66 Comments - USMCJanitor - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:44 pm: I think the repubs in general and in Illinois specifically would do better to take a more libertarian approach to their platform and positions. I tend to vote repub here in the land of Madigan more often than not. But I dont think I am alone in thinking its time for politicians of all stripes to get out of people’s business. Gay marriage? Sure! who is anyone else to tell you who to marry. Of course I think the Gov should NOT be in the business of telling people much of anything. Assuming you know right every time is bad business for both sides. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:46 pm: That’s not a platform, that’s a plank. We are a diverse group, except for our views. - train111 - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:46 pm: Most of us on here follow politcs pretty closely, but I’d venture to guess that under 5% of us have actually read the Republican Party Platform. To most it is a long wordy boring piece that is best read at 3:00 am when suffering from insomnia. Way too much emphasis on what is for the most part empty long winded list of meaningless platitudes. train111 - Just Me - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:53 pm: Why the focus on just the GOP platform? Things that make you go “Hmmmmmm…….” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:54 pm: ===Why the focus on just the GOP platform? === Well, I don’t see any Democrats saying word one about their party’s platform, do you? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:55 pm: There should be a third option in this poll: both. The GOP activists only have been allowed a tiny bit of say in most party matters (other than voting). The party big shots have tended to hand over writing the platform to activists, who come up with ever more strident policy positions like this one. The big shots have no intention of allowing the grassroots activists anywhere near the actual decision-making, so the big shots tend to accept the platform recommendations and promptly ignore them. This alienates the activists, who then refuse to support anyone who compromises on “their” platform. Rinse, lather, repeat. Since 1994. So yes, the Party approved a platform written by conservative activists who get angry when they are ignored, and they have a valid point. But they are also too conservative to appeal to a majority of Illinoisans, so it puts too much emphasis on the extreme side of the party, leaving a nominee, or in this case, a party chairman, will little room to maneuver for electoral advantage. The battle between RINOs and Purists goes on. Both sides have a compelling case to be made on this issue, but neither side is going to win any big elections until they figure out how to work together. And even then maybe not. - Senator Clay Davis - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:56 pm: Adherence to a specific platform is one of my major problems with the party system as it stands today. Especially at the federal level, most Representatives are running in districts so gerrymandered that they pledge adherence to the ideological “pure,” oversimplified platform promulgated by their party. Independent thought is discouraged, or even punished. It’s not even partisan, it’s tribal - OneMan - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:56 pm: Too much emphasis on specific points I would argue, that is why I voted valid point. - OneMan - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 12:58 pm: Don’t see the purity of essence thing as much from the Democrats IMHO - Just Me - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:08 pm: @Rich, that is my point. The party that keeps winning elections doesn’t have this debate. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:13 pm: I think they should throw him out. The GOP needs to remain ideologically pure. - OneMan - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:13 pm: You don’t stare at your navel when you are winning… - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:16 pm: ===In other words - the Platform matters. It should guide policy=== Guide. Guide. Interesting word, that “guide”. In other words, it’s not …”must” … it’s not “required” … or, not “essential” Guide. The planks of a Party’s platform are as important as anything to define what a party is, and what it wants to be, seeing itself standing for things greater than the members that are in that party. I get it. I undertand it. Then there is politics and reality. The politics of that specific plank, or ANY specific plank for that matter, and the reality of how we in the ILGOP are seen run against everything that politcal wisdom, and politcal reality here in Illinois. Guide. The issue becomes, do we make the Platform a “must” at the risk of seeming exclusive or elitists? Or, do we use the Platform as a guideline to have principals by which we all MUST stand for, irregardless of what society and ordinary people, friends, or … family think is not fundamentally right? Are we not … suppose to …Add …to our party, not subtract? Are Litmus Tests the calling card for the Party of Lincoln … here … in Lincoln’s Illinois? The emphasis should be the “guiding” principals of the Party, not the rigid mantra, or exclusinary practices of what a platform requires. Have we as a Party lost sight of the fact that Illinois citizens wonder more what they do NOT agree with us on, as opposed to what those citizens see as inclusionary? The platform is a guide, a roadmap of beliefs, but it is not to be swallowed whole and digested, regardless how some ingredients taste. We can not be the Party of “all or nothing”…becuase we have found out, citizens who vote, who decide who IS relevent, have been saying “nothing” for a few elections now. Too much emphasis on what is dividing us as a Party and Illinois. That is our reality, platform or not. - small r - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:21 pm: Finally a leader who takes a risk and holds his ground! - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:22 pm: Once again the Republicans show that they just don’t get it. This wing in the Republican party that demands ideological purity is going to continue to be the undoing of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party wants to be relevant to everyday individuals then they had better get control of their ideological police. Platforms are meant as general statements of what a party believes in as a whole. There is not one member of a political party that agrees with everything in a platform. If we are using platform adherence to evaluate candidates then we better get rid of them all and get new ones that will act as robots to satisfy the apparent litmus test that these people are demanding. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:25 pm: Also, it amazes me that the issue of gay marriage is what has precipitated a demand for Brady to resign. Perhaps they could have demanded that resignation over something that actually matters - the fact that Republicans in Illinois got stomped in the last election, including losing seats. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:48 pm: Ronald Reagan: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20-percent traitor.” Brady erred as chairman not in holding a belief that differs from the platform. He erred as chairman in advocating on behalf of an issue that creates strong disagreements among many within the group he leads. It’s not as though he was making calls on behalf of, say, a tax cut. To top things off, the issue failed to even garner enough support for a vote. Double whammy. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:51 pm: Without expressing a personal opinion, Rich, I just want to say that if anyone is going to raise an issue pertaining to a party’s platform, it would probably most logically be conservatives, who see and/or position themselves as more traditional and hence, are looking for ways to help ensure that candidates support those traditional views. With regard to USMC’s comment re: taking a more libertarian approach, I agree and wonder how many other Republicans–even Conservatives would agree as well. However, it seems to me that the “battles” are always conducted in the media and on blogs–forums which do not allow for in-depth discussions. Hence, some might feel that while the long-term objectives/desires of both sides are similar (if not the same) from a libertarian approach, key legal questions related to same are not being addressed because the forum doesn’t allow for same. The reason I’m saying that is because I did see a pretty “thoughtful” post on a blog once that raised several questions regarding how e.g., same sex marriage might change other “institutions,” including schools (and they weren’t the typical does this mean you’ll be able to marry your sister, two “partners,” or your pet rabbit). Whether one sees those concerns as valid or not, just the fact that such questions are being raised might indicate that some are afraid that related changes to “other institutions” might occur–or occur to quickly without planning and allowing for any type of “societal” transition, which could wind up a lose/lose again for everyone involved. And regardless of where you stand on any issue, isn’t that beneficial (e.g., when one side is perceived as pulling too hard and quickly to one side, the other often balances by pulling just as hard to the other until a new mid-point is identified)? Therefore, the question of whether such a balance can continue to exist without a platform (and to some degree, “enforcing” it somehow), may be a valid question and concern. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:55 pm: If you’re going to treat your platform as a litmus test and close off your party to only “pure believers” of the platform than prepare to be a super minority party for a super long time. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:56 pm: ===when one side is perceived as pulling too hard and quickly to one side, the other often balances by pulling just as hard to the other until a new mid-point is identified=== That’s Hegelian dialectics (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) and I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately, mainly in relation to gun laws. It can’t really work if one or both sides never, ever agree to synthesis. More another time. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:57 pm: Sorry. Because I believe that the balance in debate that I raised in my last point is important, I voted that the point is valid. - Conservative Veteran - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 1:58 pm: I agree with most of the republican platform, and I think that all republican elected officials and party leaders should agree with most of the platform. No one should be angry at a party chairman because he disagrees with only one part of the platform. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:09 pm: Agree that they have a point, but the platform itself has too many bad points… - MrJM - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:09 pm: Do conservative Republicans have a valid point, or do they put too much emphasis on their platform? I vote “valid point” because I would like to see the IL-GOP continue to tear itself to pieces over social issues. – MrJM - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:11 pm: =No one should be angry at a party chairman because he disagrees with only one part of the platform.= Again, without expressing my personal opinion, I’m not sure that all the disagreement is grounded in what he believes. It seems to have more to do with the perception that through his actions, he is taking a position on behalf of the party. If that is true, I’m wondering whether that’s accurately “setting the expectations” of those who are listening. One could argue that setting the wrong or premature or even questionable expectations in trying to recruit more into the party (to “save it”) or to obtain votes for the sake of winning an election based on improperly set expectations, could result instead in alot of ongoing, in-fighting. And, that also seems to be something that both Rs and Ds have identified as an issue within the R party. IMHO someone needs to conduct a root cause anaysis of “in-fighting” within the party and to determine whether this instance could be identified as one of the causes that may be located toward the top of the list and then assess how beneficial (or damaging) it may be over both the short and long-term. - Judgment Day - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:17 pm: Platforms in both parties are written substantially by the extremes in both parties. It’s all about being able to have something to wave to their supporters and say “They listened to us!. It’s in the party platform”. But often it’s just stupid. Having more government regulation of people’s personal lives by either party just seems like a really bad idea, not to mention that in most cases where it actually occurs, it’s done both inefficiently, and costly. Political platforms should be designed around ideas designed to make people’s lives easier and less complex, not more difficult. Pat Brady needs to keep up the good work. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:20 pm: “They listened to us!. It’s in the party platform”. I don’t believe that anything labeled “conservative” is appeased by a “quick win” and “instant gratification.” Wrong group. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:25 pm: ===That’s Hegelian dialectics…=== Whoa, Rich … I was told there would be “no math”, that is a $100 word. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:32 pm: The party in power right now renominated a governor everyone but himself knew was going to jail, co chaired by a guy who couldn’t wait to see the governor-crook locked up. Then they nominate the Lt. Governor who swears he didn’t know a thing about what everyone else knew about. Each election, the GOP LOST. Get a clue losers. Whatever you’re doing, stop it before the party is completely extinct. Save yourselves. You want to maintain your purity instead of doing it with someone from the wrong side of the tracks? Well, good for you, but don’t expect a date, Emily Dickinson. When the other party is giving it away to a Blagojevich or a Quinn, when a future felon just inaugurated nominates the Speaker, when the other party is willing to give the Devil a lap dance in hell to get power, now is not the time to ask if the guy who’s hand your holding has pure intentions. Get wild, losers. You can’t do worse than the Democrats have. - Sunshine - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:32 pm: OW has a good point….Guide. I’m not a particularly big Brady fan but I do agree with his direction regarding gay marriage, and I think he is right in speaking out about it. - Irish - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:42 pm: I voted too much emphasis. While I appreciate the poll and arguments for and against, all one has to look at is the last few elections. Either following the party platform is not what the majority of republicans and possible independents wanted or the platform was too far to the right. Either way the GOP conservatives have to aloow some deviation or they have to move the platform more to the middle. Not meaning to be snarky but we all know what repetitively doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes equals. You end up being the advocate for brightly colored reptiles. - Hans Sanity - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:43 pm: How quaint: party members expect their candidates to adhere to stated principles of the party. Instead of being shocked by voter apathy, we should be amazed anyone votes. - Will Caskey - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:48 pm: As Rich said, you don’t see Democrats ranting and raving about party platforms. A party is just a power continuity structure. There’s nothing special about its stated principles and it frankly doesn’t need any. It needs to raise money, poll and run ads. If Brady is causing problems to that process then sure fire him. If not, who cares. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:49 pm: Irish, with all due respect, it might not be snark, but it is probably the longest “drive by” I’ve ever read or heard and it’s not adding to the debate. And sometimes, raising the argument of “doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes equals ?” in your defense, only means that you came up with something different that’s just as ineffective…and possibly even more ?. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:50 pm: So VM, can I assume you meant to add that you voted for “too much emphasis” on the ILGOP party platform? I know how much you hate it when people like me put words in your mouth, but it is a Question of the Day after all, not a Rant of the Day, and I am honestly stumped by your answer, which has nothing to do with party platforms or Pat Brady. - Joe Bidenopoulous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 2:57 pm: First off, I want to say I don’t agree with just about anything the Republican party has to say about social issues. I’ll never understand how the party can reconcile a belief that the less government is involved, the better…except in these obviously crucial issues to our nation’s future. Their cognitive dissonance has to cause veins to pop on their collective foreheads. That said, if they put it in the platform, that should matter, no matter how draconian or bone-headed it is. And they should be held accountable, so I voted that it’s valid. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:11 pm: No, 47th. I think V-Man’s advice is to buy a Newfoundland and name it Carlo–even if you live in Illinois and not D.C. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:17 pm: Time is a test of trouble But not a remedy – If such it prove, it prove too There was no malady. - Irish - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:30 pm: Anonymous - Pointing out that over the last 10 years the Illinois GOP has moved to the far right of it’s base and has abandoned any attempts to interject moderate ideas, and lost elections as a result is not part of this debate? And to also point out that doing that same thing over and over to appease a certain group instead of moving your message and ideas to where the votes are and still expecting to win is crazy. And that has nothing to do with this debate either? Bottomline, you either want to adhere strictly to certain doctrine and declare that doctrine to be of the utmost importance, and to heck with winning elections, the course the Illinois GOP seems to be on; or you decide it might be more beneficial to move your emphasis to party doctrine that is more readily accepted by more voters, and possibly win an election. However if you do the former you have no complaint with one party rule in this state at this time. - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:41 pm: Geeze, it’s not as if the Dems adhere to supposed Dem party principles. Something else is going on here. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:45 pm: ===Geeze, it’s not as if the Dems adhere to supposed Dem party principles. Something else is going on here.=== Nothing else is going on here. Nobody in Illinois - and I mean nobody - is complaining about non-adherence to the Democratic Party platform. Yet many Republicans are. Ergo the question. Remove your tinfoil hat. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:50 pm: He needs to support the platform or resign. The party has made the decision to go off the deep end. That’s the party’s option. Having made that choice, they need a leader willing to follow them off the deep end. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:50 pm: I’m obviously not arguing that the GOP doesn’t have problems, Irish. I’m just suggesting that perhaps the GOP would do better if it focused on identifying the issues it has within it’s own “house” (as if they’re not obvious), truly identifying the causes, and then putting some effort toward resolving those issues (i.e., moving their factions closer to agreement), rather than dramatically tossing their hands up into the air, arrogantly “kicking” people out because they “don’t belong” or are too difficult to work with and coming up with ideas that “encite” rather than fix so that we can move foward. It’s hard work, but aren’t those the types of issues, problems, challenges, and opportunities good leadership generally enjoy and are “hired” to resolve? Anyone can “fire” people out of anger, frustration, and yes–even arrogance (including their “membership” it seems) and replace them with warm bodies. That doesn’t, however, guarantee, you’ll win. As a matter of fact, it could possibly be even more damaging to credibility in the long run. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:55 pm: And BTW, Irish. Thank you for restating your post. The repetition leading to ? quote and reference to brightly colored reptiles just didn’t “compute” for some reason. Hence, my comment pertaining to a “drive by.” - Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 3:59 pm: I voted too much emphasis. The platform is the construct of activists who want to coopt the nominating process by adopting a document that corresponds to their philosophy, not necessarily the philosophy of the chosen candidate. When I vote for a delegate, I vote for him/her because the person is pledged to support the candidate I prefer. I don’t vote for the delegate because he/she will support a platform that reflects my beliefs. From my perspective, the candidate’s campaign promises represents the only true platform. - reformer - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:01 pm: Since when did Republicans become sticklers for their platform? Their last state platform unequivocally opposed gambling expansion, but that hardly stopped Cross, Radogno and many other prominent Repubs from voting for the casinopalooza bills. The convention addressed that conflict by quietly deleting any gambling plank. Eventually, a future convention will delete the anti-marriage equality plank. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:08 pm: =From my perspective, the candidate’s campaign promises represents the only true platform.= I’m with you, Norseman–or once was back in the day when it was easier to actually measure actions against campaign promises. Unfortunately, spin doctors on all sides have gotten too good at what they do. - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:14 pm: “…Nothing else is going on here. Nobody in Illinois - and I mean nobody - is complaining about non-adherence to the Democratic Party platform. Yet many Republicans are. ..” Maybe party platforms are looked at more closely when candidates lose. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:21 pm: ===Maybe party platforms are looked at more closely when candidates lose.=== Maybe, but I don’t recall any Democratic platform fight when Thompson, Edgar and Ryan were running things. It appears to me that the IL GOP outsourced the platform to the far Right as a way of throwing it a bone. The elders kept control of the party, while the Right was given the illusion that they had some control via the platform. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:25 pm: Platforms should change, evolve with the changing demographics of this state/country. The Republican problem is they can’t change; their platform is one of stone and none dare object to what’s chiseled within. Why they’ll continue to diminish as a credible political force. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:28 pm: If Kasich was wearing a tin-foil hat, it’s obviously off now. And I’ll add that maybe that’s when people take a closer look at their leadership, too. Maybe looking at this from the perspective that this is your private company isn’t the best scenario for coming up with solutions that will keep it from running into the ground. Just take a look at some of the other threads regarding candidates (and reminders of other candidates) who prove time and time again that $$ has its limits when it comes to winning office–and I’m predicting that THAT is going to take on even greater meaning soon. - Joe Bidenopoulous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 4:43 pm: ==Platforms should change== Disagree. Platforms are an antiquated notion. In an age where informative discourse about candidates was not nearly as accessible as it is today, the platform stood as shorthand for what candidates stood for, generally speaking. It could have been something as simple as grain subsidies or tariffs on English tea, but the platform was more widely publicized and so I would know what, generally, the candidates on my ballot stood for whether I’d ever heard from them or not. Today, it’s easier (and often more effective) for candidates to make more direct appeals to voters, whether through mail, radio or TV, and a party’s platform is generally not disseminated in a wide fashion. I’m a Democrat, but I couldn’t possible tell you what the platform for Illinois Democrats is (no snark). What I know is that Democrats, by and large, have been the candidates that I’ve agreed with throughout my adult life and they’re who I support. The platform system is left in place for the reason Rich mentioned - to give a wing of the party something to hang their hat on. it does a disservice to everyone involved, and since we live in a big tent society where there are no monoliths of thought or party, they should go the way of the mastadon, that once so freely roamed our plains (were they plains then? I don’t know). - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 5:17 pm: Bidenopoulous, if these candidates can’t represent their party’s platform they ought to be enough of a leader to change it, especially given that so much of the attention and funding candidates receive in the US is currently based on their viability as a potential nominee of one of two parties. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 5:18 pm: The problem is Pat Brady. He wants to be governor. He uses his current position as a stepping stone. His comment is self beneficial only. He hadn’t a problem when he threw the primary in ‘10 to Bill Brady, right? He was the chairman then, the problem for the GOP is that this opportunist wants to run again. If you think he put self above party with this statement then you are right. As party chairman, Brady’s record of GOP electoral success speaks for itself. He stinks at it. For a self serving ex-candidate with his record, his political advice should be considered as good as Lyndon Larouche’s. On a good day You don’t sand bag the party you chair this way. Brady needs to focus on uniting issues for his party, not dividing ones only intended to play up a future run. - Dr. Health Admin - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 5:25 pm: Vanilla Man - Where on earth did you ever get information that PAT Brady wants to be Governor? Pat Brady has never expressed an intention of running for any office (other than McLean Co. State’s Atty in 1996 which didn’t work out so well, or the Board of Trustees for the Geneva Public Library).Making ridiculus statements like that only undermines any arguments you make on this topic. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 5:31 pm: VM, the choices were: a.) valid point b.) too much emphasis You answered: r.) Lyndon Larouche Thanks for clearing that up for us. - walkinfool - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 5:35 pm: VMan: Entertaining and clever rant. You lost me only once, but that could be my failing memory. IMO: The role of the party chairman might require a bit closer support of the party platform, than required of any candidate for public office. It’s partly on him to get the thing pulled together. - Muffin Man - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 6:44 pm: I just like to know what I am buying (or “buying into”). Pat Brady led many to believe that he adhered to the GOP Party platform when he first ran for the Illinois Republican Party Chairman. I don’t remember him saying or even inferring that he stood for “bits & pieces” of the GOP platform? Maybe he did and I just missed it? But, I believe a whole lot of other Republican Party members missed that part as well. It is like saying you have a used Chevy for sale in the classified ads of the local newspaper but when the buyer gets the car home, he suddenly discovers that the car has been repainted and has a Ford spare tire in the trunk. I guess it is probably a “transparency issue” or “truth in advertising” issue for me. He is entitled to his own opinion on the same-sex marriage issue but he should have been open and transparent with the Illinois Republican Party membership when he first signed on as Illinois GOP Chairman. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 7:38 pm: =You answered: r.) Lyndon Larouche= I’m sorry if you consider this at your “expense,” V-Man, but I haven’t laughed this hard at something in a long time. (And I’m certainly not laughing at you. It’s just that 47th’s comeback was quite witty.) - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 7:40 pm: ===That’s Hegelian dialectics…=== Whoa, Rich … I was told there would be “no math”, that is a $100 word. – Hey Rich, how about a heads up next time on the “Hegelian dialectics” Willie’s worried about the math. I never went to math class. I was smoking a Hegelian-lot of weed in the woods across the street. Drinking beer and being friendly with my lovely classmates, But I see where you’re coming from. - Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 7:43 pm: Platforms change all of the time…even once in awhile for conservative Republicans! - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 8:34 pm: V-Man, I don’t think the reclusive Emily ever expected a date, though I read she may have had a romantic interest with a widower in her later years. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 8:37 pm: Hey, it’s already challenging to vote for some of our candidates, even without reading the platform. Don’t raise the bar even higher. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 22, 13 @ 9:49 pm: ===Whoa, Rich … I was told there would be “no math”, that is a $100 word.=== Rich, reading that again, I hope you take it as how much of a Dope I am, and how much I need to learn, as opposed to anything else. Sometimes making fun of yourself backfires on here, so I wanted to clarify, and if need be, apologize. Always learning, Oswego Willy - Colossus - Wednesday, Jan 23, 13 @ 9:59 am: Hegel’s an interesting place to start if you’re looking for a philosophical education. Hegel leads you directly to Kant (former leader of the Anti-Hegel League), who did the heavy lifting of modernizing Aristotle for the 18th century. Once you have that basis, you can branch out anywhere you want to go, but I’d recommend moving to Nietzsche next, as his emphasis on the Apollonian/Dionysian divide loops back around to mirror thesis/antithesis in many ways but without resulting in synthesis. Or you could move on to Marx, the Communist Manifesto is an easy ( - Colossus - Wednesday, Jan 23, 13 @ 10:01 am: less than 2 hr) read, and it has a better explanation of capitalism than anyone got in Econ 101. And Wordslinger, “Hegelian-lot of weed” resulted in a wet monitor. You owe me. (Apologies for the formatting error.) Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.