New Year's outlook

[46zilzal]

from The Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/pollitt

[DJofSD]

Gee, whiz, I always thought the glass was half full.

[46zilzal]

I call my wife Miss Three Quarters as she always looks at things three quarters full.

[JustRalph]

15. The Democrats still lose elections.

16. The country is still moving right.

17. Howard Dean continues to embarrass the Dems

18. The War on Terror is being won

19. Iraq is moving toward Democracy and holding elections

20. The Democratic process in Iraq is leading other countries that way

21. The Liberal "big media" is losing ground every day.

22. Fox News is laughing at the other Networks

23. Olberman, Mathews and Air America Combined have less viewers/listeners than Rush Limbaugh

24. Repubs hold both houses of Congress and most of the sway on the Supreme Court.

25. It looks like the American public wants Judge Alito approved for the court. Which results in a slam dunk for the future.

need I go on........?

[lsbets]

Some of the things they celebrate might lead one to believe they don't believe in America. Oh hell, we already knew that. If communism were having a rebirth, they would celebrate that as #1. Laughable on many fronts - one that they they think what they say is reality, and most importantly, they take themselves seriously when virtually no one else does.

[Suff]

35 Iraq and Persian Gulf combat Veterans have announced Congressional Runs in 2006.


33 will run as Democrats.

2 will run as Republicans.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3348791

[lsbets]

Do you think that means anything other than the Dems have aggresivly recruited veterans to run for Congress. Hell, the local party here tried to get me to run as a Dem shortly after I got home. :lol: :lol: I guarantee out of those with party affiliations who served in Iraq, it is at least 2-1 (probably a lot more) Republican.

[Suff]

I guarantee out of those with party affiliations who served in Iraq, it is at least 2-1 (probably a lot more) Republican

33 Democrats to 2 Republican. Under any hypothesis it is a telling sign that warrants consideration by any open minded American.

Recruited and actually Republican?. You gaurantee at a rate greater than 2 to 1 that they're closet Republicans? That's baseless mind reading, guessing, anecdotal and undoubtedly inaccurate or immeasurable, and more than likely untrue.

[lsbets]

33 Democrats to 2 Republican. Under any hypothesis it is a telling sign that warrants consideration by any open minded American.

Recruited and actually Republican?. You gaurantee at a rate greater than 2 to 1 that they're closet Republicans? That's baseless mind reading, guessing, anecdotal and undoubtedly inaccurate or immeasurable, and more than likely untrue.

No Suff - personal experience talking, not wishful political thinking. I hate to break it to you, there are not too many self described liberals in today's military. Of those who afiliate with a political party it is at least 2-1 Republican. Guarantee. Not the folks who signed on to run, read what I wrote. I have no doubt that the folks running as Dems are actually Dems. But I also have no doubt that their choice of party places them in a huge minority in today's military.

Bottom line - the Democrats are smart enough to know that they have an image problem where a majority of Americans do not think they can be trusted with national defense. Actually its more than an image problem, its an ideology problem - they can't be trusted with national defense, not with the likes of Pelosi, Reed, and Dean as the party leadership. However, they think its just an image thing so they aggresively went after veterans to run for Congress. So what?

[toetoe]

Gawd, Ralph. No mentions of "Breaking" Air America this year. How's that for a resolution? Maybe it's just a "Soros" spot with me, but it's like listening to grass grow. :eek:

[JustRalph]

Gawd, Ralph. No mentions of "Breaking" Air America this year. How's that for a resolution? Maybe it's just a "Soros" spot with me, but it's like listening to grass grow. :eek:

excellent idea...............

[boxcar]

Bottom line - the Democrats are smart enough to know that they have an image problem where a majority of Americans do not think they can be trusted with national defense. Actually its more than an image problem, its an ideology problem - they can't be trusted with national defense, not with the likes of Pelosi, Reed, and Dean as the party leadership. However, they think its just an image thing so they aggresively went after veterans to run for Congress. So what?

The one thing Liberals can be trusted with is Political Correctness defense.

Boxcar
P.S. My Wishes for a Happy and Healthy New Year to Everyone "over here".

[boxcar]

I believe the biggest problem the entire world be confronted with in this New Year will be Iran -- or even more specifically the Iran-Russia connection. This is another unholy, evil alliance, in my opinion -- and one that will have global ramifications. I'm just not sure who is playing who who for the sucker: Iran playing Russia or vice versa. But in either case, when or if Iran attains to the stuatus of a nuclear power, I think all hell could break loose on earth. However, this plays out, it's not going to go well for the world because I don't believe a lasting, negotiated settlement is possible.

Iran wants to destroy Israel, and they likely figure the best, fastest and least costly way for them to achieve its objective is with nuclear force. If this U.S. comes to Israel's aid (which we would), then Iran will play her Russia card. And if this card isn't high enough, Russia, in turn, has a strong ally in China.

Moreover, the unrest in the world is spreading -- Africa, South America, Austrailia, Europe, Asisa. There's no continent on the globe free from this unrest and turmoil.

While it's anyone's guess what 2006 will actually bring upon this lost, dark planet, my sense is that, at the very least, global tensions will only intensify and the threat to world peace might grow to unprecedented proportions.

All this might be the bad news. But there is good news, too. For Libs, there will be a silver lining behind all these dark clouds: Everything bad that might happen in the world will be Bush's fault. :D

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

Boxcar,
Econmics will save everything......China will not give up all the trade and prestige it is gaining, I don't believe Russia will actually do that either.
As much as many hate "free trade", the fact is Walmart has done more to stablize world tensions than all the diplomats combined.
The real danger is Islamic extemism......their malignant messianic narcissim combined with neuclear weapons is one of the biggest threats to the planet in history, that combined with the overpopulation of the planet....which is the only cause for pollution, global warming, famine....etc.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,
Econmics will save everything......China will not give up all the trade and prestige it is gaining, I don't believe Russia will actually do that either.
As much as many hate "free trade", the fact is Walmart has done more to stablize world tensions than all the diplomats combined.
The real danger is Islamic extemism......their malignant messianic narcissim combined with neuclear weapons is one of the biggest threats to the planet in history, that combined with the overpopulation of the planet....which is the only cause for pollution, global warming, famine....etc.

SCF, your view is a spin-off of the hackneyed, "Technology will be the world's Savior." The fundamental flaw in both views is that neither of these are capable of transforming man into something he isn't by nature.

In fact, "economics" (read: Big Bucks) is what is motivating Russia to sell nuclear technology to Iran -- fully realizing that this terror-sponsoring state not only could, but probably would use this technology for evil purposes, if the world governments give Iran a free pass.

With respect to China, this evil empire is pouring virtually all its trade revenue into its already huge military machine. China's current economic prosperity, therefore, seems to be a means to very ignoble and nefarious ends.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

No, Boxcar it is not a "technology will save the world".
I have been reading Dr. David R. Hawkins M.D. Ph.D 's book Truth vs Falsehood.
Dr. Hawkins is Director of the Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research. He is a widely-known authority within the fields of consciousness research and spirituality. He writes and teaches the unique perspective of an experienced clinician, scientist and mystic.
He has devoted his life to the spiritual evolution of mankind.
I think you would be interested in reading his book, Boxcar.
I'd love to hear your review, in addition to 46 zilzal's review.
Just read it with an open mind.

[boxcar]

No, I didn't say it was. What I said was that your view that economics would save the world is as fundamentally flawed as the one that says technology will.

With repsect to the good doctor's book, I don't have much time to devote to book reviews, most especially since I'm trying to wade through a very interesting science book (of all things, since science was never my schtick :) ). Perhaps we could cut through the mustard, though, if you shared Hawkins' basic premise with us.

But from what little you just said, I don't believe Man is evolving spiritually. We are what we are. Our human nature cannot be changed by simply altering our evironment whether this be in terms of social, ecomonic or, political changes. It is the "inner man" that must renewed. Frankly, I have the very long history of Man to support my premise, not to mention on the good authority of the bible, as well. Conversely, many well-intentioned and even "spiritually-minded" folks have built their premise and subsequent hopes on little more than wishful thinking.

But what I'll try to do is find a summary of his book somewhere on the Web; and if I do, I'll get back to you.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

SoCal: please do provide more about the Hawkins book you're currently reading. Im interested since he definitely provides thought provoking ideas and also since I started but never finished "Power v. Force" perhaps your feedback would motivate me to pick it up and finish it.

Boxcar: regarding spirituality and technological advancement, would you agree or disagree the current state of affairs is not too different than the so called Middle Ages?

[so.cal.fan]

DJ
Hawkins is no easy read.......I have a set of audio CDs where he discusses Truth vs Falsehood. I first listened to those about 4 times......then I bought the book and read it, not easy.
I have a friend who holds a Ph.D from Stanford U in history......I bought her a copy for Christmas....it's no easy read for her, although she only had to read it once.....I'll be reading it over and over. Each time, I pick up a little more.
He has a website. www.veritaspub.com

[Suff]

No Suff - personal experience talking, not wishful political thinking. I hate to break it to you, there are not too many self described liberals in today's military. Of those who afiliate with a political party it is at least 2-1 Republican. what?

From the Military Times









Troops sound off






Military Times Poll finds high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort


Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.


Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.











http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php

As I have said before. I don't need a crowd to stand on a spot. I form my opinions regardless of what polls, or shift in sentiment is. I only post this for your information. That in fact, your perception of where veterans and current enlistees stand is not what you or others, may think.

[Tom]

DJ
Hawkins is no easy read.......I have a set of audio CDs where he discusses Truth vs Falsehood. I first listened to those about 4 times......then I bought the book and read it, not easy.
I have a friend who holds a Ph.D from Stanford U in history......I bought her a copy for Christmas....it's no easy read for her, although she only had to read it once.....I'll be reading it over and over. Each time, I pick up a little more.
He has a website. www.veritaspub.com (http://www.veritaspub.com)

Kind of like trying to read Derek's posts, eh Diane? :lol:

Happy NewYear. Thanks for the book tip. I'll give it a look-see.

[46zilzal]

going to look for that book a the local library

[boxcar]

Boxcar: regarding spirituality and technological advancement, would you agree or disagree the current state of affairs is not too different than the so called Middle Ages?

The way you have worded your question, I would have to say, agree and disagree, respectively.

With the respect to "spirituality", if you agree, then Man hasn't evolved very much, has he? In which case, this would support the point I made earlier about spiritual evolution, so-called.

Regarding technology, Man, today, is far more advanced, and is now capable of wreaking global destruction with just several pushes of the button -- something I don't think Medieval knights could do. :)

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Tom,

I was just reading an old thread, and there was Derek, making good points and getting vilified. Something to do with stocks and/or the economy, I think. Anyway, I miss the old handy-crapper. :(

[lsbets]

Suff - where does that poll have anything to do with what I said about those in the military who affiliate themselves with a poltical party? Umm, it doesn't. You posturing yourself as knowing military attitudes better than I is laughable to be kind. Another gurantee - I talk to more "veterans and current enlistees" to use your term in a week than you will in a year. I know you hate to admit it, but members of the military, by and large, tend to be more conservative than the rest of society. I don't know why that is - maybe it comes from seeing reality up close and personal, maybe it comes from learning what values and integrity really mean, or maybe its the more conservative personality who is more apt to volunteer. But by any measure, members of the military tend to be more conservative than society at large.

[toetoe]

LS,

No circumspect individual would "hate to admit that," nor SHOULD anyone hate to admit it. Maybe he would tread very lightly if he discovered a trend like that. Sometimes, SOMEtimes, when we generalize, we can really do some damage, regardless of which "side" we're on.

[toetoe]

Oops. I now see that Suff started it, kinda. This smilie says it all. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[lsbets]

Toe - I like needling Suff. Especially since he still hasn't shown up in Dallas now that he's practically a neighbor. I honestly believe that most people who describe themselves as liberal are just as patriotic and courageous as anyone who describes themselves as conservatives. I also believe that the liberal leadership in this country is a disgrace.

