<strong>I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And so it was also God's plan for Clinton to be President before Bush, God's plan for France to oppose us at the UN now, and God's plan for Saddam to be the leader of Iraq, and it was God's plan for Hitler to kill six million Jews, and God's plan for the local hardware store to have a two-for-one sale on ten packs of sandpaper, and God's plan for Desmond Mindersol, 37, of 437 Sandpiper Lane to gain 40 lbs. after a six month binge on beer and twinkies, and God'd plan for that particular sparrow to fall...
If you define everything that has happened, and everything that ever will happen, as the unfolding of God's plan, that pretty much renders it a meaningless thing to say, because the pronouncement sheds no light on why things have happened as they have or where things are going.
About the only thing this concept can do is create a "Don't worry. God's got it covered!" attitude, which should put you in a more relaxed and accepting frame of mind than I've noticed from you of late.
Apparently, it was part of God's plan for pfflam to snicker at George Bush's self-important belief in his own Great Destiny... so who are you to criticize how The Plan is going? But wait... of course, since you have already criticized pfflam for him doing his part of The Plan, then it must also be part of The Plan for you to have done it! Amazing, ain't it?
When I think of all the awful things down through history that were done in the name of god when in reality the motives were a little more coporeal........
<strong>Of all the absurdity here, pfflam wins the prize.
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. He actually criticizes the fact that Bush believes it was God's plan for him to be President. Oh, how horrible, to think that one's creator has a plan. Yes, what a misguided religous fanatic Bush is.
I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone. One saying that one is guided by one's faith does not mean one can do no wrong. Bush never said that.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you read clearly: I wrote carfully enough to delineate the sphere of human choice . . knowing how Christians (and maybe I am one too . . .then again maybe not) seem to think that the realm where human choice is involved is subject not to an absolutely rigid rule by God.
After all, if it were ruled by such a rigid order there would be no such thing as free-will . . . isn't that the arguement?
If George's choices are ruled by God then where does his free-will come in?
If he has free will then how could his decision making be coterminous with the will of God: clearly, if you believe in free-will then the idea that Bush's decisions are ruled by God is misguided.
or even tantamount to what the ancient Greeks called Hubris . . . and when a 'hero' in ancient Greece became Hubristic they ended up being smashed by the very Gods that they assumed too much from.
Another more humanistic way of saying that is: if you think you hear God's voice and think that therefor all of your choices are going to be right then your in for a rude awakening.
so again:
Either you believe in free will and therfore history is a human construction,
or, you believe God made history and there is no such thing as free-will: which would be, as Shetline points out, the same as saying everything was God's decision and therefore taking God into account amounts to no difference than not taking God into account.
If all the world was made of one thing then where would the differentiation come in?
if all was paper mache then what would be not-paper mache?
But I don't expect you to actually read political rhetoric critically, much less do I expect you to try and follow a logical argument . . .
<strong> International law doesn't appear to be very prominent in NK's decision tree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's the beauty of the situation: it's doesn't have to. The world has to agree on NK's failing, regardless of NK's opinion. So, because of a little signature, we can have them by the proverbial balls. Well, we could have if the US President wasn't a moron.
um... yes it did . . .they didn't recommence until after Bush came into office and till after he made his "axis of Evil" speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on scott, come down off your mountain and respond....
that's the beauty of the situation: it's doesn't have to. The world has to agree on NK's failing, regardless of NK's opinion. So, because of a little signature, we can have them by the proverbial balls. Well, we could have if the US President wasn't a moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN also has signatures etc from Iraq. What good have then done in terms of actually disarming Iraq in a meaning way? The NK situation has a chance to work out, mainly because NK has shown an interest in working it out in a manner that gets them more handouts. Sure it would be bribing them to comply with past agreements, but in the end it is what I think will happen. Iraq has no reason or intention to fully disarm, so long as Saddam is in power. We don't have him by the balls, so long as the UN waffles on it's reaction to his defiance.
um... yes it did . . .they didn't recommence until after Bush came into office and till after he made his "axis of Evil" speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on scott, come down off your mountain and respond....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't on a mountain. I was at a friends place eating pizza. He's Romanian and can't under stand why were making war on Iraq when we all know the Saudis earned a "Shock and Awe" all their own. But he's crazy, he's actually from Transilvania.
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:<hr></blockquote>
Now look, my position is not entirely with the anti-war and definitely not on the bandwagon for war, BUT, one thing that has shown itself to fall flat is the so called 'proof' that Iraq has not disarmed.
we have their lack of paperwork that would tell us what happened to the tons of stuff they had
and that's pretty compelling
however it still is proof-via-its absence . . . in other words even if they actually had destroyed the stuff but didn't have the paper-work they would have the same amount of proof.
I admit that we are in a conundrum: we need them to absolutely disarm because (supposedly) they want nothing more than to destroy America or give these weapons to terrorists who want to destroy the West and the infidel (most everybody reading this) . . . they probably have them, though we don't know for sure and said proof shown so far is decidely fishy at best and very flimsy at worst.
We go in now and the whole world thinks that we are motivated by other motives (from God to oil)
We wait and we lose money because the troops are allready deployed (meaning that whatever the situation we are being moved by the inflexibility of the timetables) and we also loose face (very important for some people)
We wait and then more Iraqis die for whatever reason -sanctions and Hussain's supposedly dictatorial oppression
(however, this oppressive regime seems to keep up a semblance of normality . . . which means that it can't be nearly as bad as NK)
We don't wait and more Iraqis die as well as US soldiers . . . and, despite some people who say its racist, I think that we will build resentment to us in the Mid-east as well as the rest of the world: the mid-east resentment will be felt immediately the other resentment will slowly lead to possible loss of economic supremacy
(I think that the last two problems mentioned could have been avoided had diplomacy been approached with an even hand rather than a honey-baked-ham-fist.
oh, and Scott:
isn't the burden of proof on your end?
or is it like the proof of WMD. . . if I don't show the proof then that is proof I have the stuff . . . ?!?!
It's said that Clinton solved the problem. I say he didn't (which is true because NK started the program) so then it's that they started it after Bush ... blah blah blah ... so ... prove it.
The other thing you will notice is that we were in a better place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh hey, don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Bush or this administration. This is very possibly a string of the worst foreign policy disasters I can remember. And domestic policies? Going OH so well. The DOW is up! No child is left behind! America is at peace! The budget is A-OK! America is not acting as the world's policeman!
I call'em like I see'em, and look, I'll be frank: Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. If, as President, he operated as a liberal, then I'll be a...something impossible. Hell, one of the things that ticked the right wing off so much was that he kept co-opting republican agenda items and getting them passed--and therefore taking the credit. The current admin has taken a page form this book, only it's inverted how to get to the office: Clinton ran as a lefty and then drove hard for the center; Bush ran as a centrist and then ran hard for the far right.
At any rate...yeah. Clinton kept us out of any long-term unilateral military conflicts (rightly), and got us into a few small scrapes that were either politically troublesome (the Balkans) or disastrous (Somalia). But his treaties? Are *any* of his landmark peace treaties still in effect? Any of the cease-fires he oversaw during his terms?
I'm not saying he was an ineffective president, because in some ways he was and in some ways he wasn't. But any lasting legacy of peace brokered by his administration was short-lived at best.
As for your point, though. You're absolutely correct. And any serious democrat challenger for the presidency would be wise to repeat as often as possible "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Because many of us aren't.
The problem is that at the moment it doesn't look like there ARE any serious democrat challengers who would ask that question. Instead it's the same old raft of mealy-mouthed folks. No one exciting or smart or charming. And THAT is a serious problems, considering the dems seem to think that any old southerner will do. Trust me, and I speak as a southerner here, that is not the case.
Either that or some people here have very short and selective memories.
I'm only 21 but am I seriously only person on this godforsaken message board who can remember back to 1998?
Bush is the first president to constantly talk about faith.
I swear to Dog that you friggin' people are so selective in your memories about the last president my eyes are going to roll right out of my goddam head.
that's the beauty of the situation: it's doesn't have to. The world has to agree on NK's failing, regardless of NK's opinion. So, because of a little signature, we can have them by the proverbial balls...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So by this reasoning, Clinton had NK by the balls in 1993 even though they had withdrawn from the NPT. If that was so, why did he negotiate such a toothless treaty?
So by this reasoning, Clinton had NK by the balls in 1993 even though they had withdrawn from the NPT. If that was so, why did he negotiate such a toothless treaty?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I might agree, or I might disagree, but I'm not sure. I can't tell what exactly you're trying to say. How did Clinton have NK ball the balls in 1993?
I might agree, or I might disagree, but I'm not sure. I can't tell what exactly you're trying to say. How did Clinton have NK ball the balls in 1993?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are saying that by signing to the Agreed Framework that meant that we had them by the balls. Well, the NPT predated that treaty. Why didn't their signature on that treaty give us similar leverage?
Comments
<strong>I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And so it was also God's plan for Clinton to be President before Bush, God's plan for France to oppose us at the UN now, and God's plan for Saddam to be the leader of Iraq, and it was God's plan for Hitler to kill six million Jews, and God's plan for the local hardware store to have a two-for-one sale on ten packs of sandpaper, and God's plan for Desmond Mindersol, 37, of 437 Sandpiper Lane to gain 40 lbs. after a six month binge on beer and twinkies, and God'd plan for that particular sparrow to fall...
If you define everything that has happened, and everything that ever will happen, as the unfolding of God's plan, that pretty much renders it a meaningless thing to say, because the pronouncement sheds no light on why things have happened as they have or where things are going.
About the only thing this concept can do is create a "Don't worry. God's got it covered!" attitude, which should put you in a more relaxed and accepting frame of mind than I've noticed from you of late.
Apparently, it was part of God's plan for pfflam to snicker at George Bush's self-important belief in his own Great Destiny... so who are you to criticize how The Plan is going? But wait... of course, since you have already criticized pfflam for him doing his part of The Plan, then it must also be part of The Plan for you to have done it! Amazing, ain't it?
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Um? No he didn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
um... yes it did . . .they didn't recommence until after Bush came into office and till after he made his "axis of Evil" speech.
<strong>Of all the absurdity here, pfflam wins the prize.
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. He actually criticizes the fact that Bush believes it was God's plan for him to be President. Oh, how horrible, to think that one's creator has a plan. Yes, what a misguided religous fanatic Bush is.
I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone. One saying that one is guided by one's faith does not mean one can do no wrong. Bush never said that.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you read clearly: I wrote carfully enough to delineate the sphere of human choice . . knowing how Christians (and maybe I am one too . . .then again maybe not) seem to think that the realm where human choice is involved is subject not to an absolutely rigid rule by God.
After all, if it were ruled by such a rigid order there would be no such thing as free-will . . . isn't that the arguement?
If George's choices are ruled by God then where does his free-will come in?
If he has free will then how could his decision making be coterminous with the will of God: clearly, if you believe in free-will then the idea that Bush's decisions are ruled by God is misguided.
or even tantamount to what the ancient Greeks called Hubris . . . and when a 'hero' in ancient Greece became Hubristic they ended up being smashed by the very Gods that they assumed too much from.
Another more humanistic way of saying that is: if you think you hear God's voice and think that therefor all of your choices are going to be right then your in for a rude awakening.
so again:
Either you believe in free will and therfore history is a human construction,
or, you believe God made history and there is no such thing as free-will: which would be, as Shetline points out, the same as saying everything was God's decision and therefore taking God into account amounts to no difference than not taking God into account.
If all the world was made of one thing then where would the differentiation come in?
if all was paper mache then what would be not-paper mache?
But I don't expect you to actually read political rhetoric critically, much less do I expect you to try and follow a logical argument . . .
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
treaties have meant little through out history...a nice concept though...
but any and all countries quickly step out of treaties when it is in their best interest to do so....
maybe god tells them to
g
<strong> International law doesn't appear to be very prominent in NK's decision tree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's the beauty of the situation: it's doesn't have to. The world has to agree on NK's failing, regardless of NK's opinion. So, because of a little signature, we can have them by the proverbial balls. Well, we could have if the US President wasn't a moron.
<strong>
um... yes it did . . .they didn't recommence until after Bush came into office and till after he made his "axis of Evil" speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on scott, come down off your mountain and respond....
<strong>Of all the absurdity here, pfflam wins the prize.
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No SDW, YOU win the prize. This post pretty much destroyed any credibility you ever had.
<strong>
that's the beauty of the situation: it's doesn't have to. The world has to agree on NK's failing, regardless of NK's opinion. So, because of a little signature, we can have them by the proverbial balls. Well, we could have if the US President wasn't a moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN also has signatures etc from Iraq. What good have then done in terms of actually disarming Iraq in a meaning way? The NK situation has a chance to work out, mainly because NK has shown an interest in working it out in a manner that gets them more handouts. Sure it would be bribing them to comply with past agreements, but in the end it is what I think will happen. Iraq has no reason or intention to fully disarm, so long as Saddam is in power. We don't have him by the balls, so long as the UN waffles on it's reaction to his defiance.
<strong>
um... yes it did . . .they didn't recommence until after Bush came into office and till after he made his "axis of Evil" speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove it.
<strong>
Come on scott, come down off your mountain and respond....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't on a mountain. I was at a friends place eating pizza. He's Romanian and can't under stand why were making war on Iraq when we all know the Saudis earned a "Shock and Awe" all their own. But he's crazy, he's actually from Transilvania.
Now look, my position is not entirely with the anti-war and definitely not on the bandwagon for war, BUT, one thing that has shown itself to fall flat is the so called 'proof' that Iraq has not disarmed.
we have their lack of paperwork that would tell us what happened to the tons of stuff they had
and that's pretty compelling
however it still is proof-via-its absence . . . in other words even if they actually had destroyed the stuff but didn't have the paper-work they would have the same amount of proof.
