Arnold Schwarzenegger has been asking Washington politicians to act more like those in his own state, namely to put aside partisan politics and shmooze. He simply means that politicians socialize more with each other, regardless of party, and I agree. It is difficult to look at someone as your enemy when you know them on a personal level. It is even more difficult when you know that their goals are much more similar to yours than party lines would suggest.
I've been saying for quite some time the Republicans and Democrats are really no different from each other. At this point politics are all about corporate interests. Third parties will be our salvation, assuming that campaign reform is ever an option in Washington. Until then, we'll just have to pressure our politicians to try and get along. My preschoolers do a better job than they do.
3,188 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq
23,785 US soldiers have been wounded in Iraq
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
So you think that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and others who have called Bush a liar, the worst president ever, or imcompetent should have a folksy luncheon together and chuckle over the political games that are being played? That's about as naive an approach that would probably only work with pre-schoolers.
I think it is best for political opponents to defeat each other based on the substance of the positions or arguments, not political cheapshots that have no evidence, or create political cover that hides past political action that may be damaging, say, prior to 9/11, the tremendous amount of Democrats who were in favor of eliminating Saddam. This would be prior to Bush coming in as president, and yes, that would be while Bill Clinton was president then and who was the first to "lie" to the Congress and the American people about Saddam's weapons capability.
Though you are free to your opinion, so am I, which brings me to say that your analogy to the pre-schoolers is way off base. I do agree with you that there ought to be much greater amounts of dialogue between parties, not so much as they are the same, but that they are so different. Perhaps the political games are similar, but the political positions are certainly NOT the same.
If you look at Bush and how much he has tried to accommodate the left in his policies (which I'm sure you will not, unless you shock me), it is Bush who has been holding out the olive branch to the Democrats. But you know, Gore should have been president, so how could anyone forgive Bush?
Gee, your little suggestion doesn't sound so easy, does it?
rotflmao!
This is priceless, "If you look at Bush and how much he has tried to accommodate the left in his policies (which I'm sure you will not, unless you shock me), it is Bush who has been holding out the olive branch to the Democrats."
UL - try xanax. Your world is too dark and ugly.
Dude, way to turn something positive into something negative.
CY and UWL:
haha way to respond to what UL actually brought up.
oh wait. That's right.
You didn't.
And is it really a "positive" thing to just pretend that everything is peachy keen when political adversaries have railed against one another's integrity, but of course not the real issues at hand. Blind hatred cannot be ignored in any venue. And until such things are resolved at the root- not just the absence of open conflict- only then will socializing be truly sincere and authentic.
Basically, shmoozing is more harmful than beneficial because it is by nature fake.
CY:
Nah.
So let me get this straight, "He called me names. So, I must hate him forever." Yeah, a real solution...
Aren't you people supposed to be christians? Aren't you soppused to love your enemy?
I would pull out the hypocrisy card but then you might not want to schmooze with me.
Wingers.....wtf?
Love your enemies? Yes. Act like complete idiots when those who are enemies say some magic "happy" words and all of a sudden be pals? Nope.
CY, I think you have this REALLY distorted view of "love of enemy." I wonder if you hold to it so as to debunk it.
Not very christian of you... Did christ say to judge them by their acts...
YES! Use 'righteous judgment...
"You will know them by their fruit..."
Come on, CY. Dust off that big ol' Bible on your shelf and read man, read! Jesus doesn't ask us to be wussies. We are to do what HE did. When the religious leaders acted hypocritical, or were propagating dangerous doctrines that were leading people away from God, Christ stepped in. He called them snakes, vipers, whitewashed tombs, hypocrites...
I think the Christ you have in mind is a "wussie Christ," which is no Christ at all. Christ has true grit. He tells it straight. If people act like enemies, then they are enemies.
Let me suggest something to you...without going to any evangofascist tradition, get yourself a Catholic Catechism, which describes the true faith of your youth, and begin to read about Christ in it. It is divided according to the Apostle's Creed. It has a very large section beginning with paragraph #422-682. Just read it and let it soak in. Dismiss the fundie notions for now and look at how the Church depicts Christ in the tradition He established.
I see your good intent, CY, I really do. You've been bombarded by evangonistas so much, like UWL, that your avoiding the TRUE Jesus Christ. You'll understand why not all Christians are half-baked. There are quite a few of us that believe and have our feet on solid ground; something I think you'd appreciate.
