rasbatch wrote:
Well for one it's the only system we got. This whole "boy wonder" thing is a bull. I know a lot of liberals and none
I mean none view him as god or a savior or anything other than a man plain and simple. It's the right wing that has concocted
that whole notion that bulk of the left see him as god. Sure a few stupid people take hero worship to far.
You go ahead and wait around for something else I'll continue to work for the here an now.
It's a bastardized version of the one we started with, actually. And I'm not sure if you read my post closely or not, but you'll see I wasn't just referring to the present emperor-in-chief, but also the criminal that preceeded him, as well. I'm not a right-winger.
You go ahead and wallow in this putrid, dying political cess-pool we've got now and I'll continue to work toward something better (and yes, I am doing more than just posting on a hockey message board about it).
doublem wrote:
At least they don't have the power to make laws that favor themselves... nope. They need the gubmint for that. Nor can they print money. Huh-uh... need gubmint for that, too.
They pretty much do since they are sleeping in the same bed with the G.
Yes. Exactly my point. That's why less government is better.
shafnutz05 wrote:
While I agree, the media has been exaggerating these numbers since the war started. And again...they tout out the "civilian death" total, but they neglect to mention how many of them were murdered by fanatical insurgents. Except for a couple bad apples that go insane, I am tired of the military being portrayed as murderers. They were sent there on a mission...they can't just refuse to go. Side note (again)...John Murtha should have been impeached (or whatever the equivalent is in the House) for the way he smeared the Marines at Haditha.
As far as our opinion on the war itself goes, we are still in agreement
However, I DO think we need to have a military presence in Afghanistan. A main forward base that can easily deploy either unmanned or manned strike aircraft to take out terrorist camps and hotspots as they are discovered. Would cost a lot less money and lives then the mess we are in now.
I think we'd do best to end the empire and bring the troops back home.
shafnutz05 wrote:Rasbatch, I don't think MOST liberals view Obama as a God. But you cannot deny the messianic mentality that was going around back in the second half of 2008. You had people swooning and crying, collapsing on the ground in a stupor. I would hesitate to say a majority of people viewed Obama as a Messiah, but at the very least it was a significant percentage of the Left.
And Obama's team certainly did everything they could to enhance that image. Did you know that his sound crew constantly turned the reverb up as high as it would go to make his voice sound like it was "booming down from above"? And don't get me started on the pillars he put in Invesco field for his "Emperor's speech"
Oh, I think I said a certain segment of liberals took the hero worship to far.
Some that came from where we had been for 8 years.
As for the reverb or pillars and such I call that shrewd.
He wanted to win, and he did.
Did you hear that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama referred to the Tea Party activists as "extremist teabaggers" in the last couple weeks in talking to their fellow Democrats? Between that and Pelosi referring to them as racist Nazis, it's nice to see how exactly our leadership views those that demonstrate peacefully. I am pretty sure not one Tea Party attendee was arrested...the difference is, when the left protests, property is destroyed and streets are blocked.
Guinness wrote:I think we'd do best to end the empire and bring the troops back home.
Like I said, I agree with you 98% of the way. While I disagreed with the ground war in Iraq (and not SO much Afghanistan), one incontrovertible fact is that these messy wars (as horrible as they have been), moved the playing field back to the Middle East. The Fort Hood shooting is the largest terror attack (and I believe it was that) on American soil since 9/11. The fact we were asserting force over there DOES have something to do with that.
I don't think it needs to be a gigantic, foot troop force...quite frankly, I don't think that kind of strategy works over there. But there is no question that we need to keep SOME presence over there. Like I said, a rear-positioned base with the capacity to launch strike missions against hostile targets. The moment we leave the area completely and give them the peace to do what they want is the moment they start planning the big attacks again (if they haven't already)
Look at how many terrorist attacks occurred in the 90s, and compare that with post-9/11. As bad as Bush royally flubbed his strategy, the presence in the Middle East did force the playing field back to their turf.
You seem to support government is bad, all government is bad. Like with the health care plan and states rights. So, is it all government or just BIG GOVERNMENT. And what makes you think government closer to "you" is going to make the problem any better? If the city of Pittsburgh is an example it isn't any better the closer it gets to you? Or do you just want to get back to the "state of nature"?
rasbatch wrote:
Well for one it's the only system we got. This whole "boy wonder" thing is a bull. I know a lot of liberals and none
I mean none view him as god or a savior or anything other than a man plain and simple. It's the right wing that has concocted
that whole notion that bulk of the left see him as god. Sure a few stupid people take hero worship to far.
