Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Holden McGroin on May 14, 2004, 10:33:46 PM
-
Let me begin by stating that I'm not interested in causing a flaming thread of any kind. Besides, calling many of you idiots would be an insult to all the stupid people. I'm merely here to open myself to differing opinions, not to start some fruitless argument. So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey. With that in mind, if you wish to say something, please do so in a mature, positive, and moreover constructive manner.
I know most of you have an interest in the political ramifications of the decisions of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and many have had insightful comments to make on the subject. Some of you though are the kind of person one would use as a blueprint to build an idiot. So keep your thoughts concise and get directly to the point. Don't let your mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.
The subject of this thread is whether it is better to have someone in the oval office who has firm convictions or someone with a more flexible approach to policy. So post your ideas; if you keep it up long enough someday you'll say something intelligent. Above all folks, let’s keep it courteous and hold the insults to a minimum.
I believe that we should be electing a leader who steers public opinion rather than following the currents of popular thought. Too many politicians are reacting to polls and if that were the way in 1862, Lincoln would not have been able to press on his policy, which has been proven through history as the appropriate one. I realize it's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, but try to keep up. We are supposed to elect leaders, not followers.
;)
-
The world changes. Some flexibility is required.
It seems that presidents all too often forget the promises they made. We can hope that they were elected based upon their position on certain issues that will be addressed during their tenure.
But the world changes. If the President backs away from a campaign promise, it would be nice if he explained why without rhetoric.
I think the opinion polling requires a balance. Used too often and the President is little more than a reactionary with no clear vision at all. On the other hand, to ignore the public opinion is like putting blinders on. The first lacks focus. The second lacks scope.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"...So keep your thoughts concise and get directly to the point."
YOU F A G!
But I digress....
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"I believe that we should be electing a leader who steers public opinion rather than following the currents of popular thought."
I thought y'all ditched the monarchy a long time ago. Wouldn't you rather have someone at least pretending to advocate on your behalf?
Popular thought is popular for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey.
Yup, and he got lost. Let you know when he finds his way home.
-SW
-
I hear you changed your mind! What did you do with the diaper?
I like to think that I would be the sheriff standing on the jailhouse steps protecting the prisoner from the mob rather than one of the mob.
Popular opinion is sometimes wrong, and it takes wisdom to convince the populace of their folly.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The world changes. Some flexibility is required.
It seems that presidents all too often forget the promises they made. We can hope that they were elected based upon their position on certain issues that will be addressed during their tenure.
But the world changes. If the President backs away from a campaign promise, it would be nice if he explained why without rhetoric.
I think the opinion polling requires a balance. Used too often and the President is little more than a reactionary with no clear vision at all. On the other hand, to ignore the public opinion is like putting blinders on. The first lacks focus. The second lacks scope.
Wow sandman that post actually holds some truth and merit. it isnt overly judgmental or biased. I'm impressed!
Here's my stance. Directly relating to bush he was not my first choice and it certainly wasnt Al Gore. My first choice was John Mcain. While I find myself often disagreeing with him I find him a man of action and integridy.
That being said Bush was the next best thing. That being said I STILL think Bush is the next best thing compared to Kerry.
It's pretty sad when I dont fully support the canidate I'm voting for because I disagree entirly w/ the other guy. I KNOW alot of people are going to vote for Kerry for much the same reasons. That just shows you the sad state of American politics.
Bush being a conservative stands by MOST of the issues I as a voter hold near and dear to my heart (IE Gun control, The Economy, Abortion ect)....Kerry does not. I dont like the fact that Bush has run up a deficit but I know he has done alot to improve the economy. I TRUELY belive that Kerry would do a worse job.
With all that being said let the flameless posts begin. If held true this will be a welcome thread to get to know people.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Popular opinion is sometimes wrong, and it takes wisdom to convince the populace of their folly.
Oh DAMN you! You had to go and play the wisdom card.
You win.
Bush hands down.
-
I understand you have an inferiority complex -- and it's fully justified, but I did not mention those who try for the job presently. I am talking in generalizations, not specifics.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I understand you have an inferiority complex -- and it's fully justified, but I did not mention those who try for the job presently. I am talking in generalizations, not specifics.
Generalizations are cute and fund.
Specifics are the things that actually bite ya in the arse.
I think there was a link posted to some other forum today if you want to speaky in fairy tale code.
-
Definitely don't want to insult all of the stupid people. But then again, how do you do that? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Definitely don't want to insult all of the stupid people. But then again, how do you do that? ;)
One idea might be to point out that we're all hangin' out on this BBS. :)
-
Dwelling on specifics is what the old "Can't see the forest for the trees" saying is all about.
Looking at the big picture and voting for someone even though you disagree on something like abortion (or pick your favorite issue) but agree on a larger portion of the platform than another candidate is what big picture thinking is all about.
If I said anything to you that I should be sorry for, I'm glad.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I said anything to you that I should be sorry for, I'm glad.
Your gladness is my gladness. I aim to please.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yeah but dwelling on specifics is what the old "Can't see the forest for the trees" saying is all about.
Pretend this is Antarctica. There's no dwelling going on. You're rah rahing for a strong leader that stands firm for the best of amreeka despite the fickleness of popular opinion. I'm simply pointing out the folly (your word) in this line of thought considering the geniuses currently dwelling in the White House.
Or are you really actually trying to compare Bush to Lincoln?
-
Nash, Nash...
