(Advertisement)

Political Mind Reading Has Its Limitation

ACTUALLY LISTENING TO VIEWS WORKS BETTER THAN BRANDING PEOPLE AS ‘LIBERAL,’ ‘CONSERVATIVE’

Posted: January 13, 2013 at 2:03 a.m.

In the election of November 2012, I voted for Barack Hussein Obama. Though each person’s vote is sacrosanct in this country and we need not discuss it with anyone, I just wanted to get that out of the way as quickly as possible. There is a lot President Obama has done with which I heartily agree, and there is also much with which I heartily disagree.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 01/13/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Grandmother Wishes For Detoxed World

Since the movie “The Bucket List” was released a few years ago, the title has become very useful as a reference for all things we wish we could do before we “kick the bucke... Read »

Next Story »

Can Love Be Best Defense Against Continued Vi...

Forget the Mayan calendar pronouncing humanity’s inevitable doom. It would seem after the Connecticut shootings, along with the Oregon mall shootings and the Colorado Batma... Read »

"We make a fetish of reading every word the long-dead Founding Fathers and the equally long-dead French writer Alexis deTocqueville"

Mr. Drake, when reading every word that the people that laid down the foundations of our government and their contemporary well educated foreign onlookers is referred to as a "fetish", I have to question the motives of the one giving the referral.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 13, 2013 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--
He doesn't say that it IS a fetish; he said that people make a fetish of it. Some people do in fact fetishize the reading of selected portions of the writings of the Founding Fathers and the people who influenced their thinking. They're sort of the toe-suckers of political historicism. And, as fetishism is often seen as a cause and effect of sexual dysfunction, the term seems apt in the application to people who allow peculiar attentions to inhibit their political intercourse.

Caleb Fort or other moderator--
The author of this piece is Richard S. Drake, not Richard Davis.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 13, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You omitted TwitterWorld Richard. A thought or idea has to fit into the 144 characters allowed by a twitter post or response. "You liberals want my guns" fits nicely.

Posted by: cdawg

January 13, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bet Richard Soupy Drake is a Fay Free Thinker or maybe just a plain blooming liberial.

Political intercourse sounds a little personal for me especially when you use it in the same sentance with sexual disfunctuion. Maybe toe-suckers should be inhibited, but I'am not and expert on that as you claim to be.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 13, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Political intercourse sounds a little personal for me especially when you use it in the same sentance with sexual disfunctuion."
Don't try to foist your hangups on me.

RE "Maybe toe-suckers should be inhibited"
See http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/0...

RE "I'am not and expert on that as you claim to be."
You are welcome to check all of my posts in order to verify this, but I am quite certain that I have never claimed to be an expert on any subject. Indeed, I have pointed out on more than one occasion that I am NOT an expert on the subject at hand.

You might have a fighting chance at intelligent discussion when you restrict your ripostes to what has actually been said. (That isn't an expert opinion.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 13, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK, FatCat, I haven't checked all your posts, but those I have checked, I'm wrong, you are not an expert on anything. Like most liberals, you have an intelligent opinion on everything you don't know anything about. Jack of all opinion, master of none.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 13, 2013 at 5:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Like most liberals, you have an intelligent opinion on everything you don't know anything about."
Like most liberals, I have greater respect for freedom of speech and expression than most conservatives and trolls apparently do, as well as greater adherence to the responsibilities that go along with that freedom.

Unlike many who comment here, I go to the trouble of finding out about the topics upon which I am interested in forming an opinion, and I endeavor to do so before expressing an opinion. Even as far as you are concerned, however, that does not include everything I know nothing about, as most of those subjects are not relevant to this forum.

In any case, an intelligent opinion is of mare value than a ready-made ignorant one.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 13, 2013 at 6:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I demand, this instant, that you come back and line Fatcat's wheels. You make more cents than him. (cents was used on purpose) English teachers.

fa

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 13, 2013 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yeah, Richard S. Drake, and NOT Comrade Davis wrote this.

It's sort of fascinating to see some attempt to refute the arguments in the piece by using the same sort of ESP that I wrote about - putting all or most liberals in one group, or "knowing" all about someone, without bothering to know anything about them.

The overly-sensitive (or those looking to be offended - the world is full of them) may take umbrage at my use of the word "fetish," but I think it is used with some precision. AND - my further point being that there are many passionate, eloquent voices we might pay attention to today is simply glossed over by those indulging is faux-outrage.

Posted by: RSDrake

January 14, 2013 at 1 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayetteville Free Thinker?

No - I'm not a joiner of groups. But I AM a Liberal, aleady bloomed (some may claim past it, in fact) and FAR from plain.

But that's just my hair dresser talking . . .

Posted by: RSDrake

January 14, 2013 at 1:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RS, None are surprised at at your liberal leanings, but I salute you, Sir, for having the good non-liberal sense not to hang around with that bunch of UFO chasers. If they ever found one it would be like unto the Three Stooges on Mars"

You have a hair dresser, for why?

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 14, 2013 at 2:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Richard,
In my opinion, one of the best pieces you've written since I"ve been reading your stuff. Thank you for taking the time to write more than 144 characters in this 'sound bite' world.

Posted by: FritzG

January 14, 2013 at 6:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, Fritz.

I think that some just put their particular blinders on and read it from that perspective.

As for the person whose money seems to be mystical, I have known a LOT of "Free Thinkers" in my life. I just wrote that I don't join groups - at least not since I was a GOP candidate for Washington County Quorum Court!

Posted by: RSDrake

January 14, 2013 at 9:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr. Drake

Your writing now that I look at it from a different perspective does seem a little strange in a "Stranger in a Strange Land" sort of strange. I think the reason I didn't understand it at first is because my reading and comprehenson don't go beyond the eight grade level. Also, the fact that I had never heard of you until now. I voted neither for Obama nor for Romney, but wrote in Clint Eastwood. Nor do I have ESP, but I am one of the unenlightened.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 14, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I see the problem as either/or, black&white thinking--pretending that every issue has exactly two sides--and dividing up the world into two political parties.
It's EXTREMELY lazy thinking.
As if humans are not capable of counting past two.
.

Posted by: Coralie

January 14, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Many animals can count far past two:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
If all you see in the world are liberals and conservatives, you have regressed to a condition that most birds and mammals have surpassed.

Posted by: Coralie

January 14, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

Mr. Drake did not specify "selected portions of the writings of the Founding Fathers and the people who influenced their thinking." He was mocking people. If he wasn't, I would very much like to be corrected with an explanation.

"how often do we read the writings of those we disagree with?"

It doesn't really matter if one is seeking a better understanding of our government through the works of those that created it and the works of those which inspired parts of our governement or how it was modeled.

Again, I question the motives of the author. What should Americans be reading?

What is wrong with people reading for a better understanding of our government? I think some feel threatened by it, and they should.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 14, 2013 at 10:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Additionally, I think people, some more than others, like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them on anything as not thinking, being lazy, or not being able to see any issue in terms other than all or none or "black&white". In other instances the accusations/insults include things like labeling people as illiterate hick Southerners, provincial rednecks, etc.

These accusations get more heated when the accused stick to their guns (pun intended) in the face of disagreement.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 14, 2013 at 10:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Mr. Drake did not specify 'selected portions of the writings of the Founding Fathers and the people who influenced their thinking.'"
You're right: I did. If your pouting is any indication, Mr. Drake waxed a bit too rhetorical in his tone, not realizing that you would try to take him literally.