You go ahead and wait around for something else I'll continue to work for the here an now.
It's a bastardized version of the one we started with, actually. And I'm not sure if you read my post closely or not, but you'll see I wasn't just referring to the present emperor-in-chief, but also the criminal that preceeded him, as well. I'm not a right-winger.
You go ahead and wallow in this putrid, dying political cess-pool we've got now and I'll continue to work toward something better (and yes, I am doing more than just posting on a hockey message board about it).
I read your posts regularly and agree with a lot of what you have to say,
and yes I know your not a right-winger. I just refuse to look at the greatest
country on earth as dying political cess-pool, and no I don't think Obama is some
kind of savior that is gonna fix all my problems. I find people that suggest by
believing in this president I'm somehow in some hippy dream insulting to my intelligence.
doublem wrote:You seem to support government is bad, all government is bad. Like with the health care plan and states rights. So, is it all government or just BIG GOVERNMENT. And what makes you think government closer to "you" is going to make the problem any better? If the city of Pittsburgh is an example it isn't any better the closer it gets to you? Or do you just want to get back to the "state of nature"?
I'm really not in the mood to do this for, what, the 6th or 7th time, now? How many times do you want me to answer this?
doublem wrote:You seem to support government is bad, all government is bad. Like with the health care plan and states rights. So, is it all government or just BIG GOVERNMENT. And what makes you think government closer to "you" is going to make the problem any better? If the city of Pittsburgh is an example it isn't any better the closer it gets to you? Or do you just want to get back to the "state of nature"?
As far as I am concerned, we obviously need government. We need police, fire, and other essential services. Roads, highways...I can give that to the gov't. The problem is, somewhere along the way, the government decided that it was pretty much their free reign to take over any parts of the economy/private sector as they see fit. Right now it's healthcare...and you can bet your hind quarters they are going after the energy sector next. And every time they take on another one of these large projects, we are forced to turn over more of our money to support the bloated bureaucracy.
I support a limited government that handles essential services, runs a military force, and maintains relations with foreign nations. And of course, minimal regulation.
doublem wrote:You seem to support government is bad, all government is bad. Like with the health care plan and states rights. So, is it all government or just BIG GOVERNMENT. And what makes you think government closer to "you" is going to make the problem any better? If the city of Pittsburgh is an example it isn't any better the closer it gets to you? Or do you just want to get back to the "state of nature"?
I'm really not in the mood to do this for, what, the 6th or 7th time, now? How many times do you want me to answer this?
State and local government suck just as bad as the FED. I enjoy, I could do it all day.
rasbatch wrote:
I read your posts regularly and agree with a lot of what you have to say,
and yes I know your not a right-winger. I just refuse to look at the greatest
country on earth as dying political cess-pool, and no I don't think Obama is some
kind of savior that is gonna fix all my problems. I find people that suggest by
believing in this president I'm somehow in some hippy dream insulting to my intelligence.
I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. Apologies.
I'm sorry to say that I do firmly believe that our political system is dying... perhaps even dead and it just hasn't realized it yet. I agree with you that the principles this country were founded upon are the basis of the best form of government man has conceived. But we've become an enormous, faceless, fat and drunken empire, and that will come to an end, one way or another.
doublem wrote:You seem to support government is bad, all government is bad. Like with the health care plan and states rights. So, is it all government or just BIG GOVERNMENT. And what makes you think government closer to "you" is going to make the problem any better? If the city of Pittsburgh is an example it isn't any better the closer it gets to you? Or do you just want to get back to the "state of nature"?
I'm really not in the mood to do this for, what, the 6th or 7th time, now? How many times do you want me to answer this?
State and local government suck just as bad as the FED. I enjoy, I could do it all day.
(I hear ya...)
I don't envision some great and expanding role for state/local government. Federal government at least restricted to is proscribed role, state/local as small as we libertarians can make it.
Each of the great civilizations in the world passed through a series of stages from their birth to their decline to their death. Historians have listed these in ten stages.
The first stage moves from bondage to spiritual faith. The second from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth stage moves from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage moves from abundance to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency. The seventh stage moves from complacency to apathy. The eighth stage moves from apathy to moral decay. The ninth stage moves from moral decay to dependence. And the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage.
These are the ten stages through which the great civilizations have gone. Notice the progression from bondage to liberty back to bondage. The first generation throws off the shackles of bondage only to have a later generation through apathy and indifference allow itself to once again be enslaved.
I have always loved this passage, although I admittedly don't know who initially penned it (or how long it has even been around). I know it shows up on a lot of religious websites, but I find it very applicable in a strictly secular context. It reflects a lot of what Malcolm Muggeridge used to write about back in his heyday. I believe we are somewhere in the ninth stage right now.
rasbatch wrote:
I read your posts regularly and agree with a lot of what you have to say,
and yes I know your not a right-winger. I just refuse to look at the greatest
country on earth as dying political cess-pool, and no I don't think Obama is some
kind of savior that is gonna fix all my problems. I find people that suggest by
believing in this president I'm somehow in some hippy dream insulting to my intelligence.
I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. Apologies.
I'm sorry to say that I do firmly believe that our political system is dying... perhaps even dead and it just hasn't realized it yet. I agree with you that the principles this country were founded upon are the basis of the best form of government man has conceived. But we've become an enormous, faceless, fat and drunken empire, and that will come to an end, one way or another.
I didn't necessarily mean you insulted me, as I said I respect your opinion
and yes the government has ceased to serve the people from which it
gets it's power. I just don't think it's all gonna be swept away in a biblical
flood and be washed clean, but rather through slow steady change, maybe that
makes me naive.
Guinness wrote:I think we'd do best to end the empire and bring the troops back home.
Like I said, I agree with you 98% of the way. While I disagreed with the ground war in Iraq (and not SO much Afghanistan), one incontrovertible fact is that these messy wars (as horrible as they have been), moved the playing field back to the Middle East. The Fort Hood shooting is the largest terror attack (and I believe it was that) on American soil since 9/11. The fact we were asserting force over there DOES have something to do with that.
I don't think it needs to be a gigantic, foot troop force...quite frankly, I don't think that kind of strategy works over there. But there is no question that we need to keep SOME presence over there. Like I said, a rear-positioned base with the capacity to launch strike missions against hostile targets. The moment we leave the area completely and give them the peace to do what they want is the moment they start planning the big attacks again (if they haven't already)
Look at how many terrorist attacks occurred in the 90s, and compare that with post-9/11. As bad as Bush royally flubbed his strategy, the presence in the Middle East did force the playing field back to their turf.
I think the reason we are such a target is because of the way we treat the rest of the world. If we're not outright invading, we're subverting, cajoling, strong-arming... I'm not an isolationist - I think Americans - private citizens - should go anywhere in the world they wish and spend money and do business with regard to local laws and customs as much as we're welcomed. The empire doesn't care if it's welcome or not.
rasbatch wrote:
I read your posts regularly and agree with a lot of what you have to say,
and yes I know your not a right-winger. I just refuse to look at the greatest
country on earth as dying political cess-pool, and no I don't think Obama is some
kind of savior that is gonna fix all my problems. I find people that suggest by
believing in this president I'm somehow in some hippy dream insulting to my intelligence.
I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. Apologies.
I'm sorry to say that I do firmly believe that our political system is dying... perhaps even dead and it just hasn't realized it yet. I agree with you that the principles this country were founded upon are the basis of the best form of government man has conceived. But we've become an enormous, faceless, fat and drunken empire, and that will come to an end, one way or another.
I didn't necessarily mean you insulted me, as I said I respect your opinion
and yes the government has ceased to serve the people from which it
gets it's power. I just don't think it's all gonna be swept away in a biblical
flood and be washed clean, but rather through slow steady change, maybe that
makes me naive.
Interesting that you should say "flood"... Because it may actually be a flood that sweeps it away - a flood of printed, value-less money, that is.
rasbatch wrote:
I read your posts regularly and agree with a lot of what you have to say,
and yes I know your not a right-winger. I just refuse to look at the greatest
country on earth as dying political cess-pool, and no I don't think Obama is some
kind of savior that is gonna fix all my problems. I find people that suggest by
believing in this president I'm somehow in some hippy dream insulting to my intelligence.
I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. Apologies.
I'm sorry to say that I do firmly believe that our political system is dying... perhaps even dead and it just hasn't realized it yet. I agree with you that the principles this country were founded upon are the basis of the best form of government man has conceived. But we've become an enormous, faceless, fat and drunken empire, and that will come to an end, one way or another.
I didn't necessarily mean you insulted me, as I said I respect your opinion
and yes the government has ceased to serve the people from which it
gets it's power. I just don't think it's all gonna be swept away in a biblical
flood and be washed clean, but rather through slow steady change, maybe that
makes me naive.
