National Day Of Prayer...Multi-Miraculous Or What?

Miracle #2 In Progress As I Type

from JoeUser Forums

i very clearly remember the first time george bush proclaimed a national day of prayer. 

it was also in september, just a few days after those planes smashed into the towers, the pentagon and a wooded area in pennsylvania. 

prior to reading the official proclamation document and then hearing bush's address at the episcopal national cathedral, i disliked him both as a man and as president.  by dislike, i mean exactly that.  no less; no more.  i didn't focus much effort or energy on him.  if anything i saw him mostly as a source of quirky perverse amusement--one we really couldn't afford, but were stuck with for a couple more years.

his proclamation pushed dislike all the way to deplore; his address transformed deplore, converting it to despise. 

so it was on thursday the very last thing i coulda envisioned myself doing today woulda been expressing any measure of approval for the message he delivered friday...the national day of prayer he proclaimed in response to the horrors of katrina.

Miracle #1

the thing about miracles is they always seem to manifest themselves to those  who most want them to occur and are most eagerly willing to be convinced.  that's where i am now.  i truly wanna believe my president meant this exactly.  no less; no more:

"The greatest hardship fell upon citizens already facing lives of struggle: the elderly, the vulnerable and the poor. And this poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity. As we clear away the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality."

i doubt i really need to mention how amazed i was to read that this morning. 

Miracle #3

i'm willing to give bush the benefit of the doubt. 

(it's gonna be obvious if he tries to backpedal or wiggle outta that statement...or his commitment.  i'm so hoping he wont.  THAT should be more than enough to balance my wariness and prevent it from diminishing that last miracle in any way.)    

politics
27,571 views 84 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
" i truly wanna believe my president meant this exactly. no less; no more:"


Me too. Not in the sense that I want him to cater to race-baiting and all the rest, but that he would put the interests of the nation as a whole above the interests of his 'close supporters.' Too much to ask, if you ask me.

Right, left, whatever, they are all politicians, and they all get there by making deals NOT to do what they should. In my opinion the only difference between the right and the left is the Right makes no bones about working from the "top down", whereas the Left has to please the top while pretending to focus on the bottom.

I don't expect anything more from him than any other politician. I think he needs to keep the nation as healthy as it benefits him and those he makes closed-door promises to. I think the problem with many people is they think politicians exist that function at a higher level.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Besides, a National Day of Prayer is clearly unconstitutional.

Cheers,
Daiwa
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Agreed Kingbee. The debris of prejudice and institutionzied bigotry from both sides needs to be cleared away. Both the prejudice and apathy that enables a person to discriminate against an entire race or class of people and the same that enables a person to look upon a race or class and excuse them from all responsibility in life.

In the end, if a race or class of people are prevented from the opportunity to realize their potential, does it really matter whether they were held back my laws which fail to protect their rights, or laws which absolve them of them of the responsibilities that go with those rights?

Which is more offensive, being told you can't, or being told you shouldn't have to? Isn't both statements saying the same thing? That you're not as good as everyone else?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:
Besides, a National Day of Prayer is clearly unconstitutional.


The only way a "National Day of Prayer" would break the requirements of the 1st Amendment would be for the government to require everyone to pray. No part of the 1st Amendment states that the opportunity can't be offered.

Unless you can show that someone had governmental action taken against them for failure to comply... no one's rights were violated.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
In my opinion the only difference between the right and the left is the Right makes no bones about working from the "top down", whereas the Left has to please the top while pretending to focus on the bottom.


your response sparked yet another possibility here. check it out, you concluded by observing:

. I think the problem with many people is they think politicians exist that function at a higher level.


when you get a fix on something, you do it far more precisely than most. this time you may have outdone yourself. i'll cop to it because there's no way i can deny doing exactly that. i'm pretty sure i know why i do it cuz it came to me nearly as quickly as 'hand hurts when hit by hammer' (but i'm not gonna get into that right now...it's a topic that deserves its own discussion).

it's a bit humbling to have to also admit i've done it for a long time, i'm doing it now and will prolly continue until i forget my name even though the result is inevitably disappointment, rage and pain.

maybe...that's the difference between the right and left? the right don't expect, at best, its candidates/leaders to to achieve the higher functioning level you mention; the left don't expect anything less?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
maybe...that's the difference between the right and left? the right don't expect, at best, its candidates/leaders to to achieve the higher functioning level you mention; the left don't expect anything less?


Now this is clearly quotable, if I may, Kingbee. I'd definitely cite you.

"The right don't expect anything.
The left don't expect anything less."

Of course, you'd have to define "less". I would define "less" as the bar with which you'd measure the success of government (in this case). Therefore, the right don't expect any success, whereas the left don't expect anything less than success. No wonder the right is complacent, and the left is continually disappointed.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The inequality lies in the results of that opportunity, not the lack of it.

If two people are given an identical opportunity, and one has piss-poor results, whose fault is that?


jeez, for once bush says something with which i can agree and yall are still jumping all over me even tho i purposely took the high road and didn't even suggest it might be more than a coincidence cheney and turdblossom weren't sittin close by making a big deal outta the fact they were drinking down huge glasses of water everytime george was talking.

a couple weeks ago, hbo broadcst a performance by a black comedian who calls himself earthquake. at one point, this cat said he wished bush could remain in office for 30 more years cuz it was such an incredible rush for earthquake to be able to point to the tv and say, 'I'M smarter than that white man...and not only that, HE'S the PRESIDENT.'

ju's own joeknowledge may no longer be able to say he's smarter than bush (joe has been very patiently trying to help you see what the president has finally conceded) but there are still more than a few of yall that seem unable to get it.

the legal structure so carefully designed and built to dehumanize black people in america has finally--but only very recently--dismantled, but several hundred years of brutal victimization has consequences that cannot be undone by a stroke of the pen. you can proclaim winter officially over on or about march 20th next year. you'll be 100% correct based on the method by which such things are determined. although it might be worth the price of a flight to richmond to see you walkin around out of doors for the rest of the month dressed in your best spring clothing...especially if i arrived with the next snowstorm cuz then i could enjoy the spectacle of you commanding the snow to go away....i don't imagine you'd cooperate.

you know it's gonna take time for winter to fade into the past. imagine how much longer it would take for spring to finally show up after a winter that lasted 100 years.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
enables a person to look upon a race or class and excuse them from all responsibility in life


can you please provide me with a verified statement calling for such nonsense attributable to anyone with any influence, capacity, position, intention or ambition to occupy the same?

it's a great myth. one that requires a distrurbingly significant vestige of racial hate to accept without evidence.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which is more offensive, being told you can't, or being told you shouldn't have to? Isn't both statements saying the same thing? That you're not as good as everyone else?


neither is defensible. only one has really happened. the other is a distraction used to explain away something too many people wish they could deny. sorta like those germans who lived down the road from the death camps who musta woke up every day and didn't have to be told what made the air smell so horrible. whattaya spect when you get that many jews in one place?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:
Besides, a National Day of Prayer is clearly unconstitutional.


The only way a "National Day of Prayer" would break the requirements of the 1st Amendment would be for the government to require everyone to pray. No part of the 1st Amendment states that the opportunity can't be offered.

Unless you can show that someone had governmental action taken against them for failure to comply... no one's rights were violated.


You missed my sarcasm, Ted. I'm just surprised a Newdow-type hasn't popped up (yet) to decry it.

'Cause when you think about it, for the government to declare an official National Day of Prayer seems to cross the line as much as anything & everything else the left moans about when it comes to separation of church & state. How is that different than allowing a creche on city property during December? No one is required to go downtown & look at it, so noone's rights are violated there, either.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unless you can show that someone had governmental action taken against them for failure to comply... no one's rights were violated


i might be wayyyyy off here, but i'm guessin daiwa cab't restrain himself when presented with such a huge and obvious opportunity. i know i couldnt have done it no matter how much effort i expended.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
You missed my sarcasm, Ted


yikes.

even tho it appears as if i waited til daiwa provided an explanation, i assure yall i not only have ups...i'm a certified psychotic.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course, you'd have to define "less". I would define "less" as the bar with which you'd measure the success of government (in this case). Therefore, the right don't expect any success, whereas the left don't expect anything less than success. No wonder the right is complacent, and the left is continually disappointed.


to keep it in context, remember bakerstreet's statement had to do with politiicians and more specifically politiians on either side. he claims (quite correctly) all politiicians make compromises and then goes on to suggest that the public expects politicians to live up to impossible images.

it's not about success so much as it is idealism vs reality i guess. we all want a leader or representative or hell even a clerk of a local county office who can deliver the stuff we want and expect.

conservatives are less willing to accept the possibility it might happen someday hahahaha.

the left is less willing to consider the possibility that it aint gonna happen cuz getting elected dont confer any special qualities and, in fact, diminishes those one already possesses.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
neither is defensible. only one has really happened.


Bullcrap! Go into the projects sometime and see how few men are there with their families. Talk to the women in the apartment, ask them where the men who helped make the babies are... after the blank look, the answer will most often (but not always) be something like.. "why should he have to hang around?". Bill Cosby's contraversial remarks, "The Promise Keepers".. etc are all the result of generations of poor people whose subculture is based on "we shouldn't have to".

Bring up the concept of working for welfare benefits... there are many who are willing, but the system itself says, "They shouldn't have to..." Bring up the concept of going to night school after a full day's work if a person wants to improve their chances of a better life... "they/we shouldn't have to..." Bring up the concept of expecting students to get 90%-100% without cheating if they want an "A" and the answer all too often comes back... "They/we shouldn't have to..."

Sorry to disappoint you Kingbee, but one of the biggest flaws in our system is that far too many people have allowed their potential to be ripped from their grasp because some fool taught them that can't reach that potential. Why? Because they aren't as good as everyone else and "they shouldn't have to".
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
see how few men are there with their families


that didn't come about because of anyone advocating black men need not be responsible. for years it was against the law for families with fathers to collect any kinda assistance. there was no sensible reason for such a stupid policy. it came into being thanks to the efforts of two factions. those who were determined to make the process as dehumanizing and unpleasant as possible, joined by those determined to reduce black men to the equivalent of living ghosts...of no value to anyone including themselves.

you think ralph ellison just fantasized the invisible man? what do you think inspired otis rush to write 'i cant quit you'?

that was the deliberate and intentional point of every jim crow law in the south, of every unwritten policy and not-so-thinly disguised discourtesy perpetrated throughout this country for a solid 100 years.

i'm not gonna say that bush was finally right about something but i will say that he was really damn close to exactly right with that statement on friday.

don't spend too much time lookin for the evidence i asked for. it dont exist.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
for years it was against the law for families with fathers to collect any kinda assistance.


Complete BS, I grew up with a few families on "welfare", all of them were 2 parent households.

joined by those determined to reduce black men to the equivalent of living ghosts...of no value to anyone including themselves.


Who said the projects I described were the homes of only Black people? Stereotype all you want, but most people on welfare are, in fact WHITE. However, your statement does have it's merits.

Your attempt to make your point actually reenforces mine. Yes, there have been policies in our country to marginalize the poor, and how have they been so successful? By convincing people that they somehow aren't as good as everyone else and will shrivel up and die if they don't give up and just let the government take care of everything.

The fact is "Rich" "Poor" and "Middle Class" are as much an attitude as an income level. Ask around sometime... ask a person who has been poor all their life why they don't do more to improve their lot and their answers can be boiled down to a few basic concepts.. one major one being, "I shouldn't have to..."
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:
You missed my sarcasm, Ted. I'm just surprised a Newdow-type hasn't popped up (yet) to decry it.


Oops lol
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee, it just dawned on me that by "for years it was against the law for families with fathers to collect any kinda assistance" you meant long before my lifetime. If that is the case you might have a point, but that point would only fall on the side of the "being told you can't" part of the offense.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Besides, a National Day of Prayer is clearly unconstitutional.

Cheers,
Daiwa


And how do you figure that? Or were you just being sarcastic and I missed it?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
maybe...that's the difference between the right and left? the right don't expect, at best, its candidates/leaders to to achieve the higher functioning level you mention; the left don't expect anything less?


In your wet dreams, kingbee, but not in reality. You're too well-grounded, despite the psychosis you claim, to buy that.

drmiler - see above.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

see how few men are there with their families


that didn't come about because of anyone advocating black men need not be responsible. for years it was against the law for families with fathers to collect any kinda assistance


And what years would they be? I can state for a fact that if you're talking about 1981-1983, that your reply is a complete falsehood. Why? Because I was living with my wife and children at the time. Fresh out of the navy and unable to find work (depressed area). I was getting AFDC (aid for families with dependant children). Just an FYI....that would qualify as assistance.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
maybe...that's the difference between the right and left? the right don't expect, at best, its candidates/leaders to to achieve the higher functioning level you mention; the left don't expect anything less?


In your wet dreams, kingbee, but not in reality. You're too well-grounded, despite the psychosis you claim, to buy that.

drmiler - see above.

Cheers,
Daiwa


I guess I was right! It was sarcasm and I "MISSED" it! Bummer.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"for years it was against the law for families with fathers to collect any kinda assistance" you meant long before my lifetime


you were born before or after 1968?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Heh, I just heard that part of Bush's plan includes giving vast tracts of federal land to the 'poor' to build houses on, and also giving each victim a $5000 "Individual Recovery Account."


i heard something the other day bout urban homesteading...something that should be done lots of places.

if he's only focusing on new orleans, it's meaningless. property values are rising faster than all that water did when the dyke gave way in the lower 9th ward. the sharks are in the shallows with millions to invest in anticipation of the new new orleans (i understand the same thing happened in the area around the wtc in september 2001)

last thursday the la times reported about a guy who bought a 4-unit apt building in plaquemines parish 6 months before katrina hit. that would put it about 55 miles east of the city along the 27 miles of the connecting highway (la 23) which remains under water as of sunday.

this was a $59k deal (are there other cities in the us where one can buy 4-unit income property for $59k?). he had $10k into the deal and no insurance. not to worry, even tho the property is still so flooded he don't know whether the building still exists, he's gettin offers for it from investors in la, nyc and vegas.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was getting AFDC (aid for families with dependant children).


if rightwinger should happen across this, i hope it will inspire a new fantasy...this time with dabe as drmiler's worker.