Proud of our Commander in Chief

[psi_radar]

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]

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

 

[MisterMike]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

TTYL guys,

Who is the Big D?

 

[MisterMike]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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