Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Earning The Grade!

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth.

She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich &the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

The self professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew.

She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"

She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said,

"Welcome to the Republican Party"

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

I like these little anecdota. I think that a lot of people have misconceptions of what liberals and concervatives believe. We often base our judgement of one another based on the loudest voices we hear which are usually the most extreme in belief. Most liberals believe in taking responsibility for your actions.
Think of it more in these terms... We're all waiters in a restaurant. We all get tips, put them in a jar and split them equally at the end of the day. The person that is consistently bringing in less than the other due to lack of effort (it's eventually evident who that is) would either have to quickly start pulling their weight or would be ousted from their position by the remainder of the waiters in democratic fashion. Likewise, the person who consistently brings in the most (that too would become evident) would be promoted (thus making more money) to a supervisory position where they would overlook and teach the intricacies of the position to their subordinates and be in charge of reviewing and hiring other waiters. Competition is still created, but it's team oriented and created a sense of trust.

Nobody likes consistent hand-outs. Liberals believe in a system that supports helping out the people that have fallen on hard times so they can get back on their feet. I don't think there are too many educated people that believe in unconditional societal support.

Johnny

B2 said...

With all do respect...I DO think that most liberals do believe in unconditional societal support. Maybe not educated ones like you, but most none the less!

The Democratic Party of today isn't the same as the Democratic Party of the past. The one that created the "New Deal" in which they believed believed that men should be put to work and not be given charity. http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/depression/successes.html

Today...we allow illegal immigrants in to manage those jobs that Americans living off of welfare could be doing to give them a sense of acomplishment and identity. So they can set an example for their children instead of teaching them how to mooch off the system and become lifelong "cheese eaters" as well.

Today...democrats are so obsessed with redistribution of wealth, they don't care that they punish people for improving property and in doing so, their communities (property taxes). They ignore the fact that a flat sales tax is fair and would still leave the wealthy contributing far more in tax money (20% of $20K compared to 20% of $200K). They ignore the fact that their unfair taxation and their insistance on raising minimum wage closes jobs and hinders spending which translates into poor economic conditions, less jobs, MORE welfare, etc.

Or maybe they do realize it and just don't care...because saying things like "I'm taking money from the rich to provide you with these nifty little programs (that don't work by the way)" or "I want to raise your minimum wage" or "I will provide EVERYONE with healthcare at the expense of the rich (against their will), ends up tricking the public and equals votes!!!

FORCED CHARITY IS WRONG!!!

Look at Social Security as an example. It was originally set up as a safety net for those that couldn't provide a retirement for themselves (mostly because of the Great Depression), but today...it has grown into the socialist philosophy of: A RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR EVERYONE TO RELY ON. I sure as heck hope that the democrats get their way and that Bush's private accounts idea fails. I truly believe it would save social security but I want that program ended completely...even if it means I have to waste my wages paying into the program until it fails!!! (Soon we will be forced to pay in even MORE than we do now...with less benefits). Who cares...I will suck it up for the good of the nation. Because I truly believe this country will be better once the Social Security program of today fails! It is even more widely abused than Welfare. It would be the equivalent of EVERYONE in the US deciding to live off of welfare instead of working. (Now...everyone decided to retire off of Social Security instead of saving for their own retirements)!

*********************************
"We're all waiters in a restaurant. We all get tips, put them in a jar and split them equally at the end of the day."

--Doesn't this remind you of a failed philosophy of the past...ummm let's see...oh yeah...SOCIALISM!!!! All you need to do is to put a dictator in charge of making sure it is all gathered and split properly and you have...COMMUNISM!!!

Look at human nature Johnny! Not everyone is a hard worker and honest man such as yourself. MOST people would mooch off the system if offered the opportunity. That's not good for a country that wants to get ahead. Or a country like ours that is already struggling to keep up in the world marketplace!!!

Capitalism may not be perfect...but it IS the best possible political philosophy to date!!!

Anonymous said...

? Socialism didn't fail. It is the governing body for a lot of the most well-to-do nations of Northern Europe. IT has worked better than any other system in place to date. I think Capitalism is the force behind familial deconstruction is today's society. Communism is an extreme, just like Capitalism. Both waste resources and are only good for the few.