You're acquitting yourself in such a way that no jury ever would.
In this thread I have not mentioned the current occupant of the White House. The reason I am taking pains to speak in traits that we would like in our leaders, rather than anthropomorphizing those traits in an individual, is I vote for someone who bests fits my 'ideal leader' no one has measured up yet.
And if this were Antartica, I would be voting for the president of Antartica, not America.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nash, Nash...
You're acquitting yourself in such a way that no jury ever would.
Nah screw that. Any jury would take so much pity on me that on the eve of my aquittal we'd all be stupid drunk and be singing the theme to 'Titanic' on Kareoke.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In this thread I have not mentioned the current occupant of the White House.
That's the problem. A problem you seem to want to avoid. For it makes void your entire argument.
-
Originally posted by Nash
folly (your word)
Not my word...
fol·ly n.
pl. fol·lies
A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight.
An act or instance of foolishness: regretted the follies of his youth.
A costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome.
[Middle English folie, from Old French, from fol, foolish, from Late Latin follis, windbag, fool.
My word is 'serfictitude.'
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Popular opinion is sometimes wrong, and it takes wisdom to convince the populace of their folly.
Okay would it make it all so much better had I said "the word you used"?
You aint gonna go down the semantic path with me too are you?
Last ditch effort is all that says.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In this thread I have not mentioned the current occupant of the White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nash
That's the problem. A problem you seem to want to avoid. For it makes void your entire argument. [/B]
Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice.
When you decide to go out and buy a new car, do you decide on a make and model and then complain about its features?
I make a list of the features I would like and then investigate which vehicle best fits the list.
-
Are we talking about cars now? Cuz I've always been partial to '65 Mustangs.
-
Talkin about choices, and the 65 'stang didn't come with a CD stereo, not enough horsepower, and carries mighty little drywall.
-
But it looks sweet. And fahgedabout CDs.... I don't even know if they came with an FM option, let alone 8 track.
But you make a good point.
Next time when I go to the lot and get a bit excited, I'm going to step back, take a breather, and say to myself "yes, but can it haul drywall?"
-
WOW no surprise that a "courteous Political Discussion" gets AFU on this board.
BTW nothing beats a 4WD during the wintertime.....especially w/ snow.
-
Hey Nash, you're not yourself today. I noticed the improvement immediately.
Support the candidate (or buy the car) who (which) matches the list of issues (features) you think are important.
I think leadership is important, and when I choose a leader, I hope for someone who can show me a path that I may not have seen, a better path than I knew.
That's what the settlers did on the Oregon Trail and they were right.
-
But will the 4WD stand steadfast in its lubrication or bend to the elements?
That's the question.
New Consumers Guide is out on Tuesday with the shocking revelations.
-
Are you eligible for your own contest, Nash?
-
Originally posted by Nash
But will the 4WD stand steadfast in its lubrication or bend to the elements?
That's the question.
New Consumers Guide is out on Tuesday with the shocking revelations.
Both of my vehicles are 4WD and I make sure that all the proper maintainence is done at the proper time. They BOTH run excelent in the snow and MY Jeep is awsome during the hot months cause I dont have a top on it during that time.
4 MORE YEARS!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nah screw that. Any jury would take so much pity on me that on the eve of my aquittal we'd all be stupid drunk and be singing the theme to 'Titanic' on Kareoke.
That's the problem. A problem you seem to want to avoid. For it makes void your entire argument.
Theme to 'Titanic'? Would that be groooooan, creeeeeek, glub glub glub? Not that any particular party is sinking mind you, or that any rats are abandonding ship. :)
-
I have become disappointed with the Bush administration on many levels but I made a decision to support the effort to influence Iraq towards long term stability and I will not back down from that position unless there is undisputable proof of "evildoing" on the part of the adminstration. I have not yet seen any undisputable proof of "evildoing" and I will stick with my commitment. I owe it personaly to all those that have been killed and maimed on my behalf. I will not back down from my own commitment and will cast my vote, albeit reluctantly, for Bush.
Still, the election is seven month away.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Support the candidate (or buy the car) who (which) matches the list of issues (features) you think are important.
I think leadership is important, and when I choose a leader, I hope for someone who can show me a path that I may not have seen, a better path than I knew.
Yes.... fer sure no doubt. But you can't take the current crop of politicians out of the equation or you gonna wind up back in fairy tale land.
That's why your argument is wrong. It's idealistic (which I happen to dig), but it's a bit unrealistic.
If you want someone to "show you a path, a better path" would you in a million years have thought you'd be looking to George Jr. for that path?
No.
So it's a damn good thing thing y'all still have some semblence of a say in things.
Btw. "Oregon Trail".... SEA LION CAVES! :aok and just a bit south TREES OF MYSTERY! :aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Are you eligible for your own contest, Nash?
\
Nah. And verboten to speak of it outside that thread.
-
I'd have been content to let the middle eastern Muslims continue wearin' their turbans, hackin' off each others' hands, beatin' their women, shootin' their ak47's in the air, starvin' each each other to death, and just generally havin' a good time if only they'd not drug us into it. When they attacked us on an unignorable scale they should have expected to get spanked. This ain't the 11th century any more.
-
What does that have to do with this?
-
That would be this if only it were a bit nearer.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you want someone to "show you a path, a better path" would you in a million years have thought you'd be looking to George Jr. for that path?
No, 'cause in a million years, I'd be dead.
