To The Bush Haters

[CaneBrain 95]

That 8000 has to be payed back, BTW.

only if you dont stay in the house for three years. by the way. I just had our tax guy explain it to me yesterday.

[Loismustdie 0]

only if you dont stay in the house for three years. by the way. I just had our tax guy explain it to me yesterday.

Good, I don't remember where I read that but I thought it seemed like there should be a caveat. You'll like Phoenix, let me know when you get here and i'll take you out to dinner. We'll have a blast.

[CaneBrain 95]

Good, I don't remember where I read that but I thought it seemed like there should be a caveat. You'll like Phoenix, let me know when you get here and i'll take you out to dinner. We'll have a blast.

I'm in. I am coming out for Spring break for a couple days to poke around, look at houses, and have a job interview (ugh). I'll drop you a line beforehand. I definitely want to hit up a Suns game someday too. It took a year but Shaq is finally playing as well as you thought he could.

[CindyLou 11]

Then we get another 8 grand for buying the house.

That 8000 has to be paid back, BTW.

only if you dont stay in the house for three years. by the way. I just had our tax guy explain it to me yesterday.

Is this $8,000 you guys are talking about the $7,500 first time homebuyer tax credit?You pay that back over 15 years interest free. $500 added to your income tax return each year, starting in the second year after you buy. If you sell before 15 years, you pay the balance in the year you sell.

[CaneBrain 95]

Is this $8,000 you guys are talking about the $7,500 first time homebuyer tax credit?You pay that back over 15 years interest free. $500 added to your income tax return each year, starting in the second year after you buy. If you sell before 15 years, you pay the balance in the year you sell.

that was not how it was explained to me. dammit. too good to be true.oh well, we can use 8 grand up front. at least the houses are cheeeeeeeeap.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Boy, I sure blew new life into a dying thread!!! Skip one day and this thing is four pages longer.

Well, no, most don't come close to living up to the standard of the Christian doctrine. The person that came the closest was a Hindu-- Ghandi(There are actually several Christians cannonized as Saints from throughout the world but non Catholics wouldn't have heard of most of them).It is important to recognize that a part of Christian doctrine teaches that it is impossible for anyone to live totally up to the standard Jesus set. No, he most certainly meant the opposite of "have some squishy kind of emotional "luv" for them, but don't actually express that in any concrete way that might cost you money or comfort"?I am still confused why you are singling out Christians and Americans. Sure you can find imperfection in Christians and Americans, does that make them unique? I wasn't talking about rhetoric from her post though that kind of stuff feeds anti-Americanism. I actually do think the US cares as much or more than any other country in the world. I guess it is silly to argue that, but I think it is silly to try and make a point that Americans, especially Christian Americans don't value the lives of others. I understand a little better the context of where she was coming from after reading her follow up post.

You've done this before in other threads -- taken something I said as "fuelling" or "carrying water" for things someone ELSE says, and then blaming me for the things THEY say. Unless you want to take responsibility for everything every wingnut says, please just take what I say at face value and address it. I actually try to be pretty clear about what I mean. I don't often "imply," I usually just say things outright. So whatever implications you're getting are beyond my point. Sometimes, and this was one of those times, I'm just musing aloud.But no offense taken, since I apparently did clarify it for you later. The reason I singled Christians out (although I really do think it applies to the whole country) is because it is a specifically Christian doctrine -- kind of like singling out Republicans for believing in tax cuts.I know it's part of doctrine to believe that no one can live up to the standard of Jesus, but frankly, I'm skeptical that that statement is too often used as an excuse for barely trying. "Oh, well, can't live up, screw you." It may be doctrine that you can't be perfect, and the issue of your soul is one for the religious forum, but in the issue of your behavior, couldn't you come pretty damn close if you really made the effort? I mean, seriously, if you set your motivations right and really lived your highest motivations every day, like Ghandhi, couldn't you put together a life that really stood out for its compassion and love for others? I'm asking believers, why not do that, and why not do it as a matter of political agenda? Elsewhere we're talking about new ideas for the Republican party or for the conservative movement ... how about this: an agenda actually based on loving thy neighbor as thyself?That's the full extent of what I was asking. I really wasn't implying anti-Americanism. I was seeing that disconnect between a country that conservatives like to repeat is a "Christian country" founded on "biblical principles," and the reality that it's usually liberals and atheists who support increased foreign aid and more open borders/more generous refugee policy; the very large and startling disconnect between "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "we value our own lives at seven million dollars." Okay, then, shouldn't we value the lives of others at seven million apiece as well? Do we? What would it look like if we did?Consider it not rhetoric, but a thought experiment. What would a US budget based on that principle look like? What would US foreign policy look like? What would US political parties based on that principle stand for? How would we conduct war? What would our policy on global warming and energy use be, since we use something like 80% of the world's energy?[Oh, yeah, and on the topic of canonized saints: look how many of those from South America were political activists. In South America more than anywhere, Christians ARE the people driving the social justice movement. Liberation theology, like that of Martin Luther King, Jr., does touch directly on what I'm talking about here. If it helps to understand better, that would be one way of reframing what I asked: why is there no large liberation theology movement in the US?]

This is as wrong as can be. Name one country who takes in more citizens of others whether we want to or not.

The aforementioned Sweden, which is also almost entirely atheist, since only 5% of the population claims to believe in God, has taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US. After WWII, it also took in more Jews than the US.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I know it's part of doctrine to believe that no one can live up to the standard of Jesus, but frankly, I'm skeptical that that statement is too often used as an excuse for barely trying. "Oh, well, can't live up, screw you." It may be doctrine that you can't be perfect, and the issue of your soul is one for the religious forum, but in the issue of your behavior, couldn't you come pretty damn close if you really made the effort? I mean, seriously, if you set your motivations right and really lived your highest motivations every day, like Ghandhi, couldn't you put together a life that really stood out for its compassion and love for others? I'm asking believers, why not do that, and why not do it as a matter of political agenda? Elsewhere we're talking about new ideas for the Republican party or for the conservative movement ... how about this: an agenda actually based on loving thy neighbor as thyself?

The problem is that people are selfish at heart. Conservatives want to keep the country free, and not centralize power to a few selfish men. You, being a historian, should have a good understanding of the corruption of power. The founders of this country understood the fallen nature of man and thus designed the govenment for the people. In the USA a society such as the kind (love thy neighbor as thy self) you describe could sprout and grow, but can't be dictated from the government. It could sprout from the Church if Christians decided to behave like Christians.

That's the full extent of what I was asking. I really wasn't implying anti-Americanism. I was seeing that disconnect between a country that conservatives like to repeat is a "Christian country" founded on "biblical principles," and the reality that it's usually liberals and atheists who support increased foreign aid and more open borders/more generous refugee policy; the very large and startling disconnect between "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "we value our own lives at seven million dollars." Okay, then, shouldn't we value the lives of others at seven million apiece as well? Do we? What would it look like if we did?

Conservatives and Christians contribute to foreign aid and open shelters and hospitals throughout the world, they just do so directly and not through a government bureaucracy. I think Henry posted a great documentary on Katrina aid. Most of the recovery that has happened so far is because of independent Christian groups not the billions of dollars the govt sent. Government centralizes power. Power corrupts. Liberals want to centralize power because they think they are morally superior and more enlightened than most people and especially conservatives. They have an elitist attitude and think they have the intellect and integrity to run the lives of everyone else. Big Brother knows what's best.

Consider it not rhetoric, but a thought experiment. What would a US budget based on that principle look like? What would US foreign policy look like? What would US political parties based on that principle stand for? How would we conduct war? What would our policy on global warming and energy use be, since we use something like 80% of the world's energy?

I don't believe the US government or a world government can solve these problems. The reasons they can't should be overwhelmingly evident to a historian.

[Balloon guy 158]

The aforementioned Sweden, which is also almost entirely atheist, since only 5% of the population claims to believe in God, has taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US. After WWII, it also took in more Jews than the US.

Uh...having shipped out the Jews first kind of makes it easier to claim they took in more than the USA AFTER WW2, since we took them in BEFORE WW2.I know the story of the king showing up with the Star of David on his tunic. Doesn't mean they didn't let the nazi's ship em off first.

[checkymcfold 0]

The problem is that people are selfish at heart. Conservatives want to keep the country free, and not centralize power to a few selfish men. You, being a historian, should have a good understanding of the corruption of power. The founders of this country understood the fallen nature of man and thus designed the govenment for the people. In the USA a society such as the kind (love thy neighbor as thy self) you describe could sprout and grow, but can't be dictated from the government. It could sprout from the Church if Christians decided to behave like Christians. Conservatives and Christians contribute to foreign aid and open shelters and hospitals throughout the world, they just do so directly and not through a government bureaucracy. I think Henry posted a great documentary on Katrina aid. Most of the recovery that has happened so far is because of independent Christian groups not the billions of dollars the govt sent. Government centralizes power. Power corrupts. Liberals want to centralize power because they think they are morally superior and more enlightened than most people and especially conservatives. They have an elitist attitude and think they have the intellect and integrity to run the lives of everyone else. Big Brother knows what's best. I don't believe the US government or a world government can solve these problems. The reasons they can't should be overwhelmingly evident to a historian.

i think that this is the real crux of the issue, and it's going to make me rant a while, so excuse me for that (it will come somewhat full circle, though, i promise).i, for one, don't think that people are selfish at heart as most people mean the term. i think they'll do what they need to do to stay alive, first and foremost, but calling that selfish is a bit outside a helpful political meaning of the word. i also think that your post is somewhat indicative of the very sentiment that SB doesn't seem to be a fan of (and one that i'm definitively not a fan of, myself)--namely, that human beings are born somehow beneath what they should be (fallen, or whatever), and that it takes some sort of external source in order to make them whole again.there simply are alternative views to yours, and those views don't hold some sort of subordinate logical or experiential ground. for instance, i see examples of human beings acting unselfishly every day, from volunteers to public servants to greeters at walmart or whatever. and because of this, a very concrete, repeatable, day to day experience, i'm not afraid to trust people, generally speaking. not blindly, mind you, but i think that a general sentiment of mistrust of others only leads to an inability to work together and undergo projects which individual people are not strong enough to undertake. that, i would argue, is the precise purpose of government as it was intended: to empower humanity to do more as a whole than it might otherwise be capable as individuals. and yes, i think that our founding fathers understood that point perfectly well. i mean, historically speaking, it's why we're not all fighting in some feudalistic warlord's army anymore.but that sort of view can only come about if you trust people, even if you do so with a watchful eye. you have to be willing to listen to and learn from people who have more experience in a certain area than you if you want the best possible outcome--if, for example, i want to build the world's best toaster, i'll get the help of people who best understand the way in which electrical resistance produces heat radiation; if i want to understand global warming, i'll trust the views of scientists who have made their careers studying climatology and understand the mechanisms by which CO2 acts as a solar still of the earth; if i want to understand the problems experienced by the working poor in the US, i will listen to what they think they need and do my best to give it to them in some way or another; and if i want to understand historical patterns of foreign intervention in an area of the world, i will let the historians of that area do most of the talking. the alternative to this approach is what we generally call ideological, and what we've increasingly experienced in our country since sometime in the 50s, i'd say. as an aside, i still hold out hope for obama righting the ship to some degree in this regard, but we'll see. he's certainly a step in the right direction, at any rate, as all accounts of his internal meetings thus far would suggest.as to your second paragraph, specifically, i think that this points to a profound hypocrisy within certain strands of somewhat radical conservatism--that "big brother" has got it wrong (or even exists), but that you, specifically, somehow have it right, just in a different rubric. liberals (well, true liberals, anyhow) don't want to consolidate power for the sake of some moral complex. they want to do it because two, three, a hundred thousand, people can get more accomplished than one can, and that requires some level of organizational bureaucracy, whether in the public or private sector. the problem with government bureaucracy isn't an essential one--it lies in the way it's been configured, and i'd argue that a whole lot of that stems from the mistrust of others archetype you're working from above. for some reason, our leaders have become unwilling to listen to teachers when devising an education plan, started firing army generals (ahem, asking them to resign) when they say going into iraq is a whoopsie, or ignoring global commissions of thousands of the world's scientists on climate change. expertise is not elitism, and sometimes you're going to have to buy into a program you may have misgivings about because the dude that thought it up may just better at that sort of thing (or, say, has a nobel prize in economics) than you are. and honesty about the limitations of one's own knowledge is profoundly important--knowing how to run a business isn't anywhere close to the same thing as writing economic policy, for example, as businesses are concerned with the bottom line, but governments take that as only one of many concerns.for all the talk about humility in conservative christian circles, it really just doesn't seem to have an outlet in politics these days. being humble, at least to me, means that you understand that you don't always know everything about everything, and that you trust people that are better trained than you in a certain area to do that job better than you could, whether that means creating the world's best toaster, solving the economic disaster, or planning a city. and yes, that means that you've got to create some sort of bureaucracy, whether private or public, that facilitates the empowerment of those specialists to offer their elit-er-expert opinions on how shit should get done. the problem with contemporary government isn't that it merely exists, but rather that the contemporary campaign process has lost all commitment to honesty and openness in debating the complex issues of our time, preferring instead to work in simplistic and ridiculous soundbites. i suppose that falls on the media to a great extent, but that's another rant for another time.

[Balloon guy 158]

tl/dr

[brvheart 1,752]

The aforementioned Sweden, which is also almost entirely atheist, since only 5% of the population claims to believe in God, has taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US. After WWII, it also took in more Jews than the US.

I'm fairly certain we've taken in more Mexicans than Sweden has in total population.

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm fairly certain we've taken in more Mexicans than Sweden has in total population.

And we have definitely sent less Mexicans to death.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

What Checky said, especially this:

that, i would argue, is the precise purpose of government as it was intended: to empower humanity to do more as a whole than it might otherwise be capable as individuals.

and this:

i think that this points to a profound hypocrisy within certain strands of somewhat radical conservatism--that "big brother" has got it wrong (or even exists), but that you, specifically, somehow have it right, just in a different rubric. liberals (well, true liberals, anyhow) don't want to consolidate power for the sake of some moral complex. they want to do it because two, three, a hundred thousand, people can get more accomplished than one can, and that requires some level of organizational bureaucracy, whether in the public or private sector.

You don't even want to consider an agenda based on something you claim adherence to, not even as a thought experiment, because it would look so much like a liberal agenda and so little like a conservative one.

Most of the recovery that has happened so far is because of independent Christian groups not the billions of dollars the govt sent.

Can you document this with numbers?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

i, for one, don't think that people are selfish at heart as most people mean the term. i think they'll do what they need to do to stay alive, first and foremost, but calling that selfish is a bit outside a helpful political meaning of the word. i also think that your post is somewhat indicative of the very sentiment that SB doesn't seem to be a fan of (and one that i'm definitively not a fan of, myself)--namely, that human beings are born somehow beneath what they should be (fallen, or whatever), and that it takes some sort of external source in order to make them whole again.

Yes, it is obvious to me that we begin a divide(between our point of views) on this very fundamental point. I believe that we live in an unjust world. To find the cause of corruption I need look no further than a mirror. The world is an unjust place because I am self centered. My self-centeredness causes injury to others directly and indirectly. I won't extrapolate any further. Lets just say my actions and those of all human beings have a "butterfly effect".

there simply are alternative views to yours, and those views don't hold some sort of subordinate logical or experiential ground. for instance, i see examples of human beings acting unselfishly every day, from volunteers to public servants to greeters at walmart or whatever. and because of this, a very concrete, repeatable, day to day experience, i'm not afraid to trust people, generally speaking. not blindly, mind you, but i think that a general sentiment of mistrust of others only leads to an inability to work together and undergo projects which individual people are not strong enough to undertake.

I am not afraid to trust people either, I just don't trust anyone to be perfect.

that, i would argue, is the precise purpose of government as it was intended: to empower humanity to do more as a whole than it might otherwise be capable as individuals. and yes, i think that our founding fathers understood that point perfectly well. i mean, historically speaking, it's why we're not all fighting in some feudalistic warlord's army anymore.

I would agree the founders saw a limited Government necessary for the reasons you mention. I don't think they pictured a big powerful government involved in every aspect of life. As government expands, instead of 'empowering humanity to do more as whole than it might otherwise be capable of doing', --it empowers a few people to control a large population that it otherwise wouldn't be able to control.

as to your second paragraph, specifically, i think that this points to a profound hypocrisy within certain strands of somewhat radical conservatism--that "big brother" has got it wrong (or even exists), but that you, specifically, somehow have it right, just in a different rubric. liberals (well, true liberals, anyhow) don't want to consolidate power for the sake of some moral complex. they want to do it because two, three, a hundred thousand, people can get more accomplished than one can, and that requires some level of organizational bureaucracy, whether in the public or private sector. the problem with government bureaucracy isn't an essential one--it lies in the way it's been configured, and i'd argue that a whole lot of that stems from the mistrust of others archetype you're working from above.

With all due respect I think there is plenty of evidence in world history of a failure of big brother types of powerful centralized governments. I disagree the problem is with configuration(though I am sure it is a factor), but with human beings. The mistrusting of centralized government is not some paranoid delusion as you seem to be implying. It is an informed mistrust based on lots of evidence.

for all the talk about humility in conservative christian circles, it really just doesn't seem to have an outlet in politics these days. being humble, at least to me, means that you understand that you don't always know everything about everything, and that you trust people that are better trained than you in a certain area to do that job better than you could, whether that means creating the world's best toaster, solving the economic disaster, or planning a city. and yes, that means that you've got to create some sort of bureaucracy, whether private or public, that facilitates the empowerment of those specialists to offer their elit-er-expert opinions on how shit should get done. the problem with contemporary government isn't that it merely exists, but rather that the contemporary campaign process has lost all commitment to honesty and openness in debating the complex issues of our time, preferring instead to work in simplistic and ridiculous soundbites. i suppose that falls on the media to a great extent, but that's another rant for another time.

You don't even want to consider an agenda based on something you claim adherence to, not even as a thought experiment, because it would look so much like a liberal agenda and so little like a conservative one.

Don't you think I have done such thought experiments several times over? Of course I have, that is how I have arrived at my point of view.Me and a Communist friend of mine had a discussion where we kind of did a 'thought experiment' He is from Chicago but he calls himself a communist. He is an atheist also, and he says Jesus is a communist(I agree). BTW he is about 1000 times smarter than I am as are you Checky and SB. When we got around to discussing what kind of people would have to be in power to make such a government work is where his argument began to falter. He admitted that any form of corruption would be devastating. He suggested extremely harsh punishments for those guilty of any kind of corruption. He then stated that those in power would have to be "Saints". That was the actual word he used. Though he used it as a figure of speech, I think he is literally correct. The only way such a society could exist would be where the authorities were Saintly servants of the people. IMO the Christian Church teaches the type of virtues that would be needed to make such a society work, but even they don't have enough Saintly servants to make it work.

Can you document this with numbers?

I looked for the link earlier but couldn't find it. I will look agains and put it here in the thread.

[checkymcfold 0]

Yes, it is obvious to me that we begin a divide(between our point of views) on this very fundamental point. I believe that we live in an unjust world. To find the cause of corruption I need look no further than a mirror. The world is an unjust place because I am self centered. My self-centeredness causes injury to others directly and indirectly. I won't extrapolate any further. Lets just say my actions and those of all human beings have a "butterfly effect".

i don't believe that the world, or anything else related to humanity for that matter, is innately just or unjust. i believe it is what we make of it, and that that's the challenge we live with from day to day. when you look in the mirror, i don't think it's good to say "man, that guy is teh suck," but rather, "man, that guy has so much potential."

I am not afraid to trust people either, I just don't trust anyone to be perfect.

neither do i, but doing a good job and doing a perfect job are two profoundly different things.

I would agree the founders saw a limited Government necessary for the reasons you mention. I don't think they pictured a big powerful government involved in every aspect of life. As government expands, instead of 'empowering humanity to do more as whole than it might otherwise be capable of doing', --it empowers a few people to control a large population that it otherwise wouldn't be able to control.

the only thing worth saying that's ever come out of thomas friedman's mouth/keyboard is that the world is different now than it used to be. political concerns aren't local anymore--they're federal, even global, and governmental influence has to change to reflect that. friedman says that the world has once again become flat, a level playing field. i don't really buy that completely, but the notion that we're dealing with more people across the globe on a day to day basis and in every decision we make is more true than it's ever been. the necessary things for government to do have grown alongside technology and globalization, whether you like either of those things. i agree that government shouldn't do more than what it has to do, but i think that conservatism tends to keep its blinders on with respect to what problems are out there for the disenfranchised in the US and across the globe.it's worth saying that issues of international sovereignty and things like that make global shit more complicated than domestic stuff, but the move from stronger state governments to a stronger federal one was entirely logical in the context of industrialization and the growth of technology in the 20th century US.

With all due respect I think there is plenty of evidence in world history of a failure of big brother types of powerful centralized governments. I disagree the problem is with configuration(though I am sure it is a factor), but with human beings. The mistrusting of centralized government is not some paranoid delusion as you seem to be implying. It is an informed mistrust based on lots of evidence.

let's pick some guys that most people agree on--lincoln, eisenhower, washington, jefferson? these guys were great leaders, and americans to boot. sure, part of that is that they acknowledged the limits of what they could and couldn't do, but they're governmental figureheads that i don't think very many people would think did that much bad stuff for our country (outside the slavery thing, etc.). the problem is that we're not really given an opportunity to choose people like these guys anymore--the paul wellstones and ron pauls of contemporary political parties will simply never get elected unless there's some very distinct changes in the way that our country elects officials, and that's sad. the people that are elected today are the ones that generally say the least, and not the most, over the course of a campaign. again, i think that this is primarily a media problem, but that's a bit too far afield for this discussion, i think.the point i'm trying to make, though, is that big brother and government are two profoundly different things, just as economic "freedom" or lack of regulation and social freedom are two profoundly different things, provided you're not talking about straight up communism. the distasteful part of big brother, it seems to me, is much more about the social restrictions than the economic ones--i mean, shit, we live in a country where TENS OF MILLIONS of people are below an already-poorly-defined poverty line. they need help, and if the government isn't going to give it to them, who is?

Don't you think I have done such thought experiments several times over? Of course I have, that is how I have arrived at my point of view.Me and a Communist friend of mine had a discussion where we kind of did a 'thought experiment' He is from Chicago but he calls himself a communist. He is an atheist also, and he says Jesus is a communist(I agree). BTW he is about 1000 times smarter than I am as are you Checky and SB. When we got around to discussing what kind of people would have to be in power to make such a government work is where his argument began to falter. He admitted that any form of corruption would be devastating. He suggested extremely harsh punishments for those guilty of any kind of corruption. He then stated that those in power would have to be "Saints". That was the actual word he used. Though he used it as a figure of speech, I think he is literally correct. The only way such a society could exist would be where the authorities were Saintly servants of the people. IMO the Christian Church teaches the type of virtues that would be needed to make such a society work, but even they don't have enough Saintly servants to make it work.

i'll respond more to this part tomorrow. i'm ungodly tired right now and can't really formulate what i want to say properly just now.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

i don't believe that the world, or anything else related to humanity for that matter, is innately just or unjust. i believe it is what we make of it, and that that's the challenge we live with from day to day. when you look in the mirror, i don't think it's good to say "man, that guy is teh suck," but rather, "man, that guy has so much potential."

I think I will leave this alone for now, it is a different subject involving natural law ect.

the only thing worth saying that's ever come out of thomas friedman's mouth/keyboard is that the world is different now than it used to be. political concerns aren't local anymore--they're federal, even global, and governmental influence has to change to reflect that. friedman says that the world has once again become flat, a level playing field. i don't really buy that completely, but the notion that we're dealing with more people across the globe on a day to day basis and in every decision we make is more true than it's ever been. the necessary things for government to do have grown alongside technology and globalization, whether you like either of those things. i agree that government shouldn't do more than what it has to do, but i think that conservatism tends to keep its blinders on with respect to what problems are out there for the disenfranchised in the US and across the globe.it's worth saying that issues of international sovereignty and things like that make global shit more complicated than domestic stuff, but the move from stronger state governments to a stronger federal one was entirely logical in the context of industrialization and the growth of technology in the 20th century US.

Yes, the world has changed and I think that is all the more reason the government to begin streamlining. They need to allow domestic problems to be handled locally so the government can go about the business of dealing with federal and global political concerns.

let's pick some guys that most people agree on--lincoln, eisenhower, washington, jefferson? these guys were great leaders, and americans to boot. sure, part of that is that they acknowledged the limits of what they could and couldn't do, but they're governmental figureheads that i don't think very many people would think did that much bad stuff for our country (outside the slavery thing, etc.). the problem is that we're not really given an opportunity to choose people like these guys anymore--the paul wellstones and ron pauls of contemporary political parties will simply never get elected unless there's some very distinct changes in the way that our country elects officials, and that's sad. the people that are elected today are the ones that generally say the least, and not the most, over the course of a campaign. again, i think that this is primarily a media problem, but that's a bit too far afield for this discussion, i think.

Here I agree completely with you. I also agree that the media plays a key role. I would add that I think the campaign rules have been set up to help incumbents stay in power, and the way the money is distributed through the respective committees is not based on the content of the character of the candidate but rather on their electability. I would love to hear a real debate of ideas between two(or more) candidates who would speak frankly and at length about what they believe and why they believe it. I saw Ed Meese and Nat Hentoff debate each other when i was in college. It was fantastic. I agreed with Meese's point of view for the most part but I left with a great respect for Hentoff.

the point i'm trying to make, though, is that big brother and government are two profoundly different things, just as economic "freedom" or lack of regulation and social freedom are two profoundly different things, provided you're not talking about straight up communism. the distasteful part of big brother, it seems to me, is much more about the social restrictions than the economic ones--i mean, shit, we live in a country where TENS OF MILLIONS of people are below an already-poorly-defined poverty line. they need help, and if the government isn't going to give it to them, who is?

One thing I liked that Obama has done is when he attached strings to the bailout money he gave to certain business'. In short order these business leaders were talking about how quickly they hoped they would be able to pay back the money so they could cut the strings. Of course this was extremely hypocritical of Obama as he doesn't require the same strings to politicians or himself. I think people that get government money should have strings attached. I don't think it should be easy nor should it cause co-dependency.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

You say the Christian church teaches saintly behavior. You also say you, a believer, look in the mirror every day and see selfishness and the reason things are bad. You also say a government based on, say, Matthew 25:31-46, or on valuing all other people as we do ourselves is something we should not even strive for simply because we couldn't do it perfectly.Do you see why I say that the belief that no one can be perfect is all too often an excuse for not even trying?You're an extreme example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I get the idea that you would be _opposed_ to a conservative leader who took that passage as the goal of his government, and that makes very little sense to me. It seems you would prefer to let cronyism, partisanship, incompetence, and money-grubbing continue to run amuck rather than actually set a biblical principle as the governing motivation of your party. And maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm getting from your explanation is, "because we can't do it perfectly right out of the gate we shouldn't make any effort at all toward getting there."

[hblask 1]

When we got around to discussing what kind of people would have to be in power to make such a government work is where his argument began to falter. He admitted that any form of corruption would be devastating. He suggested extremely harsh punishments for those guilty of any kind of corruption. He then stated that those in power would have to be 'Saints'. That was the actual word he used. Though he used it as a figure of speech, I think he is literally correct. The only way such a society could exist would be where the authorities were Saintly servants of the people.

This is exactly true.Humans are not saints, never have been, and never will be. Setting up a government with the belief that we will somehow, magically, elect or appoint a ruling class of saints is insanity.Given that the people in charge are not saints, you have to ask the next question:Do you want to give these non-saints the power to control every aspect of your life, or do you want them to have as small of an impact as possible?If a non-saintly businessman tries to screw you, you lose a little money and have to shop next door. If a non-saintly politician tries to screw you, your life is destroyed, and you may end up in jail.This one's not even close.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

You say the Christian church teaches saintly behavior. You also say you, a believer, look in the mirror every day and see selfishness and the reason things are bad. You also say a government based on, say, Matthew 25:31-46, or on valuing all other people as we do ourselves is something we should not even strive for simply because we couldn't do it perfectly.Do you see why I say that the belief that no one can be perfect is all too often an excuse for not even trying?You're an extreme example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I get the idea that you would be _opposed_ to a conservative leader who took that passage as the goal of his government, and that makes very little sense to me. It seems you would prefer to let cronyism, partisanship, incompetence, and money-grubbing continue to run amuck rather than actually set a biblical principle as the governing motivation of your party. And maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm getting from your explanation is, "because we can't do it perfectly right out of the gate we shouldn't make any effort at all toward getting there."

Yes, I, like the founders, think that government is a necessary evil. I believe the old cliches that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You say you are a historian, but you talk as though you know nothing about history and past experiments of centralized government. cronyism, partisanship, incompetence and money grubbing are the exact reasons I am for a less powerful, smaller government. To expand government is to expand these things of which you speak. Jesus did not advocate stealing from someone and giving to someone else nor did he advocate coveting others wealth or goods. The behavior of the democrats is a perfect example of the failure of government pretending to use a biblical principle. In the name of feeding the hungry the democrats are attempting to enslave a large portion of the population by making them dependant on the government. The also promote envy in there constant class warfare mantra. They use the "for the good of the people" as an excuse to expand their power and steal from others. Do you think Frank Raines actually cared about housing the poor when he cooked the books at Fannie Mae to give himself 90 million in bonuses? How about Senator Dodd getting a sweetheart deal from Countrywide? What do you think about Obama selecting a guy to head the IRS that cheated on his taxes? Hey, I know the republicans are just as bad! Power really does corrupt.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Yes, I, like the founders, think that government is a necessary evil. I believe the old cliches that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You say you are a historian, but you talk as though you know nothing about history and past experiments of centralized government. cronyism, partisanship, incompetence and money grubbing are the exact reasons I am for a less powerful, smaller government. To expand government is to expand these things of which you speak. Jesus did not advocate stealing from someone and giving to someone else nor did he advocate coveting others wealth or goods. The behavior of the democrats is a perfect example of the failure of government pretending to use a biblical principle. In the name of feeding the hungry the democrats are attempting to enslave a large portion of the population by making them dependant on the government. The also promote envy in there constant class warfare mantra. They use the "for the good of the people" as an excuse to expand their power and steal from others. Do you think Frank Raines actually cared about housing the poor when he cooked the books at Fannie Mae to give himself 90 million in bonuses? How about Senator Dodd getting a sweetheart deal from Countrywide? What do you think about Obama selecting a guy to head the IRS that cheated on his taxes? Hey, I know the republicans are just as bad! Power really does corrupt.

Inherent in your statement is the assumption that I can't be a historian unless I come to the same conclusions as you and take away the same meanings and ideology from the past. That kind of ideological rigidity is exactly what a real historian would never practice. Hblask and I briefly discussed this ages ago, but the American people have been given at least two clear chances to choose smaller state-based government over central government -- the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the drafting of the Constitution; and the argument of the seceding Southern states that state choices should take precedence over the desires of the federal government. In both cases, American citizens quite consciously rejected both arguments and chose in favor of stronger central government. You obviously have your ideology and I have mine, but don't pretend that history only leads to one possible ideology and that it's yours. It's untrue and proves that you are only willing to "understand" history when it serves your purposes.Everything else you said is just standard GOP blah-blah-blather. Since you didn't answer anything directly, I will assume that in fact, you would be totally opposed to seeing Matthew 25:31-46 as a model of government and that you do believe that if something can't be done perfectly on the first try it should never be attempted at all. Man is "teh suck," as Checky said, and you are completely content to keep wallowing in the mud, so that you can complain about how dirty others are. Well, that's all very depressing for you, but luckily some people have ideals.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Inherent in your statement is the assumption that I can't be a historian unless I come to the same conclusions as you and take away the same meanings and ideology from the past. That kind of ideological rigidity is exactly what a real historian would never practice. Hblask and I briefly discussed this ages ago, but the American people have been given at least two clear chances to choose smaller state-based government over central government -- the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the drafting of the Constitution; and the argument of the seceding Southern states that state choices should take precedence over the desires of the federal government. In both cases, American citizens quite consciously rejected both arguments and chose in favor of stronger central government. You obviously have your ideology and I have mine, but don't pretend that history only leads to one possible ideology and that it's yours. It's untrue and proves that you are only willing to "understand" history when it serves your purposes.Everything else you said is just standard GOP blah-blah-blather. Since you didn't answer anything directly, I will assume that in fact, you would be totally opposed to seeing Matthew 25:31-46 as a model of government and that you do believe that if something can't be done perfectly on the first try it should never be attempted at all. Man is "teh suck," as Checky said, and you are completely content to keep wallowing in the mud, so that you can complain about how dirty others are. Well, that's all very depressing for you, but luckily some people have ideals.

All your talk about me wallowing in the mud seems a bit harsh and over the top. My point is a simply one. Both political parties already claim to be modeling their government after lofty ideals similar to those of Matthew 25:31-46. Yet, the most celebrated(especially by those who share ideals similar to yours) politican of my lifetime, the best he can do is select someone to run the IRS that has cheated on his taxes. You don't see a problem there? Really? Ok, then can you at least understand why some may have a problem trusting the govenment when this is the best they can do? I am not against a government, but I am definately against a massive expansion of the US Government which is already too powerful.

[I_fold08 1]

RANGEL RULE

[Southern Buddhist 1]

All your talk about me wallowing in the mud seems a bit harsh and over the top. My point is a simply one. Both political parties already claim to be modeling their government after lofty ideals similar to those of Matthew 25:31-46. Yet, the most celebrated(especially by those who share ideals similar to yours) politican of my lifetime, the best he can do is select someone to run the IRS that has cheated on his taxes. You don't see a problem there? Really? Ok, then can you at least understand why some may have a problem trusting the govenment when this is the best they can do? I am not against a government, but I am definately against a massive expansion of the US Government which is already too powerful.

Sorry for being harsh, but at no point did you say you would support such a position, so I concluded that you would oppose it.For the record, I don't mean paying lip service to these ideals, which is what politicians of both parties do. I mean really, seriously lining up your policies with it, even if it goes against what your party has done in the past. I don't think Obama is lining his policies up with Matthew, but then he never said he was, and I know Bush never did, although he might have claimed to be doing it in order to pander to the right.What I want to see is more leaders like Martin Luther King. He didn't believe that he could heal race relations completely, but he did think that maybe he could do something so that his people could sit anywhere on the bus, eat in any restaurant when they were hungry, and sleep in any hotel when they were tired. He aimed at incremental reform, and he achieved that and more. [Malcolm X is a good example of the perfect being the enemy of the good: he opposed King because he hated incrementalism, but his approach did nothing but cut off dialogue and erode progress.] We may disagree on this, but I do believe in incremental good, with King or Ghandhi as examples, and I do believe that we are capable of reaching more transparent government with more integrity. But it will take idealists who want to line up their highest morals with their actual policies to get there.