I'm...agreeing with you because I am not agreeing with you in the things I am not saying about not agreeing with you. Actually that is faulty because I am asserting only the obvious: You are agreeing with me by not being able to definitively stating x, if it were as logical a conclusion as you assert it is, why the cautionary semantics? I don't put anything in absolutely unequivocal terms because I don't see anything as absolutely unequivocal. Hell, you're a pathetic ill-mannered schmuck who can't get laid but you are at least politically interested, so you're not unequivocally pathetic. Ah yes the pathetic world of uncollaborated slander, when I ad hom ppl at the very least I attack them on things that I can prove. You talk a lot Xev but really say little…but I am not surprised in the least, most pseudo’s do that sort of thing…are you a pseudo Xev? "Pretty like a pagan"? What, you "sorta" worship trees? Actually if you knew what you are talking about European culture has been described as Paganistic rituals wrapped around the monotheistic hug of Christianity. I am a humanist…that is what essentially what I mean, but again why would you know? Nobody can know precisely what mainstream America is, yes. So now you're saying that you know precisely that mainstream America is hostile to sex because you don't know precisely what mainstream America thinks? No if you read I said “some” are that way, and they politically are very powerful because at least 50% of American’s don’t vote, and thus they are becoming the mainstream regardless of their size (which is growing to say the least). I don’t claim to know precisely anything…you are putting words in my mouth. In a general sense there are large pockets of American society, disagree? Umm, please quote me saying that Orlando is "a second rate trailer park town" "Orlando is a hideous simulacra of America" Calling Orlando a is "a second rate trailer park town" is tame compared to what you said… Sorry, I overestimated your intelligence and thought you could handle some ambiguity. I can handle ambiguity just fine, just your inability to admit that there are pockets in the American mainstream that are sexually repressive, remember it was you who was absolutist: That's ridiculous. Americans have no "Anglo-Saxon disgust" with sex. Then when push comes to shove you retreat…no I have no respect for that. You may attempt to slander me all you want pathetic woman, but in the end your cognitive inability to recognize your own shortcomings pales in comparison to anything you throw at me. Your inability to READ ENGLISH. I read it just fine…you haven’t shown otherwise. I mean hell, I might forgive your tactic of "argument through assertion" but dear fucking lord, is it also necessary to assrape the English language? Like I said before Xev I don’t really care about this conversation, its Free thoughts its not really worth it. But since you are unable to get past the semantic issues, shows how intellectually shallow you are. Your nothing more then the human equivalent of the Hindenburg…full of hot air. The device they use to measure that is hardly a precise instrument. Still proves what I said…no matter how you may rationalize Xev scientific studies support my stance thus far. How do you know? You've gotten stoned with me and watched the movie in question? Oh right, you haven't, you don't even know the title. Well gee... Tell me the title of the movie, I could have watched it. I remember watching a movie with ppl fucking dead bodies, it is not a social commentary worth mention. Your subjective opinion on a movie does not give it objective validity. In light of all the monographs, papers, polls and studies done regarding interracial relationships, I doubt that one movie is authoritative. Where did I say it was? I’d like to see that. Actually, it would make me loved and cherished by several members of this forum. Hey Nazi’s loved killing Jews, and Soviets the Kulaks…the poor idiots love violence, and sci is no different. Blame your ignorance on others, and let them pay for your stupidity. Let Depeche Mode said: The fact that those ppl would like to see in that state, shows how threatened must be and inferior. Sad Xev I thought u were better then that...guess not. I've talked to numerous hardcore Christians, I even live with one. Hell, even Fred Phelps doesn't say that heterosexual sex is sinful and bad. Again that is opinion of a few out a religion that spans 2 billion…are you a Christian? If not then stop pretending to be a authority, because you can’t really read this in a book.
