A Must Read

[Timebuilder]

You were doing great until the above. There is no basis for that assumption regarding the French. The French position is not based on America being the world's most powerful nation.

I don't have the source material in front of me, but I have seen opinons by the French that they see themselves as a "counterbalance" to American influence. A counterbalance to a nation based on freedom. Hmmm.

I too appreciate Mar's contributions. I'd rather have those kinds of ideas examined and discredited than accepted silently as some "viable alternative view."

 

[mar]

I really don't have much to add.

I think Surplus1 covered all the bases with his very lucid and beautifully articulated post.

That was really the most concise and cogent summary of the current situation I've read (ever).

But I'm afraid guys like Dubya and Timebuilder may have missed a really important part of the French article.

They detected "hate and jealousy" but I think they missed the larger context.

Debray, in the following paragraph, puts it all into persepective:

<<When France had the means to be the "indispensable nation," she was equally suicidal and deaf, equally cultivated and stubborn, just as doctrinaire and unimaginative as the present titleholder. The exercise of power is anonymous, and its laws are universal. The day before yesterday, it was Rome. Tomorrow it will be China. That is why the free man is not anti-American but anti-imperial. He refuses to march to the pace of the cosmic metronome. He knows that soldiers like Faulkner, Orson Welles, and Dylan must be saved. But he laughs when people villify "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" so as to assimilate themselves, with good conscience, into the so-called New World Order, which knows how to recompense its own with money, prestige, authority, and influence.>>

In that paragraph, Debray *SCOFFS* at those who "villify" our foreign policy because he has the *perspective* of the last 2,000 years that places France and the US between Rome and China.

He's saying there have been arrogant ones before who have thought their interests were the best for others. And they learned the hard way that no matter how cherished their principles are at home true change (revolution/reform) will never happen unless it comes from the people's own heart.

It doesn't matter how noble Democracy is. If they don't want it, they won't have it.

"...suicidal and deaf, equally cultivated and stubborn, just as doctrinaire and unimaginative..." Words used by a Frenchman to describe former French policy have nothing to do with who won the the last two World Wars and the Cold War.

It has everything to do with having been down the same road as the Roman Empire...and...the British Empire...and...the Japanese Empire...and...

 

[Timebuilder]

So much, so much. Where to start?

They detected "hate and jealousy" but I think they missed the larger context.

Detected? Come now. You aren't serious are you? Isn't that like standing at ground zero hours after the 911 attack and "detecting" the rubble of the world trade center?

Let's move along.

When France had the means to be the "indispensable nation," she was equally suicidal and deaf, equally cultivated and stubborn, just as doctrinaire and unimaginative as the present titleholder.

Translation: I detest what my own country has done, and I feel much better when I can characterize America's efforts in the same manner.

That is why the free man is not anti-American but anti-imperial. He refuses to march to the pace of the cosmic metronome. He knows that soldiers like Faulkner, Orson Welles, and Dylan must be saved.

When I was a child, unschooled in the ways of reality and the human condition, I almost idolized Dylan. Should he be saved? When He said he accepted Christ during the seventies, I thought he was. Later, he cast some doubt on the sincerity of that claim.

This passage means that he not only sees these alternate opinons as valuable, but he sees them as being largely equivalent in importance to those of the American leadership, and most of the American people. Would the author be happy with any government that had the ability to effect positive change? Probably not. He leans toward the anarchy that is the by product of paralyzing self-doubt.

But he laughs when people villify "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" so as to assimilate themselves, with good conscience, into the so-called New World Order, which knows how to recompense its own with money, prestige, authority, and influence.>>

May he continue laughing as France continues to do nothing about the rise of anti-semitism, for example. Can France risk the cost of this ignorance, or do they fancy becoming a home for the intellectual jew-hater?

I am just flush with the money and power I have gained since I began to see how mislead I was by the Clintons, the Fondas, the Kerrys. I just don't know what to do with all this money!!

This man is delusional.

He's saying there have been arrogant ones before who have thought their interests were the best for others. And they learned the hard way that no matter how cherished their principles are at home true change (revolution/reform) will never happen unless it comes from the people's own heart.

That is like saying that a rape is the victim's on fault. On the contrary, a beaten and brainwashed people need the compassionate help of some who CAN help in order to collect their thoughts and, like a rape victim, begin to put their lives back together.

