No matter how much I try, I can't picture this as "moving" me. Cartoons in themselves are often light and humorous, and the jaunty, informal attitude associated with fist bumping doesn't quite help.
Perhaps a painting of Obama looking up at Lincoln's statue would have moved me more.
Apparently they're taking a "participate in debates" break. Just look at the "Online" section of their profiles. For example, I just checked Bradf0rd's, and it said he was on 1hr 39mins ago. And loudacris was online 1hr 40mins ago.
So they're here...but not actually writing any arguments...
The conservative-liberal divide has been steadily widening ever since Bush's presidency. It seems that the latest Obama vs. McCain divide has accelerated this. Democrats became stauncher Democrats. Republicans became stauncher Republicans.
As Republicans suffer the repercussions of losing the president position (after losing Congress in what seems like 'just yesterday'), they'll be driven away from Obama. And the widespread media support for Obama (far larger than for Kerry) also alienates many Republicans due to their "bias." (well, they still have Fox news...). Plus Obama's highly liberal stance on abortion, gay marriage, and taxation has not and will not be easily swallowed by Republicans. Many (of course, not all) Republicans supported McCain solely to oppose Obama - not because McCain was a good candidate. McCain was the safe haven for racists, anti-"socialists", higher-income voters, and pro-life advocates.
Meanwhile, with a strong Democratic president at the helm (with the support of both houses of Congress), Democrats will be far less willing to compromise with Republicans. This will only widen the rift.
And tough economic times (Great Depression) and faraway, disliked wars (Vietnam) have never been known to help unite Americans, instead leading to a lot of finger-pointing.
Glassbooth seems to be pretty similar to what I'm proposing. It's a bit more comprehensive (yet better). A very interesting way to figure out which candidate you like.
Stability in both Iraq and the Middle East is a significant factor in why we're still staying in Iraq. It is feared that if the US pulls out prematurely, the new Iraqi government will eventually collapse and violence will escalate. The US presence in Iraq is also used to keep pressure on other Middle East countries to thwart terrorists.
As Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic and Machiavelli in The Prince argued, an unjust person gets farther in life than a just one.
"Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word. " - Machiavelli
"Injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice" - Thrasymachus
Although many would argue that pragmatism gets you farther than idealism, idealism does have its pros.
- Succeeding ideologically is more "glorious." For example, a candidate who refrains from mudslinging is praised.
- Being pragmatic tells others that you yourself don't value your ideal very highly.
- Nothing beats an undivided mind. Being pragmatic brings in self-conflict, as you struggle between cutting corners and staying true to your convictions.
- Ideals provide a unmoving holdfast to safeguard you against compromises. For example, if you become pragmatic enough, you can justify almost anything, such as euthanasia and infanticide. Idealism prevents you from that.
In essence, pragmatism can pay off in the short run, yet have severe consequences in the long run.
That's very true; some evidence indicates that Machiavelli actually preferred republics.
And that, too, is a legitimate concern. Which is why I said in my blog, "Shuddering at the memory of despotic monarchs in history such as King George III, many people wonder why Machiavelli even considers a monarchy." But the question of the debate was, can it be a good form of government. Which I (and Machiavelli) would say 'yes' to.
Well, people have to wait in long lines to vote anyways (at least in California). And the handouts should be short, like just 1-2 sentences on each topic. Right now, we get voter guides that explain this type of stuff in great detail anyways; it's just that most people don't read them. And the answers could be managed in the same way tests like the SAT today are: several different forms (e.g. Form A, Form B, Form C...) with the answers jumbled. Plus you could make it a crime to deliberately "pass out answers."
In short, this system would be awesome because it'd force the voters to actually gain some knowledge of issues. And it would ensure candidates take a firm position on an issue, stick to it, and proclaim to voters their position and its merits.
Haha I may be too young to have experienced it firsthand, but I know enough about it from US History (I got an 800 on the SAT II for it as a 4 on the AP, so I'm pretty comfortable around history). And yes, you're right, the South was Democratic in the 60s (which is why it became known as the "Solid South"). What I was talking about was during and immediately after the Republican occupation of the South as part of the Radical Reconstruction after the Civil War. Blacks technically were allowed to vote, but the white Southern governments quickly made voter "intelligence" verification, etc. Which effectively kept the blacks from voting until much, much later.
Or...how about: (WARNING: I'm being radical here) give voters a handout that states each candidate's position on an issue but doesn't tell them which policy is whose. The voters then select which position they like better on each issue. At the end, whoever "wins" a majority of the issues gets the voter's vote. This system would ENSURE that candidates want voters to be aware on issues.
Your belief about marriage doesn't necessarily mean that attending the wedding was wrong.
And I don't support gay marriage, but I'm just wondering how you (or anyone) would answer the following questions: What makes gay marriage "wrong"? God? And even if you disagree with the idea of gay marriage, can you deny the fact that some people really are gay? And if you concede the fact that "gayness" actually exists: if you vote 'yes' on prop 8, are you just trying to force your view on someone? What valid reason do you have to take away from others' happiness, while not necessarily taking from your own (no one's making you become gay)?
The kids chose to go attend the wedding of their teacher. In fact, the parents planned it to surprise the teacher. No one was forced to go; two families opted out without any difficulties.
I'm not saying gay marriage is good/bad. I'm just saying that it wasn't wrong to visit a wedding.
It's true that Obama's answer is more socialistic, like the video stated. However, such a system of taxation is already in place in the US; Obama just wants to tweak the tax levels a bit from what they are right now.
And the video's claims to the Obamas and Bidens donating very little make a lot of sense when you consider how much money they actually have. Obama's net worth is $800,000 (net worth = all your assets (e.g. house) - all your liabilities (e.g. mortgages)). And Biden currently is the poorest Senator in Congress. Compare that to McCain's net worth of $42 million (not including his wife's $100 million inheritance) and Palin's $1-million-plus net worth. I'm not saying wealth is bad; I'm just saying that the amount Obama and Biden donate to charity makes sense considering how much money they actually have. Here's an article detailing the figures.
Machiavelli is one of the proponents of a monarchy. In The Prince, he argues that if a prince is good, then he will have a successful monarchy and, most of all, have happier people.
He gives a list of benefits, which include the following:
- A powerful, noble leader becomes a "paradigm of virtue" for his subjects
- A monarchy has greater stability and unity than most republics
- A monarchy has greater fiscal responsibilty
- A monarchy is successful militarily
(For a better explanation of these points, read this post from one of my blogs.)
Isn't suicide, by definition, the option of the person committing it? So then are you talking about euthanasia?
And if you're talking about preventing suicides, there really isn't much people can do besides improving living conditions and such.
