WSJ: Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE
Glad that Obama is still doing what is needed to be done to protect the western way of life. :beer: for Obama.

Classified information should be at the discretion of the executive branch. The only people who bitch otherwise are journalists looking for stories and getting stonewalled. sorry, go get your pulitzer somewhere else that doesn't put American lives in danger.

You have a hell of a lot to learn about how democracy functions, the vital role - recognized by even our founding fathers as they made the *first* bill of right press freedom for a reason - of the accountability of government to the public and the freedom of the press to say things for that purpose without the government allowed to restrain it.

You have a very anti-democracy view on the matter with your sarcasm portraying journalist as only sleazy traitors chasing selfish gain.

It's just so irresponsible and it's like you are beggnig for the propaganda levels of the '1984' book where the population is content receivng only the 'right' information.

You are under some illusion that the government does nothing but try to stab its own citizens in the back. Classified information is used to protect the populace as a whole. In every system a few people will be victimized, but the people as a whole are protected, and in the end that is worth the small price of a few injustices.

The journalist who has to keep pushing for information that was obviously classified as a national security nature is just that, a sleazy traitor attempting to put his career ahead of the country.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Do you guys realize that Glenn Greenwald, one of the biggest liberal bloggers there is, has been slamming Obama non-stop for this? The article's contention that liberals are somehow silent on this is simply false.

EDIT: In fact when I just went to look at Greenwald's blog when this reminded me, on the exact same day the WSJ's hilarious editorial board is claiming the left is silent on Presidential power issues... Greenwald has about a 2 page long condemnation of Obama's presidential overreach. Nice job, WSJ.

Mr greenwald has been witing a lot of negatives about Obama it seems. Was he a Hillary man?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Do you guys realize that Glenn Greenwald, one of the biggest liberal bloggers there is, has been slamming Obama non-stop for this? The article's contention that liberals are somehow silent on this is simply false.

EDIT: In fact when I just went to look at Greenwald's blog when this reminded me, on the exact same day the WSJ's hilarious editorial board is claiming the left is silent on Presidential power issues... Greenwald has about a 2 page long condemnation of Obama's presidential overreach. Nice job, WSJ.

Mr greenwald has been witing a lot of negatives about Obama it seems. Was he a Hillary man?

Nope, he was an Obama supporter and continues to be so. He's just not a blind supporter so when Obama does things he likes he praises him, and when he does things he doesn't like he slams him.

He's been pretty clear a bunch of times that he considers Obama to be a vast improvement over GWB, but that doesn't mean he has a get out of jail free card.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

You are under some illusion that the government does nothing but try to stab its own citizens in the back. Classified information is used to protect the populace as a whole. In every system a few people will be victimized, but the people as a whole are protected, and in the end that is worth the small price of a few injustices.

The journalist who has to keep pushing for information that was obviously classified as a national security nature is just that, a sleazy traitor attempting to put his career ahead of the country.

The problem with this is that the executive is trying to tell the courts that they are not allowed to force disclosure of classified information. That's an incredibly dangerous idea.

Also your idea of what the government is and does is pretty naive. The government isn't just some benevolent body that looks out for us, it looks out for its own interests as well, and that frequently involves hiding embarrassing information. You seem to be saying that the executive should just get to decide what should be classified and what shouldn't be, without anyone being able to challenge that.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

You are under some illusion that the government does nothing but try to stab its own citizens in the back. Classified information is used to protect the populace as a whole. In every system a few people will be victimized, but the people as a whole are protected, and in the end that is worth the small price of a few injustices.

The journalist who has to keep pushing for information that was obviously classified as a national security nature is just that, a sleazy traitor attempting to put his career ahead of the country.

The problem with this is that the executive is trying to tell the courts that they are not allowed to force disclosure of classified information. That's an incredibly dangerous idea.

Also your idea of what the government is and does is pretty naive. The government isn't just some benevolent body that looks out for us, it looks out for its own interests as well, and that frequently involves hiding embarrassing information. You seem to be saying that the executive should just get to decide what should be classified and what shouldn't be, without anyone being able to challenge that.