"...suicidal and deaf, equally cultivated and stubborn, just as doctrinaire and unimaginative..." Words used by a Frenchman to describe former French policy have nothing to do with who won the the last two World Wars and the Cold War.

It might have everything to do with a country having a history of mass killings of its rulers and a surrender to the nazis. Perhaps this myopic arrogance is endemic to the French people. Nothing to do with who won the cold war? Or WWII? Add up the millions upon millions who would be in bondage and oppression were it not for the actions and sacrifices of the American people. Writers did not do it. Poets and hippie songwriters didn't do it. America did it.


Now anyone is allowed to prattle on about how they think America is an imperialist country reminiscent of the Roman or British Empires. They are allowed to do this because they are FREE, and that freedom is the result of America taking actions that they criticize.

It is nonsense.

 

[mar]

Hyperbolic Rhetoric?

Or is it, Rhetorical Hyperbole?

I don't know. But I'm choking on it.

I can't believe you just compared an essay by some Frog that neither of us has heard of before to the devastation of Ground Zero.

It is exactly this lack of perspective and proportion that blinds.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you bring up anti-semitism.

This is only a discussion about the merits of invading a country under dubious pretenses and then shoving democracy down their throat in a lame attempt to legitimize the entire effort.

<blah>

Au revoir!

 

[Timebuilder]

I can't believe you just compared an essay by some Frog that neither of us has heard of before to the devastation of Ground Zero.

If you don't understand, I am more than willing to explain.

The devastation at Groud Zero was obvious. There was no need for "detection" in this obvious a situation.

Follow me so far?

Good. It was equally obvious the "hate and jealousy" of the author. He made a very good attempt at hiding his core beliefs, but they are obvious to me.

I have not "compared an essay by some Frog that neither of us has heard of before to the devastation of Ground Zero."

I was comparing the concept of something that was so well hidden that it required "detecting" to reveal it, to a thing so obvious that no detecting was necessary.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you bring up anti-semitism.

I will explain again.

The author speaks from a position of having a sense of fair play, freedom, and his perspective on the "rights of man." Fine, he is permitted to cast himself anyway he likes. There was, however, a glaring omission in his overview of French policy. It was conveniently absent, in fact. France apparently is one of the countries wher anti-semitism is growing at alarming rates. It is possible that this is consistent with an parallel increase in France's Muslim population.

Now, since France, and the esteemed author, have learned so much more than the United States has learned in international policy and power, what will he write about on this subject?

I can only wait for him to opine on this issue. While he is an apparent expert on French failures which he appends to American policy, he has a much larger problem on his own doorstep where the minority Frech Jewish population is once again under the same pressure that they were when France surrendered to Germany in WWII.

Apparently, the French have not learned as much from their past as they pretend.

This is only a discussion about the merits of invading a country under dubious pretenses and then shoving democracy down their throat in a lame attempt to legitimize the entire effort.

And this is only an attempt to frame American policy in a negative light by relying on the mistakes of others and the suppositions of someone who has the freedom to do so because America made it possible for him to do so.

The irony of that fact is inescapable.

 

[mar]

As usual, I tried to hold my tongue...

...and, as usual, I have failed.

<<...this is only an attempt to frame American policy in a negative light by relying on the mistakes of others and the suppositions of someone who has the freedom to do so because America made it possible for him to do so. The irony of that fact is inescapable.>>

American foreign policy stands before the world to be judged whether you, Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld like it or not.

No matter how it's colored and spoon fed to the mass media American foreign policy will have it's consequences.

As a citizen and tax-payer I am endowed with certain unalienable rights--as much as that frustrates people like yourself and the current administration.

The fact of the matter is the First Amendment exists not for smutty TV, vulgar radio, internet porn or trashy T-shirts in grammar schools.

The First Amendment exists so that we may be critical of our government and not fear wrongful persecution. What good is it if no one ever exercises it?

You cannot shame me into submissively forfeiting my right to express my contempt for this nation's leadership.

There will be a consequence to this entire Iraq affair and no amount of spinning, equivocation or rationalization will diminish the net effect to be played out over the decades.

Sadly, Bush, et al, won't be around for the reckoning.

That will be the burden for future generations--Americans and Iraqis.

Talk about irony.

 

[Dubya]

Irony

Irony....lets talk irony.
Quote: (mar)
"There will be a consequence to this entire Iraq affair and no amount of spinning, equivocation or rationalization will diminish the net effect to be played out over the decades."

You are right. The same consequences that fell upon Germany, Japan, Central America, the former Soviet Union, Kuwait, India, South Africa, Afganistan, Taiwan, South Korea....etc.

That consequence. Democracy. Why do you abhor the very thing that allows you to hate your own country? Why do you say we are "shoving democracy down the worlds throats", when it is democracy that has made our nation what it is? Why not give these nations the opportunity to decide. America is so obviously not imperialistic. We do not seek land. We only seek to protect and prosper....and along the way we prop up others. Democracy and free trade. We have to protect our interests, and with the world economy ever expanding...so expands our interests.

It is the difference between letting your "feelings" about the way things are dictate your thoughts instead of common sense.


W

 

[mar]

I don't hate America

W--I don't "hate" America. Nor do I "abhor" democracy.

What is it with you people? Why all the dramatic words?

And I'm not sure I would consider every country you listed as democratic, but that's a topic for a different day I suppose.

Look, you know the thing about democracy is, the people have to choose it.

And you know as well as I do, that's not what this fight is about. But I'm not really interested in beating this dead horse.

It has been almost totally established the administration misled (or flat out lied) about the provocation towards war.

We're not there for democracy.
It's a ruse.

And I'm not buying it.

You can buy it from Krauthammer if it makes you 'feel' good. I just feel pi55ed off when people lie to me, take my tax dollars and then blow a hole in some third rate country that doesn't want us there anyway.

Sound familiar. It should.

 

[Timebuilder]

American foreign policy stands before the world to be judged whether you, Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld like it or not.

No matter how it's colored and spoon fed to the mass media American foreign policy will have it's consequences.

Mar, I sure hope it has "consequences." And plenty of 'em.

The First Amendment exists so that we may be critical of our government and not fear wrongful persecution. What good is it if no one ever exercises it?

It does good to exercise it. I just become exasperated with people who bring up some frustrated French article as a critical treatise on American policy, as this is something that has real impact and importance, when it is just the usual anti-American drivel.

There will be a consequence to this entire Iraq affair and no amount of spinning, equivocation or rationalization will diminish the net effect to be played out over the decades.

Your honor, Mr. Mar is assuming facts not in evidence.

Where were you during the 40 years of democrat "spinning, equivocation or rationalization" anyway? You could have helped stop the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty", the wasted lives of which far exceed the losses incurred in WWII, Korea, and VietNam combined.

I know, I know. We thought that we would make everyone "feel better."

 

[bramafear]

I Bet Ya the CIA is hiring, again

Hey,

Let's go hang out on some remote listening post on top of some peak, somewhere and watch the sunset.

Let's bring back Air America and fly like bandits.

Let's bring back SOG (Studies and Observations Group) and figure out the what-what and who's got their finger on what.

But, I don't know who in today's world can fit into the pants of TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, & Reagan. We seem to have lost traction: is it due to us or them?

PS: Pickup and read, "The Ugly American" or rent, buy, or borrow movie with Brando. Early 60's stuff based on early Vietnam diplomatic and economic development experience. It illustrates how our behaviour and actions makes impressions on our foreigh neighbors.

 

[Timebuilder]

CIA hiring again?

I sure hope so.

After being decimated in the 1992-2000 period, we certainly can use the agents.

There are a lot of people who can call us "ugly" because of what we did for them. Had we not acted, many of them would be saying "Hai!" and "Yah!"

 

[bramafear]

Skipped my Viagra

No Sh@t! I watched Patton the other night and I was actually aroused again with passion

We could definately use a lot more LEADERSHIP potiental then we now have in many places.

Do we have any Patton DNA? Start whipping up that clone machine, buddy!

 

[Timebuilder]

We ALWAYS need more and better leadership. It's a process, and it is never finished.

That's why we need our younger generation to be educated about what makes America great, instead of a liberal indoctrination about feminism, homosexual activity, and victim mentality. Thankfully, we are beginning to hold teachers, students, and some parents accountable in such a way that may reduce the number of hours that are available for such liberal indoctrination.

As sinful humans, we constantly struggle against our nature, trying to model ourselves after the only one who did it all, and perfectly.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

We ALWAYS need more and better leadership. It's a process, and it is never finished.

