quote:Mr. Bush was in Colorado and Texas monitoring hurricane developments, and Mr. Cheney was undergoing surgery at George Washington University hospital.
One of the leaders of the protest said the following:
quote: "It's significant that Bush is out of town," said William Dobbs, an organizer of the march. "It shows that he's turned his back on the peace movement, which represents a majority of the American public right now."
Now I'm not a big fan of Bush and whatever his reasons may be for going to Texas (ie, to save face after Hurricane Katrina, etc), that quote just strikes a wrong chord with me. If he left town to go on vacation, yea I could say he's avoiding the peace movement. But why was he gone? Because there was another hurricane coming. Just because there was a protest and he wasn't there to greet them with open arms doesn't mean he doesn't know about it.
It could also be my slight aversion to uber activists that's causing me to feel like I'm defending Bush.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be the obvious political manipulation of the masses that turns you off. Not that many political agendas are free of it...
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ask around ad people here will tell you...I am not a Bush fan. This seems to be a bunch of crap though.
Not that the war or the peace movment isn't important, but Bush wasn't going to appear at that rally anyway, and he DOES have a few other things going on right now, like a national disaster...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Governmentally-provided disaster relief has nothing in particular to do with a free market one way or the other. The notion many people have of a free market is wildly disparate from what most economists mean when they use the term, and in part due to widespread misunderstanding of Adam Smith.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just becasue some people ....those who start with the most money, usually...stand to benifit the most from a completely free market doesn't mean that it is always the best thing for everyone, or even for the majority.
I would say I am somewhere inbetween the two extremes, actually.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, teh governmet has a responsibility to use it's resources to help the victims of Katrina...that is something they promised, something that needs done, and something they had collected money for in the form of taxes.
So as it stand now, in the real world, Bush has a greater duty to teh victims than he does to teh anti-war protesters.
posted
I find it funny that, in ten posts, a topic has managed to go from dislike of manipulative activists in general to an extremely partisian political argument.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true that Bush-haters are *so* extreme they make even those who just don't like Bush defend him.
I'd be pretty lukewarm to Bush myself, except that those who attack him claim he wasn't elected, he wants to exterminate blacks and gays, he created Hurricane Katrina, he's a genocidal maniac, he has a war against women, he conspired with terrorists to destroy WTC, etc. Some of this is close to mainstream in the Democratic Party now.
BTW I saw a schedule of what Bush does on "vacation." It made me tired.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Will, it was people like you who convinced me that Bush wasn't worth saving....not that it took much.
Except for the election thing, which has some validity, none of the rest of those arguments have been offered by anyone who matters...much like your defences of him...no one who matters, who has an objective bone in his body, would make those types of assinine remarks and expect to be treated with any sort of respect, at least in regard to his political views.
Funny...I keep hearing how intolerant of Bush I am, but on the rare occasion when I think he is getting too much blame and I defend him...or at least insist on the blame going to where it belongs....someone always tries to use that as proof that he is SO good that even a hater has to like him.
Couldn't possibly be that I am pretty fair most of the time...
...even when objecting to him or his actions, right?
posted
It's the angriest voices, and most appalling opinions that speak the loudest. The calm, rational folks just aren't interesting enough to pay any attention to.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to place blame where it lies, as I see it. If most of the time it is Bush then that is where it goes, adn calling me a hater is disingenous at best, and a very poor smokscreen at worst.
It doesn't qualify as original thought, or even unoriginal though, though.
When blaming Bush isn't just, and it stops the blame being passed on to the other people who share responsibility with him, I mention it. It is called being objective, or at least attempting to be objectiv.
I have even fought, midly, with my wife about some of that stuff. I try not to assume the worst of people in general, but to be honest I find it hard to not think the worst...not the crap you claim is rampent ih the Democratic party but some of the more reasonable stuff....of Bush because he so often lives down to my expectations.
However a lot of that is because he is a politician. They tend to not be my favorite people in general.
( Directed to the converstaion in general )
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm honestly in favor of the people taking care of the people.
We don't and shouldn't need to rely on the government to wipe our bottoms.
Aren't people part of the government? While I'd love to argue that Bush is less than a person (but we're not going there), in the case of a natural disastor such as Katrina, you need as much help as you can get and the government is able to provide money, assistance, and PEOPLE to help out.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. -- James Madison, 1794
"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." -- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, what are you trying to say with those quotes? Just because those two presidents said that doesn't mean I personally don't think that the government should in such a circumstance as a natural disastor there should be aid provided.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reinforcing my previous statements with words of those that are greater than myself. They that are understood because they speak more clearly, and studied life and man to a greater extent than I.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
raventh: I understood what you were trying to say, but no matter how many quotes you provide, I will disagree with you and you will disagree with me.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize the Jefferson quotation has nothing to do with force majeure, and in fact hints at the exact opposite of what you're supporting?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It all depends on how you view "others"; recall that force majeure also goes by "acts of god".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Staying in the path of a disaster is a choice some made. That has nothing to do with the disaster, but with that choice they made.
Some also were not in the place to make any other choice. I say that the responsibility falls to the people to do something about it, and not the government.
Dagonee: Inaction is still an action even when it comes to natural disasters. People are allowed to hurt themselves.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
raventh: again I ask you, what makes up the government? Where does the government get its resources?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the original topic: I'd generally side with anti-war protesters at least in principle. But criticizing Bush for being out of town is pretty ridiculous on their part.
Even if there hadn't been a natural disaster or another good reason for the president to be in a different part of the country, even if he HAD stayed in DC during the protest... it's not like he (or any other president ever, mind you) was likely to come out to the protest, pull up a lawn chair, and listen to what they had to say. The most he would personally see of the protest would be glimpsing them on his way someplace else.
posted
Lots of people were affected by these storms without remaining there, mark. Also, lots of people were not able to leave.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing makes up the Government but the People. The Government does get it's resources from the people.
However, this line of thought is going to make you say. Well if the people are the government, and they are the source of the money for the ones in trouble does it not make the source of the money from the people?
No. The source is still from the Government which appropriated the funds without the consent of the People for this cause. The People should give on their own. Have you read Davy Crockett vs. Welfare ?
posted
Fugu: So those that can help should if they choose, We shouldn't rely on the government to fix problems by tapping the resources of those that wish not to support them.
Why can't I have a choice in supporting someone?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware that people should give on their own and I did my part to contribute to the Katrina Relief Fund. But when the government has money to give (ok, maybe the gov actually doesn't considering the debt, but let that slide for the sake of the argument please, k?), I think they should. Not everyone has loads of money that they are capable of giving, nor do they if they actually have the money. But everyone pays taxes to the government for use by the government.
The People elect the Senate and the House, who gave the consent to allot this money to the hurricane relief. What is so wrong about that?
Also, do the People care about the welfare of all the People? I don't actually think so.
No I haven't read that case.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were talking about the Jefferson quotation, which doesn't support your position. Jefferson favored plenty of things you're deriding.
You do get choices, but not on every atomic decision. You get to vote for the people who make governmental decisions, and you are free to leave.
By remaining part of this society you have opted in to those actions the society takes collectively, including government aid to those desolated by disaster.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note what I said about voting, I don't deny you get to do so.
But as long as you're here, you have consented to the uses the government puts its money, even if you don't like them.
And the People have given the Government the power to use money it appropriates to aid in disaster relief.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the point about what is best for everyone. My original point is that socialism is not what is best for everyone.
I'm sure you've heard Benjamin Franklin's quote on what Democracy is. (Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.)
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, and by democracy he meant more along the lines of what you're advocating. Franklin was a staunch supporter of the republican form of government.
As for disaster relief being socialism, I suggest rereading The Wealth of Nations, you have a twisted notion of what capitalism is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wealth of Nations is by Smith, father of modern economics and first person to effectively lay out the principles of what we now call capitalism.
(edit: and its spelled keynes, and he disagreed greatly with Smith on many things)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It all depends on how you view "others"; recall that force majeure also goes by "acts of god".
It actually depends on how Jefferson viewed "others," and there's very good reason to believe he didn't view storms as acts of God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, Jefferson's strong deistic views suggest he thought hurricanes very literally an act of God, albeit at some remove.
edit: plus, a text (in this case, a quotation) can hint at or suggest something without author intent. I was pretty careful in my phrasing; I talk about what the quotation says or hints at, not what Jefferson did. While what Jefferson consciously willed in his construction of the quotation is certainly very important in considering the quotation, it is hardly the final word. We are constantly finding new interpretations of texts which have been around a very long time but were not (and in many cases could not have been) applied to the situations implicated in the interpretation.
posted
LOL, I know the meaning of the word, Kwea. Just out of curiosity, when you read the definition --
(Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine). Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.)
-- what makes you think it means "incorrect"? As opposed to what it actually means, which is like this... If you are being disingenuous, you are saying something you know to be untrue..?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:plus, a text (in this case, a quotation) can hint at or suggest something without author intent. I was pretty careful in my phrasing; I talk about what the quotation says or hints at, not what Jefferson did. While what Jefferson consciously willed in his construction of the quotation is certainly very important in considering the quotation, it is hardly the final word. We are constantly finding new interpretations of texts which have been around a very long time but were not (and in many cases could not have been) applied to the situations implicated in the interpretation.
In that case, it "hints" as strongly in raventh's favor as yours.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
