“But I’m glad to finally find one of you leftists who’ll admit that you think 49.5% of america are “hoodwinked morons”. And your response to my idea? Well, you really do think republicans are EEEEEEVIIIIIL! I’m asking you, why? They disagree with you on issues. Do you think that it is impossible for a good person to disagree with you? Anyone who disagrees with your policies is by definition evil (or stupid, you did grant that they could be stupid)? Sounds to me like you are the only fascist here, my friend.
And Bush won even though he had fewer popular votes because the electoral college system, which we have had for over 200 years (so it wasn’t a suprise to you all), gave him more votes. If you want to change it, you HAVE TO CHANGE IT BEFORE THE ELECTION. Get it? You are upset Gore lost. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that winning via the electoral college is illegitmate. And my comment about viewing your opponent as evil oviously applies doubly to you. You seem unable to imagine that I can honestly disagree with you. I must be a puppet, or a moron, or one of the EEEEEVIIIIIL ones. So, you really think that polluters pollute because they love pollution? Didn’t you read a word I said? If you think that polluters pollute because they love pollution, you won’t understand how and why pollution is really created. If you don’t understand how and why pollution is really created, then you won’t understand HOW TO STOP IT.”
This is gibberish. The question of the legitimacy of the electoral college isn’t the issue. It is legitimate. It isn’t just. But you brutish nonconsequentialists can not discern the difference between the two. As I said, the Republicans have a track record for writing laws which allow untrammelled business at the expense of labor, the environment and human rights and needs. Pollution happens because it is much cheaper and profitable to allow it to happen. The plutocracy isn’t this readily identifiable mass characterized by a unitary set of objectives. It often conflicts with itself. But its various components share an identity of interests which unifies them. Giant tax breaks for megalithic multinationals, anti-labor laws, “pollution credits” (we are one of the few first world countries which won’t sign the Kobe Accord), huge arms contracts with even bigger cost over runs for engines of war of dubious efficacity, squelching attempts to find alternatives to the internal combustion engine to ensure dependence on big oil, etc., etc., ad nauseum, these are manifestations of the plutocarcy at work. Your labor enriches them at your expense and their power is derived from these ill gotten gains. You call me stupid but you underwrite the very people who damage you. What a choice irony. If you divorce yourself from the moral question for a moment and simply look at it from a utilitarian perspective, you could see that they are the source of most of the moral pathologies we now suffer from. The Dems are no prizes either. They are just one more component of the giant heterogenous mass supping at the trough of the commonweal a little too richly. The key is that they represent by a marginal fraction the interests of the middle class, working class, women, children, labor, etc., more closely than do the Republicans.
Stoid, here you are again. More “GOP is evil” crap. Still feel the need to fulfill your quota of several new political threads per day? Well, whatever.
Howdy Chronolicht. I see you are still delighting us with your wisdom. I confess, I still haven’t gotten over that thread you were in a few months ago. You know, the one where you offered the most appalling suggestion that a Doper poison her neighbor’s barking dogs? Sigh. Stoid - are you really happy to have him on your “side”?
Aaagh! My eyes are bleeding. Huge blocks of text… evil! Paragraph breaks… good!
Incidentally, pollution happens because it is a side effect of doing anything. There is no possibility of there ever being a pollution free world. Ever.
As for the election, I don’t think anyone is disputing that Gore would have won had everyone who walked into a polling place actually voted for the person they intended. What we are saying is that it was the following of the law as written before the election that put him in office. Yes, the law could have been interpreted differently, but it wasn’t. The Supreme Court’s rulings, while perhaps flawed, were not constructed out of thin air to thwart the will of the people.
She’s my Yosemite Baby. Queen of the literalists. Hail to the Queen! Hail! Happy New Year! God Save The Queen!
Everyone, just judge for yourself.
He certainly had a whole lot of people upset on that thread, anyway. I do not find his brand of (wit? whatever) that enchanting.
Forgive the hijack, back to the OP!
We have found agreement and you have made me laugh. 
stoid
Oops! I linked to the second page of that thread.
This is the most enchanting part.
Now back to the OP!
Stoidela:
Will you please stop using my name to refer to that guy? The other castaways already wonder about my intelligence, and the reference isn’t helping.
Thanks,
Gilligan
Stoid, if they are evil why dont you vote for the GOP then? You paint the GOP as not caring about human rights which is perfectly in line with you. You paint it as being hypocritical and stupid, both suit you perfectly. You paint it as the side that would be willing to throw away all the laws to get their own guy elected. Your vision of the republican party fits in with your own views.
“You-dirty-hippies”? You’ve never read a single one of my posts, have you?
Well, I did, at that post and several others. I saw a sense of play. I saw something interesting. And I saw compassion brought out in biting irony. Straight out of the turn of the century’s “Blast and Counterblast”. And I saw a character trying to build a goat cannon.
Directed toward this, I often saw a general response with which Swift would have been familiar.
It’s a pity that both the verbal irony of these other posts, and the political irony pointed out in this post, are both lost on the audience. The margin tries to move the middle, but the middle just yawns and scratches. I note that despite the complaints about the packaging, no one has provided a reasoned refutation of the points which were made. Points with which for the most part I agree.
That being said, I live in a country where every week we gather round the TV to watch our Air Farce fire off their chicken cannon, so what do I know.
I think it’s very important to “know your audience”. And when your “audience” is getting enraged and is flaming you (as what happened in that thread) what was the point of all that “play” and “irony” (that no one else apparently detected?)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**
I’m with you on that one, but some pesky folks just won’t bend to the dumbing down of America. And some don’t expect those who actually get it to start jumping up and down proclaiming it.
But rather than complain about someone wearing a kick-me sign, rather than turn the focus of the thread on that person, why not simply get down to business and address the serious points which that person has raised?
Oh, happy new year! I rang out the old today with a great tele in the fresh, and intend to ring in the new in the same fashion tomorrow. I hope your’s is just as fun. Cheers.
So, in other words, all the people (including me) on the other thread were just too dumb to get it. I think I can speak for all of us and say that we are most flattered and complimented by that. However, I think you give our dear Chronolicht too much credit. I have seen his work on other threads - I think there’s more going on with him than just “irony” and “play” - but, eh. Whatever.
No thank you. Many more able minds can handle it this time around, I’ve contributed my bit in simular threads in the past. It can be something akin to beating your head against a wall. And I tried to make my hijack about the “poisoning dogs” thread brief. So, carry on!
I would almost wish it were so, but who could overlook such a prolific buttinski?
If you feel you must disagree with my characterization, go ahead and do so; if you are offended by it, tough tit … I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and have learned over time that the impressions I get from others are quite reliable.
Hey Spoofe don’t take it personally, I’m a “Shreiking Rottweiler”. I think that will make a good sig line, courtesy of RTA. He’s no Wally but I’ll take what I can get.
“Shrieking Rottweiler”? Please. I’m just fucking sick of the “Bush is a hypocrite”, “Bush is a dictator”, “Bush is EVIL” crap. Bush will probably make a lousy president. But, he won the election. Next time, get someone who agrees with you elected. The fact that your candidate didn’t win the election does not mean that democracy was thwarted.
And Chronolicht? I’d respond to your rant, but anybody paying attention can fill in the refutations for themselves, so why should I bother to point out the obvious?
Congrats, RTA. You’ve managed to mischaracterize every single person you characterized.
You’re a clueless idiot.
“If you feel you must disagree with my characterization, go ahead and do so; if you are offended by it, tough tit … I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and have learned over time that the impressions I get from others are quite reliable.”
RTFirefly and Stoid … humor me for a moment. Stow the “we already covered this in countless threads,” and take advantage of the fact that some time has passed and the opportunity exists to look at the whole Florida matter in more of an overall way, with some hindsight.
Tell me, succinctly, what is wrong with the following, who is evil or bad in this scenario, and why:
***The margin of victory in the presidential election in Florida was within the margin of error. Bush won on the initial count, and won again on the recount required by the super-close margin.
All of the Florida laws that then kicked in for requesting and receiving a manual hand-count were inadequate. They were clearly designed for resolving election disputes within a single Florida county, and didn’t seem to adequately anticipate a problem with a state or federal race determined by the vote count of the entire state.
Florida law’s “intent of the voter” standard was shown to be way too nonspecific to be of much help. As a result of all of the above, the hand-counts as they had begun had varying standards from place to place. And because the election results were already in, an extremely unfair scenario was created in which the vote count needed to overturn the election result was common knowledge to all, and the people determining votes were Democrats and, in more than a few cases, ardent Gore supporters.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court found this problematic at both the Constitutional and federal law levels, and the hand-counts were stopped.
Gore could have helped his cause if, very early on, he’d proposed a compromise of hand-counting ballots in every Florida county using a single, conservative (small ‘c’) criterion. (A chad with 2 or more corners detached, for example.)
Even this, though, would have been changing how votes are determined following an election, so whether it could have been done is questionable.***
Now, what is incorrect about the above? Why? Who is evil, bad or wrong in the above? Why? Try to avoid saying your “count all the votes” mantra of November and December, without addressing the sticky problems of counting all the votes as outlined above.
In your heart of hearts, do you think Gore would have done anything any differently than Bush did if the tables were reversed? In my heart of hearts, I do think that Bush wouldn’t have pushed the issue as far as Gore did were the tables turned.
Same thing here Lemur, but you forgot about the “shadow conspiracy.” Thats my favorite.
No.
Been there…done that…over and over and over and over. There is absolutely nothing new in what you are saying, you already know all the responses to everything you’ve laid out here, and there is absolutely no point whatsover. I have less than zero interest in re-typing what I have typed several dozen times already.
You and about half the country and half the Supreme Court have your view of it, and me and half the country and half the Supreme Court have our view of it. If you still don’t understand, I suggest you go back and dig up the 40 or 50 threads which dissected everything in microscopic detail, and re-read them until you get it. 'k?
stoid