General discussion

Locked

Libya is just between tyrants.

By _Papa_ ·
Tags: Off Topic
article root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

38 total posts (Page 2 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Three posts?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Ah I see the trap you lai ...

You can't count either, or perhaps you can only count when it's convenient to you?
Your behavior is by now fully documented, I don't need to put up with your crap, and am indulging you only to feed your ulcer.
Your words touch me not at all

Collapse -

"Your behavior is fully documented..."

by Rick Lowe In reply to Ah I see the trap you lai ...

You mean like calling people "spammers"?
"Troll"?
"Psycho"?
"Stalker"?
"Killer"?

Ummmm... no, I do believe that was you.

Man, oh man, if they're "documenting" my posts, some poor bugger is filling up hard drives keeping up with you!

Collapse -

See?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Ah I see the trap you lai ...

You have no substance. Like those necons you compare to Jefferson et. al.

Collapse -

Every successful politician must give a tip o' the hat to God

by DelbertPGH In reply to Additional confusion on r ...

It's necessary and proper to offer due respects to God, and customary that politicians pray for the light and safety for the country. No atheist or agnostic has become president of the U.S. However, there's a huge distance between asking for God's blessing and seeking to make public policy an expression of God's will. The big lesson of the modern age, which begins around 1700, is that trying to shove the holy intent into earthly politics screws everything up. Churchmen in power tend to become fanatics, crooks, manipulators, bureaucrats, or incompetents, just as secular politicians often do, and they are harder for the people to get rid of or influence when they govern from the pulpit. Mixing politics and religion or science and religion makes for bad politics, bad science, and bad religion.

Collapse -

Yes, get God out of it!

by Rick Lowe In reply to Every successful politici ...

The big lesson of the modern age, which begins around 1700, is that trying to shove the holy intent into earthly politics screws everything up.

Yes, if we could just have government by non-religious individuals.

You know:

Lenin. Stalin. Pol Pot. That sort of thing.

Because you always get better government when you don't have religious beliefs and tenants mixed in with politics.

I think more than a few justly respected past US presidents in the past have endorsed policies they pushed as being consistent with God's will. Go read some of that awful George Washington's comments.

The Framers got it exactly right. Government wasn't to create religions nor to restrict and control them. If we don't like the moral basis of a politician and their beliefs - whether from a Christianity or worshipping turnips - then we're free to reject them at the polls. But the current horror that some current politicians have religious beliefs as strong as some of those who preceeded them is pretty blind to the fact that politicians without any religious beliefs aren't exactly a guarantee of warm and fuzzy either.

It seems to me that a lot of people are making a religion out of hating religion.

Collapse -

Government by religious individuals differs from government by religion

by DelbertPGH In reply to Yes, get God out of it!

It would be silly to try to assert that the U.S. does not owe a debt to the intellectual traditions of religious men. It's also silly to think that anti-religion zealots represent the spirit of the enlightenment, which was (in short) that God doesn't have everything to do with everything, and that humanity will be more successful, free, and peaceful without trying to call the holy spirit into the decision of every fact or policy.

Modernism is a thin layer on top of some people's minds, beneath which lies a more primitive intellect that is much more comfortable with the intellectualism of the middle ages. Give 'em that old, old, old-time religion. That's what they want, and behind their politicians they will try to drag the world back to an era of modest dress, daily devotions, and trying to scourge wrongdoing from public and private life. Just like a bunch of crackpot Islamists, whose evil we more easily recognize.

Collapse -

Let's step back to reality for a moment

by Rick Lowe In reply to Government by religious i ...

Give 'em that old, old, old-time religion. That's what they want, and behind their politicians they will try to drag the world back to an era of modest dress, daily devotions, and trying to scourge wrongdoing from public and private life.

