03 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeySlashing government spending and the money supply during a recession is a surefire way to an economic depression. Which is what Republicans are hoping for.
Why do I look to Obama? Why are you looking to Obama? He is a mere mortal man like you or I. The best he can do is surround himself with an army of czars and hope that the world does not blow up in his face.
Here is a thought, what are we going to do to take command of our own lives and the lives of those in our community? Stop playing into the hands o ...[text shortened]... untry for that matter, is not an option. They must impose their will at every oppurtunity.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo you are saying that the federal government just erroneously spent trillions of dollars of tax payer money to create jobs?
It would be refreshing if conservatives were to just declare that there is nothing the government can do to create jobs and agree not to make the economy an issue in the fall elections. They could just say "the economy will recover when it recovers".
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect. "It's (still) the economy, stupid." Now, he could fix that at the same time he fixes some of those other list items, but I think that's been pointed out as well.
Being President is not easy!
The economy is probably #1. Everything else comes from our amazingly powerful economy.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderCharmer!
I hope your illness is fatal.
Reduction of legitimate resistance to oppression is not a desirable outcome except to the oppressor.
You've really jumped the shark with this one, though: the arrogance of the blanket assertion and the dismissal of the express and implicit 'desirable outcome' for the time being for the majority in NI (and, perhaps, one day the middle east) really does leave you goading now peaceable people to resume political violence. For shame, war-monger.
03 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFThe majority in the illegimately partitioned area called "Northern Ireland" ARE the oppressors. Resistance against them, up to and including by physical means, is morally just.
Charmer!
You've really jumped the shark with this one, though: the arrogance of the blanket assertion and the dismissal of the express and implicit 'desirable outcome' for the time being for the majority in NI (and, perhaps, one day the middle east) really does leave you goading now peaceable people to resume political violence. For shame, war-monger.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem you are talking about may be "solved" at the ballot box one day. The problem I was talking about was dire civil strife between the two communities, 30,000 British troops on the streets, bombings, assassinations, Catholics blocked out of political power, a wholly protestant and violently partisan police force, no regional government in Belfast. All THAT has been solved. Thankfully. And they said it would - and could - never happen. Which was my point to Hugh.
The problem will be solved when all of Ireland is united and free.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe yes, maybe no, but it's good to see you row back from the preposterous, patronising and foolish 'Reduction of legitimate resistance to oppression is not a desirable outcome except to the oppressor' to 'Resistance against them, up to and including by physical means, is morally just.' A world of difference, and with that change the Fonz dismounted his surfboard...
The majority in the illegimately partitioned area called "Northern Ireland" ARE the oppressors. Resistance against them, up to and including by physical means, is morally just.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by DrKFThere is no contradiction between the two statements.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's good to see you row back from the preposterous, patronising and foolish 'Reduction of legitimate resistance to oppression is not a desirable outcome except to the oppressor' to 'Resistance against them, up to and including by physical means, is morally just.' A world of difference, and with that change the Fonz dismounted his surfboard...
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe yes, maybe no, but they mean quite different things. With the second, you grant moral consistency and value to dissidents; with the first, you disparage those very freedom fighters who chose to lay down arms and accept a political accommodation that led to a decline in paramilitarism.
There is no contradiction between the two statements.
Is a political and anti-violent resistance to oppression that decries, condemns and acts against continued paramilitarism in Northern Ireland morally justified?
03 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFNo for the same reason that Chamberlain's actions in Munich 1938 were not morally justified.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but they mean quite different things. With the second, you grant moral consistency and value to dissidents; with the first, you disparage those very freedom fighters who chose to lay down arms and accept a political accommodation that led to a decline in paramilitarism.
Is a political and anti-violent resistance to oppression that dec ...[text shortened]... s, condemns and acts against continued paramilitarism in Northern Ireland morally justified?
One is free to resist oppression by non-violent means if one chooses to do so. But to criticize others who justly resist by using physical force is morally wrong. And "to act" against them (by what means: betrayal to the oppressor?) is joining the oppression which cannot be morally just.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderGosh.
No for the same reason that Chamberlain's actions in Munich 1938 were not morally justified.
One is free to resist oppression by non-violent means if one chooses to do so. But to criticize others who justly resist by using physical force is morally wrong. And "to act" against them (by what means: betrayal to the oppressor?) is joining the oppression which cannot be morally just.