|
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Hi, riverman, Now I have posted some nice things about you, and due to the lag time for them to post, you post this - a troll? I was not even familiar with the usage of the word on the board, until I read in wilko site, after you recommended I do some further research. I throughly enjoye his site, and had actually been there before. I picked up some really good suggestion on gear. His picture gallery is great, and his stories impressive. Just never made the connection between that info, and what was happening on this thread. I was equally impressed with your stuff, and will continue to research it. Lots of hours of good reading this winter. But a Troll, you know how to hurt a guys feelings. Aww, now don't go sulking, Tom. You yourself said that you were poking a stick into a snake hole just for the fun of it. Can't be a more clear definition of troll than that. And you really oughtn't be suprised when a few snakes come out and bite you! --riverman And, no, you are definately NOT Scott Weiser. |
Dave van wrote:
You specifically ask him to hold the "mirror" still. In effect pleading with him to temper his biases. Tinkerntom wrote: Well there is nothing wrong with that either, since this is a civil conversation, in which we all have to temper our biases somewhat. That is the mark of civiliztion, we are not a bunch of wild animals doing and saying whatever feels good! BTW, OMG comment, I'm glad to know that you are on a personal speaking relationship with Him as well as riverman, and a few others. TnT |
Tinkerntom previously wrote:
riverman, I think you are getting it. Finally! There is a new show in town! I found this article, and thought it would clarify some of what I have been saying. Democrats' Choice: Dig in or Work With GOP Nov 20, 9:25 PM (ET) By TOM RAUM WASHINGTON (AP) - Outpolled, outmaneuvered and out of power, Democrats are suffering an identity crisis. They could dig in for the long haul as an opposition party similar to many European semi-permanent parliamentary models, and espouse popular positions without worrying about governance. Or they could try to reach across party lines in hopes of achieving accommodation with the Republicans for the public good. There are pluses and minuses to each approach, and finding a happy medium will be difficult. "Once they get out of the fetal position, which is what they're in right now, the Democrats in Congress are really going to have start catching the pitches that are thrown by the president," said Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. "They can't be obstructionist," Baker said, but should capitalize on the fact that President Bush's second-term proposals to overhaul the tax code and add private accounts to Social Security "are fairly radical things" that could be troublesome for Republican lawmakers seeking re-election in 2006. After the 1992 elections, Republicans were pretty much in the same boat as Democrats are today. Democrat Bill Clinton had won the White House and Democrats had extended their control of Congress. Republicans took "about nine or 10 months to figure out what the job was as the opposition party. And then it took them a couple more years to figure out how to operate with that," said Doug Sosnik, a former top political adviser to Clinton. "There was a burden they faced, and we face, which is: It's not enough to just say what you're against, but you have to say what you're for," Sosnik said. The Republicans'"Contract with America," which spelled out a series of goals for reduced government and social activism, gave the GOP such a rallying platform. It helped them capture control of both houses of Congress in 1994. But House Speaker Newt Gingrich's decision to play veto roulette with Clinton over spending bills in 1995 resulted in a temporary, nationwide shutdown of the government that worked against Republicans, costing them House seats in 1996 and fomenting a rebellion against Gingrich that led to his departure. "The real question here is whether the Democrats can learn to behave like an opposition party," said Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning think tank based in Washington. "That means taking popular stands and not paying quite as much attention to the details, letting the majority party worry about the practicality." "Thus far, the Democrats to date have not had the organization or the discipline to play that role," Aaron said. Democrats have a hard time letting go. Their long years of controlling Congress remain a fresh memory in the minds of many incumbents, giving them an institutional split personality reflected in Sen. Harry Reid's remarks after being elected incoming Senate Minority leader. "I would always rather dance than fight. But I know how to fight," the Nevada Democrat said. Part of the Democrats' plight is that resolving the debate over the direction of the party may not happen until a nominee is selected for 2008, because he - or she - will steer the party's course through the next presidential contest. And with no dominant leader for the future, the party now remains in the shadow of Clinton, rather than of its most recent nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Clinton's continuing influence was underscored as recently as Thursday at the dedication of his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., where he drew lavish praise not only from predictable Democratic luminaries, but from the first President Bush, whom he defeated, and the current one, Clinton's