2012, 11:04pm on 07/19/12 at 20:30:32, StegRock wrote:
Some recent thoughts... The politicization of this horrific event in Aurora, Colorado by ABC News, Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulus is atrocious and should be condemned. Fox News lies... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] only in the sense that the truth amid a sea of lies in the mainstream media and academia seems like a lie. All in all, Bush connections notwithstanding (not that I care), Condoleezza Rice would be a great choice for VP! Go DU!!! Go DU!!! Go DU!!! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 27th, 2012, 4:26pm From "The REAL Feed"... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Michael Vick: Season's first slide for Barack Obama (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82ada87c/article/michael-vick-seasons-first-slide-for-barack-obama) NFL.com (27.07.2012 13:44) When the president speaks, you listen. So after Barack Obama joked that Michael Vick needs to slide more to protect himself, the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback said he plans on honoring that request. :-X on SO MANY levels! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 13th, 2012, 12:30am Wow, we are way more loved and respected the world over and especially in the Middle East because of President Obama. That was the idea, was it not? The price of Barack and Michelle's date in New York City when he was first elected: $150,000. The price of one-hundred rounds of golf for the Prez: $1,650,000. The price of electing Obama: $745,000,000. Our embassies in Egypt and Libya attacked on 9/11, a dead ambassador and three others slain!!! Priceless!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Sep 13th, 2012, 8:44am on 09/13/12 at 00:30:47, StegRock wrote:
I am not sure I understand the point of this post at all. Do you really think presidential politics has ANYTHING to do with our embassy being attacked in Libya and Egypt? (and now apparently Yemen) Do you think they would NOT have been attacked if a Republican was president? This was clearly a PLANNED attack by TERRORISTS. What in the hell does a dinner date, golf, or money spent on an election have to do with an attack on American lives? Please don't respond and say that if a Republican was president this wouldn't of happened. And don't say that Obama won't do anything about it as he is the one who authorized the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a foreign country without permission. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 13th, 2012, 3:34pm on 09/13/12 at 08:44:26, DirkDiggler wrote:
While I, of course, am speaking in hyperbole, I do think that international appeasement, and especially Middle East appeasement, is not good foreign policy. What is going on now reminds us of what: Jimmy Carter circa 1979. The POTUS is President of the United States, not savior of the world. No, I do not think that THIS would have happened under, say, Reaganesque leadership (McCain, I do not know -- maybe). That said, the flip side is that the so-called "Arab Spring" might not have happened or, at least, unfolded the way it has. That is true. But, whether that itself and how it has unfolded is a good thing is surely yet to be seen, no? What would have been under Republican leadership (McCain), who knows? So, anyway, in conclusion, yes, I DO think that Obama "owns" this, especially Libya... and Egypt too, just like (I am sure you would claim that) Bush "owns" Iraq, no? I also think that the stance of the Dems on, say, water-boarding versus drone strikes is duplicitous and hypocritical. I personally prefer the stronger, more US-loving (than US-loathing) international policy and military tack of the Republicans, notwithstanding the disparaging, propagandistic, name-calling libbo label "cowboy diplomacy", to appeasing rhetoric (which mainly functions as justification for the extremists) combined with sneaky drone deathblows (which then pisses off those same extremists you have just emboldened), which is sure to put radicals in power in these middle eastern countries (if Obama is reelected). We cannot forget that to these radicals apologies and self-doubt are signs of insecurity, weakness, victory over us and vulnerability and, ultimately, an invitation to "even the score". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 16th, 2012, 2:49am on 09/13/12 at 00:30:47, StegRock wrote:
This is another false narrative the perpetuation of which I am getting sick and tired of. McCain raised $230,000,000 in private funds, OVER $500,000,000 LESS than Obama! Yet, the Dems keep on telling us that it is the Republicans that buy elections, how wrong that is and how we have to stop that. Yes, there are ads made by other outside players, but, again, that happens on both sides, and it surely does not account for roughly 225% MORE support and spending. Enough with the disinformation! Make no mistakes about what party the party of spending is! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 20th, 2012, 3:25pm It seems like this is worth revisiting... on 01/17/11 at 00:42:34, StegRock wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 2nd, 2012, 6:03pm First, quick clarification on the above post, it is in terms of earnings... Next, how insane is it to vote before the first debate? That is the direction we are moving in with this early/absentee voting that, depending on the state, starts, to my knowledge, at least as early as SIX WEEKS before Election Day. People are cheating themselves voting like that. Do you know how much can happen and how much you can come to learn in six weeks? And, I am not just talking about the Presidential election! And, well, you've "mailed in" your vote... :-/ Finally, regarding the big debate tomorrow,... GO DU!!! [smiley=havinablast.gif] GO DU!!! [smiley=havinablast.gif] GO DU!!! [smiley=havinablast.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 4th, 2012, 3:54am You cannot hide who you really are... "Everybody's getting a fair share," umm, err, "Everybody's doing a fair share." Oh, and by the way, false narrative alert... If you followed the CNN clock, Obama overall spoke for about four more minutes than Romney! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 25th, 2012, 7:27pm I got to get this one off my chest... The "carving up" [smiley=halloween.gif] of our nation for political purposes is driving me nuts... [smiley=fumin.gif] It is actually from my "comments" feed over at YouTube from some time ago... Mind you, I am not anti-abortion, but that is not based on a woman's "right to choose"... Let's be clear... The so-called pro-"choice" position logically boils down to nothing more than this... A woman's right to an unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's right to... A LIFE! What a noble position! :-/ What a wonderful guiding principle on which to base your politics! [smiley=nono.gif] Abortion may be a "necessary" evil based on modern-day socio-economic, politico-religious circumstances, but it is nothing to pride ourselves on. It is not really indicative of human progress, indeed, perhaps quite the contrary if you think it through. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Oct 25th, 2012, 7:58pm on 10/25/12 at 19:27:01, StegRock wrote:
I think you simplified a little too much: Don't you kind of state the argument yourself.....does a FETUS have rights? The US Supreme Court deemed it did not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 26th, 2012, 12:43am on 10/25/12 at 19:58:35, DirkDiggler wrote:
Exactly! A fetus has no legal rights in America. But, I am talking morality, not mere legality. I have simplified nothing. Indeed, the circumstance is worse: legality is trumping morality. [smiley=yikes.gif] Nevertheless, I will simplify... A woman's unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's... LIFE! Though, I like the original formulation more... A woman's right to an unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's right to... A LIFE! It is just that, as you state, the situation is actually even worse than that for the unborn. [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 27th, 2012, 8:44pm I had a sort of epiphany lately that gives articulation to something many have sensed but has not been well stated... Let's think this through... [smiley=thinking.gif] In governance, generally speaking, if you have at heart the best interest of the country as a whole, that is to say, ALL citizens, you are inevitably eventually going to have to make decisions and institute policies that are not so good for a particular group. That is just kind of the nature of the beast. If you have the whole country's best interest at heart, not every decision or every policy is going to please every group every time. Not that such a philosophy cannot be abused. It surely can, though it must be noted that there is "quid pro quo" partisan abuse on both sides. In any event, generally speaking, we have one party that tries to govern the whole, and, then, we have another reactionary party which opportunistically and exaggeratedly advocates for the groups whom the policies and platforms of the other party do not (seem to) favor... As for which party is which, the proof is in the pudding. This is a quote from a recent ad in support of Obama: "He's not standing up for all Americans, but he's standing up for women." Yikes! The White House is supposed to be inhabited by a President of the United States, not an advocate or lobbyist for a group. Though the actual positions, policy proposals and theoretical bases can be argued and debated, for sure,... On immigration, Republicans are not against Mexicans; they are for all Americans. On economics, Republicans are not against the poor and middle class; they are for all Americans. On abortion, Republicans are not against women; they are for all Americans. On education, Republicans are not against teachers; they are for all Americans. On marriage, Republicans are not against gays; they are for all Americans. On terrorism, Republicans are not against Muslims; they are for all Americans. On voter identification, Republicans are not against anyone; they are for all Americans. Again, whether their specific positions are for better or for worse can be debated. But, rhetoric such as "war on women" or "war on minorities" is demagoguery and only serves to obfuscate the real debate. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Oct 28th, 2012, 2:59am on 10/26/12 at 00:43:32, StegRock wrote:
My two cents here: although I acknowledge that prudence plays a role in determining one's platform, I am nevertheless distraught that the Republican presidential platform is not opposing abortion in cases of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother. If one maintains that abortion is wrong because murder is wrong -- and I assume that is the ultimate gist of any argument against abortion -- then it is impossible to maintain, at the same time, that there are various situations in which abortion is not wrong. Why then does the Romney/Ryan ticket allow for these exceptions? I can think of only these answers: 1. perhaps they think that announcing they are completely opposed to abortion will hurt their chance at election -- in which case, this tells us something about the increasingly disastrous state of American mores, i.e., that we are living in a country in which, it would seem, one must tolerate the murder of some of the people by others of the people in order to be electable. 2. or maybe, while they are opposed to abortion in most cases, they in fact are not opposed to abortion in those three instances -- in which case their moral reasoning is not, in fact, reasoning. Not good either way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Oct 28th, 2012, 8:50am When it comes to morals in politics.....why are the same people opposed to abortion so pro-death penalty? And those so prochoice so anti death penalty? Morally they do not seem to go hand in hand. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Oct 28th, 2012, 9:15am Now, putting ALL of this into perspective, I had a very in depth political conversation with a Chilean who grew up under Pinochet. The shit we argue about as Americans is relatively small vs what the rest of the world is dealing with. The right to life under Pinochet could be taken away from you for looking at someone the wrong way or thinking the wrong thing. You could not tell who was your 'friend' and who was not. Pretty amazing what he had to deal with - both personally and his family. I've never had a gun pointed at my head for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I never had to worry if I was going to come home and someone from my family be taken away. It really put life into perspective.....and in some cases, reminded me how embarrassed I should be as to what Americans (and sometimes myself) take for granted. People across the glode are fighting for democracy or some form of the right to vote. The right to be heard and be represented. Yet our country's % of eligible voters who actually VOTE is pathetic. During the presidential election it is around 40-45% the past few elections. During gubenatorial races, it is MUCH lower. And the lower the office, the less it it will be. So here we are, the right to choose as to whom we want to represent us in government, and 55%-60% of Americans do not even utilize their rights. People across the world are literally fighting, being jailed, or even dying for a right that over 55% of Americans are not taking advantage of. [offtopic] On a side note - he also had some very interesting thoughts on our electoral college which I will be the first to admit that is not perfect. However, it gave me the chance to explain why it exists and why major changes will not come anytime soon. I am pretty sure most Americans do not even understand why it exists. Taking it even more off topic....there is an electorial college tie....the House would probably Romney President and the Senate would vote BIDEN vice president. Taking it a step further....there is even a chance that the HOUSE could not reach a decision - that BIDEN could become president as Vice President. Crazy system........with many imperfections, but one that maintains the checks and balances of states powers. [/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Oct 28th, 2012, 2:16pm on 10/28/12 at 08:50:23, DirkDiggler wrote:
I don't think this is the case. Murder is the taking of innocent human life -- murder is not identical with killing. That is, sometimes killing is not only permissible but necessary, e.g., in self-defense. So I take it that the death penalty is morally permissible in analogous situations, viz., when it's a matter of self-defense. Thus, if someone has made himself an enemy of the state, and incarceration will not sufficiently protect the people from him, then the state has the right, because it has the duty, to execute him. In our day and age, that situation seems awfully rare -- if we had jailed Bin Laden, that may have been such a situation -- but such situations were surely more common in earlier days (and even as late as the late 19th century on the Western frontier). So while abortion is intrinsically immoral, the death penalty is sometimes immoral and sometimes moral. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Oct 28th, 2012, 8:36pm I am really just seconding Travis's response... This position is consistent... on 10/28/12 at 08:50:23, DirkDiggler wrote:
It is this one that is not... on 10/28/12 at 08:50:23, DirkDiggler wrote:
Think it through... [smiley=thinking.gif] The fact that we have the logic on this bass-ackwards is indicative of political brainwashing and social engineering. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 4th, 2012, 1:13am To hear light being made of Obama's characterization of voting as "revenge" is sickening. It is such a revealing choice of words. In Obama's second term, expect us to be more divided than ever before! Nietzsche spoke of the "spirit of revenge", its basis in resentment and the slave morality, the distinctive "virtue" of which is pity, that emerges from it. This is where we are headed with Obama. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Nov 4th, 2012, 7:16am on 11/04/12 at 01:13:51, StegRock wrote:
Geez us. He made the comment one time in response to a crowd booing Romney. Romney defined marriage as the union of "a man and a woman and a woman" once. I think the bigger issue to focus on if looking at campaign quotes is that Romney paid 14% taxes, doesn't give a rats ass about 47%, and would repeal healthcare. And I think the best REVENGE will come on Tuesday for Obama. Do we all agree that if Romney does not win, that the Repluplican party might as well cease and desist?? They should totally reform themselves. Catering too much to the right is screwing them! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by T-Rave on Nov 4th, 2012, 2:39pm on 11/04/12 at 07:16:49, DirkDiggler wrote:
I think the problem is, actually, that the Republican party is becoming more and more indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. Both are embracing the progressivist despotism of the nanny state, which de Tocqueville warned us 170 years ago was the most likely and to-be-feared outcome of democracy when the people lose sight of freedom by their demands for equality. The Republicans have no hope in trying to be more "progressive" -- their only hope is to go back to the "right," by which I mean the principles of the Founding Fathers -- limited government and states' rights (principle of subsidiarity), religion as the necessary foundation of both private and public life, etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 4th, 2012, 10:47pm on 11/04/12 at 07:16:49, DirkDiggler wrote:
There are many a gaffe on the campaign trail. You take Obama's "revenge" to be a gaffe. I do not! I take it to be a revealing choice of words, and your response here serves as a sort of proof in the pudding. What does Romney's personal income tax rate have to do with anything? The only value of that talking point that I can see is to facilitate a sense of class warfare. Whether you have been influenced by MSNBC or not, you are right on point with their talking points. Anyway, factoring in charities, Romney gives about 30-35% of his earnings (why we are even talking about this, I do not know, but...). If of his earnings that is all he would give away anyway, which seems reasonable, then more taxes just means less charity and vice-versa. On another hand, it is that 14-or-so% of the income taxes of the Romneys of America that make up roughly 80% of government revenue. Mind you, there is so much more relevant to this analysis on the Obama-Biden side I am not bringing up because I do not want to engage in mere tit-for-tat talking points. The thing is "revenge" fits the motif. "Women, seek revenge for your oppression! The poor and middle class, seek revenge for your oppression! Minorities, blacks and hispanics especially, seek revenge for your oppression! Gays, seek revenge for your oppression!" This is not a mere gaffe! This is the mindset! And, it matters! We have gotten to a sad point, enabled greatly by lawyers mind you, where, not absolutely but to an ill-fatedly high degree, rights mean revenge. As for the 47% comment, I think Romney surely overestimated the number and, in any event, did not do himself a service, politically. But, there is a bigger-picture point at issue, to which his comment does, I think, not totally unwittingly speak. If we ever get to the point where 51% of the population is on the government dole, the party of the government dole gains an advantage that is unfair and, worse yet, ensconced because it is based on a conflict of interest that is supported by the majority. YIKES! This is mass collusion and the path to socialism. We really will have gone from "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," to "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you." Bottom line, right down to your last line about the state of the Republican party, I am not seeing reasoned positions. I am just seeing (MSNBC-esque) talking points, that is to say, smug trash talk as in when you say, "Do we ALL agree", followed by hyperbolic partisan rhetoric. No, we do not! So, that question/comment is either deluded or arrogant or both and, in any case, comes off as nothing more than partisan up-talk. on 10/28/12 at 02:59:33, T-Rave wrote:
My question for you, T, is, how do you find holding such a position in an America now full of socially-engineered drones whose positions are not grounded in reasoned argumentation, but timely factoids and statistics and clever one-liners and, worse yet, come with an ironic moral indignation and the oft-employed tag line that they are on the right side of history, that is to say, more specific to the case at hand, drones who have been socially-engineered to believe that a woman's right to choose is the "ethical" bottom line and to disagree with that is to be on the wrong side of history? They reject challenges to their positions without even taking the time to understand the argument against them. You would be labeled as being a part of the "war against women" and, thus, presenting a position not even worth hearing out. I mean, social engineering dictates, unlike true ethics, that to do the right thing, you have to believe the right thing. This makes people who believe differently, contrary to the tolerance they proclaim, absolute enemies, whose reasoning is not even worthy of acknowledgment, no less engagement. In this case, that is you. Mind you, T, I am just pressing you. Remember I am not pro-choice. I am provisionally not anti-abortion. Anyway, the question... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 6th, 2012, 5:43pm Of course, I, none of us, have the time to concentrate on this stuff, and so it has taken all the way to Election Day for this fairly organized thought to hit me. :-/ As late as it is, I am still going to share it (because, to speak frankly, I think, on this little corner of the internet, this is one of the best, most concise and straightforward, presentations on the matter). It has to do with what the government can generally, but directly do with respect to the economy. In relation to the economy the government can take the following general, but direct measures: 1) Decrease government spending. 2) Facilitate private-sector growth. 3) Increase government spending on public-sector, that is, government jobs, entitlement programs and/or subsidies by ... a) ... raising taxes, fees and penalties. b) ... borrowing from other countries (e.g. China). c) ... printing money. d) ... (see 2 above). It seems that our current President, whose resume is filled largely with just leftist activism, does not know how to do 1, 2 and (therefore) 3d, the ones that take effort and resolve and are not easy. He only knows how to do 3a, 3b and 3c, none of which really require "creativity" and all of which increase government (influence) and are relatively easy (socialistic) ways out that just about anybody with a half a brain can take. He only seems to understand "government" solutions. Bottom line, if Obama is reelected and, in any event, if Obamacare stands "as is" without any reform, expect more of 3a, 3b and 3c and little to no 1, 2 and 3d. [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 8th, 2012, 12:41am Advocacy won over country again! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Feb 10th, 2013, 5:58pm TRUE American courage,... [smiley=proudAmerican.gif] [smiley=clap.gif] if you search for it, it can still be found... But, unfortunately, you gotta search... [smiley=threed.gif] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTdtL-hirRg! on 08/10/11 at 23:39:54, StegRock wrote:
Does this stuff even get a whisper in the mainstream media? :-/ Au contraire, we are now in a country that prefers Obama-supporting f-bombs from Hollywoodites, especially if they are Black Panther-ish or white guilt-ridden. [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 3rd, 2013, 10:01pm What is an "openly gay" boy scout? [smiley=uh.gif] I don't want "openly" straight boys in the Boy Scouts! [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 22nd, 2013, 7:11pm Anybody with a YouTube account want to help me here? Two well-reasoned, very mildly caustic posts I made were SCRUBBED! I cannot repost them because I have been BLOCKED! Talk about the "dog whistle" as an un-self-reflective Chris Matthews would say... This m.o. extends from the very top to the very bottom (YouTube videos with 400 views ::)). This is not theory. This is fact, and the fact that the drones just do it without direct orders "from the top" is -- think it through -- scarIER! [smiley=yikes.gif] Anyway, here is a link to screen shots of the YouTube pages from which I have been BLOCKED to post. (The "blocked" message you can see came up after I tried to repost the messages.) http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/LibCensorship.htm. Here are the two posts... This first post went with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5TIr67jnU. To follow this guy's logic through,... with Nixon, Republicans did set aside partisanship and do the right thing, but Democrats are not doing that now. MSNBC is for mental midgets. This second post went with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46R6BLc7aHE. Yea, but it was already (mis)interpreted as "primarily"! This does not serve to answer why only conservative groups were targeted while 501(c)(4) [and, for that matter, (3)] status was readily being granted to left-wing groups, including, but not limited to, the PRESIDENT's very own "Organizing for Action", MoveOn.org and "The Barack H. Obama Foundation", which was founded by Obama's Kenyan half-brother. Mr. O'Donnell misses the point,... tendentiously of course. [smiley=fumin.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 27th, 2013, 3:14am "Truth" for the left: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfNSblZB9ho. Truth on the right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OeJ8s1FYIQ. Make your choice as to the kind of truth you want to see, and, if your choice is wrong, know that your country goes to hell with it. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 8th, 2013, 11:43pm So, I flick MSNBC on today to see how they are presenting the Zimmerman trial. ALL that is presented is shades of guilt. They have a four-person/lawyer panel. The first claims that, while the case for second-degree murder is not so strong, the case for manslaughter is a slam dunk! The second thinks that the prosecution has been terribly weak and that Zimmerman will, and I quote, "unfortunately" not be convicted of anything! (So, even the contrarian on the panel is in the tank!) The third, and I quote, "hopes" for a conviction so that justice is done! The fourth takes the self-proclaimed "surprising" position that the prosecution has done an excellent job of proving second-degree murder. Are you f'n kidding me? If you are an MSNBC watcher, STOP NOW! Stop polluting your head with this garbage! This maintenance of the liberal/leftist narrative is destroying the U.S. At the very least, try to watch something that challenges your views and makes you think, [smiley=thinking.gif] and then go back to MSNBC with a fresh set of eyes and a clear head and see what you think (for yourself)! Fox News's reportage of the Zimmerman trial, leftist demonization "not-with-standing", is light-years more fair and balanced. On all of their shows, even their more explicitly conservative ones (like Hannity), they have people who cross the spectrum of arguing for Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. By and large, they end up somewhere in the middle, that is, perhaps guilty of manslaughter or perhaps not guilty because nothing is really provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Update... So, I flick on MSNBC's Chris Hayes! He admits he is a leftist during the segment. He has the "anti-racist educator" Tim Wise (who is a complete idiot) on along with an African-American Studies professor. Gee, this is going to be fair and balanced! [smiley=dunce.gif] They also have a lawyer on who ultimately recommends that the Martin family should plan to sue the State of Florida for their poor prosecution. That was the panel. Are you kidding me? They end up, tendentiously, with righteous indignation, and, worst of all, in a way that literally divides the American people, talking about the politics of it: how the defense is playing politics (???) and about how politicians are aligning themselves (and this matters how?). Meanwhile, it is much more cogently argued that the very prosecution itself is politically motivated! But, whatever in the echo chamber of the left, right? Lockstep for the narrative! Who watches this garbage and takes it seriously? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DB on Jul 9th, 2013, 10:46am You may be right, I haven't watched either channel. But I am curious what a left or right political persuasion has to do with the Zimmerman trial. What is the connection? If anything, wouldn't a liberal favor the defense in theory? Just wondering... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Jul 9th, 2013, 7:35pm This is the first time I think Fox News has even been accused of being "lights years more fair and balanced" ;D MSNBC caters to the left and Fox News caters to the right. I cant stand either one of them/ And then there is CNN that has CONFIRMED reports of totally made up news. On a personal note, I can not wait to see what happems to Zimmerman . By the letter of the law, it seems he may get away with it. In my opinion, he is a guilty muther who deserves to go to prison. He NEVER should of been in that position, carrying a gun. I hope he at least gets a few years...... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 10th, 2013, 12:04am on 07/09/13 at 10:46:32, DB wrote:
[smiley=demonstration.gif] D, really? You are betraying your intellectual sophistication. Mind you, you are right that politics should not have anything to do with it. But, you are thinking too idealistically. If Zimmerman was not indicted, (the contention is that) there would have been riots in the streets (or so that was the threat), and, if he is not convicted (of a crime that does not put him in prison for a long time), (the contention is that) there will be riots in the streets (or so that is the threat). Insofar as that is true, that is mob rule infusing itself into our legal system! Politics explicitly come into play because one of our political parties in particular is electorally beholden to this mob. Put another way, the party that plays race politics does have something at stake in this trial, D, because they are supposed to be on the side of this mob and want those potential riots (and a very sticky situation) averted, and only one thing guarantees that: a guilty verdict (which, to segue, Double D, like a bit player in a "narrative", would gladly hand them from afar, indeed, in the harshest form). on 07/09/13 at 19:35:12, DirkDiggler wrote:
Well, Double D, you get D.C.-area news and/or listen to NPR, Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert, all of which are, at least, leftist-leaning, MSNBC lite, and I do not want to get into debating the trial here, but your verdict is, at least, evidence and, at worst, confirmation of that. The deal with the cable news channels is a matter of degree, which you do not mention. But, whatever, your take on the channels is uninformed or tendentious or, worse yet, both. You basically admit to the former, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and leave it at that. However, their lineups are not even close in terms of fairness and balance. Here is how I would line each up next to his or her ideological counterpart... Bill O'Reilly - Chris Matthews Brett Baier/Shepard Smith/Megyn Kelly - Martin Bashir Greta Van Susteren - Laurence O'Donnell/Chris Hayes Sean Hannity - Rachel Maddow/Al Sharpton/Ed Schultz In terms of reportage and editorialization, if you actually pay attention, it is NOT EVEN CLOSE as to which side of that list is more objective/reasonable/intelligent! Indeed, I would personally say (and I am guessing you would probably say that I am not a babbling idiot; I am even thinking you think quite the contrary) that Fox News is to the right as mainstream media news sources, including CNN and NPR, are to the left. That is to say that Fox News is to the right (a little more to the right of center-right) to the degree that the mainstream media is to the left (a little more to the left of center-left). MSNBC is fairly far left. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are somewhere between the mainstream and MSNBC, and it is a shame that I actually have to include them here, but the fact of the matter is that a good portion of our population does, indeed, get their news (and their opinion of Fox News) from them. Bottom, bottom line, scrap all this, and, if they allow you to over there on the left, ;) read some Alexis de Tocqueville. [smiley=patriot.gif] That would be a good start at least. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DB on Jul 11th, 2013, 2:16pm I guess I viewed it as a minority/minority thing but I guess not everyone views it that way. As for the presentation of the trial by the media, which was your initial point Steve, I find it funny to hear people I know of the opposite political persuasion than you say the exact opposition thing about the coverage. ::) With that said, I'm probably closer to you on this one that I normally would be. As for the trial, seems to me like prosecution evidence is certainly well short of murder 2 though I would not be shocked to see a guilty verdict on the lesser count. Looking forward to hearing replay of closing arguments when I get home tonight. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 11th, 2013, 5:09pm on 07/11/13 at 14:16:06, DB wrote:
Not that I question your characterization, D, but exactly how so? I would like you to respond thoughtfully to that general question, but, in particular, what "opposite" could be said with respect to the potential for violence in relation to the verdict? My main concern, which I know you understand, is not so much about this case itself, but mainstream media bias. Point being, I do not want the bigger-picture truth of the subtly destructive consequences of mainstream media bias to get obfuscated by generalizations, uninformed or, worse yet, misinformed opinions and, well, outright lies. I cite specifics! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 12th, 2013, 11:14pm Bottom, bottom line, if all the facts of this case and what we know based on what has been presented were exactly the same but the roles were reversed, that is, that it was, again all things equal, Trayvon Martin in his late 20's who took the life of a teenage George Zimmerman, would the same people protesting now for "justice for Trayvon" in the form of demanding Zimmerman's conviction not be protesting for "justice for Trayvon" in the form of demanding Trayvon's acquittal? You do not have to answer this for me, mind you. This question is a soul searcher. Its importance is as a rhetorical question. Just be honest! Then, perhaps, ask yourself, are you on the side of this mob? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DB on Jul 13th, 2013, 12:09pm I don't know what the specific arguments are except to say that everyone believes in their side. If the media is bias it is to make $. As far as different reactions based on different scenarios, you are probably correct. I would imagine that the mob you refer to would argue that they have been persecuted for many years. With that said, any violent reaction either way is senseless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 13th, 2013, 4:36pm on 07/13/13 at 12:09:05, DB wrote:
Well, that just pushes the proverbial bulge in the carpet. It just raises the question (not that you have to answer it, D; indeed, the answer is a dissertation), how is it that we have become so attracted to leftist-leaning media and entertainment? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 14th, 2013, 1:34am Mind you, DD, I ask you the following with no opinion of my own of Zimmerman as a person. Indeed, while talking with my mom, with whom I am of like mind about the case, I had to set her straight and counter her when she started to go too far in her advocacy and say things like how Zimmerman seemed like a decent guy who was just watching out for his neighborhood and so on. I reminded her that we do not know what kind of person he is in real life, that he could be a pompous jerk,... or not, but that none of that matters. It is not about whether or not (you think) you like the guy. on 07/09/13 at 19:35:12, DirkDiggler wrote:
SO, with it stated up front that I have no love loss for Zimmerman and, indeed, disabused my own mother regarding her immoderate considerations as to who he is as a person, I ask you the following, of course, under the assumption that you do not know the guy personally... How did you arrive at this opinion of him as a person? There is definitely some vitriol and cynicism in your words. Might it be able to be suggested, especially since you admit that you do NOT watch MSNBC (or CNN), that you might want to calmly and contemplatively reflect on the media sources that you consult and that contributed to the formation of the type of opinion you ended up having!? Or, am I just way off base? (However, I know that is the process I had to put myself through.) Extreme case in point of what I am talking about, what NBC did with the doctoring of that initial 911 call from Zimmerman was over-the-top manipulative and, thus, somewhat evil in the sense that it served only to fit a political narrative that pits citizen against citizen along the lines of race! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Jul 14th, 2013, 10:52pm on 07/14/13 at 01:34:53, StegRock wrote:
Well, there is a TON of information on the case. I watched the news, read articles, and yes, even OCCASSIONALLY watched CNN, HLN, blah blah blah. How could you NOT see it somewhere. My point is this, I figured he would get off a legal term. BUT, he was guilty of being a complete fucking moron. Why would you follow the guy when the police specifically told you not to? Why would you have a gun? Why put yourself in that position? But how is he guilty IN MY OPINION and should have to go to prison? He SHOT a guy that he did not have to shoot if he just would of stayed away from him. He did NOT have to follow him. He was TOLD not to follow him. In regards to it being a racial issue, by appearances, it appears he was following because he was black. If it was a white teenager in a hoody, would he of followed him? I do not think any of us know....and no one can say definitively. However, so many African Americans have been "guilty of being black" that they are more sensitive to it. And no mater how hard we deny it, racism still exists in our county. And "guilty of being black" refers to be followed in stores, pulled over for no reason, getting looks, etc. It happens. It happened to a good friend of mine (who works for the DEA) a little over a year ago. And since I am not black, I can never truly put myself in their shoes. But I understand the sensitivity around it. ANd I am not sure it is a 'fabrication' by the media...... the media just happens to be reporting on it. But I will acknowledge the media is looking for a story where there really isn't one. For example, our local news station led the news with REACTION FROM THE STREETS - like there was going to be a riot or something. Yet there was nothing..... Speaking of race, I do find it amusing that most DC natives and football fans are totally discounting the AMerican Indians objecting to the Redskins name. I just do not get it. ANd while people can say it is a positive' iimage, we are not American Indians. AND historically, the first time the team name REDSKINS was used, it was in a negative commutation via stereotype. Just change the fucking name already. Finally, I always ask myself with dealing with racism or the PERCEPTION of racism....What would of been different if the roles were reversed? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 16th, 2013, 7:31am Wow, there is so much there to sift through... I am going to engage on two particular points as concisely as possible... on 07/14/13 at 22:52:57, DirkDiggler wrote:
This is the claptrap of the leftist race profiteers, which we are being deluded with A TON of right now... At any rate, acknowledging but setting aside any question begging about whether or not the absolute eradication of racism in the world is even possible, yet again DD, you tendentiously, though perhaps unwittingly, speak in absolute terms about a topic for which there are no absolute terms. The manifestation of racism in America is not either-or. It is a matter of degree! Of course, the leftist race profiteers want to play down racial progress when it contradicts their race baiting. At those times, like now, they opt to speak in terms of, if you will, "black and white" (double entendre intended). Their modus operandi, however, is grounded in "ill-logic" because they do want to point out progress when it comes to proclaiming the effectiveness of entitlement programs and affirmative action. Logically, either the entitlements have worked and there has been progress or there has not been progress and the entitlements have not worked. Of course, they "ill-logically" want to claim that entitlements have worked or that there has been no progress depending on what they are fighting for at any given moment. BUT, there has been progress, great progress! This is not America circa 1960 or 1860. Indeed, despite the ridiculously erroneous and tendential comparisons being made by the lefties, the DIFFERENCES in the cases of Emmett Till and Trayvon Martin clearly demonstrate the progress we have made. At the very least, have we not come to a time when the black community would be well-advised to turn inward and consider what role they play in the perpetuation of racism? Mind you, I especially ask you this because, as you roundaboutly suggest, at not just the proverbial but the literal end of the day, blacks are the only ones who can proclaim us free of racism towards blacks because they are the only ones who "experience" it. I mean something has got to give then on their end if that (relativist bullshit) is really the case. Or, maybe overcoming racism is not the goal of the race profiteers. But, I digress. Quite the contrary, any black person from Bill Cosby to Michael Nutter (link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXwCOcBjpbg) who encourages self-critique in the black community is ignored or demonized, and lashing black conservatives is a rite of passage into the modern democrat party. Meanwhile, we have an administration that thinks we (whites) are "cowards" (yes, that is what Holder meant). They obviously do not look in the mirror (double entendre intended), and they obviously do not have a clue even by proxy of what it is like to live in a racially homogenous country. But, I digress. Anyway, any merit to the question I ask, or am I just a [smiley=dunce.gif]? How do you take a piece like Negrophilia by Eric Rush (link) (http://www.amazon.com/Negrophilia-Pedestal-Americas-Racial-Obsession/dp/1935071823/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373968834&sr=1-1&keywords=Negrophilia)? Quote:
That question, in essence, is the same silly, race-baiting question that gets us nowhere and that was asked by some dumb reporter at the news conference after the trial. She asked, if the races were reversed -- Trayvon was "white" and Zimmerman was black -- do you think the verdict would have been not guilty? (Can anybody say, "O.J. Simpson," anyway...) That question is not challenging. Quite the contrary, it is leading, especially when it is asked of the defense for whom it is impossible to answer in a way that will satisfy the questioner. Meanwhile, the question to ask to get at the valid point related to this line of inquiry is the one I posed... on 07/12/13 at 23:14:02, StegRock wrote:
But, anyway, if you are to remain consistent in your position about this situation, DD, your question to yourself here can only have one (type of) answer. So, with that said, what is your answer to your own question? (You state that you ask this question of yourself, I am sure, to demonstrate fairmindedness and level-headedness when, in fact, quite the contrary, it serves to illustrate how you have painted yourself into an ideological corner based on the position you have taken here and, moreover, how you have decided to take it.) Finally, I know you were thinking about getting away from the Dirk Diggler's theme last season. Would you like me to change your username (as it appears on the site) to Reverend Al? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 19th, 2013, 8:22am So, this congressman who pulled the hoodie theatrics on the floor of the Capitol on Monday says how there should have been a black man, like himself, on the jury because he would have been able to bring to the table the experience and sensibility of a black man. That is RELATIVISM, and it is destroying our country! Of course, that is precisely NOT what a juror is supposed to do. Trying someone is NOT supposed to be about YOUR experience. It is not supposed to be about YOU. It is supposed to be about the case at hand and the circumstances and facts surrounding it. But, let us not let details get in the way. He surely is not. So, as if the fundamentals of our system of justice were a trivial matter, we will set THAT aside. The bigger problem is the fundamental irrationality and unreasonableness of his position, that is to say, his relativism. Relativism is insidious and, quite LITERALLY, divisive, and its ill-logic is intractable! The logic underlying the claim that a black man should have been on the jury because he would have contributed his experiences and mindset as a black man to the verdict is the SAME logic that says that he, precisely because he is a black man, cannot judge Zimmerman's mindset, that is, the mindset that emerged out of the experiences of a "white"-hispanic. Think it through! It is a contradiction! The reason being given for having a black guy on the jury is, based on the logic of that reason, a reason why having a black guy on the jury cannot work. The latter is, of course, ridiculous because a black man is capable of being objective. Being subjective is precisely what a juror is NOT supposed to do, right? Yet, that is precisely the basis of the argument of the aforesaid congressman and many other talking heads right now. Meanwhile, our system is designed to try to evoke objectivity and overcome subjectivity. Amid all this, the aforementioned contradiction gets elided because the logic is not being applied back on oneself. However, you cannot just have it one way, that is, without our eventually devolving into the so-called "moral" sense that relativism leads to, namely, "might makes right". Think it through! This is the "logic" of the race baiters and profiteers, which has been adopted by Double D right here, and of anybody trying to justify themselves on either the individual or community level. Take a stand! Argue for your position, but NOT with this pernicious, divisive and destructive ill-logic! There is an argument for why having a black man on the jury might have been a good thing, but it ain't any of this claptrap with which we are presently being deluded. We have become so accustomed to this ill-logic, but, whenever you think during a conversation that someone is not being objective and being too subjective and that that is not a good thing, know that that is the vestige of our sense for this ill-logic. We are losing this sense because relativism, a.k.a. subjectivism, moreover, emotions-based relativism has seeped into American society so deeply. Untying the intellectual and psychological knots of this deep-seated ill-logic is laborious, indeed, but it is also liberating for it is an awakening from unconsciousness. Remember "ill-logical" reverse racists want you to feel what they feel. But,... wait... That defies their very own logic that we cannot feel what they feel. Or, wait a minute... [smiley=thinking.gif] Can we... in a different more direct way? And, isn't that what this and O.J. and Tavis Smiley's bellicose suggested solution to race relations in America that the NRA give out guns to all blacks is really all about? For the reverse-racist race baiters it is about making whites feel what they feel... in the only way possible according to their logic, and it ain't empathy. Their logic undermines empathy. Think it through, please! The line between justice and revenge is very fine, indeed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Jul 19th, 2013, 9:22pm What I find interesting is you take my post out and start grouping me in with the leftist nuts. People on BOTH sides go way to far. I went away from the Zimmerman trial and started to talk about racism and WHY black folks are more sensitive about the trial. Candidly, I think Obama kind of said the same thing today..... blacks are followed in stores, people are nervous when a black man approaches, etc..... If you had to deal with that everyday, wouldn't you be more sensitive to it? While America is way better off than in the past, people are naive if they think racism is dead. (and I will grant you the arguement of reverse racism). We ALL have our personal prejudices- no matter how small or large they may be. Changing subjects....I accept In the eyes of the court, Zimmerman was proven innocent based on the stand your ground laws in Florida. I PERSONALLY Have a hard time accepting the fact that if you follow someone WITH A GUN who is not doing anything, and you kill them, you are not guilty of anything. Seems like our system is a little fucked up. But again, I accept it and am moving on. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 19th, 2013, 10:08pm on 07/19/13 at 08:22:37, StegRock wrote:
Indeed, relativists, if they are to remain consistent with their relativism, canNOT apply their logic to themselves. Think it through! Relativism naturally tends toward solipsism. on 07/19/13 at 21:22:54, DirkDiggler wrote:
That is because of the leftist-style vitriol and cynicism of your initial post and, much more importantly, (if you have not picked up on it) because that is the logic you are employing. Quote:
This is the kind of overgeneralization that obfuscates and quashes (an appreciation of) nuance and deeper levels of analysis. Quote:
on 07/16/13 at 07:31:15, StegRock wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by IbdFunk on Jul 20th, 2013, 6:22pm Who cares... Warner, you better be worrying about not finishing 3rd since you didnt make that deal with me. I know you think you have a championship team this year, but im calling it now, 3rd place.. You better make some moves if you want to get over the hump, your time is running out. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 20th, 2013, 11:06pm on 07/20/13 at 18:22:34, IbdFunk wrote:
[smiley=slap.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 22nd, 2013, 9:08pm I am using short excerpts of DD's posts here, but my message is general, not just to him. on 07/14/13 at 22:52:57, DirkDiggler wrote:
on 07/19/13 at 21:22:54, DirkDiggler wrote:
I am becoming somewhat less sympathetic the more I hear our leaders, whether it is Barack Obama, Eric Holder or Michael Steele, speak about their own experiences. Have you never been eyed by security in stores, pulled over for no reason, gotten "looks", (or per the aforementioned trio) tailed by a cop, asked by a security or police officer why you are where you are, been looked at apprehensively by a female clutching her purse (black females included, by the way), etc.? I sure have! I tend only to shave when I have to and, as a young guy, I frequently wore sweats, though I know I have had these experiences notwithstanding those factors. In any case, a young Steg, the summer between freshman and sophomore year of college, was cruising in my seriously hoop-dee Oldsmobile Omega with my buddy DT (a GBRFLer, who could attest to this story) when we were pulled over by police on the Garden State Parkway in broad daylight for no good reason. We were totally hassled, a second/third police cruiser shows up, hands on the trunk, patted down, car thoroughly gone through. I was extremely nervous throughout, and that, I am sure, showed, but, nevertheless, very compliant. I showed just a little sarcasm/balkiness only once with respect to something they found in my car that they thought was something it was not. In any event, in the end, no citation, but also no explanation. Point being, that is just one fewer tale from youth than the two Holder cited. MIND YOU, I am not saying that young black men do not have it somewhat worse (saying "everyday", though, as DD does, to me is hyperbole that is more indicative of how sensitive whites have been trained to be on the issue than of the full reality of the matter). That said, when I am getting the "look" by a security guard in a store, though surely uncomfortable about it, I swallow my pride and chalk it up to the guard's doing his or her job and, because I am not up to anything, nothing ever comes of it. It makes me wonder, though... In a day and age when I am not inclined to see racism toward myself but have a heightened sensitivity about racism towards blacks (and others) (indeed, even looking out for it myself), using this specific example, how often is racism getting read into a situation when a security guard is just doing his or her job irrespective of any racial, no less racist, considerations? In those cases, where is the racism coming from? When the racism is not objectively extant in the heart or mind of the security officer, it is getting subjectively infused into the situation by the black person. When this happens, it is a psychological problem, not an actual one, and, in this day and age, I think this is probably the case much more often, not than not, but than we, and especially (liberal) blacks, are inclined to think. Indeed, given that it was not able to be found by multiple objective parties, from local Sanford authorities to the FBI to a jury, that Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, could it not be said that the outrage about the Zimmerman verdict is possibly a case in point of racism being read into a situation where it does not really exist? Assuming that all of these objective parties are not idiots or themselves racists, it does not seem to be unreasonable to suggest that that could very well be the case. With that said, yes, racial discrimination needs to be discouraged (and, mind you, I know that I am setting aside the complicating factor of actions on both sides that serve to confirm racist beliefs in both directions and racial profiling particularly in one, which serves to perpetuate this psychology), but the subjective psychological dimension is much more intractable because it requires self-reflection and self-critique for it to be overcome (and, again, this is not to mention the connection between trends in behavior and racial profiling, and how that contributes to the perpetuation of this psychology). Overcoming this psychology is not a matter of changing the system, whatever that means (I think it is leftist codeword/claptrap for revolution). Indeed, any "changes" to the system will be unhealthy and overly radical if the aforementioned psychology and subjectivism persist. The inclination to see racism at every turn must be resisted. Meanwhile, the political left is invested in preventing us from doing just that. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 23rd, 2013, 12:15am An uncharacteristically ;) brief addendum to my last post... The message sent by outrage about the Zimmerman verdict to America and, more importantly, the black community (by implication of the outrage itself) is that, if racial profiling (by whites of blacks) is eliminated, then life for black males will noticeably improve. (Oh, racial profiling and the "rash" of murders of blacks by whites, of course. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif]) (Otherwise, why such outrage about this exceptional case?) Such a message takes the elimination of racial profiling as a starting point, a sufficient condition. This has it bass-awkwards and only serves to obfuscate the real changes that need to take place in the black community and, incidentally, that would matter-of-factly serve to decrease racial profiling. But, hey, victims = votes for democrats! Keep up the misdirection like the promotion of abortion as the solution to the breakdown of the African-American family. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 30th, 2013, 3:57pm Miraculous... and very courageous... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en4LelP59mI! And, if you disagree, you are a racist homophobe! ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 2nd, 2013, 9:10am As a nation, we have not just turned the corner on this issue. We have gone around the bend! We live in a time and place where, if 20-30 years ago you were an armed robber, felony murderer, cop killer and domestic terrorist, but radical leftist, you have a cushy position as a professor at Columbia University waiting for you upon release from prison, but, if 20-30 years ago you in a private conversation with your spouse about being held up by a black guy at gunpoint said the "N-word", you are out of a job and a social pariah. On the other hand, if you are a black man and create a 20/30-year resume of divisiveness, advocating for liars and faux victims of race crimes and spewing the most vile hate-filled reverse-racist, anti-semitic shit, but, because it is in the "right" direction and fits the leftist narrative, plan to be GIVEN the bully pulpit of a prime-time TV show! America is a one-way street now! Go against it, and be prepared to be run over... on purpose! Question is, are we too far down it? Relativism looks like pluralism, but it ain't!!! Indeed, it is quite the contrary!!! Think it through... fast!!! [smiley=drown.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegrates on Aug 4th, 2013, 9:29pm Alright, I want to get, at least closer, to the core here and what the implications are... Time for dialectic! [smiley=wiseman.gif] Hence, also, the change to my western philosophy alter ego, Stegrates! ;D Here is the question I would like to pose to "all" readers (as if we have an expansive readership these days)... Mind you, it took A LOT of time to think through a concise and appropriate formulation for this initial question! Are we trying to abolish the "n-word", or are we trying to abolish all insensitive language that divides along group lines? Note, the "or" there is not mutually exclusive. That is to say that the answer can be somewhere "in between". Let's stay on point! Please, just answer the question(s) posed, moreover, like the construction of the question(s), in a thoughtful and succinct manner, and I will do my best to keep my questioning tight, relative to the responses! Let's make this a pithy back-and-forth, and let's get somewhere... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 10th, 2013, 6:59am Wow, nary a chirp in reply to my prior "academic" post... [smiley=crickets.gif] So, good-bye to "Stegrates" [smiley=wiseman.gif] for a bit. [smiley=wavinbye.gif] It is back to "StegRock"! [smiley=jammaster.gif] ANYway, with respect to the following,... ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y70tZDW2AqY... ... if the roles in terms of race were reversed, despite the circumstances being exactly the same, that is, as they are being, of course, quickly determined by the authorities in this case, that is, that this was NOT race-related, can you imagine the response? First off, there would absolutely not be any quick determinations about race not being involved. That said, even if there were... Heck, I can see old DD's coming to defense,... eh-hem,... I mean,... going on offense already! [smiley=borg.gif] ... [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 14th, 2013, 8:34pm Conservatives DOMINATE talk radio, that is to say, specifically the medium of radio, and by way way of experiences I have had lately, including on this thread, I came to realize a small point but one that speaks volumes to the heart of why that is the case. Leftist Air America could not last a year on its own, and left-leaning NPR only survives because it is funded by government, but I digress... All radio hosts have to keep an audience's attention is the content of what they are saying. There is nothing else to appeal to. No bells and whistles! Conservative talk radio offers up well-reasoned arguments and well-argued positions. Leftist liberals repeat mindless claptrap, vapid boilerplate and so-called "arguments" based on: "We think this way, and you cannot judge us," :P usually capped off with righteous indignation and ad hominem attacks because lefties, to their great surprise, cannot win the argument despite their wielding their "fist ball that wins it all" of RELATIVISM. Without the marches, chants, drum beats, slogans, placards, mob and such, and the cameras to catch it all, that gets boring even for leftists, no less anybody else, left-leaners included. Repeating intellectually dishonest, oftentimes feeble-minded demagoguery does not work on radio. Solid reasoning and well thought-out logic and common sense DO! To wit, left-leaning radio shows, few though there are, have on like-minded guests and do interviews with those of like mind way more often than show hosts on the right. Point being, one person can only repeat such drivel so many times. On the other hand, righties largely do monologue, and, when they do have a guest on, it is not unusual that it is someone from the other side with whom they engage in argumentation. Bottom line, this all could very well be taken as proof in the pudding or at least strong evidence of the right's having more intellectually honest well-reasoned positions than the left! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 16th, 2013, 4:02pm DD, anyone, I would like to ask... Do blacks ever see racism where it is not? For that matter, do people see racism where it is not? Feel free to qualify your answers... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 16th, 2013, 9:25pm on 08/16/13 at 16:02:28, StegRock wrote:
Of course they do. Your question of a whole race is kind broad so there is always going to be someone. I could flip the question and ask.....do people NOT see racism where racism exists? Are there racists? Yes. Are there people who use racism as an excuse for anything? Yes. I digress: I HOPE we could agree that the truth of racism lies somewhere in the middle, you could of asked if discrimination was a problem. Many white people would of said no. The street I used to live off of in Alexandria, VA (one of the last areas to end segregation) was named after the supreme court justice who wrote the opinion of the Dred Scott decision. So can we agree that what is viewed as correct today may not have been viewed correct 50 years ago. And what is correct today may not be correct in 50 years...... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 16th, 2013, 11:55pm on 08/16/13 at 21:25:13, DirkDiggler wrote:
Is your suggestion that most do not, though? I ask because that seems to be the intimation of your qualification. Quote:
In fact, not necessarily. It is actually very complicated. By and large, whites, towards themselves, yes; blacks, towards themselves, no. I think whites are very much so inclined, perhaps even encouraged, to see racism against blacks EVERYWHERE and not themselves anywhere and blacks very disinclined, perhaps even discouraged, not to see racism where it is not. In fact everything relevant to race in the media these days and in this discussion suggests so. Yet, your presentation is subtly tendentious. In a very subtle way, like with your aforementioned qualification in response to my question, you make your point by pointing to something (a "someone" out of a "whole race") as if it were a rarity when in fact, if it were a rarity, it would be a rarity which would be the very opposite of what the case arguably is even according to you but, MOREOVER, which would fly in the face of what the history with respect to African-Americans that your (broader) position is based upon suggests (you are all in knots here, man). In so doing, you continue to place the burden of black liberation on whites. But, you seemed to think Obama's speech after the Zimmerman verdict was heroic or noble (like the rest of the liberal schmucks). So, anyway, what else could I have expected from you? What would have been really heroic is if, after he said what he said, he used it as a "teachable moment" for his community and not just for whites. He could have spoken about behavior patterns that perpetuate negative attitudes towards blacks and about seeing racism where it is not, which was the case according to virtually ALL the people, authorities, jurors, etc., who were intimately involved in the adjudication of the Zimmerman case and did not find that racism was involved. He could have actually crossed racial boundaries and said something like, given the recent history of burglaries and home invasions in that community, George Zimmerman too could have been me! How awesome would it be to have a President who identified with BOTH participants in this case? But, hey, when you can get them swooning and awarding you Nobel Peace Prizes for claptrap, why go off script? But, I DIGRESS! Quote:
"We could agree..." The written version of uptalk. "We could agree..." Uhhhhh,... [smiley=uh.gif] okay... [smiley=stilldunno.gif] Heading for the wishy-washy middle belies the level of commitment you have for your position here and, in any case, misses the point and gets us nowhere. The question remains, what can we do to help the situation? You side with an Al Sharpton-type solution (whether you realize it or not). I side with a Bill O'Reilly-type solution. Own it! I do! Do not just head for the meaningless, off-point middle. Quote:
"We can agree..." I feel like I am being drug,... ?.?.? uh,... dragged,... ?.?.? uh,... drugged [smiley=kb.gif] into an MSNBC kumbayah moment here. [smiley=hippy.gif] "We can agree..." ... that, whether you realize it or not, you are a THOROUGHGOING relativist! That last sentence, especially, is proof in the pudding! So, slavery was "right" 200 years ago? [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 17th, 2013, 4:22am You want to educate yourselves, folks, and not be a low-information, illogical opiner... Then, do yourselves this favor... Watch CNN and, moreover, MSNBC as much as you can, and then try to watch today's, Friday, August 16th's "Hannity" on Fox News. It will probably rerun a few times over the weekend, or maybe you can find it on-line. Mind you, Hannity is not my favorite by a long shot (he is partisan through and through), but on this show he had on Mark Levin. They discussed Levin's latest book, The Liberty Amendments, in a townhall-type format. I find it hard to believe that "reason-able" people will not find themselves nodding their heads in agreement with quite a few points. But, setting that aside, one cannot help but see the obvious difference in the level of discourse between this and ANYTHING on MSNBC. The difference is seriously like that between doctoral coursework and middle school. Stop getting your opinions on Fox News from left-leaners or outright leftists! Find out for yourself, and in the process find out where you really stand! [smiley=yes.gif] "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 17th, 2013, 11:12am I am not sure I can have this discussion with you. It is like arguing with my wife. I make a statement and you take it to the extreme. I think the biggest irony of your argument in my opinion is that you are so anti-CNN and MSNBC , however, you are spewing the rhetoric of there is only a right or wrong answer in which the right leaning media (either left or right) seems to be touting and you are giving the thinking the actions of words of the few are the words and actions of the majority. If there was not 24 hour news coverage and 15 news channels, this issue probably would not even be discussed. They get ratings by spouting off BS....even calling them 'news' channels is a joke. It seems you want me to say MSNBC is full of shit. And I can not argue that point. But Fox is also full of shit. They are not reporting news, they are offering opinions. When it comes to racism, how can it not be relative? How can it not be a persons perspective? You make broad statements about an entire race not recognizing discrimination. How the fuck can you say that? Because the media is covering 10 people protesting? Because they give the opinion of a few loud people. Those that shout the loudest are not usually a representation of THE people (hell, see what the tea-party has done to the republican party?) Are the 10 loud people a 'on the whole' opinion? The media was waiting for riots after the verdict. Did not happen. Protests were minor- but the media made it seem it was everywhere. (which it was not!) The media is looking for a story. To emphasize my point about your touting the media, at one point you wrote a post on why right wing radio is dominating on the air and thus must superior. Anyway, There are whites who are really friggin scary in their opinions. You could cover some white supremecy meeting and get the same generalizations. If the media were to cover those, people would draw conclusions that whites hate everyone. Finally, my point of what is 'right' to opinion is relative to time. 200 years ago, was slavery right? No. Was it accepted and viewed by the majority as being wrong, not really. It was accepted. Women did not get the right to vote until 100 years ago. Blacks were oppressed as little as 50 years ago. The LGBT community are just starting to get equal rights. 20 years ago, polls show LGBT community should not have 'rights'. Now, that is reversed. Clearly it is relative in time as to OPINION. What is right and wrong did not change, but OPINION has. Finally, it seems you do not think racism (or discrimination) exists or people do not act on their biases . Fact is, statistics and many case studies prove it exists. Also, you make broad sweeping statements that I just do not think are accurate or representing of the vast majority. The media is fucked up on both sides and is just looking for a story. Everything is relative to the individual (whether right or wrong). A few people do not represent the majority even though they are the loudest. And everything is relative. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Travistotle on Aug 17th, 2013, 4:35pm on 08/17/13 at 11:12:35, DirkDiggler wrote:
Here's the more important question: how do we know that the common opinion 50, 100, 500 years ago about these matters was in fact wrong? I get the impression that you're drawing an analogy among slavery, women's suffrage, and gay rights, viz., that the nearly universal position 50, 100, 500 years ago on these 3 issues was wrong and now we have finally got it right. On what basis do you think that our ancestors were wrong on these issues and we, finally, got it right? I'm not denying that we finally have it right, nor am I affirming it (in point of fact, I think the analogy is wrongheaded); I'm just trying to determine the basis for the position. In some sense, this is a digression from the main point under discussion, but I think it will turn out that answering my question here will go a long way to shed clarity on the entire disagreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 17th, 2013, 5:04pm on 08/17/13 at 16:35:31, Travistotle wrote:
Were our ancestors correct? Do we not think our society is moving in the correct direction? Biases (often the basis for racism/prejudices) continue to evolve. It just takes some people longer than others. To say that we have solved the racism/prejudices issue is a bunch of crock. Is it better? Absolutely! Does it still exist? Absolutely. What I am trying to say - is that it is all relative. I am not saying we have it right or wrong today either. (we are clearly moving in the right direction in my opinion). However, it is a point that what we are dealing with is all a point in time. What someone viewed 20 years ago in regards to racism is different than today and will be different in 20 years from now. I just do not think it is correct to make sweeping statements about how an entire demographic feels by using the exception, or literally minority of a minority. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Travistotle on Aug 17th, 2013, 6:17pm on 08/17/13 at 17:04:26, DirkDiggler wrote:
