View Full Version : "New" Era for the Union
CCWKen
10-02-2006, 08:25 PM
NO one can contemplate current conditions without finding much that is satisfying and still more that is encouraging. Our own country is leading the world in the general readjustment to the results of the great conflict. Many of its burdens will bear heavily upon us for years, and the secondary and indirect effects we must expect to experience for some time. But we are beginning to comprehend more definitely what course should be pursued, what remedies ought to be applied, what actions should be taken for our deliverance, and are clearly manifesting a determined will faithfully and conscientiously to adopt these methods of relief. Already we have sufficiently rearranged our domestic affairs so that confidence has returned, business has revived, and we appear to be entering an era of prosperity which is gradually reaching into every part of the Nation. Realizing that we can not live unto ourselves alone, we have contributed of our resources and our counsel to the relief of the suffering and the settlement of the disputes among the European nations. Because of what America is and what America has done, a firmer courage, a higher hope, inspires the heart of all humanity.
President Calvin Coolidge
March 4, 1925
A.K. Boomer
10-02-2006, 08:31 PM
Heavy Duty...
railfancwb
10-02-2006, 08:56 PM
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
George Washington's farewell address
Charles
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
-------------------
menace
10-02-2006, 09:42 PM
Evans reply clearly reflects the delemia facing the people living in the USA, and the lack of suitable replacemants were faced with at election time!
Ignoring for the moment that Bush said it, it makes perfect sense. We didn't know, for example, that you could demolish two very large buildings in the heart of a major city with just a box cutters and airplane tickets. We weren't thinking like them.
In Seattle some years ago, the stadium they were building for the Washington Huskies collapsed. It was determined the failure was caused by an unknown failure mode. They didn't think of it but did get a good lesson from it.
If you don't examine your weaknesses in war they will be provided to you by a resourceful enemy. What Bush described is what we commonly know as failure mode analysis. The regrettable thing is it came out like one of his lamentable Bushisms and of course the message was lost in the chortles that surely followed, and is mentioned only to ridicule and not to educate.
I yield back my time on the soap box.
CCWKen
10-02-2006, 10:05 PM
LOL... Evan, that sounds like Kerry's faux pas saying that we should let Iraq rape and kill their own people. We (US) don't need to stop that. :D
wierdscience
10-02-2006, 10:14 PM
I still like Ted Nugent's take on the French:D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Nugent, a heavy metal guitar legend and devoted (bow) hunter, was being interviewed by a French journalist. Eventually, the conversation turned to his love of outdoor pursuits. The journalist asked, "What do you think the last thought is in the head of a deer before you shoot it? Is it, "Are you my friend?" or maybe "Are you the one who killed my brother?"
Nugent replied, "They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, What am I going to eat next? Who am I going to screw next? and, Can I run fast enough to get away? They are very much like the French in that."
JRouche
10-02-2006, 11:40 PM
Ahhh, more political crap. OK...
There are forums you can frequent to bash yer head and thoughts against others who disagree with you.
This is a "machinist" forum and the use of "OT" proceeding your thread header will contribute to the ability of simple folks, such as myself to steer clear of yer babble.
Continuing, you may gain more enjoyment or provide for such entertainment if you would post your thoughts and expressions on one of the following references.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=political+forum
I'm sure some of the local political scum infesting those groups would throughly enjoy you and your companions for a meal.
Don’t inhibit yer natural desire to mix it up with people looking to "show" you what IS the RIGHT political environment.
Jump in and belly up to the real online political "experts". Join the googled groups, each and every one of them.
That may quench yer desire to spill your worldly thoughts on how the country (and World) should be run.
Cause basically I don’t give a S4it. That is why I DON’T subscribe to those forums.
Again, maybe you should. Grow a set and dive in....Go play with the geniuses who "know" what they are talkin about and leave this forum to semi basic machining topics. Oh, unless you are willing to present the topic with a simply placed "OT" description within the shallow header..
Political discussion within non political forums makes me think of the mathematical wiz (in his own imagination) going to the local malt shop to talk shop instead of headin to the local college or university to discuss math with real mathematical wiz's..
Ok, spam bot off, JRouche
Millman
10-03-2006, 01:56 AM
STOP Voting. Then we will have better politicians. Simple.
Mcgyver
10-03-2006, 06:02 AM
what JR said, but did get a laugh outa Evan;s & weird's posts :D
Your Old Dog
10-03-2006, 07:34 AM
Has any leader of any nation been put under more microscopes and taken out of context as often as this guy by folks who cannot offer a viable alternative? Giving in is not a viable alternative. We have a bunch of media all looking high and low for the next "Richard" **** Nixon. They, the national media, look out on the political landscape and see career oportunity and fame. The rest of the country has to live with the result. If everyone had gotten behind the war effort and stayed there we'd be done with this war, plain and simple. In the case of war, it's the stronger resolve that wins. Maybe some folks think these muslims will change their minds and stop killing us infidels but I don't think so. Have you heard many of them refute this?
EDITED: had to change D1ick to Richard to avoid the servors checker !! LOL They made a presidents name a bad word :D
Has any leader of any nation been put under more microscopes and taken out of context as often as this guy by folks who cannot offer a viable alternative?
Sure. Every president since Ike.
Don't forget that Kennedy proudly proclaimed while in Berlin:
"I am a jelly donut!"
lazlo
10-03-2006, 09:33 AM
Don't forget that Kennedy proudly proclaimed while in Berlin:
"I am a jelly donut!"
I know you meant that largely in gest, but Kennedy's speech, during the height of the Cold War, was spectacular. A million West Germans came to Berlin (which was deep inside Communist East Germany), to hear Kennedy's speech, and no one laughed at or misunderstood President Kennedy's words. In fact, the crowd roared with approval:
Berlin, 26 June 1963:
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.
When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe.
When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner".
German Myth 6
John F. Kennedy's Berlin Speech
German Misnomers, Myths and Mistakes
Did President Kennedy Say He Was a Jelly Doughnut?
http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth06.htm
There is a persistent claim that JFK's famous German phrase, "Ich bin ein Berliner," was a gaffe that translates as "I am a jelly doughnut." But when Kennedy made that statement in a West Berlin speech in 1963, his German audience understood exactly what his words meant: "I am a citizen of Berlin." They also understood that he was saying that he stood by them in their Cold War battle against the Berlin Wall and a divided Germany.
No one laughed at or misunderstood President Kennedy's words spoken in German. In fact, he had been provided help from translators who knew the language well. He wrote out the key phrase phonetically and practiced it before his speech in front of the Schöneberg town hall in Berlin, and his words were warmly received. Yet this German myth has been perpetuated by teachers of German and other people who should know better. Although a "Berliner" is also a type of jelly doughnut, in the context used by JFK it could not have been misunderstood any more than if I told you "I am a danish" in English.
It still means jelly donut, especially in Berlin. It isn't understood to mean that elsewhere because it is (was) a Berlin speciality. Most German speakers won't take it that way. Berliners will. It isn't so much because of the grammatical construction but because it was a local colloquialism that his translators were probably unaware of.
[add]
I asked a friend of mine in Germany this specific question when I was visiting him. He has lived and worked in Berlin and that is what he explained to me.
Duct Taper
10-03-2006, 10:02 AM
Evan, in the context of the speech he was giving, it did not mean "jelly donut". The Germans aren't that stupid. You should invest in a tinfoil beanie.
rkepler
10-03-2006, 10:06 AM
In German the article "ein" is pretty much the same as "a" in English, so the sentence "Ich bin ein Beliner" has a similar meaning as "I am a Danish", dropping it is the same, "Ich bin Berliner" and "I am Danish". So far as I know it wasn't too colloquial, I heard the same story in Munich. The Germans I talked to said there was a little humor in the situation, but having a popular American president come to their country and say something in German while supporting them with a major policy speech meant a lot more.
lynnl
10-03-2006, 10:11 AM
It still means jelly donut, especially in Berlin. .......
....
Most German speakers won't take it that way. BERLINERS WILL. ....
[add]
.
...then who cares what a bunch of jelly donuts think, if the Germans knew what he was saying? :)
So far as I know it wasn't too colloquial, I heard the same story in Munich.
It certainly wasn't colloquial after he said it. Of course they knew what he meant. It still didn't come out quite right. Sort of like the quote from Bush, which was my point and only point.
Wirecutter
10-03-2006, 11:16 AM
...then who cares what a bunch of jelly donuts think, if the Germans knew what he was saying? :)
And you, sir, get the "digital signal" for today, for making me cough my beverage out my nose and onto the computer. :D
-Mark
Wirecutter
10-03-2006, 11:19 AM
...and just to add to the pot here, this is one of my favorite bone-head quotes:
"It's a terrible thing to lose one's mind...or not to have one."
-then Vice President, Dan Quayle, attempting to paraphrase the motto of the United Negro College Fund, which is of course, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
-Mark
lazlo
10-03-2006, 11:25 AM
Evan, You should invest in a tinfoil beanie.
Too funny!!! :D
You should invest in a tinfoil beanie.
Don't be silly. Anybody that is really concerned about the secret mind control rays emitted by the special satellites that they won't tell us about knows that a simple foil hat just isn't enough protection.
It helps to live within a few miles of very high voltage power lines like I do since they provide a very effective jamming effect. Also, the further north you live the harder it is for them to track you because the satellites are in geosynchronous orbit and the slant range increases with latitude.
But, for the best protection you really need to take advantage of modern metallic fabrics and shield your entire body like this.
http://vts.bc.ca/pics/suit1.jpg
lazlo
10-03-2006, 01:34 PM
To keep things non-partisan, Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate, with the famous quote: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" was also spectacular, and very moving, IMHO.
What I find especially remarkable about Reagan's speech is that he delivered it despite objections from the State Department, the National Security Council, and the National Security Advisor, General Colin Powell.
In Bush's defense, his tendency to mix up words while speaking is consistent with dyslexia. Note that dislexia has no bearing intellectual capacity: Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Michael Faraday were dyslexics. Tom Cruise is also dyslexic, so it doesn't mean you're a genius either :p
In Bush's defense, his tendency to mix up words while speaking is consistent with dyslexia.
It isn't consistent with dyslexia. He can read a teleprompter just fine. He also did not used to have any problem mixing up his speech 20 years ago.
It appears to be an indication of some sort of progressive condition. Some think it may be pre-senile dementia. While it isn't typical of dyslexia it is typical of some related hearing and speech processing disorders. Without a neurological workup made public it isn't possible to say what the cause is.
One thing is certain, it isn't to be expected from somebody with no impairment of any sort.
topct
10-03-2006, 02:47 PM
"It appears to be an indication of some sort of progressive condition."
God bless the inventer of the flushing toilet.
Allan Waterfall
10-03-2006, 03:36 PM
God bless the inventer of the flushing toilet.
His name was Crapper,hence the expression "going for a crap"
Allan
In Bush's defense, his tendency to mix up words while speaking is consistent with dyslexia.
More likely related to or a form of (conjunctive) parapraxis of which we're all capable of :).
lynnl
10-03-2006, 04:00 PM
I seem to recall Pres. Jimmy Carter, shortly after taking office, pronouncing to the Poles (I think), that he "lusted" for them.
"...oh well, they knew what I meant..." :D
john hobdeclipe
10-03-2006, 04:20 PM
"Ich bin eine Berliner"
"Ask not what your country can do for you..."
"Some people look at things as they are and ask why..."
One of JFK's greatest strengths was that he hired really superbe, imaginative speech writers to tell him what to say.
I saw JFK speak once. He was a very good orator. He almost reminded me of a baptist preacher but with a little more conviction. :D
Rich Carlstedt
10-03-2006, 04:54 PM
John made some superb statements, but the laughs really come from his brother Ted...like when he mentioned (or tried to) Sammy Soza of the Chicago Cubs, or Lambeau Field here in Green Bay ....hehe
Rich
Mortimerex
10-03-2006, 06:36 PM
I think George W. Bush really wanted to claim he was a jelly donut too but his staffers convinced him it would sound too old fashioned or else when spoken with a Texas accent it meant "jellied sex organ".
wierdscience
10-03-2006, 09:00 PM
I saw JFK speak once. He was a very good orator. He almost reminded me of a baptist preacher but with a little more conviction. :D
Ya so was Clinton,only problem is he was/is a compulsive liar:D Remember "it depends on what the definition of is is"
The Germans aren't that stupid.
They can be just like any other group of people,Hitler and the VW Bug have proven that beyond all doubt:D
rsr911
10-03-2006, 11:36 PM
Well I usually like to stay above the fray on these issues but I'll weigh in. I am a VOTER, neither Republican nor Democrat but I do have generally conservative leanings. I agree and disagree with both parties on many issues. I think far to many people get caught up in party politics, "I can like that guy, he's not a _______________" While I am often aggravated by Bush I do admire him in a way, few people will stand up and do what they think is right these days, especially politicians, most of them vote or act according to polls. George Bush, like myself see's Islamic extremist as a serious threat to democracy and freedom around the world and he should as they are polar opposites. One seeks to destroy and oppress while the other at least attempts to build and liberate. Contrary to popular belief Muslim people are capable of living in a democratic society. They are human just as we are and in fact at one time the mideast was the center of knowledge in the world. Religeous extremism, partly brought on by the Europeon crusades changed all that. While I am a churchgoer I do that primarily as a way to help my daughter learn good values as well as establish some sort of relationship with a higher power. Myself, I've been through hell, I'm a spiritualist. My faith is in the god of my understanding, not the one pressed onto me by family and society. The point to this is that Christian extremism is just as dangerous as Islamic extremism, a small insight into this would be the extreme right to lifers who bomb abortion clinics sometimes killing adults and often injuring the all in the name of right to life? Whatever.
Bush's biggest weakness is his poor communication. I know the economy is doing well, I can tell that by counting the cars at local factories, supermarkets, and shopping centers. I can see it in my investments and I see it in a small business with 65% growth this year and a like amount due next year. I see it in the general condition of the cars on the road these days and I see these things not just in my state but in others.
I also know we are winning the war on terror or at least doing a better jobof protecting the homeland. Remember our enemy only has to get it right once to pull of an attack while we must get it right 100% to stop an attack. Five years since 9/11 and no attacks, I'll call that winning.
In Iraq and Afghanistan people have risked there lives to vote for a better government, many in the US complain those governments aren't self supporting yet. How many years did it take us to elect our first President or finalize our Constitution? How long was the Marshall plan in place before the Allies pulled out of Germany and Japan? We conquered and rebuilt those countries after they tried to kill us. We helped them set up a fair system of government and while not always friendly to our interests our enemies have become our friends.
Why is it no one believes this to be possible in the mideast? Is it 24 hour news. Is it the modern need for immediate gratification? Are we as a society no longer willing to work for what is not only right but for what is good for us and all mankind? Have we lost our work ethic in this throwaway society?
At my job there are others who are jealous of my position and privilege, they blame me and complain of favoratism. Strangely they don't put in the extra time and effort when needed, they never go the extra mile. No they punch the time clock at 5 PM and wonder why I get to have a small shop set up in the building, why do I set my own hours when they must be "on time"? Why do I make more money than them? It's not fair they complain behind my back ad nauseum. But where are they at 1:00 am on a work night when the server's went down? Do they hop on a plane on a Saturday to take care of a customer in a crisis? Do they stay late jsut because they can't rest until a problem is solved? No of course not. They rarely if ever do more than is asked yet they complain all the time and the worst thing is they complain about a government they didn't even vote for OR against. No they are typical modern americans who blame everyone else for the problems created by their own laziness and need for instant gratification.
I hold no resentments towards them, I cannot change who they are. I can only hope that each day I become a better person and that with the help of a higher power I'll reach the goals I've set both personal and professional. I'm third generation american with both sets of grandparents being immigrants. I was taught from an early age to work hard and do the right thing. I was taught to defend my family and country with vigor. I learned to be careful with whom I placed my trust. Most importantly I learned that nothing worth having in this life comes easily.
As a result of all this I can see the lofty thinking of Bush's strategy. Political opinions aside, just imagine if we helped them pull it of. Imagine a fair and democratic mideast where the terrorist bully on the block is crushed by the neighborhood watch. Imagine an more peaceful world brought about by great change set in motion in our lifetime. Take the words I can't out of your vocabulary and replace them with I can or I'm willing to try. Why be negative when positive works so much better?
yorgatron
10-04-2006, 12:35 AM
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
yorgatron
10-04-2006, 12:37 AM
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
robert
10-04-2006, 07:28 AM
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
We have arrived. The morons are in charge---RG
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Regan, March 2, 1977
http://zzz.zvd.com
Weston Bye
10-04-2006, 02:42 PM
What rsr911 (Christian) said.
Since this is a political thread there is something that I have been pondering for some time. It seems that in the last decade especially the electorate has become increasingly polarized. This isn't exactly new but what is puzzling me is the almost perfect dichotomy that is displayed. Many elections are ending up decided by incredibly narrow margins and not just in the USA. The same thing is happening in Canada and the recent fuss in Mexico is a good example. It isn't restricted to North America either.
I was speaking to friend of mine this morning who has a degree in political science and asked him what he thought was behind this phenomenon. He couldn't offer any explanation and I sure can't figure it out. Why is it the the divison between basic philosophies is so evenly balanced? Is this something that is an inevitable consequence of the democratic system? Does it eventually select candidates that are somehow equally attractive and repugnant to the electorate?
There is something operating here that must be inherent in the process. It seems like a mathematical equation that eventually converges on a particular value. This isn't a good thing for democracy as it ends up selecting people for office that a near majority do not like and will not support.
How can we change the process to tip the balance in the direction of selecting candidates that have a broader appeal?
Mad Scientist
10-04-2006, 03:30 PM
rsr911:
Boy you sure said a mouth full. It I obvious that you are not one to blindly follow the crowd, but are actually capable of "independent" thought.
I am impressed!!! It is a shame that there are not more like you. :cool:
When the political mood of the masses swings from say left to right (example taken from the present times) it approaches and possibly crosses the middle. This creates a situation for the candidates that mandates they fight hard for every vote. And they do, because there is no longer the assurance the old majority will win. The political parties in particular become ruthless - nothing can be harder than to politic an informed middle, and when this informed middle is the majority as it is today you have rancor.
The truth isn't that the top of the bell curve voters are polarized - it is because they are moving toward the middle and possibly beyond that brings out the vocal activists from each party's extremes that is the problem (I'd debate it is a problem). What appears to be polarization is a manifistation of the vocal extremes and nothing more. It is a good thing to have this situation as for most of my lift it has been rather one-sided. It will be again - just a matter of time.
Weston Bye
10-04-2006, 03:39 PM
...How can we change the process to tip the balance in the direction of selecting candidates that have a broader appeal?
It may no longer be possible. In the past populations were more homogenous, or at least shared similar core values.
"Diversity" has fragmented the electorate into so many competing intrest groups that a candidate who holds any heartfelt position, no matter which side of the spectrum, will be guaranteed to offend somebody. Such offenses, no matter how slight, are then exploited by the opposition.
It may no longer be possible. In the past populations were more homogenous, or at least shared similar core values.
"Diversity" has fragmented the electorate into so many competing intrest groups that a candidate who holds any heartfelt position, no matter which side of the spectrum, will be guaranteed to offend somebody. Such offenses, no matter how slight, are then exploited by the opposition.
Granted. What puzzles me is the nearly exact split that is seen so often now. I have tried to find some statistics on the number of recounts held over the years and haven't been able to find them compiled in one place for both state and federal either in Canada or the US elections.
As I said this is a larger phenomenon and is being seen all over the world where democratic institutions prevail. It can't be argued that the candidates are standing exactly on center as that is clearly not the case in many elections. So, how does it happen that the vote is so evenly divided so often?
Duct Taper
10-04-2006, 05:12 PM
The Left is so far left and the Right is so far right that the majority in the middle won't accept either. Since neither candidate is in the middle, their votes are just a flip of the coin. The odds are that the votes will average to 50/50. So since me and my brother are the only votes that will count in the end, the rest of you might as well stay home!
pcarpenter
10-04-2006, 05:49 PM
To answer your question, Evan: Government is more involved in our lives than ever before. This has been progressive...and increasingly so in recent years. With that in mind, people's interest in just what leanings that government has, have become even more critical to them. This is not the least bit unreasonable. If you start taking more of my money and spending it on things I detest, I am more likely to get up in arms.
If our government reverted back to its constitutional mandate and got back to providing for the common defense and the *very* few other things that it was intended by our forefathers to do, I would be far less adamant or concerned with making sure my own views were represented. Get the government out of my back pocket and out of my daily life and quit using my tax dollars to fight agains things I believe in and I just might turn into a moderate. Until then, I am probably going to want to have a say about what is taught at the government (public) schools I am paying for, who the government gives my money to in the name of charity, etc.
Paul
Weston Bye
10-04-2006, 05:52 PM
. So, how does it happen that the vote is so evenly divided so often?
Have the "political engineers" perfected the science? Look at the parties floating issue after issue in hopes that one will gain "traction". Low expectation politicians: a one-vote majority is "good enough".
This still doesn't answer Evan's question. An interesting one when you consider that even with the Red State - Blue State enclaves are added up, the population is still evenly divided.
I don't think the phenomonon is all that recent. For example, the US was pretty evenly divided concerning the entry into both World Wars until external events forced the issue. In those cases, the sides pulled together. Dissent was frowned upon or treated as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, tantamount to treason.
Certainly there have been close elections in the past. It seems to have become much more frequent lately. Just a short while ago an election for representative in Alaska was decided by a coin flip, the first time in Alaskan history. We have had many very close votes here in recent years including the Quebec seccession referendum in '95 which was nearly exactly even at 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes".
I think that Duct Taper's answer may actually have some truth to it but I would hate to think that it explains how people really vote. Perhaps people really are in such a quandry whom to vote for and so the choice is essentially random. A supporting factor for that explanation is the steady decline in turnout, especially among young people who are generally idealistic and opinionated.
That certainly isn't democracy at work.
TECHSHOP
10-04-2006, 07:12 PM
I think that there might be statistical "regression to the mean" in the voting behavior. Most politicalos are all about election and re-election, and it is most easily done by not implementing solutions, but by "down grading" the other guy, so "they" look as the more "acceptable" option. I don't think any man, party, or organization has a "lock" on the truth. Being "correct" in one area, doesn't mean that everything "they" do is "the best/correct solution".
I don't think that "honest men" have ever been the majority in any government. The best that can be had may be no more than to constantly "vote out" the present for the "new" every few years. No "job security" for the incumbeny, no "set for life" retirements.
As many others here, I have my own reasons for what/who/why I "support" with time and/or money the things that I do. Sometimes that is a big "D" or a big "R" candidate, but I am more generally a "libertarian" in my political thinking, especially "domestic policy" issues. So any election I vote might just look like a 50/50 split to a outsider.
Also, the post WWII generation, has "grown up" in a politically split country, and "world events" has not created a "new unity". The "post 9/11" world view has only deepened the "I am correct" attitude among the political views, so far there is no Teddy R, or Winston C. to rise above the noise, and actually lead. Until that occures, we (the western Democracies) might just keep sliding down the path of the "ancients of world power civilizations".
Too much time on the soap box for tonight.
Rich Carlstedt
10-04-2006, 07:20 PM
I think votes have always been close in many elections, its just that with the current methods of news handling, we are more aware of it.
If you study the Founding Fathers, you will understand why we have an Electoral College and will continue to need it, contrary to many folks who do not understand it's function (INCLUDING many Senators!)
Can you imagine what would happen if every State was close enough to have a Florida style recount? It would be total pandamonium. Especially with the way Lawyers try to run everything. The Electorial College prevents that through specific timetables and methods.
But to answer your question Evan, one of the reasons for the closeness (IMHO)is the lack of backbone by people running for office. They pole this and that ...and then formulate "Their" opinion based on the poles.
Since such a method is based on acceptance levels derived from pole data.
So they selectively Cherry Pick the issues..and the biggest sin of all..the 'news media" goes with them.This produces the close elections.
They donot say where do i stand, but what should I "say" to get this vote..
Look at the current 'big news' we hear..some congressman sent emails.....
thats all you hear...blah,blah,blah.
Why are they not looking at saving my property ? (Kelo decision!)
Saving my money
Dealing with terrorists
Stopping the invasion of our borders.
these are real issues...but its more fun to play games......Maybe they do not have the intelligence
to handle these issues ?
Rich
Weston Bye
10-04-2006, 07:29 PM
That certainly isn't democracy at work.
Perhaps that's why the distinction between republic and democracy.
Statistically speaking, fully half the population is below average; maybe too ignorant or stupid or lazy to understand and vote in the best interest of society, let alone their own best interest. Fully half of Duct Taper's majority in the middle.
To get an idea of the caliber of the average mind out there, one need only examine the large percentage of pap and drivel that comes out of television. Why do they run those shows? Because there are more of "them" watching than there are of "us".
Teaching republic (representative democracy as opposed to pure democracy) has been neglected for the past 50-75 years. Perhaps a republican form of government is too hard to understand; electing statesmen that act in the best intrests of the governed. Perhaps the practice fell out of favor due to a lack of statesmen. Whatever, democracy seems to be the fashion now, especially with the advent of instant polling, focus groups, & etc. Just mere steps away from mob rule.
Mad Scientist
10-04-2006, 09:44 PM
I think that Rich C makes a good point here.
"So they selectively Cherry Pick the issues..and the biggest sin of all..the 'news media" goes with them.This produces the close elections.
They donot say where do i stand, but what should I "say" to get this vote..
Look at the current 'big news' we hear..some congressman sent emails.....
thats all you hear...blah,blah,blah."
If the politicians and the media can keep everyone’s attention focused on a Florida congressman’s misdeeds, or something similar event, then no one gets a chance to question them on things like the un-patriot act, or our wide open borders, the creation of a Canadian, US, & Mexico union, etc.
Any serious talk on topics like this is avoided like a plague. Much easier to say what a low life my opponent is rather then take a stand on some real issue. Is it any wonder why so many people are turned off by politics, or is "that" the plan? :mad:
Is it any wonder why so many people are turned off by politics, or is "that" the plan?
That may not be far from the truth. I am sure that there are politicians that would like to see a return to the way it was near the beginning of the American Experiment with democracy. The majority of the population did not have the right to vote, not the slaves, not the women and not the poor. Only the landed gentry could participate.
The modern equivalent might be to alienate as many voters as possible or to simply make it seem that it isn't worth the trouble to vote because it won't make any difference anyway. That couldn't be further from the truth but if the unwashed masses can be convinced of that it makes the job of securing the "right" votes much easier.
Interestingly, I'm reminded of something that George W. Bush said:
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000
I'm not trying to take sides here as I have no particular liking for either main party neither here or in the US. My politics are best described as conservative-libertarian. Unfortunately, this doesn't usually offer me an attractive choice when it is time to vote.
wierdscience
10-05-2006, 12:00 AM
The point to this is that Christian extremism is just as dangerous as Islamic extremism, a small insight into this would be the extreme right to lifers who bomb abortion clinics sometimes killing adults and often injuring the all in the name of right to life? Whatever.
I agree with the rest of your post,but I must point out a flaw in the above logic.
The example you give are the actions of a few demented individuals,not the norm.Bombing abortion clinics is niether Christian nor pro-life.To do so is totally 180* contrary to the religion.This is an easy trap to fall into made even easier by coverage from a biased media,you never get to see the other side of the protest line just like you never get to see the results of an abortion.The truth is selectively hidden so the leftist agenda can be pushed.If something is horrible and morally repugnant it must be shielded from the light of truth in order not to be vanquished.
I have read the Koran,it does whole heartedly endorse the killing of Jews,Christians and Infedels and says that must take place before the return of they're messiah.Quite a bit different from Christianity.The argument you used is a favorite of the Islamo-Facist sypathizers to excuse the animalistic behavior of the Muslim street everytime someone draws a cartoon they don't like.Savages are savages and they will always identify themselves by they're own behavior.
The fly in the ointment here is multiculturism,it will lead to the downfall of civilization.We have been told to excuse bad behavior on the basis of "cultural diversity".
The downward spiral has begun that will lead to a bloodbath the likes of which mankind has never before witnessed,sadly no single nation on Earth can stop it,not even The US.
We were critisized for not getting in the fight sooner before WWII,now we are critisized for not rolling over and dying like the rest of the world apparently has.
rsr911
10-05-2006, 12:55 AM
I agree with the rest of your post,but I must point out a flaw in the above logic.
The example you give are the actions of a few demented individuals,not the norm.Bombing abortion clinics is niether Christian nor pro-life.To do so is totally 180* contrary to the religion.This is an easy trap to fall into made even easier by coverage from a biased media,you never get to see the other side of the protest line just like you never get to see the results of an abortion.The truth is selectively hidden so the leftist agenda can be pushed.If something is horrible and morally repugnant it must be shielded from the light of truth in order not to be vanquished.
I have read the Koran,it does whole heartedly endorse the killing of Jews,Christians and Infedels and says that must take place before the return of they're messiah.Quite a bit different from Christianity.The argument you used is a favorite of the Islamo-Facist sypathizers to excuse the animalistic behavior of the Muslim street everytime someone draws a cartoon they don't like.Savages are savages and they will always identify themselves by they're own behavior.
The fly in the ointment here is multiculturism,it will lead to the downfall of civilization.We have been told to excuse bad behavior on the basis of "cultural diversity".
The downward spiral has begun that will lead to a bloodbath the likes of which mankind has never before witnessed,sadly no single nation on Earth can stop it,not even The US.
We were critisized for not getting in the fight sooner before WWII,now we are critisized for not rolling over and dying like the rest of the world apparently has.
I see the flaw in the logic, however I was classifying the "demented few" as the extremist. I've never read the Koran even though I know I should, know thy enemy!
Lately I've been studying the way of the Buddha, brought on by the discovery of silent meditation and the wonders it does for me on physical, mental and spiritual levels. My thirst for knowledge has lead me to study the traditions behind it.
I was raised as a tolerant person but as I get older I've become less and less tolerant, this is either a charactor flaw or realism, I haven't decided which.
My boss and mentor is 79 years old, he stopped counting patents after 80 or so and figures he's somewhere near 100. His intellect and wisdom inspire me and despite the age difference (I'm approaching 37) we have developed quite a friendship. This afternoon we were talking politics and his chief complaint was the increasing partisanship in our country, I told him that I felt the only effective change would be to spread the word to those with similar views to vote for moderate candidates. I'm certain that the silent majority is in fact moderate and perhaps if they were not so silent the political landscape would change. I am continually baffled by the closemindedness of most americans, it's as if they've been programmed to think a certain way and refuse to leave their comfort zone. Comfort is a danger to self awareness and progress, I must daily remember to not get too comfortable lest I forget to search for ways to improve the area inside my hula hoop.
John (my boss) is a chemist and his latest "joke" is talking about the new bacteria being developed that can produce hydrogen from raw sewage, he insists we'd have an energy surplus by simply running a pipeline to Washington DC. :D
Millman
10-05-2006, 07:19 AM
[[I'm not trying to take sides here ]] Evan, you said it right there! These " Cute Suits" all think the same. What will get me elected next time so I can keep riding the Gravy Train? Politicians are afraid to Take Sides. They are all swayed by undertable payments from lobbyists and businesses. If people would STOP voting for the same Trash; even for one election, candidates would be forced to take a stand and stick with it. Until that happens, all you're going to get is the same Trash, over and over. Boycott the vote in 2008, and see what happens. You can always vote me in as Dictator, within one hour , I'd fire everybody, including myself, so people could start over from scratch.
wierdscience
10-05-2006, 07:34 AM
I see the flaw in the logic, however I was classifying the "demented few" as the extremist. I've never read the Koran even though I know I should, know thy enemy!
Lately I've been studying the way of the Buddha, brought on by the discovery of silent meditation and the wonders it does for me on physical, mental and spiritual levels. My thirst for knowledge has lead me to study the traditions behind it.
I was raised as a tolerant person but as I get older I've become less and less tolerant, this is either a charactor flaw or realism, I haven't decided which.
My boss and mentor is 79 years old, he stopped counting patents after 80 or so and figures he's somewhere near 100. His intellect and wisdom inspire me and despite the age difference (I'm approaching 37) we have developed quite a friendship. This afternoon we were talking politics and his chief complaint was the increasing partisanship in our country, I told him that I felt the only effective change would be to spread the word to those with similar views to vote for moderate candidates. I'm certain that the silent majority is in fact moderate and perhaps if they were not so silent the political landscape would change. I am continually baffled by the closemindedness of most americans, it's as if they've been programmed to think a certain way and refuse to leave their comfort zone. Comfort is a danger to self awareness and progress, I must daily remember to not get too comfortable lest I forget to search for ways to improve the area inside my hula hoop.
John (my boss) is a chemist and his latest "joke" is talking about the new bacteria being developed that can produce hydrogen from raw sewage, he insists we'd have an energy surplus by simply running a pipeline to Washington DC. :D
I too was raised to be tolerant,well I despise that word so I'll say respectful of the human condition,but like you I am losing patience with the human being.All I can do anymore is pray a person finds a knot at the end of they're rope before they drop off the end.
Politicians,who was it said that if all the politicians and journalists in the world died overnight there would be election news from Hell before morning?:D
Come to think of it,I think that quote from Ted Nugent can be adapted to politicians-
Nugent replied, "They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, What am I going to eat next? Who am I going to screw next? and, Can I run fast enough to get away? They are very much like the French in that."
Sounds just like Polictics to me:D
Your Old Dog
10-05-2006, 10:36 AM
To keep things non-partisan, Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate, with the famous quote: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" was also spectacular, and very moving, IMHO.
What I find especially remarkable about Reagan's speech is that he delivered it despite objections from the State Department, the National Security Council, and the National Security Advisor, General Colin Powell.
In Bush's defense, his tendency to mix up words while speaking is consistent with dyslexia. Note that dislexia has no bearing intellectual capacity: Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Michael Faraday were dyslexics. Tom Cruise is also dyslexic, so it doesn't mean you're a genius either :p
I was with you till you got to that great intellectual giant Tom Cruise !! :D :D
I was with you till you got to that great intellectual giant Tom Cruise !!
Anybody that actively supports Scientology is missing more than a few screws.
Your Old Dog
10-05-2006, 11:04 AM
Sure. Every president since Ike.
It may have happend then but I it was not regurgitaited all day long every 20 minutes by all the media as it is today. Not only that, in my opinion the politicians weren't playing the media nearly as affective as they do today and the media lapping it up. This all serves to spoil the minds of folks who think these guys are the village edit wether it hurts their country's cause or not.
I'm not up to the task of mentally sparring with those who feel otherwise. My opinion is formed from something my dad told me years ago. He said something to the effect of not underestimating the law of averages. In this case I take it to mean if a particular politician, Bush in this case, makes 100 decrees, it's possible that they could all be bad or wrong? That's how the opposition in this country see's him. If not a 100, how about 1,000?
Now we got media members actually interviewing other media members as experts and not reporters !!! Public opinion is shaped by the media and look what we got to work with !!
I'm out of this one. Don't want to get worked up and if someone thinks Bush is a dud than there's likely not much I can say to change anyones opinion but I'd advise all to get a broad view of news reports as most are biased in one direction or another. They're written by people like us complete with our opposing views. Differance is, as reporters they are supposed to be un-biased when doing the newscast not doing editorials.
Your Old Dog
10-05-2006, 11:27 AM
How can we change the process to tip the balance in the direction of selecting candidates that have a broader appeal?
Okay, that lasted 5 minutes! I'm not actually out of it but still reading.
Broader appeal in our country would mean large cities. Typically they are liberal in mindset. That means the rural farm communities would have no say in how their country operated and would not reflect their value. This part of this country is typically conservative.
Advertsing works. That's what drives all our economy. News and talk shows are just more advertising. I think that the number of Right Wing talk shows are having a major influence on pulling the country back to the center. I ponder the constitution and bill of rights in awe when I see for myself how "freedom of speech" serves us even today. Limbaugh and other Conservative would have been taken off the air years ago. But because there was a buck to be made by expressing the opposing viewpoint on the air we now have a country positioned in the middle as evidenced by the close votes you mention.
Maybe I better finish reading the rest of this thread before I toss in the towel so quickly :D
Broader appeal in our country would mean large cities. Typically they are liberal in mindset. That means the rural farm communities would have no say in how their country operated and would not reflect their value. This part of this country is typically conservative.
Why does it automatically mean more votes from large cities? With the vote so evenly split that isn't a given. More acceptance on either side would result in voters crossing over and that can go either way. What is needed is less confrontation and more cooperation. I guess the problem in large part is the adversarial nature of the system.
That still doesn't explain how the public appears to be so evenly split on the issues though.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems is that the types of issues to deal with today are in large part unprecedented. It has been since Ike was president that the real threat of near total annihilation has hung over the world for the first time in history. World wide events are now delivered to us in seconds, problems have a much larger scope and the time frames are drastically shortened in which to deal with them.
I suspect that we may expect too much from our leaders. They are ordinary humans with no special powers and with the immensely increased complexity of dealing with the international community and events of the planet in "real time" mistakes are inevitable. Those mistakes can be more costly than ever before. Perhaps the job has simply become too large.
Wirecutter
10-05-2006, 12:17 PM
Why does it automatically mean more votes from large cities? With the vote so evenly split that isn't a given. More acceptance on either side would result in voters crossing over and that can go either way.
It doesn't, automatically, but it sure tends that way in the US. I remember seeing one of those red/blue maps during our last presidential election. It reflected a trend that's pretty well known in the US - the urban areas tend to the left, the rural areas tend to the right. Bush didn't win the urban areas, he got the rural areas, and that's where more of the US population lives.
More acceptance on either side would result in voters crossing over and that can go either way.
True, but look at the way issues are "sold" by the media. The big sensational stuff is good for them (more viewers), so that's what gets the attention. Case in point: the news show "Nightline" got its start during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979-80. The "debates" that Koppel hosted (egged on?) were typically between a US official of some sort, and an Iranian official that ABC actually had on the payroll! Bani Sadr (sp?) was, IIRC, an Iranian foreign minister or something like that.
The media don't want a nice, calm, well-reasoned debate. You don't do a talk show with Bush and Cheney debating White House policy. (Yaaawn.) Not enough sparks. What we want is a "Serious Discussion of What's Wrong With This Country" between, say, Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton.
Another big contributing factor, at least in choosing a US President, goes like this: In order for a Republican to get nominated by his own party, he has to swing hard right and appeal to the "Conservative Base". In order for a Democrat to get his nomination, he will similarly need to appeal to the more extreme left of the Democratic party. But they've both got to be careful about the balance there, because after the nomination process, they have to be able to backtrack some and rubber-band back to the center, because that's how you win in the general election - you have to get your own party "loyals", but the candidates also have to depend on swing voters from the other party. (Anyone remember the "Reagan Democrats" as one famous example?)
So during primary season, you have politicians at their more extreme, and tend to get very little useful lawmaking. In the run-up to the general election, you have Republicans pushing social programs and the Democrats acting all "pro-business".
I would also submit that the nearly instantaneous knowledge we can all have of world events has the same effect on policy that a quarter-to-quarter magnifying glass has on business. Who's really thinking about the long term?
-Mark
I would also submit that the nearly instantaneous knowledge we can all have of world events has the same effect on policy that a quarter-to-quarter magnifying glass has on business.
I would certainly agree with that. And, the effect on planning is terrible. You end up with kneejerk reactions and positions taken that can't be backed out of gracefully.
Nugent, from Snopes.com
And yes, he did make the comment in a May 2006 interview conducted by a British journalist Robert Chalmers for The Independent on Sunday, the expanded Sunday version of the UK newspaper The Independent:
"What do these deer think when they see you coming?" I ask him. "Here comes the nice guy who puts out our dinner? Or, there's the man that shot my brother?"
"I don't think they're capable of either of those thoughts, you Limey asshole. They're only interested in three things: the best place to eat, having sex and how quickly they can run away. Much like the French."
Internet-spread versions of this exchange have changed the interviewer's nationality from British to French to position the rocker's observation as an even greater slap-down.
Ed Tipton
10-05-2006, 02:31 PM
Anyone who doubts these are trying times for all concerned Americans AND their politicians consider this; When was the last time you heard a political party urging the voting public to "not vote". You can hear it on TV right now, they are actually urging the voting public not to vote.
Duct Taper
10-05-2006, 02:34 PM
It is hard for voters to find out what the real "truth" is because of the smoke screen put up by the political parties (whose only purpose is to get their candidate elected) and the media (who only present the information they want to present). And these are really the only sources of information available to them. Once you realize this, a coin flip isn't unreasonable if that is what you finally decide to do.
TECHSHOP
10-05-2006, 03:37 PM
not to get to deep into this, but has anyone else "contected" the "death of shop" thread with this.
The rural/conservative and urban/liberal mind set just reaks out of linked article. A man that works/lives all day my his own muscles in the physical realities of the world, growing crops, raising animals, mining, lumber, etc see the life quite differently from the man who lives/works in a very "supported by others" enviroment of the "city". (the I don't care about the farmer, I get my milk from the corner store).
In the first environment there is a strong desire to continue what has been proven successful in the past, in the latter it is more of a desire for the "next new thing".
Maybe it is just me, not having an "open mind" that anyone can dump their crap into. But rather a questioning mind that tries to intergrate information from the "true reality". The strenght of a nation/culture/society seems to be rooted in the accecptance of "the true reality" and not what it wishes the "world" to be.
Damn, I don't think that I am explaining this quite right, it sounds like a too "anti-idealistic" tone.
I be off the net for a few days, as I have to tend to the real world for awhile.
topct
10-05-2006, 05:21 PM
Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand, but rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach, evidence, and language.
Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow it to willingly and without internal resistance devote itself to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals it seeks.
If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals it seeks.
Of course the propaganda itself has no moral attributes. It is the people behind it that have or lack morals. Invariably though propoganda does have certain characteristics. It is one sided and does not address issues objectively. It usually makes liberal use of fallacious reasoning and appeals to emotion rather than logic. It commonly fails to deliver facts or does so incompletely and/or out of context. Sometime the "facts" are outright lies.
The real difficulty arises in distinguishing propaganda from reporting. As a child I used to listen to Radio Moscow on my short wave receiver. My parents encouraged this activity as I would also listen to other points of view such as Voice of America. It was extremely interesting to hear the news presented from a viewpoint diametrically opposite to what was broadcast in the US.
The problem then becomes trying to decide where the truth lies. Often that is impossible.
To quote Winston Churchill: "History is written by the victors" and "There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true."
Your Old Dog
10-05-2006, 05:53 PM
not to get to deep into this, but has anyone else "contected" the "death of shop" thread with this.
The rural/conservative and urban/liberal mind set just reaks out of linked article. A man that works/lives all day my his own muscles in the physical realities of the world, growing crops, raising animals, mining, lumber, etc see the life quite differently from the man who lives/works in a very "supported by others" enviroment of the "city". (the I don't care about the farmer, I get my milk from the corner store).
In the first environment there is a strong desire to continue what has been proven successful in the past, in the latter it is more of a desire for the "next new thing".
Maybe it is just me, not having an "open mind" that anyone can dump their crap into. But rather a questioning mind that tries to intergrate information from the "true reality". The strenght of a nation/culture/society seems to be rooted in the accecptance of "the true reality" and not what it wishes the "world" to be.
Damn, I don't think that I am explaining this quite right, it sounds like a too "anti-idealistic" tone.
I be off the net for a few days, as I have to tend to the real world for awhile.
If you're are expressing what I think you are I would answer this way.
The urban population centers are largely driven by the media, educational systems and the folks working for large corporations. All three groups are largely liberal in thought. They tend to regurgitate rumour and inuendo from one to another all day.
In the rural areas there tends to be more self sufficieancy and that is more consistant with conservative thoughts. In my community you'll see farmers starting out their day with the headlights on and that's how they finish the day, long after dark. The ain't got time for regurgitating inuendo and rumour. Most ones I've met are extremly plain talking and it ain't all littered with F bombs. That's why I moved out this way.
Urban and rural are about as differant as Earth and Pluto.
But that's just me talking.
Ray...........
wierdscience
10-05-2006, 06:11 PM
The trouble with the media is they give us THEY'RE opinions instead of reporting the news.
Even worse is leaking classified information.They leaked the fact that we had OBL's sat phone wired for sound,they leaked the money transfer tracking program and the NSA wire tapping program.All of these were efforts being made to fight the war,but they were leaked by the media.That should be an indication of bias.
Then we have the pinacle of diservice to the public-fabrication of news Filegate,showed us the lengths they are willing to go to.If they can't find evidence they make it up.
I believe in a free press,but I draw the line at being lied to for the purpose of skewing an election.Certain journalists should have been put in jail.
TECHSHOP
10-08-2006, 09:42 PM
YOD:
You are close, but I was thinking more "basic". Like the RHA quote, "specialization is for insects." The city/urban (Modern America?) is all about "specialization". A man that must "know a little about a lot" is becoming rarer in our country. Sort of the "end result" of a political/econonical divide and conquer by the ones in power. Maybe it is the old game if you can name, you can control it. I think the the Con/Lib division is a "farce" since both sides want the same thing, controlling power of the state over citizens. I don't accept the premis that one side is correct in everything, because I agree with that side in any one thing.
On Evan's question:
As you include more "voters" in your sample, there is a regression to the mean. Election day is the sample, if one side in the popularity contest turns out more that the other, either by "inspiring" support for or against, then there is a "sweeping" victory/defeat. When both side succeed/fail at the poles equally, then there is a "50/50" split. I include all the "manipulations to the process" that both sides engage in.
It's getting cooler, so I think I'll toss this soapbox into the fire.