Re: Can't wait to Nov 5th




On 11/5/08 8:31 PM, in article 6nf6opFkvnn7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Yowie"
<yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Timothy Travis wrote:
On 11/4/08 5:22 PM, in article 6nc7a3Fkohq1U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Timothy Travis wrote:

I think a person's personality says a lot about who they are, don't
you?

Says about who they are, but says absolutely bubkis on their abilities to
hold the office that they do (or will)

I don't agree with you about this, unless we have different definitions of
what personality is.

What people are, who they are, says a lot about what they will do.

I can draw conclusions about what a friendly, patient and calm person will
do when faced with what seems to to them like unfair treatment, as I can
about how an angry, hostile and aggressive person will react.

And when I see that what little I know about what someone has actually done
is consistent with the personality I see...


Sorry, there was plenty of good hard discussion and some things were
said that were exaggerations but you are making the mistake that I
described in my previous post: you are assuming that since McCain
and Palin played all the low cards--and complained that Obama did the
same--that Obama actually did the same. You have to listen to what
people actually say--not what people say they say (whether it's
politics or a newsgroup).

Did I not say that it was their *supporters* who did most of the midslinging
rahter than the candidates themselves?

I think you were incorrect in saying that. Google Sarah Palin and John
McCain's speeches for the last six weeks and see what you think.

And "mudslinging" is one of those terms that isn't precise enough, until the
truth or falsity of what is said is parsed out, to convey much information
about anything except the point of view of the person using the term.

People want to dismiss what was said by one or both candidates so it's
"mudslinging." Good. Now we don't have to pay attention because it's
"mudslinging." Even if it's not, people will characterize it as such
because they don't have an answer to it and they want to undermine the
credibility of those who say it. Or people will characterize it as such
because they don't have the tools or they don't want to take the time to
really find out.

But that's not inevitable. Not all people really react that way all the
time.


I only know what the *Australian* media was showing and commenting on - that
Obama and McCain were, not surprisingly, running a campaign that more often
focussed on the negative points of hte opponent than the positive points of
the people whose campaigns were paying for the advertising.

And no, its not that much different here.

Not familiar with Australian media (except in so far as it has been imported
here by Friend Murdock) but I don't read most newspapers, or listen to most
tv or radio "news" because it's pretty much all designed to make me mad or
scare me--and I am mad enough and scared enough without added stimulus.

If you really are interested in the character of the two campaigns--one now
being talked about people who write books about such things one of the best
ever put on in an American election and the other one of the worst--do a
little research. I think you'd revise you comments.

Not that I think you should, necessarily. I just think you'd change your
mind if you did.


I have no illusion that you will be persuaded of that--and I know
people who have the cynical opt-out position and the people who are
partisans for McCain are not going to--you have too much invested in
this "it doesn't matter" thing.

It doesn't really matter to me - I can't vote regardless of who I'd like to
see as US president.

It must matter in some degree, Yowie, you started this conversation about
how pointless this all was.

I'm just saying there is a point--a huge point--and it matters a great deal.
Perhaps not so much to you, in this particular case, as you are not here,
but it matters a great deal.


But that doesn't mean it's true, it
just means that sometime, somewhere along the way, you lost your
faith in your fellow citizens--which means you lost your faith in
yourself.

Now thats a gross over generalisation. I've lost faith in the oppositional
bipartisan political system, and thats about as far as my 'loss of faith'
extends.

Forgive me. Maybe I have this wrong. It just seems to me that you think
that voters around you (and me) are incapable of responding seriously to
issues and are little more than sheep led around by their emotions (like
fear and greed). You seem to say that you, in being able to analyze and
come to this conclusion, are capable of responding seriously but why bother
with all these others making your efforts futile. When you say that you
have no faith in their ability to be reached then I infer from that a lack
of faith in yourself to be able to reach them.

No one reaches anyone with whom they disagree by the kind of arguing that
the McCain campaign used--they were interested in mobilizing a base, not in
making arguments designed to reach people not yet reached. (Obama campaign
totally innocent in this regard? No. Of course not. But the mix of "more"
or "less" makes a great deal of difference, sometimes. Often. Usually.
Always.)

Once one takes the time to analyze the content of the two campaigns one
sees, in the view of this non-partisan person who eschews party politics and
doesn't presume (based on long experience) that one side is always right and
the other always wrong, that Obama--although certainly not all
Democrats--wanted to reach people who were open to hearing what he had to
say, he didn't give up on persuading people and turn to rounding up enough
power to overcome anyone who stood in "his" way.

"Don't boo. Vote!"

"Don't mourn. Organize!"

If you realize what needs to be done (that which you say
people won't accept) then what makes you think that your fellow
citizens won't be reached, as you have been reached, by Truth?

Because most people want the easy road, the quick win, the whatever will
make their lives more comfortable and less worrisome option. Most of the
time, so do I, and it takes a good deal of thinking and willingness to come
around to the harder path.

I can identify with this at the same time that I don't think it's inevitable
or as difficult as you make it sound to get oneself around to doing the hard
things that make a difference in the long run.

We in the United States have been given permission (and we have eagerly used
it) to act just as you describe. We have had a leadership (for longer than
the last eight years) that reflects a culture of consumerism that has told
us that it's all easy, that we are entitled, that we are overtaxed (public
safety and infrastructure don't cost anything and there'd be plenty of money
if the bureaucrats would stop wasting it on give-aways to the undeserving
poor) and that if we are unhappy it's got to be someone else's fault--have a
drink (or buy an SUV).

We know that's not true, especially when someone shoves us into a cold
shower like our current situation or like the Great Depression.

People who have experienced the bottom falling out of their lives (and who
hasn't by the age of 14, at least to one extent or another) see things as
they actually are, if for only a brief moment. They can suppress that and
cling to their self serving delusions about how things work (listen to the
Republican pundits at the moment) or they can work with the painful (but
only temporarily painful) realities.

Many, many, many people have done the latter and all need to be encouraged
to take that tack.


I see homophobic and xenophobic people being worshipped by huge crowds, and
the voices of reason and tolerance being ignored and drowned out.

So what?

I just don't think that your conclusion--which I might not really
understand--that this means it's time to unplug and go home is the correct
one to which one should come in these circumstances.


Come on, Yowie. I've read too much of the good stuff you have posted
here over time to think that's really where you are coming from. I
know you. Who do you think you are trying to fool?

Why would I be trying to fool anyone? I am not. What I say here is what I
currently believe (Why would I like). I am open to changing my mind, and
thus, I read other people's opinions and thoughts.

It just looks like you're trying to fool yourself into thinking that nothing
can be done, that it won't do any good to try to change things, that too
many people lack your ability to understand things for there to ever be any
reason to try to improve the situation.


Oh, Yowie! 1980 was a long time ago for you? I KNOW you're not 60
years old.

I am nearly 40.


I remember saying a few times, back in my anti-Vietnam War days (1969-1974),
that no one had a right to be cynical--that one could not have experienced
enough thwarted effort, one could not have tried enough times--until they
were at least 40.

I've cycled through the "nothing will do any good" thing a time or two,
myself, at least once before I hit 40 (feeling self mocked).

But the thing about the Spirit is that I can crucify it, lock it away, and
it's going to roll the stone aside and come back, hanging out until I am
ready to follow it, again.

I am the most cynical person I ever met. I am also the most optimistic.

It's not about the winning--it's about the way the game is played. If we
think interconnected love--the imperative to meet other people's needs as a
means, the only means that really works, of getting our own needs met--isn't
"working" then I think we don't really understand what "working" means or we
haven't yet put enough time into the project. Exploiting people, shoving
some away from the table and serving up extra helpings to the rest, only
looks like it works until one looks up from the meal.

Chin up or stiff upper lip (you are part of the Commonwealth, right?) or
whatever keeps you going.

Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland Oregon


Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward
justice.

Martin Luther King, Jr.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Buckwheat Begs Christians to Vote Against the Unspeakable Evil That is Hitlary
    ... Barack Obama has circulated thousands of pieces of campaign literature throughout Texas that touts his religious credentials. ... Such flyers were jammed in doorways throughout the Dallas area Wednesday, coinciding with his campaign appearance in Duncanville. ... It features a quote from the candidate: "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Obama to expand Bushs faith based programs
    ... Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs ... federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite ... nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • > Obama Never Had Faith in America
    ... McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans ... McCain seizes on remarks Obama made Friday about his faith in ... McCain was referring to a remark Obama made at a campaign stop in Des ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Obama Never Had Faith in America
    ... McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans ... McCain seizes on remarks Obama made Friday about his faith in ... McCain was referring to a remark Obama made at a campaign stop in Des ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Socialist Black Muslim Hussein bin Obama Never Had Faith in America
    ... McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans ... McCain seizes on remarks Obama made Friday about his faith in ... McCain was referring to a remark Obama made at a campaign stop in Des ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading