You have to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaDC8SGxAM

and read...

http://www.elburton.com/blog/index.p...y080909-064140 ....
Opium of the Masses
Monday, September 8, 2008, 11:41 AM
A friend of this blog sent me a message this last weekend. They
informed me of a link on Obamas campaign website, €œPublic Allies€� and
informed me that once there if you read a bit you would find the
statement, €œIndividual salvation depends on collective salvation.€� Now
I know that you are saying to yourself, whats the big deal? That
sounds good. But it isnt until you begin to pull apart the weave of
the Obama narrative that you discover his affinity for the word
collective. In the real world, outside the one inhabited by the
Obamas, the word collective in the way and manner that the Obamas
use it skirts the border of communism. Okay, I was being nice, it
doesnt skirt it or even flirt with it, it crosses the line into full
fledged Marxist territory. That is one of the planks of communism.
Since you have to disclose too much personal information if you wish
to visit Obamas website I took to the internet in search of the
Obamessiah in his own words. The internet is a nasty graveyard for
every word uttered by anybody who matters and even those who dont.
Out of the mouth of €œThe One€� himself we hear him tout a philosophy of
the communist platform, €œ€¦My individual salvation is not going to come
about without a collective salvation for the country .€� These words
were also echoed in a speech he gave as he stood in for an ailing Ted
Kennedy during a commencement speech at Wesleyan, €œ€¦.because our
individual salvation depend on collective salvation. Because thinking
only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs,
betrays a poverty of ambition. Because only when you hitch your wagon
to something greater than yourself that you realize your true
potential and discover the role that youll play in writing the next
chapter in the American story.€� These words only hold power if you
begin by understanding that in a world conjured up by Karl Marx a
society where the individual must cease and the pursuit must be one
where you become a productive part of the collective.


Capitalism is the enemy of Marxism, it is the truest form of
individualism depending on ones self to either succeed or fail. But
make no mistake, capitalism is what America is based upon and there is
a stark contrast between the America of our fathers and their fathers
and the world of collectivism preached by Karl Marx. It doesnt take
much of an effort to look at the teachings of Marx and the speeches
from Obama to see that his agenda is an approach to align itself more
with the idea of collectivism versus the American Dream as realized
through capitalism. Here are just a few of examples of the
collectivist proposals, some are merely in the spirit of Marx while
others are a modern day manifestation of a philosophy that is
diametrically opposed to American values and beliefs. Obama wants to
reinstate the death tax, a Marxist tenant which moves us closer to
rather than further away from abolishing all rights of inheritance. He
is an advocate of the €œFairness Doctrine€� which stands alongside
Marxism to perpetuate the idea that the free market is not an adequate
way to express political and social ideas. He supports the attendance
of all children to a single system public school, Marxist in
philosophy that once again separates individual rights in favor of a
collective form of education. His mortgage bailout plan and healthcare
plan are moves to centralize these programs under the government
rather than trusting them to the free market, capitalism versus
Marxism. Obama like Marx has called for an army of volunteers or
community activists as preached through his €œPublic Allies€� program.
This is eerily similar to the industrial and agricultural armies of
Karl Marx. In my estimation these examples should serve as a warning
to any American that an Obama administration would usher in a new era
of social consciousness that undermines the basic principle of what
America is. Instead of building strong individual Ameri-Cans it seeks
to define all of us as Ameri-Cants, unable or unwilling to take on
personal responsibility while seeking comfort within the collective
rather than the satisfaction and pride as individuals. This is a
philosophy that has been pulled from the depths of the ideological
graveyard and is being polished and offered as the only key salvation
for this nation.


The opium of the masses, that is what Karl Marx called religion.
€œReligion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.
It is the opium of the people,€� to be more specific, that was Karl
Marx. My fear in this election is that Barack Obama is the sigh of a
restless America, the heart of a heartless pessimist, the spirit of
spiritless movement. Barack Obama is the opium for those who are
dissatisfied with their country. Buried deep in the code of Obamas
words and displayed through his personal alignments beat the heart of
a man who feels that his destiny is to become the leader of the free
world, to change the America that was built by the individual and
replace it with one managed by an individual. If you believe that
government is the answer then by all means vote for Obama. If you
believe that the power of this country resides in the heart and the
soul of the individual then I would ask that you seriously think twice
about casting a vote for Barack Obama because the only faith that he
has in the individual is the belief that you want nothing more than to
become part of his collective society.


Of course that is just my take.

- Eric L. Burton, http://www.elburton.com


...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberals are so ignorant...
They don't even know the definition of ignorant

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:10:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Liberals are so ignorant...
They don't even know the definition of ignorant

And you are so very happy

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:20:43 +0200, Damir wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:10:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Liberals are so ignorant...
They don't even know the definition of ignorant

And you are so very happy

Yep, It was so easy to designate you with JERK status in NewsProxy ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"Sarah Palin is to the left what sunlight is to a vampire."
- Cal Thomas

flipper wrote in
:

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 - otehrwise, we wouldn't have
hav poeple taking on mortgages whose monthly payments were larger that
their monthy pre-tax income, 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.

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.



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



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.

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.


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".

"Stupid is as stupid does."

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*.

flipper wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:04:18 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

flipper wrote in
m:

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".

It's a 'sacrifice' when you give no other reason than your criticism
of it.

Which "you", the personal or the ubiquitous...?


Also, "an example" is not necessarioy "a criticism".

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 you *are* by trying to make an 'example' of it.

No, I'm not trying to amke an example of it. It's a common example that
would inevitably be mentioned in this sort of discussion, and one that I
think is not relevant, so I simply addressed it.

THere is a big difference.



but really, we have, especially in the past, oh, 25
years or so, become increasingly materialistic.

We've become increasingly well off.

I don't see that as necessarily a 'bad thing'.

Look up the meaning of "materialistic".

Note, as an analogy, that the saying is not "Money is the root of all
evil", but rather, the *actual* aphorism is "the love of money is the root
of all evil".

Having good nurtition, a decent dwelling, etc. is one thing - f*cking
thousands of people over just becasue one wants $billions rather than mere
$millions is "the love of money".

- 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.

You mean *your* determination of what's "sensible."

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).

So they have a different option on what's "sensible."

Option? Or opinion? In either event, yes, IMO, it is not sensible is
taking on a mortgage one cannot repay and ending up in forclosure. But of
course people have the option of doing that if they choose - but others
should not be forced to pay for their choice.


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.

You're keeping it a well guarded secret, then, because everything you
type contradicts the claim.

Bunk.



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?

Yes. the presumption of 'educational' level, for one.

So you consider Webster's dictionary to be a
"presumption"...?

No. It's your presumptions that I consider presumptions.

The same back atcha.


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.

That there is an 'alternative' is not the point. You are insisting
people 'presume' whatever gives your boy the 'best light',

*My* boy? My *boy*?

SO, jsut becasue someone disagrees with someone *else's* presumption, you
ASSume they have a given stand?

As for using the epithet "boy" in this context...that's beneath comment.

regardless
of how far down the list, and I'm pointing out that the 'most common'
usage is likely to be the impression given unless there is some
contextual clue to pick another.

Yeah, and I said that that impression is not guaranteed to be right.
WHat's the big deal with that?


In other words, it is, as I said, up to the speaker to be *clear* in
his meaning.

And I said that I did not find the speaker to be unclear.


Obama speaks poetically, and inspirationally, but the style is not the
sole purview of preachers.

I didn't say it was nor did I say he 'always' speaks that way. I said
he has a "tendency" to 'speak like a preacher' and I think any
unbiased, rational, observer would, at the very least, see why one
might get that impression.

By "poetically" I presume you don't mean to imply rampant rhyming

Oh Good Grief - "poetically" does NOT mean "rampant rhyming".


but
something more akin to 'flowery bull****'. And "inspirational"
bull**** akin to the 1950's "Superman" TV series opening where the
announcer explains "and who, disguised as Clark Kent (mild mannered
reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper) fights a never ending
battle for TRUTH.... JUSTICE... and the AMERICAN WAY!" /cue rousing
theme music designed to emote a sense of awe, pride, and well being.

So someone speaking about aspirations is just passing "flowery bull****".
Try reading teh Preamble of the Constitution, or the Declaration of
INdependence, or teh Gettysburg address. Oh, I guess those aer also all
just stupid 'flowery bull****', too.

Whatever, doood.

[snip]

flipper wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:04:18 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

flipper wrote in
m:

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".

It's a 'sacrifice' when you give no other reason than your criticism
of it.

Which "you", the personal or the ubiquitous...?


Also, "an example" is not necessarioy "a criticism".

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 you *are* by trying to make an 'example' of it.

No, I'm not trying to amke an example of it. It's a common example that
would inevitably be mentioned in this sort of discussion, and one that I
think is not relevant, so I simply addressed it.

THere is a big difference.



but really, we have, especially in the past, oh, 25
years or so, become increasingly materialistic.

We've become increasingly well off.

I don't see that as necessarily a 'bad thing'.

Look up the meaning of "materialistic".

Note, as an analogy, that the saying is not "Money is the root of all
evil", but rather, the *actual* aphorism is "the love of money is the root
of all evil".

Having good nurtition, a decent dwelling, etc. is one thing - f*cking
thousands of people over just becasue one wants $billions rather than mere
$millions is "the love of money".

- 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.

You mean *your* determination of what's "sensible."

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).

So they have a different option on what's "sensible."

Option? Or opinion? In either event, yes, IMO, it is not sensible is
taking on a mortgage one cannot repay and ending up in forclosure. But of
course people have the option of doing that if they choose - but others
should not be forced to pay for their choice.


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.

You're keeping it a well guarded secret, then, because everything you
type contradicts the claim.

Bunk.



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?

Yes. the presumption of 'educational' level, for one.

So you consider Webster's dictionary to be a
"presumption"...?

No. It's your presumptions that I consider presumptions.

The same back atcha.


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.

That there is an 'alternative' is not the point. You are insisting
people 'presume' whatever gives your boy the 'best light',

*My* boy? My *boy*?

SO, jsut becasue someone disagrees with someone *else's* presumption, you
ASSume they have a given stand?

As for using the epithet "boy" in this context...that's beneath comment.

regardless
of how far down the list, and I'm pointing out that the 'most common'
usage is likely to be the impression given unless there is some
contextual clue to pick another.

Yeah, and I said that that impression is not guaranteed to be right.
WHat's the big deal with that?


In other words, it is, as I said, up to the speaker to be *clear* in
his meaning.

And I said that I did not find the speaker to be unclear.


Obama speaks poetically, and inspirationally, but the style is not the
sole purview of preachers.

I didn't say it was nor did I say he 'always' speaks that way. I said
he has a "tendency" to 'speak like a preacher' and I think any
unbiased, rational, observer would, at the very least, see why one
might get that impression.

By "poetically" I presume you don't mean to imply rampant rhyming

Oh Good Grief - "poetically" does NOT mean "rampant rhyming".


but
something more akin to 'flowery bull****'. And "inspirational"
bull**** akin to the 1950's "Superman" TV series opening where the
announcer explains "and who, disguised as Clark Kent (mild mannered
reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper) fights a never ending
battle for TRUTH.... JUSTICE... and the AMERICAN WAY!" /cue rousing
theme music designed to emote a sense of awe, pride, and well being.

So someone speaking about aspirations is just passing "flowery bull****".
Try reading teh Preamble of the Constitution, or the Declaration of
INdependence, or teh Gettysburg address. Oh, I guess those aer also all
just stupid 'flowery bull****', too.

Whatever, doood.

[snip]

flipper wrote in
:

[snip]

So stop being silly.

You first

[snip]

You
don't think it's relevant so you addressed it, except no one mentioned
it but *you*. So you're 'addressing' your own irrelevancy.

L! Well, if I'm nothing more than irrelvant and silly, what does it say
about you that you choose to read and respond to my posts?

[snip]
Note, as an analogy, that the saying is not "Money is the root of all
evil", but rather, the *actual* aphorism is "the love of money is the
root of all evil".

That's one of my favorite examples of people mangling phrases for
their own purposes.

What is mangled?
1 Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while
some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves
through with many sorrows."


Having good nurtition, a decent dwelling, etc. is one thing

Generally in the 'subsistence category.

"good nurtirion" is nto "subsistence nutrition".


- f*cking
thousands of people over just becasue one wants $billions rather than
mere $millions is "the love of money".

You have an irritating habit of making broad generalizations and then,
when the generalization is challenged, cherry picking the most
extreme, outlier, case to supposedly 'support' your claim that 'most',
or 'people', are that way.

I dind;t say "most". You have an irritating habit of twisting poeple's
words, and then claiming *them* to be idiots.


Your claim was "we" have "become increasingly materialistic." Speak
for yourself, pal, but I don't make millions, much less 'billions' and
neither do the vast majority of "we."

"Materialistic" does not eman "wealthy", pal. And I'm not the only person to
mention it, pal.





- 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.

You mean *your* determination of what's "sensible."

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).

So they have a different option on what's "sensible."

Option? Or opinion?

Yes, I meant opinion.

Fine, but that doesn't relive soemone of the responsibility of their choices.
If someone's opinion is that it's a good thing to have a high debt load so as
to have expensive things, fine, but if they crash financially, it's theri own
responsibility to deal with the consequences. What on earth is so wrong with
being sensible enough to not get into deep debt, and try to save/invest for
the future? It's what any financial advisor says, and it's probably the same
thing that many poeple's parents say. What's the problem with setting some
savings aside as opposed to going into debt just to have a lot of expensive
and/or showy things?


In either event, yes, IMO, it is not sensible is
taking on a mortgage one cannot repay and ending up in forclosure.

That wasn't your 'example'. Your example was you taking a mortgage for
"half" what you qualified for.

So what? It was to say that it's generally useful, esp. in a falling market,
to not take on more debt than one is sure one can pay back. You're just
****ed off because I used myself as an example rahter than someone else.


But of
course people have the option of doing that if they choose - but others
should not be forced to pay for their choice.

Again, that wasn't the topic of discussion. The topic was you
presuming an 'unwillingness to sacrifice' when you have no idea of
their circumstances or reasoning.

What, you assume I never hear anyone talk, or read/listen to financial
analyses, or that I live in some hermetically-sealed box with Zero outside
contact? People talk about their circumstances and rasoning, and some people
use reasoning that gets them into bad circumstances.

And as much as you've convoluted things in an attempt to attack me, whatever
point taht existed is long gone. Your sole point is an attempted attack.


For example, I've known plenty or people who bought the largest house
they could afford, because it's generally considered the 'best
investment' one can make, and 'sacrificed' virtually all other
'pleasures' in order to plow every possible cent into it, and
'sacrificed' by both working, and so on.

"Generally considered to be" is not the same thing as "is in fact". I've
known people who did the same thing. It's nto wat's suggested by financial
advisors or others who don't get a commission from real estate sales or
mortgages, or similar benefits, from people over-buying.


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.

You're keeping it a well guarded secret, then, because everything you
type contradicts the claim.

Bunk.

Well, since you asked, I "talk to enough folks" too and, among other
reasons, I've heard some who bought SUV's because of their family
size.

WHy not a van or sation wagon tht gets better gas mileage? It's a choice.
The fact is that gas prices ahve risen over time and IIRC, faster than the
rate of inflation, so the consequence (of expensive fill-ups) was not a
hidden secret. If someone chooses X, it means they accept the consequences
of that choice. That's true for anybody. A person goes through a decision-
making process.

I have a relative who bought an SUV a couple months ago. She said she wanted
something with some size to carry her kid's sports equipment, so I said I'd
do some research for her, which I did, but when I suggested something, her
nose wrinkled up and she said it's "too soccer-mom". Well, hey, so she made
her choice based upon hwat was inportant to her - but it's neither my, nor
anyone else's, responsibility that seh's having trouble paying to fill the
gas tank and pay the insurance on it (and on her other two cars). It's what
she wanted, and I'm not going to send her money from *my* savings because
she's materialistic, and likes to have expensive a lot of things.

THat is the point. Poepl emake choices. If someone chooses to do X,
regardless of advice, and end up in a financial hole, they have tto bear the
consequences of their choice.

What's teh big problem with that? You complain about Obama, but what, you
want to make everyone pay for people who make bad financial choices? How is
that different from "income redistribition"?



[snip]


That there is an 'alternative' is not the point. You are insisting
people 'presume' whatever gives your boy the 'best light',

*My* boy? My *boy*?

SO, jsut becasue someone disagrees with someone *else's* presumption,
you ASSume they have a given stand?

No, when someone makes irrational 'defenses'. Doubly irrational
because my post, that started this little thread, was refuting a
criticism against Obama.

Irrational, yeah, right.
Unlike you, the epitome of rationality LOL!



As for using the epithet "boy" in this context...that's beneath comment.

The supposed 'epithet' is purely your own presumption.

You wrote it, nd you know damn good and well what the context is, so all of
the "your presumption" stuff is obvious crap.


I would have said the same thing regardless of the candidate. Well,
except I would have probably said girl or gal if it were a female.

Baloney.



regardless
of how far down the list, and I'm pointing out that the 'most common'
usage is likely to be the impression given unless there is some
contextual clue to pick another.

Yeah, and I said that that impression is not guaranteed to be right.
WHat's the big deal with that?


In other words, it is, as I said, up to the speaker to be *clear* in
his meaning.

And I said that I did not find the speaker to be unclear.

Great. then tell me how he's going to "heal a Nation, repair a World"
and, while you're at it, explain why his "salvation" is dependant on
the "salvation" of the black community and why he used a decidedly
religious term like "salvation" instead of something without religious
connotations.

That is what this all boils down to - you're all ****ed off an hissy because
I had the TEMERITY to say that there is more than one meaning to the word
"salvation".

Well, if you really give a crap about how he intends to do those things,
write him a letter and ask. Especially given your disdain for, and wholesale
dismissal of, anything I say.


Would also be nice to know who the 'we' are the ones 'we' have been
waiting for is and why 'we' have been 'waiting' for 'we', since 'we'
were already here, and why electing him would end the 'wait' for 'we'.

And, if I may be so bold, I'd like to see some kind of 'evidence', or
something, to support your interpretation because just that you can
imagine a 'meaning' that pleases you does not mean the words were
'clear'. Just means you found 'a way', of many, to interpret it.

You do some hefty "interpretation", which hardly puts you in a position to
demand tht otehrs fall all overthemselves trying to justifythemselves to you.





Obama speaks poetically, and inspirationally, but the style is not the
sole purview of preachers.

I didn't say it was nor did I say he 'always' speaks that way. I said
he has a "tendency" to 'speak like a preacher' and I think any
unbiased, rational, observer would, at the very least, see why one
might get that impression.

By "poetically" I presume you don't mean to imply rampant rhyming

Oh Good Grief - "poetically" does NOT mean "rampant rhyming".

I didn't say it did. It was one 'end post' of a scale.

Then why mention it, given the degree to which you sneer at supposed
"irrelevancies"?



but
something more akin to 'flowery bull****'. And "inspirational"
bull**** akin to the 1950's "Superman" TV series opening where the
announcer explains "and who, disguised as Clark Kent (mild mannered
reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper) fights a never ending
battle for TRUTH.... JUSTICE... and the AMERICAN WAY!" /cue rousing
theme music designed to emote a sense of awe, pride, and well being.

So someone speaking about aspirations is just passing "flowery
bull****".

No, and for someone who insists the listener has a 'responsibility' to
"bother the 'heart'" you do none of it.

Huh? THat makes no sense whatsoever.


There are actually some interesting comparisons to make. For one, it's
about 'one person', granted mythical. It's also 'poetic' and
'inspirational'.

Note, however, even though we're talking about "Superman,"

No, YOU are talking about Superman.



Try reading teh Preamble of the Constitution, or the Declaration of
INdependence, or teh Gettysburg address. Oh, I guess those aer also all
just stupid 'flowery bull****', too.

They are 'inspirational' texts precisely because they 'say something'.
Let's see.

THe point was about poetic writing. Once again, you go onto the very same
sort of tangent that you derisively accuse otehrs of doing.




"We the People of the United States" (good to know who) "in Order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity" (the purposes) do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America" (the action). And the rest of the
document is quite specific about the particulars of how those goals
are to be accomplished.

It does not make vague grandiose claims, like "heal a Nation,

All of the terms are ideal and concepts. Not specifics.

But then, if it was a celar, sunny day, and I said, "The sky is blue", you'd
accuse me of being irrelevant and presumptuous and irrtionsal ando other such
nonsense, so from here on in, you can argue with yourself.