Who is this guy??

[SemperReformanda]

gwyyn-

he does huh, Ajnin. Hope he didn't see my list of dreamy celebrities in the Ladies Forum heheee

Don't worry, it takes a great deal of grace or some really bad lighting for someone to confuse me with him.

 

[Doctrine1st]

In defense of Ajnin

When I originally wrote the OP, my intent was to be a little light hearted, and not a question of who is or is not capable of lying, of course a government official of any nation will deviate from the truth. History has bore out that this question pertaining to our Government is a rhetorical question with the expected answer being of course they can, have, and when need be will do it again. Why some people feel as if the Government is some utopian of morale character is beyond me when facts speak for themselves….of course it may perhaps be because the party running the show is the one “I’m” a party of. And I'm speaking of things for more worst than being on the recieving end of a hummer while in the white house.

D1st

 

[SemperReformanda]

Doctrine1st-

Why some people feel as if the Government is some utopian of morale character is beyond me when facts speak for themselves…

Since I was one of the people who criticized Anjin's post, I'll assume this is at least partly directed at me.

I haven't seen anyone here act as if it is. What I was reacting to is the notion that there is some sort of moral equivalency between our governmental system and approach to informing its people, and that of a propagandistic totalitarian dictatorship. Not only is it an ugly thing to say during wartime, it's objectively stupid (and this is a general statement about MANY threads I've been on, and not directed at Anjin. He clarified his remarks.) America has a free press that fact-checks everything told to them with impunity. Saddam feeds the people whatever he wants to.

I now live in a country where there is little free press. Down in Donetsk recently an editor who was critical of the government was disfigured in an acid attack. Another literally was decapitated. Two others shot down in the street. I could go on. And the press is consequently cowed into reporting whatever it's fed.

Our government isn't utopian. Our system isn't perfect. But democratic institutions require a certain amount of respect from the people who live under them in order to survive. Which is why I get so disgusted when I observe many people's casual cynicism about America and her system. They're ingrates who have no clue how blessed they are.

f course it may perhaps be because the party running the show is the one “I’m” a party of.

I trust the briefings we receive (within bounds) not because of the party, but because I have faith in our system and in the free press which watchdogs it. As far as party loyalty, I am a dedicated movement conservative. The R party is certainly my home. But when Clinton was putting troops in harm's way I didn't carp about him.

I thought some of the backbiting by members of my party was very inappropriate during the Kosovo situation. But I did think criticism of some of the more blatant wag-the-dog cruise missile firings was within bounds since it involved inanimate objects and was just so egregiously obvious. Others may disagree.

 

[Blindfaith]

You know Semper, if I wasn't already married I'd propose to you

Another standing ovation to you. Great explanation without cutting anyone down. Nicely done, my friend.

God Bless you and keep you safe and protected where you are. I'll be praying for you, as I pray for the safekeeping of our troops.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Today at 12:21 AM SemperReformanda said this in Post #23

Doctrine1st-

Why some people feel as if the Government is some utopian of morale character is beyond me when facts speak for themselves…

Since I was one of the people who criticized Anjin's post, I'll assume this is at least partly directed at me.

SemperReformanda, quit trying to shove your foot into the glass slipper, no I was not specifically refering to you. We have had dialogue before, if I mean to be specific, I know your name.

That was a general statement in regards to many who have no problem surrendering their trust in tones of "I trust them, they know what's best for us" That may well and good for them but as far as I'm concerned, regardless of who's in office I understand they’re politicians in a system that is tantamount to legalized bribery and the quid qua pro, how did you say it, "isn't utopian. Our system isn't perfect." But to just willingly trust without anyone in hopes they'll keep your best interests at heart is extremely optimistic. But what can I say maybe its just me, heck I check my heat bill with a calculator, and guess what...that's right and more than once.

But democratic institutions require a certain amount of respect from the people who live under them in order to survive. Which is why I get so disgusted when I observe many people's casual cynicism about America and her system. They're ingrates who have no clue how blessed they are.

