# Proud of our Commander in Chief



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2003)

I as most of us following the war saw that the President made a surprise visit to see the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving. I just wanted to note that this was an awesome display of support, well deserved by our troops. What a fresh breath of air it must have felt like instead of the daily anti-war B.S.

I'm just glad that they now have a President who actually cares about our troops. The looks on their faces said it all.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2003)

Yes, this was a neat idea.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 30, 2003)

Um...ah...has it ever occurred to you that a fair chunk of the problem is that we're constantly asked to be proud of a President rather than our country, our own actions, our history, our democracy?

I mean, there's a direct application of the adage, "bow to things, salute people," here.

I'll be proud of the President when he lays some of his prestige on the line to do something trivial like, say, make sure that every kid in this country gets to go to bed with a decent meal, their vaccinations, and health insurance.  Something that might actually risk something with his supporters, as opposed to dealing out hundreds of billions to the extremely wealthy and their corporations. . .That's being a mensch, far as I'm concerned.

Eisenhower, Roosevelt, T.R......putting Bush in that line is as sad as following Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.

Oh well. If you're wondering why I'm responding this way, it's because I'm pretty damn tired of being told I should bow every five minutes by these clowns. At least Bill Clinton--who blew all sorts of opportunities to show some guts in good causes--had the grace and sense to be embarassed by the way he avoided military service and ended up Commander-in-Chief.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2003)

The sad thing is is that any move he makes in that direction will only last until he is re-elected. The Panderer in Cheif has better things to do than try to solve any domestic issues.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 30, 2003)

Uh-oh...we're agreeing...it's the Apocalypse.


----------



## ABN (Nov 30, 2003)

Come on! Enough already. You guys talk like none of these problems existed before Bush got into office. Clinton was no friend to the small farmer (as evidenced by his friendship with that small time poultry farmer Tyson). The domestic agendas of previous administrations don't really strike me as any great piece of social achievement either. Johnson's great society has required a twelve step recovery program. Nixon was more foreign policy oriented, Ford ummm well he did a great job of making sure our golf courses were maintained, Carter just got dealt a bad hand, and Reagan whether you want to admit it or not actually got things moving again. Your attacks on Bush are no better than those heaped upon Clinton when he was in office.

What steps are you taking to correct the problems that you see? Are you supporting grass roots programs in your neighborhoods to correct what you consider to be injustice? Are you backing good candidates who really want to see change and not keep the status quo? If you really want to start fixing the problems that you see start at your local level and work your way up. The problems we face start at the political machines on the ground floor. They aren't controlled by Bush who, like it or not, is in a temp job. 

Those of you who blame him for the recession and/or his attempts to fix it should take a course in economics. Economics is cyclical. Things go up and things go down. Personally I think that his economic team is doing as a good a job as possible with the hand they were dealt. 

Bottom line is this, if you are actually taking steps to enact change and improve the life of your fellow citizens in the best way that you can, more power to you. Even if I disagree with you I respect you for making the effort. If all you are doing is talking, complaining, and doing nothing, then get off of your fourth point of contact and put your hands to use doing something besides typing.

Sorry for the rant but I spent all day at a social justice seminar where everyone complained but no one had the testicular fortitude to do anything else. Then I read several threads in this forum that do nothing but bash, bash, bash, bash, and not once have I read a single suggestion as to how things could be improved beyond getting Bush out of office, getting someone else in, etc, etc. It doesn't matter who's in office unless you make sure they hear your voice.

So much for rugged individualism...

:soapbox: 

Andy

As a professional soldier, I am damned proud of my President and my Country. 

"My country in her intercourse with other nations may she always be in the right but, my country right or wrong"
-Stephen Decatur


----------



## Ender (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Um...ah...has it ever occurred to you that a fair chunk of the problem is that we're constantly asked to be proud of a President rather than our country, our own actions, our history, our democracy?
> 
> *


* 

crackin up here...um...who's asking???*LOL..the mysterious "THEY"???..*LOL

[QUOTE}
I'll be proud of the President when he lays some of his prestige on the line to do something trivial like, say, make sure that every kid in this country gets to go to bed with a decent meal, their vaccinations, and health insurance.  
[/QUOTE] 

rrright...isn't that the parents responsibility to provide those things???*LOL...oh yeah..the government is supposed to solve all of our problems!...people can have as many kids as they see fit and put it on the taxpayers bill!!..*shaking head...no sense of self reliance, self sufficiency, or self responsibilty....blame Bush!!*


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2003)

Yes! And not only was it a neat idea, it showed that the troops still had moral, and a true leader to follow. What an about-face to that impeached loser the troops and families didn't even want visiting them. (Not to mention his counterpart who tried to have their votes ignored)

At least a tear in President Bush's eye is sincere.

Bush in '04, for sure.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2003)

Oh, yes, one more thing I guess.

I'm firm on the belief that the government is here to govern, protect the Constitution, and manage the military. Not to put food on everyone's table.


----------



## ABN (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *At least a tear in President Bush's eye is sincere.
> *



On a purely anecdotal note, I was in Normandy in June of 94 for the 50th anniversary of D-Day and there was nothing sincere on the part of the fmr Preisdent save for the sigh of relief when he was able to get on the plane and away from the contempt he was held in by every veteran there.

andy


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *On a purely anecdotal note, I was in Normandy in June of 94 for the 50th anniversary of D-Day and there was nothing sincere on the part of the fmr Preisdent save for the sigh of relief when he was able to get on the plane and away from the contempt he was held in by every veteran there.
> 
> andy *



Ugh. That's just sooooo wrong. But I'll tack on the "LOL" for the anecdotal side of it


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2003)

"At least the tear in his eye is sincere"

Ha, tears from this AWOL coke head drunk driving daddies boy C student get into yale for a billion bucks jumped up drunk frat boy figurehead of big business.  For all you know he could have been crying because he actually found his conscience amonst meeting people who were dying for this neo-con agenda!

And I didn't inhale.  You guys have set a real precedent when it comes to ignoring history!  

I'll be proud of the president when he knocks off the cronyism, cares about our kids futures, cares about the environment, and cares about other people who don't happen to have a dictator standing over mass quantities of oil.  

:soapbox: 

upnorthkyosa

PS - my friend was actually there.  He went through 3 days of security checks before he was allowed to go into that rally.  The media has lied to you.  This was no surprise.  The spin just keeps getting better and better.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 30, 2003)

Well, hey kids. I was in Normandy June 6, 1984, when they recreated the Debarquement, and Reagan spoke. The same trip, if I recollect aright,  during which he asserted that he'd helped liberate a death camp in WWII. The trip before he laid a wreath on SS graves at Bitburg and maundered about forgiveness for the past. So if we want to discuss embarassing Presidential moments...


And remind me...what WAS Bush Jr.'s stellar record with the Texas Air National Guard? How exactly did he get the LAST slot in the state for that position, given his place at the very bottom of a LONG waiting list? Hm? His dad was the real deal. So was John McCain. So was Bob Dole. So were John Kerry and Bob Kerrey...hell, even Gore, son of the rich aand the powerful, spent seven months in Vietnam as a press officer. 

I see that, again, nobody wants to deal with the questions I asked. Nor should some of you folks: they're fundamentally unanswerable, given your political philosophies.

Last I checked, gee, I though the President might have some interest in...you know...the health of American children. Certainly Himself has time for crap like the bogus, "No Child Left Behind," education bill, so gee, I guess Dubya can reach down to that individual level when it suits. 

Reminds me of, "North Dallas Forty:" "Whenever we say it's a game, you say it's a business; whenever we say it's a business, you say it's a game."


----------



## Arthur (Nov 30, 2003)

Its been an interesting week in the "study". With the arisal of this thread there have been two I have passionate thoughts about... the same people are posting... and yet I find who I agree with varies depending on which thread it is. I think this says a lot for martialtalk.... there are people here who are thinking... whether I agree or not, there positions are reasoned to some degree. Much more than we can say for most boards.

As to the specifics of the converstation.. I think ABN said most of what I think.

Just a few thoughts I'd like to express to be complete.

I think President Bush showing up in Iraq was couragous. Looking back on the history of the prsidency I haven't seen many similar acts. Iraq, and where president Bush landed and spoke in Iraq is probably the most insecure and dangerous location for a wartime presidential visit in history. 

Regardless of any political rhetoric, the visit clearly lifted moral. It made the sacrificing soldiers life a little lighter for at least the day. I don't understand how anyone could complain about that. Had Clinton had the balls , gumption, compassion, or political savvy to show up in Haiti or Somalia I woul have applauded that too.

Bush and Gore were both members of the armed servcies during Vietnam. I have no problem with any Presdent who served, especially in war time regardless of mission orders, from wearing the paraphenalia of there service. Nor would I chastise any vetran for wearing such. I thank them for there service and the protection they have offered me.

As to laying it on the line... I think President Bush has more than done so. Reality is public perception of the state of affairs in Iraq, will likely decide the election. President Bush has enacted measures that he thinks appropriate... regardless of voter feedback. He is not making decisions based on polls, perhaps a far cry from what American citizens of the turn of this century are used to...  and whether you agree or disagree with him...  I think there is a legitimate reason to respect the actions he makes. He truly believes he is helping. More than I can say for some Presidents we've had. 

Arthur


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 1, 2003)

Uh...wow. Let me clear something up for you. Bush Jr. had strings pulled to AVOID going to Vietnam. His, "service," was a well-known sinecure in the Texas ANG, which his daddy's buddies got him by calling in favors, at a time when the US Army was dropping standards ( they took guys with IQs as low as 70, apparently) to get another 100, 000 men in the service and off to Vietnam. He got one of the last two spots in the Guard, though very low on the list. Please, if I'm wrong, show me the facts that prove that I'm wrong. I'll cheerfully (well, sullenly, but still...) apologize.

Read Molly Ivens' books, fer cryin' out loud.


----------



## Arthur (Dec 1, 2003)

> Uh...wow. Let me clear something up for you.



Interesting. ... I don't think I need anything cleared up. I didn't ask for the help.  I started my post by giving sincere deference to people in another thread... you being one... though the name might not have been mentioned. Perhaps my intro discussing the wonderful detente acquired in these last few threads was greatly exagertated.  Whoops.



> Bush Jr. had strings pulled to AVOID going to Vietnam.


Really? I never would have thought that one from an elite family would have such special treatment. Its so rare among the elite.. its not like any other so of the elite had there military asignment manipulated by the contacts of their family!

Its not like Al Gore was assigned to the press rather than being  a grunt... or like Bill Clinton... oh never mind... he ran... umm... who else... I mean come on.. that just isn't an arguement dem supporters really want to get into. ... okay I'l give the Jimmy Carter deferement... he was a legitimate service to the submarine corps.!



> Please, if I'm wrong, show me the facts that prove that I'm wrong.



I'm not looking to show you are wrong... 
Howwever, you are ignorant it would seem of the roles of other Commander in Chiefs.

The last Commander in Chief to show more positive military action is Eisenhower. Sure Kennedy gets credit for saving his crew... but thats only because he we almost killed them by disobeying basic orders.

Before that the last real war hero president was Teddy Roosevelt. All Republicans... interesting..

Arthur


I'll cheerfully (well, sullenly, but still...) apologize


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *crackin up here...um...who's asking???*LOL..the mysterious "THEY"???..*LOL
> 
> [QUOTE}
> ...


* 

rrright...isn't that the parents responsibility to provide those things???*LOL...oh yeah..the government is supposed to solve all of our problems!...people can have as many kids as they see fit and put it on the taxpayers bill!!..*shaking head...no sense of self reliance, self sufficiency, or self responsibilty....blame Bush!! *[/QUOTE] 
Parents should do a lot of things but they aren't; So, the ball is in the hands of leadership. If Leadership chooses not to lead, no fourteen year old parent is going to pick up the slack. Perhaps a better leader is in order.
Sean


----------



## ABN (Dec 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> Parents should do a lot of things but they aren't; So, the ball is in the hands of leadership. If Leadership chooses not to lead, no fourteen year old parent is going to pick up the slack. Perhaps a better leader is in order.
> Sean [/B]




   What exactly are you advocating? Socialism? Bigger government? 
Why do we always cite the extreme? The fourteen year old parent, the (insert disenfranchised here), the (insert latest political football here)?
What about the average American who is tired of seeing his or her tax dollars wasted? Why not take some of these causes that you're concerned about and take responsibility for them at the local level? That wonderful warm, fuzzy, liberal icon, Senator Disenfranchised herself Hillary Clinton said it best.

"It takes a village." 

Damn right it does. What it doesn't take is the village council or*The Village Chief*.  It doesn't take the money taxed from all of the other villages. What happened to the villagers themselves? 

I am for privatization of  most things that you seem to think our government should be providing. What if local businesses were encouraged to "buy into" the schools of their areas. Providing training in addition to an education developing a pool of trained employees from those students who didn't want to go to college. What if local taxes were actually used (God forbid) locally to support the infrastructure (such as hospitals, fire, police, etc) of the area where those taxes came from.

Again the question is, what are you doing to help? What are you doing to enact change? Stop blaming and start doing. If leadership "chooses not to lead" then be a leader. Stop standing on the sidelines screaming, and start doing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 1, 2003)

Oh, wow. 

Rich families buy their sons out of military service, so it's OK that Bush did it.

Incidentally, FDR lost sons in WWII....to which he couldn't go. (So did Teddy, WWI) And died in office. Pity that Democrats have no guts.

Gore had pretty much the same kind of "combat," job that Dick Nixon had...look it up.

Everything'll be solved by privatization? The same kind that netted our current Prez 45K in profits on a $500 investment? 

Guys like Bush and Cheney....sheesh.


----------



## ABN (Dec 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Everything'll be solved by privatization? The same kind that netted our current Prez 45K in profits on a $500 investment?
> Guys like Bush and Cheney....sheesh. *



Giving the Dems their due, Harry Truman was a National Guard Artillery officer who laid it on the line in the trenches of France during WWI, in addition to that he had to make a politico-military decision the magnitude of which, I don't think any other president in recent memory has had to contemplate.

No I am not suggesting privatizing everything. What I am suggesting is business getting more involved in a direct way with the communities in which they are based. After the failure of the Empowerment Zones of the 90's why not try working with the community from the private sector? Rather than automatically rushing to do a Bush Cheney  comparison/slam how about considering the idea? That's the problem, we look for someone to blame. BUT, NO ONE HAS ANY BETTER IDEAS BEYOND BLAME, DIVIDE, COMPLAIN, AND DEMAND 

The impression I am getting is that many of the Bush bashers don't want to hear solutions. they only want to scream about how mean and nasty the Bush administration is. how unfair it is, how wrong it is, how it's responsible for everything thats wrong with the country and with the world. If Bush gave in to every demand you made of him, how many Bush bashers would still complain about how he was stealing their ideas? 

Like it or not, he _is_ the president and you have to deal with it as a responsible citizen, not as a screaming sycophant. If you have a valid platform put it forth rationally. Show how it is better than the present administration. If the majority of the American people agree with you then you will come to power. (and don't start that whole recount thing, completed recounts showed that he actually did win Florida). If you rant and rave like Dennis Kucinich then you will have about as much of a chance of getting elected as he does. 

   As much as I diasgreed with him, Paul Wellstone was someone whom I respected because he was passionate on the issues and realized that it was _America_ that was the real issue, Not who was in office. Until you Bush bashers deal with the real problems of this country and stop trying to blame the temporary caretaker of the Executive branch of government, for everything that you think is wrong, you will only marginalize yourselves as much as the ultra right wing did when it attcked Clinton rather than the issues back in 1996.

It's ideas that motivate Americans not hate filled vitrol. It was an idea that started this country. It was ideas the fostered the New Deal, Camelot, and even the Reagan revolution. It's ideas that create change. In other places and in other times vitrol and ranting caused change, not always for the better.

   On this note, I am ending my participation in this thread. Anyone who would like to talk further with me, can do so by PM.


andy


----------



## OULobo (Dec 1, 2003)

First off, despite being and shameless Bush-hater, and having doubts about the true motivation of going to see the boys in Bagdhad, I think that just going through with the action of traveling on a valued holiday to a rather dangerous part of the world is admirable. 

Now as to the whole military record debate. True, Teddy was the last swashbuckling hero that made it to the presidency. He will always be revered for it. Lets start the exam at his relative, the next president to be in the open of a major war. This is a quick recap of presidental military service, domestic policy, foreign policy and often credited acheivements (deserved or not). Please disregard any of my personal biases. 

FDR (Dem)- He was crippled, not much chance of military service. Even so he was a ballsy leader that managed to balance solving domestic issues and wartime decision making. Hard to say he wasn't a trooper at heart. 

Harry Truman (Dem)- Wasn't elected, but still managed a memorable term. Saw combat as an artillary captain in WWI. 

Ike (Rep)- Obviously, his military career is without question. Lost some face in Korea. 

JFK (Dem)- Well documented WWII service record. Again managed a strong back against Soviet advances and began sweeping domestic issue legislation. 

LBJ (Dem)- Saw action in the Pacific as a lieutenant commander in the Navy in WWII. Strived to help domestic issue, but known for being bogged down in Viet Nam. 

"Tricky Dick" (Rep)- Served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific during WWII. Not a great one for domestic issues or personal/proffessional ethics. 

Ford (Rep)- During World War II he attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy. Focused on foreign policy, but vetoed the vast majority of non-military bills and appropriations.

Carter (Dem)- Graduated from the Naval Academy and served seven years in the Navy. Struggled with domestic issues like unemployment and inflation. Seen as a bit of a dove with domestic policy. 

Reagan (Rep)- Actor not a fighter. Quite a hawk in foreign policy and often credited with the "defeat" of the USSR in the "Cold War". Managed to run up the largest adjusted national debt until recently. 

GHW Bush (Rep)- The youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings, he flew 58 combat missions during WWII. Flexed American muscle against Noriega and Saddam. Lost on deficit and failing economy. 

"Slick Willy" (Dem)- No military experience and often seen as a draft dodger. Credited with absolving the nation's debt. Soft on foreign policy. Questioned on personal ethics choices. 

"Dubya" Bush (Rep.)- Served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Often seen as avoiding combat by opting for the national gard (doesn't work now a days, so don't get any ideas). Still in office. 

All the Presidents on the list were war-time presidents with the exceptions of Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. All the Presidents had military experience with the exceptions of FDR, Reagan and Clinton.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 1, 2003)

I love that. You guys criticize and criticize, and never offer anything constructive--just what your average Mafia chieftain might say, as they get hauled off to the pokey.

"Empowerment zones?" Now that's comedy.

When was it, exactly, that Americans started being told that they had to line up behind their Commander-in-Chief and shut up, there's a crisis? Funny how these folks never said this stuff about, say, Bill Clinton...

Vitriol? Nice word, good choice. Is that like when people accuse you of being unpatriotic for asking them....them questions about ducking military service? about a fascinating financial history? 

Oh well. Don't expect to convince anyone.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I as most of us following the war saw that the President made a surprise visit to see the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving. I just wanted to note that this was an awesome display of support, well deserved by our troops. What a fresh breath of air it must have felt like instead of the daily anti-war B.S.
> 
> I'm just glad that they now have a President who actually cares about our troops. The looks on their faces said it all. *



Oh please!  It was a photo-op which will be exploited for every fund-raiser between now and election day.  Shrub doesn't care about our troops or about you.  He cares about getting re-elected and keeping his investors happy.  Period.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Oh please!  It was a photo-op which will be exploited for every fund-raiser between now and election day.  Shrub doesn't care about our troops or about you.  He cares about getting re-elected and keeping his investors happy.  Period. *



Well if that's what you and every other Lib/Dem thinks, so be it. The rest of us already know how the lib-biased media will spin it. We don't really need more regurgitation.

The shallowness of the extreme left really leaves nothing for their "arguements" as can be seen by the posts in this thread. I guess that's what happens when emotions run too high. You know, the things that martial artists should be able to leave aside?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 1, 2003)

"The shallowness of..." 

Huh. So far, I haven't read one thing pro-Bush (including the remarks about lib-Dems and the liberal media) that isn't straight off Rush Limbaugh. And WE'RE shallow? 

Wow. So tell me:

a) where're the WMDs?
b) what happened to the crowds of happy Iraquis cheering us?
c) where's old Osama?
d) where's ol' Saddam?
e) what's up with North Korea?
f) how many soldiers are we losing a day?
g) what's the plan for straightening things out in Iraq, exactly?

