tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post4463940856464065450..comments2023-12-21T04:41:43.537-05:00Comments on Jesus' General: Reinforcing, Reforming, or Restructuring the SystemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-23694229827232093352010-03-23T09:09:08.260-04:002010-03-23T09:09:08.260-04:00As insufferably self-serving as much of Libertaria...As insufferably self-serving as much of Libertarian philosophy is, this is perhaps its only redeeming quality: Libertarians are prepared to accept a BIG change in America.<br /><br />While Republican America doesn't want change because it may compromise their privileges, and Democrats wax reminiscently about America's nobility and grandeur despite some 'operational problems', it's only the Libertarians that are so disenfranchised that they'd sooner see the whole thing tossed.<br /><br />For this reason, they call themselves anarchists, which isn't actually true because only the psychotically ill would seriously want to see anarchy.Joe Visionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03036185687122768326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-25549386161312181832010-03-22T17:21:44.476-04:002010-03-22T17:21:44.476-04:00Fundamental change to the structure itself? I'...Fundamental change to the structure itself? I'm all for it. That's why I'm an anarchist. Voting people in power who promise "change" has proven to change nothing.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-54909738164834363852010-03-22T16:30:06.293-04:002010-03-22T16:30:06.293-04:00無尾熊可愛 said...
I do like ur article~!!! ............<i>無尾熊可愛 said... <br /><br />I do like ur article~!!! .....................................</i><br /><br />And here we see the type of robot who likes Cline's writing!Bukko Boomerangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424677168216647964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-76572795534846680372010-03-22T12:04:12.429-04:002010-03-22T12:04:12.429-04:00Jeez, I spend the day watching NCAA basketball and...Jeez, I spend the day watching NCAA basketball and tweeting about healthcare reform and you people get into an argument without me!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08981424431669076836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-22674549846389850522010-03-22T07:15:45.026-04:002010-03-22T07:15:45.026-04:00Sorry, not going there.
So you're going to d...<i>Sorry, not going there. </i><br /><br />So you're going to deny that people achieve fundamental desires by securing economic interests, but you're not going to trouble yourself to suggest any other means that they might use.<br /><br />That's you're right, of course, but it makes any critiques you offer unworthy of much time or attention.<br /><br /><i>Can you split that hair any finer?</i><br /><br />I'm not "splitting" anything. I'm simply pointing out the fact that there are economic interests connected to abortion.<br /><br /><i>I've been reading your stuff for awhile. You're better than this.</i><br /><br />I also have enough on my plate that I don't need to waste time with a person who isn't interested in a serious, substantive conversation.<br /><br /><i>Disingenuous. Has nothing to do with your original claim. </i><br /><br />It is, in fact, exactly my original claim: people need economic security in order to secure basic desires.<br /><br /><i>Why do they consider it a worthwhile investment of time and money? </i><br /><br />When "it" is a fundamental desire, it wouldn't be worth investing time and money if it weren't a desire.<br /><br /><i>Your original post treated economic interests as a fundamental end. </i><br /><br />No, it didn't.<br /><br /><i>Now they are a means?</i><br /><br />Of course they are. You even quoted the statement which made it clear that they are a means: "People achieve their most fundamental desires by securing their economic interests."<br /><br />What's the goal? Fundamental desires. What's the means? Securing economic interests. If I had written "people achieve happiness by walking in the park," would you have concluded that I regard "walking in the park" as the end rather than the means?<br /><br />If such basic English is beyond your ability, maybe you should find something to do besides reading blogs.Austin Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15277940533571121800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-51942056362044137882010-03-21T19:16:57.691-04:002010-03-21T19:16:57.691-04:00If I were a member of Congress, which I'll nev...If I were a member of Congress, which I'll never be but go with me here, I'd propose a lot of legislation that I knew would never pass but that would make headlines and I'd do this to mock the implicit culture of the federal legislature. <br /><br />An act requiring members of congress to cut off a finger every time they're caught violating one of their major campaign promises. <br /><br />An act requiring members of congress to subject themselves for a public demonstration of interrogation techniques. <br /><br />An act requiring Senators to surrender all their wealth to the state and take a vow of poverty for the duration of their tenure in the Senate. <br /><br />None of them would pass and I'd probably be censured for wasting the Congress's time, but my point would be made.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15126750605069711353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-44011813198094490202010-03-21T17:14:54.947-04:002010-03-21T17:14:54.947-04:00Cliney-whiney, I tried to read all of this and mak...Cliney-whiney, I tried to read all of this and make sense of it, but it was too long. It's bad enough that you somehow manage to regularly befoul this conservative thoughtspace with your leftist maunderings, but must you hog so much bandwidth to do it?<br /><br />I would like to address specific criticisms of your latest libboscreed at a deeply meaningful level like Donovan Digital has, but that would require me to have read your entire piece and comprehended it. But it's Sunday morning and, for several reasons, my brain is not capable of that. Perhaps after church...<br /><br />I will say one thing I noticed, though -- you mention generic <b>"politicians"</b> who appear to favour communistic things like giving health care to all Americans, and who pretend to oppose patriotic policies such as allowing the president to imprison anyone forever without any trial, if the president's men deem that person is a terrrrrrrrist. You're afraid to use the "O" word, aren't you Cline?<br /><br />OBAMA is doing that! Not unnamed "politicians" but OBAMA! Hurts, doesn't it, to know that your liberalord and saviour is actually on the side of conservatives (and therefore, the side of G*D!) when it comes to how he acts, eh?<br /><br />Getting back to your original thesis, Obama is acting in HIS best interests to join with the all-powerful conservatives. At the most basic level, it means that he does not get assassinated, or that nothing bad happens to his wife or little daughters. Wouldn't want a massive natural gas explosion -- accidental, of course -- to level their fancy private school and mebbe a couple city blocks around it, would we? This tends to happen to people like Paul Wellstone who oppose Americanastiness, doesn't it?<br /><br />Your King Obama also realizes that if he goes along with patriotism like outlawing abortion via presidential signing statements, he stands a better chance of being rewarded with richness once he's thrown out of office. Who would you rather be, Cline, a Bill Clinton or Jimmuh Carter, who has to go around building houses with his bare hands like he's some sort of wandering carpenter in Roman-era Judea? That's the reason I vocally support conservatism -- because I'm sure the riches will eventually roll down from the top and bestow their blessing on my bank account.<br /><br />I'd taunt you more, but I don't want to echo your sin of long-windedness...Bukko Boomerangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424677168216647964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-30752724143027548682010-03-21T16:25:58.965-04:002010-03-21T16:25:58.965-04:00"Then how do they?"
Sorry, not going th..."Then how do they?"<br /><br />Sorry, not going there. Not qualified. I have my hands full defending the notion that a pure Marxist analysis of political motivation is insufficient; I don't have to replace it with one of my own.<br /><br />"reasons that are at least partially economic"<br /><br />c'mon. Seriously? Can you split that hair any finer? <br /><br />I've been reading your stuff for awhile. You're better than this.<br /><br />"making abortion criminal is regarded by someone as a fundamental desire, or a step on the path towards a fundamental desire, then they will need time and money."<br /><br />Disingenuous. Has nothing to do with your original claim. Why do they consider it a worthwhile investment of time and money? Your original post treated economic interests as a fundamental end. Now they are a means?Donovan Digitalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08797306626244631437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-23467180459328267242010-03-21T15:41:58.701-04:002010-03-21T15:41:58.701-04:00No, they don't.
Then how do they?
How does ...<i>No, they don't. </i><br /><br />Then how do they?<br /><br /><i>How does the abortion debate relate to anybody's economic interests? </i><br /><br />In lots of ways: people may want an abortion or not want an abortion for reasons that are at least partially economic. Some people need more kids for economic reasons. Some people don't want more kids for economic reasons.<br /><br />More importantly, though, if preserving legal abortion of making abortion criminal is regarded by someone as a fundamental desire, or a step on the path towards a fundamental desire, then they will need time and money. Both require some measure of economic security.<br /><br /><i>How about suicide bombers? Are they, like Willie Loman, "worth more dead than alive"?</i><br /><br />Suicide bombers need bombs and the material for bombs needs to be obtained somehow. Timothy McVeigh had to secure his economic interests to some degree in order to be able to afford to make his purchases.Austin Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15277940533571121800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-61677426127820808902010-03-21T15:20:43.653-04:002010-03-21T15:20:43.653-04:00This is a classical Marxist analysis. I have many ...This is a classical Marxist analysis. I have many problems with Marxism, but "People achieve their most fundamental desires by securing their economic interests" will suffice for now. <br /><br />No, they don't. How does the abortion debate relate to anybody's economic interests? How about suicide bombers? Are they, like Willie Loman, "worth more dead than alive"?Donovan Digitalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08797306626244631437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-56575579507378716272010-03-21T11:46:24.529-04:002010-03-21T11:46:24.529-04:00Mr. Cline, Sir,
Now you've done it. I posted ...Mr. Cline, Sir,<br /><br />Now you've done it. I posted this response to the CNN blog <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/21/poll.broken.govt/index.html" rel="nofollow">Survey: Most Americans believe government broken</a>.<br /><br />If Americans can agree that there is a serious problem in America, as an outsider (Canadian), could I make an observation?<br /><br />There are two major sources of malaise as I see it. First, the structure of your government is routinely deadlocked, so much so that most serious issues eventually are off-loaded onto the judiciary to be resolved, or at least dealt with.<br /><br />This is grossly inefficient, and very expensive. What if instead of having a House of Reps voted in for 2 years, they were voted in for 4 or 5, so they wouldn't be spending their whole term looking over their shoulders at the next election and worrying about election financing (and the lobbyists), and consequently not getting a lot of government work done?<br /><br />And the Senate; what if instead of having them elected and so justified in dismissing the House of Representatives bills, they were instead appointed, perhaps by a Presidential committee, to serve as a jury charged with vetting government proposed legislation in committees, holding hearings? While they can send legislation back to the government with important amendments, they are NOT allowed to dismiss it based on party politics.<br /><br />If these government changes don't seem to make a difference, please believe they do. This is largely what we have, and it works terrifically. Yes, there are still some bugs, and I'm not advocating 'the Canadian system', but America may want to reconsider what they have at present.<br /><br />The second source ot the American malaise, has to do with two lines out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, specifically:<br /><br />Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and<br /><br />... freedom to bear arms.<br /><br />Together, these two lines combine to produce an ugly directive to hand a nation: grab much to much, or you'll get nothing at all (K. Vonnegut), and once having done so, feel free to defend yourself with deadly force. Paraphrased, Grab and Defend.<br /><br />I suspect that your founding fathers didn't intend to send this message, and perhaps the strong puritanical morals of the people at the time of the Philadelphia Convention, were strongly underpinned by Christ's teachings of brotherly love. Perhaps that's why the moral majority defer to Christ even to this day. The problem is that the rest of the nation isn't buying it anymore.<br /><br />What I'm suggesting by revisiting both the structure of the government and the American articles of incorporation, is that America may need to revisit 1787 and the Philadelphia Convention.Joe Visionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03036185687122768326noreply@blogger.com