Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

BWhite · 2004-07-28 08:36:26

This comment was lifted from dailykos - - a Democrat blog:

Obama's speech went to the difference between the two parties are about.
I am watching Jonah Goldberg on C-SPAN making my point for me. He is ranting about "No Child Left Behind." He wants to leave some children behind. He even used the the term the "nanny government."
The following paragraphs are not something that ANY Republican can say in NYC. Notice the use of WE.
"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

Palomar · 2004-07-28 08:44:29

*I didn't see him speak, but have noticed all the internet news articles about him; I read a Yahoo! article yesterday.

Well, he's right about all the divisiveness. I'm sick to death of the Hyphenated America.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-07-28 08:59:17

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/con … tion/]Link to full speech

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to he self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

and this

Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.

and this

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 09:06:38

Didn't see the speech. But the excerpt Bill posted makes it look like a good one.

With one caveat...

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America.

Not entirely accurate. There is a serious ideologic rift in this country. Right and left (not necessarily Democrat and Republican) are engaged in a struggle for whose vision of what America should be, will be. They represent two fundamentally different philosphies that can't be fully reconciled, only temporarily patched over.

I don't like it either, but there it is. Maybe I'm being divisive, but if we all compromise our core principles to please the opposition then what's the point of having them? We've got some real, core divisions that can't be healed with platitudes.

Palomar · 2004-07-28 09:16:33

Not entirely accurate. There is a serious ideologic rift in this country. Right and left (not necessarily Democrat and Republican) are engaged in a struggle for whose vision of what America should be, will be. They represent two fundamentally different philosphies that can't be fully reconciled, only temporarily patched over.
I don't like it either, but there it is. Maybe I'm being divisive, but if we all compromise our core principles to please the opposition then what's the point of having them? We've got some real, core divisions that can't be healed with platitudes.

*Not sure you were responding to me, Cobra.

Anyway, I was referring to ethnic and racial divisiveness in my comment about being sick to death of Hyphenated America.

---

As for the Liberal vs Conservative thing. Yeah, I agree with your comments. Trouble is, how much farther can it go? Is it yet to the point of seriously hurting this nation (if it hasn't already)? Will it spiral out of control (if it isn't already) and become completely destructive? How to stop it before it reaches that point?

I'd suggest both sides focus on similarities and downplay differences, but...

The major trouble I see are the Hype Masters; the cherry-bomb tossers like Limbaugh and Coulter, Moore and Franken.

There's more I could say, but I've probably said it before and blah blah blah.

--Cindy

P.S.: How ironic that this nation focuses so much on petty bickering, unnecessary antagonisms, etc....while many other people in the world are focused on where their next meal is coming from.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 10:29:33

Not entirely accurate. There is a serious ideologic rift in this country. Right and left (not necessarily Democrat and Republican) are engaged in a struggle for whose vision of what America should be, will be. They represent two fundamentally different philosphies that can't be fully reconciled, only temporarily patched over.

From where I view things, one of those rifts is a "moral America" versus a "moralistic America" - - just as Mrs. Kerry said last night.

I saw this expressed in an essay I read at belief.net about "Harry Potter" and "Left Behind" which said Harry Potter was essentially Catholic while Left Behind is essentially Protestant.

To amplify - - in the mythos of Left Behind its the good people versus the bad people like GWB's war against evildoers. You are either with us or against us, black or white. In the mythos of Harry Potter all of us have streaks of good and bad intermixed in our souls. Some have more good and less bad and some have less good and more bad. But every human being, from bin Laden to Mother Theresa is a mixture of good and evil, just in varying proportions.

Not only is there an outward struggle between people of differing views but every day every human being faces an internal struggle between the better angels of their own nature and the worse angels of their own nature.

To excuse Abu Ghraib by saying Saddam was worse may be factually true but is a morally bankrupt argument if you believe in this second struggle.

But if you believe people can be divided into "good people, saved people" and "bad people, evildoers and the damned" then the evils of Abu Ghraib can be accepted as mere collateral damage.

IMHO George Bush believes he and America embody justice and morality and that he acts on behalf of the Almighty. He never has doubts, about anything. IMHO America has been more moral and decent than any other nation in history yet we can easily lose that stature if we allow ourselves to fall into an 'us vs them' mentality.

There are no "thems" only "us-es" and we are our brother's keeper. Globally.

By the way, Cobra, enabling sloth and laziness is not taking care of our brother. Nor is writing him off taking care of him either.

= = =

PS - If GWB intends to rid the world of all evildoers then there will be no people left. For all of us do evil in varying degrees every day of our lives.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 10:46:50

By the way, Cobra, enabling sloth and laziness is not taking care of our brother. Nor is writing him off taking care of him either.

Sometimes those are your only options. Unless of course depriving them of freedom to make that choice is acceptable, but that's a slippery slope.

The sad fact of the matter is that in any society you will always have a certain percentage of the population that you have to "write off" in some sense, whether they be criminals, slothful or otherwise unwilling or incapable of being productive individuals. All we can really do is attempt to minimize that percentage.

Morris · 2004-07-28 13:49:54

We've got some real, core divisions that can't be healed with platitudes.

A couple of examples, please.

I don't like it either, but there it is. Maybe I'm being divisive, but if we all compromise our core principles to please the opposition then what's the point of having them?

Funny, I was always taught that one of the big things that made America great was the ability to compromise on tough issues so that we could all live together in peace (and prosperity). A close examination of truly moral principles shows benefits for all if they are consistently followed. Those being moralistic (thanks for the distinction, Cindy) can usually be shown to be elevating a personal preferece to the status of a moral principle.

Morris · 2004-07-28 14:03:56

Real life example in Illinois. The big gasoline chains opposed double wall fuel tanks for years. Stupid regulations interfering with business, they said.
Then all of a sudden the major chains decided double wall gas tanks were a good idea. Ran ads about how they supported stopping gasoline leaks into the soil around gas stations. Environmental consciousness?
Nah! None of the independents or mom and pops could afford new tanks and they all went out of business. Now the major chains control the market.

Yes, I also thought it was a hoot when the Wisconsin dairy farmers strongly petitioned the legislature to define swiss cheese (the size of the holes was of critical interest as I recall). It used to be that industry would negotiate things like environmental concerns sincerely. Now, if any industry WANTS regulation, you can be sure that it wants to restrict competition.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 15:08:18

Quote
We've got some real, core divisions that can't be healed with platitudes.

A couple of examples, please.

I'm talking about fundamental philosphical foundations. For example:

One side holds that whether a person is poor or rich is dependent overwhelmingly on their own choices, and it's wrong to punish the successful through taxation to redistribute the wealth. The other side holds that the rich became so by cheating the poor, and therefore should pay heavily for social programs that take care of them, if not outright redistribute the ill-gotten wealth.

Slightly embellished, for effect. :;):

These two views are alien and opposed to each other. One holds that people have to live with the consequences of their actions. The other that all of society is to blame and must therefore remedy it, through government.

One holds that individuals need a social framework with boundaries, the other seeks to tear those boundaries down without regard for consequences.

One would allow individuals to defend themselves from attack, the other gives that role to government.

In short, one side sees people as the answer, each tending to their own. To the other, government is the source of good works.

I don't think that either side is quite right, but you can't just meet halfway between the two diametrically opposed views and expect any sort of stability. It's like trying to mix Libertarianism and Stalinist Communism, it just doesn't fly. Sooner or later, it's gonna blow up and all hell's gonna break loose. Unless a safety valve is put in place to vent the pressure, which is where accessable frontiers come in.

Funny, I was always taught that one of the big things that made America great was the ability to compromise on tough issues so that we could all live together in peace (and prosperity). A close examination of truly moral principles shows benefits for all if they are consistently followed.

Overall I agree, but sometimes the gap is too great for compromise. Sometimes one position is just wrong.

It's gonna get worse before it gets better, just wait...

clark · 2004-07-28 15:14:18

All embellishments aside, you don't serioursly buy into that extremism mumbo-jumbo, do you?

If you're a twit, yeah, it's easy to believe that poor people made themselves that way. If you're a twit, yeah, it's easy to believe that the rich got that way by cheating someone.

If you're a twit.

You see, the twits yell long and loud, and they are the ones that say there is no room for compromise. They paint the world in black and white. They describe the struggle as "us" against "them".

Sometimes the twits even say, "you're with us, or against us."

Sometimes one position is just wrong.

Yeah, the position that does not allow for self-reflection and holds itself to be unwaveringly correct in all of its conclusions.

How many mistakes has Bush made? None. Right.

Palomar · 2004-07-28 15:16:52

It's gonna get worse before it gets better, just wait...

You mean http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … on_22]like this? :-\

Hope Bill doesn't mind my posting that in here.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 15:20:11

How many mistakes has Bush made? None. Right.

Oh, Bush has made a big steaming pile of... mistakes.

We probably just don't agree entirely on what they are.

All embellishments aside, you don't serioursly buy into that extremism mumbo-jumbo, do you?

Of course it's BS, but it reflects underlying outlooks on the world. That's why I saw the need to embellish it. :;):

Unfortunately, too many twits vote, but that's a whole other argument...

BWhite · 2004-07-28 15:35:31

First, some tone-setting quotes:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa01.htm]Federalist #1

To the People of the State of New York:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

and then this:

Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

= = =

One side holds that whether a person is poor or rich is dependent overwhelmingly on their own choices, and it's wrong to punish the successful through taxation to redistribute the wealth. The other side holds that the rich became so by cheating the poor, and therefore should pay heavily for social programs that take care of them, if not outright redistribute the ill-gotten wealth.

Nature vs nuture vs free choice. Its not either/or - - its all of the above. And by the way, Adam Smith was most incensed by wealthy businessmen conspiring with government to restrain free trade.

I consider myself a firm devotee of Adam Smith and that many libertarians have distorted his original theories of political economy beyond recognition.

But, we necessarily comes back to Marx and Keynes. First Marx. IMHO a great historian in explaining how capitalist economies function. Like a doctor who can diagnose a disease.

His treatments are worse than the disease, even allowing for the fact that Stalin & Lenin and Mao perverted his theories.

Next, wikipedia ain't scholarly but its a start for Keynes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_lunch]TAANSTAAFL

Strictly speaking, the idea that there is no free lunch at the societal level applies only when all resources are being used completely and appropriately, i.e., when efficiency prevails. But when inefficiency exists, one can get a "free lunch" by abolishing it. For example, microeconomics argues that the pollution example of the previous paragraph is allocatively inefficient. A tax or other program that forces the polluter to internalize this externality would improve efficiency, increasing social welfare. However, others (rent seekers) may be benefiting from the inefficiency and use their political or social power to prevent you from doing so. That is, the polluter may use lobbying and campaign contributions to preserve his or her right to pollute.
Hard-core (classical liberal) advocates of the TANSTAAFL principle seem to assume that markets are efficient unless due to interference by the government or other "outside" forces. The free market is seen as the solution to issues such as pollution.

I believe markets can be substantially inefficient absent government interference. In other words, governments are not the only source of inefficiency. Lack of education is a another source of inefficiency, for example. Short sighted capitalists who drive wages to zero for short term profits are an inherent inefficiency whether or not government is involved. See $5 dollar day below.

Technology can leverage productivity very substantially yet there is no private incentive to pay for R&D unless government offers patent protection, for example.

Arbitrage opportunities are abundant, meaning the Austrian assumption is wrong.

More wikipedia - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of … ow]Parable of the broken window:

Note that the Austrian interpretation stems from the assumption that all resources are initially fully and appropriately employed. Another school, the Keynesians, argues that in some circumstances the little boy may actually be a benefactor, though not the best possible one. Facing severely underutilized resources (as in the Great Depression), John Maynard Keynes argued (in a somewhat joking way) that it may make economic sense to build totally useless pyramids in order to stimulate the economy, raise aggregate demand, and encourage full employment. More analogous to the broken window, World War II, an extremely destructive event, had exactly that effect. However, Keynes would have preferred to engage in demand stimulus in a way that would be more beneficial to society, such as government investment in education, basic research, public health, and infrastructure.

I believe that Marx is correct that the natural tendency of unfettered capitalism is to drive wages essentially to zero. There are many additional factors of course yet if that were to happen everyone suffers.

Henry Ford paid his workers $5 per day to create demand for people to buy his cars.

Are you familiar with the term "velocity of money" - - the faster money flows through an economy, the more it turns over the more leverage it creates for society.

= = =

I am a amateur follower of third way economics. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … s]Hernando de Soto is one author who is helpful here.

Bottom line?

Without government PROPERTY would be impossible.

Without social stability GOVERNMENT would be impossible.

Without a sense of equity and fair dealing shared by all members of the community, SOCIAL STABILITY would be impossible.

Without at least some measure of welfare state to help assure that all people have a rock bottom minimum safety net the fruits of 20th century American capitalism would never have been picked.

Where do we draw the balance? Good question and reasonable people can differ.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 16:06:40

Cindy, re-read that Yahoo piece, then this except from Obama's speech. Which version of America do you prefer?
*Hi Bill. I prefer the America in Obama's speech.
There is nothing personal against anyone today, I am just in a mood.
*Can only speak for myself of course, but I haven't taken anything you've posted personally. I was a bit concerned about posting that Yahoo! article about Kerry, but only because I thought it might seem going off-topic.
--Cindy

Off topic? I am the last person who should ever complain about that!

I switch subjects on my wife mid-sentence. Makes her nuts.

Gennaro · 2004-07-28 16:36:09

From a European point of view, the real moral-political struggle of modern civilization stands between ethical universalism and objectivist realism.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 16:41:50

From a European point of view, the real moral-political struggle of modern civilization stands between ethical universalism and objectivist realism.

Gennaro, would you call this fellow an http://www.uucroton.org/sermons/0425.Un … df]ethical universalist?

= = =

I have done some more google searches and since I believe there are universal principles, its just darn hard for any feeble human mind (mine included) to grasp them, I guess that makes me an ethical universalist but absolutely not an absolutist.

Morris · 2004-07-28 16:51:44

From a European point of view, the real moral-political struggle of modern civilization stands between ethical universalism and objectivist realism.

Having read a fair amount of Ayn Rand and libertarian publications, I have some idea of what objectivist realism is.

What is ethical universalism? Reference?

Morris · 2004-07-28 17:11:06

Those being moralistic (thanks for the distinction, Cindy) can usually be shown to be elevating a personal preferece to the status of a moral principle.

.

Sorry, Bill. Thanks to you (and Mrs. Kerry).

BWhite · 2004-07-29 07:18:17

Cindy, does stubborn-ness equal strength?

BWhite · 2004-07-29 07:19:14

In short, for universalists, essence precedes existence; for objective realists, existence precedes essence.

What if you are not sure? What if this question is the wrong question?

= = =

Follow on point. What if essence emerges from existence in a recursive bootstrap "upwards" spiral? Why cannot this process be dynamic?

Essence emerges to form a new existence which then emerges into a new essence.

= = =

Thoughts on TANNSAAFL. This is a true proposition =IF= we limit our math operations.

Example - take three 3s as your starting point.

3 + 3 + 3 = 9

Whole cannot exceed sum of the parts.

3 x 3 x 3 = 27

This whole exceeds sum of parts but not the product of the parts.

3 ^3 ^ 3 (3 cubed cubed) = 19,683

Way more than the sum of the parts.

Now how about 3! (3 factorial) rasied to the 3! power and raised to the 3! power again cubed cubed?

46656 raised to the 6th power. My cheap Canon calculator fails at this point.

Back to TANNSAAFL. If every member of society only knows how to add, then its a zero-sum game. If someone knows how to mulitply and everyone else adds, they win the game.

If everyone knows how to do factorials and and raise to powers there will be plenty for everyone.

Palomar · 2004-07-29 07:35:14

Cindy, does stubborn-ness equal strength?

*It may or may not. Would depend on the situation.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 07:38:01

Missed alot of stuff it seems. A quick response then,

Where do we draw the balance? Good question and reasonable people can differ.

Indeed. Which is likely why we have shrill debates and rhetoric in this country instead of the brandishing of firearms and blunt instruments. Our way is better, but it takes a hell of alot longer to work anything out.

Wow, well the short version is that I see one position in what you say fairly well (the conservative. libertarian position) and the other seems to be a caricature, a representation of positions which relatively few in American society of any major party have ever actually held (your representation of the liberal position).

Which is accurate and which is caricature is largely a function of one's own position. Personally I think they're both a little over the top, but I know liberals who think the conservative description is dead on and adamantly refuse the liberal one. But then I know a few ultra-liberals who proudly stand by it. ??? The same people that see the word "Halliburton" and read "Cheney Co. - pillaging from the oppressed worldwide."

I cannot recall ever hearing a democratic, or even a socialist, politician make the claim that, on the whole, the rich in America became rich by cheating the poor.

Of course not. A politician would know it isn't going to fly. That, and politicians are often rather well-to-do themselves. But I've known far too many liberals that actually believe that on some level to just dismiss it as conservative rhetoric.

Now simply, is it in society's best interest to retrain an injured worker or to allow him to remain a burden on his family and friends or to provide money for retraining?

It depends largely on how many such cases there are. If it is comparatively rare, then it makes sense to provide some government aid, acquired through taxation. But if the pool of recipients becomes too large the entire enterprise becomes counter-productive, hurting society as a whole. Conservatives and liberals err in believing that either approach is always right.

Perhaps the foundation is best summed up by something I was told years ago:

You're out on a boat and notice a guy drowning fifty feet away. A conservative will throw him twenty feet of rope and tell him to swim for it. A liberal will throw him a hundred feet of rope, drop the other end and walk off to do another good deed.

Is it reasonable for sociey to help with the crushing medical costs for a child with genetic disabilities?

This is a question not only of frequency but of morality. What manner of genetic disability? Does it make them dangerous? Are they simply incapable of functioning in society?

The arguments range from "we must expend every effort to maintain any sign of life" to "defective. dispose of." Institutionalizing either is wrought with problems. This is a huge grey expanse.

Each society must make it's own decisions about those matters, but the point is, that MANY people's poverty is NOT due to any moral flaw on their part.

I'm not arguing that it is, merely that the underlying principle exists on one side of the political spectrum, balanced by an equally unsubstantiated underlying principle on the other side.

Or do you mean the increasing tolerance of pornography, promotion of premature sexual behavior, etc. There is the illusion that this is supported mostly by liberals, but I would look at the investment profiles of prominent individuals on both sides before drawing a conclusion here. And libertarians generally treat these as "victimless crimes" which should not be crimes at all. [Hmmm, these guys have a lot of good ideas but sometimes they get way out on the far side.]

Yes, this is essentially what I was referring to. Not so much in a legal sense, but a social one. Conservatives by their nature defend the status quo in social structure. Modern liberals have followed the old enlightenment ideals of classical liberalism to absurdity, trying to tear down any percieved injustice, whether real or not. One side recognizes the need for social boundaries on public behavior, the other treats any such boundaries as an injustice to corrected.

Liberalism in general is like a steroid. If taken in small doses it can make a society stronger and more productive. But if overused, it becomes cancerous.

Well, this has traditionally not been a conservative vs. liberal issue. You have to remember that outlaws were quite common until very recently. Coming to a head in the '30s, both Republicans and Democrats, but especially Republicans (e.g. Dewey) heavily supported the actions of the FBI and other federal police forces, as well as those of local police, in order to get things under control. American citizens had had enough of trying to "go it alone" or handle things at a local level. And J. Edgar Hoover did not disappoint them.

No one is saying that citizens should take up law enforcement at the expense of the police. The issue is that conservatives recognize that police can't be everywhere and that police don't exist to prevent crimes in the first place. People need the means to defend themslevs as a last resort. Many liberals on the other hand would deny people this. For all the talk of equality and freedom, they don't trust the people.

I do agree with you, the two sides do exist and there is a lot of tension between them which could easily lead to violence. However, I submit that one side's view is largely based on some deeply held, but very dubious, assumptions about the real beliefs of those on the other side.

Both sides have dubious beliefs about the other, perpetuated by extremists on both sides that actually fit the archetype. But those extremes are rooted in real underlying beliefs held by real people.

A while back I actually tried a little experiment on this. I'd mention a bogus news story that unemployment was up four percent. When I said it to conservatives they invariably looked confused, then wondered aloud where the jobs were going and why they could do it so cheaply. Oversimplified.
Liberals invariably started off with what the government should do to create new jobs or bring the old ones back.

And that's the real divide. One never even thought of government, the other started with it right off.

I don't even want to get started and the whole objectivist/subjectivist debate.

Which is worse: A President which seems to change according to results or a President who can't be wrong and will plow on regardless?

The guy who plows ahead regardless can only make one big mistake on an issue.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-28 08:36:26

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#2 2004-07-28 08:44:29

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#3 2004-07-28 08:59:17

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#4 2004-07-28 09:06:38

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#5 2004-07-28 09:16:33

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#6 2004-07-28 10:29:33

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#7 2004-07-28 10:46:50

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#8 2004-07-28 13:49:54

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#9 2004-07-28 14:03:56

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#10 2004-07-28 15:08:18

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#11 2004-07-28 15:14:18

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#12 2004-07-28 15:16:52

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#13 2004-07-28 15:20:11

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#14 2004-07-28 15:35:31

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#15 2004-07-28 16:06:40

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#16 2004-07-28 16:36:09

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#17 2004-07-28 16:41:50

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#18 2004-07-28 16:51:44

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#19 2004-07-28 17:11:06

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#20 2004-07-29 07:18:17

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#21 2004-07-29 07:19:14

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#22 2004-07-29 07:35:14

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

#23 2004-07-29 07:38:01

Re: Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome!

Board footer