Agreed, but not blind respect, and depending on ones actions respect is easily lost, and the end result? Cynicism.

[/QUOTE]

 

[SemperReformanda]

But to just willingly trust without anyone in hopes they'll keep your best interests at heart is extremely optimistic.

I'm a conservative, which means I take a pessimistic view of human nature. My Christian presuppositions about human falleness are one of the key reasons I'm a conservative. We SHOULD hold the government accountable and keep an eye on them. To paraphrase CS Lewis, I'm not in favor of democracy because men are too great to be ruled by kings, but because no man is morally fit to be a king.

Agreed, but not blind respect, and depending on ones actions respect is easily lost, and the end result? Cynicism.

That's not the end result. The end result is a beakdown in democratic institutions. Cynicism is only the mid-point.

An unreflecting adversarial stance toward the established system is pretty much the definition of radicalism in its most destructive state. The unthinking cynicism I see often on boards is a non-violent expression of this tendency. Rather than looking to improve the existing form of government, there's a knee-jerk contradiction of whatever comes from it. Thank God these people are marginalized, or else they would be very destructive.

Blindfaith-

If I weren't married already I would undoubtedly accept.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Today at 04:03 PM SemperReformanda said this in Post #26

Agreed, but not blind respect, and depending on ones actions respect is easily lost, and the end result? Cynicism.

That's not the end result. The end result is a beakdown in democratic institutions. Cynicism is only the mid-point.

An unreflecting adversarial stance toward the established system is pretty much the definition of radicalism in its most destructive state. The unthinking cynicism I see often on boards is a non-violent expression of this tendency. Rather than looking to improve the existing form of government, there's a knee-jerk contradiction of whatever comes from it. Thank God these people are marginalized, or else they would be very destructive.

S.R., One of these days I'm going to have to ask you the meaning of the name.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with ya on this one. IMHO, radicalism of a destructive nature is often the product of those who are “overly reflective” to the point their sense of perspective is lost.

You may see it as “unthinking” because they don’t see the same reflection as you. On one hand the Government has provided plenty of fodder for cynicism as time goes on, but on the other hand it’s like self-fulfilling prophecy as cynicism marginalizes the masses giving them more license to show favoritism to the select who show favoritism towards them, and seems as if anything for us it’s kind of like Iraq, where the liberation was just a bonus of a different plan. So overall this is what's destructive, as a downward spiral in which those in power will never revise, why should they, they're the ones once in power who have the upper hand. It's going to take somekind of grassroots effort to change the system, but what's happening at the grassroots level? People are fighting just as bipartisan as our leaders, we're right and you're wrong, republican -vs- democrat, it's like divide and conquer.

Well look at that, I guess I'm being cynical.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Doctrine1st-

S.R., One of these days I'm going to have to ask you the meaning of the name.

It means "Always Reforming." It was one of the themes of the Reformation...

IMHO, radicalism of a destructive nature is often the product of those who are “overly reflective” to the point their sense of perspective is lost.

If by this you mean they substitute ideological abstractions in place of wisdom or common sense, many radicals do fit that bill. But not all of them.
You may see it as “unthinking” because they don’t see the same reflection as you.

No, there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the system. I'm talking about those who during the Cold War really did see a moral equivalence between the USSR and us. Or those who see something sinister behind everything the government does. There are a ton of these types on both sides of the political spectrum.

ynicism marginalizes the masses

This sort of terminology serves little purpose in a discussion of American polity. We're a post-industrial society of previously unimaginable wealth. We don't have a homogonized urban industrial "mass" to speak about. We have a diverse quilt of various subcultures and groups that make up the body politic. The people who are marginalized are the Naderites and Buchananites and the like who put themselves there.

It's going to take somekind of grassroots effort to change the system, but what's happening at the grassroots level? People are fighting just as bipartisan as our leaders, we're right and you're wrong, republican -vs- democrat, it's like divide and conquer.

I see it as the free exchange of ideas. Agreement at the grassroots is a sign of dormancy, not progress. And what you see as bipartisan bickering I see as debate over policy and vision. Something infinitely better than what passes for discussion in 1-party nations.