At least they've dropped those silly color alert levels...and the rolls of polyethylene and duct tape...but then they're laying off airport security like crazy...and they just went another 500 bil in the hole, over the next ten years for the prescription drug benefit plan...and out blance of trade deficit is now up to...what'd I hear...50-100 bil a month?

But I forgot. I am of the shallow.


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *Come on! Enough already. You guys talk like none of these problems existed before Bush got into office. Clinton was no friend to the small farmer (as evidenced by his friendship with that small time poultry farmer Tyson). The domestic agendas of previous administrations don't really strike me as any great piece of social achievement either. *



True perhaps, but as someone once said, the difference between Bad and Worse is much greater than the difference between Good and Better.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2003)

Vitriol

I think that's what a take whenever I watch the corporate evening news.  Oh wait, that valium.  I'm going to put a picture of Bush on my boards the next time I do breaking  

Shallow Dems?  Yeah maybe a few.  At least I know a fact when I see it and at least I know my own words from Limbaugh.  They must install chips at republican caucuses.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 1, 2003)

Well, I don't listen to Rush so there goes that theory.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 1, 2003)

Funny. The language is exactly the same. 

One of the truly hilarious things about right-wing talk radio and commentary is the sense of victimization, of being the little guy beset by "them, that's so clear on Rush, Sean, Bill O'Reilley--it's always, "Here I am, persecuted as a heterosexual, upper-middle-class, conservative American white guy," and they won't give me a break.

I still want to know when exactly it was that the discussion shifted so that we were expected to be, "proud of the Commander in Chief," rather than the country, its ideals, our soldiers, our actions....

I guess that's just one of those questions that us carping types  are always asking, rather than just getting on board...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 1, 2003)

> Well if that's what you and every other Lib/Dem thinks, so be it. The rest of us already know how the lib-biased media will spin it. We don't really need more regurgitation.



Wow ... I was amazed when I saw this post. You see ... it seemed to me that this Liberal (Very Liberal) Democrat tried to give a 'FAIR AND BALANCED' post about this same topic in the thread 'President Bush goes to Iraq' a full two days before MisterMike started this thread.

Concerning the President, I made 3 specific points.

1 - It was a very good move for the president to visit Iraq. Positive benefits can be realized in several areas; the morale of the soldiers, the pride *the entire country* feels for our fighting men and woman, energize his political contributors, and leave the democratic nominees for president flat-footed. I am sure there are additional benefits that I did not enumerate.

2 - There is an important challenge in establishing the peace in Iraq. This portion of the visit was neither positive or negative. It has the possibility of becoming very dangerous for his adminstration, and our country. Without digressing into a 1000 year long history lesson, the Coalition Provisional Authority needs to find a way to work with the Iraqi Governing Council and the She-Ite (spelled phonetically to avoid astericks) Mullah ali-Sistani to create a plausible power-sharing government in Iraq. The She-Ites have been the majority in what is now Iraq for over 1000 years, but have always been oppressed by the Sunnis. If the She-Ites' long memory demands revenge for the Sunni's past sins, there will not be peace in Iraq in our lifetime.

3. The most cynical point I made, was that the Adminstration *needed* to get beyond the 'Mission Accomplished' banner on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. If you choose to see that as a Liberal Democrat presenting an Ad Hominem attack on the president, you are looking at the world through 'Rose Colored Glasses (as someone put it earlier). If the predominant image of the candidate going into next years election is a Mission Accomplished banner, after which hundreds of soldiers continue to die, you can hand the keys to the kingdom to someone else. That is the way the media in this country works ... it is the image ... not the substance.

These points are neither pro Bush or anti Bush. They are observations of reality. 

One more thought:


> No I am not suggesting privatizing everything. What I am suggesting is business getting more involved in a direct way with the communities in which they are based.



I know ABN has checked out of this thread, but I would like to add a thought on this. You see, business has a responsibility to accomplish one thing, and one thing alone. To make money, now and in the future. Everything the business does, should be driven by this one goal. This is the fundamental reality of business. The function of business is not to help out the community. We certainly look to our corporations to be good citizens, but if the choice is that the company can support the local high school band, or give me a paying job, then I will choose to have a job, and the hell with the school band.

By contrast, there are some things that GOVERNMENTS do really well; such as make laws that provide a 'social minimum'; the minimum requirmentes we have for functioning as part of the society at large. The businessman Henry Ford provides an excellent example of a social minimum; he paid his workers well enough so they could buy the product they built. 

One of the social minimums we have in this country now, which is under attack, is the public school system. I believe the current law is that every child in the United States must attend school through the age of 16. Why not eliminate this rule? Then we would not need any government funding for schools (national, state or local). There would be a huge benefit in tax savings, to  not have to support the enormous institution of public education. Certainly, those businesses that choose to offer some sort of subsidation to the school system would be welcome. Private schools would thrive. There would be a huge influx of money and students driven in part by the property tax savings realized by home owners. We would not need any silly voucher discussions or programs. Of course, the down side of this is that some children might be left behind. But, if they don't care enough to get an education, and pull themselves up by their boot straps, then they will reap what they sow, right? 

What would happen to those 10, 11 and 12 year olds, that for one reason or another, were not able to attend one of the numerous schools that would pop-up? (Of course, our religious institutions could probably offer some excellent, low-cost schools; kind of like the massadrasses in Pakistan). Hmm ... something to think about.

Think about it --- Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2003)

> I know ABN has checked out of this thread, but I would like to add a thought on this. You see, business has a responsibility to accomplish one thing, and one thing alone. To make money, now and in the future. Everything the business does, should be driven by this one goal. This is the fundamental reality of business. The function of business is not to help out the community. We certainly look to our corporations to be good citizens, but if the choice is that the company can support the local high school band, or give me a paying job, then I will choose to have a job, and the hell with the school band.



I just wanted to state that this is the most true and sensical thing that has been said so far in this entire thread. Good Job Mike Edward! Business doesn't "self-regulate" unless its immediate profit margin is being effected. Most conservative people, if taken out of the context of this conversation, will agree with me in that the purpose of a business is to make money. Period. Companies are not made for the social good, and they don't do good socially unless it is profitable. This is the way of the world whether we like it or not. 

So to expect companies to self regulate, and to do social good is too idealistic in my opinion. It also contrasts why companies are built (to make money). This is why Government regulation is so important. However, for people to see this they need to stop and realize that "the government" is really us. We (as in citizens) have much more control over our government then we do over any business. We have voting rights in our government; we don't have that right when we deal with businesses unless we have a financial interest in the company.

The sooner we as citizens step outside of the illusion that has been fabricated for us to realize that collectively we are in control of our government, and that the government isn't some infamous "they," then the better off we'll be.