Also, when I say liberal I don't mean Democrat. Democrat is a political party with political agendas and money funneling associates. Most true liberals end up siding more with the Democratic Party but have at least some Republican views. Again, it goes back to: what makes someone a liberal is the ability to open their mind to all other points of view while a conservative believes in conservation of self, thus is closed to non-self.

And on another point you made in a past commentary... I have found that generally speaking liberals have made for better debates. Schools are very conservative (on anything other than homosexuality) and so is our media and society, so I think your argument that one group has to dig further and learn how to present their point of views thus making them more eloquent is true, but I think you're wrong on which group that is. Think about the most well-read and most creative, authors, poets, artists, revolutionaries, usually liberals. When I said that I didn't think we should go into Iraq I was called a terrorist and told to go back where I came from by MANY so called conservative patriots. I had to develop the art of debate in order to counter views such as these a long time ago and I believe I am very typical of the general liberal public. Of course those people didn't listen to reason 'cause of the ethnocentric society and education of this country, basing their opinions not on logic but on blind faith. I do believe that unfortunately that is the general public.

Go Lakers!

Johnny

B2 said...

Come on...you know as well as I do that universities are dominated by liberals. Another thing...YOU are definitely not "very typical of the general liberal public".

This is typical of the general liberal public:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4act.htm

Or the attacks on David Horrowitz or Pat Buchanon, etc. If you want some good stories of oppression of ideas and free speech in Universities...check out http://frontpagemag.com/ I think even you will be SHOCKED at the blatant indoctrination taking place everyday in our Universities. My sister had to fight it at the local university here!!! Just check it out! The site is owned by a converted former communist supporter.

http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2005/04/my-car-was-keyed-by-tolerant-open.html

Typical liberal thinking stems from radicals like Michael Moore and MoveOn.org.

Look at what makes up our universities today:

http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2005/03/stop-liberal-discriminationstop.html

A recent CSPC survey found that 99% of graduation day speakers called themselves liberals, Democrats, or Green Party Members.

Another survey by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, found that 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans. The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative. There was no field in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics

And you can't say that this is even close to in line with the general public: In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

(Pew Survey - May 23, 2004 - At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives. This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics

Study Finds Overwhelming Liberal Dominance Among College Faculty

Once again...I have to say that the reason that so few liberals can debate as well as you is because they have been sheltered from opposing views (with the exception of talk radio and topselling books which they ignore anyway). Conservatives are the ones forced to stand up and defend their view points, and strengthen their arguments. They are faced with both sides of the story. When I argue with most liberals they either quit being my friend, get upset and won't talk, or use "STOP" words like "Racist" or "Greedy" or "Blinded by Religion", etc.

Also...Don't worry...I don't confuse you with a Democrat. Hopefully you don't confuse me with a Republican. Like you said...we side that way because unfortunately they are the only parties of political consequence at this time, and they most closely resemble our views. We are forced to take the bad with the good and visa versa.

"Communism is an extreme, just like Capitalism. Both waste resources and are only good for the few." How do you figure? We are the most well to do nation and we are capitalist? Some people are screwed up, but they make the decision to take drugs or precription drugs or whatever. Communism is only good for a few because it is Socialism abused by those entrusted in power.

"Socialism didn't fail. It is the governing body for a lot of the most well-to-do nations of Northern Europe. IT has worked better than any other system in place to date." Come on...even you know of the terrible healthcare of Europe and Canada! Doctors can't leave fast enough. In fact...Canada forces med students to sign an agreement to stay and practice medicine in the country for a specific period of time because people can't wait to get out and come to the US where there is no socialist cap on potential. The brightest minds and thinkers all move here to avoid the same socialist cap!

http://www.canadafreepress.com/op_ed.htm

Most jurisdictions in Canada now have a doctor shortage, despite the government’s denial of this stark reality. Anyone without a family physician is forced to attend a soviet-style walk-in clinic to receive routine medical care. As transient physicians staff these clinics, there is no relationship that develops between the doctor and his patients and items such as annual physical examinations are not available in these clinics. If one’s family doctor should retire, move or become deceased, then all of the doctor’s patients will be scrambling to find a new doctor. Yet, the government appears to be creating this doctor shortage on purpose, as enrollment in medical schools is strictly regulated and only a certain number of applicants are ever accepted, regardless of their academic standing.

explaining why the patient would have to wait four to five months to receive surgical treatment,
"There are only so many orthopedic surgeons to go around." She explained. The patient was fortunate to have seen a surgeon and was waiting for a date for his procedure. Prior to his appointment with the surgeon, the patient had to be referred in writing by his family doctor, which usually takes from four to six weeks. After the initial visit, the surgeon likely requested an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging procedure to determine the severity of the problem. Getting an MRI in Canada can take up to six months, although many Canadians choose to cross the border into the U.S. where they can get it next day for about $450.
After the MRI, the results of which can take as long as six to eight weeks to get back to the doctor, the patient has to make another appointment with the surgeon to find out if the procedure is warranted. From there an appointment is made, which usually takes two to three months. So from the time that one is aware of a serious problem, such a herniated vertebral disc until the time, the problem is actually dealt with, as much as a whole year can pass.
Other procedures can take longer, as in the case of hip or knee replacements, which can take three to four years of waiting.

Those Canadians who can afford it (including, by the way Paul Martin, our Prime Minister) will get their medical treatment at private clinics in the U.S. to avoid waiting. Often individuals who do this are vilified by other Canadians as "line jumpers", even though they jump the line outside the public healthcare system and pay for it themselves.
From where I sit, the U.S. healthcare system looks pretty good. Yes, it’s expensive, but the facilities are in place to provide care in a timely fashion. Those unable to afford medical treatment can still receive treatment provided at charity or county hospitals.
The Canadian healthcare system is currently threatening to collapse of its own inertia. Yes, it’s a good system we have here in Canada, so long as you make sure you never get sick. -by Klaus Rohrich

I urge you to think twice and to take his advice. That is why the best doctors and thinkers are here. The cures and inventions are here. The only other option to make sure they stay in your country is to become communist and to FORCE them to stay in your country.

I'm not saying socialism isn't a noble idea. It is an idea of those who are the most compassionate and obviously the most optimistic about human nature. Unfortunately it has failed and always will fail. Sometimes it takes longer than others but it will fail.

Capitalism isn't perfect. It promotes greed and can end up breaking up families or brainwashing people into mental sickness, but for the most part...it breeds competition and in turn better quality and more success! Innovation and a drive to succeed! A fear not to get left behind. Luckyily...the US is capitalist but compassionate and is willing to help those who fall behind. We shouldn't promote the falling behind so you can be helped though!!! That's the point I want to make!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
B2 said...

Let's try to keep this PG here fellas. I appreciate you reading my blog and participating in disucussion but more can be accomplished if we learn to control our emotions and work together towards a goal. Shouting and name calling only results in resentment and closed mindedness. DK...I'm not sure who you are, I agree with our ideas but please respect fellow bloggers, Americans and especially friends of mine like Johnny. The only way we can bring him around is by convincing him rationally. ;-)

***I will repost your original posts with a small bit of editing because I believe they both make good points and I HATE censorship. Just try to keep it clean and civil. (My little brother and sister might be reading this1 ;-)

Anonymous said...

IT IS PATHETIC ALL THE HANDOUTS the US gives. If you don't try on the basketball team.. you get cut. Ambition creates drive which in turn creates income. If you don't want to be ambitious... that is fine.. but I don't want to be supporting lazy bums all their lives. It is hard enough to support a family and raise your own kids, why the hell would anyone want to raise LAZY 50 YEAR OLD BUMS!

Liberals are all so stupid in philosophy. They think they are like Greenpeace, and saving our world, and saving other people. If you want to save people, spread the news of God, assist ppl in getting a job, praise the Lord, and stop promoting liberal p**** agendas.
DK

Anonymous said...

B2,

I haven't had time to fully read your response but if you want to see what I've dealt with my entire life from the common everyday political and religious conservatives just read the last paragraph of DK. Very well put DK, a real class act. I think you may have just proven my point of what the stereo-typical conservative is about.

Sincerely,

Stupid p**** liberal with an agenda (aka Johnny)

B2 said...

Oh Johnny...Go Celtics!!!

Oh wait...we must be naming our favorite teams that DIDN'T make the playoffs! Well here it goes...Go Knicks!!!

I'm a better New Yorker than you!!! ;-)

Anonymous said...

I apologize, I was merely repeating the words he had used. Yes, college proffesors and students that just graduated are usually liberal, I was talking about lower education that everyone participates in. That is very conservative. Unfortunately, most people still don't get the opportunity to go to college. The brightest that make it there are gonna be liberals 'cause... well, they're the brightest :) Also, when you're finishing up college your thinking is clear. You've finished a few years of being able to talk to other bright people from other civilizations with other points of view and got to make friends with them. You're not concerned about money and other such trivialities that cloud your mind and judgement and thus are able to take the time to evaluate issues and see all of the injustice and want to fight for the world. Unfortunately, after a few years, you've probably moved back to your little town where everyone is your same race and religion and forget about all of the other people you had met and learned of. You hang out with only others like yourself, hear the same rhetoric over and over, fall back into generalizations like all blacks are poor and ghetto, all Mexicans take our jobs and are here illegally, etc... The job starts kicking your butt, so you work more to afford more, a bigger house or whatnot and slowly your focus becomes narrow, you stop thinking of the whole world, you forget about other animals, other countries, other races, other choices, and before you know it you've become a Republican. If you manage to not fall in the trap, you go teach at a University or argue your agendas on your friend's blog :)

Johnny

B2 said...

I have to say that I disagree and take offense to the generalization that Republicans become narrow minded and believe stereotypes.

Bush is Republican and he is blindly promoting illegal immigration.

Affirmative Action = Making decisions based on skin color alone = support from democrats.

Pro Life = Believes in protecting ALL life (animal, human, baby and adult) = support from Republicans

Doubled the funding to Africa for HIV assistance = Bush administration = Republican

Increased teacher salaries and set up "No Child Left Behind" program to make sure that funding provided for education is used properly and not wasted (especially in urban and low income schools) = Bush administrations = Republican

Standing against the spread of democracy in middle east countries blanketed with oppression = liberals

The blind environmentalist attitude that caused tens of millions of deaths in third world countries with the immediate ban of DDT = Liberal philosophy

Forcing religious charities to follow secular view or close, thus hurting the poor and needy in this country = Democratic and Liberal views.

Promoting Academic Bill of Rights to promote the free exchange of ideas in Colleges and Universtities...Conservative Republicans.

Fought to end oppressive Communist regimes instead of appeasing them in the 80's - Reagan & Margaret Thatcher - Republican and Conservative.

the list could go on and on.......


You speak of not being concerned about money and other such trivialities that cloud your mind and judgement and thus are able to take the time to evaluate issues and see all of the injustice and want to fight for the world. (WHICH REPUBLICANS ARE DOING RIGHT NOW BY THE WAY)...and then you change. Maybe we change from the blind optimists we were (I was) to rational thinkers...AND thus become Republicans! ;-)

I think it can be summed up best with the saying:

"If you're not a liberal by the time you are 20, you don't have a heart...But if you're not a conservative by the time you're 30, you don't have a brain."

:-)

Anonymous said...

You misunderstood.
I'm not saying that all Republicans or all conservatives are racist. I'm not saying they're all narrow minded. I'm not saying that all of them are un-educated. I'm not saying that Republicans become those things. I'm saying that the type of people mentioned above often end up becoming Republican 'cause they don't allow themselves to open up their mind to other cultures or beliefs and aren't about to research or evaluate societal issues. For example, I'm not saying 'cause someone is a Republican or a conservative they'll automatically burn a cross in front of the black man's house who's attempting to marry a white girl. However, the person that does burn a cross like that will end up 99 times out of a hundred be voting for Bush, not for Kerry.
You're focusing on occurences instead of intent. The intent of something like affirmitive action (even though I'm not a big fan of it) is to ensure that all people get a fair shake 'cause most companies were run by white, male, Christian conservatives that didn't want to hire people that weren't like them. Republicans support all life? As per Bush's cabinet when they were asked about all the atrocities they are commiting to the environment and animals and other life that depends on those environments... The bible says that the Apocalypse will come when the last tree has fallen, we are only doing our part in helping that occur. At that point the heavens will lift and take all Christians to heaven while all else and everyone else will burn!
You focus on something that occured because of the ban of DDT, but the intent behind that ban was to help life. You somehow neglect to talk of all the destruction set up to occur in Alaska, all the environmental laws that Bush broke in taking advantage of the fact that during time of war environmental laws loosen across the board (such that a forest that is preserved, for example, can be wiped out if they expect the opposition to be attacking from there and need clear view, not so the same forest can be cut down because they want to build a mall there...) I think the obvious fact that you only present cases that fit your arguments is very dangerous. "Oppressive Communist"? You sound like you're right out of a Reagan commercial. Communism isn't oppressive, administrations such as the one we're currently under are oppressive. Reaganomics are what killed this economy in the first place. Clinton fixed it and Bush has once again destroyed it. I know, you'll pull some random numbers to show that per capita has gone up after the Bush admin took over while forgetting to include the 10 other examples of financial indicators that support the Clinton admin.

I need to take a break :)

Johnny

B2 said...

There is not a single identifiable conservative in either the History or Political Science departments at Columbia. When students at Columbia asked the university to hire one, a professor of history (specialty Greece and Rome) named William V. Harris suggested that this was because the "serious scholarly study of history" made people leftists. (Didn't you say this too?! ;-)

His letter appeared in the November 12, 2004 Columbia Spectator and this is the actual sentence: "Is it possible that serious scholarly study of history tends to lead a person towards the left?"

This is such an illiterate idea for a historian of classical Greece and Rome that it raises the question of whether Harris simply wrote this out of pure malice. The great historians of antiquity like Herodotus and Thucycides were more conservative than the vast majority of conservatives are today. They believed that history was cyclical. The idea of progess -- the core belief of leftists -- was entirely alien to them. Until the left captured the profession of academc history in the 1980s it would have been difficult to name a single major historian in the entire history of the field who was a leftist in any sense familiar today. Such is the abysmal level of the academic defense of the university's debasement by tenured leftists and of the intellectual monolith which they have constructed (while insisting that they are "liberals").

http://frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp

B2 said...

The double standard is this: The left RARELY, if ever, inquires why the right, particularly the religious right, is so disenchanted with "the system." Moreover, the right is never offered the rather easy out granted to the left: Tom Delay, for example, will never be acquitted for his "lies" with the merciful "we disagree with Mr. Delay's actions and words, but his heart is in the right place."

No, liberals never inquire, and I believe have never inquired, why Delay and his colleagues feel so outraged by the US judiciary. Or why conservatives feel "oppressed"; or why radical opponents of abortion (the few that exist) have taken up arms and shot abortion doctors. Are conservatives' hearts in the right place? Never!

That Mr. Rich (and virtually every leftist pundit in this country) has never granted such tolerant understanding of the right indicates the clear line of demarcation between the two political wings. Leftist writers are much more willing to discern the heart of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein than the person seated next to them on the train (unless that person be a member of MoveOn.org).

www.frontpagemag.com

B2 said...

", the person that does burn a cross like that will end up 99 times out of a hundred be voting for Bush, not for Kerry."

SENATOR BYRD - FORMER KKK LEADER - DEMOCRATIC SENATOR!!! 'Nuff said.

(In fact...there have been several recent, RACIST slips of the toungue by Democratic Senators including Hillary Clinton.)

I'm really not here to accuse one party of the other of having more racists though. Point is...educated people of both parties are not racist. If they are racist...they aren't very educated now are they?!

B2 said...

Speaking of intent...I'm glad you don't support Affirmative Action. Just like my post today shows...even the Supreme Court does not allow affirmative action to help end racism or balance hiring or anything like that. The ONLY reason that the Supreme Court gave for the ruling on Affirmative Action to be acceptable is to provide "majority students" a more well rounded education. They pointed out that it was not for the reasons you suggested.

Furthermore...THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON SKIN COLOR. I don't care what the intention is...IT IS WRONG!!! I thought we learned that from the Civil Rights movement 4 decades ago!!!

B2 said...

Oh...and I think even you know that it's not neccessary for me to pull of the economic numbers. Actually I have them already but won't bother posting them. Summed up...Reagen used a democrat's (JFK's) economic philosophy which lead to the greatest economic recovery in recent times. Bush copied the same philosophy and has led us to an even greater economic recovery than Reagans! (the greatest recovery in over 20 years!...ALL AFTER 9-11 AND A CLINTON RECESSION!!!)

I will throw you a bone though...Clinton was held in check by the Republican controlled congress and was able to curb spending...Bush has been on an overspending rampage (Iraq war aside)!!!

Anonymous said...

Not really aware of Byrd and I don't think you can mention one person and say "Nuff said", I'm talking about a general public. I dislike Hillary. I and a lot of other people have stated (including when it comes to abortion) that many conservatives have good intentions. I just think conservatives tend to think of the ends (results) while liberals tend to focus more on the means (intent). I think that by thinking of the means however, you actually think of the long-term ends more than looking at the ends initially (I don't know if that makes sense.) I wasn't trying to accuse your party of being racist. This started 'cause we were talking about education. The least educated, racist, unaware people (especially whites and especially in non-urban areas where they would be voting Democrat purely for stronger financial support) would vote Republican, thus our education system turns out more Republicans than Democrats. I don't believe that most politicians (even those in the Democratic Party) are liberals. I think they may have started as such but as some point became about saying the right thing to get them elected, playing the proper sides and having an opinion that agrees with the party and the opinions of the people behind their donations. That's why I liked Bill Clinton. I didn't always agree with him but I felt that most of the time he tried to do what he genuinly thought was best after listening to all sides. He wasn't extreme. He was a liberal with certain convictions that were more conservative based, like real people are supposed to be, a mix of ideology, filled with true convictions that arise from being open to all ideas and truths. That's what I don't like about Bush. I don't think he's got the welfare of his people in his mind. I think he is guided by decisions of the self such that even situations where he does try to do what he feels is correct he remains dangerous 'cause he's so extreme, such an ideolog, that he doesn't take the time to think of how his decisions affect anybody else.

Johnny

B2 said...

I'm shocked at how exact opposite I feel about Clinton and Bush. I feel there has been no other politician (even tricky dick) that has been more calculated and sometimes deceiving to get what they wanted than Clinton. On the other hand (and you hate how he is guided by his faith...let's be honest), Bush has done what he truly feels is best for the country even if it made him unpopular. Look at how many times his advisors told him not to do something and he still did because he truly believed in it (speaking out against affirmative action at the Univ. of Michigan, stem cell research right after Christopher Reeve and Ronald Reagan died, etc.)

Look...looking back I have to admit that I was kind of a poopyhead! ;-) I shouldn't have posted negative Clinton stuff on here. It just leads to a bunch of bickering about senseless positions of a candidate or two. I really don't want to sit here and defend Bush or even the Republican party for that matter. I don't want to condemn Clinton or Kerry or anyone else. That get's us no where. So what if a couple democrats use the word "nigger"...that doesn't mean they are all racist jerks, just the few that said it. And so what if a few Republicans want to grant amnesty to illegals...that doesn't mean that the entire party is for ignoring the laws of the country.

It will do us much better to keep the debate between philosphies and topics such as pros and cons of capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc. Or pros and cons of affirmative action, abortion, illegal immigration, etc. It is our ideals that matter.

I think it IS important to, instead of just condemning radical pro-lifers for killing abortion doctors, find out what has lead them to that point and then we can do something about it.

Just like 9-11. Instead of condemning all muslims...we need to find out what lead a few to that point and find out what we can do to make things better.

I'll try to keep the debate more on productive next time. Sorry!

PS- The philosophy of why the Lakers will always suck!

Anonymous said...

Dude, please post what you want, it's your blog. There's nothing wrong with ripping on Clinton or on Bush 'cause in doing so we're trying to figure out their politics and what's right or wrong with them in order to move forward. I've never hidden the fact that one of the things I strongly dislike about Bush is that he's guided by his faith (more on that later, I don't think he really believes I think he just uses it as a tool...) 'cause I think a leader of a country has to be able to determine what's best without consulting the bible or else we're falling backward. I believe seperation of church and state is vital to the progress of a nation.

Johnny

Anonymous said...

Lakers rule! Kobe will lead the league in scoring, assists, rebounds, steals and blocked shots next season as they go 82-0 in the regular season and 16-0 in the playoffs. The Celts will once again get into the post-season and lose in the first round :)

Johnny

B2 said...

Not losin' yet baby! BACK TO BEANTOWN!!! :-)