UPDATED: August 8, 2010. To see the new info, page down to beyond the first block quote.
I'm sure many people find Facebook a complete waste of time, and I'm sure it can be. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Mostly, in my view, it depends upon one's Facebook friends. Facebook friends don't have to be friends, and they don't have to be all cut from the same cloth. There are "bad" apples out there of course, but one can actually find some serious intellectuals on Facebook who actually do use it to interact with people on various levels. My view is that it can be highly educational if that's how one approaches it.
Some of the dialogues in which I've engaged have been quite deep. They touch on, and some go into some detail, very profound questions.
By interacting on Facebook, one can improve ones mind, which also includes one's awareness. It can though become circular, in that one does end up dealing often with same mindsets over and over. Then again, with some familiarity, one may find that it doesn't have to breed contempt even when the other party or parties are not of one's faith or ideology. It is a place where bridging language can be developed by dealing repeatedly with the same people. I say that even though I am not an ecumenist, per se, and definitely not a syncretist. Facebook is not open enough for my tastes; but so far, it has more reasons to stay with it than to leave it completely.
What I believe happens (I've seen some of it firsthand) with some people who read my stuff there is that though they may not chime in right then and there, they take some of it away with them into their lives off Facebook. Some of the points will be echoed for good effect. That in itself makes it worth it. Such ideas can and do then spread. I read things that I too incorporate into my construct for good. Of course, I can't always remember the sources to constantly give credit, and even if I could, there wouldn't be enough time in the day to recite them all. I'd never get on with fleshing out a reasonable context.
Some threads on Facebook are particularly worth working. I just posted again to one that meets the criteria. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=655442273&v=wall&story_fbid=146360798711986
Here's a response that I left, which is fairly self-explanatory, although it always helps to read the other person's side too.
You call what I said illogical, but you defend being a Democrat because of little tiny mundane changes while I'm saying the people can produce huge changes and that your mindset is the obstacle.
There's no illogic in that. You don't understand logic.
Furthermore, all this talk about Obama having little option but to do everything that he did and is still doing is ridiculous. At every step, he had the option to stand up and take it to the people. Even George H. W. Bush knew how to do that but didn't sustain the effort. I'm speaking about when he took it right to the people about $10 billion in guarantees for the Zionists. When he did that, he won. He lost because of all the other areas where he was an elitist and also because he didn't sustain his efforts regarding Zionism. His even dumber son rather than seeing how taking it to the people worked, worked it all in the exact opposite direction, which was to sucker the so-called Christian-Zionists (no such things actually).
What did Obama do on single-payer? He took office with the majority of American's polling in favor of single-payer, no small thanks to Michael Moore (who sometimes gets some things wholly right). When the main Senate hearings on the issue were on-going, did Obama pick up the Lyndon Johnson telephone and tell Max Baucus how to work in single-payer by blaming Obama with Baucus's campaign contributors from the medical right-wing. He did not. Did Obama inform Baucus that Obama would be going public with it? He did not. What did he do? He facilitated Baucus so that single-payer never made it into the hearing, with the exception of some activists who bravely faced jail time by yelling it out, etc.
As for what we did get, right now Obama has the worst team he could assemble to come up with all the spin to cut entitlements – to privatize. It is exactly what I said he would do before he even began his so-called health-care reform. Either you are a complete liar, or you are asleep as to what and who the unreal Obama is.
This is the Obama pattern. There has not been one issue where he has not done more to distance himself from the left than he has done to cozy up to the right. I do not consider him center-left but rather center-right.
FDR is famous for having saved the capitalists from themselves. He could have gone much further with public employment and especially with public high-skills training and permanent public jobs. He made everything temporary and deliberately avoided public high-skills training because Big Business fascists were adamantly opposed and constituted a large percentage of the noblesse oblige dinner-party circuit of FDR's class, even though their hearts weren't in anything for the poor and blue collar workers, etc.
