Diversity of Everything but Thought

Yes, that is a major part of what I mean. Another part is that those compelled as well as those who are the beneficiaries of those compelled are also corrupted.

Perhaps the fact that many registered voters have been scared out of their minds by the trumped-up threat of terrorism has something to do with recent voting patterns as well.

Cycloptichorn

So Revel, we can thank Bill Clinton then that the Democrats lost their majority in both the House and the Senate on his watch? He was responsible for Republicans being elected to governorships in a substantial majority of states for the first time in history and on his watch? Karl Rove did that? (To the best of my knowledge, Rove wasn't even on the radar screen when all that happened.) There are still a majority of Democrat-registered voters. You would think they could have kept the upper hand if they wanted to.

Or is it possible that the Democrat party is simply out of touch with a majority of people on the issues these days? Or the Republicans have ideas that appeal to more people these days?

Why don't we explore the ideas instead of beating each other up? Wouldn't that be more productive?

Nimh writes (to respond to a request for 'new ideas' offered by Democrats in the recent campaign):


But you see Nimh, these are not "new" ideas. These are part of the same old mantra of "vote for us and you'll be taken care of" or "elect us and this is what we'll do for you." (You even forgot Edwards' promise that if we elect John Kerry, we'll have cures for Alzheimers and spinal cord injuries and a whole lot of other uncurable conditions. I'm going to concede that this was a 'new idea' ) All this is the same old mantra of 'you can't do it for yourself so government will do it for you'. And this is against the Republican focus on, here's how we can change the system so YOU can do it better.

I think the American people recognize the latter approach as the more beneficial and lasting in the long term. They no longer trust the promises of increased largesse promised by some as they have seen how destructive that can be over the long haul.

It all is definitely diversity of thought. One side thinks government is the solution. The other thinks the role of government is to make it possible for the people to work out their own solutions.

Trumped up?

How is the threat of terrorism "trumped up"?

Of course it's trumped up!

Is it a threat? Yes! Is it more dangerous than the hundreds of other threats to people's lives that we live with every day? No, not even close!

Simple statistical comparison shows the validity of this, and you know it.

But fear sells. Take a look at how many times 9/11 was invoked during the RNC if you don't believe me. Scared people act a certain way.

Quit being dense, plz... even a proponent of the admin. can see how they've played the terror card to it's fullest.

Cycloptichorn

I must of missed the day they handed out the schedule for terror attacks. Can you fax me a copy of yours so I can plan my weekends accordingly?

I'm gonna need a copy of the schedule as well , so please forward, McG!!!

It's short on specifics. The lead sentence refers to 'behind any tree, on any given sunny afternoon, wherever you and your children might be sitting and laughing while patching beloved old glory..."

Your response means nothing at all, McG.

After all, pretty much none of the many threats to your life are according to schedule. It's a silly thing to say.

My original point remains; terrorism is no more a threat to the lives of the vast majority of people than most things, and much less than say smoking or car accidents.

Yet, it's the BIGGEST THREAT TO EVERY AMERICAN EVER EVER EVER if you listen to the administration... and people do listen.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently not everyone as you seem to be ignoring it (at your own peril I might add). I don't smoke, I am a careful driver, I live outside busy cities, I avoid crime filled areas. I appreciate the government doing its best to keep me safe from terrorism.

I guess I just don't understand why you'd like to make it easier for another terrorist attack rather than harder. I prefer the terrorists to be more frightened of us then we are of them.

Oh. I thought "a plan to provide students free tuition for their first year at a state or community college in exchange for ten hours of work per week" was a way of making them work for their education, in a practical way that does still afford them access to education they direly lack right now. Dont seem like a government hand-out to me, rather a new innovative approach to navigate the Scylla of hand-outs and Charybdis of leaving those without family wealth out in the cold. But hey.

Same with "scholarships for prospective teachers who pledge to work in lower-income schools for five years". I believe the conservatives are into rewarding achievement? Making teachers' wages depend on how they improve educational performance? Wouldn't a reward for teachers who take on the hardest teaching jobs, and improve education right where it now is in its most direst straights, kind of fit in with that general philosophy?

It's just that, apparently, when it comes to improving education, the Republican government doesn't come up with such a particular focus on the poorest districts. They just set the national standards, respectless of how much harder they are to meet in ghetto schools, and punish the schools there when they don't.

In life, both conservatives and progressives want to see achievement rewarded. The difference in philosophy just boils down to the fact that whereas conservatives reason, in general, that individual achievement engenders its own reward on the free market, progressives additionally evaluate the desired achievement in terms of what is best for the common good as well. Teaching in the lowest-income districts will yield ef-all of a "reward" on the free market; yet is of exceeding benefit to the common good. Hence the liberal notion of rewarding it.

