The next few days and then possibly the next few hundred days will sure define our future.

The real changes that are necessary are in league with keeping government out of our everyday affairs and in keeping a spirit of achievers not adding more regulations, fees, buracracy, and a culture of people that believe they have happiness-rights and expectations that someone will help-me-get-that-too.

So sexism appears rampent in the democratic party. Of course, it's not really sexism so much as a willingness to do and say and follow anything to advance their individual causes. 

Getting in shape is likely to come handy whether in uniform or out. I wish I could manage that.

 

The adverse reactions of democrats are more out of surprise that anyone could disagree with the status quo they see reported on CNN, Good Morning America, David Letterman, the Times, et cetera, then it does about anything you actually said.

My Daughter and I have been discussing the election a lot lately (or rather I am foaming at the mouth about it and she tries to understand why I am so upset). She started a conversation the other day with "I respect your opinion." She meant it sincerely and I knew it. Still, she got back from me, "That's fine, but I may not respect yours." To which I added, "I don't really want your respect until you can show me your logic or you can see mine."

Wife and I had a big disagreement (argument) recently over whether an opinion could be disrepected or even called wrong. Again, I stated that not all opinions are worth respect, and in a two sided argument with two differeing opinions, one (or maybe even both) is surely wrong.

I laugh and cry at the fact that those statements will blow the mind of any democrat you meet. They as a rule and a herd fail to understand that opinion is merely a substitute for a hypothesis.

A Hypothesis most definitely can be wrong. Some most definitely should be derided based on any lack of logic used to formulate them. We can pose a hypothesis that the sky is blue because the ground is green and the sun yellow, but not only is that wrong, and not only isn't there a logical basis for it (except the minor observation that negative color combinations support it), but it also doesn't account for all of the already available data that the sky is blue even when the ground is brown, white, or red!

An opinion can be wrong -- it merely awaits an application of proof that it is.

My daughter tells me everyone at her school is for Obama. Although she is brave enough to raise her hand for McCain; she is the only one that does so.  

 

Further, she says every conversation she has on the subject begins with, "I respect your opinion / position...".

It's time we stop respecting and get to the proving your opinion is even logical, let alone correct (or incorrect).

Is it just me or do the Obama supportors completely avoid decisions based on history, facts, and logic?   Can someone point me to sources that quote history and fairly respond to critiques of those quotations?

 

After having listened to countless callers on various Talk Radio shows, reading far too many "news" articles, being subjected to endless hours of outright political drivel during the Evening News and even more attempts at slight of hand themes on TV, I have honestly yet to hear a logical Obama fan.  I pledge no exageration.  I have not.

 

Now I admit, in many of these situations the parties are not allowed time to completely lay out their viewpoint, but I have yet to hear anyone even attempt it with merit.  

 

Perhaps I expect too much?  I'd expect any Republican I meet could rattle off a list of core values and how one candidate or the other supports those values.  And personal experiences so far mostly proves this right to various, but decent degrees of success, but never not at all.  The left seems to avoid that.  Instead you will be presented with tales of Bush or deliberately undetailed reports of votes that only deflect, or at least do not answer those questions.  True?  Why?   I suspect this may be because they believe values are worthless or too subjective to be trusted?  It's o'kay to expect our values, on even the most basic of issues, will disagree?   Are we not allowed to compare values perhaps?  Too uncomfortable?  Do they always fear being presented with moral indignation?  Republican's generally don't share these concerns.

 

If we can't or won't discuss our values, how then can we begin our attempts to learn from one another?

 

It's a bit like being at a party or local civic event where you don't realize that the majority of the others in attendence have previously met or are even old friends.  You are amazed at how easy some of the guests gather and drift off laughing together.  You are left in isolation trying and failing at making introductions.  No one is very much interested in mentoring a new friend.  New friends either assimulate seemlessly or drop off and nobody much cares which you do.

 

I think when Republicans open up a conversation based on values, they immediately present themselves as outsiders.  As potential antoganists even.  Democrats all too commonly begin giggling, hand-waving, and pretty soon emotive presumptions emerge in defense or as attack.  Replies of "Well he did the same" or "you know all of them want too" tales begin.  Never an examination of the question at hand.  That's odd.  Is it that they don't dig deep enough?  Surely not.  I readily respect the intelligence of some of those that I disagree with.  They must dig.  They don't understand what they read?  They mistrust it?  They figure the other side must be just as dirty?

 

Often, I am not looking to convince anyone of my opinon, rather I am looking to understand their's.  However, I want a fair discourse where both parties are allowed to be criticized and analyzed and judge against our internal values.  I could appreciate a difference of opinion based upon a declared difference of values.  That is justified to the extent that a difference in values can be justified. 

 

I'd change my mind in a second if someone shows me a reason NOT to believe Obama has attempted to hide his involvement with Ayers/Wright/"New Party", is at least a monetary socialist, wants to raise taxes that will impact my 401K, increase taxes on inheritences, supports a very liberal social agenda, supports affirmative action, welfare, and much more, and that he will not attempt to bias the supreme court further away from a strict interpretation view of the consitution then I will change my vote.

Tall Order, but I'm listening.

I have yet to hear (or I missed it) what the Obama fans want to learn is not true about McCain.  Why?

 

Currently, what we have is a very lame, emotion-filled vs. logic filled debate that I am honestly mystified how we've come to this point. And how to move past it. I won't resort to emotion, that leaves the other side with the responsibility to argue fairly if we are ever to have a discourse where change may be possible.