My First Rant

MysterEcks tediously reiterates the same objections again…
“And as far as I can tell, you can only “debate” by insult, which isn’t debate at all.”

Ecks, for the benefit of fellow readers who may be prying their lids open with toothpicks just to read thorugh your tripe, will you please come up with some new material, or just skip it? Since you were diligent enough to consult the Gore/Sore Loser thread, no one knows better than you that the subjects I touched on there included education, tort reform, and globalization. This was hardly a case of debating only by insult.

“Otherwise, with your professed interest in politics (see, eg., posts in the link I provided in my first post to this thread) you’d be debating the assorted Republicans in Great Debates…but you’ve never posted anything outside the Pit.”

I hardly have any time to post here. And, anyway, as everyone here is so hell-bent on civility, I see no reason to venture further.

The truth is that I like posting in a place where it’s okay to argue, and even to insult. That seems to me to be one of the virtues of electronic media.

“Are you afraid of real debate in which you can’t throw shit?”

What do you think? Do I strike you as the shrinking violet type? Do you think I’m undersupplied with facts and ideas? Get off of it, Ecks. If you want to find my weak points, you’ll have to work harder than that.

“Or is it just that you’re primarily interested in attacking Major Feelgud?”

Well, actually I’ve as much as said so in the Hillary thread. I’ve gotta admit; I find the guy interesting. He’s a challenge. You see, I’m trying to find the progressive lurking in him :wink:

“Incidentally, I more than once posted why I intended to–and did–vote for Bush. If you look around, maybe you’ll figure it out.”

If you want to supply me with a link, I’ll happily look at it. Otherwise, I get paid to do research.

“The Major is apparently confused about the difference between a sock and a troll. As for whether you can use e-mail, it’s hard to tell–I see you don’t have an e-mail address listed, which fails to surprise me.”

I don’t like getting e-mail from message boards–it’s too time-consuming. If there’s something you want to communicate to me privately–and I somehow doubt that–do it through an administrator.

“And by the way–you’re welcome. (I knew you’d wanna thank me for bumping your thread up so more people can see it.)”

When I sell the rights to the movie version I’ll be certain to take you out for a beer. I hear the bars in Buttfuck are something fierce :wink:

No, I don’t think American Beauty was over-rated. A lot of people really slammed it (see imdb.com/)

But, a lot of people are clueless, too. Go figger.

Bear in mind, I’m not slamming the movie. In comparison to most of the dross that comes out of Hollywood, it was positively awe-inspiring. My point is only that the attention given to that movie was out of all proportion to the lack of attention given to other more courageous and original movies.

What I didn’t like about AB was the pseudo-philosophical cop-out to “beauty” at the end. Swirling garbage bags, young love, rosebuds, violins. This is somehow supposed to provide philosophical compensation for what we’ve seen: which is a pretty stark view of the American suburbs. It’s like the filmmakers wanted us to go from their best insight (underneath the materialistic facade American life can be ugly and vicious), to a consoling cliche (beauty is everywhere, even in death and ugliness).

The reason I liked Happiness much, much better is that it did a great job with the first theme without falling back to the second. I also liked Magnolia just b/c it was so unpredictable.

I don’t know what exactly Spielberg’s relation was to this movie; his name is somewhere in the credits. But whenever he’s directly involved in a movie, he always fucks it up with ham-fisted sentimentality. (Saving Private Ryan is the best example of this.) To me American Beauty ended up by capitulating to that in a way that a more courageous (and probably less popular film) would not have bothered to do.

Thanks, Dr. Pinky, for the chance to leave off the tiresome project of defending my SBDM honor, as Duck, Duck Goose put it.

[Russell Crowe comes staggering out of Kat’s house, looking tired. The Gray Men scoop him up, stuff him in the back of the delivery van, take him to the Secret Underground Lab in Utah, clone him, put the fresh and vigorous clone back in the van, and deliver it to AuntiePam’s house. sign here, please…]

After a careful reading of the linked Hillary/Lieberman thread (for which I think I ought to be entitled to combat pay), and based on certain similarities between posting styles, I have come to the conclusion that Mandelstam is not Major Feelgud’s but rather Alphagene’s sock puppet. :eek: Alphagene, how could you? Ah, well, I suppose power corrupts, and absolute power…

[this post is available in a special format for the humor-impaired–see the Straight Dope Home Page.]

P.S. Since I’m not really sure who Limp Bizkit is (are?), I don’t really have an opinion on whether they (it?) suck (sucks?) or not. IMO, pop music hasn’t really been the same since the Monkees split up.

Honey, there’s someone at the door, would you mind getting it?

It’s the UPS guy. You order something? More books?

I don’t know, sweetie, it’s probably a fruitcake from grandma or something. Hey, why don’t you go on uptown and have a beer with your buds, you could use a break. No, don’t worry about me, I can entertain myself for one evening. I’ll just sign for this. See you later, hon. Have fun now.

You are not missing much.

Hey, but I’m too busy singing, to put anybody down.

Mandelstam said:

If you can’t debate without insults, then you can’t debate at all–I don’t care what points you accidentally make between handfulls of shit.

There’s plenty of arguing in the other forums. But if you are incapable of doing so without coming off as a flaming asshole, then yes, the Pit is the only place you should be.

All things considered, I think youthink you’re undersupplied with facts and ideas.

I’m afraid I don’t do brain surgery.

Or I could just tell you. Or I can just let you sit in the pool of your own ignorance–it doesn’t matter whether you manage to get a clue or not. Feel free to place me and everybody else who voted for Bush in your nice narrow catagories, if you desperately need that to shore up your pose of intellectual superiority. I’m a hell of a nice guy–I don’t mind.

Uh huh.

I somehow doubt it too.

Ah, but surely such a refined soul as yourself would find the Buttfuck Bar, Grill, and Notary Service (“Fine Dineing And Drink Wile U Wate 4 Temp Tags”) beneath you. Besides, we don’t always hit the spittoons.

I assume you mean the statement you made saying “And flaming Feelgud was my main sport[.]” That would be an admission that my main point was correct. It would also be an admission that you’re a troll, but that’s hardly myproblem.

Duck Duck Goose: Permit me to butt into your joke to mention that nobody ever thought Mandy was the Major’ssock. Otherwise we would be postulating one reallydisturbed individual. (I’ll let someone else hang something on the end of that statement.)

You only get combat pay if you participate. C’mon, we have what amounts to three sides–surely you can find somebodyto fight with.

Ecks–go ahead and tell me. I mean that sincerely.

Hey Mandelstam!

I started a thread of you in MPSIMS but you don’t seem to want to go outsdie fo the pit. And the questions and such are not pit worthy.

Since this isthe pit.

Get out of the fricking pit :wally abd socialize some ok?

Osip

Mandelstam said:

That’s really a GD or IMHO topic, but what the hell. In terms of ideology, I have major problems with both Bush/the Republicans and Gore/the Democrats. I’m essentially a social libertarian, and I don’t think either party really believes in the freedoms of the individual–just selected ones which they approve of. As I said in several other threads, I would have liked to be able to vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian.

But Browne had about as much chance of winning as I did, and a Libertarian vote is not all that useful as a message for the future. A vote for Nader was a clear signal to the Democrats to move left; a vote for Buchanan was a clear signal to the Republicans to move right. The Libertarians in effect partake of elements of both the Left and Right–they don’t really fit on the standard US political spectrum.

(I have a political science degree from Buttfuck State University–aren’t you glad you got me going on this stuff?)

For the reasons above–and because I wished to affect this election rather than future ones–I kept my options down to the two major candidates. I had my areas of agreement and disagreement with both, albeit on different issues. That left the dreaded issue of character, and on the strength of that Bush got my vote. There has been far too much shit going on in the Clinton Administration, and Gore has been up to it in his eyeballs. “No controlling legal authority”…visits to Buddhist temples for campaign contributions…the “small bladder” defense…there’s no way in hell I’m going to endorse that with my vote–the Dems lost me when they nominated him. Bush, despite the rhetoric that you throw around, is neither stupid nor an empty vessel–I find him acceptable, if uninspiring. He’ll do stuff I won’t like, but so would Gore have.

(Yes, I know there have been accusations against Bush. But even if I assume they are all true, that wouldn’t change my opinion. If Bush indeed did anything questionable, he didn’t do it while representing me; Gore, on the other hand, was myvice president.)

There you go. Have fun making fun of it.

(By the way, you missed a good one. I didn’t think it through when I wrote “I’m afraid I don’t do brain surgery”–you should have come back with “I suspected you were no brain surgeon,” or something of the sort. C’mon, you gotta catch these things.)

Osip said:

You should reallylay into her–tell her that her mother wears army boots.

Um… her?
um… I am speachless.

Osip

Indeed. If anyone takes offense, we’ll be in the right place when they flame us ;).

*“I’m essentially a social libertarian, and I don’t think either party really believes in the freedoms of the individual–just selected ones which they approve of. As I said in several other threads, I would have liked to be able to vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian.” *

AG wasn’t my first choice either. I’d have preferred Bradley or, of course, Nader.

*"The Libertarians in effect partake of elements of both the Left and Right–they don’t really fit on the standard US political spectrum.

(I have a political science degree from Buttfuck State University–aren’t you glad you got me going on this stuff?)"*

Yeah, actually. I have a law degree but for work and for pleasure read lots of political theory.

I hear they have a very good program in poli sci over at BSU. Not to mention my favorite college basketball team, the Buttfuck Barn Animals. :wink:

*“I had my areas of agreement and disagreement with both, albeit on different issues. That left the dreaded issue of character, and on the strength of that Bush got my vote. There has been far too much shit going on in the Clinton Administration, and Gore has been up to it in his eyeballs. “No controlling legal authority”…visits to Buddhist temples for campaign contributions…the “small bladder” defense…there’s no way in hell I’m going to endorse that with my vote–the Dems lost me when they nominated him. Bush, despite the rhetoric that you throw around, is neither stupid nor an empty vessel–I find him acceptable, if uninspiring. He’ll do stuff I won’t like, but so would Gore have.” *

I don’t admire the character of either of these guys–talk about sockpuppets! I don’t see that the Clinton administration is more tainted than any other recent administration–and certainly no more tainted than any Bush administration will be. All of them are guilty of selling themselves to the highest bidder; campaign financing is way of out control. It’s legalized corruption and it’s part of the reason why the majority of people in this country don’t even bother to vote.

OTOH, I do find Bush unintelligent, uninformed and inept; and I do believe that he appeals to embittered, hard-done-by people (“losers”) b/c of his lackluster credentials. Choosing between his character and Gore’s is, as one columnist I read said, like being lost at sea and choosing between drinking salt water and your own piss.

My views on why Bush is so bad (many of which you have seen in the Gore/Sore Loser thread) are much like Zut’s–the poster who started the “George W. Bush isn’t stupid” thread. I agree with everything Zut said except that Bush isn’t stupid. In my view Bush is stupid but that’s not the reason not to vote for him. (I’d vote for a stupid, untalented candidate whose views I agreed with at this point.)

The Republican platform on women’s reproductive rights is scary; the same goes for the regressive Supreme Court choices Bush would make. The idea that companies can be trusted not to pollute is absurd. And to marry self-regulation to tort reform is a downright crime against humanity. Giving tax cuts to billionaires at a time when the richest individuals own as much wealth as some nations is foolhardy and decadent. Privatizing part of social security is expensive, unnecessary and potentially ruinous. Allowing companies to swallow each other and become more powerful and monopolistic is irresponsible (though the Dems are almost as bad here). Bush’s supporters want to undermine the FCC, the EPA, the FDA. We need these things b/c, however imperfect, they are accountable to us in a way that multinational corporations are not. Finally, executing people who haven’t gotten a fair trial is totally reprehensible.

Libertarianism is a principled position but, IMO, it’s hopelessly unrealistic in a world dominated by corporate giants. Dismantling the government further is just bending over so as to allow corporations to screw us more effectively. That doesn’t mean the government sometimes doesn’t screw us. We need to pay attention to them; but at least they are ours (or could be if we made our own institutions work for us). Libertarians can work to keep government out of individuals’ privacy (e.g. giving women access to an abortion pill that’s been in Europe for fifteen years). But they should also work to protect people’s rights from exploitative business practices: for example, protecting school kids from having a lot of advertising crap thrown at them from the minute they can read. At the end of the day, only governments are strong enough to provide adequate balance for the unprecedented concentration of power in corporate hands. But people should be as active as they can too.

BTW, I believe that Limp Bizkit are Republicans, and that Trent Lott is a Green Day fan. Also Dennis Hastert was the model for the homophobic father in American Beauty.

As to Osip: I’m not sure if you read the thread Osip started. Osip was the first name of Mandelstam, the Russian poet who has inspired my handle and his.

"You should really lay into [Osip]–tell [him] that [his] mother wears army boots."

Actually, I wear army boots. It’s that old Sinead O’Connor thing.

Mandelstam: Can you tell me briefly why Nader is preferred?

At the risk of recieving a massive flamming/scathing reply I also have to ask. Why should be the issue of choice/abortion be an issue in the US presidential election looking at it in a larger context? Should this be an issue to decide who the president should be? E.g., would you have voted for George Washington if he was anti-choice? Please do not answer with “Any candidate or party that takes away the choice of the woman to choose…, etc.” as that does not answer my question in the larger context that I am asking.

Given that choice, I recommend the salt water. (Now somebody’s gonna show up and tell me the piss would be better.)

Call me middle-aged and hopelessly square–I’ve never seen *Americam Beauty,*never heard Limp Bizkit (as far as I know), and have come across no more than one or two Green Day songs. Yeah, I know, I’m stuck in the '80s.

Basically because he is the only candidate ready to address the problems that I think face us in society. You might want to check out a website called TomPaine.com . It’s a site devoted to what the media isn’t telling you. Some of the stories are contributed by academics rather than journalists; not all equally good. The political positions range from center left to a Nader-like lefty stance. One of my favorite things is a column written every week by Dean Baker, an economist who explains what was wrong in the week’s economics reporting in the New York Times and Washington Post. He’s totally deadpan–not flaming or vitriolic at all. But it’s amazingly informative reading him. On the subject of media I suggest a new book called Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert McChesney. I’ve just started it and it’s really good. On the economy you might like to read one of (billionaire mutual fund manager) George Soros’s books. He thinks the global economy needs a total overhaul.

“At the risk of recieving a massive flamming/scathing reply I also have to ask. Why should be the issue of choice/abortion be an issue in the US presidential election looking at it in a larger context?”

[Cough, cough, cough, cough] Sorry–I just doused myself with a fire extingisher before replying to your question.
I’ll continue.

*" Should this be an issue to decide who the president should be? E.g., would you have voted for George Washington if he was anti-choice?" *

Major, do you have any idea what it would feel like to bear a child for nine months that you did not choose to have; to be responsible for that unwanted child for the whole of the rest of your life; or to be forced to give it up for adoption and then have to deal with fact? Can you imagine any greater inequality in a society that prides itself on providing equal rights for all to make it all but impossible for poor women to have access to decent birth control, family planning and, when necessary, safe abortion? Are you aware that the Republican party platform calls for an end to all abortion except when the mother’s life is jeopardized–including in cases of rape or incest? If George Washington were alive today advocating that raped women be forced to bear the children of their attackers, I would be the first to want to spit on his wig. I can’t imagine any greater trespass upon individual liberty than this. It’s disgusting and hypocritical that a party that is also determined to destroy the social safety net, a party that would rather give Sam Walton a tax-cut than spend money for Head Start programs that are proven to work, also is determined to make it impossible for women, especially poor women, to get a safe abortion.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MysterEcks *
**

I already asked someone when I first read it. You’ll live much longer drinking the piss. (Maybe we should ask Peace how much longer?)

BTW, I don’t think American Beauty is just for the young (I’m probably not much younger than you. Maybe not at all) Besides it’s got Kevin Spacey in it. Even though my rant began with AB I really do think it’s a good movie.

Hey, Major, have you seen Woody Allen yet?

Osip, if you’re reading: more on Mandelstam tomorrow.

BTW, I don’t think American Beauty is just for the young (I’m probably not much younger than you. Maybe not at all) Besides it’s got Kevin Spacey in it. Even though my rant began with AB I really do think it’s a good movie. ]]] <— from he whose fingers runnith over…

You have any convictions that hold? Dolphins are smart, but they never stand. Cockroaches are dumb but they endure. You think you are a real wit, and you are ½ right.

:::: oh, all the straight lines are free, see if you can be original,… M’Kay?