Bridge Collapse

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I do slightly resent your characterisation of polticians. Not all politicians lie routinely, some are actually very decent people. I've met local and national politicians who work hard and are dedicated to the communities they serve. I've also met some absolute vipers.

It is the nature of that environment. A politician that is a superb liar indeed has the inside track. Even honest men must lie or 'spin' to be reelected.

So when we talk about an honest politician, it is not an oxymoron. What we have are politicians who lie more often when things are less relevant.

For example, I was struck by the honesty of Bob Dole, a former presidential candidate. On Nightline, in response to a Ted Koppel question, Dole was so honest as to start his answer with something like, "Well Ted, I am going to avoid your question". One way to answer what a politician does not want to answer. Koppel was in the unusual position where he could not say, "You did not answer my question so I will ask it again." A rare example of honesty.

Numerous others don't bother to be so honest. As a result, more honest Republican power brokers such as Gingrich and Dole were uncerimoniously undermined and replaced by outright liars such as Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and other loyal friends of Abramoff and his peers. Gingrich is reported to hold exceptional contempt for what Tom Delay did to him. Lying created fertile ground for other corrupt government lawmakers and administrators. For example, 102 Republicans and 1 Democrat convicted in
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2007/08...rehensive.html

A list that does not include the CA Congressman who smashed all standards for corruption - Duke Cunningham.

It is extremely difficult for a politician to get elected and be honest. As George Jr so proved, lying is so easy especially to the most religious that most Americans, including so many here, believed George Jr's obviously lies about Saddam and those WMDs.

BrianR noted my contempt for America's worst president. What he forgot mention after what - 15 years? Combine every post of contempt for every politician. That total number from 15 years does not even approach numbers that accurately describe George Jr in only one month. George Jr also sets new standards for lying - and repeatedly getting away with it. Not noted in BrianR's post is how much contempt I have for a politician who lies most often, repeatedly, and earned political support by doing so.

So who do we blame? The world class liar George Jr? Or people who believe his lies? Why do politicians find lying necessary? Look at what lying has done for a mental midget like George Jr. Even Jesus Christ would eventually have to lie to be elected to public office. Ever wonder why high office is also called a hot seat? Chairs constructed for devils.

What does that say about those who support the most liars such as George Jr?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

What does that say about those who support the most liars such as George Jr?

Or those who are trying to get elected to that position now???

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

First off, he cannot tell from forum posts what your interpersonal skills might be in the real world, and secondly, politicians are people and there are those with and those without those interpersonal skills:P

To the contrary: I most certainly can tell what skills he lacks, and I have the entirety of his body of work here on this Cellar to back my view. Allow me to confine myself to just the most prominent example: in all his volubility on various subjects, has he persuaded anyone of his rightness? Are his posts received favorably or with snorts? Does he not resort too often and too easily to "You lie!"? He lacks that faculty to persuade. The only reasonable assumption I can make is that he talks as he writes, behaves as he writes -- that his soul is revealed in his works, especially on those fora concerned with politics, with religion, and with philosophy. These are the places that show your wants, your ideals, your worldview. No question but that they show mine.

This would be true even if I liked the man.

[DanaC]

The loyalty for obvious job security.... the adoration for their egos, that people who wish to be in the spotlight, seem to have in abundance.

Not all politicians crave the spotlight. They do it, because they have to increase their profile in order to reach as many constituents as possible and increase their chances of geting elected/re-elected.

The politicians who tend to crave that limelight are the serious, career politicians, the ones who are looking to get somewhere prominent on the national stage. Most politicians I've met are actually quite uncomfortable with media attention, and being the centre of attention at functions as well. This is one reason most polticians seek media training. It's not actually their natural habitat.

Even on the national scene, the representatives that each constituency elects to Parliament as an MP, are mostly people who've had other careers and other experiences. Most aren't 'career politicians' in that sense. We get more of them these days mind, people coming out of university with a political career in mind from the start. But for instance, my local MP worked in a bank until she got ill in her early 30s and lost her job because of it. She went off and got herself an English degree and was persuaded to run for Council, before eventually running for MP. She's the most down to earth normal person you're ever likely to meet. She lives in an ordinary little dormer bungalow, with a small lawn at the front. She hates having her photo taken and when she's been interviewed on tv she phones her sister to see if she watched it, and did her hair look okay?

They're just people. Most of them you'll never know their names, because they're not in the cabinet or in some prominent national role. They're just local MPs and they serve their local communities. You only see them as rows of faces on the green seats at Prime Minister's Questions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your politicians are unlike our politicians.

[DanaC]

Most people in this country view our politicians in much the way you do yours bruce. That's because most of what we see of politicians are a) the high flying media darlings, or heavy hitters on the national scene, or b) politicians on the campaign trail where it's their job to court publicity and support.

a) is a minority, b) is most/all politicians for a portion of their time.

