opinion on obama belief on division...

[TheIndependent]

from here; http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html



"Divisions of race, gender, of region are precisely what has inhibited us from moving effectively forward to solve big problems like health care, energy, the war on terror," he said.


does anyone actually agree with this? i can't agree that any of these issues, especially the war on terror, has not been "solved" because of divisions on race and gender (obviously the 'war on terror' (sic) is related to religious issues but not internally in the US which is what he's referring to).

[JP]

from here; http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html



"Divisions of race, gender, of region are precisely what has inhibited us from moving effectively forward to solve big problems like health care, energy, the war on terror," he said.


does anyone actually agree with this? i can't agree that any of these issues, especially the war on terror, has not been "solved" because of divisions on race and gender (obviously the 'war on terror' (sic) is related to religious issues but not internally in the US which is what he's referring to).Add "political persuasion" and he's bang-on. His "region" bit covers some but not all of that, with the south being where conservatives have the most sway and the coasts and the mid-West where liberals do.

[aindik]

Heh. I read "region" and assumed, from the context, that it said "religion." I think pdjplano did, too.

[TheIndependent]

so if we all agreed on one thing, the war on terror would be solved? if everyone just agreed with Bush, then we win the war on terror?

this notion is beyond ridiculous to me, yet you (JP) believe it to be "bang-on". no wonder we agree on so little :)

[heySkippy]

so if we all agreed on one thing, the war on terror would be solved? if everyone just agreed with Bush, then we win the war on terror?
If you're just going to make stuff up like that, you shouldn't be surprised when you're the only one who agrees with you.

[JP]

so if we all agreed on one thing, the war on terror would be solved?Without the political differences getting in the way we'd be able to better "mov[e] effectively forward to solv[ing] big problems", yes. That's all he's saying. Do you disagree?

if everyone just agreed with Bush, then we win the war on terror?No, we'd be better able to move forward toward solutions rather than be stuck where we are now, wasting time using the issues as clubs to hit the other side with instead of trying to find common ground to solve them.

This doesn't guarantee we'd always come to the most correct solution, but if we stick to what we CAN agree to, with all the sides having a voice rather than one side running rough-shod over the objections of the other, the chances of future stupendous blunders goes down.

Do you disagree?

this notion is beyond ridiculous to me, yet you (JP) believe it to be "bang-on". no wonder we agree on so little :)It might help if you looked at what he did say, instead of what you thought he said?

[TheIndependent]

so if we all agreed on one thing, the war on terror would be solved?Without the political differences getting in the way we'd be able to better "mov[e] effectively forward to solv[ing] big problems", yes. That's all he's saying. Do you disagree?

of course i disagree. having someone disagree with an approach doesn't mean that those trying to execute on the approach decided on are any more/less effective because of it. the effectiveness of the approach relates to whether it is really "solving" the problem {healthcare is a prime example, as what someone like obama wants to "solve" isn't really a problem as he frames it}

if everyone just agreed with Bush, then we win the war on terror?No, we'd be better able to move forward toward solutions rather than be stuck where we are now, wasting time using the issues as clubs to hit the other side with instead of trying to find common ground to solve them.

what would be going differently (# of bombings, oil production, religious issues in Iraq, etc., etc..) should the Ds lock/stock/barrel agree with what Bush has done?


This doesn't guarantee we'd always come to the most correct solution, but if we stick to what we CAN agree to, with all the sides having a voice rather than one side running rough-shod over the objections of the other, the chances of future stupendous blunders goes down.

Do you disagree?

yes, i do in fact. agreeing to a solution that is the wrong solution to a potentially wrongly framed / viewed problem is worse than not acting in many cases.


this notion is beyond ridiculous to me, yet you (JP) believe it to be "bang-on". no wonder we agree on so little :)It might help if you looked at what he did say, instead of what you thought he said?

it might help if you understood that i did do that, and disagreed with it.

[JP]

of course i disagree. having someone disagree with an approach doesn't mean that those trying to execute on the approach decided on are any more/less effective because of it. Not necessarily, no. But it makes it much harder to decide on an approach in the first place, when the issue isn't being discussed rationally so much as being used as a brick-bat to pound one's political opponents with. People that like the approach are so busy using it to hit their opponents with that they dismiss the perfectly valid worries and objections to it, and the people who don't like it thus tend to ignore what good points it might have.

Do you agree that such divisive behavior detracts from our ability to find solutions to thorny issues, whatever those issue happens to be? Because that's all Obama is telling you in that quote above.

what would be going differently (# of bombings, oil production, religious issues in Iraq, etc., etc..) should the Ds lock/stock/barrel agree with what Bush has done?Nothing. Why? Because George has been going about it the wrong way from the very beginning. Why? Because he didn't care to listen to anybody who said things he didn't want to hear. And when things started to go badly wrong he decided he'd rather let the problems fester than ever admit he was in any way responsible for the mess he made. And then to try to drown out the discussion about how badly he fucked up, he and his clown-car of cronies decided they'd brand anyone who disagreed with him as an America-hating terrorist-coddler.

George has never sought solutions, never really listened to anyone but yes-men, foremost he has sought to do what he wanted regardless of how ill-advised it was and to create divisions he could profit politically from. This has been George's modus operandi since 9/11, and even before.

George is the poster-child for what Obama was talking about.

yes, i do in fact. agreeing to a solution that is the wrong solution to a potentially wrongly framed / viewed problem is worse than not acting in many cases.The point isn't that we force everyone to agree. The point is that we listen to all the sides and try to reach some honest kind of consensus, not take what one side wants to do and ram it down the throats of everyone else. The more voices being listened to, the more potential problems we can hear about before we make costly mistakes.

it might help if you understood that i did do that, and disagreed with it.It might help if you showed some indication you did understand it. You seem to have taken Obama's complaint about divisiveness interfering with finding solutions, and decided that he meant we should just take whatever the biggest and loudest yahoo says (as an example you provide Iraq, with George as the yahoo) and if everyone just follows him unquestioningly whatever the yahoo proposes will all go swimmingly. Is that actually what you think Obama meant, or was your example supposed to point out something else?