sbeaulieu

Members
  • Posts

    840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sbeaulieu

  1. Michael,

    I know they go much deeper, and that they are two ends of the spectrum. I was referring to the new-guy phenomenon that Americans seem to be attracted to. It speaks to the self deception that "because it's new, it must be good since what's in place isn't working as it should" mentality. I see a repeat in that blunder is all. In reality, I'm not downplaying Cain in this comment, rather the general public's attitude at how they go about picking candidates.

    ~ Shane

    Edit: I need to work on my specifics/clarity...sorry

  2. As a badge of ass-ery, I will do two things...

    1. My deepest apologies to George (and Michael) :)

    2. Leave my original post as an example to others to pay heed to OP

    Adam, in my defense, I was letting the video buffer to full while I was reading Michael's Michael Moore thread. Clearly, there was a lot of Michaels floating in my conscious brain that convoluted my subconscious when I switched back over to watch the Beck clip :)

    I'm getting old... damn!

    ~ Shane

  3. Peter,

    I agree with isolationism to the extent of not meddling, and not occupying. We are stretched so thin that I fear we are at a disadvantage for a sound defensive posture against our natural enemies. Pulling back would give us some breathing room to actually see what's in front of us, not constantly look over our shoulders. And the benefit, in my opinion, would be the rest of the world shouldering more responsibility in keeping their neighbors in check rather than looking to big brother.

    Whether or not Ron Paul gets elected, I really hope people are opening their eyes to what they are losing and could lose. Otherwise, we'll be trying to ice skate uphill before long... we're close.

    ~ Shane

  4. Michael,

    I'll try to watch the video if I have time. I have to say that makes so much sense, especially in its simplicity (delivery, not production). I think this wiped away a big smudge on the window that is my own clarity. I lack direction-finding, part of which I attribute to not looking very hard... but that's a time issue for me as well. I'm distracted by work and home (at least what I perceive to be quality time to focus on good writing). But what you provided is graspable and certainly a new perspective I hadn't known of. Thanks for that!

    To Phil, all I can say is... persevere. The greatest rewards come from the greatest challenges. I don't like throwing stones at anyone. I think people here know that's not my nature. I'm a sideliner because I'm learning Objectivism in trickles. It's what I have time for. I give a few observations and opinions, but they are mine, and I invite constructive criticism. My approach is with tact if I make responses. It is a key way of putting both/all parties on neutral territory when discussing a topic, regardless of severity/importance. I see a lot of that missing here and it feels like the wheels of progress grind to a halt.

    Whether it's this thread, or another, the opening sentence sets the tone of progression...

    ~ Shane

  5. Adam,

    Here's one I read this morning on Fox...

    EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement

    I really abhor "pulling the wool over eyes" approach. What pissed me off most was the two-for-one sleight of hand used, with regard to hiring homeless, and then convincing them (through deceit) to knock on doors for contributions for programs that NYCC had no intention of making good on. Instead, unbeknownst to them, the contributors ended up paying for the money train to keep the ex-ACORN folks employed and supplied. NYCC shamelessly hired and a few good-hearted and down-trodden folks, leaving them with a guilty conscience once they realized what was up. Of course, NYCC will say they did a good thing by providing jobs. BS!

    The government did a good thing in shutting ACORN down. However, it's a different look, same shit with NYCC.

    ~ Shane

  6. gulch8,

    Be that as it may, we have to take a lot of candidates with a bit of salt. If Ron Paul is elected, I'm sure this issue would not be his hot topic. Leading the country back towards the Consititution is and getting the economy back on track is. I don't agree with Ron Paul on all issues. And pro-life as a standard is where I'd agree to disagree.

    ~ Shane

    Edit: I just ran across this CNN article by David Frum - What if Abortion Became a Non-Issue?

  7. Bob, realistically, you are dead on. But we have to start somewhere. Let it be Ron Paul that becomes the pebble in the pond. Even if he can't win all the battles in Congress, he can sure draw a line and make a statement with 4 years of visibility. And his would be one hell of a foot to jam in the nation's door.

    ~ Shane

  8. Hi John.

    Normally, as a way of starting off in OL, we like to hear a little bit about the person coming into the forums. Your question would be akin to coming into a coffee shop and your first question is..."do you want to watch my movie?" Not that we aren't interested, mind you. But we like a handshake and a greeting before hand. Call it ice-breaking ;)

    I'm sure once we know a bit about you and some things that steered you towards Objectivism, our collective of individuals (oxymoron?) would be more receptive. That's why as of this response, there are 50 views...

    OL is this greatly architected bridge. We are the goats that frequent it. And there be trolls...

    ~ Shane

  9. To be fair, I doubt we will ever see a candidate that fits each and everyone's bill perfectly. There are so many core "pros" for Ron Paul being CinC, that I can take his stance on abortion. If he has caviats for it, then he's taking in those specific circumstances that a woman became pregnant against her will. I do respect his stance on being pro life. And I can certainly get past that he believes in God. Most people in my family are religious and I love them to pieces.

    Shayne, excellent clip, btw. I gained a lot more respect (if that's possible) at his response near the end regarding, essentially, the "who gives a shit about who mowed Romney's lawn" bit when we're facing a financial collapse. He's extremely focused.

    ~ Shane

  10. I think Ron Paul should be on the cabinet of another President.

    Would this really improve his chances of effecting change? As President, I could see him vetoing a lot of BS by nearly having the final say.

    He hasn't convinced me he could do anything effective as a leader dependent on a Congress made up of people who do not agree with him.

    I think he would have a pretty decent chance with bipartisan cohesion since he's more towards the middle than Obama is.

    I think a Paul Presidency would not get rid of the Fed, would only change the parts of foreign policy that depend solely on Executive privilege or that expire, and would not resolve much of anything. Essentially, he would be able to change a few things where he would have the power to do so, but for the most part, what doesn't fall apart would stay in place.

    While I don't think he would bring down the house of cards, he could surely put a lot more visibility on the Fed and eventually get them held accountable. I like his approach to foreign policy of non-intrusion. We're sand in a lot of people's undewear.

    ~ Shane

  11. Shayne,

    I don't think it will be one thug replacing another. I think the Libyans have seen to that. I don't think he was tortured, either. He sustained heavy injuries prior to capture. Being in bad shape, they probably roughed him up and that might have finished him off, or his injuries got the best of him. I didn't care for how they treated his body afterward. But given the conditions these people faced, most were probably driven by emotion and not reason. Like you, I hope it's not a cadre of like-minded thugs that pave Libya's future. They've endured enough.

    ~ Shane

  12. On that, we agree.

    My take was specifically the intent on taking the oath knowing that your life might be forfeit if called to war to defend the consitution. But your point is taken. I need to actively improve my "whole picture" view. I feel that mine might be a bit narrow, or naive, in thinking that politicians would actually pursue that as a primary purpose of taking office. Never thought of it that way. Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes, reality sucks. Ha!

    ~ Shane