successor. The Democrats' predicament looks even bleaker considering that Bush likely will get to fill two or more vacancies on the Supreme Court, giving Republicans effective majorities in all three branches of government. Gleeful Republicans are seeking to pound Democrats into remaining the minority party for years to come. The president's top strategist, Karl Rove, is already involved in organizing grass-roots support for the 2006 midterm elections in hopes of solidifying GOP gains in Congress. For now, Democrats must "find the right balance between being challenging and being supportive," said Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. While supporting Bush on the war on terrorism and other vital national security issues, "we need to push back" on other areas, he said. --- EDITOR'S NOTE - Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies. No commentary necessary, TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Hi riverman, I am glad to hear from you, or should I say Myron, since we're getting to know each other. I know how to use Google also, and found some interesting post. Seems that you have a history of googling that even others have heard of your legendary exploits....from www.chataboutboats.com "riverman" wrote in message ... What about http://www.portlandrivercompany.com/ ? --riverman Jeez, Myron; bragging about yer googling skill aGAIN? (^BD -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty" I remember seeing the above post, on the other board, but did not make the connection. Glad to make the connection and to get to know you better. I was also interested that you are sensitive to "Messages from God", but I wonder if you ever checked what the engine light was all about? Uhh, yeah. It was the sunlight reflecting through the dashboard, as the story said. I left it uncovered for the humorous reminder, whenever the sun was just right, of just what happens when you go chasing etherial messages from nonexistant beings or looking for meanings and guidance from outside your own experience and better sense. By the way, the post from oci-one was made here, not on chataboutboats, and you apparently completely missed the meaning. He and I have known each other from this board for about 10 years, and have mutual respect for our open boating abilities and general distain of buttboaters (although he's a much better whitewater boater than I ever was). Like he and Wilko, who I know pretty well and have had the pleasure of meeting and paddling with in Europe, and also many others, I have also been posting here for most of a decade. I copied below your original post, to start this thread, so that we can refocus where this all started. "I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt. --riverman" It also appears that you have a history of complaining about election results, and casting them in environmental concerns. Now I am not saying that you are not trully interested in the environment, or that you should not be interested and concerned with election results, as it appears that you are. But, it seems disingenuous to start a thread like this without making your true motives clear. It appears, you enjoy getting threads started like this one, and then offering your superior knowledge of environmental awareness. Don't know where you get this 'history of complaining about election results' thing, but I won't deny that I feel quite disenfranchised about Bush's election (and his appointment the first time around) and have been exercising my right to free speech by speaking about it. And as far as being disingenuous (careful about using that word around here, btw. It has a sick-puppy history) I don't know what strainer you just bumped your head on. There was nothing veiled or insincere about my motives. I am concerned that a lot of our wilderness will get opened up for development and timber harvesting in the next four years, and I said so. Lots of other folks feel the same way. I'll even take it farther; I'm concerned that a lot of laws which protect wilderness and wild areas are going to be changed, and that the impact will continue well beyond the next four years. Gee, sorry if that message caught you by suprise, but you might be pretty near the only one who it DID. That's something that happens when someone is a newbie into a newsgroup: you aren't going to know the history of the group, the personalities of the people, or their voices or points of view. RBP has been around for awhile, and has gone through a lot together. You are welcome and beginning to becoming a regular here...at least well known...we're fairly open and accomodating (especially to boaters), but if you come in stomping around without considering who you are poking at with your stick, you might find that you are a bit less welcome than you expected. If you have an irritating message to send, spend a little more time figuring out who is who before you go in with guns blazing. YOU are the one who decided to start Liberal-Bashing and dismissing foreigners here....gee whiz when you discovered that the river running world is full of Liberals, especially ones with wilderness concerns. And golly whillikers if you discovered that rbp is NOT an American forum. Sure, there are some lost soul right wing-nuts, but as a whole they are forgiven for their trespasses because we have a long history together here with a lot of shared laughs and stories. But some newbie comes in taunting people.....well all I can say is you may have a little fence-mending to do before you will reestablish some credibility and warmth. But then I probably need to hear it and be educated more. So if my research doesn't scare you off, I hope that it will lure you "out" even more. I certainly don't want to scare you off with my gloating, because I could wish that all could read this thread and understand what the issues are, and how you think, and why it is important to continue voting for canidates that are not caught up in the visage of their own elite image. I hope you are sincere about needing to be educated more, because the basic foundation of an electoral government depends on an educated populace. And that's not elite Liberal intellectualism talking to you, its out of the Federalist Papers and was a major concern of the Founding Fathers. And according to a lot of people, it is what has failed in this election. People *rejected* evidence and went for single, oversimplified representative issues. Gay rights, abortion, MORALS. And they ignored some huge, internationally significant and complex issues: the war, trade tariffs, financial accountability, international relations, political favoritism. None of these capture the big picture, and if its a complex government in a complex world we are voting for, then it is more important than ever that the voters learn about as many sides of the issues as possible. I don't know what's been happening on American TV (besides reality shows), but I know the international TVs and international Press has been *all over* lots and lots of the issues. And the more educated European populace was floored by the election results, and pretty wholheartedly disillusioned by a nation they used to admire. And don't just listen to educated intellecual Liberal elites (ILEs) and brush them off....get some of your own data and throw it on the fire to see how it smells. Debate with supporting evidence....THAT'S the way to stop fearing people with facts and opinions. But classifying them as ILEs and shoving your head deeper in the sand does nothing at best, and makes bad things worse, at worse. It does not matter so much to me who you are, and that I am talking to you. Who do you think you are? Are you some super Guru, that has all the answers, and I should just be thankful that you let me even on this thread! SuperGuru.....heh heh. Yeah, I like that. OK everyone, I'm gonna change my screen name to SuperGuru. Everyone except Dave Manby has to call me that from now on. And watch the caps. This post is getting far too long and tit-for-tatty to have much readability. If you want to pursue any topics, and if you are truly interested in research-based discussion, then throw out some things and lets get to it. But to continue inserting comments in this post is getting pretty arcane. --riverman Oh, and PS: Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt. |
Rick wrote
A prejudice is a bias that shapes thoughts and actions. I admit to having biases and prejudices. Getting comfortable with one's prejudices means no longer analyzing and contemplating your own behavior. This is stupidity of the highest order. And so I assume you are not comfortable with your prejudices, at least those which you have been able to identify, and are busy analyzing and contemplating! What about the ones you have not been able to identify, inorder to analyze and contemplate, are you comfortable or ignorant of them? And once you have done all this analyzing and contemplating, what do you have but a big pile of BS with which to impress us that you are so smart. Now that is smart, consuming your own BS. TnT previously wrote: Life is a difficult process of getting "Comfortable with our Prejudices" First life is a difficult process, Getting comfortable with life and all it throws at us is a part of that process, including our prejudices. I don't know that we ever totally complete the process, except hopefully the day we die. Then if we could look back, we might hear someone say "Well done, you have run the race that was set before you!" Until then we get to keep running laps! and you are right, on this point, sometimes running laps seems really stupid, and certainly boring. What is sad, is when someone sets down, and the best they can do is sling BS at the other who are still running, or in our case paddlin'. Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message . .. Dave van wrote: You specifically ask him to hold the "mirror" still. In effect pleading with him to temper his biases. Tinkerntom wrote: Well there is nothing wrong with that either, since this is a civil conversation, in which we all have to temper our biases somewhat. That is the mark of civiliztion, we are not a bunch of wild animals doing and saying whatever feels good! BTW, OMG comment, I'm glad to know that you are on a personal speaking relationship with Him as well as riverman, and a few others. TnT Hmm, you're assuming that the word 'my' means the same thing to both of you. Or all three of us. --riverman |
Tinkerntom wrote:
And so I assume you are not comfortable with your prejudices, at least those which you have been able to identify, and are busy analyzing and contemplating! What about the ones you have not been able to identify, inorder to analyze and contemplate, are you comfortable or ignorant of them? Gee, tell me what they are and I'll let you know. Of those that I have, I have spent years analyzing their sources and coming to terms with them. All of us, for example, have plenty of reason to reassess our feelings about folks from the Middle East, their primary religion, and their feelings toward "Americans." Fear, anger, and frustration lead us to do that. Am I comfortable with the thoughts that have been expressed, or the emotions I've felt? Absoulutely not. There is no justification for accepting gross generalizations about strangers and parroting them as though they are truths. So no, my prejudices and biases make me very uncomfortable. ....personal attack deleted First life is a difficult process, Getting comfortable with life and all it throws at us is a part of that process, including our prejudices. I don't know that we ever totally complete the process, except hopefully the day we die. Then if we could look back, we might hear someone say "Well done, you have run the race that was set before you!" I refuse to accept prejudice. It is, perhaps, the single most destructive emotion, with the possible exception of pride. You may be comfortable with yours, but frankly, I think that anyone who is has chosen ignorance over enlightenment. This is, as I said before, the height of stupidity. ....stuff deleted Rick |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Tinkerntom previously wrote: riverman, I think you are getting it. Finally! There is a new show in town! I found this article, and thought it would clarify some of what I have been saying. Democrats' Choice: Dig in or Work With GOP Nov 20, 9:25 PM (ET) By TOM RAUM WASHINGTON (AP) - Outpolled, outmaneuvered and out of power, Democrats are suffering an identity crisis. They could dig in for the long haul as an opposition party similar to many European semi-permanent parliamentary models, and espouse popular positions without worrying about governance. Or they could try to reach across party lines in hopes of achieving accommodation with the Republicans for the public good. There are pluses and minuses to each approach, and finding a happy medium will be difficult. Nice. And I found this: http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm I'm reprinting it here, in full, and against Usenet protocol (sorry, folks) because its very good reading. FYI, TnT, and from now on, posting links is the standard format. In 2004, The Country Didn't Turn Right -- But The GOP Did By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal © National Journal Group Inc. Friday, Nov. 12, 2004 A quick post-post-election exit poll: Which of the following two statements more accurately describes what happened on November 2? A) The election was a stunning triumph for the president, the Republicans, and (especially) social conservatives. Because the country turned to the right, President Bush received a mandate, the Republicans consolidated their dominance, and the Democrats lost touch with the country. B) Bush and the Republicans are on thin ice. Bush barely eked out a majority, the country is still divided 50-50, and the electoral landscape has hardly changed, except in one respect: The Republican Party has shifted precariously to the right of the country, and the world, that it leads. Usual answer: A. Correct answer: B. For the record, only time will tell, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and all that. Still, level-headed analysis -- which is not what this year's post-election commentary produced -- shows that every element of Statement A is suspect or plain wrong. Begin with that stunning triumph. "Stunning" implies surprising. Any observers who were stunned this year lived in a cave (or on Manhattan's Upper West Side). All year long, month after month, opinion polls averaged to give Bush a lead in the low-to-mid-single digits, depending on when the poll was taken and who took it. Only toward the end, after the debates, did the gap narrow to that now proverbial "statistical dead heat." Even then, the statistically insignificant margin generally favored Bush. Another indicator was the University of Iowa's electronic election market, which lets traders bet on election outcomes; it consistently showed Bush winning with a percentage in the low 50s. Rarely has an election been so unsurprising. A triumph? Only by the anomalous standards of 2000. By any other standard, 2004 was a squeaker, given that an incumbent was on the ticket. The last conservative, polarizing Republican incumbent who slashed taxes and campaigned on resolve against a foreign enemy won 49 states and received 59 percent of the popular vote. That, of course, was Ronald Reagan, who did not need to scrounge for votes to keep his job. Most incumbent presidents win in a walk. The prestige and visibility of the White House gives them a powerful natural advantage. Bush enjoyed the further advantage of running against a Northeastern liberal who had trouble defining himself and didn't find the battlefield until September. By historical standards, Bush in 2004 was notably weak. The boast that Bush is the first candidate to win a popular majority since 1988 is just pathetic. Bush is the first presidential candidate since 1988 to run without effective third-party competition, and he still barely won. No one doubts that Bill Clinton would have won a majority in his re-election bid in 1996 if not for the candidacy of Ross Perot. A new political era? A gale-force mandate for change? More like the breezeless, stagnant air of a Washington summer. Despite much higher turnouts than in 2000, only three states switched sides -- a startling stasis. Despite Bush's win, the House of Representatives barely budged. In fact, the Republicans might have lost seats in the House had they not gerrymandered Texas. The allocation of state legislative seats between Republicans and Democrats also barely budged, maintaining close parity. The balance of governorships will change by at most one (at this writing, Washington state's race was undecided). If that's not stability, what would be? In the Senate, the Democrats were routed in the South and their leader was evicted. Those were bruising blows, to be sure; but it was no secret that the Democrats had more Senate seats to defend, that most of those seats were in Republican states, and that five were open. "Early predictions were that the Republicans would pick up three to five seats overall," notes my colleague Charlie Cook. (See NJ, 11/6/04) In the end, the Republicans picked up four. Here is the abiding reality, confirmed rather than upset by the election returns: America is a 50-50 nation. According to the National Election Pool exit poll (the largest and probably most reliable such poll), voters identified themselves this year as 37 percent Republicans, 37 percent Democrats, and 26 percent independents. That represents a shift in Republicans' favor, from 35-39-27 in 2000 -- but it is, of course, a shift to parity, not to dominance. The political realignment that Republicans wish for is real, but it has already happened. Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that Democrats enjoyed a roughly 20-point party-identification lead in the 1970s; that lead diminished to about 10 points in the 1980s and to single digits in the 1990s. Now the gap is gone. "If you see the closing of that kind of gap," Bowman says, "that is something very significant." The significance lies, however, not in either party's imminent domination but in both parties' inability to dominate. Republicans do, obviously and importantly, dominate in Washington. That, however, has less to do with any tectonic shift in the country's partisan structure than with mechanical factors that have helped the GOP: the House gerrymander, the favorable 2004 Senate terrain, and Bush's two squeaker victories. Has the electorate turned right? A bit. In the National Election Pool survey, the share of voters identifying themselves as conservative increased by 5 points over 2000, to 34 percent -- which, however, returned the conservative-identified share of the electorate to the level of 1996 (33 percent). A plurality of voters consistently describe themselves as moderate. Social conservatives and the media ballyhooed the National Election Pool survey's finding that "moral values" topped the public's list of voting issues, at 22 percent (narrowly edging out the economy and terrorism). In particular, the Religious Right spun the "moral values" answer as endorsing their agenda (against gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research). Actually, the concern with "moral values" is neither new nor, for most voters, specific. Bowman notes that the Los Angeles Times exit poll has regularly included "moral/ethical values" on its list of "most important issues," and that this choice emerged on top in 1996, 2000, and 2004. In 2004, the same proportion chose it as in 1996. Clearly, those 1996 voters were not up in arms against gay marriage and stem cells. Most voters who plump for "moral values" seem to equate that term not with a particular policy agenda but with plain speaking, solid values, and a clear moral compass, all of which Bush offered. In 2004, the electorate barely moved on abortion, which only 16 percent of voters think should always be illegal; and 60 percent of voters supported gay marriage or civil unions (predominantly the latter). Religious conservatives boast that they won the election for Bush. True, their turnout rose in 2004, but so did everyone else's. According to Luis Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, evangelical Christians made up about 23 percent of the electorate in both 2000 and 2004. What happened in 2004, Lugo says, is that evangelicals and Catholics shifted more of their support toward Bush; about 78 percent of evangelicals voted for Bush this year, as compared with about 72 percent in 2000. Those votes certainly mattered, but only because the election was so close. In other words, marginal evangelical votes were important because the center did not move. More precisely, the electorate's center did move, but only about 3 percentage points. That was about how much Bush improved his showing over 2000 in the average state he won twice, and it is also about the size of his margin of victory this year. It was enough to win him a close election, but hardly a breakthrough. If anything structurally important happened in 2004, it was that the country moved to the right a little, but the Republican Party moved to the right a lot. John Kerry's Democrats aimed for the center and nearly got there, whereas Bush pulled right. He won, of course, but in doing so he painted his party a brighter shade of red -- especially on Capitol Hill, and above all in the Senate, some of whose new Republican members seem nothing short of extreme. The upshot is that Washington's governing establishment has moved further to the right of the country, and of the world, that Washington seeks to lead. A 50-50 country has produced a lopsided government and a sore temptation for Republicans to overreach. If they steer hard to starboard, they may capsize the boat. Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where "Social Studies" appears. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No commentary necessary. --riverman |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com