What might make yours seem more about the limelight, could be that more stuff is on an elected basis over there. Many of the high ranking public service roles for which you hold an election, we do not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm not talking about National or even statewide office holders, but the local town/county politicians. Mostly businessmen or lawyers full time and hold political office on a part time basis. This accounts for the vast majority of our politicians.

[DanaC]

Ahh ok. In local politics, most of our politicians have a career and serve as politicians part time. I am a full time student, I hold office in the Council, I wrap those duties around my college work. My colleagues are: a joiner with his own firm; a public sector manager; a retired playwrght; the CEO of a major charity; a lecturer in Teaching; an accountant; a retired lecturer in English; a retired managing director; a taxi-driver; a business owner.

That's the Labour group of Councillors. We all serve as politicians part-time.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Ahh ok. In local politics, most of our politicians have a career and serve as politicians part time.

Appreciate in America that many politicians don't even spend as much time as lawmakers. Well over 50% of a major (full time) politician's time is spent on fund raising. Numbers once were something like $30,000 every day for 365 days just to get reelected. Where do you find enough generous people every day to give you $30,000? I believe that number may be 10 years old. Of course the number is less for local officials. But still, even some judges must have their hand out daily so as to run for reelection. Clearly those judges are honest? Clearly those politicians are doing their job when so much of every day is fund raising.

Someone walks around daily with his hand out only because he wants to be a public servant? It's hard to believe. Ego explains calling it 'serving' rather than a 'power trip'.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

So how did you get those children off and taken care of - since you worry about things relevant? Those in MN responded accordingly. Why do you associate yourself with them?

I made no effort to solve any problem. I simply posted a link to which tw chose to attack me in post #8. Because I am a compassionate human.

Originally Posted by tw

That definitely was not Yesman065 who would somehow save children by worrying?

I never said I was going to save anyone by worrying about them. It is NORMAL to be concerned with the welfare of others though, and to express that concern. tw constantly claims that he does not read into others posts or make assumptions about that which may have been implied, reading only the words one has written. Why would tw assume that anyone was trying to save a child when all I did was post a link to an article with absolutely no opinion posted. And yet again an example of how tw reads into others posts that which was not written - Why does tw constantly tend to read into statements things which do not exist. Please refer to the original post in this thread for IRONCLAD proof. Contrastly, tw feels compelled to criticize others if/when they appear to have done the same?

Originally Posted by tw

Whereas you were concerned with details you could do nothing about, instead, I was more concerned with the bigger picture - and things I might be able to accomplish.

INCORRECT - I was not concerned with details at all. I VERY SIMPLY posted a link, nothing more nothing less. I had not intent at that time to solve any problems jump out the door and examine any bridges. tw seems to not be able to grasp this concept even though he has been repeatedly told. Why does tw continue to assume every post is about what HE thinks it is about instead of recognizing that other people post for their own reasons? All claims of superior thought through logical emotionless conclusions would not be made were it not for the underlying emotional need for said change or improvement to take place. One can only assume that posting dispassionately lets tw feel he is somehow greater or better or in some way superior. That tw's posts are intentionally devoid of any feeling has no bearing nor does it lend any credibility to his posts. This is a further example of how tw reads into posts that which is not there. Why tw? Why does tw see things that do not exist? What is it tw has accomplished by attacking yesman? Has tw accomplished anything since this bridge collapsed? has tw taken any action? Take notice - that information is conveniently lacking from tw's posts.

Originally Posted by tw

Your offer was simple. You stopped posting attacks and the only time I demonstrated what an insult really looks like then stopped - just as I stated. See how easy it works?

No, not really, the veil has been removed and the seething ridicule is now out in the open. For example see post # 8 where tw completely unprovoked in any way shape or form reads into a link that which does not exist and attacks yesman without any cause whatsoever. The demeaning TONE, yes there is a tone in the written word, which tw used was completely uncalled for. I made an offer to you for an end of your attacks and my counterattacks so that the cellar would not have to deal with this issue in ever thread where you choose to attack me. Furthermore, I created a thread specifically for tw to express his feelings, if any, attack me if tw wished or to reach a compromise. tw chose none of them - What we are left with is a "cesspool of wanker logic." {tm tw} The offer was apparently not simple enough for tw. tw could not even be man enough to respond to said offer in the appropriate place. Why is that? Why is it that tw is unable or unwilling to act accordingly when an offer for peace was made? Highly illogical for one who purports logical superiority.