RE "He was mocking people."
Squeee! Oh, heavens! Somebody mocked somebody else! Or maybe you're just a tad hypersensitive. (I hesitate to say "politically correct" because you will go off on some pointless evasion about how political correctness is a liberal trait, even though you've spent a lot of time lately protecting people whom you consider to have been maligned by words. Oooh-- words!) There is nothing untoward about Mr. Drake's use of the word "fetish":
"FETISH
"1
a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence
b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion
...."
(Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition)

RE "If he wasn't, I would very much like to be corrected with an explanation."
The first sentence of my first comment above was both a correction and an explanation. If you like, however, as Mr. Drake is probably not paying any attention to you, I'll let him know that you demand that he offer his own version of events.

RE "It doesn't really matter if one is seeking a better understanding of our government"
Mr. Drake is actually writing about seeking a better understanding of each other.

RE "Again, I question the motives of the author. What should Americans be reading?"
The writings of those we disagree with, according to Mr. Drake. Of course that might require you to read tinyurls, so I can see why you're suspicious.

RE "What is wrong with people reading for a better understanding of our government?"
Not a thing. But if people read for a confirmation of misconceptions about our government-- which is what I (not Mr. Drake) alluded to, then there's a problem. And it doesn't matter how well you think you understand our government if there is no communication of that understanding-- which, again, is what Mr. Drake was writing about.

RE "I think some feel threatened by it, and they should."
Because ignorant people with guns present a real danger?

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 14, 2013 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

I take a look at the urls everyone posts here, tiny or otherwise. I ridicule the use of url masking because I think it is an attempt to sell some "sources" as authoritative. It has nothing to do with the length of the url. All will paste to a thread here in an abbreviate form and you know it.

RE-

"(I hesitate to say "politically correct" because you will go off on some pointless evasion about how political correctness is a liberal trait, even though you've spent a lot of time lately protecting people whom you consider to have been maligned by words. Oooh-- words!)"

I never credited being "politically correct" as a "liberal trait" but know that the lack of political correctness from selected groups of people is instantly attacked in most all cases. Why not demand it from all or none? I know that many think there is a different set of rules for people of differing opinions. Words against folks based off of where they are from, the color of their skin, their ethinicity, etc . is fine and dandy..... if they only meet a specific criteria, right?

RE-

"Mr. Drake is actually writing about seeking a better understanding of each other."

Then why attack the study of our foundations?

Re-

"if people read for a confirmation of misconceptions about our government...then there's a problem. "

Have you considered that different people have different ideas about said misconceptions?

RE-

"which is what I (not Mr. Drake) alluded to"

I'm not so sure.

RE-

"And it doesn't matter how well you think you understand our government if there is no communication of that understanding-- which, again, is what Mr. Drake was writing about."

Again, Have you considered that different people have different ideas about misconceptions?

RE-

"Because ignorant people with guns present a real danger?"

No, because when people know and understand their rights they are better equipped to defend said rights.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 15, 2013 at 12:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It would seem that if the liberial government school system could keep the Bill of Rights and the studies of the Founders out of the heads of children, which most do, then it would be the job of parents, newspaper writers like Mr.Drake, and conservatives in general to study and inform. That would be a duty. After all, it people don't know their rights, how would they defend their rights? A shot in the dark, Mr. Cat. (pun intended)

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 15, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

This country will not be "saved" by conservatives or liberals. Those are just ideas constructed by politicians to distract us while they take advantage of us all. It traps us in one of the oldest logical fallacies, the false dichotomy, and has us ignoring viable solutions that don't fit neatly into either box.

Posted by: TheHunter

January 15, 2013 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "I ridicule the use of url masking because I think it is an attempt to sell some "sources" as authoritative.">>

It's astonishing you still don't get this.

Just yesterday, while trying to fit in the 3k character limit, I took a link that was 320 characters long, and shrunk it at tinyurl.com down to about 25 characters.

Click on it, goes to the same place. Some mask!

Did the shrunken link have an increased appearance of "authority?" Good grief.

Regarding groups, I am not a joiner either. I don't know that I ever have been. The local Fayfree group has no joiners, no membership.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 15, 2013 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "Then why attack the study of our foundations?"
He didn't attack the study per se; he pointed out that study without discourse is useless. Perhaps you've heard of the "ivory tower".

RE "I'm not so sure."
Yet that doesn't stop you from leaping in with a misconception. Try rereading Mr. Drake's commentary.

RE "Again, Have you considered that different people have different ideas about misconceptions?"
Absolutely. Unfortunately, it appears that most people lack the grounding in history and verbal communication to articulate their misconceptions effectively and/or discuss them intelligently.

RE "when people know and understand their rights they are better equipped to defend said rights."
And when they only think they understand their rights, they are more likely to think their rights are under attack. Teabaggers are a scintillating example.

I hope, by the way, that you now know the difference between mocking someone, which is what I did, and writing in a rhetorical tone, which is what Mr. Drake did.

Moneymyst--

RE "It would seem that if the liberial government school system could keep the Bill of Rights and the studies of the Founders out of the heads of children, which most do..."
By all means, do show evidence of this.

RE "...then it would be the job of parents, newspaper writers like Mr.Drake, and conservatives in general to study and inform."
I would say that this is a duty regardless of what the schools do.

RE "After all, it people don't know their rights, how would they defend their rights?"
You'll get no disagreement from me on this point. The catch, of course, is knowing what those rights-- and the concurrent responsibilities-- are.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 15, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

RE-

"And when they only think they understand their rights, they are more likely to think their rights are under attack. Teabaggers are a scintillating example."

Ok, so only when people understand their rights as you do then they are not having misconceptions. Ok, got it.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 15, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, thankyou jlonber who says "conservatives or liberals....are just ideas constructed by politicians to distract us while they take advantage of us all. It traps us in one of the oldest logical fallacies, the false dichotomy, and has us ignoring viable solutions that don't fit neatly into either box."
This basic point makes moot most of the arguments on most of the threads here.
But people are attached to their combat.

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Ok, so only when people understand their rights as you do then they are not having misconceptions."
Not at all. Teabaggers are clearly lacking in an understanding of their rights; that's why I cited them particularly.
-- Their very name-- "Taxed Enough Already"-- shows a clear misunderstanding of the fact that the Constitution allows the government to levy taxes, as well as complete ignorance of the historic lows that taxes had reached when the group formed and the even lower taxes since then.
-- Their intention to "take their country back", besides showing a complete ignorance of history, is both an overstatement of their rights as individuals in a society and an intention to abrogate the rights of others.
-- They claim that their rights have been taken away when in fact they haven't. That is a basic failure to understand what their rights are.
-- I won't go into some of the classic ignorance and lies they promulgate. Oh, yes I will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4pb2d...
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/...
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/18/...

RE "Ok, got it."
Apparently not.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 15, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kiddie, take this.

Grades PreK to 12 Education courses
US History
One credit (1)
Year
Core
Level 2
State Board Approved
American History Graduation approved

"United States History, 9-12 Course - The grade 9-12 United States History course consists of the following content area strands. United States History, Geography, and Humanities. The primary content emphasis for this course pertains to the study of United States history from Resconstruction to the present day. ect"

Resconstruction not Revolution.

www.cpalms.org/Courses/PublicPreviewC...

No who is going to teach Constitutional history and the lives of the Founders?

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 15, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "take this [information from cpalms.org]."
Incorrect. You should have checked the Florida Department of Education. The requirements for graduation from high school in Florida (all program paths) include
"Social Studies
1 credit World History
1 credit U.S. History
.5 credit U.S. Government
.5 credit Economics"
http://www.fldoe.org/bii/studentpro/p...

