The Difference

[handy]

One Difference Among the Candidates

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Lew Rockwell

[ubaru]

What a great graphic. Now just add O'bomba's photo in there among the war mongrels and the picture will be more complete. Or to make it even clearer, O'bomba and all the Republican candidates are puppets for the ruling elite's agenda of endless war. Except for Ron Paul.

Vote out the bankster corporate elite. Vote in Ron Paul!

One Difference Among the Candidates

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Lew Rockwell

[forveterans49]

Ron Paul is nothing more than a racist that would tear down everything this government has at the moment. He may say a couple things that many people agree with but, he is still a racist and a dangerous person! I, personally, wouldn't vote for him if he was the last person to vote for.

What a great graphic. Now just add O'bomba's photo in there among the war mongrels and the picture will be more complete. Or to make it even clearer, O'bomba and all the Republican candidates are puppets for the ruling elite's agenda of endless war. Except for Ron Paul.

Vote out the bankster corporate elite. Vote in Ron Paul!

[handy]

Ron Paul is nothing more than a racist that would tear down everything this government has at the moment. He may say a couple things that many people agree with but, he is still a racist and a dangerous person! I, personally, wouldn't vote for him if he was the last person to vote for.

What... Are you afraid we might decide to stop being the most murderous culture on the planet?

The desperation of your name calling would be amusing, if it was't so sad.

As a veteran (4/66 - 4/70) in VietNam (6/67 - 3/69) I would question the validity of your handle "forveterans49".
I call cow sh1t (as distinguished from bull sh1t).

Of course, if you think we should continue being cop, judge and executioner to the rest of the world, then carry on, and good luck with that.

What goes around, comes around.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Bounce or break.

With whatever, if any, due respect,
Best regards,

[theindependenteye]

Dear Handy--

A great many of us are against the wars and against many aspects of American foreign policy. Some of us, though, don't see that as the sole and only issue in the current political spectrum. We could find many people in the psych ward who would agree with Mr. Paul and, for that matter, with some of my own opinions, but I wouldn't necessarily vote them for President.

-Conrad

[handy]

Dear Handy--

A great many of us are against the wars and against many aspects of American foreign policy. Some of us, though, don't see that as the sole and only issue in the current political spectrum. We could find many people in the psych ward who would agree with Mr. Paul and, for that matter, with some of my own opinions, but I wouldn't necessarily vote them for President.

-Conrad

Hi Conrad,

Call me crazy, but I do truly believe that, until we cure ourselves (spontaneous remission?) of the vicious, arrogant, psychopathic belief that we have the right to attack and kill anyone anywhere, whenever we want, we have no chance of improving quality of life here. We are utterly incapable of self- or societal improvement when we are stuck with such an attitude as baseline. First, stop killing. Then betterment can begin. Or we can defend the status quo, and continue the rotting within that comes out of our complicity and acceptance of such behavior by our "leaders".

What goes around, comes around.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And the flipside: As you do unto others, expect them to do unto you.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
Bounce or break.

The human commonality which truly 'binds together-again' (re- ligion) is ignorance.
We are born ignorant and curious.
Each time we manage to answer a question, we discover a whole new set of potential experiences, Of Which We Are Ignorant!
We die; hopefully, wiser, perhaps even knowledgeable in a subject or three, but still, ignorant.

Stupidity, on the other hand, is a learned condition. The refusal to learn will hurt us.

Hope is what losers do. Change is a given. Change is normal.
If you want to change direction rapidly (or less painfully), you gotta slow wa-a-ay down.

Be humble before Mystery.
Enjoy wondrous and awesome days.

Best regards,

ooh ooh
Just came across the fitting quote:

“The working masses of men and women, they and they alone, are responsible for everything that takes place, the good things and the bad things. True enough, they suffer most from a war, but it is their apathy, craving for authority, etc., that is most responsible for making wars possible. It follows of necessity from this responsibility that the working masses of men and women, they and they alone, are capable of establishing lasting peace.” – Wilhelm Reich

[theindependenteye]

>>>Call me crazy, but I do truly believe that, until we cure ourselves (spontaneous remission?) of the vicious, arrogant, psychopathic belief that we have the right to attack and kill anyone anywhere, whenever we want, we have no chance of improving quality of life here.

Agreed.

>>>What goes around, comes around. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And the flipside: As you do unto others, expect them to do unto you.

Agreed.

>>>The human commonality which truly 'binds together-again' (re- ligion) is ignorance. We are born ignorant and curious.
Each time we manage to answer a question, we discover a whole new set of potential experiences, Of Which We Are Ignorant! We die; hopefully, wiser, perhaps even knowledgeable in a subject or three, but still, ignorant. Stupidity, on the other hand, is a learned condition. The refusal to learn will hurt us.

Agreed. And the rest of it too. I think the difference in our headpiece-activity is in the first-this-then-that logic that implies that if a candidate is against War, all else is irrelevant. That's what I understand you to imply, anyway. For me, war is one tool of economic and political forces, belief systems, etc., that are very much intertwined and fuel each other. I share a lot of your core beliefs, probably, but I don't think the Messiah has appeared on the horizon quite yet.

Cheers—
Conrad

[handy]

I think the difference in our headpiece-activity is in the first-this-then-that logic that implies that if a candidate is against War, all else is irrelevant. That's what I understand you to imply, anyway. For me, war is one tool of economic and political forces, belief systems, etc., that are very much intertwined and fuel each other. I share a lot of your core beliefs, probably, but I don't think the Messiah has appeared on the horizon quite yet.

Cheers—
Conrad

You misunderstand. All else is Not irrelevant. All else is Secondary.
Yes, war is a tool. We have not declared war. We have claimed the right to mass murder.
Given most of what passes for discussion here, I thought the messiah was in office.
I'll vote for the nearest thing to an honest man, rather than "the lesser of two evils".
And I'll sleep with a clear conscience, rather than with the knowledge that I am complicit accessory to war crimes.

If you want to change the output of a system, you have to change the design of the system.

Sleep well.

[podfish]

....until we cure ourselves (spontaneous remission?) of the vicious, arrogant, psychopathic belief that we have the right to attack and kill anyone anywhere, whenever we want,...

that trivializes the issue. They type of psychopathy that allows one to kill at whim is rare if it exists at all. Unless you meant something a bit different: there is never a right to kill anyone anywhere for any reason. That's a legitimate argument but it's not as obvious as the one that you can't just snuff anyone you please without cause. The "right" to the use of violence by governments is a well-established historical principle. It's used in law enforcement and national defense, both of which can be seen as legitimate protection of the population. So is the argument about its appropriate limits, or do you think the use of violence should be totally foresworn?

It's pretty clear that the U.S. government is all too ready to kill and imprison. Taking the argument all the way to the extremes, saying there's no governmental right to use force, pretty much cuts out any discussion of how to define parameters for its legitimate use. For those who honestly feel it's their task to deal with (weird that the word's been hijacked so that I hate to use it) terrorist threats, they write you off as a Pollyanna if you truly advocate absolute state non-violence.

[handy]

[QUOTE=podfish;147801]that trivializes the issue.

So mass murder is merely trivial...

>>>They type of psychopathy that allows one to kill at whim is rare if it exists at all.

Korea, VietNam, Panama, Grenada, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya.... yeah, rare...

>>>Unless you meant something a bit different: there is never a right to kill anyone anywhere for any reason.

You always have the right to self defense.

>>>That's a legitimate argument but it's not as obvious as the one that you can't just snuff anyone you please without cause.

Self defense is always legitimate. INITIATION of violence is not.

>>>The "right" to the use of violence by governments is a well-established historical principle.

Well established by government elites, and inculcated in government indoctrination centers (public schools).

>>>It's used in law enforcement and national defense, both of which can be seen as legitimate protection of the population.

Do you see the murder of Jeremiah Chass as a "legitimate protection" of the population of Sebastopol?

>>>So is the argument about its appropriate limits, or do you think the use of violence should be totally foresworn?

The INITIATION of violence should be totally foresworn.

>>>It's pretty clear that the U.S. government is all too ready to kill and imprison.

Picked right up on that, did you? Good for you.

>>>Taking the argument all the way to the extremes, saying there's no governmental right to use force, pretty much cuts out any discussion of how to define parameters for its legitimate use.

I never said there's no governmental right to use force. I said war must be constitutionally declared. We seem not to do that anymore, and that is a problem.

>>>For those who honestly feel it's their task to deal with (weird that the word's been hijacked so that I hate to use it) terrorist threats, they write you off as a Pollyanna if you truly advocate absolute state non-violence.

So call call me Pollyanna (I've been called worse). I don't advocate Absolute anything. I still hold that the Golden Rule is a legitimate guide for both personal behavior and foreign policy.