Jump to content


To The Bush Haters


  • Please log in to reply
347 replies to this topic

#341 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 06 March 2009 - 01:19 AM

View Postcheckymcfold, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 1:51 AM, said:

i don't believe that the world, or anything else related to humanity for that matter, is innately just or unjust. i believe it is what we make of it, and that that's the challenge we live with from day to day. when you look in the mirror, i don't think it's good to say "man, that guy is teh suck," but rather, "man, that guy has so much potential."
I think I will leave this alone for now, it is a different subject involving natural law ect.

View Postcheckymcfold, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 1:51 AM, said:

the only thing worth saying that's ever come out of thomas friedman's mouth/keyboard is that the world is different now than it used to be. political concerns aren't local anymore--they're federal, even global, and governmental influence has to change to reflect that. friedman says that the world has once again become flat, a level playing field. i don't really buy that completely, but the notion that we're dealing with more people across the globe on a day to day basis and in every decision we make is more true than it's ever been. the necessary things for government to do have grown alongside technology and globalization, whether you like either of those things. i agree that government shouldn't do more than what it has to do, but i think that conservatism tends to keep its blinders on with respect to what problems are out there for the disenfranchised in the US and across the globe.it's worth saying that issues of international sovereignty and things like that make global shit more complicated than domestic stuff, but the move from stronger state governments to a stronger federal one was entirely logical in the context of industrialization and the growth of technology in the 20th century US.
Yes, the world has changed and I think that is all the more reason the government to begin streamlining. They need to allow domestic problems to be handled locally so the government can go about the business of dealing with federal and global political concerns.

View Postcheckymcfold, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 1:51 AM, said:

let's pick some guys that most people agree on--lincoln, eisenhower, washington, jefferson? these guys were great leaders, and americans to boot. sure, part of that is that they acknowledged the limits of what they could and couldn't do, but they're governmental figureheads that i don't think very many people would think did that much bad stuff for our country (outside the slavery thing, etc.). the problem is that we're not really given an opportunity to choose people like these guys anymore--the paul wellstones and ron pauls of contemporary political parties will simply never get elected unless there's some very distinct changes in the way that our country elects officials, and that's sad. the people that are elected today are the ones that generally say the least, and not the most, over the course of a campaign. again, i think that this is primarily a media problem, but that's a bit too far afield for this discussion, i think.
Here I agree completely with you. I also agree that the media plays a key role. I would add that I think the campaign rules have been set up to help incumbents stay in power, and the way the money is distributed through the respective committees is not based on the content of the character of the candidate but rather on their electability. I would love to hear a real debate of ideas between two(or more) candidates who would speak frankly and at length about what they believe and why they believe it. I saw Ed Meese and Nat Hentoff debate each other when i was in college. It was fantastic. I agreed with Meese's point of view for the most part but I left with a great respect for Hentoff.

View Postcheckymcfold, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 1:51 AM, said:

the point i'm trying to make, though, is that big brother and government are two profoundly different things, just as economic "freedom" or lack of regulation and social freedom are two profoundly different things, provided you're not talking about straight up communism. the distasteful part of big brother, it seems to me, is much more about the social restrictions than the economic ones--i mean, shit, we live in a country where TENS OF MILLIONS of people are below an already-poorly-defined poverty line. they need help, and if the government isn't going to give it to them, who is?
One thing I liked that Obama has done is when he attached strings to the bailout money he gave to certain business'. In short order these business leaders were talking about how quickly they hoped they would be able to pay back the money so they could cut the strings. Of course this was extremely hypocritical of Obama as he doesn't require the same strings to politicians or himself. I think people that get government money should have strings attached. I don't think it should be easy nor should it cause co-dependency.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#342 Southern Buddhist

Southern Buddhist

    I take easygoing to the extreme

  • Members
  • 1,783 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Buddhism, NASCAR, Shakespeare, _Futurama_, and poker. No kidding. Someday I plan to corner the market on freaky unrelated interests, and then I'll take over the world.

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:21 AM

You say the Christian church teaches saintly behavior. You also say you, a believer, look in the mirror every day and see selfishness and the reason things are bad. You also say a government based on, say, Matthew 25:31-46, or on valuing all other people as we do ourselves is something we should not even strive for simply because we couldn't do it perfectly.Do you see why I say that the belief that no one can be perfect is all too often an excuse for not even trying?You're an extreme example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I get the idea that you would be _opposed_ to a conservative leader who took that passage as the goal of his government, and that makes very little sense to me. It seems you would prefer to let cronyism, partisanship, incompetence, and money-grubbing continue to run amuck rather than actually set a biblical principle as the governing motivation of your party. And maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm getting from your explanation is, "because we can't do it perfectly right out of the gate we shouldn't make any effort at all toward getting there."

