Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 86344 times) |
|
Red Zone Master
GBRFL2er
CBFL Champ - '03
# 18
He ain't on the all-time list because he's pretty.
Posts: 1296
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #50 on: Aug 19th, 2004, 8:50pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
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.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 19th, 2004, 8:53pm by bgsgfan » |
 Logged |
11/20/04 - Buckeyes salvage season by stomping that team from up north. (Posted 11/14/04)
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
 
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #51 on: Aug 19th, 2004, 10:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 19th, 2004, 9:46pm, junkyardjake wrote:| When you actively discourage and, in the most extreme sense of discouragment, remove arab constituency from your country this is not true representative government, it is a perverse form of gerrymandering in my opinion. |
|
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)  . In any event, I look forward to Klockner's response.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #52 on: Aug 20th, 2004, 2:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
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). 
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),...  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? 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
 
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #54 on: Aug 20th, 2004, 6:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
|
Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #55 on: Aug 22nd, 2004, 10:49pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 22nd, 2004, 10:54pm by Callie » |
Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #57 on: Aug 24th, 2004, 3:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Red Zone Master
GBRFL2er
CBFL Champ - '03
# 18
He ain't on the all-time list because he's pretty.
Posts: 1296
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #58 on: Aug 25th, 2004, 12:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 24th, 2004, 3:40pm, StegRock wrote:| 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). |
|
on Aug 18th, 2004, 7:36pm, bgsgfan 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).
|
|
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.
|
|
Logged |
11/20/04 - Buckeyes salvage season by stomping that team from up north. (Posted 11/14/04)
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #59 on: Aug 25th, 2004, 2:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
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.h tml, and what this guy is doing?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #60 on: Aug 25th, 2004, 6:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 25th, 2004, 6:03pm by Callie » |
Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #61 on: Aug 26th, 2004, 11:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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  ) 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. ... 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!!!"
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #63 on: Aug 29th, 2004, 5:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 29th, 2004, 3:42pm, Callie wrote:
That's a Steggie original, no less. 
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. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #67 on: Sep 7th, 2004, 8:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 7th, 2004, 8:09pm, junkyardjake wrote:| Should these protestors 'educate' themselves... |
|
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:| In fact, worldwide protestors have exceeded around 14 million,... |
|
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?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #68 on: Sep 7th, 2004, 9:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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,...
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2004, 9:45pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #69 on: Sep 8th, 2004, 9:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
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).  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  ) 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!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #70 on: Sep 8th, 2004, 5:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 8th, 2004, 11:41am, junkyardjake wrote:| That's a good point, but non-applicable to the Iraq situation where there was no compelling threat to the United States, only speculation about a threat that was improbable given the known facts. |
|
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:| Not to mention, the argument to justify the war was misleading and deceitful. |
|
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.  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.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 8th, 2004, 5:37pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #71 on: Sep 8th, 2004, 6:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 8th, 2004, 6:12pm by Callie » |
Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Red Zone Master
# 179
oh Lord, deliver us from the fury of the Norsemen!
 
Posts: 1045
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #73 on: Sep 9th, 2004, 10:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 7th, 2004, 8:09pm, junkyardjake wrote:| What's the color of the Homeland cataclysmo-meter these days ? It seems to be pinned on 'pending catastrophe', wasn't attacking Iraq supposed to help solve that ? |
|
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.
|
|
Logged |
3 straight underperforming seasons, one nitwit head coach, 2 problem child WRs, 1 collosal trade bungle....but a wild boat party with booze and hookers!!!????? Priceless.
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #74 on: Sep 9th, 2004, 10:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| Your boy Nader has a little catching up to do. Hopefully he'll get a big bounce from the Green Convention. |
|
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.
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
