Huckabee

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Hey TJR If you use 'indoctrinization" or "brainwashing" with a Union connotation again...

I MAY start some name-calling.



This is the last I will say on the subject of workers rights... You CANNOT trust employers to deliver living wages, safe working conditions, and medical benefits. Human nature has greed, envy, power, lust...etc at its core. If there werent Unions...it would be like the robber-baron days. Why dont you wake up dude?? Look at what is going on in society right now... Try a little taste of reality. History is of course, repeating itself.

 

[Richard L]

Hey TJR,

I think you now get it !! That's exactly what I wanted to say :grin:



I am not against Huckabee's or anybody's religious beliefs, I am against extremism in any form in our political arena. Religion just happens to be Huckabee's extreme of choice, and other candidates may have other non-religious extremes...It does not make them evil or bad people, just not good candidates for public office...in my opinion.



As for unions...I only belonged to one, many years ago (retail clerks union when I worked in a supermarket) and they were pretty much useless except for collecting their union dues from your salary each week. Since then, and after retiring from the military, I have worked at salaried positions, but my line of work never needed a union, and so they never really existed in my world.



Unions are fine in some certain kinds of businesses, but they certainly should NOT involve our Government employees. They are not allowed to strike, and government employees have a very good pay and benefits package anyway. In the same breath I would like to say that government employee's should not be the whipping boys because of poor financial budgeting by our elected officials.



...Rich

 

[H D]

 

[Thomas Rogers]

The fact that both Caymen and Frank saw my last post as an "anti Caymen" and and "anti union" post given their seeming need to defend each seems to prove to me that they still don't get my main point.



That point is that I don't believe there ever has been or ever will be a person on this earth that can make decisions and lead themselves, their family, an organization, or this country in a manner that is 100% void of their beliefs, their sense of right and wrong, and other ideology that has been developed throughout their live's events, including parental influence, environment, religion, friends, colleagues, education, affiliations, etc.



Some people may think they can be 100% objective and remove their own beliefs from their decisions. I submit that doing so is impossible. This is really a philosophical debate, for me. Read up on the allegory of the cave for more on enlightenment.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



I don't think you are reading what I am saying. I said that I feel it is possible. You said that you don't think I can pull from my union "endoctrination". I said that I could. You think I was programed by my father to be pro union. That is not the case. My Dad can see many faults in the union, just like I can.



I can see that in some cases, unions are simply not needed, and in others, they are crucial for the employees welfare and safety.



I did not see your last post as "anti-Caymen", as you accuse me of. I simply said is that you think you know who I am, but you have not a clue as to who I really am.



I can make decisions that are best for everyone and go against my personal convictions.



If I were ever in a political position, I know it would be possible for me to make dicisions for what is right for those I represent and ignore what I think is right.



You may disagree, but that is you thinking that you know me.





Tom

 

[H D]

Caymen, that would require you to be able to objectively reflect on how every value you hold was formed and every life experience and influence brought you to that value. As an elected official, you think you would be able to engage in that kind of activity when an instantaneous decision was needed? If you can, then you are one amazing human being. I have less faith in you, I guess.



Again, you cannot separate your values. You can go against them, but you cannot act separate from your values. If you do as you claim, you would have low self esteem and hurt the principles you have as a person, even if it was in line with the values you hold as an elected official. All thought from Aristotle to Rawls to Wilson agree with this. If you have found the secret, I recommend you write a book.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



You still don't understand me. I truly believe that you think you can make decisions independent of your values and the filters you have developed throughout live and be totally objective. Clearly you think you can.



I am NOT saying anything about you, per se.



All I am saying is that since we as humans have things going on in our heads that we aren't even aware of, that are so subtle, that are linked to our subconscious yet shaped by our life lessons and experiences, that it is impossible to make decisions that are 100% objective. Again, I am not talking about you, specifically, but all humans.



The best that we an do is to "try" to be objective. However, even when trying to be objective, and to see things without bias or as others that are different from us would see them, we cannot completely clear our brain and clear our lenses of everything we know, we are, we have learned and that we feel.



I submit it is impossible.



That is not to say that we all shouldn't try to get past our biases and experiences. We should, and to a large extent we can. But to assume we can totally set all these things aside, to me, is an unenlightened belief. We are more complex beings than that.



Now, the fact that even though in my last post I clearly stated that my post wasn't an attack on you, however your reply seems to indicate that you think it is. I don't know you, as you correctly point out. I'm not claiming to know you. I'm just restating the common wisdom of philosophers and psychiatrists throughout the ages. Again, read up on the "Allegory of the Cave".



The very fact that you take what I am saying as some type of attack or statement directly towards you (clear by your replies that continue to say "I" this, and "me" that), even though I have repeatedly said it is not, to me, seems to be an indication of your lense and your life experiences in action. You tend to get defensive, quickly, Tom. You seem to have feelings of persecusion, and a little paranoia. These are NOT what Tom is, but they are what Tom exhibits in his actions. You seem to not be able to seperate yourself from these things. You tend to be proving my very point. The fact that you may very well take what I have just said very personally instead of objectively and introspectively also tends to prove my point.



We are complex beings.



Heck, if I knew everytime why I was pissed off or happy; or why I did one thing one way versus another I would be a very..."HAPPY" man.



The funny thing is most men are pretty well in touch with why they do what they do, and why they think what they think. Now, WOMEN on the other hand... :banana:



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Actually, TJR, you think you are the most understand person out there, but to be honest, you are very pig headed and feel you are the only one the "gets it" and those that agree with you "get it" also.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Feel free to read up on what I was talking about. Our not. The link is below.



I'm simply explaining to you why most philosophers and others who understand the principles of enlightenment that I am discussing feel that there is no true objectivity with us humans.



You seemed to take it personal, as if what I was talking about was about you, and about me, though I repeatedly said I was not.



It's not, sir. It's not personal.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I never felt it was personal towards me.



As I said, there are things I would like to change, but I also know that what I want to change is not best for everyone. If I am in the position to change things that is best for everyone, I can do it even if it is against what I believe.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



I understand, believe and agree with everything you say.



What I was saying is that we can never really be sure why we do what we do, why we believe what we believe, or if we have actually done something truly objectively, or not.



Your steadfast belief that if you were a leader you could set aside what you may feel is right and instead do what you are obligated or what is good for those you lead is in effect a belief, too. That belief is rooted no doubt in your sense of integrity, of right and wrong, and in what you feel is your control over your own beliefs.



So, your own beliefs are in my opinion keeping you from questioning the merits of what I am saying, or seeking to understand what it is that I am talking about with the allegory of the cave reference.



Again, I believe you and your convictions. I am just encouraging you to recognize that the human mind is complex, and when people say they know that they can totally look at, consider and act on things without the bias that their life events have created that those people are simply, in a word, wrong. It is simply not possible. What you say you can do is something different than what I am talking about, btw.



TJR

 

[H D]

To act as you believe you could, you would need to be able to use John Rawls' "original position." It is a very interesting, and well thought out concept. The problem is exactly as TJR is expressing. We can never view anything from the original position. You may think what you are doing is best for everyone, but you can't even know what that would be. You will be too clouded by your own judgments, not by choice or ignorance, just naturally.



Rawls creates what he calls the original position as a practice to determine the lowest acceptable standards of living by making decisions behind a "veil of ignorance" in which you can not know anything about one's self like ethnicity, social status, gender, or Conception of the Good. The last part alone is the most important part. You already assume you know what would be best for everyone based on YOUR Conception of the Good. You are going to pull from that no matter how hard you try.



Unless...you have been able to reach the original position. If so, congratulations. You are the first human to do so.



I know this short explanation is an unfair bastardization of John Rawls' brilliant writings, but I hope I got some of the main point across. Anyone wanting to engage in such discussions should read the work of Rawls, IMO.

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

Back to Huckabee- he didn't "misspeak" when he was talking to that radio host, he lied. He didn't "confuse" Kenya with Indonesia. He formulated a specific line of reasoning and mentioned the Mau Mau revolution, the British, colonies, etc. Its impossible to apply that line of reasoning to Indonesia, which had no Mau Mau revolution and was colonized by the Dutch. This was just pandering to the host. So much for the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Lasik,



Not to be a Huckabee apologist, but we are either to think that he made a calculated lie that blew up in his face as a mistake, or he made a mistake that blew up in his face. That seems to be what you are saying.



Well, if he is so calculating and devious to tell a lie to try to paint BHO in a bad light then you would think that he would get it right...if he truly is that calculating and devious.



I don't think he is that calculating and devious.



I think he has an opinion or two regarding our president (don't we all?), and in giving reason and voice to those opinions he stepped on this own dik.



Oh, and as for my opinion on our president...



Well, the latest news today is that Gitmo is getting geared back up. Not a lot of fanfare either. Seems Obama signed in back into use after all the fanfare and hoopla of how it needed to be closed, it was a blight, etc. Well, it seems it is easy to critique things as bad, evil, etc, when in the cheap seats, but when the "buck stops here", well, then running this country isn't so "simple and straightforward" as it otherwise seemed.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Politicians lie, and will say anything to get elected President. They will say anything to pander to the public to get votes. They always claim to have a solution for every problem facing America, but they really never do. All they are doing is spreading the party propaganda. When they get into office and they realize that they can't do what they promised, then it's always blamed on the other party or their solution always costs way more then they projected and we go deeper and deeper in debt.



Can anyone name a President who made a significant campaign promise and actual came through with implement it??? There mignt be one, but I'll be damned if I can remember one?



...Richard

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Pig Headed? I do believe that means "closed minded" hahha

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank,



My mind is very open, I think. Never can really be sure.



The way I see it is that Huckabee isn't going to likely be a viable presidential candidate, so I have no real need to get my panties in a twist over what he says. Because of that, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I do with most people in this world (cup 1/2 full is my nature).



Part of an open mind, to me, means recognizing when one is getting programmed and worked into a frenzy over nothing, for no real purpose. When that happens, maybe the mind is too open to the point of being weak...exposed, easily manipulated.



Huckabee is a moot issue. A lame candidate. My mind has more important, more REAL things to consider.



Funny thing is all I have tried to do on this thread is actually inspire people into a broader way of thinking and considering the complexities of why we humans think and value the things we do. For that, I've been called pig headed and narrow minded.



I've said it before, I'll say it again, many are simply not ready for introspection and self-examination. When it happens, they shoot the messenger and dismiss the message.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I've said it before, I'll say it again, many are simply not ready for introspection and self-examination. When it happens, they shoot the messenger and dismiss the message.

Maybe people here do not want to be psyco-analized by you?? And I don't think you are qualified to do that....you are just pissing people off. It's just their opinions and they are intitled to them. They don't have to explain anything to please you. And why is it so important to you that you get the exact meaning of every word someone says. Few people here are English majors and most people understand them just fine.



You have a tendancy to twist peoples word to fit your meaning not theirs. You may want a more detailed explaination, but the more one tries to explain it, the more you twist their words. Some things are not easily explained and that does not make that persons opinion any less valid.



When I said I would not vote for Huckabee as President based on his extreme religious beliefs and not his religion, you tried to twist my words and say I could not be against his extremism without being against his religion.... I think I finlly got my point across when I said that I don't think any President should be too extreme in his thinking about any thing. That's when I dropped out of the conversation.



This is not intended to be insulting. Just thought you might want to do a little of your own introspection and self-examination. Other than that, you're a pretty good guy..:grin:



...Rich

 

[Les]

Pig Headed? I do believe that means "closed minded" hahha

Pot calling the kettle black...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



Maybe that is the case, Richard L. Maybe people don't want to be headshrinked (or is that headshrank?) by an amateur like me. I can appreciate that and am sensitive to that. That is why I try not to make my discussions personal, or about specific individuals. As you can see above, I made that point several time. I wasn't talking about anyone in specifical, just about humans in general, and the human mind as a complex thing.



Also, I didn't try to twist your words. I pointed out how your words, as said, created a logical arguement as stated. I even explained that pretty well. I thought. I still see what you are saying as a matter of semantics. Yes, you CAN be against extremism without being against religion, in general. However, when the religion is question by its nature is extreme, well then I simply connect the dots. It's like saying: "I Love Fruit", in one breath, but then saying: "I hate watermelon." in another. Or, "I love my fellow man!", but "I hate illegal immigrants". You get what I am saying? To me, your statement says that you have a positive support for the general (religion) to which you don't qualify, then a specific denouncement to a special case of the general.



If you drop out of the conversation, that's fine. I think you dropped out of it without ever really understanding what I was saying (about the support of the general, denouncement of the specific), the I indicated several times that I felt I understood and agreed with what you were saying.



The funny thing here is that in most cases that is all I am looking for...someone to say they understand what I am saying, they think it has merit, even if they don't totally agree with it.



Even stranger, the point I was trying to make to you, and those to Caymen, aren't in my mind controversial. I see almost no way that when you present those ideas to 100 intelligent people that 99 wouldn't agree with them.



The reason that I don't think you see what I was saying, understand it, and give it merit is because you feel that it either proves what you were saying is wrong (it doesn't need to), or that it paints you in some negative light (it doesn't need to).



You are a good guy, Richard, and I appreciate your intelligent opinions.



What I am trying to say here is that people make absolute claims, often, in life, on this board, etc, and often they can't be backed up, or their multiple claims are at odds with one another because of one simple fact: LIFE is not that simple. Not all cases apply all the time. There are those things we generally accept as truth, and then there are those special cases. Thinking that they are all the same, or that the same rules apply, often does not hold true.



For example, take a couple of positions:



1. "I am supportive of religions and intolerant of religious extremists."



and



2. "I am generally supportive of and open to religions, but am intolerant to harmful religious extremists."



See how the two statements and ideals are slightly different? Sure, to the person speaking #1, they may clearly mean #2...but maybe they don't?



Same argument for Caymen's convictions. The BRAIN is not that simple. Can't turn things on and off within our head. It is much better to simply admit these things, and not speak in absolutes. That is also why, above, I used the qualifier "100%", again, and again...to reinforce that what I was talking about was a general inability to totally, absolutely, turn off one's mental model.



Have a good day folks.



The main issue here is that I guess I am trying to get folks to mean what they say, say what they mean, and recognize that there are so very few absolute (positions, ideas, ideals), in this world.



TJR