By the way and while I'm here commenting, the debt is far in excess of $3 trillion. The black hole of exotic, toxic securities is running in the tens and likely hundreds of trillions. The "bad bank" idea is still there, but the Fed is totally afraid to do write-offs with any transparency. The debts are being revealed in supposed bite-sized amounts to aid and abet the Fed via the short attention spans and short memories and just plain ignorance on the subject of Tea Partiers and many "liberals."
You ignore that the TARP and stimulus money did not go to "Main Street." The quantitative easing was deliberately placed where it would be as "pushing on a string." That "pushing on a string" concept is well known in so-called academic economics. If you're not familiar with it, check it out. The money could have gone directly to those being foreclosed upon and for immediate public-works jobs, very much like the WPA and CCC only better in that it could have been permanent and with tons of high-skills education.
It's still not too late either.
Where has Obama been on rolling back all the neoliberalism of the sorry Clinton years? NAFTA turned out to be worse than the worst that most naysayers at the time were predicting.
"...Johnson, who was forced into the Vietnam War,..." He was forced into the Vietnam War by whom? Johnson was in the lead on revving up the Vietnam War. It was completely unnecessary. Kennedy was drawing down before Kennedy was murdered. Johnson knew that full well. Are you saying Johnson would have been killed too if he had just continued Kennedy's draw-down? Please, we are way to well versed in this stuff to be falling for your statements here without requiring you to back them up.
As for Afghanistan right now and since Obama entered office, when Nixon got out of Vietnam, the sky didn't fall even though Nixon's retreat was haphazard. Obama is trying to create a puppet regime for his crony capitalist buddies. Surely you know that. Watch how rich Obama will be. That's what he's about first and foremost, not you and certainly not the downtrodden.
"You need to understand that there is no "left" in American power leadership...." The youth were severely duped by image. They wanted "left." They received the phony actor, Obama. It was bait with real left talk at the very beginning of the primary, then switch, moving right, right, right, while pundits stroked the masses with the false notion that "he has to do that to win over the undecided and center." If McCain had been McCain from 2000, McCain would have won. The left was ripe for a huge win. The inexperienced first-time voters who worked for Obama were suckered. That's what happened.
"It is only the fact that American is in Afghanistan that India has not invaded Pakistan." That's total garbage. Pakistan has the bomb and would use it.
America is a capitalist country because greedy people have paid ignorant, abused and abusive thugs. Without the masses of brainwashed sadists, the capitalists would be nothing.
Capitalism is built upon violence. Without violent coercion, capitalism would dry up almost instantly. There is no voluntary, democratic nation-state that has chosen socialism as opposed to crony, mixed-economy capitalism, which has not gone unmolested by the greedy, violent capitalists. That's the main reason violent so-called socialist dictators came to the fore in so many anti-US nations.
The capitalist talk competition, but they never compete on the merits where the people are allowed to vote in real elections as fully informed citizens and then let those states be market social democrat states. Rather than allowing that, the capitalist immediately move to sanction and boycott, etc. So much for "free trade," right Michael Linnard? Well, of course you agree, but there's nothing that can be done about it in your book, just stay as close to "dead" center as possible.
Obama hasn't lost his base. The base was duped. In addition, there are many "libertarian capitalist" who are having second thoughts. They are starting to wonder just how dupe they've been considering all the funding of the "libertarian" think tanks from huge corporations and Zionists that say one thing but do the crony thing with both hands. (cont. ...)
There is much more cross-talk between socialists and libertarian capitalists than anyone in the center wants to admit. It's far from over too, and I for one will continue engaging in that cross-talk.
As for your "religion" quip, well I certainly don't shrink on that issue. I'm an extremist in that department. I'm a huge radical, as in root change (good for Michael Rectenwald for knowing the root), as I'm a Christian and not ashamed of that at all. Jesus was not a capitalist. He was a communist through-and-through. He simply wasn't coercive about it, and neither am I.
Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is straight out of the Book of Acts, just slightly paraphrased.
Marx was for violent revolution. As a Christian, I am not. I also do not hold with logical positivism at all. I've seen what is hidden from all who hold it, and there is nothing any materialist can do to take that away from me.
That said, I will go on record here concerning Marx and Engels that in spite of the various mistakes I've read of theirs and especially as concerns Engels views on Christian history and doctrine, I would side with them any day of the week over the self-styled Christian neocon, neolib, Zionist, worldly imperialists thumping their Bibles in the Middle East while their counterparts, in the CIA or Blackwater or US Army bases in the US, fire Hellfire Missiles from predator drones murdering with malice aforethought (premeditated murder in the first degree, unexcused by any claimed law of war) even wholly innocent babies and pregnant women and others. That includes the baby killer, Obama, and you who support that forked-tongued serpent in his murderous ways.
America could have and should have made peace with the Pashtuns even before 9/11. It was possible. It still is. I could do it if the people would stand up for righteousness rather than continuing their compromise with the proverbial devil and whether or not they believe in radical, spiritual evil or not. The Pashtuns mostly all do.
As for Len Hart, he blocked me. I won't go into it here though. It's not my place to come across as bitter. Addressing your supposed point though, the right didn't lose power. Even with Carter, they were controlling. Carter didn't come to know it until after he left office. Clinton, on the other hand, knew exactly what he was walking into and milked it all for himself. Remember, he had read Carroll Quigley and also Machiavelli. He liked both, very much. He used it all on Iraq and Yugoslavia – a terrible mistake.
"If am the problem, and the problem will vote for problem politician's to create even more problems because whatever is the opposite of the problem is then I am for, because the end result will be that Republican's - presumably must not be the problem - will not be able to continue there assault on the working men and women of America." Obama will just be able to do it for them, so you remain the problem. Every person is part of the problem who doesn't stand up to say that the center must move forever away from the greed and violence of the neocon specter and doesn't act accordingly (doesn't walk his pro-working class talk) rather than being a hypocritical voter voting for a bait and switch conman.
As for having to make change from within the system, that's been the error down through millennia. The system is fixed, but you seek to change it from within? You think you'll break out of something when you can't see anything but. You think that's logical on your part? It is not.
"No other party on the left has the slight chance despite the best will and hope that it were the case." If the youth knew then what it knows now, it would have voted for other than Obama. It would have voted in someone far to Obama's economic left. All the single-payer advocates would have had the champion. The right-wing would not have had a field day talking against single-payer while the Democratic Party President said nothing to defend or encourage single-payer because, as you are correct about it, he's a right-winger at heart. Well, you didn't write that, but logic dictates that, that's exactly what you've been admitting and excusing and even lauding here.
Oh, I'm useful. I'm too useful for you. So are Michael Rectenwald and Lori Price and the others here who are opposed to your lukewarm fence sitting at best. We see right through both Obama and you. We are telling the world about it. That world is listening and hearing. It will be better off standing up against the right-wing liars. We will convince the youth to rise again and not be defeated by the Obama lies and the lies of his supporters.
I saw a useful video on this just last night: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=557363740&v=wall&story_fbid=140645109293591
[If you aren't logged in when you go there, just log in and try the link again. I don't block people from my Wall just because they aren't my "friends" on Facebook.]
Triangulation was stupid. Education was the answer. The leadership wouldn't fight for the people. The Democratic Leadership Council was largely to blame for solidifying Reaganism and Thatcherism. You are part of that problem. Everyone like you who argues that there is only Republican or Democrat can not eat the truth and can suffer anyone else partaking. Well, we are going to continue dishing it and working out the differences with or without you, Linnard.
Lastly and as for your existentialism, I don't live in a hostile and indifferent universe. My universe is very partial to righteousness.
The real Peace and blessing of God upon all who will, can, partake.
By the way, I wrote most of this while the two Michaels were going back and forth. I see that you, Michael Rectenwald, hit on many of the same ideas, even using many of the same terms. This is why I believe in dialogue between and among libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchist of the non-destructive variety mostly (I'll talk with anyone up to a point), Christians (real ones that is), Muslims, and Jews, etc., etc.
Then I received static from a usual suspect who loves to go on record as standing squarely against that toward which I'm working:
Facebook is a place I get to express myself and unwind. Of course I don't use it to fight about politics all day long oh Tom :P I can talk about movies, be myself and not have to deal with psychos. And better yet meet awesome people from all backgrounds :O)
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat." (Matthew 7:13)
Does that speak to you?
What does that have to do with me not wanting to suck the happiness out of my life? O_O Good gracious Tom, we all need to relax some days.
What does it have to do with it?
For other readers, Chris and I have had our go-arounds. He wants me to be lazy (constantly harping on me about it), and I want him to get up and work the Christian message. I believe he's bugged by my Christian Commons Project. He can say he's not though. We'll see.
The article wasn't addressing your situation, Chris. Re-read the headline. You appear to be on the defensive. Do you have a guilty conscience?
Look Chris, you get a whole lot more relaxation than just "some days." How many hours a week to you put in, where, and doing what? Answer those questions. Then we will all be better able to gauge the validity of your Facebook use in light of your stated reasons. [emphasis upon validity of your reasons]
Don't leave another comment that doesn't contain direct answers to the clear and direct questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
No sense of humor some things never change :P
Bossy tonight are we?
Answer 1) No guilty conscience at all. I'm as happy as a bug on a rug.
2) I don't hours. I take care of my Grandmother and that's plenty fulfiling.
Just two question marks, I got my quiz answers right :O)
Ah yes I promote lazy by saying get a sense of humor and lighten up a bit instead of pushing folks away with bossy and politics, oh that's me alright *rolls eyes*
Now that I have answered Mr. Tom's questions, back to ice cream and Scooby Doo AKA what Tom will call being lazy :O)
Wonderful week for Tom ! :O)
I'm bossy? You're being bossy telling me not to write about politics. I read it between the lines from your first comment.
I suspect most other people who read it saw what you were driving at.
It's not that I write about politics that bothers you. It's that I write things that shows your politics to be crap.
Look, Chris, if you don't like me, go away. I'm not dragging you to be in front of me.
It's pretty clear though that you don't have a stressful life where Facebook has to be your outlet. You watch all those movies while your grandmother is in the house with you.
Now, it's fine that you take care of your grandmother, but don't blow it out of proportion.
You sure could be doing something highly productive while also caring for your grandmother.
You could be working Facebook for the cause of the Christian Commons for instance, or do you think that would be below you or cut into your rest and relaxation and be too humorless?
What do you do for the people who don't love you?
I enjoy my hobbies what can I say :O) No problems with you, Just made a random point. You got mad at it not me :O) Im all dandy.
And to that last question, um not talking to them?
Now its bed time!
Flippant and self-absorbed
Yes having hobbies is flippant and self absorbed, thank you!! :O)
You need new hobbies that don't include your being flippant and self-absorbed. There are such hobbies. Look into it. Some people make them an avocation. Others turn them into their vocation. I said you could help with the Christian Commons.
You'd have to get over trying to rip everyone apart whose vocation or avocation is about the general welfare though rather than self first and foremost.
How long will it take you to come back with another flip comment?
You're so cavalier, Chris. You're so dismissive of my work. What's wrong with you? Why is your heart so cold, hard, and small that you get pleasure in attempting to needle me into lazing around? Haven't you figured it out that it isn't going to work?
You don't make me mad. You make me want to give up on you. If I do, that will be that. You're so stiff-necked/stubbornly slothful. Why don't you get off your dead ass and help instead to save the world?
Do you even consider yourself a Christian anymore? I don't think so.
You have been rightly rebuked here. If you think that's not my place, re-read the Gospels. You need to do that anyway.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)