Posted by: TLC ®
04/21/2003, 09:48:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bob; I take it that you are not a big fan of either George W. or George O. I have tried to filter through your little tangents, double talk and questionable sentence structure to glean a bit of common sense out of all of it. It has been a struggle.World control and world influence are not the same thing. The U.S. controls 4.6 % of the worlds population, namely, the United States. The U.S. has great influence on some countries and to a lesser degree, on most of the world. As the sole "super power" we are in the "morally responsible" position to exercise our intentions to better the world for everybody, not just us. The intention of the U.S. is to rid the world of pain and suffering, not to cause it. If this were not the obvious case, so many of the worlds countries would not be looking to us for guidance, leadership, and of course, financial aid. Anyone who refers to "1984" Orwell type of concepts when comparing what the U.S. is presently implementing worldwide, to me is simply using archaic, rather childish and totally out of date thinking. The only self serving resultant for the U.S., of all this that I can see, is that by influencing and helping others to have a better life, it follows that we can also benefit from the positive growth that "everyone" should enjoy. "The United States is the last hope for the world"
Abraham Lincoln 1864 So get a grip on reality,
TLC
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
04/21/2003, 16:42:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
1.And The Plan(tm) takes shape.2.'As Ye Sacrificial Lamb walks (Slyly?) to the slaughter...'
-Kallan Greybe 2003 3.Existential angst, Orwells bread+butter. 4.And I cried to hear of millions dead. /And the final Death knell? \
| |
| Did you even bother reading the link? |
| The sign of a TRUE reactionary. |
\Glory Be the Arms-makers. / AMEN And I can explain the argument in a longer point by point if you care.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/22/2003, 12:14:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bob; I did read enough of the link by "Vidal" to reaffirm my opinion that the world of international geopolitics, with all the intricate, behind the scenes, wheeling and dealing that takes place daily on a global scale, is beyond most laymen's ability to comprehend, sucessfully. This lack of comprehension is never more obvious, than when super idealists living in a world of fantasy, prove by their very statements, that they are not capable of understanding the true seriousness of the life and death struggle, and the everyday dog eat dog reality of international competition for dominance and control. Fact of life: "The big dog always gets the meat" Always has, always will.
Only the weak balk at this principle. I think that we will witness a definate change in the attitude of the Americans, regarding future 9-11 s and their response will be a more non-vasilating and swifter smashing of any who dare to oppose them in any manner. After years of holding back and hoping that the world would come to it's senses without intervention, 9-11 was finally the "the last straw" and the U.S. will adopt a "no more mister nice guy" approach towards all who dare to threaten them. So, without going into massive amounts of details, which I refuse to do, all of the above is my honest interpretation of what the world after 9-11 will be like. 9-11 forced the change and the U.S. will accept the challenge. Still learning, TLC
|
Posted by: another bob ®
04/22/2003, 13:54:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
In the changing face of evolution we have seen a strange change in the methods by which people choose partners. No more the strutting of the peacock with the largest plume, the lion with the biggest roar and the sharpest claws or the man with the biggest dick. These battles of sexual supremecy are taking place on a far more subtle playing field, the give and take of the intellectual.What does this mean for Joe Average out on the streets? Well I, for one, get laid more often.I think that's a good thing.
|
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/22/2003, 14:53:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC,
TLC - ... So, without going into massive amounts of details, which I refuse to do, all of the above is my honest interpretation of what the world after 9-11 will be like. 9-11 forced the change and the U.S. will accept the challenge.
Phoebus - Nice rhetorics. But very false.
As you say yourself "The big dog always gets the meat", and "No more mister nice guy"."Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
Religion is to Gods, what Nationalism is to Countries.
The U.S. is commonly viewed as a land of democracy and freedom.
Yet, the U.S. is truely dominated by individualism and capitalism.
But the majority still beleives, wants to beleive, that the country is about democracy and freedom.
That's how the U.S. works, that's how everything political works.
The illusions need to be preserved, the masses need to be controlled. Of course, that creates a huge gap between the wants of the individualistic capitalists, and the must of 'democracy of freedom'.
To fill that gap, the age old technique: 'casus belli'
Take an event, inflate it to epic proportions, and use it to legitimize actions... related or not to the event.
In this case, the 'casus belli' is 9-11, and it's being used to legitimize actions that have absolutely nothing to do with 9-11.
The 9-11 events are a boon for the 'evil' side of the U.S.
"The big dog always gets the meat" (Might makes 'right')
"No more mister nice guy" (No more democracy or freedom)
Phoebus
|
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/22/2003, 16:44:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC,
A 'War Logic' is a cyclical system of investment in the military.
Ex.: One side has good weapons, the other side gets better weapons, then the first side gets even better weapons, and so on...A 'War Logic' cause both side of the war to spend more and more on military. That's bad for the quality of life of both sides.
But it's very good for the Military Industry. It's an age old military business to sell weapons to one side or both sides of a war. It's also an age old business to 'encourage' such wars. It's an age old business to create 'War Logic'. 'War Logic' is revelant to the current world situation in two ways.
First, the 'U.S.' has been running such a business for many years now. And that made alot of people particullary pissed at the 'U.S.'.
Second, now that there's people pissed at the U.S., those responsible are hidding behind the American public, and then use the 'threat' to scare the American public into increasing military spendings. In other word, the military industry gave the U.S. many enemies.
Now, they are using those enemies to trap Americans in a war logic... for which they will profit, of course.
Meanwhile, innocents suffer and die (Americans or otherwise), while the guilty are making even more profit through the bloody industry.
I've forgot to post my comment relating to:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
Religion is to Gods, what Nationalism is to Countries. 'Nationalism' is a tool, like religion, which is used by the rulers to manipulate the 'common people'. Sacrifice your life, your dreams, your future, for the cause... while your rulers make profits from the same cause. That's how corrupted government always worked, that's how extremism works, that's how nationalism works, that's how the U.S. works. That's NOT how it SHOULD work.
Phoebus
p.s.: Hmm... Why did I post that? Blah... "Post!"
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/22/2003, 22:30:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Listen up guys; I commend the both of you for having the "Kahonies" to voice your opinions in such a devoted manner.The last time I checked, The U.S. Constitution is still intact and hasn't allowed any of my freedoms to go by the wayside,
and still insures that the both of you can say whatever you want in defense of, or against the U.S. and it's policies. There are still those in the world that are desperately trying to take those same rights away from you, and you would be well advised to heed this danger. It certainly isn't coming mostly from within as you are so certain of, I don't think.
I am aware of the potential dangers that too much government represents and also what greed and power can do to a people. Please tell me of a freedom that our fore fathers placed in the constitution that has been taken from you or me, as so many are suggesting lately. TLC
|
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/23/2003, 02:17:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC,
If someone wants your freedom, it's for a reason.
And that reason is that one person's freedom starts where everyone else's freedom stops.Those that most desperately try to make you lose your freedom are those that can gain from your loss of freedom.
Those terrorists, tyrants and U.S. haters on the other side of the planet will gain nothing from your loss your freedom. On the other hand, in the U.S. personal freedom exists, but ressources aren't free, they are owned, and one cannot be free (or even live) without ressources.
It's for those ressources (also because of your dependence on those ressources) that other individuals in your country will profit from your loss of freedom.
Phoebus
Modified by Phoebus at Wed, Apr 23, 2003, 02:21:25
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/23/2003, 09:40:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Phoebus; What you preach is approaching socialism. Freedom as guaranteed by Jeffersonian style democracy allows you to pursue your dreams, in spite of all the inequites of wealth, status and power that we all are subjected to and nothing else. It does not guarantee success.This type of freedom is not for the lazy or the faint of spirit. Freedom only guarantees that the door to success is open to all who have the intestinal fortitude to overcome the obstacles that we are all faced with.
I suspect that you think that everyones "obstacles" should be the same. This is socialistic thinking at it's best and is a very dangerous concept. There will always those born into priviledge, wealth and other advantages such as power. The playing field is not level. But remember, the U.S. has more self made (starting from nothing) millionares than any place on earth. In this world, you have to take what you are given,some more than others ,and work, not wish for what you want. A level playing field for everyone, which I suspect you would espouse, would be a dull, unexciting enviroment for me, and does not interest me in the least. Strive to be a winner, no matter the odds against you, and you will find life more satisfying in every respect. Don't be a loser, TLC
|
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/23/2003, 12:04:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC,I'll go directly to the point.
The 'American Dream' doesn't work.
Simply because governments are replaced by corporations in their governing roles.
And where governments rule like tyrants, corporations can also rule like tyrants. Like usual, the problem hasn't been fixed, it has been hidden. Phoebus
p.s.: If you have arguments, you don't have to use insults.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/23/2003, 13:49:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
I don't recall being treated in a tyrannical manner by my government or a corporation at any time in my life. I started out life in a poor family, went to school, studied hard, obtained a good education through the USAF and scholarships at UofM , worked at a profession (engineering) sacrificed a lot of luxuries to save what little money I could, invested wisely , raised three daughters who all followed suit, using common sense and also working hard, and corporations are now paying me good dividends on my investments. How tyrannical does that all sound to you?I don't recall anything or anyone holding me back from the American Dream. What the sam hill are you talking about that the dream doesn't work? You will have to come up with more than just uneducated, ignorant sounding rhetoric to change my views on freedom. Maybe you should go live in North Korea for a while, and talk to me about freedom. You haven't impressed me that you even begin to know the meaning of the word. Also by advising you to work at not being a loser is not an insult, it is sound advice. If I advised you to work at being a loser, that would be a gross insult to you. See the difference? We are not argueing, we are discussing. In a non freedom enviroment, we would not be allowed to do this. In pre war Iraq or Syria, they would shortly have you hanging from a lamp post for spouting off your ideas as you do. Now that's tyranny. The American Dream has certainly worked for me and most everyone I know. I've experienced no tyranny. Prove me wrong if you are able, TLC
Modified by TLC at Wed, Apr 23, 2003, 13:58:07
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/24/2003, 02:44:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC:This sounds like the epitome of the American Dream, all right. And I congratulate you for your fine work and accomplishments. You say that the American Dream has worked for you and most everyone you know. Unfortunately, that seems to be true for me, as well. I say "unfortunately" because I'm aware of a great deal of people who fail to attain this ideal, but I don't really know them. It's unfortunate because those of us who become successful (enough) don't appreciate the good deal of those who don't. Let's not kid ourselves. There are many Americans who live in terrible conditions, and would do nearly anything to change it. I'm not sure we can so easily dismiss their plight by saying they didn't work hard enough, or whatever excuse it might be. I've never felt for any reason I couldn't attain the "American Dream," and I essentially plan to do just that. But because I've never known a life where it seemed impossible, does that mean that there isn't a class who is being screwed by corporate America? In every society there is pain and suffering, and in every society those who don't experience a lot of that have excuses for why it's not their problem. I might add that in every society, eventually those who are suffering become the majority and turn society upside down. With people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet having ridiculously enormous fortunes, it does make one wonder if capitalism really rewards proportionately. Is it really the ideal that the people at the high end of the spectrum have massive fortunes that couldn't be spent on any reasonable kind of life, while there are many who have little to eat? Or, is capitalism just a different way of doing business with the same result: upper and lower classes with disproportinate benefits? I have been a big fan of capitalism my whole life because I felt it was more "fair" than other types of government and that I would be rewarded based on what I've put into it. I have been rewarded, and I enjoy what I get out of it. But I'm no longer sure it's very "fair" and I question whether the billionaires of the world have worked 1000 times harder than the millionaires, etc. I predict that capitalism, like every form of society, will eventually fail because too many will be discontented. Many governments have begun with the intention of pleasing those who revolted in the first place, and as many have failed in due time. I say: will capitalism be any different in the end? I suspect my support of capitalism has to do with the fact that it has always been good to me, and surely the royal classes in ages past supported monarchy for similar reasons. We may not live in a tyrannical state, but the truth is it doesn't matter. When people feel like they are "down-trodden" by the rules that society has in place, eventually they lose it. Although capitalism essentially "frees" everyone and lets them pursue their dreams, the result seems to be as unbalanced as many other societies, with nepotism, inheritance, bigotry, and other "unfair" factors playing huge roles in determining who lives a life of comfort, and who does not. It's easy to criticize without offering solutions, and that's what I'm doing. I imagine that in 1000 (or 10,000) years some other type of society will have emerged which will "fix" all the shortcomings of capitalism and satisfy a majority of people for some time. But the reality is that nothing can change the fact that we are basically selfish creatures, and in every society ways will be found for some people to advance at the cost of others. ------------------------- > Also by advising you to work at not being a loser is not an
> insult, it is sound advice. If I advised you to work at being a
> loser, that would be a gross insult to you. See the difference? On a side note, I think you are being silly. Obviously it's an insult to imply that someone is currently a "loser," and you clearly did that. It's a "caring" (but almost certainly superficial) gesture to tell him to change his ways, but it doesn't mitigate what you've implied. There are many insults which take "advice" form: "get a life"; "stop being such an idiot"; "don't be stupid"; etc. Most people would agree that these are insulting phrases, although they are clearly showing a "desire" to make the other person better. Here's a mild one for you: "don't stoop to this level, TLC. You're better than that." -Dan
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/24/2003, 13:18:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan Sir; Again, I commend you for your usual well stated and intelligent approach to important and sensitive issues.I can only hope to attain the ability to put my thoughts into words as you so eloquently are capable of. However, I can't help but home in on such terms such as "Corporate screwing" and "taking advantage" of certain classes. I admit, I have a tendency to oversimplfy conditions and their causes, mainly because it is in my makeup to boil everything down to it's least common denominator. That is most likely why I make a better engineer than I would a politician. I, like everyone else, have to make judgements, based on my lifes experiences, observations of the conduct of others and my schooling. What else is there? I feel, and not based on my own accomplishments, that the capitalistic system is as fair as we are ever going to get. Of course there are those who contend that the term "fair" is a product of the human mind and is also up for grabs as to it's definition. Is it fair to me, that many of those that have less than I do and despise me for it, are, in many cases, the very students in my younger days in school, who left their books in their lockers and neglected the responsibility that they were told was important, while I took mine home and studied like hell? If you were to question these same individuals as to why, they almost always submit every excuse in the book for their apparent failure , except the real reason. Of course, again, this is a gross over simplification of the problems we are discussing here, but is one example of the causes of differences in inequities of wealth. As far as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are concerned, should we force them to load up all their billions in cash, aboard enough C-130s to hold it all, and fly over Appalachia and begin dumping it all on those poor people. Would this help uplift them out of their misery? We could do the same over the Ozarks and even south central Los Angeles or Harlem. This would do nothing to eradicate the problems we are discussing here. If we pour billions into education to help everyone to have a better life, we still have to vehemently stress the importance and responsibility of them taking the books home at night and studying like hell. Education, and this takes many forms, is the real key, I feel. The Bush administration, like them or not, is stressing the importance of education in this country , and is working hard to bring school districts, both rich and poor, standards up to a more even keel. A monumental task, given the fact that U.S. students ages 18-21, from a broad range of school districts, both rich and poor, came in next to last, only above Mexico, in a recent international test conducted be the National Geographic society on a variety of important subjects. A national disgrace, in my view. Nepotism, inheritance and bigotry ARE a significant factor in the "unfairness" that permeates our society, but I dispute your claim that it is the "huge" main factor of the inequities of wealth that we witness in the U.S. Awareness of our true responsibilities and requirements as both national leaders and citizens is covered in every respect, in the famous and lengthy speech by Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man in The Arena" This should be required reading by every student on the planet, in my view. Ref. www.theodore roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html As far as my "silly" comments, I will heed your advice and aspire to choose better wording on such matters. With great respect, Terry
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/24/2003, 14:15:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thank you for your compliments; they are well received. :)I'd like to respond fully but I'm about to leave for a short trip to Utah. Let me respond about having Bill and Warren drop their money. Obviously, I don't think this is the solution. The point is that the society which creates such inequality is flawed in and of itself, not that we should tack a small rule on top of capitalism to take money from Bill and Warren. As far as I'm concerned, within a capitalistic society, they are entitled to that money. They earned, they get it. But the question is whether such a thing should be possible in any society. How does it help? I agree that it takes a lot more than just income redistribution to fix our problems. But I think unbalanced society is a symptom of a government that doesn't work exactly how it should. -Dan
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/24/2003, 18:29:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
"But the question is whether such a thing should be possible in any society. How does it help?"One thing that is true, at least from what I remember when it was of more interest to me a few years ago, is that the societies with the greatest inequality are the wealthiest, whether this translates to the least poverty (in some kind of real, not relative terms) I'm not sure. I don't think capitalism is very seriously flawed at least in principle, if anything, maybe human nature is flawed, but I'm not sure what government is suppose to do about that. Bill Gates, the bastard that he might be, contributed to the world's economy substantially. His "innovations" or pirating and marketing, whatever you want to call it, played a huge part in the home computing market which really drove the economy, creating jobs and all the rest for a number of years. In practical terms, demand is what drives the economy and if only one guy figures out how to meet that demand or is motivated enough to put his ideas to work, what do you do (granted bill gates case perhaps gets into market flaws like monopoly power, but if we could ignore that for this conversation;)? What are the alternatives? How does government make people be innovative, motivated, or even risk-loving for that matter and be producers? Or can government somehow meet demand by circumventing innovation, hard work, and personal risk? Really, the only option I see is redistribution. I like you, don't believe it's the answer, actually, I believe it generally only defers problems that will only be greater in the future and I'm not just speaking from the warped perspective of a die-hard monetarist. I think that a good deal of redistribution in fact subsidizes, increases the market for nonproductivity rather then really providing long-term benefits.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
04/25/2003, 22:29:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
One thing that is true, at least from what I remember when it was of more interest to me a few years ago, is that the societies with the greatest inequality are the wealthiest, whether this translates to the least poverty (in some kind of real, not relative terms) I'm not sure.Where did you get this claim? Certainly inequality is inevitable in any large economony worth its salt, but the greatest disparities of wealth and status seem especially characteristic of poor societies. Name any Third World country and compare it to the wealthy countries of the West, for example, regarding inequality of wealth, income, status and so forth. Perhaps you have some other idea in mind?
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/25/2003, 22:38:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Cal, I wonder if Fer is referring to societies where the working class populace physically and significantly out numbers the upper class (who dominate in terms of wealth and political power) that they have made rich? Fer? ...aren't you describing capitalist America? Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Fri, Apr 25, 2003, 22:40:46
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/26/2003, 01:39:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, you are right. In fact, it should be a matter of just plain common sense that you are right. So what was I smoking?You said, "Where did you get this claim?" The claim came from my admittedly foggy memory of one of those supplementary little blue boxes with real world info in my freshman econ text. I don't have it any longer, obviously it didn't say what I wrote here. Why I would believe such a thing even if my memory of the page was correct would make my case even worse. Upon reflection, and trying to think back to that little blue box with the assumption that I'm not a complete idiot (something I'm questioning right about now), I'd say that I think my book was comparing the Lorenz curves of the US and various european countries of recent years. The US had the greatest inequality but the highest, or maybe second highest average personal income--real income after taxes. Now if I'm wrong on that, which is something that could very easily be verified, then just shoot me. Anyway, I did a couple quick web searches, I don't think I'm off, but if I am, then that would certainly be enough to warrant my entire post to be deleted. So now, giving myself maybe more credit then I deserve, I hope that if anything other then the thought of a handful of countries had come to mind as I was writing that post that I wouldn't have made that statement.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/26/2003, 13:57:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
It seems to me, that a few months ago, some of us discussed the idea of dividing up all the wealth equally, and contemplated as to how long it would take for those initially in posession, to have it all back in approx. the same percentage as before. I personally, find it exciting to live in a country where it is possible to have the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the Michael Jordans that can exist to set a high standard of almost impossible attainment for most of us. These individuals provide for me, a dream much akin to winning the lottery or finding sunken treasure. It is because these people exist that really makes life bearable for the rest of us. To legislate policies that would hobble this dream, to me would inhibit many of us to try and succceed in many ways. I know, many that are mired in poverty and hopelessness would also tell you that they have dreams. Dreaming of even attaining middle class, to many, seems an impossible task. Dreaming of a next meal, a major effort.
I don't know what the awnsers are for these people. But until every last human being is made up of the same intelligence, genetics, social position, morals, ambitions, physical stature, etc. etc. , redistribution is out of the question. We have to encourage the value of dreaming for all, no matter what economic station we find ourselves in. I wonder what Bill Gates dreams of? more money? I doubt it very much. TLC
|
Posted by: james ®
04/27/2003, 18:50:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
Isn't the doctrine of personal responsiblity part of the egyptian heresy?
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 07:48:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
James Sir; I am not quite sure what you mean here. Could you please expand on it? I am not much of an Egyptologist. TLC
|
Posted by: Phoebus ®
04/24/2003, 05:42:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC - Prove me wrong if you are able.Phoebus - I've proved you wrong already, but you just don't want to see it.
In all your post, you didn't mention a single thing that I didn't already know. Every single point you brought here I already considered when I wrote my original post.
Your not doing anything but argumentum ad nauseam, that's both pointless and unimpressive. You can't prove to a bigot that he is wrong.
Phoebus
p.s.: Prosperity and freedom are two different things.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/23/2003, 12:09:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well said TLC."A level playing field for everyone, which I suspect you would espouse, would be a dull, unexciting enviroment for me, and does not interest me in the least." And it is IMPOSSIBLE in practice to create.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/23/2003, 14:15:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks Bahman my friend. I can always count on you to interject sensible comments. I know you have lived long enough to have a sound thinking perspective on a variety of pertinent issues.I suspect that these youngsters who so idealistically spout their worldly views on the ills of the world, have truley good intentions for everyone. But it is very obvious, by listening to their half baked statements, that they, often, are just parroting views from others without the experience of "walking the walk" for any significant length of time. Am I wasting my time with them? TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/23/2003, 14:26:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . please don't stop, it is NOT a waste of time.I myself am not very patient to respond the way you are doing. I guess it is my age!
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
04/23/2003, 03:43:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
Let's make a different point.I am currently under the belief that the US is suffering under the yoke of a 'terrible dictator' (Jnr) who ruthlessly sledge-hammered into obedience 30% of his population, ignored and continues to ignore the nations of the world in their requests for common law.I am now of a sudden, the worlds largest military might. Given the actions of you, the American people, and it's government, I am fully justified in going in and sticking said cunts head on a pike at the city gates. What is wrong with this picture?
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/23/2003, 10:01:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bob; Your medieval style thinking would fit very well in 12th and 13th century Europe and the middle east, but in today's world, you are sadly out of date Sir.George W. is now preparing to build his campaign for reelection in 2004. He will spend huge amounts of money in that effort. There are others who oppose him, and will be doing the same thing. His reelection is not guaranteed and he could lose just as his father did in 1992. No guarantees whatsoever. If he wins, he will have another 4 years to implement his policies (good or bad), but that is all. If he loses, then another person has his turn at the helm, and good ole George W. will go back home to Crawford, Texas and raise hay and cattle and pay his taxes like everyone else. Does this sound like an evil "Dictator" to you? TLC
Modified by TLC at Wed, Apr 23, 2003, 10:03:51
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/24/2003, 01:26:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
> evil "Dictator" Well, there are just two terms there, "evil" and "dictator." Although Bush is not a "dictator" in the sense that we usually mean it, there can be no question that Bush is something of a dictator (he dictates what happens in many areas of government). He's arguably the most powerful man in the world. So while he may not have absolute rule, like other "dictators" in other countries, he probably "dictates" far more and far more important things than any other man in the world. So, I say he fulfills this part. As for "evil," it's too subjective to define. But there are plenty of people who would consider some of Bush's actions "evil." Most of those I simply call "stupid," but I have a different view. The point is that if you disagree with Bush's policies strongly enough, it is quite easy to label him an "evil dictator." He's the man in charge, so to speak, and if he wants to do "bad" things, he can. What else to you need for an "evil dictator"? To dispute the idea, you have pointed out that Bush doesn't get to be president forever, and that he has to be voted into power to maintain his presidency. But, I'm not sure this really means he's not a "dictator." It just means his term is limited. No, he doesn't have absolute rule, and no, he can't stay in power forever, but neither of these is required to meet the definition. Don't get me wrong. I think accountability in govt. is a must! The fact that public officials must receive votes to serve is paramount! It is certainly preferable that we live in a society where, if enough are dissatisfied, we can remove people from power. But I would argue that all of these (wonderful) things do not prevent the people in government from acting as dictators, and/or being evil! It's just that there's a limit on how long they can do it, and that they have to convince the public that they aren't doing it every term. Finally, and this may be the most important point, it depends where you are talking about. Consider the policy that Bush effects in areas like Iraq. Do people there get to vote on his policies? Do they have the luxury of knowing that if he screws them over, they can vote him out of power? Do they feel, in any way, that they have chosen him as a leader? Obviously, for many Iraqis, the answer to all these questions is "no". Yet, Bush continues to make important decisions about their lives. And unless the people of the US suddenly start to care more about Iraqis than themselves, "public opinion" won't have much effect on how those people are treated. As far as Iraq goes, Bush will have a choice between "evil dictator" and "benevolant dictator," as far as I'm concerned--because essentially, he runs their lives through no choice of their own. I personally don't consider GWB evil, and I don't really believe the word has much distinguishable meaning. However, I think people in power often have very intereseting priorities, and often those priorities are detrimental to others. If oil is a priority over Arab life, then Arabs will get screwed. If national security (or simply the appearance thereof) is a priority over privacy, then privacy will get screwed. In the end it's more about who's getting screwed and how much they care. If people are getting screwed badly enough they might call the person doing it "evil." But it's all perspective. When a person in power is in a position to screw a lot of people without much consequence, and he does it, sometimes we call him an "evil dictator." But what makes him evil? The fact that he wasn't elected, or what he did? I think you'd agree that it's the second. And whether or not he's a dictator in the traditional sense is rather immaterial to whether or not we are sickened by what was done. Well, I've probably said enough, and lest you think I consider Bush an evil dictator, that's not my opinion. I do, however, hope that he leaves office because his cabinet just loves to trounce my civil libertarian freedoms. -Dan
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
04/24/2003, 11:13:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thank you Dan for your well thought input. It's obvious you put more thought into my question than Dearest Mr Terry over there.As for your hopes, I agree with you, but I've been put into a funny mind-set the past little while due to an organised anti-war protest I was involved in. While passing College Green, the area in front of trinity college, I noticed a mass protest underway for The government allowing the use of Shannon airport as a stop-over for American planes. I went to see what was going on and while there was struck with a strange thought. How much say do I actually have in whether this war takes place? How much say did the majorities of people in both Britain and Spain have? Britain was actually home to one of the largest organised marches in history in protest of the war. But nothing happened. Can we honestly claim that our opinions have any effect? The threat of re-election is one thing, but let's take Nixon, the single most unpopular president during war-time the US has ever seen. He was re-elected. I'm at the moment writing a little essay on the media portrayal of the events of the eleventh of september based on the thoughts of philosophers such as Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco and Jean Baudrillard. Basically it argues on the amount by which people seem to have been removed from the attrocities of war through it's broadcast by the media. Given this idea, is it unlikely that Jnr will not be re-elected?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/24/2003, 23:17:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
Another Bob, In your final comments you stated:
“Given this idea, is it unlikely that Jnr will not be re-elected?” With all the focus on the war and facets of it, no candidates for the Democratic party have yet had much visibility on any issue which will be addressed. More than the war will be in focus. The Bush plan is borrow and spend. Don’t tax, just spend. The result of that is deficit. The US has gone from surplus (as far as one could see) to deficit which threatens social security, Medicare, and many other required government responsibilities. Reagan had the “trickle down” economic view in supply side economics. The senior Bush called it “voo doo economics.” It was, and it still is. All the emotional appeals made by G.W. Bush on your money are manifest in a failed responsibility to address fiscal stability. Democratic candidates will point to this. They will point out that the tax cuts for the most wealthy of Americans will generate deficit for just the first half of this fiscal year is $250 billion, nearly twice as big as a year ago. Some will tell us what Bush does not want us to hear. ...Namely that a huge national debt is upon us just as baby-boomers plan to retire and draw on Social Security. Bush has no genuine plan to pay for what it proposes to spend on defense and health care. Some Democratic candidates are going to tell us. If they are sufficiently eloquent, Bush may not be re-elected. Bush will try to make it seem that failure to vote for him will be un-American. It might not work. Nearly every Democrat seeking the presidency is more articulate, more eloquent than is Bush. Look for attempts to severely limit debates on national television. JAK
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/24/2003, 11:45:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan; I am always impressed at the length and breadth of your posts in response to my, apparent, attention getting opinions on sensitive matters.Dictators: Yes, definitions are always up for grabs, it seems. To many, most anyone in authority, deserving or not, is a sort of dictator. There can be good dictators, can't there?
Your mother and father, God love em, were dictators. Your teachers in school, professors in college, the boss at your job, the minister at your church, and even a God (for those who believe) and his " Ten Commandments" are all dictatorial entities, laying down the rules for the rest of to follow, and with a prediction of the consequences if we fail to adhere. "Evil is definately subjective and is determined by all those who agree as to it's meaning. I know all this.
"There is no good or bad, only thinking makes it so" Shakespeare Question: Would you please give me one example of a civil libertarian freedom of yours that George W. and his band of coherts have taken from you? A simple request. Always with great respect for your views, whether I am in agreement or not, Terry
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/24/2003, 15:06:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
Read the USA Patriot act, for a start. Among other things, it makes it legal to do search and siezure without a warrant. It also makes it legal for the govt. to monitor what books I'm reading by interrogating libraries. I believe, in a free society, that I should be able to read what I like w/o the govt. using it to profile me as a possible terrorist or whatever else they might think. It's not like I read anything terrible, or what-not, but now I have to think twice before I pick up certain titles. There are many more things I could mention, but in general the govt. has been given more power to restrict my freedoms. Have I been affected directly? Not yet, and hopefully I never will. But the power is there.Hopefully this answers your question. -Dan
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/26/2003, 14:58:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan my friend; After reading your post, I went to a link that lists the The Patriot Act in it's entirety, mainly to get a feel for it's scope. Wow!! Lots of stuff. Would take me months to absorb it all.I appreciate your concern for what some would consider recent losses of freedom through legislation such as this, but cannot help but feel that personal emotions regarding certain principles can often be misread as overeactions. I didn't find the articles such as government monitoring of books read in libraries, or searching and seizure without warrants, however, I take your word that it is there. But, Dan, they are not restricting your freedom to read any damn book you choose. That would be "real" loss of freedom. And what's wrong in profiling? Petafiles are profiled. If you are not a petafile, then who gives a shit? Likewise, if you aren't a terrorist, who gives a shit?
As far as search and seizure is concerned, isn't probable cause still in effect? I mean to get a judge out of bed in the middle of the night when you have witnessed a group of people building bombs in your apartment building and have overheard them stateing that they were going to the airport within the hour, would you wait for a warrant to save many lives?
Let the act fit the situation. This is no threat to me. I suspect that many, who feel as you do, have the country's and it's citizens welfare and freedoms paramount in your voiced concerns. Jefferson would be proud. Jefferson also stated that the U.S. constitution, (I am paraphrasing here)was a document to be adjusted in the future, according to fit the times and it's concerns. In a post 9-11 world, I'm sure our government has no interest in taking any precious freedoms from you, Dan, only in trying to secure a safer place in which to live, for you and your loved ones. There are, however, many that are striving to do just the opposite. Question: Do you feel that a freedom has been infringed on when you are prohibited from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater? Has your freedom of speech been denied? I, for one, will read any books I damn well choose and the Government can monitor me all they want. Until I have something in my home that I feel is subversive to the welfare of my country, and I know what these things are, I haven't a worry in the world about search and seizure. But there those who better worry a little more after the patriot act. They know who they are and it certainly isn't you or me. Thats how I view it all, right or wrong. Terry
|
Posted by: another bob ®
04/26/2003, 18:26:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
Quick question, what exactly would be considered subversive to the welfare of your country? Please, I do expect an exact definition for this IS what you claim.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 08:00:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
That's easy enough. Any material that is unmistakenly designed to attempt and carry out the fall and destruction of the infrastructure of the U.S. Government.At one time, it was a crime to belong to the communist party in the U.S.
I feel the same condition should be implemented today, to Al Quiada and it's members when apprehended. Maybe an automatic death penalty might be appropriate, when Al Quiada certainly has condemned us to death, using any manner they see fit to implement. TLC
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
04/29/2003, 19:34:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
I now wonder if anyone has ever read A Clockwork Orange.
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
04/30/2003, 01:08:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
I wrote a response to this but cleared the form accidentally. Profiling for the sake of determining what kind of person you want to find is one thing (e.g., profilers study evidence and can often accurately determine the sex, age, race, etc. of a suspect). Another kind of profiling is determining what kind of people are likely to commit crimes and monitoring them. That is the kind of profiling that could be done with library monitoring, and it is the kind I object to. > Likewise, if you aren't a terrorist, who gives a shit? I do. I don't want the government keeping tabs on everything I do because I read the biography of Saddam Hussein or rent a movie on the evils of the US in Arab nations. It's invasive, annoying, and frankly I'm not interested in being investigated. It's an old theory: "If you aren't guilty then you won't mind if we watch you." It simply doesn't work that way. People like their privacy whether they are breaking the law or not. Sometimes things you have done can be put together to make you look guilty, as well. I'm sure we all remember "The Red Scare." Does anyone seriously believe all those who caught hell for being "reds" were actually communists? When people have access to all sorts of personal information, | |
|
