As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

1131416181960

Posts

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.

    Why?
    Because if you want to choose a candidate for a party you should at least be invested in that party enough to call yourself a member.

    I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?

    That's why we have the general election. If you don't like who a party is selecting to represent them, then go make your own party or join the party. Hell, the candidate could could always run without the endorsement. On that note, you seem to be forgetting that this is about an endorsement. No matter how much I like candidate X, I can't go out and give him your endorsement.
    I should probably also tell you that, if you don't like a state's selection for senator, you can always move to that state.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Hey that reminds me. Anyone remember that YouTube video that went up that was like, "OCTOBER 15th, BE READY FOR THE REVOLUTION" or whatever? What happened with that?

    You don't remember the revolution? It was pretty wild.

    cake was served. It was pretty awesome.

    Deebaser on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.

    Why?

    Because it's not your party. The person selected by the primaries represents the party. If you are not a member of that party, he is not representing you, so you don't get a say. That's why the state of Texas can't drive up to vote against Barney Frank.

    You're mixing your metaphors. This isn't talking about people influencing people who don't represent them, it's about people influences people who do represent them. It's a national office, and I reside in the nation. Why should I be excluded from influencing who gets on the ballot?

    Fine. Write him in. Hell, you can check off his name if he's Lieberman. All losing the primary means is that he doesn't have the backing of a group you are not a member of.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    holy shit. This lolrepublican thread sure has been ridiculous in the last two days.

    Deebaser on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.

    Why?
    Because if you want to choose a candidate for a party you should at least be invested in that party enough to call yourself a member.

    I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?

    That's why we have the general election. If you don't like who a party is selecting to represent them, then go make your own party or join the party. Hell, the candidate could could always run without the endorsement. On that note, you seem to be forgetting that this is about an endorsement. No matter how much I like candidate X, I can't go out and give him your endorsement.
    I should probably also tell you that, if you don't like a state's selection for senator, you can always move to that state.

    Again, I'm not really seeing it here. I shouldn't be allowed to influence who gets to run for President of the United States because...well, just because. What is wrong with open primaries? Because I really just see benefits to that process.

    moniker on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.

    Why?
    Because if you want to choose a candidate for a party you should at least be invested in that party enough to call yourself a member.

    I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?
    If you're not a Republican, I don't think you should be able to choose who gets to use their party infrastructure and resources. Who you think is the most qualified candidate is irrelevant; primaries are about the rank and file. If you think they choose an unqualified candidate then you can cast your vote against them in the GE.
    They are in NY-23, to the point where the Democrats might well steal a deep red seat out from under the GOP's noses and the base doesn't even seem to care.
    NY-23 is different. There was no primary; if there was, a more conservative candidate probably would've won and there would be no split.

    Kanamit on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.

    Why?
    Because if you want to choose a candidate for a party you should at least be invested in that party enough to call yourself a member.

    I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?
    If you're not a Republican, I don't think you should be able to choose who gets to use their party infrastructure and resources. Who you think is the most qualified candidate is irrelevant; primaries are about the rank and file. If you think they choose an unqualified candidate then you can cast your vote against them in the GE.

    No, primaries are about getting the most qualified candidate on the ballot in order to win the office and govern effectively. If this is truly about having the party infrastructure and resources choose who they are going to be used for then primaries themselves should be done away with, or there should be a poll tax implemented of $x or y hours donated.

    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    moniker on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    Its basically that your position doesn't make logical sense.

    You are already free if you choose, you can join the party. No one is stopping you.

    You can already contribute your choice to see if they become president.

    Al_wat on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    Its basically that your position doesn't make logical sense.

    You are already free if you choose, you can join the party. No one is stopping you.

    You can already contribute your choice to see if they become president.

    So the problem with open primaries is...you don't like them?

    moniker on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    Its basically that your position doesn't make logical sense.

    You are already free if you choose, you can join the party. No one is stopping you.

    You can already contribute your choice to see if they become president.

    So the problem with open primaries is...you don't like them?

    I only don't like them because it doesn't make sense to me.

    Political parties are open to membership. You can join it, and vote on the issue if you choose.

    It already is an "open primary" in this manner.

    Besides that, open primaries in the way you describe are contrary to the fundamental idea of why you would even want to have political parties.


    edit: It seems to me to be as much of a contradiction as allowing me, a Canadian citizen, to be allowed to vote in your presidential election. Why shouldn't I be allowed? Who your president is affects me a great deal in real ways.

