Cosmictraveler said:
Until that is done I'll keep using WIKI as a source for I find it to be very unbiased.
Setting aside the fact that many American schools prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a cited resource in research papers for the observable fact of content instability and symptomatic inaccuracy, you've just offered what sounds like a politician's line, like the time Rand Paul said he didn't plagiarize Wikipedia because he credited the authors of a movie.
However, I also find this focus on a wannabe also-ran sideshow rather quite strange. Is anyone here
seriously comparing this guy to any
real candidates? I mean, I might not have much respect for the GOP field, but even I don't think so poorly of them.
To the other, I wouldn't suggest people shouldn't talk about these people as if they're serious candidates; it's good to know who we don't have to waste our time trying to take seriously.
And it's that or wondering if it is possible to run a genuine, good-faith discussion in the Politics subforum. Then again, it's hard enough to get good-faith discussions out of people in
any subforum these days.
But, honestly, there will come a point in a discussion where someone gets very offended that they aren't being taken seriously, and in some cases when this happens it does occur to me to wonder at what point that member decided to take a thread seriously and why anyone would presume his or her conduct has suddenly taken that turn.
Jokes should only be beaten like dead horses if one intends to resurrect the joke and kill it again. True, that's a debatable assertion of comedic principle, but in our case it really helps one sort the jokers from the comedians proper.
• • •
Kittamaru said:
Can you imagine the rioting there would be if this goes through?
Actually, we're more likely to see another Brooks Brothers Riot staged by Republican operatives when Obama vetoes the bill.
And remember, McConnell comes from Kentucky. You can have a party-line vote and even a Republican president to sign a Republican bill into law, and folks in Kentucky will still blame Democrats when the law does what it was designed to do and makes people miserable.
It's one of the reasons people make such rude jokes about Republican backwaters like Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa, and Louisiana. These are places full of contradiction. Small-government philosophies that specialize in targeted bureaucracy laws to destroy what offends their supremacist notions. Christian values driving hatred. Fiscal responsibility in the form of a deliberate deficit. And the thing is that sure, we want to respect their rights of conscience and all, but when their consciences demand that other people suffer, there is a functional problem.
And listen to these fucking weak imbeciles: They tremble at the thought of equal rights. They rage at the prospect of not being driven to bankruptcy by medical need. They're furious at the idea that their kids should be educated well enough to compete in the marketplace.
And the rest of us have to suffer for their delusional arrogance and ignorance and subsequent hatred.
There is a difference between acknowledging human frailty and exploiting it. While we accept as nearly axiomatic that "politicians lie", it is also true that they did not always, during my lifetime, lie in the way and to the degree that Republicans do. And that sort of political lying did not always infect the voters the way it does. These days it has gotten to the point that I appreciate the smarmy bumper stickers about being a Republican, or how many of one's liberal neighbors a person thinks he can shoot. That way I know who to keep away from any children under my care.
But that's what it comes to. You know, I used to mention from time to time how one of our Republican neighbors and I probably would have gotten along just fine over a beer and a football game. And then one day I finally went too far and pissed him off by refusing to stop calling deliberate misrepresentation intended to confuse people and change the subject dishonest. So he pitched a small fit and left. And, you know, by that time there was nothing surprising about how he did it. That is to say he behaved exactly according to archetype.
In that form, the problem is that conservatives cannot distinguish between basic differences. In questions of scandal, for instance, it could easily get confusing to the point one thinks their conservative neighbors are stupid for being unable to comprehend that, say, we probably wouldn't care about the adultery, or the closet gay affair, if said politician wasn't a "family values" thumper; with civil rights none seem to want to address the question of how equality for all must equal supremacy for some; in this thread, the question of how seriously to take this comparison of a bizarre fringe candidate to the GOP field would only reinforce
Or, as one might remind Eri Ninamori, transcending the mask isn't always a good thing.