The Arkansas Department of Education Smart Core
(up through Class of 2013):
"Social Studies—Three (3) Units
Civics or Civics/American Government—1 unit
One unit from 472100, 472200, 572020
World History—1 unit
One unit from 471000, 471030, 571010, 571020
American History—1 unit
One unit from 470000, 470030, 570010, 570020"
(Class of 2014 and after):
"Social Studies—Three (3) Units
Civics—½ unit
½ unit from 472000, 472100, 472200, 572020
World History—1 unit
One unit from 471000, 471030, 571010, 571020
American History—1 unit
One unit from 470000, 470030, 570010, 570020
Economics—½ Unit
Economics may be counted as a ½ unit social studies course if taught by a highly qualified social studies teacher OR as a ½ unit career focus elective course if taught by a highly qualified business education teacher."
http://www.arkansased.org/public/user...

These requirements are for grades 9 through 12. They do not include American History, Civics or Government classes taken through the eighth grade. (Arkansas used to require American History as an eighth-grade class as well.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 15, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All I was pointing out is that American history starts at Resconstruction in Flordia and I think that a grave injustice to the school children. Not many rights granted since Resconstruction, but many taken away.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 15, 2013 at 7:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "All I was pointing out is that American history starts at Resconstruction in Flordia"
According to CPALMS, there are several other American history and related courses offered in Florida high schools:
The three-year series
2100370 Eastern and Western Heritage
2100380 Visions and Their Pursuits: An American Tradition-U.S.History to 1920
2100390 Visions and Countervisions: Europe, the U.S. and the World from 1848
meets state requirements for American and world history, and covers American history from its roots in ancient civilizations.
Additional courses include
2106310 United States Government
2106340 Political Science
2106350 Law Studies
2106360 Comparative Political Systems
2106380 Legal Systems and Concepts
2106450 The American Political System: Process and Power (one-semester courses)
2106330 Civics
2106370 Comprehensive Law Studies (full-year courses)

RE "Not many rights granted since Resconstruction, but many taken away."
Reconstruction included the granting of these rights:
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Since Reconstruction, rights granted or enhanced by the Constitution:
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years

Amendment 18 did take away the public right to drink, but it was given back.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 16, 2013 at 1:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

"Teabaggers are clearly lacking in an understanding of their rights; that's why I cited them particularly."

Plenty of people from any/all political affiliations "are clearly lacking in an understanding of their rights" among many other things, not just some of the Tea Party.

You want to talk about some lies? How about someone telling an NAACP audience that "they're gonna put ya'll back in chains"? Just food for thought. Don't even get me started on some of the "Occupy" folks.

I know the Tea Party is a popular target right now. We can sit here and trade videos and examples of ignorance until the end of time.

On a different note, I am taking a political science course right now and was given this link:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I thought the survey and my results were interesting. Others might be inclined to give it whirl.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quamquam discordiae, pax tecum.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 16, 2013 at 2:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, I scored
Economic Left/Right: 1,50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

Here are my results:

Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 16, 2013 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I would like to see Tankersley and Money responses to these two questions from the survey:

"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

"Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

Posted by: cdawg

January 16, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, to both

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have been familiar with the Political Compass site for quite a while, but it has been so long since I took the test that I don't remember my results.

My scores today:
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

I will point out, without an estimate as to whether or to what extent it affected my scores, that some of the test items are oddly written. I almost certainly will not agree with a statement that includes the words "always" and "never"-- partly because I understand something of logic and test construction. As this sort of wording is not generally considered by statisticians and test constructors to be a good way to assess a test-taker, I hope that the scoring mechanism takes this bias into account. On the other hand, I did vary as to whether I disagreed or strongly disagreed, and the questions might have been balanced in respect to the scales, so maybe there is some value to these questions after all.

As for that nonexistent estimate on the effect on my scores, I also will point out that anybody who knows me will not mistake me for Gandhi.

Thank you for posting the link. It is a good addition to this discussion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 16, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think Gandhi did not take this test. I don't know you and would never mistake you for Gandhi.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I don't know you and would never mistake you for Gandhi."
Your occasional episodes of perspicacity are encouraging.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 16, 2013 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My scores are
Economic Left/Right -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
But like AlphaCat, I didn't like the wording of about a dozen questions.

