|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Obama is the reason why I may actually vote republican next year Wait, what? This doesn't make a lick of sense. Assuming he wins the primary, which is only maybe 30% likely, he's up against either Romney or Giuliani, one of which is a senseless thug-o-crat and the other is a made-for-tv stuffed shirt. You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Is there any way for me to reach through your monitor and slap some sense into you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the fact that the democrats can't find someone better... Better? What's wrong with Obama, exactly? Specifically, what's wrong with him that, in your view, neither Clinton nor Edwards are superior? Unlike Republicans this cycle, Democrats managed to field three great candidates. Republicans seem to have the choice between dumb, dumber, and dumbest. Perhaps if you could specify your concerns in terms of their actual policies and character, as opposed to nebulous phrasings about who you "like" better, you might actually demonstrate sufficient engagement in the process to deserve to vote, just a thought. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm not looking to be reasonable here, but all three have made it clear that they don't care diddly squat about human rights, which I think are not negotiable. Right, so naturally you thought about voting Republican, because of their recent history of consciencious respect for the rights of all humans, especially those detained in the war on terror. I'm not sure what makes you say "diddly squat about human rights." Edwards wasn't even in Congress when the Military Commissions Act came up for a vote.
Ok, you've changed my mine. I'm not going to vote next november. Thank you. No, really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Aw, come on now... You have to vote. No, you don't, and if there's a danger that, in the voting booth, you'll vote to "send a message", you probably shouldn't. Think for a second about what Taz is talking about doing. He's so incensed about the idea of politicians ignoring human rights that he's going to lodge a protest vote... for the candidate that has the worse record on human rights. Yeah, that sure "sends a message", all right. If you can't stomach the kind of compromise it takes to participate in democracy, then you probably shouldn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If for no other reason, Taz will have no right to complain about the next president, should (s)he be as bad as he believes Bush was. Oddly enough there exists no accrediting or licensing body to enforce the Complaining Laws, or to make sure that complaining is only done by those qualified to do so. So Taz's ability to complain for the next 4 years will hardly be hampered in any way by not voting.
But in either case, I think he just needs to go to as many websites as he can to get an estimation about who is lobbying for what, and where they stand on an issue. I agree. I would rather Taz make an effort to educate himself about the issues, and make reasonable determinations for himself about which of the candidates best represents his views, as opposed to not voting. But sorting through politics isn't everybody's cup of tea.
In fact, I think I should just go ahead and do that for everyone. Well done, very thorough. Perhaps too thorough. I don't think Al Gore is running, or will run. Or did I miss something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm pretty sure he's been in the race for awhile now. I'm certain you're wrong about this. He's stated, as plainly as possible on a number of occasions that he has no intention of running for president in 2008. Unless something changed in the past few weeks and I didn't hear about it, but I read political blogs extensively and daily so I think I would know. There's a whole lot of people that want him to run, but he's not yet a candidate for president in 2008 according to any source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Would you vote for a monkey? Woah. Tell me you didn't just say that about an African-american presidential candidate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Trust me, I would have said the same if it was Hillery or Fred Phelps or Kerry. Then I guess I don't understand your point. Why do you think Holmes would vote for a monkey?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm sorry, I've just been depressed about the whole issue lately, from the Iraq war to health care to gay rights and everything in between. Have you learned what Obama's stances on those issues are? Or is it sufficient to you that he's a national candidate for president, and therefore he must be the height of mendacity and selfishness? Has it occurred to you, at any point, that the reason we're in such dire straits viz-a-viz those issues is due, almost completely, to a decade of Republican control of government? No, of course not. "They're all the same." "Can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats." Please don't vote.
Well, monkey see monkey do. Does this monkey know why it is doing what it is seeing? It doesn't really care, you see. This from the guy who can't possibly be bothered to do any research about the positions of the candidates. Please don't vote. Your vote offsets someone who actually got involved in the process and made an intelligent decision about how they wanted to influence the government. Also, please don't refer to black people as "monkeys."
If others can do it, why can't I? Gosh, I guess if you want to be an ignorant racist, there's really nobody stopping you. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, just by way of dissecting a bona fide racist under the scope, what in your view is the characteristic of this molecule:
that leads a prevalence of it to be unsuitable for a candidate for President of the United States? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He (and indeed anyone) has a right to keep repeating a question if it is not sufficiently answered. Speaking of which there's about 3 or 4 of my questions you've declined to answer in your multiculturalism thread. Maybe now that you and Rrhain are done with your male entitlement whining, you can address them? Or are you supposed to be the sole arbiter of which questions have been answered, and which are never to be answered?
On this subject NJ had an excellent point... in a past thread... that consent is simply a semantic tool used to disguise an absolute morality. That's a nonsense objection, since it could be true of anything where we draw a distinction between consent and somebody merely saying the word "yes" for whatever reason. Does the word "coercion" mean anything to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I will begin answering them once you show a capacity not to attack me personally, during the asking of a question as well as in your answers. Let's take a look at the scurrilous ad-homimems you're objecting to, in a thread you created, supposedly, to invite my participation. Here's my first post in that thread, in its entirety:
quote: Oh, wow. I mean I really laid into you! First I called you a... um... and then a.... yeah. Actually I really can't see a single example of the ad hominem you're talking about. Moving on, let's catalog the vicious imprecations I employed in my next post:
quote: Hrm. Again, I simply don't see any personal attacks. That your posts are disingenuous is a reflection on your arguments, not on you. I've told you in the past what you need to do to avoid being accused of being disingenuous; simply stop being disingenuous. Like you are here:
I will begin answering them once you show a capacity not to attack me personally, during the asking of a question as well as in your answers. Hopefully it should be lost on no one that that's how I started out, from the get-go; the result is that my points were repeatedly ignored - despite your specific invitation. Look, it's not my fault that it takes a little needling to get your attention. And I was actually being quite civil until you fell right back into your old habits of relentless misrepresentation and disingenuity. I gave you every opportunity to convince me you had turned over a new leaf, like you asked for, and instantly after being told you had that chance you threw it back in my face. And now you're acting like it's been all my fault? Please don't take it personally when I tell you to get the hell over yourself. If you want to engage in a civil discussion be civil. Be honest. Again, you have the exact same opportunity to do so as you've always had in the past. Why you continue to turn your back on honesty remains completely beyond my understanding - not least of which because you've refused, for a year at least, to give any kind of explanation for your egregious conduct.
But it would really have to be free of animus... When you can behave without animus, it will be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash, I already explained in an earlier post to you that I stopped discussion with you because of behavior in another thread. Behavior that you misrepresented. I did not say what you asserted I had said. Misrepresentation upon misrepresentation. I'm sorry you find the accurate description of your behavior "uncivil", and a "personal attack", even though it is abundantly obvious that it is neither.
I personally had no problems with your first post in that thread, or in I think one or two others. Yet, it's those questions you continue to evade. Funny, that. I provided exactly what you asked for; your sole response has been to evade and misrepresent.
However, in the other thread I asked if you could be civil, and you said no. Except that I didn't. What I said was if you could be civil, you had every opportunity to begin doing so. Which is what you were asking for - the chance to begin again. You've chosen to respond by completely misrepresenting the exchange and throwing it in my face. I'll repeat my point in that post; at any time that you'd like to begin discussing honestly, you can do so, and then the debate will proceed honestly. You're the only one who insists on incivility. Thus, the discussion will become civil as soon as you choose to make it so. If you'd like to do that, you can respond to both of those two posts in your thread - posts 4 and 16 - and we can proceed with the actual discussion instead of grappling with your misrepresentations.
We will begin discussing actual issues, when you can agree to be civil and roundly stop attacking me personally. We're already discussing an issue; the issue is why you insist on misrepresenting nearly every exchange you become involved in. How do you explain this intense dishonesty on your part?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My answer to your questions here, are in the other thread. If only that were true. Instead, I find misrepresentation. Nonetheless, we should continue the discussion over there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And we also let kids participate in all sorts of activities even though they technically can't give informed consent. They can't give informed consent about adult sexual activities, no. Who says they can't give informed consent about whether or not to play soccer, or something? Not being able to give informed consent doesn't mean that they can't do something; it just means that somebody else has to make that decision, for them, in their interest. If there's a legitimate interest for the child in getting raped by an adult, it is incumbent on those who hold that position to describe it. NJ's argument doesn't really assail consent issues, because the inconsistency he describes doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024