I believe that Shara Law requires his death, I say that we elect him and then watch the fireworks! He will have to fight the war on terror in self defense!
quote: The issue of Sen. Barack Obama’s Muslim past has surfaced again as his campaign steps back from its flat denial that he ever belonged to the Islamic faith.
Earlier this year several media outlets reported that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Islamic school, when he lived in Indonesia. At the time, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs declared: “To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.”
The report about the radical madrasa turned out to be false.
Now, in a statement to the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, Gibbs amended that declaration, saying: “Obama has never been a practicing Muslim,” the key word being “practicing.”
But a boyhood friend of Obama in Indonesia, Zulfin Adi, told the Times: “His mother often went to the church, but Barry [Barack’s name at the time] was Muslim. He went to the mosque.”
The Times sent a reporter to Jakarta, capital of the Muslim nation, to delve into an issue that could have a serious impact on the Democratic presidential candidate’s White House aspiration, as voters “react to a candidate with an early exposure to Islam, a religion that remains foreign to many Americans,” the Times noted.
Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan, and Kansas-born Ann Dunham. The couple separated when Barack was 2. They later divorced, and Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama was known as Barry Soetoro, and he remained there from age 6 to 10.
Obama attended first grade at a Catholic elementary school near his home, St. Francis of Assisi Foundation School, which accepted students of any religion.
His first-grade teacher Israella Dharmawan told the Times: “At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim. He was registered as a Muslim because his father was Muslim.”
In the third grade, Obama transferred to a public school, where he was also registered as a Muslim.
Muslim students at the school attended weekly religion lessons about Islam, taught by a Muslim.
In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama mentions studying the Quran and describes the public school as “a Muslim school.”
Boyhood friend Adi said Obama occasionally went to Friday prayers at a local mosque.
“We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque,” he told the Times.
Sometimes, when the call to prayer sounded, Barry and Lolo would walk to the mosque together, Adi added.
Obama’s half-sister Maya Soetoro, in a statement issued Wednesday by the Obama campaign, said the family attended the mosque only for “big communal events.”
New revelations about Obama’s Muslim past could provide ammunition for his critics — and political opponents.
One such critic is Chicago-based Internet journalist and broadcaster Andy Martin, a lawyer and consumer advocate who wrote earlier about Obama’s connection to Islam.
Reacting to the claim from Obama’s sister that the family went to the mosque only for “big communal events,” Martin wrote on Thursday: “Tens of millions of ‘Christians’ flock to churches for Easter and Christmas. And they would slap you down if you told them they were not Christians merely because they only appear twice a year for ‘big communal events.’”
He also wrote: “Obama no longer denies he was a Muslim. Now he says he wasn’t a ‘practicing’ Muslim.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't understand why I should care. (?)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
The war on terror is not a war against Islam. Or it shouldn't be.
And I doubt any radical muslim is going to want to kill an ex-muslim US president more than they'd want to kill any other POTUS.
Religion has nothing to do with whether someone can successfully lead a nation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Reacting to the claim from Obama’s sister that the family went to the mosque only for “big communal events,” Martin wrote on Thursday: “Tens of millions of ‘Christians’ flock to churches for Easter and Christmas. And they would slap you down if you told them they were not Christians merely because they only appear twice a year for ‘big communal events.’”
Oh, Lord. So this attack vector is "Obama is more honest about his faith than most American Christians, and thus can't be trusted?" I suppose that if they're grasping at straws this desperately, he's a better candidate than I thought.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:New revelations about Obama’s Muslim past could provide ammunition for his critics — and political opponents.
See, there are no new revelations in any of that. Obama's said it all himself. Clearly there's nothing wrong with being Muslim, but I think it's blatantly false to say Obama was ever Muslim. If you were to say he was atheist (prior to his Christian conversion), I think there'd be a lot more truth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Tom and CT. (in a religious/political thread!)
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Obama is a sleeper agent. If you vote for him, the terrorists win. Really, they do win, he's a terrorist.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
A Christian who has not had a chance to hear the word is not under a death sentence, you are supposed to get a chance to come into the loving light of Allah... However one that has turned away, especially to fit in a Christian society is under a sentence of death, the Apostate King of the great Satan! I like it...
As has been said by many Muslim commentators, the billion five Muslims that just want to live in peace really are not politically significant the two hundred million that believe in Jihad are all that matters, together they are the greatest threat we face in our time, I just see this as a great way for all of them to come together in unity of purpose so we can have this war now instead of when I am a Grandfather.
[ March 18, 2007, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Counter Bean ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, that's a great idea! I can see the slogan now: "Bigots for Obama: When Arabs Assassinate Him, We'll Finally Have an Excuse to Nuke Mecca!"
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Oh, good grief.
I attended Mennonite Brethren chapel when I attended a university run by the denomination, sang the songs, bowed my head during prayer, and said amen at the end of the prayer because everyone else did. Doesn't make me a Mennonite.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:the two hundred million that believe in Jihad are all that matters, together they are the greatest threat we face in our time
You're right. I think that the odds of my dying to an offensive Jihadist act have recently inched up to approximately a two millionth of the chances of me dying in a car crash. Someday they may even rival -- or, I daresay, match -- the odds that I die to a lightning strike.
We simply cannot ignore threats as potent as this. We must live in obsequient fear and start wars against an entire religion.
TUNE IN NEXT TIME FOR "MARTIAL LAW: THE ONLY REAL SOLUTION TO SHARK ATTACKS"
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Who wants to nuke Mecca? They can still pray toward a crater. I hope we can find a more surgical way to separate the politically enthusiastic from the more apathetic folk. I am not sure the death of even a leftist President would inspire our Democrats to tool up to fight a serious war. To fight a general war against militant Islam on all fronts we would need a draft, fuel rationing, interment camps, a militarized border. I just do not see anything less then us losing a city kicking that into gear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, man, get on it and nuke Dallas already! It's people like you that're losing the war in Iraq!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To fight a general war against militant Islam we need a unilateral agreement among every nation we can hook up with to seek out terrorist activity in their borders. We need an agreement that activity targeting civilians will not be tolerated and will be rooted out wherever it happens, because it is not focused in any one city or any one country. Or at least it wasn't before.
You know, that kind of thing would have been a good thing to do, say, right after Afghanistan. Remember? When we had the world on our side? When there was enough shared horror at the actions of a few evil-minded people that we could have forged a powerful world-wide movement against such tactics? Even people who disagree with everything else we think, don't want their children to die.
That would have been a good thing to do, back when other countries still trusted us, still grieved with us. You don't fight cockroaches by leveling the building. The way to fight cockroaches is to clean up the place and not give them anywhere to hide.
But even stupider, ever more moronic than what has happened so far would be to piss off the rest of the Moslem world that isn't currently fighting us. They may not be speaking out against their militant coreligionists as much as I'd like, but they're not rising up against us, either. Not until we crater Mecca, anyway.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Its people like you who think winning every move we make is losing.
You see suicide attacks and think we cannot win, I see them and know the truth, they are a mark of desperation, the nuclear warheads in their arsenal. I see them and I laugh because I know what it costs the enemy to use them and all they are accomplishing is turning the Iraqi's into active participants in our endeavors and creating a thin thread of hope in the form of the weak willed among us who would not hold firm regardless.
The protest this weekend brought out the best in America, our veterans took up a line at the monuments and memorials to protect them from protesters this time, since the DC police will not secure them.
Of course you know what you are saying is not true, you think I am being deliberately provocative and you think you are matching me stroke for stroke.
However, in my thread I will do the provoking, have an opinion that is firm on a subject that matters and I will visit it on your thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You see suicide attacks and think we cannot win
Well, no. I actually think our ends can be achieved in a variety of ways. I think the hardest and costliest way to achieve our goals for the region is to do what we're doing: subjugate them without admitting that this is what we're trying to do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
By god, what a terrible dilemma.
We can't inspire the islamic world to fight a united war against us without a united war against them.
We can't inspire americans to fight a united war against them without a united war against us.
I dread that this catch-22 may have us be forced down the darkest road of all .. coexistance. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: But even stupider, ever more moronic than what has happened so far would be to piss off the rest of the Moslem world that isn't currently fighting us.
Ironically from an operational point of view it would be easier to handle a general uprising. We have the machinery for wholesale slaugher in the bullpen when it becomes acceptable.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
What's the source of this article, out of curiosity?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Bean, I do not believe we should pull out. I think the current strategy of more troops, securing areas and expanding them, is a good one. I do not know if it will work, because I thought it was a good idea four years ago when it was first suggested (by the same guy who's leading it now, if I'm not mistaken) but things have changed since then; there wasn't a civil war then, we hadn't yet realized the guy we had primed to take over for us was actually a self-serving crook, our troops weren't worn out from being redeployed again and again, and there wasn't as much public opinion against us. But I'm hopeful.
However, I think if the whole thing hadn't been botched from the beginning, it wouldn't have been necessary. There may have been a time to bring down Saddam, but it was not then. That was the time to use the world's reaction to our losses to build a powerful coalition against the use of terror tactics, anywhere. It was not the time to squander that goodwill in a pointless and mismanaged campaign run by self-centered fools who knew how to throw enough weaponry around to win the first battle but had no idea how to win the war that followed. We're there now, and what has happened happened, and we have to deal with what is instead of what should have been, and so I believe we have a duty to leave the place in good shape before we think about leaving.
I just wish we hadn't made the mistake in the first place.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think the hardest and costliest way to achieve our goals for the region is to do what we're doing: subjugate them without admitting that this is what we're trying to do.
I agree.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
It is costly, but it is also the plan that is the most ambitious. That is why I am sure that Bush is a real man of faith. He believes in Democracy and he believes in the Iraqi's far more then I. I would have run it more like post war Japan with a military authority. But I am not a believer in people.
We must consider long term goals of the operation as well as the dollars when we amortize the logistical costs. My way might have worked better, but I am not sure it would have created better people. I tend to think of Iraqis as moral children and so I am impatient with them, more concerned with playground control then teaching. Control is easy to impose, self control takes time to teach.
I am all for putting radio monitors on every one of them and issuing cards to replace all money, ID and credit and debit. Creating bank accounts for every citizen and tracking every transaction. But that is me, I figure run it that way for ten years and then drop the radio tracking and see what happens...make them earn their freedom, we paid for it in our blood, it belongs to us, giving it away to them cheapens it.
Of course this way they have paid for it with their own blood so maybe it evens out.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
CB: You can't possibly be a real person. Nobody honestly thinks that kind of stuff up and believes it seriously. Radio trackers, we own their freedom... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe we could lease some of them to Saudi Arabia and Iran for temporary slavery too. Might as well earn back the money we've spent on the war, and let them do the work for it too, to pay us back.
After all, we own them right?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Maybe the Christian world isn't supposed to win a war against Islam. Maybe it's a signal that the end is coming. Ever read "The Last Battle" by CS Lewis? The Narnians lost the battle against the Telomarines and their god Tash. Yet in the end, Aslan prevailed and the lived on forever in Aslans country. Where Narnia, England, and the world continued on in a perfect version.
Maybe we're not supposed to win against the muslim jihadists. Maybe we're just supposed to fight?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: His first-grade teacher Israella Dharmawan told the Times: “At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim. He was registered as a Muslim because his father was Muslim.”
In the third grade, Obama transferred to a public school, where he was also registered as a Muslim.
That's some of the greatest reasoning I've ever heard. He was a Muslim because they decided to call him a Muslim.
Fantastic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wasn't Bush an alcoholic and heavy drug user? And for that matter, AFTER elementary school, when you're actually considered responsible for your actions?
I mean, if we can get over electing a drunk crack head, you'd think we could get over something someone apparently wasn't all that enthusiastic about even when he was aged in the single digits.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I know what Sharia is. Not so sure about Shara Law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we should all follow Shakira law. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good gravy.
Debate the man on his principles and ideas.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
In that case, I'm only going to vote for Obama if his running mate is a chunky white bigot. That way when the Islamic terrorists put a bomb under his podium as he's preparing to address the nation, his VP can step in and put all them heretics in concentration camps.
Of course, that still leaves the problem of the Russian terrorist masterminds roaming free. But we'll deal with that in next week's episode.
OBAMA & COUNTER BEAN IN 2008!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I tend to think of Iraqis as moral children and so I am impatient with them
The feeling may be mutual. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Debate the man on his principles and ideas.
Advocating a president in hopes that he will be assassinated and trigger a war, supporting a draft and internment camps (oh yeah, because the camps for Japanese Americans did so well), adopting plans simply because they are the most ambitious and require the most faith, viewing Iraqis as moral children, implying a comparability between post-war Iraq and post-war Japan (read a book on Japan, CB), seeking totalitarian measures for policing Iraqis after 'liberating' them, encouraging an all-out war against jihadists and risking nuclear war because it's apparently going to happen eventually, and putting forth the notion of "owning" people's freedom while claiming to uphold democracy (inalienable rights); plenty of ideas there, but I don't see any principles.
Sorry Scott, if my sarcastic and deliberately tangential post was inappropriate; this is my standard response to internet trolling, if I respond at all (which is rarely). Perhaps it helps to disguise the heinousness of what CB is advocating.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Counter Bean sure made Obama look good in this thread. As I recall, I've figured out that it's his purpose.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Debate the man on his principles and ideas.
Advocating a president in hopes that he will be assassinated and trigger a war, supporting a draft, internment camps (oh yeah, because the camps for Japanese Americans did so well), adopting plans simply because they are the most ambitious and require the most faith, viewing Iraqis as moral children, implying a comparability between post-war Iraq and post-war Japan (read a book on Japan, CB), totalitarian measures for policing Iraqis after 'liberating' them, encouraging an all-out war against jihadists and risking nuclear war because it's apparently going to happen eventually, and "owning" people's freedom while claiming to uphold democracy (inalienable rights); plenty of ideas there, but I don't see any principles.
Sorry Scott, if my sarcastic and deliberately tangential post was inappropriate. Perhaps it helps to disguise the heinousness of what CB is advocating.
Pretty sure Scott was talking about Obama's principles and ideas.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Euripides:
By "the man," I was referring to Obama, not Counter Bean.
I should have been clearer.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Oh, okay; sorry. It didn't seem like CB was trying to debate Obama in the first place. More like advocating using him as bait in order to create a casus belli; no doubt in an effort to attract flame posts.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:...make them earn their freedom, we paid for it in our blood, it belongs to us, giving it away to them cheapens it.
Of course, if you listen to us, freedom is an inalienable right of the individual, which no one else can truly take away, or own. So, uh, what's your point again? That we own what we can never take away?
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, I read Counter Bean's initial post, and the ones following it. I found them to be ludicrous.
If I'm going to critisize Obama, it's not going to be for something he believed/did when he was still proudly wearing Underoos.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So all he has to do to make himself immune to criticism is admit that he still proudly wears underoos?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, what character is on them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
(We just went underwear shopping for Super-K-- this is a topic I'm currently well-informed about.)
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Mohammad Underoos! Now that is a provocation!
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Freedom is a thing all men possess to some degree, but valuing freedom is a learned, shared trait. A lesson that can be forgotten. Let me rephrase, We own all the value for the freedom we have delivered, if we just give it to them that is how much they will value it.
It is why emancipation lead to such confusion and such a dark era, so few lottery winners act responsibly with their sudden wealth of possibilities.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We own all the value for the freedom we have delivered, if we just give it to them that is how much they will value it.
No. We are not equipped, morally or materially to engage in this kind of action.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
We are engaged in exactly that kind of action.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
How much do you value your freedom? It was, more or less, just given to you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We're engaged in the battle to remove freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience from the Iraqis?
Wow. We are the Great Satan, after all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is why emancipation lead to such confusion and such a dark era, so few lottery winners act responsibly with their sudden wealth of possibilities.
Or perhaps it had as much to do with emancipation doing nothing to protect the newly freed human beings from the hatred and violence of their neighbors.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
I don't like manipulation. And the fact that *someone* *somewhere* is spreading the lie makes me like Obama even more.
I tried to tell them they were mistaken, but I doubt it stuck.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is why emancipation lead to such confusion and such a dark era, so few lottery winners act responsibly with their sudden wealth of possibilities.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with people who had been threatened with death if they even learned to read and (for many) being purposefully kept from learning any useful skill suddenly being told, "OK, you're free now. Have a good life."
Or the fact that the Supreme court systematically dismantled every attempt to protect slaves.
Or the fact that the ruling party traded the few protections that were there for freed slaves in order to win the Presidency.
Or the fact that, after ripping power away from blacks, the new state governments deprived them of almost every basic civil liberty.
Or the fact that they actually organized a secret society to keep freed slaves in "their place."
It wasn't any of these things that led to confusion and a dark era that lasted well into the 1960s. Nope. It was the irresponsible lottery winners who squandered the "gift" of being allowed to live with their children and spouses, and not be forced to labor unceasingly for another while kept on substinence rations.
It's certainly true that most freed slaves weren't prepared to survive economically in the situation in which they found themselves. That has everything to do with a 400-year conspiracy to keep them unprepared and nothing to do with their not valuing freedom. And that lack of economic ability was NOT the biggest source of the confusion and darkness of the post-War South.
Trust me - they valued freedom a whole hell of a lot more than you do.
Do you actually believe this stuff? If so, you are evil and ignorant. If not, you are evil and a liar.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd put money down that if Obama is elected, any sign of trying to establish good will with the middle east will garner him accusations of "being soft with his Muslim brothers, who he has strong secret ties with."
Because you know all Muslims absolutely love each other unconditionally.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
Huh? I don't follow your logic here.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
There's never been a question in my mind that CB is evil, in the truest sense of the word.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because you know all Muslims absolutely love each other unconditionally.
Just look at Iraq!
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, Obama is a member of the UCC, a mainstream protestant congregation. If people think he is Muslim (a premise that has been floated in certain circles a couple times since Obama announced his candidacy) then that is a lie, and since they apparently don't like him for this simple fact, this lie is being used to manipulate people.
That they shouldn't have these bigoted views is a separate issue...
-Bok
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Generally I think calling other Hatrackers evil is not a good idea.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
Huh? I don't follow your logic here.
Sorry, I left out information. Both my mother and mother-in-law are heavily influenced in their political views by their respective churches. These churches are very different, although both are conservative and Christian. The fact that they think Obama is a muslim tells me that they're most likely getting that information from their churches or people at their churches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree. Generally it is not a good idea. Someone advocating radio collars for Muslims and stating that the reason we had a dark period after the civil war is because ex-slaves were "lottery winners" is a good reason the adverb in that sentence is "generally" and not "always."
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Until I volunteered to fight and earn it. (My Freedom was unearned, except where I spent 18 years learning how to be a citizen without freedom)
quote: Or perhaps it had as much to do with emancipation doing nothing to protect the newly freed human beings from the hatred and violence of their neighbors.
Had the slaves secured their own freedom they would not have been vulnerable to victimization, they would have proved themselves a match for whatever their neighbors could do (that is how you earn your freedom). There are and were several non violent approaches to this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Soldiers do not get to dictate what inalienable rights citizens have.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Until I volunteered to fight and earn it.
So you didn't value your freedom before then?
I'm also not sure what the connection to fighting and "earning" your freedom is. Your freedom is not at stake in the Iraq War. You won't lose your freedom if we lose the war. You wouldn't have lost your freedom if you didn't volunteer to fight.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I had grown up training to value it, but I had not paid for it. I value it more now.
Like the slaves who were freed, I had the joy without enough of the discipline. I think the lottery analogy actually holds up very well. To get wealthy usually involves the experience of growing up with money, or of earning it. Both teach you a great deal about how to deal with all the choices.
As for taking away the Iraqi's rights to assembly and such, who said anything about that? I would just compare time index of bomb placement with the people present and then gank them out of society, but they tend to behave if they know they are being watched. (Children again) It would also tell us who is a legitimate Iraqi and who does not belong. The only freedom they lose is a right to move about privately.
A freedom that they have at the cost of being unable to move about safely.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree. Generally it is not a good idea. Someone advocating radio collars for Muslims and stating that the reason we had a dark period after the civil war is because ex-slaves were "lottery winners" is a good reason the adverb in that sentence is "generally" and not "always."
Precisely.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: I had grown up training to value it, but I had not paid for it. I value it more now.
I don't understand. (I'm not trying to be a twit -- honest -- I am just not following you.)
Even if someone would value something more if it were taken away temporarily, that doesn't mean another person has the legitimate authority to take it away for awhile, even if alleged for that first person's own good.
You would probably value your mother, or your car, or food if we took it away from you for awhile, but that wouldn't make doing so right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree. Generally it is not a good idea. Someone advocating radio collars for Muslims and stating that the reason we had a dark period after the civil war is because ex-slaves were "lottery winners" is a good reason the adverb in that sentence is "generally" and not "always."
Precisely.
Thirded.
And Dagonee, I generally (and this is one of those times) really enjoy your posts when you get fired up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Had the slaves secured their own freedom they would not have been vulnerable to victimization, they would have proved themselves a match for whatever their neighbors could do (that is how you earn your freedom). There are and were several non violent approaches to this.
Exactly how should they have done this? Secured their own freedom, I mean. You clearly must know, else you wouldn't be talking so blithely about it.
quote:Like the slaves who were freed, I had the joy without enough of the discipline. I think the lottery analogy actually holds up very well. To get wealthy usually involves the experience of growing up with money, or of earning it. Both teach you a great deal about how to deal with all the choices.
No, it holds up very poorly indeed. Look at the things Dagonee wrote, and you'll see why. The slaves didn't "win the lottery", we just stopped raping, killing, and enslaving them so damned much. But we were still raping, killing, terrorizing, and enslaving them.
It's a shameful thing you do, hinting that other people should be willing to bring down horrible suffering on their families and loved ones when you have never had to make that choice yourself.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
The value does not come from having the freedom taken away, all you can do is miss what you do not have, the value comes from having what you have worked hard to understand or achieve.
As all Americans who grow up with the wealth of freedom, I grew up with tools to help me handle it. However it is the privilege of a few of us to pay the hard price for freedom and internalize its true value. It is this experience that teaches me that 'freeing' anyone is thrusting a terrible burden of responsibility on them that they are often unprepared for, it includes a burden and obligation to teach them how to handle it and free them incrementally as they learn the lessons they need. Doing it any other way is irresponsible and cruel, because the lessons are still taught, but without mercy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's really pretty easy to understand Bean's positions. If you're not an American, preferably a Republican, certainly a Christian (of the right church) then you're not really an adult and possibly aren't actually human, which means we are fully justified in doing whatever needs to be done to them for their own good. They only complain because they don't know any better.
By the way... "There's never been a question in my mind that CB is evil, in the truest sense of the word." Could we use a different nickname? This one makes me paranoid.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
There were plans put forward that would have forced slave owners to pay an annual tax that would have been used to purchase freedom for slaves a few at a time. Further the slave week would be divided into six days and freedom could be purchased one sixth at a time meaning that a slave would have one free day when their labor was paid for to them. They would be allowed to purchase thier own freedom one day at a time with thier own wages, learning to use money in the process and accustoming the white population to free working negros as well.
There were others that ranged from arming them and letting them secure the freedom of other slaves to giving them Florida and letting them work it out for themselves. Most would have been better then 'you are free', good luck...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To get wealthy usually involves the experience of growing up with money, or of earning it. Both teach you a great deal about how to deal with all the choices.
Yep. Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are perfectly good examples of this.
quote:Had the slaves secured their own freedom they would not have been vulnerable to victimization, they would have proved themselves a match for whatever their neighbors could do (that is how you earn your freedom). There are and were several non violent approaches to this.
Knowing how to make passive resistance work (and I'm not granting it would have - slaves were whipped for anything that looked like organizing, including attending church services not overseen by an approved minister carefully choosing which verses to read to them) does not prepare one for running a farm, knowing how to enter a contract, knowing how to negotiate with a bank, knowing how to prevent foreclosure, and millions of other things.
This is especially true when, even if one did all these things correctly, the very mechanisms of enforcement were tilted absolutely against the newly freed slaves. I can't imagine trying to practice law if every single document I executed was going to be interpreted in the absolute least favorable manner to me. Someone who, at best, learned to read in secret during the few hours they were left alone wouldn't have a chance.
quote:However it is the privilege of a few of us to pay the hard price for freedom and internalize its true value.
And you've internalized it so well it's impossible to see it in you any more.
I'd suggest trying to make your appreciation of freedom a little more external. You value it like a dragon values gold - in a dark cave, pretending you somehow deserve it, but not wanting to let it out in the world to actually accomplish anything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Most would have been better then 'you are free', good luck...
Wrong, they would not have been better, because it involves an ongoing acceptance of human slavery, which is totally unacceptable and frankly despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.
Here's a hint: it's because it involves slaves having to buy what was stolen from them in the first place. If I stick a gun in your face (and no, you don't get a chance to kill me first) and steal your mp3 player or something, I don't get to compel you to buy it back. I have to give it back, and make some other restitution as well.
That works with property, it for G.D. sure works for human slavery.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There were others that ranged from arming them and letting them secure the freedom of other slaves to giving them Florida and letting them work it out for themselves. Most would have been better then 'you are free', good luck...
Even better would have been "you are free. Sorry we did this to you. Here's a job, or a farm, or something else to make up for stealing your very lives. Here's a resource to help you learn how to make that work for you."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute, I missed that. Are you actually suggesting some form of nonviolent effort on the part of slaves in America would have had a real chance at success, Bean Counter?
If you are, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time. That's stating it plainly.
When you can't read, when your family and friends have been sold up the river or down the street, when you're kept in a state of perpetual exhaustion by 14+ hour shifts of backbreaking labor in another man's fields, when you're fed substandard foods, when you know that any attempt at escape is extremely difficult and can see the results for failing to succeed all around you...
Well, when those conditions are met, your manly talk about earning one's freedom is exposed for what it is: the chest-thumping machismo of a man who hasn't had to earn his when another man was actively trying to steal it. You've done service to the nation, and I respect that.
But in the situation you "earned your freedom", you didn't have someone right there next to you with his boot on your neck. Your freedom was not endangered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This is apparently Sparta.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, I think you spelled that wrong.
This is SPARTA!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
YES YES GO BEAN COUNTER GO
quote:I don't understand. (I'm not trying to be a twit -- honest -- I am just not following you.)
It's easy not to understand any of it, since his axioms are reliably flawed, internally inconsistant, and often rely upon bogus historical or social interpretations.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote: Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
That doesn't bug me as much as the first sentence. Sorry to single them out, but this entire movement is bent on attacking Obama's reputation solely because he may or may not have, back when he was too young to decide for himself, gone to mosque. The only reason that would mean anything to anyone would be if a significant part of the American public was Islamophobic enough to believe that being registered as a Muslim student at an elementary school means that he is "tainted" or "untrustworthy" or "unChristian".
I hate politics. Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Tom, I think you spelled that wrong.
This is SPARTA!
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Slavery was the law of the land, slaves were property, not wanting your property taken away is pretty universal. For me the tragedy was the loss of life, apparently internalized by most as the blood price we paid for the sin of slavery, which could have been avoided if the abolitionists were more moderate and advocated a process of securing freedom for slaves.
quote: Wait a minute, I missed that. Are you actually suggesting some form of nonviolent effort on the part of slaves in America would have had a real chance at success, Bean Counter?
Of course it would have required that the white men institute the process. Perhaps under the threat of violence, but there was a surprising amount of abolitionist sympathy in the South tempered by just exactly the concern, "What will they do once they are free" answering that question or mitigating that concern would have gone a long way toward creating an oportunity for change. Unfortunately the whole thing came to a head too quickly for us to find out.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Slavery was the law of the land, slaves were property, not wanting your property taken away is pretty universal.
I'll go with this. I think the deeper sting is that not only were the chattel let free, the owners were asked to cede property to them. I guess it would be the equivalent of letting your dog go and having to cede not only the dog house, but a quarter of the backyard to Rover. Except, we aren't talking about dogs, we are talking about people.
This does make me wonder if a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so. I think it's so common a moral flaw that it is fashionable among white conservatives, in the same way that it's cool to hate taxes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Someone with a zealous regard for property rights would have recognized that they had no such rights in people.
Even if one is willing to treat humans as property, the "property" in question was stolen. Doesn't sound like a "zealous regard" to me.
No, slaveowners used a variety of rationalizations to avoid the conclusion that what they did was evil. Bean's "they're better off this way" B.S. is just one of them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: This does make me wonder if a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so.
I often wonder that myself.
edit to add: I wonder about it in general, not necessarily in relation to the issue of slavery.
[ March 19, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bean Counter,
quote:Slavery was the law of the land, slaves were property, not wanting your property taken away is pretty universal. For me the tragedy was the loss of life, apparently internalized by most as the blood price we paid for the sin of slavery, which could have been avoided if the abolitionists were more moderate and advocated a process of securing freedom for slaves.
I see. Well, you're wrong on the first count. Not legally speaking, but morally. So the tragedy you see in the history of slavery in America is not the slavery itself, but rather the loss of life in the Civil War, am I understanding you correctly?
You're also dead wrong about the abolitionists as well-aside from being morally despicable, of course. The South was very in tune with threats to the institution of slavery, and fought tooth and nail politically and culturally to keep it protected every inch of the way. You can see this as evidenced primarily by, hey, their opposition to Abraham Lincoln who was a moderate on abolition (and truly, it's a huge stretch to call him an abolitionist at the time of his candidacy), and they hated him. Moderation on the part of abolitionists would not have made a difference.
You need to work a lot more before you understand the basic ideas and principles underlying slavery and the Civil War before you can speak intelligently about it, Bean Counter. Your ignorance is broad and deep.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sorry about that Irami, I'm not in the habit of deleting posts. We cross posted, and yours was actually a thought out reply rather than just a expression of disbelief that someone really thinks the way Counter Bean does. Since I think Counter Bean thrives on the types of reactions I just gave him, I thought I could take it down before anyone saw it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And from the other end of the racism spectrum...
quote:This does make me wonder of a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so. I think it's so common a moral flaw that it is fashionable among white conservatives, in the same way that it's cool to hate taxes.
If it is a flaw, it's a flaw fashionable amongst far more than white conservatives.
But slavery was not, and could never be, truly about property rights. Human slaves are never property, they are always, always prisoners.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why even pay attention to this guy?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Someone with a zealous regard for property rights would have recognized that they had no such rights in people.
See, I think they were are at least two different principles at play. 1) Property should not be taken and let go by the government. 2) People cannot be property.
You can believe in the first and not believe in the second, or vice versa. I don't have a strong sense of private property precisely because I understand that concern with private property, at a level that's considered normal in our culture, shows poor moral priorities, similar to those money changers Jesus lit into at the temple.
quote:But slavery was not, and could never be, truly about property rights. Human slaves are never property, they are always, always prisoners.
I don't think so. I think it is about property. Prisoners allegedly commit crimes. The slaves were closer to cattle than criminals.
Edit, to stay on topic.
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
You know how they say about hypnotism, that you can't be hypnotized to do something that you don't already want to do. I think there is a similar principle at play. If you want to find a reason to vote against Obama, there are going to be reasons. I imagine these same people say they were swayed by the anti-Kerry Swiftboat captains ads.
There is a large swath of America who don't particularly like gay people; who are comfortable with the quality of education and healthcare their kids are getting; are fine with the violence in Iraq or torture or the criminal system, as long as it stays in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay and away from their family and friends, respectively; and who aren't particularly keen on electing a black guy with a muslim name to the highest office in the land. These are the people who rise to a comfortable living in private industry, raise healthy good looking college bound kids, and elect presidents.
[ March 19, 2007, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think so. I think it is about property. Prisoners allegedly commit crimes. The slaves were closer to cattle than criminals.
You don't have to committ a crime, or even be accused of committing a crime, to become a prisoner. I did not choose that word for its American connotations. Just because their 'owners' viewed them--publicly--as property does not make them property.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't have strong sense of private property precisely because I understand that concern with private property, at a level that's considered normal in our culture, shows poor moral priorities, similar to those money changers Jesus lit into at the temple.
Aww... look who's on the high road.
I'm not precisely sure what attitudes about property today have to do with attitudes about property/people in the 1860s.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: This does make me wonder if a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so. I think it's so common a moral flaw that it is fashionable among white conservatives, in the same way that it's cool to hate taxes.
I often wonder that myself.
edit to add: I wonder about it in general, not necessarily in relation to the issue of slavery.
Better be careful, zombie Ayn Rand might rise from the grave and start hungering for your brains Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I should also have added that I wasn't agreeing with the "white conservative" thing. I think it is a human thing, perhaps moreso an American thing.
As long as Ms Rand doesn't make me listen to her reading "Atlas Shrugged". The story was interesting, but good heavens, she's preachy!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It's certainly true that most freed slaves weren't prepared to survive economically in the situation in which they found themselves. That has everything to do with a 400-year conspiracy to keep them unprepared and nothing to do with their not valuing freedom.
This resonates with me very strongly. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Property is a legal concept, so people can most certainly be property if they are defined as such by the law. Believing otherwise elevates the notion of property to the status of some sort of natural law.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bean Counter's opinions on freedom basically amount to: if you permit yourself to be kidnapped, you didn't want freedom enough, and thus you don't deserve it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Aww... look who's on the high road.
I've always been there, you all were just lost in the wilderness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think everyone needs to pay a price for freedom. The founding fathers fought wars amongst themselves and with foreign enemies to ensure that it was secured, both in blood and ink, that our right to freedom has no price, it is free, and given to us upon birth.
No offense to CB or any other soldier in Iraq, but I don't think you're fighting for my freedoms. I might however be willing to concede you're possibly fighting for my safety, but those two things are completely different. The only way you'd be fighting for my freedom is if there is a serious threat of Iraqis hopping a boat for Detroit. Even if they did, it's more than likely a combination of the Detroit police and street gangs would mow them down before they ever hit the suburbs, so I feel quite secure as well. The only way you're fighting for my safety now, is if there's a threat of harm from actions Iraqis might take against me, and frankly, I think what our troops are doing over there, just their presence alone, is doing more damage than good to my long term safety.
So I thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel I owe you anything, and I don't think you've done anything specific for me, and I appreciate the fact that should the need arise, you would be there to fill in that post.
Black slaves tried time and again, by the way, to overthrow their enslavers. They tried in America, several times, they tried in the West Indies several times, and with the exception of Toussaint Louverture and Haiti, those too were brutally repressed. The island Alexander Hamilton was from, I want to say Nevis? or St. Croix, I can't remember, had something like 300 whites and 10,000 slaves, and still the slaves could never effect a successful uprising. It wasn't because they didn't want to be free, or that they never tried hard enough, it was just that we were too damned good at what we did, and what we did was slavery.
The citizens of Iraq are already free, because they are alive, and they are people. Those are the only prerequisites you need. Anything we do to curtail that freedom is subjugation and oppression. Now you can try to justify it if you want, but don't make it sound less serious than it is. Iraqis don't have to earn their freedom, and they don't owe us anything for it. We chose to put them in the situation they are in, well, us and Britain anyway. Shoving freedom down someone's throat, then telling them they are doing it wrong when they don't agree with you, and on top of that, giving them a BILL for services rendered is highway robbery at best, and brutal barbarism at worst. America should be better than that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Nice post.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So I thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel I owe you anything, and I don't think you've done anything specific for me, and I appreciate the fact that should the need arise, you would be there to fill in that post.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, but not this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In what way?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do not feel I should respect and be grateful for serving one's nation only when I agree with the specific service being rendered. With some exceptions (I'm not suggesting thanking a war criminal, for example), I believe that since soldiers almost universally never decide where they are sent, I should be thankful that they serve where they are sent, and respect them for it specifically, and acknowledge the service done for American citizens.
Part of democracy is owning up to the good and the bad our government does, to some extent. I believe only being thankful and feeling indebted to those who serve it when we agree with what exactly they did is shirking that part of democracy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never said I didn't respect them, and I didn't say I wasn't grateful for them volunteering to serve. And I never said I wasn't thankful.
I'm reacting to the plethora of speeches I always hear from the Preident, and for that matter, from CB, about how I personally owe them/him something for protecting my freedoms in Iraq. Frankly I'm sick of the guilt trip they keep trying to shove down my throat in an effort to choke me off from criticizing a spectacularly bungled war.
What I owe them, above and beyond any appreciation, is my service as a citizen. I pay taxes to provide them everything they need to ensure their success and safety, and I pay them respect with my voice, which I use to speak out against wasteful actions that do a disservice to the troops by spending their lives, and a disservice to the citizens by spending their tax dollars, on a war with no beneficial outcome.
I don't blame the troops for what is going on over there, I blame the fools who sent them there, I know they don't choose where they go, they just go where they are sent. But I also don't have to genuflect and kowtow before them either.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But I also don't have to genuflect and kowtow before them either.
*kowtows Lyrhawn upside the head* What? it's that kind of word.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
"I believe only being thankful and feeling indebted to those who serve it when we agree with what exactly they did is shirking that part of democracy."
Rakeesh, could you explain what you said? It sounds like double-speak.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Something's been niggling in the back of my mind all day.
Also, I feel very bad for your high school history teachers. You are perhaps the exemplar of why I am so uncomfortable with and mistrustful of the American military. I've known good, honest, decent servicemen, and I have known Entitlement Twats like you as well. It's sad that the respectable servicemen are quieter and less noticed, because you give them all a very bad name.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
OK, but please bear in mind I was responding to your post, not a bunch of other political speeches.
I know you never said you didn't respect them. I used that word specifically alongside gratitude.
However:
quote:So I thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel I owe you anything, and I don't think you've done anything specific for me, and I appreciate the fact that should the need arise, you would be there to fill in that post.
To me, that pretty clearly expresses a lack of gratitude. i.e. you're saying you do not feel like you owe anything (one definition of gratitude) to an American soldier serving in Iraq.
I reiterate the opinion I was expressing: one should not only be grateful for specific military service when the specific service is one that toes an individual's political line. I do not believe gratitude for service to the nation should be so random.
As for taxes, I think we can write that off so to speak as any sort of expression of gratitude. Gratitude is not, after all, expressed under duress. And while exercising your free speech is of course a sort of expression of gratitude to those who ultimately help to protect it (that qualifier put in to stave off Tom ), I do have to point out that that specific application of free speech might not be deemed very respectful.
quote:But I also don't have to genuflect and kowtow before them either.
OK, now I fully recognize that you're fired up about something completely different, not what I said at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Krankykat,
Hey! Long time no see. Sure, I'll take a stab at it. It's not something I've thought of much, so it's still stewing in my noggin so to speak. Please bear with me.
quote:"I believe only being thankful and feeling indebted to those who serve it when we agree with what exactly they did is shirking that part of democracy."
OK, first of all, most people would agree that American citizens should respect and be thankful for the service our military provides, correct? In a way similar to the respect and gratitude we afford firefighters, policemen, EMTs, etc. We feel this way because, like firefighters and cops, military service people will put themselves in harm's way, or at the very least risk it, on our behalf for generally poorer pay than could be had in the private sector.
Yes, I recognize that not all military service people do this for those reasons, I'm speaking generally here.
OK, given the first statement, I come to the second idea: being thankful and respectful even when the service given is not agreeable to us. We must have a military, correct? That military must not, ultimately, decide where it is sent, right? Given those two things, respecting and being thankful towards the military only when they do things you agree with is saying, "Thanks for your service. When it was service I liked, that is. Even though you did not have control over what exactly your service would be. So really, I'm more grateful the more the present powers in government agree with and answer to me. Not so much otherwise."
It would be like not being thankful for a police officer's service when the cop arrests someone for dealing pot, even if you think that shouldn't be a crime. The cops don't pick the laws, that's not what we empower them to do. We pick the laws, just like we pick where the soldiers go. Our respect and gratitude for their service should therefore not be tied to how much we think that service was good, since that's not their decision. Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I am a.. erm. serviceman I guess. Strange title.
I know quite a few idiots in the various fields, and I have got to admit in the entry ranks the ratio of idiot to non is fairly high.
It is disappointing.
And if The Apostate Devil gets onto the ballot of the Great Satan I will dribble the blood of the innocents (pencils) onto the ledger of damned souls (ballot) and set forth my damned visage to vote for him.
Or McCain.
they are both cool.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
It will assuage my white guilt too, a two for one deal...I might just register as a Democrat so I can vote agianst Hillary at least once for certain.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
When I'm describing such a large and diverse group, "soldier" seems inadequate.
...Is "serviceman" really such an odd word?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
no, it just seems weird to me, since I have not been in the military for such a long time. Also, soldier tends to refer to Army.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
You know how they say about hypnotism, that you can't be hypnotized to do something that you don't already want to do. I think there is a similar principle at play. If you want to find a reason to vote against Obama, there are going to be reasons. I imagine these same people say they were swayed by the anti-Kerry Swiftboat captains ads.
There is a large swath of America who don't particularly like gay people; who are comfortable with the quality of education and healthcare their kids are getting; are fine with the violence in Iraq or torture or the criminal system, as long as it stays in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay and away from their family and friends, respectively; and who aren't particularly keen on electing a black guy with a muslim name to the highest office in the land. These are the people who rise to a comfortable living in private industry, raise healthy good looking college bound kids, and elect presidents.
You're probably right about that, but the people I'm talking about don't fit that description, at least not in all ways. But I think that fits my original point. The people you're talking about, and those above them on the social ladder, use trickle-down hypnosis, duping the lower classes to accept their agenda through scare tactics and by twisting their belief in God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think we should be grateful for the services of those in the military. I also think we should be grateful for the services of all those who make sacrifices to provide the public some good - including firemen, police officers, doctors, scientists, politicians, garbage collectors, teachers, accountants, business executives, store clerks, farmers, etc. And I think our degree of gratitude should be greater for those who sacrifice more and get less personal benefit from their career. Nevertheless, all deserve gratitude, to some degree.
Additionally, to say that soldiers have earned freedom more or understand freedom better than people of these other careers is foolish. Freedom is not earned. Freedom is created through a collective effort, which requires not only fighting, but also educating, healing, producing, leading, and so on. This should be particularly evident in Iraq, where there is much fighting but not so much freedom. Jointly many different sorts of people come together to give us a free society - and so we should be grateful to all of them.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Tres: We've disagreed, oftentimes emphatically, in the past, but that was a helluva post right there. I agree, 100%. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Choices are created by collective action, that is for certain, but the space for that action to take place in is secured by soldiers, even when it is accomplished by other means.
Nobody would pay for anything from America if they could take it instead. Our dollar would be worthless if our long term security were in question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nobody would pay for anything from America if they could take it instead.
I disagree almost completely. Nobody of any intelligence would take from America what they could buy. Conquering a modern nation is an idiot's game.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
And their is a shortage of idiots?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
And no amount of soldiers would be able to provide us with long term security without the sacrifices made by the millions of Americans to their careers at home. Without intelligence, weapons, uniforms, medicine, education, supplies, financing, etc., there can be no military victory in the modern era.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we need more such idiots, I know where we have them stockpiled.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I disagree almost completely. Nobody of any intelligence would take from America what they could buy. Conquering a modern nation is an idiot's game.
I agree, Tom. Conquering a modern nation is an idiot's game...of course, that's just a theory. It has never been tried within the past sixty years.
But I will say this: one aspect of a modern nation is a military.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Rakeesh:
Thanks for clearing up what you said for me.
I like what Tres said and agree:
"I think we should be grateful for the services of those in the military. I also think we should be grateful for the services of all those who make sacrifices to provide the public some good..."
Great post Tres.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I like Tresopax's post quite a bit. I don't personally agree with it, at least not from a limited perspective. [I agree in the broader sense, but temper that by individual expectations.]
This has to do with my (relatively recent) revelation that by expecting gratitude from people for the work I do, I put them in a very difficult place of obligation. Moreover, I put my own sense of goodwill and justice on very unstable grounds -- something that left me feeling pulled to and fro by outside forces.
I'm happy now just to do my job and take satisfaction in a job well done. This, regardless of whether it is appreciated by those I serve, is under my control.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This has to do with my (relatively recent) revelation that by expecting gratitude from people for the work I do, I put them in a very difficult place of obligation.
I love the fact that CT saves lives. You are a special gal, not only do you heal, you do it and are careful about not putting a moral burden on the patient. You are almost too classy to be real.
I, on the other hand, have not yet matured to such a level, and would give out all manners of unsolicited advice, and not always nicely, and let them know that it is by the grace of God and these two hands that they are alive, and not through the fault of their shameful habits.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Freedom is such a fluffy concept.
The nation certainly protects me from the impositions of others.
But my freedom is more potently an earned quality.
My freedom of expression is directly related to my learning of the language. I am more free today than I was as a schoolboy, or as a freshman, or even as a graduate student.
One day, I opened the hood of my automobile and discovered that I was not free at all. The engine refused to recognize my mastery of english. I had money, but again the engine was indifferent. I sent the beast to a mechanic. Grubby and inarticulate, he saw immediately that I had little freedom and that I was dependent on him to get me through this terrible immobility. I bought him a case of beer as tribute and did exactly what he told me to do because I had little choice.
With my new understanding of freedom, I subjugated myself to the discipline of school once again and learned auto mechanics. I have NOT mastered this subject but at least I walk into the repair shop as a free man and converse with the mechanic as if I were his equal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"I think we should be grateful for the services of those in the military. I also think we should be grateful for the services of all those who make sacrifices to provide the public some good..."
Naturally.
quote:This has to do with my (relatively recent) revelation that by expecting gratitude from people for the work I do, I put them in a very difficult place of obligation. Moreover, I put my own sense of goodwill and justice on very unstable grounds -- something that left me feeling pulled to and fro by outside forces.
I agree that is best. Expecting gratitude, insisting on it, while I think it reasonable for someone who sacrifices for others to feel they have earned gratitude, demanding it is something else entirely.
This doesn't have any bearing, though, on whether or not those served should feel grateful.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
"This has to do with my (relatively recent) revelation that by expecting gratitude from people for the work I do, I put them in a very difficult place of obligation."
Expecting gratitude: Back in the late 80's and early 90s I promoted USCF bicycle races. I figured I did a great job as promoter if the 50 to 100 racers at any given event did not complain. I figured I did a fantastic job if I got a compliment or two.
That was a lesson that I still use today. If I don't get any complaints about what I'm doing, I figure I'm doing a great job. If one or two staff member compliments my work, I guess I did or am doing a fantastic job. No complaints yet this year.
But, I never expect gratitude. Most people are to insecure to compliment co-workers.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat:
But, I never expect gratitude. Most people are to insecure to compliment co-workers.
This is SOOOOO true, and I wish it wasn't.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat:
But, I never expect gratitude. Most people are to insecure to compliment co-workers.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)