I guess I'll re-phrase my question: are we right to move in the direction we're moving as a society, in these 3 areas you listed (and I re-iterated)? I'm not asking if things are better now than they used to be, nor how far we've addressed racism, etc. I'm asking whether what we are trying to do is right, whether our goals/views on these 3 issues in question are correct, and, if they are, what is the argument for that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 17th, 2013, 6:40pm on 08/17/13 at 18:17:25, Travistotle wrote:
Are our views correct? The question is who is OUR? Society? I am not sure I can answer that to everyones satisfaction. Generally speaking, society is moving in the correct direction IN MY OPINION. Are we where we need to be? No. The argument is that there are more civil liberties in America now then there was in the past. However, I would counter that inequities still exist - maybe not in law but in day to day life. I think that process will continue to evolve. However, are there still injustices or inequities? Absolutely. Are they as widespread as they were in the past? Probably not. But do they exist, yes. Are we to the point where civil liberties for the LGBT group are achieved yet? Do I personally think that will change in the next 10 years or so? yes. So are what society is doing RIGHT? Again, generally yes because civil liberties are expanding. Is it perfect? No. And I am not expecting a Utopia or Socialist world. However, I would hope everyone TRULY is created equal as our Constitution equates itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2013, 3:50am on 08/17/13 at 18:40:54, DirkDiggler wrote:
Equal in what way? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2013, 4:57am With all due respect, this is SO all-over-the-place... You have to have organized thoughts before you can have profound thoughts... I implore you to please not respond until taking pause, collecting your thoughts and reflecting! At any rate, you tend to write "broad sweeping statements" about my posts. ;) I would appreciate thoughtful section-by-section analysis like I do yours. Please understand, Steve, that my argument with you is not really on the details of this topic anymore. I am trying to point out the logical implications of your position and where they are causing contradictions in your position and that you are applying logic to my position that you are not applying to your own position (which is what relativism, because of its entailments, tends to cause people to do because the only way for relativists to win an argument, on THEIR OWN terms, is to force it -- this used to be called "moral realism", but I digress). This, indeed, was the wisdom of Socrates! [smiley=wiseman.gif] That said, in your latest posts, you are really embracing your relativist self. :'( I would just suggest your boning up on relativism to see if this is really where you want to go. A great place to start is with the Socratic dialogues, which are not long but are sufficiently challenging to get you thinking and exemplify a historically robust anti-relativist position. But, anyways... on 08/17/13 at 11:12:35, DirkDiggler wrote:
I am (and perhaps your wife too is) not taking your statements to the "extreme". I am simply teasing out their logical implications. Don't get your back up! The logical implication of what you said was and, even though you seem to have no problem contradicting yourself (the mark of relativist thinking), below still is that slavery was right 200 years ago. I understand that that is not what you WANT to say, but that is what you are saying. Mind you, there is a way to say what you want to say and be logically consistent, but you are not saying it. Thing is, to do so there are some things you have to give up. Logical consistency is not free. It has a price. That price is rigorous thought that awakens you to the implications of the positions you take and the according, possibly discomforting, modifications to those positions you should make. It means an abandonment of the loose and easy (ill-)logic of relativism that, moreover, says that you do not have to apply the logic you are using on others' positions back on your own because, after all, it is all relative, and you seek to win the argument with sophistry or brute force. In other perhaps catchier words, say what you mean! Do not just mean what you say! Interestingly, the former is what people on the right strive for while the latter is the m.o. of leftist activism. Just keep shouting at and bullying people until they acquiesce. Liberals are the new puritans! Quote:
What you say about the media is somewhat true, but still way overgeneralized. Fox News's reportage on the protests was actually very accurate. They were small, largely peaceful, though the rhetoric was very much so divisive and not inward-looking. It was the networks with vested interest in race baiting that exaggerated the magnitude and efficacy of the protests and justified the divisive rhetoric. That makes sense. But, it is not about the protests. It is about the irresponsible, "uncourageous" rhetoric from the top. Quote:
Think through to the hopelessness of that position! Moreover, it undermines your very rebuttal to my line of thinking! Yes, things are relative. That is the problem, though, to be overcome, not the solution. Indeed, it is a limitation! Relativists, however, take it as the solution, and so are you! Hope lies in trying to bridge our relative perspectives and overcome the limitation not give in or succumb to it. Indeed, giving in or succumbing to our relative perspectives, as relativism advises, does nothing but divide us (not just socio-politically, but ontologically, that is to say, in a much deeper way)! Relativism ultimately says that I cannot judge you and you cannot judge me. Where does that leave us? Well, for one, unable to judge Daniel Snyder's decision to keep the Redskins as his team name. But, that would be if the relativist were being intellectually honest. That is not the case, however. So, where we are left is at the same place the ancient Greeks were, "Might makes right," the mantra of the relativist moral realist, and "mob rule", modern instantiations of which are bully pulpits, media bias and the tactics of Al Sharpton. Quote:
But, the media does! Indeed, this is exactly what Rachel Maddow did just recently, and, no, I did not get this from a third party. I flicked on MSNBC one of the evenings the video of the three 15/16-year-old black drug dealers were beating the living daylights out of that 13-year-old white kid only to see [smiley=ohshit.gif] Maddow open her show with a TEN-minute montage on the neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements in America, the segue to which was the recent news in Wisconsin about a former white supremacist apologizing for the shootings that took place some years ago to and coming together in solidarity against such hate with the Sikh community. The story on which the montage was based was indeed great. All of about 30 seconds was devoted to it, though. That said, are there not blacks who are really scary in their opinions? (Rhetorical question.) Point being, you almost always state your case in a middle-ground or anti-white way (and are noticeably silent when it does not fit the narrative like with the aforementioned school bus video), which just goes to show how successful the movement has been in inculcating white guilt. Quote:
It is not so much opinion as it is context, and the distinction is important because it sets you on the path of holding a more logically consistent position, but one that will require you to give a little bit. Regarding LGTBQ rights, if you think that treating another person as an object is wrong or at least not right, and want to be logically consistent on the matter, then you have to rethink your position on sexual morality in such a way that would prompt you to modify your position on LGTBQ behavior and the LGTBQ rights issue as it is currently playing out. Mind you, at the end of the day, we probably hold the same position. The difference -- and it is huge -- lies in the reasoning and by extension the moral considerations. You, I am surmising, see the direction of LGTBQ rights as indicative of great social and moral progress. I do not. I think that the only reason it is a social problem is because government got into the marriage business (mainly by way of tax law). So, for me there is another solution: get the government out of the marriage business. That, however, requires a massive fundamental change to our system of taxation, which ain't going to happen anytime soon or at least soon enough. So, you and I hold the same positon, nominally, but morally we are worlds apart. Thing is, one of the positions is logically consistent and the other is not, at least insofar as the person who thinks that this is great social and moral progress thinks that treating another person as an object is not right. Why do you think pro-choicers are so vested in people's believing that life does not begin at conception, that is to say, that the beginning of life is not the beginning of life? It is because that (commonsense) belief logically undermines the pro-choice position. A different way to the non-anti-abortion position is possible, but it is provisional and not as intellectually easy to get to. Please understand that I am NOT wanting to debate abortion with you. (I KNOW where you stand. I can already hear the usual unsophisticated pro-choice claptrap. We are having a difficult enough time working through the usual claptrap of one issue. We do not need to introduce a second.) I am just giving it as an example of the (dubious) logical entailments of a position, what (questionable premises) you are forced to accept to adopt the position. Quote:
Talk about taking your interlocutor's position to the extreme. I am just countering what I take to be a very dishonest and divisive position on race in America, moreover, one that I take to be purposefully so for political purposes. There is nothing droller than a relativist's ad hoc appeal to facts, statistics and case studies as if they all of a sudden have objective appeal. That said, I am not saying that racism does not exist. We disagree with respect to degree. That has been obvious all along, so I do not know why you re-explicate it here other than that you did not do a good job collecting your thoughts. What you tendentiously refer to here as my "broad sweeping statements" is, according to YOUR relativist logic, my PERSPECTIVE! And, based on YOUR own logic, who are you to judge it? This is what relativist "ill-logic" devolves into. Positions/Perspectives with which you agree are above judgment, but positions/perspectives with which you disagree are to be judged, moreover, wrong! Mob rule! That said, in my last post the only supposedly "sweeping" statements I made were those I made in response to your "reverse question". As such, I think that my claims appeared sweeping only relative to my "unbelievably" disagreeing with, at least the absoluteness of, the answer you had in mind and my, in so doing, exposing that the answer to your question is not as absolutely agreeable as you thought it was and as my question is. In other words, I do not think my statements are as sweeping objectively speaking as they seem to be to you. With that said, let me address your criticism more directly. My point is not about or, at least, does not depend on the numbers or percentages or what the majority is (although I do think the numbers are much higher than you seem to think) as if we can actually know any of that anyway. My point is that this is a concern at all is a serious issue for your position. But, anyway, since you have given your declarations based on what you feel, let me speak to the numbers in a general way and in situ which is the only way we can really get a feel for them. Speaking in terms of raw numbers, percentages, majorities or minorities is just utter speculation. Generally, I think there are more whites sensitive to racism against blacks than there are whites who are not, though I am willing to admit that the numbers could very well be close or slightly in reverse, but I think it is downright disingenuous to claim that there are not a heck of a lot of whites who are sensitive to racism against blacks. I know it is true for me, and it is also consistent with the reaction to the Zimmerman case from people like you, and I think we are pretty typical guys (moreover, respectively from the right and the left). Moreover, it is consistent with our country's current ever-softening sensibilities. Do you not agree? And, if not, how so? Now, on the other hand, I think there are way more blacks who see racism against themselves where it is not than there are blacks who do not see racism against themselves where it is. To think otherwise is counterintuitive to history and psychology. Do you not agree? And, if not, how so? And, more generally speaking, I think the vast majority of blacks are sensitive to racism against themselves (it is surely not a "minority of a minority" as you suggest in your last message), and any suggestion to the contrary is either tendentious bordering on evil or totally deluded. Mind you, though, I think that blacks' sensitivity to racism totally makes sense based on the history, and was that not precisely your critical point earlier in this discussion? This is where you are contradicting yourself by implication. The implication of your claim here contradicts the direct claim you were making earlier about the historically legitimate sensitivity to racism that blacks have, which was fairly crucial to your position. Do you not see that? Case in point, you wrote this: on 07/14/13 at 22:52:57, DirkDiggler wrote:
And, then, you wrote this: on 08/17/13 at 17:04:26, DirkDiggler wrote:
?.?.? To deny that there are significantly more blacks who see racism against themselves where it is not than there are blacks who do not see racism against themselves where it is or simply that a great majority of blacks are hypersensitive to racism generally serves to undermine the historical impact upon which your position depends and which, in any event, is true. That is more so how I was trying to make this point in my prior message... on 08/16/13 at 23:55:27, StegRock wrote:
Moreover, there is a very real-world qualitative difference in our questions. For blacks to be in denial about their seeing racism against themselves where it is not and for whites to affirm that denial acts as a very intractable impediment to our ability to continue to progress on the issue, So, there is a lot at stake with the question I pose. To dismiss or minimize it as you have comes with grave consequences. As for the reverse question you pose, I think there is much less at stake, assuming we have made great progress. But, I did not dismiss your question. Indeed, I took it very seriously. on 08/17/13 at 11:12:35, DirkDiggler wrote:
Anyway, walk off like Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar did on Bill O'Reilly. Relativism, given its logical inconsistency and moral hopelessness, cannot help but make for fundamentally angry people who get their backs up easily when discussing issues with those with whom they do not agree. Think it through! I am NOT just trash-talking. I am trying to point out the logical implications of the relativist thinking you are embracing. Was Barack Hussein Obama's being black overall a boon or a bane to his run for office? I believe it was obviously the former! In fact, it is not unreasonable to assert that he would probably not be President otherwise. Nevertheless, there is still racism. I do not need statistics and case studies (done by who knows who and with what agenda) to tell me that. But, that appeals are being made to statistics and case studies to prove the point strongly suggests that the experience of it has dramatically decreased. We have made great progress despite what the statistics and case studies say, which brings me back to a former question I posed that you noticeably did not answer... on 08/04/13 at 21:29:11, Stegrates wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 19th, 2013, 3:48pm on 08/18/13 at 04:57:57, StegRock wrote:
Case in point, with regard to this case about a white/hispanic 13-month-old getting shot and killed by two teenage black boys during a botched robbery, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I5PvR_sNRE, honestly, I hate to say it, but I smell something fishy, and, whether I am right or wrong, you get my point in relation to the discussion. I mean, the boys did it, and that is horrific in and of itself, but that they did it sheerly in cold blood, which does make a difference, is not at all definitive as it seems at this point. ... Anyway, here are some real heroes with respect to that school bus beat-down... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ZyLAGumDo; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mibi3lBsjBg! I strive to sound like them, NOT Al Sharpton! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 22nd, 2013, 3:43am I really hope Mark Hahn reads this!!! The issue about the University of Denver's mascot, Boone, that we were discussing during the GBRFL Draft was discussed on Fox News's "Red Eye" tonight! It was also covered on FoxNews.com. Here is a link to the piece: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/20/daniel-boone-like-mascot-for-denver-college-deemed-too-offense-by-administration/. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 24th, 2013, 11:53pm There is an important distinction in the background of this discussion that must always be borne in mind. That is the distinction between "involving race" and "involving racism". It is easy to loosely hover between the two. My question at the moment is the following. Does this cold-blooded murder in Oklahoma of this Australian kid involve racism? Mind you, I ask understanding that the driver was a white kid. But, the two other participants were black, and, most notably, the gunman was a black kid who had made explicitly (no interpretation necessary) hateful comments about whites on his Facebook page. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 11th, 2013, 6:34pm Guess Obamacare was not "shovel-ready"... (insert snickers befitting a President here) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 21st, 2013, 6:29am I have got to chime in on this situation with Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. There is no equivalence (he did not say that there is), but there is a connection between homosexuality, bestiality, and promiscuity, namely sexual objectification insofar as the intercourse is done merely for the orgasm or physical pleasure. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Dec 21st, 2013, 11:12am Whats interesting here is the weight of importance between religion and civil rights. Robertson thumped the bible and said these factions are going to hell unless they repent. This cause upheaval on many fronts. He also said (Paraphrase) that African Americans were better off under Jim Crow laws. What we got there were [smiley=crickets.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 21st, 2013, 2:12pm on 12/21/13 at 11:12:14, sk wrote:
Well, here are his exact words on that... "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'--not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." It is anecdotal, and, moreover, NOT condemnatory. It is at least dubious whether your paraphrasing is accurate or tendentious and whether there really is any "there" there. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Dec 21st, 2013, 3:13pm on 12/21/13 at 14:12:27, StegRock wrote:
Come on! That would have been approximately 1959. Black people were always happy around white people in the south. I'm sure they were quite pleased using the out house rather than use the restroom with running water. Oh yeah running water. If African Americans voiced their displeasure they were shot with the fire hose. It speaks to his stupidity. Just what we need on TV. Just what we need. A 65 year old version of Honey Boo Boo. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 21st, 2013, 5:13pm (And, so, the pendulum swings - from the pollyannaish recollection of everyday farm life, which we virtually never hear about because it does not fit the popular narrative, to the selective memory of the politically-correct left, mainly in the mainstream media and academia, and their constant reminders of the horrors of the day - bashing the well-reasoned in the head yet again...) on 12/21/13 at 15:13:11, sk wrote:
Okay, the guy is a stupid total liar! I do not know how I missed that. [smiley=dunce.gif] (Oh, yea, my debt to Socrates. But, anyway...) You win... [smiley=clap.gif] for the wisdom of your words is undeniable! [smiley=bow.gif] You speak with the self-assuredness of a sage, indeed. You have got the world all figured out. ... Now, go back and live in it, and please do not make me have to... for I am evidently ill-prepared to comprehend your understanding, appreciate your insights and receive your wisdom. (All the while, the truth almost assuredly lies somewhere in between, but I digress...) :-/ on 05/20/08 at 18:02:26, StegRock wrote:
I was right back then, but more generous. I am still right now, but less so. Let's just be glad we figured this out fast this time and avoided wasting years of our lives trying to. :) I wish you and yours the merriest of Christmases. I wish you no ill will. I just request that you bestow no ill will upon me. [smiley=santa.gif] [smiley=wavinbye.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by sk on Dec 21st, 2013, 6:36pm Every now and again I appreciate coming here for a reminder of how much I should enjoy my true friends. So thanks for the "slap in the face" reminder. Oh and keep my donation. I made a list of thing I wanted to donate to at the end of 2013 and Oddly your site was one of them. Dont return it. No need to acknowledge it. Just take it. Im trying hard not to feel bad about my donations this year. Good bye Steg. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 21st, 2013, 7:10pm on 12/21/13 at 18:36:45, sk wrote:
Reasoning seems ex post facto! But, hey, I am only returning the favor, man... Quote:
Have not checked the donations e-mailbox in a couple months (since the last GBRFLer gave). Thank you for the kind gesture, nevertheless! Duly acknowledged! 'Tis been an interesting decade-or-so-long ride... All the best, Todd. [smiley=wavinbye.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 21st, 2013, 8:21pm Just to be clear about what transpired here for the record... My interlocutor began by going off-point by entering here without at all addressing the substance of my very recent, immediately prior post. That said, whatever, moving right along, I presented, in specific response to his post, what Robertson actually said, which on its face puts into question the accuracy of (and perhaps motive behind) my interlocutor's paraphrasing. My interlocutor responds, not by addressing the quote and my (legitimate) concern with any specificity, but rather with a lecture about the "facts" of life for blacks in 1950's America, the direct implication of which is that I am clueless about or, at least, have not factored in that part of our history and needed that reminder. My interlocutor is, of course, oblivious to the condescension inherent in such a reply and that it is off-putting. He is also unaware that it is off-point, that is, that such a reply is fated to be off-point, and, as such, we are just going to end up going in circles because we just keep doing this same dance over and over. My interlocutor even adds in an ad hominem attack on Robertson along the lines of his lack of intelligence as if that is not contestable, either, which makes his response even further off-point. Making things worse is a great irony: my interlocutor is probably thinking that I, in my pushing for specificity, am being condescending to him. So, I, seeing where this is headed, decide to cut it off, and, yes, in a way in which I employ sarcasm in response to his condescension. With that said, back to where this was left off... on 12/21/13 at 06:29:22, StegRock wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 29th, 2013, 6:25am Now, alas, speaking to sk's original post, this is exactly what the gay community wants. That is, they want to gain legitimacy by having us draw an equivalence between their movement and the legitimate black civil rights movement while obfuscating the profound differences. Point being, there is a deeper, implicit modus operandi in play. Mind you, if that is the position you want to take, fine. I somewhat disagree (although probably not on what the ultimate determination regarding gay marriage should be), but fine. Just do not be manipulated into it. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Travistotle on Dec 30th, 2013, 5:53pm on 12/29/13 at 06:25:34, StegRock wrote:
To wade into political water . . . The position taken by the "gay marriage" movement, when examined, falls to pieces. It is true that the movement thinks of itself in comparison to the civil rights movement. But this comparison is so inappropriate that saying there is a deep confusion in the comparison is to give the comparison too much credence and legitimacy. As far as I can tell, the civil rights movement was about recognizing the equality of human dignity that belongs to blacks as much as to whites, and, consequently, recognizing that, in a democracy, this personal equality entailed political equality. The "gay marriage" movement, however, demands recognition NOT (merely) of human dignity as such but rather recognition of the legitimacy of "gay marriage" as EQUAL TO (heterosexual) marriage: equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals = equality of gay marriage and marriage. The problem/deception/subterfuge is obvious: no one disputes the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as human dignity (humanity) is concerned -- to portray opponents of "gay marriage" as opponents of equality is disingenuous. The issue is marriage, not the equality of humans. I am equal in dignity to a 3 year-old child; but the child cannot, on that basis alone, legitimately argue that he should have the right to vote, or the right to drive a car, etc. Protestants are equal in dignity to car lovers. But that doesn't mean that the car lovers can, on the basis of equality alone, legitimately argue that they should have the right just like the Protestants to organize themselves as a church (for the sake of financial benefits, say). Facts are facts. Car lovers do not constitute a church. 3-year olds are unable to drive cars safely or vote reasonably. Marriage is a union of man and woman for the sake of children. Car-lovers, 3 year olds, Protestants, homosexuals, and heterosexuals are equal in human dignity; but they cannot demand the same things. (Really, the problem is ultimately a complete misunderstanding of "rights," but that's a topic for a whole 'nother post.) Aside from the subterfuge, the immediate logical implications of the position are such as to constitute a reductio ad absurdum against the entire movement/position. The claim is that marriage of two men or of two women must be looked upon as equal to marriage (of one man and one woman). The basis of this claim, we are told, is that any person can choose his/her spouse -- homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. But note also that those who are sexually attracted to their mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, uncle, etc., as well as all polygamists and polyandrists, are likewise equal to homosexuals and heterosexuals -- they all have equal "rights" as free human beings. Therefore, among the immediate implications are the following: I can choose to marry my uncle, my niece, my mother, my grandfather, etc.; and I can choose to marry 6 women or 8 men. What's good for the goose (equality for homosexuals) is good for the gander (equality for all sexual inclinations). The only standard for marriage here is my own sexual preferences. In fact, it seems legitimate on this basis to argue that I can choose to marry my dog, my cat, etc.: if the cat or dog are willing, and I have a sexual inclination towards them, then voila. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Philly on Feb 24th, 2014, 2:09pm on 12/30/13 at 17:53:39, Travistotle wrote:
That's the definition and purpose of marriage, period? I'd thank you for clearing that up for me, but I'm still confused on a few things. What about those who choose not to have children? If that decision is made between a man and woman prior to wedding should the marriage then be prohibited? Or worse, if a married man-woman couple is unable to have children for medical reasons, should their marriage be ended since the marriage is no longer just for the "sake of children"? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Travistotle on Feb 28th, 2014, 4:47pm on 02/24/14 at 14:09:13, Philly wrote:
I would say the following in response. Those who, from the time they decided to get married, have chosen not to have children, will not be entering into marriage, properly so-called. It would be a partnership, and perhaps a commitment (depending on whether vows were taken), but not a marriage. This is to say nothing about prohibiting the marriage -- I'm not making any claims about what the government should do. However, I think it is true that IF the couple who intend not to have children are Catholic and they wish to be married in the Catholic Church, they would be denied this, since the marriage will not be an actual marriage. The second question is more tricky. The inability to have children does not mean, ipso facto, the end of the marriage: I didn't define marriage as "having children" but rather as "being for the sake of children," and sometimes nature/sickness/medical situations interfere. Such a situation is something that some couples suffer (some of my family members have suffered from this), and it is highly unfortunate and, sometimes, a source of great sorrow. Also, it's much different than the first case. In this (second) case the couple enters the marriage intending to have children and find themselves unable to do so. However, in the first case the couple rejects the purpose of the marriage by directly intending to frustrate its natural end. The inability to fulfill the end (second case) is not the same as a direct intention opposed to that end (first case): in the one case you will in accordance with the nature of marriage but do not get the usual fruit of marriage -- children -- but in the second case you reject it, and so are not entering into marriage in the first place. Also, I should add that there are other ends/goals of marriage -- the good of the spouses, for example. The point in my previous post was not that marriage existed ONLY for the sake of children but that marriage was AT LEAST for the sake (end) of children. In other words, there may be and in fact are other ends, but at the very least there must be the end of children (among other ends). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 8th, 2014, 1:42am on 02/28/14 at 16:47:38, Travistotle wrote:
T, what about a couple entering into a union with the intent of adopting? Do you think it can be said that they are entering into a marriage? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Apr 19th, 2014, 5:46am I hate to change topics on us here, but I got to document this one... So, I flicked on MSNBC tonight to see how long it would take for them to get ridiculous and asinine. It was some moron sitting in for Chris Matthews (king idiot) on Soft Pitch, oh,... eh-hem,... I mean, "Hardball". This ditz cites a pole, that she makes sure to mention is the best (some Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, which a quick Google search yielded as leftist leaning), that states that 59% of people want to keep OR improve Obamacare (What the hell does that mean? That is a BIG "OR", a dysfunctional disjunctive indeed. The range in possible meaning is HUGE!), 11% want a total repeal of Obamacare (a very narrow range of meaning, of course), and 18% want the GOP alternative (which they tell us does not exist, right, but I guess "conveniently" does for this nincompoop pole, and, in any case, what would be the difference between total repeal and GOP alternative???). Of course, a hidden 12%, that is, TWELVE PERCENT, are unaccounted for. I guess they chose something like "I don't know," which might very well be me given these vague, tendentiously-worded choices. Oh, and by the way, this demonstration took place in less than about three minutes from my tuning in to the channel. To those who get their "news" from MSNBC, [smiley=hippy.gif] you have got to know they really do think YOU [smiley=dunce.gif] are stupid!!! [smiley=Uwent2far.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 21st, 2014, 8:25pm Wanted to share this with yous... The weekend before last I (and a couple -- or should I say the couple -- likeminded colleagues and a couple bright students) went and saw Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller when the Bolder & Fresher tour came through Honolulu. It was a blast! Miller is seriously genius and funny as hell! O'Reilly was good! One bummer, they did not discuss the IRS scandal basically at all... :-/ Other than that, though, LOTS of laughs based in good, clean humor and insights! I would highly recommend the show if it comes through a town near yours... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 10th, 2014, 6:27pm The new face of "poverty" in America... http://a4.files.saymedia-content.com/image/upload/c_fill,g_face,h_300,q_80,w_300/MTE4MDAzNDEwMDU4NTc3NDIy.jpg ... or so she claims. ::) If you "really" were "dead broke" and $12,000,000 in debt back in the early 2000's, you should not be anywhere near the White House. (Either that, or the debt is not "real", and you need to shut up with rhetoric like this because you cannot have it both ways. Either you were "functionally" rich because you were part of the elite privileged class which allowed you to live beyond your means OR you were poor and could not live within your means and should not be holding public office, no less the Presidency. Of course, you can get away with this kind of nonsense with leftist ideologues and 10-watt low-information voters, which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive categories. In fact, the most intractable people of our times lie at the intersection of the two because, as is the usual story, they think they know something because they have a college degree... when in reality all they have received is a leftist baptism. Worse yet, that precise pathology dominates the media and is why the press tries their best to avoid pressing you or any democrat on ANYthing.) :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 12th, 2014, 9:03pm So, this recently published Brookings/PRRI poll found, among TV news sources, Fox News to be the "most trusted" (by a good amount over its cable news competitors) and MSNBC to be the "least trusted" (PERIOD). [smiley=clap.gif] However, there is one statistic in the survey that is not being played up at all in any of the spin-off articles that is VERY telling. The "news source" that came in tied for 2nd/3rd place among people who self-identify as "liberal" was... [smiley=scared.gif] The Daily Show with Jon Stewart! :-X Are you friggin' kidding me? Is there ANY question as to who the low-information crowd is? [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Jon Stewart himself, a liberal, has said that his show is NOT a news show and that anyone who gets their news from it is an idiot! Well, I guess that means that, based on your own logic, Jon, you are surrounded by idiots! Here is a link to an article on the study: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-the-least-trusted-tv-news-source-among-all-americans/. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 28th, 2014, 12:53am Latest LEFT-leaning, mind you, PEW Poll declares: "Only 40% of 'solid liberals' say they often feel proud to be American". Here is a link: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/26/poll-only-40-of-solid-liberals-say-they-often-feel-proud-to-be-american/. This prompts my recollection of the following idiot-level video titled "How Conservatives Argue", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WCxz0fzHm8, on which about two years ago I commented as follows: "[Notice] the pins on their lapels. The liberal creator of this video has the conservative 'dolt' wearing an American flag while the 'enlightened' liberal is wearing the symbol of the Democrat Party, the donkey. Liberals really do have disdain for America and so for them party comes first. It makes sense, and it is scary!" Now, if you want to laugh your ass off... and cry your eyes out at one and the same time, enjoy these; at least they will make up for that display of irrationality, misinformation and artistic butchery above... "Meet the Liberal Elite!" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZrqdZFFb5c I also want to include the following two that are dear to my heart... "Liberal Universities explained" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffEaMXQAbc "How Liberal Journalists Think" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF3hbPtCttc HOWEVER, relative to this post this one may be the most on-point... "Are Liberals Patriotic?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgHGmB4kqOg This guy actually has done a ton of these. They are all quite clever, somewhat insightful, funny as hell and worth checking out! Bottom line, there really IS something to be said for when conservatives say that liberals/leftists are anti-American or un-American. [smiley=yes.gif] It is what it is... :-/ ... [smiley=shrug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 3rd, 2014, 7:15pm For you mainstream media-, perhaps CNN-, and definitely MSNBC-bots, [smiley=borg.gif] please, as of now, consider yourselves apprised of the FACT that mass deportation, no less mass self-deportation, is NOT the ONLY position that Republicans and conservatives hold with respect to the immigration issue. In fact, it is not even the prevailing opinion. It is NOT the position of Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer and even Sean Hannity. I do not think it is even the position of Mark Levin, though I think it is of Laura Ingraham. Mind you, if such a position on ILLEGAL entrants into a country received no voices, was totally drowned out by the mob, I would suggest that that is not a good sign regarding the intellectual and legal health of our nation. Deportation is impracticable, not unreasonable or irrational. And, make no mistakes, amnesty is POLITICALLY driven! Anyway, back to the main point, the one common thread among conservatives is: SECURE THE BORDER FIRST! Fulfill the promise you made to Reagan some THIRTY years ago, Dems! Fences work! If the Chinese could get it done some TWO-THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED YEARS ago,... come on now... [smiley=annoyed.gif] Once the the southern border is reasonably sealed, not that I agree with this, but there are Republicans out there who are basically for amnesty. At any rate, in the face of so many having it shoved in their heads that "Fox lies," and mindlessly parroting it, MSNBC's or whoever's trumpeting that mass deportation is the only position of Republicans/conservatives REALLY is a BOLD BALD-FACED LIE!!! We live in topsy-turvy times when those being lied to, having no clue really, claim with absolute resoluteness that those on the other side are the liars. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Jul 6th, 2014, 12:07pm I am amused that Congress aka Boehner is suing the president. I actually think they will probably win as the president has tried to be creative. (as have presidents from BOTH parties in the past.) With that said, the irony is the House of Representatives has done everything they possibly can over the past 4 years to not pass any laws. They are so focused on anti-obamacare they forgot to pass anything else. Even two REPUBLICAN senators today were railing on the House in interviews this morning - for not being able to get anything done. Their tact seems to be just go against the president. Anything he does is wrong. Well, then fucking do something productive. It is funny that everyone seems to think Cantor lost because he was not conservative enough. I would offer, based on people who I know who voted in that election, that they were just sick of Cantor stalling every single bill. (remember, in Virginia, it is OPEN primaries- and nyone can vote in the primaries) It wasn't pro-teaparty, it was anti-getting stuff done. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 6th, 2014, 4:04pm on 07/06/14 at 12:07:31, DirkDiggler wrote:
That makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense! That would only make sense if Cantor's opponent, David Brat, was considered to be less conservative. He is NOT! And, he IS a Tea Partier! Furthermore, that the primaries are open does not really help your argument. In fact, it may speak against your argument insofar as it may be indicative of a resurgence of blue-dog democrats, which incidentally I would welcome. At any rate, the topsy-turvy times in which we live yet again find confirmation when an obvious Obama supporter/apologist functionally equates the Tea Party and conservatism with getting stuff done. [smiley=stars.gif] Seriously, can you folks not see the subtle ill-logic that you have been hornswoggled into adopting in an effort to maintain inconsistent positions? (Even with simple stuff, Gitmo - bad; drone strikes - good. TOTALLY inconsistent! The economy is getting better??? You even hear that idiocy, which contradicts experience, from some business ikes and Wall Street tankers on FOX, mind you. On the other hand, to be clear, no, abortion - bad, death penalty - good are NOT inconsistent positions like the left wants you to, again illogically, believe and superficially spout out like a drone. [smiley=bee.gif]) Do you not see the intellectual pretzel you have been made into? The intellectual contortions of left-sided reasoning are truly mesmerizing! Do you ever take pause??? :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Travistotle on Aug 4th, 2014, 12:59pm on 04/08/14 at 01:42:35, StegRock wrote:
Strictly speaking, it would depend on other things, I think. If the couple intended not to have children of their own but rather to adopt, it would be questionable at least. But this sort of situation is probably very rare if non-existent unless there are medical issues prompting this decision - if the wife is barren, e.g., and in these latter kinds of cases, I think entering the marriage with the intent to adopt has a much different character than positively intending, for some reason, not to have children of one's own and yet to adopt. Again, the question is whether one acts for and intends having children, regardless of whether one is actually able to have them: the positive intention altogether to obstruct the natural result and purpose of sexuality constitutes a rejection of marriage as such, whereas a medical condition naturally impeding the having of children does not. This is indicated by the fact that marriage is not a declaration of love or acknowledgement that a couple has children but rather a set of vows, a commitment to certain goods/ends. I note that such a position flies in the face of postmodern thought on gender, sexuality, etc., precisely because the latter rejects the commonsense, universal givens of bodily existence as mental projections/constructs or as meaningless arrangements of mere matter incidental to one's being/identity: i.e., it embraces the idealist horn of the cartesian dilemma. I reject this position entirely and without qualms or doubts, since among other things it is contradicted by the daily experience of life that by our actions, at least, we all acknowledge as real. Thoughts? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Nov 11th, 2014, 7:10pm Just wanted to share these "goodies" [smiley=yikes.gif] with the site... Co-architect of Obamacare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI. Really??? What an "I know what is better for you than you know what is better for you" attitude! Is such smug condescension toward and even disdain for the American electorate from "leadership" now acceptable? And, then, doesn't this article make points worth reflecting on? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391277/whats-bad-america-good-democrats-dennis-prager. Yea, it is general, but it seems like a fairly accurate depiction of a pesky, troublesome state of affairs. I mean, insofar as he has a point, is it not to our peril to ignore it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Dec 22nd, 2014, 5:45pm NYC's Bill DeBlasio during a press conference today about the two slain police officers accused the media -- and one media member in particular -- of making the majority of the protesters out to be bad and violent based on the actions of a few. Intellectually dishonest hypocrite! Even worse, actually... DeBlasio and, for that matter, Obama, Holder, et al., what about YOUR making the majority of police out to be bad and racist based on a few isolated incidences? This is what your sweeping declarations about the need to change "the system" in effect do because the implication is that the problems are system-wide! Hey, fellas, apply that same logic that DeBlasio applied today to your own words regarding the problems with rampant racism among the police, for that matter, the society, America, and the need for changes to "the system", which -- let's be honest for once -- is all based on hyperbole for the sake of a leftist political agenda! :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 20th, 2015, 3:21pm What is up with Google and their springtime logo??? >:( They are so "hemispherist". It is heading into autumn in many parts of the world! What they have done is also demonstrative of "four season-bias". You know, Google, there are places in the world that do not really get four seasons! How dare you be so bold about expressing your despicable "hemispherism" with your "four season-bias"??? Take down your graphic, Google, and get on the side of "climatological justice"!!! [smiley=protest.gif] [smiley=demonstration.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 27th, 2015, 6:42pm So, on FNC's "The Five" today liberal-leaning democrat commentator Juan Williams heralds Harry Reid, master partisan divider who is, alas, retiring from the Senate. Then, in the very next segment they segued to, Williams complains about the lack of civility with which his young black conservative son is treated!!! Are you friggin' kiddin' me? You really do not see the inconsistency in those two claims. For goodness sake, Reid is the founding father of incivility toward and hatred for conservatives in the modern day. Good riddance, Harry... Now, we possibly have to look forward to another hypocrite (see vote against Condoleeza Rice) Dick Durbin. :P The line of democrat low-lifes is seemingly never-ending. :'( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Mar 31st, 2015, 1:05am What is up with all these people against this Indiana RFRA law and not wanting Muslims to practice their religion the way they see fit??? I cannot believe we have so many anti-Muslim bigots in America! [smiley=nono.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Apr 3rd, 2015, 12:31pm on 03/31/15 at 01:05:00, StegRock wrote:
You can sleep again cause the law is still on the books. They are safe. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on May 29th, 2015, 10:48pm I am learning that with respect to problems needing solutions, when liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, throwing their hands up in the air, say, "I just do not know what can be done. It is complex," that is not really what they mean. For example (all things I have heard)...
