A Few Facts that need to fall on Republican ears.

[YOY]

I posted this once during a non busy time and feel the need to post it again for reaffirmation. Add more to it if you can.

I'll keep it simple and not form complex statements and stick to facts and not "truths".

Reaganomics are not capitalism.

Reaganomics are not more American than any other economic system.

Reaganomics are one of the reasons why this sh*t storm is happening right now on Wall Street.

Iraq was not involved in 9-11. If it was the Bush admin would be singing it from the rafters.

Iraq has nothing to do with "freedom."

Mixing Religion and Politics never works. It has never worked in the past and will never work in the present or future.

Fundamentalists of any stripe are dangerous.

Socialism is not communism. Socialist programs do not lead to complete socialism. Even if it did socialism and democracy mix quite well.

Most of you are not rich and never will be.

Those of you who are "rich" are not wealthy and never will be.

Those of you who are wealthy, you are not higher lifeforms than the rest of us.

Non-believers (Atheists and Agnostics) are not inherently bad (or good) people.

Religious folks of all stripes are not inherently good (or bad) people.

Education is good for you. Listening to educated people is better than ignoring them. Being able to have an educated and civil discussion on how to resolve problems and following through with action is the best way to solve problems.

Nobody who matters cares what car you drive, what clothes you wear, and whether you have money or not.

Facts are not debatable.

Being born here doesn't make you a better person than someone who was not. What you do here or anywhere else can.

You are not magically "more American" or "in love with this country" more than the left.

In normal debate insulting the opposition and shouting at them doesn't make you the winner. It make you rude.

You cannot hate the government and expect it to protect you from any bogeymen you conceive of at the same time.

The military industrial complex is taking the same kind of money as they did during the cold war. We are no longer competing in an arms race.

Talking about caring about veterans and actually doing it are two different things.

Our military is neither good nor evil. It is an instrument. It can and has been used for both good and evil in the past.

Just because you call it a science doesn't mean that it is. There is a method behind science. If it doesn't fit the method it's not science.

Gays, Lesbians, and Transgendered people are not inherently bad (or good) people. They are people. They have feelings. If you cannot respect their lifestyle at least respect their humanity.

Nobody WANTS to get an abortion. Nobody thinks abortion is a beautiful thing. Abortion will happen whether you outlaw it or not.

If you want to have a world with less abortions work toward creating one where nobody would not want to bring a child into it but had the right to chose not to if they so desired.

If you think blacks, latinos, and other minorities have it easy, you've never really befriended any.

Native Americans have gotten and continue to get the shaft. If anyone has a right to feel pissed, it is they.

Abstinence only doesn't work. People fuck. Educated people are more careful than uneducated.

There is a strong difference between carrying a monkey portraying a black man and giving someone supporting a wasteful war the finger. One promotes injustice and the other shows defiance to injustice.

The fall of the USSR was in strong part due to a single party system that could not adapt. Sound familiar?

Obama/Biden 08.

[YOY]

1. Wow. two recs and no comments.

I suck!

[Seashell Eyes]

2. Applause

I especially liked this one: Talking about caring about veterans and actually doing it are two different things.

[YOY]

4. K&R it then and add some of your own.

nt

[Ozma]

3. Very good list! I doubt any Repugs would agree with many of those points N/T

[YOY]

5. I'd really like to see them try.

Some of them are pretty irrefutable.

K&R it if you like it and add your own.

[Ozma]

9. Oh I agree, but we are dealing with low information voters...even Sarah Palin is

one of those... that's why she's popular. Sarah still thinks Iraq has something to do with 9/11.

She also thinks Muslims, Arabs, and people with strange names are UnAmerican. Just like her supporters do.

[msallied]

6. My one nitpick. Iraq IS sort of about freedom.

But not in the way normal people view it. It's from the neocon perspective that if we spread freedom and democracy around the world through the use of military brute, then we will all live happily ever after, or some shit. lol

[YOY]

8. 'Fraid not.

