Nineteen Eleven

hitler = moral high ground
pol pot = moral high ground
crusades = moral high ground
inquisition and salem witch trials = moral high ground
japanese subjugation and slaughter of chinese = moral high ground
US internment and slaugter of native americans = moral high ground
slavery = moral high ground
polygamy = moral high ground
having children with a 1st cousin used to be acceptable and happened somewhat frequently.
having a 14 year old bride when you are 20+ used to happen and be acceptable.
dueling someone to the death used to be a morally acceptable way to solve disputes.

history is full of the "more moral" slaughtering what they consider to be beneath there beliefs. to consider the judeo-christian beliefs we currently have(disregarding the lead up to this moment in our moral understandings)superior to another cultures moral beliefs is scary to me. actually, it should be scary to anyone who reads history.

current morals are vastly different than what was acceptable 200 years ago, and 200 years ago was vastly different to 1000 years ago. in 200 years, our moral beliefs could be(and most likely will be) completely different than what they currently are. societies change, they adapt, and they change moral views to cope with the advancement of the society.

i dont agree with some peoples beliefs, but im in no position to judge them as immoral or wrong for it. thats what there society and belief system is, not ours. to force your moral beliefs upon another culture and believe you are superior for your beliefs is immoral.

unfortunately, I believe Obama has not done anything he had campaigned for and I am highly disappointed in him.I felt a pit in my stomach as well when you tried to support him, Alex about ten posts ago.

It's true every president is not perfect, but I'm questioning what Obama has done to create a legacy for himself while in the white house... was it filling out NCAA brackets? Winning a Nobel Peace Prize for...? Can his legacy be killing Bin Laden when that was set in motion far before his term?

I'm at a loss and wouldn't mind hearing what other people believe his legacy to be...

Oh give me a break. Every single person seeks moral justification for their actions to at least assuage the masses at the very least.


Just because you can find people using moral superiority for their argument to do heinous things doesn't mean people can't use it within a reasonable context to support their cause. Finding radical distortions of moral causes in the past does not mean people who seek to change things, based on their moral belief system, are inherently despotic radicals.

ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan! oh wait...

having the most transparent administration is recent history! oh wait...

closing gitmo! oh wait...

ending the federal policy of interfering in state laws regarding the sale of medical marijuana! oh wait...

killing american citizens without a trial!

continuing to erode our rights under an ever growing police state that includes resigning the patriot act after saying he was against it!

dont forget the - lets allow guns and grenades to get smuggled into mexico against the gun store owners and ATF/border patrol field agents requests and admittance that they cant track the items once they cross the border while maintaining some delusional belief that you are tracking them, fiasco. no problem guys, they get used to murder innocent civilians at a casino and now you know what they did with those grenades!. then when it backfires horribly like it was guaranteed to do, blame gun store owners and demand stricter laws on gun control!

acetamino wrote:unfortunately, I believe Obama has not done anything he had campaigned for and I am highly disappointed in him.I felt a pit in my stomach as well when you tried to support him, Alex about ten posts ago.

It's true every president is not perfect, but I'm questioning what Obama has done to create a legacy for himself while in the white house... was it filling out NCAA brackets? Winning a Nobel Peace Prize for...? Can his legacy be killing Bin Laden when that was set in motion far before his term?

I'm at a loss and wouldn't mind hearing what other people believe his legacy to be...

This is this common complaint from much of the liberal base, and a sentiment that president Obama moved to the middle as soon as he took office is common, but in most cases it's totally unfounded. I do hear about this often however, and it will be an issue for him as he starts his re-election campaign in the next few months.

The fact of the matter is that the executive branch isn't really all that powerful when it comes to making tangible changes in the way business is done along the Potomac. Sure, there are plenty of executive orders, but as far as the big and emotional issues that mean much to the liberal base (healthcare reform, education, social security, taxes, wars, etc) are all under a much more direct influence of the various senate and house sub-committee's that wine and dine, and re-elect themselves with the dollars of the champions of those particular industries.

Now, when it comes to President Obama, there are a few common misconceptions:

One, that Obama is very liberal.

This actually isn't true, he's actually quite moderate, and most of his supporters, and those that work for him, are much more liberal than he is.

Secondly, that Obama made all these campaign promises, and hasn't lived up to them.

If you haven't yet, I would recommend that your skim through The Audacity of Hope.

President Obama believes in capitalism, in the constitution, the rights of the individual, and an efficient and balanced government.

Many of Obama's more liberal supporters in 2008 were in fact exponentially more liberal than he has ever been, and believe that Obama would be better served being an aggressive advocate for the sweeping political and social changes that his liberal base desires.

I myself, am much more liberal than Obama, but I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more. He could have spent the last 3 years with a totally partisan message and strategy. But, that isn't who he is, and that isn't why he won the election. Barack Obama is not Rahm Emanuel.

A popular video blogger and friend of mine summarized his views pretty well in this video, and I tend to agree with his view of the landscape.



http://****.com/

unpro wrote:ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan! oh wait...

Troops home from Iraq by Dec. 31st.

He campaigned on a bigger military presence and force in Afghanistan as well as launching attacks into Pakistan.

That seems copasetic.

having the most transparent administration is recent history! oh wait...

Yup, and it is shitty.

closing gitmo! oh wait...

Because no where would take them. No where. It is convenient you ignore how Congress refused to fund any move of the people at Gitmo. You also refuse to acknowledge the NIMBY-ism to prevent "terrorists" from using domestic prisons. Hell, you would have thought Obama committed 9/11 all over again by allowing terrorists to be prosecuted mere miles from the 9/11 site in New York.

You cannot summarily do something with people if the purse strings are attached and the legislature balks.

ending the federal policy of interfering in state laws regarding the sale of medical marijuana! oh wait...

I really don't give a **** about weed.

killing american citizens without a trial!

Deplorable and shitty. He should be tried for capital murder.

continuing to erode our rights under an ever growing police state that includes resigning the patriot act after saying he was against it!

You do know the best thing about the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was that it brought to the forefront all of the 4th-6th amendment violations that are already legal according to state governments and SCOTUS. It sucks, but the act didn't do anything new or novel. All that shit existed before 9/11. The Act just made it apparent.

dont forget the - lets allow guns and grenades to get smuggled into mexico against the gun store owners and ATF/border patrol field agents requests and admittance that they cant track the items once they cross the border while maintaining some delusional belief that you are tracking them, fiasco. no problem guys, they get used to murder innocent civilians at a casino and now you know what they did with those grenades!. then when it backfires horribly like it was guaranteed to do, blame gun store owners and demand stricter laws on gun control!

You mean the same ATF leader Obama forced out when it was discovered to be true? Yes, Obama legitimately takes the blame for it since it is who the ATF reports to. But, let's not pretend these guys, who were appointed years ago under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Dubya are simply on Obama's hands.

But we won't have any trials for any of them for the shit they pulled. Unless they got a BJ from an intern.

unpro wrote:hitler = moral high ground
pol pot = moral high ground
crusades = moral high ground
inquisition and salem witch trials = moral high ground
japanese subjugation and slaughter of chinese = moral high ground
US internment and slaugter of native americans = moral high ground
slavery = moral high ground
polygamy = moral high ground
having children with a 1st cousin used to be acceptable and happened somewhat frequently.
having a 14 year old bride when you are 20+ used to happen and be acceptable.
dueling someone to the death used to be a morally acceptable way to solve disputes.

history is full of the "more moral" slaughtering what they consider to be beneath there beliefs. to consider the judeo-christian beliefs we currently have(disregarding the lead up to this moment in our moral understandings)superior to another cultures moral beliefs is scary to me. actually, it should be scary to anyone who reads history.

current morals are vastly different than what was acceptable 200 years ago, and 200 years ago was vastly different to 1000 years ago. in 200 years, our moral beliefs could be(and most likely will be) completely different than what they currently are. societies change, they adapt, and they change moral views to cope with the advancement of the society.

I hope you had fun typing up that list, because it's utterly irrelevant to my point. All you did was type out a bunch of instances where people in power were immoral, but it does nothing to refute what I am saying. There is such thing as some moral codes being superior to others. Period. Are you seriously going to tell me that isn't the case? I'd love to hear you stand up for the baby rapists.

I'm not necessarily speaking on behalf of Judeo-Christian morality, but merely humanistic morality. Morality that protects the flourishing of society AND of the individual. None of the examples you pointed out protected these ideals. Thus showing why they are inferior to the moral code I subscribe to.

i dont agree with some peoples beliefs, but im in no position to judge them as immoral or wrong for it. thats what there society and belief system is, not ours. to force your moral beliefs upon another culture and believe you are superior for your beliefs is immoral.

So a man rapes and murders a child - they are not wrong for it? You'd rather be politically correct than condemn someone for forcing himself on a child then murdering him/her? Glad to see how practical your ideals are, and how you prefer political correctedness over, you know, reality.

acetamino wrote:unfortunately, I believe Obama has not done anything he had campaigned for and I am highly disappointed in him.I felt a pit in my stomach as well when you tried to support him, Alex about ten posts ago.

It's true every president is not perfect, but I'm questioning what Obama has done to create a legacy for himself while in the white house... was it filling out NCAA brackets? Winning a Nobel Peace Prize for...? Can his legacy be killing Bin Laden when that was set in motion far before his term?

I'm at a loss and wouldn't mind hearing what other people believe his legacy to be...

Ending the Iraq War.
Repealed DADT.
Improved health care.

?

mg_ wrote:Oh give me a break. Every single person seeks moral justification for their actions to at least assuage the masses at the very least.


Just because you can find people using moral superiority for their argument to do heinous things doesn't mean people can't use it within a reasonable context to support their cause. Finding radical distortions of moral causes in the past does not mean people who seek to change things, based on their moral belief system, are inherently despotic radicals.

not at all. all i wish people to accept is that line of thought leads to a lot of very bad things happening. i see no reason we need to instill our moral beliefs from the western world onto say, arabic countries, who have there own culture and moral structure. to say you are morally superior to another culture is silly considering 60 years ago your morals would be different than they are now.

do you think you should be forced to go to church? just because the majority of our country identifies itself as christian, doesnt mean we should all be required to live according to the bible. societal laws are different than religious laws for a reason, but when the society is theocratic in nature the laws are practically one in the same so the moral structure is different for it. not to say one is right and one is wrong, one is just different. what is acceptable in one culture might not be acceptable in another culture. that isnt for us to decide, thats for that culture to develop and decide on there own. unless its directly effecting your culture(invasion or the like) there is no reason to impose your morality on another group that is not willing to accept it. all you do is breed hatred and mistrust. amish people have different moral standards than the average american, does that make them terrible people? the japanese have different moral standards than the US, yet now we are looking at japanese models in schools and business as points of reference to improve our own society.

the morals of our society are changing constantly, to demand the morals of another society change the same is preposterous.

-------------

there is not proof that the stimulus bills did a damn thing, its all imaginary numbers based on supposition. actual unemployment is thought to be in the 10-20% range, mainly because federal statistics are very choosey on how they get those numbers. you cant really think our unemployment is at 9% can you? disregarding that, when the recession was supposedly "over", the stimulus bill obama pushed had barely spent a dime. if anything you could say the TARP funds bush passed did the work obama is claiming he did.

the major piece of healtcare reform is getting challenged in court. it will most likely end up in the supreme court, but so far the lower court decisions have been split 50/50. considering the leanings ideologically of the current supreme court, im going to say portions if not the entire act will be declared unconstitutional.

the iraq war is ending because the iraqi government is unwilling to bend to american demands in regards to keeping soldiers there. regardless, we will still have a presence in that country after we officially leave.

DADT was going to be repealed soon regardless of who was in office. it couldnt stand up to scrutiny in court.


ps: i need to stop watching sons of anarchy while trying to reply to this shit, you guys keep making new posts.

pss: no, i dont think child rapists should be acceptable in our society. our society however is not the whole worlds society. if a culture in the world thinks its ok to have sex with 12 year old girls and its acceptable to them culturally, then i can feel disgusted by it, but i feel no right to shove my views upon them and demand they change.

unpro wrote:not at all. all i wish people to accept is that line of thought leads to a lot of very bad things happening. i see no reason we need to instill our moral beliefs from the western world onto say, arabic countries, who have there own culture and moral structure. to say you are morally superior to another culture is silly considering 60 years ago your morals would be different than they are now.

Some of their morals are superior. Some of ours are superior. To say EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR SOCIETAL MORALITY > THEIRS is absurd. To say some aspects are is not remotely absurd.

Fathers will murder their daughters when the daughter is raped. Are you going to say it's silly to declare our treatment of rape victims as superior to that treatment?

do you think you should be forced to go to church? just because the majority of our country identifies itself as christian, doesnt mean we should all be required to live according to the bible. societal laws are different than religious laws for a reason, but when the society is theocratic in nature the laws are practically one in the same so the moral structure is different for it. not to say one is right and one is wrong, one is just different. what is acceptable in one culture might not be acceptable in another culture. that isnt for us to decide, thats for that culture to develop and decide on there own. unless its directly effecting your culture(invasion or the like) there is no reason to impose your morality on another group that is not willing to accept it. all you do is breed hatred and mistrust. amish people have different moral standards than the average american, does that make them terrible people? the japanese have different moral standards than the US, yet now we are looking at japanese models in schools and business as points of reference to improve our own society.

You're looking at this too specifically. I'm not saying everyone stops eating meat, or starts going to church, or whatever the shit. I'm saying there are cardinal rules that should be adhered to: don't rape, don't murder, etc. Uganda justifies murdering people solely on the basis of said person being gay. That's wrong. That's what I'm getting at.

the morals of our society are changing constantly, to demand the morals of another society change the same is preposterous.

I didn't demand that. But I do believe in it to some degree, like when other countries start genocides I believe there should be an authoritative force that steps in.

pss: no, i dont think child rapists should be acceptable in our society. our society however is not the whole worlds society. if a culture in the world thinks its ok to have sex with 12 year old girls and its acceptable to them culturally, then i can feel disgusted by it, but i feel no right to shove my views upon them and demand they change.

So you would rather be politically correct than protect children.

Cool, good to know where you stand.

scorch- wrote:

Still the best thing to come out of this movement.

i fully endorse this