Politics 101

It's the translation or interpretation of the truth that belies the ideology and opinion of the truth.

What one may see as the truth, others see as a lie. The truth remains as it is.

When did I say Saddam was the only terrorist? Thats ridiculous. I agree we need to look at ourselves concerning humanity and ethics. When did I say we shouldn't? What specific foreign leaders have I criticized that you think is one sided? I am curious. I agree I have a natural bias. I happen to like our country and get tired of the "blame America first crowd," and I have a natural dislike for communists and dictators that think they can solve everyone's problems with government solutions.

okie wrote:
Perhaps the truth has no idealogy, so why would you think that people that might have an idealogical axe to grind is going to give you the truth? Before I would believe Mr. Kangas, I am curious about his qualifications to know the truth or even desire to tell the truth. I don't know if he had an idealogical axe to grind or not, that is why I asked if you had the inside track on the credibility of the person and why. I don't have time to spend the next year studying the history of the CIA, to determine how much of his dissertation on the CIA is correct. I suspect it is a bunch of facts mixed with an absence of other facts that if analyzed by someone else, the analysis pobably would be somewhat different, perhaps very different for some of the events. I am not naive enough to think the CIA has not made plenty of mistakes, but I do not subscribe to the conclusion that it has been as totally bad as portrayed, which I think would be just as naive. In other words, I would not think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. If the CIA can be improved, lets clean it up.

okie, You want it both ways; you question Kangas' ethics, but don't have the time or inclination to research how true or false his list is. That list includes enough atrocities perpetrated by our CIA to conclude what they have done is simply not acceptable by any standard.

"Clean it up" is an easy, throw away, statement, considering that our administration and congress are unethical. Most of them have taken bribes for political favors, and any "clean up" to be done is not forthcoming any time soon. We are all waiting for Fitzgerald to complete his investigation. Right now, that's our only hope to clean out our government.

okie, Do you really believe that the CIA would have not challenged all the mistakes and errors made in his report? "That" is nieve.

My guess is the CIA couldn't care less who Steve Kangas was, let alone have time to analyze his writings. The CIA has a job to do, I hope, beyond rebutting anybody and everybody's personal opinion.

If this is the same Steve Kangas, here is his resume at the time of his apparent death:

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/

Read the resume and it appears he was into "progressive liberalism," which I've noted is a term often used by communist wannabes. He claims studies of things like government success and free market failures. The most interesting experience listed was as a Russian communications analyst in the U.S. Army, with other things including playing chess, managing restaurants, including a pizza place. His education included a BA in Russian studies at the Univ. of California, Santa Cruz.

I would hate to read a report on the free market by this person for example and expect anything balanced, so why should I swallow his report on the CIA in totality? Just reading his resume sort of damaged his credibility in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, he may have been a great guy, but that doesn't mean he was credible or expert on the history of the CIA.

Do you have any idea that "free markets" and a "report on the CIA" are completely different issues? Prolly not, but that's to be expected.

2 + 2 and 6 + 6 are different issues, but if you get the wrong answer on the first one, how much confidence can you have in the second answer. Actually cicerone, have I ever said he was totally wrong about the CIA? I think he probably has a few good points, perhaps quite a few, and I would agree the CIA has probably done some questionable things. However, I believe it is wholly logical and probable that there is much more to the stories of what the CIA has done that may offer more legitimate explanations of why some things were done. Perhaps the choices were bad and worse, and when bad is chosen, that is all that is remembered or written about. Kind of like who was the rotten one in a divorce. It depends on who you ask as to which perspective is given.

His perspective seemed to be that of a person that had a pretty strong left leaning bias, and so his summary is likely suspect in terms of being balanced.

okie, Those "quite a few" by our government makes us terrorists whether you accept that designation or not. Righties like to argue their point by continually mentioning Saddam as a tyrant when challenged about our preemptive attack on Iraq. When considered in light of our own government atrocities, challenging Saddam's atrocities doesn't justify our attack and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Robert McMillan, IDG News Service Mon May 15, 10:00 AM ET

Diebold Election Systems plans to make changes to its electronic voting machines, following the disclosure of a number of serious security flaws in the systems.


Last week, the voting watchdog organization Black Box Voting published a report detailing how Diebold's TS6 and TSx touch-pad voting machines could be compromised by taking advantage of "backdoor" features designed to allow new software to be installed on the systems.

Finnish security researcher Harri Hursti discovered backdoors in the systems boot loader software, in the OS, and in the Ballot Station software that it runs to tabulate votes.

"These are built-in features, all three of them," said Black Box Voting Founder Bev Harris. If a malicious person had access to a Diebold machine, the back doors could be exploited to falsify election results on the system, she said.

cicerone, what does voting machines have to do with terrorists? Oh well, back to terrorists and the CIA, if you believe we are terrorists or to be compared to Hussein, I don't know whether to even take anything you say serious anymore. On another thread, you claim there is no free market in this country anymore. You have basically exposed yourself as a bit loony. You must be reading a bunch of left wing propaganda and have swallowed most of it.

It has a lot to do with any topic that connects Bush's illegal presidency.

Talk72000, I read you post then poked around the net. I found this (below) in wikipedia. This is very much of what you are talking about except of course it's an encyclopedia so the definition was much Broader.

Very interesting. A legitimate authority? I suppose we can get as close as possible.
---------------------

(stolen from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government )

Authority is the ability to compel obedience. Authority can be exercised as naked force and terror as was the case in Stalinist Russia or Baathist Iraq or through a series of more or less transparent public hearings as is the case in many western democracies.

All governments compel obedience using an element of direct physical duress. Less violent forms of compulsion typically include threats, exile, religious banishment, social banishment, or siege (isolation of individuals from subsistence-level economic goods). In some cases money may be used as a form of compulsion.

Legitimacy is the attribute of a government that prompts the governed to acquiesce willingly to its authority. Legitimacy is gained through the acquisition and application of power in accordance with recognised or accepted standards or principles. That is to say that a legitimate government will "do the right thing" and therefore deserves to be respected and obeyed.

Authority can be upheld through violent means while legitimacy must be earned. As legitimacy is challenged the use of violence to maintain authority increases.

cicerone, some of your arguments might even be worth some consideration if it weren't for the fact that you make some of the craziest accusations and assertions at times, which really renders all of your opinions pretty hollow. Reason being if you can be that far out there on some things, how credible are you on any of your arguments?

okie, Truth is in the eye of the beholder. I come to my conclusions from reading the media, and from many people that believe as I do. What's your excuse?

I know you don't believe it, but the media has been telling us that Bush's favorable rating has tanked to 29 percent. You can interpret that any way you please, but that tells me that Bush is a failure as president.

Now, what's that crap about my assertions?

Cornel West and "Free-market fundimentalism".

"The problems plaguing our democracy are not only ones of disaffection and disillusionment. The greatest threats come in the form of the rise of three dominating, antidemocratic dogmas. These three dogmas, promoted by the most powerful forces in our world, are rendering American democracy vacuous. The first dogma of free-market fundamentalism posits the unregulated and unfettered market as idol and fetish. This glorification of the market has led to a callous corporate-dominated political economy in which business leaders (their wealth and power) are to be worshipped?-even despite the recent scandals?-and the most powerful corporations are delegated magical powers of salvation rather than relegated to democratic scrutiny concerning both the ethics of their business practices and their treatment of workers. This largely unexamined and unquestioned dogma that supports the policies of both Democrats and Republicans in the United States?-and those of most political parties in other parts of the world?-is a major threat to the quality of democratic life and the well-being of most peoples across the globe. It yields an obscene level of wealth inequality, along with its corollary of intensified class hostility and hatred. It also redefines the terms of what we should be striving for in life, glamorizing materialistic gain, narcissistic pleasure, and the pursuit of narrow individualistic preoccupations?-especially for young people here and abroad.

Free-market fundamentalism?-just as dangerous as the religious fundamentalisms of our day?-trivializes the concern for public interest. The overwhelming power and influence of plutocrats and oligarchs in the economy put fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers and render money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit, often at the cost of the common good. This illicit marriage of corporate and political elites?-so blatant and flagrant in our time?-not only undermines the trust of informed citizens in those who rule over them. It also promotes the pervasive sleepwalking of the populace, who see that the false prophets are handsomely rewarded with money, status, and access to more power. This profit-driven vision is sucking the democratic life out of American society.

In short, the dangerous dogma of free-market fundamentalism turns our attention away from schools to prisons, from workers' conditions to profit margins, from health clinics to high-tech facial surgeries, from civic associations to pornographic Internet sites, and from children's care to strip clubs. The fundamentalism of the market puts a premium on the activities of buying and selling, consuming and taking, promoting and advertising, and devalues community, compassionate charity, and improvement of the general quality of life. How ironic that in America we've moved so quickly from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Let Freedom Ring!" to "Bling! Bling!"?-as if freedom were reducible to simply having material toys, as dictated by free-market fundamentalism."

Excerpt From the book Democracy matters

http://www.logosjournal.com/west.htm

bm. How is that I haven't seen this thread yet? Good one, Amigo!
I'm gonna read and be back to add my thoughts.

I can't beleive it. I'm not talking to myself. Hi flushed.

Hey. He's alive on at this silly hour like me! I'm still trying to figure out where in the hell I sit politically. That's my confession. shh. Don't tell anybody.

The free market they espouse is a lie. It is an oligarchy but with all the lobbying, media control, paid-for politicians democracy is an illusion. There might be another revolution in the offing if things get worse. Guillotine for the CEOs. Naturally the big industry-wide unions are in it for they destroy the smaller companies with their wage demands.

That was supposed to be the point of this thread. Almost nobody in America knows where they sit politically.We just don't want to admit it because we want to look like we already know everything. There has only been a couple times in American history when regular people were confronted with the kinds of political things that are going on right now.

If you (I don't mean you specifically) go onto the political threads you will think to yourself "What the f**k are these people talking about?"

But really it is all just common sense. I have read your post. You are smart, compassionate and you have common sense. You already have an established political beliefs. You just don't know what words to apply to apply to them.....YET. It's just a matter of vocabulary to start with.

The political threads are a bunch of cavemen but instead of grunts and groans we learned some big words so we throw them around so we look "political minded".

If you ask me something (pm or not) I will answer and I guarantee you you will understand very clearly and easily (it's one thing i'm good at if you don't mind me saying so). Of course only when and if you are interested.

In the meantime you have inspired me to put my lonely thread back on track.