I too philosopher,
I was distracted by one point in one post, and my awe of an actual positive contribution to America by President Bush!
I was very rude to get off the topic of your thread!
Sorry.........
After review, your piece does bring thoughts of extremist actions within our country. I feel that you are right, our government does have certain checks and balances meant to prevent these groups from taking control.
One of these, which I am sure was merely a lucky coincidence, but has been working for years. Is that usually when we have a Democrat or a Republican President, Congress will have a majority of the polar opposite.
Unfortunately this is not always the case, as was the case with this administration until recently. It has happened before, I am aware, but with this group of Extremist the rule of law and the will of the people (majority) were thrown out the window.
They were through organization and deceitful planning, able to run this country to a dangerous place in history. I say organization and planning because I dont think it was by accident. I believe they were an opportunistic group of Extremist who saw a chance to capitalize on their agenda regardless of the wants and will of the people.
Oh I know, people will say they couldn't do it alone. I say the facts are there, they lied (deceit) to us, and to make sure members of the opposite party fell in line they orchestrated an elaborate lie for the records! It worked just long enough for them to entrench us as an occupational Army in the middle of another country's civil war, and create a mess than will probably take the next president 8 years to correct. It may prove an impossible task to correct even in that time, and some things may never be reversed!
Thank the checks and balances that they were reined in and not able to do more damage than they have already done. We the people, became aware of the deceit and voted to bring in more opposites, therefore reinserting the control. They may not get much done, but at least they aren't doing as much harm to our reputation in the world. To ensure another administration never tries this again, and to give any that might have an inclination to attempt it, I believe we need to hold these Extremist fully accountable to the law. It may be a bit "extreme", not to mention difficult, bad for the country's morale, and a little late to impeach them now, but with the changing of the guard the investigations should continue. When the key players that make a thorough investigation possible, are replaced I hope they prosecute the bastards to the fullest extent, and when they do I hope no one will pardon them!
I know you probably dont see the last 6 or so years as I do, but I do believe we have been under the control of the closest thing to Extreme forces this country has ever seen. I also believe you will agree this was on spot for your threads topic!!

Let me see if I get this right:

EXTREME = BAD
MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD = GOOD!

MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD (GOOD) = ‘… where ‘middle-of-the-road’ (average people/good people) run the show’, ‘…with average opinions’, conducting themselves as ‘… pretty nice people with open minds’, ‘… who care about fairness’,
‘… but maybe are not perfect’, ‘… generally with a tilt towards ethics and an intelligent manner of dealing with others’.

EXTREME (BAD) = “NOT ON THE SAME WAVELENGHT as the characteristics you use to define the GOOD countries (USA), as stated and established solemnly by the good people of the good country (USA) themselves”, whom happen to run the show in the eyes of the host of this post.

Well, seen in this light, I can understand how one would feel invested of the power to enforce ‘illegal’ actions, to disregard existing laws which exist as check and balance to prevent extreme decisions and action,
… simply because it doesn’t suit one’s ‘…average opinions, ‘open mind’, and ‘general tilt towards ethics’.

I can see how one would consider it perfectly natural to ‘intervene unilaterally’ and ‘covertly’ at that, in the affairs of sovereign nations, to force the installation of so-called MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD (good/ same wavelength as THE other middle-of-the-road nation (good), the USA of course.

Given this questionable logic, one would further justify this perversely self-serving line of thought with the following rethoric: ‘…It is in the interest of the United States, and the interest of the world to have moderates in positions of government helping to manage fair trade and peace’.

… of course, this implies managing fair trade and peace, in the exact manner that serves the interest of the ‘good, moderate, middle-of-the-road people of the USA’, and its very servile President, whom ‘… does not run this country on his own’ as intructed by a comment of the host.

But the question which remains so unanswered, (IMO), trying to get my get some sort of understanding of this ‘new-age’ (IMO) and most self-serving definition of ‘extreme’ and ‘midle-of-the-road’, is as follows:

When one, or a group of ‘ONES’, push their ‘middle-of-the-road’ ideologies in a manner as you suggest here ‘Philosopher’: covert actions and interference with the affairs of sovereign nations,

"ISN’T THAT THE DEFINITION OF EXTREME (everyone: look it up please)."

And given the ‘extreme’ number of such extreme actions that the USA has unilaterally chosen to intervene in throughout this past century, are the same USA, and its ‘good moderate people’ in a ‘… fair, ethical and intelligent’ position to call others ‘extremists’ ?!?!?

Footnote for thought:
If Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il are extremists, they are but the direct fabrication and product of ‘extreme’ very well documented US covert and illegal interventions in each of these three sovereign nations' affairs.

With all due respect to you personally, and with respect to your absolute privilege to express your views in exactly the manner you do ‘philosopher’, this “WE-GOOD” vs “THEM-BAD” paradigm of filtering everything is possibly the one dominant source by which we human beings justify our ‘barbaric’ actions against each other.

The limitations of this paradigm are so obvious, it hurts!!! If “WE-GOOD, THEM-BAD” from the US perspective, then it obviously becomes “THEY (other country) GOOD, WE (USA) BAD” from the perspective of other nations, to whom no one could deny seeing things through the same paradigm (good vs bad, to them), as we do.

On that basis, ‘philosopher’, I have to clearly register against your ‘extreme’ suggestion as a solution to forward TRUE fair trade, and TRUE peace, as you stated in your closing paragraph:

“… I particularly feel that using influence to overcome underground activities to place extremists in position should be considered. It is in the interest of the United States, and the interest of the world to have moderates in positions of government helping to manage fair trade and peace.”

IMO, “WE” all need to switch from
… our current complacency, bias perspectives, and half baked ego-centric so-called ethics, to…
… the inescapable reality that the “WE” is GLOBAL, and that “WE” is infinitely larger and more complex than the limiting, limited and self-centered “we” of any one single group (religion), or nation, imposing its perverse agenda (reasonable and moderate to them) to the world.

Voil-

Covert ops aside; in most senses and practices moderates are the only ones trying to avoid: us-good, them-bad charactorizations/modes of thinking.

In my opinion being a moderate is more about how can we do the most good in the most practical manner.

Our (the US) current president is not a moderate by any sense. Actually IMO he is the ultimate extremist- a dictator.

I so totally agree 'anoasis'!

You wrote:
"... moderates are the only ones trying to avoid: us-good, them-bad charactorizations/modes of thinking..."

And how do you run a 'democracy' of supposedly 'moderate' people whom consider that it is 'well thought out', 'well informed' and a 'MODERATE and reasonable act', to consider that it is time to 'install' 'moderate regimes' in other sovereign countries!!!

When words, terminology, fundamental concepts and values lose all their sense and rightful meaning, ... 'EMPIRES FALL'!!!

Thanks 'anoasis'! Your brilliant, intense, articulate and heart felt 'moderation' is exactly what this planet needs!!!

Voil-

You wrote:

"And how do you run a 'democracy' of supposedly 'moderate' people whom consider that it is 'well thought out', 'well informed' and a 'MODERATE and reasonable act', to consider that it is time to 'install' 'moderate regimes' in other sovereign countries!!!"

I don't think that most moderate do or would consider it a well thought out, reasonable, etc. act to interfere directly in the governing of other nations without serious provocation. I consider that any time a nation intercedes in the governing of another nation through force or paramilitary intervention that is an "extreme" act. Really it is the most extreme act possible by one nation towards another. Regardless of whether it is a declared war or other military action.

Not that it might not ever be (hypothetically) an overall beneficial thing for the people of that country or even the world in general to perpetrate such an act, but that to do so should be the very last resort... and it should only be taken with a well thought out plan and the support and participation of multiple nations, especially those in close geographic proximity. The only real, defensible reason for taking such a step in my mind would be 1) in defense of ones own nation or 2) to prevent genocide.

I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes not only because I feel that they are moraly wrong but because I think that they rarely ever achieve their goals... history has shown that such actions tend to inflame opponants and opposition rather than quelling it.

'anoasis',


Obviouslym this statement of mine did not come out as I intended:
'... And how do you run a 'democracy' of supposedly 'moderate' people...'

You replied:
'... I don't think that most moderate do or would consider it a well thought out, reasonable, etc...'

That was my point!!!

Real moderates such as yourself are capable of nuance, compassion, and slipping in other people's shoes. Making extreme acts such as mentionned, totally unacceptable.

The core part of the '... how do you run a democracy...' pointed to the delusional lot, the 'supposeddly 'moderate'. The ones going arond with the 'god' given conviction that they are the chosen ones, and whom rarely question their dogma. The ones whom take their extremes for moderation, and the legitimate correlate reaction of others as extreme. That 'kind of delusional 'middle-of-the road' (moderate in his mind) delusional character, bases is convictions solely on self intererest, and is as far from ethical and 'moderate' conduct as can be.

Is it a bit clearer???

Thanks Voil. It's crystal now. I was a little confused...

You didnt like my reply anoasis?

well words over words
we will see
the bushy guy is more into iraq and what his daddy says

Fanta-

I am so sorry I did not mean to leave you out. I was unaware of your sensitive nature. I will be more considerate in the future. (sigh) Boys are so fragile.

Fantas words: "I know you probably dont see the last 6 or so years as I do, but I do believe we have been under the control of the closest thing to Extreme forces this country has ever seen. I also believe you will agree this was on spot for your threads topic!!"

Yes, I agree it is an exteme force- I believe I called this regime a Dictatorship earlier today... can't remember if it was here or in another thread...

Oh and about the checks and balences provided by alternate party congressional controls- I'm a bit undecided on whether that is an overall benefit.

Yes it should and often does put a check on a President- which was the intent of having both anyway- but as you mentioned it also can slow progress in other areas...

Gee wouldn't it be nice if they were alternate parties that actually could work together to achieve common goals??

I guess I'm just a dreamer...

Me sensitive???? LMAO, Just with pretty girls!
I never could argue with one. That might come from having 4 older sisters to smack you around while growing up though!!

I'm a Dreamer too!!!!
Dream Big Girl, Dream Big!!!


TLW, yes we will have to wait and see! It says to be in place with-in 30 days! We will see, I'm not going to hold my breath that's for sure. Did you notice one of your home boys is the architect??

Fanta-

It's good to know you cannot argue with me...

Thanks... I will continue to dream- I never could resist listening to a Carolina boy (I got my BS at NCSU)...

white or black, good or bad.
are shades of the truth still the truth?
Christ said that you are either Hot or cold. he will spit you out of his mouth if you are lukewarm.

fanta must be the ONLY one in the military that loved Clinton. when the Clintonistas were in power, when they would visit any military post, they would be afforded only the most basic of military courtesy required for the president... nothing more.

Hey 'rambill',

"... white or black, good or bad.
are shades of the truth still the truth?..."

I forgive you my friend, but you're missing the point!!!

The truth may take different forms, but CONFUSION isn't one of them.

Christ would probably spit out those who confuse extremism with moderation and vice versa!!!

How's your Dad? Hope all is well.

Voileazur,
Looks to me like you are only looking at one side of the issue, which, as I see it, includes two sides. You seem to ignore that there are other countries with underground agendas. Overlooking that fact is complicit support for the covert activities of other countries. So complain as you want about the topic, but the reality is that there has to be a balance in things if you want the world to have a chance at moderation.

So essentially you see the United States as extremist if it acts to see to its own interests and the interests of a free, fair world managed with moderate views. You do not seem to have the same opinion of other countries when you are evaluating other countries with the same criteria. This indicates to me that either you are only critical of the United States, which I would take exception to, or that you honestly feel that all the other countries have clean hands in this respect, which I would consider ignorant.

As I have said I feel like there are some balances in our system, including a very active press which help to manage the extremists here. Many of these balances are missing in other countries.

You also read into my words that supporting moderation is intolerant of extremists which is therefore extremist. How convoluted is that? As far as I can tell, supporting moderation is not a genocidal philosophy. Take a breath and consider things from a moderate perspective.

Painting things in a good/bad light only is too simple. If you want to only consider things from that perspective the only person you are qualified to speak with is Bush. Good luck with that.

Take a few minutes to read the book "The Bell Curve" and apply the considerations there to international politics. That is the sort of perspective I am trying to suggest here. To me this is simply a matter of free thinking, ranging over a number of international issues.

Yes in some examples people with extreme views are right. I imagine the big fans of Nietzsche will argue that till hell freezes over that he is right. There is broad-based support for many extremist perspectives. But I would suggest that in spite of Nietzsche being right on some matters, it is easy to dislike both the man and the philosophy he suggests and you might not want him running your country. A little moderation goes a long ways.

I especially like the term you used "affairs of sovereign nations". You use the term as if there were not a lot of power hungry zealots trying to manage global dominance of natural resources and religion by means or terrorism and military expansion.

This is the point where I expect you would most likely say that the United States is the biggest example. If so, look back to a previous paragraph because you missed the point about ignorance. If you criticize the United States in this regard only and do not apportion a fair amount to other countries then you are promoting a self-serving propaganda. You could be a salesman, but I'm not buying. To whom is your loyalty?

Things are complicated and difficult in international relations. Consider the years of effort by Henry Kissinger and the tiny measure of progress he made. There were more forces at work there than just Kissinger trying to find peace agreements. If everybody wanted peace things would be easier. That's not the way things are.

There are moderates in every part of the world. They make up large percentages of the populations. If they manage things in general things could be quite a lot better. It is just an opinion anyway. Ignore it if you don't like it.

Rambill said,
fanta must be the ONLY one in the military that loved Clinton. when the Clintonistas were in power.

When? LMAO Where?

Never said it....
I never even voted for Clinton!
First time Clinton ran I voted for your daddy'd daddy!
The second time I voted for Dole!!

Clinton wasnt too bad though, he just had a funny way of smoking cigars!!!!

I didnt even serve when Clinton was president!!!
I shook hands with Reagan once though when he inspected us. I was in Germany.

Philosopher-

I know we have a "free press"- but to me it doesn't seem its been doing it's job for several years so I can't really agree that we currently have:

" a very active press which help to manage the extremists here."

In fact I think our press tends to encourage extremists/extremism whenever possible- the most possible drama, I guess, to get the best ratings.