Re: Jean Piaget, Abstrct Thinking and the import in re: Antigun Spin on Heller et alia

>> >> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
>> >> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>> >>
>> >> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>> >> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>> >> Function: noun
>> >> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>> >> Date: 1815
>> >> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>> >> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>> >> ideology
>> >>
>> >
>> > Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.

>>
>> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries
>> wouldn't give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's
>> definition I quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
>>
>> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of
>> this kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has
>> hundreds of such ironic, morphological reversals.
>>

>> >
>> > You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
>> > a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an
>> > ideology are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.

>>
>> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And
>> your understanding of the implication is correct.
>>

>> >
>> > You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
>> > suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
>> > But, maybe not.

>>
>> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll
>> give you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they
>> have two faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted
>> here: they usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather
>> than on fact. The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be
>> based on strings of deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's good
>> for about two or three "therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads
>> to absurd or at least erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the
>> premises prove to be wrong, when they're exposed to enough real examples
>> -- life generally is more complex than anything that can be boiled down
>> to simple premises, beyond a few essential ones. But there is another
>> reason, a complex issue of formal logic that I know little about, except
>> that it's out there; that logic contains within itself the seeds of its
>> own destruction. Logic, especially the vulgar, Aristotelian version that
>> most of us call "logic," is a very limited tool, one that's misused as
>> often as not. Don't ask me to explain this. It's a deep subject that I
>> intend to study when I retire. d8-)
>>
>> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who
>> have a low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are
>> uncertain. Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the
>> characteristics of being human. People who have a big dose of it are
>> attracted to tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from
>> ambiguity. But the systems themselves, exposed to real life over some
>> short or long period of history, always, always, turn to crap. I know of
>> no exceptions.
>>
>> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make
>> people "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and courageous
>> example, "radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to
>> describe this point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the
>> idea across.
>>
>> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
>> this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the
>> most extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
>> individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of
>> their lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on
>> certainty like a man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip
>> on it they have only one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they
>> give in to life's ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the sea
>> of uncertainty, because they never developed the tools to cope with it.
>> That's the insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress

>
>
> Although your point is well said and is backed up with sound reasoning
> it's not what I would call pithy. I think it can be condensed to a
> shorter explanation. For instance, in colloquial terms an ideologue is
> just a follower. Generally a follower of some group, organization, or
> individual who sets a standard or makes the rules for the followers. In
> contrast, other people think for themselves, make their own judgments,
> and understand the world according to their own reasoning. Most people
> are followers. The reasons for this are many and are mainly psychological
> and not worth going into. But it is well known that most humans are
> followers not leaders or mavericks. Conservatives by nature like
> authority, rules, leaders, and a well defined set of principles to guide
> them. That makes them great followers. You are a follower. Not all of us
> are though. We may all have a particular ideology we believe in but we're
> not wedded to it the way real followers like you are. The bottom line,
> don't lump us all into your view of ideology and ideologues because were
> not like you right wingers.
>
> Hawke
>
>
>

>

>>>>> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
>>>>> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>>>>>
>>>>> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>>>>> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>>>>> Function: noun
>>>>> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>>>>> Date: 1815
>>>>> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>>>>> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>>>>> ideology
>>>>>
>>>> Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
>>> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries
>>> wouldn't give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's
>>> definition I quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
>>>
>>> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of
>>> this kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has
>>> hundreds of such ironic, morphological reversals.
>>>
>>>> You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
>>>> a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an
>>>> ideology are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
>>> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And
>>> your understanding of the implication is correct.
>>>
>>>> You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
>>>> suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
>>>> But, maybe not.
>>> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll
>>> give you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they
>>> have two faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted
>>> here: they usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather
>>> than on fact. The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be
>>> based on strings of deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's good
>>> for about two or three "therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads
>>> to absurd or at least erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the
>>> premises prove to be wrong, when they're exposed to enough real examples
>>> -- life generally is more complex than anything that can be boiled down
>>> to simple premises, beyond a few essential ones. But there is another
>>> reason, a complex issue of formal logic that I know little about, except
>>> that it's out there; that logic contains within itself the seeds of its
>>> own destruction. Logic, especially the vulgar, Aristotelian version that
>>> most of us call "logic," is a very limited tool, one that's misused as
>>> often as not. Don't ask me to explain this. It's a deep subject that I
>>> intend to study when I retire. d8-)
>>>
>>> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who
>>> have a low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are
>>> uncertain. Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the
>>> characteristics of being human. People who have a big dose of it are
>>> attracted to tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from
>>> ambiguity. But the systems themselves, exposed to real life over some
>>> short or long period of history, always, always, turn to crap. I know of
>>> no exceptions.
>>>
>>> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make
>>> people "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and courageous
>>> example, "radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to
>>> describe this point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the
>>> idea across.
>>>
>>> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
>>> this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the
>>> most extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
>>> individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of
>>> their lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on
>>> certainty like a man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip
>>> on it they have only one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they
>>> give in to life's ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the sea
>>> of uncertainty, because they never developed the tools to cope with it.
>>> That's the insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress

>>
>> Although your point is well said and is backed up with sound reasoning
>> it's not what I would call pithy. I think it can be condensed to a
>> shorter explanation. For instance, in colloquial terms an ideologue is
>> just a follower. Generally a follower of some group, organization, or
>> individual who sets a standard or makes the rules for the followers. In
>> contrast, other people think for themselves, make their own judgments,
>> and understand the world according to their own reasoning. Most people
>> are followers. The reasons for this are many and are mainly psychological
>> and not worth going into. But it is well known that most humans are
>> followers not leaders or mavericks. Conservatives by nature like
>> authority, rules, leaders, and a well defined set of principles to guide
>> them. That makes them great followers. You are a follower. Not all of us
>> are though. We may all have a particular ideology we believe in but we're
>> not wedded to it the way real followers like you are. The bottom line,
>> don't lump us all into your view of ideology and ideologues because were
>> not like you right wingers.
>>
>> Hawke
>>
>>
>>

>
> And spme people are antisocial malcontents. Those are called leftists.
>

> Frank

>> >> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
>> >> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>> >>
>> >> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>> >> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>> >> Function: noun
>> >> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>> >> Date: 1815
>> >> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>> >> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>> >> ideology
>> >>
>> >
>> > Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.

>>
>> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries
>> wouldn't give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's
>> definition I quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
>>
>> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of
>> this kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has
>> hundreds of such ironic, morphological reversals.
>>

>> >
>> > You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
>> > a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an
>> > ideology are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.

>>
>> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And
>> your understanding of the implication is correct.
>>

>> >
>> > You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
>> > suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
>> > But, maybe not.

>>
>> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll
>> give you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they
>> have two faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted
>> here: they usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather
>> than on fact. The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be
>> based on strings of deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's good
>> for about two or three "therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads
>> to absurd or at least erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the
>> premises prove to be wrong, when they're exposed to enough real examples
>> -- life generally is more complex than anything that can be boiled down
>> to simple premises, beyond a few essential ones. But there is another
>> reason, a complex issue of formal logic that I know little about, except
>> that it's out there; that logic contains within itself the seeds of its
>> own destruction. Logic, especially the vulgar, Aristotelian version that
>> most of us call "logic," is a very limited tool, one that's misused as
>> often as not. Don't ask me to explain this. It's a deep subject that I
>> intend to study when I retire. d8-)
>>
>> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who
>> have a low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are
>> uncertain. Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the
>> characteristics of being human. People who have a big dose of it are
>> attracted to tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from
>> ambiguity. But the systems themselves, exposed to real life over some
>> short or long period of history, always, always, turn to crap. I know of
>> no exceptions.
>>
>> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make
>> people "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and courageous
>> example, "radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to
>> describe this point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the
>> idea across.
>>
>> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
>> this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the
>> most extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
>> individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of
>> their lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on
>> certainty like a man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip
>> on it they have only one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they
>> give in to life's ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the sea
>> of uncertainty, because they never developed the tools to cope with it.
>> That's the insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress

>
>
> Although your point is well said and is backed up with sound reasoning
> it's not what I would call pithy. I think it can be condensed to a
> shorter explanation. For instance, in colloquial terms an ideologue is
> just a follower. Generally a follower of some group, organization, or
> individual who sets a standard or makes the rules for the followers. In
> contrast, other people think for themselves, make their own judgments,
> and understand the world according to their own reasoning. Most people
> are followers. The reasons for this are many and are mainly psychological
> and not worth going into. But it is well known that most humans are
> followers not leaders or mavericks. Conservatives by nature like
> authority, rules, leaders, and a well defined set of principles to guide
> them. That makes them great followers. You are a follower. Not all of us
> are though. We may all have a particular ideology we believe in but we're
> not wedded to it the way real followers like you are. The bottom line,
> don't lump us all into your view of ideology and ideologues because were
> not like you right wingers.
>
> Hawke
>
>
>

