Change

[ddpderek]

"Change"

What Candidate running on either side would not change things if they were elected?

I highly doubt any one of them would be like hmm things are good right now lets just keep it the same.

Sure some would stay course in iraq some would look to pull out some would see what needs to be done to pull out but in some ways the policies would change.

Also so many domestic policies would change.

I am a Democrat and it makes me very angry that Obama is winning mainly on the rhetoric of change. He has hardly gone indepth on what changes he would make and how exactly he would do them.

I want who ever is the most capable of making change , some one who knows how the system works and some one who is not all talk.

[shiva2999]

"Change"

What Candidate running on either side would not change things if they were elected?

I highly doubt any one of them would be like hmm things are good right now lets just keep it the same.

Sure some would stay course in iraq some would look to pull out some would see what needs to be done to pull out but in some ways the policies would change.

Also so many domestic policies would change.

I am a Democrat and it makes me very angry that Obama is winning mainly on the rhetoric of change. He has hardly gone indepth on what changes he would make and how exactly he would do them.

I want who ever is the most capable of making change , some one who knows how the system works and some one who is not all talk.

I am not fond of Obama and haven't been since his coming out speech at the 2004 Dem convention.

He strikes me as an empty suit skating on "Can't we all get along?" rhetoric.

He is pandering to the desire for wishful thinking that has done so much damage to your country in the last 45+ years.

Andrew Sullivan is now pimping him as the "Reagan for the Democrats".

[JLB]

"Change"

What Candidate running on either side would not change things if they were elected?

I highly doubt any one of them would be like hmm things are good right now lets just keep it the same.

Sure some would stay course in iraq some would look to pull out some would see what needs to be done to pull out but in some ways the policies would change.

Also so many domestic policies would change.

I am a Democrat and it makes me very angry that Obama is winning mainly on the rhetoric of change. He has hardly gone indepth on what changes he would make and how exactly he would do them.

I want who ever is the most capable of making change , some one who knows how the system works and some one who is not all talk.

Change is a great catch phrase that has really caught on.

When it comes right down to it though that's all it is and it means very little.

If you have been through at least two or three election cycles you know what I mean.

The change slogan, phrase, sale is really catching on with the younger voters.

This is good because we want them involved and it finally appears as though they will be.

The election in November at the rate we are going now will have an incredible young voter turnout.

Of course if Obama goes down (doesn't get the nomination) so does the youth vote.

Back to the change question.

You will need more than just the President elect to actually get change.

Where you will get the most change is in the choice of judges.

my two cents

[35Pete]

I don't know how any of you with a straight face can claim change is coming if the only two options are tweedledee and tweedledum.

Tweedledum ran America from 76' to 80'.
Tweedledee ran America from 80; to 88'
Tweedledee ran America from 88' to 92'.
Tweedeledum ran it from 92' to 2000.
Tweedledee now has had it from 00' to 08'.

Is Tweedledum change? Or just a different flavor of "same as it ever was"?

[ddpderek]

Change is a great catch phrase that has really caught on.

When it comes right down to it though that's all it is and it means very little.

If you have been through at least two or three election cycles you know what I mean.

The change slogan, phrase, sale is really catching on with the younger voters.

This is good because we want them involved and it finally appears as though they will be.

The election in November at the rate we are going now will have an incredible young voter turnout.

Of course if Obama goes down (doesn't get the nomination) so does the youth vote.

Back to the change question.

You will need more than just the President elect to actually get change.

Where you will get the most change is in the choice of judges.

my two cents


Your missing my point though. Every one who is running is going to make "change" its annoying that some one can get so much support out of a damn solgan and rhetoric.

I do not hate the man but I do not think hes ready for the job.

I agree with your point that its not all about the President either when it comes to change but you dont see Obama saying that now do you?

[matthew94]

In the big perspective, only Ron Paul wants change. All the candidates want to either be like Bush or like Clinton or something in between (though the in between area is getting smaller and smaller). Only Ron Paul is calling for a revolutionary of governmental philosophy.

Take foreign policy for instance. Every single candidate wants us to police the world with either internationalism or interventionism. Ron Paul is the lone non-interventionist. Or take size of government. Only Ron Paul wants to eliminate a horde of governmental departments. Or take inflation. Only Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard.

I don't think many people actually want change. If they do, they'd either vote for Ron Paul (b/c they agree with his proposed changes) or boycott the election (b/c they don't agree with anyone).

[pmoon6]

Your missing my point though. Every one who is running is going to make "change" its annoying that some one can get so much support out of a damn solgan and rhetoric.

I do not hate the man but I do not think hes ready for the job.

I agree with your point that its not all about the President either when it comes to change but you dont see Obama saying that now do you?Catch phrases and campaign rhetoric have been part elections since cavemen chiseled out their vote on a stone.

It's been amplified since the advent of mass media.

The job of the voter is to filter out all the bullshit, actually look into the voting record of the candidates they are considering, and make a decision.

That takes time and some would rather turn on the tube, say "Hey, I like what he/she says and they got nice hair".

I'm voting for them.

Sad, but true.

[Green Lantern]

Catch phrases and campaign rhetoric have been part elections since cavemen chiseled out their vote on a stone.

It's been amplified since the advent of mass media.

The job of the voter is to filter out all the bullshit, actually look into the voting record of the candidates they are considering, and make a decision.

That takes time and some would rather turn on the tube, say "Hey, I like what he/she says and they got nice hair".

I'm voting for them.

Sad, but true.


I thought democracy went into an ice age from Neanderthal's to Philadelphia.

[JLB]

Your missing my point though. Every one who is running is going to make "change" its annoying that some one can get so much support out of a damn solgan and rhetoric.

I do not hate the man but I do not think hes ready for the job.

I agree with your point that its not all about the President either when it comes to change but you dont see Obama saying that now do you?

he's appealing to the youth he'll say and do what ever might be required to keep that up.

major change will be up to the Congress all a President can do is suggest.

the biggest change will be in two areas primarily.

those two areas are taxes and judges.

instead of everybody getting so excited with the change rhetoric.

i wish they would just ask themselves who do i trust the most?

that's a tough enough question right there.

my two cents.

[pmoon6]

I thought democracy went into an ice age from Neanderthal's to Philadelphia.I thought the Greeks were pretty good at it and the Romans until Julius Caesar.

[Green Lantern]

I thought the Greeks were pretty good at it and the Romans until Julius Caesar.

City-states? They are like the red-headed stepchild of government forms. Hellas and, what, Venice?

[pmoon6]

City-states? They are like the red-headed stepchild of government forms. Hellas and, what, Venice?You are obviously more learned on the subject than I.

I had to access the deep nether reaches of my brain to even come up with that.

World History, sophmore year, seems like such a long time ago.

[dilbert]

In the big perspective, only Ron Paul wants change. All the candidates want to either be like Bush or like Clinton or something in between (though the in between area is getting smaller and smaller). Only Ron Paul is calling for a revolutionary of governmental philosophy.


I wold contend that Kucinich is for significant change as well.

[ddpderek]

In the big perspective, only Ron Paul wants change. All the candidates want to either be like Bush or like Clinton or something in between (though the in between area is getting smaller and smaller). Only Ron Paul is calling for a revolutionary of governmental philosophy.

Take foreign policy for instance. Every single candidate wants us to police the world with either internationalism or interventionism. Ron Paul is the lone non-interventionist. Or take size of government. Only Ron Paul wants to eliminate a horde of governmental departments. Or take inflation. Only Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard.

I don't think many people actually want change. If they do, they'd either vote for Ron Paul (b/c they agree with his proposed changes) or boycott the election (b/c they don't agree with anyone).


How does this make any sense? yes Ron Paul does want to change a lot but even elected he would have a very hard time doing what he says hes going to do.

Also no matter who is elected chance is going to take place. Change has took place the last seven years and it will continue to do so when the next President is Elected. You need to reconize that Extreme Change is not the only type of Change.

You think Hillary is the same as say Huckabee , or Obama same as Romney?? That is simply not the case.


To say your a non-interventionist is a very dangerous thing. I personaly do not think America should be going out by our selves our with a few to address issues but we do need to take action to protect or interests, our people, and our way of life. We should be part of the UN, we should obey treaties, we should work with the world to solve problems.


Getting rid of the Department of Education real great idea....

[dilbert]

You are obviously more learned on the subject than I.

I had to access the deep nether reaches of my brain to even come up with that.

World History, sophmore year, seems like such a long time ago.

For you, I thought it was more like "Current Events".

[Dr. Who]

Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were significantly different from modern democracy. The nation state as we know it is a fairly recent phenomenon and encompasses, in a democracy, a lot of people voting that both the Greeks and Romans would have thought of as `the mob.' In this, my sympathies are almost entirely with the ancients.

[ddpderek]

he's appealing to the youth he'll say and do what ever might be required to keep that up.

major change will be up to the Congress all a President can do is suggest.

the biggest change will be in two areas primarily.

those two areas are taxes and judges.

instead of everybody getting so excited with the change rhetoric.

i wish they would just ask themselves who do i trust the most?

that's a tough enough question right there.

my two cents.


I agree.

Who do I trust ?

Who would be a good leader and repersent us well (as well as myself)?

and who would be best at the job? are the 3 questions I ask myself and I do not know if I have those answers yet.

[JLB]

I agree.

Who do I trust ?

Who would be a good leader and repersent us well (as well as myself)?

and who would be best at the job? are the 3 questions I ask myself and I do not know if I have those answers yet.

exactly me either.

[Green Lantern]

Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were significantly different from modern democracy. The nation state as we know it is a fairly recent phenomenon and encompasses, in a democracy, a lot of people voting that both the Greeks and Romans would have thought of as `the mob.' In this, my sympathies are almost entirely with the ancients.

Populists still want to get rid of the electoral college.

[Green Lantern]

You are obviously more learned on the subject than I.

I had to access the deep nether reaches of my brain to even come up with that.

World History, sophmore year, seems like such a long time ago.

LOL.

[pmoon6]

Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were significantly different from modern democracy. The nation state as we know it is a fairly recent phenomenon and encompasses, in a democracy, a lot of people voting that both the Greeks and Romans would have thought of as `the mob.' In this, my sympathies are almost entirely with the ancients.What are you saying?

That the intellectuals and the power elite are the only ones that should have a vote?

[Green Lantern]

What are you saying?

That the intellectuals and the power elite are the only ones that should have a vote?

I know the Greeks believed in natural slavery and that some people were not rational enough to live in a state of freedom.

[coryjd]

"Change"

What Candidate running on either side would not change things if they were elected?

I highly doubt any one of them would be like hmm things are good right now lets just keep it the same.

Sure some would stay course in iraq some would look to pull out some would see what needs to be done to pull out but in some ways the policies would change.

Also so many domestic policies would change.

I am a Democrat and it makes me very angry that Obama is winning mainly on the rhetoric of change. He has hardly gone indepth on what changes he would make and how exactly he would do them.

I want who ever is the most capable of making change , some one who knows how the system works and some one who is not all talk.

The next president will not have enough time in 4 years to CHANGE all of the things that are ****ed up with this country right now. They are walking into a death trap. All they can do is get the ball rolling in the right direction and hope for the best. I would be surprised to see this country vote a president into a two-term office, ever again. Too much has been ****ed up in this 8-year span.

So yes, change is needed, but it will not be the next president that will be making the change. It will take a few.

[pmoon6]

For you, I thought it was more like "Current Events".That was funny right there.

[matthew94]

I wold contend that Kucinich is for significant change as well.

I forgot about him since he hasn't been in recent debates
Plus, I just don't know that much about him

But I'm still thinking a Paul/Kucinich independant ticket is possible.

[ddpderek]

I forgot about him since he hasn't been in recent debates
Plus, I just don't know that much about him

But I'm still thinking a Paul/Kucinich independant ticket is possible.

They are not very similar and niether would ever do it.

[Dr. Who]

What are you saying?

That the intellectuals and the power elite are the only ones that should have a vote?

I would like the wise to govern. That rarely includes intellectuals and the power elite.

[Dr. Who]

I know the Greeks believed in natural slavery and that some people were not rational enough to live in a state of freedom.


Aristotle gets a lot of grief for this, but it is patently true. Some natural slaves end up in prison and some simply destroy their lives . . . a banal example, Britney Spears and numerous other celebrities.

[Green Lantern]

Aristotle gets a lot of grief for this, but it is patently true. Some natural slaves end up in prison and some simply destroy their lives . . . a banal example, Britney Spears and numerous other celebrities.

Children and the mentally defective too, right?

[Dr. Who]

Rules out some posters here I imagine.

[Green Lantern]

Rules out some posters here I imagine.

LOL.

I would get accustomed to the chains.

[shiva2999]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1874/nature.htm

[Green Lantern]

Any particular part you would like for us to focus our attention?

[shiva2999]

Reading the whole thing is a good start.

Aquinus, Hobbes and Locke are idealistic realists.

Mill presents the realistic idealist point of view.

I've always wondered why nature is presented as some infallible guide to behavior when the history of civilization is the battle to transcend nature.

[Green Lantern]

Reading the whole thing is a good start.

Aquinus, Hobbes and Locke are idealistic realists.

Mill presents the realistic idealist point of view.

I've always wondered why nature is presented as some infallible guide to behavior when the history of civilization is the battle to transcend nature.

First, I have read all those authors (not too much Aquinas though).

Second, overcoming nature is a new thing, since the Renaissance, as I was told.

The Ancients believed that nature was the fulfillment of potentiality. As in, it is the nature of man to be social.

Machiavelli is the first author to pit nature vs. convention.

[shiva2999]

JS Mill "On Nature"

Everybody professes to approve and admire many great triumphs of Art over Nature: the junction by bridges of shores which Nature had made separate, the draining of Nature's marshes, the excavation of her wells, the dragging to light of what she has buried at immense depths in the earth; the turning away of her thunderbolts by lightning rods, of her inundations by embankments, of her ocean by breakwaters. But to commend these and similar feats is to acknowledge that the ways of Nature are to be conquered not obeyed; that her powers are often towards man in the position of enemies, from whom he must wrest, by force and ingenuity, what little he can for his own use, and deserves to be applauded when that little is rather more than might be expected from his physical weakness in comparison to those gigantic powers. All praise of Civilisation, or Art, or Contrivance, is so much dispraise of Nature; an admission of imperfection which it is man's business and merit to be always endeavouring to correct or mitigate.

The consciousness that whatever man does to improve his condition is in so much a censure and a thwarting of the spontaneous order of Nature, has in all ages caused new and unprecedented attempts at improvement to be generally at first under a shade of religious suspicion; as being in any case uncomplimentary, and very probably offensive to the powerful beings (or, when polytheism gave place to monotheism, to the all-powerful Being) supposed to govern the various phenomena of the universe, and of whose will the course of nature was conceived to be the expression. Any attempt to mould natural phenomena to the convenience of mankind might easily appear an interference with the government of those superior beings; and though life could not have been maintained, much less made pleasant, without perpetual interferences of the kind, each new one was doubtless made with fear and trembling, until experience had shown that it could be ventured on without drawing down the vengeance of the Gods. The sagacity of priests showed them a way to reconcile the impunity of particular infringements with the maintenance of the general dread of encroaching on the divine administration. This was effected by representing each of the principal human inventions as the gift and favour of some god. The old religions also afforded many resources for consulting the Gods, and obtaining their express permission for what would otherwise have appeared a breach of their prerogative. When oracles had ceased, any religion which recognised a revelation afforded expedients for the same purpose. The Catholic religion had the resource of an infallible Church, authorised to declare what exertions of human spontaneity were permitted or forbidden; and in default of this the case was always open to argument from the Bible whether any particular practice had expressly or by implication been sanctioned. The notion remained that this liberty to control Nature was conceded to man only by special indulgence, and as far as required by his necessities; and there was always a tendency, though a diminishing one, to regard any attempt to exercise power over nature beyond a certain degree and a certain admitted range as an impious effort to usurp divine power and dare more than was permitted to man.

[pmoon6]

I would like the wise to govern. That rarely includes intellectuals and the power elite.Who decides the ones that are wise and the ones who are not?

Or do the wise just take control.

Depends on your perspetive.

Children can be wise beyond their years.

Wise is a difficult term.

Everyone knows what is the wise thing to do.

They don't often do it.

[jimmifli]

I am not fond of Obama and haven't been since his coming out speech at the 2004 Dem convention.

He strikes me as an empty suit skating on "Can't we all get along?" rhetoric.

He is pandering to the desire for wishful thinking that has done so much damage to your country in the last 45+ years.

Andrew Sullivan is now pimping him as the "Reagan for the Democrats".
I think most criticism of Obama takes this angle and it's fair. But most of his support comes from his image as a principled man, not his campaign for change.

[Green Lantern]

JS Mill "On Nature"

Everybody professes to approve and admire many great triumphs of Art over Nature: the junction by bridges of shores which Nature had made separate, the draining of Nature's marshes, the excavation of her wells, the dragging to light of what she has buried at immense depths in the earth; the turning away of her thunderbolts by lightning rods, of her inundations by embankments, of her ocean by breakwaters. But to commend these and similar feats is to acknowledge that the ways of Nature are to be conquered not obeyed; that her powers are often towards man in the position of enemies, from whom he must wrest, by force and ingenuity, what little he can for his own use, and deserves to be applauded when that little is rather more than might be expected from his physical weakness in comparison to those gigantic powers. All praise of Civilisation, or Art, or Contrivance, is so much dispraise of Nature; an admission of imperfection which it is man's business and merit to be always endeavouring to correct or mitigate.

The consciousness that whatever man does to improve his condition is in so much a censure and a thwarting of the spontaneous order of Nature, has in all ages caused new and unprecedented attempts at improvement to be generally at first under a shade of religious suspicion; as being in any case uncomplimentary, and very probably offensive to the powerful beings (or, when polytheism gave place to monotheism, to the all-powerful Being) supposed to govern the various phenomena of the universe, and of whose will the course of nature was conceived to be the expression. Any attempt to mould natural phenomena to the convenience of mankind might easily appear an interference with the government of those superior beings; and though life could not have been maintained, much less made pleasant, without perpetual interferences of the kind, each new one was doubtless made with fear and trembling, until experience had shown that it could be ventured on without drawing down the vengeance of the Gods. The sagacity of priests showed them a way to reconcile the impunity of particular infringements with the maintenance of the general dread of encroaching on the divine administration. This was effected by representing each of the principal human inventions as the gift and favour of some god. The old religions also afforded many resources for consulting the Gods, and obtaining their express permission for what would otherwise have appeared a breach of their prerogative. When oracles had ceased, any religion which recognised a revelation afforded expedients for the same purpose. The Catholic religion had the resource of an infallible Church, authorised to declare what exertions of human spontaneity were permitted or forbidden; and in default of this the case was always open to argument from the Bible whether any particular practice had expressly or by implication been sanctioned. The notion remained that this liberty to control Nature was conceded to man only by special indulgence, and as far as required by his necessities; and there was always a tendency, though a diminishing one, to regard any attempt to exercise power over nature beyond a certain degree and a certain admitted range as an impious effort to usurp divine power and dare more than was permitted to man.

That first paragraph is almost plagiarism of Machiavelli.

[pmoon6]

Has this turned into a philosophy lesson?

I'd just like to say that your philosophy is your own.

I wish you well.

[Green Lantern]

Who decides the ones that are wise and the ones who are not?

Or do the wise just take control.

Depends on your perspetive.

Children can be wise beyond their years.

Wise is a difficult term.

Everyone knows what is the wise thing to do.

They don't often do it.

Wise people are pretty easy to pick out, I've found.