America isn't going anywhere. The problem is what will it look like. America is still the most powerful country in the world, but the system is broken, really dead. It's stagnancy that is the problem. America and the rest of the world just don't have any ideas left, and the ones they do have are all shorted sighted. Another problem is that most of the Western world is satisfied, all material needs are taken care of. It makes capitalism run into an unique problem, maybe something that it hasn't had in it's history, it has no needs left to produce, so the system has to produce wants or desires, makes it a society of consumerism and not production. Everyone wants the people to rise up and fix the system. Again- why would people do that when they don't have it relative bad in the first place? I see a system just pushing crap around for the next few decades or so, unless something dramatic happens.
Guinness wrote:I think the reason we are such a target is because of the way we treat the rest of the world. If we're not outright invading, we're subverting, cajoling, strong-arming... I'm not an isolationist - I think Americans - private citizens - should go anywhere in the world they wish and spend money and do business with regard to local laws and customs as much as we're welcomed. The empire doesn't care if it's welcome or not.
And that's the one point I will have to gently disagree. Radical Islam (originally known as Wahabbism) has been around for centuries...but really picked up in force after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Radical Muslims hate us not because of our foreign policy, but because of our Western secularism, decadence, and classical liberalism (I support this!). Their end goal is to wipe the nonbelievers from the face of the Earth, and America represents the most prominent Western democracy/liberal nation. If we were to withdraw every troop from overseas and turtle up, I guarantee you the attacks wouldn't stop.
9/11, as well as the other terrorist attacks, were rooted in a deep-seated religious extremism that has been around for centuries. That won't stop if we completely reduce our presence over in the heart of this nightmare. It will only get worse.
Each of the great civilizations in the world passed through a series of stages from their birth to their decline to their death. Historians have listed these in ten stages.
The first stage moves from bondage to spiritual faith. The second from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth stage moves from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage moves from abundance to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency. The seventh stage moves from complacency to apathy. The eighth stage moves from apathy to moral decay. The ninth stage moves from moral decay to dependence. And the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage.
These are the ten stages through which the great civilizations have gone. Notice the progression from bondage to liberty back to bondage. The first generation throws off the shackles of bondage only to have a later generation through apathy and indifference allow itself to once again be enslaved.
I have always loved this passage, although I admittedly don't know who initially penned it (or how long it has even been around). I know it shows up on a lot of religious websites, but I find it very applicable in a strictly secular context. It reflects a lot of what Malcolm Muggeridge used to write about back in his heyday. I believe we are somewhere in the ninth stage right now.
Usually attributed to Scotsman Alexander Tytler, I believe... tho' I think that may be inaccurate.
I should mention that while I am sure the radical Islamists are not too fond of our foreign policy, if we were too completely withdraw our troops from the world, they would find other reasons to gin up hatred and violence against "The Great Satan"
Guinness wrote:I think the reason we are such a target is because of the way we treat the rest of the world. If we're not outright invading, we're subverting, cajoling, strong-arming... I'm not an isolationist - I think Americans - private citizens - should go anywhere in the world they wish and spend money and do business with regard to local laws and customs as much as we're welcomed. The empire doesn't care if it's welcome or not.
And that's the one point I will have to gently disagree. Radical Islam (originally known as Wahabbism) has been around for centuries...but really picked up in force after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Radical Muslims hate us not because of our foreign policy, but because of our Western secularism, decadence, and classical liberalism (I support this!). Their end goal is to wipe the nonbelievers from the face of the Earth, and America represents the most prominent Western democracy/liberal nation. If we were to withdraw every troop from overseas and turtle up, I guarantee you the attacks wouldn't stop.
9/11, as well as the other terrorist attacks, were rooted in a deep-seated religious extremism that has been around for centuries. That won't stop if we completely reduce our presence over in the heart of this nightmare. It will only get worse.
The attacks won't relent because the damage has already been done. The bottom line is even if our empire was gentle and merciful, it IS unsustainable. Nothing we're doing over there is preventing attacks over here. We're basically re-enforcing the notion that we're at war with Islam.
Those who attack us should be engaged, I agree. But we're not doing that in Iraq, and we're now nation-building in Afghanistan, too.
Radical Muslims hate us not because of our foreign policy, but because of our Western secularism, decadence, and classical liberalism (I support this!). Their end goal is to wipe the nonbelievers from the face of the Earth, and America represents the most prominent Western democracy/liberal nation.
And how are they going to do this? It sounds a lot like you are saying that they hate us because of our freedoms.
How many times do you want me to answer this?