EPTI'm not too upset. I hate Paul Ryan and Romney is... Romney.
Hopefully I can still see McKenna win, but I doubt that one too. The Democratic establishment is just too strong.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1188
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
I'm not too upset. I hate Paul Ryan and Romney is... Romney. Hopefully I can still see McKenna win, but I doubt that one too. The Democratic establishment is just too strong. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:50 oneofthem wrote: very random when they nearly brought the whole modern world down to its knees. Yes, it was random. And nice, "bring the whole modern world down to its knees"!!! The quality of discussion rises with every post. Quick, make sure you say something condescending about right wingers again in response. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: this isn't about defending Republicans or defending Republicanism. I've got more complaints about Republican behavior than can be listed without making this more of a tome than a post. personally, I think the majority of them are cowards and hypocrites, and I think their grandstanding and half-measures are contemptible to perhaps an even higher degree than the straight-up political hitjobs that the left has taken to ordering. what I'm arguing, essentially, is that our system is so ass-backward by now that compromise is a pipe-dream, and if you try to put all that on Republicans than you're out of your mind. you'd have to ignore the entire Bush presidency, and most of modern history, to suggest that the way Obama's term has gone is surprising or even unprecedented. whether or not you like Sarah Palin, or think that she is qualified to hold any office at all, can you really argue that the treatment she received, from the left, was proportional to whatever crime or sin she was apparently guilty of? you want to talk about obstruction? how about Democrats in Alaska who filed baseless ethics violations against Palin in a concerted effort to drive her from office (by taking up literally all of her time fighting them in court)? and how did they treat her when she finally gave in because the ethics complaints were becoming too much of a distraction for the State to function? they called her a quitter. don't come crying to me about Republican obstructionism of Obama when Sarah Palin was crucified for even daring to run against him. Democrats want to pretend like Republicans just decided to hate Obama one day and have worked against him for every second since then. as if Obama didn't make it clear from day one that he would be running a left-wing Presidency. you want to talk about Woodwards book? let's talk about it: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-gaps-president-obamas-leadership-contributed-debt/story?id=17183930#.UJcPyYX5nis but for all your posturing, some of you don't want to present both sides of the story. you'll call for conservatives and Republicans to take responsibility for their failures, but won't recognize the failures of your own side. I'll admit it: conservatives, from day one, wanted Obama to fail in implementing his specific agenda as we understood it. if he wanted to overcome that hurdle, he needed to do some real reaching across the aisle. he never did any of that. he decided, by all accounts, to run the country as if he had been granted a mandate by the people. how the fuck can he complain when 2010 Republicans do the same exact thing? and it seems clear to me that the 2008 Republican obstruction paid off in 2010 and was validated by the American people in 2010, and depending on this next election's outcome, might be validated and reaffirmed doubly. or perhaps it will be rejected. either way, it's beyond ridiculous to keep playing the "but let's not think about the past!" line when you're talking about the reason why one side is completely disillusioned with the idea of compromising. Democrat behavior led to this as much as Republican behavior. edit: though, i do agree that Republicans could have been muuuuuuuuuch better at working across the aisle. I will give you that. I seriously can't believe you just typed that. She was dense and didn't belong. She made things worse by her retarded comments. Do you really think if she was qualified at all and didn't sound like an airhead she would have been raked over the coals? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yes, it was random. And nice, "bring the whole modern world down to its knees"!!! The quality of discussion rises with every post. Quick, make sure you say something condescending about right wingers again in response. i am pleased by this level of vexation you display. fact is, your dear tea party is a lunatic fringe of misguided people with no understanding of the structure they are trying to demolish. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:48 BluePanther wrote: You misunderstand what happened in the ACA. Obama had the votes to pass single payer. You know why he didn't? It's not because he was trying to appease Republicans. He was trying to undercut them. He tried to reform it in a way previously suggested by and old Republican congress. He thought that if he did that, they couldn't object to it like they did. Obama wasn't being noble, he was trying to be sly. And you say it's not comparable, but I don't exactly see any Democrats standing up to Obama like the Republicans did to Bush... I'll give you that it's not a direct comparable, but if you're going to throw that number around you have to also acknowledge that no Democrat is going to conspire with a Republicans to limit Obama's influence. And without the Gang of 14, there likely would have been an equivalent stonewalling of judicial confirmations. BTW, in case this confuses you--I'm not that partisan. That's just us interpreting it two different ways which basically leads to the same conclusion: he wanted to make sure Republicans voted for it. I despise him for it. He should have passed single-payer or at least included a public option. Big time fumble there. Obama's not appointing controversial judges like Bush did during the Senate recess. Even so, the situation is different now: it's not that Democrats don't want to compromise (Reid was allowing himself to be pushed around), it's that there isn't a moderate Republican for them to compromise with. Moderate Republicans don't have a voice in Congress anymore. When they do they get absolutely shat on by the Tea Party. Let's not deal with hypotheticals. You're pretty partisan. =) | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:50 Romantic wrote: Well, Mitt, nice knowing you. Seems like it is coming down to exactly what lots of people thought would happen; close but consistently and ultimately an Obama win. I'm not too upset. I hate Paul Ryan and Romney is... Romney. Hopefully I can still see McKenna win, but I doubt that one too. The Democratic establishment is just too strong. Jay Inslee got it on lock  I'll admit I rather like the Democratic Party of the state of Washington, they have style, a hardline, and so much nature to protect! | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:52 Sadist wrote: I seriously can't believe you just typed that. She was dense and didn't belong. She made things worse by her retarded comments. Do you really think if she was qualified at all and didn't sound like an airhead she would have been raked over the coals? Wasserman Schultz? Let's be fair, not every person in a leadership position is sane or smart. While I hold no love for Sarah Palin whatsoever, that woman took an absolute BEATING from the liberals and the liberal media on an unprecedented level. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:54 oneofthem wrote: i am pleased by this level of vexation you display. fact is, your dear tea party is a lunatic fringe of misguided people with no understanding of the structure they are trying to demolish. Happy 8000th post. Also, Sarah Palin was well... I'm not quite sure how she slipped through so many assessments and ended up where she is. It's kind of a scary thought for me. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
So much of this thread is garbage. So many of us are talking over, around, and under each other's heads. If a friend poses a question concerning your personal well being do we ignore their question and immediately attack our friend? I'd hope most of the people in here, in their personal lives, actually have experiences that forced some kind of self-introspection. Maybe because TL tends to have a younger base of users many of us haven't suffered a fall due to our own pride. If you haven't it's coming. When there is a serious problem real progress cannot be made until you start questioning yourself. You can question other people your entire life and you'll rarely learn anything because you ignore their input. I fucking love old people. Why do we idolize our grandparents, for some of you your great grandparents, and call them the "best generation?" It isn't because they won a war. It isn't because grandpa killed krauts and deposed Hilter, one of the worst dictators to grace this earth. I used to think this in grade school and high school. It's because after they went through all the horrific situations that encompassed that war, they came home and rebuilt most of the civilized world, and achieved great things. I truly believe the humility forced upon them during that time is what galvanized the whole world, and specifically this country to forge ahead. Even those that grew up during the Cold War grew up knowing the humbling fact that if things went wrong the world as we know it could be destroyed in a matter of minutes. What keeps us humble now? I suppose 9/11 humbled us in a way, but really I think that just scared us. Americans by and large still are coddled from every angle by the media, their politicians, and while we're children, our family for the most part. I'm sorry for proselytizing about the grand problems concerning politics. It's just that we're so far removed from that now (at least in politics) wonder what it will take to get that back. Fuck pride. It's the ruin of all of us and this thread seethes with it every time I open it. I don't claim to be above it, it pervades everything when it comes these matters and I've said stuff in this thread on impulse that was just not smart. TL:DR - Politics and this thread by extension are rife with pride and lacking in humility. We're in for a huge fucking wake up call if we continue. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:56 farvacola wrote: Jay Inslee got it on lock I'll admit I rather like the Democratic Party of the state of Washington, they have style, a hardline, and so much nature to protect! Shit, man. When I had community service I had to see some of this nature for myself. Had to go help a hippie restore some river for the fish... he let slip that the local people actually hated the river. I asked him why, and he said the fish die along the bank and it smells like death when they rot and it regularly kills their pets when they eat the dead fish. I said they had a good point and he reported I wasn't being cooperative. I was assisting the devil in his work those long weeks BTW I despise the Democratic Party in Washington. Inslee's entire campaign is just embarrassing to my intellect. He spends the entire time debating Mitt Romney and Akin instead of McKenna and does his best to avoid actually talking about specifics. If you are solidly a Democratic voter I can see why you like the red meat thrown to the hounds, but it does nothing for the rest of us. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/374963_10151141951669582_1187650617_n.jpg) Saw this, thought I'd share. PS. Totally read it in an Obama voice. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 11:13 ticklishmusic wrote: + Show Spoiler + Saw this, thought I'd share. PS. Totally read it in an Obama voice. Hahah I read it in an Obama voice too. It's totally him. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 05 2012 10:54 oneofthem wrote: i am pleased by this level of vexation you display. fact is, your dear tea party is a lunatic fringe of misguided people with no understanding of the structure they are trying to demolish. The real vexation comes from the fact that I can't reply with hyperbole of my own. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On November 05 2012 11:02 p4NDemik wrote: Seriously, on both sides modern politics in the U.S. suffers so much from a lack of humility and an overabundance of selfish, unobstructed, and unabashed pride. So many of us who are interested in politics put ourselves in a fucking bubble, watch MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News [whichever aligns closest with their initial beliefs]. We let pundits pump hot air into us, distending our actual positions, and constantly reinforcing them so that we resist at all costs accepting we could be wrong. We have elected a number of politicians who think this way. So much of this thread is garbage. So many of us are talking over, around, and under each other's heads. If a friend poses a question concerning your personal well being do we ignore their question and immediately attack our friend? I'd hope most of the people in here, in their personal lives, actually have experiences that forced some kind of self-introspection. Maybe because TL tends to have a younger base of users many of us haven't suffered a fall due to our own pride. If you haven't it's coming. When there is a serious problem real progress cannot be made until you start questioning yourself. You can question other people your entire life and you'll rarely learn anything because you ignore their input. I fucking love old people. Why do we idolize our grandparents, for some of you your great grandparents, and call them the "best generation?" It isn't because they won a war. It isn't because grandpa killed krauts and deposed Hilter, one of the worst dictators to grace this earth. I used to think this in grade school and high school. It's because after they went through all the horrific situations that encompassed that war, they came home and rebuilt most of the civilized world, and achieved great things. I truly believe the humility forced upon them during that time is what galvanized the whole world, and specifically this country to forge ahead. Even those that grew up during the Cold War grew up knowing the humbling fact that if things went wrong the world as we know it could be destroyed in a matter of minutes. What keeps us humble now? I suppose 9/11 humbled us in a way, but really I think that just scared us. Americans by and large still are coddled from every angle by the media, their politicians, and while we're children, our family for the most part. I'm sorry for proselytizing about the grand problems concerning politics. It's just that we're so far removed from that now (at least in politics) wonder what it will take to get that back. Fuck pride. It's the ruin of all of us and this thread seethes with it every time I open it. I don't claim to be above it, it pervades everything when it comes these matters and I've said stuff in this thread on impulse that was just not smart. TL:DR - Politics and this thread by extension are rife with pride and lacking in humility. We're in for a huge fucking wake up call if we continue. While I agree with the idea that we ought to always try harder to work towards a more effective and level-headed political dialogue, I'm not sure I agree with how you go about justifying it. You speak of past events like the Cold War and World War 2 as though they generally fed into a collectively more humble/less prideful population, but I'm not sure this is the case. I mean, by virtue of the Civil Rights movement alone, huge numbers of people previously divorced from a collective place of societal equality first found themselves able to celebrate their pride in public and do so loudly. We may very well be suffering the side effects of having suppressed minority cultural prominence to this day, but what if this is simply a long term societal cost associated with the subjugation of millions, something we simply cannot avoid as an equilibrium is approached? We can't really know, but I'm just spitballing as to why "pride" may be the wrong frame of indictment. I'm not sure WW2 taught the US humility. Sure, those involved in the war (which was pretty much everybody to some extent) came into contact with the very sobering realities of war and destruction on a grand scale. But coming out of the conflict, internationally we were at the head of the pack. The Soviets were certainly nipping at our heels, but via their losses incurred on the Eastern Front and the already beginning horrible side effects of Stalinism, the prominence of the US stood relatively untarnished as we took to the head of making sure the world never fell into such widespread conflict again. A crucial part of the US cultural understanding of its own place relative to the USSR dealt with simply knowing deep down that we were better than them (see McCarthyism, the Space Race, the CIA's anti-communist directive). I guess my point is that I'm not sure "pride" is the best way to approach the current problem in US political dialogue, at least not in total. On an aside, I might urge you to second guess judgements of a posters position or introspection given select posting evidence. Some people are continuously very verbose, while others (like myself), enjoy being quippy until something compelling comes along. If someone says something that seems ill-conceived or hasty in judgement, ask them about it! Nothing could be more prideful than simply assuming when some good old dialectic engagement could reveal far more. It is in this sense I can see a resounding support of humility make the most sense; the more something pisses you off, the more you ought to try and understand and question it. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
On November 05 2012 11:17 Souma wrote: Hahah I read it in an Obama voice too. It's totally him. The Obama voice fits it perfectly | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On November 05 2012 11:03 Romantic wrote: Shit, man. When I had community service I had to see some of this nature for myself. Had to go help a hippie restore some river for the fish... he let slip that the local people actually hated the river. I asked him why, and he said the fish die along the bank and it smells like death when they rot and it regularly kills their pets when they eat the dead fish. I said they had a good point and he reported I wasn't being cooperative. I was assisting the devil in his work those long weeks BTW I despise the Democratic Party in Washington. Inslee's entire campaign is just embarrassing to my intellect. He spends the entire time debating Mitt Romney and Akin instead of McKenna and does his best to avoid actually talking about specifics. If you are solidly a Democratic voter I can see why you like the red meat thrown to the hounds, but it does nothing for the rest of us. Yeah, I can only speak on the matter so much as I made sure to only vote in Ohio this cycle. I found both McKenna and Inslee rather lacking during their debates, they both seem kinda stodgy to be frank. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On November 05 2012 11:02 p4NDemik wrote: TL:DR - Politics and this thread by extension are rife with pride and lacking in humility. We're in for a huge fucking wake up call if we continue. I'm sure this could become incredibly complicated. Pride is one thing, but is it a bad thing? I think it depends; if you have pride in something general and true, or of a previous accomplishment, then its not so bad. If you have pride in being a republican, and people attack republican values, then it can be a bad thing because it gets in the way of your reasoning due to the stronger effect that emotions play on your mind. But on the flip side, pride can help the mind find solutions that ordinarily, if it were more neutral, the mind might not have had the impetus to find. People who love something generally find a way to live their dream and overcome impossible obstacles; similarly I think it can be as true for those who believe in republican ideology as it is for those mathematicians searching for hidden proofs in mathematics (i.e. they can find the arguments that make that ideology work). I almost feel like this is the way things should be, ideally. People should be shouting at each other, otherwise they have no passion, there's nothing underlying their beliefs. And for beliefs/ideas to be truly tested, they need to be argued for passionately by a number of people - including extremists for extreme beliefs. I remember John Stuart Mill wrote in his book "On Liberty" about how when you don't have that person, that xDaunt, to argue against, you don't know why your beliefs are true, and they become like a hollow religion, where people go to church but don't really know why, and eventually the whole institution crumbles from within. And I think the only reason xDaunt argues so fervently is because he has a lot of pride in his values and beliefs, there's a positive identification he has with being republican. Eventually, over time, the logic of the correct side will win out just as history shows in many other cases. It will be long, drawn out and messy, filled with the logical contradictions that pride brings, but at least we will be sure that we are correct and have faced against the best that opponents can give. Hopefully we will also keep a record as to the arguments against us, and why they were wrong, so it doesn't become like a religious "truth" in the future. So I guess, TL:DR - Pride is on balance a good thing, it allows us to test the veracity of an idea to its maximal extent due to the passion and brainstorming it brings, even with all the logical contradictions that it may entail. | ||
| ||
