That's not scary. It's awesome!
God I hope that happens.
That's not scary. It's awesome!
God I hope that happens.
Why do you think it is awesome?
He probably supports McCain. Anyway the end is nigh...
Socialism is impossible. Human nature gets in the way. We are a self-serving, mostly independent species and for socialism to work we would have to have true equality. That means everyone in the environ would have to perform the same equivalent of workload and receive the same amount of return.
After working in Fairfield, AL (a ghetto/slum area) I am so adamant against socialism. So many of the people who receive social security don't need it - trust me, I see it every day where I work. What the government needs is to overhall the social security program completely. Instead the government needs to implement a national healthcare system so the poor can have healthcare. Then, the social security checks that are sent out can be reduced.
That's not scary. It's awesome!
God I hope that happens.
Why do you think it is awesome?
He probably supports McCain. Anyway the end is nigh...
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2205/barackobamaisonfireea5.jpg)
So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause.
Very kennedyesque.
Socialism is impossible. Human nature gets in the way. We are a self-serving, mostly independent species
I just feel he promises way more than he can deliver
I just feel strange having a president with Hussein in his name.
He always embraced his Kenyan heritage more than his American heritage hence him taking that name and I just feel he is no where near as patriotic as John McCain.He is being true to his roots, so what? It seems I have been embracing my Scottish heritage more than my American heritage because I have been walking around with the "Mc" in my last name, all these years...how unpatriotic of me....oh wait...actions speak louder than words.
Will the economy be better under Obama, probably. It's just hard to not respect a man who has always put his country first like McCain has.
Our country is saved? By one man? I think not!They both had potential to lead us down the right path I think, but will it happen thats a real thing to worry about.
Its doesn't matter that Obama was the one who won, or if it had been McCain, no man is going to single-handedly "save our country." It is going to take an effort on all our parts.
How can you all be so excited? Don't get me wrong, it is an exciting time in our history, but the picture is just so much bigger than alot of people realize. We have so many internal issues in our country, so many! (And not to piss anyone off, but I find the all the people going crazy for Obama, saying they'll move out of the country if he doesn't win etc slightly creepy. Its like he is some god-like rockstar. I didn't like McCain either though).
And before anything great comes out of this, things are gonna get worse.
"It's always darkest before the dawn."
I also don't like the fact that Reverend Wright considers white people to be rich white devils he are just out to hold down other races. He went there 20 years so if he didn't know his reverend was like that he is too gullable to run the country.
I believe that if you choose to go there for 20 years then yes I can confidently say that he believed what he was going to hear or else he was a big fan of wasting time.
Some of his sermons are halfway sensible, like the one about how American bombing of Middle Eastern countries prompted 9/11 in kind.
The man was associated with him like a family member. If he didn't notice the hate Wright spewed then he is a very gullible human being and unfit to hold the position he does.
That's dramatically simplifying it. Don't let the hatred for a president lessen the atrocity of 9/11.
Most of the time you are who you associate with.
Name the last time a terrorist action killed 5,000 people.
I don't think that's true. I couldn't stand to hang around anyone who was like me...I'm an asshole! There are people who choose to associate with people they think need them, people they're better than, and people that could use them to be better influences to...The opposite is also true. Everyone is different.
I guess that depends on how you define terrorism or what acts are terrorism...
...military end. Those events might target civilians but they do so as only one component of a larger, military oriented, goal.
And it is only an atrocity because it happened on our soil
Oh my god, some one being an ass on the internet! How clever he must feel.
Now, now J; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and a world of blind hatred yields no beneficent progress, only regressive destruction.
Both you and I know their is currently an enmity between mainstream democrats and republican and that the hatred is one of convenience, parity or not; to deny that would be ignorant and ludicrous. Personally, the saying is rather self-evident, if a system exclusively reacts to every radical, then the system will experience a run-away chain-reaction that will eventually destroy itself. That's what defines sentience, the ability to not react and the ability to prevent. I, for one, am willing to forgive and start tabula rosa, to build upon that which works─simplicity. Why must it be death alone that change is birthed?Quote from: BROJNow, now J; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and a world of blind hatred yields no beneficent progress, only regressive destruction.
I never much liked that saying. For one thing, it implies a parity between the parties involved that may well not exist. Republicans spent eight years telling the rest of us that they're the real Americans and we have to be like them, and they spent fourteen years taking people's rights away for reasons of religion or profit. We're going to put an end to that. It's our country too, and they are going to learn that the hard way now--by having their undue influence cut down to size in the new administration. They had the opportunity to engage in the political process respectfully, but as recently as one week ago they were still saying that we should have witch-hunts in the Congress. On Tuesday, sexual equality was on the chopping block in three states and gay rights in four. These people have to be stopped. We've got to change the way ordinary Americans respond to their lunacy. The landslide victory we won on Tuesday earned us the opportunity to make the change we seek. Now we have to use that power; it isn't enough to win election. We have to wield the power too. You call that "blind hate" without warrant. While some liberals may be itching to treat the Republicans as crudely as they have treated the rest of America, I and the majority of liberals are not among that number. Neither shall we be stopped in our tracks by semantics or obfuscation. I am personally prepared to argue the distinction between remediation and revenge.
For another thing, that saying doesn't make a lot of sense even when accounting for the generosities that must be shown to hackneyed figures of speech. Should every action no matter how foul go unchallenged lest the world end up blind as you suggest? I think that's rubbish. It's too easy to come up with bad metaphors, or to use good metaphors badly. I could say that justice is supposed to be blind. That's a good metaphor...but it makes almost as little sense in this context as yours does.
Are you so much more of a human, nay, less susceptible to hatred and error than they are?
I'm afraid I do not think human means what you think it means. Ranks or not, we are imperfect by ourselves and must help and depend on others. Realize this and know this; only then canQuoteAre you so much more of a human, nay, less susceptible to hatred and error than they are?
I'm going to argue yes here, and not just for Lord J, but for many people who strive to better themselves and humanity at large. I still can't claim to rank people, but that counts for something. The case is especially simple here, since right-wing politics have become a hate machine that has expelled conservative intellectuals and people with too much "otherness" and has vilified entire swaths of people unjustly to achieve political gain. They threw this gauntlet down first, and now they're going to get receive their apt justice. If they'd like to stop infringing upon civil rights and demonizing people, then I'll be the first to befriend them. But as it stands, Obama is an evil Muslim who pals around with terrorists; Democrats are USA-hating sissies who want to see the troops fail; liberals are godless, morally bankrupt heathens who want to steal your hard-earned dollars; secularism stands in the way of American Christian Imperialism. Fear, fear, fear. The entire McCain campaign platform seemed to be "fear Obama and the ev0l libruls", with the entire "Who is Barack Obama?" spiel crossing the line into coded racism. As someone who grew up in Oklahoma, the anti-intellectual atmosphere is palpable, as is the one of Christian assimilation.
We have every reason as human beings to be happy that what I've described has just been strongly repudiated. And given the sins above, I'm not the least bit concerned about shedding tears for these hate-mongering people.
As a side note, as a graduate student of business, I can now say that the entire school of thought reeks of corruption. I overheard the argument Wednesday that business students should naturally vote for McCain, who'll be more friendly to business. The act of voting has become a function of greed to these people, and it's not surprising. Tax class is all about how to avoid the most taxes for your client. Law is about how to create your business so that you'll have the least debt or responsibility if it fails or hurts others. I can easily see how it'd be a stone truth to these people to vote for McCain, regardless of Palin, his other positions, or the affirmation of the current conservative cancer. It's just disgusting, and I could never quite get it until now.I'm afraid I cannot provide wisdom or knowledge on the subject, save that money, possessions and personal interests are unable to provide happiness per se, leading people to search a hollow husk for something which is not present─happiness.
It's our country too, and they are going to learn that the hard way now.
BROJ: I do not know what to make of your post. It contains...nothing. No premise. No conclusion. No meaning. I did try. Sorry.Common sense would tell me that the onus is on your side, I asked a question(i.e. what you are searching for, in me, can only be found in yourself; e.g. the premise-knowledge, the conclusion-wisdom and the meaning-illumination), as per the intrinsic nature of inquiry, you are the only one who can answer. Perhaps I should ignore your taunt and go on with my day. However, this is one of the few cases where my logic comes in conflict with my humanity. Thus, I find it my charge to attempt again to inquire upon the nature of your intentions.
I know how to separate my personal feelings from my strategic objectives.
BROJ, ethics and human emotion are not mutually exclusive.No, that's not what I meant; what I meant was converse to what you said: do you believe a code of ethics only applies in personal engagements, and not in professional, strategic engagements?
Sorry, BROJ. You've stumped me. I haven't understood you throughout this whole thread. I don't mean that in an ideological sense. I mean that, as far as I can tell, you're just stringing words together. I'm sure you're trying to say something, but I'm obviously not up to the challenge. Until you can communicate effectively, I've got nothing for ya. Talk to ZeaLitY; he has more patience for this kind of thing.Perhaps that would explain the disconnect, and if it is I shall try to be clearer. However, from my point of view, that isn't entirely the case. For the entire thread, when you didn't understand my words, questions and/or opinions, you didn't ask what I meant. You made assumptions on what I meant. And when you failed at guessing the correct meaning, you gave up. For example, when I asked: "How can one have a code of ethics that applies only when it is convenient?" I was expecting an answer along the caliber of: strategy is a way of life, and cannot be interpreted apart from it, not "BROJ, ethics and human emotion are not mutually exclusive." That is not the kind of information I asked for.
my words, questions and/or opinion
cease with the idle banter and bitching
vainly flame
remediate the state of affairs benevolently and productively
aesthetically appealing
blatantly dodged
allot me the opportunity to understand
sort of malignant spite and a hubris that can only be attributed to a long, voracious awaited victory
ignorant, impudent when I was curious and weak-minded when I was being compassionate
the premise-knowledge, the conclusion-wisdom and the meaning-illumination
Thought! You make good points, but I think you misunderstood what I said yesterday. My goal is not vengeance, or to stoop to the level of discourse that the Republicans maintained while in power. I strongly implied that I reject such a philosophy, but perhaps you underestimated me due to my style.
If the Democrats do nothing else but be just and fair, then they'll have failed as a ruling party. Curiously, I am saying that the Democrats need to be unjust and unfair. They need to be understanding to an unreasonable extent, kind beyond propriety. Merely doing what is right and proper won’t win the day.
Obama, I am fairly sure, will take this sort of approach. But I suspect you can see the difference between Obama and yourself. I believe you are more concerned with the task at hand (as evident from your post), but I believe that Obama is more concerned with the people at hand. He won’t leave the tasks ignored, but people will be his first reaction, just as tasks are your first reaction. So I suppose, what I am saying is that what the Democrats need to be a successful party is more Obama and less Josh.
Now rather than continuing to beat a dead horse, may we cease with the idle banter and bitching and get to the real matter at hand? My question is for you, directly; if I wanted to disrespect you or another, I would do just as you said. Now I ask, why do you vainly flame the conservatives if your intent is to remediate the state of affairs benevolently and productively?
I know you are not a vengeful person, so I am confused as to why this would be the action you would find aesthetically appealing.
For the entire thread, when you didn't understand my words, questions and/or opinions, you didn't ask what I meant. You made assumptions on what I meant. And when you failed at guessing the correct meaning, you gave up.
Your strength, as I perceive it, is in your attention to details. Obama's strength, as I perceive it, is in his attention to people. Not in a group-hug sort of way, mind you, but in a "come on, we can do this" sort of way.
I think you are someone who will be as good and as kind as reason, good form, and propriety allow (when required).
Perhaps you are willing to be unreasonable with me?
I do prefer to influence people by example, where as you seem to prefer to influence people more directly.