Ron Paul
- Thread starter Reber187
- Start date
Reber187 said:
Seems like you and I follow the same "alternative" or "new" media.
I'm so pissed off with the mainstream media that I don't watch it enough to be positive about coverage of him; but, I imagine he is marginalized. Last time I checked, he was not allowed to engage in a recent Presidential Debate because he is "not a significant candidate" or some BULLSHIT like that. Just like when Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Presidential Candidate David Cobb got arrested when they tried to participate in the 2004 debates.
:sOld Ron "Dr. No" Paul isn't a bad guy, although I don't really see eye to eye with him politically, but the fact is the chances of him actually securing the nomination are incredibly low. That's why the media doesn't pay a lot of attention to the guy, not because of some bizarre bias against his politics.
He did indeed perform very well an online viewership polling of the debate, which is somewhat misleading as it only reflects the opinions of the people participating in the polling, which makes it far from a random sampling. Paul has a diehard Libertarian fan base in some parts of the US and more than a few political consultants have suggested that their fairly small numbers were enough to add serious bonus points to Paul's performance (not too many folks total took part in the online polling).
To win the nomination you need party backing, money, and a basically centrist message. Paul unfortunately has none of these things in his corner. The part faithful don't like him, he doesn't have near the war chest and fundraising potential of McCain, Giuliani, or even Romney, and his politics and views are simply too far out there for the majority of voters.
He has a very targeted appeal for some, but is too off-putting for others, and that's not something the GOP is going to gamble on when the stakes are getting squeezed out of the Oval Office on top of losing their majorities.
So, don't go putting it down to some kind of mainstream media bias just yet - the editors that cover the political beat just understand politics, and they know that Ron Paul is a major longshot. The polling stuff from the debate is all hype at this stage in the game - we're a a long ways out from next Feburary when this thing will actually be decided.
And, for what it's worth, I saw primtime coverage of his debate performance on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS - not suprisingly Fox News didn't bother with it. It's not really a major story, which is why it received fairly brief coverage.
He also has some interesting endorsements. I believe Pat Buchanan has signed on, which may not be a good thing, as well as Goldwater Jr. The association with Goldwater conservatism is positive for some older Reaganites, but lets remember that Goldwater himself never took it to the next level and there's all that pesky stuff about actively campaigning against the Civil Rights Act.
Like I said, I think Ron Paul is a good man, but he's not the kind of person that the electorate is going to put in the White House, nor do I think he's the right guy for that sort of executive position. He's an idea guy and better serves in Congress where he can help voice his consituency.
He did indeed perform very well an online viewership polling of the debate, which is somewhat misleading as it only reflects the opinions of the people participating in the polling, which makes it far from a random sampling. Paul has a diehard Libertarian fan base in some parts of the US and more than a few political consultants have suggested that their fairly small numbers were enough to add serious bonus points to Paul's performance (not too many folks total took part in the online polling).
To win the nomination you need party backing, money, and a basically centrist message. Paul unfortunately has none of these things in his corner. The part faithful don't like him, he doesn't have near the war chest and fundraising potential of McCain, Giuliani, or even Romney, and his politics and views are simply too far out there for the majority of voters.
He has a very targeted appeal for some, but is too off-putting for others, and that's not something the GOP is going to gamble on when the stakes are getting squeezed out of the Oval Office on top of losing their majorities.
So, don't go putting it down to some kind of mainstream media bias just yet - the editors that cover the political beat just understand politics, and they know that Ron Paul is a major longshot. The polling stuff from the debate is all hype at this stage in the game - we're a a long ways out from next Feburary when this thing will actually be decided.
And, for what it's worth, I saw primtime coverage of his debate performance on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS - not suprisingly Fox News didn't bother with it. It's not really a major story, which is why it received fairly brief coverage.
He also has some interesting endorsements. I believe Pat Buchanan has signed on, which may not be a good thing, as well as Goldwater Jr. The association with Goldwater conservatism is positive for some older Reaganites, but lets remember that Goldwater himself never took it to the next level and there's all that pesky stuff about actively campaigning against the Civil Rights Act.
Like I said, I think Ron Paul is a good man, but he's not the kind of person that the electorate is going to put in the White House, nor do I think he's the right guy for that sort of executive position. He's an idea guy and better serves in Congress where he can help voice his consituency.
Last edited:
I don't look at it like you might, and seem to, insinuate. Ron Paul is a veteran politician and legitimate Presidential Candidate. Even if he wasn't a veteran, his legit candidate status, as with anyone elses, should be taken just as seriously as anyone elses.
The thing that pisses me off the most is denying these mulltiple candidates, granted - who have marginal yet growing support, a chance to debate the other more prominent candidates (the ones that people largely favor because they see them most - or even simply know their name, race and political party - as the average person is busy with their personal life and really not as aware as they might like to claim) on national television, not the other consistant coverage. I gurantee you that if Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik got to debate in the most popular Presidential Debates, this country would change dramatically whether they became President or not.
You want to talk conspiracy? I also guarantee, if somebody like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik were elected President, there would be another JFK and RFK incident; or atleast an attempt, or multiples of attempts, of that magnitude. Therefore, all of this chatter may be even more moot, in addition to the fact that we are essentially wasting time with our curiousity and expression in a manner which has no real or signifcant impact.
The thing that pisses me off the most is denying these mulltiple candidates, granted - who have marginal yet growing support, a chance to debate the other more prominent candidates (the ones that people largely favor because they see them most - or even simply know their name, race and political party - as the average person is busy with their personal life and really not as aware as they might like to claim) on national television, not the other consistant coverage. I gurantee you that if Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik got to debate in the most popular Presidential Debates, this country would change dramatically whether they became President or not.
You want to talk conspiracy? I also guarantee, if somebody like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik were elected President, there would be another JFK and RFK incident; or atleast an attempt, or multiples of attempts, of that magnitude. Therefore, all of this chatter may be even more moot, in addition to the fact that we are essentially wasting time with our curiousity and expression in a manner which has no real or signifcant impact.
PenilePersist said:
Eesh, did I say conspiracy? I don't think I did, but if that is the case it was a poor choice of words. I just don't think its legit to get pissed at the media for not giving Paul coverage - he's not a high profile candidate, and the news media isn't obligated to cover minor candidates.
I agree with you that he's a legit candidate and veteran politician that has proven he can win elections, but that's a far cry from the difficulty of securing a presidential nomination. Lots of folks can win a certain district that could never hope to ascend to national popularity, that's just politics. It's really up to the candidates themselves to organize and gather the amount of attention and momentum needed to enter the top tier and be counted amongst the serious potential nominees - lots of people have good ideas in this country that others agree with and many of them could even be running for president - that doesn't mean they should automatically get the same recognition as the established big dogs in the race. Just because you like somebody's politics doesn't mean they're being unfairly pushed aside, it just means they're not viewed by most as serious contenders.
I think you're also slightly overstating the impact of the debates. Plenty of candidates have become very visible and had a good presence in the debates and still not been able to do anything electorally. Look at old Sen. Gravel from Alaska in the Democratic debate, or Al Sharpton from 2004. Sharpton turned into a rockstar during the Democratic debates, he was everywhere. In the end he didn't have any money or party support and people didn't look at him as a serious contender. Look at a guy like Pat Buchanan that has always been a sort of 'out there' candidate, but has always been fairly prominent in public attention and always was allowed to debate the major candidates. In the end, he never did much either. The point is, don't get too miffed about this debate stuff. For the most part it's just free air time to show people your face associated with your name.
Also, most political literacy surveys show that the majority of debate viewers don't remember or understand many of the candidate's positions even minutes after a debate - what they do recall is poise and attractiveness. Sad but true. Firecracker that Ron Paul is, just getting into the arena isn't going to be enough to light his campaign off if history is any indicator.
So far as debating this stuff here, I don't call it a waste. Politics doesn't exist without civic participation at even the lowest levels, which we'll say includes Penis Enlargement message boards. Check out my man Robert Putnam and his oft used in college classrooms book, Bowling Alone. Talking about politics is the root of a healthy democratic system. Maybe a few guys will see this and look up your man Ron and take an interest - there's a side benefit right there.
So far as the assasination stuff, I'll leave that alone except to say I don't think Ron Paul is so interesting as to incite anybody to try and blow him away. I'd advise Sen. Obama to watch his back first as you had better believe there are some angry neo-nazis in Northern Idaho or elsewhere that are looking at his success as the herald of apocolypse. But I've already paid my dues debating conspiracies on this board, right Reber?
you have indeed, stridge, my old bean, and as always i appreciate your comments on this subject.
how i view this from the comfort of my chair, across the great watery divide, and as lucid as can be, is that a potential candidate such as Ron Paul who is a lone wolf in his ardent constitution securing principles, relentless slogging of the current crop of cronies in office, and super-publicly backed 'get out of there' reform in the middle east; who has swept online polling in the aftermath of the Republican presidential debate, should by all accounts be plastered all over the NEWS.
thats my 2cents.
keeep pushing
how i view this from the comfort of my chair, across the great watery divide, and as lucid as can be, is that a potential candidate such as Ron Paul who is a lone wolf in his ardent constitution securing principles, relentless slogging of the current crop of cronies in office, and super-publicly backed 'get out of there' reform in the middle east; who has swept online polling in the aftermath of the Republican presidential debate, should by all accounts be plastered all over the NEWS.
thats my 2cents.
keeep pushing
Stridge,
I appreciate the intellectualism you show on occasions more than this, and I understand your views as you have explained them, and I can understand where they come from so to speak. However, as cliffhanger as it may be, and humbly expressed, you do not grasp the depth or complexity of mine in this regard that leaves me with the frustration and challenge of standing for/making points for my conclusions, which may seem fringe or extreme or whatever label you want to call it, and not being able to explain the reasons clearly enough for full comprehension without damn near writing a book, or linking to hours of documentaries or annotations of various facts, documents etc.
