SFR: Who would WFF elect?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Jason Rolfe, Oct 24, 2008.

?

Who would you vote for?

  1. McCain/Palin

    85 vote(s)
    30.1%
  2. Obama/Biden

    169 vote(s)
    59.9%
  3. Nader/Gonzales

    7 vote(s)
    2.5%
  4. Other

    21 vote(s)
    7.4%
  1. Fyr -
    I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in presenting my own perspective. I don't espouse communism or anything approaching what Marx saw as a socialism that would lead to communism. I'm happy with our capitalist society, even if I'm frustrated at times (as I'm sure you are) with the direction it takes occasionally.

    I also apologize for sounding condescending. Please believe me that I did not intend it. In fact, I believed that you don't have a very good understanding of communism and your expanded description convinces me that I was correct. Communism does not reward innovation or motivation and for that it will never succeed, as in fact it has almost disappeared from the world today, but beyond your reference to this in rather emotional terms, your 'understanding' is wanting.

    Your understanding that communism crushes "personal, religious, and economic freedoms and with brutal, merciless force advances its own ends because the means are justified" can be said equally truly of any ideology when combined with a totalitarian government.

    Class warfare certainly is not a necessary component of communism either. Lord knows the capitalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US fostered pretty darn strong class struggle until unions and effective governmental protections against monopolies and unfair labor practices brought the pot back from a boil (it still simmers up now and then in our society). Class warfare is most common in societies where there are dramatic differences among classes. We have a much greater difference in our country among the haves and have-nots than any communist country has ever had.

    As for communism not helping the underclass to achieve, it certainly has taken our country a long time to create a society where that is possible; we seem to be approaching it asymptotically and are unlikely to ever actually reach that point. As for this not being possible in a communist country, I would offer an anecdote from my trip to Cuba. I was in the country on a scientific visit. My hosts were two Afro-Cuban women. One of them is a highly regarded scientist in the Cuban Academy of Sciences. I asked them about their support of Castro and the Cuban government. Her reply said more about creating opportunity for the underclass than I could otherwise articulate. She said, "if it were not for the revolution, I would never have been able to go to high school, much less to the university and follow my dream of studying science; instead I would be cutting sugar cane as my parents did under the Samoza government."

    I don't think one needs to look very far to see that communism has no corner on the market of "propaganda" and a "captive press" to promote its ends.

    So, yes, I think you misunderstand communism, because you attribute many things to your understanding of communism that are common to many totalitarian and oppressive governments regardless of their economic ideology.

    My statement about China still holds; your suggestion that it is naive notwithstanding. It is hard to find anything about the economy in China today that Marx or Lenin would recognize as communist. Your statement that, following the Tienanmen Square massacre the Chinese government gave the people the choice of economic or political freedom has no basis in truth. They gave little consideration to relaxing their grip on political control and the economic reforms were already well underway in China by then.

    For what it is worth, there are abundant signs of economic freedom everywhere you look in China today, both in terms of entrepeneurship and professional fields. It is really pretty impressive and just about as scary as the red army. We have much less to fear from their army than from their rapidly growing economic, technological, and intellectual capacity combined with the tremendous debt our government now owes to China for spending so far beyond its means during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years. Yes, they benefited handsomely during the Clinton years, too, but that mostly was in the trade imbalance and less in the purchase of US government IOUs. Our future is going to be hamstrung by that combination of debt to China along with its unregulated economic growth.
     
  2. Good thing she is not a highly regarded historian in the Cuban Academy of History. The Somoza regime was in Nicaragua. Batista was Cuba's resident thug.
     
  3. Good thing I'm not a historian,too. Sorry, that's what I get for typing too fast!
    D
     
  4. I respect alot of what a whole bunch of people on our site say and believe. However, I love it (sarcasticly) when anybody starts giving history lesssons or current events lessons on the state of any country they do not actually live in, places they have never set foot on in their lives. Winners write history. That means you are lecturing us on a compiliation of media reports, internet bullshit and a book or two you have read. Speaking on authority on things in that manner is way too American, arrogant and terribly misinformed. Politics are the same damn way. You guys who back and have bought into a political party like it's your favorite football team speak absolutely on your candidates, their mental state, his ideologies, his likes, his dislikes, his future thought processes, when in reality you have been spoonfed this shit from a media that only wants to sell product and advance their own careers. The candidates are as polished and put together these days as a new Boy Band sponsered by Disney and then profiled in Teen Beat magazine. They are completley packaged in every way. Tell me some more about Obama or McCain and what is going on in their heads. Tell me more about China and how it is running right now, it's real intentions, it's "true" lean and economic ideology, where it's leaders are driving her. Tell me "what is really" going on in Iraq on the ground. Tell me how it feels to live in Afghanistan right now, and it's citizens "true" feelings about the US and our occupation. Tell me more about anything you have simply read somewhere else and now are re-gurgitating to us with your own personal slant and twisting of facts. I am not as clued in politically as half of you, and never will be. I do vote, but understand the insignificance of my vote. I do however believe whole heartedly that we need a 3rd and 4th party. The dirty bastards in the two parties we have today are just that. Dirty bastards. Duff
     
  5. So, does this mean that unless I've: A - lived in an Afghani village; or B. - Spent recent time in Iraq; or C - participated in high-level meetings with Chinese political leaders; or D - done anything at all outside of the four walls of my home; that I'm not entitled to draw some conclusions of some kind about anything? Even if I promise to keep an open mind? I'll grant, and agree, it's definitely arrogant to speak "with authority." I wouldn't necessarily call it uniquely American (which I know you didn't say...), though, and I think there are degrees of misinformed.

    I can't tell you any more than what I believe and what my gut instincts are. Even if I'd had a quality, one-on-one conversation with both men, I'd not likely be any better informed, though my instincts might be a little better. Humility, however, might prevent me from "speaking authoritatively." I do agree with your points on packaging, though.

    Yeah, me too. Unless I get better informed and then actually get off my ass and do something that amounts to participating in bettering my country. Hopefully you'd agree that there are many ways to accomplish that, even if it's simply raising kids who understand that they're a part of something bigger than themselves.

    I'd like to think that simply being a part of a third or fourth party would innoculate a person against being a dirty bastard. I'm skeptical, though...:hmmm:
     
  6. Mike, all great insight and points to which were great to read and thought provoking. If I don't agree I can sure understand where you are coming from. Great read. Duffer
    1. No you do not have to live in an Afghani village or participate with Chinese officials but you had better damn well know the lean and slant of the reporter who "feeds" you your information that enables you to draw conclusions and be "informed".

    2. I quit waiting for messiahs and world savers when I gave up on having guitar heroes. Men bleed, cheat, die, lie, kill, start wars, hoard, and rape plunder and pillage. They also do great things but to me a political candidate is a man running for office. He brings all the strengths and weakness of a man. I am fed the strengths by a media machine, but fully expect a good amount of weaknesses. It's just they seem to show their face after the election is over and his actions can truly be evaluated as he "leads".

    3. I quit trying to feel connected to our government and it's crooked assed leaders many years ago. My connection to my country is to my children, my neighbors, my environment, my fellow Americans. If we make our own villages, hamlets, cities, states and regions an living example of freedom, compassion, conservation, and pride, then the politicians must run and lead on platforms that represent those things or they will not be elected. (Unless of course your brother is govenor of the state (Florida) that ultimately decides the final say in a Presidential election for the most powerful nation on earth. I still haven't figured that shit out) My vote may be insignificant in the big picture but I can make a difference in many, many way in this great place we call America. I've answered the bell in combat zones for 26 months, and now have a community to be a part of. I take that seriously.

    4. I'm just a skeptical as you are Mike. But hell, it's got to be better than our options now.
     
  7. Fair enough, Coach. But if Slash ran for office you'd still vote for him! (so would I) :clown:
     
  8. Damn it Fenders, busted me again. :D Coach
     
  9. Unquestionably, however the track record is clear that communism consistently produces these regimes.


    Marx primary tool for revolution was indeed class warfare.

    A study of the predatory wealth accumulators in the history of the US will confirm they were mostly socialists. The unions fought a good fight, however in todays world I think they are not much more than "Industrial Armies".

    As far as the difference between the haves and have-nots, specious argument however even if it were true at least the opportunity to close the gap exists here.

    Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is what our constitution guarantees. There will never be equality of achievement because people are just different.

    As for your Cuban friend, I would be curious if she chose her field of endeavor or if it was chosen for her while cutting sugar cane was chosen for her sister? I am certain you or your family, not some government bureaucrat, chose for you to be a Botanist.

    Clearly they do not, however, communism always controls its' own press completely.

    These things may be common to many totalitarian regimes as you state, please show me a single example of a communist regime that ultimately is not totalitarian and where my understanding does not apply.

    All communist societies have tried to use economic experiments to appease the people, and have failed. We shall see with China.



    I agree about our debt, just not how we got there.


    You may in fact not espouse communism, I believe you do however try to draw a moral equivalency between American capitalism and communism. As much as we are imperfect, there is a great distinction between the two.

    My original question goes unanswered, why is Mr. Obama compelled to be so frequently untruthful?
     
  10. Thanks, Coach. I appreciate your point of view as well, and you're always a worthwhile (and crystal clear) read.

    Agreed. It's our only hope in the long run.

    Call me a skeptic, but with a strong does of optimism. :thumb:
     
  11. That's because it's a logical fallacy; a loaded question rhetorically making a statement.
     
  12. After an hour or so on this thread I have finally reached a definitive conclusion. I am going to the N.F. Stilly where I fully intend to throw a very liberal # of casts, while while leaving what I hope will be a conservative # of flies in the trees or on the bottom of the river.
    Peace Out
    Tight lines and good fishing to all. ;)

    Ray
     
  13.  
  14. as for the "education" debate.... every single one of my government and history professors in college were conservative/libertarian, but would not align themselves with the current republican party. they all understood the dangers of big givernment (from the conversations i had with them, this rarely came up in their curriculum), and i think that's a big part of what shaped my current political stance
     
  15. Noah, I admit my comment was written with the image of a tweed jacketed, pipe smoking English or History professor in mind. The type I could never comfortably confront since they held the power of the almighty grade over my head which could have kept me from where I've gotten today.

    As for the publish or perish world of academic science, they do indeed have the pressures of obtaining grants to fund their research. I'd change my argument, but the majority will still be liberal. You said it yourself, funding has diminished during the Bush administration. So would they be voting for a president Obama or McCain?
     
  16. You're assuming here, of course, that a college professor would cast his or her vote solely on the basis of that one narrow self-interest.

    So, based on your reasoning, the majority of college professors are not only liberal, but stupid. You want to and maybe even need to believe that, so your narrow observations lead to easy assumptions, and are the only proof you need. If only people were that predictable.

    For what it's worth, my late father was a college professor (Dairy Science) and he was all about turning out productive citizens (read: employed) and bettering the industry. Most if not all of the dairy farmers he knew (and dairy farmers are business people) thought he had a lot on the ball. And he definitely would have called himself conservative, in that he believed in self-determination, self-reliance, competition, and minimal intervention by the government. Oh, he also pretty much thought that the "liberal arts" faculty were a bunch of left-wing, elitist, overeducated jerks whose disciplines had no real value compared to his. So, I think you would have found him confusing, or, because he was one helluva teacher, you might have have come around to his way of thinking and deduced the following:

    (Applied) Scientists, Engineers, Technical people = Good; Republican; Patriotic; Godly.

    Artists, Writers, Historians, Social (Bullshit) Scientists = Bad;, Marxists; America Haters; Atheists.

    What do you say we all refer back to raymckinnon's post and let all this stuff go? You're not going to win anyone over and no one's about to change your mind, either, and that goes for most of us, I think.

    Peace
     
  17. it is possible to be a staunch conservative and atheist... just sayin :)
     
  18. I think I would have rather enjoyed knowing your Dad.
     
  19. As long as you agreed with him about pretty much everything, since he was right about just about everything, he would have probably liked you, too. ;)
     
  20. Yes, I'm saying virtually everyone votes according to their self interest. I wouldn't call it "narrow" when your entire occupation is dependent upon grant money. Were I in that position, I'd tend to vote for those that wanted to increase public grant funding as well.

    My narrow self interest is taxes. I pay too much in taxes already and I don't feel "rich" enough raising three children and being responsibly insured where a tax increase is considered chump change. I tend to vote accordingly.

    Although I usually avoid them on this forum, I enjoy political discourse primarily to discover where people are coming from, not to change minds , become angry or be disrespectful. I do, however, reserve the right to ridicule those abusive professors advancing their personal agenda over trapped students climbing the education ladder. My original post was merely an attempt to provide some insight as to why educators tend to be liberal. It was my quick two cents, not a thesis covering every possible scenario.
     

Share This Page