#343 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 06 March 2009 - 06:31 AM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 1:26 AM, said:

When we got around to discussing what kind of people would have to be in power to make such a government work is where his argument began to falter. He admitted that any form of corruption would be devastating. He suggested extremely harsh punishments for those guilty of any kind of corruption. He then stated that those in power would have to be 'Saints'. That was the actual word he used. Though he used it as a figure of speech, I think he is literally correct. The only way such a society could exist would be where the authorities were Saintly servants of the people.
This is exactly true.Humans are not saints, never have been, and never will be. Setting up a government with the belief that we will somehow, magically, elect or appoint a ruling class of saints is insanity.Given that the people in charge are not saints, you have to ask the next question:Do you want to give these non-saints the power to control every aspect of your life, or do you want them to have as small of an impact as possible?If a non-saintly businessman tries to screw you, you lose a little money and have to shop next door. If a non-saintly politician tries to screw you, your life is destroyed, and you may end up in jail.This one's not even close.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#344 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 06 March 2009 - 09:34 AM

View PostSouthern Buddhist, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 5:21 AM, said:

You say the Christian church teaches saintly behavior. You also say you, a believer, look in the mirror every day and see selfishness and the reason things are bad. You also say a government based on, say, Matthew 25:31-46, or on valuing all other people as we do ourselves is something we should not even strive for simply because we couldn't do it perfectly.Do you see why I say that the belief that no one can be perfect is all too often an excuse for not even trying?You're an extreme example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I get the idea that you would be _opposed_ to a conservative leader who took that passage as the goal of his government, and that makes very little sense to me. It seems you would prefer to let cronyism, partisanship, incompetence, and money-grubbing continue to run amuck rather than actually set a biblical principle as the governing motivation of your party. And maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm getting from your explanation is, "because we can't do it perfectly right out of the gate we shouldn't make any effort at all toward getting there."
Yes, I, like the founders, think that government is a necessary evil. I believe the old cliches that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You say you are a historian, but you talk as though you know nothing about history and past experiments of centralized government. cronyism, partisanship, incompetence and money grubbing are the exact reasons I am for a less powerful, smaller government. To expand government is to expand these things of which you speak. Jesus did not advocate stealing from someone and giving to someone else nor did he advocate coveting others wealth or goods. The behavior of the democrats is a perfect example of the failure of government pretending to use a biblical principle. In the name of feeding the hungry the democrats are attempting to enslave a large portion of the population by making them dependant on the government. The also promote envy in there constant class warfare mantra. They use the "for the good of the people" as an excuse to expand their power and steal from others. Do you think Frank Raines actually cared about housing the poor when he cooked the books at Fannie Mae to give himself 90 million in bonuses? How about Senator Dodd getting a sweetheart deal from Countrywide? What do you think about Obama selecting a guy to head the IRS that cheated on his taxes? Hey, I know the republicans are just as bad! Power really does corrupt.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#345 Southern Buddhist

Southern Buddhist

    I take easygoing to the extreme

  • Members
  • 1,783 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Buddhism, NASCAR, Shakespeare, _Futurama_, and poker. No kidding. Someday I plan to corner the market on freaky unrelated interests, and then I'll take over the world.

Posted 11 March 2009 - 05:35 PM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Friday, March 6th, 2009, 1:34 PM, said:

Yes, I, like the founders, think that government is a necessary evil. I believe the old cliches that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You say you are a historian, but you talk as though you know nothing about history and past experiments of centralized government. cronyism, partisanship, incompetence and money grubbing are the exact reasons I am for a less powerful, smaller government. To expand government is to expand these things of which you speak. Jesus did not advocate stealing from someone and giving to someone else nor did he advocate coveting others wealth or goods. The behavior of the democrats is a perfect example of the failure of government pretending to use a biblical principle. In the name of feeding the hungry the democrats are attempting to enslave a large portion of the population by making them dependant on the government. The also promote envy in there constant class warfare mantra. They use the "for the good of the people" as an excuse to expand their power and steal from others. Do you think Frank Raines actually cared about housing the poor when he cooked the books at Fannie Mae to give himself 90 million in bonuses? How about Senator Dodd getting a sweetheart deal from Countrywide? What do you think about Obama selecting a guy to head the IRS that cheated on his taxes? Hey, I know the republicans are just as bad! Power really does corrupt.
Inherent in your statement is the assumption that I can't be a historian unless I come to the same conclusions as you and take away the same meanings and ideology from the past. That kind of ideological rigidity is exactly what a real historian would never practice. Hblask and I briefly discussed this ages ago, but the American people have been given at least two clear chances to choose smaller state-based government over central government -- the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the drafting of the Constitution; and the argument of the seceding Southern states that state choices should take precedence over the desires of the federal government. In both cases, American citizens quite consciously rejected both arguments and chose in favor of stronger central government. You obviously have your ideology and I have mine, but don't pretend that history only leads to one possible ideology and that it's yours. It's untrue and proves that you are only willing to "understand" history when it serves your purposes.Everything else you said is just standard GOP blah-blah-blather. Since you didn't answer anything directly, I will assume that in fact, you would be totally opposed to seeing Matthew 25:31-46 as a model of government and that you do believe that if something can't be done perfectly on the first try it should never be attempted at all. Man is "teh suck," as Checky said, and you are completely content to keep wallowing in the mud, so that you can complain about how dirty others are. Well, that's all very depressing for you, but luckily some people have ideals.

