 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck...
|
|
|
Subject: Second Amendment From: Taconicus Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:11 PM It's kind of silly to talk about the Second Amendment in a thread about Glenn Beck and rabbis, isn't it? So I'll put my response in a new thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 11 - 09:56 PM Tell ya' what, John... If Bobby Kennedy had changed that much then I believe that one might make an argument that Hitler was thinkin' of convertin' to Judaism... Guess again... BTW, sittin' down on the commode improves yer accuracy... Yeah, I know all the sissy stuff but seein' as I clean my own bathroom, I sit... Saves alot of cleaning'... BTW, part B... I will deny I ever admitted to sittin' down... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 31 Jan 11 - 09:24 PM Bobert--At my age I have enough problem hitting the commode, let alone trying to fill a plastic cup. :>) I did not define militia, I only suggested a possible answer to the question...altho' I know it (the question) was really meant to be rhetorical. I well know what RFK believed in in the 60s. I also know what others, David Horowitz and Michael Medved come to mind, believed in those days. Life view changes are not unheard of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 11 - 08:58 PM Your definition of a "well regulated militia" is a stretch, John... Me thinks you need to, ahhhh. pee in this this plastic cup... *grin* But I think I do understand Bobby Kennedy... I not only worked in his campaign but I also came close to workin' for his family as a teacher/groundskeeper/handy man but kept my other job... He most certainly would not have supported a government that was about less governance and that was what Reagan was all about... No, Bobby Kennedy, was a federalist and he strongly believed that the government should take an activist role in solving problems from poverty to urban to law enforcement to urban renewal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 31 Jan 11 - 08:30 PM "[H]ad he [RFK] not been gunned down he would not have been a Reagan supporter... Quite the opposite... He also would not be a Charles Krauthammer follower..." As you are so able to know what Kennedy's future epiphanies might have been, please send me the winners for Tuesday at Santa Anita. "BTW, when did a single person qualify as a "militia"???" One soldier qualifies as a troop, so perhaps by analogy the same for militia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 31 Jan 11 - 08:30 PM Midge buzzings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 11 - 08:16 PM The 2nd amendment DOES refer to A well regulated Militia...and although I think the age of militias is past, I doubt that what the current bunch has in mind will come close to "well regulated" .....that assumes, I would think, regulated BY the government to assist the regular army. I do **NOT** think the founders were planning on defining a way to oppose the Republic, no matter how the paranoids want to interpret it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 11 - 08:02 PM Well, one thing is fir sure and that is the Repubs certainly know how to win/steal elections... Fir me the "Citizens United" decision and the Bush v. Gore decison are a toss up as to which is the worst piece of corrupt judicial activism... These guys make Earl Warren look like a Boy Scout...Both were way over the top and to outsiders looking in are seen as Banana Republic level corruption... BTW, what ever happened to one-man-one-vote... When we allow corporations to have unlimited access to buying elections we are, in essence, giving more votes to Boss Hog... Lots more votes... That is reality since 90% of elections are won by the candidates who spends the most money... This has nothing to do with speech... Speech has a voice box... Corporation's don't... They are legal entities and do not have voice boxes or hearts or kidneys or.... BTW, I worked for Bobby Kennedy and had he not been gunned down he would not have been a Reagan supporter... Quite the opposite... He also would not be a Charles Krauthammer follower... Quite the opposite... Finally, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's most likely a duck... "Classical liberalism", as Tac has defined it, has nuthin' to do with the progressive movement... Quite the opposite... Lastly, as for the 2nd amendment, I have lived among gun owners all my life, am a former member of the NRA and a current gun owner... With that said, I have never heard one single 2nd amendment rights person quote the 2nd amendment... Hey, it one friggin' sentence... Shouldn't be all that hard to learn... One sentence!!! BTW, when did a single person qualify as a "militia"??? Well, if we are going to talk about the 2nd amendment then lets take it the way it was written... I mean, we have all these Tea Partiers who want US to follow the Constitution, right... And they don't have a clue what's in it??? Fact is stranger than fiction... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: olddude Date: 31 Jan 11 - 02:21 PM John you are right that is the problem, it is a hell of a lot easier to throw rocks and blame then to try and fix difficult problems via discussion and action. Heck if we can just blame the "other" guy then no need to try and address problems and work like hell to solve them. Much easier to call the other guy a fascist or communist or something like that. You are so right |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Greg F. Date: 31 Jan 11 - 02:00 PM Except for the fact that Cohen didn't call anyone a Nazi, nor did he even USE the term Nazi. Guess facts don't signift to Taco & Peedee & their ilk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 31 Jan 11 - 01:48 PM Of course it's okay when the Democrats do it, pdq. Don't you know? Their shit don't stink! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: pdq Date: 31 Jan 11 - 12:21 PM Here is what Steve Cohen, a Democrat in Congress, said about his enemies, the Republicans: "'They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,' Cohen said. 'You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing.' 'The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it--believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,' Cohen said." This must be OK because all these Rabbis are talking about is Glenn Beck, not Steve Cohen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 31 Jan 11 - 12:09 PM "Tea Partiers, Ayn Rand followers and most Republicans need to be described as unpatriotic, short sighted and selfish when they are behaving and talking that way." Socialists, Nancy Pelosi followers, and most Democrats need to be described as unpatriotic, short-sighted, and envious, when they are behaving and talking the way they do. Gee this is fun...characterize the other side--don't discuss ideas. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "...shows that peddle division are not American I think." Peddling division is as old as America, at least certainly as the two party system. Very American, I think. Only it's easier to disseminate our differences in the age of instant communication. The trick is to compromise effectively for the benefit of all, and that requires at least two willing parties. I think we seldom have any willing parties these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: olddude Date: 31 Jan 11 - 11:35 AM One of the things today is the media always tries to pigeon hole people into categories when in fact it is impossible I think to do that. The term left or right or conservative or liberal. Most people are part of everything, it is all based on the issue at hand. We can all agree that the government has wasted a ton of money (conservative and liberal alike) we all can agree that the Iraq war had questionable motives for our initial involvement etc ... that list goes on and on. Each person may have a different view on how to fix it, and that is the area were logical and respectful debate should take place. As Kendall says over and over again, "I ain't learned nothing from people who always agree with me" .. however today it is a shouting match and it carries over to our elected official who should be setting the example. Difficult times call for smart minds and clear thinkers from all walks of life to help determine the cause and the cure. That is why shows that peddle division are not American I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 11 - 11:17 AM Yes to new thread or even PMs... no, lap dulcimer. No.. I don't mean Citizens United was a Second Amendment case... those are just 2 areas that bother me. Later, then... get your work done. I have a festival to attend this Sat, it it doesn't snow. Need to organize--I'm helping lead a workshop on parodies. |
|
Subject: Classical liberalism and libertarianism From: Taconicus Date: 31 Jan 11 - 11:00 AM I reject deconstructionism as a fatally flawed and self-contradictory doctrine. If the meaning of the words we use is ultimately unknowable then conversation is meaningless and we might as well live in a might-makes-right world. When I say limited government I'm not using it as a slogan for "I don't want to be regulated" as you suggest. I mean exactly what the phrase means to anyone familiar with political theory. Our Constitution gives us a government of limited, enumerated powers. If we can't agree on what those words mean, then we have no basis for conversation. Assuming we can, and therefore do… Yes, classical liberalism is very close to libertarianism. But libertarianism is a blanket term that includes the political philosophies of people who believe different things. Like you, most people today are not familiar with classical liberalism, and thus many people who call themselves libertarians (I used to call myself a "rational libertarian") are actually classical liberals. Other "libertarians" are not. A fair number could be called anarco-capitalistic libertarians, who are opposed to all government and believe everyone would be better off with a utopian, totally unregulated, absolutely free society, where private property rights are the basis on which to settle all human differences. That's a nice ideal for a perfect world, but unrealistic. However, it is fairly clear that libertarianism derived from classical liberalism, and there are many similarities. In fact, you will probably find few differences between "moderate libertarians" and those who recognize themselves to be classical liberals. The problem is, of course, that the word "liberal" has been co-opted by radical leftists, socialists, and progressives who have gradually taken over political parties that formerly were of a more classical liberal nature, so that now the word means something else entirely, and classical liberals don't recognize themselves (nor do others recognize them) as liberals at all. Sure, we could talk about Citizens United or the Second Amendment if you like (you don't think Citizens United was a Second Amendment case, do you?) If you are open-minded then after I explained more about the Citizens United I think you would come away with a different opinion. However, it would be a few days before I had the time to do that. I should've worked over the weekend, but instead I frittered away a lot of it rambling on inconsequentially on this forum, probably mostly to avoid work I had to do. If we do talk about one or the other, we should probably start a new thread about it. I like listenting dulcimer music. Do you play hammer dulcimer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 11 - 09:49 AM Taconicus- The bigot did not win. I was running in support of a Black friend, to split the 'white' vote. I had to appear on League of Women Voter TV shows twice. At the last minute a veteran black politician entered the primary and he beat the bigot by 400 votes. I got 700 votes, most of which we all assumed were taken from the bigot.... at least the winner thought so. (I worked as a grocery checker to get thru college, and about the time I was half-way thru my Masters in Philosophy, money ran out and most philosophy majors were not finding jobs) That 'classical liberal' moniker in new to me. I can't wrap my head around being for Bobby Kennedy and then for Reagan. I know the parties change..(Lincoln would have been a liberal today)... but what you list 'seem' to veer toward Libertarianism. The part that gives me the most pause is what is buried in the phrase 'limited government'. Since (as you may have noticed) I like deconstructing language to examine what the full implications of various formulations are, I often find quite inconsistent premises in folks full attitude toward 'limited government'. That is all-too-often just used as a "slogan" to mean "I don't want to be regulated and/or told what to do", no matter what the consequences. Constitutional law, huh? Any comment on the "Citizens United" decision? Or on the precise interpretation of the 2nd amendment? (I have typed dozens of posts about those here.) As I said, I play autoharp...and a little dulcimer and recorder. My wife is the real musician. She plays guitar and a zither and a McArthur Harp and sings almost anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Jan 11 - 08:56 AM No one is being called any names. Not by me anyway. I am attacking an idea as stupid, not a person. Though enough people seem to cherish this idea for one to see patterns. Levying taxes under a democratic system is not slavery. People who own property and/or make money under such a system need to realize just how much the system benefits them and how they are NOT separate from it. To say otherwise is foolishness. Tea Partiers, Ayn Rand followers and most Republicans need to be described as unpatriotic, short sighted and selfish when they are behaving and talking that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 11:17 PM To Don Firth: Cool beans. Thanks for the info!!! To Bill D: That's very interesting. I'm impressed that you ran for office. Sounds like you didn't win against the "avowed bigot" – too bad. (Really? He really declared that he was a bigot?) Politically, I'm a classical liberal – which is almost nothing like what passes for a "liberal" today. Originally, classical liberalism had as one of its main goals the abolition of privilege, which was standard in governments of the time, and meant special rights or immunities granted to particular classes of individuals, e.g., royalty, aristocracy, clergy, etc. A classical liberal believes in individual rights, limited government, complete equality under the law regardless of race, class, etc., and equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome). Classical liberalism espouses the cause of free men and free markets. So from what Don Firth says above, I guess that makes me an 18th-century leftist. ;-) I was a Bobby Kennedy Democrat in the 1960s (I met him and shook his hand when he was running for US Senator from New York), and I was a Reagan Republican in the 1980s, without changing my politics between the two eras – it was the parties that changed. I've never run for public office, nor do I think I could have won (I'm not a good enough public speaker, and I've the charisma of a baked potato). I have a masters degree in physics, a doctorate in law (I studied constitutional law). I put myself through college driving a taxi cab, and after college I had careers in software and aerospace engineering and as a patent attorney. I think the recent Supreme Court decision on "Citizens United" was correctly decided, and is probably the most misunderstood and most deceptively demagogued and mischaracterized Supreme Court decision in recent history. I sing and play guitar, mostly traditional Scottish/Irish, but also American folk music. I'm up in the area of the Taconic Mountains, which explains my handle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:13 PM But how do ya' feel about Bobby Goldsboro's "Honey" as it relates to capital punishment, Bill??? But never mind that stuff... This thread is about one's 1st amendment rights to incite people to kill... Bubba says, "If they didn't want to be killed then they shouldn't have been commie Democrats" and the "commie Democrats" say... ..."This shit has gone far enough... Time to reel the hate speech back in... Ain't about 1st amendment here... It's about everyone's right to the "pursuit of happiness" which ain't all that easy to accomplish when there are people trying to kill yer ass... Count me with the liberal side of the debate... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:07 PM FYI (from a basic text on political science): The terms Right and Left refer to political affiliations which originated early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789-1796, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:46 PM Oh...and I consider the recent Supreme Court decision on "Citizens United" making corporations 'individuals' to be the worst travesty since Dred Scott... that should help peg me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:43 PM "I thought I explained above that I was talking about government control of the economy, and economic matters." hmm? I'd have to go back and see. I can't think how a fellow of my careful *grin* nature would have missed that. I am basically a Democrat...who 'has' voted for a few Republicans. My personal opinions are all over the map. There are areas (immigration, for example) where a simple yes-no 'might' sound like I'm a conservative Republican, but never for the same reasons that a conservative would hold the position. I voted for JFK, was very active in the civil rights area..(two trips to Mississippi for voting rights).. actually ran for state senate in Kansas in 1968 (to defeat an avowed bigot).. I am mostly a practical realist who moved from the Methodist church to Unitarianism to .... rabid skeptic. Progressive? uhhh..not exactly. Leftist? nawww...but I can see it from here. A Democrat because they don't HAVE parties to fit all the possibilites, and Democrats usually do more of the things I approve of...and lately the Republicans are doing a lot I DISapprove of. I worked briefly for EPA and moved from Kansas to the Wash DC area in 77... and I have strong opinions in environmental issues. You care to give a similar brief history? (What general area do you inhabit?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:49 PM Bill D wrote: YOU asserted that liberals/leftists are the one trying to force others to do things their way. I disagree that this is accurate. Oh, that... I admit you're right in the broader sense, as the labels are popularly used today: in many areas conservatives do try to force others to do things their way. I thought I explained above that I was talking about government control of the economy, and economic matters. Popularly, present-day American conservatives are called "right" while social liberals are called "left," but historically, when speaking of economic theory and government control, left refers to government economic control while right refers to individual economic liberty, because (I think) that's what they were talking about when they first started using left/right labels–19th century, wasn't it? If there's so much confusion about the labels today then perhaps they've outlived their usefulness. Do you consider yourself a leftist? A progressive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:08 PM Yeah, Tac... I did check out yer posting history... I think you've equaled yer first four year total since the first of the year... Ain't no McCartheyism here... We've had folks come in here (below the line) with similar POVs with what looks like entire staffs to do battel with the folk singers... I mean, there were times when I felt like I was debating a hundred people... Just similarities... Ain't no big thing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:06 PM I surrender.... sort of... Your answer was very fast, and I doubt you digested my distinctions. We are arguing (partially)about de facto vs. de jure. YOU asserted that liberals/leftists are the one trying to force others to do things their way. I disagree that this is accurate, and have worn my poor index fingers to the metaphorical bone try to explain why. I can't do much more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: dick greenhaus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:00 PM Personally, I am considerably saddened that the use of hyperbole in public discourse is treated as a statement of fact by so many. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 07:58 PM It's common human nature to wish to do what they wish... and laws have to be there to try to make the game vaguely fair. Which goes right back to what I said at the beginning: people want to be allowed to do what they want to do, and there is a desire in other people to force them to do what they want them to do. So what are we arguing about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 07:46 PM "..there is a difference between a law forbidding prayer at government-funded institutions, and a law requiring it." Of course there is... but that obvious fact ignores the distinction I made. The equivocation comes from not distinguishing between a law that allows such prayers and one which requires them. When permission is given, then action is Once more... **IF** the law allows public prayers at government-funded institutions, those fundamentalists who wish to have such prayers **will** see that prayers happen. Allowing, when there is pressure from such groups is essentially de facto ensuring that established religious observances -- almost always Christian, with Jesus being invoked, will occur. Since the law already permits and defends the right of students/persons to pray silently in any way they wish, any pressure to 'allow' public prayer or other religious ritual is superfluous and designed to promote and establish prayer as a regular and authorized routine. "School prayer isn't really a big issue anymore, is it?" Depends on what you mean by "anymore" and "big". Various schools, usually in the South, and especially in Texas, still do what they can to find loopholes and skirt the law. Not only that, but few courts or law enforcement agencies monitor such activities at woodworkers meeting where *I* have recently seen it. I am glad to see that you agree that separation of church & state should be observed, but I fear that you are not dealing with reality when asserting that ..."there is a difference between trying to pass a law requiring prayer, and trying to get rid of the law prohibiting it...". It just doesn't deal with what happens when there is no law 'prohibiting' it. (I work with wood, and know about endangered species. A few years ago, certain Mangroves along public waterways in Florida were being ruthlessly cut down as homeowners across the way wanted to "improve the view". A law was passed, forbidding cutting of Mangroves without a state permit. Well, after a few years people complained, saying that they 'just wanted a decent view, and those plants grew SO fast',...etc. So, the law was revised, 'permitting' reasonable trimming. Guess what happened? Homeowners interpreted the law to mean that THEY could decide what 'reasonable' trimming was, and again, they hacked the Mangroves mercilessly. The law had to be changed BACK to require permits for any trimming.) It's common human nature to wish to do what they wish... and laws have to be there to try to make the game vaguely fair. |
|
Subject: the name game From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:38 PM Whoops, sorry for calling you Bobbo, Bobert. For some reason I thought that was your posting handle. |
|
Subject: Am I now, or have I ever been...? From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:36 PM I ... am astounded by the shear volume of material that ... Tac has added ... [there] are links to this and that and seems that most of it is anti-Obama stuff ...What, do you just make this stuff up? I don't recall putting in any links to "anti-Obama stuff." In fact, few links at all. Aside from quoting one pundit that I thought was interesting when I heard him on Red Eye last night, everything I wrote pretty much came straight from my head. which leads me to wonder if we have the latest Repub plant that has been assigned to Mudcat...Are you for real? Call off the witchhunt, Bobbo. It's really lame. So, Tac... Maybe you'd like to tell us what brought you to a websirte that is about folk music???Sorry Bobbo, you can start the Inquisition without me. Why don't you click on my name and see whether or not the vast majority of posts I've made here over the PAST FOUR YEARS have been about folk music or not. Jeez... This must be what McCarthy-ism felt like. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party? *rolls eyes* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:04 PM "What is with the name calling. That is exactly the problem that the thread is about." Bravo and Amen, olddude. This has long been a problem on the 'Cat, intramural ad hominum attacks, as well as on public persons who are the object of our opprobrium. Confront ideas with ideas. Nobody takes bullys seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:01 PM Hmmmmmm??? I go away fir a few hours and come back and am astounded by the shear volume of material that our new friend, Tac, has added to this thread... I mean, their are links to this and that and seems that most of it is anti-Obama stuff which leads me to wonder if we have the latest Repub plant that has been assigned to Mudcat... I mean, we've had 'um here... They could pump out reams and reams and stats and quotes and links with all the appropriate bells and whistles and, and, and... ...never quite make it up top... I'd like to think that I am wrong but having seen so many come and go I do have to wonder??? So, Tac... Maybe you'd like to tell us what brought you to a websirte that is about folk music??? But maybe not??? I mean, I have no right to ask but I am curious... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:10 PM Bill D wrote: This is an example of equivocation. It plays with the very meaning of the words. No, it's not equivocation, and I won't accuse you of sophistry either. I don't disagree with you about whether it's preferable or not to have religious prayers at public events (although if you're fair you'll admit that the movement to allow prayers is asking for non-specific religion prayers, e.g., not one's specifying Christ, or Mohamed, etc. – just God. Not that that's necessarily any better, but you shouldn't use Jesus-prayers as an example for your argument). Anyway, it's not equivocation, because there is a difference between a law forbidding prayer at government-funded institutions, and a law requiring it. Personally, I like separation of state and religion – I don't even like getting religion mixed up with money by putting "in God we trust" on our currency and coins, and I don't think we should have inserted "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was done in the 1950s as an anti-Communist measure. The Pledge should be applicable to all Americans, including athiests. But there is a difference between trying to pass a law requiring prayer, and trying to get rid of the law prohibiting it. A big difference. But this is a side-issue, isn't it? School prayer isn't really a big issue anymore, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 03:53 PM **running by to check in** I read this:"There are movements to change the law to ALLOW public prayer, but NO serious attempt to require it as a matter of law. "...etc., and it demonstrates my point(s). This is an example of equivocation. It plays with the very meaning of the words. **IF** people manage to attain the legal right to indulge in public prayer in the places I mention, it by definition imposes on others. That is, we already have a situation where NO ONE is required to have a prayer session, but the point is not to 'stack the deck' in favor of a religious group who wishes to promote their theology, no matter who objects. I have personally watched Jews (and a couple of atheists) go to the trouble of being late to a meeting (of a non-religious group) so they would not be subjected to exhortations to Jesus by the VERY religious 'management'. Having a law 'allowing' unrestricted public prayer **IS** an imposition, whether the prayer is required or not! Why? Because those who wish to have prayers at every conceivable event WILL do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: olddude Date: 30 Jan 11 - 03:35 PM What is with the name calling. That is exactly the problem that the thread is about. Nobody can talk, as soon as someone disagrees it has to be name calling. Taconicus is trying to engage in a simple debate and discussion. I don't see him calling names .. you don't have to agree, you certainly are entitled to your difference in view ... but the name calling is not warranted. I have my view which come from a registered independent, we are the guys that really do swing the elections so I do like to hear everyone speak on issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 11 - 03:23 PM No. I refuted it in that same post. But you, like anyone who holds that type of radical irrational idea, managed to filter that out. I'm tired of tossing pearls at you. Enjoy your ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 03:12 PM That idea is beyond stupid. It is closed minded, willfully ignorant, antisocial, unpatriotic fantasy. In other words, you disagree with it but can't refute it, so shout it down and call me names instead. That speaks for itself; no need for me to comment further on it (as far as your postings are concerned). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 11 - 03:03 PM >>But forced taxation for the purposes of redistribution of wealth strikes me as a form of slavery, and therefore immoral.<< That idea is beyond stupid. It is closed minded, willfully ignorant, antisocial, unpatriotic fantasy. He's the deal, all the money that you make that doesn't require the use of public facilities like ports and roads and institutions such as property laws and regulated and insured banks to make, keep and spend is yours to keep. The other 99.999% is subject to taxation by your lawfully elected governments. Taxation has nothing to do with morality. Taxation is politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:28 PM Don Firth wrote: When I read Taconicus' posts, what I hear, loud and clear, is the voice of Ayn Rand. Thanks for the compliment (intended or not), Don, but I don't hold with objectivism. I think compassion and charity, and helping others, is an important aspect of our humanity. I also don't like her attitude toward Robin Hood. I just don't think it's moral to enslave one group of people to help another group. My charity should come from my own wallet, not others'. In order for societies to exist, there must be a basic contract between government and its citizens that allows for taxation to provide for the common defense (against not only invasion from foreign powers but also against crimes of force and fraud from domestic sources), and to maintain the infrastructure, which includes the environment. But forced taxation for the purposes of redistribution of wealth strikes me as a form of slavery, and therefore immoral. And anyway it never achieves its purpose, just makes life more miserable for everyone except the middlemen and powerbrokers who legislate and administer it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:17 PM To Bill D: Okay, now we're dividing into a number of different issues, making discussion difficult. I agree, it's not an either/or division, or an exhaustive list. If it were one or the other, societies would be either anarchies or totalitarian states, whereas usually they are in-between. It's just two basic opposing instincts that interact in the dynamic of human society. You're wrong about "attempts to force religious doctrines," etc. It's quite the contrary. There are movements to change the law to ALLOW public prayer, but NO serious attempt to require it as a matter of law. There are people who want to ALLOW communities to display religious symbols like the Ten Commandments, memorial crosses, etc. on public property, but NO efforts to pass laws requiring their presence. And "we are a Christian nation" is an opinion, not something that there is any serious threat of being imposed on us since most people continue to at least say they support the First Amendment, and no popular political movement (with the possible exception of the Islamic Brotherhood) has as its goal the establishment of a state religion. But anyway, don't confuse what I said about "left" and "right" in our earlier conversation. I was talking about economic coercion only, not attempts to define morality, religion, etc. Look at what I wrote above to Tia, for example. With some very narrow exceptions, relating to a certain kind of libertarianism for instance, the current major political camps do not divide neatly into individual freedom versus collectivism in all areas of human or political life. However, they do more strongly align between the major parties in economic matters. So really, we need to discuss economic individualism/collectivism separately from individualism/collectivism in other areas, at least when discussing current politics. As you yourself indicate, neither "side" is limited to one or the other in all aspects of human society. I was talking about economic freedom. I don't mind talking about religious and sexual freedom, but that should be discussed separately. One final request: don't automatically assume that because I quote somebody, I'm adopting everything he says. I think there's a lot in what Bill Whittle says, and good food for thought and discussion, but it was he, not I, who said it. I do agree with the main thrust of his argument however, that many on the left are using the "violence is caused by rhetoric from the right" to tar their political enemies, and there is no real justification for doing so. What they are doing is scapegoating, and any serious student of history should realize it. That's one of the reasons it's important to remember what happened during the Holocaust – so that we don't make the same mistakes, or allow ourselves to be fooled by the same types of propaganda techniques that led to one of the major nightmares of the last century. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:10 PM >>Don't get carried away, Jack, or make unwarranted projections<< I wasn't carried away. It wasn't unwarranted. Obama isn't corporatist or Fascist. Even Bush was neither of those things even though he was much more in bed with the Corps. The implication is hyperbolic and foolish. You should know better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: GUEST,John on the Sunset Coast Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:05 PM Me at 2:03 from a different browser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:01 PM I'm not going to get involved in this muddle, but I will just say this: When I read Taconicus' posts, what I hear, loud and clear, is the voice of Ayn Rand. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Taconicus Date: 30 Jan 11 - 01:37 PM Jack the Sailor wrote: Calling Obama Facist is cheap, Tea Party, ignorant shite. Don't get carried away, Jack, or make unwarranted projections. That's a major logical fallacy you're using to tar the Tea Party. Pigs and humans are both mammals; that doesn't mean humans are pigs. I hate cigarette smoking the same as Hitler did--that doesn't make me a Nazi. Likewise, saying that the fascists and the Obama administration (and other governments in history) had corporatist economic policies is not equating the Obama administration with fascism. When people think of the evil that the fascist governments of Germany and Italy committed, it's not their economic policies they're talking about. It's just a matter of historical economic history that the fascists used corporatism, which is a collectivity economic policy. Czarist Russia also used it to some extent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 11 - 01:34 PM >>Maybe his gold is spurious, too. << "his" gold probably is. At least the investment Vehicles offered probably are. The people running the ads are in business to make money and to pay for the ads. They are like Mr. Potter in "Its a Wonderful Life" profiting from the panic as the feed the panic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 01:28 PM (several interesting posts during the hour I was composing...maybe later) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 11 - 01:26 PM Taconicus... I must respectfully dispute some aspects of your analysis: "Two basic conflicting desires in the primate mind, Bill: the desire to live your own life the way you want to, and the desire to make other people live their lives the way you want them to. The former is the individualist instinct, and expresses itself in the politics of the right, and the latter is the collectivist instinct, and expresses itself in the politics of the left" Basically, this is not an 'either-or' division, nor is an exhaustive LIST of the various categories in which humans operate. (I'm not sure one is possible, though we can narrow it for purposes of debate.) Neither one is limited to left or right politics, and in particular, the 2nd concept.."...the desire to make other people live their lives the way you want them to.".. is certainly NOT specific to the left. I have thought about this quite a bit, and 'usually' break it down into 2 sub-categories.. **the desire to have people think like you want, and the desire to make people act/behave like you want, whether they think like you or not.** On the left, folks certainly hope that 'they' can be taught to 'think like us'... but there is a very strong drive on the RIGHT to demand adherence to a 'standard of behavior', expressed in attempts to force religious doctrines, such as 'public prayer' and Biblical references in public places (money, Pledge of Allegiance, 10 Commandments monuments..etc.). This is an attempt to instill the definition of this as a *Christian Nation* into everyday parlance, despite what the Constitution says, and no matter who is made uncomfortable by it. (I can cite many personal examples, and you can read about it almost weekly). There are other examples involving gun laws, states rights, tax policy..etc, that look/sound like expressions of the desire for "personal freedom" on the surface, but when unpacked indicate a desire to **impose** personal & political attitudes on others. This assertion I make requires quite a lot of explication to adequately defend/explain, because it involves much linguistic analysis and references to philosophic "informal fallacies" Let's see if I can express it with an example: When conservative politics says: "We want to reduce or eliminate excessive regulation and promote 'free market enterprise' and 'individual initiative'"., this often translates into "We want businesses to be able to make whatever they wish, using whatever ingredients they care to, charge whatever they want, advertise without supervision, pay whatever wages they care to, be free of environmental restrictions and do whatever necessary to eliminate competition!" Of course they don't SAY such things in clear language, but that's what lobbyists are paid to strive for. Thus, I feel that part 2 above.."**...the desire to make people act/behave like you want, whether they think like you or not.** is the rights way of saying they wish to IMPOSE on society their 'freedom' to do whatever they care to. How does this attitude differ from what the left tries to do? Well, think of it this way: If the 'left' prevailed and the division between church & state were really clearly expressed and maintained, conservative Christians could still go to church and worship as they please, raise their children as they wish, and pray to God **silently**, whether in school, before meetings...or at football games. If the 'right' prevailed, everyone else would be forced to endure public prayer at those events no matter what their personal religion or lack of it. The right tries to frame the issue as "attempts to restrict their freedom", when the guiding principle should be: "Freedom OF religion necessarily involves freedom FROM religion for those who wish it." (I use religion because it is perhaps the easiest example to describe semi-briefly... business, states rights, guns, abortion..etc., take a lot more typing) So... I keep trying to ward off what seems to me to be over-simplified responses to these issues, and get at what gets hidden in slogans and talking points....no matter how honest and sincere. As Alfred North Whitehead said:"Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it." (I don't dare start on Whittle's remark "The Tea Party movement, as anyone who has ever attended a Tea Party rally can tell you, are the most decent, kind, gentle, normal people in the world, ... right now. Counter-examples are numerous. Well, THAT shot my free time for awhile......I have tedious plumbing to do... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 30 Jan 11 - 01:24 PM There is a gold investment company which uses that quotation (almost in its entirety, I think) to promote its wares in radio commercials. Maybe his gold is spurious, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rabbis Push FOX to Bust Beck... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jan 11 - 01:17 PM Calling Obama Facist is cheap, Tea Party, ignorant shite. Its the Republican/Fox News/"Conservative talk radio/Tea Party tactic of constantly throwing untrue turd balls because "winning" is more important than reason or truth. Tea Party nut jobs can say that to each other, but outside that circle you just make yourself look foolish. I think that accusing the Obama Administration of Corporatism and Fascism with out pointing out that your average Republican administration is much father down that road is either dishonest or ignorant. A simple example would be the treatment of Big Oil. The Bush Administration has secret meetings and gives them every thing they want. The Obama administration insists that BP clean up after itself and President Obama is trying to cut their tax breaks. Which the Republican Congress will not allow. Obama is working with the corporations and trying to reign in their excesses. The Republicans and Tea Party are the Corporations cheerleaders and whores. |