> >> >> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue,

> >> >> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
> >> >>
> >> >> Main Entry: ideo·logue
> >> >> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
> >> >> Function: noun
> >> >> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
> >> >> Date: 1815
> >> >> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
> >> >> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
> >> >> ideology
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
> >>
> >> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries
> >> wouldn't give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's
> >> definition I quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
> >>
> >> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of
> >> this kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has
> >> hundreds of such ironic, morphological reversals.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
> >> > a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an
> >> > ideology are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
> >>
> >> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And
> >> your understanding of the implication is correct.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
> >> > suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
> >> > But, maybe not.
> >>
> >> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll
> >> give you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they
> >> have two faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted
> >> here: they usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather
> >> than on fact. The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be
> >> based on strings of deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's

> >> for about two or three "therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads
> >> to absurd or at least erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the
> >> premises prove to be wrong, when they're exposed to enough real

> >> -- life generally is more complex than anything that can be boiled down
> >> to simple premises, beyond a few essential ones. But there is another
> >> reason, a complex issue of formal logic that I know little about,

> >> that it's out there; that logic contains within itself the seeds of its
> >> own destruction. Logic, especially the vulgar, Aristotelian version

> >> most of us call "logic," is a very limited tool, one that's misused as
> >> often as not. Don't ask me to explain this. It's a deep subject that I
> >> intend to study when I retire. d8-)
> >>
> >> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who
> >> have a low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are
> >> uncertain. Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the
> >> characteristics of being human. People who have a big dose of it are
> >> attracted to tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from
> >> ambiguity. But the systems themselves, exposed to real life over some
> >> short or long period of history, always, always, turn to crap. I know

> >> no exceptions.
> >>
> >> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make
> >> people "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and

> >> example, "radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to
> >> describe this point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the
> >> idea across.
> >>
> >> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
> >> this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the
> >> most extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
> >> individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of
> >> their lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on
> >> certainty like a man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip
> >> on it they have only one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they
> >> give in to life's ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the

> >> of uncertainty, because they never developed the tools to cope with it.
> >> That's the insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W.

> >>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress

> >
> >
> > Although your point is well said and is backed up with sound reasoning
> > it's not what I would call pithy. I think it can be condensed to a
> > shorter explanation. For instance, in colloquial terms an ideologue is
> > just a follower. Generally a follower of some group, organization, or
> > individual who sets a standard or makes the rules for the followers. In
> > contrast, other people think for themselves, make their own judgments,
> > and understand the world according to their own reasoning. Most people
> > are followers. The reasons for this are many and are mainly

> > and not worth going into. But it is well known that most humans are
> > followers not leaders or mavericks. Conservatives by nature like
> > authority, rules, leaders, and a well defined set of principles to guide
> > them. That makes them great followers. You are a follower. Not all of us
> > are though. We may all have a particular ideology we believe in but

> > not wedded to it the way real followers like you are. The bottom line,
> > don't lump us all into your view of ideology and ideologues because were
> > not like you right wingers.
> >
> > Hawke
> >
> >
> >

>
> It may come as a shcok to you but when you have a job and responsibilities
> and a family to raise social stability is a giant plus. You know what to
> expect when you get out of bed each morning. There is a good deal of

> in that.
>
> Of course malcontents just love to tear down other people and thier lives,
> out of jealousy, rancor just plain meanness.
>
> Frank

