Yes, we can.

[Alex]

Plus there is the assumption that casting a vote based on simply the fact that it is the more popular position of the constituency is somehow a bad thing.

Yes, we elect people so that they can use their own judgment but that doesn't necessarily make decision contrary to the preference of their constituency necessarily righter, though it may be politically braver.

There does come a point where personal conviction becomes obstinacy. Unfortunately it is an easy task to find countless examples of either outcome. So only in the rearview mirror can we be sure. So, it seems a slightly silly thing to fetishize (holding a position regardless of new information or the general feelings of your constituency).

And, either way, it is easy to spin depending on your feelings on the politician.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

. So, it seems a slightly silly thing to fetishize (holding a position regardless of new information or the general feelings of your constituency).

I know a new word.......can't wait to use it in a conversation tomorrow.

Now I just got to figure out how to slip it into a pitch for a new mattress.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's a top contender to be McCain's Mid East envoy if he's elected stating that "talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/james-baker-tal.html

[wendybeth]

Good one, GD.


I find it interesting that simply leaving the potential for diplomatic options on the table can be twisted into 'appeasement', a la Neville Chamberlain. We need to look at our own actions at the outset of WWII- we didn't exactly come rushing to anyone's aid until we were drug into the war following the attack at PH. (Btw, we were engaged in talks with Japan hours before that attack).

Let's say a co-worker is giving you a hard time. You're angry, so you:

a). Go to Human Resources, or a supervisor, etc, and discuss solutions for the problem at hand, such as mediation or directly confronting the troublemaker.

b.) You ignore the asshat and hope the problem just goes away.

c). Load up the 9mm and go rabbit hunting at the workplace.

We've been very busy hunting rabbits, and I don't think our problems have been alleviated in the slightest. We've only hurt ourselves- maybe it's time to try a new tactic? At least try?

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Let's say a co-worker is giving you a hard time. You're angry, so you:

a). Go to Human Resources, or a supervisor, etc, and discuss solutions for the problem at hand, such as mediation or directly confronting the troublemaker.

b.) You ignore the asshat and hope the problem just goes away.

c). Load up the 9mm and go rabbit hunting at the workplace.

We've been very busy hunting rabbits, and I don't think our problems have been alleviated in the slightest. We've only hurt ourselves- maybe it's time to try a new tactic? At least try?

Here's a twist (just playing Devil's Advocate here):

Let's say that co-worker is certifiably crazy and is often seen reading gun magazines.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Here's a twist (just playing Devil's Advocate here):

Let's say that co-worker is certifiably crazy and is often seen reading gun magazines.

Even so, "A" is still the only option that can lead to a positive resolution. All "C" does is increase the odds that a bunch of innocent people will be killed in the crossfire.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Even so, "A" is still the only option that can lead to a positive resolution. All "C" does is increase the odds that a bunch of innocent people will be killed in the crossfire.

Tell that to the kids at Columbine. One armed teacher? Who knows.

[wendybeth]

Well, killing him/her first would certainly work out well for a person. I mean, you'd go to jail, lose everything you own and your life would be over, but you'd win because you hit first!

You don't sit back and wait to be killed- it's good to be proactive, but it's the degree that you operate on that's critical. A dangerous person or country is always going to be problematic- that's where creativity is really called for. Personally, I would try to work through all the legal channels, and pack my 9mm around just in case.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Here's a twist (just playing Devil's Advocate here):

Let's say that co-worker is certifiably crazy and is often seen reading gun magazines.

You make them your best friend.

[scaeagles]

Well, How about VA Tech?

My point involves the condition mentally of those that are a threat, but more than that.

I view the concept of the "gun free zone" as being rather optimistic that those who would violate it - for whatever reason - will be concerned that it is a gun free zone. Odds are the guy at VA Tech anyway wouldn't have listened to talk about it - he was mentally ill and had been released from mental care (if I recall this story correctly). No one was able to stop him because they were ill prepared and expected him to abide by the rules. No amount of talking would have stopped him....all that would have was physical restraint (or a bullet).

I regard terrorists (mean Ahmahdinejad as well) in that way. Reason plays no role with them. It is an issue of extremism that know no compromise, and going to the table with them without condition is a cultural sign of weakness.