US Election results.
-
Rick, i was always under the impression that more highly educated people tended to be more liberal in their outlook, which would suggest their isnt an education crisis.
-
@alan fraser said:
@rickw said:
I've never heard audacity used in a positive sense. So, this may be one of those regional differences in language, rather than your false accusation of "spin", so you can stop cringing now.
??? I don't think it's regional, Rick.
This is from the blurb on the Patton Museum site. He was the first person I could think of with obvious audacity.
"The museum will honor the American Soldier, convey the remarkable heritage of Cavalry and Armor, promote Army Values and preserve the name of General George S. Patton, Jr. and his brand of audacious leadership. The museum will go beyond education and inspiration, helping each visitor to find their own brand of audacious leadership."Okay, I've heard it used in a non-negative way once, now.
I wasn't trying to argue that it may have different connotations for different people (after all, that's the nature of language, and underscores the importance of defining one's terms). Just trying to find a reason why I have a negative connotation of "audacity" while you and chango70 seem to have a positive connotation (the most ready explanation being locale, though it may not be correct). I do see both positive and negative definitions for the word, some of which use "arrogant/arrogance" in the definition or in an example of usage. Clearly, then, "arrogance" and "audacity" can be interchageable, despite chango70's protestation(which I suspect, rather than being an argument about a definition [since the negative sense is clearly defined and valid], is rooted solely in chango70's support for Obama - but I could be wrong about that, too).
Now, since we've beat this horse to death, let's move on. Does anyone think Obama will resolve the India-Pakistan standoff, now in its 11,680th day?
-
RickW wrote:
@unknownuser said:
Now, since we've beat this horse to death, let's move on. Does anyone think Obama will resolve the India-Pakistan standoff, now in its 11,680th day?
Hopefully he can be instrumental in getting them to start a constructive dialogue, but frankly unless it directly effects our security or stands to destabalize our efforts in Afghanistan worse than it has, after 11,680 days or 32 years this is an issue that's not exactly new, kinda like the Isreal/Palistinian issue which IMO can wait for him to first tackle the issues that we voted him as President of our country to deal with first, then once we have our country on the right track then concentrate minds, resources and efforts to help out other countries with the skills we would have acquired (hopefully)during our own transformation and bi-partisan negotiations.
-
I heard on the news today that for his first overseas summit, Europe perhaps, he doesn't want to project the image of the typical imperial President. . .so he is not going to use Air Force One.
He is going to walk.
think about it. . .
-
I think if he got rid of Air force one he would be showing that he is leading in the cutting of needless spending.
-
@unknownuser said:
I heard on the news today that for his first overseas summit, Europe perhaps, he doesn't want to project the image of the typical imperial President. . .so he is not going to use Air Force One.
He is going to walk.
He does seemed to have needled the Iranians. They obviously thought he was going to be something of a soft touch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7718603.stm -
@unknownuser said:
I heard on the news today that for his first overseas summit, Europe perhaps, he doesn't want to project the image of the typical imperial President. . .so he is not going to use Air Force One...
I certainly hope this isn't the case...I want my president flying around this world in the fortress that is Air Force One.
-
@solo said:
RickW wrote:
@unknownuser said:
Now, since we've beat this horse to death, let's move on. Does anyone think Obama will resolve the India-Pakistan standoff, now in its 11,680th day?
Hopefully he can be instrumental in getting them to start a constructive dialogue, but frankly unless it directly effects our security or stands to destabalize our efforts in Afghanistan worse than it has, after 11,680 days or 32 years this is an issue that's not exactly new, kinda like the Isreal/Palistinian issue which IMO can wait for him to first tackle the issues that we voted him as President of our country to deal with first, then once we have our country on the right track then concentrate minds, resources and efforts to help out other countries with the skills we would have acquired (hopefully)during our own transformation and bi-partisan negotiations.
Pete, did you miss that the link was to a parody piece by The Onion? Or is your overly-serious response to a humor piece intended as satire?
-
@remus said:
Rick, i was always under the impression that more highly educated people tended to be more liberal in their outlook, which would suggest their isnt an education crisis.
Ah, but the undereducated also lean left (American Government, Landy & Milkis, p 618). Also, the undereducated (less than High School diploma, 33.7M people) outnumber the "overeducated" (Master's Degree or higher, 19.3M people, said tongue-in-cheek), according to the Census data, so does that bring us back to an educational crisis?
(Incidentally, those with at least a High School diploma and less than a Master's degree number 169.6M people, and tend to lean right).Though those at the educational extremes do tend towards the Democratic party, causality is hard to determine. One could speculate that those who already lean left prefer as much time as possible in the left-leaning academic realm (hence advanced degrees) while those who already lean right tend to start working rather than pursue advanced degrees (have between a High School diploma and a Bachelor's degree, inclusive).
One could also reasonably expect that those who receive the benefits of social programs will support the party that advances those programs.
But more than that, I suspect those between 18-29 are either voting against Bush & his policies, or are just more susceptible to Obama's highly polished delivery, having been the recipients of a continually watered-down education generally devoid of critical thinking/reasoning/analysis, or a combination of the two.
-
Rick, I actually never clicked on the link, I responded as if indeed there was mention of such an intervention required. So yes my response was a serious one. I will make a note not to assume in future.
-
@solo said:
Rick, I actually never clicked on the link, I responded as if indeed there was mention of such an intervention required. So yes my response was a serious one. I will make a note not to assume in future.
I try not to be all serious. I think it catches some people off guard, though.
In the future, I'll try to remember to announce (or at least indicate) when diverging into non-serious matters in the midst of serious discussions. -
of you could be like me . . .silly all the time.
I try to shoot off a flare when I want to get serious.
-
@rickw said:
I try not to be all serious. I think it catches some people off guard, though.
In the future, I'll try to remember to announce (or at least indicate) when diverging into non-serious matters in the midst of serious discussions.Now I get it, Rick...good to know. This then:
@rickw said:
...But more than that, I suspect those between 18-29 are either voting against Bush & his policies, or are just more susceptible to Obama's highly polished delivery, having been the recipients of a continually watered-down education generally devoid of critical thinking/reasoning/analysis, or a combination of the two.
is hilarious! Thanks loads for the LOL!
-
@unknownuser said:
of you could be like me . . .silly all the time.
I try to shoot off a flare when I want to get serious.
Good idea. I know where you could aim some of those flares...
-
@remus said:
On a slight side note, it seems pretty clear where the youth of america stand.
This is not surprising given the idealism, untempered by reality, youth possesses. Couple this with the liberal pablum force fed to them during college and you'll get this result every time.
-
You may be laughing, but it pales in hilarity to the notion that Obama is the right guy for the job. Nonetheless, the job's his. May he not screw us up too badly...
EDIT: I am concerned that you find the appalling condition of US education a laughing matter.
Besides, since when is serious research all that funny? (The Handbook of Attitudes, Albarracin, Johnson, and Zanna, p.601) -
@bellwells said:
@remus said:
it seems pretty clear where the youth of america stand.
I think Most of the youth of America tend to slouch. ..
-
Dear friends,
‘On paper’, such phrases are impressive (I did copy from different authors):
%(#0000FF)[“Congratulations America. You have new President.” “Congratulations America. You made the right choice.” “Yes, lets hope! Congratulations USA!” “…Very pleased about the result..!! …I'm sure things will change to the positive..!” “Well Done America! I think you are now on the Right Track!” “This is not a dream, we just took America back…” …or…
“Great to hear that Obama has it sewn up. It may be just what Americans [and indeed, the rest of the world] need right now....” “I just watched two great speeches...each man promising to work together for the better of our country: I am impressed!” …or…
“I finally feel like America got it right this time! This is so very historic in so many ways and I truy hope this can bring the people together for a common goal.” “I am so happy! Now the good works begin...yeh!”]
In reality, there was a success based on: many promises containing pseudo-values, fabulated presentations, mass-media help, etc. On the other side majority of Americans were ‘seduced’ by Liberal’s repeated magic words such as “change” or “hope”."RESULTS":
1.OK, finally, Liberals won!
2.Republicans won also, because they weren’t interested to triumph!
Why?! Because they are more ‘natural’…; …and they realized that shortly, there will be a very difficult time for entire people!I saw US’s money and I did read there that motto: ”IN GOD WE TRUST”.
- Which “GOD” ?! - Who are “WE”?!
Republicans pushed God aside, gentle, and Liberals, brutally…!
God approved Liberals, to show them that they can do nothing without Him, without a ‘true change’ and a ‘true hope’.
Cornel
- Which “GOD” ?! - Who are “WE”?!
-
God doesn't do politics, Cornel. That's why Christ said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
If He did do politics it might be worth asking him why he "approved" Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. -
Oboy, Cornel's entered the political arena...this should be fun!
Advertisement