Posted by: Coralie

January 16, 2013 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gee, Coralie you almost got a perfect score.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, AlphaCat, I'm evolving into an almost tolerant person.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 16, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I was very close to right smack in the middle of the square, whatever that means. Econ. L/R 1.00
Soc.Lib/Auth 1.13

Posted by: mycentworth

January 16, 2013 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth,

I was pretty close to the center as well. Like some of the others here, I'm not sure what to think about some of the questions and the applicable answers. For me, a lot of them would be situationally dependant. I hope people enjoyed the link.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 16, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank - It was hard to answer without explanation. What sounded right, after thinking about it was wrong. Control over corporations will stifle jobs.Who is going to open businesses and have their profits taken by govt or told what to do with them. If you work for an agreed salary, that is what you get. It was an interesting link.

I think the main question is: Do you believe in large or small government?

Posted by: mycentworth

January 17, 2013 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Do you believe in large or small business?
Do you think that the Adam Smith's theory of capitalism, based on a nation of small shopkeepers and craftsmen, applies equally well to modern corporate capitalism, in which a handful of large corporations can dominate the market and chains have pushed out small businesses?
Do you believe that corporations should have all the benefits of living persons, in addition to being immortal?

Posted by: Coralie

January 17, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Putting everything into two categories of "liberal" and "conservative" takes about as much brainpower as separating a pile of nails into one-inchers and rwo-inchers.
But what do you do with the nails that are 3/4" or 1 1/2" or the nuts, bolts, screws, hinges, hooks and picture-hangers that are mixed in?
Why, you either ignore them or arbitrarily assign them to one of the two piles.of nails.

Posted by: Coralie

January 17, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

People are not nails, Coralie, and the government is not in charge of them. Some regulations are needed, but it is going beyond needed to excessive. People should take care of people without the so-called help of the corrupt government. Government is needed for military, roads, foreign affairs, a few other things. State government is the best way to handle other things that may be needed. But, people do not belong to the government and are not working to support the abyss it has become.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 17, 2013 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Do you believe in Thomas Jefferson's nation of yeoman farmers? There is a whole bunch a different ideals this country is built on.

More importantly, who believes in those ideals as they were written down a couple of centuries ago, and who does so for just the ones they pick and choose in order to support their current views?

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 18, 2013 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I find Jefferson's ideal very attractive.
But the concentration of wealth had already begun.
Jefferson said:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
letter to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816

Posted by: Coralie

January 18, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't believe either mycent or Tank answered my complaint about simplistic, either/or thinking.
Can't you visualize a metaphor, or analogy, without immediately putting it into the framework of the either/or arguments that I complain of?

Posted by: Coralie

January 18, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I really can't figure out what you are trying to say, Coralie, with your nail analogy. Yes, there are all kinds of beliefs, so the two parties cannot possibly represent everyone. Why do we need two parties? Each member should vote his own conscience and not be aligned with a party. It causes stalemates and nothing gets done.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 18, 2013 at 6:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I understand your complaint. Are you sure you don't think everyone that disagrees with you thinks in black/white or just too black/white? Watch out for those ambiguous grey areas. I hear tell they can be treaherous every four years or so.

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i54/2/11/19...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 19, 2013 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

With the analogy of the nails I was trying to say in a different way what Richard Drake said:
You can't divide human beings into just two categories.
People are not cartoons
You can't even divide nails into two categories without ignoring a lot of differences (some have big flat heads, finishing nails have hardly any heads, brads are shaped differently, etc.)
This separating of everybody into two and only two categories has become a common habit online, in the media, etc. It is not just one political party that does it.
But mycent and Tank were so sure that I am "on the other side" that they had to argue with what they thought I said.
+++
The world doesn't revolve around America's two political parties.
The whole spectrum isn't covered by "liberals" and "conservatives."
There are other belief-systems besides "Christians and atheists."
Economics does not consist of just "capitalism and socialism."
.

Posted by: Coralie

January 19, 2013 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie: " There are other belief-systems besides "Christians and atheists."

