KTOWNLOWDOWN: What Do They Mean By “Change”?
tvd
· 1 year ago
It is the same thing most Democrats and even some Republicans do, they try and take a neutral term and turn it into a virtue. Take for example the word "choice." For years many have been trying to prop that term up as a blessed freedom and liberty, but choice is not a virtue in and of itself. It is the choice that you make that is either virtuous or destructive, not your ability to choose. So goes with "change."
Micah
· 1 year ago
Lord Jesus, please save us from another Reagan. We'll know for sure the apocalypse is now.
I'm curious: I hear people who feel the need to tout the "conservative" perspective often refer to more "freedoms?" More freedom for what?
svandyke
· 1 year ago
Well, freedom to: 1) worship...the God, the Father of the Lord Jesus you mention above in your comment 2) do what you wish with the money you earn 3) go to the doctor when and where you want 4) light up
But the intent of the post was to hear from some folks about what Democratic "change" means...but I am curious when liberals feel the need to "change" the subject instead of responding to the original idea.
Maybe I answered my own question about what "change" means....the subject.
Micah
· 1 year ago
I was unaware that freedom was required for worship; I was also unaware that our freedom to worship was threatened, unless you think "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" on the sign at the mall is a threat to our worship, in which case, well, .....
I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches (except Obama, who is an amazing speaker and would be a great preacher).
I think lots of people are for the freedom to go to the doctor when and where they want; I was unaware that our current administration had made that possible for anyone. In fact, I'm aware that for most people, little choice exists at all, and for lots of people, the only choice is the ER. Maybe that needs to "change".
Beyond paying bills, I don't really care about money, so I have no comment. I for one remember what Jesus was holding in his hand when he said "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's" and whose inscription it bore.
I'm all for restricting smoker's "rights." So, nice try, but no dice.
svandyke
· 1 year ago
Big surprise, we don't agree on anything, but...
"I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches"...
...words mean things. You can't "change" that. Words may be ignored or explained as something else, but words have meaning, but that's what I don't get....what does change mean to Democrats?
Jo Ellen
· 1 year ago
I don't know what change means to democrats, besides change in the way we are fighting this war, change in the way we do health care, change in the way we educate our children. All of this, I suspect, is what all candidates lay out when they talk about policy plans.
Words don't have self-evident meanings. "Leadership," for example, doesn't simply mean one thing; it takes a community of folks with common convictions to act out what that means. For example, I suspect most conservatives mean, frankly, "manliness" when they say leadership--the notion that strength and acumen are essential to, say, fighting a war, or in dealing with folks like Iran. Christians, on the other hand, would primarily see leadership measured against Jesus, who, despite what that idiot John Eldridge would have us believe, was anything but "manly." He was weak, he was willing to die, and that becomes its own type of strength.
All to say that I tend to agree that most politicians offer up mostly meaningless things in most speeches. I don't think you can expect much else. That's not to discount the importance of words; I agree that they are vitally important. I'm all for a revival in political speech that has folks actually trying to say something that has meaning. I'm just not that hopeful, and given the power of what the church could be saying, don't see much in wanting to hear more from politicians.
fun stuff! :)
svandyke
· 1 year ago
"I don’t think you can expect much else.".... this is where we differ. I do expect much else. Generations before us had leaders, and their words meant things "I have a dream" "Tear down this wall" "The only thing to fear" ...and I expect that for my generation, too. I do have hope.
And usually when you "find a community of folks with commons convictions" you will almost definitely find a leader, whether it's a preacher, a mayor, or a housewife....groups of people don't lead themselves....leaders lead and followers follow.
Brent
· 1 year ago
Perhaps it takes a Bush to get an Obama
Jo Ellen
· 1 year ago
if you mean after 8 years of bumbling idiocy we finally deserve a speaker who is inspiring, then Bush may have been worth it. But, I'm skeptical.
Leaders lead and followers follow...you should pitch that to Faux News. Where do leaders lead? Or, more importantly for Christians, How do leaders lead? If they follow the example of Christ (which, I know, is a crazy idea), then they lead by serving incarnationally--that is, becoming like the people they hope to lead. This is why most models of leadership are so disappointing, because most leadership sets itself apart from the "followers." And this is why, despite what people who write dumb books about "Jesus, CEO" want us to believe, you can't lead unless you are at least as humble as the people you hope to lead. You lead the poor by becoming poor, you lead workers by being a worker, you lead students by being a student, etc. Given the disparity between the average hourly worker and the average executive, the business model (which is clearly the dominant model of leadership) is, to be blunt, nothing like the leadership of Christ. Housewives, especially those who give up careers and ambitions to change diapers and keep house, are perhaps a better example, which is why, as I've maintained in practice and rhetoric, the real "manly" thing for men to do is stay at home and learn to clean and care for small children, and encourage their wives professional gifts in the process.
svandyke
· 1 year ago
To Brent: Touche'.
tvd
· 1 year ago
Jo Ellen, I think you might have just hit the nail on the head, and in case that term is too "manly", i.e. not Christ-like, let me say that you have "warmed the baby formula to its perfect temperature". Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Anyway, avoiding all the many minefields throw out there by this thread and trying to get to back to the original poin, I think you have illustrated for us what democrats mean by change. For example, to quote you:
"I don’t know what change means to democrats, besides change in the way we are fighting this war, change in the way we do health care, change in the way we educate our children. All of this, I suspect, is what all candidates lay out when they talk about policy plans."
The, dare I say, genius of the Democratic nominees are that the way the use the word "change" allows their supporters to infer whatever they want. The above quotes from the candidates aren't talking about "policy" change, just "change." You, Jo Ellan, suspect that it means one thing while another supporter can suspect it means something totally different. It is a veritable buffet. So, if you are a teacher, change can mean more money for you, if you are a environmentalist, change can mean more restrictions on corporations, for PETA, change means legislative vegetarianism. Whatever you want someone to change, that's what it means right now. I suspect they use the term so loosely so that they can get the most support for it.
I am sure that once a nominee is named we will see in more detail what they mean by change and I suspect too that it will mean all the things you think it means, Jo Ellen.
As for all the other things in this thread all I can say is "Wow!"
All Comments
I'm curious: I hear people who feel the need to tout the "conservative" perspective often refer to more "freedoms?" More freedom for what?
1) worship...the God, the Father of the Lord Jesus you mention above in your comment
2) do what you wish with the money you earn
3) go to the doctor when and where you want
4) light up
But the intent of the post was to hear from some folks about what Democratic "change" means...but I am curious when liberals feel the need to "change" the subject instead of responding to the original idea.
Maybe I answered my own question about what "change" means....the subject.
I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches (except Obama, who is an amazing speaker and would be a great preacher).
I think lots of people are for the freedom to go to the doctor when and where they want; I was unaware that our current administration had made that possible for anyone. In fact, I'm aware that for most people, little choice exists at all, and for lots of people, the only choice is the ER. Maybe that needs to "change".
Beyond paying bills, I don't really care about money, so I have no comment. I for one remember what Jesus was holding in his hand when he said "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's" and whose inscription it bore.
I'm all for restricting smoker's "rights." So, nice try, but no dice.
but...
"I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches"...
...words mean things. You can't "change" that. Words may be ignored or explained as something else, but words have meaning, but that's what I don't get....what does change mean to Democrats?
Words don't have self-evident meanings. "Leadership," for example, doesn't simply mean one thing; it takes a community of folks with common convictions to act out what that means. For example, I suspect most conservatives mean, frankly, "manliness" when they say leadership--the notion that strength and acumen are essential to, say, fighting a war, or in dealing with folks like Iran.
Christians, on the other hand, would primarily see leadership measured against Jesus, who, despite what that idiot John Eldridge would have us believe, was anything but "manly." He was weak, he was willing to die, and that becomes its own type of strength.
All to say that I tend to agree that most politicians offer up mostly meaningless things in most speeches. I don't think you can expect much else. That's not to discount the importance of words; I agree that they are vitally important. I'm all for a revival in political speech that has folks actually trying to say something that has meaning. I'm just not that hopeful, and given the power of what the church could be saying, don't see much in wanting to hear more from politicians.
fun stuff! :)
this is where we differ. I do expect much else. Generations before us had leaders, and their words meant things
"I have a dream"
"Tear down this wall"
"The only thing to fear"
...and I expect that for my generation, too. I do have hope.
And usually when you "find a community of folks with commons convictions" you will almost definitely find a leader, whether it's a preacher, a mayor, or a housewife....groups of people don't lead themselves....leaders lead and followers follow.
Leaders lead and followers follow...you should pitch that to Faux News. Where do leaders lead? Or, more importantly for Christians, How do leaders lead? If they follow the example of Christ (which, I know, is a crazy idea), then they lead by serving incarnationally--that is, becoming like the people they hope to lead. This is why most models of leadership are so disappointing, because most leadership sets itself apart from the "followers." And this is why, despite what people who write dumb books about "Jesus, CEO" want us to believe, you can't lead unless you are at least as humble as the people you hope to lead. You lead the poor by becoming poor, you lead workers by being a worker, you lead students by being a student, etc. Given the disparity between the average hourly worker and the average executive, the business model (which is clearly the dominant model of leadership) is, to be blunt, nothing like the leadership of Christ. Housewives, especially those who give up careers and ambitions to change diapers and keep house, are perhaps a better example, which is why, as I've maintained in practice and rhetoric, the real "manly" thing for men to do is stay at home and learn to clean and care for small children, and encourage their wives professional gifts in the process.
Touche'.
I think you might have just hit the nail on the head, and in case that term is too "manly", i.e. not Christ-like, let me say that you have "warmed the baby formula to its perfect temperature". Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Anyway, avoiding all the many minefields throw out there by this thread and trying to get to back to the original poin, I think you have illustrated for us what democrats mean by change. For example, to quote you:
"I don’t know what change means to democrats, besides change in the way we are fighting this war, change in the way we do health care, change in the way we educate our children. All of this, I suspect, is what all candidates lay out when they talk about policy plans."
The, dare I say, genius of the Democratic nominees are that the way the use the word "change" allows their supporters to infer whatever they want. The above quotes from the candidates aren't talking about "policy" change, just "change." You, Jo Ellan, suspect that it means one thing while another supporter can suspect it means something totally different. It is a veritable buffet. So, if you are a teacher, change can mean more money for you, if you are a environmentalist, change can mean more restrictions on corporations, for PETA, change means legislative vegetarianism. Whatever you want someone to change, that's what it means right now. I suspect they use the term so loosely so that they can get the most support for it.
I am sure that once a nominee is named we will see in more detail what they mean by change and I suspect too that it will mean all the things you think it means, Jo Ellen.
As for all the other things in this thread all I can say is "Wow!"