Every story has got more than one side, yours seem a little one-sided. But even so, seriously contemplating suicide while being the only parent of underage children doesn’t square too well with “caring deeply” about them. And while some parts of her life sounds little enviable (though I suspect her miserableness stems as much from her depression as her poverty) you make it sound like her life was something that just happened to her, or that she is completely without influence and responsibility in the way her life has turned out. But no one actually forced her children upon her, forced her to marry or divorce any of those men (which turned out be bad providers), forced her to take that drink, forced her to have unprotected sex, etc. I do not think all poverty is due to laziness. Though some is of course, a lot, perhaps most, can be traced back to bad decisions. And just as much as we would like to, we cannot, no matter how much we try, create a society that shield people from their own bad choices. And though it may seem like a great idea on paper every time we try we only succeed in creating more misery.
And it’s remarkable that countries, like Denmark, with very high level of public funded social help also have less social mobility. Welfare payments will not help that woman or her children break out from their social background. On the contrary.
Indeed. But doing nothing at least don’t make things worse, like the regurgitated watered down socialistic solutions from the left which always works brilliantly in theory but in practice always seem to make the good bad and the bad worse.
Not so long ago, it seems to me, there were execrations against Bill Clinton as the worst President ever. Hell, some folks might even still be singing that old tune. I remember old AOL forums (or was it in the chats) that claimed Clinton would never resign and he would proclaim himself President for life. Ah, well, such tyranny from the Democrats never came to pass. All the sorted and explicit details have sunk into the mire of history, but maybe there are others who remember how America As We Know It would end with Billy Boy.
Should I mention how hated Ronald “Ray Gun” Reagan was in his time? Okay, I was only a high school and college puke during his terms, but I kinda sorta remember him being called the Worst President Ever back then. Any one else want to second that memory?
Carter wasn’t much liked by the opposing side in his years either.
Now, is George W. Bush really the Worst President Ever? I don’t know. He hasn’t done much to convince me to vote him in for a second term, but I’m not ready to make grandiose claims yet. Let the historians sort it out a hundred years from now.
If Kerry wins, as sure as flies swarm on shit, the Republicans will say he is the Worst President Ever. I’d bet my left nut on it.
And it bears repeating again. Good gravy, people, are you so enamored with your partisan bickering that you can’t look past the last few presidents? Or is your knowledge of history so piss-poor that you simply don’t know?
While I don’t particularly agree with all of Governor Quinn’s list, he raises a good point and there are points that one could make for everyone in his list. The fact is, we simply cannot make a valid comparison of W. or Clinton to past presidents until enough time has passed because we really don’t KNOW what the fallout will be. I see it hasn’t stopped anyone from pontificating on what they KNOW the fallout will be, but I for one don’t claim to be psychic.
Let’s also not forget that a presidential legacy can be an extremely mixed bag. Case in point: Andrew Jackson. May well be the very worst president in history because of a systematic and determined program of ethnic cleansing. Personally responsible for almost completely clearing out every last Indian from the American southeast, causing widespread disease and death in the process. On top of that, he outright defied the Supreme Court to do so, clearly in violation of the constitution. There has never in history been a clearer case of a president that should be impeached, but it was never even considered because the ethnic cleansing was outrageously popular with the white voting public.
And yet, Jackson was directly responsible for the spread of democracy from the priviledged and landed upper class to the common (white) man. While he never would have imagined his actions would eventually lead to the enfranchisement of all Americans, he got the ball rolling. He also imposed fiscal responsibility on the federal government resulting in the government being in the black for the first and last time in American history.
So for all of you Bush-floggers (or Clinton-floggers) out there, top that.
No, you misunderstand. He didn’t have a budget surplus, he actually had a surplus. As in, no national debt. We had a budget surplus under Clinton, but we didn’t even come close to eliminating the national debt. Unless, perhaps, I am recalling this incorrectly?
Oh, lord. Well, surely even the most antilibertarian leftists and rightists will concede that if you seize millions of acres of land, slaughter and dislocate its inhabitants, and pay nothing for it, you can save a bundle.
Jackson wins my contest for the most vile pustule ever to fester in the White House, hands down, bar none.
But the Cherokee had the last laugh. At the time of the Trail of Tears, they numbered somewhere south of 100,000. Today, there are many times that number of full-blooded Cherokee, and literally millions of Americans who are, like myself, inordinately proud of the smattering of Cherokee blood we possess.
Grace your mind with the image of a devil turning the roasting soul of Andy Jackson on a spit in the Lake of Fire and whispering “Millions of them. Millions!”
The difference between Bush and Clinton is that the Clinton-haters hated him for stuff they imagined he’d do (but didn’t). The Bush-haters hate him for stuff he’s already done. The first is tin-foil hat lunacy; the second is outrage over actual policies.
Oh, sure. And they’ll be saying this even before Kerry actually does anything.
Stuff and nonsense. We don’t need a soul to know that it’s “wrong” for the strong to prey on the weak: all we need is enlightened self-interest. Because no matter how strong we might be individually, there’s always someone stronger. We pass laws to protect the weak out of no nobler concern than covering our own ass, should we ever find ourselves is the inferior position. Legislating morality doesn’t give you good laws: it gives you the War on Some Drugs, or the DOMA. Legislating out of self-concern, with the clear understanding that any loophole used to exploit others could in turn be used to exploit yourself, is how you build a fair and just society.
Isn’t that a disingenuous way to say that Republicans hated of a Democratic President wasn’t founded on logic, reason, or good horse-sense—They’re Loonies,but the Democratic hated of a Republican President is wholly justified by empirical criterion—they’re good citizens? Or did I read too much into the statement?
I’m not so sure the faithful Republican lap dogs would say their hatred of Clinton is rooted solely in imaginary deeds and actions. I’ll leave it up to a Republican to validate their hatred on (in their opinion, at least) real political malfeasance.
It also seems, in some folk’s opinions, that the Democrats do hate Bush for imaginary evils as stated in a different thread:
And from whence the “enlightenment” to soften the savagery of “self-interest”? Mathematics? Geometry? Even a philosophical system devoid of self-contradiction rests, ultimately, on at least one non-rational assumption. I got ranks of paranoid German bachelor philosophers backing me up on that.
I recoil in horror from cruelty and evil simply because I do. Seems to me it is more work to rationalize that than to simply accept it as so. If mental gymnastics for their own sake gets you off, rock on. If moral philosophy should prove insufficiently challenging, there is alway deconstructionist semiotics. Freak freely, pilgrim.
What’s this? A pretty compliment, or a snide comment upon eloquence you can niether emulate nor refute? Probably the latter. No matter, there are still friends to laugh with, and sleeping babies to watch. The spirit blooms even while the ego starves. It is well.
Well, I suppose, but this strays pretty far from my original point, which is that legislating against things because they might make someone feel bad is futile and ultimatly unjust, because there’s no way to refute a feeling. AvhHines was arguing that other people should be forced to wear a seatbelt so that she wouldn’t feel as guilty if she killed them in a car accident. This strikes me as a particularly bad precedent for determining the legality of an action, because there’s no way to prove that she feels bad about it, we simply have to take her word. Laws should, I think, struggle for a higher level of objectivity than that.
Oh, come now. “That’s just the way it is, and there’s no point in talking about it”? If you’re going to discuss something, you have to rationalize it. If you don’t want to rationalize it, why are we having this discussion?
It was both. A snide compliment on eloquence I cannot, indeed, emulate (I should be so lucky to be able to write as well as you do) or refute (because I’ve no fuckin’ idea what your point was).
“I love compliments, we all do - humorists, burglars, Congressmen, all of us in the trade. Why, I could live for a week on but a single compliment! But I was struck near speechless by this complimentary thunderbolt! Never had I heard a compliment so well phrased, or so richly deserved!”