(Insert Title Here) Given the effect such misplaced rhetoric as the "un-American" issue has on voters, given that high school students are being disciplined for disagreeing with the president, given that college students are being investigated by the Secret Service for having an opinion that does not match Bush's .... Why are you surprised that I give a shit? We had former soldiers calling on their military credentials in order to assert that truth is un-American. The people endorsed that position. Tell me, how is a person or society supposed to act rationally when the basis for action is irrational? And that all works fine if you're debating which flavor of ice cream is best. Think for a moment of opinions. What is the best ice cream? Doesn't have much effect on your quality of life or anyone else's. Contrast that with, say, the question of whether one believes God exists. That answer has much effect on one's own quality of life, and as we see in the United States, threatens to tread on the quality of others' lives. Why is this? Because the weight people assign their religious beliefs is greater than they assign their favorite ice cream. What of political beliefs? Are those beliefs neutral? Does one's choice of ice cream affect your their beliefs? Does one's religion? Politics, while subject to religion, bears a large, tangible effect on people's lives. Moral relativism such as yours, that would treat life-affecting opinions equally to the insignificant, is problematic. It's not all the same. The political discourse will affect you, whether you participate in it or walk away. Given the irreverence you chose to devote to your response, I felt the need to make a couple things clear. Were we living in an exemplary vacuum, I would agree with you. But as you might even be aware, should you have examined the issue closely enough, the American left has always struggled to keep up with the game on the one hand, and change its rules to the other. Walk away? Well, like people are given to say periodically, "Love it or leave it". I disagree. Walking away surrenders your route to improving your lot in life through the political system. Let's treat Bush like a criminal case, for a moment. What is my reasonable doubt that Bush did not lie? Well, if I look at the yellowcake issue, and the counterpoint that Bush is not responsible for the information if he believed it true, I'm left with a scenario in which Bush simply chose to not believe the information despite it being pointed out that the names on the documents in some cases had nothing to do with the government in question. He knew that. And he chose to not believe it was significant. But it's un-American to say that Bush lied. It's "giving comfort to the enemy" to disbelieve the president's disbelief. Troop numbers in Iraq? Bush is ultimately responsible. Yet he listened to his Secretary of Defense instead of his generals; he listened to the civilian politico instead of the military experts. That Bush has spent nearly two years avoiding the discussion shows just how genuine his decision was, just how committed to the theories and principles he was. The United States chose to not uphold its obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the days after Saddam Hussein fell. George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for this violation of our international agreements. As the issues pile up, it's no longer a mystery to anybody but the most stubborn why Bush withdrew from the ICC. That Bush could not represent that issue honestly in the debates is merely icing on the cake. But apparently it's the wrong flavor, and clashes with the ice cream, so we're supposed to "support the president". The consequences of these processes affect thousands of lives in terms of life and death, and millions more in other serious ways. Given the facts before us, how should we consider the questions of presidential conduct as irrelevant as you would have them? Of presidential conduct, let's look at another of your posts for a moment: Are you familiar with the term, "Executive privilege"? It means that the president is excused from answering certain civil issues during the term of office. In order to get around executive privilege, the Scaife-funded Bimbo Patrol sought to convince the courts that such a small matter as sexual harassment would not interfere with the presidency. That the court agreed reflects the proper blindness of justice; the court was not allowed to presume the obvious, that the assertion that the case would not interfere with the presidency was a lie. And true to form, the GOP set out to make sure the case interfered with the presidency. Personally, I don't give a shit if Clinton lied in the middle of a ******** and inappropriate judicial proceeding. So, really, why lie to the court in order to hold the President at the same level as the people and then be upset if he acts like the rest of the people? Because it's a court proceeding? Well, hang it. It shouldn't have been taking place, anyway. Conservatives sought to impeach Clinton for diminishing the Oval Office. Yet it was those conservatives themselves who did the most diminishing. So let us know the next time your entire life is dragged into court on a lie, and tell us all how you feel about it. You know, how you feel about the lawyers on the other side filing false briefs, twisting the law, and concealing real and relevant facts from the court. The reason many people don't give a shit that Clinton lied is that they know the questions should never have been asked in such a setting. And hey, that's one principle we teach children in this country that continues in adulthood. Of course, it coincides with the convenient way to go about life, so flip a coin. Returning to our regularly-scheduled program: Here, let me get a sheet and lantern and head down to Pike Place Market to search for an honest conservative. Why are you mixing the general and the specific, Tyler? Why do you focus on the individual--e.g. me--in order to duck the larger ideas being discussed? What are you afraid of? In other words, if you're claiming what you wrote in that sentence to be a valid argument, you'll find it difficult to convince me. Well, they don't hang out at Phish concerts. Remember that name-calling is a concession I make to conservatives, else I be accused of liberal elitism, which in their minds justifies deaf souls. Look, being polite doesn't work with conservatives. If you're polite, it's not important enough. (Such as the conservative who once pointed out to me that people won't revolt until they're starving in the street, and that's the way it should be. He never did address the question of how people came to be starving in the street. He didn't like the liberal rhetoric about conservative economics because he honestly believed that the results liberals so decried were the genuine results of people trying their best to help society--e.g. conservative economy. That he would years later recant and apologize for that position stung, as it suggested how deeply those sentiments run.) When you're impolite, of course, people just tune you out. Time and life teach that this coincidence of methods really is the simplest way to avoid any substantive discussion of anything. Write it off as unimportant until someone gets passionate, and then complain about the passion and write off the new version. In the meantime, name-calling is one form of communication conservatives love, so why not give it a try. Given your rampant contextual confusion, this does not surprise me. Is this about me, or is this about some concept at large? I had thought it was the latter, but you seem insistent on reducing it to me in order to avoid logical considerations. Tyler, as long as you pretend that politics have no effect on people's lives, there's not much I can do to help you out. So stay in Canada. I mean, I'm sincerely happy for your civilized and ultra-efficient Canadian government. But this is the American government, its electorate, and the attitudes of our nation we're discussing. You don't get it in the simple form, nor the complex form. What form would you like it? Oh, here, let me try this: I like lemon sherbet more than I do vanilla ice cream, unless of course I'm putting it in root beer. In the meantime, let's try a few highlights: • The serious discussion that comes with the actual facts is harrowing to American pride. We have, as a society, a nation, f@cked up completely, and it really bugs people to even think about. (Let me know what's so incomprehensible to you about that.) • What leads us here is more than just an election or Al Gore or even Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And it's the cancer that will, if left unchecked, be the undoing of "liberty and justice for all". (That people insist it is their right to vote against the foundation of their rights--e.g. the Constitution--speaks more to the problems we'll have managing our issues with terrorists than it does toward a solution. That people claim their Constitutional rights are violated when the government adheres to the Constitution is an absurd notion that is no longer an isolated political aberration, but a sincere belief infecting millions of voters. These things threaten the noble vales Americans espouse as their identity politic more than any angry man with a bomb can.) • But like anything else, when we get down to each person who steps into a ballot box and chooses, and even those who choose to not step into the ballot box, there are no real excuses. (No matter what else is going on in the political, social, American, or world arenas, the voter is ultimately responsible for what box he or she checks.) • Americans choose by priorities that lend more toward their immediate individual comforts and preferences than they do toward posterity, integrity, or any other abstract concept. (If you disagree with the accuracy of the assertion, that's one thing, but I don't think any further explanation of what it accuses or means is necessary.) • This is, to a degree, understandable. But the shame that turns their eyes away from what they do comes in a simple realization that comes whenever the principles and values of their formative childhood education--e.g. Sunday school lessons, kindergarten "togetherness", teamwork, "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game", ad f@cking nauseam--fail them completely. For some it's their parents' divorce, or even their own amid their twenties. There is a persistent subtle awareness, even in the seemingly-coldest of American hearts, of the daily betrayal of everything good about those formative principles. (As humans don't exist in theoretic vacuums, it is understandable that they should confuse their priorities. Everyone does. But like addicts, people who are consistently choosing the wrong option for even their own preferences are ultimately responsible for their choices.) • And what of these folks, with nation and a lifetime's principles, and cultural identity? Maybe the New York Times should find some first-generation naturalized immigrants and ask them their opinion on whether this is the same country their hopes brought them to. But we've got millions of lifers with god-and-country sentiments running thick in their blood. And look at them: they're rebelling against the Constitution while simultaneously asserting the American identity all while doubting the government's ability to pull it off. If they ever sat down and walked through it point by point, it might actually kill them by breaking their hearts. (There is so much invested in the contradictions and lies that motivate such political decisions; what are these factors? Again, like an addict, the most offensive thing to these political sensibilities is to drag them into the light where they can be seen for what they are. Nobody likes to admit failure; it is even more important, however, that people do so now.) The actual thesis of the paragraph can be construed to be its first sentence; all else draws from that: The serious discussion that comes with the actual facts is harrowing to American pride. For this reason, certain standards are drawn. And yet, when those standards are applied uniformly, we get folks like you complaining of name-calling. What name-calling displeases you so? Calling Bush's policies idiotic? Implying or even declaring that one is an idiot for accepting and parroting the argument carte blanche? The "un-American" charge is a general profanity used to ward off more vital issues. Questioning troop numbers is un-American, objecting to the false pretense for war is treasonous. And yet you expect people to walk into this arena and let themselves get mowed down? When in history has such a noble idea worked out? In the face of a religiously-based identity conflict, "Christian" American will simply not "turn the other cheek". And yet, pointing out that discord between justification and reality is deemed offensive. Dee Snider of Twisted Sister, called before the U.S. Senate to answer for the content of his albums, once pointed out that, "We at least have your attention". No, the phrase, "Shoot them down with the fucking gun" ("Shoot 'Em Down"), is not polite. Nor is the line, "Look at you squirming and sweating, too; well at least now we know you're not dead" ("Bad Boys of Rock 'n' Roll"). But, as Snider pointed out, such rhetoric gets attention where being polite only gets you ignored. It becomes the result. " As far as liberals can tell from observing conservatives, the only really effective method for talking to conservatives is ridicule, bullsh@t, and paranoia." Okay ..... That's a mystery of life, Tyler. In the meantime, we only have to go by what people offer. The so-called swing voter suffers the same malady as all Americans. In the meantime, my beef is primarily with conservatism. The others, be they libertarians or whatever, are subject to their own discussion. You're missing the point, Tyler. As a liberal, I would love a rational, decent discussion of policy issues. However, that is impossible--unacceptable--to the conservatives. Once again, let me grab my sheet and lantern. Well, that perception comes from your shifting priorities. Are we discussing the general or the particular here, Tyler? Happily: There's this insulting pile of words that suggests quite clearly you're not paying attention to what I'm telling you. Why do you keep resetting to a theoretical vacuum and ignoring reality? Take Zell Miller's speech to the GOP, and the GOP's talking points on their website. It's well enough to call a man unpatriotic and hateful of the military, as well as anti-American because he voted against a bad appropriations bill. However, pointing out that with no appropriations bill on the table, Veep Cheney called for the dismantling of the programs Kerry was accused of voting against? Step into your vacuum chamber, please, and explain this one to me: (A) John Kerry voted against an appropriations bill (B) This is accused of being a vote against vital defense programs (C) This vote is justification to believe Kerry is soft on the military, and therefore undesirable in the White House. (1) Dick Cheney sat before Congress and testified that a number of defense programs should be terminated. (2) These programs are the ones singled out by the GOP as the basis for complaint against Kerry. (3) But Cheney wasn't voting on the bill; rather, he was helping inform Congress what that bill should say. Now tell me, Tyler: Why should construction A-C, which depends on presumption of fact, bear more weight with the voter than construction 1-3, which is merely an observation of fact? Because the facts are not important in the political arena. Now then, why is it wrong to point this out, to be concerned or even disgusted by it, or to condemn the habit for the delusional self-gratification it is? Let's look at your litany: By the way, the terms are as follows: • Idiocy, idiot, iditioic - Generally but not exclusively used to indicate my opinion of the conscious decision to apply policies similarly described. • Criminal, ______ criminal - The severity of the adjective depends on the heat of the discussion; to the conservative, however, "criminal" is offensive enough, and "fucking criminal" only gives them reason to complain about profanity. At no time do facts enter the conservative argument here. • Warmongers, dogs of war, and the inevitable compression to war-dog - What would you call people seeking any excuse--no matter how false--to make war against others? • Bloodsuckers, vampires - I generally reserve this to one specific Zionist who sees ethnicity as a reason to kill, displace, and torture. • Type to kill Santa - Is this that razor-sharp Canadian hyperbole I detect? To start from a square-zero argument: Regardless of your opinion of the use of the word "fucking", there is a legitimate question of the legality of this administration's actions. That question cannot be visited; it's a mighty wind for anyone who attempts it. The conservative argument against is insufficient, as I have noted through this discussion and throughout my time at Sciforums. After a period of being ignored for being polite, people throw their hands up and just say what's on their minds. But of course, as I mentioned earlier, where the polite aren't feeling the pinch enough to have a legitimate complaint, the passionate are ignored for being passionate. Part of it is that I would agree with you entirely, Tyler, if it wasn't for the nature of conservative politics. The honest politician loses in the United States; perhaps you haven't figured that out, yet. And when we sit down and look at the reasons, the source of the trouble in the dialogue seems to come from the conservative side of the aisle. Bush trashed McCain. The desperation and dishonesty of that attack only appealed to conservatives. Hello? You're saying that people owe it to civility to get carved while the ignorant continue setting policies that only contribute to ignorance and the lack of civility it brings about. Help me figure out why you say that, or what's wrong with the interpretation, please. Arguing from a vacuum, yes, you have a point. But we're discussing something more realistic than a theoretical vacuum that presupposes honesty and nobility where none can be found. If we're sitting over a game of cards and you're telling me how things should be, that's one thing. But it seems to throw a wrench in your argument to stop and look at the real factors describing the real situation. Think of Giuliani. Dennis Miller, in his criticisms of the left, noted that he didn't like the way liberals tagged Giuliani with the "Hitler" label. My question to Miller would be why he ignored the reasons for this, failed to assuage them or even address them. Miller held up Giuliani as being an extraordinary man for being on duty when the terrorists hit on 9/11. He did not mention any consideration of the random searches of New York City homes, the arrests and citations for Quality of Life Violations, or the exploitative habit of arresting suspected pot smokers, holding them for seventy-two hours, and then releasing them without charge. The courts had to tell hizzoner to knock it the hell off. There was a time that he told a press conference that he smelled marijuana when he left his office the night before, and that his security detail had given chase to a couple of potheads. No actual evidence was ever given to support this account, but it remains curious nonetheless: New York City's finest, amid a war against marijuana, were unable to secure two stoners fleeing on foot. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Miller that calling Giuliani "Hitler" is a little over the top, but it's not the outrage Miller construed it to be, and his response to the charge certainly made a strenuous effort to avoid the facts. Here, an example just walked--rather, was carried--in the front door. Tigger, constantly complaining about our daughter's bedtime, just came home from the bar. Now, the basis of her complaint is that I'm not getting up on time. The problem, of course, is that Emma Grace runs her schedule late, and when I get to bed at four, I'm not necessarily getting up at eight on a Sunday morning. Tigger's solution? Get up early, go shopping to spend money we don't have, finish up at the bar. Two of her barfly friends just carried her up to the front door. I got her into bed and she promptly vomited all over herself. She could have gotten the baby up and dealt with her, but she didn't want to. She wanted to go to the bar instead. (Count 1) Additionally, family financial discussions are difficult, since her bar tab is off-limits for such considerations. (Count 2) Nor is the actual amount she drinks acceptable for discussion, since a trip to the bar is something she "deserves". (Count 3) Any objective view of the situation suggests there's a problem. Yet the problem, in her opinion, is the same as it always was. She thinks the reason she's disrespectful is because everyone else is disrespectful of her. Now, what is that disrespect? People who worry about her alcohol consumption are being disrespectful. People who inquire about her part in our disagreements are being disrespectful. People who are expected to hand us money when we need it are disrespectful if they want to know what happened to the money we had. But to even suggest that there's a problem related to alcohol or the bar--one need not even mention the word "alcoholism"--ends the discussion right there. Yes, it's disrespectful when people throw their hands up and say, "She's just a bitch". But most of them have tried, most of them have been rebuked, and most of them couldn't get a word in edgewise. But none of that changes the fact that she's treating people poorly, ignoring her daughter's needs in favor of her own, and showing severe symptoms of a substance-abuse problem. Pointing these facts out, however, is disrespectful. It's "name-calling". Three counts contending alcoholism, yet none of them can be discussed because it's "disrespectful" to do so. All I'm asking for is information, something to consider to help develop my perspective on what needs to happen. In the meantime, no solution short of me taking a job that won't even pay for childcare in order to support her bar tab--the size of which is off-limits for discussion--will suffice for her. Facing utility cutoff threats, mounting bills, and stiffing her family--our landlords--for thousands of dollars in rent, she has the nerve to pull out a certain argument: "Until you have a job and support this family on your own, your opinion doesn't matter." I suppose the line would carry more weight if she was capable of doing those things, but she's not, and that kind of makes it offensive. However, I should take your advice, Tyler, and treat her as if she's completely honest. I should agree that the best thing to do is run the family farther into debt in order to put my daughter in child care and attempt to financially support her bar tab. Never mind that she's an alcoholic who endangers herself and others on a regular basis. Pointing out the facts is just "name-calling", isn't it, Tyler? Seriously--worrying about alcoholism is just an insult to her, isn't it, Tyler? That is, in effect, what you're saying. What I'm asserting, and what you seem to be missing, Tyler, is that such a situation resembles our political situation. I'm just as disrespectful in the act of considering her alcoholism as I am in considering any other bullshit line, right? So the fucking point, Tyler, is quite simple. That you have missed it results entirely from your own arrogance and cynicism: Yes, Tyler, they can learn. It's a great theoretical hope. But the reality is that they're not learning. This is a problem. Oh, whoops. I didn't mean to offend you by calling something what it is. Actually, that's wrong, but I know what you mean. Oh, whoops, I didn't mean to offend you by pointing out the factual inaccuracy of your statement. My apologies. I will amend my behavior now: • Tyler, you're such a bloody genius I can't believe it. You've done such a marvelous job of explaining why facts should have no bearing on decision-making processes that I can't believe we're all so stupid down here in the U.S. of A. for giving a damn about public policy in the first place. Thank you for setting me straight. I'll never utter another word of criticism about the Bush administration again, and especially those criticisms that are factually-based. After all, facts do nothing to assist the political discourse, and that's why conservatives so rightly want to duck them all the time. Do you realize that these criticisms, that Cheney is violent or insensitive, that Bush is stupid, or that Rumsfeld is a lying sack of something unpleasant derive from legitimate political points gone unanswered? Jesus, Tyler, if conservatives could simply employ facts and reason to undermine the accusations, that would be one thing. For all the examples I hand you that show what I'm looking at, all you come back with is generalized rhetoric. How about addressing the points and telling me what I'm missing? Here, let's take some election-season discussion: John Kerry and communication. • John Kerry made a mistake by focusing on his Vietnam experience. - Yet it was a daily headline demanding a response. Should Kerry have simply been a "liberal elitist" and ignored the growing concerns of voters? • But the focus on Vietnam came about because John Kerry himself raised the issue. - Yet, and this is a testament to the nature of public-opinion surveys, all indications were that the people wanted a leader with military experience. • So the people wanted a discussion of military experience, but John Kerry failed to communicate his point. - Yet in the wake of the Swift Vets, there were the daily headlines and conservative outbursts in support of a thoroughly-debunked assertion. • Does that mean that John Kerry answered the people on an issue they said they wanted to discuss but didn't really want to discuss? - That may be the case. There are other explanations involving America's preoccupation with minutiae, a symptom of our luxury. But by and large people chose sensationalism over facts. What was the Bush administration's reaction? Called upon to denounce the Swift Vets, the Bush camp merely attacked the First Amendment, an argument the Democrats were altogether too willing to condone. How did Bush attack the First Amendment? When asked to condemn the lies of the Swift Vets, Bush and his campaign chose to argue about 527's in general. The term "527 loophole" is actually a misnomer, and bears all the hallmarks of being disingenuous. The "loophole" exists because you cannot by law stifle that part of the debate. The issue comes back to one of restraint, as evidenced by MoveOn's removal of an advert that rightly or wrongly compared Bush to the Nazis. To imply that "closing the 527 loophole" would solve the problem of disingenuous expression in political campaigns is a smokescreen, and the people bought it because it required the least investment of thought. To "close the 527 loophole" means to prevent unofficial campaign organizations or individuals from expressing themselves freely during one of the most vital periods of American expression--the height of our political cycle. At no time could even Chris Matthews--acting as the liberal hammer on the Swift Vets--dent the American devotion to sensationalism. The issue hurt Kerry, and it was never real to begin with. Apparently, to be disgusted at the facts is inappropriate. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't carry on the other side of the aisle. Take gay marriage, for instance. How is complying with the law "circumventing the will of the people"? Only if we compare the action to a nonexistent law. And now, as a result of this oversight, which conservatives insist upon, people have voted to oppose the U.S. Constitution. And, as we saw with Colorado Amendment 2, we can expect that the courts will strike down these laws fashioned in defiance of the Constitution. And, as with Amendment 2, the supporters will feel their Constitutional right to abrogate the Constitution--a nonexistent right at that--is violated by "activist judges". Bush? He's unfit to serve the office. Does that sound harsh? Hey, he's the one who refuses to enforce the Constitution until it is amended to his satisfaction. And yet to say he betrays his oath is "name-calling". Surely you can't expect me to take such an exaggerated point seriously. And surely you recognize that people resort to banter when substantive discussion is not a possibility. "Adding nothing to the world"? When you're so concerned about hyperbole, perhaps you should be more vigilant about your own. I tend to believe that people like you, who draw an arbitrary line in the sand and take a position that has the effect of empowering society's woes have nothing to offer the world. But I know you do. So get off it. Actually, you've described the American political arena rather aptly. The question is, How do you change it? If I'm a socialist, and I use capitalist principles to build funds to execute my socialistic vision, does that mean I'm now a capitalist? American politics is a system that one must enter in order to change. And yes, that entry demands--the people love it and won't live without it--a certain amount of vice. What you advocate is a de facto proposition that people simply not enter the political dialogue, and leave it as a monologue recited by people who have no respect for the facts but expect their word to be law. That such a position aids conservatism by hindering the application of common sense, reality, or simple truth in the political discourse is reflected when you bring your point to address the actual issues motivating such severe disagreement between the parties. From the theoretic vacuum, yes, that hurts the left. But from a realistic perspective, it actually has greater returns in the short-term than quiet, dispassionate recitation of the facts. (Remember that one of Michael Dukakis' big drawbacks in 1988 was that he was even more dispassionate than Poppy Bush. Americans despise dispassion.) So for those liberals, it's a feeling of damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't. Help me out. Where and when in the human endeavor did this begin? As to your question, Tyler, you have documented the problem aptly: • Were you around let's say someone who was for the war in Iraq, and even ready to try and debate with them civilly, and they looked at you and said "You know who are a bunch of pansy ass pussy idiots? Everyone against the war! Haha! Liberals are stupid and wusses!" would you be prone to listen to them? Now perhaps you missed it, but you've noted the exact sentiment motivating the "jokes". And this is something that bugs me in general; it's not cause for specific resentment, but perhaps you can do what other advocates of such cut-and-snip history have failed to do: Would you leap into a fight on one person's behalf if you didn't know the circumstances? What you've done, essentially, is walked into the room, seen a fight taking place, and thrown your punches for justice. What you don't realize in that act, however, is that you're throwing your punches on behalf of the aggressor. People do it for their friends all the time. Two guys in a bar get into it, and suddenly their friends are behind them, hell or high water. Bob's friends only care that Jack hit Bob. They don't care that Bob smacked Jack with a beer bottle to start with and is continuing his hostile press. They don't care that Jack and his friends wonder why there's a fight afoot. They don't care that their actions are highly irrational. Give Bob my regards, since you're so close with him, eh? Ever read Clive Barker? How about the novel Weaveworld? Go read the first page, the first section of the story. It starts with the phrase, "Nothing ever begins", and goes on to explain itself from there. Despite its narrative utility, the passage also reflects on an observable truth about humans. If we presume that the undetermined (B) involves rational consideration, patient explanation, and excessive courtesy to the damnably rude, I must stress to you that we're already past that point. I have no specific objection to trying it again, but there's a lot on the line right now and there's absolutely no indication that the method will bring any greater success than it has at other times. Rational, patient consideration takes too much effort for many, and that's where the problem starts. It's like one of our friends here at Sciforums wrote of the gay-marriage debate. He doesn't hate gays. He doesn't wish to discriminate against gays. All he's asking for is that gays be excepted from equal protection under the law. It's nice rhetoric, but why is it that so many people say, "I don't hate _____," right before they lay out why that group is inferior and ought not be afforded basic human respect and decency? No, he doesn't hate gays, he merely thinks they're not deserving of the same decency and respect people are expected to afford each other. So he doesn't hate gays, he just holds them in exceptional contempt and demands hateful results. Do you understand? The American political arena includes a sizable, influential faction that thinks this way: We don't hate, we just advocate it. Now then, how many years must endure such a political dialogue before attempting to change its tone? Yet to assert that the "we don't hate" argument is a fallacy is "name-calling". It's true. "I'm not killing you, I'm merely plunging a knife repeatedly into your chest. That I haven't said I want to kill you means I'm not actually killing you." And that's how it goes. And that's what you're advocating, whether you understand the implications of your argument or not. Right now, your undefined option (B) is most clearly marked by ideas and actions that get the left trounced. So come on down here and prove the efficacy of your theory. The apparent faults of your position are numerous: • Your general theory appears to presume an arbitrary starting point that either side could argue against, based on what it indicates. For instance, in my life, it is the GOP that has consistently lowered the bar for political discourse. Yes, politicians lie, but Americans generally know how to read between the lines. However, with each new lowering of the bar, there is confusion, and if the Democrats don't hop on--so the theory goes--they'll get waxed. And they do. Perhaps you remember, as a recent example, John Kerry's great fumble in trying to not respond to the Swift lies. He wasn't aggressive enough at the outset, and the people let the liars define the argument. Of course, as your theory goes, pointing out the obvious fact that these gentlemen and their doting wives were lying, well, that would just be name-calling, and that does nobody any good. So once again, we're left wondering how truth and reality are so detrimental to the process. • I have included repeated examples of what I'm observing. These seem to have no effect on your argument whatsoever. I cannot help you understand if you simply ignore the examples and don't tell me what you think is wrong with them. • As a result, you appear to be advocating a high-minded and noble principle that I would agree with in any isolated, sanitized theoretic consideration. However, reality suggests that such isolated, sanitized considerations as your position requires do not exist. Nor do they address the fundamental problem. • You seem to have forgotten, partially as a result to your arbitrary assignation of an advent, the nature of what constitutes that admittedly difficult-to-define "(B)" option you describe. Thus, what you're proposing is nothing more than the surrender of the debate in what history would describe as a vain hope that people come around and follow the less-sensational, more honest, and more beneficial political theory. • Yes, I think focusing on how stupid Bush is, or how evil Cheney is, or how downright soulless Rumsfeld is constitutes old news. But if you actually pay attention to the political dialogue in this country, you'll find that the old news is about the only thing that gets a response out of the conservative faction. Look at them squirming and sweating, too. At least now we know they're not dead. Some conservative planks: • War: Jingoism disconnected from any factual basis is an appropriate reason to make war against another. • Economy: Repeatedly exacerbating the wealth-distribution gap will ease the wealth-distribution gap, despite the failure of the practice to have done so in the past. • Law: Adhering to the Constitution is "judicial activism"; adhering to the Constitution is "liberal elitism"; if the people cannot abrogate the Constitution while still holding it in partial effect, their constitutional rights are violated. • Social Overview: Unlike the liberal view that we should make things better for everyone, things only get better for everyone if they get disproportionately better for "me". The war plank rejects fact. The economic plank rejects fact. The law plank rejects fact. The social overview plank is fundamentally self-contradictory. And yet, as you have argued, calling these things what they are--e.g. lies, &c.--does nobody any good. And that's similar, yet again, to the addict. Rejecting false justifications for behavior does nobody any good, right? I think your frame of reference is quite simply displaced. Compared to the facts of the American political arena, what you advocate is that liberals simply shouldn't even try. And I thank you for pointing that out. After all, liberals are so stupid in this country that they can't figure out that all their problems will go away once they stop caring about their quality of life. Like you said, they're just attention whores; and this is quite different, then, from the conservatives who have every reason to lie and carry on as they do. So thank you for giving them yet another reason. As you've shown, that vicious brand of politics is effective. After all, it's convinced you.
Coffee: Vodka is meant to be straight. Now fix me a drink of grain alcohol and rainwater and make yourself whatever you like. Hmm, Coffee, Xev, mocking Undecided/Nico....alls we need is Rappaccini and a dating forum. Now to Undecided: Because I cannot make a blanket generalization that holds true for all humans who think homosexual sex is filthy. I am sure there are some who think that not only is heterosexual sex dirty, homosexual sex is plain filthy. I should assert that they're all rather sticky. Now, as a point of logic, I am pointing out that belief x is not necessarily equal to belief y. Gay sex is dirty does not equal hetero sex is dirty, although a person may indeed hold both beliefs. There is no fault here, only your inability to correctly draw conclusions from what I write. Un.....collaborated? I'm sorry I don't have people helping me insult you, Undecided. Rest assured that the next time I insult you, it will be collaborated upon. By the way, I am not slandering you. At the very most I am libelling you, but that would be very hard to prove. What on Frigg's green earth are "ppl" and why do you "ad hom" them? Why should you care about my sincerity, Holden? I realize with your disposition, you must be starved for interpersonal contact but still!
Xev: Straight Vodka? I can handle it. I don't like it, though. Give me a White Russian any day. The Don Juan website? I was there yesterday, they still don't have a clue. Tiassa: Yes, we love our Dick.
Coffee: You either like it or you hate it. You're still trolling the Don Juans? You're almost as pathetic as http://www.livejournal.com/users/_countdown/ <--- this guy, unless he's killed himself yet. Although...you do seem to have a strange animal magnetism these days. Now that Undecided has lost faith in me, I....oh....oh take me now, Coffee! I love my dick too.
Xev: On occasion. Everyday there’s an awkward teenage boy asking the question: "How do I get a date with so and so?" And I'm there with my answer: "Hit her on the head with a big rock." Tiassa, horrible joke. You disappoint me.
tiassa i thought you would use that to make some comment about the one on her armPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa: The one I have pickled on my basement shelf, obviously! I got the jars at a hardware store, the cashier's name was Sharon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Coffee: Just rocks? Thought you'd have moved up.
You're not innovative. No woman will want to be assaulted by you if you aren't innovative. Here's what you need: http://www.enotalone.com/article/58.html Be sure to bludgeon quality girls like this: http://www.enotalone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42534
Xev: The hand puppet always ends up giving me head. Yeah, those girls are a real catch. Speaking of which, I was introduced (over the holiday weekend) to a nice Christian girl that my Dad works with. She wasn't all that bad. I don't think she'd laugh at my necrophilia jokes, though.
Coffee: Oh dear lord, that's not the hand puppet, that's the sleazy whore you paid five dollars. You were just too drunk to remember. I want a nice Christian girl with really low self esteem. That way I can manipulate her into working shitty jobs for low pay and giving me her earnings.
Xev: I made a promise, long ago, that I would stop drinking. I break that promise everyday. I was planning on dating her, screwing her, leaving her, and crushing the idea of her God under my foot. She'll be that whore on the corner in six months, guaranteed. If I can talk her into an abortion, all the better. I'll just tell her that pulling out works.
Coffee: I made that promise too. But I had my fingers crossed, so it doesn't count. You should make sure she's a virgin. Court her for months, then drug her drink. Call her the next morning and leave a message on her machine saying that you refuse to date a woman of loose morals and thought she was better than that. Between the memory loss and the guilt she won't dream of calling the cops. /edit: How the hell does that warrent a "merry christmas with love" ad?
Xev: I regret it. Specifically when I log onto Amazon.com and start buying things in my drunken state. Which I just did. Yes, then I could let it slip that she’s a dirty little whore. Everyone at her church would know and “not pass judgment” on her. Because Christians hate to pass judgment on people. Indeed. Aren't we basically talking about rape here? Ah, well, it’s not rape if she can’t say no, and that’s why I own ball-gags
Coffee: "Rape" is such a harsh word...I mean, it's more like "non-consensual lovemaking" than something as frumpy and depressing as "rape". You should take pictures too.