I admit that we are in a conundrum: we need them to absolutely disarm because (supposedly) they want nothing more than to destroy America or give these weapons to terrorists who want to destroy the West and the infidel (most everybody reading this) . . . they probably have them, though we don't know for sure and said proof shown so far is decidely fishy at best and very flimsy at worst.
We go in now and the whole world thinks that we are motivated by other motives (from God to oil)
We wait and we lose money because the troops are allready deployed (meaning that whatever the situation we are being moved by the inflexibility of the timetables) and we also loose face (very important for some people)
We wait and then more Iraqis die for whatever reason -sanctions and Hussain's supposedly dictatorial oppression
(however, this oppressive regime seems to keep up a semblance of normality . . . which means that it can't be nearly as bad as NK)
We don't wait and more Iraqis die as well as US soldiers . . . and, despite some people who say its racist, I think that we will build resentment to us in the Mid-east as well as the rest of the world: the mid-east resentment will be felt immediately the other resentment will slowly lead to possible loss of economic supremacy
(I think that the last two problems mentioned could have been avoided had diplomacy been approached with an even hand rather than a honey-baked-ham-fist.
oh, and Scott:
isn't the burden of proof on your end?
or is it like the proof of WMD. . . if I don't show the proof then that is proof I have the stuff . . . ?!?!
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>...
oh, and Scott:
isn't the burden of proof on your end?
or is it like the proof of WMD. . . if I don't show the proof then that is proof I have the stuff . . . ?!?!
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all.
It's said that Clinton solved the problem. I say he didn't (which is true because NK started the program) so then it's that they started it after Bush ... blah blah blah ... so ... prove it.
<strong>
The other thing you will notice is that we were in a better place.
Oh hey, don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Bush or this administration. This is very possibly a string of the worst foreign policy disasters I can remember. And domestic policies? Going OH so well. The DOW is up! No child is left behind! America is at peace! The budget is A-OK! America is not acting as the world's policeman!
I call'em like I see'em, and look, I'll be frank: Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. If, as President, he operated as a liberal, then I'll be a...something impossible. Hell, one of the things that ticked the right wing off so much was that he kept co-opting republican agenda items and getting them passed--and therefore taking the credit. The current admin has taken a page form this book, only it's inverted how to get to the office: Clinton ran as a lefty and then drove hard for the center; Bush ran as a centrist and then ran hard for the far right.
At any rate...yeah. Clinton kept us out of any long-term unilateral military conflicts (rightly), and got us into a few small scrapes that were either politically troublesome (the Balkans) or disastrous (Somalia). But his treaties? Are *any* of his landmark peace treaties still in effect? Any of the cease-fires he oversaw during his terms?
I'm not saying he was an ineffective president, because in some ways he was and in some ways he wasn't. But any lasting legacy of peace brokered by his administration was short-lived at best.
As for your point, though. You're absolutely correct. And any serious democrat challenger for the presidency would be wise to repeat as often as possible "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Because many of us aren't.
The problem is that at the moment it doesn't look like there ARE any serious democrat challengers who would ask that question. Instead it's the same old raft of mealy-mouthed folks. No one exciting or smart or charming. And THAT is a serious problems, considering the dems seem to think that any old southerner will do. Trust me, and I speak as a southerner here, that is not the case.
Cheers
Scott
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: midwinter ]</p>
Either that or some people here have very short and selective memories.
I'm only 21 but am I seriously only person on this godforsaken message board who can remember back to 1998?
Bush is the first president to constantly talk about faith.
I swear to Dog that you friggin' people are so selective in your memories about the last president my eyes are going to roll right out of my goddam head.
AHH!
<strong>
that's the beauty of the situation: it's doesn't have to. The world has to agree on NK's failing, regardless of NK's opinion. So, because of a little signature, we can have them by the proverbial balls...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So by this reasoning, Clinton had NK by the balls in 1993 even though they had withdrawn from the NPT. If that was so, why did he negotiate such a toothless treaty?
<strong>
The UN also has signatures etc from Iraq. What good have then done in terms of actually disarming Iraq in a meaning way? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I'd say the signatures have helped get the world into a position to disarm him.
<strong>
I'm only 21 but am I seriously only person on this godforsaken message board who can remember back to 1998? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. You are dog.
<strong>
So by this reasoning, Clinton had NK by the balls in 1993 even though they had withdrawn from the NPT. If that was so, why did he negotiate such a toothless treaty?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I might agree, or I might disagree, but I'm not sure. I can't tell what exactly you're trying to say. How did Clinton have NK ball the balls in 1993?
<strong>
I might agree, or I might disagree, but I'm not sure. I can't tell what exactly you're trying to say. How did Clinton have NK ball the balls in 1993?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are saying that by signing to the Agreed Framework that meant that we had them by the balls. Well, the NPT predated that treaty. Why didn't their signature on that treaty give us similar leverage?