Chrono Compendium

Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZeaLitY on November 03, 2008, 08:18:01 pm

Title: Election Thread 2008
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 03, 2008, 08:18:01 pm
We're going to get this party started early since it's already Tuesday in some parts of the world.

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/obamajow.png)

 :lee:
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Agent 12 on November 03, 2008, 11:10:15 pm
my Halloween costume was:

Electoral Count:
John McCain 270
Barack Obama 268


It was scary and let me tell people to  go vote.


--JP
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lakonthegreat on November 04, 2008, 03:01:12 am
That's not scary. It's awesome!

God I hope that happens.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Daniel Krispin on November 04, 2008, 05:16:51 am
Really? I'm very much a conservative, and even I am not hoping for McCain.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Ramsus on November 04, 2008, 06:09:05 am
Candidate not-gonna-change-a-real-thing No. 1 vs. Candidate not-gonna-change-a-real-thing No. 2.

Let's see, who do I vote for?

How's about doing something that actually takes advantage of our freedom instead of choosing between two figureheads, like organizing to lobby Congress for real change. How's about holding our Congressmen accountable by forcing laws to be more concise, focused, and clearly written by having word length and scope limitations for any bill that goes through Congress? How's about fixing our money system so the Fed can't create these horrible money supply expansions that cause rippling effects through risky credits, loans, and mortgages made by money-hungry financial institutions that fuel speculators to go on and create unrealistic bubbles in our various industries and markets, thus increasing the harshness of the boom bust cycle, creating inflation, and destroying the middle class? Or even forcing government to balance the budget and start making sane decisions that will benefit us in the long run, even if they might cause the current Congressmen to risk losing some popularity points and not get re-elected.

Or hell, how's about encouraging more kids to GET INTO POLITICS and RUN FOR OFFICE instead of just voting every 4 years.


Man I hate election years.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Dunsparce on November 04, 2008, 10:47:22 am
I go 3rd-Party/Independent all the time.

The Republican and Democratic parties have too much sway over everything. We need more 3rd Party/Independent people in the government. Half the time all the two major parties do is fight with one another.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 04, 2008, 11:20:07 am
That's not scary. It's awesome!

God I hope that happens.

Why do you think it is awesome?
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 04, 2008, 11:50:40 am
That's not scary. It's awesome!

God I hope that happens.

Why do you think it is awesome?

He probably supports McCain. Anyway the end is nigh...
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Romana on November 04, 2008, 12:00:04 pm
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 04, 2008, 12:17:15 pm
He probably supports McCain. Anyway the end is nigh...

I figured that much.  It was more about why he thinks that if McCain wins, that it will be awesome or in other words why does he think McCain is awesome?
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: FaustWolf on November 04, 2008, 03:06:26 pm
CLEAR THE WAY

OBAMA IS COMING

Not to worry, I'll cease with the partisan tripe. But I guess I'll dispense with my two cents as a low-level campaign organizer. In my opinion this has been anything but a normal election cycle -- Barack Obama's campaign model thrives on inspiring people who've never had any political interest whatsoever to rise up and become leaders in their own communities. I've seen local political machines unravel, leaving formerly-obscure everymen (and especially everywomen) in positions of real social authority. The campaign model has also built relationships among neighbors where none existed before, and which may very well continue long after the Obama staff leave. It's a shame the media doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the leadership and community-building aspects of the Obama Campaign -- or does it? I haven't watched TV or Youtube in two months.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 04, 2008, 03:33:02 pm
I voted for McCain!

I want to live in a democratic nation, not a socialist.

End of story, call me an ignorant bastard all you want, Obama would never get my vote with his views.

Yes, I voted on his views, not the colour of his skin. anyone who says otherwise is just a douche.

If we want a black president, let's get one with experience.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 04, 2008, 04:56:33 pm
ignorant bastard.ignorant bastard.ignorant bastard.ignorant bastard.ignorant bastard.ignorant bastard.

joking aside.   there can be such a thing as a social democracy.  this all or nothing, capitalist or communist black and white crap is...crap.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 04, 2008, 05:57:42 pm
No matter which way you see it, socialism doesn't work. If we get socialized heath care, our medical system will suck more than it does now.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: mav on November 04, 2008, 06:31:07 pm
I doubt real socialism would work, but I don't really consider Obama a socialist anyway--and having lived in Canada for a while, I can see why people would consider the health care system in the US a bit flawed. I'm all for bottom-up economics, so Obama's plan sounds appealing but not full-proof. In all honesty I'm just tired of seeing a Republican in office, McCain may not be Bush on his third term, but I really don't want to risk it.

Then again, I'm not a US citizen, so I can't vote, and I live in Texas, so I don't know how great an impact my vote would have anyway.

Regardless I do think that both sides have run campaigns that seem to have divided this country, maybe I just feel this way because I'm paying more attention to politics, but it really seems like the right and the left have become far more divided due to this election.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on November 04, 2008, 08:24:16 pm
Socialism is impossible.  Human nature gets in the way.  We are a self-serving, mostly independent species and for socialism to work we would have to have true equality.  That means everyone in the environ would have to perform the same equivalent of workload and receive the same amount of return. 

After working in Fairfield, AL (a ghetto/slum area) I am so adamant against socialism.  So many of the people who receive social security don't need it - trust me, I see it every day where I work.  What the government needs is to overhall the social security program completely.  Instead the government needs to implement a national healthcare system so the poor can have healthcare.  Then, the social security checks that are sent out can be reduced. 

Some people get social security checks bigger than my biweekly paycheck so they can go buy fast food and go to Blockbuster.  They file for unemployment and waste our taxpayer money.  Now this isn't always the case, nor will I even say it's the majority, but being in the actual conditions have shown me how naive the rest of the world is.

PS - YAY!  FAUSTWOLF IS BACK!
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on November 04, 2008, 10:05:19 pm
Socialism is impossible.  Human nature gets in the way.  We are a self-serving, mostly independent species and for socialism to work we would have to have true equality.  That means everyone in the environ would have to perform the same equivalent of workload and receive the same amount of return.

That's not socialism, but thanks for playing.

After working in Fairfield, AL (a ghetto/slum area) I am so adamant against socialism.  So many of the people who receive social security don't need it - trust me, I see it every day where I work.  What the government needs is to overhall the social security program completely.  Instead the government needs to implement a national healthcare system so the poor can have healthcare.  Then, the social security checks that are sent out can be reduced.

Well alright then.

My voting was done weeks ago, since I vote via absantee ballot. Best way to do it, it lets you take the time to research issues, and not have a particular day to actually do your voting. Good thing, too, since the weather today...not so good. I do find it a little odd that I got my ballot before I got my voter information packet, but my patience paid off, so I was able to make an at least somewhat educated vote.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: FaustWolf on November 05, 2008, 12:48:22 am
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2205/barackobamaisonfireea5.jpg)

Just practicing the [img] forum tag. Really. The choice of picture has nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama is the NEXT FREAKIN' PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Gotta hand it to McCain though, he made an outstanding concession speech IMHO.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lakonthegreat on November 05, 2008, 01:05:49 am
That's not scary. It's awesome!

God I hope that happens.

Why do you think it is awesome?

He probably supports McCain. Anyway the end is nigh...

I didn't necessarily support McCain, but I have to vote with my heart. Being a strict Constitutionalist I couldn't honestly vote for Barack Obama.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 05, 2008, 01:33:54 am
DAMN IT DAMN IT DAMN IT!

Well, we all make mistakes, once we start seeing change and realize the mistakes we made, we'll all know what went wrong...

For the record I wanted neither, I was for Romney.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: V_Translanka on November 05, 2008, 01:44:45 am
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2205/barackobamaisonfireea5.jpg)

Holy crap, I didn't know there was an Oprah Man! Oh the hijinks he must get in...
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 05, 2008, 02:07:55 am
Remember these words.

Quote from: me
So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause.

