heretic on 8/9/2008 at 02:53

---

I never meant to insinuate that it was anything but.

Scots Taffer on 8/9/2008 at 03:51

---

At the risk of sounding like the lawyer from The Castle, I'll suggest that it's basically "the vibe" of tBM's posts as pairing up with the extremism of capitalist ideals and old world conservatism that I don't really quite understand.

Ghostly Apparition on 8/9/2008 at 04:07

---

Since you chose to bring up the Jeremiah Wright controversy, I think maybe its only fair to point out that the republican VP candidate may have a pastor problem as well.

(http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/21314/90204/Front_Page/Palin_s_Pastor_God_quot_Is_Gonna_Strike_Out_His_Hand_Against_America)

theBlackman on 8/9/2008 at 05:42

---

Most of the posters here, are taking advantage of a couple of the freedoms the "founding fathers" wrote into the Constitution:

The right of peaceful assembly.

The right to express thier thoughts (freedom of speech), which includes the right to disagree with other opinions and argue the other side.

While on line they hope to indulge in some others:

The right of personal privacy, IE. The useage of "user names" to maintain anonymity, and the expectation that the Host won't reveal other information that the poster does not specifically allow them to:

Email address, home phone ##, or other information the site(s) may require for registration, and so on.

The right to expect that thier phone convesations, personal mail (sent and received), will not be opened and read by others.

That what they do in the privacy of thier homes will not be subject to scrutiny and censure.

We have some rights, but as I said earlier, everything else is, in fact a priviledge.

Most of those commenting have well thought out opinions about one side or the other, and those opinions are just that, opinions, but they are as valid as any political exposition. And face it, all of us are politicians. We use politics daily in our own lives to try to promote a face that is acceptable to those we meet.

We also use politics to attempt to persuade those we interact with to see and, hopefully, accept our views and side with us.

In the current campaigns, both sides are using "Spin" to attempt to debase, embarrass, or otherwise harrass the opponent, not to deal with the real issues.

Unfortunately, it appears that protecting the arena of power of a particular party, and by extension, thiers, is the main thrust.

We have had throughout history some individuals who were working for the "public" good, and attempted to "Change" the religious or political system for the better:


Jesus
Bhudda (Siddartha)
Martin Luther
Martin Luther King
Mahatma Ghandi

Most of these, and a few others, were truly interested in the altruistic nature of thier attempts. They sought no power or great reward or recognition for themselves, they wanted the "Idea" to be accepted and the public to act upon it/with its precepts and effect the change.

That seems to be lacking in the political areas of the last 50 years. R. Nixon is a good example, the lack-luster performance of Carter, the "I have no idea what I'm doing" of Hubert Humphrey, who let his advisors (politicians) steer him into deeper waters and others.

The saying that power corrupts seems to be an empirical.

I just believe that each of us is responsible for ourselves, that the result of our actions is our fault, and the decisions we make that affect others, should not be blamed on someone else.

Nor should we expect society as a whole to solve our problems.
In the thirty's and forty's you helped your neighbors. The incomes at that time were such that you lived within your means. If it broke, you fixed it, or you went without. The neighborhood was, in essence, an extended family. Not enough food, three or more households would chip in and make a meal for all. Like "Stone soup". If you don't know the story look it up. Everyone had something. A little flour, some chicken, a few vegetables, etc. No one had enough for a full meal, but all together the families could put a feast together.

None of us/them expected the government to feed them. Need clothing for the kids? Cut down some from the older kids, or the adults. Or the neighbors might offer something. Charity was an altruistic "automatic" reaction from most of the community.

You worked for what you got. You traded labor for labor, if necessary. You lived within your income. If things got tight, you did without, or ate beans instead of chicken or steak. You mainly did for yourself. You didn't cry poormouth and plead with the government to support you.

You wanted the government to provide protection from thieves and other outlaws. To provide basic fire and police protection, to maintain the city infrastructure etc. Not to pay your mortgage because you over-extended yourself by not reading the fine print. You put a little aside for "emergencies", and if you had no funds to purchase something, you did without. No credit cards, no "Food stamps", no handout from the government because you were "underpriviledged".

True, there were some "programs" available, but few just (allegorically speaking), sat there waiting for the Gub'mint to solve the problems and took advantage of the programs only at the last desperate gasp.

This is not a rant against those who need help and get it. But, in that era and time, the government did not take the position that it was Mother and Father and should take the responsibility away from the individual and assume the authority to run your (the generic your) life.

It was your choice to do or not, and your responsibility to acknowledge that YOU made the choice, and you lived with the choices you made without looking for someone else to blame.

It's our fault (the public) that government is taking your choices away from you. You/we vote in the most sugar-coated feel good candidate because we can sit on our butts and blame them for the screwups. We permit them to send our youth out to get killed for reasons of "Policy", or allow them to eavesdrop on our phone calls, monitor our activities in our own homes, read our mail, snail or electronic, and otherwise spy on us because (like the McCarthy hearings), we let them bullshit us into panic mode.

And it has gotten worse over the years. Obama and McCain can't change much, WE can, but only if we start taking responsibility for ourselves, our actions and the results thereof and seriously considering whether those we elect are, in fact, doing what we selflessly consider best for all of us. Not just the down-trodden, or priviledged. All of us.

theBlackman on 8/9/2008 at 06:14

---

I have no choice in the matter. My likes, preferrences and hopes are subordinate to that of the public.

I hope for people to accept personal responsibility and be considerate of others and then accept that the choices we/they make and the results thereof are of our own making and not the the fault of others.

But I either live with the choices made by the elected politicians and the will of the masses, or I leave town before sunset.

That's the way it is. But that doesn't mean I can't express my thoughts on the subject.

I can, however, ignore those areas that conflict with my views and live my way. As long as I don't violate the law while continueing my activities, and indulging in my freedoms as given by law. One such freedom is the right to say "Hey, I think you are screwed up."

Muzman, there is no problem in "listening". If there is a problem, it is of your making. You disagree, thats fine. But if it confuses you by making you think a little more, that's not a "listening" problem. That may cause some philisophical disturbance in your life, but that's you not the post itself.