Cranky said:
So let me get this straight, "He called me names. So, I must hate him forever."
No, it's more like, "He curses the very air I breath. No matter what I do, even if what I do is a great benefit, this guy is going to hate me forever not only because of what I believe, but also because I try to act accordingly."
Notice the phrase I used earlier- Blind Hatred- there's no real reason for it other than for the sake of hating not based on actual circumstances...
It takes two to tango. Unless both parties truly want to bridge the social gap, it won't happen. ("Truly" as in not trying to use angelic deception to take advantage of the other.) It would be kinda like trying to blow down a house... with a paper fan.
and yes... to answer your wonderful red herring of a rant... I am indeed a Christian. Loving your enemy is not trying to get your enemy to love you. In fact, Christ describes it like heaping burning coals on their head. Gotta love metaphors, huh?
"You just lobbed scorching objects at my head. YESSSSSS!"
I can so see that happening.
Let me start with this: I have a full time job and a 6 month old baby. I had meant to write more later that day, but the day got away from me and I didn't get the chance to. Still, turning something positive into something negative is something I have seen UL do over and over again.
Now, into the meat of it. Whn two people are divorced, is it not best that they remain friends at least for the sake of the children? Doesn't that help in their future relations - to forgo bitterness and pettiness for the good of their shared interest? why, then, do we not require that our politicians do the same?
Yes, it could be said that Speaker Pelosi has said some "mean" things about the President. They would be more mean if they were untrue, but that's not really the point ot this post. The point is that they are both part of the Federal Givernment and for the sake of doing what's best for the country, it is bes that they put their personal feelings aside and try to get some actual work accomplished. In order for them to do that, they actually have to talk to each other. Talking to each other would be easier if they (and other politicians) got together on a social basis. It is hard to be partisan when you have to answer for it at a social event later in the evening. It is difficult to be nasty when you have to face the object of your ire in a committee meeting.
I think you'll notice that I didnt blame one party or the other for the mess we're in. In fact, both parties are to blame, and in order for them to figure out how to pull the country out of this quicksand, they have to all get along - at least for as long as it takes to make a decision.
And I'll add that if Bush is as much of a Christian as he claims to be, he'll turn the other cheek.
UL,TIB - But Christ was talking about real evil and real enemies. We are talking about people with differing opinions, differing world views who have to work together. While I may consider some on the right evil I will also gladly admit that is extreme and would hope our elected representatives would save the judgment of evil for where it belongs. Yes there are some truly evil people in our government and they are being filtered out slowly but surely.
But, if congressmen really do consider each other evil and the enemy than you are right and in fact they should by fighting each other to the death. If they do consider their opposition to be evil then they are duty bound to vanquish them.
There is no way one side is going to "vanquish" the other politically, especially in the Senate. Our constitution defines the Senate specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. They have to cooperate.
You say congressional opponents are hated enemies. Their rhetoric does not match. They claim to want bipartisanship. Our constitution does not match. It requires cooperation. Given those two points, your argument is moot and UWL is absolutely correct in that by socializing they may see a more human side of their opposition that is exposed in a non-partisan environment.
The way it is now, both side retreat into their partisan bubbles, emerging into the congressional chambers and airwaves to lob bombs at each other. Personally I would find it much harder to insult the person with whom I was having dinner.
By your logic the only time our government was effective was in the 1850's when they hated each other in congress to the point of physical violence.
btw - Nice how you guys cherry-pick Christ in order to put aside his message of love in this case. Religious people always do that. I wonder why? Did you notice how Christ let his enemies kill him?
Why are Americans looking at other Americans as thier enemies in the first place? Are we not all on the same side? Shouldn't our interest be in furthering our development, helping our citizens, and expanding our diplomatic contact with the world? If we have a verbal civil war going on within our government, how can we ever help each other?
CY:
Nice try.
1. Because someone is my true enemy does not imply that I vanquish him to the death. Wow. And on the same token, if someone acts as an enemy and desires my demise politically, socially, economically etc., I'm not going to act like we're all truly buddies. Do you really want Christians to be this naive? Why? So that you can add to your list of "why not to be a Christian" by saying what a bunch of naive idiots Christians are? Like I said before, you have a REAL lame idea of Christianity. You have conveniently created this viewpoint that is self-serving. Could it be you see that it works for you so that you can justify NOT BEING ONE? Just a question to make you ponder...
