| Author |
|
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:03am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I suggest you do some research. All delegates can vote for anyone they want to.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13041
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:19am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
>>Pledged delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot. A pledged delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that delegates will cast their votes for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”<<
http://demconvention.com/delegate-voting
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Adam Hutchinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4502
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:40am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Have delegates ever not voted the way they were supposed to on the first vote?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:47am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
And even if they could, it's a moot point - the delegates are pretty firmly behind Obama.
Understand, we're talking theoreticall possibilities here - yeah, alll the delegates could break rank, yeah a meteor could fall from the sky, yeah the magic king of the elves could appoint Hillary queen of the shire, yeah, a rhino could crash through the convention and take Obama...
Meanwhile, back in reality, Obama's got the nomination, and Hillary is all washed up.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13041
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:55am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
One delegate pledged to Hillary last week switched to Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05 /12/AR2008051202554.html?referrer=digg
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 11:07am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
It's very common for a lot of delegates to switch to the obvious winner on the first ballot. Kerry in 2004 got a lot more votes than he won in the primaries. It's a lot less common to switch to a different candidate for other reasons. If you look at the 1976 democratic convention there were several people receiving a single vote who didn't run at all in the primaries such as Cesar Chavez and Ted kennedy. I don't think anyone has ever lost a nomination from people switching on the first ballot.
It happens in the electoral college too. In 1976 someone voted for Ronald Reagan and in 1988 someone mistakenly voted Bentsen for President and Dukakis Vice-President instead of the other way around
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 11:51am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
"Meanwhile, back in reality, Obama's got the nomination, and Hillary is all washed up."
Agreed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 11:54am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
With yesterdays primaries out of the way and the nomination an all but settled proposition...
QUOTE:
| "Wow, Michael. That's a very long and involved argument." |
|
|
I'm personally uncomfortable with making use of selective address when responding to arguments against my position, Knut.
QUOTE:
| "Yet you keep reading me as if I'm trying to argue in favor of limiting rights (even if it's just in theory.) I don't. I'm saying that sometimes economic circumstances limit freedom. " |
|
|
No. I'm saying that your preference for "freedom" being defined by anything remotely along the lines of your absurd "50% free!" analogy may be properly viewed as nothing more than a direct rationalization for the limiting of individual liberty.
QUOTE:
You condescendingly state that while greater freedom in theory is all well and fine, it is ultimately of far less worth than fewer freedoms in practice.
"No, my argument is that great theoretical freedom that can't be enjoyed in practice is of less practical value than less theoretical freedom that can be enjoyed in practice (to a greater extent than the former.) " |
|
|
And, how is this anything but the reiteration of my above statement? As you've duly noted, Knut, there were many sentences in my post which you might have deemed worthy of a response--many of them direct questions asked of you--and yet, you chose this example to pull out, disagree with, and then simply restate? Now, would you know of any particular society wherein this odd construct of great theoretical freedom exists concomitant with the inability to make actual use of it?
QUOTE:
| "Okay, so studying to be a lawyer in the field of Maritime Law (a major field in Norway) with guaranteed employment and postponing graduation for a few terms because you're making a lot of money in your side job is the same as being a philosophy major and working in a coffee shop?" |
|
|
Would you like to review the context of my remark? Specifically, you stated that the biggest problem facing Norway was the dearth of enrollment (or at the least, a completion of higher courses through term) in higher education. I claimed that you were mistaken and that the biggest problem was the lack of skilled manual labor due--borne by Norway's confiscatory taxation system and buttressed by stringent government regulation in the workplace--and the fact that this manipulated the labor pool to the effect of artificially reducing the number of available, qualified skilled-manual labor. Your "I've got a buddy" anecdote, I stated, served to only highlight my initial point regarding an upside-down labor market.
Though you are and were mistaken in your estimation of the "biggest problem" facing Norway, either in toto or with specific emphasis on its labor crisis, your example is much more suited to the question at hand than my previous use of a metaphorical philosophy major. I apologize for the awkwardness of my example. Now, as I've said that I'm happy to stand correction on this point, would you like to tell me I'm mistaken regarding either Norway's labor crisis or its cause?
QUOTE:
the Government Pension Fund of a proudly socialist nation invested offshore as far from the vagaries of socialism as it can possibly get
"No. Rather the opposite. Placed offshore due to some unfortunate side-effects of the capitalist system of supply and demand.
Sure, we could use that money to improve infrastructure and services. But using too much at the time "overheats" the economy, creating a demand on the already strained workforce that significantly outstrips supply, pushing prices through the roof, increasing interest rates and mortgage rates, causing high inflation of the currency and damaging export businesses. Resulting in bankrupcies, strikes and a significant economic downturn." |
|
|
Some unfortunate side-effects of the capitalist system? Are trying to pull my leg? You mean like the official Fund policy of divesting itself of assets at maximum profit before publicly releasing the information that those investments violate the guidelines of the Finance Ministry's Ethics council and are, in fact, slated to suffer divestment? Right. As it is, what are you going on about?
Knut, how the GPF is spent has nothing to do with its administration as a sheltered, offshore account. You're conflating the notion of increased domestic spending in a welfare state--and its inevitable effect on inflation when poured into a non-competitive environment like public works in Norway--with the bizarre idea that this is a rationale for offshore investment. Knut, the fund is situated offshore to avoid exactly the sort of taxes and stringent regulation which Norway levies on its citizens and exerts over corporations. Plain and simple. As a nominal pension fund in a country where something in the neighborhood of 60% of the nation already receives money, in one form or another, directly from the government and whose crude oil reserve has peaked, it is of paramount importance to Norway's fragile (here I'm simply referring to its small population size and huge public expenditure) economic stability that it grow as fast as possible. This, an impossible demand were it operating under the stricture of either Norway's own domestic regulation or, indeed, even that of the United States.
Unfortunate side-effects of capitalism, indeed. Strictly confining the question to that of the fund and those in Norway's mixed-economy dependent upon its growth, there is nothing unfortunate about capitalism.
QUOTE:
In other words, under your exact definition, it is necessarily of less consequence that man possess the ability to make a genuine choice regarding his or her life's direction.
"No, it is necessarily of far greater consequence that man posses the ability to make a genuine choice regarding his life's direction. That's my point." |
|
|
No, in context, your entire thesis found its voice in your statement that the issue was one of making the most of what rights you do have. How in the world does this offer genuine choice? Your definition of what should truly define a "freedom index" necessarily makes of individual liberty a commodity which arrives at its worth only after it has been traded away. Such an outlook wouldn't seem to be consistent with Norway's guiding ideology. Certainly, it is not yet emblematic of the United States. It's nothing more than a contrivance to explain your sloppy reasoning.
QUOTE:
"if your viewpoint were capable of prevailing in any substantive manner--then there would simply be no reason for Norway to NOT abandon its capitalistic components and now-traditional allegiance to the concept of representative democracy in order to more completely pursue your specious indicators of "practical" freedom to the exclusion of any other consideration. But, there is a very real rationale for not doing so, isn't there? " (emphasis mine -krk)
"Yup. That's the argument Social Democrats have been making for a hundred years. There are very good reasons for keeping the political and democratic structures of society in place. If you don't see Norway as communist, you must surely see me as one. Your argument makes no sense otherwise. And I've told you : I'm a Social Democrat." |
|
|
Gee, Knut. No mea culpa for grossly misrepresenting my clear point regarding Norway's ideology and making the mistake of calling me an idiot? Didn't you tell me I should crack open a book?
Knut, I do definitely see your rationalization of limited freedoms as an example of Marxian (if not Marxist) ideology. How is it not? Oh, I know you've repeatedly told me you're a Social Democrat, but the "50%" illustration of your argument for "making the most of what rights you do have" wouldn't seem to reflect it to any great degree. So, what about my actual point, Knut? What about the fact that Norway's guiding political ideology contradicts your preference for placing greatest emphasis on what man may exercise in his freedom, rather than--as both Norway and America do--placing greatest worth on the initial, a priori existence of genuine personal freedom as the prerequisite of any subsequent consideration? Any subsequent consideration, Knut.
QUOTE:
| "And you're right. No party is running on a 50 percent freedom platform. But we tolerate the bad laws, we ignore them and exercise those freedoms we want to have. While working to increase our theoretical freedoms as well. We make the best out of what we've got, we're not clamoring to give up the rights we already have. That would be stupid. That would be like voting for the Patriot act." |
|
|
Of course not, how could any political party do so and actually hold a constituency? "Vote for us...we tolerate the bad laws!"
I find such vehemence on your part a tad mystifying on several fronts, though. First, in the case of the Patriot Act, there's your insistence on the practical over the theoretical. Secondly, there is the fact of your already existent laws in Norway. More contradictions? Should we argue the actual provisions of the initial PATRIOT Act in a constitutional light to assess your claim? Or the relative worth of Senator Obama's co-sponsoring of the SAFE Act? Or passage of the amended reauthorization bill for the PATRIOT Act?
But that was never the point, was it, Knut? Here, you finally shrug off the silk and get down to it, don't you? I've been arguing for the preeminence of a recognition of personal freedoms before any truly lasting, practical application is conceivable...before your "50%" and 'make the most of what you've got' argument could possibly pertain...but that argument isn't honestly what you were about at all, was it?
QUOTE:
| "What freedoms do you have that cannot be curtailed by corporations, moneyed interests or just a general lack of funds?" |
|
|
Knut, aren't you the one making the assertion? So, why don't you list them for me, Knut. Or is that your post was supposed to be achieve? Because, you know, I honestly can't think of any "freedoms" which may be curtailed without recourse "by corporations, moneyed interests, or just a general lack of funds".
By the argument you present, someone on a bicycle being stopped at a street corner and prevented from crossing to the other side of the street is not only suffering his freedom to be momentarily curtailed (as would be the case), but, by the inverse rationale of your "practical" thesis and "50% free" argument, he or she, in fact, has no genuine personal freedom of merit if from the onset it may, in fact, be momentarily curtailed at any time in any such manner. Does this make sense? The alternatives of your argument would advise them to simply make the best of it and find a different route. And all of your recent attempts at moderating your argument by way of adding "in addition to" after your statements doesn't change the fact of preeminence. That is what your "Practical Freedom" argument is worth when viewed in any light.
QUOTE:
| "Every media you have is subject to privatized censorship services. (The MPAA, the CCA, The FCC, Standards and Practices divisions etc. ) That's when they're not given "Editorial guidelines" to determine appropriate content by their corporate owners. Free press. In theory." |
|
|
Yes, a free press in both theory and practice. How in the world does your argument suggest otherwise?
Did you say "private" censorship, Knut? Like the 50% bit, is understanding this going to require a calculator? Of those entitites mentioned, only the FCC has federal sanction. Its functions are truly legion. For the purpose of this discussion, its charge is to respond to public claims of indency and to ensure fairness among broadcasters under American laws concerning monopolization and licensing. In this vein, its indecency guidelines concern *only* the public airwaves (think over-the-air broadcasts), and any charge of censorship or intimidation is subject to the rule of law. That's it. A representative democracy at work. Censorship, huh? Ever watched HBO or an American porn channel, Knut? Tuned in to Amy Goodman? You see, freedom in both theory and practice stemming, as it only can, from the preeminence of a recognition of great freedoms.
Or, as you would seem to have it by including the FCC in your list, am I really enduring censorship simply because my seven-year-old son and I can't turn on one of two tax-payer subsidized public broadcasting channels and listen to Big Bird spout some anarchist rant? Or is it that you think either my son, my wife, or myself are morons being brainwashed because we happen to see a cereal commercial from an evil corporate sponsor? Freedom of the press and the freedom of expression aren't simply license. Give me a break with this fucking nonsense.
All of the other entities you mention are, as you state, private and they flourish or wither, respectively, at the behest of the consumer. This might well seem like a foreign concept; which, in reality, I suppose it is in the area of private broadcasting media in Norway. Norway got direct access to the privatized television media market in the late '80s? At the very least, America hasn't amended its Constitution to allow directly for the censorship of something like film.
And, Knut, how 'bout tossing a mea culpa out to those Objectivists for your mistaken conflation remark regarding Rand? You've done it again, by conflating freedom of the press and the notion of free speech (and a host of other issues) with some distorted view of what actually constitutes censorship.
QUOTE:
| "Any run for public office is dependant on lots of money." |
|
|
And? That capital is either raised or not, based on the appeal of the candidate according to the electorate they court, with Federal funds if desired when a minimum threshold of public appeal has been achieved. Exactly which personal freedoms, of any variety, are at stake in this claim? Practical or theoretical?
QUOTE:
| "A lot of familes are destroyed by illness or injury, not because somebody dies or is crippled, but because health care costs ruin them. If they even have access to the health care they need." |
|
|
Tell me, Knut, what's "a lot"? And exactly where are you getting your information for this one? If they even have access to the health care they need? Really? Do you doubt my statement that anyone needing medical care who can't afford it is, in fact, provided medical care...to include a tax-payer subsidized medical care plan including preventive care? Now, you wouldn't do that, would you? Are those who possess the means to pay for their care, via insurance premiums/deductibles or outright, expected to do so? Yes. Is it only the rewards of personal freedom, stripped of the inevitable responsibilities of truly personal liberty, which you deem of consequence? Now, how does this scenario present a curtailment of individual freedom?
QUOTE:
| "In some communities eminent domain is used by businesses to avoid that pesky supply and demand rule of economics when acquiring prime land." |
|
|
I assume you're referring to something like the Kelo decision? I didn't like the decision anymore than you seem to and, as I assume you do, wholeheartedly cast my lot with the Supreme Court Justices who dissented (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor). It was clearly an abuse on the part of the majority arguing for larger government (the Majority decision would eloquently disagree with me). But, don't you see that such an example actually refutes your premise?
Without the preeminence I suggest, the citizens of New London would have, de facto, absolutely no recourse. Your reasoning would have had them simply accept the money (and the subsequent compensation they received in addition to the appraisal) and have advised them to "make the most of the rights they do have." That is the whole problem with your rationalization of the rationing of individual freedoms. Your practical argument has no foundation because there is no predicate upon which to base the hope for anything more. Oh, I know you've since offered the concept of what you term "additions" to the argument, but it still doesn't address the original conundrum.
And, in a nutshell, Knut, it isn't nearly as simplistic as you (or I, in this case) might represent. Eminent domain is the purview of the community--in the local or Federal sense--in question, Knut. It is exercised along prescribed guidelines by elected officials responsible to their constituency. Despite the theory of eminent domain predating our American Constitution, a person whose property is declared subject to eminent domain proceedings does not automatically relinquish those rights recognized by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. There is guaranteed legal recourse to both enforcement and in matters of appraisal....in the Kelo case, right up to the Supreme Court on appeal. As you point out, Knut, the theory of eminent domain varies in its reach on a state by state basis; with many states disallowing such takings and others, like Florida, severely restricting such use of the theory as you suggest. It is, again, the purview of the citizens of these states to determine the validity of the theory of eminent domain.
I didn't like the decision anymore than you, but what is it about the process of representative democracy in this vein--which first recognized the rights in jeopardy and then acted to secure due process according to those rights--that you find so tasteful? Is this the bicycle argument, again? Considering that your issue impinges upon the Equal Protection Clause, I'm mildly surprised that you didn't bring up slavery. Too passe?
QUOTE:
| "Any large corporation that violates your rights does so with impunity when you can't afford a lawyer." |
|
|
Seriously, impunity? Have you cracked open the phone book of even a moderately sized American city? Turned to the A or L heading? Scanned the 'net for suits directed at corporations? Actually reviewed the casebooks for instances of the far-too-numerous to list examples of a redress of grievance? Is this further example of what Europeans tell themselves about America? That we live in fear of some giant multinational stamping a Gucci-leather jackboot down on our necks? That must explain the evil corporate interests pushing so hard for tort reform, huh?
QUOTE:
| "How many innocent people are unfree and in prison because they couldn't afford qualified legal counsel?" |
|
|
I don't know. How many are in line waiting for just the right attorney in Norway? Once again, by your rationalization it wouldn't matter because, under your backwards rationale, there would be no preeminence of the right to a speedy trial, to confront your accusers, to a jury of your peers, or to qualified representation in the first place. In either Norway or America. This is the fact of your argument when confronted with its own challenge of theory and practice.
Still wanna advocate your twisted argument of freedom's worth?
QUOTE:
| "How much life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can a man afford if he spends 16 hours a day just trying to put a roof over his head and feed his family?" |
|
|
Well, that's the problem with your entire point, isn't it, Knut? Life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue our multitudinous definitions of happiness aren't things you purchase in measured quantity in the first place. That's the difficulty with your entire rationale as it represents either an inability or a willful refusal to grasp the notion of freedom beyond definition of mere material comfort. You want all of the potential safety of recognized personal liberty, but none of the responsibility.
But no, this is the bit which actually had me reconsider your post and decide to respond. Such a gross misconception, with its clear implication concerning America, shouldn't go unremarked.
Knut, the average American worker didn't work anything near your 16 hours a day simply to put a roof over his head, feed his family, or for any other consideration going as far back, at least, as the 1950's. And he's been working less and less just about every year, since 1965. While still maintaining, I might add, and even increasing, productivity and GNP. The US consistently ranks at the top in productivity in GDP in purchasing power parity for its trouble; and has for as long as I can remember. The American worker produces more per hour, produces much more overall, and is a lot more likely to be employed than his or her counterpart in Europe's big four all together. We produce more and we spend more, and that is simply the fact of the matter. In this regard, I would agree that we could use a larger dose of the famous Norwegian frugality and thrift.
A leisure gap? Yeah. But, not surprisingly, the facts of this leisure gap don't match your assessment of them. The lowest wage-earners in America, those who you might believe would seem to best fit in the category of your above misconception, actually work the least on average in America. Could this really surprise anyone not tainted by rationalizations of "50%: freedom?" We have a forty-hour work week with optional overtime. The official figures--accounting for vacation, holidays, sick days, etc.--factor in at a little over eight-hours-a-day per a five day workweek on average. Who does work more, sometimes quite a bit more? White-collar commission and salaried workers like many in this forum. Just like so many in Europe. I assure you, I'm not working merely to put a roof over my head or to feed my family. I enjoy my work and the rewards it affords. My wife works slightly more for a large portion of the year and earns less. Are the practical expressions of her individual freedoms somehow less than mine...seeing less "practical" expression? Hardly. And what would it matter with regard to her actual freedom in the first place?
Are there those on the extremities? Of course, just as there are in Norway. Should I foolishly seek to indict the freedom of the Kingdom of Norway for its stringent immigration laws and tight quotas simply because, for example, a relatively small number of illegal immigrants work off the books in Oslo and are, in the heart of a proud welfare state, denied a tax card? Unless I was expecting Norway to be perfect, it would seem a little foolish.
As someone who grew up watching his mother raise him by herself, I can honestly tell you that I never once mistook poverty as any sort of indictment of the worth of the concept of my inherent, individual freedom. Nor did I mistake the fact that I might, on occasion, be the only one wearing torn sneakers as either a constraint on individual worth or a barrier to the opportunities open to me. I didn't like sometimes wearing shoes a little past their prime when I was boy...but not once did it ever occur to me that I should so devalue, so debase the very concept of personal freedom as to confuse it with ease, comfort, or a new pair of sneakers. And, never for a instant since, have I mistaken material limitations for the limitations of the individual freedoms which are mine by right. So, tell me , Knut, how did wearing torn sneakers impede "practical" expression of my individual freedom? In America, I was loved beyond measure, taken to doctors for check-ups, was fed, and earned an education, etc...my best friend in childhood (who I first met standing in line to get our free lunch tickets in the Fourth grade) stayed local, didn't pursue higher education and now owns two successful auto-body shops. We even had comic books to read. Too personal? Well, it was all in the mixed economy of the Us with, contrary to some European thought, quite the social safety net for those who truly need the help up. What should I have worked towards if such recognition of my individual freedom did not precede any hopes of your "practical" considerations?
This is freedom in theory and practice. What you really seem to object to is the personal responsibility that Americans have traditionally levied in conjunction with a recognition of personal freedoms. How much life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can one afford?!! What, you think it's all been some masterstroke of the propagandists' art? And a sixteen-hour workday is the leverage of your claim? Sorry. But then, that's really the problem isn't it? You need, desperately, for something like your notion of a societally-enforced 16 hour workday remark to be true in order to justify such contradictory philosophies as embodied in your "50% free" equation.
America has very real problems, and like its FCC's responsibilities, they are legion. But arguments like yours about hard work aren't among them.
QUOTE:
| "Historically, even after the abolition of slavery, unethical business practices were employed in american mining towns to make workers slaves (in practice, not by law). The phrase "I owe my soul to the company store" in "Sixteen Tons" sums that policy up perfectly. In theory they were free men, in practice they were slaves. Boy, they must have been so glad to know that they were free. |
|
|
What, Knut? You've got a cd playing and a tattered copy of some jeremiad by Bjorneboe handy and, suddenly, you're ready to try to wield sarcasm in every response? Please.
In both theory and practice, they were free men being taken advantage of by an inequitable system. The fact they were complicit in the propagation of this system is no excuse. Solely because of the predicate of individuals rights, the long existing truck-system which predated the founding of America was challenged and abolished in the United States. Under the aegis of your definition of what should really define freedom...your "practical" brand of freedom...these people may or may not have ever had any recourse whatsoever to the expression of any sense of individual freedom of any kind in the workplace. Tell me, Knut, would you again have advised them that the real issue confronting them was one of "making the most" of it?
The very notion of such systems as those you reference were predicated on operating in relatively isolated locales and under very specific circumstances. At that, they've been outlawed for generations and were never, in any sense, widespread. On this last, I should remind you that they were never widespread in America, though they were certainly practiced world wide on a varying basis...even in Norway. Knut, does your argument really boil down to little more than an attack on America or its institutions and past institutions? Like the above, is it that America is not now Utopia; nor has it offered perfection in the past? Before you decide to tackle blueprinting the perfect society, I'd suggest that you first correct the order of preeminence in your own argument regarding freedoms in theory and practice.
QUOTE:
| "Similar policies are still found in third world countries, on factory "farms" catering to western businesses farming out their work. But in theory, I'm sure they're free." |
|
|
And a woefully simplified reduction in the anti-Globalization argument is now shoehorned into the debate, Knut, by the person arguing for the philosophy of people "making the most of the rights they do have"? This is rich.
Well, Knut, some of these "farms" may even have Walmart as a customer or Norway's GPF as an investor. Perhaps you should get the Council on Ethics or The Ministry of Finance on the phone? In a nation with a population of less than five million people you may very well live next door to one of the members of the Council on Ethics. You may live on the same block as all five of them, for all I know.
For our purposes, if the lives of these people does not find its basis in the recognition of individual freedom, both its responsibility and its reward, then they can never hope to be free in any other, legitimate sense. And certainly, they may not safely harbor any hopes for your "practical" sense of freedom. But, after reading your arguments concerning your rationalization of fewer rights, what would it really matter to you...if they weren't Social Democrats in Norway?
QUOTE:
| "My point is not that comfortable economic conditions are a substitute for freedom but that adverse economic conditions often are an impediment to it. Clear?" |
|
|
Crystal. You clearly insist on confusing the very nature of individual liberty with the too-transient notion of material ease. I will say that you've come a long way from the first three iterations of the initial sentiment you were attempting to express, each more moderated than the last. Unfortunately, with each subsequent iteration the facade of your original statements has only suffered.
What next, the old European refrain that we Americans are just a bunch of naive idealists?
Edited by Michael Myers on 21 May 2008 at 12:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Wow. I need a speed reading course for that one
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bob Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 December 2007
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 12:12pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
'Why some discussions need to be conducted in e-mail', Exhibit A.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The initial points weren't expressed in e-mail, Bob. The post is easy enough to skip, and I eagerly advise anyone so inclined to do so...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 21 May 2008 at 1:01pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I hate to walk away from a fight, but quite frankly I don't see the point of this one.
Whatever way I try to get my point across, it just doesn't seem to register and I've walked this path before on this board, trying to correct some ... innocent with a brain full of half digested ideas and catchy names who argues as if I'm trying to say the opposite of what I'm actually saying.
I'm in no mood for a rumble. It'll just derail a thread I find interesting and worthwhile in favor of some inconsequential babble. (And I'm including my own words on the subject in that.)
Now, what's the buzz on Vice-presidential candidates? Anything from the McCain camp or will he wait until he knows what Democratic candidate he'll be up against?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
