spendius
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 10:51 am
Bernie wrote-

Quote:
It may be, as george and spendi and other catholic oddballs believe, that each of us enters this life with a dirty record.


I can't speak for George but that is a very serious misrepresentation of my position.

It is the easiest thing in the world to build a case on your own fantasies, projections and assertions.

We enter this life as an animal. I have no views on whether that is a "dirty record" simply because "dirty" is a pejorative expression and I cannot image how it could be applied to the new-born.

But one thing is for sure and that is that there is a need to do something about it. How Darwinians meet that challenge has yet to be explained.

The feral infant needs to be moulded in such a way that its animal nature is reduced and, in those who have charge of that process, it is necessary to reduce it to as near zero as a man can stand. Hence celibacy and monastic life. One can easily see with the Polk County school board that humility and self sacrifice are not high priorities in their affairs and they are thus unfit people to be determining the education of the youth and a joke when that determination runs into the science field.

To refer to this animal nature as "sinful" is merely an efficiency technique without which it might be impossible to tackle the task at all if "here-now" fears, surgery or pharmaceuticals are eschewed.

It is self evident, blazoned, that media seeks to restore this animal nature to the adults with spending power in order to facilitate the life-style to which its denizens have become accustomed and which may be fairly considered to be the opposite of a monastic existence. Obviously the legal profession thrives on animalistic behaviour as do those forces charged with managing and controlling it.

As the ones with spending power are the ones who set the tone it is equally self evident that monkeyfication of the whole population is not far over the horizon. Which seems to me to be destructive and, if one reaches a little, subversive.

Thus, and an intelligent 10 year-old could work this out, media, and its allies, who it can reward with 15 minutes fame, is in favour of Darwinian science and the social consequences attendant upon its promulgation in the absence of any contervailing forces.

So now you know who you toady to Bernie. By allowing that fine coalition to remain a diffused concept in your mind, and not a focussed one as the Church is, you easily escape from the discipline required to treat with it equally. It is comforting, feeble even, what any animal would do, to think there is left and right in media. Or moderate. There is MEDIA. Good cop-bad cop. Both ways round.

MEDIA- you worship at its altars Bernie and they have no class. They are tawdry underneath that veneer of light tricks. One can't point to any exceptions who break their vows because they take no vows. They suck their way up the ladder.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 11:37 am
Quote:
that is a very serious misrepresentation of my position.


spendi

You have no position other than being on the outside of whatever side there is.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 11:47 am
The one sweet, easy breath technique.

Stands in for all flummoxed occasions.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 11:55 am
spendius wrote:
The one sweet, easy breath technique.

Stands in for all flummoxed occasions.


With your other mates, does this technique ever work?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 02:18 pm
It never works Bernie. Nobody takes any notice of that sort of stuff around here. It happens of course.

I presume you don't dispute my post.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 04:47 pm
spendius wrote:
It never works Bernie. Nobody takes any notice of that sort of stuff around here. It happens of course.

I presume you don't dispute my post.


Of course I do. One teeny bit, I have little but contempt for the binary opposition of agape/animal which underlies so much of catholic theology and, consequently, protestant theology. But I'll argue in Swahili and you'll argue in Old Finnish and it will be a waste of time.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 05:05 pm
nimh wrote:
blatham wrote:
Sorry. I wrote "no serious disagreement" and that is poorly put. I meant no comments which suggested flaws of character or which implied nefarious or pathological intent.

What if there are flaws of character to be considered?


If there are, we should consider them in any candidate. However I haven't heard any valid example of character flaws in any of the democratic candidates so far. Manufactured character assassination is a dirty trick of the Republicans, brought to it's most disgusting height by this administration, particularly Karl Rove and Cheney. These dirty tricks will come soon enough from the Republicans, we don't have to help them out before they get started.

I like to see true debate, not niggle this and niggle that blah blah blah kind of activity. Exaggerated outrage over manufactured examples of so called flaws of character doesn't hold up as a valid reason to question the integrity of any of these democratic candidates. Actually, one reason I favor Hillary is because I think she both can and will more skillfully manage these attacks in the aggressive way necessary. In pointing out her strengths and identifying other candidate's weaknesses, for example, she sticks to behaviors and a need for experience. She has not questioned the integrity of any of the other democratic candidates. But I get the clear impression that she will not hesitate to do so with the Republicans when necessary.

Even though I heard Robert Novak say that Edwards is "mean".........(Hilarious laughing, considering the source) I think both Edwards and Obama may not be as realistic or appropriately aggressive as Hillary. They tend, so far at least, to go too far with issues that are not worthwhile, creating sympathy for the other candidate.

I will admit a bias of mine. I believe that it's necessary for each of us to recognize our biases as we go about making up our minds. I find myself identifying with her as one of my generation. The baby boomers are still strong. Even though we will eventually be too old, it hasn't happened yet. So lately I've found myself thinking that it's Hillary's turn. She's the first capable woman to come along in this country, with a chance to win. I'm trying to keep this bias in mind as I evaluate the other candidates.