That's why we need our younger generation to be educated about what makes America great, instead of a conservative indoctrination about patriarchy, homophobia, market dictated public policy, self righteous driven theocratic-like policy, victim mentality (yes, us poor corporations can't rape this country because of these darned laws) etc. Thankfully, for now at least, there's a decent chance that the Bush regime's days might end this term.

 

[ThomasR]

A Must Read...

Dubya,

Scanned it once and isolated points of intellectual conflict for a later review. First impression is that;

"Globalization is inevitable, and it won't be a bloodless transition."

 

[bramafear]

This is the End...

Timebuilder Quote:

You could have helped stop the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty", the wasted lives of which far exceed the losses incurred in WWII, Korea, and VietNam combined.

Please clarify: approve or dissapprove of LBJ's initial agenda before he was side-tracked by the machine?

Timebuiler Quote:

I almost idolized Dylan. Should he be saved? When He said he accepted Christ during the seventies, I thought he was. Later, he cast some doubt on the sincerity of that claim.

Does Dylan loose face for all he has accomplished for some 50 years over this one issue?

BornAgainPagan Quote:

Thankfully, for now at least, there's a decent chance that the Bush regime's days might end this term.

Personally, I would like Mr. Bush to experience at least one of these scenes after his exit from the WH for his sins:

Hanged in Crawford, TX like Mussolini in Piazzale Loreto in Milan on public display.

or better yet...

Chef Quote:

Almighty, almighty.. this is PBR streetgang, do you copy?

Unfortunately, he lost his head after that transmittion

After machete practice, Willard backs out in the middle of river to watch the fireworks provided by a B-52 ArchLight strike. Probaly, not a river nearby Crawford, but B-52s have an awesome reach

Willard asks a soldier with a grenade launcher in hand:

Do you know who's in charge here?

All dazed and confused the soldier replies, "Yeah...".

Here's the crew:
http://www.highflight.com/nss-folder/classreunion/B52_AAUA.jpg

 

[mar]

I just learned something.

All this time, I could've sworn Mussolini was hung in Venice. So when I read bramafear's post I had to look it up.

Apparently he's correct: Photo of Mussolini doin' the Milan Swing

 

[Timebuilder]

From bornagainpagan:

That's why we need our younger generation to be educated about what makes America great, instead of a conservative indoctrination about patriarchy, homophobia, market dictated public policy, self righteous driven theocratic-like policy, victim mentality (yes, us poor corporations can't rape this country because of these darned laws) etc. Thankfully, for now at least, there's a decent chance that the Bush regime's days might end this term

What a wise a$$. BUT, every wise a$$ should be set straight, so here you go:

instead of a conservative indoctrination about patriarchy,

Men are placed by God as head of household. Since America is a country founded and grown by prayerful men who allow others to believe or not believe as they like by the constitution, and since they have passed no law to make this guiding principle a law, there is no problem here in promoting the traditional family. What is the role of women in the judeo Christian tradition of the founders? Read Proverbs, 31 beginning at verse 10:

10 Who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband safely trusts her; So he will have no lack of gain. 12 She does him good and not evil All the days of her life. 13 She seeks wool and flax, And willingly works with her hands. 14 She is like the merchant ships, She brings her food from afar. 15 She also rises while it is yet night, And provides food for her household, And a portion for her maidservants. 16 She considers a field and buys it; From her profits she plants a vineyard. 17 She girds herself with strength, And strengthens her arms. 18 She perceives that her merchandise is good, And her lamp does not go out by night. 19 She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hand holds the spindle. 20 She extends her hand to the poor, Yes, she reaches out her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of snow for her household, For all her household is clothed with scarlet. 22 She makes tapestry for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. 24 She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies sashes for the merchants. 25 Strength and honor are her clothing; She shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, And on her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She watches over the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. 28 Her children rise up and call her blessed; Her husband also, and he praises her: 29 "Many daughters have done well, But you excel them all." 30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, And let her own works praise her in the gates.

Mind you, it is not a law, but a tradition that has proven its worth over centuries, and should be promoted by our culture.

homophobia,

I always enjoy this made-up word used by liberals. It is intended to make someone who disagrees with the gay agenda sound like it is they, and not the homosexual, that has the problem. Maybe we should call those who want government to intervene in every area of our lives to be "freedophobics" or those who don't believe in God to be "truthophobics".