    Of course my anaolgy fails because I am not free to just become a US citizen as easily as you can just join the Republican party, as a US citizen.

    Al_wat on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    No, primaries are about getting the most qualified candidate on the ballot in order to win the office and govern effectively. If this is truly about having the party infrastructure and resources choose who they are going to be used for then primaries themselves should be done away with, or there should be a poll tax implemented of $x or y hours donated.
    I never said that you needed to be an activist, just that you needed to show a bare level of interest in the party. If primaries are about choosing who everyone (rather than just the party rank and file) thinks is the most qualified candidate for the ballot, then why not just eliminate primaries and switch to a nonpartisan runoff system?

    Kanamit on
  • Crazy LarryCrazy Larry Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    Its basically that your position doesn't make logical sense.

    You are already free if you choose, you can join the party. No one is stopping you.

    You can already contribute your choice to see if they become president.

    So the problem with open primaries is...you don't like them?

    I only don't like them because it doesn't make sense to me.

    Political parties are open to membership. You can join it, and vote on the issue if you choose.

    It already is an "open primary" in this manner.

    Besides that, open primaries in the way you describe are contrary to the fundamental idea of why you would even want to have political parties.


    edit: It seems to me to be as much of a contradiction as allowing me, a Canadian citizen, to be allowed to vote in your presidential election. Why shouldn't I be allowed? Who your president is affects me a great deal in real ways.

    Of course my anaolgy fails because I am not free to just become a US citizen as easily as you can just join the Republican party, as a US citizen.

    One problem with this is that in many areas, particularly when you get into local level voting, is that politics may be dominated so strongly by one party that the winner of the primary is more or less guaranteed to win the general election, making the primary the de facto general election. Where I live, for instance, is a small town with a major university, making democrats the dominant party and pretty much shutting republicans out of anything below the state level. It's at such a level that republicans rarely even bother running for any city seats, and often not even for county level positions, so that republican voters are often shut out of any say on who gets elected to office around here due to closed primaries.

    Crazy Larry on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    IMO you should at least take the time to register as a member of a party if you want a say in who they nominate.

    Why?
    Because if you want to choose a candidate for a party you should at least be invested in that party enough to call yourself a member.

    I'm not seeing it. This isn't a primary to determine who gets to run as the President of Republicans, but the President of the United States. Why shouldn't I be able to influence that process in order to ensure the person that I feel is best qualified winds up in the office?
    If you're not a Republican, I don't think you should be able to choose who gets to use their party infrastructure and resources. Who you think is the most qualified candidate is irrelevant; primaries are about the rank and file. If you think they choose an unqualified candidate then you can cast your vote against them in the GE.

    No, primaries are about getting the most qualified candidate on the ballot in order to win the office and govern effectively. If this is truly about having the party infrastructure and resources choose who they are going to be used for then primaries themselves should be done away with, or there should be a poll tax implemented of $x or y hours donated.

    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    That might be true if there were laws that required that a candidate be nominated by a party to be on a ballot. Unfortunately, Lieberman is still in office, despite losing the primary. If that candidate you like decides to discontinue his run after losing in the primary, then tough titties.
    If the primaries were about electing the best candidate overall, based on the opinion of the general population, then they would be the general election. If you haven't noticed, we already have one of those.
    Parties are allowed to select who they think is the candidate that best deserves their support in any way they choose. While there have been times when this has been done by those in party leadership positions, the current consensus is that party members should be able to decide who gets their support. Letting nonmembers decide goes against the very definition of a nomination.

    If that's too complicated, I'll simplify: you can pick your friends, you can pick your candidate, but you can't pick your friends' candidate.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ArchonexArchonex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    I only don't like them because it doesn't make sense to me.

    Political parties are open to membership. You can join it, and vote on the issue if you choose.

    It already is an "open primary" in this manner.

    Besides that, open primaries in the way you describe are contrary to the fundamental idea of why you would even want to have political parties.

    Except political parties in the US are prone to periods of extreme asshattery and corruption that can be very detrimental to the economic and social health of the country.

    Hell, if you don't believe me, take a look at the Republican party at the moment. They're pulling out all the stops to destroy and sabotage political discourse in the country at the moment, just because their party has lost the advantage in the political arena.