That said, I think it's interesting that the race seems to be developing, at least in part, into a generational struggle. Or that's what I'm told by the talking heads. Nimh may have some polling results that could bring that idea into question. Generational struggle is human nature, I suppose. But believing all democratic candidates to be close to equal, I don't apologize for my bias. I think Hillary deserves our respect and support and Obama should be preparing for next time when he's more ready.

I originally supported Obama because I think he's excellent and has what it takes and I thought Hillary couldn't win. In the mean time, Hillary has proven her strengths to me, while Obama has several times now demonstrated a need for more experience.

In my thinking, the only negative aspect of Hillary is that she's made some compromises that I believe were going too far. But I recognize that she may have her political reasons. I'm practical minded enough to recognize a candidate needs to be able to win the election in order to carry out her/his policies. So until I see her take a stand that I am strongly against, my support is with Hillary. I do think I know where she stands on the important issues. Recognizing that I could be wrong about this, I won't find it difficult to get behind any of the democratic candidates if it comes to that.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 06:19 pm
Bernie wrote-

Quote:
Of course I do. One teeny bit, I have little but contempt for the binary opposition of agape/animal which underlies so much of catholic theology and, consequently, protestant theology. But I'll argue in Swahili and you'll argue in Old Finnish and it will be a waste of time.


Cripes Bernie-- you're not ducking out again surely. There are people watching you know.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 06:24 pm
Quote:
blatham wrote:
Sorry. I wrote "no serious disagreement" and that is poorly put. I meant no comments which suggested flaws of character or which implied nefarious or pathological intent.


Are you kidding Bernie. Are you not up to speed with the divine Marquis?

You're bottle's gone; "pathological intent" is taken for granted.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 06:37 pm
Lola wrote-

Quote:
Actually, one reason I favor Hillary


What are the others?

Quote:
appropriately aggressive as Hillary.


Stand by your beds boys.

Quote:
I will admit a bias of mine.


There's no need. We already know.

But it was a very nice post I must say. Very tasteful. Almost humble. Well written too.

"it's Hilary's turn" made me laugh. Very ladylike.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 07:24 pm
Quote:
spendius wrote:
Lola wrote-

Quote:
Actually, one reason I favor Hillary


What are the others?


That's not enough? Because she can win. These are the primaries, Spendi

Quote:
Quote:
appropriately aggressive as Hillary.


Stand by your beds boys.


You sexist pig. I would be offended except you're such a sweetie.
Quote:
Quote:
I will admit a bias of mine.


There's no need. We already know.

But it was a very nice post I must say. Very tasteful. Almost humble. Well written too.

"it's Hilary's turn" made me laugh. Very ladylike.


Thank you Mr. condesending Spendi. There's no need to admit your sexist bias either. You have made it very clear. However I prefer to think that you don't really believe anything much, you just like to provoke and entertain, oh great Faust worshipper. Actually, I appreciate the compliment. Your patronizing distain is cleverly expressed as well. I do almost humble ladylike. You do supercilious.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 08:39 pm
blatham wrote:
nimh wrote:
blatham wrote:
Sorry. I wrote "no serious disagreement" and that is poorly put. I meant no comments which suggested flaws of character or which implied nefarious or pathological intent.

What if there are flaws of character to be considered?


Perhaps this is the greyest of areas.

It may be, as george and spendi and other catholic oddballs believe, that each of us enters this life with a dirty record. I don't think it so, considering the notion to have been promulgated by those early church recruiters. It's all probably best conceived of as 'original spin'.

But by the time we are adults, we've all had more than sufficient time to develop the worst parts of ourselves. Flaws...we all have them. So it is a matter of thinking about which ones we definitely do not want in a leader (lack of curiosity, lack of empathy, easily corruptible, ideological extremism particularly when dishonestly hidden, etc) and the ones that don't much matter (loves blow jobs too much, a music library with lots of the Eagles and no Tom Waits, etc).

Attacks on a candidates 'character' are part of the game presently. So its a matter of our thinking about what we personally find important or irrelevant. And it is also a matter of being acutely conscious of the attempts that WILL be made for us to think poorly of a candidate based on nothing much past a manufactured 'truthiness'.


Odd that most liberals and Blatham in particular have been more than willing to attribute serious malformations of character in Richard Nixon, George Bush and Dick Cheney, and to cite them as the central elements in their hateful administrations. So "character" is indeed important to them, but perhaps only among their political opponents. Hard to reconcile the serious character assaults on the figures in the current administration with the interdict Blatham now proposes among democrat candidates.

History confirms the transcendent importance of character in leaders, great and otherwise. Self-righteous vanity in Woodrow Wilson; cheerful guile and contagious optimism in Franklin Roosevelt; and so on...

I can't speak for Spendius, but I don't think I entered life with a "dirty record" (of if so it was quickly and favorably resolved) - however I do have some doubts about Bernie and others.

I do agree that much of the political hype about "character issues" misses the mark or overplays minor issues. However the voting public is often better than we credit in forming fairly accurate intuitive judgements about sometimes poorly articulated, but real elements in the characters of their would-be leaders. For example the evidence suggests that the American public did indeed at last develop a sense of the infantile narcissm of John Kerry. Mistakes of course are made often enough to make politics still interesting.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 08:52 pm
george wrote:
Quote:
Odd that most liberals and Blatham in particular have been more than willing to attribute serious malformations of character in Richard Nixon, George Bush and Dick Cheney, and to cite them as the central elements in their hateful administrations. So "character" is indeed important to them, but perhaps only among their political opponents. Hard to reconcile the serious character assaults on the figures in the current administration with the interdict Blatham now proposes among democrat candidates.


In the cases of the above mentioned, serious character assaults are warranted.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:08 pm
Would you then allow "serious character assaults" against (say) John Edwards or Hillary Clinton?

Do you contend that character defects are determinable only after a candidate has served in office?? Are we then unable to make useful judgements about the potential behavior and character of candidates if they win and attain the office they seek??

If not, then please provide some basis for the distinction.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:14 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Would you then allow "serious character assaults" against (say) John Edwards or Hillary Clinton?

If not, then please provide some basis for the distinction.


Let's see.........Hillary and Edwards aren't lying, coniving, greedy low life criminals? That should explain it. If you need more distinctions, let me know. I haven't seen any indication of severe character flaws in any of the democratic candidates this time. If I did, I would surely be talking about it. I thought I'd made that clear.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:27 pm
Let's see ... "lying, coniving, .. criminals" seems to meet the standard. The criminals part needs some definition in that Nixon, Bush and Cheney weren't convicted of any crimes, so apparently it is sufficient - in your view - that one believes they are guilty of some crime.

I think a good case can be made for the lying and conniving parts with both Edwards and Hillary. (he after all made a fortune as a tort lawyer - if that isn't "low life" I don't know what is) That leaves only criminal....

Well Hillary did make some remarkaby successful investments on her first venture in ther Chicago futures market that aroused some serious inquiry.

I'm not suggesting she is a criminal - rather that you (and Bernie) have no real objective basis to exclude "character assaults" on her and other Democrats while allowing them on those you oppose. You are, of course, free do do it as you choose, but you have no defensible basis on which to assert that others can't or shouldn't do the same thing with respect to your favored candidates.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:42 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Let's see ... "lying, coniving, .. criminals" seems to meet the standard. The criminals part needs some definition in that Nixon, Bush and Cheney weren't convicted of any crimes, so apparently it is sufficient - in your view - that one believes they are guilty of some crime.

I think a good case can be made for the lying and conniving parts with both Edwards and Hillary. (he after all made a fortune as a tort lawyer - if that isn't "low life" I don't know what is) That leaves only criminal....

Well Hillary did make some remarkaby successful investments on her first venture in ther Chicago futures market that aroused some serious inquiry.

I'm not suggesting she is a criminal - rather that you (and Bernie) have no real objective basis to exclude "character assaults" on her and other Democrats while allowing them on those you oppose. You are, of course, free do do it as you choose, but you have no defensible basis on which to assert that others can't or shouldn't do the same thing with respect to your favored candidates.


Come on george. Think of a new argument for us. This one is getting very old.

Quote:
The criminals part needs some definition in that Nixon, Bush and Cheney weren't convicted of any crimes


In Nixon's case, he resigned, an admission of guilt. Like the 17 minute gap in the infamous tape........and it wasn't Alice's Restaurant that was erased. Are you telling me that you doubt that Nixon was in on the cover up? Please.

And in the case of the other two.........just wait.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:56 pm
Lola,

Do you think that the attempt to cover up a petty buglary is materially worse than one directed at covering up a few blow jobs in the office, shady real estate deals, or the sale of presidential pardons?

I happen to believe that they are all relatively minor issues. However, I am certain that a serious measure of hypocrisy is required to suppose that one is a hienous crime while the others are just pesky details. Hypocrisy on that scale does worry me.

How is Oregon? Hope you and bernie are happy and well settled there. So far the move doesn't appear to have affected either of your characters.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sat 24 Nov, 2007 02:11 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Lola,

Do you think that the attempt to cover up a petty buglary is materially worse than one directed at covering up a few blow jobs in the office, shady real estate deals, or the sale of presidential pardons?

I happen to believe that they are all relatively minor issues. However, I am certain that a serious measure of hypocrisy is required to suppose that one is a hienous crime while the others are just pesky details. Hypocrisy on that scale does worry me.


Yes, burglary for the purpose of subverting the political process is worse than a few blow jobs and the "shady" real estate deals are only shady in the minds of those who would like to devalue the Clintons, but nothing equals the crimes of Bush and his fellow criminals. Some people are more hung up about sex than others.

Quote:
How is Oregon? Hope you and bernie are happy and well settled there. So far the move doesn't appear to have affected either of your characters.


True, we're as disputatious as ever. Characters holding firm. Oregon is lovely. When are you coming to visit? We've been waiting for a long time now. It would be fun. We're not far from SF. We could come down or over to you if you're still there. A nice week end in SF sounds excellent
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 24 Nov, 2007 04:40 am
You might have to face the fact that honest, clean living virtuous goody-goodies are unfit for the highest offices.

I read that at this stage of the proceedings last time round Mr Kerry was at 4% and considered a no-hoper.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

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
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 271
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 12:52:50