I do not grow angry with mainstream media (MSM) for the simple fact that they do not cover Ron Paul, as your latest post implied. I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it.
However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs.
As somebody envoking the names of Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik with some hints of non-specific praise, you might guess that I believe in Personal Repsonsibility to a large extent. Therefore, you may better believe that I agree with you that it is largely a candidates repsonsibility to ascend to national popularity. However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly. Also, as you may be reasonable enough to realize - regardless of the fact that you are not likely a person who is referenced in MSM, if you pay any even minute attention to the celebrity-saturated MSM - with the "rest" of it's coverage as well, as I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets.
I assure you, as I'm sure you are reasonable enough to realize, men like Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik - such fervent advocates and to an extent immensely obvious practitioners of personal responsibility - understand the responsibility they have to raise awareness .... and they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question.
I think you're totally wrong about my comment about the debates. Ron Paul, and especially Michael Badnarik's presentation (really, I prefer Badnarik over Paul by far - but Ron is more established), is a FAR difference from Sharpton and Buchanan. If these two had been debating with Kerry and Bush in 2004, as Michael attempted to and was arrested for ( and has since sued for), Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed; and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part.
People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide.
As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent.
Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?
As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] forum. Get it?
You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me. And, unfortunately - or fortunately, I have grown extremely tired of debating them ... over the years ... along with a lot of political controversy. Hence, my lack of participation in many threads on this forum that I feel might consume me too much. I mean - shit, look at this thread. I've already blabbed with you enough about much more simple issues and even delibverately tried to be vague just to avoid certain discussion.
Take care.
I appreciate the intellectualism you show on occasions more than this, and I understand your views as you have explained them, and I can understand where they come from so to speak. However, as cliffhanger as it may be, and humbly expressed, you do not grasp the depth or complexity of mine in this regard that leaves me with the frustration and challenge of standing for/making points for my conclusions, which may seem fringe or extreme or whatever label you want to call it, and not being able to explain the reasons clearly enough for full comprehension without damn near writing a book, or linking to hours of documentaries or annotations of various facts, documents etc.
I do not grow angry with mainstream media (MSM) for the simple fact that they do not cover Ron Paul, as your latest post implied. I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it.
However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs.
As somebody envoking the names of Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik with some hints of non-specific praise, you might guess that I believe in Personal Repsonsibility to a large extent. Therefore, you may better believe that I agree with you that it is largely a candidates repsonsibility to ascend to national popularity. However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly. Also, as you may be reasonable enough to realize - regardless of the fact that you are not likely a person who is referenced in MSM, if you pay any even minute attention to the celebrity-saturated MSM - with the "rest" of it's coverage as well, as I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets.
I assure you, as I'm sure you are reasonable enough to realize, men like Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik - such fervent advocates and to an extent immensely obvious practitioners of personal responsibility - understand the responsibility they have to raise awareness .... and they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question.
I think you're totally wrong about my comment about the debates. Ron Paul, and especially Michael Badnarik's presentation (really, I prefer Badnarik over Paul by far - but Ron is more established), is a FAR difference from Sharpton and Buchanan. If these two had been debating with Kerry and Bush in 2004, as Michael attempted to and was arrested for ( and has since sued for), Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed; and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part.
People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide.
As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent.
Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?
As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] forum. Get it?
You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me.
And, unfortunately - or fortunately, I have grown extremely tired of debating them ... over the years ... along with a lot of political controversy. Hence, my lack of participation in many threads on this forum that I feel might consume me too much. I mean - shit, look at this thread. I've already blabbed with you enough about much more simple issues and even delibverately tried to be vague just to avoid certain discussion. Take care.
Last edited:
Reber187 said:
Good to hear from you my man,
I often envy the level of British politics - I actually did a brief consulting stint for that old bruiser John Prescott a little ways back on some issue work, and I must admit that British politicos are generally a real large step above their American cousins. I catch the Prime Minister's Questions every chance I get on C-Span in America. I can't help but laugh when I imagine Bush being put to that kind of test. I'm no huge fan of PM Tony, but at least the guy can string a sentence together.
As I mentioned, I think good old Ron's post debate polling isn't anything to get too excited about, but I do admire his capability and poise - unfortuantely that doesn't equal political viability in the states. It made the news for a moment, but that's fleeting in the grander scheme of the nomination race. He's going to have to crack a lot more eggs to make a serious run at the highest office in the land over here. It takes a lot of money and rockstar appeal to pull that off, and right now Ron hasn't mustered the support.
Americans can crow all we want about our democratic tradition, but England was the seed of free societies in Europe, and those tax-dodging rebels that founded America were all EnglisHydromaxen at heart, just not in pocket. Too bad we had to recruit the French to keep you guys from whipping our asses in the war. They have their own right wing hardass in office now, so good luck to them, I guess.
PenilePersist said:Stridge,
I appreciate the intellectualism you show on occasions more than this, and I understand your views as you have explained them, and I can understand where they come from so to speak. However, as cliffhanger as it may be, and humbly expressed, you do not grasp the depth or complexity of mine in this regard that leaves me with the frustration and challenge of standing for/making points for my conclusions, which may seem fringe or extreme or whatever label you want to call it, and not being able to explain the reasons clearly enough for full comprehension without damn near writing a book, or linking to hours of documentaries or annotations of various facts, documents etc.
I do not grow angry with mainstream media (MSM) for the simple fact that they do not cover Ron Paul, as your latest post implied. I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it.
However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs.
As somebody envoking the names of Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik with some hints of non-specific praise, you might guess that I believe in Personal Repsonsibility to a large extent. Therefore, you may better believe that I agree with you that it is largely a candidates repsonsibility to ascend to national popularity. However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly. Also, as you may be reasonable enough to realize - regardless of the fact that you are not likely a person who is referenced in MSM, if you pay any even minute attention to the celebrity-saturated MSM - with the "rest" of it's coverage as well, as I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets.
I assure you, as I'm sure you are reasonable enough to realize, men like Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik - such fervent advocates and to an extent immensely obvious practitioners of personal responsibility - understand the responsibility they have to raise awareness .... and they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question.
I think you're totally wrong about my comment about the debates. Ron Paul, and especially Michael Badnarik's presentation (really, I prefer Badnarik over Paul by far - but Ron is more established), is a FAR difference from Sharpton and Buchanan. If these two had been debating with Kerry and Bush in 2004, as Michael attempted to and was arrested for ( and has since sued for), Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed; and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part.
People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide.
As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent.
Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?
As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] forum. Get it?
You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me.
Take care.
Wow, great post. I'll try and address every point, but that's a big dog, so forgive me if I gloss anything over.
"I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it."
My mistake for assuming the point. As I mentioned, the polling results did receive a little coverage, but it wasn't a major story. A strong showing in an opening debate from a fairly unknown candidate isn't a huge happening, but nonetheless it did generate a few moments of national press. Not bad considering.
"However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs."
I'm a fan as well. As far as I'm concerned Stewart and Colbert are heroes for what they're able to put out every night. Besides the high quality of writing, they both pull few punches on the real issues underneath the sheen of media distortion, but they never fail to do so without a strong sense of humanity and realist perspective. Jon Stewart deserves every accolade he gets -- he took a third rate Comedy Central time filler and turned it into a national touchstone for people that want a little more out of their entertainment and news. Not an easy task, nor something that we knew we ever needed before he did it. Dobbs pisses me off with his one-note commentary, but I respect his professionalism and nuanced approach. I tend to agree with old Keith's politics more (to a degree), but I liked it better when he informed me about sports. The guy is really riding the anti-Bush wave - what the hell is he going to do if we have a Democratic president and double majority? Frankly, his countdown will be pretty trite without the old whipping post sitting in office.
"However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly."
This is an interesting point, but I wonder what it means in the larger picture. The last few elections are the only ones in history to have had any serious input from the internet - does the political process and the resultant media feedback need to cater to the expectations of those of us that use the web heavily for informational purposes? Newspapers and the traditional meters of public interest (namely good old fashioned sample polling) still count for a lot, and in the end they play just as large a roll for candidate momentum as web support. Don't tell that to the many bloggers and 'Kos Heads' that identify themselves as the almight 'Netroots' and constantly demand recognition from the candidates though. As Tip O'Neil reminds, "All politics is local." The MSM is pretty responsive and hooked into the online community. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but I feel that they're very aware of all the various conduits of candidate support.
