Concerning the upcoming elections, and previous ones for that matter - why is whether or not someone screwed around or showed up for service in any way relevant compared to someones political views when he's running for presidency of the most powerful nation in the world?

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Concerning the upcoming elections, and previous ones for that matter - why is whether or not someone screwed around or showed up for service in any way relevant compared to someones political views when he's running for presidency of the most powerful nation in the world?
I have no idea. I don't care if he's a cheater, womanizer, or hires transsexual prostitutes to ass rape him with a strap on every Friday night. I want to know where they stand on the issues. What do you represent? I don't care about what you did 30 years ago in the military. I do care if you are portrayed as a hero for doing it and your election hopes count on your service record from 30 years ago though. Thank you for your service, but it's irrelevant here and now for the Presidency.

Because it demonstrates the cadidates ability to handle responsibility.

Also, many government jobs require that the applicant demonstrate good moral character and integrity... why shouldn't that likewise apply to the leader of the most powerful nation on earth? Leadership by example is important... and this is an are where both Clinton and Bush have fell quite short.

Because it demonstrates the cadidates ability to handle responsibility.

Hey, I'm not dim! ;) What puzzles me is why the emphasis seems to lie on this ability, and not on someone's plans for the nation. After all, that's what you're voting him in for. Or should be.

I wish they would run on NO plan for the future!

Maybe that way NOTHING would get done. And the less Congress and government does the BETTER it is for us!!!!

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Concerning the upcoming elections, and previous ones for that matter - why is whether or not someone screwed around or showed up for service in any way relevant compared to someones political views when he's running for presidency of the most powerful nation in the world?


Originally posted by Ponycar_302

I have no idea. I don't care if he's a cheater, womanizer, or hires transsexual prostitutes to ass rape him with a strap on every Friday night. I want to know where they stand on the issues. What do you represent? I don't care about what you did 30 years ago in the military. I do care if you are portrayed as a hero for doing it and your election hopes count on your service record from 30 years ago though. Thank you for your service, but it's irrelevant here and now for the Presidency.

The answer is so simple, I don't know why it's so hard for anyone to understand. It's about character. Of course people aren't perfect, but a leader should be someone we can trust and have some respect for.... at least more so than the Joe-six pack down the street who doesn't have the responsibility a leader has.

You can say, "but they're all corrupt liars", but the thing is.... it is attitudes such as yours that PUT them there, in power. If you think it's no big deal that a leader is a liar, cheater, slimeball, as long as he's right on the issues... then guess what? That lying cheating slimeball president is going to ***** YOU, and all of us.

But whose fault is that?

I disagree. What if someone made a mistake in the past but has a political programme in mind that will really benefit the US as a whole?

Does a single mistake in the past weigh so heavy that it warrants ignoring a healthy plan for the future?

And how about the one that gets chosen eventually? What if he has a clean slate, but has a plan that will lead the nation to disaster?

Cindy, you seem to ignore the fact that people can learn from their mistakes and change.

Edit - From another thread:

Originally posted by jwreck
You're kidding, right? How many voted for Gore last time because he looked better in jeans?


Originally posted by Powerboss
The American people want a President they like.

Its a huge issue.


Originally posted by drunken hearted man
I meant who would be more electable, not the actual "better" candidate....who looks better on TV, who comes across as more likable, etc. those are the things that get people elected these days. Of course I wouldn't vote for Kerry or edwrads, that's not what I meant.

Another thing - today I heard Bush has something like 250 million to support his campaign, while Kerry only has 31 million, even with a second mortgage on his house.

Effectively, this increases Bush' chance of winning. Don't americans find it odd that the candidate with the largest purse is most likely to win?

Because, again, this has nothing to do with the potential benefit a man can have for your nation.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Don't americans find it odd that the candidate with the largest purse is most likely to win?

Because, again, this has nothing to do with the potential benefit a man can have for your nation.

Not really, becaue it shows that both Bush and Kerry were willing to work very hard and save and invest their money wisely. How else could they have become rich? The only way is through hard work and effort, something Bush and Kerry know a great deal about.

Please DO show me a nation, any large industrialized mation ... maybe even ANY ... where "poor" people end up running the country! Its never happened here in the USA!

Originally posted by drunken hearted man


Not really, becaue it shows that both Bush and Kerry were willing to work very hard and save and invest their money wisely. How else could they have become rich? The only way is through hard work and effort, something Bush and Kerry know a great deal about.
Bush was born with it and Kerry married into it.

Originally posted by Ponycar_302

Bush was born with it and Kerry married into it.

:rolleyes: really? I was being totally serious. I could have swore those guys built their own fortunes from the ground up.

Originally posted by drunken hearted man


:rolleyes: really? I was being totally serious. I could have swore those guys built their own fortunes from the ground up.
Nope. :)

Originally posted by drunken hearted man


Not really, becaue it shows that both Bush and Kerry were willing to work very hard and save and invest their money wisely. How else could they have become rich? The only way is through hard work and effort, something Bush and Kerry know a great deal about.

I can give you two words that disprove most of what you said: Paris Hilton

Originally posted by drunken hearted man
:rolleyes: really? I was being totally serious. I could have swore those guys built their own fortunes from the ground up.

Yep, the Bush faimly has been very wealthy and Kerry married to the Heinz ketchup family.

American culture is to hold leaders to higher standards than ordinary people. The person next door can have sex with camels, dress like a clown on their job, have affairs. It's odd for them, but not acceptable for a leader to it. The term "character issue" is how the media refers to situations that involve personal lives of leaders. They believe that a man that has alot of girlfriends when married, like John F. Kennedy did, will get into trouble in other ways.

Any information that makes a leader vulnerable can be used against them.

(Btw, one of John Kennedy's girlfriends was also dating a mafia member)

Not really, becaue it shows that both Bush and Kerry were willing to work very hard and save and invest their money wisely.

How does making a lot of money compare to being a good leader? I know people who are rich and also complete bastards. Selfish as hell, only after their own best interests, and that of theirs.

I would not want one of them to decide the direction my nation is going to take.

Zap,

You appear quite naive if you think a person without at least higher than average wealth than the citizenry would, by and large, ever become a national leader in an industrialized nation.

Originally posted by ColWTH
Zap,

You appear quite naive if you think a person without at least higher than average wealth than the citizenry would, by and large, ever become a national leader in an industrialized nation.
- I'm afraid this has nothing to do with whether the nation's industrialized or not. Our current PM is a priest and has a personal fortune of 215000 NOK (about seven NOK = 1$ ), many of our previous ones have been teachers and the like. Few highly paid professions, in other words.

(source: http://www.bt.no/skatt/index.jhtml;jsessionid=50Q1IGALMGPTHCOZXZCSFEY?sea rch=&fid=&_D%3Afid=+&kid=&_D%3Akid=+&fra=&_D%3Afra=+&til=&_D%3Atil=+&_D%3A2000=+&_D%3A2001=+&2002=true&_D%3A2002=+&fnavn=Kjell+Magne&_D%3Afnavn=+&enavn=Bondevik&_D%3Aenavn=+&_DARGS=%2Fpubs%2Fbtno%2Ftemplate%2FjhtmlLib%2Ftaxt %2Ftaxt.jhtml )

Because a dishonest man will lie about anything, even a great plan for the nation. How can you trust someone to do what they say they are going to do if they can't be trusted?

People should be allowed mistakes, if they acknowledge them and strive not to repeat them.

Don't concern yourself with the money issue. Kerry has at least a billion dollars to tap into.

Idontknow,

I said a REAL country. Anyone who gets paid in NOKs can't be living in a REAL country!!!

(just kidding, just kidding)

How can you trust someone to do what they say they are going to do if they can't be trusted?

How can you trust someone with no healthy plan, but just a lot of money and a likeable face? This could go for either side, BTW.

Originally posted by ColWTH
Please DO show me a nation, any large industrialized mation ... maybe even ANY ... where "poor" people end up running the country! Its never happened here in the USA!

UK is a bit closer to that than the US. While still no "poor" people, we atleast have people from working class backgrounds (deputy prime Minister for a start). And you only need to raise a relatively small depost to stand for election to the house of Commons (think its a few thousand, which you get back if you get over a certain percentage of the Votes).

Hugs

lilnymph

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


How can you trust someone with no healthy plan, but just a lot of money and a likeable face? This could go for either side, BTW.

Why would you trust someone with no plan?

We worship rich people. The fact that you're rich means you must be very smart and wise, and can lead a nation.

http://www.i-magin-ation.com/Newsletters/Illusiions_and_Ego_08192002/Images/Man_throwing_money.jpg

=


http://www.8ung.at/liquid1/clipart/bw/einstein.jpg

I'm not sure I buy that, but it does indicate that person has something on the ball. Or should I say usually, or maybe, but it is a valid indicator, one of many.

You are BOTH quite wrong actually.

In America most politicians at the State and Federal level are rich because they HAVE to be.

Could YOU afford to fund two places to live? One in Washington and one in your home district? Could YOU afford to fund your own life while you spend months at a time in either your home capital or the Federal capital as you take care of legislative duties and not home earning a living?

I highly DOUBT it!

But our pols MUST do this. They MUST have the money to support two residences, support their family at home and thier own living expenses at the seat of government as they also afford the things they must do AS government workers that are not covered by their legislative paychecks!

It AIN'T CHEAP folks!

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Cindy, you seem to ignore the fact that people can learn from their mistakes and change.

No, I'm not ignoring that. That is true, and I would consider voting for someone who is a different person now than they were in their 20's or 30's.

But with many politicians (a perfect example is clinton), their character hasn't changed. In clinton's case I'm talking about lying, cheating, sexual harassment, breaking the law, etc, etc. And those were just the things that we saw, I'm sure there were plenty of things we didn't see.


Before anyone says "but Bush is... blah blah blah" You don't need to tell me that. I'm not a Bush supporter.

Originally posted by ColWTH
You are BOTH quite wrong actually.

In America most politicians at the State and Federal level are rich because they HAVE to be.

Could YOU afford to fund two places to live? One in Washington and one in your home district? Could YOU afford to fund your own life while you spend months at a time in either your home capital or the Federal capital as you take care of legislative duties and not home earning a living?
- Erm, these are reasons for the person to have a high salary. Which he does, being a big politician. These are not reason for they person to have a big personal fortune. What they need money for is the travelling around the country to promote themseles and, naturally, advertising. (Yes, as said before, I'm against political advertisements and this is one of the main reasons. Money should not be the deciding factor!)

In other news; did you all hear that Dubya is planning the largest and most expencive political ad campaign in the history of the USA?

I wonder why..... ;)

My guess is so he will win.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Concerning the upcoming elections, and previous ones for that matter - why is whether or not someone screwed around or showed up for service in any way relevant compared to someones political views when he's running for presidency of the most powerful nation in the world?
It has to do with Character

It was tough to get into flight school, GWB may have just gone Guard for that reason

It was boring duty on the USS Gridley for Kerry, standing watches, but it was honorable and safe. Running the Swift boats was more glorious, more JFK like that made him do it, maybe

Either way, it shows what character the person had from his youth. Cliton showed he had none when he protested against his own country overseas.

Kerry showed he had none when he came home, and then participated with people who lied about their service, all the while killing innocents himself, as if his confessions make it ok to be a war criminal

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Another thing - today I heard Bush has something like 250 million to support his campaign, while Kerry only has 31 million, even with a second mortgage on his house.

Effectively, this increases Bush' chance of winning. Don't americans find it odd that the candidate with the largest purse is most likely to win?

Because, again, this has nothing to do with the potential benefit a man can have for your nation.
Not really.

There has not been a candidate until the convention. The convention hasnt happened yet.

It is THEN that people send in money to the party they like, the dinners for $1000 a plate happen, it is NOW that the fund sstart rolling in to the Dem party candidate.

Money isnt the issue totally. Jimmy Carter had money left over in his campaign.

His campaign manager once said:

Carter didn’t spend all his money, he had millions left over. His campaign manager was asked, what would you spend the money on now looking back?



He replied, “3 More Helicopters”

Why would you trust someone with no plan?

That was my question.

But with many politicians (a perfect example is clinton), their character hasn't changed.

Another question: is this character so important? Running a nation like the US is more like being the CEO of a very large corporation. You need wisdom more than you do good morals. Compare the current discussion on gay marriage to the discussion on the various deficits. Which of those two will more affect the average Joe and should therefore get the most attention from your country's leader?

did you all hear that Dubya is planning the largest and most expencive political ad campaign in the history of the USA?

Precisely. It's not about politics, it's not about vision, it's not about plans. It's about marketing.

It was tough to get into flight school, GWB may have just gone Guard for that reason

I really wanted to keep this thread about presidential elections in general, not about the current (likely) candidates. That will result in a Kerry/Bush bashing fest and there are enough of those around.

Money isnt the issue totally.

I disagree. Without money you can't visit states, organize rallies, make and run commercials, and so on.

For example, here in Holland political parties aren't even allowed to air commercials. They all get an equal share of time on the national networks which they can use to explain their views to the public. Ten minutes every two weeks.

Apart from that, people are expected to base their decisions on what they read in the papers and see in the news, if they're not politically active and/or members of a political party.

This ensures equal exposure. The only way they can get more media attention is by formulating a certain plan, or by protesting another party's plan. Either way, the discussion will be about political content, not about marketing.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


Another question: is this character so important? Running a nation like the US is more like being the CEO of a very large corporation. You need wisdom more than you do good morals. Compare the current discussion on gay marriage to the discussion on the various deficits. Which of those two will more affect the average Joe and should therefore get the most attention from your country's leader?
No, Character is more important.

Even Hitler and Stalin were smart. No further explanation needed.

Clinton was smart, but Clinton was an immoralman who killed people to keep his sex scandals off the tv, took money from Communist China...

having a moral man in power is the RIGHT thing because of these obvious comparisons.

Even Hitler and Stalin were smart. No further explanation needed.

That's an insane comparisan, and you should be aware of that. Getting a blowjob in the Oral Office doesn't compare to genocide.

If you DO want to compare the two, it's merely a display of extreme bias on your side.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


That was my question.

I missed something, are we voting for anyone with no plan? There is a chance that might happen with Kerry (who has none at present) but I think his election might be more a factor of anti-Bush than pro Kerry.



Another question: is this character so important? Running a nation like the US is more like being the CEO of a very large corporation. You need wisdom more than you do good morals. Compare the current discussion on gay marriage to the discussion on the various deficits. Which of those two will more affect the average Joe and should therefore get the most attention from your country's leader?

I would think a person with Wisdom would also possess good morals. But character counts because we must trust our leaders to do the right thing. You can't do that with a person of low character. Clinton is just one example of that, although not the only one.



Precisely. It's not about politics, it's not about vision, it's not about plans. It's about marketing.

Marketing is part of politics. One must get elected to carry out ones vision. If the people like the message, they will support the candidate.





I disagree. Without money you can't visit states, organize rallies, make and run commercials, and so on.

For example, here in Holland political parties aren't even allowed to air commercials. They all get an equal share of time on the national networks which they can use to explain their views to the public. Ten minutes every two weeks.

Apart from that, people are expected to base their decisions on what they read in the papers and see in the news, if they're not politically active and/or members of a political party.

This ensures equal exposure. The only way they can get more media attention is by formulating a certain plan, or by protesting another party's plan. Either way, the discussion will be about political content, not about marketing.

I've wondered if that might be a good idea to try here. The problem I would have with that is what happens at a more local level where I might have a vested interest in an outcome. Should I not be allowed to run commercials supporting my viewpoint even tho I might not be a candidate? That is part of my right of free speech.

I missed something, are we voting for anyone with no plan?

I don't know, that's not the issue. I was merely saying that even someone with little or no plan could get elected if he had enough money to support his campaign.

Marketing is part of politics. One must get elected to carry out ones vision. If the people like the message, they will support the candidate.

Thanks for restating what I was wondering about... ;) But my question regarding the last sentence was: what message should they like? The one with political content, or the likeable face?

The problem I would have with that is what happens at a more local level where I might have a vested interest in an outcome.

You would be more than welcome to hang up posters and stuff, as long as you do it in places where it's allowed. You would not be allowed to air a commercial, though.

It's a way to ensure balance - fair chances for everyone. In a way, it's also protection of free speech: even the smallest parties have their airtime, not just the ones with cash.

Originally posted by Bochephus
My guess is so he will win.
- It's called "compensating"

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


I don't know, that's not the issue. I was merely saying that even someone with little or no plan could get elected if he had enough money to support his campaign.

NOt sure I agree with that, but I don't know how it could be proved either way



Thanks for restating what I was wondering about... ;) But my question regarding the last sentence was: what message should they like? The one with political content, or the likeable face?

Why the word "should?" What about the words "who will they like?"
My guess is it wouldn't be face, but message, even though some people might not know what the message is.



You would be more than welcome to hang up posters and stuff, as long as you do it in places where it's allowed. You would not be allowed to air a commercial, though.

It's a way to ensure balance - fair chances for everyone. In a way, it's also protection of free speech: even the smallest parties have their airtime, not just the ones with cash.

I don't think limiting my freedom is the way to enhance someone elses. If someone else has a position let them organize and raise money to finance it.

By limiting my freedom to promote my position you are limiting my freedom of speech. Your method might yield "equality," however that is not the goal, freedom is. I want asmuch freedom as is possible to associate with like minded kpeople, and do what is neccessary to get our message out. lImiitin g my ability to advertize limits my ability to communicate with and educate people who don't agree wtih me or who haven't made up their minds. Limiting info to eeryone is a poor way to ensure people make informed decisions.

Why the word "should?" What about the words "who will they like?"

Oh, what shall I say - when deciding which person will be representing you as the leader of your nation for the next 4 years, what should be the determining factor - superficial likeability or policitcal content?

And about the message? Ever since I saw footage of those campaigns, it was all about smearing the other guy, not about politics (okay, slight exaggeration).

I don't think limiting my freedom is the way to enhance someone elses.

Sure is. There can never be absolute freedom. Your freedom to park your car in front of my house limits my freedom to enjoy the view from my window. My freedom to swear limits buttercup's freedom not to be confronted with blasphemy.

Ya can't please everyone.

By limiting my freedom to promote my position you are limiting my freedom of speech.

In a way, yes. But by not limiting it in this way, I'd be allowing access to financial means to rule over democratic principles, without which free speech wouldn't exist.

Kind of a catch 22. I believe you sometimes have to sacrifice a small amount of free speech to ensure it's continuance.

I want asmuch freedom as is possible to associate with like minded kpeople, and do what is neccessary to get our message out.

Whoa! This is something else. Associate with whom you like, that's fine. But why the need to get a message out? What about other people's freedom to think and feel what they want without being harassed by others?

...and educate people...

That's a little presumptuous, don't you think?

Limiting info to eeryone is a poor way to ensure people make informed decisions.

It's not about limiting info, it's about giving everyone the same amount of exposure. The can do interviews with newspapers, post signs, hold meetings, anything else they want. They just can't advertise themselves.

No marketing, but politics. As it should be.

I want to associate with people who share my values. It is they who will donate the money required to advertize our position about a particular issue. Take gun ownership for example, shouldn't we be able to advertize the facts about guns so people can educate themselves on the facts and make an iformed decision? That is not arrogant to want to educate people. Why would my TV ads be harassment? How is excersing my freedom to advertize my position limiting someone elses?

We are talking about freedom of speech. Can you cite an example of how my excersing my freedom of speech on TV, something I am willing to pay for, limits someone elses freedom? That is the crux of the matter.

Advertisement is hardly a good way of educating people

Why is that? If I run a TV ad saying more people are saved every year by legal guns than are killed by all guns, isn't that a fact worth knowing? If I run an ad showing no one was killed last year in the US by an assault weapon, isn't that worth knowing? People are free to see the info and accept or reject it, but at least it is there to be discussed or researched. Why is an advert not a good way to educate people?

Because you pay insane amounts for it per second and seeing how mutch attention common people pay to commercials it also has to be especially noticeable. I.e. it tends to become quite dumb and blatant.

If you can communicate a good and in-debth analysis and presentation of your political message in a loud way using only ten seconds, chances are that your message really isn't anything but dumbing populist twaddle.

We are talking about freedom of speech. Can you cite an example of how my excersing my freedom of speech on TV, something I am willing to pay for, limits someone elses freedom? That is the crux of the matter.

Because a possible result of it might be that people won't feel safe anymore because every yahoo can carry a gun on the street.

Why is that?

Education is about teaching facts - it includes several points of view. Advertisement is nothing but furthering a biased opinion.

I would also like to revisit the argument about candidates needing to have character. In this thread (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51509) almost every conservative on this board is screaming it was 30 years ago and people can change. When I suggested the very same thing in general, I got responses like But with many politicians (a perfect example is clinton), their character hasn't changed.

To me that smells like good old fashioned hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


Because a possible result of it might be that people won't feel safe anymore because every yahoo can carry a gun on the street.
So what you are really saying is you don't like the message, it should be censored. Don't let facts cloud the arguement

Education is about teaching facts - it includes several points of view. Advertisement is nothing but furthering a biased opinion. But if one is quoting facts to bolster ones point of view, is that advertizing or education?

I would also like to revisit the argument about candidates needing to have character. In this thread (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51509) almost every conservative on this board is screaming it was 30 years ago and people can change. When I suggested the very same thing in general, I got responses like But with many politicians (a perfect example is clinton), their character hasn't changed.

To me that smells like good old fashioned hypocrisy.

I will only speak for myself. People can change, they can turn over a new leaf and resolve to do better. I am will ing to give anyone another chance to re-earn trust.

In the case of Clinton, he has lied all his life, has neverr displayed any consistant core values, has never acknowledged his problem, has never appologized with a firm commitment to do better. I reasch the conclusion he is not trustworthy. I think that is reasonable.

Bush used to abuse alcohol. He acknowledged he drank too much, it was bad behaviour, he resolved to stop. After thirty years it appears he did stop. That shows character.

How is that hipocritical?

Originally posted by I don't know
Because you pay insane amounts for it per second and seeing how mutch attention common people pay to commercials it also has to be especially noticeable. I.e. it tends to become quite dumb and blatant. Are you worried aobut my finances? Tha is my concern, not yours, but thank you for caring. Dumb and blatant? Dumb is your opinion, is every one else as smart as you? What is bad about blatant, seems to be that is a good thing.

If you can communicate a good and in-debth analysis and presentation of your political message in a loud way using only ten seconds, chances are that your message really isn't anything but dumbing populist twaddle.

Or maybe others are capable of absorbing a message that is ten seconds long. "Free speech is neccessary to preserve our liberty." What is wrong with running that message? Is it too dumb, too blatant? Or too educational? Too on point?

Are you worried aobut my finances?
- Well, no.... I doubt you'd be able to afford an extensive advertisement campaign, though :p

Tha is my concern, not yours, but thank you for caring.
- :|

Dumb and blatant? Dumb is your opinion, is every one else as smart as you? What is bad about blatant, seems to be that is a good thing.
- Blatant:
Main Entry: bla·tant
Pronunciation: 'blA-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: perhaps from Latin blatire to chatter
1 : noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner : CLAMOROUS
2 : completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner : BRAZEN
synonym see VOCIFEROUS
- bla·tant·ly adverb

I'd also like to add "obtuse" to that list:

2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

Or maybe others are capable of absorbing a message that is ten seconds long. "Free speech is neccessary to preserve our liberty." What is wrong with running that message? Is it too dumb, too blatant? Or too educational? Too on point?
- 1: It tells me nothing. There's simply an opinion without argumentation behind it. It's simply not a good analysis at all.

Education (and you did say this was supposed to be educational) is not about "inserting facts in to people's brains" (unless you're talking about math) Education is about making people understand these facts and about giving people information about the different approaches to those facts.

2: Only putting that text alone on a screen without music or images would be a piss poor piece of advertisement. Commercials play on emotions. Just check out the political commercials that are probably aired in the US about now.

e.g. I bet Bush is trying to appeal to some of your emotions using that lately infamous 9/11-referring commercial.

Originally posted by I don't know

- Well, no.... I doubt you'd be able to afford an extensive advertisement campaign, though :p


- :|


- Blatant:
Main Entry: bla·tant
Pronunciation: 'blA-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: perhaps from Latin blatire to chatter
1 : noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner : CLAMOROUS
2 : completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner : BRAZEN
synonym see VOCIFEROUS
- bla·tant·ly adverb

I'd also like to add "obtuse" to that list:

2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression


- 1: It tells me nothing. There's simply an opinion without argumentation behind it. It's simply not a good analysis at all.

Actually, isn't that a fact?

Education (and you did say this was supposed to be educational) is not about "inserting facts in to people's brains" (unless you're talking about math) Education is about making people understand these facts and about giving people information about the different approaches to those facts.

YOu and I disagree about education. Letting people know that Columbus discovered America in 1492 is educaitonal. NOt as in depth as educating people as to why that is important, and its impact on history is even more educational. But it does not detract in any way from the importance of knowing the date.

2: Only putting that text alone on a screen without music or images would be a piss poor piece of advertisement. Commercials play on emotions. Just check out the political commercials that are probably aired in the US about now. Or it would have impact, it would get people talking. It hasn't been done before. But theissue isn't whether it is good or not, or even effective or not. The issue is whether it should be allowed. I believe it should be, it is a vital part of free speech.

e.g. I bet Bush is trying to appeal to some of your emotions using that lately infamous 9/11-referring commercial.

Perhaps, is that a bad thing? I think not. People who are passionate about their beliefs are more likely to act upon them, ie; vote. that is the point. The 9-11 reference is aobut 3 seconds of a 30 second spot. 9-11 is a defining moment in our history, and Bush's presidency. I would find it strange if it were not referred to, it would be conspicuous by its absence.

Actually, isn't that a fact?
- Isn't what a fact? Your "Free speech is neccessary to preserve our liberty." statement? Well, it's not a 100% undenieable, true-in-all-situations fact. Though I do agree with it, it can't be compaired to "Columbus arrived in America in 1492".

And, let's face it, no one's going to run an advertisement campaign in America on things most Americans allready agree on (like your statement on free speech)

YOu and I disagree about education. Letting people know that Columbus discovered America in 1492 is educaitonal.
- Not without letting them know that people also mean Leiv Erikson had already "discovered" America several hundred years earlier :mad:

And that's only history. Politics is about philosophy and ideology, a far more complex and disagreed upon field.

NOt as in depth as educating people as to why that is important, and its impact on history is even more educational. But it does not detract in any way from the importance of knowing the date.
- I see no importance at all in knowing that exact date :o

Or it would have impact, it would get people talking. It hasn't been done before.
- Yes it has.

But theissue isn't whether it is good or not, or even effective or not. The issue is whether it should be allowed. I believe it should be, it is a vital part of free speech.
- In important issues free speech shouldn't depend on how much money you have. And in this, very important, case it obviously does.

I'd say this is especially important in a country with as mutch problems with the democratic system as the US.

Also; I'd like to point out that freedom of speech, like all freedom, is never going to be complete. Try shouting "that man has a bomb" the next time you're at an airport :p

Perhaps, is that a bad thing? I think not. People who are passionate about their beliefs are more likely to act upon them, ie; vote.
- I personally see nothing positive in that people who haven't thought through their issues vote.

Yes it is most certainly a bad thing. It's incredibly dumbing. It's encouraging people to vote out of "whim" and doing merely what their "mood" tells them at the moment. I'd say that the rampant worshiping of "common sense" in politics in the US is proof that US politics is covered up in a sircus of emotional twaddle.

The 9-11 reference is aobut 3 seconds of a 30 second spot. 9-11 is a defining moment in our history, and Bush's presidency. I would find it strange if it were not referred to, it would be conspicuous by its absence.
- :shrug:

:topic:

Education (and you did say this was supposed to be educational) is not about "inserting facts in to people's brains" (unless you're talking about math)
So speaketh one who has never seen a mathematical proof in his life.

ftp://joshua.smcvt.edu/pub/hefferon/book/book.pdf

"The courses at the start of most mathematical programs work at having students apply formulas and algorithms. Later courses ask for mathematical maturity: reasoning skills that are developed enough to follow different types of arguments, a familiarity with the themes that underly many mathematical investigations like elementary set and function theory, and an ability to do some independent reading and thinking. Where do we work on the transition?"



^Have a read, if you will, of the linked text's appendices on techniques of mathematical proof, especially arguments by induction and contradiction. Feel the tug of pure reason on your philosophical heartstrings!

Or at least understand that mathematics, if it is akin to any other academic discipline, is akin to philosophy.

:topic:

How about we get back on topic?

Brief answer to mr. Ofthedead, for the sake of not throwing things too far :topic: :

1: dude! that's 445 pages!

2: No mathmatician would doubt that adding two apples to a stack of fourty eight would make that stack consist of fifty apples. (well, of course the mathmatician could choose to doubt it, but he'd be overstepping his area of expertise and should be swiftly flogged and herded back to his desk in the basement :| )

A philosopher, on the other hand, should doubt even the very existence of those apples.

Math is about certainty (and can be so because it works after presupposed axioms), philosophy is about critically doubting everything.