This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[MaggieMae]

We will just have to disagree. I think the transparency PROMISED by candidate Obama quickly disappeared when he first met criticism as President. I disagree that this administration is any more open or even as open as the previous one. At least 'secret meetings' in the Bush administration that resulted in public policy, regulation, law etc. were bipartisan affairs.

See Willow's thread on Fox News for very clear evidence that the Obama Administration has actively attempted to isolate, marginalize, and even shut down Fox News which is the only widely viewed media source that is reporting on all aspects of the current Congress and the Obama Administration.

No media should be seeking devotion from government. Without a free and unfettered press, history is a reliable guage that we can soon expect to have no freedoms at all.

Blind faith is in part what this thread is all about is it not? An inability to see, recognize, or admit truth that is contrary to what we choose to believe? There are those of us who think that is extremely dangerous when it comes to government action that will affect every part of our lives now and into our childrens' and grandchildrens' futures.

(And I am a C-span junkie.)

I still don't think there is any intent to shut out Fox News. I do believe that the people surrounding Obama try to insulate him from Fox's unabashed bashing of him, and regardless how much valid reporting they might do, you must admit, they are the champions of that. Murdoch admits that Fox did everything in its power to prop up the Bush administration, which gave Fox its reputation of being the most biased news channel to begin with.

Democratic Spin Control Did that Maggie. The only thing FOX has close to Madden, and Olberman is Beck, and he is a recent transplant.

You mean Hannity, O'Reilly, Malkin and all the others are gone?

 

[MaggieMae]

They want control.

And Republicans don't? What will they do if the become the majority again next November? Do they have any plans? Please advise, as I can't find any anywhere.

What We All need Maggie is constitutional Repair that Empowers Individual Liberty, and Self Reliance. Government needs to set the Structure and maintain the playing Field. People are not Property. That is part of what we stand for. The Fight against Tyranny has been going on from the start. It is the oldest war. We should challenge it where we find it, on both sides of the aisle, we should not be empowering it.

Nice thoughts, but I don't see it happening. For one thing, with all its faults, we still have the best system of government in the world with the responsibility for overseeing the broad duties imposed by the Preamble of "a people" more diverse than any other nation. When you look at the magnitude of it all, surely you must understand that just a "do-over" is impossible. And especially since the government, even with its behemoth bureaucracy, doesn't even come close to being "tyranical."

 

[Intense]

Everone wants control. What is a crime is how easily you give yours up to traitors and subversives.

I don't want control Huggy. I want Liberty and Justice. I want freedom to grow and live.

Are you in jail? Can you travel freely? Practice your religion without fear? Still got all your guns? Still got your voting rights? What's your problem? Who is going to take away your freedom? What "justice" do you want? I want to see Khalim Sheikh Mohammed put on trial and see JUSTICE done to the mastermind of the attacks of 911. That kind of "justice"??

I don't get this stupid argument. I'm as free as I was six decades ago and expect I will be for the next two or three. You've just bought into the ignorant fearmongering going on. Ohhh the statists and the oligarchy is gonna get us! Then it's Socialism! Next Communism!! Be afraid, be very afraid!! Nonsense. This has become truly pathetic.

Are you in jail?
No.

Can you travel freely?
No. But the reason is more Economic.

Practice your religion without fear?
Yes.

Still got all your guns?
NO. I live in NYC.

Still got your voting rights?
Yes.

What's your problem?
Corruption, Injustice, and Tyranny to start.

Who is going to take away your freedom?
Idiots.

What "justice" do you want?
Equal Justice under The Law, Impartial and True. There is No Other Justice.

I want to see Khalim Sheikh Mohammed put on trial and see JUSTICE done to the mastermind of the attacks of 911. That kind of "justice"??
Thats the tip of the Iceberg.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Okay I stand corrected. You are different from those of us who cherish the freedoms and rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.

That my friends is a textbook straw man. Not what I said - words put in my mouth and arguing with the made-up rather than the actual post.
Thanks for clearing that up for those who were obviously struggling with what a straw man argument really is.
And, of course, wrapping yourself in the flag as you did it (I could almost make out the fifes and drums) was a special lil' lagniappe.

I think you don't understand a straw man. There are those of us who believe certain freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution are worth fighting for, even fighting our government to preserve. You have unequivocably stated that you would not fight for anything short of a foreign power overthrowing the government.

So where is the straw man?

The strawman is in the fact that I never said that there are no circumstances under which I would fight the U.S. government - YOU put those words in my mouth and then started disagreeing with that position. I never said I don't value the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution - YOU put those words in my mouth and then started arguing with them.
Textbook.
What I said was that I can't conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own government - that's quite a bit different. But after much more thought, I came up with one.

IF the radical right - through force of arms - were to achieve what they failed to achieve at the ballot box, and gained control of the government - I would take up arms against them to defend the principle of democratic elections.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This ginned up "they're taking away our rights" fear mongering is the political equivalent of a three-year-old throwing a tantrum in the grocery store floor 'cause mommy won't buy him the cereal he wants.

Hillbillies used to think they had a "right" to distill moonshine without paying any tax on it and took up arms to "defend that right."

Same kind of threats being tossed around today. Bunch of drunk hillbillies interpreting the constitution - and they expect me to agree with them?????

Yeah - THAT'S gonna happen.

 

[amrchaos]

Next time around, let us decide between Greens and Libertarians. I always wanted to put one of those wackos in, just for the hell of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That my friends is a textbook straw man. Not what I said - words put in my mouth and arguing with the made-up rather than the actual post.
Thanks for clearing that up for those who were obviously struggling with what a straw man argument really is.
And, of course, wrapping yourself in the flag as you did it (I could almost make out the fifes and drums) was a special lil' lagniappe.

I think you don't understand a straw man. There are those of us who believe certain freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution are worth fighting for, even fighting our government to preserve. You have unequivocably stated that you would not fight for anything short of a foreign power overthrowing the government.

So where is the straw man?

The strawman is in the fact that I never said that there are no circumstances under which I would fight the U.S. government - YOU put those words in my mouth and then started disagreeing with that position. I never said I don't value the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution - YOU put those words in my mouth and then started arguing with them.
Textbook.
What I said was that I can't conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own government - that's quite a bit different. But after much more thought, I came up with one.

IF the radical right - through force of arms - were to achieve what they failed to achieve at the ballot box, and gained control of the government - I would take up arms against them to defend the principle of democratic elections.

Okay I will concede that you didn't say those precise words. My intent is not to misrepresent you in any way, and if I did so, I acknowledge that I did that however inadvertent. But my comment, amidst a discussion of what could cause the people to actively rise up against the government, and related to a question of what you would consider justification to do that, was in response to your exact words here:

Yes, I did. Very clearly. I said I could not conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own county. I invited people to try to come up with a scenario and got alien invasion type fantasies.
So at present I still haven't been able to conceive of or be shown a plausible scenario that lead me to take up arms against my own country.

OK - I did think of one but it's not really my country - if the United States were conquored by a foreign nation, then I would fight against those who would be then calling themselves the government of the United States - but in my estimation - that still would be against "MY" country.

Within the context of the discussion related to erosion of our rights and Constitutional principles, it was not difficult to interpret that as you not being willing to fight for your Constitutional rights should the government presume to take those away. You went all the way to being conquered by a foreign nation before you would presume to fight and you would see even THAT as fighting against your own country. So was I really wrong that you would not fight to preserve your Constitutional protections and rights?

I think my remark, was responsive to what you said, and not a straw man. I could have worded it so that it was not borderline ad hominem, however, and will try to do that in the future.

 

[Wicked Jester]

YouTube - 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

It was these very statements that elected Obama. I don't know whether he meant them at the time or not or whether they were simply empty rhetoric dreamed up by Axelrod or some other of his speech writers. But he obviously threw all or most out the window as soon as they began interfering with his adopted agenda as President.

And here we have a dilemma of millions of Americans who voted for him on the strength of statements like that and now are in the position of having to either defend him or admit they were fools to believe him.

And Maggie's thesis with this thread is definitely a factor in that I think.

I only got as far as "No More Secrets," but Obama soon found out that every word he uttered was scrutinized, picked apart and used as fodder for rightwing screwballs to embellish and project inaccurate meanings into. The attacks were instantaneous, and by the time he took the oath of office, the economy was in the toilet and perhaps he had a little more on his mind than making sure that all the news channels had the capability of filming in real time all the conferences leading up to putting new bills on the respective floor agendas.

He was widely criticized when he TRIED to limit the number of lobbyists because of course they used the first amendment argument. So now they're back. But I knew he would get in trouble over that. Personally, a new president NEEDS the expertise of lobbyists. He just doesn't need to kow to their every demand or invite them to the dinner table. But they offer many bullet points to then further discuss with staff on whatever the issue is.

I could go on and on, but in a nutshell, this guy has NOT been given a fair shake. He was expected to get ALL the things done IMMEDIATELY that he promised, or, when he didn't or couldn't, the media and the public went ballistic. And it still is. Take Afghanistan and all the noise about Obama changing his strategy from what he said last March. Well dammit, Afghanistan now has an extremely unstable government, which he didn't know would be the case last March. Shit happens; things change. All we have to do is sit here and read about everything going on; those guys have to DO IT. And there's still only 24 hours a day for all of us.

So, are you trying to say that Afghanistans government wasn't extremely unstable back in March?

That is just too freakin' funny.

The fact is, Obama is playing politics on the Afghan issue. It's just too friggin' clear that he is affraid of pissing off his fellow far lefty loons. For Obama, it's all about getting the votes in '12, nothing more. He will lie, cheat and steal to get those votes.

Sad, but true!

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think you don't understand a straw man. There are those of us who believe certain freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution are worth fighting for, even fighting our government to preserve. You have unequivocably stated that you would not fight for anything short of a foreign power overthrowing the government.

So where is the straw man?

The strawman is in the fact that I never said that there are no circumstances under which I would fight the U.S. government - YOU put those words in my mouth and then started disagreeing with that position. I never said I don't value the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution - YOU put those words in my mouth and then started arguing with them.
Textbook.
What I said was that I can't conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own government - that's quite a bit different. But after much more thought, I came up with one.

IF the radical right - through force of arms - were to achieve what they failed to achieve at the ballot box, and gained control of the government - I would take up arms against them to defend the principle of democratic elections.

Okay I will concede that you didn't say those precise words. My intent is not to misrepresent you in any way, and if I did so, I acknowledge that I did that however inadvertent. But my comment, amidst a discussion of what could cause the people to actively rise up against the government, and related to a question of what you would consider justification to do that, was in response to your exact words here:

Yes, I did. Very clearly. I said I could not conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own county. I invited people to try to come up with a scenario and got alien invasion type fantasies.
So at present I still haven't been able to conceive of or be shown a plausible scenario that lead me to take up arms against my own country.

OK - I did think of one but it's not really my country - if the United States were conquored by a foreign nation, then I would fight against those who would be then calling themselves the government of the United States - but in my estimation - that still would be against "MY" country.

Within the context of the discussion related to erosion of our rights and Constitutional principles, it was not difficult to interpret that as you not being willing to fight for your Constitutional rights should the government presume to take those away. You went all the way to being conquered by a foreign nation before you would presume to fight and you would see even THAT as fighting against your own country. So was I really wrong that you would not fight to preserve your Constitutional protections and rights?

I think my remark, was responsive to what you said, and not a straw man. I could have worded it so that it was not borderline ad hominem, however, and will try to do that in the future.

Thanks Foxfyre: Even though I do not see the erosion of rights that you do, I respect and WOULD fight to preserve your right to call 'em like you see 'em.

I just can't advocate using arms to "fix" what was "broken" at the ballot box.

 

[Foxfyre]

Next time around, let us decide between Greens and Libertarians. I always wanted to put one of those wackos in, just for the hell of it.

Actually Ron Paul is about as Libertarian as you're going to find and he's already there. There are also a lot of Greens there too but they ran under a major party banner as they had no chance running with the Green Party.

 

[MaggieMae]

Next time around, let us decide between Greens and Libertarians. I always wanted to put one of those wackos in, just for the hell of it.

Actually Ron Paul is about as Libertarian as you're going to find and he's already there. There are also a lot of Greens there too but they ran under a major party banner as they had no chance running with the Green Party.

I never understood why Ron Paul didn't run as a Libertarian in the first place, after the Bush debacles which turned many Republicans away from the party. It would have been perfect timing for a legitimate third party to see daylight. Did he not want to alienate Republicans? If so, then he's just another party-first kind of guy in spite of all his rhetoric.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Next time around, let us decide between Greens and Libertarians. I always wanted to put one of those wackos in, just for the hell of it.

Actually Ron Paul is about as Libertarian as you're going to find and he's already there. There are also a lot of Greens there too but they ran under a major party banner as they had no chance running with the Green Party.

I never understood why Ron Paul didn't run as a Libertarian in the first place, after the Bush debacles which turned many Republicans away from the party. It would have been perfect timing for a legitimate third party to see daylight. Did he not want to alienate Republicans? If so, then he's just another party-first kind of guy in spite of all his rhetoric.

I agree - he seems to fit under that banner more comfortably but his opinion of that sure trumps mine.

 

[manu1959]

there are very few absolute facts.......people argue about opinion and theory and hold their view out as fact.....

if people can't see or present both sides of an issue they aren't worth listening to....

 

[Foxfyre]

there are very few absolute facts.......people argue about opinion and theory and hold their view out as fact.....

if people can't see or present both sides of an issue they aren't worth listening to....

I agree with your second point. Highschool and college debate teams are some of the best training there is to help people learn to be able to see, understand, and argue both sides of an issue. When we can do that, we are capable of actually arriving at informed opinions.

I also believe that no opinion is worth having if it cannot be articulated and also adequately defended when challenged which makes me less committed to your first point.

While I agree that none of us know everything there is to know about anything, I do believe there are some universal truths worth articulating and advocating, and there are values, ideals, and consciousness of right and wrong that can be defended and are worth defending.

The thesis for this thread created the image, however, of the person who doggedly defends the indefensible simply to avoid being perceived as wrong. Such becomes a source of frustration and aggravation to those who do have strength of conviction and honest justification for the opinions they hold.

I would suggest another of my truths, however: Two people can strongly disagree on a given concept without either being evil, or even necessarily wrong.

 

[nodoginnafight]

there are very few absolute facts.......people argue about opinion and theory and hold their view out as fact.....

if people can't see or present both sides of an issue they aren't worth listening to....

I agree with your second point. Highschool and college debate teams are some of the best training there is to help people learn to be able to see, understand, and argue both sides of an issue. When we can do that, we are capable of actually arriving at informed opinions.

I also believe that no opinion is worth having if it cannot be articulated and also adequately defended when challenged which makes me less committed to your first point.

While I agree that none of us know everything there is to know about anything, I do believe there are some universal truths worth articulating and advocating, and there are values, ideals, and consciousness of right and wrong that can be defended and are worth defending.

The thesis for this thread created the image, however, of the person who doggedly defends the indefensible simply to avoid being perceived as wrong. Such becomes a source of frustration and aggravation to those who do have strength of conviction and honest justification for the opinions they hold.

I would suggest another of my truths, however: Two people can strongly disagree on a given concept without either being evil, or even necessarily wrong.

Excellent points.

 

[MaggieMae]

there are very few absolute facts.......people argue about opinion and theory and hold their view out as fact.....

if people can't see or present both sides of an issue they aren't worth listening to....

I agree with your second point. Highschool and college debate teams are some of the best training there is to help people learn to be able to see, understand, and argue both sides of an issue. When we can do that, we are capable of actually arriving at informed opinions.

I also believe that no opinion is worth having if it cannot be articulated and also adequately defended when challenged which makes me less committed to your first point.

While I agree that none of us know everything there is to know about anything, I do believe there are some universal truths worth articulating and advocating, and there are values, ideals, and consciousness of right and wrong that can be defended and are worth defending.

The thesis for this thread created the image, however, of the person who doggedly defends the indefensible simply to avoid being perceived as wrong. Such becomes a source of frustration and aggravation to those who do have strength of conviction and honest justification for the opinions they hold.

I would suggest another of my truths, however: Two people can strongly disagree on a given concept without either being evil, or even necessarily wrong.

It's actually universally true. There are many issues which have valid pros and cons which need to be considered, more often than not the more important ones that effect us all.

 

[MaggieMae]

Take Afghanistan and all the noise about Obama changing his strategy from what he said last March. Well dammit, Afghanistan now has an extremely unstable government, which he didn't know would be the case last March. Shit happens; things change. All we have to do is sit here and read about everything going on; those guys have to DO IT. And there's still only 24 hours a day for all of us.

So, are you trying to say that Afghanistans government wasn't extremely unstable back in March?

That is just too freakin' funny.

The fact is, Obama is playing politics on the Afghan issue. It's just too friggin' clear that he is affraid of pissing off his fellow far lefty loons. For Obama, it's all about getting the votes in '12, nothing more. He will lie, cheat and steal to get those votes.

Sad, but true!

Do you enjoy looking like a fucking nine-year old?

At least back in March there WAS someone in charge, Hamid Karzai, and although elections were coming up, interim strategies were as far as any plans could go. What else was there? After the election and the widespread fraud, it was unclear what kind of central leadership Afghanistan would end up with. And it's still unclear, which is why there has been no revised strategy announced as yet. But rest assured, genius, as soon as Obama makes up his mind, he'll be sure to send you a memo.