"I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets."
I hope I'm not misinterpreting again, but I think that from your reference to MSM "making up its own mind" I can safely extract that you feel there is some kind of executive decision about what is covered that includes an agenda. As a person with libertarian values, I'm sure you believe in a truly free market, and I'd ask you to apply that idea to the MSM, which is essentialy a business. It is especially a business that is responsive to viewer interest and demand, and there lies the point. The MSM covers what people are interested in hearing about and concerned with, and thus far that doesn't really include the politics or candidacy of Ron Paul.
I'd say that the editors and news managers of the MSM are more or less enslaved by what they feel will sell ad space much more than any other force, and so as you agreed previously, Ron Paul's candidacy is far from a main attraction. I personally don't begrudge big media for taking a revenue driven approach to these things, and I also don't think that its necessarily fair to indict them for not making some editorial move to suddenly include guys like Paul in heavy coverage just because he's in the race or may have performed well in one debate.
Also, I would offer the point that the MSM has a dominating effect on public interest, but I would also say that the financial and networking side of politics that is so crucial in this stage of the race is driven by people that are involved with more specialized and complicated media. These are the folks that donate to campaigns, volunteer, fundraise, attend events, recruit others people, and especially read publications like The New Rupublic or The New Yorker, or The Economist -- basically people that are very engaged with the political system. These people are catalysts for a lot, and a guy like Ron Paul can go far and do well by addressing this critical group without having his name brought up just as many times as Giuliani on a cable news network. Politics is an insider game to a large degree during the early primary competition - how the hell else did we end up with Kerry in 2004 - and so I wouldn't stake too much merit in simply getting a piece of recognition with the MSM. Kerry and Edwards were both darkhorses, and they didn't entirely claim their stakes just by total number of mentions in the NY Times.
"they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question."
I'm not familiar with the arrest incident you mention, but I'll certainly look it up. Here's my comment on this though - just because they've been working to promote themselves and haven't succeeded, there's not a smidgen of evidence there is any concerted effort to prevent them from becoming hugely popular in the public eye. Hell, I root from some pretty unpopular sports teams and I know they've been playing hard, but they're not top tier after all these years. I don't chalk that up to an effort by the leagues and officials to hold them back, it's just that they can't seem to get it done.
This response is a bit similar to my other point, but if you're a true libertarian than you believe in the market's truth. And, for these guys, the truth is that the market of ideas is valuating their chips pretty low in terms of mass appeal. There are only two politicians out of thousands that have worked relentlessly at self promotion and awareness and haven't received a great deal of recognition - they can join the club of 98% of the other politicians in this country that have ideas that some people love yet can't seem to become national icons. To me, that's not evidence of a concerted effort, that's just how politics works in this country. You might think that sucks, but there's nothing directing it other than public will and the course but fair "tough shit" reality of our democracy.
"Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed;"
Hey, I'll sign on that they could wrangle those two in a debate - I think my nine year old neice could have upstaged those two in a lot of ways. This doesn't really dispute my point that most Americans don't really take a lot of issue-oriented content or feeling away after watching a debate - nor do they really intellectually engage what the candidates are saying.
To break this down, the people that are heavily opinionated - like us - already have out minds made up on the issues, and thus the candidates. The rest are basically watching Love Connection where they root for the most appealing guy, or in most cases they apply faovrable impressions to their partisan choice (for about 85% of voters, partisan affiliation and a sense of who the eventual 'winner' will be decides their vote for them, according to most studies). You're making the very understandable mistake of transposing your interest and concern for constitutional values to the majority of Americans - it's only an assumption that Ron Paul's rhetoric is going to drastically jolt the national electorate awake. In the world of politics, that kind of assumption is usually pretty lethal. Better to go with polling and poltical science.
You're a smart guy with a sharp sense of what you value in national character, but most people that see a debate are only going to remember which candidate got the biggest laugh at Brian Williams. Don't make the error of assuming everybody is going to be as turned on by certain values as you are. It seems cynical, but in it's also unfortunately reality for us.
"and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part."
I like this comment, and it addresses a lot of huge points. Maybe all the other stuff I've said would be best put in context by explaining how I view government. First of all, I don't understand what you said exactly, because you mention polarization, but then go on to say that it's basically a 'one big party/two sides of the same coin system.' I'm probably harping at language here, but it's either one or the other for me.
I believe that America is far more united than we're lead to believe. Go check out the work of Morris P. Fiorina for a real explanation, but basically the idea of this heavy partisan polarization is a creation of your much reviled MSM media, and its intellectual roots and public popularization can easily be traced and understood. The things that the vast majority of Americans really care about, as well as their opinions about said issues, are actually fairly clustered around a very centrist set of values (which, incidentally, alienates guys like Ron Paul, who speak more about heady constitutional issues than meant and potatoes stuff like the state of kid's eduactions, not to his detriment).
That aside, I believe in a slow, stable, and ultimately reactive government. I'll spare you the history lesson that you undoubtedly already know, but the founders that guys like Ron Paul revere intended for our government to be a fairly similar, fairly elitist, and always sluggish entity. They wanted stability and similarity over radical change populist propulsion. Our current republic was hatched during a time of fiersome revolution, and the main impetus behind the constitution was avoiding upheaval. I hate to say it, but Ron Paul is a radical step from what we have now, and so he doesn't really fit in with the established pattern of governmental evolution here. His politics demand pretty radical changes immediately - that's generally not the way things are set up for us nor is it what generally happens. He may be ahead or behind his times, but honestly, there are worse tragedies. I'd say any of the frontrunners on either side are a nice shade of change from Bush, and so I'll follow the model of our friend James Madison and take 'not too damn bad' over a fringe whim. I hate to characterize Ron Paul in that fashion, but as of this date, his politics and ideas are fringe so far as most of the voting populace are concerned.
"People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide. "
Not sure what you mean here - bring in people that are in opposition to their own parties? Once again, I understand your point, and on one level I couldn't agree more. Variety of ideas in politics is what makes it worthwhile and it's entirely necessary. On the other hand, we've already agreed that it's up to the candidates to earn their way into the forefront. We also know that there are radicalized and fringe candidates that do debate, and generally it hasn't made that much of a difference. For all the Gravels and Sharptons and Kucinichs out there, we still get Kerrys as our nominees. Ditto for the GOP. I think you're ignoring the variety that is out there because that variety hasn't included your candidates of choice, so far. I like JFK a great deal, but more as a historical icon. That guy was as flawed adn screwed up, not to mention underqualified, as they come. You can probably tell that I'm a yellow dog Democrat, but I only love the Kennedys from an arm's length - in a lot of ways they represent the great dichotomy of what is great and terrible about politics in America. That's the only reason they're interesting for me.
"As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent."
Like I said, I'll happily shy away from this. I'm not too certain of what policy ideas it takes to get somebody killed in this day and age. We're not exactly talking about somebody getting snuck up on while they take in the theatre one evening.
"Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?"
Not sure what you mean here, but I was half-hearted about him being in danger of assasination. Those neo-nazi militia morons don't have thier shit together to take out a president, er, at least I hope not. Not unless there's some kind beer shortage for a few months and secret service goes on strike.
I met Barack very briefly at a fundraiser about a year back and I will say he's as smart as they come. If you want to talk about a profound respect fot the Constitution, he did teach Constitutional law at one of the very best law schools in the nation for a decade, not to mention editing the Harvard Law review. The guy could have gone to Wall Street, as do 90% of his peers, and made a nicely sized fortune, but he chose a life of public service and education. Say what you want about his politics; he didn't choose the easy road and he's involved in public life because he believes in it, not because he expects anything. He's putting his considerable talents towards his beliefs, not making himself rich and comfortable, which I do admire. It's not an easy thing to be a young, high profile black candidate with too young kids and a very attackable past campaigning in front of America.
"As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] forum. Get it?
"Ah buddy, I think you missed my point with this one. Just to restate, civic interaction starts on a very minor level. Without that basic level, there really is no substance to the next level, and so on. We're not changing the world by talking, but every great intellectual in history would undoubtedly testify to the infinite value of correspondenve, debate, and fervent discussion. Dismissing the inherent merit of talking about something is dismissing the value of the larger issue. I don't want to wax philosophic too long here, bit if it's a worthless enterprise, why did you bother responding? Like I said, go check out my man Robert Putnam. If you really enjoy politics, it's good to investigate the fundamental social machinations that make politics work in the first place. Nothing in the world gets changed without individuals - that doesn't support some new age bullshit 'we're all special' viewpoint - it just means that collective action doesn't exist without personal interaction.
If you think discussing politics is stupid, why don't you write Ron Paul and ask him if you think debating these things is a waste of time, or whether he thinks the involvement of individuals is insignificant to his campaign? I'd be curious to hear the answer if there was a personal reply.
"You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me.
And, unfortunately - or fortunately, I have grown extremely tired of debating them ... over the years ... along with a lot of political controversy. Hence, my lack of participation in many threads on this forum that I feel might consume me too much. I mean - shit, look at this thread. I've already blabbed with you enough about much more simple issues and even delibverately tried to be vague just to avoid certain discussion."Well, I have no doubt you're an adept deaber on the conspiracy stuff. I'm a bit burnt on that - check out the 9/11 thread on this board if you think this post is overly verbose. So far as being consumed by threads, I hope that's not an issue. This is, after all, a Penis Enlargement forum. This is mostly for entertainment. That's too bad that you feel the need to censor yourself to avoid certain topics - I guess I feel like debate and examination has limitless benefits and it never really wears me out to have my ideas challenged. Worst case scenario is that I learn something or am presented with such a strong case that I might just change my mind - not too terrible after all. I think it was that wicked slavery-advocating chauvanist Aristotle that said the mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain an idea while not believing in it.
I wrote too much to really edit or proof, so apologies for the numerous spelling and grammar horrors.
stridge said:
I believe GS just had that "mental edge". i think it was something like 5 straight games they beat em before the playoffs. Regardless, they was going in there underdogs. Plus evrything meshed for them. Stephen Jackson picked it up, Baron Davis def played like an MVP. The teams morale was just too high for Dallas. Again Dallas came in the playoffs with its doubts. first off dirk aint play MVP level, weak ass contributions.
Utah just too talented for GS. No one out there can control Boozer and his rebounding. He having big games.
Yeah, that's a pretty spot on analysis. I've just been a huge Baron Davis fan since he came into the league so I was really stoked to see him finally perform at this level under the national spotlight, especially when it meant putting a stop to the unwarranted MVP stuff for Nowitzki.
I just fealt like they would carry that energy to the Jazz, but they're just too fucking systematic for a team that's all heart and plays loose like GS. In addition to Boozer, Kirelenko has been healthy and playing hot - that's a lot of rebounding power, especially offensively. Still, I thought GS had showed enough poise and toughness to get through this series but now I don't think so.
I have to blame Nellie on some level, because it's not like he hasn't coached against Jerry Sloan hundreds of times before.
I just fealt like they would carry that energy to the Jazz, but they're just too fucking systematic for a team that's all heart and plays loose like GS. In addition to Boozer, Kirelenko has been healthy and playing hot - that's a lot of rebounding power, especially offensively. Still, I thought GS had showed enough poise and toughness to get through this series but now I don't think so.
I have to blame Nellie on some level, because it's not like he hasn't coached against Jerry Sloan hundreds of times before.
the more i've delved into this Ron Paul thing the past couple of days, all i've happened across is an overt media black out and ultra-aspersion.
heres just a snippet of what Paul stands for... no wonder he's locked out of the circus.
Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul full document
About Ron
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted aganst the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
do we really believe in our heart of hearts that a candidate such as Ron Paul WOULDN'T be a steadfast front-runner if he were to recieve the publicity his bold intentions so rightly deserve?
if Paul found his way into office, big money/corperatocracy lose tremendously... go figure.
keep pushing
heres just a snippet of what Paul stands for... no wonder he's locked out of the circus.
Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul full document
About Ron
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted aganst the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
do we really believe in our heart of hearts that a candidate such as Ron Paul WOULDN'T be a steadfast front-runner if he were to recieve the publicity his bold intentions so rightly deserve?
if Paul found his way into office, big money/corperatocracy lose tremendously... go figure.
keep pushing
Reber187 said:
The points about Rep. Paul's record are good to mention - the guy practices what he preaches. But, that so-called document, c'mon . . . that thing is a joke.
It's 300 words that claim there is a media "black-out" on Ron Paul, yet the first thing it mentions is the MSNBC coverage on Paul's online polling results. I would also mention that I saw the poll results covered on multiple major news agencies - it just wasn't a huge story that hung around for more than that evening. News services carry stories based on public response and ratings, and the lack of endurance by the Ron Paul thing shows that most people just don't care about it. To further prove that Ron Paul is intentionally ignored, it goes on to whine about the fact that Dick Morris and Glenn Beck don't think he's a legit contender. Not exactly compelling evidence. Two pundits suggesting that a fringe candidate that 90% the country have never heard of isn't a serious shot for president? To me, that's not really fishy.
Reber, I know that you're a harsher judge of evidence than this - there is nothing concrete to show that the powers that be are intentionally trying to stop Ron Paul from getting a lot of headlines. As I've said, the media is a free market - if people aren't paying attention to Ron Paul, it's his fault. The fact is, the guy doesn't appeal to that many people over here, and just because he got a few words in during the first debate doesn't mean he's a serious force in the race.
Like I mentioned to PenilePersist, you guys are assuming that the politics you like are consistent with mainstream values. Ron Paul is a fine legislator, but most people simply aren't on board with his libertarian brand of ideology. That's not a conspiracy, it's just popular opinion. I thought Peter O'Toole should have won the Oscar this year because I think he's a great actor - but the academy voted for Forrest Whitaker. I don't understand why they didn't like O'Toole better, but I wouldn't call that a conspiracy either. Get my drift?
You guys think Ron Paul is great, so you assume there's a sinister effort to marginalize his candidacy? Well, I like John Edwards, but he's a distant third, does that mean the media is trying to screw him as well? Honestly, this is just silly.
Here's Ron Paul on the Bill Maher show:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU
Besides the fact that this doesn't bode well with the 'blackout' theory, I think Congressman Paul comes off well here. Not presidentially well, but he holds his own, more or less, against Maher. The basic point of this video is that while Ron Paul comes across fairly well, he really doesn't come across as the type of person that the nation would choose to lead us in the free world.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU
Besides the fact that this doesn't bode well with the 'blackout' theory, I think Congressman Paul comes off well here. Not presidentially well, but he holds his own, more or less, against Maher. The basic point of this video is that while Ron Paul comes across fairly well, he really doesn't come across as the type of person that the nation would choose to lead us in the free world.
stridge said:
There you go tossing around the conspiracy word again - even though it simply means and organized plan - but you use it to frame things in a negative light. I say you toss it around AGAIN because yes - you posted it the first time ... and then you played dumb like "did I say that" - when it is plain to see that you edited it out because you know it primarily does two things - 1) agitates, 2) exposes some of your mindset to be more biased than you'd like people to think.
I don't have much time. I'll be blunt and write this in haste. Quit this bullshit of labelling me how you see fit. Reber and I may both be talking about Ron Paul, but we are two different people - even on different sides of the world. Stop acting like you know what I'm thinking, what I mean etc when you clearly do not. You know the old phrase - ASS-U-ME. Earlier I said that I showed non-specific support of Ron Paul. It was one of many phrases of mine that you clearly did not understand, albeit some you have certainly misunderstood to much further extent. I did not say what I do or do not like about Ron Paul. I did not say that I think everybody agree with him. I did not say what I think about his coverage - I specifically said I am not very aware of it except that he is usually and probably still marginalized. Actually, I have been happy to see that Ron has participated in 1 debate already and is scheduled to participate in another - and I was going to post about it when I had time but I have little time that I choose to allocate here as of late as is and your bullshit mislabelling and ASS-U-ME-ING is giving me more to respond to that I don't want to deal with and that you probably don't want to hear.
I could respond to every word of yours, piece by piece, but I have chosen not to for various reasons. Maybe I will reply more later. One thing I will touch on from your reply to me - again - I do not think discussing politics is a waste - just like the first time you implied it. Due to your persistance to miss this point and others - repeatedly - I wonder if you really want to know other people's point of view or if you only want more justification to spew yours. I said, essentially, the significance of this discussion on this forum is incredibly insignificant ... no matter how fundamentally valuable any political discussion is. Again - the Presidential Debates would not be help on such a platform for a reason. The candidates don't post here in their spare time for a reason - other than whether they know this exists or not (and they probably do not). There are more effective platforms for the type of discussion and effect I am interested in. Not intending to self aggrandize - but I think, and do, quite a bit bigger/more outside the box than many people in some aspects. I'd prefer to at least be on the radio - if not on tv - or on mass broadcast online video, for best effect. You clearly like to write/talk alot about this type of thing - which I sometimes do as well so it's not a bad thing, necessarily/in some ways - so maybe you should try to move to an avenue of more exposure where your potential/desire is used more efficiently.
Reber187 said:
You can't get much better than that.
stridge said:
He makes good points on the CIA (to an extent), the Civil War, but I think he's a little unrealisitic about a private FAA. Libertarianism is its most strict form is a disaster, in a society such as ours. Ron Paul is pretty serious in his libertarian beliefs, whereas Bill Maher's libertarian claim is about as accurate as calling GWB a great orator.
I don't think holding your own against Bill Maher is the most formidable challenge by any means. Maher's bias on most everything is overbearing and no one that isn't a fan of his would ever take his show seriously. I thought he looked fine and held nothing back in his arguments, though I might not quite agree with all of them.
Anyway, for delivery and personality, I would not rank Paul as high as Clinton, as Clinton was very articulate. However, I think Paul comes off every bit as likeable, knowledgeable, etc. as many of the recent doofuses (or doofi...not sure) like both Bush Sr. and Jr., Gore, and Kerry.
