cregan commented on the blog post Russia Annexes Part Of Ukraine As President Obama Warns Of ‘Consequences’
What I love is the scene kind of like this–
IN the back ground, a house is on fire. The interviewer asks, “Are you concerned that arsonists no longer care what you say?”
Answer–”No, you see, those who try to say that don’t really understand the complexities of the situation…..”
Another house suddenly catches fire.
“…these arsonists completely know I mean business…”
The TV camera suddenly catches fire.
“…I’ve looked over our many options, and I feel we have the right posture. We are more respected by arsonists than ever before, despite what you people say.”
The street catches fire.
A truly great man.
There have been many people who have suffered greatly in their lives. There have been many other people who have overcome great odds to accomplish great things.
Neither of those two things made Mandela a great man.
What made him a great man and great political leader for all time was that he did something that no other leader probably has ever done. In the situation where revenge and bitter feelings would have been extremely understandable, and even expected, Mandela did what no other person would have done. Many have been inspired by Mandela, but none have resisted the base human emotions that Mandela did and thereby transcended human behavior and crossed over into the ages.
cregan commented on the blog post Ross Douthat’s Inaccurate And Misleading Response To Pope’s Critique Of Capitalism
Main thing is, “Who cares what the Pope says?”
“Polonius had a role in Hamlet.”
“You dope, Polonius did not say ‘To be or not to be?’”
Uh, I said he had a “role” in Hamlet.
Yeah, but, he didn’t build the sets.
Uh, I said he had a role in Hamlet.
It all about the children isn’t it? Not really. If you cared about the kid in that situation you’d DO something about it.
Like really look into the situation and find out the Dad’s an alcoholic and get him handled so you don’t have to go back and feed them again and again.
We talking about the source of the problem. Which as I said is a specific person doing or not doing a specific thing.
Giving the kid some food while you walk away and the kid is STILL in the situation is useless.
You really didn’t get it. What takes more work? 1. taking the time to find the real why for someone’s situation and helping them correct it and get on their way out, or 2. hand em a bowl of soup? Or a check?
Handing out a check is apathy. Handing out a bowl and saying, “See you next time you get hungry,” is pretty apathetic. It leads no where.
Now, if you want them to get nowhere, keep doing it.
I don’t work that way. I actually work to help people. Not sluff them off with money so I can feel good.
But, it’s pretty certain that people don’t mind that what they are doing isn’t working.
Be effective, don’t hand out sympathy and soup.
No, I wasn’t responsible, but some specific person with a name WAS. Certainly, no politician was responsible for it.
On the other hand, I could have told someone about it, a teacher, etc. to maybe start the ball rolling toward getting it handled.
Someone doing something they shouldn’t be doing, someone not doing something they should be doing.
What are you doing that you shouldn’t be doing?
What should you be doing that you are not doing?
What ought you be doing?
What don’t you want me to find out about you?
NO, you just misread or misunderstood what I said.
Same is still true, religious leaders can say whatever they want. Just don’t go around holding politicians to that religious standard.
Don’t go saying Nancy Pelosi should be pro life just because the leader of her religion thinks abortion is wrong.
Also, when I say “go back and trace it down and you will find the “why,” I should add this–
Once you find the why, you correct or fix THAT and the person will begin to recover for real. It isn’t a matter of, “Oh, too bad, you f’d up and it’s all your fault.”
Correct the wrong “why” and the problem never solves.
Hence, trillions spent trying to “solve” poverty, and the problem continues. The “solution” aims to correct the wrong why, same as replacing the battery in your car is not going to solve being out of gas. Put some gas in, and you’re off. Replace a million batteries and the car will never run.
Jesus was a religious leader, not a politician responsible to people of many different religions.
(though with politicians today “not responsible to anyone.”)
No, I’m not saying a pastor should not say what is on his mind and what he believes. Asking or requiring a politician to follow such is out of bounds.
Asking them to take it into account is certainly fine, but judging them against what some religious leader says is out of bounds to me.
Just like a conservative who rags on Nancy Pelosi about how her position on abortion is against her religion’s teachings. It is out of bounds.
You know what? I really don’t think you know what you are talking about. At least first hand.
I grew up in a very poor household. Not a house even, actually. We had pretty much nothing.
Was it “society” which caused it? No, how about a bottle a day drinking habit?
I myself became homeless later. It wasn’t until I quit blaming generalities and looked at myself that I was able to get out of it. And stay out of it.
It is easy, easy, easy, easy to blame some generality or some other person.
You trace it back, really trace it back and look, don’t listen, you will see the “why” in each case.
I once went, as part of a school program, to a state penitentiary one night a week for a few months. In talking to the inmates (and others noticed the exact same thing), EVERY one of them had a very Rube Goldberg story about how they didn’t actually commit the crime they were there for. EVERY one. The most odd thing ever. And, they all believed it.
So, I know how far people will work things around in their mind to arrive at a perfectly logical reason why they aren’t responsible for their situation. And, those who only see a fraction of their life will believe it, too.
Yes, a blog should allow people to express opinions, if sincerely held, of whatever type.
I’m only pointing out that using the Pope and praising the Pope only when he can help you score political points, but slamming him otherwise, isn’t too kosher.
You see, you are mixing religion and politics. You are trying to imply that a politician should act only in accordance with his religion or he is a hypocrit (sp). However, there is no mandate that every member of any group be in 100% conformance with every aspect of that group.
Popes, Rabbi’s and Mullah are going to say lots of things which will not be in conformance with what politician’s of any stripe will do. Should they be uncomfortable?
Well, when I find a perfect Pope, Mullah, Rabbie, Progressive or Tea Party member, maybe I’ll think the followers should also be perfect.
IN the mean time, political figures should act independently and not be feeling they must conform to some religious standard.
In the beginning, I was only pointing out that you were using the Pope.
I don’t go around saying Harvey Weinstein ought to feel bad about this or that because the head Rabbi says one thing or another.
This is like the guy who goofed off in class and never did homework complaining about the “greed of society” keeping him from having a job.
With a few exceptions, every one of these hunger issues can be traced to poor planning, lack of job, political system that demonizes people who provide jobs, personal out ethics, etc. etc.
A sane system would be one in which we say, “Hey, we need funds for feeding people, so we’re going to take a percentage from your income to help do it. But, in order to get the max benefit for these people possible, we are going to do everything possible to help you make as much money as possible.”
No, our system is, “We’re going to take a percentage from you to help others, but at the same time, we’re going to do all we can to blcck you from earning as much as you can and make you out to be a crook to boot.”
Yes, some people still make money, but it is in spite of those in power.
Everyone ends up with nothing, and the insanity of such a way of doing things is patent.
The only reason the OP likes this is that Francis said something in support of his beliefs. Had he said something against those beliefs, it is certain the OP would have either ignored it, or slammed it.
Popes, Mullahs and Rabbis should stay away from politics in any form. Same as politicians should stay away from religion in any form.
cregan commented on the blog post Google Funding Tea Party Group That Helped Shut Down Government
I don’t know. It seems like it might be a good idea for all points of view to have a shot in the market place of ideas.
It seems that is in the finest progressive tradition.
Progressives do not want some overarching authority to determine if their views are worthy of being out there–that occurred for many years until recently. The TV networks, etc. limited and hid the progressive viewpoints.
Why do that to others?
And, if you don’t think that those who limited progressive views from being aired ALSO thought they knew what was REALLY right and factual, then you have another thing coming. Oh, and yes, they also thought, “Well, yeah, but in this case, we really DO know what is right.”
All I’m saying–what was completely impossible before, is now possible.
Thanks to Harry Reid.
This is the greatest thing to happen for conservatives in many many years.
Only Democrats have been able to gather enough Senators by election to overcome filibusters. Republicans have never been able to do it. What was impossible before, reform to Social Security, Welfare Reform, etc. are now possible. As Levin noted, everyone knows this will go into legislation too.
Democrats have opened the door–long sealed shut–to roll back of every progressive law or regulation.
Stupidly, they didn’t realize it was only the filibuster that prevented laws passed during those three times they had the super majority from being changed later.
cregan commented on the diary post 60 Minutes Benghazi Fiasco: There could have been so many more! by Barry Lando.
All I am saying is that the NY Times story this is all coming from was ONLY “A senior official told this reporter he heard from someone who saw the FBI interview…” Meaning, neither the reporter or his source actually saw the FBI interview. There is nothing more to the Times story than that. Somebody [...]
- Load More