Isn't that what I said, only in simpler terms?
I said "Yes, there are all kinds of beliefs, so the two parties cannot possibly represent everyone.' So, independent is the way to go. No parties.

Why didn't you just quote Richard Drake? That I understand.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 19, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Even Coralie has better sense than to quote Richard Soupy Drake. Come on mycentworth, she is better than that.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 19, 2013 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Both you and Coralie are more knowledgable than I am, as I never really read much, but now that I have time, I enjoy it. I really hate politics as it is never ending and boring, but now a person cannot ignore it as it has gotten too threatening to our way of life.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 20, 2013 at 7:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth,

RE-

"it has gotten too threatening to our way of life."

More people are just becoming aware of it thanks to mass/social media.

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivati...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 20, 2013 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Partisan politics has taken over our heads to everybody's detriment.

Posted by: Coralie

January 20, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good pic, Tank. It did remind me of the news media.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 20, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's getting so detrimental to me that I'm going to take a molotov cocktail tonight and go to bed.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 20, 2013 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is a choice, moneymist. You make me laugh.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 20, 2013 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Congratulations R-Drake on a completely incoherent screed decrying what you deem to be mind-reading, which is little more than an observation of available facts.

You and your acolytes continue to prove that no rational person who cares about anyone but him/herself would have voted to re-elect the mob boss. No person who actually bothered to take facts into account would claim that the President has done anything positive for our country, and his using children as human shields in the gun debate indicated that our country is only going to suffer further. You wanted rule of ruin, and you got both. Please don't hold your breath waiting for good people to congratulate you.

Posted by: IrishMensa

January 20, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr. IrishMensa doesn't seem to be having a very pleasant inauguration day. At least he forgot to call Mr. Drake a liar. Perhaps an oversight.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 21, 2013 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't think Drake a liar, he is just like you, Freebe, intelligently misinformed. I don't think Mr. Mensa forgets about anything, therefore could not suffer an oversight. And speaking of oversight, Mr. Irish posted that Jan 20 at 7:42 pm and if you had checked freemistakemaker, the inaugruation was not until today the 21st. Can we get a DUH out of you fay?

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 21, 2013 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "a completely incoherent screed decrying what you deem to be mind-reading, which is little more than an observation of available facts."
The difference between Mr. Drake's column and IrishDensa's screeds being, of course, that ID's screeds are not observations of available facts-- which is pretty sad performing for the news director at a radio station, even though that station is little more than an unhappy man's hobby.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 21, 2013 at 11:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>> Mr. Irish posted that Jan 20 at 7:42 pm and if you had checked freemistakemaker, the inaugruation was not until today the 21st.<<

President Barack Obama was duly sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts at 12:01 PM on Jan 20, 2013 as provided in the Constitution. When Inauguration day falls on a Sunday the public part of the ceremony is held the following day.

There's your "DUH", duhmoney.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/pr...

Posted by: cdawg

January 22, 2013 at 1:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

When Beyonce' sings, when Obama gets up in front of true belivers and lies, when the creep gets up and delivers a poem that only he understands, when the Marine Band plays, when they all go eat and dance and lie some more. Thats the inauguration, not the swearing in ceremony.

Check the newspapers. Check Drudge. Check with Rush. Check with Oprah. Check with Martin Luther King, Jr. Check with Biden. Turn your big screen on.

The inauguration was the 21, Monday, MLK day,the Year of Our Savior, January 21, 2013, being Inauguration day, as proclaimed by Freemistaker, but denied by cdawg, is in danger of being wasted, and it is slipping into either Histroy or oblivion. Oblivion, according to cdawg, since it never occured.

"Liberials are like waves of the ocean. With little warning, they come in to shore, make a big splash, and then quietly fade into oblivion."---ME

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 22, 2013 at 4:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Enjoying your "DUH" ?

