I thought Letterman was brighter than that.Originally Posted by heydude
I thought Letterman was brighter than that.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I'm sorry I started this thread. All I was referring to was the challenge of having a huge meeting in the path of a hurricane......
I should have known better........
Cathy--I agree. I think it's just better to avoid the "simple public policy" forum altogether. I had been doing a little engaging on political topics but quickly found out that it's no more than the righties thoughtlessly spouting their rhetoric and the lefties vehemently defending with their rhetoric and NO ONE listening to anything the prior poster said beyond a running theme apparently going through their minds "I'm reading what this person is saying...now how do I contradict what they said? What little bit of minutiae can can I run with here to twist and reaffirm my point?"
And you never hear a "wow, that was a good point" or "I never thought of it that way." Only, "well leave it to you to say something like that" or "I expected more out of you" or "you just don't get it, do you?" It's really depressing noise and amounts to little more than stupid, pointless bickering. It rarely rises to the level of sophisticated political argument that they're aiming for. At least I guess that's what they're aiming for.
I agree with much of what you have said here and have to admit I'm guilty of some of this myself.....That being said, for those of us who have been here awhile, such as myself and Iris Lilly and a few others, this corner of the board is much more civil than it once was - OUCH it used to be nasty. And there were some pretty intnese trolls who would linger around here trying to get a reaction. Seriously, now we have our righties and our lefties and sure they are not going to agree but the overall tone is much more civil. Just last week I found myself agreeing a few times with one poster here who I thought I would NEVER have anything in common with politcally, so you just never know. There are a couple of people who post here who I just dont understand - but I do support their right to express their opinions and I do believe they support my such right - though they may not agree with me. And mavbe in an area that tends to controversy such as this, this is as good as it is likely going to get (?) Rob
Just curious, has Letterman ever stated where he stands politically? I'm guessing left.....As I remember back in 2008 he grilled McCain pretty bad for blowing off his show.....Apparenty he was supposed to be a guest on Letteman and went and did some other appearance in the same building in NYC and went and blew Letterman off and Letterman was less the pleased about it. Rob
+1
I have memories of what I call sanctimonious meanness all over the forums a long while back.
Like you wouldn't dare poke your head out for fear of it getting shot off, even in something as innocuous as the Hobbies Forum.
Or people trying to Super Judge on the Family Forum where people pour out their hearts.
If we should ever get really hard up for $ for the forums, I would suggest a Mud Wrestling Event featuring the Political Forum Usual Suspects, that I would work into my budget!
These are really frustrating political times. I trust the people here enough to throw a little metaphorical mud and feel safe and like I can come back whenever I want to Tango.
And I love that there are people here who just stick to their guns and duke it out, so wishy-washies such as myself can weigh both sides.
Tropical Storm Irene laid waste to large sections of Vermont and New York state. Many farmers are still recovering. Just sayin'.
I remember that. I think what got Letterman's goat wasn't that he is particularly political, but that McCain said the reason he had to cancel at the last moment was because he needed to jet back to Washington to do some important thing or other, then Letterman finds out he is in that very building doing some other interview. I think it was being lied to that made him mad, rightfully so I thought. It was also another sad peek into the vanishing integrity of a once very honorable man.
Politics makes people do things they wouldn't ordinarily do.
My first thought on the hurricane and the convention when I first heard of it was actually: well if climate change is supposed to make hurricanes more likely and more virrulent then maybe it will get that party to take climate change more seriously! (in truth both parties, the Democrats talk a good game, possibly lesser evil, but especially with the President it's mostly talk - we know Romeny is for it but does anyone know where Obama really stands on the keystone pipeline, I know he's delayed it until after the election but ...). So climate change, that's my first thought on hurricanes and politics but I guess noone elses first thought on the matter of hurricanes and politics. The amount of hurricanes was actually pretty low this year, lower than average, which no does not disprove man made climate change much less climate change as such given all the other data on everything else (like actual record temperature data).
This is a pretty viscious thread. Progressive get accused of bloodlust (both parties will continue the wars and thus real bloodshed indefinitely but progressives are somehow uniquely guilty of bloodlust in some unspecified way). Or lack of broadmindedness. What is meant here? Just an intellectual openness to listening to an argument, that's all well and good, certainly a virtue, but people don't and frankly will never have time to base all their decisions on such. Or is broadmindedness non-judgement of anyone? That's ridiculous. I assume progressives are accused of mass starvation of peasants or something. I often think that American capitalism (or corporatism if you would prefer - there is a lot of that) and Soviet communism will all end up ending up in the same place when the ending of the story is actually written (the U.S. just took longer to get there). Deliberate starvation of peasants, not yet, but a very definite dictatorial turn to this American system lately. Maybe all the civil liberties stuff was only useful as a contrast to communism (also why it was useful to maintain a middle class - because hey if American life looks good in comparison ...) and now with that threat gone ....
See if you want to accuse progressives (those that believe in Obama - really believe in him and not just choose him as the regretable lesser of two evils) of something that mirrors early 20th century communist movements, it's this: I was thinking of Ayn Rand the other day. What do you think of Ayn Rand? I don'tHahaha, but really I was thinking about how it's all some progressive sites (salon) can go on about lately, and I was thinking well Ayn Rand herself, was what she was due to, well besides the drug use later on and its' attendant fanaticism, paranoia etc., due to the results of Soviet communism, which is universally agreed to be horrible. So she was mostly just pure reactivity against that. Is her beliefs on how the captialist (although really now AND THEN largely corporatist) economic system works laughable and unlikely to lead to human happiness? But of course! And for some bizarre reason not usually what leftist take on, they go on weird crusades against intangibles like selfishness instead. But mostly she was reactivity and understandable as such given her background. But what about the left back then that she was also reacting so violently against? It was half of it doing it apologies for the Soviet union (not a leftist, and he was a true leftist, he never became a conservative, like Orwell, but some of them). That's where you can draw the parallel, our side right or wrong thinking, that things like NDAA and Obamas murder policy get the pass from certain elements of the left .... all apologies again (the better elements fight it: Hedges, Chomsky). So the Republicans are better? The Republicans in general are not a whit better. They won't campaign against Obama on these issues, the Bush administration started many of them (which Obama has only made worse), etc. In fact the belief that say greater income inequality is going to lead to a less tyrannical society is very dubious on the face of it. Maybe it needs to be more tyrannical, if peasants, proles, or precariats are starving on the streets, you need to keep them down somehow.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 8-26-12 at 12:43pm.
Trees don't grow on money
You didn't actually look at the link, did you Iris.
Bae is going as a Paul delegate and has been told, even before he gets there, that his vote doesn't count, never did, and is just some 'pesky problem' that must be dealt with early and quickly. From what I read, there are actually quite a few Paul supporters. Although we all know, including bae, that Paul won't be the nominee, to not even pretend that all voices have equal say is so... Mitt.
I know you don't believe this, but I do sympathize with bae. This is a pretty shoddy way to treat these folks who are also braving this storm to have their voices heard. I am truly a liberal in that I believe all voices should be heard, even those I disagree with. Everyone should have a chance to vote, every voice should have equal say.
Besides, why would I want to rain on their party. I'm not voting Republican no matter who wins the nomination.I just don't like seeing anyone disenfranchised.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote