Joe Kelley
Administrator
|
Goal:
Explain, by discussion, the true divide between good and bad politicians.
Method:
One person offers a viewpoint to be read by other people with the goal in mind and then other people intend to rephrase the initial viewpoint so as to improve upon it in the effort to reach the goal i.e. discussion.
Pre-judgment effort:
In order to understand the true difference between a good and a bad politician the viewer may need a few background checks so as to ensure a more accurate foundation from which to launch the effort to arrive at the goal.
Does the viewer view politicians as people or does the viewer view politicians as beings that are not exactly people?
Are politicians held as, or even more, accountable for crimes (such as torture, mass murder, and actions that threaten the survivability of the species), as accountable, as any other person including people who are not politicians?
If the viewer intending to aid in arriving at the desired goal is operating under the impression that politicians are not people, then the viewer may have a hard time helping anyone arrive at the goal of this discussion.
If the viewer views politicians as exceptional beings that are not to be held accountable for things like torture, mass murder, and actions that threaten the survivability of the species (such as provoking nuclear war), then the viewer may be working from a foundation that is similar to quick sand; where the house being built will sink quickly.
Is it good or bad to be controlled by people who have no moral conscience?
If the answer is yes, yes it is good to be controlled by people who have no moral conscience, today, then is it possible that tomorrow may not be so good?
Historical context:
Once upon a time a group of people managed to avoid being controlled by people who have no moral conscience and that group of people prospered because less time and energy was spent on conflict and more time was spent on other things, fun things, happy things, interesting things, productive things, and prosperous things.
A morally bankrupt person controlling a morally bankrupt group of people then took their process of infighting, back stabbing, killing or being killed to the other group of people for their version of fun, enslavement, rape, robbery, torture, mass murder, and other things.
Careful study of history records these simple and easy to understand conflicts between moral individuals, morally based associations of moral individuals, and the opposition group made up of immoral (not just amoral) individuals associated by their preferred immoral foundations.
- Voluntary associations (moral people freely associating with each other in liberty)
- Involuntary associations (immoral people enforcing association i.e. master/slave)
Proof of the facts:
Along the way, in human history, where moral people were forced into conflict with immoral people the moral people invented something called “The Scientific Method” as a means by which the foundations of life can be made less shifty, less fluid, less ambiguous, less unknown, less dark, less horrid, less dangerous, less threatening, less mysterious, less torturous, less murderous, and this method aided the moral people in the effort to survive well, to prosper, and to ensure a happy life for posterity.
The simple idea behind “The Scientific Method” is easier to see from a moral perspective as the moral perspective intends to defend against the immoral perspective since immoral people are prone to be violent, to steal, to rape, to torture, and to murder anyone, including moral, amoral, and immoral people; and then they cover their crimes with lies. The easy part to see is the part where moral people intend to accurately discriminate between liars and people who don’t lie on purpose, for any reason. There must be some way, the developing scientific mind asks, to accurately discriminate between fact and fiction, no different than knowing not to stare at the sun is factually known by mankind, with few exceptions. Accurately find the liars and the work load of finding, and avoiding, the immoral people is roughly cut in half.
One scientific mind uses the scientific method to find another scientific mind so as to collaborate and share the work load of finding more proof of more facts, like retina burn is the result of looking into the sun, skin burn is the result of sticking your hand in the fire, and the end of our species is the result of believing in lies being propagated by legal criminals, or immoral politicians who torture, mass murder, and lie to cover their past, present, and future crimes.
Initial viewpoint (to begin the discussion on the topic):
A good politician is someone who has managed to become a leading power, a controlling power, of a voluntary association that has formed as a power to defend against false and violent criminal powers, including false and violent political powers.
A bad politician is someone who has managed to become a leading power, a controlling power, of an involuntary association that has formed as a power to injure innocent victims for fun and profit.
Moral people move away from bad politicians like clean people move away from filth, moral people don’t go toward the filth on purpose – unless the purpose is to clean up the filth and avoid infections caused by filth.
Immoral people move toward bad politicians like babies move towards their mother’s nipples, there they find nourishment.
Amoral people are the wild cards.
Restatement of purpose:
Explain, by discussion, the true divide between good and bad politicians.
Bad politicians, as a rule, lie to cover their true intent which is to injure innocent people for fun and profit.
Good politicians are scarce, hard to find, among all the liars, when lies are commonly believed to be true.
The true divide between good and bad politicians is the same divide as the divide between fact and fiction, prosperity for posterity and a torturous and murderous extinction of the human species, moral and immoral conduct, right and wrong, good and bad.
Any confusion concerning the accurate identification of precise demarcation between good and bad politicians is as beneficial to the bad politicians as confusion is destructive to liberty.
So why would anyone ever start such a discussion anywhere, and why would anyone else ever participate is such a discussion. What would be the point?
Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 10:35 am by Joe Kelley
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 
1. Dick Cheney, vice president (2001-2009)
David Addington
Alberto Gonzales
George Tenet
Condoleezza Rice
John Yoo
Jay Bybee
William "Jim" Haynes
Donald Rumsfeld
George W. Bush
