It's nice to get one of these types every once in a while. The kids need to see how one can go about refuting such an insane person and their crazy beliefs, and it never hurts the rest of us to brush up.
Dude there are real people way worse than this guy.
This guy is pretty much the shambling, moaning zombie of Poe's Law.
We've been over this. This is not spectacular enough to truly be Poe's zombified remains. It needs to top the Obama/ACORN vs. Michelle Malkin's commenting army war webgame.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This naive view of that globalization will lead to a Utopian peace is foolish.
Only universal empathy can create peace.
I do not believe in nationalism but in patriotism.
Patriotism and nationalism are two shades of the same absurdity. Protecting your personal interests and beliefs is reasonable, so long as it is taken to a reasonable conclusion, but patriotism is making a cult out of the dirt you happen to live on.
America has not brought the first world to the third. We have brought the third world to us.
America has allowed its own greed to leave its people poorer than those who more freely give.
The propaganda that is bought into would have us destroy our country in the name of something fake. But globalization that is forced by political powers, not coming about of its own fruition, will be fake and will only end in the loss of freedom of the people.
How else does something form naturally on a global level?
What makes politics "fake?"
Are you guys really that dumb you would trust a man with power? try reading a history book.
You may have heard of this strange new idea - democracy.
And now you wish to see a global government where power is consolidated. You do not think this will end badly? just silly.
It sure was a silly notion for cities to form counties, for counties to form states, and for states to form a nation.
But go ahead keep believing in this Utopian image that has been promised by fake prophets of peace. This certainly has never happened before.
Neither has the internet. Neither has titanium alloy wheels. Shit has to happen a first time.
And every time that people have bought into this illogical rhetoric it has ended in slavery.
CITATION NEEDED
But all of this has happened before and will happen again. And like sheep to be led to the slaughter. You can go ahead and put your faith in other men and untested theories, but I will put my faith in myself and my own works.
Do you expect a person without power to be able to do anything?
cant answer a question with a question. do you trust people with power?
That question doesn't even make sense, because as soon as you trust someone you're giving them power over you. If you never trusted anyone with power then you'd just plain trust nobody. Personally I want my roads built and my possessions protected, so I will trust people with shovels and guns and laws and power.
Fool you've doomed us all!
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
Do you expect a person without power to be able to do anything?
cant answer a question with a question. do you trust people with power?
That question doesn't even make sense, because as soon as you trust someone you're giving them power over you. If you never trusted anyone with power then you'd just plain trust nobody. Personally I want my roads built and my possessions protected, so I will trust people with shovels and guns and laws and power.
Fool you've doomed us all!
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
Simply because they are in power, no. I trust the ones I vote in to do their best to represent what I see needing done for the country, or my state, or my district. When those who I don't vote for get into positions of power, I may not trust them to represent my ideals, but I grant them the capacity to surprise me and do the occasional thing that's good or not directly opposed to my own values or creeds.
Hate the player, not the game.
Henroid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Do you expect a person without power to be able to do anything?
cant answer a question with a question. do you trust people with power?
That question doesn't even make sense, because as soon as you trust someone you're giving them power over you. If you never trusted anyone with power then you'd just plain trust nobody. Personally I want my roads built and my possessions protected, so I will trust people with shovels and guns and laws and power.
Fool you've doomed us all!
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
And what if everyone was ordered to cut off their feet? And use their shoes as spoons?
Fencingsax on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
You know what would be really funny? To just continue the thread as normal, and watch this loser flail and cry as he starves for attention.
I think I agree with this suggestion. I know catching up with the last few hours on this thread has already lowered my political IQ a couple of points...
So, last I heard, Orily was refusing to pay the $20,000 fine for filing frivolous suits. Anything come of that yet?
Doubt it. Most likely she has until a certain date to pay it / file paperwork or whatnot and nothing will happen until that date, whenever it may be.
Do you expect a person without power to be able to do anything?
cant answer a question with a question. do you trust people with power?
That question doesn't even make sense, because as soon as you trust someone you're giving them power over you. If you never trusted anyone with power then you'd just plain trust nobody. Personally I want my roads built and my possessions protected, so I will trust people with shovels and guns and laws and power.
Fool you've doomed us all!