Hmmm....(as I step down from my soapbox). What was the topic again...oh yea...our 'Presidents' media stunts, and how we should not question the motives of the powers that be because that would be "unamerican" because...well...HE's OUR PRESIDENT AND WE SHOULD THOUGHTLESSLY AND AIMLESSLY STAND BEHIND HIM AND THE ADMINISTRATION WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG! Sounds like the logic that a dictator would like to instill in his people. Don't be fooled by an illusion. We are in control of our government, so it is our responsabilty and duty as americans to question our leaders from time to time, and call them out when they do wrong.

We are the checks and balances to our leaders. Its the american way....

PAUL


----------



## OULobo (Dec 2, 2003)

It is possible to be forthright and beneficial to the community and still be a good businessman. The problem is that corporations don't look at anything but raw numbers. I have personally found that there are a number of large companies that are/were privately owned that maintain strong ties to the community and still produce good product at decent value. I pay more for things like soup and jelly because the companies I buy from help local causes and national charities. I don't doubt that if the hammer came down and cuts had to be made that these programs would be the first to go, but often large corporations roll all profits back into the business or their executives pockets, instead of giving some of the "fat" back to the land. While the nature of business is greed, too much of it kills the reputation in terms of consumer relations. I try not to buy from GE or any of its side ventures because I don't like the way they do business, but I go out of my way, and even pay more, to buy Campbells because I like the way they treat their employees and the charities they support, evenif they do get tax rebates for charity work.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

Sure. But the problem is that--as was mentioned--the economic system, capitalism, has no investment whatsoever in anything except capital, its ebbs and flows, its accumulation, its circulation. None. Zip.

In fact, folks like Marx argue that much of the stuff corporations do that SEEMS helpful or charitable is only (when it's not a tax write-off) another example of reproducing the means of production--a company might offer a gym and a workout program, for example, because it cuts absenteeism, helps with their insurance rates, improves morale and therefore productivity, etc.

Morality is NOT a concern or a goal  for capitalism. At best, it's a byproduct.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> Morality is NOT a concern or a goal for capitalism. At best, it's a byproduct.



Morality is something held by people. But if we're going to talk symbolically or in metaphors all day long, where's the morality in communist governments?

I'd rather live in a place where we can trust ourselves to be moral, not have some Marxist values rammed down our throats.

Under capitalism, you can be as rich or as poor as your capabilities and drive want to take you. I can't stand all this "I deserve more of your money" attitude from the so-called "minority" groups. They don't deserve more of anything, not more money, not better cars, not bigger TV's. If you want it, go out and work for it.


----------



## someguy (Dec 2, 2003)

Charity is an important thing.  Being chartiable helps those that NEED help.  There are those that abuse others charity though.
Heres my queston for you
Is it better to help others when you can than to slightly improve your position in life in an amount that is somewhat trivial incomparison to the amount that you can help others?

I guess my normal response of just shoot them in a debate about politics would NOT be good here.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Morality is something held by people. But if we're going to talk symbolically or in metaphors all day long, where's the morality in communist governments?
> 
> I'd rather live in a place where we can trust ourselves to be moral, not have some Marxist values rammed down our throats.
> ...



While I agree that hard work should be rewarded, I think that in many cases, hard work is only rewarded with more work. Just because you are a hard worker or a smart worker doesn't mean you will be rewarded for that work. 

rmcrobertson's post about alterior motives for charity and job perks is true, but I think there are companies that "aim" their byproducts at morality. In other words I support companies that try to eliminate absences by promoting healthy lifestyles in their workers verses a company that buys another limo for the execs. I support a company that founds a scholarship program to raise public opinion verses one that decorates the lobby in marble and Miro. I think that if they are contributing to charities and community causes, they are doing it to gain favorable consumer response, and they deserve it. Seems like a fair trade to me. You help my fellow man and in return I'll buy your stuff when I need it.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> While I agree that hard work should be rewarded, I think that in many cases, hard work is only rewarded with more work. Just because you are a hard worker or a smart worker doesn't mean you will be rewarded for that work.



Yes, this is certinly true. Some companies are better to work for than others. My reference was that if you work to put yourself through school, work hard at being better, you will only help yourself. The company you work for benefits. And you have the chance to move up, or move on.

I'm re-evaluating my own company as I watch them farm off jobs to India. They've obviously caved in to the latest trend for a few more percentage points on the bottom line. For those that do work here, the benefits planis top notch. It has been a top 50 company in the US to work for. And they match all sorts of charity contributions by the employees. So, yes, there are good and there are those that just do what they do. I wouldn't call them bad though.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Morality is something held by people. But if we're going to talk symbolically or in metaphors all day long, where's the morality in communist governments?
> 
> I'd rather live in a place where we can trust ourselves to be moral, not have some Marxist values rammed down our throats.
> ...


First of all, no true communist government has ever existed, and probably won't. They were, and are, simply dictatorships under the guise of communism. Carry on.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *First of all, no true communist government has ever existed, and probably won't. They were, and are, simply dictatorships under the guise of communism. Carry on. *



Well obviously there are those in his country hoping to make you your first.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

Well, thank ahura-mazda you haven't succumbed to the shallow thinking of us Communist bastards.

Let me get this straight: you're working for a company that is progressively dumping American workers so it can hire cheaper labor in countries with sloppier regulations (Bhopal, anyone?), and somehow this testifies to how great capitalism is? This doesn't strike you as a little at odds with your ideas on patriotism?

I repeat. The reason for the fact tht in modernity, "everything that is solid melts into air," is exactly what Marx said is was: capital converts everything into its own image. Eventually, all that counts is the Almighty Dollar.

Shallow, shallow, shallow.


----------



## psi_radar (Dec 2, 2003)

Perhaps our president initiated his trip to Iraq with purely altruistic intentions for our troops. 

Not! This was a photo op, as someone mentioned, to counter the "mission accomplished" fiasco. Just wait for the pre-election photo montages, you'll be sure to see shots of both. 

This president has a long way to go before he earns my respect. The way this war was promoted, by continually referring to Saddam Hessein as a terrorist and linking him (all evidence indicates falsely so far) to Al Quada, reprehensibly tapped into the national fear generated by the 9/11 tragedy to buy a slim majority of support for invasion. Do I need to mention the lack of WMDs found--our supposed legal basis for deposing a world leader? Shame on them--W and those guys with their hands in his back! At best, the motives for this war were misguided and uninformed, and blatant cronyism at worst.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

Read up a little more. I said I was "re-evaluating" my own company. Not supporting its decision.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Well obviously there are those in his country hoping to make you your first. *


 And I'm saying it wouldn't be all that bad provided we did it right. Why should babies die because their parents don't have health care. You know, no child left behind. Well right here across the border in Idaho, it has just come out that they don't have any health inspectors policing restaurants. Boy thats comforting. Sure we allow them the freedom to kill off ten percent of their population with the next E-coli outbreak, but it doesn't sound very American to me. We used to have a Railway system that was the pride of the world but we have allowed lobbyist to cripple any sort of public transportation. Now nobody wants to pay for the roads to be fixed. Our criminal justice system is a complete embarassment. Its going to be our largest GDP. Enjoy! Did you know the Largest most prominanyt BLDG in Allentown PA is the Jail? People rob us everyday on the stock market and its not even a crime. I hope you like working until your eighty five because their ain't no retirement in the future.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

Well, I prefer the ideology with more freedom. I'm not going to convince you and the same for me, but you can probably leave it up to human nature that either way we choose we'll never save everyone.