The gay agenda is an attempt to normalize the abnormal, to define deviancy down so that a behavior that the majority of people see as both sinful AND disgusting is now a defendable act. Why? Because they want to? There are entire areas of life, vast areas where we daily restrain ourseves from accepting things as normal that we know in our gut is just plain wrong. Most people don't even need the Bible to know it's wrong.

I don't know anyone who teaches "homophobia", but I do know of conscientious educators that communicate the it is still wrong despite the dreams of many people to declare this as normal and acceptable. That isn't "homophbia", it is a part of the moral fabric of our country. The misled and the profane deserve our help in recovering from their compulsions, and the sinners deserve our prayers for guidance from practicing their sin.

And yes, my pagan frined, I know that you neither believe nor accept that position. I feel sorry for you.

market dictated public policy,

...is still the best policy after a couple of hundred years of testing. This idea has led to the fall of communism in the USSR and will be the force that frees the Chinese people, too. Capitalism is just a way of expressing the basic human right to buy and sell. Through good times and bad, it is always the BEST policy.

This is fun!!!

self righteous driven theocratic-like policy

No righteousness can come from the self, so if you are against self-righteousness, you must be a believer, and welcome to the fold!

Seriously, only those who are trusting themselves can be "self-righteous." The founders were all prayerful men, and wrote extensively on the success of freedom and self-government being that we be a "moral people". You are free to disagree with EVERYTHING I say because it is God's will that you can disagree. Without that ability, you could not choose to be saved or to remain an unrepentant sinner. That's FREEDOM, created by God and ......brought to you courtesy of the red, white and blue. Pretty generous of both God and the founders to craft a country where you can support and believe neither idea and not be dragged off to a cell in a gulag.

Say "thank you."

victim mentality (yes, us poor corporations can't rape this country because of these darned laws) etc

Actually, you are very close to being right on this. Except for one thing: it is not the corporations that are harmed by some of our laws. Corporations are just legal documents. They have no feelings, and cannot be "hurt" as you might describe. No, the only ones hurt are PEOPLE, people who own the corporations by their many small shares, and those who have lost their jobs as America, in her zeal to "do good" and provide innumerable protections for earth and Man, has mucked it up and driven the corpoarate operations to someone else's backyard, and exported those jobs that some people need.

Thanks for the "wise" commentary, and the opportunity for me to provide some guidance on these important issues.

 

[Timebuilder]

Please clarify: approve or dissapprove of LBJ's initial agenda before he was side-tracked by the machine?

LBJ's mistake was that by throwing vast amounts of money at some problems, human nature could be overcome without the hard work of those who were marginalized by both themselves and society.

Does Dylan loose face for all he has accomplished for some 50 years over this one issue?

I wasn't aware that Dylan "accomplished" anything besides inspiring a generation or two to doubt themselves, their country, and their God. We are still recovering from the forty years of wasted public policies that are the hallmarks of the movements he supported.

It would make more sense to me to place Dr. King on that pedestal, since his ideas have been virtually abandoned by the current "black leaders" (as they like to call themselves).

As for the rest of that post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't want to know what PBR streetgang is, nor do I care.

Seeya

 

[bramafear]

Oh, Boy!

Timebuilder quote:

LBJ's mistake was that by throwing vast amounts of money at some problems, human nature could be overcome without the hard work of those who were marginalized by both themselves and society.

Huh? What is Social Security? Among other things....
Had it not been for Vietnam the veteran New Dealer would have carried the torch.

Remember, Timebuilder, the exchange post. If we are held down because of whatever the reason, we will not contribute to our fullest potiental; thus, they are kept in the slavery of McDonalds and the like. Yeah, not the brightest of the bunch, but could they be something spectacular? If so, then let us invest. Everything else is Bingo anyway.

Timebuilder Quote:

I wasn't aware that Dylan "accomplished" anything besides inspiring a generation or two to doubt themselves, their country, and their God. We are still recovering from the forty years of wasted public policies that are the hallmarks of the movements he supported.

Were you misguided then and why?

Timebuilder Quote:

As for the rest of that post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't want to know what PBR streetgang is, nor do I care.

I guess you never saw an example of the mis-guided truth/lies of war before, Apocalypse Now.

Remember: they were all children at one time.

