Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 07:05 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
i want leaders to lead, but only after followers have consented to the mission.


Care to define "lead" in a way that is realistic enough for ANYONE do be a leader in our country? And while you are at it, care to define how to get followers to consent to being lead without first having a leader?

Quote:
we are a split nation. in that case the FIRST mission for leaders is to get to a majority decision. the problem with current so called leaders of all stripes is that they have taken the nation being split as an excuse to not only wage war on their political opponents but to also lie to the people in the attempt to get what they want. this is not leadership, this is gangsterism.


In my opinion, they do not use it as an excuse. The fact is that the nation not only is split...it is split among people who think they can get their way and exclude others from getting theirs.

As for the "lies"...politicians have probably lied since caveman time. If you were a politician, you would probably lie. In fact, I doubt anybody could ever get elected to any political position in America without telling a whole bunch of lies. The citizens demand that politicians lie to them...they seem unwilling to hear the truth.

Quote:
(abortion) this is decided...we want it possible to get but not easy to get, we dont want it to be a regular form of birth control, we want it to be an emergency remedy for when birth control fails.


Abortion, Hawkeye, is far from decided...and except that we elected the right guy this November, the abortion situation could have changed drastically as SCOTUS changes hands.

Quote:
(gay marriage) they wait for a majority to form, on one side or the other


Sure, you want the leaders to lead by waiting for a majority to form????

Quote:
(economic issues) a more difficult problem as people generally have no knowledge of economics, and the so called experts dont know enough to be experts (they are more correctly educated guessers) . they should however not be tools for the elite, and they should have some sense of the priorities of the people.


I suspect most have a better sense of the priorities of the people than most of us want to imagine, but implementing what the people want, as I was saying, is not always possible.

Get elected and do the job if you are so sure it can be done...otherwise, be a bit more understanding of the difficulties of the job.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 10:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Good post, Frank. Couldn't have said it better myself!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 01:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
we are a split nation.


Oswald Spengler wrote, in 1926, in relation to urban culture--

Quote:
The inhabitant of a market (town) may be a craftsman or a tradesman, but he lives and thinks as a peasant. We have to go back and sense accurately what it means when out of a primitive Egyptian or Chinese or Germanic village--a little spot in a wide land--a city comes into being. It is quite possibly not differentiated in any outward feature, but spiritually it is a place from which the countryside is henceforth regarded, felt and experienced as "environs," as something different and subordinate. From now on there are two lives, that of the inside and that of the outside, and the peasant understands this just as clearly as the townsman. The village smith and the smith in the city, the village headman and the burgomaster, live in two different worlds. The man of the land and the man of the city are different essences. First of all they feel the difference, then they are dominated by it, and at last they cease to understand each other at all. Today a Brandenburg peasant is closer to a Sicilian peasant than he is to a Berliner. From the moment of this specific attunement , the City comes into being, and it is this attunement which underlies, as something that goes without saying, the entire waking-consciousness of every Culture.


One need only look at the electoral map and hear the self-satisfied expression "fly-over states" to know what took place in the election.

Big Media is city based. And through buy-outs controls media in the countryside. The swing states are where there is some overlap.

The hubris of Obama supporters is infantile. His win was pure demographics. And the City is parasitical and its greed is infinitely extensible as are all psychological categories.

All differences in policy are based on this bifurcation. It is the same in Europe. It is the same everywhere when a Culture changes into a civilisation and thus begins to die. It is becoming exhausted.

spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 01:48 pm
@spendius,
The ignorant Republican bashing was the death rattle beginning.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 01:55 pm
@spendius,
And right on cue farmerman wrote on another thread--

Quote:
There seems to be a simiLAR ROUTE BEING FOLLOWED IN THE dEM STATES of US. NY has shut off fracturing nd so has Mass (I doubt even that Mss hs much recoverble gas in all but the Triassic basin)


Yeah!! Right on. Let the boonies have the groundwater pollution and the minor earthquakes and the cities get the gas.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:39 am
@spendius,

Quote:
Quote:
The hubris of Obama supporters is infantile. His win was pure demographics. And the City is parasitical and its greed is infinitely extensible as are all psychological categories


Quote:
Yes, provisional (and other) ballots are still being counted in the presidential election up to and after Thanksgiving.

And it appears likely, according to several sources (including post-election late vote count tabulator David Wasserman , Greg Sargent of the Washington Post and Kos ), that Romney will end up with a rounded 47 percent of the vote. That is because the vast majority of the late vote count (irrelevant to the outcome, but vital for bragging and irony rights) is coming from Democratic leaning states.

So it appears that the odds are that the man, Mitt Romney, who openly expressed his disdain for 47 percent of United States citizens (including those receiving Social Security and Medicare) will end up with the numerical percentage of the vote that will come to define him politically in years to come: 47 percent.

When the media starts making its ten best lists for 2012, this forthcoming final vote count certainly should be at the top of the list of political just desserts – or maybe in this case castor oil for the chief symbolic taker from the working class and needy.

What's even more revealing of Romney's losing political strategy (it's hard to tell what ideas he was running on because they shifted from day to day) is that such a significant percentage of the 47 percent of his vote count came from the Southern region (minus Florida) where eight of the top ten states receiving more money from the federal government than the residents pay collectively in taxes are located. So even among Romney's symbolically resonant 47% of the vote (when rounded off), many of his supporters were "takers" (not to mention the senior vote, which he won, which obviously includes everyone over 65 on Social Security and Medicare).

Ah, that 47 percent sneering comment is coming back to haunt Mitt Romney. Maybe it's just divine justice.


source
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:50 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
this is decided...we want it possible to get but not easy to get, we dont want it to be a regular form of birth control, we want it to be an emergency remedy for when birth control fails.



US abortions fall 5 pct, biggest drop in a decade


Quote:
Nationally since 2000, the number of reported abortions has dropped overall by about 6 percent and the abortion rate has fallen 7 percent.

By all accounts, contraception is playing a role in lowering the numbers.

Some experts cite a government study released earlier this year suggesting that about 60 percent of teenage girls who have sex use the most effective kinds of contraception, including the pill and patch. That's up from the mid-1990s, when fewer than half were using the best kinds.

Experts also pointed to the growing use of IUDs, or intrauterine devices, T-shaped plastic sperm-killers that a doctor inserts into the uterus. A study released earlier this year by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that does research on reproductive health, showed that IUD use among sexually active women on birth control rose from less than 3 percent in 2002 to more than 8 percent in 2009.

IUDs essentially prevent "user error," said Rachel Jones, a Guttmacher researcher.

Ananat said another factor may be the growing use of the morning-after pill, a form of emergency contraception that has been increasingly easier to get. It came onto the market in 1999 and in 2006 was approved for non-prescription sale to women 18 and older. In 2009 that was lowered to 17.

Underlying all this may be the economy, which was in recession from December 2007 until June 2009. Even well afterward, polls showed most Americans remained worried about anemic hiring, a depressed housing market and other problems.

You might think a bad economy would lead to more abortions by women who are struggling. However, John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health, said: "The economy seems to be having a fundamental effect on pregnancies, not abortions."



spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 09:01 am
@revelette,
Quote:
You might think a bad economy would lead to more abortions by women who are struggling.


That's a pretty cynical thing to say. In more ways than one.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 09:08 am
@spendius,
How so? I would think poverty would be one reason many women chose abortions in the past.

Luckily, people seem to be getting pregnant less in the first place rather than having abortions. I see that as a good sign and hope some of these laws some states are passing against providing for contraception coverage reverse course.

Quote:
"The economy seems to be having a fundamental effect on pregnancies, not abortions."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 10:44 am
@revelette,
And most abortions are performed on unmarried women. That should tell the story, but the conservatives still want them to have babies they cannot support - or themselves.
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 10:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
What a dump when babies can't be supported and silly old sods like you are costing an arm and a leg with no prospect of the investment turning a profit. (Except for the health chief eh?)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 12:23 pm
I'm not sure what spendi is trying to say, but the conservatives want to do away with Planned Parenthood, and at the same time cut social services to those who need it most. Their greed is limitless.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 12:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Norman Mailer said some not very nice things about planned parenthood. And he was a Pulitzer Prize winner. And no card carrying Roman Catholic.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 12:45 pm
@spendius,
And he ran for Mayor of NY as a democrat.

What's the difference between an official Planned Parenthood and eugenics?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 01:45 pm
@spendius,
With plannned parenthood you decide whether or not to have children, with eugenics someone else makes that decision.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:00 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

With plannned parenthood you decide whether or not to have children, with eugenics someone else makes that decision.


and lets be clear here, you dont think that the collective has any right to limit/regulate the human population load that this planet is demanded to carry.....or the burdens placed on follow on generations by allowing the severely genetically defective to have the baby they want, that our only protection is the Gods making sure that the defectives die before they reach childbearing age.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Move to China. They do a good job of regulating population. Who knows, if your parents lived there you might not be with us.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
let's be clear here.

you are for forced sterilization of those you find defective...
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:18 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

let's be clear here.

you are for forced sterilization of those you find defective...

of those who would place a certain or nearly certain massive cost onto the collective to produce a copy of human who would certainly or nearly certainly never contribute to the collective.... absolutely . I have never hid the fact that I am a socialist.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:18 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
With plannned parenthood you decide whether or not to have children, with eugenics someone else makes that decision.


Oh yeah!! When the white coats look over their horn-rimmed specs with serious miens after studying the file the poor dears can be made to do anything.

Take flu jabs for example.

But that wasn't Mailer's point.




0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama 2012?
  3. » Page 47
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:30:17