|
|
|
Gojira
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2007, 07:28:46 AM » |
|
I love how in politics when some one says "9/11, Terrorism, Muslim, Extremist, Fundamentalist, hater of freedom and liberty, a Traitor" in their argument all of a sudden they are right.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
Dr. Rizzle
Jr. Member
Karma: +3/-34
Posts: 52
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2007, 08:20:40 PM » |
|
Well...
The Posse Comitatus Act was repealed on 10/17/2006.
Attorney-Client privilege doesn't exist either.
And neither does Habius Corpus, literally.
*Selective Prosecution* is a neat thing too.
"Terrorist" remains undefined, of course.
Do the Haliburton Camps really exist?
How many people, on average, disappear every night?
How Lincolnian, eh?
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
The glorious red blood of Christ shall now be shown,
A new sheriff is in town and this is now Jesusland,
Everyone, both young and old, shall now bow before the thrown!
Our God is marching on.
Basically, Habermasian rule has triumphed over the advarserial system/process. Interesting, global, stuff.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 08:50:36 PM by Dr. Rizzle »
|
Logged
|
No Fear
|
|
|
illhumanoddity
Full Member
Karma: +25/-8
Posts: 177
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2007, 02:33:44 PM » |
|
There was, for example, the loud booing of Congressman Ron Paul at the GOP "values debate" by hundreds of Republican "evangelicals" when he mentioned the fact that Jesus was known as The Prince of Peace. I was unaware of this incident. I've made the point a few times when people start talking about christian v muslim and holy wars. Jesus taught that we should turn the other cheek. It's one of the reasons that like Ghandi, I have much respect for him, but can not claim to follow his teachings wholeheartedly. Usually, the values he taught are very good to follow. To preach about those values while advocating war is hypocritical, IMO. It is not surprising that the self-described "godfather" of neoconservatism," Irving Kristol, has mocked and ridiculed what he called "the Hayekian notion that we are on the road to serfdom . . . . Neoconservatives do not feel that kind of alarm of anxiety about the growth of the state." big government "conservatives" Isn't that supposed to be an oxymoron? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I mean what did you think, my agenda was to freestyle, smile
get paid to smoke weed, grab the mic and spoon feed?
-- Atmosphere, \\"Rhyme Slayers\\"
|
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2007, 05:34:42 PM » |
|
Why of all college professors, one in Loyola of all places?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2007, 10:28:16 AM » |
|
Why of all college professors, one in Loyola of all places?
What makes it unique about Loyola? OswaldTheOsprey |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
Dr. Rizzle
Jr. Member
Karma: +3/-34
Posts: 52
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2007, 07:13:48 AM » |
|
It is not surprising that the self-described "godfather" of neoconservatism," Irving Kristol, has mocked and ridiculed what he called "the Hayekian notion that we are on the road to serfdom . . . . Neoconservatives do not feel that kind of alarm of anxiety about the growth of the state." big government "conservatives" Isn't that supposed to be an oxymoron? That's an interesting and very important observation. Federalism is only a bad thing so long as one's own party is not in power, right? The doctorine of states' rights (anti-federalism) is only a good thing so long as one's party does not have its hands on the mechanisms of federal power, right? This post-y2k "Blue states' rights and Red State federalism" notion is just so deliciously ironic and intellectually stimulating!  Here's a great article on just that subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.htmlThe most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing. Another, more penetrating article: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/0080995Let's accept as a fact that the U.S. military has become more overtly ideological since 1980. What has happened since 1980? Roughly, that was the beginning of the all-volunteer force. What we are seeing right now is the result of twenty-five years of an all-volunteer force, in which people have self-selected into the organization.
Where do you think recruiting command is focused right now? It's focused on those evangelicals, it's on the rural South. We are reinforcing the lack of representativeness in the military because of the concentrated recruiting efforts among groups predisposed to serve.
You have to work a hell of a lot harder to recruit people from Newton and Wellesley, Massachusetts.
...it has implications across the armed forces.
And partisanship in the military...is much greater overall. Not only are military officers more partisan than the general population; they're more partisan than, say, business leaders and other elite groups. \
One of the great pillars in our history that has prevented military intervention in politics has been the military's nonpartisan attitude. That's why General George Marshall's generation of officers essentially declined to vote at all, as did generations before them. In fact, for the first time in over a century we now have an officer corps that does identify overwhelmingly with one political party. And that is corrosive. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2007, 07:37:17 AM by Dr. Rizzle »
|
Logged
|
No Fear
|
|
|
illhumanoddity
Full Member
Karma: +25/-8
Posts: 177
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2007, 08:00:15 AM » |
|
It is not surprising that the self-described "godfather" of neoconservatism," Irving Kristol, has mocked and ridiculed what he called "the Hayekian notion that we are on the road to serfdom . . . . Neoconservatives do not feel that kind of alarm of anxiety about the growth of the state." big government "conservatives" Isn't that supposed to be an oxymoron? That's an interesting and very important observation. Federalism is only a bad thing so long as one's own party is not in power, right? The doctorine of states' rights (anti-federalism) is only a good thing so long as one's party does not have its hands on the mechanisms of federal power, right? This post-y2k "Blue states' rights and Red State federalism" notion is just so deliciously ironic and intellectually stimulating! Here's a great article on just that subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.htmlThe most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing. Another, more penetrating article: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/0080995Let's accept as a fact that the U.S. military has become more overtly ideological since 1980. What has happened since 1980? Roughly, that was the beginning of the all-volunteer force. What we are seeing right now is the result of twenty-five years of an all-volunteer force, in which people have self-selected into the organization.
Where do you think recruiting command is focused right now? It's focused on those evangelicals, it's on the rural South. We are reinforcing the lack of representativeness in the military because of the concentrated recruiting efforts among groups predisposed to serve.
You have to work a hell of a lot harder to recruit people from Newton and Wellesley, Massachusetts.
...it has implications across the armed forces.
And partisanship in the military...is much greater overall. Not only are military officers more partisan than the general population; they're more partisan than, say, business leaders and other elite groups. \
One of the great pillars in our history that has prevented military intervention in politics has been the military's nonpartisan attitude. That's why General George Marshall's generation of officers essentially declined to vote at all, as did generations before them. In fact, for the first time in over a century we now have an officer corps that does identify overwhelmingly with one political party. And that is corrosive. Well, there is supposed to be some balance between state and federal power, but you're right. Most people tens to start worrying more about states rights when the Fed. Gov. isn't doing what they want. Roe v. Wade is a fitting example. I've heard many social conservatives criticize the decision based on what they feel is the Fed Gov. overstepping it's bounds, while most social liberals are happy with the decision, and hence see it as a decision for the SC to make. Something tells me that if the decision went the other way, more conservatives would see it as a fed issue and more liberals as an infringement on states rights. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I mean what did you think, my agenda was to freestyle, smile
get paid to smoke weed, grab the mic and spoon feed?
-- Atmosphere, \\"Rhyme Slayers\\"
|
|
|
Dr. Rizzle
Jr. Member
Karma: +3/-34
Posts: 52
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2007, 09:06:50 AM » |
|
Well, there is supposed to be some balance between state and federal power, but you're right. Most people tens to start worrying more about states rights when the Fed. Gov. isn't doing what they want.
Roe v. Wade is a fitting example. I've heard many social conservatives criticize the decision based on what they feel is the Fed Gov. overstepping it's bounds, while most social liberals are happy with the decision, and hence see it as a decision for the SC to make.
Something tells me that if the decision went the other way, more conservatives would see it as a fed issue and more liberals as an infringement on states rights.
Oh, you're absolutely right. What we're really talking about here are mechanized levers of power. Instruments. Tools. The apperatus of the state. It is a misconception to view such things as anything other than vehicles, or means to ends, within a specific context. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No Fear
|
|
|
illhumanoddity
Full Member
Karma: +25/-8
Posts: 177
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2007, 01:22:38 PM » |
|
Well, there is supposed to be some balance between state and federal power, but you're right. Most people tens to start worrying more about states rights when the Fed. Gov. isn't doing what they want.
Roe v. Wade is a fitting example. I've heard many social conservatives criticize the decision based on what they feel is the Fed Gov. overstepping it's bounds, while most social liberals are happy with the decision, and hence see it as a decision for the SC to make.
Something tells me that if the decision went the other way, more conservatives would see it as a fed issue and more liberals as an infringement on states rights.
Oh, you're absolutely right. What we're really talking about here are mechanized levers of power. Instruments. Tools. The apperatus of the state. It is a misconception to view such things as anything other than vehicles, or means to ends, within a specific context. Politics is power. A relatively new face on the oldest concept known to man. Players will use whatever means necessary. That is why there are no philosopher kings. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I mean what did you think, my agenda was to freestyle, smile
get paid to smoke weed, grab the mic and spoon feed?
-- Atmosphere, \\"Rhyme Slayers\\"
|
|
|
|