Originally Posted by tw

Yesman065 worries about kids he can do nothing for (and calls that responsible action?)

yesman (now you have me referring to myself in the third person) - very strange indeed - will repeat himself again. It seems that tw must believe that if the same incorrect point is repeatedly stated enough times will somehow will it to validity. No it will not. A most serious illogical transgression. No matter how many times an incorrect assumption is repeated it shall forever remain incorrect. yesman posted a link - nothing more, nothing less. yesman had no intention whatsoever at that time to solve any problems nor examine any bridges. tw seems to not be able to grasp this concept even though he has been repeatedly told this. yesman made no effort to imply nor intended to determine a responsible course of action. That is another attempt by tw to make another erroneous claim completely unfounded and without basis. Why tw? Why does tw see things that do not exist?

yesman would like to take this opportunity to state that he was concerned about the traumatic events of that evening and would like to express his concern for the well being of the children on that school bus. Additionally, yesman would like to express his thankfulness to his God that they are all physically ok. Nothing more nothing less. There was never any attempt to examine any other bridges nor did yesman make any claims to have done so.

Originally Posted by tw

The minute that bridge collapsed, our immediate concern was why and what other school buses are at risk. For example, how many bridges of that design exist in your county? Three exist in MN. Did you know that? Do you know those answers that are very much relevant if concerned for the safety of your peers? Why not?

Those questions are not yesman's to ask. yesman is not in the field of engineering, however if yesman were to derive that information it would do yesman little good to know that information. Therefore that displays another illogical question derived on faulty logic which deserves no reply. How much time did tw spend to accrue that useless information? If that information becomes useful what is tw going to do with it? Has tw done anything constructive to address whatever situation tw has determined is in need? What tw, what would yesman or any other reader do with such information? Perhaps yesman could call his congressman and express his concern for the children in his area. Does yesman need that information to do that? yesman thinks not. In fact, yesman has already emailed and called his local representative to express his concerns about bridges in his area. Has tw done the same? Has tw taken any action? tw has offered no solutions, no ideas, in fact all tw has offered is long winded posts questioning others feelings and opinions. Hardly a prudent course of action. What tw, what logic was this course of action you have chosen based upon? tell us what tw has done to increase the safety of the children who ride school buses near tw. Perhaps tw is not concerned enough about the children in tw's area to take action himself? yesman does not know as tw has not offered any constructive information on the subject.

Originally Posted by tw

Maybe you worry about things that cannot be solved. So tell us. How many bridges in your area have the same non-redundant design? Did you ask? Is anyone? Or do we simply wait for another school bus to fall?

OMG - again? My fingers hurt from repeating myself ad nauseum - should you, at this point, still need and answer to these questions than you are beyond help.

In conclusion, yesman recognized a need and took the appropriate action (calling his representatives) whereas tw has simply chosen to attack other posters feelings and opinions - hardly logical nor constructive.

I have repeatedly said that I respect tw's opinions and tw is obviously a person with above average intellect. Attacking others provides no benefit - therefore is a complete waste of energy and cannot derive any positive outcome. Why then does tw find it necessary to attack others when no attack was initially made nor implied?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sorry, I was distracted... could you repeat that?

[Undertoad]

that's beautiful man

[Urbane Guerrilla]

We just had a locally notorious penile-encephaly case, and toe-tag Democrat, write to the local daily and weekly papers explicitly blaming George W. Bush for the bridge falling down -- and never mind that it's been found rickety since about 1990. The poor bustard tried to sell us on the idea that since GWB is engrossed in fighting a war that other people labored two decades to start with us, the bridges are all rusting out. From this particular crank, whose name I'll refrain from mentioning -- nobody you've heard of anyway, but he writes letters to the editor as a hobby -- this is par for the course. Well, maybe below par.

[DanaC]

Appreciate in America that many politicians don't even spend as much time as lawmakers. Well over 50% of a major (full time) politician's time is spent on fund raising. Numbers once were something like $30,000 every day for 365 days just to get reelected. Where do you find enough generous people every day to give you $30,000? I believe that number may be 10 years old. Of course the number is less for local officials. But still, even some judges must have their hand out daily so as to run for reelection.

In local politics, whilst there is fund raising (we do need funds to pay for elections) it's much smaller scale. There is a limit on what a person/party can spend during the election period. You can spend what you like in the interrim, though most local politicians don't spend much until quite near election time.

By a limit, I mean that once the election is 'called' so roughly four weeks before polling day, no local government candidate can spend more than: £600 plus .05p per registered voter. For my ward that worked out at approximately £1010. During my election my expenses came in at £940. In order to calculate election expenditure, one has to take account of everything. If someone lends you space in their office to use a base of ops, you must work out what an acceptable market rate wuold be for that amount of space and utilities and mark that within your expenditure as a Notional expense. Every printed leaflet, every stamp, every phone call which incurs a charge, election insurance etc etc. Services paid for, services given free, all have to be accounted for as expense and mustn't amount to more than stated limit. The only 'expense' that doesn't count, is the market value of volunteer labour. So, you really appreciate your volunteers. When you are counting every stamp, you want to hand deliver as much as possible ;P

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Every printed leaflet, every stamp, every phone call which incurs a charge, election insurance etc etc.

Election insurance? Does that support you until you can try again? Or buy you a bottle of booze to drown your sorrows?