Adjusting for parallax: admit your lack of objectivity *here* by chrisisall

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Being Left doesn't mean you are against the Alliance.

I would argue that it means you are more FOR it. More laws, more controls, etc etc (I refer to gun control, smoking bans, leash laws, those stupid labels on coffee "Careful, this beverage you are about enjoy is extreemly hot".)

Not that Right is against the Alliance either...they'd love nothing more than to crush us with thier INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

So, I say screw that. Be Libertarian. Let me go my own way, and don't you EVER try and stop me.

I can and will control my own destiny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:40 AM

WHOZIT

And you're about trust a guy who's done nothing but run for office? He's been a Senator for 2 years and has run for President for most of it. He was a State Senator and Community Organizer before that. Even tho I'm not as half as smart a most of the people who come here, I can see a smooth taking empty suit when I see one! He should be selling used cars! Throw a 60 lbs law book at that!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't know which direction one would call my leanings.

But I tend to focus on keeping the planet and all its inhabitants (including people) healthy and secure. Things which don't support my aims I call problems. To that end I fault problem makers - who most often seem to be businesses and conservatives - and support problem solvers - who tend to be liberals.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Being Left doesn't mean you are against the Alliance.

I would argue that it means you are more FOR it. More laws, more controls, ect ect (I refer to gun control, smoking bans, leash laws, those stupid labels on coffee "Careful, this beverage you are about enjoy is extreemly hot".)

Libertarians get my respect... but only if they spell eTC. correctly.

Utopian dreamer that believes in gun ownershipisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:54 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Fine, Ill change it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:57 AM

Well done, my good Libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue,

"But I tend to focus on keeping the planet and all its inhabitants (including people) healthy and secure."

Its not your place to decide what is best for anyone else. For their health OR their security.

Although, I do agree with the enviromental part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
And you're about trust a guy who's done nothing but run for office?

Sadly, I trust no one that willingly commits his or her entire life to politics...I have the same problem with peeps that enjoy being prison guards.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Its not your place to decide what is best for anyone else. For their health OR their security.

Although, I do agree with the enviromental part.

Death ain't that good for most peeps, I find that who or what causes the least of it usually gets my support.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:12 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Chris,

In the end, we all die.

AND, the libs cause just as much death in the world as any other group.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:18 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Its not your place to decide what is best for anyone else. For their health OR their security."

I would say attacking others for no cause is NOT in the interests of their health OR security.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:28 AM

WHODIED

Conservatives defend traditions born of liberals past reforms.

(While viciously attacking the reforms of today and plotting to undermined the possibility of future reforms.)

--WhoDied

_______________________

So here’s the part where you make a choice... I say we change the rule. I say my power should be our power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I would say attacking others for no cause is NOT in the interests of their health OR security.

Rue, you are applying your subjective notions of 'life function' here, I believe. Some peeps are hapier dead, and find their place at the side of their God that way....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sad to say, you're right. Who am I to decide they're not happier being 'dead' (whatever THAT is) ? They certainly don't seem to complain about it !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I agree with the idea that going to war without a Declaration is wrong....

However, it was under the Libs that we got into it with Somalia...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:31 AM

KIRKULES

I think I'm capable of being somewhat objective. It helps that I have never been a member of any political party and the only group I belong to is the NRA. I decided about 30 years ago that we have enough gun laws in this country, assuming they're enforced properly. Because I decided long ago that we don't need more gun laws I am unwilling to look at any new proposal objectively and anyone proposing gun laws becomes disqualified for office. I believe that's the only area I'm unwilling to be swayed by events or reason.

I'm also a atheist social libertarian, so none of the social/religious issues that cloud others judgment have much sway on me. If you want to make Soylent Green out of aborted babies that's fine, just don't do it were I can see it because that would piss me off. You're gay, I'm happy for you, just don't make-out in public, and none of you heteros do it either. You want your wife to wear a berka, as long as she consents without coercion fine, but don't ask for special legal exemptions if you want to be an American.

One area that I do find myself constantly having to remind myself to be objective about is statements coming from liberal political candidates. My first reaction is to assume that they are lying and because first impressions last, it becomes difficult to convince me otherwise. I don't always agree with Rush Limbaugh, but one thing he always says that I completely agree with, is that a liberal candidate can't be elected to the Presidency in the US without lying about or hiding their true beliefs. Most of the people in this country are pretty conservative even if they won't admit it to themselves or others. Because of this it's absolutely necessary for a liberal Presidential candidate to lie to get into office. They simply can't be elected telling the American people what they really believe.

So I'm more objective than most of you, but far from objective.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:45 AM

Piece of go-se double post!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
My first reaction is to assume that they are lying

That is my first reaction to a politician, myself.

Quote:
it's absolutely necessary for a liberal Presidential candidate to lie to get into office.

Yes, and for conservative ones as well "What George? You can't tell them you have unfinished business in Iraq- they'll think that you'll use any excuse to go to war with them then! Just say you want everyone to co-exist, that'll get you somewhere."

Quote:

So I'm more objective than most of you, but far from objective.

Like most here, you have your moments & your limitations, IMO.

Judge Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:52 PM

I don't even pretend to be objective.

Nor do I hide the fact that I have an agenda, and even honestly tell you up front that it's pretty unlikely imma be explicit or specific about what it is, and that's pretty damned honest in relation to most folk when they speak politically.

As for the immediate, I think it's freakin obvious, I want my damn country and it's constitution back from the pack of jackals currently chewin on em, and I mean to have it even if I gotta play rough.

As for the endpoint, I could try explaining it, but that never works, about the only folk who understand where I wanna go with that are HKCav, Chris and maybe Jack, cause it's just not something so easily expressed in mere words.

I want a world where we do not actively destroy the humanity of ourselves, our young, and each other while replacing it with sociopathic evil, is what it is - but I can only accept that if folks themselves make the change, because forcing it upon them would just restart the cycle all over again.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:59 PM

I'm always reminded of these lines from Superman:

"I'm here to fight for truth, justice and the American way."
"You're gonna wind up fighting every elected official in this country."

IMO, Frem speaks with a forcefulness that often belies his objectivity. His vision is passionate, and usually a bit clearer than most. If he errs, it is inevitably on the side of caution, and I see this as a good thing.

My perfect world would be having HK Cav as President, Frem as Vice President and Finn as Secretary of State (for balance).

Signy, Rue & Hero can have the next administration

Chrisis

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:28 PM

I can just see it now, Chris...

LIVE ON PAY-PER-VIEW
(50% of proceeds go to deficit reduction)

THE EXECUTIVE NERFBAT CAGE MATCH!!!

For the Black team, the masked anarchist menace, standing Vice President Fremdfirma!

For the Blue team, the furious fireball, our Secretary of State, The mighty Finn!

A NO HOLDS BARRED SUBMISSION MATCH on the question of military spending, stay tuned for the inevitable carnage!!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:59 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 16, 2008 7:29 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Any else want to be bold here? Or just wanna keep playing at being truly objective & in possession of all necessary facts regarding everything- what no one can really be anyway?

I’ve never really understood the desire to pretend that one is without conviction, but this is a common theme of many people, particularly Liberals. Conservatives, not so much – they have a much easier time admitting a point of view on the world, in fact many are proud of their right-wing attitudes. But Liberals often act like it’s a sin to have an opinion – everything they say has to be unquestionable objective fact. Here’s the problem with that – just because you don’t think you have a point of view doesn’t mean you don’t, it just means you’re probably a fundamentalist – believing that you’re point of view unquestionable. I think there are a lot of Liberal Fundamentalists out there. So I applaud Chris for being the first to break ranks with his fellow Liberals and admitting to his convictions. I’m more comfortable taking the opinion of a person seriously if I know they are coming from an honest place.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:46 PM

KHYRON

For the most part, I agree with what you said, Finn, except this:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So I applaud Chris for being the first to break ranks with his fellow Liberals and admitting to his convictions.

The first to break ranks? C'mon, you said that trying to hide one's own convictions is something that liberals are more prone to do than conservatives (I agree with that), but surely you're not claiming that ALL liberals try to do that? Chris is hardly the first to "admit" his lack of objectivity, and I'm sure you'll find many liberals who don't have a problem admitting they're not being objective (although it might be a problem to get them to admit they're not right about some issues).

For what it's worth, I'm not objective, but since I'm always right, I'm okay with that.

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:29 AM

Yeah, really - as opposed to the pedantic and cowardly conservatives that are as "fair and balanced" as faux news, and pretend to have no bias when it's plain as day for anyone with a brain to see.

Makes me question their contact with reality, especially compounded by their recent flailing desperation to believe that most of america doesn't hate them and their party affiliations for fucking us in the ass without so much as a reach around for eight straight years.

Sorry, but that stupid little party is over, and like I said long before now, I can smell the blood in the water - so just let em flail and screech, all the while telling themselves and anyone who'll listen that they're just treading water as the sharks circle closer.

I'd call em chum, if they were ever substantial enough to be worth the while, but since they never really have been, you know what that really makes em ?

Bait.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:58 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve never really understood the desire to pretend that one is without conviction, but this is a common theme of many people, particularly Liberals.

What you've never understood is that they're not without conviction, and they're not trying to pretend they are (most of the time anyway). They just see value in understanding the motives and desires of those they disagree with. They also tend to have more respect for the rights of the people with whom they disagree, which is why I have a slight preference for Liberals over Conservatives, even though my politics lean 'conservative' in many ways.

What the liberals don't understand about Conservatives, especially the neo-conservatives, is their abhorrence for moral relativism. Modern conservatives aren't necessarily stubborn bigots. They just have a hard time distinguishing between a prudent desire to understand others and lack of moral conviction. This is why Ron Paul was booed at the Republican primary debates when he advocated such objectivity in our foreign policy. He said that we need to try to understand things from our enemy's point of view, but all the neo-cons heard was a lack of moral conviction.

Quote:
... just because you don’t think you have a point of view doesn’t mean you don’t, it just means you’re probably a fundamentalist – believing that you’re point of view unquestionable. I think there are a lot of Liberal Fundamentalists out there.

This is a good point and describes much of our mainstream media, or rather the small percentage of them who rise above pure prostitution. They think a pretension of 'fair and balance' will mask their agenda. The interesting bit is, it often ends up giving more credence to the opinions of the 'other side' (which is often manufactured in the desire for phony objectivity) than it really deserves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I absolutely have convictions. I believe the path to freedom lies in a thoughtfully constructed society which forcefully prevents concentration of power, which I believe is the dominant force in ANY society > 150 people. I believe that people are naturally cooperative and non-confrontational, and that gives the few sociopaths among us great leverage.

However, that doesn't mean that I ignore day-today facts. IMHO a person's objectivity is measured by how well they predict the future. I see that as a test of both the data AND the logic (model) used to connect it. IMHO it's not how "objective" you are that counts, but whether you're OPEN TO LEARNING. That means making projections and either (1) admitting when you're wrong, making corrections, and starting again or (2) recognizing when you're right and understanding the fundamental principal behind your projection.

What I absolutely cannot fathom are the peeps who turn their brains over to others to do their thinking for them. Even when they're proven absolutely wrong time and time again they wipe out the chance for learning by erasing the experience and then turning their brains over to the same (wrong) authorities (again) for yet another brainwashing session.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:12 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I believe that people are naturally cooperative and non-confrontational, and that gives the few sociopaths among us great leverage.

These sociopaths are often referred to as "politicians".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:42 AM

I disagree with that thought, Siggy.

I am right damn good at such predictions, to the point of keeping them to myself more and more as of late cause they're too goddamn depressing...

But in my case that's no measure of objectivity, cause I ain't, don't even pretend to be, just that I understand human society better than most because I refuse to blind myself to just how vile it really is... and that allows more accurate assessments.

I'd be much happier, if I were wrong more often.

Anyhows, I wouldn't use that as a measure of objectivity, since in my case it's applying it to a downright radical with a fairly specific agenda, so while my assessments may be, and usually are, fairly objective - my use of that information is anything but, since I strive to prevent those predictions from becoming fact more often than not.

Ergo, I don't think it's that accurate an overall measure to use, is all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm... okay, I see your point. But there is a "however" to that IMHO.

You have an objective, a goal, of an anarchist society. If it is not within us - individually or as a society- to achieve that end, then your ideal will break on the rocks of reality. I guess I see societies as "energy states". It's possible to achieve an end, but if it liberates less energy it will be out-competed by other models.

Of course, it possible that my whole Darwinian view of societies is wrong. There IS a great deal of "chance" in whether a society survives and thrives. Many societies were felled by natural disasters (although in this day and age a society should be prepared for drought, disease, and lack of resources) and the one BIG advantage that northern-hemisphere societies had was the east-west extent of land mass which allowed parallel migration to similar climates.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:28 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
The first to break ranks? C'mon, you said that trying to hide one's own convictions is something that liberals are more prone to do than conservatives (I agree with that), but surely you're not claiming that ALL liberals try to do that? Chris is hardly the first to "admit" his lack of objectivity, and I'm sure you'll find many liberals who don't have a problem admitting they're not being objective (although it might be a problem to get them to admit they're not right about some issues).

Yes, there are lot’s Liberals on this board with an honest perspective, but I was speaking in particular of a few who don’t seem to, and so I didn’t mean to criticize, more to encourage. Perhaps that’s not the way it came across.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Of course, it possible that my whole Darwinian view of societies is wrong. There IS a great deal of "chance" in whether a society survives and thrives. Many societies were felled by natural disasters (although in this day and age a society should be prepared for drought, disease, and lack of resources) and the one BIG advantage that northern-hemisphere societies had was the east-west extent of land mass which allowed parallel migration to similar climates.