>
>

>> >> >> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue,
>> >> >> not ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>> >> >> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>> >> >> Function: noun
>> >> >> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>> >> >> Date: 1815
>> >> >> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>> >> >> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>> >> >> ideology
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
>> >>
>> >> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries
>> >> wouldn't give them such radically different definitions. That
>> >> Webster's definition I quoted was the ENTIRE definition for
>> >> "ideologue."
>> >>
>> >> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example
>> >> of this kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English
>> >> has hundreds of such ironic, morphological reversals.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues
>> >> > are a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an
>> >> > ideology are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
>> >>
>> >> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And
>> >> your understanding of the implication is correct.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and
>> >> > I'm suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than
>> >> > that. But, maybe not.
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll
>> >> give you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they
>> >> have two faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you
>> >> pasted here: they usually are based at least partly on myth and
>> >> belief, rather than on fact. The second is that the modern ones, at
>> >> least, tend to be based on strings of deductive reasoning. Deduction
>> >> is a tool that's good for about two or three "therefores." Beyond
>> >> that it almost always leads to absurd or at least erroneous
>> >> conclusions. Often this is because the premises prove to be wrong,
>> >> when they're exposed to enough real examples -- life generally is
>> >> more complex than anything that can be boiled down to simple
>> >> premises, beyond a few essential ones. But there is another reason, a
>> >> complex issue of formal logic that I know little about, except that
>> >> it's out there; that logic contains within itself the seeds of its
>> >> own destruction. Logic, especially the vulgar, Aristotelian version
>> >> that most of us call "logic," is a very limited tool, one that's
>> >> misused as often as not. Don't ask me to explain this. It's a deep
>> >> subject that I intend to study when I retire. d8-)
>> >>
>> >> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who
>> >> have a low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things
>> >> are uncertain. Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one
>> >> of the characteristics of being human. People who have a big dose of
>> >> it are attracted to tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield
>> >> them from ambiguity. But the systems themselves, exposed to real life
>> >> over some short or long period of history, always, always, turn to
>> >> crap. I know of no exceptions.
>> >>
>> >> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make
>> >> people "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and
>> >> courageous example, "radical centrists." I use the shorthand
>> >> "anti-ideologue" to describe this point of view. It's not quite
>> >> accurate, but it gets the idea across.
>> >>
>> >> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all
>> >> of this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are
>> >> the most extreme examples of those anxious, insecure,
>> >> ambiguity-intolerant individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy
>> >> with some aspect of their lives, they're open and ready for
>> >> revelation and seize on certainty like a man overboard seizes a
>> >> liferaft. Once they have a grip on it they have only one thing to
>> >> fear: changing their mind. If they give in to life's ambiguities they
>> >> will lose it all and drown in the sea of uncertainty, because they
>> >> never developed the tools to cope with it. That's the insecurity John
>> >> is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Ed Huntress
>> >
>> >
>> > Although your point is well said and is backed up with sound reasoning
>> > it's not what I would call pithy. I think it can be condensed to a
>> > shorter explanation. For instance, in colloquial terms an ideologue is
>> > just a follower. Generally a follower of some group, organization, or
>> > individual who sets a standard or makes the rules for the followers.
>> > In contrast, other people think for themselves, make their own
>> > judgments, and understand the world according to their own reasoning.
>> > Most people are followers. The reasons for this are many and are
>> > mainly psychological and not worth going into. But it is well known
>> > that most humans are followers not leaders or mavericks. Conservatives
>> > by nature like authority, rules, leaders, and a well defined set of
>> > principles to guide them. That makes them great followers. You are a
>> > follower. Not all of us are though. We may all have a particular
>> > ideology we believe in but we're not wedded to it the way real
>> > followers like you are. The bottom line, don't lump us all into your
>> > view of ideology and ideologues because were not like you right
>> > wingers.
>> >
>> > Hawke
>> >
>> >
>> >

>>
>> It may come as a shcok to you but when you have a job and
>> responsibilities and a family to raise social stability is a giant plus.
>> You know what to expect when you get out of bed each morning. There is a
>> good deal of utility in that.
>>
>> Of course malcontents just love to tear down other people and thier
>> lives, out of jealousy, rancor just plain meanness.
>>
>> Frank

>
> I think I can count on you to be one of these malcontents you speak of
> come next year if the Democrats take over the government as expected. If
> Obama becomes president I think I can count on you and all the right wing
> folk to be spewing hate and vile expletives all over the place. Keep it
> in mind when you are the malcontent that maybe the current malcontents
> had a good reason to think the way they do. I'm sure when the shoe is on
> the other foot you will think yourself justified for hating the
> government when Democrats are running it.

> As for wanting stability and for things to stay the same all the time
> because it makes you feel safe, I say you better get over that. Because
> in the real world nothing stays the same and no good thing lasts forever.
> Everything is in flux all the time. I know that is what vexes
> conservatives to no end and makes them crazy but that is how life works.
> If you don't believe it ask Tony Snow's family about it. I'm sure they
> thought they had things nice and stable and going great right up until
> the cancer diagnosis came up. Then neither prayers or man's best efforts
> were of any use. That's life. It's a struggle. We're not in control so
> you better not get too comfortable in your goal of stability.
>
> Hawke