Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
Exxon Mobil posts biggest US quarterly profit ever
Joe the not-plumber and Joe Six-Pack types seem to get very upset about people who make less than them getting a handout and gaming the system. However they don't seem to mind when people who make way more than them do it.
Off topic: sorry, trig, every time I see you post now I think of Palin.
??????????? Boy are you ever off the mark!
It's the name - trig - same as her kid, not the politics !!
Sorry, I misunderstood. I had the name first, but only because people can't say Trigueiro. My maiden name was simpler.
I thought it was because you taught math, and calc or geo just doesn't have the same ring.
bad hammy wrote: I read in the newspaper this morning (and did not fact check) that McCain is leading in all 10 of the states nationwide with the lowest average incomes, by an average of 16 points over Obama. It boggles the mind . . .
I can see reasons why this is both puzzling and obvious.
One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.
I do not know what those ten states are but I would guess Oklahoma, where I live, is one of them. Due my long and rather diverse history, I am in contact with people from all economic levels. My impression and surmise, confirmed by historical voting record, is that the majority in this "low income" state, in addition to being basically politically conservative, perceive Obama as an elitist, arrogant ,arugala-eater. Also, the school of hard knocks has conditioned them to not swallow untasted pie-in-the-sky promises. .
bad hammy wrote: I read in the newspaper this morning (and did not fact check) that McCain is leading in all 10 of the states nationwide with the lowest average incomes, by an average of 16 points over Obama. It boggles the mind . . .
I can see reasons why this is both puzzling and obvious.
One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.
I do not know what those ten states are but I would guess Oklahoma, where I live, is one of them. Due my long and rather diverse history, I am in contact with people from all economic levels. My impression and surmise, confirmed by historical voting record, is that the majority in this "low income" state, in addition to being basically politically conservative, perceive Obama as an elitist, arrogant ,arugala-eater. Also, the school of hard knocks has conditioned them to not swallow untasted pie-in-the-sky promises. .
So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.
trig wrote:[So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.
I don't see the correlation, trig, . People are generally not aware of and do not care about the dietary habits of surgeons and pilots. I am just telling you what people here are not bashful about saying.
Ah, two of the most foolish canards of a transcendentally foolish campaign : "elitism" and "socialism."
If we really want representatives who are "just like" us, why put any weight on "experience" at all? Why not just pick our president, senators, etc., by lottery? It would be sort of like mega-jury duty! Instead of being tied up in the courthouse downtown for 3 days or a week, you'd be stuck in D.C. for 4 years. Not much need for term limits, because the odds of getting "picked" twice in a row would be quite astronomical. I figure, if we eliminate all the folks under 30 years of age, currently in prison, clinically insane, convicted sex offenders, or drug addicts, then each of us would have something like a 1/175 million chance of getting called. What a "fun" roller-coaster of a political climate that would create! Wheeeeeeeee! But, hey, we'd be doing an end run around those HORRIBLE "elites," wouldn't we?!
If the elitist thing is really so horrible, I propose that we immediately close the top half of all our institutions of higher education. Trade schools are fine, as are all the schools that a guidance counseler knows are "not selective." Anything else, however, needs to be shut down immediately and turned to some useful purpose......like, say, pro football training camps, or centers for the study of NASCAR history, or museums of creation science, or....well you get the idea...ANYTHING would be an improvement over those existing incubators of "elitist" thinking...
As for "socialism"--or even more of a hoot, "Marxism"--...oh, it's just too stupid to even make fun of....
trig wrote:[So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.
I don't see the correlation, trig, . People are generally not aware of and do not care about the dietary habits of surgeons and pilots. I am just telling you what people here are not bashful about saying.
Are you saying that elitist only refers to the fact that he eats arugula?
lonewolf wrote:One might expect such demographics would be eager to jump on Obama's socialist gravy train. And, of course, some are.
I'm surprised and disappointed to see you uttering that "socialist" crap.
I would have thought our friend lonewolf was immune from the Kool-Aid that the right is pouring, but I guess not . . .
Ya see, hammy, that is why this entire thread is a mistake. I am sure there have been a lot of mutual disappointments. I am the right and I don't see it as Kool-Aid or "crap". We were given an opportunity to speak our minds here, unfortunately for the long run IMO, and I have as much right as the majority to do so civilly.
This forum has been more tolerant of liberal than of conservative comments; which is ok, it is their game. I have heretofore refrained from deliberately esposing any political opinion. Not only because it is verboten but it is immaterial to track and field and can only make one feel good at the expense of someone else's discomfort. However, it is well nigh impossible, and some do not try, to disguise ones political leaning unless you deliberately create a false impression.
Interpretation of an issue is what it is for the individual. Half of us are probably going to be wrong and, hopefully, politicians cannot deliver half of what they promise. No matter how nicely you phrase it, when one denigrates another's opinion as idiotic, you have called them an idiot, which, while it may or may not be true, is not conducive to kumbaya.
I don't begrudge anyone their opinon. I am surprised, not at any individual's position, but at the overwhelming liberal, not always dispassionately expressed stance of this forum. To each his own.
I am forever perplexed that people observe the same sequence of events and characters and come to 180 degee different opinions. But, twas and ever shall be so.
lonewolf wrote:Ya see, hammy, that is why this entire thread is a mistake. I am sure there have been a lot of mutual disappointments. I am the right and I don't see it as Kool-Aid or "crap". We were given an opportunity to speak our minds here, unfortunately for the long run IMO, and I have as much right as the majority to do so civilly.
This forum has been more tolerant of liberal than of conservative comments; which is ok, it is their game. I have heretofore refrained from deliberately esposing any political opinion. Not only because it is verboten but it is immaterial to track and field and can only make one feel good at the expense of someone else's discomfort. However, it is well nigh impossible, and some do not try, to disguise ones political leaning unless you deliberately create a false impression.
Interpretation of an issue is what it is for the individual. Half of us are probably going to be wrong and, hopefully, politicians cannot deliver half of what they promise. No matter how nicely you phrase it, when one denigrates another's opinion as idiotic, you have called them an idiot, which, while it may or may not be true, is not conducive to kumbaya.
I don't begrudge anyone their opinon. I am surprised, not at any individual's position, but at the overwhelming liberal, not always dispassionately expressed stance of this forum. To each his own.
I am forever perplexed that people observe the same sequence of events and characters and come to 180 degee different opinions. But, twas and ever shall be so.
I appreciate lonewolf's sentiments here (even thought I clearly don't agree with his positions) and, as I've stated before, he is a gentleman. If there will be disagreements (and there must be) the point is to attack the message, not the messenger. This whole board is proof that people care deeply about these issues and that there can never be anything approaching full accord. As much as we value the idea of intelligent, spirited conversation, it's amazing how rarely anyone's core views or ideas are ever changed as a result.
kuha wrote: Ah, two of the most foolish canards of a transcendentally foolish campaign : "elitism" and "socialism." ..
kuha, I agree McCain has run an excruciatingly frustrating, inept campaign. However, what you dismiss as "canards" are truths to others and are not foolish when enough people agree with them. We shall find out Tuesday.
kuha wrote:[ This whole board is proof that people care deeply about these issues and that there can never be anything approaching full accord. As much as we value the idea of intelligent, spirited conversation, it's amazing how rarely anyone's core views or ideas are ever changed as a result.
kuha wrote: Ah, two of the most foolish canards of a transcendentally foolish campaign : "elitism" and "socialism." ..
kuha, I agree McCain has run an excruciatingly frustrating, inept campaign. However, what you dismiss as "canards" are truths to others and are not foolish when enough people agree with them. We shall find out Tuesday.
I would suggest that you are describing "beliefs" rather than truths. To be at all useful, truths have to reflect SOME facet of objective, real-world experience. Beliefs don't--and, instead of reflecting reality, they may function as lenses to distort reality (in ways that we find useful or comforting). As such, they MUST be open to challenge and questioning. To do any less would be to chuck our rational faculties right out the window.
lonewolf wrote:Ya see, hammy, that is why this entire thread is a mistake. I am sure there have been a lot of mutual disappointments. I am the right and I don't see it as Kool-Aid or "crap". We were given an opportunity to speak our minds here, unfortunately for the long run IMO, and I have as much right as the majority to do so civilly.
This forum has been more tolerant of liberal than of conservative comments; which is ok, it is their game. I have heretofore refrained from deliberately esposing any political opinion. Not only because it is verboten but it is immaterial to track and field and can only make one feel good at the expense of someone else's discomfort. However, it is well nigh impossible, and some do not try, to disguise ones political leaning unless you deliberately create a false impression.
Interpretation of an issue is what it is for the individual. Half of us are probably going to be wrong and, hopefully, politicians cannot deliver half of what they promise. No matter how nicely you phrase it, when one denigrates another's opinion as idiotic, you have called them an idiot, which, while it may or may not be true, is not conducive to kumbaya.
I don't begrudge anyone their opinon. I am surprised, not at any individual's position, but at the overwhelming liberal, not always dispassionately expressed stance of this forum. To each his own.
I am forever perplexed that people observe the same sequence of events and characters and come to 180 degee different opinions. But, twas and ever shall be so.
Soon we can get back to solving track stuff..
Amen lonewolf! I couldn't have said it better myself. I have two co-workers that are at the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum, and it still amazes me that both of them can watch a political show like "Meet The Press", but when they recap what they saw, you'd think that they must have watched two different episodes.
trig wrote:[So I guess that means they don't want an "elitist" airplane pilot or surgeon.
I don't see the correlation, trig, . People are generally not aware of and do not care about the dietary habits of surgeons and pilots. I am just telling you what people here are not bashful about saying.
Are you saying that elitist only refers to the fact that he eats arugula?
Marlow wrote:Lonewolf - you are hopelessly wrong, but I still love ya, bro!!!!
Agreed!
You have to admit its a damn shame that Lonewolf lived all those years and the end result of a life well lived is that he is hopelessly wrong.
Squak, I have found a perfect antidote for being wrong all my life. I just fill up with expensive gasoline, drive out to a lease and watch an oil well pump. Very soothing and the smell of crude clears my sinuses.
lonewolf wrote:And I am surprised that you are surprised, tandfman if you have read any of my posts on this thread.
I know that you support McCain. That does not trouble me. I have friends and relatives who are doing the same. But I think it's possible to support McCain and subscribe generally to the platform of the Republican party without accusing Obama of being a socialist, which he is not. And I am surpised and disappointed that you have fallen for that line.
We're talking about details of the tax code and of government programs that are well established in this country. Changing some of those details can benefit some people more than others. The sum of what Obama is proposing does not make him a socialist and the adoption of every plank in his party's platform would not make this a socialist country. It was not a socialist country under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, or Clinton and it will not be one under Obama. The use of that inflammatory word in this context does not reflect well on whoever utters it, whether it be Senator McCain, Governor Palin, or you.
I was beginning to think I did not know the meaning of "elitist " but I consulted Mr Webster and, nope, I was correct. I think what many are overlooking here is, I am talking about is perception and perception is reality when you enter the voting booth.
To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!
Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.
I know that you support McCain. That does not trouble me. I have friends and relatives who are doing the same. But I think it's possible to support McCain and subscribe generally to the platform of the Republican party without accusing Obama of being a socialist, which he is not. And I am surpised and disappointed that you have fallen for that line.
I agree. I have no trouble with how people vote if they have thought about it and have a "good" reason. But not to vote for someone because they eat a certain food is troublesome.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!
Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.
Exactly. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of "real, existing" socialism--either now or historically--would split a gut laughing at the idea that any major-party US candidate would in any way fit that bill. To the degree that the use of this term is a result of "perceptions," then we can rightly criticize those perceptions as, to be kind, rather eccentric.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:To go a little off topic, I was wondering what on earth you in the US define as 'socialist'. Because the definition doesn't seem to be carrying across the Atlantic to where the concept was invented!
Having lived under a real socialist government in Britain, as well as being pretty well-acquainted with liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, labour party, trade unionists, socialists, Trotskyites, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and general communists of the European variety I can quite categorically assure you none of them recognise or think of Obama or the Democrat Party as "socialist" in any way, shape or form.
We don't have socialists in any numbers at all. We just have folks on the right using bogeyman scare tactics attempting to characterize Obama as a socialist to hopefully get some brain-dead voters (they would have to be brain-dead to be fooled by such nonsense) to vote for McCain.
I did see the leader of the official US Socialist party on The Daily Show the other night. He was mad at the far right for insinuating that Obama was anything close to being a socialist. He considered Obama to be way, way too conservative to be a socialist.
tandfman wrote:[ I know that you support McCain. The use of that inflammatory word (socialist) in this context does not reflect well on whoever utters it, whether it be Senator McCain, Governor Palin, or you.
As I have admitted elsewhere, I support McCain only because he is my only choice this time around.
I am sorry if the word "socialist" offends you but definitions 1 and 3 in Webster pretty well describe my interpretation and understand of what is happening here.
Besides, I have already forfeited any chance in the popularity contest so I am not too concerned about my reflection..