2. If the political environment is really as you say, just good people who simply disagree, then I can most definitely support dialogue. However, with the extreme rhetoric coming from Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Kucinich, et al, against Bush, one could say that they want Bush destroyed. Hardly a basis for a forum of disagreeing friends. This is the naive position.
3. Funny you should use the term "cherry pick." That is your modus operandi, my friend. Yes, Jesus said for us to love our enemies. Jesus actions during his passion and death exhibit that for us. However, his actions with the Pharisees, who were his enemies most definitely, also showed determined defiance in what they believed and how they treated the populace. This is also an act of love...TOUGH LOVE. This is hardly "cherry-picking;" this is sound exegesis that leaves your lame biblical reference to support a moronic "niceness" lying quivering on the highway.
Let's face it, CY, you haven't the capacity to judge Christianity per se, since you are not one nor do have any desire to BE one. You fail to release yourself to the claim Christ has on YOU to be his disciple. You shun it, you excuse it with blame towards the foibles and errors of those who try to follow him. Frankly, I think you are too chicken to try.
In essence, you have excused yourself from the entire discipleship of Christ other than to judge those who try. You find extreme examples and make them normative. You assume knowledge where there is none; you exalt your opinion of Christianity as the truth. You come out on top, and the pathetically deceived Christians come out as losers. You have, in essence, become the comfortable critic who risks nothing and exhibits no courage in condemning that which he completely misunderstands. Too me, that is a pathetic position. However, it is not an irreversable position.
I propose, no I dare you, to open a Catholic Cathechism and read it, and return to the true faith, not some watered-down cultural Catholicism like Sean Hannity's, which is NO Catholicism. I have confidence that deep inside you, you have the courage to do so. I even propose that had you the real Catholicism in your youth, with a host of great examples of Christians to support you like your precious grandmother, chances are, with your disposition and energy, you not only would have remained Catholic, but a devout and courageous one at that. The question is: are you man enough to meet the challenge and return to the real deal?
Standing and living the real discipleship of Christ will then give you the vision and compassion to properly speak to the foibles and errors that turn people away from Christ. Until then, your criticism is vapid and lacks substance.
UWL:
Thank you for your efforts to clarify your points to me. It helps. On the same token, if in fact the political situation were mendable by the parties "schmoozing" it up, I say they should go for it. However, I'm not so sure that the political atmosphere will lend to this. There is a "hate-Bush" agenda that is antithetical to your suggestion.
I too, am saddened by the rhetoric. However, it is in keeping with the cultural war that is in place. There is an anti-Christian agenda in place, and the Christians are not taking it. To "turn the other cheek" is a wonderful suggestion, but from those who wish Bush destroyed and Christians to disappear?
You don't like Bush. In fact you are sick and tired of the man, his policies. You have spilled vitriol against him on this blog. That is your right. However, to suggest a Christian turn the cheek only makes it easier to attack the man.
For that matter, Bush is hardly the attack dog people make him to be. Frankly, it's non-existent. I suggest that those who hate him quit being so judgmental.
If he would do something decent I wouldn't have to keep talking about all of the things he's done wrong. As it stands, he's pretty much the worst President in American history. Many Republicans have even jumped ship, mostly for political gain, but partly because his policies are so ignorant of the truth that it's just become ridiculous. I hate him. I do. I think he ruined the credibility of the strongest country in the history of the world. I think he took a once in a lifetime chance to unite our nation and squandered it. I think he's a liar and he has no interest in the people of this country unless they further his financial gain. He should be impeached. I've made my position clear.
Democrats and Republicans NOT on the Presidential level need to socialize in order to open up communication oportunities. They also need to be able to say that they disagree with someone, even the President, and call them out on their obvious lies. They SHOULD be holding each other accountable, not matter what the party. What I've been saying this whole time is that it is MUCH easier to hold each other accountable when you socialize with each other on a regular basis. How is this a bad thing for the American people???
The religious war in this country is not on Christians but on those who don't believe in Christ.
Oh, and I've added a counter for how many days, hours, minutes, and seconds there are until we are finally rid of President Bush.
Wow - UL, here is the rub. I don't believe Christ was divine. I'll ignore your taunts as they apply to my manhood since they are just that.
But enough about my lack of your brand of religion. I think I understand Christ a lot better than you.
I don't need a corrupt church, that is the largest criminal organization in history, run by sexual deviants, with a recent history of harboring the most vile criminals against the weakest among us to tell me how and what to think. Christ was a great teacher and I am able to read his message through two millennia of human interference.