#346 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 13 March 2009 - 09:09 AM

View PostSouthern Buddhist, on Wednesday, March 11th, 2009, 8:35 PM, said:

Inherent in your statement is the assumption that I can't be a historian unless I come to the same conclusions as you and take away the same meanings and ideology from the past. That kind of ideological rigidity is exactly what a real historian would never practice. Hblask and I briefly discussed this ages ago, but the American people have been given at least two clear chances to choose smaller state-based government over central government -- the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the drafting of the Constitution; and the argument of the seceding Southern states that state choices should take precedence over the desires of the federal government. In both cases, American citizens quite consciously rejected both arguments and chose in favor of stronger central government. You obviously have your ideology and I have mine, but don't pretend that history only leads to one possible ideology and that it's yours. It's untrue and proves that you are only willing to "understand" history when it serves your purposes.Everything else you said is just standard GOP blah-blah-blather. Since you didn't answer anything directly, I will assume that in fact, you would be totally opposed to seeing Matthew 25:31-46 as a model of government and that you do believe that if something can't be done perfectly on the first try it should never be attempted at all. Man is "teh suck," as Checky said, and you are completely content to keep wallowing in the mud, so that you can complain about how dirty others are. Well, that's all very depressing for you, but luckily some people have ideals.
All your talk about me wallowing in the mud seems a bit harsh and over the top. My point is a simply one. Both political parties already claim to be modeling their government after lofty ideals similar to those of Matthew 25:31-46. Yet, the most celebrated(especially by those who share ideals similar to yours) politican of my lifetime, the best he can do is select someone to run the IRS that has cheated on his taxes. You don't see a problem there? Really? Ok, then can you at least understand why some may have a problem trusting the govenment when this is the best they can do? I am not against a government, but I am definately against a massive expansion of the US Government which is already too powerful.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#347 I_fold08

I_fold08

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,073 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:terre haute, IN
  • Favorite Poker Game:stud8

Posted 13 March 2009 - 11:12 AM

RANGEL RULE

#348 Southern Buddhist

Southern Buddhist

    I take easygoing to the extreme

  • Members
  • 1,783 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Buddhism, NASCAR, Shakespeare, _Futurama_, and poker. No kidding. Someday I plan to corner the market on freaky unrelated interests, and then I'll take over the world.

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:39 PM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Friday, March 13th, 2009, 1:09 PM, said:

All your talk about me wallowing in the mud seems a bit harsh and over the top. My point is a simply one. Both political parties already claim to be modeling their government after lofty ideals similar to those of Matthew 25:31-46. Yet, the most celebrated(especially by those who share ideals similar to yours) politican of my lifetime, the best he can do is select someone to run the IRS that has cheated on his taxes. You don't see a problem there? Really? Ok, then can you at least understand why some may have a problem trusting the govenment when this is the best they can do? I am not against a government, but I am definately against a massive expansion of the US Government which is already too powerful.
Sorry for being harsh, but at no point did you say you would support such a position, so I concluded that you would oppose it.For the record, I don't mean paying lip service to these ideals, which is what politicians of both parties do. I mean really, seriously lining up your policies with it, even if it goes against what your party has done in the past. I don't think Obama is lining his policies up with Matthew, but then he never said he was, and I know Bush never did, although he might have claimed to be doing it in order to pander to the right.What I want to see is more leaders like Martin Luther King. He didn't believe that he could heal race relations completely, but he did think that maybe he could do something so that his people could sit anywhere on the bus, eat in any restaurant when they were hungry, and sleep in any hotel when they were tired. He aimed at incremental reform, and he achieved that and more. [Malcolm X is a good example of the perfect being the enemy of the good: he opposed King because he hated incrementalism, but his approach did nothing but cut off dialogue and erode progress.] We may disagree on this, but I do believe in incremental good, with King or Ghandhi as examples, and I do believe that we are capable of reaching more transparent government with more integrity. But it will take idealists who want to line up their highest morals with their actual policies to get there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users