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
You know, Police, Fire Departments, 24-hour emergency rooms
Not to mention, roads, Federally regulation of drugs and foods because not a one of us here has the funds, time or technology to properly test them ourselves, military to defend from invasion, a nifty service of people who take little pieces of paper I slip into other little pieces of paper and deliver them to a person whom I want to read my little pieces of paper, and occasionally bringing me things I order off the internet, creating the internet, creating a number of technological services that I greatly enjoy today, funding an educational system and funding research at the university level.
Do you expect a person without power to be able to do anything?
cant answer a question with a question. do you trust people with power?
That question doesn't even make sense, because as soon as you trust someone you're giving them power over you. If you never trusted anyone with power then you'd just plain trust nobody. Personally I want my roads built and my possessions protected, so I will trust people with shovels and guns and laws and power.
Fool you've doomed us all!
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
And what if everyone was ordered to cut off their feet? And use their shoes as spoons?
exactly, wait, huh whats your point?
cause dude if we were all to be compulsed to be empathetic to everyone else there sure would be some redistribution. And i doubt the total GNP of first world is enough to balance out and leave those in the first world with shit left of what they worked for.
The Republican presidential-primary process begins in 27 months. That sounds far removed, but the time for action is now if the GOP wants to nominate an electable candidate instead of one suitable for nomination but not a general-election victory.
That there has been an exodus from the GOP cannot be denied. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week found that just 20 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republican - the lowest figure since 1983.
Left behind in the party are the most conservative of voters. Their standing, coupled with the fact that the most passionate at either end of the spectrum are the most reliable primary voters, sets the stage for the nomination of someone in the mold of Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or maybe Mitt Romney. Each is well-suited to excite the base, but when it comes to expanding the tent, you can check the box marked "none of the above."
"The Republican Party's nominating process is not designed to select the strongest candidate with the broadest appeal in the large states needed to win 270 electoral votes in a general election," longtime GOP operative Roger Stone told me last week.
It's time for the GOP to reshape its primary process. Now. The party needs a new strategy to give voice to its remaining middle-of-the-road voters. Recapturing the center will demand a shift in the way the Republican Party nominates its presidential candidates. I see three options.
Change the calendar. The current emphasis on smaller states with conservative electorates subverts the more moderate voices that actually have a chance to win a general election. Example: Since 1976, only once has the winner of a contested Iowa GOP caucus gone on to win the general election (George W. Bush did it in 2000, and he ended up losing the popular vote). The New Hampshire winner, meanwhile, has gone on to claim the presidency just twice after contested primaries - and even that hasn't happened since George H.W. Bush did it in 1988.
My favored alternative? Reorganize the presidential-primary calendar so states with more moderate tendencies get a say earlier.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut. Pollster Scott Rasmussen pointed to New England for potential bellwether moderate states. He called New Hampshire "the most important state in the process."
Regional primaries. Bob Graham, a Democratic former U.S. senator and governor from Florida, once likened regional primaries to college football's Bowl Championship Series. The title game, he reasoned, "rotates . . . from year to year among the traditional bowl games." Graham's plan would similarly carve the country into five regions whose states would vote every three weeks. Like the bowl process, the regional voting order would rotate every election.
Stone told me he favored this approach because it would force candidates to appeal to every section of the country. Meanwhile, making candidates actually run through the end of the process would allow for "a longer and more thorough vetting process for the candidates" and a more exciting one for voters.
The downside? Less of what Graham has called the "political screen" that the old-school retail politicking of Iowa and New Hampshire provides. Rasmussen suggested randomly selecting a small state to lead off the regional primary season to ensure that door-knocking and living-room town halls remain a significant part of the nomination process.
Empower the party bosses. Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, points to changes instituted in the 1970s as a turning point in the way primary elections were contested. Responsibility for choosing nominees, he said, was transferred from party officials to the voters.
Rather than simply adjusting the order of this modern presidential-primary system, Jacobs said, the GOP could return to a time when party leaders had a more definitive role in choosing the party standard-bearer. The Democrats, he noted, are already moving in this direction by empowering superdelegates.
"Frankly, it doesn't matter if Iowa and New Hampshire go first - which certainly have moderate elements - or if it's Georgia and Florida and those states go first," he said. "It's the fact that in each of those states you tend to get this narrow segment of party activists driving the process."
Of course, the notion of allowing "elites" to overrule the will of the people isn't as politically viable today as it was 50 years ago. And there is certainly risk for the GOP in alienating its conservative base.
But 2012 will be a referendum on President Obama. And while conservatives might head to the voting booths kicking and screaming if the GOP nominee is too moderate for their liking, they're not going to stay at home.
As Jacobs told me: "That group, that conservative movement is now watching in Washington as Barack Obama I think is about to pass probably the most comprehensive social-welfare legislation since the New Deal. And that's going to be a very sobering sort of moment."
Time for the GOP to look beyond 2010. For 2012, the time is now.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
My point is that your hypotheticals aren't just shitty, they're downright ridiculous.
You know what would be really funny? To just continue the thread as normal, and watch this loser flail and cry as he starves for attention.
I think I agree with this suggestion. I know catching up with the last few hours on this thread has already lowered my political IQ a couple of points...
So, last I heard, Orily was refusing to pay the $20,000 fine for filing frivolous suits. Anything come of that yet?
Doubt it. Most likely she has until a certain date to pay it / file paperwork or whatnot and nothing will happen until that date, whenever it may be.
Last I heard she'd filed a motion to dismiss or something like that.
And what if everyone was ordered to cut off their feet? And use their shoes as spoons?
My soup would taste funny. And walking to the kitchen to get it would hurt. A lot.
Yeah, I read about the rickrolling thing, but I couldn't quite follow what else was going on around that. One of her sources admitted to perjury, she slept with someone else? Someone should write a soap opera around this.
'As the O'wrld Churns.'
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Okay, this is no longer entertaining.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
You're breaking my heart. I thought that title was clever.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Hey, people that aren't interested in actually discussing the topic with him, report him if you think he's a troll. Otherwise stop cluttering the thread.
Quid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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.
cause dude if we were all to be compulsed to be empathetic to everyone else there sure would be some redistribution. And i doubt the total GNP of first world is enough to balance out and leave those in the first world with shit left of what they worked for.
There are many ways to increase the total amount of wealth in the world through manipulation of its resources.
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
Again. You wouldn't necessarily have to. You hand out that much at once, it's likely going to disappear into the wrong hands in big lump sums and the entire investment is wasted. And it creates something of a welfare state that can't operate without foreign aid. You give out smaller amounts, perhaps as microloans, it costs you less, the money gets where it needs to be more often, and you have the added advantage of getting the money back when the microloan is repaid. (And if it isn't, well, not like it cost you much. Usually you're talking under $100.)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Bwahahahaha! Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992. Yes, GOP, try to win Vermont and Maine again. That'll work well.
They're talking about primaries, which is part of the point, go somewhere that might have reasonable, middle-ground conservatives in order to nominate someone that might be able to get more then the crazy person vote.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
The point of the article was that they keep losing ground in those areas or getting outright trounced because their selection process is geared towards finding the person who most appeals to their activist base, not their strongest general election candidate. Which is true to an extent, it just ignores the fact that's pretty much the definition of a primary. You can design a better primary that moderates that tendency, but you can't get rid of it and it's not as if the democrats haven't been operating under the same constraints.
Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked with George W. Bush and John McCain, suggested prioritizing Western states like Arizona and Colorado, as well as Northeastern states like Connecticut.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
The point of the article was that they keep losing ground in those areas or getting outright trounced because their selection process is geared towards finding the person who most appeals to their activist base, not their strongest general election candidate. Which is true to an extent, it just ignores the fact that's pretty much the definition of a primary. You can design a better primary that moderates that tendency, but you can't get rid of it and it's not as if the democrats haven't been operating under the same constraints.
The whole primary system as it exists needs reform, though, and that would inevitably be beneficial for the polity. Maybe it's just because I'm from Illinois and we have open primaries, but I really don't get states where you have to register with a party in order to influence who gets on their ticket. It seems counterproductive at best.
In states with open primaries, do you get to vote for both parties? I see the need to prevent spoiler votes, but I'm not keen on the idea of needing to register with a party to vote for its candidate, either.
I don't think you should be able to vote for both. You can spoiler the opposition or support your own first choice, not both.
Posts
and you are an intolerant slave of the T.V. screen, and?
We've been over this. This is not spectacular enough to truly be Poe's zombified remains. It needs to top the Obama/ACORN vs. Michelle Malkin's commenting army war webgame.
Yes. Do I trust them completely? No. Which is why I make sure that they have checks and balances.
Might as well treat him as the real thing. "You can't be for real" is just worthless.
I wonder how you came to that conclusion.
listen dude, very few, if not nobody, here is watching the family in the wall all day, if that's what you're getting at.
really possessions protected? so what if in the name of global prosperity 90% of your money was taken to be redistributed elsewhere?
And you wonder why we call you an Objectivist.
So, last I heard, Orily was refusing to pay the $20,000 fine for filing frivolous suits. Anything come of that yet?
Simply because they are in power, no. I trust the ones I vote in to do their best to represent what I see needing done for the country, or my state, or my district. When those who I don't vote for get into positions of power, I may not trust them to represent my ideals, but I grant them the capacity to surprise me and do the occasional thing that's good or not directly opposed to my own values or creeds.
Hate the player, not the game.
And what if everyone was ordered to cut off their feet? And use their shoes as spoons?
Well it's not directly related to the $20k fine, but Birthers got trolled pretty hard with a Rick-roll.
I think I agree with this suggestion. I know catching up with the last few hours on this thread has already lowered my political IQ a couple of points...
Doubt it. Most likely she has until a certain date to pay it / file paperwork or whatnot and nothing will happen until that date, whenever it may be.
You know, Police, Fire Departments, 24-hour emergency rooms
Not to mention, roads, Federally regulation of drugs and foods because not a one of us here has the funds, time or technology to properly test them ourselves, military to defend from invasion, a nifty service of people who take little pieces of paper I slip into other little pieces of paper and deliver them to a person whom I want to read my little pieces of paper, and occasionally bringing me things I order off the internet, creating the internet, creating a number of technological services that I greatly enjoy today, funding an educational system and funding research at the university level.
exactly, wait, huh whats your point?
cause dude if we were all to be compulsed to be empathetic to everyone else there sure would be some redistribution. And i doubt the total GNP of first world is enough to balance out and leave those in the first world with shit left of what they worked for.
Perhaps you didn't calibrate it to ignore yourself?
How great is the prosperity? You're being pretty vague here.
Last I heard she'd filed a motion to dismiss or something like that.
duh you sob
Yeah, I read about the rickrolling thing, but I couldn't quite follow what else was going on around that. One of her sources admitted to perjury, she slept with someone else? Someone should write a soap opera around this.
'As the O'wrld Churns.'
You're breaking my heart. I thought that title was clever.
It'd actually help them a metric ton if they started trying to be productive and were about what they're for, not what they're against.
I wasn't talking about you. However, a better title would be something like "Ya Rly of our lives"
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.
There are many ways to increase the total amount of wealth in the world through manipulation of its resources.
Again. You wouldn't necessarily have to. You hand out that much at once, it's likely going to disappear into the wrong hands in big lump sums and the entire investment is wasted. And it creates something of a welfare state that can't operate without foreign aid. You give out smaller amounts, perhaps as microloans, it costs you less, the money gets where it needs to be more often, and you have the added advantage of getting the money back when the microloan is repaid. (And if it isn't, well, not like it cost you much. Usually you're talking under $100.)
That'd give me a job, dude. Sign me up.
Yeah, just because Connecticut hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, and only one state in the entirety of New England has since 1992, doesn't mean that the GOP can't win Vermont and Maine again, both of which voted for Obama by at least 15%.
They're talking about primaries, which is part of the point, go somewhere that might have reasonable, middle-ground conservatives in order to nominate someone that might be able to get more then the crazy person vote.
Which isn't his point, it's that if you let Connecticut Republicans have a significant say, you're going to get a candidate who can win moderates in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
The point of the article was that they keep losing ground in those areas or getting outright trounced because their selection process is geared towards finding the person who most appeals to their activist base, not their strongest general election candidate. Which is true to an extent, it just ignores the fact that's pretty much the definition of a primary. You can design a better primary that moderates that tendency, but you can't get rid of it and it's not as if the democrats haven't been operating under the same constraints.
The whole primary system as it exists needs reform, though, and that would inevitably be beneficial for the polity. Maybe it's just because I'm from Illinois and we have open primaries, but I really don't get states where you have to register with a party in order to influence who gets on their ticket. It seems counterproductive at best.
I don't think you should be able to vote for both. You can spoiler the opposition or support your own first choice, not both.