Sunday, July 13, 2008
Obama lead falls to three points
A recent Newsweek poll shows Obama's lead over McCain is down to 3%, 44-41.
No wonder, considering this LA Times story.
No wonder, considering this LA Times story.
Comments:
So the only choice people have in this election is a choice between black and white skin.
In other words: cosmetic differences.
The only way to save this country and the world is for a true hero to emerge from the rubble of our collapsing foundation.
May sound overly dramatic but I believe its the only way.
In other words: cosmetic differences.
The only way to save this country and the world is for a true hero to emerge from the rubble of our collapsing foundation.
May sound overly dramatic but I believe its the only way.
marc,
I don't interpret your statement as histrionics... the problem IS that severe.
David, please open your eyes.
I don't interpret your statement as histrionics... the problem IS that severe.
David, please open your eyes.
# posted by 
: 7/14/2008 7:35 PM
: 7/14/2008 7:35 PM
OK, so assuming my eyes were open, then . . . ?
And why are you assuming they're shut?
These are not rhetorical questions. I'm curious about what is forming your impressions of me.
And why are you assuming they're shut?
These are not rhetorical questions. I'm curious about what is forming your impressions of me.
Marc, consider voting for Bob Barr, Libertarian for President. The true hero you're looking for are the people of the United States -- we just need to free them. Democrats want to control our money. Republicans want to control our morals. They're NOT the same party and there are significant differences in what they want to control. But that neither one stands for freedom is a given.
@Russel,
A hero is someone who can articulate a vision for the people that energizes the majority of the people and is consistent with the highest principles and ideals of our founding fathers.
I happen to find certain aspects of the Libertarian view to be a misconceived vision of what is good for humanity.
But had Ron Paul gotten enough votes I would have been cheering him even though I disagree with some of his old school Libertarian views.
Bob Barr has not even managed to energize me, never mind the WHOLE nation.
I'm voting Obama *not* because he energized me with his defense of to the Constitution (or lack of) but because 1) I believe McCain is one hell of a bad choice and 2) Obama seems to have energized "enough" people to stand a chance in this election.
A hero is someone who can articulate a vision for the people that energizes the majority of the people and is consistent with the highest principles and ideals of our founding fathers.
I happen to find certain aspects of the Libertarian view to be a misconceived vision of what is good for humanity.
But had Ron Paul gotten enough votes I would have been cheering him even though I disagree with some of his old school Libertarian views.
Bob Barr has not even managed to energize me, never mind the WHOLE nation.
I'm voting Obama *not* because he energized me with his defense of to the Constitution (or lack of) but because 1) I believe McCain is one hell of a bad choice and 2) Obama seems to have energized "enough" people to stand a chance in this election.
@mark:
I think that individuals *are* their own best heroes. They energize the majority of the people (BEING the majority of the people). And individualism is consistent with the highest principles and ideals of our founding fathers.
But in order for people to be their own heroes, you need to trust them. It sounds like you may not trust people to run their own lives (since you want a hero to guide them). If that is the case, then why do you trust people to vote? If they can't even run their own lives, I'll be damned if they run mine. Sunshine c'mon back another day!
I think that individuals *are* their own best heroes. They energize the majority of the people (BEING the majority of the people). And individualism is consistent with the highest principles and ideals of our founding fathers.
But in order for people to be their own heroes, you need to trust them. It sounds like you may not trust people to run their own lives (since you want a hero to guide them). If that is the case, then why do you trust people to vote? If they can't even run their own lives, I'll be damned if they run mine. Sunshine c'mon back another day!
As for Obama dropping to within 3 point of McSame, he's toned down his outsider rhetoric and is slowly drifting into the political clone zone. Too bad. I still support him and may even do some local volunteering but his failure to provide leadership on the wiretapping amnesty issue has really turned me off.
As individuals, we should run our own lives, but the nation (the whole) is more than the sum of the individuals (parts.)
A nation of 100M people is not the same as 100M people acting on their own. A nation is not characterized by a self-organizing dynamic, where "anything goes" as long as the system always tends to settle in an equilibrium state.
The concept of the Constitution is: the "law for a nation" of free people living under a truly democratic form of governance. It is not a law for the individual. It is not the "10 Commandments." It is not a law for managing your life. It's a law for governing people, using democratic ideals where personal liberties and rights are guaranteed as long as the government (the people we elect) abide by this law, the Constitution. But when those we elected start to coerce it or ignore it (or circumvent it with trickery and deceit) then we are no longer governed under the Constitution and our personal liberties and rights are not longer guaranteed. That's why people are mad about FISA and all the spying that has been going on for decades.
If we don't accept the concept of democratic governance, i.e. by leaders whom are elected by us, then we don't accept the Constitution. We can't endorse a law for the democratic governance of a nation while wanting to govern ourselves individually.
Couple years ago, I wrote about why a "P2P-governed society" that has no democratic governance structure, i.e. a flat one where everyone is the law and everyone gets to decide what is right and wrong, and where the law is derived from the ill-conceived concept of the wisdom of crowds, would not work. I called the article the Unwisdom of Crowds.
If you'd like to debate it, please debate it over t my blog as I feel that we're guests here on David's blog and we risk overstaying our welcome if we turn this blog into a forum for one-on-one debate.
The url is:
http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/web-25-from-hunter-gatherer-to-democratic-society/
Please also note the related links at the bottom for background and follow-up posts.
Post a Comment
A nation of 100M people is not the same as 100M people acting on their own. A nation is not characterized by a self-organizing dynamic, where "anything goes" as long as the system always tends to settle in an equilibrium state.
The concept of the Constitution is: the "law for a nation" of free people living under a truly democratic form of governance. It is not a law for the individual. It is not the "10 Commandments." It is not a law for managing your life. It's a law for governing people, using democratic ideals where personal liberties and rights are guaranteed as long as the government (the people we elect) abide by this law, the Constitution. But when those we elected start to coerce it or ignore it (or circumvent it with trickery and deceit) then we are no longer governed under the Constitution and our personal liberties and rights are not longer guaranteed. That's why people are mad about FISA and all the spying that has been going on for decades.
If we don't accept the concept of democratic governance, i.e. by leaders whom are elected by us, then we don't accept the Constitution. We can't endorse a law for the democratic governance of a nation while wanting to govern ourselves individually.
Couple years ago, I wrote about why a "P2P-governed society" that has no democratic governance structure, i.e. a flat one where everyone is the law and everyone gets to decide what is right and wrong, and where the law is derived from the ill-conceived concept of the wisdom of crowds, would not work. I called the article the Unwisdom of Crowds.
If you'd like to debate it, please debate it over t my blog as I feel that we're guests here on David's blog and we risk overstaying our welcome if we turn this blog into a forum for one-on-one debate.
The url is:
http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/web-25-from-hunter-gatherer-to-democratic-society/
Please also note the related links at the bottom for background and follow-up posts.