    An open primary system has it's disadvantages. Mainly, it removes part of the centralized nature of the two party system, making it harder for your average viewer to really tell who's for what. But then, in todays political situation, a political will gladly lie to millions of people anyways.


    There's also the fact that the current two party system is extremely fucked up in how it treats additional parties. Theres been instances where the parties, and even the government, have ruthlessly crushed out the opposition in the past.

    In fact, if I recall correctly, a town lost it's right to vote, or something similar to that, because they wanted to do away with a local, two party system in their town some time ago.

    Archonex on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    Except political parties in the US are prone to periods of extreme asshattery and corruption that can be very detrimental to the economic and social health of the country.

    Hell, if you don't believe me, take a look at the Republican party at the moment. They're pulling out all the stops to destroy and sabotage political discourse in the country at the moment, just because their party has lost the advantage in the political arena.



    An open primary system has it's disadvantages. Mainly, it removes the centralized nature of the two party system, making it harder for your average viewer to really tell who's for what without them doing their own, personal research. But then, in todays political situation, a politician will gladly lie to millions of people anyways, so that's something of a requirement to be properly informed.


    There's also the fact that the current two party system is extremely fucked up in how it treats additional parties. There's been instances where the parties, and even the government, have ruthlessly crushed out the opposition to it in the past.

    In fact, if I recall correctly, a town lost it's right to vote, or something similar to that, because they wanted to do away with a local, two party system in their town some time ago.
    I don't doubt it (except for that last part). But political parties no longer make their nominations in smoke filled rooms; if you feel that neither party is acceptable then you can join one and vote for reformist candidates.

    I don't necessarily think that the two party system is as bad as it's made out to be, but implementing IRV and/or fusion voting would go a long way toward making third parties less pointless.

    Kanamit on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    Its basically that your position doesn't make logical sense.

    You are already free if you choose, you can join the party. No one is stopping you.

    You can already contribute your choice to see if they become president.

    So the problem with open primaries is...you don't like them?

    I only don't like them because it doesn't make sense to me.

    Political parties are open to membership. You can join it, and vote on the issue if you choose.

    It already is an "open primary" in this manner.

    Besides that, open primaries in the way you describe are contrary to the fundamental idea of why you would even want to have political parties.


    edit: It seems to me to be as much of a contradiction as allowing me, a Canadian citizen, to be allowed to vote in your presidential election. Why shouldn't I be allowed? Who your president is affects me a great deal in real ways.

    Of course my anaolgy fails because I am not free to just become a US citizen as easily as you can just join the Republican party, as a US citizen.

    It fails for a number of reasons. The most similar parallel would be allowing resident aliens to vote. Which I'm in favour of as well.

    moniker on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are these seemingly major negatives associated with open primaries?

    Its basically that your position doesn't make logical sense.

    You are already free if you choose, you can join the party. No one is stopping you.

    You can already contribute your choice to see if they become president.

    So the problem with open primaries is...you don't like them?

    I only don't like them because it doesn't make sense to me.

    Political parties are open to membership. You can join it, and vote on the issue if you choose.

    It already is an "open primary" in this manner.

    Besides that, open primaries in the way you describe are contrary to the fundamental idea of why you would even want to have political parties.


    edit: It seems to me to be as much of a contradiction as allowing me, a Canadian citizen, to be allowed to vote in your presidential election. Why shouldn't I be allowed? Who your president is affects me a great deal in real ways.

    Of course my anaolgy fails because I am not free to just become a US citizen as easily as you can just join the Republican party, as a US citizen.

    It fails for a number of reasons. The most similar parallel would be allowing resident aliens to vote. Which I'm in favour of as well.

    Except the aliens are actually in the country.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    That might be true if there were laws that required that a candidate be nominated by a party to be on a ballot. Unfortunately, Lieberman is still in office, despite losing the primary. If that candidate you like decides to discontinue his run after losing in the primary, then tough titties.
    If the primaries were about electing the best candidate overall, based on the opinion of the general population, then they would be the general election. If you haven't noticed, we already have one of those.
    Parties are allowed to select who they think is the candidate that best deserves their support in any way they choose. While there have been times when this has been done by those in party leadership positions, the current consensus is that party members should be able to decide who gets their support. Letting nonmembers decide goes against the very definition of a nomination.

    If that's too complicated, I'll simplify: you can pick your friends, you can pick your candidate, but you can't pick your friends' candidate.

    I'm not trying to pick my friend's candidates, I'm trying to pick my candidate in a primary election. And its hardly a consensus view given that 18 states have open primaries. Saying that closed primaries are the only way to decide who gets the party nomination doesn't seem much more than loyalty purges of a different sort.

    moniker on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    That might be true if there were laws that required that a candidate be nominated by a party to be on a ballot. Unfortunately, Lieberman is still in office, despite losing the primary. If that candidate you like decides to discontinue his run after losing in the primary, then tough titties.
    If the primaries were about electing the best candidate overall, based on the opinion of the general population, then they would be the general election. If you haven't noticed, we already have one of those.
    Parties are allowed to select who they think is the candidate that best deserves their support in any way they choose. While there have been times when this has been done by those in party leadership positions, the current consensus is that party members should be able to decide who gets their support. Letting nonmembers decide goes against the very definition of a nomination.

    If that's too complicated, I'll simplify: you can pick your friends, you can pick your candidate, but you can't pick your friends' candidate.

    I'm not trying to pick my friend's candidates, I'm trying to pick my candidate in a primary election. And its hardly a consensus view given that 18 states have open primaries. Saying that closed primaries are the only way to decide who gets the party nomination doesn't seem much more than loyalty purges of a different sort.

    You can pick your candidate. Just send out a card saying "Candidate X has the nomination of the Moniker Party," and that person can put an "M" next to his name of every ballot, provided he gets the signatures to get on the ballot. What you want to do is decide who wins someone else's nomination by winning someone else's primary.
    I also don't see how a closed primary is a loyalty purge, as you can change parties at any time, and no party has barriers to joining.

    Now, I must ask, what do you think the point of a nomination or endorsement is?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The unironic use of "sheeple" is the fastest way to make people reject whatever crazy it is that you're peddling.

    never said sheeple, just more refering to you people. did you watch the video, guess not, but bet you are still willing to comment on it though...

    I watched your video. They did a really nice editing job with the out of context quotes (and seriously, Ben Bernanke not remembering which banks got money isn't that spectacular. If you asked me where my money went in the last week I couldn't give you an answer) and the threatening music, as well as the spooky timelapse at the beginning.

    In terms of validity? That shit was about as believable as the trailers for 2012.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    That might be true if there were laws that required that a candidate be nominated by a party to be on a ballot. Unfortunately, Lieberman is still in office, despite losing the primary. If that candidate you like decides to discontinue his run after losing in the primary, then tough titties.
    If the primaries were about electing the best candidate overall, based on the opinion of the general population, then they would be the general election. If you haven't noticed, we already have one of those.
    Parties are allowed to select who they think is the candidate that best deserves their support in any way they choose. While there have been times when this has been done by those in party leadership positions, the current consensus is that party members should be able to decide who gets their support. Letting nonmembers decide goes against the very definition of a nomination.

    If that's too complicated, I'll simplify: you can pick your friends, you can pick your candidate, but you can't pick your friends' candidate.

    I'm not trying to pick my friend's candidates, I'm trying to pick my candidate in a primary election. And its hardly a consensus view given that 18 states have open primaries. Saying that closed primaries are the only way to decide who gets the party nomination doesn't seem much more than loyalty purges of a different sort.

    You can pick your candidate. Just send out a card saying "Candidate X has the nomination of the Moniker Party," and that person can put an "M" next to his name of every ballot, provided he gets the signatures to get on the ballot. What you want to do is decide who wins someone else's nomination by winning someone else's primary.

    Not really, no.

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Now, I must ask, what do you think the point of a nomination or endorsement is?

    To win an election and govern.

    moniker on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Now, I must ask, what do you think the point of a nomination or endorsement is?

    To win an election and govern.
    What is the point of having political parties then?

    Kanamit on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    That might be true if there were laws that required that a candidate be nominated by a party to be on a ballot. Unfortunately, Lieberman is still in office, despite losing the primary. If that candidate you like decides to discontinue his run after losing in the primary, then tough titties.
    If the primaries were about electing the best candidate overall, based on the opinion of the general population, then they would be the general election. If you haven't noticed, we already have one of those.
    Parties are allowed to select who they think is the candidate that best deserves their support in any way they choose. While there have been times when this has been done by those in party leadership positions, the current consensus is that party members should be able to decide who gets their support. Letting nonmembers decide goes against the very definition of a nomination.