Wel, I'm about worn out on this one. Maybe I'll go start another on how we should nuke N. Korea.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

False alternatives, man. There are choices which are NEITHER capitalist patriarchy nor dictatorial communism that betrays everything Marx hoped for.

When the Situationists took over the Paris telegtraph office in May '68, they sent the following message to all major world capitals, especially Moscow, Beijing and Washington:

"Shake in your shoes, running dog enemies of the working class. The world won't be happy until the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist."

What can we learn from this.


----------



## psi_radar (Dec 2, 2003)

Just curious Robert, whom did the Situationalists consider to be capitalists? Did they draw the line at the cafe owner who could afford a nice car, anyone white collar, or corporate magnates? Or were they just misguided college students who would abandon their revolution when they found their supply of good coffee, wine, cigarrettes, and cheese would evaporate under anarchy?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *
> 
> Wel, I'm about worn out on this one. Maybe I'll go start another on how we should nuke N. Korea.  *


No need to wonder how. After the sub drops the payment off at Chiun's villiage, it lets loose a few nukes. This is actualy our plan on how we would nuke anyone. Hello?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

Well, the Situationists did send things off to all the GOVERNMENTS.

There's a pretty good anthology, edited by Ken Knabb, and the most famous of them, Guy Debord, left, "Society of the Spectacle," still available very cheaply from, if memory serves, Red and Black Press...still the cheapest academic lefty book out there, what can we learn from this?

Think of the REM song, "Stand:" I guarantee that Stipe et al have read these guys.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2003)

> Under capitalism, you can be as rich or as poor as your capabilities and drive want to take you. I can't stand all this "I deserve more of your money" attitude from the so-called "minority" groups. They don't deserve more of anything, not more money, not better cars, not bigger TV's.



I carefully used the phrase "Social Minimum", and then provided an example to help engage nuerons. You are correct that we are not ever going to be able to save everybody. But, with open minds, we might all be able to move more toward the 'mushy middle', from where policy should be made. I truly believe if the country adopted my point of view ... it would not be good for us all. But, if I can move the right more to the left, and the right can move me more to the left, I think we all benefit.

Concerning the quote above; let's assume you are assertive and aggressive in aquiring status and property in this capitolist society; let's assume I am a surfer bum, sleeping til noon and partying all afternoon and night. 

At what point is it, in *your* capitalistic self-intrest, to see that I am provided for at some level? Because there is no requirement for public school education, I can not read or write, so you can't employ me in your factory. When I wipe out on my surf board, does the hospital just let me die? While waiting for gainfully employed persons to come in and pay for services. Because I can't work, I become a theif, stealing your property to use while bartering for food.

Is there anything the government should provide for all of the citizens? 

Of course, there are the things that are for the 'Public Good', such as building highways, and establishing military for defense. But what about those items that are not equally shared among all citizens? Of these items, are there any 'Minimum' levels of acceptablity for the society?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> Is there anything the government should provide for all of the citizens?



Not by the Constitution. Except what was already mentioned, military, protection....


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2003)

> I'm firm on the belief that the government is here to govern, protect the Constitution, and manage the military. Not to put food on everyone's table.




Why then would you so strongly support an Administration that spends $121,000,000,000.00 to support corporate agribusiness?

http://www.ewg.org/reports/CombestMay2001/farmbillgoals.html


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

In 2000 it was by far the lesser of 2 evils.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

Why? And please--a real explanation based on facts, not a politically-correct diatribe about Al Gore and his silly censoring Tipper...


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

Because George Bush believed that/in:

People should keep more of what they earn
The right to keep and bear arms rests with the individual
Personal responsibility
Supporting our military
Private schools
anti-abortion
privatization of medicare
...
...


People vote for who supports the issues that mean the most to them. Maybe when I get older things will change. Maybe the Democratic party will nominate someone who doesn't want to spend more money and take away more of my personal freedoms. But right now, every program a Democrat comes up with relies on both. I'm actually a registered Libertarian. So if that gives you any idea on how big I think government should be you'll know I'm not thrilled with some of the things even passed with THIS administration. (Patriot Act et. al)

The problem with most people is that while they are too busy fighting along party lines they can't even open up and acknowledge what is really good or bad for this country any more while the politicians just keep piggy-backing more crap into every bill that's passed.

This thread started with "I'm proud of our Commander in Chief" but some are so lost they turned it into another shouting match. They're too comfortable hiding behind the label of Democrat or Republican to even recognize a good deed when it is right in front of them.

There's a lot of problems facing this country right now and all I wanted was to pause and look at how someone could lift the spirits of so many with a small gesture. Love him for some things or hate him for others, but at least understand he's fighting for us.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2003)

Some of your posts sounded very Libertarian in nature, so that does make sense.



> nominate someone who doesn't want to spend more money and take away more of my personal freedoms.



Of course, this sentence fragment describes very clearly the results of the current Republican Congress and Republican Executive. I love John McCain's quote from this weekend, that congress is spending money like a drunken sailor.



> but at least understand he's fighting for us.



In the actions of this administration and congress, I do not see someone fighting for us. I see someone pushing for a huge Medicare reform (which is needed) but that doesn't include the government being able to utilize its vast purchasing power to establish any sort of price controls (i.e volumn discounts). But there is a huge payoff for the pharmacutical companies ... the are guaranteed that the drugs they ship to Canada and sell for much less there, will not be imported back into the country and sold at a reasonable price to we who need it. (The city of Springfield, Mass is saving millions of dollars per year using re-importation - and it is only for city employees and retirees).

Another item in the news today is the Steel tarriffs. The World Trade Organization has stated they are illegal. For every steel worker in the country protected by these tarrifs, there are 56 workers in the steel consumption business that are hurt by these tarriffs. Today, the president had a big fundraiser in Pittsburg, hosted by the CEO of USSteel. The scuttlebutt seems to be that the president is going to have to drop the tarriffs before December 10th. But this tarriff (enacted in May 2002, I believe) has hurt far more people than it has helped ... but the promise of this protection during the last campaign did deliver the West Virginia electoral votes to the Republican candidate in 2000. 

Please realize, I am not shouting. And it seems McRobertson does type quite a bit of sarcasm at times, but I am not sure he is shouting either.  And I think what the president did was a very good thing. But I do not think that troop morale was the only thing on his mind.

Have a great evening ... Mike

By the way ... this Big D democrat is also for the legalization of most drugs, and the elimination of the death penalty - two Libertarian platform planks, no?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> By the way ... this Big D democrat is also for the legalization of most drugs, and the elimination of the death penalty - two Libertarian platform planks, no?