PenilePersist said:
Damn man, you're a pretty hostile guy.
The conspiracy comments were directed towards Reber, as his posts imply that he clearly believes that Ron Paul is intentionally being squeezed out of the national spotlight. Reber takes no offense at the use of the word 'conspiracy,' but you obviously have a serious problem with it, so let's just leave it out of the conversation. Funny that you chose to get all riled up about that yet ignore every other comment I've made - despite your "sick of it all" attitude, it almsot seems like you're looking for an argument.
Since you apparently don't like it when I "spew" my point of view, I'll resist commenting on most of the content of your post. I'm strongly getting the impression that you're a fairly bitter person that really can't stand it if anybody disagrees with you, so it's probably best to leave it alone. While I don't doubt that you could tear my post to shreds if you applied your intellect to the task, I wouldn't want to trouble you with the burden of formulating a response that's anything more complicated than hurling a bunch of insults at me.
So far as me liking to talk about this stuff and needing a better outlet - not really. I have worked for multiple political campaigns as well as two members of Congress, and I also worked for a political consultancy and a lobbying firm straight out of college. I continue to be active in politics in a lot of different ways. I've pretty much been on every side of the system and I actually do know what I'm talking about. I didn't choose it for a career as it's not as lucrative as the corporate path, but I greatly enjoyed working in the field.
So far as me missing the point on the value of this or any other conversation - maybe try actually reading what I wrote. My point was that democratic politics is sustained by a civic culture, of which the fundamental component is mental engagement and interest in the system of rule. That makes conversing about politics with other people a primary foundation for the larger formal framework.
I'm not really sure how my statement of why I find something worthwhile equals me 'missing the point,' but then again I don't understand a lot of things you said. Perhaps if you didn't take every comment as a challenge (yes, I am assuming that, based on the angy and acerbic tone of your post, as would any other reasonable person), you'd be able to interpret things a little more clearly.
penguinsfan said:
Yeah, Bill Maher is pretty much a pompous ass a lot of the time. The writing in his show is sometimes strong and he does manage to get interesting guests, but its more or less a one-note schtick for him.
I think Ron Paul comes across just fine, but I don't think he has the kind of presence and charisma that people look for in a president. In a perfect world those things wouldn't be necessary for election, but they actually do count for quite a bit. Giuliana, McCain, even Romney, they all have a 'rockstar' (at least so far politics) quality that instills confidence and commands attention on top of there more interesting resumes. Ron Paul can perform well against them, but ultimately he just doesn't have the mass appeal factor that's so important for presidents.
You're right on about Kerry, and Gore in the old days. Except for Clinton, the Democrats have been lacking in truly appealing candidates for a long time. I think that's one of the reasons people are so optimistic about Barack Obama - it's been a while since the Dems produced a really strong and likable figure.
I would say that the Bush family is pretty good in the spotlight - for all his faults, George W. is a pretty likable guy and people gravitate towards him. Bush Sr. was able to hold a room very well, even though his reputation doesn't suggest it. He was a very accomplished guy before becoming president and he was accustomed to high-level leadership. And the other prominent Bush, Jeb, would probably be running for president and doing very well right now if his brother hadn't turned out to be such a screw-up.
stridge said:
Here you go - again; giving more personal bullshit to reply to instead of actually giving me a chance to use the time that I may choose to allocate here to actually discuss the actual topic to further extent.
stridge said:
Wake up. The first two times I responded to your posts I was very civil, diplomatic, tactful and whatever else you want to call it along those lines.
Of course, when you -repeatedly- don't retain the points of my posts, merely saying your same stuff all over again as if it must be mutually exclusive to what I am saying ... and you further continue to lump Reber's thoughts with mine as one and you further assume what I am thinking or what I mean to say and you further try to frame us both as "silly" conspiracy theorists ... I am going to bluntly tell you to stop ASS-U-ME-ING - especially with such verbosity - which, when done in such a combo, illustrates quite clearly that you are in fact not really trying to understand what I am saying ... you are merely enjoying the slightest opportunity to spew as much of your views as possible.
You don't take into account how what you say is in err due to your lack of retaining and or understanding what I have already posted. You don't take into account that you are wrong when you assume my words where I have not explained them for myself. Really, it's fundamental errors that you are repeatedly making and it's turning you into an ass - despite my previous praise of you. And, this last bit of your quote here, along with the rest of your post is just you passing MORE judgment by ASS-U-ME-ing and AGAIN saying your same points over and over as if I did not already take them into account (and no matter how many times I exude that I understand your point, and that it is in fact so fundamental to anybody with a hint of political intelligence that it need not even be said, yet not mutually exclusive to my point -- you still keep failing to understand, failing to retain, failing to accept or something of the sort that makes you keep acting like you do).
Who is really being hostile when I point out that you have crossed the line in some aspect, in which case a mature man interested in mutual understanding in civil discourse would accept responsibility and apologize, and yet you persist to assume, judge, and exhaust your same points that I have already addressed ... in combination with some scathing insults that are really quite hypocritical all things considered? It's obviously a rhetorical question.
Stridge said:
Now you're really starting to lose my respect. This is the second time you are distorting the reality of your own words - which some people call lying - clearly to try to cover your ass to an extent because you at least want to save yourself from what you perceive as a "hit" to your precious ego.
The first time - you tossed around the word conspiracy to attempt to frame Reber and I as conspiracy theorists. Then, as I was typing my reply, you edited it out. Then, when I mentioned your use of the frame in my post - you played dumb:
Even though only minutes before you made a deliberate effort to specifically edit the word out of your posts, you acted like you had no clue that you said it and that you even thought you did not. Then, knowing the negative implications of using such a word for, essentially, character assassination, you even said that is a poor choice of words. However, only one single - on topic - post later, you used the word for the same purposes again ... clearly proving that you did not really believe it was a poor choice of words ... you just know that it reveals your attempts to character assassinate/frame the other person as a "kook" .... and like said:stridge said:
PenilePersist said:
NOW ... in this case ... you are AGAIN .... trying to distort reality/lie/cover your ass by saying "oh, I was only talking about Reber" (totally denying responsibility for, and skipping over the obvious need to apologize for, lumping Reber's thoughts and mine together as one). And, AGAIN, you were audacious enough to do this when not only did you know that you were distorting the truth of your posts ... but this time ... since I had even just then QUOTED your own words ... you were staring at proof that you couldn't edit out like you did the first time.
Here's the proof:
Stridge said:
Last but not least, you would - again - be ASS-U-ME-ing that Reber has no problem with your use of the word just because he hasn't specifically said so. Just like you were ASS-U-ME-ing what I thought about Ron Paul and that I thought his views were altogether consistent with mainstream views etc ... just like you ASS-U-ME-[ump]tions that I could probably easily count in excess of 10 other times, sometimes the same assumption - repeated - for more counts, in this single thread.
stridge said:
stridge said:
I do not have a problem with the word at all. You have a problem with the word. You keep assuming and using it to character assassinate and frame people as kooky or silly conspiracy theorists when they haven't explain anything relevant to you. Maybe you are more accurate to use it in response to Reber's views, but you make further err when you use it as his views are mine with "you guys" shit. Plus, it is obvious that you throw around the word to frame as kooky and negative - refusing to acknowledge that almost all organized effort of any kind is conspiracy ( conspiracy - Definitions from Dictionary.com - see definition 5 - 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. )
That may be a good idea. Or you could just use it more appropriately and without abundant assumption. After all, you said yourself:stridge said:
stridge said:
Of course, that was after you introduced it to the thread (only to edit it out and deny saying it a second later), AND before you used it again in a more obviously negative manner, and before you denied who you were directing it contrary to the evidence I quoted for all to see.
But, no need to assume on my part - merely observe that, if you keep up with your current trend, you'll deny the reality of all of this, neglect to take responsibility and neglect to apologize, and continue to exhaust your same redundant points that have already been addressed as if they haven't due to your lack of retaining or understanding or your pure enjoyment with reading your own posts.
If you would just stop all of this nauseating non-sense, then maybe I would actually want to expound further on the actual topic AND when I actually had the time or desire to do so I wouldn't have to waste my time replying to your unnecessary bullshit negativity and misleading and asinine comments built on your fantasy land assumptions and judgments with no effort for real understanding.... just so that we could get back to square one.
I have not at all ignored every comment you've made. I've basically already covered all of them before, and in some cases multiple times, and due to your failure to retain the points and or understand- you keep saying mostly the same shit all over again and I have largely neglected to reply because I'm tired of the circuitous discussion that only seems to be serving to fulfill your zealous desire to fill your lack of other life with reading your own posts no matter how redundant they are.
stridge said:
No. I explained:
1) It's not that I think political discussion is a waste - so I am not "sick of it all". AGAIN - in other words in desperate attempt for you to SHUT THE FUCK UP with this nauseous exhaustion by FINALLY understanding my point and how it is not at all in disagreement with yours, just more complex and individual - there is only so much time and so much effect. This is not my ideal choice for either time or effect because, AGAIN - no matter how fundamentally valuable ... or as you say - AGAIN - (get it? - redundant exhaustion and failure to understand and retain my points and then with the additional hypocritical assertion that I am not understanding yours?!?!?!?) no matter what is obvious without needing to say (for anyone who has a clue about politics) that such even simple discussion in any forum by any group of people (really, registered voters to political extent and everyone else only to a militia extent of sorts) is the "primary foundation" of democratic (or - more technically accurate - republic or Democratic republic, if you know anything about government) politics in "civic culture".