I hope no one else has said that.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 05, 2008, 03:24:44 am
Calling Obama "socialist" would make every country in Europe laugh. The Democratic party is virtually right-wing compared to the rest of the world. The entire socialism charge was just a bullshit conservative scare-word. If you want "socialism" in the context the Republicans use the word (and their connotation is more akin to fascism or totalitarianism), look no further than Bush's executive orders and power-grabs, Cheney's abuses of power, American torture of prisoners, assisted rape of the economy, belligerent foreign policy and warmongering, phone and communication wiretaps, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, Christian dominionism, etc. ad nauseum. I mean, Jesus, the Republicans even want to control the bodies of women and what goes on in the bedroom of consenting adults. Sarah Palin was heir apparent to this like some horrible fusion of Bush and Cheney. Go ahead and read the ethics report; her husband especially was an outright stalker when it came to trying to get that guy fired. Such blatant disregard for ethics and Constitutional law would fit right in with the last eight years. Sarah Palin can't even define socialism. Oh, and remind me again how social conservatism fulfills the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion?

And as someone who will soon hold a Master's degree in business, I think it's laughable how free enterprise gets a total free pass from self-titled libertarians, conservatives, and economists, while any attempt at regulation or government oversight is billed as communism. Business can be just as evil or worse than government. The creators of derivative securities, hedge fund managers, and other corporatists are not saints without blame in the current economic crisis. Some people are so obsessed with demonizing regulation that they look the other way while a plutocracy silently forms.

Anyway,

THE LONG NIGHTMARE IS COMING TO AN END

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/bespin.jpg)
(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/tatooine.jpg)
(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/coruscant.jpg)

The religious right is waning. The anti-intellectual reign of executive abuse is drawing to a close. And we were there.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Vehek on November 05, 2008, 03:40:26 am
I feel disappointed about the current results for the propositions in my state (California.)
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 05, 2008, 03:42:13 am
No, the end has just begun,

    United forever in friendship and labour,
    Our mighty republics will ever endure.
    The great United States will live through the ages.
    The dream of a people their fortress secure.

    Long live our Nation, built by the people's mighty hand.
    Long live our People, united and free.
    Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our stars and stripes inspire,
    Shining in glory for all men to see.

    Through days dark and stormy where our forefathers led us
    Our eyes saw the bright sun of freedom above
    and Obama our Leader with faith in the People,
    Inspired us to build up the land that we love.

    Long live our Nation, built by the people's mighty hand.
    Long live our People, united and free.
    Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our stars and stripes inspire,
    Shining in glory for all men to see.

    We fought for the future, destroyed the invader,
    and brought to our homeland the Laurels of Fame.
    Our glory will live in the memory of nations
    and all generations will honour her name.

    Long live our Nation, built by the people's mighty hand.
    Long live our People, united and free.
    Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our stars and stripes inspire,
    Shining in glory for all men to see.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Agent 12 on November 05, 2008, 04:47:30 am
Obama isn't perfect.....not by any means.

But he's better than the alternative....he's definitely better than the alternatives vice....

and...even if you disagree with all his policies he is a good face for america.  I feel like we need a young energetic man to represent us right now.  Very kennedyesque.


--JP
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 05, 2008, 05:03:05 am
Very kennedyesque.

You might not want to compare him with kennedy...
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 05, 2008, 05:50:14 am
I was for Huckabee. And anyone who thinks McCain doesn't put the country first and hasn't proven himself is delusional. Also I really don't believe in Obama that much, but he's our next president so I will support him and hope for the best. I just feel he promises way more than he can deliver and I just feel strange having a president with Hussein in his name. He always embraced his Kenyan heritage more than his American heritage hence him taking that name and I just feel he is no where near as patriotic as John McCain. Will the economy be better under Obama, probably. It's just hard to not respect a man who has always put his country first like McCain has.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 05, 2008, 08:14:46 am
Socialism is impossible.  Human nature gets in the way.  We are a self-serving, mostly independent species

Socialism is impossible...if the world was an every man for himself kind of place but...  Humans are a species that thrive in societies.  We are social creatures.  We shrivel up and go mad if we are alone.  We need each other and human to human contact.  And lending a hand in that contact, whether it is a handshake for a business deal or a hand to help them on their feet, is far better than kicking them to the ground, at least in my opinion.  Capitalism is not sustainable.

I just feel he promises way more than he can deliver

He is a politician, remember.

I just feel strange having a president with Hussein in his name.

It is just a name.  A name does not automatically peg someone having certain ties or beliefs.

He always embraced his Kenyan heritage more than his American heritage hence him taking that name and I just feel he is no where near as patriotic as John McCain.
He is being true to his roots, so what?  It seems I have been embracing my Scottish heritage more than my American heritage because I have been walking around with the "Mc" in my last name, all these years...how  unpatriotic of me....oh wait...actions speak louder than words.

Will the economy be better under Obama, probably. It's just hard to not respect a man who has always put his country first like McCain has.

I believe fixing the economy is a tad bit more important than waving the American Flag around.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: teaflower on November 05, 2008, 10:23:19 am
My mom voted for Bush twice and she didn't like him. Guess who she voted?
McCain.
Why can't 16 year olds vote? In two years, the adults this year will have dictated who leads my life as an 18 year old until I'm 20. And then, when I'm 20 in 2012, THE WORLD WILL END.
If I could've voted, I, like the rest of Massachusetts, would have voted Obama.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: V_Translanka on November 05, 2008, 12:15:21 pm
Doesn't his first name mean Lightning or something? I think that coolness far outweighs any stupidness over a middle name he happens to share with some dead dbag...

Wisconsin's now got medical marijuana and Massachusetts has actually decriminalized possession under an ounce! Now that's hope for the future of the country right there.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: KebreI on November 05, 2008, 12:20:21 pm
Quote from: Friend
Our country is saved? By one man? I think not!
Its doesn't matter that Obama was the one who won, or if it had been McCain, no man is going to single-handedly "save our country." It is going to take an effort on all our parts.
How can you all be so excited? Don't get me wrong, it is an exciting time in our history, but the picture is just so much bigger than alot of people realize. We have so many internal issues in our country, so many! (And not to piss anyone off, but I find the all the people going crazy for Obama, saying they'll move out of the country if he doesn't win etc slightly creepy. Its like he is some god-like rockstar. I didn't like McCain either though).
And before anything great comes out of this, things are gonna get worse.
"It's always darkest before the dawn."
They both had potential to lead us down the right path I think, but will it happen thats a real thing to worry about.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 05, 2008, 02:10:08 pm
I also don't like the fact that Reverend Wright considers white people to be rich white devils he are just out to hold down other races. He went there 20 years so if he didn't know his reverend was like that he is too gullable to run the country.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on November 05, 2008, 02:34:46 pm
I also don't like the fact that Reverend Wright considers white people to be rich white devils he are just out to hold down other races. He went there 20 years so if he didn't know his reverend was like that he is too gullable to run the country.

Just so we're clear, you believe that all people believe absolutely everything that their preachers say?
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 05, 2008, 02:37:37 pm
I believe that if you choose to go there for 20 years then yes I can confidently say that he believed what he was going to hear or else he was a big fan of wasting time.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: nightmare975 on November 05, 2008, 03:08:27 pm
I believe that if you choose to go there for 20 years then yes I can confidently say that he believed what he was going to hear or else he was a big fan of wasting time.

QFT!

He also never said a thing until he ran for president.

Also seemed to be good friends with him.

But whatever, he's the president now.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 05, 2008, 03:30:40 pm
one person's prejudice is not necessarily anothers.  all of one's views are not necessarily that of another. etc etc.

McCain himself defended Obama when this was of media interest.

also, that thing you said before you edited your post didn't make sense either.

Echinsu Ocha!
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 05, 2008, 03:35:53 pm
His racial feelings aside, Wright was presented as bad because of his criticism of America. As we all know, criticizing America automatically makes you a godless terrorist baby-killing drug addict antichrist, so they tried to get as much mileage as possible out of his "goddamn America" soundbite. Some of his sermons are halfway sensible, like the one about how American bombing of Middle Eastern countries prompted 9/11 in kind.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 05, 2008, 03:45:16 pm
hmph...How unamerican.  he  said  that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, that unpatriotic loon!  we are freedom fighters...anything we say or do is in the name of freedom and democracy and anything against us is against freedom and democracy!
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: mav on November 05, 2008, 04:48:38 pm
Wright is an intense man, and if you go to some churches you're going to find people espousing and saying terrible terrible things, that's just the way it is. But the issue was never supposed to be how unpatriotic Wright (and by extension, Obama) was, it was supposed to be about how Obama tended to tie himself with man who have said and done despicable things, and then dismissed them with the wave of his hand. People focused too hard on the people Obama was connected to, rather than the connection itself. But last I checked, Wright wasn't running for president. I know we hate to trust politicians and we hate to believe what they tell us, but if you want to judge a politician, judge him by his policies.

McCain's campaign relied too heavily on fear mongering, if you ask me, whether it was "noting" Obama's name and heritage, noting his somewhat radical connections and implying that he was terrorist-friendly, or labeling him a socialist. The truth is that the Obama that people fear is more of a caricature of the man than the man himself. He's an elusive figure, if you want to fear him, at least wait till he's actually president.

Big changes are in way, good or bad.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 05, 2008, 05:06:35 pm
Most of the time you are who you associate with. If anyone really wants to believe that Obama didn't know what Wright was about then let's assume you are right. The man was associated with him like a family member. If he didn't notice the hate Wright spewed then he is a very gullible human being and unfit to hold the position he does. The debate on here changes nothing Obama is our president and I wish him and our country the best and I truly hope he proves me and all his doubters wrong.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Agent 12 on November 06, 2008, 01:54:14 am
Quote
Some of his sermons are halfway sensible, like the one about how American bombing of Middle Eastern countries prompted 9/11 in kind.

That's dramatically simplifying it.   Don't let the hatred for a president lessen the atrocity of 9/11.

--JP
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Daniel Krispin on November 06, 2008, 04:51:47 am
I find it strange how something like this can make someone in another country feel so incredibly interested. Obama has an interesting aura about him that even we Canadians seem enthralled by. I don't know if I'm being deceived by the media in that or if that's how it really is. But at any rate, I'm hoping much good comes out of this. As Kreon says in Antigone, we can't know what's in his heart until we see how he governs, well or badly. But here's hoping for the good.

Oh, and honestly, I think there's something almost fitting to have someone with the middle name of Hussein in the role of the most important person in the world. It breaks down to some extent the simplistic dichotomy of the good self and the evil other which is to some extent rampant in the US.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 06, 2008, 08:13:53 am
The man was associated with him like a family member. If he didn't notice the hate Wright spewed then he is a very gullible human being and unfit to hold the position he does.

When it comes to family members, both by blood and otherwise, it is common to overlook/ignore issues that they don't particularly care for or agree with, when amongst each other.  And it is not because they are gullible.  but anyways...

That's dramatically simplifying it.   Don't let the hatred for a president lessen the atrocity of 9/11.

The truth is there regardless of any hatred.  it didn't just happen.  And it is only an atrocity because it happened on our soil, otherwise it would be another "oh that sounds bad" and business as usual occasion.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on November 06, 2008, 09:08:38 am
9/11 was pretty bad.  Yeah, it was rough because it occurred on home soil.  ANYTHING on home soil hits close to home and hurts more.

But 9/11 resonated with the whole world.  Name the last time a terrorist action killed 5,000 people.  It was the "big kahuna" of terrorism.  Plus, it happened at one of the major financial sectors of the world (even though it happened on American soil, the World Trade Center was just that - a WORLD TRADE CENTER).  It hit a lot of other countries, too.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: V_Translanka on November 06, 2008, 09:58:37 am
Most of the time you are who you associate with.

I don't think that's true. I couldn't stand to hang around anyone who was like me...I'm an asshole! There are people who choose to associate with people they think need them, people they're better than, and people that could use them to be better influences to...The opposite is also true. Everyone is different.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 06, 2008, 10:40:49 am
Name the last time a terrorist action killed 5,000 people. 

I  guess that depends on how you define terrorism or what acts are terrorism...

you could say that the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan was an act of terrorism, as it was an act of violence with the intention of instilling fear and terror...it certainly coerced Japan to throw in the towel.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Thought on November 06, 2008, 10:57:07 am
I don't think that's true. I couldn't stand to hang around anyone who was like me...I'm an asshole! There are people who choose to associate with people they think need them, people they're better than, and people that could use them to be better influences to...The opposite is also true. Everyone is different.

Sounds like you are channeling Groucho Marx: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."

I  guess that depends on how you define terrorism or what acts are terrorism...

Generally, terrorism is a third option. It isn't peace, it isn't (standard) war, so it is something else: terrorism. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was no more an act of terrorism (and no less) than the London Blitz, Sherman's March to the Sea, etc. These actions, though similar in many ways, are distinct from the common perception of Terrorism in that they were aimed at achieving a military end. Those events might target civilians but they do so as only one component of a larger, military oriented, goal. Terrorism is quite similar, admittedly, but it targets civilians primarily; it is not only a component, it is the bulk of the whole. A slight difference, but an important one. To offer an analogy, one might well find a little salt on french fries to be acceptable, but too much salt and it can make an individual physically ill.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 06, 2008, 11:41:29 am
...military end. Those events might target civilians but they do so as only one component of a larger, military oriented, goal.

While I do agree that there is a slight difference, I am not sure that the [military] ends justify the means.  it is easy to lump things that happen in war time with acts of war, but take them piece meal and you can have a different story.  if they dropped those bombs on some huge military base, with minimal civilian casualties, as is the norm in wartime, while still horrific, I'd be more willing to accept it as an act of war, not one of terrorism.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 06, 2008, 12:18:22 pm
9/11 is sickening to even think about now for me. It would have been terrible regardless of location.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Agent 12 on November 06, 2008, 08:13:28 pm
Quote
And it is only an atrocity because it happened on our soil

um....that's a lie it's definitely an atrocity no matter where it happens.  Yes it definitely hurt alot more cause it was closer to home....I'm pretty sure that's normal, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be horrible if it happened anywhere else.  Over the past 7 years I've watched people who have gotten so angry with the america's actions that they are almost trying to justify 9/11 which is a slap in the face to everyone that died there.  It's absolutely horrible that someone would say anything along the lines of "we had it coming"

--JP
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 09, 2008, 11:19:27 pm
In the spirit of bipartisanship...


(http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/7475/chronotriggerluminaireaimbuddy.gif) LANDSLIDE, Bitches!!! (http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/7475/chronotriggerluminaireaimbuddy.gif)


Don't like it, Republicans? Why, then you're a bunch of America-hating terrorist sympathizers who drain the economy and corrupt our morals. Don't like it? Tough. Payback is a bitch, and you've got fourteen years' worth of it coming. Damn this feels good.

An aide rushes up and whispers into Josh's ear.

Really? Oh...well, shit.

Ahem! I've just been informed that the Democrats have to stand for reelection in 2010. Consequently, I would like to downplay my previous remarks and reiterate my friendship with and fondness for you conservative slimebags--er--simpletons--er--s...tupendous...individuals. Here's to the spirit of bipartisanshit in which I fully intend to work alongside my comrades across the political divide in the interest of furthering the interests of the American people.

God, I need mouthwash after that.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: KebreI on November 10, 2008, 12:04:34 am
Oh my god, some one being an ass on the internet! How clever he must feel.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 10, 2008, 12:35:46 am
Oh my god, some one being an ass on the internet! How clever he must feel.

You'll understand one day.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 10, 2008, 01:12:17 am
Now, now J; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and a world of blind hatred yields no beneficent progress, only regressive destruction.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: V_Translanka on November 10, 2008, 03:12:54 am
I think it should have been said that 9/11 is more recognized as being an atrocity because of where it happened. Worldwide, atrocities occur almost daily and America barely bats an eye because out of sight, out of mind...I don't know if I have a point, but I thought I'd say so anyways because I'm American, dammit! :lol:
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 10, 2008, 04:20:32 am
Quote from: BROJ
Now, now J; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and a world of blind hatred yields no beneficent progress, only regressive destruction.

I never much liked that saying. For one thing, it implies a parity between the parties involved that may well not exist. Republicans spent eight years telling the rest of us that they're the real Americans and we have to be like them, and they spent fourteen years taking people's rights away for reasons of religion or profit. We're going to put an end to that. It's our country too, and they are going to learn that the hard way now--by having their undue influence cut down to size in the new administration. They had the opportunity to engage in the political process respectfully, but as recently as one week ago they were still saying that we should have witch-hunts in the Congress. On Tuesday, sexual equality was on the chopping block in three states and gay rights in four. These people have to be stopped. We've got to change the way ordinary Americans respond to their lunacy. The landslide victory we won on Tuesday earned us the opportunity to make the change we seek. Now we have to use that power; it isn't enough to win election. We have to wield the power too. You call that "blind hate" without warrant. While some liberals may be itching to treat the Republicans as crudely as they have treated the rest of America, I and the majority of liberals are not among that number. Neither shall we be stopped in our tracks by semantics or obfuscation. I am personally prepared to argue the distinction between remediation and revenge.

For another thing, that saying doesn't make a lot of sense even when accounting for the generosities that must be shown to hackneyed figures of speech. Should every action no matter how foul go unchallenged lest the world end up blind as you suggest? I think that's rubbish. It's too easy to come up with bad metaphors, or to use good metaphors badly. I could say that justice is supposed to be blind. That's a good metaphor...but it makes almost as little sense in this context as yours does.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 10, 2008, 04:37:03 am
Quote from: BROJ
Now, now J; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and a world of blind hatred yields no beneficent progress, only regressive destruction.

I never much liked that saying. For one thing, it implies a parity between the parties involved that may well not exist. Republicans spent eight years telling the rest of us that they're the real Americans and we have to be like them, and they spent fourteen years taking people's rights away for reasons of religion or profit. We're going to put an end to that. It's our country too, and they are going to learn that the hard way now--by having their undue influence cut down to size in the new administration. They had the opportunity to engage in the political process respectfully, but as recently as one week ago they were still saying that we should have witch-hunts in the Congress. On Tuesday, sexual equality was on the chopping block in three states and gay rights in four. These people have to be stopped. We've got to change the way ordinary Americans respond to their lunacy. The landslide victory we won on Tuesday earned us the opportunity to make the change we seek. Now we have to use that power; it isn't enough to win election. We have to wield the power too. You call that "blind hate" without warrant. While some liberals may be itching to treat the Republicans as crudely as they have treated the rest of America, I and the majority of liberals are not among that number. Neither shall we be stopped in our tracks by semantics or obfuscation. I am personally prepared to argue the distinction between remediation and revenge.

For another thing, that saying doesn't make a lot of sense even when accounting for the generosities that must be shown to hackneyed figures of speech. Should every action no matter how foul go unchallenged lest the world end up blind as you suggest? I think that's rubbish. It's too easy to come up with bad metaphors, or to use good metaphors badly. I could say that justice is supposed to be blind. That's a good metaphor...but it makes almost as little sense in this context as yours does.
Both you and I know their is currently an enmity between mainstream democrats and republican and that the hatred is one of convenience, parity or not; to deny that would be ignorant and ludicrous. Personally, the saying is rather self-evident, if a system exclusively reacts to every radical, then the system will experience a run-away chain-reaction that will eventually destroy itself. That's what defines sentience, the ability to not react and the ability to prevent. I, for one, am willing to forgive and start tabula rosa, to build upon that which works─simplicity. Why must it be death alone that change is birthed?

Besides, even if the hate/dislike is warranted or unwarranted(which I never implied), do you want to build a world on the blood and ashes of those you 'hate'? Are you so much more of a human, nay, less susceptible to hatred and error than they are? Remediation and revenge? Pah, healing doesn't destroy and revenge doesn't heal.

Ultimately, is it illumination or victory you seek? If it is the latter, nothing good will come of it.

Edit:Final, please quote current state.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 10, 2008, 05:30:36 am
Quote
Are you so much more of a human, nay, less susceptible to hatred and error than they are?

I'm going to argue yes here, and not just for Lord J, but for many people who strive to better themselves and humanity at large. I still can't claim to rank people, but that counts for something. The case is especially simple here, since right-wing politics have become a hate machine that has expelled conservative intellectuals and people with too much "otherness" and has vilified entire swaths of people unjustly to achieve political gain. They threw this gauntlet down first, and now they're going to get receive their apt justice. If they'd like to stop infringing upon civil rights and demonizing people, then I'll be the first to befriend them. But as it stands, Obama is an evil Muslim who pals around with terrorists; Democrats are USA-hating sissies who want to see the troops fail; liberals are godless, morally bankrupt heathens who want to steal your hard-earned dollars; secularism stands in the way of American Christian Imperialism. Fear, fear, fear. The entire McCain campaign platform seemed to be "fear Obama and the ev0l libruls", with the entire "Who is Barack Obama?" spiel crossing the line into coded racism. As someone who grew up in Oklahoma, the anti-intellectual atmosphere is palpable, as is the one of Christian assimilation.

We have every reason as human beings to be happy that what I've described has just been strongly repudiated. And given the sins above, I'm not the least bit concerned about shedding tears for these hate-mongering people. We're going to fix things, and if they want a part in compassionate humanity, they're free to pitch in.

~

As a side note, as a graduate student of business, I can now say that the entire school of thought reeks of corruption. I overheard the argument Wednesday that business students should naturally vote for McCain, who'll be more friendly to business. The act of voting has become a function of greed to these people, and it's not surprising. Tax class is all about how to avoid the most taxes for your client. Law is about how to create your business so that you'll have the least debt or responsibility if it fails or hurts others. I can easily see how it'd be a stone truth to these people to vote for McCain, regardless of Palin, his other positions, or the affirmation of the current conservative cancer. It's just disgusting, and I could never quite get it until now.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 10, 2008, 05:40:44 am
Quote
Are you so much more of a human, nay, less susceptible to hatred and error than they are?

I'm going to argue yes here, and not just for Lord J, but for many people who strive to better themselves and humanity at large. I still can't claim to rank people, but that counts for something. The case is especially simple here, since right-wing politics have become a hate machine that has expelled conservative intellectuals and people with too much "otherness" and has vilified entire swaths of people unjustly to achieve political gain. They threw this gauntlet down first, and now they're going to get receive their apt justice. If they'd like to stop infringing upon civil rights and demonizing people, then I'll be the first to befriend them. But as it stands, Obama is an evil Muslim who pals around with terrorists; Democrats are USA-hating sissies who want to see the troops fail; liberals are godless, morally bankrupt heathens who want to steal your hard-earned dollars; secularism stands in the way of American Christian Imperialism. Fear, fear, fear. The entire McCain campaign platform seemed to be "fear Obama and the ev0l libruls", with the entire "Who is Barack Obama?" spiel crossing the line into coded racism. As someone who grew up in Oklahoma, the anti-intellectual atmosphere is palpable, as is the one of Christian assimilation.

We have every reason as human beings to be happy that what I've described has just been strongly repudiated. And given the sins above, I'm not the least bit concerned about shedding tears for these hate-mongering people.
I'm afraid I do not think human means what you think it means. Ranks or not, we are imperfect by ourselves and must help and depend on others. Realize this and know this; only then can you we change things for the better. Why is this "justice" good, true and necessary? What does it serve to act like an abused animal let off it's chain? Am I sympathizing with the actions that corrupted and raped our country? Are you kidding? No. I am sympathizing with my fellow humans who have been misled.

Mercy or justice; which do you think will preserve the human race in the end?

Quote from: ZeaLity
As a side note, as a graduate student of business, I can now say that the entire school of thought reeks of corruption. I overheard the argument Wednesday that business students should naturally vote for McCain, who'll be more friendly to business. The act of voting has become a function of greed to these people, and it's not surprising. Tax class is all about how to avoid the most taxes for your client. Law is about how to create your business so that you'll have the least debt or responsibility if it fails or hurts others. I can easily see how it'd be a stone truth to these people to vote for McCain, regardless of Palin, his other positions, or the affirmation of the current conservative cancer. It's just disgusting, and I could never quite get it until now.
I'm afraid I cannot provide wisdom or knowledge on the subject, save that money, possessions and personal interests are unable to provide happiness per se, leading people to search a hollow husk for something which is not present─happiness.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 10, 2008, 07:26:14 am
BROJ: I do not know what to make of your post. It contains...nothing. No premise. No conclusion. No meaning. I did try. Sorry.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Thought on November 10, 2008, 02:30:43 pm
It's our country too, and they are going to learn that the hard way now.

Problem there is that conservatives will gain power again. Maybe not as the Republican party (certainly if Palin has any role in the party, the GOP is a body waiting to die), but you'd have to counteract the cyclical nature of civilization itself to prevent this. No matter how good your ideals are, indeed no matter how right your actions are, for the next several years conservatives will view Democrats as taking their rights away for, and for naught but reasons of religion and profit (albeit, in a different form). They'll have to listen to liberals going off on how enlightened the left is and how good citizens agree with them. And they'll find it no more palatable than Democrats have.

Democrats have been given the opportunity to engage in the political process respectfully, but even now there is talk of reinstating the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine." Even now there are people seething in California because their rights are being taken away by a constitutional amendment, all the while ignoring the courts that tried to take away the right to vote of all citizens in the first place.

It is inevitable. Any harshness Democrats show now (even if it is justified) will be returned in kind eventually, just as the harshness the Republicans showed in the past is being now returned in kind.

That is why good sportsmanship is desirable. Yes, win. Yes, crush your enemy, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women. That is best in life. But if you can manage, be moderate, understanding, and kind. Democracy only works if you believe that people can be changed, that even though some people are as wrong as can be, they can come to understand the truth (or at least, the truth as you see it).

If people can be changed in such a manner, then Democrats must show kindness when faced with hate, understanding when faced with lovecraftian logic. People are willing to lower their defenses and be changed when they are with friends; they'll be more stubborn than water flowing downhill when faced with anything else.

If, however, people cannot be changed, then by all means do not show kindness when faced with hate. Do not approach lovecraftian logic with understanding. By all means, end the charade of democracy; if people cannot be changed, then let those who are right rule over those who are wrong.

To be clear, I am not saying that Republicans had shown anything of the sort. The vices of the Republican party have more to do with their reversal of fortunes, I’d wager, than the virtues of the Democratic party. I am merely urging Democrats to be the better party. It would be nice if there was at least one political organization that I wouldn’t feel ashamed of.

Side note: I'm a Republican and I like the election outcome just fine, though I'm leery of giving any party the power of break a filibuster; I don't want Republicans or Democrats to have that and in another two years the Dems will probably have it. Course, if the party even gives Palin the hope of political career, I'll be in the market for a new party. She nicely represents almost everything that makes me feel ashamed of the Republican party. Course, if I get just one more "Obama's a Muslim" mass email, I might leave the party out of spite and disgust. Mostly disgust.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 10, 2008, 03:21:08 pm
BROJ: I do not know what to make of your post. It contains...nothing. No premise. No conclusion. No meaning. I did try. Sorry.
Common sense would tell me that the onus is on your side, I asked a question(i.e. what you are searching for, in me, can only be found in yourself; e.g. the premise-knowledge, the conclusion-wisdom and the meaning-illumination), as per the intrinsic nature of inquiry, you are the only one who can answer. Perhaps I should ignore your taunt and go on with my day. However, this is one of the few cases where my logic comes in conflict with my humanity. Thus, I find it my charge to attempt again to inquire upon the nature of your intentions.

Is it illumination or victory you seek? Please answer.

EDIT:Fixed.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: V_Translanka on November 10, 2008, 03:56:03 pm
The 2008 Election That Really Matters (http://microsites.ign.com/babe_election/) :lol:

Though why Anna Kournikova is on that list but not Maria Sharapova is beyond me...and wtf? Emma Watson!? Gross...
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 10, 2008, 06:51:22 pm
Thought! You make good points, but I think you misunderstood what I said yesterday. My goal is not vengeance, or to stoop to the level of discourse that the Republicans maintained while in power. I strongly implied that I reject such a philosophy, but perhaps you underestimated me due to my style.

I have no interest in doing to the Republicans what they did to the rest of us, and I am joined in that sentiment by the Democrats who matter most: the elected ones. To comprehend my position you need to acknowledge...many things, really...starting with the distinction between ideological activism and plain old malice. It's no secret that I have some malice toward the far right, for they are on the wrong side of history and have done great injury to our Republic since their current ruling alliance took power in 1995. Nevertheless, this is not what informs my strategic thinking. I appreciate more than others here how essential it is that the political proccess proceed peacefully, and, daydreams aside, I have always advocated respectful engagement within the system. Here I mean "respectful" not toward the other side and its ideas, but toward the system itself, into which an accommodation for the other side to have their say is built in. You gotta let the other party finish their sentence, Thought. You gotta, or this country won't work. For all its overuse as a catchphrase, "bipartisanship" is crucial to healthy governance in America, and yet bipartisanship has been an endangered species under the national GOP ever since the Gingrich Revolution. The Republicans wielded power as though they were the only ones who even existed. The only time Republicans were ever thwarted in their agenda is when Democrats were able to use their minority power to gum up the works. While there were a few high-profile exceptions to this in the Republican Congress, and a vanishingly small handful with the Bush Administration, the iconic emblem of the GOP during this era was the mighty Streamroller. In many states, conditions have been even worse, owing to significant Republican majorities and greater concentrations of radical right-wing elements in the party.

This is not progress, Thought. Even looking at it from the Republican point of view, this is not progress. This is the sundering of our Union. The actual progress made under the Republicans has been bad enough, highly oppressive and thus destructive to the national fabric in its own right, but the manner in which this progress has been achieved is not compatible with a democratic nation. Don't you see that? The Republicans aren't playing democracy. Only by the grace and tradition of the offices they held have these people failed to become outright tyrants. Even so, we have seen fourteen years of Government by Fox News: microphones killed, sentences cut off, opponents mischaracterized. What do you think that does to the people? Specifically, what do you think that does to the people who those would-be tyrants represent? Egged on by the heinous example of political and religious leaders, the far right has become increasingly militant, autonomous, and insular, and its members either do not realize the consequences of what they have been doing, or they actually seek to dissolve the country or upend its democratic ideals--which brings me to another thing you need to acknowledge: The far right has been fed to the point of frenzy. No other faction in society is remotely as radicalized as they are. It would not take much to push them over the edge. We are at the yellow line, my friend. This country cannot move further to the right. I understand that some folks wish it could, but it can't. It has moved as far that way as it can go without the social fabric beginning to unravel. The comparable point on the left is not even on the horizon. Our democracy is without a doubt no less strained of late than it was during the Vietnam era, and for a while we were looking at worse.

All of this is the result of the misuse of power by Republican leaders. Have you ever heard me say that we should purge the Congress? No. But an actual Member of Congress said it, just two weeks ago. Surely you recognize how dangerous that kind of politics is. There are some things in politics that should never be said unless they are uncondtionally true and relevant. There are some roads in politics that should never be traveled unless all other roads are out. In retrospect, we needed to have the Civil War. We don't need to have another one. We didn't need it in the 1930s, the 1960s, or today. Even I do not think that the solution to right-wing extermism is to fight them into submission. (In fact I am a bit wounded that you think I would be both stupid enough and petty enough to want to keep the Republican leadership style intact under the Democrats, knowing full well what good it shall have done the GOP in the long run to scorch the earth.) By making the ultraconservatives "learn the hard way" that America belongs to all of us and not just to them, I meant what I said in my earlier post. I will say it again now, better:

The Republican Party has been ruled outright since 1994 by an axis of powers consisting of fundamentalist Christians, corporatist robber-barons, and war-mongering neoconservatives (the Italy of the group). This alliance was the dominant voice in American politics from the mid-1980s until last Tuesday. This alliance is why our national dialogue turns on issues like abortion and gay marriage, John Galtian wealth-capture capitalism, and, until 2005, preemptive warfare. These are not the values of the American people as a whole, although there is plenty of overlap. These are the values of the people who were in power. They got to be in power due to oganizational prowess, activism, and energy. They took more than their share because they could. They were clever, they were strong, and the opposition was shitty. The country as a whole was never on their page or close to it, and so, for all their power, the arrangement was always unstable. Now they are out of power. The GOP has lost control, having reached so far that not even time could hold it up anymore. As a result, the axis alliance is crumbling and a battle royale is breaking out for control of the party.

This is the first of two ways in which the Republicans will be cut down to size: Their movement has expired, and their factions no longer control the government. They can no longer force their initiatives onto the political scene, and, in reaching out to the minority, Democrats need to be conservative rather than liberal with their generosity. Bipartisanship, first and foremost, requires that the minority party adapt its agenda to the realities of minority existence. The Democrats should encourage and reward the Republicans when it serves the national interest to do so, and should be gracious in granted the Republicans inclusion in the process (which actually did happen in the 110th Congress), but Democratic party leaders should make it absolutely clear that this is the end of the radical right-wing agenda that has dominated this country entirely since 2001, and to a lesser degree since the 1970s. Elections have consequences. The passage of time has consequences. The Democrats spent a long night in the wilderness trying to tweak their message and exploit Republican abuses. They finally succeeded, on Tuesday. Now it is the Republicans' turn to look inward. In particular, the far right needs to understand, and accept, that its period of rule is over. This will be difficult, because they have become so rigid and deluded that they won't have the words to conceive of their new situation at first. Ideally the other elements of the Republican Party will be the ones to temper the tantrums of the fallen mighty, but where the GOP falls short, the Dems need to make it clear that, moving forward, America will be getting back to that respectful engagement within the system that has long lain dormant.

The second of the two ways in which the Republicans will be cut down to size is that they will lose their prominence in the national dialogue. If you have followed the news over the years, you should have noticed the gradual rightward creep of our traditional news media, which only began to thaw in 2005 when a perfect storm of disasters (including a real storm named Katrina) began to lay bare the empty insides of Republican rule. However, even through this year, the traditional media have remained right-wing in their framing and language. I recently wrote a short article on why that is, but the bottom line is that they did it because the people in power were gays-n-god conservatives. As the Obama administration takes form in the coming year, we shall see the old religious and corporate talking points questions subside somewhat. I think it would do this country good to consider some other topics, and to reconsider some of these longstanding controversies from a new point of view.

In the end, that's all that I meant: The Republicans no longer have majority power in Washington, D.C., and their agenda will get less play in the news. They'll be "cut down to size," and my advice to our national leaders is that they make it clear that the Republicans will be accommodated when they behave maturely and interact generously, and will be ignored when they throw a fit and try to have their way. They'll have to learn this "the hard way" because they never figured it out when the power was still theirs, and so now they're going to be like the royals kicked out to the street curb: out of their element, and a little bit pathetic. Democrats need to understand not to coddle or spoil or give in to them. The Republicans need to hurt now, or else they are not going to learn their lesson.

I have every hope that, eventually, the GOP will move left toward the rest of the country. That is better in the long run for all of us, regardless of whether it costs the Democrats ground on their right. In the meantime, however, we are living in the aftermath of an unqualified disaster, and, as part and parcel of restoring this nation's political operability, those who caused such damage to the country need to be reined in. I will not pretend that I will not take any pleasure in seeing the Republicans humbled, but, once again, my intent is socioeconomic progress...not glee or vengeance or any of that, and not any of the childishness and destructiveness that BROJ foolishly impugns of all those who participate in politics. I know how to separate my personal feelings from my strategic objectives.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 10, 2008, 08:15:04 pm
@Lord J: I now see your motives, as it takes quite a bit to get to them. Your initial statements, regardless of intent, gave off a sort of malignant spite and a hubris that can only be attributed to a long, voracious awaited victory.

You called me foolish(again, when did I imply all politicians are puerile and savage, or even that you, yourself were a politician?) when I was ignorant, impudent when I was curious and weak-minded when I was being compassionate. Alas, misunderstandings are inevitable when different styles of thinking interact.

All the same, I understand where you're coming from now. But, I must ask, how can one have a code of ethics that applies only when it is convenient, as per what you said:
Quote from: Lord J
I know how to separate my personal feelings from my strategic objectives.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 10, 2008, 08:36:53 pm
BROJ, ethics and human emotion are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 10, 2008, 09:56:29 pm
BROJ, ethics and human emotion are not mutually exclusive.
No, that's not what I meant; what I meant was converse to what you said: do you believe a code of ethics only applies in personal engagements, and not in professional, strategic engagements?
Perhaps, I am simply misunderstanding what you mean─if that is the case, then please allot me the opportunity to understand.

EDIT: Fixed.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 10, 2008, 10:51:17 pm
Sorry, BROJ. You've stumped me. I haven't understood you throughout this whole thread. I don't mean that in an ideological sense. I mean that, as far as I can tell, you're just stringing words together. I'm sure you're trying to say something, but I'm obviously not up to the challenge. Until you can communicate effectively, I've got nothing for ya. Talk to ZeaLitY; he has more patience for this kind of thing.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: BROJ on November 11, 2008, 12:40:38 am
Sorry, BROJ. You've stumped me. I haven't understood you throughout this whole thread. I don't mean that in an ideological sense. I mean that, as far as I can tell, you're just stringing words together. I'm sure you're trying to say something, but I'm obviously not up to the challenge. Until you can communicate effectively, I've got nothing for ya. Talk to ZeaLitY; he has more patience for this kind of thing.
Perhaps that would explain the disconnect, and if it is I shall try to be clearer. However, from my point of view, that isn't entirely the case. For the entire thread, when you didn't understand my words, questions and/or opinions, you didn't ask what I meant. You made assumptions on what I meant. And when you failed at guessing the correct meaning, you gave up. For example, when I asked: "How can one have a code of ethics that applies only when it is convenient?" I was expecting an answer along the caliber of: strategy is a way of life, and cannot be interpreted apart from it, not "BROJ, ethics and human emotion are not mutually exclusive." That is not the kind of information I asked for.

Now rather than continuing to beat a dead horse, may we cease with the idle banter and bitching and get to the real matter at hand? My question is for you, directly; if I wanted to disrespect you or another, I would do just as you said. Now I ask, why do you vainly flame the conservatives if your intent is to remediate the state of affairs benevolently and productively?
I know you are not a vengeful person, so I am confused as to why this would be the action you would find aesthetically appealing.

Please just answer the last question, if anything. This wasn't meant to be a dispute; in fact it was all in fun─it only turned into one after a complaint over semantics. From there, it proceeded to move chaotically from one tangent to another because questions weren't being addressed, but rather blatantly dodged as if they were irrelevant.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 11, 2008, 02:14:11 am
Quote
my words, questions and/or opinion

Words would have sufficed.

Quote
cease with the idle banter and bitching

Quote
vainly flame

Quote
remediate the state of affairs benevolently and productively

Quote
aesthetically appealing

Quote
blatantly dodged

Quote
allot me the opportunity to understand

Quote
sort of malignant spite and a hubris that can only be attributed to a long, voracious awaited victory

Quote
ignorant, impudent when I was curious and weak-minded when I was being compassionate

Quote
the premise-knowledge, the conclusion-wisdom and the meaning-illumination

Your English has suddenly become bloated and hyperbolic, and not in the entertaining Daniel Krispin Tolkien way, but more in the "meaning gets lost in pseudointellectual vocabulary-flexing" way. I went through a phase where I typed as ornately on that, evidenced in some of my earliest posts at the Compendium. It's a crappy way to go.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Jutty on November 11, 2008, 02:59:42 am
Is it really necessary for everyone to communicate like the cast of "Dawson's Creek". I'm just a simple minded mortal after all.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: placidchap on November 11, 2008, 08:04:23 am
There are a certain few that like to drown others with excessive vocabulary, some entertaining, some not.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Thought on November 11, 2008, 11:39:13 am
Thought! You make good points, but I think you misunderstood what I said yesterday. My goal is not vengeance, or to stoop to the level of discourse that the Republicans maintained while in power. I strongly implied that I reject such a philosophy, but perhaps you underestimated me due to my style.

Actually, I understood what you were saying; you were quite clear you were not out for vengeance. I do think that you are out for justice and objective fairness, however, which is the entire problem. Justice and objective fairness are harsh things; people don't like them when they do not work in their favor. It might not be vengeance, it might not be a derogatory level of discourse, but that doesn't matter. It will be perceived as such.

If the Democrats do nothing else but be just and fair, then they'll have failed as a ruling party. Curiously, I am saying that the Democrats need to be unjust and unfair. They need to be understanding to an unreasonable extent, kind beyond propriety. Merely doing what is right and proper won’t win the day. It is good, and it is certainly better than it could be, but it is not best. Convincing Republicans (and others) that you are right is. As utterly distasteful as that might be, the first step is to disarm your opposition and put them at ease. An enemy will resist you to his dying breath, but a friend will suffer all pains for you (even if the pain is overcoming their own beliefs). This is what I wish the Republicans had done, and it is what I hope the Democrats will do.

Obama, I am fairly sure, will take this sort of approach. But I suspect you can see the difference between Obama and yourself. I believe you are more concerned with the task at hand (as evident from your post), but I believe that Obama is more concerned with the people at hand. He won’t leave the tasks ignored, but people will be his first reaction, just as tasks are your first reaction. So I suppose, what I am saying is that what the Democrats need to be a successful party is more Obama and less Josh.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 11, 2008, 05:15:42 pm
Quote from: Thought
If the Democrats do nothing else but be just and fair, then they'll have failed as a ruling party. Curiously, I am saying that the Democrats need to be unjust and unfair. They need to be understanding to an unreasonable extent, kind beyond propriety. Merely doing what is right and proper won’t win the day.

You are right.

Quote from: Thought
Obama, I am fairly sure, will take this sort of approach. But I suspect you can see the difference between Obama and yourself. I believe you are more concerned with the task at hand (as evident from your post), but I believe that Obama is more concerned with the people at hand. He won’t leave the tasks ignored, but people will be his first reaction, just as tasks are your first reaction. So I suppose, what I am saying is that what the Democrats need to be a successful party is more Obama and less Josh.

You're assuming that my persona on the Compendium is the one I wear all the time. It's not, but, even supposing for a minute that it is, I would disagree with you strategically. I wrote an article about this recently. Every aspect of the Democratic Party now has its own work to do in furtherance of their shared goals. The elected Dems have to lead. The movement progressives don't; their job is to change the terms of the debate. Obama himself said during the campaign that he can't do everything, and he expects us to pull ourselves past the finish line rather than dumping it all on him. He's right. By combining leadership and outreach with activism and idealism, we move forward. The key is not to stab the Republicans, but to make them think we're doing them a favor by stabbing them. We have to give them ownership in the progressive movement. I don't know how much of it we can pull off. Certainly, ideologues and strategists on the right will make that work a lot harder. What I do know is that America, on average, has always moved left rather than right, so in that regard I have some hope. I expect that universal healthcare and energy production in America will be in a completely different place by 2016. Gay marriage may take longer, but with interracial and interreligious marriage now commonly accepted where once they would have resulted in disownment and violence, I am hopeful.

Now, as for "more Obama and less Josh," I think you do not give him or me enough credit. It hasn't gotten a lot of coverage, but Obama is both more liberal and more ruthless than he lets on. He is a very calculating person, and I expect him to lead with smiles and handshakes not only because he recognizes that it would be healthy for the country (which is what sets him apart from the Republican leadership style of recent times), but also because this is what he expects will bring him the most success. And I agree with him. Obama didn't get to be president in his forties by being a nice guy. He got there because he has the moves. He's one to be taken seriously. As he himself once said, behind the scenes, in response to a question by Brian Williams about what Obama was doing in his life to combat climate change, "We can’t solve global warming because I fucking changed light bulbs." That's not the kumbaya you heard on the campaign trail. That's the voice of somebody who has plans. Obama knows what he's doing.

Meanwhile, when it comes to Josh, I'm not as mean as I might seem here. I certainly can be that; I wouldn't personally call it "mean," because of where the motivation comes from. But whatever you decide to call it, it's true that I am not betraying my character by being aggressive and adversarial. These, however, are not my only tricks. I would have to be considerably more ignorant and less ambitious to be nothing more than the Lord J Esq you think you know, and that doesn't add up. Would you expect a starship to have only one system for responding to a new situation?

(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5362/enterprisefiresphaserscam2.png) (http://imageshack.us)

Is that what you think I am out here to do? Hah!

Remember that, by reading into my writings here, it is much safer to try and deduce what I can be than what I am not. I'm not like Krispin or ZeaLitY, who wear everything on their sleeve whether they mean to. I'm more like yourself.

In general, antagonizing Republicans is something to be avoided...if all else is equal. I never pick on people, except Krispin, who keeps bringing it on himself. But "all else" rarely is equal. We live in a vibrant, dynamic, deliciously intricate world. Progress is a challenging, multivariate equation. It takes half a lifetime to figure out what the world really is and what we want progress to actually look like. Even then, there are many ways to go about it, and many strategies to try. I rarely antagonize Republicans with no other goal than short-term entertainment. I usually have something much greater in mind. You talk about changing people's minds...but can you do more than talk? It's hard to actually find ways to carry it out. Consider, for a moment, the influence I have had on several of the people here at the Compendium. I didn't plan that from the beginning, but I saw the opportunity for it before anyone else did. I bring to the table a hard-to-miss blend of strong ideas and personal flamboyance. Many people, including some in this thread, are dismissive of that. Fine; they're dealing themselves out of the game by taking such a stance, so I consider them dead weight and don't pay them much attention. Others, like Ramsus, have concluded that I'm a shit. Fine; that harms my reputation but not my cause, and I have to admit that, if somebody wants to get upset with me, they have usually earned the right to do so. Other people, however, have, amazingly, bought into to my ideas. That may make me temporarily en vogue, but, far more importantly, it helps promote my cause. When I first came here, I wasn't expecting anything in particular, other than to share my enthusiasm for the Chrono series. My personal style on the forums, which developed over time, was the result of a question I posed to myself after the early presence of Daniel Krispin gave me the opportunity to observe my own development of a social mask in real-time. That in turn afforded me the even greater opportunity to conduct a grand "social experiment": I didn't realize at first exactly what that was, but it has always been my ambition to question the unknown, and it was only a matter of time before I began to figure out that I was in the position to test my ability to influence people not just by reciting lines of logic, but by folding human emotion into the concoction. Say what you will; I'm pleased with the data. My phasers actually work. And I'm telling all of this to you, Mister Bond, because you're the only one who could possibly understand.

As an elitist I'm not above manipulating people. Indeed, that's a requirement. Don't get me wrong: I do give genuine praise, or consolation, or advice whenever they are genuinely sought out. I freely give them, for we all share the same humanity and I never forget that. What makes me harder to figure out is that it is in my interest for all of us to become better people, and, contrary to popular belief, the road to "better personhood" cannot be reached by amity alone. I have great respect for humanity even if my repsect for individual people is hard to earn, and, as a consequence, I know that people can take a lot, and will often emerge the better for it.

Do you know what happens when people's minds grow? They become more liberal. For once, I use the word "liberal" in its best sense. That's the kind of liberal I consider myself to be. I am only a Democrat because that is the party which best advances my interests, however maddeningly imperfectly. I am not a doctrinaire liberal, not a collectivist, and certainly not an old-school Marx-fueled revolutionary. I like my liberties civil and my rights human. I play politics in order to achieve these ends, and what I want the most is for the human mind to be held up above all of our other attributes. I want a world where the law says, and the people agree, that no basic right and no personal ambition--no ambition, good or bad--should ever be denied to a person on the basis that they are female, gay, black, nonreligious, poor, or whatever else.

My adversarial posture here, and wherever else it shows up, is almost never to antagonize Republicans for the sake of antagonizing them. I am comfortable that I have taken more steps forward than backward. Some antagonism is a byproduct of this strategy, and one of the ways in which I try to minimize it elsewhere is to be experimental in places like this where the consequences are minimal. So far, so good. I have influenced at least a half-dozen people here at the Compendium in a positive way, and have not yet been run off the boards by a torch-and-pitchfork mob. Never mind other venues; here on the merits of my history at the Compendium alone I would disagree with you that my party needs less Josh. Your point is appreciated and agreed--"don't be a dick"--but I don't think you have read me correctly, because I don't think it applies to me. I'm not a troll who happens to be smart; I am...for lack of a better term...an "activist." I'm getting in people's faces. Sometimes, that's the way it has to be. Perhaps this ad hoc primer will be of some help to you in understanding my point of view.

On a certain level, what I am doing is hardly unique. We all manipulate one another. Most of us do it with praise, support, affirmation, and flattery. I myself am no exception. We usually carry out this manipulation in order to enrich our lives direclty, by building stronger person relationships. And when we fall short emotionally, we usually do so by reversing these same behaviors: We condemn, undermine, spurn, and insult. It's human nature to reason that, if the things that build relationships strengthen us, then those same things in reverse will wound our enemies. (We conveniently forget that they wound us too.) For most people, the social experiment ends there. Not for me. I want to change people's minds for the better, and that means putting everything on the table. It is an intuitive conclusion that my flamboyance detracts from my ideas, but that conclusion has turned out to be wrong. The whole Light Side and Dark Side dichotomy is a fake. Good and evil do not exist like that. What I am doing is tactical. It works. To my genuine surprise, I actually can stab people and make them think I am doing them a favor...because I am doing them a favor, and the holy grail is not to trick people but to teach them. To mix up my metaphors, this is just like hitting someone who is being crazy, and having them reply "Thanks, I needed that." If the highest price I have to pay for my progress is that good folks like Radical_Dreamer who are put off by my style won't play ball with me anymore, I consider that a no-brainer tradeoff. So, as soon as my little stabby-stabby machine is perfected, I'll plug it into my undersea power source, and will shortly thereafter achieve paradise and live forever. =)

Quote from: BROJ
Now rather than continuing to beat a dead horse, may we cease with the idle banter and bitching and get to the real matter at hand? My question is for you, directly; if I wanted to disrespect you or another, I would do just as you said. Now I ask, why do you vainly flame the conservatives if your intent is to remediate the state of affairs benevolently and productively?
I know you are not a vengeful person, so I am confused as to why this would be the action you would find aesthetically appealing.

My comments to Thought should provide the answer you seek. I will add that there is nothing vain about what I am doing. Like all of us, I do have a sense of vanity. Like so few of us, however, I let it run wherever it likes except where my feet are about to go. Ahem, BROJ.

Quote from: BROJ
For the entire thread, when you didn't understand my words, questions and/or opinions, you didn't ask what I meant. You made assumptions on what I meant. And when you failed at guessing the correct meaning, you gave up.

In fairness to myself, I do think I have understood you at some level. By saying otherwise I was giving myself an out from our exchange, which I found pointless. However, you do make at least one point, now. I should have asked what you meant. Let that serve as a complement to my above remarks. I'm not perfect.

For what it's worth, I would suggest you tone down your diction and your figures of speech in the future. I appreciate your eagerness to show off, because language is a beautiful power-up, but yours needs work and I'm afraid I don't have much patience for this sort of thing. It takes time out of my already full schedule to come to the Compendium at all, and I don't like being cornered in mindless conversations--which is exactly what happens when one party abuses language to the point that communication breaks down.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Thought on November 11, 2008, 06:20:30 pm
I didn't mean to imply that you are mean or limited (indeed, such a topic is beyond the scope of what I was even saying). Merely that you seem to be more task-oriented than people-oriented. The two aren't necessarily an inverse relation, nor is one desirable and the other undesirable, nor are they exclusive to other approaches. Your strength, as I perceive it, is in your attention to details. Obama's strength, as I perceive it, is in his attention to people. Not in a group-hug sort of way, mind you, but in a "come on, we can do this" sort of way. When faced with a problem, I believe you are someone who will gather the details you need first. When faced with a problem, I believe Obama will gather the people he needs first. This is merely a strength, not a limitation. But it is a strength that I think in necessary.

If it helps you understand my point any more, allow me to say that I'm similar to you in that regard. If I'm calling you a dick, then I'm calling myself one as well. But I'm not. I am trying to say that merely being a decent person isn't enough. Indeed, I'm even saying that being a good person isn't enough. Dems need to be fantastic people; saints (for lack of a non-religious equivalent). It is unreasonable to expect any group of to meet such lofty goals, but anything less will be perceived (even if it is not in reality) as vindictive and in about 30 years two people will probably be having very similar conversations as this.

I think you are someone who will be as good and as kind as reason, good form, and propriety allow (when required). The divergence comes in that I think the ruling party needs to be good and kind well beyond reason. As such, that is why I said "more Obama, less Josh." I will gladly admit I don't know you well enough to make a grand statement, but from what I've seen... you are reasonable, and that is the problem. Being reasonable won’t get us where we need to be (as I see it).

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you are willing to be unreasonable with me?

side note: I do prefer to influence people by example, where as you seem to prefer to influence people more directly. Just to address the issue a little, since you brought it up.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 11, 2008, 07:52:52 pm
Quote from: Thought
Your strength, as I perceive it, is in your attention to details. Obama's strength, as I perceive it, is in his attention to people. Not in a group-hug sort of way, mind you, but in a "come on, we can do this" sort of way.

It's true that I have sometimes had to remind myself to be considerate of other people. I think you're a few years late in that analysis, though. I'm a fairly considerate and inclusive person today, more so than I used to be. I'm probably not as good as Obama, but he's got twenty years on this cat.

As for your distinction between "details" and "people," I like your disclaimer so much that I think it negates the contrast. "Details..."people"...you're being arbitrary here.

Quote from: Thought
I think you are someone who will be as good and as kind as reason, good form, and propriety allow (when required).

You're suggesting that I don't have social skills or lack the desire to be kind and inclusive, and on top of that you're making a straw man of "reasonableness." I'll just have to disagree with you on all counts. Thought, being aware of oneself, and having clear goals that include interacting with people deliberately, do not preclude a person from enjoying the full span of human emotion, and acting on those emotions reasonably (in the real sense of that word) in the course of their life generally and their personal interactions in particular.

Quote from: Thought
Perhaps you are willing to be unreasonable with me?

I'm certainly here talking to you, respectfully. And if you haven't noticed, I have shared my personal thoughts with you. These have to count for something.

Quote from: Thought
I do prefer to influence people by example, where as you seem to prefer to influence people more directly.

Interesting you should say that. From the observer's viewpoint, what I do to persuade people isn't very direct, and indeed there are often whole layers of purpose at work. I am straightforward enough with my ideas, but I have learned over time that changing people's minds by direct appeal almost never works. They have to persuade themselves. The way to make that happen is to put the ideas out there, keep up the exposure and the mood, and let people chew on what they have found. Therefore, I too very much lead by example, and the distinction with you is that my example is explicitly the less direct of the two. Indeed, I am often at my most direct in cases like this, when I am explaining myself. And I am not explaining myself to influence you: I am explaining myself to inform you, because you asked.

I get what you're trying to say: You try to influence other people's attitudes by projecting a positive one of your own. That's a debatable tactic, because it has limited power to actually change people's ideas. The edification upon which it relies is to become so admirable that people seek to emulate your manners, and, eventually, your ideas. I think you will find that it meets with mixed success. Better to work with ideas directly, and let people figure out for themselves what their manners will be. You'll notice that I've never encouraged people to behave pugnaciously; I've encouraged them to think.

Ideally, I would love to be more positive in my general deportment around here. But to commit to that would require two things that I do not possess:

First, I would need a receptive audience. Being positive to an ambivalent audience often fails to engage them, and being positive to a hostile audience often provokes them. (Think about that the next time you consider Obama's good attitude: He has been surrounded by his most adoring fans for two years. In his performances at the debates and at his press conferences, we see a different temperament. Here is one who suits his attitude to fit the environment, with the purpose of achieving his political aims.)

Second, I would need to know how being less positive does not work. I have a lot to learn about that, even still.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: KebreI on November 19, 2008, 12:59:49 am
http://media.ledger-enquirer.com/smedia/2008/11/17/15/Write-ins_1.source.prod_affiliate.70.pdf (http://media.ledger-enquirer.com/smedia/2008/11/17/15/Write-ins_1.source.prod_affiliate.70.pdf)
A nice read, when you have time.
Title: Re: Election Thread 2008
Post by: FaustWolf on November 19, 2008, 01:36:59 am
It's pretty close between Chuck Baldwin and Jesus by my count. There may need to be a runoff!