cynicMar 5th, 2008 - 05:47:37

I'd be surprised if this old fart of a fossil doesn't die of a heart attack before th election.

Report this comment

oh, god, no.Mar 5th, 2008 - 06:15:13

America needs change. It does not need another relic from the past. America needs to change and get with the times. No more old, almost dead, people please. The world is changing at a fantastic rate and we are stuck in the 18th century with 21st century technology. We are seriously screwed up and need to get it together. This is an anathema to the republicans who need to live in the past because they don't know how to change or live in a world that is constantly changing. They want, need, a world that they can understand. A world created by their long dead fathers. If it was good enough for my daddy then it's good enough for me just doesn't cut it anymore.

Report this comment

David PangburnMar 5th, 2008 - 08:53:54

...In response to Oh, God, No for remarks like '...republicans who need to live in the past because they don't know how to change or live in a world that is constantly changing. They want, need, a world that they can understand. A world created by their long dead fathers.'...

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking strikes me as amateurish, pop-psychology drivel. Within any large group or demographic is usually found a wide-array of individuals. Their wants and needs may find them allied in a common cause together. But their backgrounds, characters, mind-sets, behavior, circumstances, and pasts vary more widely then the possibility of moves in am infinite Chess game.

The statement from Oh, God, No relegates all individuals in a group, any group, as automotons, devoid of individual thought, devoid of humanity. Is that what the person who wrote that wants to believe so badly? That because people in a group differ in thought to my own beliefs, I have to believe they are all the same, inferior, devoid of individual thought, thus inhuman? If I think that, surely that makes me superior to them, right? I phrase these as questions, because I recognize I don't know that supposition about this person for sure. The Oh, God, No author refuses to even give that common courtesy and respect to an opposing group that person disagrees with. Sentencing their individuality into a robotic, indiscernible mass with a single period. Unfortunately, a common failing many seem to share. It's a self-trap that should be avoided as much as we all reasonably can. Trying to craft opinion into fact is usually the domain of the intellectually-challenged. An easy route for those who choose not to take the time to ponder beyond initial reaction based off of pre-conceptions.

In the public domain of politics, whether the group you ally with is Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate, we all have to sadly recognize that 'our side' is unfortunately saddled with people who craft their thought-process from reflexive emotion, and not reflective reason. No group is immune. Their have been great intellects on both sides of the aisle, surrounded by a greater number of reactionaries from within their own group. You can understand how Benjamin Franklin arrived at his conclusion, 'Passion governs, and she never governs wisely'.

Forgive my diatribe. It's my Quoxitic quest to respond to rash ramblings posted on Internet articles. A waste of time? Probably. This was not meant as a Liberal vs Conservative, Moderate vs Liberal, Conservative vs. Moderate contest. It is my hope to remind people that it is for the best in a free civilization for us to judge others based upon their own individual qualities and character instead of a group label. If one person who reads this takes it to heart, then it was worth the time.

Report this comment

to: David PangburnMar 5th, 2008 - 17:22:12

you missed the point. You are over-intellectualizing and in your analysis of the previous post and put you own biases out in front.

Report this comment