What the "I do not knows" and "It is complexes" mean is that there are no answers in the progressive playbook,... which, mind you, there really are not! There are answers, though, straightforward ones at that. They just ain't listening! To the above, respectively...
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that all the details have been hammered out and that there is no debate to be had. I am just saying that these options are unfathomable to progressives. When you tell them about these alternatives and explain a little bit about them, it is like you are delivering breaking news! Meanwhile, I am reasonably well-informed about liberal ideas. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 17th, 2015, 9:28pm I just sent in the following message to Bill O'Reilly. It almost definitely will not see the light of day on The Factor, but I will post it here where it can at least see the light of a random fantasy footballer's dim flashlight while rummaging through "the Gridiron". The message is in relation to his tacit dismissal of the importance of the issue of the case of disgraced Spokane NAACP President Rachel Dolezal, who has now resigned. Have to keep it pithy for the show, so the additional content in parentheses was not included in the e-mail to them: Dolezal matters because she stands at the intersection of so many (deep-seated, interconnected and troubling) issues (that America faces): rampant (epistemological relativism and) leftist indoctrination in academia (especially regarding race and gender), (which leads to a) politics of victimization and division, white guilt, (and) moral relativism(, and then there are also the issues of) mental illness and even the breakdown of the family. Here is how it went in to The Factor. It is much smoother even if it loses much of the more advanced, nuanced meaning: Dolezal matters because she stands at the intersection of so many issues: rampant leftist indoctrination in academia, politics of victimization and division, white guilt, moral relativism, mental illness and even the breakdown of the family. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 19th, 2015, 7:48pm In relation to this hate-filled tragedy that unfolded in South Carolina on Wednesday, I heard a young gal, who was being interviewed, say that we are tired of the hate and that we have to end the hate against, and then she went on with the usual laundry list of perceived disenfranchised minority categories. Much like my post right above, this gal stands unwittingly at the crossroads of what faces America. What is this hate of which she speaks? Is being against gay marriage hate? Is hating the person who is against gay marriage hate? There are lots of people who are against gay marriage but do not hate a gay person for being gay. Indeed, there are some gay people who are against gay marriage. Then, there are the things that have happened like to Mozilla co-founder and Firefox developer Brendan Eich! What happened in South Carolina was filled with hatred, an act committed by a young man hateful towards black people. That is pure hatred and racism, and seeing it for what it is helps us overcome hate and racism, and, of course, not seeing hate and racism where it occurs provides a breeding ground for more hatred and racism, but so does seeing hate and racism where it is not! These are the crossroads of narrative and truth at which we find ourselves in America. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 24th, 2015, 8:55pm This is NOT being asked as a rhetorical question! I seek responses... I hope some folks who stroll [smiley=strollin.gif] "the Gridiron" respond... The pivotal question that cuts to the core of the troubles in today's America is simply the following... Do you think America is a great country? What is YOUR answer? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jun 27th, 2015, 7:53am There was a reply posted here from DirkDiggler. What happened to it? ?.?.? On a different but related note, is this such a difficult question to answer (for Americans)!?!? [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 4th, 2015, 5:42am I am not leaving that question I posed above behind. I did not foresee, especially with the 4th of July approaching, its being this hard to answer, that is, so much so that someone deleted their "affirmative" answer. What is up with that? [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Are we this far gone? At any rate, three bullet-point items... FIRST, leftist George Takei spews racist invective: George Takei Apologizes For Calling Clarence Thomas A 'Clown In Blackface' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/03/george-takei-clarence-tho_n_7724876.html) The response on the left to Takei's racist comment was unapologetic (as you can see in the comments section for this article) even though Takei apologized the next day. Just as proof in the pudding as to how deep the leftist indoctrination via academia runs in America, I would not even characterize these people as the far left, yet they do not think an apology for this overtly racist comment was even necessary! Meanwhile, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, we all know that, if a republican or conservative had said the same thing about, say, Barack Obama or Eric Holder, no apology would be enough for these very same people. Indeed, they would seek to DESTROY that person. That is the absolute heighth of hypocrisy, double-standards and intellectual dishonesty. Such blatant walking contradictions as these people could only exist in a society overrun by extreme relativistic thinking, which I have discussed earlier on this thread. I fear that the whole of the left, that is, including the center-left and even moderates and perhaps even some on the center-right :o (yea, that is how far gone I think we may be) have more or less become infected by far-left "thinking". SECOND, a true American hero... Andrew Young weighs in on the Confederate flag debate (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/29436049/young-on-flag). There should be no disdain for that sentiment, right? ... Well, on the left...??? I guess, for the left Mr. Young is a "clown in blackface". I would call him a hero who genuinely wants to see healing and progress in America. THIRD, amid silly rhetoric from our commander-in-chief about gays now being able to feel like they have the "right to love" as if love is something the government has to affirm, the real philosophical concern regarding the issue of gay marriage is the deproblematization of homosexuality. What do I mean here? The acceptance of gay marriage brings homosexuality into the mainstream. It makes homosexuality normal. That means that homosexuality is not a problem. If it is not (seen as) a problem, then there is no need for a solution (by definition). Meanwhile, the claim these days is that sexual orientation is not a choice. I think the distinction between disposition and action throws a wrench in that claim, but I am more than willing to grant it. But, then, that means that, when one's psycho-physical gender is (biologically) inconsistent with one's sexual orientation, that is a problem! It is a psychological/socio-psychological, mental/neurological, physical/chemical and/or genetic problem, for which there may be a psychiatric, neurosurgical, pharmaceutical and/or genetically engineered solution. OR, now does such research make one a bigot!?!?!? Oh, the tangled webs the do-gooders on the left weave (all for votes, mind you), and all of America is stuck in them (on the surface, it is called political correctness). :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 4th, 2015, 5:30pm This thread is "behaving" awfully unusually lately. I logged in this morning (my time in Hawaii) to see this thread bumped up, on the "the Sidelines" board home page, above the "Happy 4th of July" thread, to which I added a post after I had made the post immediately above on this thread. It is as if someone made a post on this thread and then deleted it (as the threads do not get automatically chronologically reordered on the board home page). [smiley=hmmmm.gif] Witnessing what is going on here reminds me of this circumstance, which is the exact opposite but in the same vain... on 06/22/13 at 19:11:49, StegRock wrote:
When you have to mislead, lie, suppress others (and yourself?) and contradict yourself, you are NOT on the side of the truth! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Jul 6th, 2015, 9:24pm Suspect in killing of San Francisco woman had been deported five times (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/san-francisco-killing-suspect-immigrant-deported/) Where are all the cries, "If it just saves one life"? Oh, right, that is just for when it fits the left's narrative! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 1st, 2015, 6:44pm Some "Black Lives Matter" spokeswoman says that Bill O'Reilly's coverage of their movement (like their ridiculous antics vis-à-vis Democratic Presidential Candidate Martin O'Malley's comment during a town hall-style interview that -- Heaven forbid -- all lives matter) fuels the mindset of scumbags like the one who shot those folks down in the church in South Carolina. Her accusation is very revealing. Such is surely not the logical implication of O'Reilly's reportage and commentary. Of course, as a diehard (and blowhard) of the left, that is not what she means, though. She means the emotional implication (impact) of his exposé. Well, since that is what she means, she needs to turn the finger of critique back at herself and her group because, if we are talking emotional implications, her group's actions (like those referenced above, which O'Reilly is just exposing and critically discussing) serve to mold the mind of a racist much more than O'Reilly's commentary. Indeed, he is just exposing them. Their actions are the primary factor. If you vote democrat, this is what you are emboldening and beholden to. It is bad! "All lives matter" is a truism. If you have a motto that undermines the expression of such a simple truism, you need a new motto. This is precisely the case with the moniker "Black lives matter." It seeks revenge not justice, and, if kept, it will foment division and hatred, obviously not unity. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 4th, 2015, 5:44pm Well, I still have a couple "pending" questions on this thread, but I feel compelled to pose the question (an otherwise idiot) Chris Matthews posed Democratic National Committee Chair (mental midget) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist??? The Wasser could not answer it. Nobody seems able to! Can you? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 4th, 2015, 7:54pm on 08/04/15 at 17:44:45, StegRock wrote:
So, did she not know the answer (as your friends at Fox news say) or did she AVOID the answer? The second point that is getting misconstrued is that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He is a democratic socialist. And yes, there is a difference. He often cites Sweden, Norway, Denmark, as ideal governments and they are all democratic socialist governments. I just mention that because if you want to know the difference between Socialist and Democrat, you probably should want to know the difference between Democratic Socialist and Democrat. The term socialist is getting thrown around a lot- and it is not always appropriate. You may also want to ask the difference between a Republican and Plutocrat. ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 4th, 2015, 9:53pm on 08/04/15 at 19:54:10, DirkDiggler wrote:
Is there really a meaningful distinction there? Quote:
Count Singapore in that list with the Scandinavian countries. Ideal "governments"? [smiley=LMFAO.gif] Interesting way to frame it, Bernie! Ideal "societies", they are NOT! But, they really are not socialist, anyway. They are state-run capitalist countries. State-run capitalism, somewhat like the kibbutz, is really only sustainable in small countries, like all the ones we have cited. We,... eh-hem,... YOUR types talk about the 1%-ers in America. In state-run capitalist China, it is the .00006%-ers. There is REALLY no such thing as Democratic Socialism, philosophically (and historically). Even though you can get away with it in small countries (not that life in those aforementioned countries is all hunky-dory, mind you), the arc of true socialism bends toward communism, NOT democracy. Do your homework and spend the better part of a decade mastering your Marx and Engels, Hobbes, More, et al. Do you even know what "Utopia" means? Quote:
That is sheer demagoguery, Steve, as your reply testifies. CHRIS MATTHEWS raised the question, for goodness sake, and, anyway, you are owning the socialist dimension of the Democrat party. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal,... Plutocrats??? [smiley=LMFAO.gif] There are so-called Plutocrats on both sides. Hillary Clinton, PLUTOCRAT!!! Al Gore, Plutocrat!!! Worse yet, Elizabeth Warren, HYPOCRITE PLUTOCRAT, that is, straight-up apparatchik Socialist, a.k.a. Classical American Progressive Plutocrat, who nevertheless took advantage of entitlements meant for REAL minorities!!! Democrat plutocrats are worse. They are disingenuous about their plutocracy and always have been. Trump owns it! Good for him! Democrats just use the word plutocrat as a way to demonize success without appearing to do so. Socialism and Communism have awful histories. Plutocracies (per se), not so much so! The only reason you even know the word plutocrat, Steve, really, is because it is a Democrat buzzword for demonizing Republicans. Socialism is not a mere buzzword. It has a rich history of massive atrocities! In America, we are seeing it unfold yet again via Planned Parenthood, but I digress... Socialist plutocrats are way worse than capitalist plutocrats, Steve. That is what history tells us. Socialist plutocrats are not democratic. That is what philosophy and history tell us. But, anyway, you can go back to your lemming walk now... [smiley=frustrated.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 8th, 2015, 3:23am on 08/04/15 at 21:53:41, StegRock wrote:
You may wonder why this is the case... The egalitarianism, that is, the imagined equality of material and social conditions upon which socialism is based (and, thus, toward which it naturally tends) demands uniformity (conformity) of thought. We all have to think the same way. Otherwise, it all falls apart. Think it all the way through! There must be ideological unanimity regarding those conditions. So, there can be no ideological diversity. Without (the possibility of) ideological pluralism democracy is pointless. Indeed, rationality is pointless. Irrationality and, thus, authoritarianism reign in a socialistic world taken to its logical ends for conformity of thought must be (forcibly) maintained. History corroborates this. Socialism is not pluralistic. Socialism is not democratic. Indeed, the necessary conditions for democracy and socialism are OPPOSITE!!! You can see this herd mentality and morality clearly in the Democrat party. It goes under the guise of political correctness and, more insidiously, social engineering. If you do not follow the party line, if you do not think what "we" think, you are deemed an immoral bigot. The argument comes to its irrational end right there. "You are a racist," is one popular refrain. There is also the smugly disdainful, "How can you think otherwise?" We have seen this lack of intellectual depth of the left on this very thread. Now, a modicum of socialism, like to the degree of state-run capitalism, can be pursued in small societies wherein the relatively requisite amount of that necessary uniformity of thought can be maintained. Such is not the U.S.A. Understand that I am not even putting the puzzle pieces together here. I am just pointing at the puzzle! The pieces are already put together by history and philosophy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Aug 9th, 2015, 4:50pm I love watching leftist democrats eat their young, or in this case their elders... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-leaves-seattle-stage-after-event-disrupted-by-black-lives-matter-protesters/ar-BBly5dD?ocid=ASUDHP [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 18th, 2015, 5:12pm Media sensationalism, including Fox News, and inarticulate, cowardly Republicans continue to fall prey to the Democrat's politics of divide and conquer... The truth on the following matter is at neither of the extremes with which it is typically expressed, the prevailing extreme being that of the mainstream media and the Democrat party. For the record... Obama is NOT a Muslim. HOWEVER, he is a Muslim apologist or sympathizer the likes of which we have never had in the White House, and it has had a negative impact on American foreign policy and stability in the world, period! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Sep 19th, 2015, 12:50am on 09/18/15 at 17:12:42, StegRock wrote:
Do you mind explaining how the Demoncrat's had anything to do with that friggin moron or Trumps complete and total inept response? You seem to state as fact that the deomcrats had something to do with it. If you want to see class, see John McCain's response to a similar question in 2008. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 19th, 2015, 6:23am on 09/19/15 at 00:50:20, DirkDiggler wrote:
Do not read into things that are evidently beyond your ken, DD! [smiley=zipit.gif] I even criticize Fox News and Republicans, for Gawd's sake! Even that is not enough for you, though! Criticism of my own side is not enough. But, of course, you demand wholesale rejection and complete acquiescence! Read on... as it all makes sense... ... But, anyway, THIS is the (middle-ground) truth of the matter... on 09/18/15 at 17:12:42, StegRock wrote:
NOT this... on 09/19/15 at 00:50:20, DirkDiggler wrote:
And, incidentally, this is how McCain was thanked by the Great One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwozMG4wHgs. Arrogant! Classless! Moreover, could you give me just one example void of political expedience and motivation of a Democrat saying something as classy, to use your verbiage, toward a Republican as McCain did toward Obama? [smiley=crickets.gif] ... [smiley=whistle.gif] But, I digress. Read on... as "you" make sense... Of course, an Obama borg [smiley=borg.gif] and leftist, liberal lemming like you would think otherwise about all this. Democrats, and especially so-called Socialist Democrats, demand group-think! Even George Orwell warned us of this. That is why they, like you here, love to point out when lapdog Republicans say what they want them to say. It is like, "Even a Republican defends Obama. See how right we are!" It is a sort of "a fortiori" fulfillment of their (logically predictable) need for agreement, consensus, unanimity (as that is what socialism, which the Democrat party has sold out to, bends toward and truth is reduced to for relativist-minded leftists who do not think there is objective truth). Socrates and Plato warned us: when "man is the measure of all things," "might makes right." Group-think is also why they, as you have exhibited throughout this thread, cannot cross the proverbial aisle and have a meeting of the minds with the other side. They,... eh-hem,... you do not want to. It is always liberal lemming shouts out the Democrat politically correct platitude, conservative gives point-by-point logical response, liberal lemming ignores argument and shouts same crap packaged slightly differently while smugly asking how can you not agree, and repeat. They demand ideological dominance. Indeed, ALL the landmark legislation of this administration, such as the ACA and the Iran nuclear agreement, has been done without any Republican support or through executive orders broad in scope or, improperly, in the courts, like gay marriage. They never want to agree with the Republicans. They only want Republicans to agree with them, and far too many oblige and enable this tyranny. Indeed, absence of Republican support ensures purity to the Democrat and, moreover, so-called Democratic Socialist mind. The only bipartisanship there has been during this administration is, OF COURSE, dissent because that is the logic of the situation. Meanwhile, the American ideal via freedom of speech is that we can agree to disagree as long as we hear each other out while the Democrat party ideal is freedom from speech and an avoidance of hearing each other out whilst screaming over people and shouting chants. On a different, but related note, anyone who thinks (as DD probably does and the Great One surely does) that this kid in Texas was genius enough to build a clock on his own from scratch but not smart enough to see that it looked very suspicious and would evoke legitimate concern and thus to be able to clearly demonstrate that it was not a bomb, especially when he did not do this for a class assignment but just for "fun" and, moreover, claims that he has experienced anti-Muslim bigotry, is a TOTAL MORON.. [smiley=dunce.gif] or pushing the leftist narrative. [smiley=hmmmm.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 23rd, 2015, 12:22am Look, the controversy over Ben Carson's answer to the question about the possibility of a Muslim president is silly. What is NOT, however, is a country that feels it has to prove its goodness by entertaining a question about a member of a group that, broadly speaking, committed one of the most horrendous attacks against said country less than a decade and a half ago occupying the highest office of its land. It is as if the very posing of the question somehow demonstrates moral righteousness, or so the liberal media would have us believe. How pathetic! Would any Muslim country consider electing a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or atheist president? Heck, in America the likes of Pat Buchanan and Mike Huckabee are too Christian to be elected to the presidency!!! And, we are supposed to feel immoral about expressing hesitance about a Muslim!!! ::) We are taking self-loathing to new heights! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 25th, 2015, 7:07am on 09/19/15 at 06:23:49, StegRock wrote:
Newest tool for the libbo dems: Pope Francis! "See, even the POPE agrees with us. He is a progressive just like us." Thing is, they are laying claim to those points of agreement (on immigration, income inequality, and the death penalty), of course, divorced from the moral reasoning that underlies the positions he takes (on those matters). Mind you, they have to do that for, if they do acknowledge the underlying moral reasoning, they would have to deal with positions on matters such as abortion, marriage and gender that progressives very much so do not welcome. The problem, though, moral discourse disconnected from moral reasoning is mere indoctrination and demagoguery. Worse yet, Pope Francis exacerbated the matter by only speaking directly to those issues on which he agrees with the lefties. Whether that was calculated or unwitting, I do not know. But, it definitely made what he said in his address to Congress vulnerable to partisan politicization. [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by StegRock on Sep 26th, 2015, 9:04pm I cannot take it anymore... We got the Festival of Families Concert with Pope Francis in attendance on FOX News (and CNN)... Classy, uplifting, thoughtful, apolitical! Then, we got the Global Citizen Festival Concert to End Extreme World Hunger on MSNBC... Victimization central, trotting out victims of all kinds regardless of relevance to the topic at hand! No critical thinking, unserious, yet political claptrap abounds! Meanwhile, the U.S. and China, in a supposedly great display of "benevolence", agree to give $6.1 BILLION for the reduction of carbon emissions to DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Are you kidding me? This is money that keeps those countries backwards and poor and the coffers of their scumbag leaders full. If you want to end world hunger, STOP DOING THAT!!! THINK! Wake the hell up, ya damn lemmings! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Oct 14th, 2016, 11:50pm Earth to Trump... Here is what you need to say right now... "I preface that Hillary is not her husband. But, it must be understood that nothing I have done is as bad or, at least, any worse than Bill Clinton. Again, Hillary is not Bill, I understand. He was the president, and many think he was a great president. I would be a great president." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Nov 9th, 2016, 6:19am [smiley=woohoo.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jan 11th, 2017, 1:19am Did anybody else catch Sean Hannity's slip-up on his show tonight??? [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] [smiley=sinister.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] HILLLLL-ARIOUS!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jan 20th, 2017, 2:54pm What a day! Indeed, I am reluctant to post this on the "Politics" thread as today, Inauguration Day, is supposed to transcend politics. Even though some want to betray and even upend the process, today is a celebration of the distinctively American peaceful transition of power, which is ever more precious when the transition is deeply philosophical. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Jan 20th, 2017, 3:20pm on 01/20/17 at 14:54:48, Stegfucius wrote:
It really is something when a country can peacefully transition power. Democracy at work. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 8th, 2017, 5:09am I just watched the last episode of FNC's "Red Eye"... [smiley=bawling.gif] This show was GRRRREAT!!! Whhhyyyyyy??? [smiley=furious.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Sep 27th, 2017, 3:54am Millionaires... You do not help your people by stirring in them anger and hatred toward their country. You let your people get used by stirring in them anger and hatred toward their country. ... [smiley=patriot.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Oct 28th, 2017, 5:56am It has been said (by the likes of Stephen A. Smith) that President Trump has won/is winning the day over the players kneeling during the National Anthem and presentation of colors, but that he has done so by "distorting" their message. That latter part is a falsehood! He did not. Kaepernick and those who have followed his "lead" have. Without getting into the deeper, more nuanced philosophical issues of the day of relativism, subjectivism and emotionalism run amok and a population's overwhelming loss of objectivity and as a result reasonableness, let's just say that what matters is not what the message is (which is whatever one has determined it to be) but how it is delivered (which requires one to make considerations beyond one's own determinations). While I agree that how these players have decided to conduct their protest is disrespectful to service members and first responders, with ALL DUE respect, that in and of itself is not my greatest concern. What I am concerned about is something much more destructive to the core fabric of the country. That is to say, my ultimate concern is that what they are doing is disrespectful and deleterious to the foundations of the country. You would not want to ostentatiously protest, say, the child-molestation scandal in the Catholic Church during the recital of the Lord's Prayer (or even the Nicene Creed) unless you were wanting to announce your renunciation of Christianity (or departure from the Church). Such would not be tolerated as those prayers speak to the foundations of Christianity (and the Catholic Church). Analogously, disrespecting the National Anthem and the American flag is in the same anti-American, deconstructionist spirit that seeks the diminution of the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as is manifest in the desecration of the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, the Washington Monument and the WWII Memorial. This is an undeniably dangerous trend! And, it is not nearly sufficiently addressed. Mind you, the leftists and socialists who foment this anti-Americanism are no fans of the NFL, either. The NFL too is an iconic American staple that promotes competition and masculinity. These players are political stooges. But, moreover, the fame of the players is being used to further spread this cancer, especially to the young people who look up to them. The far left is winning in a twofold manner: they are getting their political agenda advanced, AND it is hurting the NFL! Now, that all does not mean that their protest has absolutely no merit. But, if we are really going to have, not just the, but an intellectually honest "conversation" about "race", it is going to have to include statistics that are fairly overwhelmingly unsupportive of the claim of rampant police brutality against blacks, the failures of social-welfare programs, inner-city policies, and "Great Society" initiatives (and the fact that the architect of the "Great Society", LBJ, had THIS (http://www.quotes.net/quote/57364) to say about it all), the life-saving results of stop-and-frisk policing, as well as the disintegration of the African-American family. Also, since education and work experience and training are so fundamentally important to the uplifting of a person and a community, solutions such as school vouchers ("free education equals public education" is a lie) and welfare work and apprenticeship requirements (of the kind which the prior administration removed) need to be taken seriously and not just dismissed by demagoguery and overgeneralized rhetoric about racism and white supremacy. Otherwise, the "conversation" will remain unproductive political posturing that moreover causes the country to crack at the seams insofar as academia, the mainstream media and the entertainment industry are in the tank for the democrats. (To wit, even what Trump said was misreported and overblown. He did not directly call the players "sons of bitches" as has been roundly reported. He just quipped as if he was quoting an NFL owner saying, upon seeing a player kneeling during the Anthem, "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he's fired." That is the exact quote. It takes pretty thin skin to believe he was referring to oneself specifically and a political agenda to take it as applying in some particularly literal way to each and every one of the players. He is saying some generic slang that one would be inclined to say about an employee one wants fired. But, I digress... He is oftentimes crass. C'est la vie.) Needless to say, this is NOT about any infringement on players' freedom of speech and expression, which is an intellectually vapid defense. Bottom line for me and vis-à-vis this website, the players protesting during the Anthem and presentation of colors are severely compromising my enjoyment of the hobby of fantasy football I so love. Ugh... I am wanting to simply close this post out with an innocuous, commonplace phrase regarding the heavy feeling I have about this season, but -- censorship is in the midst -- I am refraining from doing so for fear of some thin-skinned, indoctrinated drone absurdly reading racism into it and then my being swarmed by drones, and in the meantime having my carefully considered points get lost in the scuffle. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Nov 2nd, 2017, 3:06am "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Nov 11th, 2017, 6:32pm In case anybody did not get this, ... on 11/02/17 at 03:06:04, Stegfucius wrote:
... Google it! on 10/28/17 at 05:56:08, Stegfucius wrote:
It is now official... The National Anthem is being attacked as racist! Way to go, Colin! [smiley=clap.gif] Raping the 49ers was not enough. You had to rape the nation! While the country's foundations are under assault, statues of a disgraced and ultimately forgettable former Mayor of Washington D.C. Marion Barry are being erected. His misdeeds are explained away as a function of the times in which he lived, but such a pass is not given to our Founding Fathers! [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] But, I digress... I have a working thesis about how the NFL is getting by during these unfortunate times... The NFL is being buoyed by fantasy football! This may just be anecdotal, but in all honesty the ONLY thing keeping me partially tuned in to the NFL is my fantasy football league, the GBRFL (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/gbrfl/index.php). The NFL is the only professional sports league that has consistently held my attention into my adulthood, and but for the existence of the GBRFL, I would be done with the NFL! The anti-Americanism and libel against the American people that the NFL is promoting is despicable. The politically motivated conflation of imperfect racial attitudes with overt racism, no less white supremacy, is a grave error of our times and a terrible libel against the overwhelming majority of Americans! [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jan 6th, 2018, 8:52pm Liberal, democrat members of Congress meet with a far-left, democrat psychiatrist from the leftist-dominated Ivy League wing of liberal, democrat academia, who has never met Donald Trump mind you, and it is reported on by a leftist, democrat press, none of whom, from any of these groups, has the self-awareness to realize that they constitute the very hyper-partisan echo chamber that they inhabit... http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/psychiatrist-congress-meeting-trump/index.html http://www.newsweek.com/trump-could-destroy-entire-human-species-says-yale-psychiatrist-who-warned-772328 This is considered news in the Anti-Trump era! [smiley=nono.gif] These attacks on Trump's mental fitness make me recall Martin Luther King's wisdom that a healthy person will seem sick in a sick society. And, then, there is this to consider... https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/11/12/prof-diagnoses-martin-luther-king-jr/ https://apnews.com/cbcc46c385f04a269c051ef0fb3446fb Do your homework! Be reasonable! Be thoughtful! Be an independent thinker, and do not be misled by fake news! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 24th, 2018, 2:31am I do not do Twitter, so I have to take my commentary here... Has anybody heard the recent talk about Kanye West (probably not if all you consult is the MSM)? Here it is: http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/23/kanye-west-tweets-about-candace-owens-greg-gutfeld-reacts. Well, I was on a brief odyssey tonight looking up info on some of my fringe players, such as Ty Montgomery. There was not much, but after seeing an interesting tweet of his (he is a hardcore Christian and fairly conservative), I ended up on his Twitter page and saw this retweeted by him... https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/986759302311395328. All I know is that Rush said that on his show that day! Kanye is listening! Hearkening back to my post above from October 28th... "The Great Society" is, alas, being exposed... for what it is! [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jun 24th, 2018, 3:32am This past week a transcendent figure in this arena was lost. I admired him greatly and found myself in a puddle [smiley=bawling.gif] not a few times over the last few weeks as we came to know of his illness and again when he passed this past Thursday. He was a real exemplar of thoughtfulness, intellectual honesty, careful consideration, reasonableness, rationality, calmness and civility in political discourse. R.I.P. and THANK YOU... Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018) [smiley=wavinbye.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Aug 3rd, 2018, 4:39pm Must we all be zombies [smiley=zombie.gif] for the tendentious MSM... The press, in theory, is, of course, NOT the enemy of the people. HOWEVER, a corrupt, partisan press is, à la the old Soviet Union's Pravda, ABSOLUTELY the enemy of the people PRECISELY because we trust them to maintain their objectivity! The intentional conflation and equivocation by the MSM regarding "immigration", "the press" and on and on and playing dumb and coy when it comes to the declarations and policies of the Trump administration is downright diabolical. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Aug 5th, 2018, 8:19pm on 08/03/18 at 16:39:21, Stegfucius wrote:
Cannot believe this low-hanging fruit, that even the most amateurish of amateurs like me can poke serious holes in, passes as highbrow opinion journalism. ::) Of course, the NYT makes sure it is a "conservative" republican stooge, Bret Stephens (the guy with two misspelled first names for a name ;)), who delivers it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/opinion/trump-fake-news-enemy.html. So, what? Are we now supposed to start blaming the accusers of child molesters for the threats made against them in jail and when they get murdered by other inmates? How rich! [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Aug 8th, 2018, 5:06am Today's NFL herd-mentality news ... https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/08/07/aaron-rodgers-lebron-james-donald-trump-president/928484002/ https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/chris-long-donald-trump-white-house-visit-no-convo-needed The NFL's free-thinking, contrarian heroes ... https://apnews.com/5f180b59fb574148983f35252d509f30/jimbrown (https://apnews.com/5f180b59fb574148983f35252d509f30) https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/cowboys/2018/08/06/cowboys-dak-prescott-stands-comments-national-anthem-protests/912419002/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jul 10th, 2019, 5:24am How can we craft responsible, intelligent policies as regards illegal immigrants if we do not know how many there? Why am I not hearing the argument implied by that question taken up by republicans with respect to the citizenship question on the census? [smiley=dunce.gif] As for the democrats, all of their rhetoric is subterfuge, and terribly mean-spirited at that. [smiley=nono.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Aug 8th, 2019, 6:47pm Symptoms are being mistaken for the "dis-ease". The toxic environment of the day, which could lead to social upheaval and civil war, has been wrought by the incessant, intellectually dishonest, top-down attempt to intimidatingly censor reasonable positions, labeling them racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, etc., and thereby besmirching not just ideas BUT PEOPLE. Despite the MSM's doing it on a daily basis, such as on CNN and MSNBC all day long, the manipulative strategies of Walter Lippmann, the "Father of Modern Journalism", and Saul Alinsky of coercively ignoring logically sound, intellectually honest arguments and, moreover, ostracizing "reason-able", law-abiding PEOPLE is not sustainable. At the moment, we are being lied to by the media about the despicable perpetrators of this past weekend's tragic events. Even Fox News and moreover Newsmax are not providing fully accurate information. I mention them only because one would think they would have a vested interest in getting it right. They all by and large just refer to the one perp as being right-wing and the other as being left-wing. This is inaccurate! Dayton perp was 100% FAR-left, and for those who think his actions were not directly politically motivated, think again. He thumbsed up the El Paso attack before perpetrating his own. But, do not let me be your source! Do your own homework: https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/connor-betts-twitter-politics-social-media/ (article includes lots of further informative links). This is getting little coverage on Fox News and Newsmax and virtually NO coverage in the MSM. El Paso perp's mindset is a mix of equal parts of right, left and racism, which despite heavy social indoctrination to the contrary is a right-AND-left thing. He expresses anti-immigrant views, which are a right-wing thing and were surely the most immediately motivating factor for his actions. He also expresses anti-corporatist, anti-consumerist, and extreme environmentalist views, which are a hallmark of the left, and (not that I watch everything but) except for Jesse Watters very briefly on Fox News's "The Five" and John Cardillo very briefly on Newsmax's "America Talks Live", I have not heard ANYBODY talk about ANY of that. The perp also expresses racist views, which are the mark of a racist. Again, do not believe me! Go see for yourself: https://trendingviews.co/galleries/alleged-manifesto-of-el-paso-shooter-patrick-crusius-8347.html?mode=allImages. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Nov 12th, 2019, 1:04pm Come on, righties! Feed their disingenuous, ill logic right back to them! After all, ... ... They are conflating Biden-Ukraine collusion with a legitimate investigation into illicit influence peddling in Ukraine. What, do they not care about foreign meddling? I remember how galling it was hearing them say, "Do not conflate Trump-Russia collusion with a legitimate investigation into Russian meddling ..." Ugh,... how they tendentiously fed us that disingenuous lie for two years, and tens of millions of us bought it... and still do! Bottom line, when democrats investigate republicans, it is called "justice" by the MSM. When The ONLY TRUTH about the MSM is their allegiance to the democrat party! [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jan 22nd, 2020, 5:01pm Trump impeachment bottom line... If Joe Biden were not running for president, there would be no basis for impeachment!!! Deduce for yourself from there... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jan 29th, 2020, 5:55pm Do politicians do ANYTHING without factoring in their political self-interests? ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Jan 31st, 2020, 9:31pm The actions of the DNC demonstrate how the democrat party is fundamentally anti-constitutionalist. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Feb 4th, 2020, 1:54pm And, democrats say elections run by republicans are illegitimate and rigged. [smiley=LMFAO.gif] The democrat party at this juncture in history is either incompetent or corrupt... OR BOTH, and they fashion their brand on leftist groupthink driven by emotions over reason with academia acting as their incubator. Then, they wonder why Sanders is their guy. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Feb 6th, 2020, 5:51pm Some have proffered the notion that America is headed for a civil war and perhaps even a split. I think that is hyperbole. However, it used to be commonplace to say that we all, liberals and conservatives, left and right, democrats and republicans, want the same thing, and that we just differ about HOW to go about getting it done. The "how" may be different, but the "what" is the same. That was naive, but even if false, it was a unifying notion. But, now I think we have reached a point when the divide in the "how" has become so great that the "what" is no longer the same. Both the process and the vision of rugged individualism are vastly different than that of cradle-to-grave collectivism. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Mar 24th, 2020, 12:02am I do not even love the coronavirus bill that the House sent over to the Senate. However, all but the most sycophantic of far-leftists must see that Puppet Master Pelosi, Cuck Schumer and the dems' quashing of the bill is utterly despicable and also revelatory of the kind of political operators and opportunists the dems are! [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Nanc, while she was making her announcement about the rejection in the Senate of the bill HER House had passed... Ugh... [smiley=bawling.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Mar 25th, 2020, 9:59am on 03/24/20 at 00:02:24, Stegfucius wrote:
And the original bill the Republicans drafted in the senate didnt have any right leaning agendas? ::) Please. Both sides were guilty of putting their non-biased agenda forward. (and for the record, I thought the crap the Democrats were trying to put in were ridiculous as well) I am glad they got their shit together and drafted a compromise bill. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Mar 25th, 2020, 9:03pm on 03/25/20 at 09:59:58, DirkDiggler wrote:
By all means, please outline the kind of "goodies" (outside of the apparently loose oversight of the loans to big corps, which I too think should be tight(ened)) that republicans wanted (that measure up to the huge, ideologically driven, and TOTALLY UNRELATED-to-the-crisis-at-hand ones the dems tried to sneak in)? I am more than willing to be enlightened... [smiley=zenmaster.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Mar 26th, 2020, 1:23pm on 03/25/20 at 21:03:48, Stegfucius wrote:
Well, the complete lack of oversight and lack of conditions is the main thing. Doesn't everything fall under that essentially? Here is a billion dollars, do what you want. Unfortunately, in the past, companies have demonstrated the stock price is the primary guidance in decision making. The other concern was the lack of transparency initially proposed. I think both sides came up with a reasonable, but not perfect solution. I wish they could work like this on more issues and realize how petty some of the things they disagree on are in the grand scheme of things. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Mar 27th, 2020, 2:29pm Well, the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste dems made sure to get some wasteful spending, which will not help dick, into the bill. Sad thing, as DD points out, that was "in exchange for" tighter oversight and regulations on the big-corporate loan money, which republicans should have made sure was the case from the get-go. It is kabuki theater... of the absurd,... :-/ to mix metaphors. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 2nd, 2020, 2:50am False dichotomies abound in the day and age in which we find ourselves. For example, as it relates to the fight against the corona... You either set aside economic considerations or you want people to die. But, this one, as regards media consumption, I fear, is NOT... You are either watching Communist Chinese propaganda packaged for Trump haters or seeing people make a difference in the fight against coronavirus. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Apr 2nd, 2020, 2:01pm on 04/02/20 at 02:50:56, Stegfucius wrote:
I am not sure I understand the second statement. When you say 'people', who are you referring to? Are you comparing to Trumps admin making a difference? Health care workers making a difference? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 2nd, 2020, 7:05pm Well, DD, such a reply, insofar as it is sincere, which I believe it to be, is with all due respect indicative of a lack of either information or thinking it through, but I digress. First, logically, I must be talking about those who have a choice to spread Communist Chinese propaganda as well as TDS or not to. So, I am talking about neither those who are on the front lines, e.g. healthcare workers, nor those for whom spreading such "information" is not in their interest, e.g. the administration. I am talking about those in the media who are -- not, for what can only be partisan purposes, turning our attention away from -- but rather relentlessly reporting on and raising awareness about life-saving treatment, such as hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, as well as ill-advised practices, such as using reusable grocery bags, on the one hand, and on the other, not using face masks when going out in public. These suggestions are now being implemented and/or (having to be) addressed in jurisdictions at various levels and making a difference... in people's lives, and that is just to name a couple. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 15th, 2020, 9:58pm So, who (in the media and what political party) is on the side of money [smiley=money.gif] in the cover-up of China vis-à-vis, not just the corona, but human rights abuses as in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, the Uyghur Muslims, Fulan Gong, organ harvesting, etc., and constantly saying that there is no there there??? Think... the same people who roughly a year ago castigated, besmirched and literally tried to destroy Nicholas Sandman and the kids of Covington Catholic, Supreme Court nominee and now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but heralded a cut-off-your-balls-and-feed-them-to-you Super Bowl commercial by Gillette. You know... the same people who have basically gotten EVERYTHING wrong for the last four years. ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 16th, 2020, 11:40pm on 04/15/20 at 21:58:20, Stegfucius wrote:
And, mind you, the news that has been breaking on Fox News and heavily reported on by, among others, Brett Baer and Tucker Carlson yesterday and today about the origins of the novel coronavirus being the Wuhan Virology Institute as well as about the corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) (no less about the journalists, professors and doctors going missing in China) -- but denied and indeed obfuscated in knee-jerk fashion by the dems and the MSM -- is old news in free societies in far-east Asia like South Korea. (No word of a lie, Bear's reportage today and Tucker's yesterday and today on the China cover-up are, frankly speaking, MUST-see TV!!!) I lived in South Korea for seven years, have friends there, and am married to a Korean, been to Hong Kong after its return to China and have friends in Beijing and elsewhere. Everything that the MSM and dems condemn with hostility that turns out to be true and reported on by Fox News was already known in South Korea for significant periods of time. This is how things have gone in my household over the last four or so months... My wife learns of something about what is going on in China, about the WHO, with the virus, and she discusses it with me or shows it to me, and from that point it takes somewhere between two weeks to two months for it get reported on in America, not by anyone in the MSM, mind you (no, they, instead of doing research, immediately just get to their Alinskian tactics of deflecting, dismissing and discrediting), but Fox News. This is my experience... and in general has been for a looooong time prior to the age of corona. IN THESE DIRE TIMES WHEN THE SHIT HITTING THE FAN IS REAL [smiley=shitfan.gif] AND PEOPLE ARE DYING, how am I supposed to respond in good faith to those who (rely on CNN, MSNBC, the network world newscasts, the NYT, WAPO, etc. for their news and) call Fox News "Faux News"? Like Paul Revere, no? A bottom line here is that TDS is causing REAL damage... to the world! Mind you, this hate-filled derangement knows no bounds and is a harbinger. Remember that before there was TDS, there was BDS, and regardless of Trump, there is no end to this in sight. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Apr 17th, 2020, 6:20pm on 04/16/20 at 23:40:57, Stegfucius wrote:
What part of any of the virus was made in a labratory statement is FACT? Even Brett Baers report says it is speculation. Anonymous sources on a report fox hasn't even seen. There is a chance it is from the labratory. There's a chance it is from somewhere else There is a chance this is just a deflection manuever. Unbelievable that there is a cry of wolf with zero facts. It's China's fault. However, fox MAY be right, but factually based arguments would be better. Or evidence. Declaring victory for senator cotton already is kind of funny. If fox were to look up the science of the virus, most indicators are that it is natural. To the point that bioengineers tend to agree the virus is imperfect and an engineer wouldn't make the virus that way. It is impectfect, bit somehow mother nature seems to have evolved that imperfection makes it better. But again, no one is declaring anything and it is still being looked at. And it is funny how it is ok for fox to use clips from other news organizations , but heaven forbid a msm use a fox clip where they declared repeatedly this virus was a hoax. (Which I actually found quite funny) Fox news, God's gift to media And by the way, the investigation into the virus hit other media outlets today, so the declaration of it not being there is inaccurate. . I just hope that the fox viewers don't go taking the miracle cure they have been touting as more and more SCIENCE is saying it is the wrong thing to take. The biggest irony is fake news has taken off and been used multiple times. The origin is clearly our president who just says anything he disagrees with is fake news. Convenient, when he is the biggest liar (or ignorant) one of them all. So.many factually based examples. Anyway, facts will come out and we will eventually have a scientific or evidentary proof. A little to early for the victory lap. At the end of the day, best to just agree to disagree. To answer your question, you don't have to reply to folks who watch something besides the highly opinionated, not always factually based, fox news. Problem solved if that was truly a dllemma for you. Please excuse any typos or grammer as Im on my phone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 17th, 2020, 9:56pm on 04/17/20 at 18:20:11, DirkDiggler wrote:
This is just at the level of silly information wars based on respective access and exposure to information. That said, your mischaracterizations of that with which you disagree border on propagandistic. "Anonymous sources"... You are just not paying attention. That is ONLY as regards White House and Intelligence sources. SET ASIDE ALL OF MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I ALLUDE TO, which you obviously, always do, ALL kinds of peer-reviewed journals, scholars who have written relevant books on the matter (like, among others, Gordon Chang), bioengineers, epidemiologists and virologists, and even pieces tucked away in the corners of mainstream publications are cited,... at least in the reportage I watch. Mind you, I am saying all this as if, with regards to all things Republican, especially over the last four years, reports you love from news sources you herald are not rife with "anonymous sources". If someone who agreed with you cited "A Warning" by Anonymous, you probably would not even bat an eye, and that is a whole book. Given the positions you take, it seems like you wholeheartedly accept ALL of Adam Schiff's anonymously sourced reports. Ugh... Victory lap... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] That is in your own head. I know it is because you are not substantively responding to me. It is just establishment drivel. Ugh... I am, albeit it in a futile way here on my little fantasy-football forum, trying to sound an alarm. That is what I intimated. As regards what I wrote here, ... on 04/16/20 at 23:40:57, Stegfucius wrote:
... you either did not read what I wrote or read it but not carefully enough and did not understand it or read it and are willfully ignoring it and disrespecting me. I just do not get why it is so evidently important to you to defend the MSM and, in this instance, Communist China... ?.?.? over hearing out a personal "friend", who, aside from being a conservative, has some serious personal and professional experience extremely relevant to, at least, this particular topic at hand. [smiley=uh.gif] Remember I did my own fair amount of Chinese studies, albeit in the field of philosophy, but at the doctoral level! I mean you got a dude, a so-called "friend", appealing to rich, relevant personal and professional experience that you cannot get everywhere and that you could tap, and instead you respond to me with shallow, unoriginal, generic company lines. Set aside ALL the rest, if I had a friend with a friend in China, I would be like, "Yo, bro... What is he saying?" You do not! Instead, you counter me with run-of-the-mill, establishmentarian rhetoric. That puzzles me. It says something about either how you think of me as a friend or how totally hardcore of an establishment liberal you are (even though you try to come off like you are not, at least, hardcore -- you just read the headlines (I am guessing, of the WAPO) while grabbing a coffee in the morning, right?). Ugh... I mean you are obviously on a side. I am not saying that I am not, mind you, but it appears as though you want to make it seem like you are not, and then go about riding me because I am. That is BS! That said, of the aforementioned alternatives that is the one I hope it is, but the lengths both here in public and behind the scenes with me in private that you are evidently willing to go to to defend the MSM to me without a lick of curiosity about anything beyond the white noise makes me wonder if it is not both. :'( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Apr 17th, 2020, 10:53pm And this is why I am just done talking politics, msm, or any of that. I am sorry if you deem it a personal attack I often feel the same way. ( That was not intent) in this post alone you say I am defending China. Never once did I defend China. However I certainly didn't accuse China either. I actually strongly dislike China if you'd like to know. IN your response, if I am reading it correctly, the two choices you give me are that I am a hard core liberal or that I don't value you as a friend or both. What the hell choices are those? Oh, I also believe everything Schiff says talk about being accusatory and making leaps. I also trust all anonymous sources of they suity purposes Wtf? How about I just strongly disagree with what APPEARED to me as a factual statement how fox was correct and the inability to respond to anyone that watches (what you reference and rant about in this thread) anything but fox. You say it is more about personal knowledge, yet you start the conversation talking a out Tucker and Baer bringing it. Yih also conclude with saying fox news is "the way" you say I don't care, yet I actually watched the episode, I read Baers article, etc. I just tried to go back and quote the article but it has since been updated in the last few hours not reflecting the original language about sources. It does still say fox has not seen any of the reports, which I do give them props for calling out. Steg, I just think it best that I not comment on any of this. I probably should of done that when I said it last time. But it saddens me that you think our friendship has to get me know on a political level. I think it is obvious where each other stand. I am on the left, but I certainly am not Bernie or Sanders left. There are literally a thousand other things we can talk about, but in the interest our friendship I am not going to engage on this (as much as it will pain me). And as I have said a 100 times, I acknowledge that things I read are somewjar biased. (Yes, I enjoy the wapo). But I don't only read those. Bottom line is that we are friends, I don't know why you wouldn't think that Since you let me into the league, I've taken an interesr and care about you and your family, our life success and struggles, when you've asked for something I've always tried to step up. And you've always been there if I needed anything, been understanding when shit comes up, etc. I don't want to lose that and get angry over this shit. If that is not friendship, I don't know what is but it seems we are both at that point.....your frustrated and I get it. Assume you can tell I'm frustrated. And I would rather just agree to disagree and move on. To me that is what makes a great friendship. I hope you can understand and appreciate that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 18th, 2020, 12:38am on 04/17/20 at 22:53:23, DirkDiggler wrote:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then,... well,... As to the rest, it is not about the "what". It is about the "how". I have some close friends of a similar socio-economic and socio-political persuasion as you. Not Fox Newsers nor conservative mediates, but willing to hear things out a bit. That said, most importantly, while they do not really like Trump, they do not have full-blown TDS, either. The conversations about politics I have with them almost always end up in a productive place. But, we do not throw our respective information sources and fact bits at each other in a tit-for-tat way, and end up in a gish-gallop mess of mutually assured destruction. It begins with our being intellectually honest up front about our values and where we stand (this is something on which I hope we made some progress in our private messages). We actually try to field each other's points and patiently THINK it through, grant positions, LOGIC it out and make sure we are making sense. It does not happen fast, however. Though, it does happen in a single conversation. We almost always wind up in a place where we appreciate each other's positions, where points of agreement emerge, and where points of disagreement make sense. I find that I do not even have a chance of getting out of the gate of such discourse with you. on 04/17/20 at 22:53:23, DirkDiggler wrote:
?.?.? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 18th, 2020, 4:17pm God, I did NOT want to go here: article-for-article, source-for-source, tit-for-tat information wars, on which only those who cannot use reason have to rely, but I have to... on 04/17/20 at 18:20:11, DirkDiggler wrote:
Where did you get such an idea that caused you to come to such a firm opinion on the matter? (Answer: TDS, but I digress...) After all, you have worded your point in the form of medical advice (I hope people do not go taking). YIKES! [smiley=yikes.gif] Did you get that idea from these "FEATURED" articles that just topped my search...??? Like this dumb-ass opinion piece with an eye-catching headline from the WAPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/promoting-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-treatment-is-illegal/2020/04/12/b3766972-7ad4-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html. Trump's promotion of hydroxychloroquine is ILLEGAL! Rrrrrr... [smiley=fumin.gif] Or, this overstated junk "science" from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/10/what-have-lose-taking-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-life-column/5123478002/. A quick visit to sites like WebMD, Drugs.com, Healthline shows that the way that article characterizes the side-effects is total hyperbole. Of course, the trusty USA Today also reports that Lupus patients cannot get their hands on it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/18/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-creates-shortage-lupus-drug/5129896002/. Hell, based on the way they depict it, why is hydroxychloroquine used for ANYTHING if it is so damn dangerous? Moving right along, the article says that "there is no evidence whatsoever that HCQ can prevent COVID-19." Uh,... there is no evidence whatsoever of ANYTHING that can prevent COVID-19! Idiots! Or, maybe it is the article in the NYT headlined "Trump Calls This Drug a 'Game-Changer'. Doctors Aren't So Sure.", in which they make sure Trump eats his words, which were really just a loose attempt at conveying hope, but only, mind you, by finding that the jury is still out (which we already knew) but in pursuit and that the drug seems only to be helpful (which is not bad news). At any rate, DD's way of stating the case is downright irresponsible! Regarding treatments involving hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, it is true 1) that it may not be the right thing to take for everybody based on an individual's health history, about which one should be in consultation with a physician regarding ANY medication under consideration for any ailment, and 2) that it may not be, as the WSJ recently reported, fully effective, whatever that means in an emergency situation in which any even partially effective treatments are being sought. Anybody who happens to be reading this, if you get the, as it is referred to in South Korea, Wuhan Coronavirus, PLEASE do NOT follow DD's advice and cross this treatment off your list; rather, consult with your physician about it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 18th, 2020, 4:34pm The bottom line of what you are saying to me, DD, is that you cannot have a rational, civil conversation about politics (at least, in the age of Trump and with someone with whom you disagree). Is that right? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 20th, 2020, 9:26pm on 04/18/20 at 16:34:14, Stegfucius wrote:
So, DD, you have mentioned to me that you have witnessed, especially in the era of Trump, family members and friends have MAJOR falling outs due to left-right disagreements. I have, too. You have to know, though, that that is because either one or both of the parties involved are not making an effort. The way to go about arguing this stuff is not by just tacking to the middle for moderate too is a position (which pisses people off) or, worse yet, feigning that one is a moderate. [smiley=bs.gif] I personally, obviously am willing to make the effort, but I understand someone who is not or cannot (due to time constraints or whatever) and just wants to walk away. However, after so doing, said person should not try to shut the person they are leaving behind up. It is one thing not to (be able to) make the effort. It is a-whole-nother to tell someone who is willing and able to not to. [smiley=nono.gif] ... On a different note, at the task-force press conference today, right after that rude, vapid, hackneyed, divisive, "I met a guy at a funeral back in mid-March who said, 'Had you taken this seriously... blah, blah, blah'," uninformational, gotchya question, I thought that question asked by the OAN gal was a good one. It actually prompts a somewhat informational response from the President. Bottom line, thanks for turning me on to OAN! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] I am happy to have added their coverage to my media main course. [smiley=hungry.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Apr 21st, 2020, 6:14pm I thought I was clear I was walking away. Feel free to post all you want, that is what the thread is for. With that said, I don't think it is right to have to discuss it in a football text chat either. Enjoy OAN, they don't even hide their bias. I actually find the evening news ladys opinion piece kinda of funny. (She is their go to). And Trump loves them, to the point he grants the special priveledges. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 21st, 2020, 7:48pm on 04/21/20 at 18:14:42, DirkDiggler wrote:
I will. Thank you for your permission, sir. [smiley=silence.gif] It would have been so much more meaningful and productive for you to have responded to the private message I sent you today first instead of this twaddle and announcing again that you are "walking away". Quote:
Cannot take a joke to which there was even a somewhat slightly self-deprecating aspect, mind you? Ugh... ::) Sorry. [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] Quote:
Well, at least they are honest about what side they are on, which is sadly more than we can say about most "news" outlets anymore. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by Stegfucius on Apr 21st, 2020, 8:16pm Love this video and the comments on it, especially since Bill Maher has, for so many years and sadly for so many of my fellow Americans to follow, exemplified inflexibility and mob (audience) rule especially as a diversion from sound logic and, yes, alternative facts and doing the hard work of meaningful disagreement... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTGBJMDcras. What gives me hope is the comments on the video! Commenter after commenter sees right through Maher's shallowness and points to how ineffective he is without his audience there to back him up. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics Post by DirkDiggler on Apr 22nd, 2020, 4:08pm Cannot take a joke to which there was even a somewhat slightly self-deprecating aspect, mind you? Ugh... Sorry. Actually,my comment was made before your joke yesterday. I did infact appreciate the jesting in your text. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1! YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved. |