|
|
On November 10 2012 06:25 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 06:15 BluePanther wrote:I don't think it's "cynical". It's a view that's been evolving for many years now. They didn't just wake up today and go "well, we can't have what we wanted." There have been growing number of moderates pushing that stance for a while now. I think this election was a wake-up call to some of the more conservative elements. Yes - losing a critical amount of support as a result of a certain stance, then deciding to change that stance to be closer to what the people want, isn't cynical. That's how parties are supposed to evolve in a democracy.
I don't think cynical is the right word for it, but I think what he was trying to get at is that Republicans have been losing this support because of their anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration policies for a long time. It was only after they lost a crucial election that they decide to do anything about it. Doesn't seem as sincere as reaching out to these people when they have something to lose. People would be more willing to come around if they thought the changes were being made because the ideologies were changing, not because they are seeking more votes for the next time around.
|
On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak
No, I don't think this ever ends happily. You can try to subvert them, but not "rescue" them.
|
On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak
The difference is that they are willfully choosing this.
|
On November 10 2012 07:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak The difference is that they are willfully choosing this.
There's a fine line between "will" and "ideology," unfortunately. You're gonna need a very generous definition of subjective freedom if you are going to say that this is willful.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak No, I don't think this ever ends happily. You can try to subvert them, but not "rescue" them.
i'll call it rescue. i'm just not bombing them. it's okay to say rescue.
On November 10 2012 07:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak The difference is that they are willfully choosing this.
"willing" can either be a substantial description of well considered judgement, or just a linguistic framework that is needed to represent all action. only a representation that includes the material circumstances surrounding the 'willing' has the resources for the former.
but ignoring that, these people are dominated and manipulated ideologically and there's a distinct need for freeing them.
|
On November 10 2012 07:16 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak No, I don't think this ever ends happily. You can try to subvert them, but not "rescue" them. i'll call it rescue. i'm just not bombing them. it's okay to say rescue. Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:13 BluePanther wrote:On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak The difference is that they are willfully choosing this. "willing" can either be a substantial description of well considered judgement, or just a linguistic framework that is needed to represent all action. only a representation that includes the material circumstances surrounding the 'willing' has the resources for the former. but ignoring that, these people are dominated and manipulated ideologically and there's a distinct need for freeing them.
Ever hear the phrase: You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink? There is a distinct difference between someone who needs freeing (they want to do something but are forbidden by others) and someone who willfully chosses not to (they have the ability to, but decide not to).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i know they don't want to. i will try to tease them into wanting it. but yea i do see what i am doing, from my perspective, as freeing them.
|
On November 10 2012 07:47 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:16 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak No, I don't think this ever ends happily. You can try to subvert them, but not "rescue" them. i'll call it rescue. i'm just not bombing them. it's okay to say rescue. On November 10 2012 07:13 BluePanther wrote:On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak The difference is that they are willfully choosing this. "willing" can either be a substantial description of well considered judgement, or just a linguistic framework that is needed to represent all action. only a representation that includes the material circumstances surrounding the 'willing' has the resources for the former. but ignoring that, these people are dominated and manipulated ideologically and there's a distinct need for freeing them. Ever hear the phrase: You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink? There is a distinct difference between someone who needs freeing (they want to do something but are forbidden by others) and someone who willfully chosses not to (they have the ability to, but decide not to).
but what if they are not free to want? I think that's the point.
|
On November 10 2012 07:47 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:16 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak No, I don't think this ever ends happily. You can try to subvert them, but not "rescue" them. i'll call it rescue. i'm just not bombing them. it's okay to say rescue. On November 10 2012 07:13 BluePanther wrote:On November 10 2012 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
let's say 90% of mormon women voted against their rights. does not mean the 10% that didn't were not voting for "women's rights."
sometimes the captives are not rebellin and you gotta rescue them. freeing the fuck out of them, in american speak The difference is that they are willfully choosing this. "willing" can either be a substantial description of well considered judgement, or just a linguistic framework that is needed to represent all action. only a representation that includes the material circumstances surrounding the 'willing' has the resources for the former. but ignoring that, these people are dominated and manipulated ideologically and there's a distinct need for freeing them. Ever hear the phrase: You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink? There is a distinct difference between someone who needs freeing (they want to do something but are forbidden by others) and someone who willfully chosses not to (they have the ability to, but decide not to).
Ever heard of an Elephant Tether? There's a vast difference between deciding to do something and not even knowing there's an option.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Ya thats a damn shame. They don't come much better than Petraeus, one of those rarefied people who rise above politics and parties and do their job extremely well. Bob Gates type of person.
Could give a fuck less he had an affair but I guess there's not much wiggle room when you're that powerful.
double edits; Shame for Republicans too because he could've been an ace in the hole VP, he's pretty much done now.
|
On November 10 2012 08:54 forgottendreams wrote:Ya thats a damn shame. They don't come much better than Petraeus, one of those rarefied people who rise above politics and parties and do their job extremely well. Bob Gates type of person. Could give a fuck less he had an affair but I guess there's not much wiggle room when you're that powerful. double edits; Shame for Republicans too because he could've been an ace in the hole VP, he's pretty much done now.
There's some talk concerning the timing of his resignation-- 5 days before the Benghazi hearing and right after the election.
|
The "talk" is coming from Fox news - shocker.
|
On November 10 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:
The "talk" is coming from Fox news - shocker.
*shrug*
I don't really trust Fox as a source of news, but the timing is well, convenient. I'm partial to saying the announcement was pushed till after the election, but by the Obama administration or Petraeus I don't know.
|
Is there anybody not from the US on TL that would vote for Romney? Lol
|
This Petraeus thing is gonna blow up. Apparently there is more to the story--it's only a matter of time until the media finds out about it.
|
On November 10 2012 11:11 BluePanther wrote:
This Petraeus thing is gonna blow up. Apparently there is more to the story--it's only a matter of time until the media finds out about it.
Nah, I just saw a fairly in depth interview with Andrea Mitchell, the journalist who originally broke the story in the first place, and she said that she is certain there is no more to the story. That won't stop conservative tree barking though, that's for sure.
|
On November 10 2012 10:42 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:
The "talk" is coming from Fox news - shocker. *shrug* I don't really trust Fox as a source of news, but the timing is well, convenient. I'm partial to saying the announcement was pushed till after the election, but by the Obama administration or Petraeus I don't know.
I would say probably a little bit of both. Patraus probably didnt want his affair to became a hot political issue or a story for the next week which is also why they did it on Friday and Obama probably didnt want the same.
|
On November 10 2012 11:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 11:11 BluePanther wrote:
This Petraeus thing is gonna blow up. Apparently there is more to the story--it's only a matter of time until the media finds out about it. Nah, I just saw a fairly in depth interview with Andrea Mitchell, the journalist who originally broke the story in the first place, and she said that she is certain there is no more to the story. That won't stop conservative tree barking though, that's for sure.
The FBI investigating a sitting CIA director and reading his emails without the President knowing about it? That's somewhat of an issue...
I'm not coming at this from a Partisan angle, and I've only gotten any news about this from Yahoo and CNN (hardly "conservative barking tree").
|
On November 10 2012 11:17 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 10:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 10 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:
The "talk" is coming from Fox news - shocker. *shrug* I don't really trust Fox as a source of news, but the timing is well, convenient. I'm partial to saying the announcement was pushed till after the election, but by the Obama administration or Petraeus I don't know. I would say probably a little bit of both. Patraus probably didnt want his affair to became a hot political issue or a story for the next week which is also why they did it on Friday and Obama probably didnt want the same.
Yeah, he's a pretty professional guy (affair aside) so I expect he would've just waited till after the election so it wouldn't be on Obama's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