2) I was clearly not looking for a fight. I felt compelled to say something and explain why I would want to hold back:
PenilePersist said:
You have proven my point. You assumed, you labeled, you failed to retain, you failed to understand. YOU then persisted with behavior that I asked you to stop, and that deep down you knew was wrong because you even edited some of your posts, said it was a poor choice of words, and you continue to deny .... and YOU, thus, have truly shown a desire to argue. Congratulations - you have convinced me to succumb to your behavior to at least a limited extent.
3) The primary thing I am "sick of" is the way you are using the word "conspiracy" and your intent behind it - character assassination and framing things you don't understand - combined with the fact that you yet want to ASS-U-ME you do understand in the absence of explanation ... and thus make your asinine judgments and further insult .... all unnecessarily.
Bullshit.stridge said:
1) You took 5 paragraphs to reply to those 3 of mine.
2) You responded to every single point, so this was just a rhetorical attempt to frame your ego.
3) I don't mind you sharing your point at all. I actually encourage you to do whatever makes you happy, and I think you're far more of a valuable citizen than most that I observe and that is because of your desire to engage in such political discussion. It's simply that the more you post, the more you give me reason to be extremely condemning of what you are posting or the manner of how you are choosing to discuss ... since it is full of character assassination, assumption, judgments based on assumption ... and vehemently redundant points ... stemming from a lack of understanding and bias combined with a zeal of wanting to be so verbose about the topic for reasons of both fact and theory that I will avoid discussing so as to not offend.
I don't like your exhausting of points I have already addressed, and your "crying" about me not addressing them and not, essentially, telling you "you're right!" ... when the reality is I already addressed them, in some cases multiple times in varied ways ... and you just don't get it ... AND ... I think at least particular point or two is correct and made it clear that it is not mutually exclusive of the points of mine that you erroneously believe are mutually exclusive.
Circuitous discussion is a waste in itself. Add that to the fact that I already don't prefer this avenue, and I'm wondering what the hell I am even posting for (though I know why I think I am).
stridge said:
Wrong. I am the opposite of bitter. I thoroughly enjoy civil discourse. The thing I really can't stand is HOW you are handling the discussion, NOT your actual points. AND, we barely actually disagree about the on topic points that have been made.... if we even disagree at all ... and due to your false assumptions, character assassination and failure to retain and or understand the points that I have made .... you don't even get that the only thing we are clearly starting to disagree with is HOW to have the conversation.
stridge said:
Thanks for the compliment. Too bad you followed it with this, and thus gave reason to believe you didn't mean that....:
stridge said:
I had already troubled myself to respond to you on TWO occasions herein - wherein I both replied to specific and on topic points very civilly, even having the patience to respond to your redundancy by re-explaining my same points in other words in hopes for you to understand. The "insults" that you speak of were not even intended to be insults - they were blunt explanations of where you had clearly crossed the lines of civil, fair, discourse and actual shown no true intent to be fair and have mutual understanding ... merely intent to assume and pass judgment on those assumptions combined with your bias that leads to your character assassination and negative framing of points that you don't even understand as "silly" and such .... and where you had unfairly lumped Reber's views and mine as one .... which I then closed with the observation that you thus clearly seem to be most interest in espousing/spewing your views rather than understanding anybody elses.
It has only been your repetition of your err that has encouraged me to point it out again ... instead of being able to use what time I choose to use this thread to "trouble" myself with for more progressive conversation that may actually explain more of my points - or at least try to repeat them AGAIN in a manner that you may better understand this time.
stridge said:
Good for you. We are akin here in more ways than you may want to believe and in ways that I don't care to brag about - or explain. I think, though, if you are to be truly honest on this point of mine, then you would consider that this reply of yours was about your ego of not primarily wanting to validate your credibility for such discussion, but possibly for your "fairly bitter" attitude [remember those words?
] after the post I had just written and your "[inability to] stand it if anybody disagrees with you" [remember those words? ] . The most likely reality is, the only people that may even really give two shits about what we are saying here are posting in this thread. Everybody else mostly couldn't care less - if anybody else is even viewing this thread. Is all of the energy and passion and abundant content that you put into it really worth it without a better platform .... or is it just like mental masturbation to kill time ..... or in this case, our "circle jerk" ? I think the latter - regardless of how fundamentally valuable/foundational such discussion on even such small scale is - and that we both understood prior to this thread without needing it to be said. stridge said:
Hypocrite, but not exactly. The difference between us here is not that one of us read what we wrote and the other did not. We both read each other's points, and we've both echanged the following point that you were referring to:
stridge said:
I know. Like I've quite overtly implied before this post, and specifically said multiples of times within this post, we both understood this point before this thread even existed so it goes without saying. Me saying "marginal" effect is not mutually exclusive of what I called fundamental value and what you called foundational value.
Now, the difference between us has been that I understood this in making my points which caused you to make this point. And then after reading your point I explained to you in multiple ways that I understand it, but it is not mutually exclusive of my point. You simply failed to retain and or understand that last point of mine no mater how many times I said it nor how many ways I said it so you have been vehemently repeating it ad nauseum (which is actually also slightly condescending and thus insulting for you to imply that I don't even understand that ... though I never took it that way).
Hopefully you get it now. I'm sorry I didn't explain it in a way that you would understand before and I'm sorry that you assumed that I just don't understand your point, that really goes without saying, so you should just keep repeating it.stridge said:
stridge said:
You got that right. We agree here, as I'm sure we would on many other points if the discussion was kept more fair and civil - which is the only thing I've been posting about as of late.
Again, I'm sorry you did not understand. Again, I'm sorry that your lack of understanding combined with your zeal to reply as if you did understand has been problematic. Please consider letting it go if you don't understand, rather than framing your posts with judgments of me based on things that you assume about me.
stridge said:
I've actually interpreted what you said very accurately. I've even backed it up with hard evidence and this forum corroborates it with your own words that you can no longer edit like you tried to the first time. I've proven that you have shown a trend of being audacious enough to deny this, though, as well ... which doesn't surprise me if you have worked close with politicians ... because their bullshit can break good men down enough to rub off on the good men after a while.
I have actually proven that you are the one who is having a difficult time interpreting what I am saying. You even admitted you do not understand - and I assure you it is not because my points are oxymoronic - it is because they are complex ... as I said from the start:
PenilePersist said:
Lastly, I have clearly only shown interest in posting here very casually as I feel, and actually preferring to tend to many other responsibilities and not get wrapped up in this at all and advocating that there are much better ways to spend the time and effort on this topic ... and subtly implying better ways to spend the time and effort in complete unrelation to this topic. Therefore, I had actually consistently shown absolutely no desire to take this as a challenge. This post of mine here is the first one that could really even be interpreted as challenging ... only because your poor manner in relation to me pissed me off enough. On the contrary, you have clearly been zealously and strategically formulating verbose posts that scream : "I'm right! I have a lot to say about this! Listen to me! This discussion is very valuable! I'm so experienced with this! C'mon, c'mon, trouble yourself to reply to me! ".
Please excuse me for any parts where one single, ventingly therapeutic, string a scathing diatribe was used to make a point. It's is nothing very personal, just my chosen way of making the point in this instance for therapeutic reasons and to relish in the freedom of expression ... all in "heat of the moment" so to speak.
I also pledge to realize that it is incredibly difficult to convey complex meanings over the internet, with the impersonal setting and typos etc. I hope that realization is held by you as well.
Best. And, as I said before ... if you'll cease the unnecessary, maybe I will reply more on topic on some occasion where I may choose to "trouble" myself with this thread again. Please don't hold your breath, but please stop making it more of a challenge for both of us.
Whoa . . . don't you feel just a little self-conscious for making fun of my 'verbosity' in a post that long? Or criticizing me for repeating the same points, by uh, repeating that point, over and over again, like multiple times? Redundency, it's precious.
But seriously, I'll now attempt to defend myself here:
I went back and reread the thread, and I just can't seem to find the "nauseating" repetition and total disregard for your ideas that you describe. I don't have that many total posts on the subject you're all hot and obthered over - is that really enough material to agitate you this much? I seem to have an easy time pissing you off, so I'm really not trying to needle you with this, but your post repeatedly mentions some kind egregious lack of comprehnsion on my part, and I'm really not seeing it. I responded to some of your comments, added my own opinions, that's about it. To me it really looks like you just flew off the handle when I used the "c" word.
So far as the little subnote on the value of a civic culture, you said:
"Therefore, all of this chatter may be even more moot, in addition to the fact that we are essentially wasting time with our curiousity and expression in a manner which has no real or signifcant impact."