To your point, to place $hrubco in the place of Jesus and Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid is the ultimate in hate. If you don't understand the difference between the politicians, Jesus and the Pharisees you are lost to your ideology. It is quite laughable.
Did you notice how I didn't take a political side in my previous post? I did that because I know that in the politics of today there are two players. You still, based on your warped world view, see the political opposition as someone worthy of your righteous Christian hate. People who don't conform to your indoctrination deserve to be hated and destroyed.
Just because the Catholic Church is your current flavor of the month does not give you the right to preach it to someone who was raise in it. You can never know the catholic church without having been a child in it. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
I may be anti-Bush, but Im also anti-political party. I have said over and over again that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and I'm never surprised when one of them is involved in some kind of scandal. It's the political system in general that I disagree with. Bush is my focus at the moment because he is in charge. If there were a Democratic President, I would be doing the same thing. I think anybody, and I mean ANYBODY would be better than Bush, except maybe top officials in his administration or those (republicans AND democrats) under the control of corporate interests. So, with that said, maybe it's time that I start writing in depth on the candidates for the Presidency. I'm not letting up on Global Warming, Education, and certainly not the Iraq War, but I will make an effort to show my well-rounded disgust for my system as a whole.
Cranky said:
"People who don't conform to your indoctrination deserve to be hated and destroyed."
Sir, I don't think you have the slightest idea of what we, those of the Christian faith, actually do when we disagree with someone. You seem to think that we have the same approach as the islamo-fascists we are currently at war with.
So what exactly are you interpreting as hatred from UL? Is this really hatred you are picking up, or are you only feeling the force of his argument against a very fluid idea of truth?
Please give some examples of this hatred. Let's sort this out, once and for all.
UWL:
Yes, please do write in depth about each candidate, maybe comparing/contrasting the words of these politicians and their voting records. Very close examination of each will be most beneficial, I'd think.
..."but I will make an effort to show my well-rounded disgust for my system as a whole."
What would be the best system? Is it currently the entire system that gets to you (I hope not), or is it only a few things here and there that need to be tweaked? Just curious...
UWL:
"The religious war in this country is not on Christians but on those who don't believe in Christ."
In what way, exactly?
TIB - Go back and read what I said. You missed the point. I was paraphrasing what he said a couple time times in this thread in reference to the Democrats. God forbid he criticize both parties. It isn't in his ability to see past his hate for liberals or anyone who doesn't fit his narrow world view.
You might want to go back and read his comment over the past 6 months to get a taste.
How can anyone honestly say that poor president bush is holding out olive branches and that evil bitch Nancy Pelosi wants to kill him (hyperbole mine) without looking through a lense of hate.
Innocent Bystander,
To explain the ways in which the religious war is on those who don't believe in Christ would take a series of posts, and I don't have the time at the moment. I will say, for now, that the "moral" values that tend to be (but are not entirely) conservative issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and euthenasia have such deep religious undertones and proponents of those issues suggest, quite often, that those that disagree are godless, immoral, etc... Honestly, I would like to answer your question more in depth, but that would take MUCH more time.
I have an idea on how I'd like to do the series on the Presidential candidtes, but your thoughts are appriciated. I will try to incorporate word/action comparison and analysis where possible. For example, there is only one person who voted against the Iraq war, but most Presidential Candidates who voted for it are now saying it's a mistake - which may give some indication as to how voters REALLY feel about the war as oppossed to what polls may say.
I think the two-party system is inherently flawed and not at all what the Founding Fathers intended. Washington spoke out against political parties. I believe they are a tool for raising money only, and propelling a candidate forward who has the best chance of achieving the parties objectives - making more money. I would love to eleiminate the party system as a whole, but for now I think the people need to back third parties, and especially campaign reform. I also feel that the electoral college is a huge obstacle in electing the President the PEOPLE actually want. There have been several elections in which the popular vote different from the electoral vote, and in those cases the voice of the people has definitely not been heard. It opens up the system to election fraud, like what has happened in the past two elections, and makes voters feel like the decision has been taken out of their hands. for more, I would again need to go into another series of posts, which may happen closer to the election.
Just to clarify not all Christians are bad people. Some understand his message others....not so much.
Cranky,
I was THRILLED to see this. Christianity is suppossed to be a religion of peace. I never understood why Christians are some of the largest supporters of the war. I think that unfortunately, many people equate supporting the war with supporting the troops, when in fact, they are doing the opposite.
..and TIB, you do really realize that the "heaping burning coals" quote you cherry pick out of context is Paul not Christ and translates to "kill them with kindness."
Here is the whole verse from the NAB "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Romans 12:20
UL does the same thing. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
CY:
Thank you for the correction. At the time, I was quoting from memory and obviously combined the passages into one in my mind. It's not something I'm entirely fond of doing.
Even so, looking back at my original comment, all I really did was quote Paul (who was quoting Proverbs) and say it was Jesus. How exactly was that "cherry picked out of context"?
The subject matter is still the same. The goal is still to defeat one's enemy. The question here seems to come to the method of doing so.
Out of context, huh? From what I can tell, it still fits. Please explain.
UWL:
We also didn't heed Washington when he warned against getting involved in European affairs. haha
I think I understand Christ a lot better than you.--the Cranky Yankee--
Hmmm. This ought to be good. You don't need "a corrupt Church." What do you choose to use besides this "corrupt Church's" bible to acquire all this knowledge of Jesus? If you happen to use John's Gospel for instance, you'll find numerous examples where Christ calls God his father, calls himself "I am" as in Exodus 3:14, and the Jews seek to kill him for he makes himself equal to God.
Now Cranky, get a grip here. I'm definitely challenging you to step up and be gutsy, which, if you read carefully, I assume the potential already exists; you just needs to exercise it and refuse cheap substitutes, such as the applause of CY sycophants. Unfortunately for you, you proclaim yourself an expert in areas of which you are largely ignorant. You make some rather grand claims that have a semblence of courage and edginess to the unschooled, but to those in the know, you are speaking folly.
I'm exiting now, and will allow you the last word. My challenge still stands: exercise some grit, step away from the computer for a time, grab a Catholic Catechism and read it. Choose the real deal rather than the imaginary applause inside your mind.
...like heaping burning coals...
I read that as the enemy may feel the burning pangs of shame in the love with which you receive his transgressions. Love is the first step on the road to redemption. The "enemy" is not to be defeated but rather redeemed. If he can see the error of his ways from the shame then healing (penance) can begin and if all goes well he is redeemed.
If that is your definition of defeat then maybe you guys ought to put down those catholic catechisms and read the bible through the eye of the skeptic, who believes Christ had a message that has been hidden and distorted in 2000 years of dogma. The trick is to filter out that which was place in holy books by men in order to control you.
You seem to be seeking clarification. That is a good sign. Just because a trusted figure tells you that a god said it does not make it so.
Back to the point - It seems idiotic to deny that political opponents may tone down the rhetoric if they socialized a little more. That mindset comes from the notion that staying within ones narrow world will protect them from the evil forces outside of it when in fact all it does is enforce ignorance.
CY:
I see. I should put down my catechism and stop seeking the advice of a "trusted figure." But, you'd rather I listen to someone as inspired as you? Are you the Pope now, the Pope of Skepticism? Are you error free in your judgment of Christ and who he is? I thought not.
I'm sorry. I was going to let you have the last word, but I renigged on that. You can now have the last word.
Why don't I take the last word. This post was supposed to be about finding ways for us to come together, as politicians or as Americans, in order to start doing some good for the country. As soon as any religious discussion was brought into it, everyone was so blinded by their hatred that you all forgot that we ARE NOT enemies. We are all on the same side, here, aren't we? Do we not all want what is best for the country? I'm all for religious discussion in its place, but WHY can't we put it aside when then good of our nation depends on it, especially politically. If people are polarized on issues, they cannot be fairly legislated, so forget about abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia, etc... and legislate and discuss things that we can ACTAULLY change - campaign reform, education, health care. I'm beginning to wonder if politicians WANT to polarize us on these issues so that they can avoid doing any actual work
OK, one last one. UL - the word is reneged. Your word, which I won't repeat, is deliciously Freudian.
UL - Please don't listen to me... Listen to no one. Search on your own. What do you fear? You might find a freedom you can live with that is not bathed in negativity.
People should learn to get along. This was a non-partisan post to which UL responded with an angry anti-left wing rant. I merely pointed out the his response and argument was not very christian. I do not have a blind hatred of all things religious. I do have a strong distaste for hypocrisy, especially from those claiming the higher moral ground...whatever that means.
Post a Comment