Want To Stay Ignorant? Don't Read This Article!!

There is also the fact that each state can be effected by certain conditions within the bill, either directly or in directly. If it closes businesses or creates them it sets a condition, etc. (kind of sleepy). I really wish there were more options in a general election beside the "top Dem's and Rep's" with a secondary run-off, which might give us all a bit more courage to vote our conscience instead of the Media's Choice Awarded. That would seem fairly democratic.

And I applaud you for doing so, I just don't think it should be at the expense of these other things which is what I got from your opening paragraph.

Dennis - 10.4 ---how can you possibly call the most liberal man in the senate just "slightly left?" I mean really. And too call him "right of center" as nearing does is just flat out incorrect. Nearing ---you're right voting records do matter---they matter big time----to bad obama has such a weak resume in that arena ----and his voting record what little of it that there is LIBERAL, BIG TIME.

Two "right of center Democrats"? Who wrote this line? Karl Marx on crack?

That was an extreamly ignorant comment, Just another polemic critique from a Neo-curmudgeon Frighty. Who writes your material for you? Joseph Goebbels on LSD? ;o)

What did the Founder of the Democratic Party Say?

"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!" ---Thomas Jefferson

The size of government must grow in proportion to the people it serves, it's not a question of size at all, it's who they answer to that is of main importance! Do you think being a "Liberal Democrat" is New or out of form with the original tenets of the party?

"The advance of liberalism... [encourages] the hope that the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago." ---Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821.

Watch now as some preprogramed uneducated Orwellian Bozo Robot from the Right comes along and says that the words "Liberal" and Liberalism" did not mean the same thing in Jefferson's day as they do now. So I say to them now so you don't waste my time. Just go look them up for yourself in a modern dictionary, then compare that with the first English American dictionary by Noah Webster. Get Smarter. Reject the programing and start thinking on your own. Don't even take my word for it, turn off your computer and read a history book.

And I guess Marx is to the right of McCann.

Nearing - If you think we've had "enough" of this stuff, then it's going to be a long journey to November for you. As I've said, I agree that there should be more focus on policy's and voting, but that stuff is typically more for the general election than the primary process.

The size of government must grow in proportion to the people it serves, it's not a question of size at all, it's who they answer to that is of main importance! Do you think being a "Liberal Democrat" is New or out of form with the original tenets of the party?

Daniel - Since I know you're such a consistent historian, do you have figures showing the growth of government since WWII vs. the population growth? I think the population has doubled, can we say anything close to the same thing about the size of government? Really, since government is a collective servant, the ratio of increased government should be smaller than the increase in population.

lisaed touches on something real here - when a candidate's senate background is as limited as Obama's, personality and character are bound to take over, either as an extreme positive or an extreme negative. Before Wright (and Ayers) came along, it was pretty positive. Now that it's become negative, people suddenly don't want to talk about Obama the person anymore.

Marx was not even born until 1818, more twisted Far-Right History putting the cart in front of the Horse again.And just like Bush, who doesn't know his left from his right.

the ratio of increased government should be smaller than the increase in population.

LOL Are you Righties using orwellian math now? Who is the largest employer in America? Hint the second largest is Wal-Mart.

Do you really believe he would be considered a liberal in Europe?

Dennis 10.8----Too bad for Obama that Americans don't vote for candidates in this country on the basis of how they are perceived in Europe.

By world standards America doesn't have a real left. There are no Communist or Socialist parties in America, for instance, or at least none with any real power or representation. America is a right-wing country, and the fact that Obama (arguably) has the most liberal voting record in the Senate is proof of that. [and later] The American 'left' is firmly in the center.

Curses! You beat me to it. When you're talking how today's right and left work, with free-trade, social-statism on the right and socialism/communism on the left, Obama is reasonably middle of the road. Just because he's the farthest US Senator to the left doesn't mean he's that far to the left.

The American 'left' is firmly in the center.

Dennis 10.14 --that makes absolutely no sense. I know there are varying degrees of how one would define "left" but the political spectrum on which American Presidential candidates are playing is based on AMERICAN perceptions of what consistutes right, left, and center. I agree this country is center right. Obama is not center right. Jack, oh Jack......where are you when I need you?

Dennis 10.17 ---and you apparently have missed my point----that we elect presidents in America based on American perceptions (not European ones) of what is left, right, and center.

Obama is reasonably middle of the road

SteveHouse 10.15- really on what evidence do you make such as assessement? If you think he is and that he is going to win the White House on being center of the road ---you have swallowed the kool aid.

Mostly on the evidence that Obama is far from a Stalin or a Chavez. No one is debating whether he's firmly to the left of America. And no one is debating how we choose Presidents. But good job taking what I said out of context. You forgot the part where I qualified what I was saying. Here, I'll quote it fully for you.

When you're talking how today's right and left work, with free-trade, social-statism on the right and socialism/communism on the left, Obama is reasonably middle of the road.

Dennis 10.20 - and so you think you can indoctrinate I mean re-educate us all by November?

Steve 10.19 - I didn't mean to take your words out of context----but it's not really fair to say that Obama is in the center based on the fact that he appears not to be stalinist.

Stalinist? The Center? LOL You Righties whip this crap up as if History and Political Science is a corner Bakery.

So, lisaed, Obama is considered the most liberal Senator based on voting record. Hey, at least he did his job. McCain didn't vote enough to draw a composite score. (Source, just search for "McCain" and you'll find it, can't directly link to the paragraph)

But you know, the right wing "pundits" will keep throwing that out as much as they can. For some people, the word "liberal" actually scares them.

the ratio of increased government should be smaller than the increase in population.
LOL Are you Righties using orwellian math now? Who is the largest employer in America? Hint the second largest is Wal-Mart.

What are you talking about here? What does Wal-Mart have to do with anything? The largest employer in my state is the state government and they don't produce a single thing - so what?

Because you're confused doesn't make it "orwellian". As a ratio, less can manage more when the numbers of people increase. As a ratio, not as a hard number. I currently manage a dozen people. I could double my staff without having to take on any additonal assistants. The work doesn't change, only the production - hence I am managing more with less.

Rather than express confusion, do you want to address my challenge about describing the increase in the size of government vs. the increase in population? You said that government grows in proportion to the population, I believe that government has far outgrown the increase in population. What say you to that?

Your challenge for what? Go play with your Bull@!$%# Neo-Con Charts and list by yourself. It's common knowledge Government has grown with the population since we won the revolution, are you arguing this isn't so? The United States Government is the Largest employer in the Country! Keep your stinking lying fish. And go do your own research. Just because you want to confuse the issue and hide the forest with trees, like you Neo-Connies love to do, Don't get me to play your agitprop games for you. The parts are not equal to the whole and you know it! So lets tear up the truth, dissect it, till it has no resemblance to reality and dies here. If you can't argue a point rip it to pieces, pick it apart till no one knows what it was to begin with. This is how a democracy was overthrown once before, in Germany. Sophistry paving the road to turpitude. See me hold up the bird of Freedom and let it fly.

lisaedDennis - 10.4 ---how can you possibly call the most liberal man in the senate just "slightly left?"

Lisa, meet John Kerry.
John Kerry, meet Lisa.

lisaed
Dennis 10.20 - and so you think you can indoctrinate I mean re-educate us all by November?

So what you're saying is that majority of America and Newsvine agrees with you and not Dennis? That's quite the claim there. haha

lisaed 10.16 - See US primaries chart at politicalcompass.org.

The test.

Arcane 10.29---it was dennis who said Americans do not understand what the word liberal means....not me.

The point being that the American definitions of the words are nowhere close to the actual definitions.

Dennis 10.33--this is what you said. And I stand by my comment in 10.32. And as for arcane ---what does john kerry have to do with anything anyhow? Other than that Barack Obama seems to be the black version of the snobby lib who cannot connect with white blue collar voters.

yawn..

Evidence?

Nearing: If you read my post carefully I said "SEEMS" that means it is an opinion based on my own perception---which nevertheless does appear to be backed up by the exit polls thus far. I listened to Obama on Meet the Press yesterday and he sounded downright Kerry-esque---which is no compliment coming from me.

nearing 10.39---primary results have shown that Hillary has been winning blue collar white voters over Obama by a significant margin.

The biggest fallacy of a Democracy is the belief that everyones opinion is worth the same.

The biggest fallacy of a Democracy is the belief that everyone is worth the same.

The biggest fallacy of a Democracy is the belief that everyone is worth the same.

NO, not even close. No the same at all.

Life is sacred, and the only thing that is as far as i'm concerned, and i'm an atheist, so even your life is sacred to me.. and can not ever be replace. Opinions can be based on incorrect assumptions, prejudice, racism, ignorance, they are worthless... Just like the one you just gave. Speaking before thinking, typing before considering.

Everyone has an equal claim to life, liberty, and overpriced tourist crap, but not everyone is of equal worth. True, nobody is universally "better" or "worse" in all things, but in any given situation someone is just plain better.

In a race. All other things aside, the faster runner is better. In an intellectual pursuit the more intelligent person is better.

It is better to be smarter. It is better to be healthier. It is better to be more aware. It is better to have 20/20 vision than coke-bottle lenses. If there are two people, exactly the same except one of them can jump twice the height, then the high jumper is intrinsically better - more worthy in cases where jumping is a factor.

And, in a democracy, those who are better at it (more informed, more involved, more able to contribute - through activism or volunteerism) are worth more than those who aren't.

And you make this determination yourself? Who is better and who is worthless, or near worthless, or just not as good as you are? And that they can die, because your life is worth more. Sorry. But It's not up to you to say. I'm glad to say. Because your opinion is worth @!$%# alone. Society has this right. Not individuals. Murderers, rapist, pedophiles. should be locked up and sometimes put to death, Hell I'm a Liberal guy with a gun and I have killed men in self defense and in the defense of others. But it is a wasted life. It is a last resort.

And you make this determination yourself? Who is better and who is worthless, or near worthless, or just not as good as you are?

Yes. It is the function of the human mind to make value judgments. You're doing it right now. Most of the judgments are made by your subconcious mind and never even presented to your concsious mind for consideration.

And that they can die, because your life is worth more.

You made that up yourself, pal. First of all, I don't think that even the most worthless of individuals should just "die". Secondly, I don't put myself at the head of the value-ladder. Many people are better than I am. I am better than many people. I'm probably around the middle regarding most things.

Society has this right. Not individuals. Murderers, rapist, pedophiles. should be locked up and sometimes put to death

I disagree. Society does not have the right to judge or put to death anyone.

I have killed men in self defense and in the defense of others.

This lessens you in my eyes. Most people go their entire lives without killing anyone. I'm sorry you have failed to. Don't get me wrong, I would protect those I care about, but I doubt I'd use deadly force to do so. HINT: Aim for the legs next time, not the face, Rambo.

To kill is to admit failure.

A person may be 'better off' than another in a given area but that doesn't make that person a better person

If I'm trying to choose a player for my dodgeball team, the faster, athletic kid is a BETTER choice than the fat slovenly nerd, no matter how awesome his wolf t-shirt is. To me, Speedy McBallthrower is a BETTER player. In all ways that matter (dodgeball) Speedy is a better person.

There are no absolutes. There are no better/worse in every situation.

I don't make judgments on the value of their lives, whether they have a the right to exist or not, just the value of their character, their veracity and trustworthiness. a Big difference.

Excellent Nearing.

"It would seem impossible that an intelligent people with the faculty of reading and right of thinking should continue much longer to slumber under the pupilage of an interested aristocracy of priests and lawyers, persuading them to distrust themselves and to let them think for them... Awaken them from this voluntary degradation of mind! Restore them to a due estimate of themselves and their fellow citizens, and a just abhorrence of the falsehoods and artifices which have seduced them!" --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

I don't make judgments on the value of their lives, whether they have a the right to exist or not, just the value of their character, their veracity and trustworthiness. a Big difference.

Good. You don't have the right to judge their lives, or whether they have a right to exist or not. I said some people were worth more than others. This does not mean that I do not believe that those who are worth less shouldn't exist.

Only 'better' in a given, limited situation. NOT a better PERSON. Person implies the whole of the individual.

For the purposes of value, people only EXIST in given limited situations. The whole of the individual is never something we see. We can infer it based on the sum total of those interactions - those given, limited situations - but that's a virtual simulacrum. Forming an opinion of a virtual image you created for yourself is silly.

We exist in the moment. All that exists in the moment. All there is are the circumstances we find ourselves in. The future is possibility, the past is memory.

And in this moment, in these circumstances, outside a theoretical vacuum, some people are better at doing whatever it is they're doing than others. Some people have better characteristics that are important to the situation at hand.

I disagree. People who are better informed are not better people. They are just better informed. And it is their duty (in a democracy) to better inform those who are not.

It is the primary duty of the democratic citizen to understand the issues he will - directly or indirectly - vote upon.

We exist in the moment. All that exists in the moment. All there is are the circumstances we find ourselves in. The future is possibility, the past is memory.

Wow, philosophy. "Cogito, ergo sum" I think, therefore I am. I don't get to quote that very often. No man [or woemn] is an island. We live in a society, as as such we all are responsible to it. The worth and condition of the lowest member in it is the measure of us all.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

This has been called, Marxism by the Far-right. memory is History Everyone has the right to their own opinions, they do not have the right to their own facts. Marxs wasn't born until 1818, so when Jefferson, who is the founder of the Democratic PArty, said this he was talking about Democracy, not socialism.

It is the primary duty of the democratic citizen to understand the issues he will - directly or indirectly - vote upon.

But first it is a duty to understand Democracy, voting is the least thing a patrot can do in a Democracy, and it is not even the most important one.

Wow, philosophy. "Cogito, ergo sum" I think, therefore I am. I don't get to quote that very often. No man [or woemn] is an island. We live in a society, as as such we all are responsible to it. The worth and condition of the lowest member in it is the measure of us all.

You act, therefore you exist in my perceptual scheema. What's your name? What color is your hair? What does your voice sound like?

Nothing. None of these factors exist to me. You only exist in the lives of others as you interact with them. You only exist - to me - in your interactions with me. Words on a page. I can imagine that you're more. I can invent things. If we'd met before, I could "remember" details to imagine, but you only exist through your activities. You are force! The potential to perform change. F=MA.

I see you only through your manifestations, and I judge you based on the effectiveness of these manifestations in my personal reality. I can't judge you "as a person" because I cannot envision the sum total of your "person-ness". You are a better poster, than say lisaed (don't mean to pick on you, we just haven't interacted enough), because our interactions are more compelling.

It's more interesting to read what you write, and so you are worth more. Words on a page.

Your challenge for what? Go play with your Bull@!$%# Neo-Con Charts and list by yourself.

I'll take that as a 'no', you devout student of history, you.

It's common knowledge Government has grown with the population since we won the revolution, are you arguing this isn't so?

You really want to make the case that government grew at the same rate, by any scale, but primarily at the rate of population growth in the first 150 years as when the Great Society/New Deal era's kicked in?

Just because you want to confuse the issue and hide the forest with trees, like you Neo-Connies love to do, Don't get me to play your agitprop games for you.

RECAP:

Dan: government must grow in proportion to the population

OttO: show me that the government has grown in proportion to the population

Dan: you're confusing the issue!

BTW, I don't disagree with a word that you quoted from Jefferson. I wish you'd stop quoting him because I think you have a hard time grasping what he says.

Also, I'm still trying to figure out how what Marx's Born-On-Date has any bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Historians are about more than just the ability to name-drop and silly declarations that Thomas Jefferson was a pre-Marx Marxist.

The million-dollar question is: which is it you don't have a clue about? Jefferson or Marx?

Dan: you're confusing the issue! Liar! I never said that! Do you always have to lie!
Such a great Character.

Also, I'm still trying to figure out how what Marx's Born-On-Date has any bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Historians are about more than just the ability to name-drop and silly declarations that Thomas Jefferson was a pre-Marx Marxist.You nep-cons love to misconstrue History. You take dates and facts and mix them around like ingredients of a crappy cook. this is commonly called lying. So what you don't have a clue about is veracity.

Dan: you're confusing the issue! Liar! I never said that! Do you always have to lie!
Such a great Character.

Dan: Just because you want to confuse the issue...

You nep-cons love to misconstrue History. You take dates and facts and mix them around like ingredients of a crappy cook. this is commonly called lying. So what you don't have a clue about is veracity.

This is about the substance of the response I expect, from the same guy who still thinks the modern day Republican Party was formed back in 1200 AD (or something like that).

Dan, take your meds. Your usual dish of historical creativity is even less amusing when peppered with the anger and hysteria that seems to be creeping more and more into your posts.

More lies and personal attacks. The only defense you can give for the sophistic, lies and misconstrued rants of yours are more lies and obfuscations. 1200 Anno Domini? Meds? Anger? Amazed at the depths of your moral turpitude is what it is. And yet still another invented quote you faked, claiming it is from me. Any honest person who reads up thread can see the Bull@!$%# argument you make. Just putting words in "quote" doesn't make them so. Try linking to what I said, no... then you couldn't edit it and make it seem as though I said something I did not say. Do Neo-cons have no shame?

It's the millions of voter's who only pay attention to the liberal, conservative labels, and the media's emotion-driven, sensational headlines that have me concerned.

I think you're wrong here. It's more like tens of millions of voters who believe in philosophy and character being important when choosing a president. I'm concerned with those who reject these notions because that tells me that they support a candidate (or expect to support a candidate) who has shortcomings in these areas.

Add to that my belief that there is no way McCain can win and it looks to me like we're going to have a President that actually speaks and works for us.

What makes you believe this?

I think you're wrong here. It's more like tens of millions of voters who believe in philosophy and character being important when choosing a president. I'm concerned with those who reject these notions because that tells me that they support a candidate (or expect to support a candidate) who has shortcomings in these areas.

What I liked about the article is that it didn't confuse opinions with facts. That's what comments are for and you are more than entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine. To have shortcomings is to be human, but, as for my opinion, to have shortcomings in enormous proportions is to be George Bush, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. So I guess I'm meeting your standard of not rejecting such notions.

What makes you believe this?

My basic faith that people are smart enough not to want another four years of the miserable policies we've suffered through for the last eight. Yet, that doesn't mean that there are not tens of millions who believe they can divine character without predisposed bias and who will vote (or not vote) for a candidate just because they would or wouldn't enjoy sitting down to a beer with him or her. I just don't think there are enough of them to win this particular election.

My basic faith that people are smart enough not to want another four years of the miserable policies we've suffered through for the last eight.

I'm so, so, so, so sorry for your upcoming disappointment.

No kidding, Zombie... You'd think Kerry would have won if that was the case.

To have shortcomings is to be human, but, as for my opinion, to have shortcomings in enormous proportions is to be George Bush, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. So I guess I'm meeting your standard of not rejecting such notions.

That's fine and more power to you. But then respect that "millions" of others will do the same even if their conclusions contradict yours, even if the emotionally-driven media picks on your guy while your emotionally-driven comments pick on his opponents.

My basic faith that people are smart enough not to want another four years of the miserable policies we've suffered through for the last eight.

So then a fair question can be: are they prepared to spend the next four years suffering under a whole new slew of miserable policies (i.e. change)?

Excuse me if I say that your "basic faith" is not a valuable tool for making presidential election predictions. To attribute "there is no way McCain can win" to some kind of faith is interesting, but it's really more of a hope than a prediction, isn't it? SteveHouse is right - this is the same stuff said in 2004 when there was no way that Kerry could lose to Bush.