And then:
"My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] forum. Get it?"
My response was just to say that in democratic theory, things of marginal impact are still important, and also that I didn't really expect or care whether the conversation had any impact. I fail to see how that's so incredibly frustrating for you - but then again the last time I confessed to not understanding your rationale for something I predictably got a few "Amen!" barbs from you, so I don't really know how to phrase what I'm trying to say here. Basically, you either didn't understand what I meant or just misinterperated. Either way, I find it a little strange that you were so upset by me repeating a certain sentiment. Someties people talk right past each other, get over it. You'll be a happier guy.
Now, the conspiracy stuff. I'll take your word for it that I edited my post - I really don't recall, but if I took it out I'm sure it's because I realized it might open a whole other can of worms. So far as lumping you and Reber together, that was my mistake. "You Guys" was the wrong way to phrase my comments. In the post where you really get after me for using the word conspiracy, you overlooked the fact that in Reber's previous post he had a link called "Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul." That's what I was talking about in my post. In fact I wasn't even really addressing you with the conspiracy stuff. I know I said "you guys," but I really didn't mean to include your views with Reber's. He's cool with being associated with conspiracy stuff, you clearly are not.
So far as my crimes of assumption, I did have you pegged as a some sort of a conspiracy guy (not necessarily on this topic) based from your comments, such as:
"You want to talk conspiracy? I also guarantee, if somebody like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik were elected President, there would be another JFK and RFK incident"
"one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question."
"As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent."
"You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me."
So, those comments would normally lead a person to believe that you're at least open to the idea of conspiracies. You were outraged that I "labeled" you, but that's being pretty silly. I associated you with a person that I know believes there's some kind of conspiracy against Ron Paul, which prompted you to get pretty upset. Obviously you have some history of arguing with people about conspiracies and the topic is aggrivating for whatever reason. I don't care to know more, but reread the posts and I think you'll see that I wasn't specifically addressing you nor did I intentionally label you as a conspiracy guy.
On that note, all this whining - and I realize that's offensive, but really, you are whining a bit here - about character assasination? This is an anonymous internet forum and I'm fairly certain that there is at most a handful of people that will ever see this stuff. I don't think 'character assasination' is really possible under those circumstances. Also, do you really think I'm devious enough, or even care enough about this to intentionally try and portray you in a negative light? I had enjoyed reading and posting on the thread, I wasn't at all interested in having some kind of showdown with you.
And so, now the monster post:
"Here you go - again; giving more personal bullshit to reply to instead of actually giving me a chance to use the time that I may choose to allocate here to actually discuss the actual topic to further extent."
How can I take away your "chance" to reply on an internet forum? I don't take any of this stuff personally, but your post is loaded with taunts and some less than flattering commentary on my supposed total lack of any ability to understand the complexity of your ideas. When you choose to take a tone like that and say those sorts of things, I don't think it's really unwarranted of me to point out that you seem like a pretty angry person. Don't worry, my feelings aren't too wounded here, but your post was obviously angry, and I commented on that. I was pretty surprised by just how pissed you sounded.
"Wake up. The first two times I responded to your posts I was very civil, diplomatic, tactful and whatever else you want to call it along those lines."
Nothing wrong with being like that all the time . . . I've never understood peope who believe that being polite and civil is some kind of special mode of operation. It's the internet - why bother with the attitude? I'm sure you can cut me down to size in any state of mind.
"I am going to bluntly tell you to stop ASS-U-ME-ING - especially with such verbosity - which, when done in such a combo, illustrates quite clearly that you are in fact not really trying to understand what I am saying ... you are merely enjoying the slightest opportunity to spew as much of your views as possible."
Couple of strange things here. First of all, as I said, it's just funny that you're angry that I'm too verbose - you write just as I do, much if not more. Why do you care in the slightest how much I write? Kinda weird. And, if I assumed any conspiracy stuff about you, I think the quotes I provided above are demonstrative of why its reasonable.
Also, so far as my views, how come I always "spew" them? Your diction is pretty telling of your mental state here - something about me and what I write really, really pisses you off. Unless you consider spewing to be a good thing, in which case, thanks. Right back at you.
"Who is really being hostile when I point out that you have crossed the line in some aspect, in which case a mature man interested in mutual understanding in civil discourse would accept responsibility and apologize"
This is pretty crazy. I posted a response that obviously upset you, you blew me out with a very angry post, then all of a sudden I owe an apology for something? I think whatever perceived rivalry or war of words you're seeing here only existed for you. I was enjoying posting on the thread and I pretty much had no idea you were seething and getting preogressively more pissed off the entire time, nor that you were painstakingly attempting to get me to realize the many foolish errors and oversights I was perpetrating against your ideas.
"Now you're really starting to lose my respect. This is the second time you are distorting the reality of your own words - which some people call lying - clearly to try to cover your ass to an extent because you at least want to save yourself from what you perceive as a "hit" to your precious ego."
I really don't feel any need to "cover my ass." Why would I care in the first place and who exactly am I covering my ass from? I think it's more likely you don't want to have your reason for being so upset taken away, or whatever, I'm desperately attempting not assume anything here, as we know how you react to that mortal trespass.
I could point out that you hypocritically assume quite a few things in your above statement - but maybe that's just my monstersouly swollen and very demanding ego chiding me on again.
"The first time - you tossed around the word conspiracy to attempt to frame Reber and I as conspiracy theorists."
Once again, why the hell I would want to "frame" you? You seem to be sort of a paranoid guy. Reber does believe in conspiracies and is a proud conspiracy theorist. Like I said, and I know this is heartbreaking, if I implied that you are as well, it was because I was mistaken. Frame you? C'mon dude.
"since I had even just then QUOTED your own words ... you were staring at proof that you couldn't edit out like you did the first time. "
Good lord . . . I never denied saying it in the second post, where are you getting this from? Reber's link had the word "conspiracy in it," and I was attempting to direct my comments his way - I really didn't mean to include you in the fun, but you invited yourself. Seriously now, why are you so upset by this stuff? Did something bad happen to you? I mean, besides the physical pain that the stupidity of my posts seems to have caused.
"be ASS-U-ME-ing that Reber has no problem with your use of the word just because he hasn't specifically said so."
He has said so. He and I have talked at length about the subject. Kind of a big assumption on your part there, eh fella? Shoot, sorry, massively swollen ego got a hold of me again.
"Just like you were ASS-U-ME-ing what I thought about Ron Paul and that I thought his views were altogether consistent with mainstream views etc"
My point was that I think you severely overestimate the mass appeal of a guy like Ron Paul. You said something along the lines that you believed he would be able to change the nation and reprioritize politics for a lot of people if he had a larger audience. I didn't agree, I explained why. Like I said, I think that when people disagree with you, you get angry. Then perhaps your perceptions and responses are just a little bit influenced by said anger. C'mon, admit it, it's possible.
I'm assuming that by the way - sometimes its necessary for the mind to subsititue the most likely information for something that we don't know specifically. If I stick my hand out and catch a baseball, it's because I assume the laws of physics are in normal operation and its flight path is going to cross a certain point. It's not really clever to point out any and every statement with assumptive value, as many statements made by most people hold some form of assumption, inculding many of your own. I won't point it out from now on, but you should take a look at your own rhetoric before you get all hopping mad about somebody else's.
"I do not have a problem with the word at all. You have a problem with the word. You keep assuming and using it to character assassinate and frame people as kooky or silly conspiracy theorists"
World hear me now (or at least the one or two other people that will ever see this): I swear on my mother's eyes that I did not attempt to "frame" this guy as a "kooky" person. He believes that I have made a deliberate effort to do this, almost like a conspir . . . uh, nevermind. But let the record show, I'm not in the habit of 'framing' or 'character assasinating' in friendly conversations carried out over an internet message board. That would be pretty kooky indeed. Wait, are you framing me as kooky! Ha, I have you, hypocrite.
And, you do have some sort of problem with the word. It seems that if you even suspect it is being related to you in some way, you tend to get pretty freakin' upset. See your own posts for reference.
"in other words in desperate attempt for you to SHUT THE FUCK UP with this nauseous exhaustion by FINALLY understanding my point and how it is not at all in disagreement with yours"
Ah, nauseous exhaustion? Really? I think this is more funny than stomach churning or exhausting, you're making me feel bad here. I was quite entertained by the fact that you make a point of speaking to me as if I were a fairly stupid person, but then show your superior character and maturity by instructing me to "SHUT THE FUCK UP," boldly manifested in all caps as well. Okay, I get it man, you don't like what I have to say so I shouldn't say anything.
I wasn't really ever attempting to subvert or somehow 'prove you wrong' with my comments, I was just giving my take on things. I thought (assumed) that you thought Ron Paul was being unfairly snubbed by the media and that he really does have mass appeal. I disagreed. I'm sorry I didn't realize that in actuality we do agree, and I unfortunately still don't see how it is that we agree, but if you say so then I'll take your word for it.