Ah yes... The Plot. The secret Plot of Republican candidates to carefully sneak in modest dress, obligatory prayer, etc. Bachmann, for example, can say repeatedly that her position is that the President has no business dictating to states their position on same sex marriage. In debates, in Meet The Press, etc. Doesn't matter. The spies from the "anti-religion zealots" movement, inserted into the Bachmann campaign staff, have assured us that she's really lying - if she were ever to become President she would immediately ban same sex marriage. We know this truth to be self evident.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the Democrats and "progressives" have a secret plan to deliver the US to communism. We find ourselves on Morton's Fork, forced to choose between the two.

Scary. Run away, run away!

Fear mongering makes for wonderful what-ifs, but doesn't generally have a lot to do with reality.

I have my doubts that the "anti-religion zealots" (who make anti-religion their own religion) represent any spirit of enlightenment. Particularly with their dismissive, aggressive attitudes and fear mongering towards anyone in public life with strong religious faith. That kind of mentality is anything but enlightened.

As I said, with the current crop of "anti-religion zealots", if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln etc were running for office today, the anti-religion army would be on the attack faster than a fat kid on a Smartie. Accusing them of wanting them to bring in "that old, old, old-time religion."

Collapse -

Hardly a plot

by DelbertPGH In reply to Government by religious i ...

More like a generalized wave of stupidity. Lately, Republicans have (as have waves of politicians in the past) discovered that stupidity works, at least as far as manipulating a mob goes.

Certainly, if there's the delusion on your part that Bachman or Palin have a scrap of intellect between them, then there's little for you and me to share. Those gals have cleverness, yes; and a talent for managing certain classes of situations, yes; but a general awareness of what's really going on? They're good at hotting up a crowd that doesn't care that their ideas don't hang together.

George W. Bush was a caricature of a president: a genial, direct-thinking, semi-retarded kind of talker, in cowboy boots with elbows swinging. I imagine he would have been very likable on a person-to-person basis, cooking steaks in the back yard. People liked him, because he was fit, charming, good-looking, athletic for his age: all they could have been, if they'd had the determination to stick with it. He also had trouble finding the right words and trouble going from one idea to the next; just like an average man. But he thought boldly, and reacted with his gut and with certainty. People thought they resembled him much more than they resembled smart guys with advanced degrees and policy experience. For that, they trusted him; and he led them incompetently into stupid military adventures, and bankrupted the government handing money back to people who had plenty and would proceed to do nothing to enrich their country, and turning our fortunes over to a pack of unprincipled financiers.

The country seems to be screaming, "Don't trust elites! Give us stupid!" And for the last few decades, the Republicans have been doing their best to serve up stupid. Which, by the way, includes the heavily politicized evangelical zealots who are pushing right-wing politics from the pulpit.

Collapse -

It's always somebody else's fault.

by Rick Lowe In reply to Yes, get God out of it!

More like a generalized wave of stupidity. Lately, Republicans have (as have waves of politicians in the past) discovered that stupidity works, at least as far as manipulating a mob goes.

Or like the Democrats, presenting the Messiah to the masses. Journalists talking about feeling a tingle go up their leg each time he speaks. People talking about how they don't have to worry about paying for gas, their mortgage, their bills now that The Anointed One is president.

The stupid who believed if they gave Obama $800 billion, they'd get those "shovel ready jobs" (which he now admits never existed), and by spending all that money in porkulus, unemployment would not rise above 8%. And now, incidentally, we're supposed to give him another $450 billion - to do the very same things he promised he'd do with the first $800 billion.

And how has the smartest guy in the room worked out for us with the Republicans safely contained within a Democrat majority House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency (and the previous two years before that)?

Certainly, if there's the delusion on your part that Bachman or Palin have a scrap of intellect between them, then there's little for you and me to share. Those gals have cleverness, yes; and a talent for managing certain classes of situations, yes; but a general awareness of what's really going on?

Yes, just look at what a great manager Obama and the Dems have been with four years of controlling Congress and two years of controlling the Presidency. Stunning. We have ourselves a Democrat/Obama economy. That really shows the towering intellect we got ourselves right there, doesn't it?

Yep, they're really dummies. But neither has spoken of having visited 57 states so far. Neither has repeatedly got the age of one of their children wrong. That would be The Anointed One, the smartest guy in the room. But then, we don't talk about his gaffs, do we - that's off limits. Or racism, depending on your point of view.

George W. Bush was a caricature of a president: a genial, direct-thinking, semi-retarded kind of talker, in cowboy boots with elbows swinging.

Indeed. And now we have a president that can't even talk in a retarded manner without a teleprompter in front of him. A president who can claim, like Osama Bin Ladin, to count among his friends and political allies people who have bombed the Pentagon. A slick talking Saul Alinsky community organizer, in a white shirt imitating a working man, while never having run a business or having any other real world experience beyond cloistered academia and radicalism.

Such an improvement.

he led them incompetently into stupid military adventures, and bankrupted the government handing money back to people who had plenty and would proceed to do nothing to enrich their country, and turning our fortunes over to a pack of unprincipled financiers.

Ignoring, of course, three thousand plus dead Americans at the hand of a man Clinton did nothing about, including giving the order to pull the trigger on him when it could have been done.

Ignoring, of course, that Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that made change of regime in Iraq official US policy.

Ignoring, of course, that going into Iraq was endorsed beforehand by Clinton, former president and Clinton, current secretary of state. Along with most prominent Democrats. George was so dumb, and yet all the smartest guys in the room were fooled by him.

When you're a socialist/statist, and you can't run on your record because it's so abysmal, all that's really left is to fear monger about what the opposition will do and claim your lack of success is the other guy's fault. Pure Saul Alinsky socialism, all the way.

I suspect it isn't going to save this administration and his plans to "fundamentally change America" unless the GOP really shoots itself in the foot.

Well, work does beckon.

Collapse -

The disappointment of Obama

by DelbertPGH In reply to It's always somebody else ...

I voted for the man, I'll admit. I found McCain an acceptable alternative, but I doubted him after the Palin nomination. The idea that a seventy-odd year old man with a history of cancer should pull a virtual cartoon character off the tundra, who would be our alternative president in case he couldn't serve... why couldn't he (and his party) see that despite 20% of Americans loving her, 50% would see her as a repellent joke? Anyway, I go off topic. I voted with O because I hoped there was some mangerial and political power behind the obvious brains. Seems I was wrong.

What he (and Bernanke) got right was keeping the banks afloat. Took some guts, because everybody for a time wanted the bums to fail. Bums or not, if the big banks go down, you have a genuine Great Depression ver 2.0 going. That's a continuing risk, by the way, because...

What he got wrong was not spearheading a drive to regulate the behavior of banks, and to break them up into small-enough-to-fail pieces. He left regulation to congressional committees, which are pretty much operated in the interests of the financiers. Presidential leadership against runaway finance could have affected what the commitees would do. He didn't lead.

His stimulus program could have gone a long way to pulling the economy out of the pit and getting more people employed, accomplishing things that would be useful for country. Instead, he underestimated the task and the viciousness of the fight to pass it, and led with his spirit of compromise. It was half as big as was needed, and poorly applied. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, which don't do much (according to economists I read) to stimulate; and a third was on stuff like unemployment compensation, which although it keeps money moving doesn't spark anything new or useful; and the rest for his "shovel-ready" projects which mostly took years to come into action. Again, he trusted to the good will of squabbling men beneath him to do the right thing, and he blew it.

The health care bill is another case of hands-off/look-the-other-way leadership, and although better than no bill, does little to keep us from spending more money every year on health. It was an idea that had to be sold strongly to the country, so that Congress would feel the hot breath of the people behind them and force them to do something difficult but effective. Instead, we get a warm wet towel of a program, with half the country already in angry opposition to it.

I see no evidence that Obama is a socialist, nor any more of a statist than the Republicans who have gone before him. (In fact, the last non-statist Republican was Coolidge.) Chattering about the socialist Saul Alinsky is a way of not talking about anything Obama has done. Obama's actions in office have been patently anti-socialist, despite talk radio's unanimous but unupportable claims that he's the most left-wing leader since Karl Marx.

Back to After Hours Forum
38 total posts (Page 2 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums