I´m blessed to live in a Monarchy - where there´s no need to vote.
The power of authority is successed via the blood line - Long live The King!
A discussion on politics, refined - Gretsch style.
« » Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-
- Rated: 17 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 12:51 p.m. Dr Nyl:
-
- Rated: 212 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 12:58 p.m. Proteus:
How's that working for you?
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 12:59 p.m. seadevil:
Think of that statement about laws and human behavior in a broader context! It's a great philosophical issue to consider when you're talking about politics in general, which is the actual topic here.
Bear, the idea that Obama is some kind of Islamofascist "mole" is the most transparent red herring I've ever heard of. Let me offer as its logical counterpart that McCain may be a "Manchurian Candidate" brainwashed during his years in captivity, poised to deliver us all to the Red Chinese at the utterance of some obscure code word. And no, I don't believe that either.
If the national anthem had played and Obama had not doffed his hat and put his hand over his heart, he would have been out of this race a long time ago. Maybe he just knows the anthem better than everyone else, and knew it was over when they weren't quite sure.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:00 p.m. bigalthethird:
Gretschington, the Declaration has stuff like "Creator" and "Nature's God" all over the place. I knew about the Pledge, but those dudes built the country on a religious platform. Hell, the whole reason they left England was for religious freedom.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:04 p.m. bigalthethird:
Devil, which statement are you talking about?
And Obama a plant by the radical Muslims? I doubt it. It's probably got a small chance of being true, like .06% or something, but I really doubt it.
That picture is propaganda, plain and simple. I don't like the dude, and I don't know if he actually loves America or not, but that picture doesn't tell me anything besides the fact that he wasn't thinking. I GUARANTEE if he was thinking about what he was doing, he wouldn't have done it! That is to say, if he realized he didn't have his hand over his heart, he would have put it there immediately. Because he's running for president, and you can't have that type of stuff floating around. He's a smart man, and he knows that.
I chalk it up to simply not thinking at the moment, which everyone does. I don't know if he loves America, I don't know if he hates America, I don't know for certainty much of anything about most politicians. All I know is that he doesn't need that type of negative press and sure as hell didn't do it on purpose.
-
- Rated: 59 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:05 p.m. Bear:
seadevil, I AM NOT a McCain fan by any means and I wasn't alluding that Mr. Obama was in fact an Islamofascist "mole" (great phrase by the way). I was merely tossing out the "possibility". I don't trust any candidate of any party for any office unfortunately. It seems odd that someone would spend millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year.
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:07 p.m. seadevil:
Hey! That includes my freedom to be an atheist!
BA3, I meant saying that making something illegal doesn't necessarily stop people from doing it. The posts are coming in so fast that the reference wasn't as clear as I'd expected. And by the way, I may be an atheist and play in a band called the Sea Devils (a colloquial term for a ray), but I'm not actually a "Devil".
For those of you who might be interested, here's more information about the faith of Thomas Paine and many other founding fathers:
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:09 p.m. bigalthethird:
Well I'd happily spend quite a few millions to become president, investmentally speaking, because you never (ever) worry about money again. And your children don't worry about money. Grandchildren??
Hell if I had any shot + unlimited funds, I'd go for president just for the fun of it.
But I agree, the nature of politics is one that weeds out those who are in it for themselves. It's very hard to succeed in politics unless you really have your own interests first. There have been a few presidents from both sides (I feel) who actually didn't put themselves first, but it's rare.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:10 p.m. bigalthethird:
seadevil said: Hey! That includes my freedom to be an atheist!
Yep, you're damn right about that! I hope you're not confusing what I'm saying.
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:14 p.m. seadevil:
See above (edited) post... you guys are too fast for me!
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:19 p.m. seadevil:
From the Deist site:
"It's vitally important for Deists and free thinkers to obliterate Christianity, and all "revealed" religions, as soon as possible. The only way to do this is to use our God-given reason and the free exchange of ideas."
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:19 p.m. bigalthethird:
Gotcha. You're definitely right about that. I'm typing fast today (
) so you probably didn't read it, but I wrote this last page:
"If something is wrong, make it illegal. It will still be done, of course, but it'll reduce the amount."
That's all. Good discussion so far guys! I love starting days out like this.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 1:20 p.m. bigalthethird:
Obliterate!? But that sounds bad!
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:04 p.m. seadevil:
Well, I only included the part that sounds shocking. The far more reasonable and conciliatory sentences that followed didn't serve the purpose of making the reader say "No! George Washington couldn't have believed that!"
They go on to say this:
"We can't, nor should we want to, force people to abandon Christianity and the "revealed" religions, we can only let them know how empty and ludicrous those religions really are while letting them know there is a very satisfying God friendly and reason friendly alternative available to them - Deism!"
-
- Rated: 212 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:15 p.m. Proteus:
The argument that Obama is some kind of front for Muslim oil-producing nations seems a wild stretch.
Besides which, for all practical purposes, it's already been done: how much friendlier could an American government - an American dynasty - be to Arab oil-producing nations (and their rulers) than the Bushes have been?
The Georges and the Sauds are pretty much "like that." Business partnerships, personal friendships, mutual support even in the face of disapproval on the part of their respective peoples. We even took on dealing with Osama Bin Laden for the Sauds, once he was pissed off enough at just those relationships to come after us.
But I'm not sure I fault the oily Bushes for their friendship with other oily oligarchs. Just what IS patriotism? Is it securing the energy supplies on which our prosperity (and thus, make no mistake, our peace and stability) depends, or is it hating our enemies?
And who defines the enemy?
And, if the oil relationships which define and stabilize the current world order make those closest to the oil (on both sides of the transaction) filthy rich, and provide just enough, at ever-increasing prices (and profits) for the rest of us to have our bread and circuses, are there winners and losers? Or just winners and bigger winners? Or temporary winners and eventual losers all round?
Just what would Muslim oil-producing nations have the US do that it's not already doing now? Buying their wares by the billion-barrel load? Check. Bankrupting ourselves to do so while impoverishing our own people? Check. Exhausting our public military resources and enriching a certain connected portion of our private sector in elective wars of foreign entanglement? Check. Rolling back the personal liberties of our citizens in favor of a paranoid paternalistic (and sometimes coercive) state? Yup. Adopting our own brand of doctrinaire fundamentalism? ...
It's all pretty complex stuff. I swear to Petro I don't know how to parse it.
If anything, I suspect Obama is far less connected to Arab oil interests than the current power structure.
And I'm having a hard time imagining how ANYone could sweep into power under cover of a greater tapestry of deception, subterfuge, and misdirection than the Bush administration did.
They've delivered nothing that they promised, and radically redefined the role of government, and the relationship among branches and agencies of the government.
That's been a seriously subversive operation.
And maybe all oil under the bridge. Either way, Bushoco will be gone come January. I'm asking myself other questions.
Does McCain truly represents Bush Lite/Term 3? Despite the caricature propagated by Democratic politics, I'm not convinced of that. He does have a lifelong contrarian/"Maverick" nature which gives him some independence of mind and spirit.
He's served honorably, and appears to have an instinct for truth justice and the American way. On the other hand, he's been a slacker, a playboy, a reckless crasher of Navy airplanes, a philanderer and betrayer of his wedding vows, and apparently a serial opportunist in his ambitious rise through the business-connected Republican ranks.
The character arguments cut both ways.
I respect that he's the third generation of Naval John McCains, and that there are bases named for his forebears. Tradition. On the other hand, we know what the third generation often does to family businesses, and his conduct up till Vietnam suggests he was on that squandering path. (All of which he owns up to.) His "heroism" in Vietnam consisted mostly in being cussedly defiant and a determined survivor, rather than a great leader, much less a military strategist.
I don't diminish any of that. I thank him for his sacrifice, and wince with his wounds. It's good he's personally tough – and he's a durn sight ahead of George Bush in honorable military conduct. But being a POW doesn't automatically confer wisdom, or even competence, in foreign affairs and military matters.
His life seems to have worked out as a series of trajectories resulting from several conflicting elements of his personality: an instinct for service and honor, contrarian recklessness and defiance, opportunism, the famous temper, and the dogged determination to survive.
You can't help but like the guy. But I can't predict how the elements of his personality would combine during a presidency. Depending on events, it could go well or very very badly – and in any case my first concern would be to what extent he was willing to dismantle the Bush machine and to take at least an honest stab at truly working in the light of the conservative values he espouses, to implement rational moderate policies in every area of our national life.
I don't have any read on that likelihood at all – and I do question his energy and his age. Besides not being a great speechifier (in many ways a superficial talent), he doesn't sound particularly sharp or informed when working on his feet, and he often impresses me as an honorable old soldier whose prime is 10 years past.
I have questions about Obama as well. He gives a hell of a speech, packed with energy and enthusiasm and passion - but they can be low in fibre and vapidly platitudinous. He inspires, and that's a very good thing – until it becomes empty demagoguery.
There's nothing in his past that gives me pause; his life seems to have been one consistent upward arc of ability and ambition – and unless the money he raises online is actually coming from a cabal of greedy oil sheiks and freedom-hating imams who've worked out how to funnel money through the bank accounts of millions of private American citizens, I consider his connections (and his gratitude to stakeholders) to be as innocent as we get in American politics.
He seems to have a vast constituency of small donors, an army of true believers – which is what we used to call democracy. But the majority can surely be wrong, and no tyranny beats that of the ill-informed and misled masses. We have ample recent evidence of that.
Obama is from all appearances personally quite intelligent, articulate and passionate. I credit him with being able to think for himself, evaluate alternate courses of action, combine elements of solutions (or attempts at solutions) from all over the political spectrum, and enthusiastically "sell" his ideas. That's all good stuff.
On the other hand, detail-obsessed "too smart" guys have not always succeeded in the White House, and if his instincts or decision-making precedents are untested or seriously flawed, he could lead enthusiastically in the wrong way. He has such a pattern of success, without major setback, that I suspect he could be overconfident and a touch arrogant.
I hope he has sufficient humility and respect for the magnitude of the job to surround himself with smart, informed, experienced, and forceful people – including some nay-saying contrarians – to counter his own over-confidence. (If over-confident he is, and I've yet to get a read on that.)
What I don't need from either candidate is any messianic conviction that God is on their side. I wish religion in American politics would go back where it was 50 years ago – vaguely assumed, lip-served, and otherwise ignored in public discourse.
They don't have to tell me they pray, and I rather wish they wouldn't (tell me). Their job is to do the greatest practical good for the greatest number of citizens in a complex and diverse society. The dictates of common humanity will suffice to guide that work.
I want leaders to act from their convictions (with respect and tolerance for mine); they can tell me what those convictions are...maybe once...but I don't want to hear chapter and verse of where they got the convictions. I don't want to hear political buzzwords masquerading as convictions, and I don't want to hear about their conversion experiences.
Both candidates have talked a bit more than I need to hear about their relationships with God – but they are forced by the current religio-political climate to do so. Under those circumstances, both have shown an honorable mix of heartfelt eloquence and reticence, and neither has either qualified or disqualified himself on that count.
It will go without saying that neither man is quite who he advertises himself as being, that neither is as good nor as perfect a solution as his campaign represents, and that neither is as bad as his opponent says.
I'm as divided as the polls.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:24 p.m. bigalthethird:
First and foremost that was a great post. I didn't agree with a few things, but it's nice to see people thinking stuff out instead of being told what to think.
And if nothing else Pro, you can always vote for the person who'll be better for your money.
-
- Rated: 19 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:27 p.m. Gretschington:
bigalthethird said: Gretschington, the Declaration has stuff like "Creator" and "Nature's God" all over the place. I knew about the Pledge, but those dudes built the country on a religious platform. Hell, the whole reason they left England was for religious freedom.
I thought it was to escape the stranglehold held by the pope and the king...only to have it now reappear as the stranglehold held by the Evangelical Fundamentalists and the hard-core right wingers.
Yeah, i know, I'm all over the place here...just having fun while I'm too full of coffee and taking a break from a tedious fret job I'm working on.
-
- Rated: 4 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:36 p.m. RhythmMax:
Bear for president!
-
- Rated: 212 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:37 p.m. Proteus:
I don't have a clue which would be best for my money. Do you mean if the US and civilization as we know it collapses, or if we eke out a few more lucky years, or we move toward a transition to "sustainability?"
In total or significant partial collapse, my money – and the whole structure of which it's part – will be irrelevant. Eking out a few more lucky years sounds great, and I'd like to see my retirement funds rebound – but is that best for my kids and grandchildren?
Developing a sane and sustainable lifestyle would surely be the best long-term choice, and would just as surely require some hip-pocket sacrifice. It would be worth it.
But exactly what a sane and sustainable lifestyle might eventually entail, and how to get there, I'm a bit vague on.
In practical political terms, it's probably energy policy which would lead us in that direction – and neither candidate has a policy that makes perfect sense to me. (As someone who's just admitted I don't know what would be perfect.)
-
- Rated: 19 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:42 p.m. Gretschington:
P.S. Not to spin this off course with non-sequiturs (as I often do in conversations when I'm too full of coffee) but have any of you seen this documentary? At one point they bring out a life-sized cutout of Bush and have the kids..., well, you just gotta see this movie. I watched it on Netflix.
-
- Rated: 59 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 2:43 p.m. Bear:
I have to admit this has been an excellent and enjoyable thread. I find it absolutely amazing that we've been able to fill up four pages with talk about politics and religion without one death threat or promise of severe physical harm. Maybe there's hope for US after all.
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 3:01 p.m. seadevil:
Let me recommend a really brilliant and revelatory book: "Nixonland", by Rick Perlstein.
It's very long, but an incredibly compelling read. He spares nothing positive or negative in his well-researched story of the development of the current political scene. He is in awe, for example, of his primary subject's political acumen and intelligence as well as his amorality and opportunism. The so-called left gets a similarly even-handed treatment; the Kennedy brothers' sense of privilege, dissolute and philandering lifestyles, and occasional profound hypocrisy are given as much attention as their well-documented triumphs in speechifying and civil rights. We also get to see the first appearances of many figures that have become central players in the vicious farce of today's electoral politics, a 26-year-old Karl Rove among them. Woe to Barack Obama if he doesn't read this one; he'll have no idea what a deeply committed, effective and unscrupulous electoral machine he's up against. For Republicans, it opens the question of whether certain beliefs are genuinely worth fighting for at any cost or by any means. The means depicted here are enough to make anyone's skin crawl, and they've become standard practice.
-
- Rated: 44 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 3:10 p.m. Joel:
bigalthethird: said: For instance, I think Bush has been a pretty good President and I think he gets an awful lot of crap considering the difficulty of the decade surrounding his Presidency. That said, he sure as hell isn't perfect and I sure as hell don't agree with him 100%.
I'm a Republican (technically or atleast that's what it says that I'm registered as) and I believe any glass can be seen as half empty or half full. You can take any President and say they did a good job considering. I guess the reason I'm registered as a Republican is because of Reagan. Now, in some parts of the country I learned he wasn't that great to them. In my part of the country we went from bad times to good times. So it's all which side of the fence you're on as to whether or they're a "good" President or a "bad" one. The thing I don't like about Bush is I can't stand to hear him talk. It's painful to me. It's not cool when the hamster running in the wheel is drowning out the words coming out of the mouth. The one big beef I have with Bush is he came here to Oklahoma and did a commencement speach for OSU (Oklahoma State University, which I'm an alumni of) and made the statement that the grads where "better off than they where 5 years ago" which if he'd bother to talk to anyone around here he'd learn that's not the case. Five years a go a person could get a job in Ponca that paid upwards of six figures and today you can't. You're lucky to get a job that pays $30,000 when 5 short years ago the average income was $50,000-$70,000. I also don't agree with him on free trade. I'm a capitalist and a conservative but I don't agree with the current party's view that big business is more important than the American people. In their view there is no room for the little guy which to me is the death of the American dream...
In all reality, political view points do not matter. Politics will never solve anything. There are issues in the world and all political lines do is to keep our attention away from the things that really matter and on some sort of useless game that makes great television but really has no impact on the world...
-
- Rated: 7 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 3:15 p.m. SaturdaySnax:
Vote up for seadevil! Great film, Gretschington. Nice post proteus. What's great is that people are talking. I can't tell you how many times I've been shushed by people telling me that it is impolite to talk politics and religion. A democracy requires the free exchange of ideas and this forum is democracy in action.
I grew up in a conservative home, but was a rebellious sonbitch, so it's no surprise where I ended up. But my dad always used to say the the government should stay the hell out of our private lives. He said this was was conservatism. That's what I always thought conservatism was and i have a place in my heart for true conservatives. So what I don't understand is how conservatives today want the government all up in their reproductive business. They want the government telling them who they can and can't marry. They want the government all up in their religion. Not to mention all the spending! How did this happen?
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 3:21 p.m. bigalthethird:
I was going to respond to a lot, but Saturday - that's not what true conservatives are. Those are the crazies.
Proper conservatives just want the Government to go bye bye, basically. Not entirely, just in large part.
