FoFa said:
So just because of the geography you are pretty much a left leaner.
You shouldn't make assumptions like that. In portions of Queens and almost exclusively in Staten Island and certain in parts of Jersey you have extreme rightists. Let's not forget where the RNC happened before the elections.
FoFa said:
Interesting, except today GWB seems to be the "underdog" and I sure do not see people like Rich fighting for him, so maybe it is more of a choosen underdog rather than all underdog's? Besides I hear that dribble (The left considers all) but only if the "all" agree with them. You never truly know where a liberal stands. You may think you know, than WHAM, the wind changes, and so does what they stand for. Oh you say, that is just the politicians, which I then assume you mean the left's leaders?
You do know where a liberal stands -- for the least common denominator as equally as the most common. As the power shifts so too must the political philosophy. My personal sense of self is as a supple individual who is capable of adaptation, growth in new direction and the understanding that 'right' is not a direct concept with black and white answers to everything but is more or less a personal decision within the moment it is made. If we are incapable of growing or changing then we'd all be quite dead for the COUNTLESS times humanity has gotten itself into a pot of hot water for it's choices. Even in the short-lived American history we have examples in the Vietnam War or the Cold War -- what if we never strayed from nuclear armament ... what if we never sought peace? We can and SHOULD change to adapt to the environment of the moment -- it's not being 'weak' or 'indecisive' it's being intelligent.
Hawking, arguably the greatest mind in recorded history, has himself made proofs that changed the entire physics community that now, later on in life, he has taken to DISproving. That takes balls but it's also extremely noble.
FoFa said:
I like that, however it would seem that even a neat example, just shows to display the gap the left likes to put in the differances. It has been my experience that the right does care about the "pears", how ever not to the point that they deserve 1/3 of the output when they don't supply the same input. But apples and oranges aside, lets just dive in headfirst. Pretty mush the left wants to throw more money at the poor. The last 40 years has pretty much tought us that has not had the desired effect of helping them out of the position they find themselves in. And as a result it has actually created more poor because the kids see their parents getting a free check from the gov., so they do the same thing (yes not all, but I get to generalize too). Where as the right says, If we are going to throw money at this problem, lets at least try to fix it instead of making it worse. I don't pretend to have the answer, so don't ask. And at least by outward appearance it is in the Left's best interest to keep things like they are because it drives their vote count up.
I don't know about you but I don't tend to comment on the beauty (or lack thereof) of 'mush' ... mush is just sort of 'mush' whether it's pretty or not.
And I find it stunning that you've been inside the homes of a large (say, 1000 from each region) sampling of those under the poverty line and taken them to psychotherapists to determine exactly why it is they end up relying on the government for income. There can be just as strong an argument that not enough opportunities have been opened to them -- that without proper financial support you can do almost nothing in this country. Certainly there are fairy tales of kids who get out from under the thumb of the financial oppression but I work with those children on a daily basis -- the real poor -- the new york city slum kids. Some of them aren't geniuses, most are just more or less 'normal' and to say that they have every opportunity every other kid in the US has is ludicrious. Not only do the slum schools have a harder time finding equally adequate instructors, most are overcrowded and lacking proper instructional materials. They lack computers for writing papers, they lack motivation too because they know that if they get a B, unlike a priveleged midwest kid (like myself), they can't get a dollar out of mom or dad to pay the portion of tution the shrinking grants can't cover. Even $100 a year is too much when your rent is $2100 a month for a five-person family apartment. Sure you may say, just get a job, then but what does someone have to live for working for the great American institution of wal-mart where benefits, union protection, and pay are all-substandard enough to ensure that you're just as poor when you die as when you started off and that you can waste your life away breaking your back for nothing. And besides, even wal-mart in certain locations, won't hire everyone. I have a friend with a bachelor's degree in literature who's been looking for a job for 3 months now and incapable of so much as even getting a position with Barnes and Noble because there are so few jobs available. Even I have to moonlight to make rent payments because the rich continue to get richer and drive up the costs of living for everyone else. Trickle-down economics simply does not work in a society that consumes more than it creates. So, I ask kindly, that before you make broad sweeping and ignorant statements about the psychological reasoning of those caught under the financial oppression of the times that you A) Actually meet some and spend time with them and B) meet quite a few more to make sure it isn't an isolated incident and C) meet yet more in different regions.
~Chad