    If that's too complicated, I'll simplify: you can pick your friends, you can pick your candidate, but you can't pick your friends' candidate.

    I'm not trying to pick my friend's candidates, I'm trying to pick my candidate in a primary election. And its hardly a consensus view given that 18 states have open primaries. Saying that closed primaries are the only way to decide who gets the party nomination doesn't seem much more than loyalty purges of a different sort.

    You can pick your candidate. Just send out a card saying "Candidate X has the nomination of the Moniker Party," and that person can put an "M" next to his name of every ballot, provided he gets the signatures to get on the ballot. What you want to do is decide who wins someone else's nomination by winning someone else's primary.

    Not really, no.

    Why not? We have the Conservative and Green Parties, and they're fucking jokes, so what's to stop you from starting a party and asking a candidate to represent you. If he doesn't want to, that's your problem.

    And, in case you didn't see it, what exactly do you think nominations and endorsements are?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Now, I must ask, what do you think the point of a nomination or endorsement is?

    To win an election and govern.

    Well, there's the problem. You don't know what endorsements and nominations are.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    My troll alarm is going off

    Dude there are real people way worse than this guy.

    This guy is pretty much the shambling, moaning zombie of Poe's Law.

    Well we should probably sticky one of these threads then, this guy reminds me alot of the "Young Conservative" guy who basically hadn't done more than cursory research on most of the things he was arguing about, except instead of starting somewhat reasonable and moving crazy this guy is starting crazy and... well staying crazy.

    I'm not sure if it's been gone over in this thread, but most of us weren't super fans of the bank bailouts (more accurately, weren't fans of how they were essentially blank checks with no conditions), and have all kinds of issues with "Big Brother', specifically Obama and telecom immunity, and all related things

    The fear of globalization to the point of a mega government is a new concern since my arrival on these forums, and hey maybe there's some validity. It's good that a one world government is not even remotely possible in the political landscape of almost any country.


    Is there a sector of psychology dealing specifically with terror of government? I'm legitimately curious

    override367 on
  • KaeqKaeq Registered User
    edited October 2009
    One of my philosophy lecturers has an interest in the epistemology of conspiracy theories (which is kind of related). His book (an edited collection) is Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate (edited by David Coady)... but I haven't read it, so here's me not being able to offer an opinion on it. Also it's prohibitively expensive.

    Kaeq on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kaeq wrote: »
    One of my philosophy lecturers has an interest in the epistemology of conspiracy theories (which is kind of related). His book (an edited collection) is Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate (edited by David Coady)... but I haven't read it, so here's me not being able to offer an opinion on it. Also it's prohibitively expensive.

    Hm... That sounds suspicious. What do they have to hide?

    Raiden333 on
    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
  • KaeqKaeq Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Kaeq wrote: »
    One of my philosophy lecturers has an interest in the epistemology of conspiracy theories (which is kind of related). His book (an edited collection) is Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate (edited by David Coady)... but I haven't read it, so here's me not being able to offer an opinion on it. Also it's prohibitively expensive.

    Hm... That sounds suspicious. What do they have to hide?

    Everyth-

    I mean: nothing at all.

    Kaeq on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, this is no longer entertaining.

    It's never that entertaining to realize that someone in the world actually believes in such stupid things.

    It is if it's a total stranger. When it's your mother and old friends from highschool though, it stops being fun. And polite. AND STARTS GETTING REAL.

    I'd pay cash monies to see a reality show about a 20-something white guy who is liberal and voted for Obama having to deal with his parents/relatives being rabidly anti-Obama, Fox News worshipping, birther teabaggers.

    I'd pay double if the parents/relatives are intelligent in every other aspect...except when it comes to Fox News/Obama.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Futt BuckerFutt Bucker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I love going back and reading Bush-era conspiracy theories that never happened. I think my two favorite are:

    "Hilary Clinton is already in place to be the next President. After her will be Jeb Bush. End the Clinton-Bush dynasty now. Vote McCain."

    and

    "Mark my words, shortly before the 2008 election there will be another major terrorist attack on US soil, manufactured by the Bush administration. He will use the opportunity to suspend the elections and truly become a tyrant."

    Futt Bucker on
    My color is black to the blind
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I love going back and reading Bush-era conspiracy theories that never happened. I think my two favorite are:

    "Hilary Clinton is already in place to be the next President. After her will be Jeb Bush. End the Clinton-Bush dynasty now. Vote McCain."

    and

    "Mark my words, shortly before the 2008 election there will be another major terrorist attack on US soil, manufactured by the Bush administration. He will use the opportunity to suspend the elections and truly become a tyrant."

    I'd love to see the denial those people would put up when questioned about what happened to those theories. Either, "No that wasn't me" or "OBAMA IS PART OF IT."

    Speaking of, my friend hasn't gotten back to me about the contrails thing ever since the wiki article linking.

    Henroid on
  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I work at a TV Station that broadcasts to the NY-23 district, and I just had to chime in that this is flat out insanity around here.

    These ads are just getting more and more out there, and the most bizarre part is Hoffman running attack ads on Scozafava - when they're both supposed to be Republican, basically. Its like theyre having a primary against each other during the actual election.

    My favorite part by far though is how you'd really think Nancy Pelosi lives here if you didn't know better. BOTH the Republican and the conservative are running ads accusing the other 2 of being someone "who Nancy Pelosi would love."

    One even has an ad that has a dancing present walking up to Nancy Pelosi, because electing the Dem would be like sending Pelosi a gift!

    A dancing gift!

    mxmarks on
    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?

    MKR on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I love going back and reading Bush-era conspiracy theories that never happened. I think my two favorite are:

    "Hilary Clinton is already in place to be the next President. After her will be Jeb Bush. End the Clinton-Bush dynasty now. Vote McCain."

    and

    "Mark my words, shortly before the 2008 election there will be another major terrorist attack on US soil, manufactured by the Bush administration. He will use the opportunity to suspend the elections and truly become a tyrant."

    I'd love to see the denial those people would put up when questioned about what happened to those theories. Either, "No that wasn't me" or "OBAMA IS PART OF IT."

    Speaking of, my friend hasn't gotten back to me about the contrails thing ever since the wiki article linking.

    All conspiracy theories about new world orders and cabals that secretly run the world are stupid for just being implausible, if nothing else. If a secret cabal could actually get enough power and influence to run the world such that leaders aren't elected but installed, I'm pretty sure said cabal could hide its existence well enough to thwart the probings of your average conspiracy theorist.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?

    Remember when lots of people thought it was going to be Hillary vs Giuliani?

    Undead Scottsman on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?

    Well yeah but only one was on the ballot. In NY-23 that's not the case.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?

    Well yeah but only one was on the ballot. In NY-23 that's not the case.

    The two republicans are the two democrats in this scenario. I'm saying just because the party is split doesn't mean they will be at the end.

    Of course, they don't have an Obama rallying the troops, or a Clinton conceding in a classy way.

    MKR on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I love going back and reading Bush-era conspiracy theories that never happened. I think my two favorite are:

    "Hilary Clinton is already in place to be the next President. After her will be Jeb Bush. End the Clinton-Bush dynasty now. Vote McCain."

    and

    "Mark my words, shortly before the 2008 election there will be another major terrorist attack on US soil, manufactured by the Bush administration. He will use the opportunity to suspend the elections and truly become a tyrant."

    I'd love to see the denial those people would put up when questioned about what happened to those theories. Either, "No that wasn't me" or "OBAMA IS PART OF IT."

    Speaking of, my friend hasn't gotten back to me about the contrails thing ever since the wiki article linking.

    All conspiracy theories about new world orders and cabals that secretly run the world are stupid for just being implausible, if nothing else. If a secret cabal could actually get enough power and influence to run the world such that leaders aren't elected but installed, I'm pretty sure said cabal could hide its existence well enough to thwart the probings of your average conspiracy theorist.

    Your average conspiracy theorist is pretty much your best disinformation weapon. Plant a bunch of stupid, obvious stuff and they run off in one direction.

    Meanwhile the Bush government tries to suspend habeas corpus.

    electricitylikesme on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Remember how lots of people were going on about how McCain was a shoe-in with Obama and Clinton's fight splitting the party?

    Well yeah but only one was on the ballot. In NY-23 that's not the case.

    The two republicans are the two democrats in this scenario. I'm saying just because the party is split doesn't mean they will be at the end.

    Of course, they don't have an Obama rallying the troops, or a Clinton conceding in a classy way.
    And they aren't both Republicans, Hoffman has a different party endorsing him and the election is 8 days away.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This discussion has been closed.