Leave a Comment

5 Comments

  • I am for the government following the law, and interpreting the constitution. It is appalling to me that we can allow the government to interpret the bible. Morals often make bad laws. If people were conservative within themselves, and liberal towards others, we would than fit the true mold of the Christian way of life. We should not be examining our brothers eyes to determine where his mote is, but we should be in ever self reflection of where our own mote is. I am against the government denying any right benevolent/malevolent, that does not infringe on the rights of others. The government is meant to be an instrument of the people. A balance between rights.

    I say let the wicked do wickedly, and the just do just as it says in the scriptures, and let God be judge. People must be free not only to make the right choices, but also to make the wrong ones, anything else, is in violation of free will. The government’s main objective should be to weigh rights, to make sure one’s rights, do not eclipse another’s rights. So let the gambler gamble, let the harlot be a senator. Let me clean my own room, and I shall reserve judgment to God.

    This is why the war on drugs will never be won, it is why there will always be abortions, war, crime, hate, and injustice. Hypocrisy, thy name is human!

    Physician Heal Thyself
    Do not prejudge a man on trial,
    that you should judge your self.
    For one shall say who’s healthy,
    the one in perfect health.

    Do not say they’re ugly,
    or ugly you’ll become.
    and If you say they’re stupid,
    why, you should be so dumb.

    Do not say you’re humble
    or no more shall you be.
    And do not say “they must be blind!”
    that you your self may see!

    Do not think I’m wiser,
    because these things I teach.
    I should be so wise,
    that I might practice what I preach!

    John Erick Stanley

    Copyright ©2006 John Erick Stanley

  • Martin, I agree with you on Soros, but sometimes one must hold one’s nose and work with those with which you might not wholly agree to get something good done.
    I am against state sponsered gambling, and have worked with folks with whom I politically at the opposite of most of their beliefs.

  • I’ve always felt uneasy about American politics interpreting the left-right divide by the basically ideological antipodes of Conservative and Liberal. Right-left should be a question about conservative vs. progressive. Liberal vs. Conservative is only a proper juxtaposition in the idelogolical realm, e.g. in dogmatical theology, – where it may be misleading too, nevertheless. – Applied to politics, I’d say that translating “the Left” with “liberalism” means finally to reduce on part of the two effective social forces, whose effective interplay is indispensable for a proper functioning of a democratic society, with the ideological resource that such a force primarily (! – but not exclusively) makes use of.

    It is just as if you set out to regularly address the Right, conservatism, by calling it fundamentalism. There is a considerable step of radicalisation implied in the very structure of American political language. No wonder, then, that the real discussion gets so imflamed whenever the word “liberalism” crops up.

    ——————————————

    Again, that doesn’t mean, as I say this from a European background, that our nations, esp. Germany, would manage the problem any better. The Left is ill-defined, and therefore politically paralyzed, all over the western world. With us, Right-Left is equated with the “capitalism” vs. “socialism” paradigm of (false) antipodes.

    Whereby an American must take into account that “capitalism” with us has another connotation as in American usage; it is less the natural lifestyle of freedom in economic affairs (which would translate into “liberal” or ‘pertaining to market economy’ with us), and more of the ideological framework of cobdenism and exploitation, – specifically)

    ——————————————

    So, in order to go back to pristine grounds of thought, and a little more in touch with the Bible, I’d say, that in the last resort, there are only two kinds of ways to ideologically take your stance to the world and society:

    There are those who take the liberty for themselves and go conservatively with the needs and freedoms of others, and there are those who are conservative in self-indulgence and liberal with their faith and trust in others.

    My opinion of Soros is very negative. In my eyes, he is the epitome of a person who is liberal in ideology, but exerting a very, very conservative, even reactionary influence on broad society. You do not liberate society of its real fetters by radicalizing it and dividing it morally. With this in mind, it doesn’t matter how much influence he really has compared to conservative (fundamentalist ?!) ideologues. He does not make use of the power he has by denouncing the conservative power machine (which the media are in their aggregate); he finally invigorates the very foundations of the (contra-constitutional) rule of money afflicting America and the world.

    So, Soros’ liberal media are confined within the horizon of the conservative interests of their proprietor, just as Larry’s quote said.

    ——————————————

    The founder or “genius” of modern American liberalism, by the way, was, according to encyclopedia, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet there is a marked hesitancy on the part of such Democrats who are trying to reassert in party and country an effective, vigorous Left against espousing those traditions for which that president, specifically, stood. Part of the reason for that, I think, I have given above.

    Yet it is the practical work for social liberty accomplished by FDR’s New Deal, not the ideological and moral divisiveness of a Left defined as pure and wholly “liberal”, which will, or will not, heal the presently exacerbating severe crisis in American society and beyond.

  • They own the majority of the media? Give me hard numbers, please. Keep in mind, one can have one’s own opnion, but not one’s own facts!

  • I guess you must think that George Soros and Ted Turner are conservatives then right? You might want to read some of the things that they have said, because they are not conservatives and they own a vast majority of the media.

Share
Share
Tweet
+1
Pin