Posted by: cdawg

January 22, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Enjoying your "Spalsh" ? Did you watch the inauguration on your flat screen Monday, cdawg?

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 22, 2013 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Irish is a news director?
Surely you jest.
Next you'll be telling me he really does belong to Mensa.

Posted by: Coralie

January 22, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Next you'll be telling me he really does belong to Mensa."
Quite the opposite. IrishDensa is not a member of Mensa. That's just part of his cover story.

(Not really. He barely gets a footnote-- much less a cover story.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 22, 2013 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Irish has in IQ 160, but his humility will not let him make this public.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 23, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IrishM is a pretty dimbulb for sure, but he probably knows what day a president is sworn in on.

And if he was corrected on the matter, he might even be bright enough learn from his mistake, or even keep his yap shut about it.

D.
--------------
"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong." --Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 23, 2013 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Present was sworn in on Sunday, Inaugruation day was Monday.

"Learning is difficult for liberials, they often believe the same thing five differenet ways."---Moneymyst (Me)

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 24, 2013 at 6:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Again, without mistake (President was sworn in on Sunday, his Inauguration was Monday).

Days of the week are not like a box of chocolates

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 24, 2013 at 6:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM: "Again, without mistake (President was sworn in on Sunday, his Inauguration was Monday).">>

No, that's still wrong. The president was sworn in and inaugurated as president on Sunday the 20th, as per the twentieth amendment of the constitution.

The inauguration *ceremony* was on Monday.

You can have a ceremony to celebrate your birthday on any day you like, but if you were born on January 20th, then January 20th, is your birthday.

This may be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

D.
--------------
I very much encourage you to keep scouring my posts carefully for the tiniest of errors. I have faith, an admittedly weak faith, that someday, maybe, you'll be able to land an example that holds up.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 24, 2013 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"A little over 20 million people watched President Obama's second Inauguration on television, Nieisen reported Wednesday afternoon. The numbers were a steep drop from Obams's first inauguration, which drew 37 million viewers."---www,huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23obama-inauguration-ratings

"Knon2's Gina Mangieri is in Washington DC. Here's the scedule for tommorrow's inaugural events.
The Capitol building is where the swearing in will be on MONDAY at 11:30 a.m. Washington time/6:30 a.m. Hawaii time." www/knon2.com/news/story/Schedule-of-events-for-Presidential-Inauguration

I though I would give you those in black and white so to help you out. You seem to have a reality problem. 20 million people watched it, Huffington Post says Monday was the inauguration, Knon2 news headlines "Presidential inauguration on Monday." Write a letter to knon2 and request a retraction, Freebey, they don't know what they are doing. I bet even Irish knew what day to tune in and watch the INAUGURATION.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 24, 2013 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Don't throw another temper trantrum Doug, your doctor said it was bad for your brain cell.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 24, 2013 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who is Doug?
We have already established that the person who posts here as fayfreethinker is not Doug Krueger.
Several of us who comment here know both men.

Posted by: Coralie

January 25, 2013 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If they are not the same person they are interchangeable, like pawns in the game of Chess. Like Hillary said, "What difference does it make?"

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 25, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Facts are facts. This ain't really very difficult to grasp.

"As mandated by the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, all presidents inaugurated since October 1933 begin their new term on January 20 at noon. Because January 20, 2013, fell on a Sunday, two ceremonies were scheduled. The official swearing-in of President Obama took place on Sunday, January 20, at the White House, while the official swearing-in of Vice President Biden took place on the same date at the Naval Observatory, his official residence. Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath to the president and Justice Sonia Sotomayor administered the oath to the vice president.[11]"

"The public inaugural ceremony for both Obama and Biden occured on Monday, January 21 at the United States Capitol."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_i...

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 26, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As someone who knows both men, I do not find them or their views interchangeable.

Posted by: Coralie

January 26, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

They go together like a horse and carrage. Oh, it is such a wonderful thing when two men can bond together in their own little world of doubt and confusion.

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 29, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )