|
 |
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Problem is, there are literally groups, many of them indirectly
>> supported, for ideological reasons, by existing members of the
>> government, (who have, in a few case come damn close to saying the same
>> things, and in others ***are*** the ones saying it), who have actually
>> convinced themselves that everything from the economy to the current
>> non-white, possibly Muslim (they still insist this is true), likely not
>> a US citizen (again they **still** insist this is the case), liberal,
>> are signs of how corrupt the government is, and how it needs to be
>> replaced. One of them, just this last week, stated that, "If the
>> government continues down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if a
>> bloodless coup took place, led by military officials, trained in nation
>> building." One can presume this means the same people they sent to Iraq,
>> under bush, and hand picked from the "Evangelical" groups in the
>> military, which we have been hearing increasingly large numbers of
>> complaints about. Others are vaguely more rational, and just suggest it
>> might be better if Texas, or some other states, leave the union, to
>> found their own **true** theocratic democracy.
>
> There are those groups. Where I disagree is that the members of the
> government actually believe what they are saying. Call it cynical, but
> most of them are saying what ever it takes to get their 'base' to vote
> for them. Since that occasionally requires out-right lies, that is what
> they do.
>
>> No, I have no problem imagining these people are serious. I have no
>> problem believing that too many people in congress, state officials,
>> school boards, and many other places, where they have spent **decades**
>> playing up the god card, and getting radicals elected, should, if not
>> for it being "religious beliefs", be classed as clinically insane. And,
>> I have no difficulty at all, based on who they fund, who funds them,
>> their being board members, in some cases, of right wing think tanks and
>> other such organizations, and the ties between those and even more
>> radical groups, that if for one moment, they actually thought they
>> already had enough military people, brain washed with evangelical
>> gibberish, behind them, they wouldn't stop to think for one moment at
>> trying to "save" the country from communism and liberal thinking,
>> through military actions. Many of them have said as much one the various
>> places they fund/get funding from, chair, or support, while never quite
>> saying so *in public*.
>
> I don't disagree with you that the entire thing is a problem, but I do
> have trouble believe that many of the people are serious about it. I
> grew up in a coal and train city. I am certain there are people who
> believe any of the points you made above. What I do not believe is that
> any single one of them is actually going to act on it except to talk or
> to vote.
>
> There are always the militant figures, the quiet ones in militias and
> the loud ones screaming on national TV. The ones in militias may be more
> dangerous, as the past 20 years has shown. But the ones on TV, I won't
> say they are harmless as they do a great deal of damage to the country
> by causing people to simply vote against the other team instead of
> thinking on a larger scale. However, I have a great deal of trouble
> seeing any of them as actual participants in a revolution of any sort.
>
>> Heck the current wacko they think is likely to be the Republicrat
>> candidate in 2012 has hand picked what has been described as a laundry
>> list of the worst right wing scandals and hypocrites, to be his
>> "advisers". The only possible reason for doing this is because he, and
>> they, don't think anything they got caught doing was wrong, and that
>> anything at all is justified, as long as it supports the insertion of
>> Jesus, "back into the nations government". One of them is a women who
>> ***Bush*** even had a problem with, and during her testimony, in the
>> trial that lost her her job, she repeated stated that she made an oath,
>> not to protect the "constitution", but the "president", despite the fact
>> that her job required the former, and she couldn't have been given the
>> position without taking the oath to defend it.
>
> Who is the current likely pick? I stopped getting cable and try not to
> follow the primaries until it is time to vote in them. I know Caribou
> Barbie is one, but she actually caused some long term Republicans in the
> small coal and train town to vote for Obama or for a third party. They
> were scared of her becoming President.
>
Not sure if the guy is a likely pick, per say. Mostly its a case of
suspicion, since he seems to be making a lot of noise in hiring
"advisors" and generally taking steps that imply he may be trying. I
might have over stepped things saying he is the likely candidate, but
the current trend seems to be, "more of the same", which means either
someone like McCain, who, now that he isn't running, seems to be acting
a bit saner again, but who will pick a complete nut to run with them, or
one of the complete nuts themselves. I have no doubt, for example, that
Chucklebee is likely to make another attempt.
> The populous is, in my opinion, in no shape to take part in a
> revolution. To generalize: the voting blocks of the right, those who are
> following but not leading at the moment, are too scared of government
> control to trust a few people to lead a revolution. Those on the left
> want the government to act for them, so they don't have to act for the
> government.
>
I think this is a bit too stereotypical. Truth is, the left doesn't
trust government either. The problem is, they don't trust them to do
*sane* things like regulating medicines, imagining instead that the FDA
is out to poison people, or in the pocket of drug companies. The right
is for "small government", only when it infringes on their right to push
their moral messages, or religious convictions, or make lots and lots of
money, while the poor starve. Ask them if they think we should limit the
FCC (their morality cop for broadcasting), the FDA, or other agencies
they find useful for pushing certain kinds of BS, *when* they can get by
with it), etc., and you are likely to find them crying, "No! We need
more, more, more!"
As I said to someone else, a lot of liberals have anarchist views. The
government is there to secure their right to do any damn thing they
please, so big government is good, when it does this, and protects them
from things that would have inconvenienced this goal. The libertarians
have it half right, imagining, rightly, that social systems need to
operate on "community standards", and that the best standard will win,
*if* allowed to. They however make the mistake of applying this rule to
corporations, who a) don't think they belong to any community, b) often
function like mini-kingdoms, c) don't think about long term consequences
often enough, and d) will cut their own throats, and everyone else's,
out of shear ignorance. The right.. Tend to deny that community
standards or any sort of provisional concept of morality and ideology
are possible, and will lie their asses off, if necessary, to promote
their own as superior (and they have to lie all the time, since theirs
tend to fail consistently, all across the board), but subscribe to the
same sort of idiocy that the libertarians do, with respect to business.
1. Liberal - protect us from the stuff we can't, or won't protect
ourselves from. The problem being that *some* of them confuse the
"can't" and "won't" bits.
2. Libertarian - governments don't work, except we need them to protect
us from unscrupulous people, only, they shouldn't actually have **any**
power to do this, because having the power to pass laws to prevent those
things makes them dangerous. Most fracking confused people I have ever seen.
3. Republicans - everything that goes wrong with your health, finances,
or business practices are your own damn fault. We don't do a damn thing
to protect you from any of those things, well, unless it involves you
business, in which case we will offer a government run, socialist,
program to provide flood insurance, even if you have been flooded, 10
times, knew you where building where it floods, and know it will happen
again, or you bought it *after* the flood already destroyed your
property. Just don't ask us to do the same thing for health care reform.
The only only **good** government protects "business owners" and
mandates, "proper moral behavior", everything else... well, if you got
hit by a damn meteor, it was because you where stupidly standing where
the meteor hit, and probably didn't pray enough.
The only people that don't like government running people's lives are
the libertarians. Everyone else simply disagrees as to what the
government **should** be doing. Personally, a government based on, "You
need to police how people think, act, and believe, but not what they
spend, sell, or cheat each other out of", is a lot scarier, and no more
functional, than one that you want to blow your nose and wipe your but,
but **not** tell you that you shouldn't have eaten those 12 cheese
burgers, while smoking crack, bought using a welfare check.
All of them have it bloody wrong, but.. I would rather live in a world
where the local standards was to "not" help the later idiot, than one in
which the local Inquisition shows up at the door once a week to ask,
"Did you think any bad, or inappropriate thoughts this last week?" Both
sides overstep the lines of sanity, with respect to what they "do" want
done. And both as blind as a bat to when those things are not bloody
working, and why the other sides solution may actually work better (or
worse, **is** working better, in other counties).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
