Author Topic: The Imus Nonsense  (Read 7174 times)

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2007, 05:32:42 am »
I want to make one thing clear: I do not support the "third-party propaganda line" you accuse me of. I am an Indepdent: I do not feel that political parties should ever really be supported, as they rarely ever represent what they truly intend to represent. As such, I stick by myself and vote for who I see sensible...and that's all I have to say. You've shut me up due to my own lack of research and frankly I'm not inclined at the moment to go digging up anything I might need to counter your points.

So consider yourself victorious, Lord J. I just ask one thing...keep an open mind when examing your political party every once in a while...don't turn yourself off to the idea that you might be wrong. You're too damned smart not to do that.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2007, 05:48:30 am »
What's with this whole voluntary voting thing anyway? Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right to me.

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2007, 05:50:46 am »
What's with this whole voluntary voting thing anyway? Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right to me.
Compulsary voting is one surefire way to ensure that votes will not be well thought out. I despise the Australian compulsary voting system for precisely this reason because all it does is ensure you people vote in John Howard-type Bushiveks. No offense, but really, you guys think your votes through even less than Americans do, though to be honest I take this from the mouth of another Australian, albiet one heavily involved in politics.

Also, you don't allow your immigrants to ever vote, no matter how much of a citizen they become...that's just not fair.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2007, 05:51:59 am »
So consider yourself victorious, Lord J. I just ask one thing...keep an open mind when examing your political party every once in a while...don't turn yourself off to the idea that you might be wrong. You're too damned smart not to do that.

Just because I am pro-Democrat doesn't mean I am a Democratic minion. =P

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2007, 05:56:32 am »
Just because I am pro-Democrat doesn't mean I am a Democratic minion. =P
I know that...you've proven yourself too smart to be such a sheep. I just like to overstate things at times...it's a bad habit.

That, and my dad acts like so much of a Democratic sheep it drives me nuts and results in me often reacting against any Democratic party supporter even if I know they're not  sheep-like in their support.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2007, 11:41:54 am »
Damn you guys! These posts are too verbose for me to easily digest in my morning rush. It'll be a whole twelve hours before I can check the site again!

Leebot

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • Infophilia
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2007, 03:24:15 pm »
For the most part, my views coincide with Lord J's (what's new?), so I won't bother repeating it all. There is one thing I'd like to mention, though: I have one serious problem with Obama. The problem is that he seems to have fallen for the religious right's claims that the ultra-liberals are suppressing religion. I say this because he made a statement a while back that politicians shouldn't be banned from public expressions of religion.

Newsflash for you: They aren't. They just have to keep their personal religious beliefs separate from the office. Either he somehow hasn't realized this, or he's fallen in with those who want to put religion back in government.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2007, 03:52:28 pm »
I have one serious problem with Obama. The problem is that he seems to have fallen for the religious right's claims that the ultra-liberals are suppressing religion. I say this because he made a statement a while back that politicians shouldn't be banned from public expressions of religion.

I was upset by that too when it first came out. But later I learned that his remarks were taken out of context. Compare this biased Associated Press hit piece on Obama's remarks with his full speech in its rightful context. Obama was speaking to an audience of religious left-wingers, and, bearing that in mind, if you take the time to read his entire speech, it is actually pretty well done.

My activism against religion in our society and in our government is tireless. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot allow our politics to simply ignore the overwhelming majority of Americans who consider themselves "faith-based."

Obama is welcome to try and court left-wing evangelicals. I think he can give them something to root for without giving the rest of his natural supporters a case of the heebie jeebies.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 03:55:01 pm by Lord J esq »

Paleontole

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Hiding in the Dead Sea
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2007, 04:39:58 pm »
This is just the same thing as what we now term the "N Word". Like Zeality said in the first post, 'Ho' is used so much, it's unbelievable, the same with the "N Word" (which is now symbolically banned in New York City). But once you cross the line to someone of another race using the term, this is what happens a la Michael Richards. They see this old white guy with a cowboy hat saying things like that, and decide he makes the perfect target for outrage like this.

As for what I personally think of it, I'm pro free-speech, but I didnt like what he said, not even because of anything racial, it was just disrespectful to insult a bunch of college athletes, for really no reason at all. Sharpton went a little too far with the bashing. I think the suspension was fine, but it seems they are going to be taking him off for the most part now. The real issue of double standards will probably be ignored, Imus will get ruined for this, while rappers will continue to say these two words every line of their songs.


Side note, people seem to be shifting to religion and political affiliation now, and as a moderate republican, I can say I hate neocons just as much as anyone else, some of the crap they spew is absurd, and most of them are bastards just by nature.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 05:40:13 pm by Paleontole »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2007, 05:34:33 pm »
Welcome to the Compendium. Nice introductory post.

Leebot

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • Infophilia
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2007, 05:56:19 pm »
I was upset by that too when it first came out. But later I learned that his remarks were taken out of context. Compare this biased Associated Press hit piece on Obama's remarks with his full speech in its rightful context. Obama was speaking to an audience of religious left-wingers, and, bearing that in mind, if you take the time to read his entire speech, it is actually pretty well done.

My activism against religion in our society and in our government is tireless. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot allow our politics to simply ignore the overwhelming majority of Americans who consider themselves "faith-based."

Obama is welcome to try and court left-wing evangelicals. I think he can give them something to root for without giving the rest of his natural supporters a case of the heebie jeebies.

Such is the problem I see with rule by the masses: The masses can be wrong. This is one of the big reasons we want a representative government (in theory, at least), so we can handpick the people who are best qualified to understand the issues and make the right decisions. In a perfect republic, the best and the brightest are chosen to be put in charge.

Of course, things don't work this way in America, so politicians have to pander to the masses to get elected. A campaign of "I'll do what you want," tends to beat out a campaign of "I'll do what's right." So, I can understand it if a politician tries to pander to the religious masses once in a while to get elected - if I trust him to actually make the right decisions. The problem is, Obama's words made it clear to me that when it comes to religion, he isn't going to make the right decisions (frankly, the decision to be religious was a blow against him from the start, it speaks of poor critical-thinking skills to me).

Look at what he said about the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for an example of where I'd expect him to make the wrong decision:

Quote
Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I certainly didn't.

Quite simply, he's wrong there. Those two words were specifically put into the pledge under the reign of Eisenhower specifically so that schoolchildren the country over would pay heed to God. That's a definite infringement of separation if I ever heard of one. It shouldn't have been put in in the first place, and it should be taken out as soon as possible. If Obama's elected President, we can be sure he'll come down on the wrong side of this issue.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2007, 06:29:54 pm »
Yes, quite simply he is wrong about the Pledge. And if you pressed him for specifics, he would be wrong about a great many things. How much of that is a sales campaign and how much his genuine principles, I cannot say for sure. But from what I know of the man--and I do follow politics--I like him. Do I wish a nonbeliever would run and win? Yep. But for those of us in the reality-based community, unity is always an exercise in compromise. Obama did pretty well for himself, taking his entire speech in context, considering he was addressing a religious audience. Left-wing evangelicals can be as bad as the right-wing ones, notwithstanding their superior proximity to the virtuous positions on the pressing issues.

Of the four plausible Democratic contenders--Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson--none of them are themselves evangelical. Consider that, and consider this: If you were running for high office and knew you could not win without securing some sizable portion of the religious vote, how would you do it?

Leebot

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • Infophilia
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2007, 07:00:41 pm »
But for those of us in the reality-based community...

Actually, my excuse is that I'm not an American citizen, so instead of worrying about who to vote for, I'm free to criticize all the candidates. But back to the subject at hand, the problem I have isn't so much that he's trying to get votes from the ultra-religious, but that he's trying to get their votes by promoting his own religious nature.

This gets down to what I'd do in his place if I wanted to get their votes. There are a few tactics I could use (my favorite would actually be one that's so radically different from how politicians normally act I won't bother bringing it up as a serious suggestion), but the one most appropriate to this system would be a two-pronged strategy:

1. Emphasize how what I plan to do once elected coincides with what they want to happen. Left-Wing evangelicals have a lot on their minds that they want to change, and a lot of it is pretty good (fixing corruption, helping the poor, etc.). Tell them that while I might not share their beliefs, I'd still accomplish what they want (with the exception of instilling a religious state). Along with this, point out that even if they don't come from the same source, I share their moral values.

2. Make it clear that I'd protect their freedom to practice their religion. Bring up the very strawmen some ultra-religious are worried about (banning prayer in school, for instance), and point out how I don't agree with them. Make it clear that I want a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose without fear of persecution (though if talking specifically to one group, limit it to saying "you're free to practice your religion without persecution).

There are a lot of other sub-strategies I'd use, but that's the bulk of the applicable stuff.


Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2007, 10:17:28 pm »
Damn you guys! These posts are too verbose for me to easily digest in my morning rush. It'll be a whole twelve hours before I can check the site again!
We live to make you miserable.

Seriously, though, I never said I didn't have problems with Obama. I find his courting the religious vote--be it left or right--somewhat distasteful, and I don't agree with him on everything, certainly. But on that same token he is, again, the only one that I find reasonable enough for me to vote for, though Richardson comes in at a close second.

I find the Pledge of Allegience rather irritating...it doesn't really mean a damned thing and it's an unncessary exercise in instilling "patriotism" in the nation's youth. Case in point: I refused to say the pledge many times as an act of silent protest and I was met with jeers, cries of "traitor" and otherwise treated as dirt because of it, even by a few of the teachers.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The Imus Nonsense
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2007, 11:03:14 pm »
So, out of all the Democratic contenders, which would you support?

The Republican contenders aren't worthy of note. Their fate is sealed, no matter how many troops McCain rallies or vague but hardball stances / positions Giuliani takes / welches on. (No offense to the Welsh; I just learned that word to day and had to use it.)

Anyway, I'm not advocating some kind of tax-free economy or something, but take this advice: now that Democrats are back in the saddle, Roth IRAs are an attractive option to lock in earnings to be distributed in a time when taxes will probably be higher down the road. The Republican Congress of the last few years have really made some strides, including the introduction of a bill phasing out the estate tax (to zero in 2010, at which point it will come back in full in 2011; of course, current legislation will be rewritten before these dates).

But taxation is another issue to cover one of these days. My professor believes strongly that a unified sales tax is the panacea to all evils, and that in any case, the code needs to be simplified.