Well, I've heard of the legalization of drugs but not the other being on the list. I was thinking of posting about the legalization part but wasn't sure being a Martial Art board. But I'm glad to see someone had the courage, hehehe  

Ya, I have no doubt that most of my "fans" post from the goodness of their heart. I'm still young and semi-bulletproof so I've got some softening up to do I'm sure.

Just as my techniques are hard, I'm working on the compassion to balance it out  

TTYL guys,


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Well, I've heard of the legalization of drugs but not the other being on the list. I was thinking of posting about the legalization part but wasn't sure being a Martial Art board. But I'm glad to see someone had the courage, hehehe
> 
> Ya, I have no doubt that most of my "fans" post from the goodness of their heart. I'm still young and semi-bulletproof so I've got some softening up to do I'm sure.
> ...


 Who is the Big D?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

I think Michael was referring to himself(?) as a big D.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 3, 2003)

I see. 

Guns for everybody.

The repression of women.

Throwing old people off Medicare.

Well, just so long as we're clear.

Sorry to say this, but you're either a) incredibly naive, or b) cheerfully complicit in the abandonment of virtually everything that's meant social progress in this country for the last century.

What I'm never going to get my mind around is why folks support the likes of George Bush, who is--from ALL accounts--somebody who, at the very least, drank and snorted his way through life as the rich son of a famous father until he was around 35, then somehow saw the light, much like good old Chuck Colson did afore him. Please, illustrate for me how I'm wrong about this.

Hate to say it, but gimme ol' Slick Willie any day--a poor son of an alcoholic father, who busted his *** to get through school, and had NOTHING handed to him, and dragged himself up to become President. Whatever his flaws, he at least fits a vision of America I for one damn sure prefer. 

The guy you're supporting is advocating shameful changes in this country. Privatizing Medicare. Dumping old ladies out of hospitals, you mean. To paraphrase the head of the ACLU a few years back--might as well, fill out a picture you developed the instant anybody disagreed with you--yep, I'm an old-fashioned bleeding heart liberal. Have it your way. I believe that we have a responsibility to try and help children and the elderly. Sorry. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2003)

Somehow this thread has digressed to our personal politics, which is almost as much fun as discussing religion. 

I wanted to check two items from this page ... Does the libertarian party have a position on abortion (MisterMike is a registered libertarian and voted for George Bush because he is anti-abortion). And I'm fairly certian the libertarians are against capital punishment. 

I went to the libertarian party web page and found this little 10 question test. I post it here for your own amusment.


http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

My results were in the Liberal Left (imagine that), but much closer to centrist than I expected.

have fun - Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 3, 2003)

No Robert,

As usual you're not clear on things, which makes it really hard to have any discussion on this, or anything as seen from other discussions I've read between you and members of this board, with someone like yourself. Given the medium of a message board, where at least everyone can respond and be heard, and how you distort people's replies and change topics, I'd hate to think what it would be like to have a real discussion with a person such as yourself.

I guess that's why talk radio is failing for the liberals. They'd rather have their blurb on the 6 o'clock news with their set-up questions and scripted replies.

The country is clearly split in half. Those who uphold and support the constitution and those that would like to see it tossed out because it's "antiquated." Those that can think and work for themselves and those who want government to run everything for them. Those who believe in personal freedoms and those who would rather sell out for their false sense of security.

I think I've type enough about this thread. More than enough to someone who will never grasp it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2003)

I took a libertarian quiz and I fell pretty far left, but also pretty far down on the small government side.  Interesting.  I don't think that those two positions have to be a dichotomy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2003)

Sorry - conservative rhetoric takes less time to spout then liberal.  In order to be a liberal, you can't just swallow a bunch of propaganda and live your life.  Being socially conscious requires deep, exploring thought into actual issues.  At least that is how it is for me.  In my opinion, the collective shortening of the attention span aids in the conservative cause, because the more you think less conservative you become.  A good example of this...Limbaugh or Coultier get pinned down for spouting bogus arguments..."you're a big fat liar," is there reply and then its cut to commercial.

The truth isn't pretty and the truth is that the middle class is under attack.  If you look at any policy that Bush has put forth, they all squash any program that protects regular people or helps them get ahead.  America was not founded on the help the rich get richer principal.  Unless I am mistaken and even then, I don't care.  I don't believe its right.


----------



## ABN (Dec 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Sorry - conservative rhetoric takes less time to spout then liberal.  In order to be a liberal, you can't just swallow a bunch of propaganda and live your life.  Being socially conscious requires deep, exploring thought into actual issues.  At least that is how it is for me.  In my opinion, the collective shortening of the attention span aids in the conservative cause, because the more you think less conservative you become.  A good example of this...Limbaugh or Coultier get pinned down for spouting bogus arguments..."you're a big fat liar," is there reply and then its cut to commercial.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken and even then, I don't care.  I don't believe its right. *



   I was going to leave this alone but wow, it must be the Irish in me 

  Kyosa, please don't make the same mistakes that some conservatives admittedly make when it comes to debating liberal pundits. Don't stereotype them. Not every conservative is of the Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly propaganda swallowing autodidact mold, who marches in lock step with the party line. Some of us actually read, write, think and have extensive vocabularies that we developed well before the dawn of talk radio.(although I didn't catch my misspelling of the word vitriol in my last post until after the 1 hr edit, Mea culpa)

   Anyway, I don't have time during the day to listen to the radio nor do I care to, at my job you can usually hear two things gunfire, or opera. Don't take the "attack the intelligence of the opponent"  track either, it doesn't wash. Many conservatives are extremely well read and also independent thinkers. I was actually far more liberal when I was younger and less educated however, I don't think of you as uneducated just because we disagree. 

There are propaganda swallowers on both sides of the fence. You said:

"In order to be a liberal, you can't just swallow a bunch of propaganda and live your life."

Not so, I've spoken with many "liberals" who get their info via spoon fed 30 second sound bytes just like some "conservatives". These people were spouting what they thought was the right thing to say not because they believed it or in some cases, actually understood it. I've seen alleged conservatives do the same thing. 

being liberal doesn't necessarily mean that you have the market cornered on having a "social conscious/conscience" either. There are conservatives who are pro-life /anti death penalty (I'm one) and who also are involved in their communities at levels where it's not politics that counts but action.

So far I've seen a lot of name calling on both sides but not much debate on issues. When there's been factual debate, it's actually been quite good at points. The cons raised by Michael Edwards (and I still want to know where you caught that fish) and Paul to my ideas of business involvement in the community were a good read, they were also presented in a manner that was professional and respectful. That kind of discourse increases the credibility of both sides and can lead to an enjoyable exchange of ideas. Let's maintain some degree of decorum and if we can, actually make an effort to learn something rather than just stereotype. 

Regards,

andy


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2003)

This fish is a Goal ... not something I caught. That is not a picture of me ... It came of the Trout Unlimited website  :wink:


----------



## ABN (Dec 3, 2003)

Ahhh, I see. That's quite a goal! I do feel better knowing that's not you, I don't feel quite so inadequate now. 