Anyway, I explicitly announced that it's little use to discuss the good or bad about the proposed ideas with you, since we're never going to achieve a semblance of agreement there; the point was merely that both Democrats and Republicans came up with "new ideas". You say NCLB, I note the Democratic education plans. Now you can of course call the latter all old hat by sweeping all the specifics into some sloganeering container logic; I can of course do the same with Social Security reform, saying it's all just "the same old mantra of" everyone-for-himself-and-God-for-us-all. By then, of course, the debate becomes meaningless, but then so does any that prefers to deal in slogans rather than specifics, and I'm not surprised to find myself with you in one of those again.


No, that one wasn't actually so new - it's the one that was proposed by the nation's scientists, when they highlighted the possible benefits of new stem cell research. It's just Democrats picked it up as an election issue. Cause was taken by a couple of prominent Republicans, too, I may add.

But no, here I will admit: the new idea here was the conservatives', when they decided that all this newly developing research was against God's will and should be stopped and then found President Bush ready and willing to listen. A new idea, but of course an exemplary conservative one, literally out to stop progress on the grounds of principle and tradition. Good or bad I wont discuss with you, but definitely "conservative", yes. Can't really find a better example of what "conservative" is all about then that, actually. Thanks.


Rhetorics, Foxy, you're slipping into mere rhetorics again. Thats akin to me loosely waving away any and all government-sponsored proposal you may bring up as example with another rhetorical reference to how "all that is just the same old mantra of 'everyone for himself and who gives an ef about society'." Nothing new about that, too, I could then argue. Yeah, you ask for specifics, but answer in hackneyed slogans.


More hackneyed slogans. Hey, I can do that too. One side thinks that if we just leave the race to the rats and the survival to the fittest, all will be for the best. The other thinks mankind has progressed (!) a little beyond the law of the jungle, and believes we as society should make it possible for each citizen to enjoy the same opportunities to make something out of their life.

McG:


You're not afraid of what that will make us into?

The true job of terrorism is not to cause collateral damage; they don't have nearly enough weapons to truly hurt the US that way. It's to cause fear. And a response.

You don't even realize how much any one of AQ's many terrorists would love to listen to what you are saying right now, they would be laughing out loud at how well their plans have worked; after all, what's the best way to ruin the freedom in America?

You know the answer as well as I do; get the Americans to do it themselves. Which is the kind of sh*t you are talking about.

Cycloptichorn

I've been trying for two days now to find a wonderful quote from Lincoln wherein he argues that if the US is to endure destruction, it will not be due to any external enemy, but from what she does to herself.

this is the kind of thing we've been talking about;

Vice President Dick Cheney in Iowa.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters in Des Moines.

it's quite clear what he is saying here.

"if ya vote for john kerry, we're all gonna die".

yada yada yada...

Bill Clinton was simply better at selling the idea that it is better for America to invest in themselves so that America can be better as a whole than any other current democrat political figure. When he explained what he wanted and why it made sense to a lot of people which is why his job approval ratings remained high throughout most of whole Presidency and beyond because not only was he good at explaining why he wanted something but his ideas actually worked unlike the current ideas. His personal ratings sliped down way low because of all this values stuff which is why maybe more republicans gained during his watch.

Karl Rove (and others like him) are good at rooting out those that were discontent with the way country has been heading since around Roosevelt and organizing them and knowing what to say that can make something not good seem good. (for example:don't say taking money away from social security, call it setting up private accounts. Or don't say do away with affimative action, say reform affirmative actions to suit modern times)

The proof that a large amount of Americans were temporarily swayed by Karl Rove tactics is in the Presidents low approval ratings which is around 40 percent which means even some republicans are not happy with him now. His approval ratings is slipping because he is focusing on domestic policies for once instead of war and being all macho (supposedly macho).

If we can keep the agenda on domestic policies and off of war and homosexuals and sex in white house, we will probably do better if we can get someone that can articulate like clinton. (I liked dean but then we democrats listened to those people who were saying stuff like, dean is not electable because he is too far left...)

I believe you started beating up rather than focussing on the ideas by saying that democrats are not in tune with what most people want. (or words to that effect)

bump

Ah, fox. We've all tried. You slip out of specifics and careful argument like you're covered with butter when one of your cherished notions is at risk.

interesting edit there, fox.

Actually I don't think my notions are anywhere close to being at risk. And I don't have to attack you or be patronizing or condescending or judgmental or insulting to defend them.