Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Lady Ravyn]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Or driving with Ted Kennedy. Not that that's a joke or anything...

HAHAHAHA!!!

ah yes, the branch of the kennedy family people choose to forget...
or at least try to...

[hectorberlioz]

Fred Thompson just kicked butt in the South Carolina debate...Woohoo!!! I'm only disappointed that he didn't stick it to McCain on illegal immigration. Super.

Did Mitt do himself any good? Not really...and it wasn't a Mitt-Centered debate like the last two. He had one or two bright moments, but I felt his Ron Paul jab was quite tasteless...there are just too many opportunities for that, and it needs to stop. It stopped being funny after the first three debates. Bad.

Huckabee did excellent in handling the questions, but you could TELL he was doing too good. The only answer I liked from him was the one defending his religion. Otherwise, slippery. OK.

McCain kept tapping his "don't ever attack me on foreign policy" book. I think he did fine as regards to that, be kept on coming back to it too often. He did fine, but there were a lot of fizzles. OK.

Ron Paul did himself a favor in this debate. He actually managed to make his case better tonight than on any other night, and managed to put down some criticisms. Good.


Giuliani? What Giuliani? Bad performance...the moderator called on him to keep George Will OUT of his schtick, which was a good thing because I was getting sick of that myself. The Saudi Prince came up again though...bad bad bad.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I know people who fight for what they believe is right, even when that crosses political boundaries.

Same here. My mother-in-law is a minister of parliament for the current NZ govt, and I'd like to think that she's honest.

That all politicians are dishonest thing gets kinda tired quick, huh? What people fail to realise is that politics is about cooperation, at the end of the day. Cooperation, mediation, haggling, negotiation, etc, etc. If things went the way that idealists would like, we'd be living under a dictatorship. You have to get people on board with your policies, and that generally means compromise. It doesn't make you dishonest. It makes you a negotiator.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hahaha.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Fred Thompson just kicked butt in the South Carolina debate...Woohoo!!! I'm only disappointed that he didn't stick it to McCain on illegal immigration. Super.

Did Mitt do good? Not really...and it wasn't a Mitt-Centered debate like the last two. He had one or two good moments, but I felt his Ron Paul jab was pretty tasteless...there are just too many opportunities for that, and it needs to stop. It stopped being funny after the first three debates. Bad.

Huckabee did good, but you could TELL he was doing too good. The only answer I liked from him was the one defending his religion. Otherwise, slippery. OK.

McCain kept tapping his "don't ever attack me on foreign policy" book. I think he did good as regards to that, be kept on coming back to it too often. He did good, but there were a lot of fizzles. OK.

Ron Paul did WAY good, for his own sake. He actually managed to make his case better tonight than on any other night. Good.

Giuliani? What Giuliani? Bad performance...the moderator called on him to keep George Will OUT of his schtick, which was a good thing because I was getting sick of that myself. The Saudi Prince came up again though...bad bad bad.

Hector, did "well". Florence Nightingale did 'good'; Florence Joyner did 'well.'

Hopefully, these men, after doing 'well', will go on to do 'good.'

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hector, did "well". Florence Nightingale did 'good'; Florence Joyner did 'well.'

Hopefully, these men, after doing 'well', will go on to do 'good.'

Except I never used the word "Well" to describe any of their performances. Read closer.

[The Gaffer]

LOL. He's got you there, sis

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

That all politicians are dishonest thing gets kinda tired quick, huh?

Absolutely right. It's lazy and negligent to think they are all the same. And it plays into the hands of the ones that are really dishonest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Same here. My mother-in-law is a minister of parliament for the current NZ govt, and I'd like to think that she's honest.

That all politicians are dishonest thing gets kinda tired quick, huh? What people fail to realise is that politics is about cooperation, at the end of the day. Cooperation, mediation, haggling, negotiation, etc, etc. If things went the way that idealists would like, we'd be living under a dictatorship. You have to get people on board with your policies, and that generally means compromise. It doesn't make you dishonest. It makes you a negotiator.

I agree. But I'd go further and say that all people are dishonest, at one point or another to get what they want. They will do what it takes to get what the need, and the dishonesties of omission are especially common, even among the best. That's why I tend to judge people on results more than methods.

Obviously, there are those that go way over the line, completely taking advantage of their position. But all politicians take advantage of their positions to small degrees to help those close to them, or causes dear to them

I don't like the black and white litmus tests you often see, more typically among republican's, where one is assumed to be a saint and then, when even the smallest thing comes out (i.e. lies related to a previous marriage, a friend or two that got a job) one is assumed to be a demon. Some of our best leaders have had extremely questionable personal lives.

Everyone's life is a mix of honesty vs. dishonesty, and everyone I know has done some dishonorable things at certain points in their lives. The measure to me is more the balance over the course of a lifetime.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Absolutely right. It's lazy and negligent to think they are all the same. And it plays into the hands of the ones that are really dishonest.

I disagree. The first step is accepting that everyone is dishonest. It's a part of human nature we all share.

This doesn't mean that people are all the same, as some are more dishonest. Rather, it forces people to think in terms of degree, the grays of reality as opposed to the black and white of myth.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Except I never used the word "Well" to describe any of their performances. Read closer.

I read very closely. There are only two correct uses of the word "good" in your post. Good is properly used as an adjective, in 'good moments', and as a noun, in commendation for Ron Paul. In all other cases, you are using it, ungrammatically, as an adverb. Modifying "did" you need to use the word "well" which is an adverb. Have you never diagrammed a sentence?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

LOL. He's got you there, sis

Only if he has some evidence that debate performance partakes of the nature of "good", rather than of "adequacy". I've never seen that demonstrated, but I'm willing to hear the case.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree. But I'd go further and say that all people are dishonest, at one point or another to get what they want. They will do what it takes to get what the need, and the dishonesties of omission are especially common, even among the best. That's why I tend to judge people on results more than methods.

Obviously, there are those that go way over the line, completely taking advantage of their position. But all politicians take advantage of their positions to small degrees to help those close to them, or causes dear to them

I don't like the black and white litmus tests you often see, more typically among republican's, where one is assumed to be a saint and then, when even the smallest thing comes out (i.e. lies related to a previous marriage, a friend or two that got a job) one is assumed to be a demon. Some of our best leaders have had extremely questionable personal lives.

Everyone's life is a mix of honesty vs. dishonesty, and everyone I know has done some dishonorable things at certain points in their lives. The measure to me is more the balance over the course of a lifetime.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I disagree. The first step is accepting that everyone is dishonest. It's a part of human nature we all share.

This doesn't mean that people are all the same, as some are more dishonest. Rather, it forces people to think in terms of degree, the grays of reality as opposed to the black and white of myth.

This needs to go to the Philosophy thread, imo.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I read very closely. There are only two correct uses of the word "good" in your post. Good is properly used as an adjective, in 'good moments', and as a noun, in commendation for Ron Paul. In all other cases, you are using it, ungrammatically, as an adverb. Modifying "did" you need to use the word "well" which is an adverb. Have you never diagrammed a sentence?

I accept your criticism of my grammar, and will attempt to correct my post above.

Only if he has some evidence that debate performance partakes of the nature of "good", rather than of "adequacy". I've never seen that demonstrated, but I'm willing to hear the case.

WELL, if mere performance is what we're talking about, then it was a so-so debate. Fred Thompson is a capable guy who would easily be the best Commander-In-Chief out of all of them. Ditto Mitt Romney. In order to convince people of that, they have to sell their message effectively. There's an obvious disconnect between John Kerry of the debates and the John Kerry of reality...John Kerry would probably have been an OK Commander-In-Chief--if we're talking capability. He was terrible in the debates.

So performances do matter, a lot.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I agree. A great deal of the job involves performance and public relations.

I'd like to think more of it involved actual conviction, but I'd probably be disappointed, there.

I only pointed out the grammar because your points are so well observed that I hated to see a common mistake undermine them.

[hectorberlioz]

Do you approve of my corrections?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

This needs to go to the Philosophy thread, imo.

A true "political" response. Refuse to address the issue claiming that it is off-topic.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

A true "political" response. Refuse to address the issue claiming that it is off-topic.

I haven't refused to address the issue. I've addressed it often, in places like the Philosophy thread. Your theory of the 'sinful nature of man' couldn't be addressed in the Science thread, for example.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I haven't refused to address the issue. I've addressed it often, in places like the Philosophy thread. Your theory of the 'sinful nature of man' couldn't be addressed in the Science thread, for example.

I don't believe in sin, but back to my post, the fact that no one is completely honest isn't philosophizing or theory, it's a simple fact (as much as there are any facts ).

What put me on that tangent was your comment:

Nope. I just hate cheating and hypocrisy. I'm madder at McCain about his wife swappage than his hawkish attitudes. Doesn't it bother you at all that these people LIE about ordinary things?

I can understand the gut feeling but, in the end, you'd have to hate all human beings if you took that line seriously.

Everyone lies about ordinary things. The question is whether or not you lie about the extra-ordinary, and terribly important things that are a part of your job as president.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't believe in sin, but back to my post, the fact that no one is completely honest isn't philosophizing or theory, it's a simple fact (as much as there are any facts ).

Nope. Opinion. And you describe sin, even though you don't like the term. If you describe a duck, but announce it's your Auntie Jan, I'll respond, "Oh. How interesting that BJ's Auntie Jan is a duck."

Everyone lies about ordinary things.

This is really sad, to me. (((((HUGS)))))

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

This is really sad, to me. (((((HUGS)))))

Hey I can take all the hugs I can get *hugs back* Thanks sis

[BeardofPants]

Well Sis, from your pov he may be describing sin, but the very definition of sin pre-supposes that he has to believe in God, before it can be ascribed as a sin from his pov, no?