Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Oh, the point? If you're going to lecture people about what is and isn't true, you really should know what the hell you're talking about first.

If you were a student of history, you'd realize that few people, other than lawyers, were able to devote their time and energy to political life, as they had to actually work for a living. (not that there isn't work involved in being a lawyer, but it dovetails nicely with politics) So it's no surprise that law is and remains the profession of most politicians.

[craigimass]

Pardon me for thinking all the references to:
"attorney by trade and an ambulance chaser by disposition"

as well as the opinions that the insurance companies know best what is right, that pollution is good (never needs any damn lawyers to make sure companies are held responsible), etc. etc.

Don't take it personally, PB, since you didn't say those things. But at the same time, you probably know better and don't refute them. So I have to assume you either agree with your uneducated friends, or are simply afraid to admit that you are pleased that there are honest and determined people fighting to make things better and safer.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Oh, the point?


If you were a student of history, you'd realize that few people, other than lawyers, were able to devote their time and energy to political life, as they had to actually work for a living.

If you were a student of history, you would know the same thing is true of armies and war. So what the heck does that prove?

As to more history, you certainly must be aware that these guys (Jefferson, etc.) were PLANTERS and owned tens of thousand of acres of land and other fortunes. Why the heck would they actually LEARN and become a lawyer?

Should we have elected illiterate pig farmers instead?

And what, pray tell, is working for a living? Can you describe your various jobs and let us know if they meet that definition? Last time I checked, being a lawyer or a teacher or a judge IS a vocation - i.e. working for a living.

Are you a Luddite of sorts who thinks that unless you sweat you aren't doing anything?

John, it just doesn't make sense. Once again, you are trying to turn the clock back thousands of years. Yes, the CHURCH was involved in a lot of education and discovery back when.....because they were the only people who could READ. So what? Does that prove anything?

So, take it to today. What is your point? Is the practice and study of laws and the application of such to our society and government a BAD thing? Do you have a better way?

There must be a point somewhere. You do have a better way, since you don't seem to agree with any foundation of modern or civil society.

[PBzeer]

To be blunt, I would reckon I've forgotten more history than you've ever learned. And I have neither the inclination nor patience to keep pointing out your mischaracterizations of what I think. While absurdity can be useful in illustrating a point, it's merely absurd otherwise. That you chose to take my words to an absurd extreme, unhinged from what I actually said, makes it pointless to comment further.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by craigimass

It's not my job to educate you as to history....

rather, perhaps you should tell me what William Garrison voted on to cause slavery to be abolished?

Answer: not a single thing, yet he is perhaps the man most credited for the abolition of that peculiar institution...

Only pols introduce legislation, and according to you they are all corrupt and terrible, so therefore it is catch-22, right? You were trying to trick me again.

You trick yourself often and easily enough, without recourse to my aid.

As to educating me on history, I suppose I must admit to some human fallibility in that regard and acknowledge that the name of Mr. Garrison, a newspaper editor and publisher did not immediately leap to mind when considering the abolition of slavery in the US. For some odd reason, the name Abraham Lincoln came first to my feeble mind, second in the credit department I, of course, thought of the Army of the Potomac, and then I thought of U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. But then my mind turns to the 17th of September in 1862, the bloodiest day in American history, when 23,000 young American men bled the ground red at Antietam towards the end of that institution. As I contemplate those losses, I think hardly at all of Mr. Garrison safe in Boston.

And this would not be the first time it has come to my attention of your preference for the talker, even the gadfly, over the men whom actually change the course of human events.

What, they just discussed the abolition movement in remedial history during summer school perhaps?

[PBzeer]

The only particular expertise that the lawyer brings to the formulation of legislation is that of obfuscation, contortion and manipulation. That they have no particular aptitude for the writing of legislation is obvious in the need of remedial revision of much of what they do pass.

One does not need an Ivy League education to know the difference between right and wrong, though the recipient of such most often is adept at finding rationalizations that would escape the illiterate pig farmer.

[camaraderie]

Since Craig seems to prefer Mr. Gallup over Mr. Rasmussen.....

“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
June 15, 2009
Four in 10 Americans in Gallup’s 2009 polling say their political views are conservative, while 35% call themselves moderate. Both groups outnumber liberals (21%). The percentage of liberals is up from 17% in the early 1990s, while conservatives' numbers are slightly higher and moderates' lower.
Read more at GALLUP.com

Must have been sponsored by FoxNews.

[erps]

Quote:
Originally Posted by erps
Today on NPR's "Talk of the nation" there was discussion about rising "right wing extremism". One of the things brought up was that constituents tended to be more conservative than their representatives and that was a cause of frustration. I haven't been able to confirm that tidbit independently yet.

Is Right-Wing Extremism On The Rise? : NPR

I wonder how they would determine such a thing?

I don't know, but it appears to be supported by Cam's Gallup report.

[Sailormon6]

Perhaps I'm posting this in the wrong thread, but I can't find a more appropriate thread at the moment.

For those Bush-haters who don't understand the purpose of the Iraq war, you'll recall that he said he wanted to give the people of Iraq a taste of freedom, and an opportunity to vote and to freely govern themselves. He did that. They voted, and proudly displayed their ink-stained fingers for all to see. President Bush believed that, if the people of Iraq enjoyed the benefits of a democratic government, and the right to elect their own leaders, then the citizens of other mideastern nations would aspire to the same freedoms, and would replace the old despots with modern governments.

Now, while it appears that the Obama doctrine of sitting down and talking with Amadinejad has not borne fruit, the Bush doctrine is clearly having good effect in Iran. The people of Iran are fighting in the streets and dying, not for the promise of 26 virgins, but for their freedom. If the people of Iran have anything to say about it, Amadinejad and his nuclear ambitions will soon become a mere footnote to history. If democracy takes hold in Iraq and Iran, the chances are that it will break out all over the mideast, and there will be no place for tyrants like Saddam and Amajinedad, or for wannabe tyrants like Osama bin Laden.

[PBzeer]

Unfortunately, the Obama Doctrine seems to be a headlong retreat from that.

I might add Sailormon, that your point is one that has been made repeatedly, to little effect, as the opponents of the Iraq War find the "immorality" of deposing Saddam a superior, more enlightened, view than that of the morality of freedom for the Iraqi people.