   Right down the road from my building the state has a trout hatchery and a nice cold stream runs about 2 miles down the road. I have seen some beautiful trout come out of that water. Of course, this being NJ, the fish go right back in the water after you catch them...

andy


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Of course, this being NJ, the fish go right back in the water after you catch them


 Ah, but are they being thrown back or are they standing up and walking back in?


----------



## OULobo (Dec 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by theletch1 _
> *Ah, but are they being thrown back or are they standing up and walking back in? *



Like those damn killer, mutant, giant, attack-trained, jobbing, fisherman eating catfish from china.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 3, 2003)

Well, I was going to post and apologize a bit, feeling that even though I was a bit tired after being up since 6 AM on three hours' sleep, had been teaching all morning and grading all afternoon, just got out of 3 hours of meetings (glad it was a big one, since I fell asleep while the Pres of the college was talking)--and even though I'd read repeated petty little insults and caricatures--well, I thought my last post wasn't altogether polite.

But maintenant...

1. Mike. And this'll be the 1,000 time I've written this, but here you go: a) the world does not divide into "liberal," and "conservative," politically; b) I am certainly not a liberal, other than in the very general sense that I think snoops should stay out of other people's affairs and that we should actually try and help each other when possible. Oooh.

2. The notion that the political spectrum consists of two opposed groups is a) a by-product of the weird political history of the last twenty years in this country, b) a fantasy of right-wing (a term I use because that's what THEY say) commentators like Rush. It is absolute nonsense, in reality.

3. Unclear? Ungrounded? Unfair and unaware? Odd, considering that we commiesymps keep quoting various authorites from different sides of the arguments, keep referring to actual facts, keep mentioning the actual law and actual history. In response, we get...the same old same old, a rustling of papers, an accusation about America-bashing, a quick change of subject, a demand that we all fall into ze gut LINE. Behind ze PRESIDENT!! Raus!!! Yep, that's discussing them issues.

4. And last. Will you please actually LOOK at the theory you're depending upon? Go back and read, say, a bit of Ricardo and Adam Smith? Flip through the "Wall Street Journal," the "National Review," the "American Spectator," good sound conservative/right wing/capitalist supporters all? Will you PLEASE check the business news, flip through "Slate," when you get on the Net (I know, I know, they're commiesymps too...that Christopher Hitchens, who's been supporting going after bin Laden and Hussein and excoriating lefties for their idiocies for two years now...right liberals, the whole pack of 'em...). Will you just LOOK at the public statements of the guys you're supporting? I mean, I turned on the local news last night when I got home...what's 'is name, our esteemed Secretary of Defense had just won some doubletalk award, and even the local prettyboy/girl conservative announcers were laauging on camera at what he said...

And once in a while, actually try looking at the books, the ideas, the history you incessantly attack. Because you're kinda up the creek, argument-wise...sorry...my side, the side of the EEVIL, knows what you're claiming because we know the books and the arguments, and you sure don't seem to have a clue about what you're arguing against. I mean, have you READ, say, Daniel Bell?  Or, say, Molly Ivens or Michael Moore or ANY of these guys?

If I were grading your writing in this thread--and sorry, but it is the way I think, since I spend a fair amount of my time grading--I would rate it as a B. (You'll hardly credit this, but my invariable rule is that when I disagree politically, or on religious grounds, I grade at least a half-grade higher, just to ensure that the student gets treated fairly.) I would write a long note, explaining why you need to be able to cite the texts, and the facts, and offering some suggestions about sources that were roughly in line with your ideas. I would write a longer paragraph, sketching out the reasons that you need to avoid demonizing your opposition--not so much because it's unfair, but because it's a bad way to construct an argument if you want to be taken seriously. And I would suggest a couple more things that you might read--in this context, it might be Henry Kissinger vs., say, Edward Said--so you'd have substantial material to quote and dissect/rip apart, rather than just complaining about, "they," and, "them, " and, "liberals."

"By all means, rip up the silly libs and lefties. Just be sure you actually have--the goods on 'em--and show that you know the ideas and texts and facts exposing their stupidity--so your ideas will be taken seriously," I would write.

In other words, I would demand that you read the books, and check the facts. Clearly, that would be inappropriate here--and even to mention it is of course a bit sneaky. And I guess, in an advance which is certainly unfair, that I feel sure you'll simply use this last paragraph as more proof about "liberal," bias in education. I imagine, too, that you'll simply edit the last paragraph out of your memory and accuse me again of more liberal, one-eyed bigotry, if you respond to this at all. I won't quite agree...but, well, there it is.

But I mean, doesn't it bother you than some of us keep citing authors and events and public statements and laws and all the rest, and you don't?

And I am sorry for getting exasperated a little. I do at times lose a bit of my temper, after the name-calling. (I know, I know...you feel that I and others write condescendingly or whatever...I'm talking about explicit, unarguable name-calling, OK? And I'm not saying I'm totally innocent.) But ya know, the one thing that does worry me about Rush n'Bush and these guys is their utter intolerance of dissent, and their legitimization of a notion that's been around this country for quite a while--the notion that anybody who doesn't think exactly the way they do is an enemy, that anybody who doesn't believe in their brand of Protestantism is an enemy of Christ, that anybody who doesn't want to jist go BOMB 'em hates America, that anybody who doesn't  worship at the altar of the Almighty Dollar and His Acolytes, the Blessed Church of American Business is an unrealistic moron.

Oh well. At least I know why I never hear the Dixie Chicks and Springsteen on the radio anymore...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 3, 2003)

Y'all will be glad to know that the democrat-controlled California Legislature, jumping right INTO one of the important issues of our time at a time when the State is in deep doo-doo, has begun to move like lightning on this whole genetically-modified glowing fish thing.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Y'all will be glad to know that the democrat-controlled California Legislature, jumping right INTO one of the important issues of our time at a time when the State is in deep doo-doo, has begun to move like lightning on this whole genetically-modified glowing fish thing.


 Finally, someone getting something important done:shrug:


----------



## ABN (Dec 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by theletch1 _
> *Ah, but are they being thrown back or are they standing up and walking back in? *



Neither. This is NJ, nobody walks here, they drive down the turnpike to the exit of their stream, pay the toll (unless, like the really smart Striped Bass they have EZ pass) and get into the water from there. The problem lately has been with all of the undocumented Chilean sea bass driving down the price of sea food since there's more of them and they're willing to be cooked for less.... 

andy


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2003)

I don't want to stereotype, but when I can shoot from the hip and hit just about everything at which I aim, its difficult.  I will take the above point into consideration.  Some of the most momentous arguments I've had have been with conservatives who know and quote their stuff - people who have pushed me to the edge of my knowledge of various topics.  Its all good in the end and we are all just people.  I don't dislike people for their political beliefs.  In that manner, I've tried to take a page from Sentator Wellstone.


----------