That is exactly what I am saying. The common person has no right to challenge the authority of deciding what is classified and what is not and pushing to release something that is damaging to national security should be a traitorous offense

The government overall exists to protect our way of life. Sometimes it is better for us to shut up and accept that they need to do things we do not need to know about.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Pretty much every liberal commentator I see has criticism of Obama for his not providing enough 'change' from the Bush administration on these matters.

I wonder if you read them - given that the article you selected is the right-wing nutty WSJ editorial board. Try www.commondreams.org for far better commentary.

For one example, the excellent Glenn Greenwald, who was a national leader on the Bush abuses, has been quite critical of Obama on this.

Now, we do have to say, it's not like Bush was Hitler in the sense that you have to simple oppose every detail of his policies - and even Hitler that wasn't the case.

There are going to be some 'extreme situation' measures the President has - the thing was, the Bush administration appeared quite willing to use those as far more common, to set precedents that led to the potential for the mass detaining of American citizens who tried to protest, for example - not that much of what he actually did wasn't way over the line.

I think what people want is some stronger checks on the president in *abusing* those powers.

Frankly, among many examples, the wholesale 'purchase' of prisoners, such as paying $5,000 to Afghan warlords for whoever they cared to hand over, creating thousands of prisoners with effectively no real evidence against them, able to be detained indefinitely, was a travesty.

It reminds me a little of how the Israeli Supreme Court, faced with the issue of the IDF wanting to use physical abuse, carved out a tiny exception for some physical coercion only in a ticking-bomb scenario - and the IDF quickly began using it on thousands of detainees without any such situation, as a regular practics, they could not keep the 'genie in the bottle' once they cracked the door.

So the test for Obama isn't quite that he simply repudiate anything the Bush administration did, but that he repudiate the power grab doctrines and create better limits.

IMO, noi torture at all, no indefinite detention without a fair trial (not just a mioitary tribunal), etc.

I think we may have to review some of the historical 'exceptions' and precedents in light of the potential for abuse by another Bush, and try to prevent abuse.

However, public opinion has little to say about this; Justice Department opinions can shift president to president, there are always John Yoo's, and the final say on the constitution's limits is the Supreme Court (currently stacked with some extremists appointed by people named Reagan or Bush), who rules after the abuses occur - and are faced with the doctring of Bush that the Court has no say in restrcting his authority. If you want to think Ginsburg is going to get a gun and go enforce her decision against the military practices...

Excellent stuff, Craig. On the State Secrets issue, I see no problem with having a judge review the government's documents in camera. IF that had happened in the US Air Force case from the 1950's, the government's lies would have been discovered. Unfortunately, this very same thing happens once you get elected President. You want ALL the power you can get your hands on! The English are much much worse. If the government stamps secret on something, about 5 people get to see it, and that doesn't include a judge. Fat chance. That's how the English were able to hide all the real evidence behind the alleged intelligence on WMD. It was totally fabricated, and Blair didn't want to be embarrassed. PERIOD. So they hid it by declaring most of it secret.

-Robert

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The problem with this is that the executive is trying to tell the courts that they are not allowed to force disclosure of classified information. That's an incredibly dangerous idea.

Also your idea of what the government is and does is pretty naive. The government isn't just some benevolent body that looks out for us, it looks out for its own interests as well, and that frequently involves hiding embarrassing information. You seem to be saying that the executive should just get to decide what should be classified and what shouldn't be, without anyone being able to challenge that.

That is exactly what I am saying. The common person has no right to challenge the authority of deciding what is classified and what is not and pushing to release something that is damaging to national security should be a traitorous offense

The government overall exists to protect our way of life. Sometimes it is better for us to shut up and accept that they need to do things we do not need to know about.

Well fortunately for all of us that's not the way our Constitution was written and that's not the way our country works. You do know that, right? The common person has every right to challenge what is classified and what is not. So do the other branches. You seem to dislike the foundation of American government, which is all about preventing the exercise of unchecked power.

From what you've written it seems like you would be much happier in another country, one more authoritarian. This isn't a 'if you don't like it, leave!' thing, it's just an observation.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The problem with this is that the executive is trying to tell the courts that they are not allowed to force disclosure of classified information. That's an incredibly dangerous idea.

Also your idea of what the government is and does is pretty naive. The government isn't just some benevolent body that looks out for us, it looks out for its own interests as well, and that frequently involves hiding embarrassing information. You seem to be saying that the executive should just get to decide what should be classified and what shouldn't be, without anyone being able to challenge that.

That is exactly what I am saying. The common person has no right to challenge the authority of deciding what is classified and what is not and pushing to release something that is damaging to national security should be a traitorous offense

The government overall exists to protect our way of life. Sometimes it is better for us to shut up and accept that they need to do things we do not need to know about.

Well fortunately for all of us that's not the way our Constitution was written and that's not the way our country works. You do know that, right? The common person has every right to challenge what is classified and what is not. So do the other branches. You seem to dislike the foundation of American government, which is all about preventing the exercise of unchecked power.

From what you've written it seems like you would be much happier in another country, one more authoritarian. This isn't a 'if you don't like it, leave!' thing, it's just an observation.

Not at all. I think we have a very good balance of checks that keep power from getting out of hand, *but* certain things such as classified materials should be at the discretion of the executive. You don't have to fight tooth and nail every time something seems secret, one event won't cause an totalitarian government.

 

[Zebo]

By their deeds ye shall know them.

 

[Zebo]

What did mr. greenwald have to say about BlackBush's unheard of keeping an old administrations National Security apparatus in place let alone one from the opposing party? Or how about his rendition continuation? Or how about expanding the "war with no clear goals" by sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan too? Will Democrats even ask their anti-Bush hero Gen "400,000 troops" Shinseki about Afghanistan? I Doubt IT. Or how about "mr 16 months" now slated to leave Iraq depeding on "conditions on the ground".... I could go on but why? Hypocrisy reeks in this thread and among Democrats now.

 

[LtPage1]

What, like we didn't see this coming? No 20th century President has ever given up power voluntarily.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Well how do you like that? You change idiots really got change! You disgust me! :|

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE
Glad that Obama is still doing what is needed to be done to protect the western way of life. :beer: for Obama.

Classified information should be at the discretion of the executive branch. The only people who bitch otherwise are journalists looking for stories and getting stonewalled. sorry, go get your pulitzer somewhere else that doesn't put American lives in danger.

You have a hell of a lot to learn about how democracy functions, the vital role - recognized by even our founding fathers as they made the *first* bill of right press freedom for a reason - of the accountability of government to the public and the freedom of the press to say things for that purpose without the government allowed to restrain it.

You have a very anti-democracy view on the matter with your sarcasm portraying journalist as only sleazy traitors chasing selfish gain.

It's just so irresponsible and it's like you are beggnig for the propaganda levels of the '1984' book where the population is content receivng only the 'right' information.

You are under some illusion that the government does nothing but try to stab its own citizens in the back.

No, I'm not. When you have that type of wrongheaded assumption, your conclusions are way off.

The government does a lot of things - it largely tries to help the citizens. Sometimes, its interests and citizens' are at odds; sometimes it sides with citizens, sometimes not.

And it constantly juggles the competing interests of different groups. Few issues are simply black and white 'good for everyone'.

Classified information is used to protect the populace as a whole. In every system a few people will be victimized, but the people as a whole are protected, and in the end that is worth the small price of a few injustices.

Sometimes it is; and sometimes it's used to hide things the public should know. We're talking about the latter. History and many investigations have found massive over-classification and abuse of the system. The fact you post such editorializing words to the contrary - 'small', 'few' - tells me simply that you are basing your views on ideology and assumption rather than any familirarity with the facts. That's disappointing and doesn't help you or anyone.

The journalist who has to keep pushing for information that was obviously classified as a national security nature is just that, a sleazy traitor attempting to put his career ahead of the country.

You're so wrong here. Like I said, you are just begging for a corrupt government to lie to you.

The actual history is of thousands of stories that srve the public interest being uncovered.

We have a complex and delicate system that allows for much abuse, and the investigative journailists are a critical part of how the corruption is sometimes caught and limited.

I could point you to twenty example books by investigative journalists that would prove you terribly wrong, but would you read any?

It's sad that in our democracy we have people who are so uninformed about the way the systme works that they make themselves enemies of the truthtellers.

Are there occassiona of investigate reporters going too far, erring on the side of exposing over protecting, who can be largely motivated by profit and fame?

Yes. Just like the guy who does brian surgery or searches for a cure for cancer might be as well - but that doesn't change that they do a lot of good.

And on balance the investigative journalists do far more good than harm, and deserve our thanks and help. And the classifcation system needs limits, not blind cheerleading.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zebo
What did mr. greenwald have to say about BlackBush's unheard of keeping an old administrations National Security apparatus in place let alone one from the opposing party? Or how about his rendition continuation? Or how about expanding the "war with no clear goals" by sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan too? Will Democrats even ask their anti-Bush hero Gen "400,000 troops" Shinseki about Afghanistan? I Doubt IT. Or how about "mr 16 months" now slated to leave Iraq depeding on "conditions on the ground".... I could go on but why? Hypocrisy reeks in this thread and among Democrats now.

Why don't you go find out yourself? Google it, or go to www.salon.com and click his column.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well how do you like that? You change idiots really got change! You disgust me! :|

so thats your entire contribution to this thread??

 

[Genx87]

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case.

By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same.

Pretty much sums up my opinion. The thread about Obama releasing information on Bush was amusing because Obama hasnt changed policies.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case.

By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same.

Pretty much sums up my opinion. The thread about Obama releasing information on Bush was amusing because Obama hasnt changed policies.

Absolutely ridiculous. As already shown earlier in this thread there are plenty of liberal voices who are vehemently condemning Obama's position on these issues. Furthermore the memos were legal opinions provided to executive branch agencies and their general counsels. They weren't just ideas they were kicking around the office, they were legal guidance provided.

I expect that sort of dishonesty from the WSJ page, but you have contrary evidence staring you right in the face, man.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE
Glad that Obama is still doing what is needed to be done to protect the western way of life. :beer: for Obama.

Classified information should be at the discretion of the executive branch. The only people who bitch otherwise are journalists looking for stories and getting stonewalled. sorry, go get your pulitzer somewhere else that doesn't put American lives in danger.

You have a hell of a lot to learn about how democracy functions, the vital role - recognized by even our founding fathers as they made the *first* bill of right press freedom for a reason - of the accountability of government to the public and the freedom of the press to say things for that purpose without the government allowed to restrain it.

You have a very anti-democracy view on the matter with your sarcasm portraying journalist as only sleazy traitors chasing selfish gain.

It's just so irresponsible and it's like you are beggnig for the propaganda levels of the '1984' book where the population is content receivng only the 'right' information.

You are under some illusion that the government does nothing but try to stab its own citizens in the back.

No, I'm not. When you have that type of wrongheaded assumption, your conclusions are way off.

The government does a lot of things - it largely tries to help the citizens. Sometimes, its interests and citizens' are at odds; sometimes it sides with citizens, sometimes not.

And it constantly juggles the competing interests of different groups. Few issues are simply black and white 'good for everyone'.

Classified information is used to protect the populace as a whole. In every system a few people will be victimized, but the people as a whole are protected, and in the end that is worth the small price of a few injustices.

Sometimes it is; and sometimes it's used to hide things the public should know. We're talking about the latter. History and many investigations have found massive over-classification and abuse of the system. The fact you post such editorializing words to the contrary - 'small', 'few' - tells me simply that you are basing your views on ideology and assumption rather than any familirarity with the facts. That's disappointing and doesn't help you or anyone.

The journalist who has to keep pushing for information that was obviously classified as a national security nature is just that, a sleazy traitor attempting to put his career ahead of the country.

You're so wrong here. Like I said, you are just begging for a corrupt government to lie to you.

The actual history is of thousands of stories that srve the public interest being uncovered.

We have a complex and delicate system that allows for much abuse, and the investigative journailists are a critical part of how the corruption is sometimes caught and limited.

I could point you to twenty example books by investigative journalists that would prove you terribly wrong, but would you read any?

It's sad that in our democracy we have people who are so uninformed about the way the systme works that they make themselves enemies of the truthtellers.

Are there occassiona of investigate reporters going too far, erring on the side of exposing over protecting, who can be largely motivated by profit and fame?

Yes. Just like the guy who does brian surgery or searches for a cure for cancer might be as well - but that doesn't change that they do a lot of good.

And on balance the investigative journalists do far more good than harm, and deserve our thanks and help. And the classifcation system needs limits, not blind cheerleading.

Every example you could give me I could find a reason it shouldn't have been brought to the light since the good the classified program did was not worth removing in exchange for bringing to light a few injustices that have no real place on the overall picture. You try to paint me as basing my views on ideology, but again, any "journalistic triumph in the name of transparency" has hurt someone somewhere if not directly than indirectly. Again show me your examples and I will show you who they put at risk. Your views are just as ideological as mine Craig, don't fool yourself. You willingly chose to be blind to the risks the opening of classified information has in some name of free democracy from a item that really has no impact on democracy at all.

As far as "begging" for a government to lie to me, sometimes, the government needs to lie to the citizens. We elect these people to run the country, we are not a society of 300 million running the country, not every single person gets a voice besides a vote. If it turns out to be in the governments, societies or the countries best interests to lie to the people, than the people should be lied too.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Not at all. I think we have a very good balance of checks that keep power from getting out of hand, *but* certain things such as classified materials should be at the discretion of the executive. You don't have to fight tooth and nail every time something seems secret, one event won't cause an totalitarian government.

We have a good system of checks and balances, but the ability to classify and withhold any information the executive chooses should be its business. It would appear that you haven't thought through the consequences of what you are proposing. Luckily for you, our system has... and that's why there's a long history of the other branches controlling classified information, and why there's no way in hell any court will give the executive that blanket authority.

I'm sorry, but you are just an ultra-authoritarian who lives in a country with a libertarian constitution. I'm sure to you these ideas sound like good solutions, but some reading on the effects of unchecked government powers would do you some good, maybe help you learn how the real world works.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Not at all. I think we have a very good balance of checks that keep power from getting out of hand, *but* certain things such as classified materials should be at the discretion of the executive. You don't have to fight tooth and nail every time something seems secret, one event won't cause an totalitarian government.

We have a good system of checks and balances, but the ability to classify and withhold any information the executive chooses should be its business. It would appear that you haven't thought through the consequences of what you are proposing. Luckily for you, our system has... and that's why there's a long history of the other branches controlling classified information, and why there's no way in hell any court will give the executive that blanket authority.

I'm sorry, but you are just an ultra-authoritarian who lives in a country with a libertarian constitution. I'm sure to you these ideas sound like good solutions, but some reading on the effects of unchecked government powers would do you some good, maybe help you learn how the real world works.

Luckily our constitution is a living document and the idea of the government deciding what to classify has been pretty much decided for the last century. Your ideals about a country where the courts get to decide will never be realized. The vision I had is already a reality luckily for you and everyone else who can now be safe because of the protection the government does in keepings its secrets secure. This was the way things were more or less handled in the Bush, Clinton, Bush I camp and it will how it in handled in the Obama camp.

Guess what? We still have an election and a major swing left in the country even though the government had a ton more power over classified information. I didn't see it making us authoritarian did you?

People with views such as yourself put the entire countries security at risk.

Also :laugh: at your ignorance of other views and some belief that your views are the only way the world can work. If you want to I can recommend some now left books that are not bleeding red for you to read if you truly want a world view. Though that might harm the little bubble you built for yourself it seems where you suddenly out of the 12 billion people who have ever lived, suddenly have it all "figured out".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Luckily our constitution is a living document and the idea of the government deciding what to classify has been pretty much decided for the last century. Your ideals about a country where the courts get to decide will never be realized. The vision I had is already a reality luckily for you and everyone else who can now be safe because of the protection the government does in keepings its secrets secure. This was the way things were more or less handled in the Bush, Clinton, Bush I camp and it will how it in handled in the Obama camp.

Guess what? We still have an election and a major swing left in the country even though the government had a ton more power over classified information. I didn't see it making us authoritarian did you?

People with views such as yourself put the entire countries security at risk.

Nope.

The executive controls what to classify, but both Congress and the courts can compel disclosure of those documents...the way it should be. The vision you had isn't a reality, and it never will be for reasons already mentioned many times.

You also appear to be confused about left/right and libertarian/authoritarian. Going to the left has nothing to do with becoming less or more authoritarian. You believe in a protective Big Brother figure that will keep us safe, and I'm telling you that once you learn a little more about the world you will see just how impossible that is.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Also :laugh: at your ignorance of other views and some belief that your views are the only way the world can work. If you want to I can recommend some now left books that are not bleeding red for you to read if you truly want a world view. Though that might harm the little bubble you built for yourself it seems where you suddenly out of the 12 billion people who have ever lived, suddenly have it all "figured out".

I don't have it all figured out, I just base my opinions on the lessons of history, like any sane person. I guarantee you I've seen more of the world than you have (and probably ever will).

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Luckily our constitution is a living document and the idea of the government deciding what to classify has been pretty much decided for the last century. Your ideals about a country where the courts get to decide will never be realized. The vision I had is already a reality luckily for you and everyone else who can now be safe because of the protection the government does in keepings its secrets secure. This was the way things were more or less handled in the Bush, Clinton, Bush I camp and it will how it in handled in the Obama camp.

Guess what? We still have an election and a major swing left in the country even though the government had a ton more power over classified information. I didn't see it making us authoritarian did you?

People with views such as yourself put the entire countries security at risk.

Nope.

The executive controls what to classify, but both Congress and the courts can compel disclosure of those documents...the way it should be. The vision you had isn't a reality, and it never will be for reasons already mentioned many times.

You also appear to be confused about left/right and libertarian/authoritarian. Going to the left has nothing to do with becoming less or more authoritarian. You believe in a protective Big Brother figure that will keep us safe, and I'm telling you that once you learn a little more about the world you will see just how impossible that is.

heh, you truly think your "life" experiences give you a better view of the world when all they do is server as a prism through which you view the world. It is your life experiences that cause you to distrust the government, and my life experiences that cause me to trust it. I won't get into a "who has seen more" I have stated through these forums places I have been and things I have seen and I find it pathetic to use it as a crutch since all "experiences" truly means is the color of the glass you see the world through.

Do you think the businessman who has been everywhere and seen more than you ever will will suddenly have a better view on the world or a different one?

For someone with as much knowledge as you say you have, you certainly as shallow in how you justify your opinions.


As for your other point, if that was the way it worked already, we wouldn't have these stories every few years now would we? Keep your illusion of what you think the country represents, as I said I am glad you have it, it means the government is doing a good job, keeping the people happy and safe. What more could we ask for?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

heh, you truly think your "life" experiences give you a better view of the world when all they do is server as a prism through which you view the world. It is your life experiences that cause you to distrust the government, and my life experiences that cause me to trust it. I won't get into a "who has seen more" I have stated through these forums places I have been and things I have seen and I find it pathetic to use it as a crutch since all "experiences" truly means is the color of the glass you see the world through.

Do you think the businessman who has been everywhere and seen more than you ever will will suddenly have a better view on the world or a different one?

For someone with as much knowledge as you say you have, you certainly as shallow in how you justify your opinions.

As for your other point, if that was the way it worked already, we wouldn't have these stories every few years now would we? Keep your illusion of what you think the country represents, as I said I am glad you have it, it means the government is doing a good job, keeping the people happy and safe. What more could we ask for?

You are actually saying that experiences don't improve your understanding of the world, just that they color it. That explains a lot.

Your opinions on this issue are just really naive, there isn't much else I can say. I imagine you will grow out of them.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

heh, you truly think your "life" experiences give you a better view of the world when all they do is server as a prism through which you view the world. It is your life experiences that cause you to distrust the government, and my life experiences that cause me to trust it. I won't get into a "who has seen more" I have stated through these forums places I have been and things I have seen and I find it pathetic to use it as a crutch since all "experiences" truly means is the color of the glass you see the world through.

Do you think the businessman who has been everywhere and seen more than you ever will will suddenly have a better view on the world or a different one?

For someone with as much knowledge as you say you have, you certainly as shallow in how you justify your opinions.

As for your other point, if that was the way it worked already, we wouldn't have these stories every few years now would we? Keep your illusion of what you think the country represents, as I said I am glad you have it, it means the government is doing a good job, keeping the people happy and safe. What more could we ask for?

You are actually saying that experiences don't improve your understanding of the world, just that they color it. That explains a lot.

Your opinions on this issue are just really naive, there isn't much else I can say. I imagine you will grow out of them.

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.