 

[Timebuilder]

Huh? What is Social Security? Among other things....
Had it not been for Vietnam the veteran New Dealer would have carried the torch.

Social Security was the single worst idea to ever come from the government. The first recipient received a check for more money than she had paid in. Does that tell you anything?

Remember, Timebuilder, the exchange post. If we are held down because of whatever the reason, we will not contribute to our fullest potiental; thus, they are kept in the slavery of McDonalds and the like. Yeah, not the brightest of the bunch, but could they be something spectacular? If so, then let us invest. Everything else is Bingo anyway.

Maybe it's me, but I am having a great deal of trouble following a cogent line in your posts.

The Great Society and the War on Poverty, are by historical judgement, abject failures. This could have been predicted, but we were full of the idea that government can do anything.

The history of these programs proves that government cannot do everything. In fact, it suggests that freedom and free enterprise, supported by a strong set of cultural values (sorry to offend, bornagainpagan) is the most effective stance, and proper constitutional stance, for the government to take.

Were you misguided then and why?

I have spent hours on that topic, so this will be brief: I was a writer and broadcaster for many years, and thought that the liberal way, the socilaist way, was the right way. Once I started to really think for myself instead of slavishly following the liberal line, I came to the conclusion that I had been misled by the intellectual dishonesty of my party and in doing so, had misled many others.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I guess you never saw an example of the mis-guided truth/lies of war before, Apocalypse Now.

Never saw it? Maybe 50 times. I wouldn't use material from the movie to make a point about either contemporary politics or the Johnson administration, though. I was a film student at NYU, so there were a number of films I saw multiple times.

We have more poor people than ever, and the problem is a cultural problem. The antidotes for poverty are striving to become better educated, which means making the MOST of your educational opportunities rather than waiting for a special program to come to you, working hard, meaning modelling your behavior after the most successful people in the nation, immigrants included, and not buying into a victim mentality.

You can't do those things with a government program, no matter how well intentioned.

 

[bramafear]

Later

Timebuiler, thank you once again for being so wise. I will post later on this subject

 

[Timebuilder]

Wise? NO.

Somewhat more aware following thousands of mistakes? Maybe.

 

[bramafear]

Okay, just a few....

Timebuilder Quote:

Social Security was the single worst idea to ever come from the government. The first recipient received a check for more money than she had paid in. Does that tell you anything?

Had it been the correct amount, would you then approve of Social Security?

Timebuilder Quote:

Maybe it's me, but I am having a great deal of trouble following a cogent line in your posts.

Here's the definition of cogent: Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing: a cogent argument.

Am I missing the point or being easily misunderstood? Or am I a door stopper?

Timebuilder Quote:

The Great Society and the War on Poverty, are by historical judgement, abject failures. This could have been predicted, but we were full of the idea that government can do anything.

The history of these programs proves that government cannot do everything. In fact, it suggests that freedom and free enterprise, supported by a strong set of cultural values (sorry to offend, bornagainpagan) is the most effective stance, and proper constitutional stance, for the government to take.

Who protects the cultural values?

Timebuiler Quote:

I have spent hours on that topic, so this will be brief: I was a writer and broadcaster for many years, and thought that the liberal way, the socilaist way, was the right way. Once I started to really think for myself instead of slavishly following the liberal line, I came to the conclusion that I had been misled by the intellectual dishonesty of my party and in doing so, had misled many others.

Maybe you had the wrong banana, but had the right soul. According to Gordon.L, "the soul is the rock and cannot be moved."

Timebuilder Quote:

Never saw it? Maybe 50 times. I wouldn't use material from the movie to make a point about either contemporary politics or the Johnson administration, though.

Yeah, you need wings to fly above it. Bad dreams are usually bad dreams, but when you publish bad dreams like the Heart of Darkness, maybe you were inspired and it was relevant of what could be.

Timebuilder Quote:

We have more poor people than ever, and the problem is a cultural problem. The antidotes for poverty are striving to become better educated, which means making the MOST of your educational opportunities rather than waiting for a special program to come to you, working hard, meaning modelling your behavior after the most successful people in the nation, immigrants included, and not buying into a victim mentality.

You can't do those things with a government program, no matter how well intentioned.