I think it's ironic that now, when the parties are more starkly different from one another than at virtually any time in history, people can't see it. They still keep going on about Republocrats and Democritans. While it is sometimes ugly, there is a genuine debate about the nature of government and society going on at both the national and grassroots level. And it's a good thing.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Unfortunately S.R., the last thing being exchanged are ideas, perhaps certain fingers, but certaintly from what I see once both groups see themselves as right, the only listening to ideals is to criticize and rebuke the others. You can browse this board and see what I mean.

I use Yahoo for quick news updates, and at the end of a news article there's a disscussion board and no matter what the subject is, the subject could be about the giant squid find, but betcha my dollar to your dime the comments eventual spiral into partisan politics and name calling.

Actually discussions in politics is going the same way as discussions of religion, once someone feels they are righteous and thus exclusive, the listening stops.

Once the groups have been polarized it's beneficial and easier for those who need support for office, all they have to do is cater their message to the half of the 30% who do actually vote. So why generize the masses, it's easier to regurgitate a cookie cutter platform (RNC, DNC) and just leave the others in their marginalized stuper.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Doctrine1st-

I'll be out of town for 4 days at a missions conference/retreat in Kherson. I don't know if they have cybercafes there, it's a pretty poor area. If possible I'll pop on and respond to this post. If not, see you Monday-ish.

Your friend,
John

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

8th April 2003 at 02:50 PM Ajnin said this in Post #17




It's really sad and disgraceful that you believe what you believe too.  Very sad.  Mucho sad.  Extremely sad. Very bad sad.  Oh and by the way, the US government has a very long history of lying during military campaigns, and just lying period, so it's not like I'm saying anything controversial here.  I'm not expecting the government to do a 180 and start telling all the truth and nothing but the truth all of a sudden. 

What is there to hide?

 

[Lanakila]

Our eyes are watching the liberation of Iraq on the news. The government doesn't need to lie, and stretch the truth, the media can't lie, because its obvious. They start to look like the Iraqi information minister after awhile when they are being critical, and calling the presence in Iraq an occupation (appealing to Arab sentiment). The American people are for the most part fed up with the liberal bias in the media, and prefer conservative bias right about now.

 

[Ajnin]

8th April 2003 at 06:27 PM SemperReformanda said this in Post #20

Ajnin-

Btw, has anyone ever told you that you look like Matthew McConaughey?_

Only the nice people. Normally I get either Sean Penn or Robert England (the guy who played Freddy Krueger.)

Anyways, I wasn't talking about embedded reporters,_I was_talking about what the government wants the people to believe is happening in the war._

I know what you were referring to. I was just objecting to the moral equivalence statements that seem to come so quickly to some people's fingertips. Do we spin the war? Certainly. It's good Psy Ops for the enemy, if nothing else. But do we do it anything like the Iraqi Dinsinformation minister? No. Reports coming out of Centcom are sometimes inaccurate, but everything I've seen so far looks attributable to the fog of war rather than deliberate plotting. As opposed to the patently hilarious stuff the al-Sahaaf (sp?) gets up to.

I'm not refering to spin.  I expect that from our government like I expect seasons to change.  I'm refering to the big things and little things that the goverment didn't think it was necessary to tell us, mislead us about, or just flat out lie.  You know, stuff such as what really happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, what collateral damage really means, how accurate the smart bombs in the gulf war were, anything the CIA was involved with in Cuba, Secret bombing of Cambodia, Richard Nixon's secret letter of support to South Vietnam, you get the point.  The US government has a chronic history of covering up it's involvement in what can be at the very least described as extremely shady activities.  Why is everyone looking at me funny when I say I expect this grand tradition to continue and is happening right now. 

 

[Ajnin]

Yesterday at 08:53 AM quizzler said this in Post #31



What is there to hide?

I'm sorry, but if I told you, I'd have to kill you. 

Seriously though, I have no clue.  It's just a reasonable guess based on my knowledge of the actions of the US government in the past.