[linnealand]

Okay, I admit that calling simon a nut-job was not nice of me. I will also admit that I haven't seen the original conversation referenced above about whether obama is the antichrist, but it sounds like name-calling to me if I've ever seen it. And, for clarity, the reason I called simon a nut-job (meaning crazy) is that he said he doesn't care whether a potential president is the "antichrist" or not. I would care about something like that. ;)

Let me also promise you that I love american ideological diversity. And before my post has people sure as the light of day that I'm a liberal democrat, I would like to make it clear that I'm actually registered as independent. For me, it's about supporting whatever candidate I think is right for the job, be he or she republican, democrat or something else.

I do have a problem with the story, which is AWFUL. I think it has to be the worst thing I've ever seen outside of an email forward. It takes a complex situation and simplifies it to smithereens, until, in my opinion, it no longer relates to real issues. In fact, in my opinion, the story in my post is just like it: completely manipulative.

It's total propaganda, and there are so many attacks in it against so many people, ideas and institutions that it's hard to keep up. It pretends to be an honest little story, and then it's chockablock with large and little jabs against liberal democrats and anything associated with them. Let's do a little dissecting to see what I mean.

These were especially obnoxious lines:

"Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his."

"The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father."

Here are some other descriptions of the daughter (aka liberal democrat):
"deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed"
"she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire"
"she answered rather haughtily"
"angrily fired back"

And how is the father described (aka conservative republican)?
Wise, winking, gentle, and smiling.

It also implies that the poor are poor because all they do is party and drink. Let's look at this one: "'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'" is that what the poor in america are all busy doing? Because I thought a lot of them were working their tails off for minimum wage that still won't pay their bills. Also, I don't believe that the children of the poor are out partying and getting drunk, do you? So why is that being implied in the story?

I know what parables and allegories are. But let's not put this in the same category as plato's description of the cave. What was posted is nothing more than a wolf of spin in sheep's clothing.

[linnealand]

Fran, I just wanted to add a little thank you for your complimentary words. I really do enjoy this forum, and I'm glad to be a part of this community. I will say that I have a passion for politics that heats me up, but it's really out of my tremendous love for the field and a true desire to bring out the best of our nation. America would not be america without discourse, and I do believe that ideological debate is beautiful. Propaganda is one of my greatest passions, so when I see it (and when I don't like how it's done), I get a little feisty. I hope you understand that what I wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is. I'm allergic to those kinds of things. It's nothing personal, and I intend no hard feelings when the conversation is done! I do enjoy seeing all of you in the threads, and I look forward to having good conversations with you (at all levels) in the future. All the best to you!

p.p.s. george, while I appreciate the fact that you contribute the way you do, I am a little confused by your last post. When it comes to the real issues, what do you think makes liberals/democrats hypocrites? And what makes obama the "hypocrite's exemplar"?

p.p.s. I would love to continue this chat, but if I'm not back to respond tomorrow, it's not because I'm not interested. I will be leaving to spend a month in calabria in the south of italy. I'm really looking forward to massaging out my stresses on its lovely beaches. Best wishes to all of you!

[ordinaryguy]

In the 2008 U.S. election, the voters will be choosing whether or not to elect the hypocrite's exemplar, Obama, to president of the USA.

What evidence do you have that Obama is "feigning to be what he is not, or to believe what he does not"? If he is who he claims to be, and says what he actually believes, wouldn't it make him like Jesus?

All I know for sure is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to simultaneously be or believe all that he has been accused of being or believing. You may think he's a fool, but you can't prove he's a hypocrite. That's what I think about GWB, and why I find him so frightening, so believe me, I feel your pain.

[George_1950]

What evidence do you have that Obama is "feigning to be what he is not, or to believe what he does not"? ...

You are kidding, right? "Obama’s U-turn on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last week was not so trivial. He had promised to filibuster it if it retained the provision immunizing telecom companies from lawsuits arising from the companies’ compliance with Administration requests—orders, really—to coöperate in patently illegal activity. The bill did retain that provision, and Obama voted not only for the bill but against the filibuster."
New Yorker: Obama's flip-flop flap - The New Yorker - MSNBC.com

[ordinaryguy]

You are kidding, right? "Obama’s U-turn on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last week was not so trivial. He had promised to filibuster it if it retained the provision immunizing telecom companies from lawsuits arising from the companies’ compliance with Administration requests—orders, really—to coöperate in patently illegal activity. The bill did retain that provision, and Obama voted not only for the bill but against the filibuster."

Yes, he did flip-flop on FISA and it really pisses me off. But that isn't evidence of hypocrisy, unless you believe that he didn't REALLY change his mind, he just PRETENDED to change. Is that what you think happened?

[frangipanis]

i will say that i have a passion for politics that heats me up, but it's really out of my tremendous love for the field and a true desire to bring out the best of our nation. america would not be america without discourse, and i do believe that ideological debate is beautiful. propaganda is one of my greatest passions, so when i see it (and when i don't like how it's done), i get a little feisty. i hope you understand that what i wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is. i'm allergic to those kinds of things. it's nothing personal, and i intend no hard feelings when the conversation is done!

Okay, based on how strongly you feel I can understand your initial reaction. Propaganda is rife on political forums... it's a distraction I usually try to get past. However, it was a pleasure to read your unpacking of the story for its honesty and clear insight. I'm very much looking forward to reading more of your ideas.

[linnealand]

Okay, based on how strongly you feel I can understand your initial reaction. Propaganda is rife on political forums... it's a distraction I usually try to get past. However, it was a pleasure to read your unpacking of the story for its honesty and clear insight. I'm very much looking forward to reading more of your ideas.

Dearest fran, I greatly appreciate your aptitude for forgiveness. Your wisdom is tremendously valuable, and I'm always happy to read your posts. Thank you for understanding, and best wishes for a wonderful summer. I'll see you here again in September when our political fever is even hotter. Can you imagine what this forum is going to look like then? Oh boy. :)

[simoneaugie]

Hi linnealand, I thoroughly appreciate your posts and thoughts. I am not a Simon, but a Simone but that is small stuff.

Quote, linnealand: " i hope you understand that what i wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is"

I wanted to know what this story meant, so I posted it. I get confused by all the feistiness, as you put it. I am innocent, really don't know Jack about politics. Maybe I should continue to hide my head under a rock since those who do know are too busy putting others down to listen to a simple truth.

I didn't know what this meant, now I do. Thank You.

[frangipanis]

Hi linnealand, I thoroughly appreciate your posts and thoughts. I am not a Simon, but a Simone but that is small stuff.

Quote, linnealand: " i hope you understand that what i wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is"

I wanted to know what this story meant, so I posted it. I get confused by all the feistiness, as you put it. I am innocent, really don't know Jack about politics. Maybe I should continue to hide my head under a rock since those who do know are too busy putting others down to listen to a simple truth.

I didn't know what this meant, now I do. Thank You.

Oh dear... deep sigh here...

It really isn't possible to know a lot about the person on the other side of the computer screen and sometimes I get terribly confused ~ which is why I prefer to play it safe in case someone gets unintentionally hurt and unnecessarily turns away from a discussion they want to have. It would be a great shame if that's how you really feel and I'm sorry it's like that. You don't have to hide under a rock though --- not ever.

There's a lot of truth in linnealand's critique of the story... although if you haven't come across her sort of style before, it would probably be a lot to absorb. It's fortunate you've had a chance to hear her point of view though and I'd suggest you take in what you can then let go of the rest. Whatever is worth keeping will stay with you.

Hear from you again then, Simone... and cheers for now :)

[linnealand]

Simone, you have a lovely name. I would like to apologize for biting you. I didn't mean for it to actually hurt.

If you are sincere in what you said, meaning that you really did post the story with the sole intent of understanding it, then I respect your motivation. However, as needkarma pointed out, you have expressed support of this story's message in other posts.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1166566
"My knee jerk? The media is a bunch of A-holes.
Obama is a possible Biblical prophesy.
The US government is busy giving our money to those who have not earned it."

So, what to think? One can either express complete ignorance of a subject, or he can argue his opinion, but it's hard to claim both. Combined with the bias of the story, I'm sure you can at the very least imagine why I would assume what I did. You say it's not true, so I'll accept it.

I would be happy to discuss the issues with you, if you are still up for it. But I would like to put forth a reminder: when it comes to political debate, don't take anything personally; one needs a set of "big ones"; and it's not uncommon for the temperature in the room to double. Please don't run away if you get struck - one risks losing much more than one would otherwise gain by finding holes in the other man's (or woman's) arguments and striking back with something better.

I'm not really sure what you meant by "simple truth," but if you're still willing to participate, I would be very happy to hear what you think.

[George_1950]

Yes, he did flip-flop on FISA and it really pisses me off. But that isn't evidence of hypocrisy, unless you believe that he didn't REALLY change his mind, he just PRETENDED to change. Is that what you think happened?

What is 'in his mind' is The Question, right now, because he has a thin record insofar as his qualifications for president. If he is all-about changing his mind every month or so, how is a voter to know what to expect? In the topic of this post, the principle was laid out, clearly, and one 'analysis' was found to be superior to the other, which is what parables and allegories are all about.

[ordinaryguy]

In the topic of this post, the principle was laid out, clearly, and one 'analysis' was found to be superior to the other

Do you think the superior analysis is one that says government taxation and spending is nothing more than taking from the worthy and giving to the unworthy?

[George_1950]

Do you think the superior analysis is one that says government taxation and spending is nothing more than taking from the worthy and giving to the unworthy?

Let's move away from this silliness: "once upon a time, there was an old man and a little girl. one day the old man found a sandwich. he knew that the little girl was very hungry, but because he was one who found the sandwich, he thought it would be wrong to give any of it to her. "this will teach her," he said, and he ate the sandwich himself. then the little girl died."
Here it is, in its most recent appearance: "In the Wall Street Journal, Holman Jenkins describes how much of the mortgage crisis remains hidden, despite its enormous scale, in places like California. In the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson describes how the government’s “affordable housing” fetish contributed to the mortgage meltdown, and worries (as I have) that the mortgage bailout, by rewarding irresponsible lenders and borrowers, will encourage irresponsible behavior that may lead to recurring financial crises in the future. (Regulatory pressure on banks to promote “affordable housing” and “diversity” helped spawn the mortgage crisis)." Housing Bailout | OpenMarket.org

[ordinaryguy]

Let's move away from this silliness

I asked you a straightforward question that was directly related to the topic of this thread. But if you think it's silliness, then by all means, move away.

I'm just interested to know how far those of you who think "government IS the problem" are willing to take it. Do you recognize ANY taxation and government spending as legitimate? Or are you a radical libertarian/anarchist?

[George_1950]

I asked you a straightforward question that was directly related to the topic of this thread. But if you think it's silliness, then by all means, move away.

I'm just interested to know how far those of you who think "government IS the problem" are willing to take it. Do you recognize ANY taxation and government spending as legitimate? Or are you a radical libertarian/anarchist?

Please read post #33; it says it all, just as the initial post where the father asked his daughter to share her GPA with her friend or roommate who was a party-girl. Post #33 illustrates how many, many homeowners, who probably had no business purchasing a home in the first place, will be bailed-out by 'taxpayers'; we don't have the money for that, do we? Does the daughter in the story have an extra "A+" in her grade bank for her friend?
Furthermore, how about you telling me where this activity is provided for by the constitution?

[George_1950]

I asked you a straightforward question that was directly related to the topic of this thread...I'm just interested to know how far those of you who think "government IS the problem" are willing to take it. Do you recognize ANY taxation and government spending as legitimate? Or are you a radical libertarian/anarchist?

OK, so here is another 'parable', but in this case, a campaign promise; so, who is the radical? "Obama's 'emergency' economic plan": "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an “Emergency Economic Plan” that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls “windfall profits from Big Oil.”
...

"The first part of Obama’s plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.

“This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months,” Obama said. “Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt

"Separately, Obama’s plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs."
Now, that $50 billion doesn't belong to Obama or the Congress, does it? And you should easily recognize that the 'Democrat/Republican' label in the first parable actually is correct. Have fun with it.

[ordinaryguy]

George--

Your responses refer to two examples of government spending that you consider illegitimate. But my question was whether you believe there is ANY government taxation and spending that IS legitimate.

Furthermore, how about you telling me where this activity is provided for by the constitution?

The Preamble lists five objectives that the framers had in mind:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

They surely must have believed that government taxation and spending in pursuit of these objectives was legitimate. Do you agree, or not?

[George_1950]

George--

The Preamble lists five objectives that the framers had in mind:
They surely must have believed that government taxation and spending in pursuit of these objectives was legitimate. Do you agree, or not?

Would you agree that the preamble justifies the executive's use of FISA to listen to your cell phone calls?

[ordinaryguy]

Would you agree that the preamble justifies the executive's use of FISA to listen to your cell phone calls?

The preamble, by itself, doesn't justify or forbid anything. I quoted it to make the point that the founders believed that there were legitimate functions that government should perform, and I asked whether you agreed with that. But I guess you aren't willing to answer my question.