If the goal is to maximize GDP and Tax Revenues, what the hell is our Government doing? Human Capital is OUR best resource in the country; not MONEY (by the way, we didn't have any ). The men were overseas in WWII, who built the planes? Women. Yeah, Mom built the planes. Blonde & Brunette Moms built the planes with no brains. Ha! When given the chance, they took up the challenge!

 

[Timebuilder]

Had it been the correct amount, would you then approve of Social Security?

Not in the form it took, no. It is a ponzi scheme, a way of producing a deep taxation for a benefit that many never receive, and at a fraction of the value that could be produced in the private sector. You have no "social security account." You have a number in a computer and an estimated benefit amount, but that's it. There is no account, and no money.

The democrats drained the social security money years ago. They replaced the money with "IOU's."

Am I missing the point or being easily misunderstood? Or am I a door stopper?

I usually have no trouble following Bruce's posts, and I am having trouble with some of yours. There seems to be a wandering disconnect in some pararaphs. When I see that happening to me, I re-edit and proofread.

Who protects the cultural values?

I said nothing about "protecting cultural values." If I had to identify such a protector, it is all of us, by the choices we make and the degrees of deviancy we choose to allow or stop. The "gay marriage" question is just such an issue.

Maybe you had the wrong banana, but had the right soul. According to Gordon.L, "the soul is the rock and cannot be moved."

I think you are trying to say that I had good intentions. If so, I remind you what paves the road to he-l-l.

What we learned from the sixties, seventies, and after is that goverenment is incapable of fixing a problem outside of the hearts and minds of those you are trying to help. Further, if you allow society to descend into a moral cesspool, as Bork described in Slouching Toward Gomorrah, then you have lost the underpinnings of a free society.

 

[bart]

Am I the only wondering if Bramafear has recently quit taking his medication.

Seriously, Brama, you have yet to post anything resembling a complete thought or line of reasoning.

Maybe that is your intention, I hope it is. If it is not, go back and reread what you have posted and see if any of it makes sense...

 

[surplus1]

Timebuilder

I have a question. Do you believe in the concept of separation of church and State?

 

[mar]

Cash me out. CHECK PLEASE!

Well boys, it's been fun, but it's late and I gotta get goin'.

Surplus1, nothing personal, just been down this road before.

Have fun. See ya around the airport.

 

[Timebuilder]

I have a question. Do you believe in the concept of separation of church and State?

That's a little like asking if I believe in Santa Clause. Santa is based on a factual account of Saint Nicklaus. It has been added to and changed beyond the original account.

So it is with "the separation of church and state."

Originally, it was a phrase mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to some Baptist ministers in Massachusetts. Jefferson was making reference to the idea that the United States would have no "official" religion, as had England.

Some people, including politicians who are purposely misleading their constituents, now refer to "the constitutional separation between church and state" as if there is some such thing in the constitution. There is no such thing. In fact, the constitution says in the First Amendment that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What this means in plain English is that congress cannot pass a law that identifies a particular religion as the "official religion of the United States" or some similarly worded endorsement.

That's all it says. It is eminently clear.

It does not say that public employees cannot practice religious ideas in the workplace, or that government property, including schools, cannot allow the wishes of the free practitioners of religion to put up religious symbols or to sing songs that make reference to a religious event. There is no protection from feeling uncomfortable in the presence of others who are practicing a religious activity.

Remember, it says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" in that first clause. Apparently, the founders felt that they needed to clarify that not having an official religion did not mean that religion could not be practiced wherever and whenever the practitioner desired.

Some have argued that allowing the free exercise causes an "establishment" of religion to occur. This is clearly not what the founders intended, and since they wrote this part, it is up to a new constitutional convention to either outlaw religion, or to make a new amendment that makes this abundantly clear: that the right to practice religion shall not be infringed.

So, I believe that there was a mention of separation made by Jefferson, and that it applied to not making or naming an official religion of the United States.

 

[enigma]

Re: Timebuilder

I have a question. Do you believe in the concept of separation of church and State?

I can't believe that you asked this question.

BTW, "separation of church and state" is just as you imply. It is a concept, but it has no basis in Law. It's not in our Constitution. A thorough reading of the founding fathers will quickly prove that they did not separate church and state. The founders acknowledged deity in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They said a prayer before legislative sessions and the Supreme Court follows suit. Obviously, they did not intend to separate church and state.

What they intended was to prevent the government from establishing an official religion. Period.

regards,
enigma