----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory > > >> >> <G> It's not all about you Dan!<G> > > >> I was suggesting that perhaps you are missing that "most" of the >> liberal posters here are espousing views that are more centrist >> than >> you might think. > > OK. The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for > oil > companies is centralist? Whew!!!! We really are not thinking about the same kinds of things at all this week!<G> But since you mention it, The only people I see talk that way are decidedly left or a few disaffected centrist conservatives, so I think you can find a range of people stuck in the war-for-oil loop rather than just a single camp. Myself feels that the Bushies are not so much evil as they are aggresively opportunistic, so the whole war-for-oil is plauseable and worth discussing (in terms of the process of falsification) but it is not an idea that I set great store in because I forsee that there are a great many conjectures that could also come into play due to the variety of players that make up this administration. I do not doubt that there is a good deal of corruption at work and it seems to me that we have only begun to scrabble after the facts. What I find most interesting is how this group has been able to make some quite extreme claims sound very reasonable to the average Joe(sette) with hardly an eyebrow raised til this last year, while the most avid Bush-haters froth, wrack, and shrilly declaim to the end of having a most miniscule influence at all. The Bushies are most skilled in that regard. > >> >From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in >> >recent >> months and "most" people in the US share opinions that are more >> leftish than they were over the last few years. > > Maybe....but it isn't really clear. After the enormous blundering > of this > administration, as well as the scandals of the House and Senate > Republican > leadership, one would think that 2006 will be 1994 all over again. > But, > Bush is bouncing back somewhat in the polls now, and the Democrats > still > can't seem to get their act together. Plus, there are only about > 40-50 > House seats that are in play, so it would take an overwhelming > victory by > the Democrats to regain control of the House. I'm thinking the Dems might get the Senate. I know they want it. It has more concentrated power and makes a better bullypulpit. > > So, a year from now, we may or may not see a significant shift. I'm > hoping > that we will. But I think arguments that we went to war to give US > oil > companies control of the Mid-East oilfields, that the Republic is on > it's > last legs, etc. are ones that I've rarely seen. Since I left > Mad-Town, 23 > years ago, even living in Connecticut, I've seen it at a Dennis > Kupechne > (sp) meeting I was invited to, here, on Culture, and on the walls at > colleges my girls went to. I haven't even seen the question asked > in > polls, so I don't have numbers, but I'd guess less than 10% > nationwide > believe this (~3.5x Nadar's top vote %). As far as I can tell, that > it the > "centralist position" that Andrew Paul referred to. It is certainly > the > mode position of recent political posts here. Take my posts out, > even > allowing for the weighed average including your posts, and I'd argue > that > position is the mean of recent posts here. Even when John and Gautam were posting this list tended left of center by a respectable margin. Much more than the nation overall. The list likely reflected world opinion a bit better though. So.......what *should* be reflected? IMO worrying over such is a bit narcissistic, kind of a group solipsism.<G> Group averages are interesting but mean little in the long run. People change their opinions over time and we grow with the times we survive. Our differences are not so great as we often think. (What's this "We" shit Kemosabe?) At some point we, (there you go with that "We" crap again) as a group/nation/world, are going to have to come to grip with the fact that most of out divisions are created and are artificial distinctions, and that these distinctions are leading us astray and causing us to cling to untruths in the name of group unity. Each of us are going to die someday and all this party prejudice will be for naught. > > Now, one might ask if I think it is the mean of the positions of the > people > on this list. I don't think so, but that's harder to measure. So, > I > didn't refer to that, I merely referred to what was written in > recent (say > since Gautam and JDG left) political posts. > Yeah, if "truth" goes unchallenged, is it "Truth"? xponent Looking For An Anchor Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