I wouldn't have chosen Gore or Nader either. Until the choice is obvious, I will take the choices available to me and compromise with the one who is closest to the ideal however far they are away from that ideal.
Kind of like choosing that family mini van when what you really wanted was the Lamborghini, but the Italian wet dream was not an available choice
-
heh :) then we'll dub the unlikely union "thit".
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Until the choice is obvious, I will take the choices available to me and compromise with the one who is closest to the ideal however far they are away from that ideal.
Okay and this new found enlightenment has what to do with how great it what be if some Napolean-type would rise up and - damn the wishes of those governed - tell ya how it's gonna be?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'd have been content to let the middle eastern Muslims continue wearin' their turbans, hackin' off each others' hands, beatin' their women, shootin' their ak47's in the air, starvin' each each other to death, and just generally havin' a good time if only they'd not drug us into it. When they attacked us on an unignorable scale they should have expected to get spanked. This ain't the 11th century any more.
I like the way that you talk!
name the place the drinks are on me:aok
-
Based on the last US Presidential election I suspect the US is still pretty evenly divided. I'm not claiming to be a prophet but I believe the next US election will go pretty much whichever way the situation in Iraq goes.
-
Originally posted by txmx
I like the way that you talk!
name the place the drinks are on me:aok
I'll be at the con come September, if you're there I'll reciprocate. :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not claiming to be a prophet but I believe the next US election will go pretty much whichever way the situation in Iraq goes.
Which has nothing to do with Bush. He'll just be a victim of cruel fate.
Ooookay. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Which has nothing to do with Bush. He'll just be a victim of cruel fate.
Ooookay. :)
Aren't we all?
-
That's a good question.
-
Well, I'd subscribe to the Sara Connor dictum but apparently she was wrong. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay and this new found enlightenment has what to do with how great it what be if some Napolean-type would rise up and - damn the wishes of those governed - tell ya how it's gonna be?
You seem to have this dictator complex.
Not a Napoleon, but a Lincoln or Churchill or Jefferson. I am looking for a president who can persuade, who can show the better path and when you see the path, you realize it's value and go on your own accord.
Blindly following the wishes of the governed is called mob rule.
-
"No fate except what we make"
How can she know? Fate made her speak these words, for all she knows.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You seem to have this dictator complex.
Not a Napoleon, but a Lincoln or Churchill or Jefferson. I am looking for a president who can persuade, who can show the better path and when you see the path, you realize it's value and go on your own accord.
Blindly following the wishes of the governed is called mob rule.
How about we bring this back on home, for a second k Holden?
You said "The subject of this thread is whether it is better to have someone in the oval office who has firm convictions or someone with a more flexible approach to policy."
Now I HOPE we can appreciate that this depends on WHO is in office.
If you're saying that it'd be cool if "Jefferson" were back in biz and callin the shots then..... well, that's something.
But I suspect you were trying to make a parallel with the Bush admin.
That's where it goes down in flames.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Let me begin by stating that I'm not interested in causing a flaming thread of any kind. Besides, calling many of you idiots would be an insult to all the stupid people. I'm merely here to open myself to differing opinions, not to start some fruitless argument. So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey. With that in mind, if you wish to say something, please do so in a mature, positive, and moreover constructive manner.
I know most of you have an interest in the political ramifications of the decisions of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and many have had insightful comments to make on the subject. Some of you though are the kind of person one would use as a blueprint to build an idiot. So keep your thoughts concise and get directly to the point. Don't let your mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.
The subject of this thread is whether it is better to have someone in the oval office who has firm convictions or someone with a more flexible approach to policy. So post your ideas; if you keep it up long enough someday you'll say something intelligent. Above all folks, let’s keep it courteous and hold the insults to a minimum.
I believe that we should be electing a leader who steers public opinion rather than following the currents of popular thought. Too many politicians are reacting to polls and if that were the way in 1862, Lincoln would not have been able to press on his policy, which has been proven through history as the appropriate one. I realize it's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, but try to keep up. We are supposed to elect leaders, not followers.
;)
Wow, you made it 1 sentence before Flame On.
-
It will be interesting to watch Bush in the months to come. You can learn a lot more about a person's character when they are under pressure.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But I suspect you were trying to make a parallel with the Bush admin.
Honestly, I wasn't. I was being more (here's that word again) general.
-
Call it fate, but I don't believe you.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Wow, you made it 1 sentence before Flame On.
You didn't get the joke?
-
I did.... but I was bored so I ignored that part :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It will be interesting to watch Bush in the months to come. You can learn a lot more about a person's character when they are under pressure.
Glad to know that whole Iraq thing isn't putting too much pressure on him. Wouldn't want him to be stressed about something as trivial as the questionably justified invasion of another country.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Call it fate, but I don't believe you.
Don't know what to tell you, except to say that while I did vote for Bush and probably will again, he is like all politicians, a compromise.
I would have campaigned for Powell if he had run.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Glad to know that whole Iraq thing isn't putting too much pressure on him. Wouldn't want him to be stressed about something as trivial as the questionably justified invasion of another country.
I don't think he undertook said invasion lightly, even after the apparent ease of pushing the Iraqi's out of Kuwait in '91. I think he leans heavily on advisors (always wise imo) and I'm confident they considered the opposition US troops are facing in Iraq today. However, the situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq are most surely a heavy burden for him. If they are not then he most definitely is not one I want to lead our country.
-
Powell would likely be the antithesis of your original post here.
He'd likely not be blindly driven by ideology nor duped into something by a few folks who are smarter than him.
And he wouldn't try and sell ya on something dumb that ya didn't even know that ya didn't want in the first place.
-
Jane has three quarters, three nickels, one dime, and an oak leaf. Jon has one quarter, one nickel, seven dimes and a maple leaf.
Who has more money?
Answer will come when you figure out the worth of both leaves, and then you'll still be wrong.
I undeestood pawliteeks.
-SW
-
TEH ONE WITH TEH MAPLE LEAF EH WOOT!
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Jane has three quarters, three nickels, one dime, and an oak leaf. Jon has one quarter, one nickel, seven dimes and a maple leaf.
Who has more money?
Answer will come when you figure out the worth of both leaves, and then you'll still be wrong.
I undeestood pawliteeks.
-SW
Since Jon has the maple leaf his dime is obviously Candian and worth less. Jane has the most money. ;)
-
You can't put a dollar sign on heart!
-
I know you've had maple syrup tho Iron, it is what its all aboot.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Nash
Powell would likely be the antithesis of your original post here.
He'd likely not be blindly driven by ideology nor duped into something by a few folks who are smarter than him.
And he wouldn't try and sell ya on something dumb that ya didn't even know that ya didn't want in the first place.
Powell has firm convictions, and where did I say I wanted someone blindly driven by ideology?
What I said (using alternate phrasology) is that I believe that a leader should lead, not point to where the political wind blows him.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I know you've had maple syrup tho Iron, it is what its all aboot.
-SW
I have had maple syrup and it cannot be beat.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What I said (using alternate phrasology) is that I believe that a leader should lead, not point to where the political wind blows him.
Wow what a mind-blowing original thought.
In like, 90 lines of insults, is this one line the gist?
-
I concur Sir Iron, and now I must retire-----to ponder all that is maple syrup... and pancakes.
I believe that and bacon shall be me three meals tommorrow, and it sounds deelishus.
-SW
-
originally posted by Nash
Wow what a mind-blowing original thought.
In like, 90 lines of insults, is this one line the gist?
Said it the first post.
from the original post
We are supposed to elect leaders, not followers.
Did I get to 90? Didn't think I got that far...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We are supposed to elect leaders, not followers.
And I'm "supposed" to be really really rich and hang out daily at the Playboy mansion.
In the meantime you get the dudes who happen to be on the ballot.
You want to make the case that allahvasudden they morph into these wise people who should be all determined-like and forge onward with a dogged certainty; leading everyone across the internet bridge of the 21st Century with a thousand points of light shining their direction.
So far? From what I can tell.... The less they think and the more you think, the better.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You want to make the case that allahvasudden they morph into these wise people who should be all determined-like and forge onward...
I am not making that case. There is a huge difference between a politician and a leader/statesman. I hold out hope for a leader/statesman.
Churchill, Gandhi, Lincoln, these type come by now and then, and these are the people we should be looking for when we elect our leaders. That we have to fill in with many Millard Fillmore's in between times is reality.
It is interesting that the four carved on Rushmore were all elected prior to women's suffrage. Just a coincidence no doubt.
-
U serious?
-
Bout what?
-
Yeah... blame the chicks... LOL
-
I said it was just a coincidence, true, but just a coincidence.
The first president elected after suffrage was Warren G Harding.
-
You jackin' your own thread!
I like it... But yer busted. :D
-
Okay, back to insults, which was the true object of the thread.
-
shreck if I know :)
Oh that was a statement, not a question> Okay...
You're a F A G.
This thread is one of those giant figure-eight infinity symbols.
-
not that there's anything wrong with that
Your supposed to use the disclaimer any time you accuse anyone.
and you should learn from your parents mistakes - try using some birth control.
-
To be totally honest, the F A G is about the only thing I could think of cuz I'm pretty sure the filter would block everything else.... but Funked used F A G to me and it passed... and I didn't have the energy to re-invent the mouse trap and all that.
-
Courteous Political Discussion=oxymoron :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'd have been content to let the middle eastern Muslims continue wearin' their turbans, hackin' off each others' hands, beatin' their women, shootin' their ak47's in the air, starvin' each each other to death, and just generally havin' a good time if only they'd not drug us into it. When they attacked us on an unignorable scale they should have expected to get spanked. This ain't the 11th century any more.
I agree with you Iron. however I think that the foray into Iraq was a mistake. there is a saying in Spanish "Mas vale un mal conocido que un bien por conocer" I'm sure that there is an english adage to go along with it but I've never heard it. Anyhow it says it is better to have a known bad thing than to have an unknown good thing, or perhaps a good thing yet to be known.
-
POTUS is a difficult job and imo the more a president is idealogicially driven the poorer leader he would be.
A leader must be flexible in a complex and hostile world. think european infantry tactics circa 1800 versus sun-tzu/guerrila warfare.
I didn't like Bush* from the beginning because he gives me the impression of an empty suit, a mouthpiece. Noone could possibly disagree that if he had not been the son of the former Bush he would never have been a presidential candidate or the gov of Texas for that matter. That rubs me the wrong way because that isnt what America is supposed to be imo
So Bush* got his chance, ok. He also got a Rebuplican congress, and he truly got the support of the entire US and the world after 9-11. The GOP and Bush had a real chance to prove that their philosophy was superior. And look what has hapenned -
net job loss around 3M with major White House encouraged outsourcing
An administration who probably (that is as fair as it can be put) dropped the ball on 9-11 warnings and intel
Our intelligence cant seem to get it together after 9-11, as there was all the false info about WMD, yellowcake, etc. Although to be fair their are insider witnesses who have stated that Bush* was pushing for war with Iraq from the get-go.
Tax cuts at the same time - two in fact, that overwhelmingly favor the rich. Why do millionaires need a new porsche each year when our troops still don't have enough ammo or armor.
Record deficits follow. We are over 7 TRILLION in debt folks. What is the minimum payment on that? Bush* also broke the record on deficit spending after being handed a hefty surplus - by the dread Klinton - damn him!
Iraq, which started off so well, has gone to crap. Bush* damamged the reputation of the US by his unilateral action, for what turned out to be a mistake. Things went downhill from there, to say the least.
How about an energy bill that favors oil and gas corps, a prescription drug plan that gives billions to the pharm. industry, and no child left behind which turned out to be underfunded window dressing.
My point is that this administration has blindly followed their flawed ideals to the point that the county has been hurt - GIve benefits to those that need them least, ignore impending terrorism, and seek out military action in a troubled land that just happens to be sitting on a big load of oil.
I want someone who will use his brain to lead this country, someone who will act in the interest of the people, not the corps, and someone who will only use the military as a last resort.
Vote for John Kerry. no brainer.
-
Originally posted by strk
POTUS is a difficult job and imo the more a president is idealogicially driven the poorer leader he would be.
i·de·ol·o·gy
A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
So a president shold be a blank slate, responding to the whims of circumstance rather than have an agenda: like for example "A house divided aganst itself cannot stand" someone like that would obviously suck as a leader. got it.
-
I agree strk. In order to vote for John Kerry you would first need to be paralyzed from the neck up.
-
Originally posted by strk
net job loss around 3M with major White House encouraged outsourcing
Proof yet again that many products of our school system have failed to fully understand NAFTA, Most Favored Nation status and, of course, the basic results of "free trade" policies.
Now Main Street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores
Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more
They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks
Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back to your hometown Springsteen, "My Hometown" 1980
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
i·de·ol·o·gy
A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
So a president shold be a blank slate, responding to the whims of circumstance rather than have an agenda: like for example "A house divided aganst itself cannot stand" someone like that would obviously suck as a leader. got it.
way to make a straw man argument - however a logical fallacy
thanks for the spelling lesson, sport
-
Originally posted by storch
I agree strk. In order to vote for John Kerry you would first need to be paralyzed from the neck up.
I guess you will be voting dem this year?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Proof yet again that many products of our school system have failed to fully understand NAFTA, Most Favored Nation status and, of course, the basic results of "free trade" policies.
so losing 3 million american jobs is ok because of NAFTA? The Dread Clinton dropped the ball on NAFTA - it was a mistake from the get go and never included the worker and environmental rights that were promised.
So now we can get cheap products made by slaves overseas, and 3 MILLION americans out of work
yeah NAFTA!
btw - did you go to some private school and that makes you so smart?
-
...the new avitar, the message it conveys is my opinion.
-
Your questions in order:
The loss of jobs to overseas "outsourcing" had been going on long before Springsteen lamented it in "My Hometown." Therefore, it's clear that the "outsourcing" of US jobs is not a short term recent phenomenom, although obviously a lot of folks trained in the "60 minute sitcom" or perhaps "MTV" mode of thinking expect that since THEY just noticed it, it must be a new thing and should be able to be wrapped up in an hour or less, deducting for commercial breaks, of course.
So, losing 3 million jobs ISN'T "just because of NAFTA". I hope that answers question #1.
Yes, I did go to Private Catholic Schools through High School. I went to a public University for my degree. However, it wasn't the schools that "makes me so smart". Indeed, I suspect I am of average intelligence at best. However, the big difference is that I obviously paid more attention than some other folks while I was there.
-
Originally posted by strk
so losing 3 million american jobs is ok because of NAFTA? The Dread Clinton dropped the ball on NAFTA - it was a mistake from the get go and never included the worker and environmental rights that were promised.
So now we can get cheap products made by slaves overseas, and 3 MILLION americans out of work
yeah NAFTA!
btw - did you go to some private school and that makes you so smart?
Do you buy any of those cheap products? When you have work done at your home do you get three bids and select the highest priced one?
Pipe down already you silly liberal, your time and rhetoric are from the past.
This is a global economy.
When I can get castings made in America that are equal in quality to the the ones I get from Taiwan and are equal in price then I will buy American.
I use this example because this is one of the few mfg. goods where I still have a choice. I choose the imported product for price and quality.
A US casting costs me $2.95. the comparable Taiwanese product $1.25.
We use hundreds of these castings on certain styles of rails.
Who would I pass the costs on to? My customers?
Do you think that if I explained to the customer that the reason my product was 120% more costly than the next guy's because I bought American they would understand and give me the job?
Aside from that, the jobs in the US foundries are held by left leaning union types such as yourself. They would take my money and use it to support Kerry. Frankly I'd rather see a Taiwanese person feed his family first. All you guys are doing is eroding the foundations of the greatest country on earth.
-
Originally posted by storch
I agree with you Iron. however I think that the foray into Iraq was a mistake. there is a saying in Spanish "Mas vale un mal conocido que un bien por conocer" I'm sure that there is an english adage to go along with it but I've never heard it. Anyhow it says it is better to have a known bad thing than to have an unknown good thing, or perhaps a good thing yet to be known.
IMO, without risk and the potential for failure there can be no potential for greatness. No one is ever praised for their failures, unless of course they persevere and convert them into success.
-
this was a long thread....whats it about? can someone give me the short version?
ill try this and see what happens:
(http://www.skymillrocks.com/pastshows/Rebound%20PP%20Beach%20072503/DEA_Tshirt_LOL.jpg)
-
Originally posted by storch
Do you buy any of those cheap products? When you have work done at your home do you get three bids and select the highest priced one?
Pipe down already you silly liberal, your time and rhetoric are from the past.
This is a global economy.
When I can get castings made in America that are equal in quality to the the ones I get from Taiwan and are equal in price then I will buy American.
I use this example because this is one of the few mfg. goods where I still have a choice. I choose the imported product for price and quality.
A US casting costs me $2.95. the comparable Taiwanese product $1.25.
We use hundreds of these castings on certain styles of rails.
Who would I pass the costs on to? My customers?
Do you think that if I explained to the customer that the reason my product was 120% more costly than the next guy's because I bought American they would understand and give me the job?
Aside from that, the jobs in the US foundries are held by left leaning union types such as yourself. They would take my money and use it to support Kerry. Frankly I'd rather see a Taiwanese person feed his family first. All you guys are doing is eroding the foundations of the greatest country on earth.
this is where free trade without worker and environmental standards has brought us, silly wingnut.
You don't seem to grasp the fact that the more we allow corps to make something in an area where people work for a dollar a day and live in abject poverty so that you can buy cheap crap at the local Wal-Mart is costing americans real jobs.
And your taiwanese casings may be great, silly wingnut. They may make sense to buy overseas. What you have done in your argument si sto uncover onje of the faults of unbridled competition. Important things, like manufacturing jobs in the US, get sacrificed for the almighty buck.
So, silly wingnut, but all the taiwanede products you can. I buy American whenever I can and I buy union products when I can. I believe in americans and american jobs.
Say why dont you go to Taiwan or china and work for a year in one of the factories making your cheap casings - see some of the real costs of your cheap products, wingnut.
-
Originally posted by strk
way to make a straw man argument - however a logical fallacy
You said, "The more a president is ideologically driven the poorer leader he would be."
I consider these men to have been ideologically driven:
George Washington: A man who shocked the world by sticking to the ideal of the government he fought for and stepping down as General and again allowing Presidential power to pass from him to Adams.
Thomas Jefferson: An idealist if there ever was one
Abraham Lincoln: One who was so strongly against the division of the union due to the issue of slavery that contemporaries decided they could not abide by his presidency.
Theodore Roosevelt: A man who presided over and pushed for the USA emerging as a world power and who so believed in the canal he ill advisedly boasted "I took the isthmus"
Franklin Roosevelt: A man who fundamentally changed the role of the federal government to allow for some economic regulation and provide some economic security for the citizenry.
Martin Luther King Jr.: a man who's idealism was the source of his influence and who influenced millions.
And just to allow for some internationalism, Mohandas Gandhi: perhaps the most idealistic leader of the modern age who influenced MLK and hastened the independance of a billion people.
If it is such a "straw man argument" you should have been able to destroy it. However if you stand by your statement, you must believe these men to have been poor leaders.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You said, "The more a president is ideologically driven the poorer leader he would be."
I consider these men to have been ideologically driven:
George Washington: A man who shocked the world by sticking to the ideal of the government he fought for and stepping down as General and again allowing Presidential power to pass from him to Adams.
Thomas Jefferson: An idealist if there ever was one
Abraham Lincoln: One who was so strongly against the division of the union due to the issue of slavery that contemporaries decided they could not abide by his presidency.
Theodore Roosevelt: A man who presided over and pushed for the USA emerging as a world power and who so believed in the canal he ill advisedly boasted "I took the isthmus"
Franklin Roosevelt: A man who fundamentally changed the role of the federal government to allow for some economic regulation and provide some economic security for the citizenry.
Martin Luther King Jr.: a man who's idealism was the source of his influence and who influenced millions.
And just to allow for some internationalism, Mohandas Gandhi: perhaps the most idealistic leader of the modern age who influenced MLK and hastened the independance of a billion people.
If it is such a "straw man argument" you should have been able to destroy it. However if you stand by your statement, you must believe these men to have been poor leaders.
you are confusing ideology with values and you are missing my point - which was that flexibility to react the realities of the present is a better asset than someone who uses his pre-set ideas to guide him regardless of the actual facts.
Your argument is a straw man because you are trying to make my argument into "no man with strong ideology can be a good leader - that is a fallacy.
when I used the words "idealogically (sic) driven" I mean inflexible in that mind set. No man is without ideals and his philosphical mind set.
-
Originally posted by strk
you are confusing ideology with values and you are missing my point - which was that flexibility to react the realities of the present is a better asset than someone who uses his pre-set ideas to guide him regardless of the actual facts.
Once again: Ideology is: " A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system."
George Washington was an ideologue. He had a set of firm beliefs about the political system which he helped create. The others I mentioned are also idealogues.
Flexibility in the tactics used to achieve the results one believes in is one thing, flexibility in the beliefs is another. When one is too flexible, one has no backbone.
Someone who reacts to the currents of the river ends up swimming. One who plans his course and anticipates ends up clearing the rapids.
Your rhetoric suggests you believe MK Gandhi a bad leader.
-
Once again Holden, in your first post you said:
"The subject of this thread is whether it is better to have someone in the oval office who has firm convictions or someone with a more flexible approach to policy."
You're now trying to morph your point so that "firm convictions" now means "ideology".
But they are different things.
Kudos on the flexibility you're demonstrating in this thread. ;)
It doesn't mean you're not ideological at the same time. The two can co-exist.
But firm convictions and flexibility don't have that same relationship.
-
Nash, ideology came up with this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by strk
POTUS is a difficult job and imo the more a president is idealogicially driven the poorer leader he would be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was showing an ideologically driven leader can be quite effective. We have had leaders who blow in the wind, showing no ideology other than to get re-elected. The flexibility to change one's convictions is not a trait of good character.
-
I agree. And one can be both flexible *and* idealistic.
But several times now you've been trying to corner flexibility to mean only wrt changing one's ideology.
I mean, you did say "flexible approach to policy" in your first post. Then said that flexibility is "the tactics used" to further ideology. But then you try to draw the conclusion that flexibility is a liability because it means changing ones ideology.
Which we both know is not the neccessarily the case.
I'm confused, and maybe you better firm up what your argument actually is.
-
"But then you try to draw the conclusion that flexibility is a liability because it means changing ones ideology."
No, I said, "The flexibility to change one's convictions is not a trait of good character."
It is a liability if your ideology is too flexible. If for (extreme) example, one were to be against wife murder one day and then for it the next, I would consider this flexibility to be a flaw in character, and therefore a liabilty.
(Anticipating the retort) Obviously one can change ideology throughout one's lifetime, I am not talking about someone who keeps a childhood notion of something throughout life. I am talking about the political difference between a leader and someone who's beliefs are guided by whatever the polls tell him they should be.
Churchill believed that UK should challenge the Third Reich sooner that the UK's popular opinion allowed. He knew he was right about the danger of Hitler: He led.
-
Bringing this to real-world examples is probably a good idea.
Before I continue, is your post based on both the praise/critisism and widely held view that Bush is ideological, firm, with strong convictions, and rather inflexible? And that Kerry is... lets just say, different than that?
Or is it coincidence?
-
Actually the 'flexible' example I had in mind was from Arkansas, but that is between you and me. BC was not an ideologue by any means. That is why he had to worry about his legacy. Something JFK or FDR did not need to do.
I think Bush is not as ideological as he is reported to be. The first thing he did as president (that IRC) was to greatly increase the federal participation in primary and secondary education.
I think this was a politically expedient thing to do rather than appealing to any conservative ideology.
-
Then this isn't about Bush and Kerry, and not even about Bush himself? Just Bill?
-
I had him as a general notion, an example on the other end of the spectrum. It is as much about Bill as it is about Winston, FDR, or Gandhi.
Each vote is a compromise.
>edit: actually I started the thread just because I wanted to post a statement in which each sentance alternately insulted and then appealed for civility.
-
You sure are slippery.... I admire your work, btw. :)
So let's see where all of this has finally taken us to...
Gandhi, Churchil and FDR vs. the man from Arkansas.
Yikes...
All of these men were flexible (as per your examples). But it's alleged that only 3 of the four had an ideology that went along with it (which I won't concede, mind you).
Quite selective... because you've failed to give examples of the peril of those who are idealistic but are utterly rigid in terms of the the flexibility they demonstrate in carrying out their ideological agendas.
Of course you try to get Bush off the hook in this regard by saying something about primary schooling or something... but the shoe fits too perfectly here.
I'll go ya tet a tet. Clinton the the ammoral wet rag vs. Bush the rigamortised zombie.... but you need to pick a side. No fair setting up the parameters of the debate, picking a victim, and saying none of your guys fit into those parameters.
Otherwise you might as well have said "Clinton sucks" and been done with it.
-
Cheap shot joke coming...
No you have it wrong. He was the suckee.
>edit
I had to ask a question in the original post, so I asked one.
You seem to want to specify the thread. I used as general terms as possible to open the discussion, rather than being specific and causing the thread to become just a poll of Bush vs. Kerry. I didn't wanna.
-
Nah it wasn't cheap. Just a bit feeble. No biggie. I don't think a day goes by where I don't say something, the entire room goes dead silent, turns white, and I'm forced to cough just to break the silence and then I beat a hasty retreat.
-
Ooh just saw your edit of an earlier post:
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
>edit: actually I started the thread just because I wanted to post a statement in which each sentance alternately insulted and then appealed for civility.
I know... and I kind of feel like a shmuck for not playing along. I shoulda, and I apologize for that.
-
I believe every human is idealistic. What's so special about being idealistic?
Clinton was "idealistic" .....his ideal situation was to ensure that he was seen to be a great president.
Churchil was also "idealistic" ..... he was concerned about the threats against freedom.
Bush put himself on the line for what he believed was the right thing to do in Iraq, following 9/11. He went into Iraq at great risk to his carreer......... I doubt he thought about his political future when he decided to go into Iraq.
Bush is more like Churchil than Clinton was.
-
That's just the thing.
What killed Bush was his consistent inflexibility of approach, of method, in fulfilling his ideolological aims.
-
Bush is not dead....I think he will win over Kerry very easily.
Kerry himself ha said he would not pull out of Iraq and he also voted to allow Bush to go into Iraq. If Kerry wins, he says he will stay the course in Iraq. It's all the same, but Kerry is a liar and Bush is just doing what his convictions lead him to do, regardless of his poilitical life.
Just my opinion of course;)
-
Well yeah, but your opinion matters.
I just can't bring myself to believe that such an opinion can possibly be borne out of a real exploration of the facts.
Maybe it can... I just don't see it. It fascinates me more than bothers me. It's all good. :)
-
Has any sitting US President won an election with a popularity rating less than 50% less than 6 months from the election date and what has the lowest popularity rating of any sitting President who has still gone on to win an election been?
I read that both Clinton and Reagan has ratings in the mid 50% level when they went on to win a 2nd term, Bush snr however had a rating in the mid 40's and lost.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Bush is not dead....I think he will win over Kerry very easily.
Kerry himself ha said he would not pull out of Iraq and he also voted to allow Bush to go into Iraq. If Kerry wins, he says he will stay the course in Iraq. It's all the same, but Kerry is a liar and Bush is just doing what his convictions lead him to do, regardless of his poilitical life.
Just my opinion of course;)
Of course it's interesting that approx 50% of the US population probably feel that Bush is the liar and Kerry is doing what his convictions lead him to do!! Nov is going to be quite a month this year!!
-
Add into the equation the ratings bonanza a "war time" Prez usually gets and... well....
The Republicans have no choice but to make the race about how bad Kerry is. From a marketing POV, with a hundred million worth of advertising, a lot of it is gonna stick. Note "flip-flop's" sudden emergence in the popular lexicon.
But, too bad so sad this election is a referendum on Bush's performance. No two ways about it. Kerry just needs to show up.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Of course it's interesting that approx 50% of the US population probably feel that Bush is the liar and Kerry is doing what his convictions lead him to do!! Nov is going to be quite a month this year!!
Can you point out the source for this informantion?
By the way, I really have not participated in any politcal threads that I can remember.....pro Bush or not.
I find it amusing that people outside (not you Nash) the US could presume to assume they are in touch with our way of life.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Add into the equation the ratings bonanza a "war time" Prez usually gets and... well....
The Republicans have no choice but to make the race about how bad Kerry is. From a marketing POV, with a hundred million worth of advertising, a lot of it is gonna stick. Note "flip-flop's" sudden emergence in the popular lexicon.
But, too bad so sad this election is a referendum on Bush's performance. No two ways about it. Kerry just needs to show up.
When Bush went into Iraq, it was ALL risk to him, no way can anyone say otherwise.
-
Just to point out... (and speaking lazily)...The US has been waging an imperialistic-type war of the cultural variety for ages. Ya can't fault some people for actually starting to undertand US culture.
-
Absolutely it was "ALL" risk to him.
I agree.
So why is everyone so quick to say "But GEE! HE voted for it TOO didn't he?!"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Just to point out... (and speaking lazily)...The US has been waging an imperialistic-type war of the cultural variety for ages. Ya can't fault some people for actually starting to undertand US culture.
Nash, the US is probably the dominant cultural influence on the world...but it's not because we force it on anyone. I know we are resented by many, and frankly I would resent it if my culture was being overshadowed by another culture. It's kind of like rap music......it suks, but it is popular and makes real music seem less viable to the masses.
-
I assume your 'HE' is Kerry.
they are quick to say that because if one wishes to oppose a policy, it is not a good foundation to have voted for it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I assume your 'HE' is Kerry.
No, I was talking about Churchill, FDR, Gandhi and Clinton. :)
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
they are quick to say that because if one wishes to oppose a policy, it is not a good foundation to have voted for it.
He voted on an action, to be carried out in a certain way, based upon a set of circumstances he was presented with.
It turns out the circumstances were false, and the action itself differed from the way it was presented to him.
Vote for me to buy an ice cream cone. Then watch me smack it into your forehead. Then cry. I'll just say that you voted for me to buy it. Absurd? Yeah... welcome to the club.
-
Originally posted by Nash
No, I was talking about Churchill, FDR, Gandhi and Clinton. :)
In that case I humbly apologize for leaping to that conclusion.
-
No no no, there is no need for that. It was I who was vague and obtuse. Please forgive my transgression.
-
I apologize too!
-
Nuke you bandwagon jumper.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Can you point out the source for this informantion?
By the way, I really have not participated in any politcal threads that I can remember.....pro Bush or not.
I find it amusing that people outside (not you Nash) the US could presume to assume they are in touch with our way of life.
Look at the polls......
-
I apologized first, therefore I am a better human being.
-
Aw dang it's likely Nuke didn't read your edit and now I feel like a monster. :(
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Can you point out the source for this informantion?
By the way, I really have not participated in any politcal threads that I can remember.....pro Bush or not.
I find it amusing that people outside (not you Nash) the US could presume to assume they are in touch with our way of life.
Well one might say that the way to gain knowledge of or to get in touch with another culture is to ask questions. One can learn quite a lot from the direct answers but more in my opinion indirectly.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Of course it's interesting that approx 50% of the US population probably feel that Bush is the liar and Kerry is doing what his convictions lead him to do!! Nov is going to be quite a month this year!!
What arse did you pull those stats from LOL.
-
In case you didn't get it, you can flip it around to say 50% thinks Bush is following his convictions, and that 50% say that Kerry is a liar.
IOW.... That it's sittin' at 50-50, and each side thinks the other is scum.
Big suprise. It was a joke.
You seriously want him to find sources for the 50-50 stats? They're everywhere.
-
Like i said before the only thing more crooked that a used car salesman is a pollster LOL.