The proper reason to fear an Edwards presidency, if I recall, is that he's a complete foreign policy lightweight.
Because good god, America needs someone who signals that we know what the hell we're doing, someone who signals a rejection of the past six years. America on the inside isn't doing so hot, but the domestic stuff is nothing compared to how fucked we are with respect to the rest of the world.
The executive's domestic power is relatively small compared to the Congress. He has a disproportionate amount of "visible influence" due to being the single most public figure in governance; a lot of people have no fucking clue who their senators or representatives are, but almost everyone knows who the President is.
But on foreign policy, the executive branch is king and has enormous power. Always, always select Presidents based on foreign policy first and domestic policy second. That's where they can do the most good and the most damage.
But you are omitting the fact that most of those were minority movements against a 'moral majority' who disagreed with them. You are also omitting the centuries beforehand where people justified those same oppressions on moral grounds.
For centuries people were wrong.
This is the kicker. Yes, when MLK put on his preacher's hat and started fighting the good fight, I think he was wrong. Not because he was fighting injustice, but because he made it a moral battle. If you see injustice, change it by talking about justice, not about what is 'right'. People do not agree on what is right & wrong.
And people agree about justice? Man what. Justice is a completely normative notion, and one that's inextricably tied in to morality. I don't think the levels of inequality in America are just. Ron Paul doesn't think that redistributive taxes are just. We clearly do not agree, because justice is not a descriptive term, it's an evaluative one.
But you are omitting the fact that most of those were minority movements against a 'moral majority' who disagreed with them. You are also omitting the centuries beforehand where people justified those same oppressions on moral grounds.
For centuries people were wrong.
Oh god we've done this so many times. Look, you need to address these two questions I posed in the other thread, or the argument is just pointless hypothetical waffle.
1. Your intent defines whether a decision to act is an objective moral good. You need to answer this: Do you accept that it is the consequences of your action, not the intent, that defines whether it is an objective practical good? (ie 'objective public good' you were talking about)
2. I don't disagree there may be an 'objective good'. I disagree that people are able to agree on the definition. So I argue that if we cannot define an objective good, in practice, how we take action to attain it is subjective; action depends on differing opinions of what the definition is.
I think Oprah is backing Obama because he's the only current Dem candidate who isn't a total, complete putz.
Somehow I doubt Opera sees things the way you do.
She's a friggin' Billionaire. You dont get $1,000,000,000 by being a putz.
She looks at Obama and probably sees the future of american politics, post baby-boomer, too young for the near civil-war over Vietnam and thereby less divisive in his attitude and demenour; more conciliatory, free of the radical garbage of the 60s since, if you think about it, most american politics today involves refighting and reopening the wounds of Vietnam over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
For instance, remember when Dean said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for?" He wasn't yelling at Bush, but was probably still pissed at Nixon.
I don't think he even believed it, but that the statement was born out of the highly charged and angry attitude he grew up with in the 60s.... and was subsequently plastered all over each and every single mass-mailing I got from the RNC leading up to the '04 elections.
How can you clain to lead the party of tolerance, the RNC asks, while being so blantantly hateful and intolerant of someone who disagrees with you? Seriously, Karl Rove loves this shit.
Every time someone posted, blogged, or wrote a sign with "Bush = Hitler" that was a net gain for Republicans since it annoyed joe democrat, made joe moderate think you're a nut and made joe republican get off his ass and vote, donate, or volunteer.
It also brought back images of the anti-war "protestors" who, instead of just opposing the stupid fucking war, did something even more stupid by giving active aid, comfort, and help to the north Vietnamese. There are people who are *still* pissed that Jane Fonda wasn't tried for treason and that Berkly College made clothing for North Vietnamese soldiers.
Obama is free of a lot of that crap since he wasn't old enough to be involved in Vietnam and thereby doesn't have to establish his "street cred" by screaming and refighting the stupid war.
Back on point, look at it this way. You succeed in buisness by identifying future trends and getting on that bandwagon before others do. Oprah is a ridiculously successful buisness person, first and above all else. Consider that.
Your argument is that Oprah is very intelligent, as demonstrated by her ability to become fabulously wealthy, therefore she agrees with your analysis of the situation. Which is presumably very intelligent.
Your argument is that Oprah is very intelligent, as demonstrated by her ability to become fabulously wealthy, therefore she agrees with your analysis of the situation. Which is presumably very intelligent.
Are you fabulously wealthy?
No..... I'm doing what everyone else does on the internet and talking out of my ass while making half-baked assumptions on things I know very little about. :P
Honestly, though, what I'm suggesting is that her reasoning for supporting Obama is based on something deeper than his skin color and suggesting a possible reason as to why. Her success in buisness would perhaps demonstrate why, i.e., "identifying future trends and getting on that bandwagon before others do."
Even if he doesn't get the nomination and/or the presidency, he's got a future and may be an example of *the* future for the post-boomer democratic party.
No..... I'm doing what everyone else does on the internet and talking out of my ass while making half-baked assumptions on things I know very little about. :P
Ah thank God. Someone with a sense of humor.
Personally, I'd say she is probably just inspired by Obama for the same reasons that other people are inspired by Obama. I kind of doubt it is a big calculated thing.
No..... I'm doing what everyone else does on the internet and talking out of my ass while making half-baked assumptions on things I know very little about. :P
Ah thank God. Someone with a sense of humor.
Personally, I'd say she is probably just inspired by Obama for the same reasons that other people are inspired by Obama. I kind of doubt it is a big calculated thing.
See, that's just it.
I know some people fall back-asswards into cash, but to get to *her* level takes a certain level of calculation, genius, and planning that most humans will never posess. Not only is she a Billionaire, with a vast multi-media Empire, she's got a ridiculous amount of pull over a good chunk of the female population of the U.S.A. that spans generations and race.
Ask you mom, grandmother, wife/girlfriend about Oprah sometime. I always kid my wife with "So what did the 'O' tell you to think today?" ;-)
I don't find the argument compelling that because she has been successful in business her support for Obama must be calculated and perhaps self-interested.
I don't find the argument compelling that because she has been successful in business her support for Obama must be calculated and perhaps self-interested.
You can do both; you can like someone and also see in them the "wave of the future" the lines can blurr.
EDIT: Let me clarify, I don't think Obama is, like, a rook in the Chess Game Oprah is playing in her quest for global dominance.
That would make her Hillary. ;-)
What I do think is that, yes, like you said, she's impressed with his personal charisma, but also sees in him the post-boomer future of the democratic party.
I don't find the argument compelling that because she has been successful in business her support for Obama must be calculated and perhaps self-interested.
You can do both; you can like someone and also see in them the "wave of the future" the lines can blurr.
Yeah, well I think the reason Obama inspires people is his message that he is the wave of the future. That's what he is running his campaign on. Quite a few people who aren't media moghuls seem to be on board with it.
I don't find the argument compelling that because she has been successful in business her support for Obama must be calculated and perhaps self-interested.
You can do both; you can like someone and also see in them the "wave of the future" the lines can blurr.
Yeah, well I think the reason Obama inspires people is his message that he is the wave of the future. That's what he is running his campaign on. Quite a few people who aren't media moghuls seem to be on board with it.
See below, plz, I'll stop bludgeoning the dead horse on my end. :^:
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Oh god we've done this so many times. Look, you need to address these two questions I posed in the other thread, or the argument is just pointless hypothetical waffle.
1. Your intent defines whether a decision to act is an objective moral good. You need to answer this: Do you accept that it is the consequences of your action, not the intent, that defines whether it is an objective practical good? (ie 'objective public good' you were talking about)
2. I don't disagree there may be an 'objective good'. I disagree that people are able to agree on the definition. So I argue that if we cannot define an objective good, in practice, how we take action to attain it is subjective; action depends on differing opinions of what the definition is.
The Socratic method is ill-suited to forums. If you think that I'm committed to a certain undesirable position, then it's easiest to come right out and explain why, rather than relying on a series of questions. I could answer both of those, but the answer to the first one is both pretty complicated and also beside the point, so I don't see why I should derail in that direction unless you have a specific concern that needs addressing.
I'm still curious on what grounds you think someone could ever argue against slavery. Moral arguments are apparently out, and appeals self-interest would fail, given that slavery was certainly in a lot of white Southerner's self-interest. What does that leave? Or were there no legitimate arguments against slavery? That would certainly be an awkward conclusion for you.
I don't have any high minded comments to add, just my simplistic ones. Oprah believes that Obama signifies "change". What everyone knows and no one is admitting is that change in government is like pulling teeth...from a hippo. Almost impossible. If Obama is elected all that is going to happen is that he will learn to govern on the job and get in the same rut that's been there for the last 16 years.
Oh god we've done this so many times. Look, you need to address these two questions I posed in the other thread, or the argument is just pointless hypothetical waffle.
1. Your intent defines whether a decision to act is an objective moral good. You need to answer this: Do you accept that it is the consequences of your action, not the intent, that defines whether it is an objective practical good? (ie 'objective public good' you were talking about)
2. I don't disagree there may be an 'objective good'. I disagree that people are able to agree on the definition. So I argue that if we cannot define an objective good, in practice, how we take action to attain it is subjective; action depends on differing opinions of what the definition is.
The Socratic method is ill-suited to forums. If you think that I'm committed to a certain undesirable position, then it's easiest to come right out and explain why, rather than relying on a series of questions. I could answer both of those, but the answer to the first one is both pretty complicated and also beside the point, so I don't see why I should derail in that direction unless you have a specific concern that needs addressing.
It's not an attempt at Socratic method. The answer to the first one is fundamental to everything that I've been talking about, so it is not beside the point. Since you won't engage with it, hyopthetical waffle it is then.
This is also the nth time you have totally refused to address my point rather than your own, so I've lost interest, goodbye.
Posts
Somehow I doubt Opera sees things the way you do.
Irrelevant polemic.
The proper reason to fear an Edwards presidency, if I recall, is that he's a complete foreign policy lightweight.
Because good god, America needs someone who signals that we know what the hell we're doing, someone who signals a rejection of the past six years. America on the inside isn't doing so hot, but the domestic stuff is nothing compared to how fucked we are with respect to the rest of the world.
But on foreign policy, the executive branch is king and has enormous power. Always, always select Presidents based on foreign policy first and domestic policy second. That's where they can do the most good and the most damage.
For centuries people were wrong.
And people agree about justice? Man what. Justice is a completely normative notion, and one that's inextricably tied in to morality. I don't think the levels of inequality in America are just. Ron Paul doesn't think that redistributive taxes are just. We clearly do not agree, because justice is not a descriptive term, it's an evaluative one.
Oh god we've done this so many times. Look, you need to address these two questions I posed in the other thread, or the argument is just pointless hypothetical waffle.
I stand corrected.
Margaret Thatcher
She's a friggin' Billionaire. You dont get $1,000,000,000 by being a putz.
She looks at Obama and probably sees the future of american politics, post baby-boomer, too young for the near civil-war over Vietnam and thereby less divisive in his attitude and demenour; more conciliatory, free of the radical garbage of the 60s since, if you think about it, most american politics today involves refighting and reopening the wounds of Vietnam over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
For instance, remember when Dean said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for?" He wasn't yelling at Bush, but was probably still pissed at Nixon.
I don't think he even believed it, but that the statement was born out of the highly charged and angry attitude he grew up with in the 60s.... and was subsequently plastered all over each and every single mass-mailing I got from the RNC leading up to the '04 elections.
How can you clain to lead the party of tolerance, the RNC asks, while being so blantantly hateful and intolerant of someone who disagrees with you? Seriously, Karl Rove loves this shit.
Every time someone posted, blogged, or wrote a sign with "Bush = Hitler" that was a net gain for Republicans since it annoyed joe democrat, made joe moderate think you're a nut and made joe republican get off his ass and vote, donate, or volunteer.
It also brought back images of the anti-war "protestors" who, instead of just opposing the stupid fucking war, did something even more stupid by giving active aid, comfort, and help to the north Vietnamese. There are people who are *still* pissed that Jane Fonda wasn't tried for treason and that Berkly College made clothing for North Vietnamese soldiers.
Obama is free of a lot of that crap since he wasn't old enough to be involved in Vietnam and thereby doesn't have to establish his "street cred" by screaming and refighting the stupid war.
Back on point, look at it this way. You succeed in buisness by identifying future trends and getting on that bandwagon before others do. Oprah is a ridiculously successful buisness person, first and above all else. Consider that.
Margaret Thatcher
Are you fabulously wealthy?
No..... I'm doing what everyone else does on the internet and talking out of my ass while making half-baked assumptions on things I know very little about. :P
Honestly, though, what I'm suggesting is that her reasoning for supporting Obama is based on something deeper than his skin color and suggesting a possible reason as to why. Her success in buisness would perhaps demonstrate why, i.e., "identifying future trends and getting on that bandwagon before others do."
Even if he doesn't get the nomination and/or the presidency, he's got a future and may be an example of *the* future for the post-boomer democratic party.
Margaret Thatcher
Ah thank God. Someone with a sense of humor.
Personally, I'd say she is probably just inspired by Obama for the same reasons that other people are inspired by Obama. I kind of doubt it is a big calculated thing.
See, that's just it.
I know some people fall back-asswards into cash, but to get to *her* level takes a certain level of calculation, genius, and planning that most humans will never posess. Not only is she a Billionaire, with a vast multi-media Empire, she's got a ridiculous amount of pull over a good chunk of the female population of the U.S.A. that spans generations and race.
Ask you mom, grandmother, wife/girlfriend about Oprah sometime. I always kid my wife with "So what did the 'O' tell you to think today?" ;-)
Margaret Thatcher
You can do both; you can like someone and also see in them the "wave of the future" the lines can blurr.
EDIT: Let me clarify, I don't think Obama is, like, a rook in the Chess Game Oprah is playing in her quest for global dominance.
That would make her Hillary. ;-)
What I do think is that, yes, like you said, she's impressed with his personal charisma, but also sees in him the post-boomer future of the democratic party.
Margaret Thatcher
Yeah, well I think the reason Obama inspires people is his message that he is the wave of the future. That's what he is running his campaign on. Quite a few people who aren't media moghuls seem to be on board with it.
See below, plz, I'll stop bludgeoning the dead horse on my end. :^:
Margaret Thatcher
The Socratic method is ill-suited to forums. If you think that I'm committed to a certain undesirable position, then it's easiest to come right out and explain why, rather than relying on a series of questions. I could answer both of those, but the answer to the first one is both pretty complicated and also beside the point, so I don't see why I should derail in that direction unless you have a specific concern that needs addressing.
I'm still curious on what grounds you think someone could ever argue against slavery. Moral arguments are apparently out, and appeals self-interest would fail, given that slavery was certainly in a lot of white Southerner's self-interest. What does that leave? Or were there no legitimate arguments against slavery? That would certainly be an awkward conclusion for you.
It's not an attempt at Socratic method. The answer to the first one is fundamental to everything that I've been talking about, so it is not beside the point. Since you won't engage with it, hyopthetical waffle it is then.
This is also the nth time you have totally refused to address my point rather than your own, so I've lost interest, goodbye.