Where is the Liberal Bandwagon? (God's Government)

I

Irishone21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
442
Location
Kingsville
A cooperative pledge to pursue altruistic governmental efforts, in addition to a discontinuation of military expenditures is imperative to the future existence of our planet. A Liberal, humanitarian agenda promoting and/or instituting disarmament, socialist-influenced capitalism, mutual desire to equalize economic prosperity of all nations, efforts to remove borders psychologically and view each other as brothers, efforts to remedy dichotomies by raising wages of laborers and creating limitations that guard against excessive avarice or giving law-abiding individuals additional income, a drastic universal decrease in military spending, simplification of the law, in addition to the a convergence of consensus’ between nations and states in the name of God, surrendering to the closest representation in which people can collectively arrive at God’s will or allowing temporary despotic power from within America that promulgates a more God-inspired policy, in which from this point forward, drops all past conflicts, and rises above the clout of prejudice, is the route we should follow, in addition to the goals that need to be stressed persistently, decisively and optimistically. This is the key to progression, and it is also admonition for dominant powers soaring confidently into devolution through paralyzing lack of international support, and the dwindling of finances into folly-inspired arms grants and developments, both technological and militaristic. I ensure, that in order to quell religious fervor and despondent insurrection, we must reach out to the hostile, announcing our commitment to compromise if the ultimate end is peace, which would in turn be victory for both sides. Considering minimal leadership, appeasement is likely to be the most effective and is undoubtedly the most just option we are faced with in the reconciliation of Iraq.
 
Werbung:
While I agree with much of your sentiments I will point out a few things. Firstly, this concept is not exactly liberal. Lets call it democratic instead. It also fails to take into account human nature, thier emotions and what motivates them and what doesnt. Throw in a little greed, envy, pride, laziness within the masses in any combination and you have people who dont want to be apart of it, or are cynical. I also dont agree with any concept of appeasement especially in the face of aggression. It has a bad historical track record of working out as intended. Diplomacy and free thinking and idea exchanging is an important part of human interaction. But buckling under threats is a bad idea.
 
Bunz said:
While I agree with much of your sentiments I will point out a few things. Firstly, this concept is not exactly liberal. Lets call it democratic instead. It also fails to take into account human nature, thier emotions and what motivates them and what doesnt. Throw in a little greed, envy, pride, laziness within the masses in any combination and you have people who dont want to be apart of it, or are cynical. I also dont agree with any concept of appeasement especially in the face of aggression. It has a bad historical track record of working out as intended. Diplomacy and free thinking and idea exchanging is an important part of human interaction. But buckling under threats is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
You my friend obviously have wisdom far beyond your years.
Utopia is a wonderful place. I've been there but strangely there were no people inhabiting this dreamland as humanity is nowhere close to accepting the terms of a Utopian society.

Has anyone been keeping tabs on the events in Iran? Irishone21, I'm sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agrees with you that disarmament is the way to go as long as it is us (the US) that is disarming and Iran's nuclear buildup is simply for um.......energy. Good luck with that while you're walking the streets of Utopia.

-Castle
 
Irish, does point out some nice thoughts and those sentiments are probably shared universally. The likes of Lincoln, MLK and Gandhi all were in power positions to change the thinking and move forward humanity from where it stood in thier times and places. While thier issues are varied, but noble nonetheless, the one thing these three men have in common was that someone disagreed with them to the point where they took a weapon and thier own personal agenda in hand and ended thier lives.
 
Is Iran about to invade us? Is anyone? With the fortune of having two oceans to insulate us from most invasions and our massive, expensive overkil capability, I believe we could halve our military expenditure and still be a threat to anyone who steps out of line elsewhere even if that was in defiance of George Washington's and Dwight David Eisenhower's counsel.
 
In a harmonious environment, nothing seems impossible, but in a contentious environments pressure inhibits virtue, and people are driven to pursue self-destructive, onerous paths against their will. US (or rather America, a more legitimate title) should be the first nation to initiate disarmament, for they are at the summit of power thus making them the artist of the present. Another reason we should initiate disarmament is we are most responsible for abusing military capabilities. Government’s primary or sole purpose is to ease the tensions of subject citizenry… when law renders tension as oppose to benefit it has become a violation of our rights. War is an excuse for negligence and refusal to change. So since “they” plan to keep stations across the world indefinitely, negligence to the people will be perpetual unless “we” make demands, which will be accomplished through military reluctance or rationalized civil disobedience, thus allying the people against the elite, and guaranteeing successful Revolution.


The more leaders that instill hopes in the masses for a more utopian lifestyle, while working to prevent lifestyles altercations of the wealthy, the closer utopia will be to becoming reality. Appeasement is the best expedient because of the lack of a strong central arbitrator in Iraq... We are appeasing people, not a ruthless dictator, therefore making it the most prudent decision. As for Osama, or whomever they assume holds power in Al Qaeda, we should begin to think about his motive, with is significantly more just than his action.

If I were to get assassinated for my beliefs, it would make me a martyr that desired change and/or mercy, but earned sacrifice.

I write because "they" listen.
 
No one has come to an agreement to pursue a Utopia, because the idea is shunned, with preconceived notions of the universality of a selfish, avaricious, human nature... People will come to terms with slight progressive changes that benefit the people... the key is to continue these slight improvements in policy... War obstructs this plan, and diverts domestic attention into looking abroad, in fear, occupied with work, and under no condition to begin pondering improvement or reformation, plus other impediment such as the conformity to an impersonal relationship in compensation of enormous populations that the people have with the government, and the limitation of the circulation of foreign and domestic policy information... The problem is, the only way to end this war, is by demanding reformation, not to disrupt strategy, but to alleviate strategy by separating us from the government thus altering the mentality of opposition on our nation as a while, providing the world with an innovative flow of ideas that might yield both international consent, and respite.
 
Appeals to the sanity of humanity: Pursuing the (or "a") good world

It is true that Utopias have their limits, but it is also true that humanity can be excessively divided by its own internal—ideologically driven—desire to rend the human fabric through revolution and dissension that far surpasses the necessary; humans have tremendous powers of aggression within them, but also tremendous resources for mitigating that agression; forums such as these provide a mechanism for civil discourse, but also allow for heated disagreement and passionate commitment to ideals;so I think you have much right in the goals we should work toward, but our expectations should always be tempered by a philosophy (always in flux, given environment, ideology, spirituality (not necessarily narrowly conceived, just that which is basic to our nature—for example, our desire to exist communally and to feel that our community is pursuing the closest proximity to the good (always debatable, always, therefore, subject to compromise and debate—after all, this is what makes America great. Unlike any other form of Government, we can debate the very meaning of Government, and we have the mechanism to change everything entirely, if necessary—which proves the brilliance of our Founders;but there are some, luckily not the majority of men or women, who glorify the bellicose side of man's nature, and thereby falsify it;we are capable of trmendous agression, but if that were all there were to us, we would not be here discussing these issues; that we are, shows our tremendous capacity for civility and compromise—always available to us, if we take enough distance to reflect and try to conserve what is best, but not be bound by a hidebound orthodoxy either: Progress and return—a future informed by the past, conservative, but progressive; we are already half way there!—another discussant told me you might be interested in reading my writings on Leo Strauss and our current governmental horizon: You may find them on myspace at the following link(read them with caution, they are ideas not fully developed and mostly probably misguided)—http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&friendID=287982265
 
Werbung:
If this were a speech, I would probably look down and say, "I love this guy". Very interesting post. I ask you, yet again, to work with me on our revolution.

Forgive me for the title of this article.
 
Back
Top