It's all about oil, money for the Military Industrial Complex, and single-source no-bid contracting. Not a thing to do with freedom what-so-ever. The "Freedom" bit is all jingoistic crap for the masses. The Neocons know that. "Freedom" is just the shiny wrapping they used to package this giant turd of waste (on so many levels...)

[msallied]

10. I think you're right about the oil.

I think, however, that the oil and money is intended to be a happy outcome of a foreign policy that is largely driven by religious dogma. I mean, their policy with Israel is strictly in line with Zionism. I think it's a deadly marriage between God and greed.

[YOY]

11. Agreed to a point...but I don't see that dogma as anything related to "freedom".

n/t

[NoSheep]

74. I would suggest "their" policy toward Israel is about having an ally

in the Middle East. Period. Israel is convenient and easy because "they" can use the judeo-christian connection to dupe the uninformed and illogical. I'm not even entirely sure that the facts of the Holocaust play into it for "them" at all. If Israelis were weak and the Palestinians strong, we'd be allied with the Palestinians. The same way "they" allied the US (in our name) with Saddam. But history played out differently. It isn't about ideology, it is about money. MONEY MONEY MONEY. Nothing else. THEY are about MONEY. THEY will find the most convenient way to sell their garbage to the duped. Amazingly, the "duped" often times don't even like Jewish people! They're too damned stupid to realize that Israel and Jewish people are at times synonymous.

But look. We are talking about idiots here. With no ability to perceive nuance whatsoever. It's all black and white for them except the gray stuff they don't understand (god help us).

It is THE reason education receives so little attention and the very reason they hosed up the system with No Child Left Behind. NO CHILD LEFT..LEFT...no leftists no leftists... no educated people...only names for the rolls so the recruiters can identify the cannon fodder.

[The Wizard]

24. They never say

whether it's freedom from or freedom to. One isn't had without giving up some of the other. But that's philosophical and it confuses Republicans.

[texastoast]

77. Spreading freedom

[NoName Left]

80. CONTROL. Neocons are all about control.

Controlling money, yes. But even in the absence of monetary gain, they are about POWER and CONTROL over other people. Abu Gaib and Guantanamo are perfect examples. In the sadistic, corrupt and despotic way they have conducted all things having to do with Iraq, they have, in fact, worked against their own ultimate financial gain all though they lack the maturity and intelligence to realize it.

"Freedom" to these people means one thing: Freedom for themselves to behave any way they choose, which ALWAYS includes trampling on other people and often for nothing more than pure sadistic enjoyment.

[volstork]

7. Here's another rec!

There is a lot of truth in your list. Too bad most freepers are blind and deaf to the truth.

(i.e.-- Facts are not debatable.)

[psychmommy]

12. i love this one- lgbt people are not inherently bad or good

they are people, they have feelings. if you can't respect their lifestyle, respect their humanity.
i saw a sign at a church that said how can a moral wrong be a civil right. it made me so sad. Jesus would be hanging out with lgbt folks trying to bring them to church-not chasing them away with dehumanizing signs. we are all God's children and it must hurt him the most to see the church used to hurt others like that.

[YOY]

17. Glad you liked it.

n/t

[NoSheep]

76. Unless, of course, HE is an asshole. I was told God is Love. I'd like to believe that...

I can see the work of many years...since Reagan..to undermind the social gains of the 60's and 70's. We've returned to the dark ages. In an era when we have more information than ever...it seems easier to make people believe a lie. They really figured it out by roping in the religious...and re-defining religiosity the same way we see them re-definging truth on all fronts now that they own such a large portion of the media. I don't know what I will do if they steal the election again.

[political_Dem]

13. Standing Ovation. Rec'd and Kicked!

May I also add:

Wearing the stars and stripes as well as waving an American flag does not make you more patriotic than the rest of us.

[YOY]

15. ...it does make you tacky as all f*** though.

n.t.

[dchill]

14. K&R

:kick:

[RandomKoolzip]

16. I like this thread.

:thumbsup:

[YOY]

18. Add your own.

More than welcome to.

