flipper wrote in
:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:51:07 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:
flipper wrote in
m:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:10:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:
You have to see...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaDC8SGxAM
and read...
OK, I looked and read and while I'm no fan of Obama that kind of
conflagration from micro-parsing is just as fallacious as socialists
who point to "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble and claim
it means socialism.
I listened to the vid as well. First off, it *is* true that Americans
have not always been willing to make sacrifices
"Sacrifice" is not a goal. It's something one is willing to 'do
without' for a greater purpose or greater good.
It's a matter of semantics, I think - "sacrifice" is probably not a good
choice of words - although, to some people, living in a 3200 sq ft house
rather than a 5200 sq ft house is a "sacrifice". Now, I'm not going to sit
here and drone that "everyone only needs 900 sq ft", or any of the other
extremist drivel - but really, we have, especially in the past, oh, 25
years or so, become increasingly materialistic.
- otehrwise, we wouldn't have
hav poeple taking on mortgages whose monthly payments were larger that
their monthy pre-tax income,
It may be a bad decision but it doesn't speak to a willingness to
'sacrifice'.
As above. Quite often, it's seen as a "sacrifice" to merely make a more
sensible choice. For example, we took on about half the mortgage that we
qualified for - and a couple people made comments questioning tht sort fo
"sacrifice" (their word, not mine).
and we wouldn't have had people falling all
over themselves flocking to get the hugest, most overpowered
won't-fit'in- one'parking'space gas guzzlers possible merely to commute
back and forth to work and maybe drive a block or two to pick up a
gallon of milk.
One thing we can be sure of, you have no idea why people buy what they
buy.
A person, no; people, I talk to enough folks, and read enough, to have some
reasonable unbderstanding of some of the reasons "people" (as opposed to a
given individual) do various things.
As for "salvation",
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/salvation:
Main Entry: sal·va·tion
Pronunciation: \sal-'va-sh?n\
Function: noun
***Etymology: Middle English salvacion, from Anglo-French, from Late
Latin salvation-, salvatio, from salvare to save — more at save
Date: 13th century
1 a: deliverance from the power and effects of sin b: the agent or means
that effects salvation cChristian Science : the realization of the
supremacy of infinite Mind over all bringing with it the destruction of
the illusion of sin, sickness, and death
***2: liberation from ignorance or illusion
***3 a: preservation from destruction or failure b: deliverance from
danger or difficulty
— sal·va·tion·al \-shn?l, -sh?-n?l\ adjective
Of course, one has to have soemthing beyond a third-grade command of
English to know that "salvation" is not only a religious term.
Your presumptions are no better than the ones you seek to dispute.
Presumptions? So you consider Webster's dictionary to be a
"presumption"...?
You will notice that the first entry has a 'religious' context and, to
aggravate the matter, Obama tends to speak, as the saying goes, "like
a preacher" in arguably Messianic terms, e.g. "A Nation healed, a
World repaired," "I have become the symbol of America returning to our
best traditions," "We are the ones we have been waiting for," and so
much so that it is not outrageous to at least wonder why.
There are also two other entries. People can and do use 'salvation' in a
non-religious context.
Obama speaks poetically, and inspirationally, but the style is not the sole
purview of preachers.
It is the responsibility of the speaker to be unambiguous
One could also argue that it's the responsibility of the listener to use
bother the "heart", and the capacity for rational thought. If a listener
is absolutely determined to see someone else's words in a negative light,
there is no degree of 'unambiguity' that can convince that listener to see
those words in a positive or even neutral light.
and, if I
may say so, Obama brings it upon himself with grandiose promises, such
as "A Nation healed, a World repaired," no mere mortal could possibly
deliver.
No *one*, but if people worked together, as opposed for constantly looking
for the worst in others, maybe they could.
At least he doesn't promise to do it in 7 days.
=:-p
Our blogger seems to think 'collective' was invented and copyrighted
by Marx but it isn't the 'use' of the word, it's what one means when
they use it.. Consider
"Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual
body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without
liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. "
Thomas Jefferson
Webster again:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collective
Main Entry: 1col·lec·tive
Pronunciation: \k?-'lek-tiv\
Function: adjective
***Date: 15th century
(Just a *few* years before Marx...)
1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or
whole flock is a collective word
2 a: formed by collecting : aggregated bof a fruit : multiple
3 a: of, relating to, or being a group of individuals b: involving all
members of a group as distinct from its individuals a collective
action 4: marked by similarity among or with the members of a group
5: collectivized or characterized by collectivism
6: shared or assumed by all members of the group collective
responsibility
— col·lec·tive·ly adverb
As I said, it's how the word is used and what one means. Obama's
problem is it's almost, if not actually, impossible to know what he
'means',
The same can then be said of *anyone*.
Jefferson means that rights, and all legitimate political power,
originates with the individual while Marx says they are exclusive to
the 'collective', which then decides what it will 'allow' for the
individual.
But all societies strive to instill a sense of 'cohesiveness', 'common
purpose', 'identity', or whatever euphemism you wish to employ. In the
United States, rather than race, religion, ethnicity, or a 'dear
leader' we say it's belief in a set of principles and ideals... and
speak of these as a 'higher purpose'. John McCain spoke of this
himself when he said a cocky prideful 'pilot' full of himself went
into the prison camp but out came an "American."
Look at the Obama quote. It says "only when you hitch your wagon to
something greater than yourself..." That is a 'choice', not a Marxist
'born subservience to'.
Again, it requires a post-grade-scholl understanding.
No, it requires Obama explain why he can't achieve individual
'salvation', and from what, without the 'salvation' of the entire
country, and from what.
Aside from teh tfact that that wasn't the point, I suspect that, even if he
did explain it, you'd find fault with that as well.
And it wouldn't hurt if he explained why he often speaks as if a
preacher giving sermons on 'the second coming' while pointing to
himself.
Ah, "speaks as if a" - IOW, you perception. ow, your perception, is just
that, yours, seen through your own lens; all I'm saying is that the lens
might be distorting things a bit.
THat's Obama's amin "failing" - he is too intelligent, he speaks to
epoel as tho' they're equals as opposed to using teeny-tiny little
words.
How so wonderfully elitist of you.
So now it's "elitist" to speak to people as equals...?
That doesn't even make sense!
By that 'logic', the only way to NOT be elitist is to be average or below-
average.
IMO Obama's 'failing' is he's, rather than a 'Messiah', arguably a
demagogue who extols people vote for him so he may then 'heal the
nation, repair the world' and 'save' us from whatever it is he's
planning to 'save' us from.
Makes one wonder how he's planning to get around Congress, Courts, and
a world full of not entirely cooperative dictators, or will they be
blinded by his shining light?
That sounds a bit "demagogue"-like.
Of course, he may be mincing words and 'be', at heart, a 'socialist'
but you'll have to find a legitimate means to show it because this
isn't it.
I'ts much like the peopell who think themselves to be terribly clever
becasue they counter a cogent argument by saying "that's just stupid and
you're stupid".
You mean, like your "third-grade" denigration?
OK, maybe 3rd grade is a bit low:
http://www.informatics-review.com/FAQ/reading.html
QUOTE: "Research tells us that to communicate effectively with a general
audience in the U.S., we need to write at a 6th-8th grade reading level."
http://nursing.columbia.edu/informat.../overview.html
QUOTE: "According to the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), some
40 to 44 million of the 191 million adults in the country are functionally
illiterate. They read at or below a fifth-grade level, or cannot read at
all. Another 50 million are marginally illiterate. They are generally able
to locate and assimilate information in a simple text, but are unable to
perform tasks that require them to assimilate or synthesize information
from complex and lengthy texts (Kirsch, Jungebut, Jenkins & Kolstad,
1993)"
http://sungristbible.com/BibleAnswers18.aspx
Page entitled "Bible Answers to Online Search Questions"
QUOTE: "...it is admitted that most Bible teaching material on this website
as is most books published, it is geared more for adults and youth than
children. What can easily save you is the the average reading level in the
U.S. has dropped from the sixth grade to the third grade level, much of the
preaching and teaching has adjusted to this level, or in the case of the
fundamentalists was already there waiting for the people to come down."
Be sure that what you label as a 'denigration", actually *is*.