Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I simply think that it is the nature of man to need to belong to something. As long as there is that need - man will break into "tribes". At best I think all man kind would unify, only under a real threat to the existence of all mankind - and that would be temporary.
|
Tribe doesn't mean "a cooperating group of individuals", it's a bit more specific in the context of this thread. You're absolutely, 100% right that generally speaking humans have developed as a social species. We do seek to belong to a group because it's that very group that ensured our survival since long before we lost our tails.
This side prophesy I posted is more about the eventual goal of democracy for free and educated people. It's peppered with my optimism (and maybe colored by too much Star Trek), but I'll meet you in maybe a 1000 years and we can see how I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't have anything to add, I think I understand your point of view and I think you understand mine. And this is fundamental to understanding the real or perceived Iranian threat. At this time it is more important to know how world leaders view these issues - their views will determine the outcome. I think Obama is more in line with you, Iranians are more in line with me. I have heard some reports that Sarkozy, France, wants to be more aggressive on the Iranian threat than Obama and may be more in-line with the way I see this. Imagine that - France more aggressive than the US!
|
It's why I didn't post this in the Bush 3rd term thread, actually.
Obama sits squarely between us in his actions, but I think you're right that he's a bit more like me in his ideologies. We'll likely not know until he's out of office and making a real difference, like Carter or Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
He currently has a vested interest in being correct. Given that interest I have to take what he says and put into perspective. He may be correct, but he could be wrong - it would be embarrassing if he is proved to be wrong. We would need multiple independent sources arriving at the same conclusion to make me conclude "success".
|
This isn't a theoretical exercise, though, the facts he's presented are verifiable. His case is made. I'm sure you see that, too. The facts he's collected are correct and the conclusions he's drawn from them match those facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
"Compromised progressivism"??? In other words he has no core values, everything is up for give and take?
|
I'm pretty sure he's got core values, but he's a Democratic president so he's willing to ignore them for what he sees as political expediency. Of course progressives like me don't see it as expediency at all, we see it as compromising by default. I see it as the same weakness we've seen from the Democrats since before I was born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The above is an example of leadership. It doesn't matter if I agree or not, if you ran for President, won, and then acted in accordance with what you ran on, I would still make my case but I would defer to your leadership. At the end of the day, on many issues we face I think we need to be "all in" or "out".
|
Bill Maher was saying a few months back that President Obama needs to be a little more like Bush: ignore congress, do everything you want, don't take shit from anyone. As much as I disapproved with basically everything President Bush ever did, I've gotta say that level of pig-headedness can clearly get a lot done.