Wow, this thread got a whole lot more interesting than I expected...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:33 AM

Quote:
You have an objective, a goal, of an anarchist society.

Nope, that is just but one mere possibility, one I wouldn't mind, but only... one.

What I seek is a society where we do not destroy all that is really human within ourselves, and especially our children, and replace it with what amounts in my opinion to basically... evil.

And you cannot force that change, it just restarts the cycle if you do - the only way it's gonna happen is in the same fashion that racism will die, the same fashion that ended wars before we got so good at forcing people to fight...

Individual people must make the decision themselves, to NOT do it, and that's a cursed hard decision to make for the first ones, knowing that it raises the possibility of bringing a child into this world who's beliefs, values and perceptions will never, EVER truly be welcome in it, who will be viewed as a loon, a kook, and a social reject for all their days.

In a way, you could call me my mothers weapon against the society who abused her, and in the end, destroyed her, although it was her own hand that did the deed.

She made that choice, and I'd be a damn sorry sumbitch if I did not respect and honor it.

Didn't make it easy for me, this is true - but even in hindsight, I'd not have it any other way.

-Frem
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaserGuidedTykebomb

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

What I absolutely cannot fathom are the peeps who turn their brains over to others to do their thinking for them.

Look at Picard- he knew when to tell the Federation they were full of shit. In fact it was his duty to. Peeps don't seem to realize that it is their duty NOT to be a stupid toady.

Ohwellisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hate to take this thread in another direction Chriswiseoneisall, but... Frem, you made me think of something. There is a great deal of difference between productivity and survivability, and at times they may be at odds with each other, depending on circumstance.

Productivity comes with larger size... advancement of technology, fine divisions of labor, trade over larger regions. Which tends to produce conformity: common language, timekeeping (It didn't take long for the 24-hour clock and the 7-day week to become the norm!), common currency, common paradigms (for example- standardized parts, quality control, cooperative work relationships). Societies which are more productive tend to take over societies which are less so.

However, under the circumstances that we have now... where we have reproduced up to and beyond the carrying capacity of both our social and natural world.... then ANY little stress can become a catastrophe. The most important stress would be a collapse in trade, because trade is how we could "even out" physical resources. Once trade collapses, then the advanced technology becomes an albatross, because everyone is so dependent on it.

The problem is: since short-term productivity tends to become dominant, is it possible to create a society that is both productive AND durable? One that can be both dominant AND survivable?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
These sociopaths are often referred to as "politicians".

John Rigas (Adelphia) and his sons; Athur Anderson and Ken Lay (Enron); Winnick et al (Global Crossing); Sam Waksal (Imclone); Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco); "junk bonds" (10 of Wall Streets largest firms); Bernard Ebbers et al(WorldCom); Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner (Cisco); Sam Walton and family (Walmart)....

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:40 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Objectivity? No one has it. We all have things we want to be fulfilled. We all look towards those who we think can fulfill those wants.
Me? I'm bisexual. I want the right to love who I love without being treated as second-class. I'm female. I want the right to have birth control, the right to have an abortion (a safe one, not performed with a coat hanger) if that birth control fails and I need to make the hard choice, the right to have evidence gathered at no expense to me if I am, heaven forbid, assaulted. I'm a Pagan and a Buddhist, a shamanistic witch who meditates on the meaning of starlight and doesn't go to any type of church, and I want my right to do so and be so. I'm middle class, almost lower middle class, and I want the right to a living wage, the right to work upwards, the right to be at least comfortable. And despite what impression this might be giving people, I'm a weapon enthusiast who wants her right to own guns and swords, and I think it's an important right to stem the possibility of a power hungry government declaring martial law. I also like money, and I want to keep as much of mine as possible. But I also think that funding decent education programs is important, and I fully understand the function of taxes. I also think that the people who have more can afford to give more.
There are those in the world who want several of those rights to be taken away from me. Whatever reasons they have, I don't care. I find it hateful and despicable, and I will fight tooth and nail against them. I will never question their right to go to church every week, keep a child they might not have planned, marry who they wish, have the career they wish. And if they question my rights to make my own choices, I will scream from the rooftops that is one right they do NOT have.
The majority of the things I want fulfilled are supported by the left. I am a Democrat. Because the Libertarian party and the Green party are too small. Because the right has undiluted, mindless support from so many. Because sometimes you have to take things you want as little less to get the things that are really important to you. I'm a Democrat, and aside from being a Democrat, I truly admire Senator Obama.
The end.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:40 PM