[Laelth]

19. Nice list, and nice work. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Oldtimeralso]

20. I Would Like To Add One If you Don't Mind

Just because you heard it on the radio, saw it on tv, or read it on your computer, it isn't necessarily true.

[joop]

22. perhaps SNOPES IS YOUR FRIEND nt.

:kick:

[GinaMaria]

47. or heard it from a priest, minister, deacon etc.

[treestar]

21. I like this one

"You cannot hate the government and expect it to protect you from any bogeymen you conceive of at the same time."

Also the one about the military being an instrument.

[YOY]

32. The military has got a good number of positives in their history...outweighing the negative

But events like Wounded Knee, Mai Lai, and the Kent State Massacre (not to mention some more recent ones) put a damper on events like Normandy, Iwa Jima, the Alamo, and Bunker Hill.

They truly are an instrument that can be used for good or evil.

[The Wizard]

23. Torture is not a family value

and the Book of Revelation is not sound foreign policy.

[TheKentuckian]

25. A few

Religious beliefs must be translated into secular reasoning to even be considered to be law. This prevents your fear of a Muslim, a Pagan, an Atheist, or whatever from enforcing their beliefs on you.

Paying less taxes than you did under Reagan cannot be construed as socialism, communism, or Marxism.

Nothing is ever going to trickle down to anyone.

You voted twice for Dubya and it was under his direction that we have nationalized companies and socialized risk in the markets.

Few if any on the left wish the right any harm. What we demand is you take responsibility and be accountable for your failed philosophies, tactics, and policies. You must accept that the entire worldview requires at minimum a ground up overhaul, more accurately a refit. The invisible hand likes to completely run us off the cliff every seventy or eighty years and into the ditch once or twice a decade.

When the top tax rate was a whopping 90% there were many captains of industry, entrepreneurs, and inventors. People were still wealthy. People still sought to obtain wealth.

You need air to breathe, water to drink, a shield to protect you from the radiation in space, food to eat, and a place to live. Remember that as you set your priorities and respect that all of God's creatures are equally entitled. If you claim faith in the God of Abraham then it is clear from The Word that we have a responsibility of stewardship on this earth. You do not require a command for your function.

[corkhead]

26. Bookmarked this and then saw I bookmarked your previous post of this last week.

thanks for posting it again for those who didn't see it the first time:toast:

[YOY]

31. I made a few new ones Just FYI

Always feel free to add your own.

[R. P. McMurphy]

27. Bravo YOY. I bookmarked this post - its a keeper!

K & R.

[sandyd921]

28. K&R! Great list!

[raccoon]

29. Great post. But many Republicans are like, they've made up their minds--

don't confuse them with facts. :puke:

[Seashell Eyes]

30. here's another

It doesn't make sense to claim you're pro-life and then turn around and treat single mothers like crap.

[mayahbird]

60. And another

It doesn't make any sense to claim you are pro-life and kill people in a war that should never have started and worse is still continued.

[n2doc]

33. "Having a gun does not mean you will be able to defeat a tyrannical government"

It just means that it is more likely that someone in your family will be hurt from it in an accident

[YOY]

34. Love that one n2doc.

Great one.

[iiibbb]

66. Gun owners are not bad people who automatically irresponsible people who want to shoot everyone.

but are generally tired of being demonized.

It's my house... I don't care what you do in yours.

[NJCher]

35. "left wing media"

Yoy, love your work. You cut right to the chase and don't mince words.

This is the kind of thing I could send to republicans I know.

I think we should add:


There is no "left-wing" media. Excluding public radio/tv,the American media is corporate-owned and it serves corporate interests.



Cher

[YOY]

36. I've had some here take my lack of verbosity for lack of intellect.

I prefer to think of myself as a Hemingway of left-wing ideology.

Thanks for your sweet comment.

[NJCher]

93. Mark Twain once sent a long letter

And scrawled a note at the top: sorry for the length: I didn't have time to make it shorter.


