The Dems have the POTUS, the house, and the senate and they still can't get anything done.
Master morality
Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. Nietzsche criticizes the view, which he identifies with contemporary British psychologist, that good is everything that is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. He argues that this view has forgotten the origins of the values, and thus it calls what is useful good on the grounds of habitualness - what is useful has always been defined as good, therefore usefulness is goodness as a value. He continues explaining, that in the prehistoric state, "the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences"[1] but ultimately, "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena."[2] For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. The essence of master morality is nobility. Morality is designed to protect that which the strong-willed man values, and for slave and master, "Fear is the mother of morality."[3] Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating."[4] In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.
Slave morality
Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment--revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention".[5] As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and skepticism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility[6]: the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction, "And how could there exist a 'common good'! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever been but little value. In the end it must be as it has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies, for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare."[7] Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity."[8]--the political manifestation of slave morality because of its obsession with freedom and equality.
<font size="3">It's just weird that Obama would stake his Presidency on such a weird issue.
He certainly didn't run on healthcare, and it seemed like he was going to leave it to Hillary.
War and the economy were the two big themes.
Why it became so imperative for him to take up this cause, so early in his administration, is just baffling.
All it is going to do is coalesce the opposition against him for the next 4 years around this legislation.
It just makes me think Obama has no intention of getting a 2nd term.
His attitude is, "I'm President. That's all I needed to do. No matter what happens, you can't take that away from me. I'm set for life."
It's like he's just glad to be President, forget about trying to do a good job or carrying out any policy objectives of his own.
<font size="3">
No. I think those are ALL your thoughts. Any right thinking person should know by now that there is no decision that Barack Obama could make, no poisition that Barack Obama could hold, and no thought that Barack Obama could think -- that would be satisfactory, to you.
Why do you even go through with this pretention ? ? ?
QueEx
</font size>
It's just weird that Obama would stake his Presidency on such a weird issue.
Power is a measure of an entity's ability to control the environment around itself, including the behavior of other entities. The term authority is often used for power, perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings. Often, the study of power in a society is referred to as politics.
The use of power need not involve coercion (force or the threat of force). At one extreme, it more closely resembles what everyday English-speakers call "influence".
Cruise, you just made my every point. YOU don't like his agenda so YOU simply conclude that its not worthy. Each of the issues in bold were inherited by this President.There are many ways Obama would appear impressive.
I know my position is anti-Obama, but it is also anti-Bush.
Yet, I recognized the force with which Bush executed his policy goals. He had a sense of purpose and direction that just seems missing with Obama.
With 9/11, Bush had a mandate and got the Patriot Act passed and got the whole country behind him.
With the global economic collapse, Obama has his own supporters turning on him, and is fighting just to get this health care bill passed.
When Bush passed the Patriot Act, many felt they would be safer.
I doubt once this healthcare bill passes, people will feel they will be healthier.
I just don't get why healthcare is such a priority when you have the whole country fixated on the war, the banks and the economy?
It seems to me he has no clear idea what his Presidency should be about (war, economy, energy, healthcare).
But, you know I've always felt he was too inexperienced to be President, anyway. Healthcare just may be a manifestation of that.
Carter - energy & environment
Reagan - military & foreign policy
Bush Sr. - war & banks
Clinton - economy
Bush - war & security
Obama - war? economy? banks? healthcare? energy? environment?
security?
Cruise, you just made my every point. YOU don't like his agenda so YOU simply conclude that its not worthy. Each of the issues in bold were inherited by this President.
In reality, it would be great if Mr. Obama could just pick one issue to concentrate and shine on. It would be even greater if we are being faced with ONLY one issue. Of the issues you listed, I don't see how we can leave one, off the list. Do you ? ? ?
Now, what I find really amazing about you is your ability to hate Mr. Obama while joining, or at least tacitly co-signing, the arguments of those whose sole purpose it seems is to ensure Mr. Obama's ride is a failure. If I read your pro-black ideology correctly, you would otherwise be up in arms against those same interest, except for now, their racial rhetoric happens to suit your anti-Obama purpose.
Really Sad.
QueEx
Millions of productive citizens will opt out, voluntarily or involuntarily. Millions of small business owners will get tired of paying taxes so thousands of Federal bureaucrats can "earn" $170,000 a year (and pile up benefits the private sector can only dream about) and make sure Goldman Sachs employees (the "doing God's work" CEO is only worth $250 million, poor guy) can divvy up $16 billion in ill-gotten gains.The young will be tired of fighting wars for no benefit and the healthy won't cater to the sick. 2010 will be a wild ride!
Nobody is making millions of dollars in the federal government or the state unless they are the football coach.