My opinion on why folks in the military tend to be more conservative? Rules. Having to live by rules and a code of ethics and the perception that those are two things that liberals hate (again I will say I don't think most liberals hate those things, but I think much of the liberal leadership does and that is the perception that they spread). And also realizing that actions have consequences - our society tends to be one where there are too few consequences for people's actions. In the military there is a consequence for every action you do - both good and bad.

[Suff]

[QUOTE=lsbets]Suff - where does that poll have anything to do with what I said about those in the military who affiliate themselves with a poltical party? Umm,
it doesn't.

It says that roughly half of the Military people polled do not support Bush. Thats what it says. They can support McCain for all I know. Or a Democrat. Likely a moderate or another Republican.


You posturing yourself as knowing military attitudes better than I is laughable to be kind. Another gurantee - I talk to more "veterans and current enlistees" to use your term in a week than you will in a year.


As you know, I'm in New Orleans. As are many National Gaurd Troops that have been in Iraq as recently as last month. I talk with them everyday. I have some great snapshots of me with National Gaurdsmen from all over America. The Majority that I have spoken to support the war. I'm not sure its an environment of openness for those that don't. However I do speak with Combat veterans multiple times a week. And at length.

I signed on the dotted line. I served. 2 years abroad, 2 years Domestic. I have as much right as any to interpret Military events as I see fit.

But more importantly, I said the post was for yor information only. It does not insinuate I hold any authority over you or anyone else on Military Poltical persuasion.


I know you hate to admit it, but members of the military, by and large, tend to be more conservative than the rest of society. I don't know why that is - maybe it comes from seeing reality up close and personal, maybe it comes from learning what values and integrity really mean, or maybe its the more conservative personality who is more apt to volunteer. But by any measure, members of the military tend to be more conservative than society at large.

Or perhaps from indoctrination. As we both know. The Military is not a Democracy, it protects one. Regardless, I assume Military personel are more conservative for a variety of reasons. However Bush is far from a Conservative President on a whole lot of issues. Spending & Small Govt among the top two.

I again refer you to the who served list and the current list of announced congressional canditates. The Democrats have a strong edge in both. So perhaps your thesis on seeing it up close & Values/Integrity are more aptly applied to them.

[Tom]

Tom,

I was just reading an old thread, and there was Derek, making good points and getting vilified. Something to do with stocks and/or the economy, I think. Anyway, I miss the old handy-crapper. :(

I liked Derek/Kreed. He was the only one who speeled worse tham ne. :rolleyes:

[toetoe]

Suff's mention of the relations between the military and the people piqued my interest. I remember hearing somewhere that in the U.S., we have a wonderful rapport with our military, and thank God for that. Many countries have armies that rule through fear, and intervene in private life. I'm happy to say that "Seven Days In May" has a plot that is far-, far-fetched, being set in the U.S. Great book/movie, though.

I keep returning to RFK's quote when I try to define "liberal" and "conservative." He said, and I paraphrase, "Some (well-behaved liberals) see things that are, and wonder why. I (flaming, busybody, liberal true believer) see things that are not, and wonder why not." I guess a conservative sees things that are, and, assuming they're not egregious effronteries, he leaves them alone, giving credit, to any "victims" involved, for being big boys and girls that can deal with life's ups and downs.

[46zilzal]

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

[toetoe]

Thanks for finding that quote, which I paraphrased in my own hamhanded way.

[boxcar]

People insulated from dangers for generations can indulge themselves in the illusion that there are no dangers -- as much of Western Europe has. This is part of the "world opinion" that makes us hesitant to take any decisive action to prevent a nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of hate-filled fanatics.

Do not look for Europe to support any decisive action against Iran. But look for much of their intelligentsia, and much of our own intelligentsia as well, to be alert for any opportunity to wax morally superior if we do act.

They will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran's nuclear development sites. They will be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalence, such as: Other countries have nuclear weapons. Why not Iran?

Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives. The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal.

This could well shape up as the biggest debate/issue of the year. I think Sowell has nailed what the essence of the objections will be. I can hear the libs already: "Bush lied to Americans about WMD's in Iraq." Bush lied to Americans about Iraq's nuclear program." Bush lied to Amercians about Saddam's ties to terrorists", etc, etc, etc. Of course, the punch line will be: "Do we dare trust him now with what he's telling us aobut Iran?"

For the full story:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/01/02/180776.html

Boxcar

[Overlay]

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

The original quote was from George Bernard Shaw. (I don't know whether RFK attributed it when he used it or not.)

[JustRalph]

If Iran doesn't drop the Nuke crap...........Israel will put and end to it for them, by late March...............or the U.S. will.............same difference different colored plane................

[toetoe]

Thanks, Overlay. Stay tuned for the Irish take on WWII, "Shavian Private O'Ryan."

Boxcar, I agree that the Bushy business is irrelevant to the Iranian threat. And when we take care of bidniz over there, no need to be especially discriminate. After all, one man's Mede is another man's Persian.

[boxcar]

If Iran doesn't drop the Nuke crap...........Israel will put and end to it for them, by late March...............or the U.S. will.............same difference different colored plane................

We got away with flushing Saddam down the toilet while Europe (especially France) just stood by and watched their cash cow drown in his own crap. Don't know, though, if Russia would let us or Israel subject them to the same humiliation if we (or Israel) were to go after Iran.

Also, Iran isn't making the same mistake Iraq did with it's nuclear program. Unlike Iraq, Iran has multiple sites underground, according to what I've been hearing and reading. If this is true, this would make a suprise tactical strike by any nation just about impossible.

Boxcar

[falconridge]

The original quote was from George Bernard Shaw. (I don't know whether RFK attributed it when he used it or not.)The source is a dialogue between Eve and the hooded serpent in the Irish playwright's "Back to Methuselah." I doubt RFK ever disclosed the origin, if indeed he knew it. While the context might seem improbable as a well-spring for the kind of visionary idealist oratory with which Kennedy meant to inspire his followers, let us remember that, in "Paradise Lost," Satan's poetry altogether eclipses Jesus'. The scene:

"THE SERPENT. The serpent never dies. Some day you shall see me come out of this beautiful skin, a new snake with a new and lovelier skin. That is birth.

EVE. I have seen that. It is wonderful.

THE SERPENT. If I can do that, what can I not do? I tell you I am very subtle. When you and Adam talk, I hear you say 'Why?' Always 'Why?' You see things; and you say 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' I made the word dead to describe my old skin that I cast when I am renewed. I call that renewal being born.

EVE. Born is a beautiful word.

THE SERPENT. Why not be born again and again as I am, new and beautiful every time?"

Find the name of the Breeders Cup Sprint champion imbedded in the above passage, and win a cigarette butt certified to have been smoked by should-be-in-the-Hall-of-Fame trainer Mel Stute.

46zilzal, I do wish you had acknowledged your source in your latest post in this thread. All of the words that appear in said post, including those that precede the colon, were spoken in St. Patrick's Cathedral, June 8, 1968, by Senator Edward Kennedy at the conclusion of his eulogy for his brother Robert.

[46zilzal]

just Google Robert Kennedy's eulogy and there it will be.

[DJofSD]

I made the word dead to describe my old skin that I cast when I am renewed. I call that renewal being born.

Only having seen the movie "The Silence of the Lambs" I wonder if there's a parallel there?

[falconridge]

Only having seen the movie "The Silence of the Lambs" I wonder if there's a parallel there?Intriguing thought, DJ. I haven't read the Thomas Harris novel, either, but I shouldn't be at all surprised if there were a connection.

[toetoe]

You are SO SO subtle. You coulda been born astute, I mean a Stute. I had to bet High Brite at 97-to1 and watch him run fifth. Stute's charge, you-know-who, paid 37 and change, I think. Nice touch with the Mel reference.