Most people don't realize how hard it is to say something succinctly and simply. :)



Cher

[southpaw]

37. Overall, excellent. But one nit I need to pick

"Gays, Lesbians, and Transgendered people are not inherently bad (or good) people. They are people. They have feelings. If you cannot respect their lifestyle at least respect their humanity."



I would hesitate to use the word 'lifestyle' with regard to GLBT people.


Perhaps 'orientation' would serve the same ends without including a potentially problematic word.

[YOY]

38. Point well taken. Correction will be made in the future.

n/t

[Ignis]

39. God-DAMN that's good. K&R, forwarding far and wide.

Awesome work as always, YOY!

:patriot:

[YOY]

44. Thanks Ignis!

I appreciate the attempted assist last night but we needed a few healers on that one. If the gang is up for it I'll gladly do some PQs tonight if the wife does not kill me for gaming too much!

[Ignis]

50. Speaking of Gaming...

Did you see the news that Obama bought billboards in Burnout: Paradise? :) Makes me wish I hadn't returned my rental copy via GameFly yet...

Seeya tonight! :hi:

[Dollface]

40. Good list but if you are going to share it... Isn't it Reaganomics "is" not "are"?

Not trying to be freepish. It just kind of jumped out at me.

[YOY]

42. Economics is almost alway plural and non-count. I assumed it to be 3rd person plural so I used 'are'

If I'm wrong then so be it. Feel free to correct.

I'll see if you can get the answer.

[tclambert]

68. Think of "economics" like "physics"

You wouldn't say "physics are," or "mathematics are." If you're treating it as a field of study, you could even say "foreign lanuguages is." Though because it feels awkward, I would say, "foreign language is."

Ah, here's a listing from dictionary.com:

ec·o·nom·ics /ˌɛkəˈnɒmɪks, ˌikə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
2. (used with a plural verb) financial considerations; economically significant aspects: What are the economics of such a project?

I think definition 1 fits your use of "Reaganomics" better, though the word "science" made me grit my teeth. Doesn't seem right to let "Reaganomics" get that close to the word "science." But then I don't particularly think regular economics has risen to the level of a science yet either. Maybe it would if we started talking in terms of "economic experiments." Like we've tried the experiment of tax cuts primarily for the rich at least a couple of times now and the results do not match the hypotheses. We didn't get a lot of jobs, nor economic stimulus out of it.

[tclambert]

69. How about this one:

Wealth does not trickle down, it percolates up.

[Dollface]

82. Thanks. I don't know enough to analyze but I usually have a pretty good ear.

It is entirely possible, however, that I have been punditized and am now deaf.

[The Wielding Truth]

64. Thanks for this. I didn't want to be the first to correct this, and

take away from the obvious satisfaction it brings, but I have trouble trusting the validity of the post when the grammar is so glaringly off.

Maybe if you repost it, you could you repost it with the correction.

I'm not perfect either. It's just a minor change.

[Enthusiast]

41. Creationism is no substitute for science. nt

[n2doc]

43. Or, Belief is no substitute for Knowledge n/t

[MonteLukast]

45. Republicanism is not automatically better for family providers.

A lot of people become more conservative as they have children. Republicans take advantage of people's unconscious idea that maturity means turning to the right. We have to be aware of this... if nothing else, because the idea that traditional gender roles is better for raising families badly needs to be challenged.

[PatSeg]

46. Great list!

Thanks for reposting.

Serving in the military does not necessarily make a person more patriotic or a better leader.

[Soylent Brice]

48. superbly put, K&R

it's amazing to me that even the most irrefutable facts can often times be shoved aside in favor of personal ideology.

i would love to see THIS in a commercial.

[uponit7771]

49. "... Most of you are not rich and never will be...." !!!! EX-ACT-LY!! Try and convince these people!

[hfojvt]

52. I disagree with that one (among others)

Many of us, even in the lower quintile, are rich by global or historical standards. I think it would be sensible to appreciate more the things we have than always being willing to tear up the world to get more. When over 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day, those who have far more are relatively rich.

[YOY]

53. Now you are nitpicking.

Keep it short and sweet. The audience are not folks big on relativism.

Most can afford what they need to live here...that includes food, shelter, and transportation as well as other basic needs. A vacation to Milan, designer clothes, or a luxury vehicle is out of the question. Most "luxuries" they purchase are cheap crap with short product lifespans compared to the truly decent items. An illusion of pseudo-wealth is what it can be at times.

You are addressing the wrong cat if you think I have never lived in the developing world and realize the point you are making (hint: look at the avatar) and do not realize the relative wealth that we seem to have here.

Most of these people don't have passports. Don't expect them to simulate what they innately dissimulate.

[hfojvt]

58. but "facts are not debatable" and you call your OP facts

and then say that any disagreement is nitpicking or something that the average American will not or cannot understand.

Still, in my view, that statement is not much of a fact.

[YOY]

59. Congrats. You win a cookie for overanalysis.

Feel free to correct or add your own. Try to keep it under 50 pages.

[YOY]

51. Holy cow! I made a 5 star post!

Yeah for me! :wow:

[louis-t]

54. There is no such thing as a "super-patriot".

Sean Hannity is NOT a "great American".

Subjective, I know.

[JDwho]

55. Nice..mind if I quote you in my debates?

[YOY]

56. I guess so.

n/t

[Raster]

57. Outstanding! Thank you!

And if I might:

The military industrial complex is taking more of the same kind of money as they did during the cold war. We are no longer competing in an arms race.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

61. Nice list, but facts are wasted on Republicans.

They are illiterate bigots for the most part. The rest are greedy asshats who really don't give a damn as long as their pockets get lined.

[rniel]

62. They'll just say

You know FREEDUMMM ISN'T FREE!!

[Stellabella]

63. How about 'There were no WMDs in Iraq.'

[debunkthelies]

65. Adding to...

A persons purpose in life, should not be measured by the surface of their existence.

[stuntcat]

67. k.

:kick: :kick:

[Riding the Point]

70. Spouting Rigid Views... Poison Polititics...Why We Gamble

I admire your attempts at verbal slapdown, but we can’t really convince either our friends or that damned brother-in-law of anything during an election year, nor, to be truthful, are they any more successful with us. The conversations go on for months. Both sides use the tricks of logic, but to no avail. All the evidence, even some matters that are not quite evident, are pulled into the discussion by all involved. Still no one moves. Carefully selected statistics, the last refuge of dirty rotten scoundrels, are pulled out like Christmas presents and, to the shock of both sides, even they do not carry the day. Appeals to decency are made, prejudices are laid bare, but nothing. Scoffing, snorting, and sarcasm are then hauled out. The whole thing devolves into an embarrassing and not-too-intellectual equivalent of a fifth-grade foodfight. I’ve even seen it happen between a sensitive, well-meaning Obamaite husband and his decent, thoughtful McCainite wife. (She CAN be a maverick!)

As such divergent figures as Lenin and Tolstoy cried, “What is to be done?” Through an ethnocentric lens, our current crisis seems just as insoluble as theirs. What comes over us every four years? What divides us so deeply from the person sitting just on the other side of the table that we can remember loving only, say, two hours ago?

I will take a stab at the matter, and, hopefully, I will be able to avoid seeming like a special pleader for either of the current candidates. In addition, I hope that what I say can be construed as having at least a residue of respect for both of them. At least a residue.

The real attractions of candidates for public office can often be difficult to explain. Imitating philosophers, we might do well to start with definitions. Nearly a century ago, the great sociologist Max Weber helpfully divided authority into three ideal types: traditional, rational-legalistic or bureaucratic, and charismatic. When wisely employed, this clever sparsing goes far in explaining the almost always incompatible kinds of authority and leadership that we find in our world and why and how bonds can be established between leader and led.

Next we should note that neither of our two current examples, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, is a “traditional” leader carrying a hereditary title such as prince or count who could appeal to tradition and thereby compel us to defer to him; that is, neither springs from a politically prominent, politically entrenched family. Nor does either man claim authority because he steps forward from the managerial-bureaucratic ranks. Barack Obama and John McCain are not technocratic, workaday managers of vast, sprawling organizations. This leaves us with our third possibility, the matter of their charisma.

It has been some time since this nation has experienced charisma on this level. Ronald Reagan springs to mind. He spoke with force, lucidity, and ease, communicating his self-assurance to his supporters, then locking them in a tight, affection-filled embrace. John Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson are other examples of this type of appeal. They had charisma in spades. This sort of thing is an ephemeral quality that is impervious to reason. It excites people, even when they can't tell you why. It also maddens adversaries, who simply don’t get it.

A charismatic leader, also, is usually a newcomer, though Mr. McCain gives the lie to the view that this must always be so. He possesses a charisma that springs from his biography as a war hero, his unpredictability, his defiant “mavericky” personality. In contrast, the upstart Obama leans on his eloquence, his quick smile, his almost unstated half-African-American, half-Caucasian promise that he transcends an old and shameful division that should no longer obsess us. As is usual with charismatic types, each of the opponents seems to sum up inchoate feelings and longings, an exasperation with the status quo. This may be at the bottom of why this contest has become a slapdown about who has the right to wrap himself in the angelic robes of “change.”

Change may or may not be holy, but we would do well to recognize that charisma can result in both good and ill. On the upside, a charismatic leader can mobilize energy, inspire millions, achieve the unlikely. As president, Mr. Obama could prove to be a deeply eloquent crusader who could inspire and lead an entire generation. For his part, Mr. McCain might prove an irresistible force, a septuagenarian Teddy Roosevelt whose image, whose very persona, would allow him to cut across the ideological divide that seems to imprison the safer, more consistent types.

On the downside, a charismatic leader is often a mindless charlatan, a deceiver, a seductive self-server. Aaron Burr was a disaster. Andrew Jackson was, undoubtedly, an utter demogogue who played in the fire of populist politics. Some would argue that his almost complete success set back the tone of our national politics for a generation. Adolf Hitler, of course, is the example that undoubtedly and most persuasively accounts for the abiding suspicion of charisma. He was a nearly deranged nobody, a provincial, an unimportant corporal who came to mesmerize millions. The ovens of the holocaust were his parting gift to us. Thank you, charisma.

Successes and failures aside, we are now stuck with only this charismatic ideal type to draw from in our current election year. So similar in the gifts they bring, McCain and Obama have found the need to differentiate from each other. After the nominations by the respective parties of the two candidates, that differentiation did ensue, it had to, and it did so with the force of a syllogism. The battle then formed along a slightly different line, a generational demarcation that separates the potentially dangerous innocence and inexperience of Barack Obama from the seasoned-by-fire, perilously Bush-compromised experience of John McCain.

The older Senator is the beneficiary of a fetish for experience that is held by many. Those who fall on that side of the great divide would point out the tested characters of the deeply experienced Washington, Jefferson, or Madison. The followers in the other camp, on the other hand, would be quick to point out that holders of weighty, respectable resumes can perform miserably once in office. Think of the elder Adams, the catastrophic Buchanan, and the elder Bush--unsuccessful all, but on paper three of the most "qualified" and experienced men ever to hold the office of the presidency. We have all learned from our own working lives that resumes can fool.

The lack of experience of the younger Senator, though vilified by many, is viewed by just as many others as an asset. Mr. Obama’s true believers sometimes argue that his inexperience simply means that he has not had as much time to buy into the system. From our national history, the apologists for this position can safely fall back on the example of Abraham Lincoln, an unknown, single-term congressman from the very edge of the national frontier. Furthermore, after a single year as mayor of Buffalo and less than a single term as governor of New York, Grover Cleveland was elected president in 1884. He would then serve two nonconsecutive presidential terms and wind up winning the popular vote for the nation’s highest office three times. In addition, he has a rising reputation among historians. He and Lincoln did pretty well for such inexperienced fellows.
Amidst such arguments and the acknowledgement of the failures and successes of charisma, inexperience, and experience, small wonder that our national discussion has become a cacophony. The situation can even lead to the viewpoint, and it is one that I unshakeably hold, that choosing a president is a crapshoot. It is embarrassing, but we are guessing. We lack prescience. We never truly know who will prove successful and who will not. The variables are many and complex. Simple, dumb luck can often decide the issue.

The whole mess of choosing boils down to values. The belief that evangelicals are the only values voters is a canard. We all have values and we are all evangelical about something. Our only resort, and one to which we are drawn without fail every four years, is to vote according to our value systems and our worldviews. They are the heart of the matter.

What doesn’t matter is how many statistics and policy positions we have memorized. Despite our pretensions, few of us are actual policy wonks. The whole thing will break down less tidily. Some of us will vote according to how dangerous we perceive the world to be. Some will vote to protect whatever little hard-won money remains in our pocketbooks. Others will vote on the basis of some vague sense of idealism. Still others may vote in the hope of finally realizing certain heartfelt desires that they believe would ring in a better world--more humane, more just, more generous. There is no ready guide, of course, for deciding which of these values should carry greater weight. We should, however, recognize that in the end we vote simply according to those values that we PREFER.

With these bedrock personal preferences as a given, the arguments for the relative inexperience and idealism of Barack Obama and the crusty, proven experience of John McCain can both be seen as the thinnest of rationalizations. A visiting alien would go slack-jawed, for if the roles were reversed, our allegiances would reverse. The great Swift would be delighted.
Despite what most of us think we know, almost no one will vote for John McCain only because he is old and has experience. Lots of people are old and have experience. The old bastard at the end of the street who yells at children to get off his lawn could give us that. It is just as true that precious few will vote for Barack Obama simply because he is young and seems like a breath of fresh air. The brash, loud-mouthed young college dropout who lives two doors down and galls us to the core could bring that to the table.

In a few weeks, as we approach the voting booth and our pulse quickens, all of this will prove to be true when we will finally realize that, once again, we must vote for the candidate who most closely reflects our core values, who most closely reflects the ethos that we think is more likely to help us gain what we want for ourselves and for our children. All the rest is spume and froth.

That is what makes the election booth the point of truth for each one of us. It is where we all finally come to face our inner selves as we push the chads for what we truly believe. This whole thing is not about Obama and McCain, it is about us. We vote our values without caring a fig for those of the person in the next booth who is voting differently. The rest, the charms and perils of charismatic appeal, and the gabfest about experience and the lack thereof that we listen to so attentively, are external to our inner drama. We roll the existential dice and gamble on the externals like drunken sailors. We never gamble, we never risk, our most deeply cherished values.

This is what makes temperatures rise. This is why we cannot make our choices and do this election thing respectably or respectfully. It is what robs us of any notion of our fallibility. It is what makes us challenge the decency of those with whom we disagree, just as it brings us to claim that God has chosen sides or that our political adversaries do not love their country enough.
To our shame, we will never draw this poison from our politics. That is why Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike will continue to see each other as zoological specimens, and why all will continue to pursue differently imagined solutions for repairing this world. As Immanuel Kant once noted and the wise Isaiah Berlin reiterated, mankind is made of crooked timber.

[MonteLukast]

71. Word.

Great first post. How about making it into a thread in its own right? Just a suggestion...

[YOY]

86. It's completely pro-McCain and not very packed with "truths" or "facts"

It is packed with cherry-picked philosophical statements to support things that are neither factual nor truthful and compares Obama to a "mouthy young college dropout" compared to an obviously more "experienced" McCain.

You should really read it closer.

Although I do give it props for the pseudo-intellectual category. I'd say it could almost be written by a Liberty University Pseudo-Professor.

[MonteLukast]

90. Ohh. Stand corrected.

Maybe I should've known, after reading this:

We should, however, recognize that in the end we vote simply according to those values that we PREFER.

We're all lizard-brainers in the end. Saith the Republicans.

The sad part is, in 2004 they were correct.

[YOY]

94. Also note the Hitler reference.

As one DUer pointed out "No Rightwing screed is complete without it." as well as his thought that Americans don't "give a fig" about the guy in the booth next to them.

I give more than "a fig" about the human race, the planet, and this country in equal measures. It seems that this little agnostic is far more "Christian" than the "Philosophical Evangelical", who doesn't give figs apparently.

It's really a shame...I rather like figs.

[YOY]

87. Obviously you don't understand the difference between fact and truth

Well-read or not your perception of reality causes you to ride a few truths into the point of insanity and beyond reality. E.g. The Hitler reference. This is really sick no matter how you hide behind choice picked quotes and interpretations of Kant and Swift to cover up your ignorance.

Truths are debatable and subject to personal vantage point. Truths can conflict. e.g. Mankind needs order. The large amount of philosophical takes you inject into the point you are trying to make are, in a word, non sequitar.

Facts are proved truths. Facts are not debatable. e.g. Water is wet.

This, for example, is neither: "The brash, loud-mouthed young college dropout who lives two doors down and galls us to the core could bring that to the table."

The Harvard Top-of-his-class grad is a "brash loud-mouthed droppout"...yeah...full of both truth and facts, huh. Tagging on Kant and Swift there doesn't justify this. It just makes you oblivious to real connections.


and I do "give a fig" about the guy in the booth next to me.

Poison politics? Lunch-room food fight? No. Just an extended index finger to "values voters" who wouldn't know real values if it bit them in the ass. Anyone who says this and references Hitler as the opposition in the same statement is interested in only promoting the illness that they claim they are here to alleviate.


Please look up the definition of "maverick" as well? You will find that you are doing Noah Webster (not a philosopher per se but more in realm of FACT that I like to stick to) an incredibly disservice.

Incidently, although I have no intention of reporting you, this is a democratic board for democrats. Although we do appreceate a bit of sane debate, "Savior help you", this is not it. This is basically selected drawing from the world of philosophy to support outright lies and infactual statements put in well-worded format.

May I suggest your collegues at FReerepublic dot com. They, I am sure, would love to hear more of your attempts at raping philosphy in support of their campaign to enforce their values (same as your it appears) on everyone.

[fortyfeetunder]

72. If I could I'd R it

but I'll :kick: it instead!
Good job!

[trickyguy]

73. Being gay is not a lifestyle (as in choice of). It's who we are as people.

You know, people with feelings.

And who are part of the human family. That simple.:toast:

[YOY]

91. I do appologize.

Next time it will be correct. No insult or slur was intended in any way shape or form.

[MonteLukast]

75. You can't run away from different races, religions, and backgrounds forever.

The best response to a problem is NEVER to run away. I don't how uncomfortable it makes you feel, Republicans. I don't care how much comfort is an overriding force in your lives. Evolve.

[TheKentuckian]

78. Hypothesis and Conclusion are two distinct things

once you know the difference then come back and talk.

You find answers to questions, not the dangerous and illogical reverse.

Facts are found not debated, if there are questions then you have a theory.

[YOY]

88. a comment to me or an addition to the list?

We could list them all for all of them but it would be far less terse.

[trthnd4jstc]

79. Yoy-You Rock. This is well done, useful, and thanks! n/t

[YOY]

92. Thanks

Note the one lone Freeper that has commented on this thread with a rambling juxtaposition of their hateful mandate bolstered by cherry picked philosophical statements (standing on the shoulders of giants with cleats IMHO.)

[lisainmilo]

81. K&R....well written list! n/t

[amyrose2712]

83. Our forefathers believed strongly in separation of church and state.

Besides the fact that many of them were Deists.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God has a plan for the universe, which he does not alter by intervening in the affairs of human life nor by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States

[Highway61]

84. I can't "rec"....

I've been away too long (kinda sounds like a song, doesn't it?). That being said, I would rec if I could....this is great and I have forwarded to all in my email. Thank you

[Myrina]

85. Too late to Rec, so here's a KICK

:kick:

[me b zola]

89. Thomas Jefferson & Jesus Christ were both liberals

...and if republicans would support education they--and their children--might come to understand this.