"You have proven my point. You assumed, you labeled, you failed to retain, you failed to understand. YOU then persisted with behavior that I asked you to stop, and that deep down you knew was wrong because you even edited some of your posts, said it was a poor choice of words, and you continue to deny ...."
Damn, I've rally been up to some dastardly hijinks on this thread. I can tell you that, deep down, I had absolutlely no feeling whatsoever that what I was saying was "wrong." I also didn't see where you asked my to curb my horrendously offensive behavior, but I'll check back over the thread for it. We've established that I'm a pretty slow guy and have a hard time taking in the full complexity of your statements (except for "SHUT THE FUCK UP," which I feel confident in saying that I was able to comprehend right away), so maybe you should have been more direct with me. So, you know, it's all your fault.
"The primary thing I am "sick of" is the way you are using the word "conspiracy" and your intent behind it - character assassination and framing things you don't understand"
Character assasination, framing, etc. Same points again. Aren't I supposed to be kind of a jackass for repeating myself too much? But I digress, as I'm repeating myself by pointing out that you accuse me of repeating myself, repeatedly. We've established that I was referring to Reber's link, which has the word "conspiracy" in it. Show me somewhere on here where I've said "PenilePersist, you are a damned conspiracy theorist and therefore you are a kooky person whose views carry no weight" - otherwise the immense load of whining and indignity you're heaping on here looks just a little ridiculous, to me anyway. My opinion doesn't seem to hold a lot of weight with you, so you probably shouldn't worry about it.
"You took 5 paragraphs to reply to those 3 of mine."
No way, your parapgraphs are clearly much longer than mine. Ha.
"You responded to every single point, so this was just a rhetorical attempt to frame your ego."
Something as immense and demanding as my ego often requires a little framing. I ignored many of your comments.
"since it is full of character assassination, assumption, judgments based on assumption ... and vehemently redundant points ... stemming from a lack of understanding and bias combined with a zeal of wanting to be so verbose about the topic for reasons of both fact and theory that I will avoid discussing so as to not offend. "
Uh, just wanted to point out the continuing obsession with character assasination, assumptions, redundancy, etc. Oh yeah, I'm also too verbose and I don't understand anything you write. Looks like you got them all in there at once this time.
"The thing I really can't stand is HOW you are handling the discussion, NOT your actual points. AND, we barely actually disagree about the on topic points that have been made.... if we even disagree at all ... and due to your false assumptions, character assassination and failure to retain and or understand the points that I have made .... you don't even get that the only thing we are clearly starting to disagree with is HOW to have the conversation."
Mmm, once again I'll take your word that we agree. I hadn't even really been looking at this as some sort of pointed debate - as you did accurately notice, a lot of my posting was just me waxing my opinion on something because it interested me. You were the one that took it to be some kind of debate scenario.
I really don't see all these terrorist-style tactics that I'm supposedly employing or how I'm being so blatantly unethical, but that might be my serious inability to understand your writing acting up again. Mention of character assasination: check. Mention of making assumptions: check.
"I had already troubled myself to respond to you on TWO occasions herein - wherein I both replied to specific and on topic points very civilly, even having the patience to respond to your redundancy by re-explaining my same points in other words in hopes for you to understand."
You are truly a kind man for taking some of your time to attempt to steer me straight, and I apologize that your altruistic efforts were wasted. I can't imagine the agony that I put you through. Sarcasm aside, I would raise the point that if you hate what I have to say so much and find it so frustrating, you could have ignored it, but I think you yourself realize the irony of the situation here.
"clearly crossed the lines of civil, fair, discourse and actual shown no true intent to be fair and have mutual understanding"
Crossed the line? Fair discourse? Please, outline the rules for me next time. I was under the impression that I was shooting the breeze about Ron Paul on an internet forum, an activity for which I didn't know there was some kind of prescribed code of ethics. The more of this I read, the more I'm wondering how nefarious of a bastard you really think I am?
"merely intent to assume and pass judgment on those assumptions combined with your bias that leads to your character assassination and negative framing of points that you don't even understand as "silly" and such"
More framing, more character assasination. But, believe me, I will never use the word 'silly' in anything of even remote relation to something that you are discussing. We can see what happens.
"I think, though, if you are to be truly honest on this point of mine, then you would consider that this reply of yours was about your ego of not primarily wanting to validate your credibility for such discussion"
Not really, but I don't care if anybody feels that way. You suggested that I needed to find some kind of outlet in my life for my political interests, I was just explaining that I've had it and still have it. Pretty simple. Working in politics isn't something I'd really want to brag about. It's pretty easy to do and most people hate it. It's not like I was crowing about where I went to college or the size of my paycheck. But, my gigantic ego was no doubt involved at some level, as it seems to be with most of my comments.
"The most likely reality is, the only people that may even really give two shits about what we are saying here are posting in this thread. Everybody else mostly couldn't care less - if anybody else is even viewing this thread"
Yep. Makes me feel kind of dumb for even bothering to attempt a character assasination on you since nobody else is paying attention.
"Is all of the energy and passion and abundant content that you put into it really worth it without a better platform .... or is it just like mental masturbation to kill time ..... or in this case, our "circle jerk"
As long as it's entertaining, sure. I know it may be hard to believe, but it doesn't take a huge quantity of my energy or attention to respond on this thread. I have used it as a timekiller, particularly my first long response, which I wrote while staying awake to catch a flight. Why do you care so much about why or how I post? Kinda nosy aren't you? And who cares what the 'platform' is? I'm not looking for attention or recognition here.
"Hypocrite, but not exactly. The difference between us here is not that one of us read what we wrote and the other did not."
Eh, I have the same feeling about you, I just choose not to state it over and over and over again. Everybody is hypocritical about some things, so I always thought it was a pretty weak tactic to seriously accuse somebody of hypocrisy, although I've done it in my time. Get it?
"Hopefully you get it now. I'm sorry I didn't explain it in a way that you would understand before and I'm sorry that you assumed that I just don't understand your point, that really goes without saying, so you should just keep repeating it."
Alright, I admit, this is one of those times when I don't really understand you. All this abstract discussion of 'points' and interpretation is getting a little heady. We already established that your level of discourse is just a little too intricate for me to handle, so be charitable and bear with me.
After reading the thread I would argue that I was articulating my point further - you still commented that you didn't understand why I thought it was worth anybody's time to talk about this stuff - I believe I quoted you earlier in this post. I just said that I think civil society is built on . . . wait, I'm not supposed to repeat anything.
Here's what went on, as far as I can tell - I explained my take, you responded in a very similar manner as before, I tried to articualte my views a little better, then you got really pissed and took me to task, partly for repeating myself - something which you never do. If I'm wrong here feel free to put me back on track once more.
"You got that right. We agree here, as I'm sure we would on many other points if the discussion was kept more fair and civil - which is the only thing I've been posting about as of late."
Geeze, that's no fun. Honestly, the conversation about anything Ron Paul and media related was totally derailed by your need to point out what an unfair and devious commentator I am, and now we're just talking shit, which is also fun, but ultimately doesn't contain many of those lofty civic values that you know I love.
"Again, I'm sorry you did not understand. Again, I'm sorry that your lack of understanding combined with your zeal to reply as if you did understand has been problematic. Please consider letting it go if you don't understand, rather than framing your posts with judgments of me based on things that you assume about me."
And, I'm sorry that you prefer to be coy about telling me that I'm not as smart as you are by constantly referencing my inability "to understand." I really don't care if that's how you feel and I genuinely don't understand why you would be so upset by anything I said, but I think we would disagree as to what the origin of my inability to figure out your pissed-off state of mind actually is. It seems that I deliberately frame my posts with negative insinuations to discredit you - I understand that. I hope you will then understand that I really was not paying even remotely enough attention to this to even consider attempting 'to frame' anything. Really.
"I've actually interpreted what you said very accurately. I've even backed it up with hard evidence and this forum corroborates it with your own words that you can no longer edit like you tried to the first time. I've proven that you have shown a trend of being audacious enough to deny this, though, as well ... which doesn't surprise me if you have worked close with politicians ... because their bullshit can break good men down enough to rub off on the good men after a while."
Dang, I'm audacious now too? I'm coming off like a pretty bad guy here: a scheming, lying, unethical, mean-spirited, slow-witted, audacious egomaniac who commits character assasination.
Like I said, if I took out the word conspiracy when I was editing the post, and I believe you when you say I did, then I did it because I probably realized nobody was directly advocating such a thing at that point, although I know Reber a bit and I do believe that was his intention. I was trying to avoid anybody being pissed-off, but you found a way to make it happen anyway and waited until I wasn't even addressing your comments to go nuts over it. I'll also have to take your word that you accurately understand everything I mean, although I'd personally disagree on that one.
In my experience most politicians are very good people. I'd say I was more unethical in terms of what I would condone around the margins in the political world until I actually spent a lot of time in it. Most politicos are hardworking people with good intentions, and they're well aware that a lot of people really hate politicians going into the job. Lobbying on the other hand, well, that was pre-reform days. We were sleazy as hell. Consultants are only sleazy at the proper pay scale.
"I have actually proven that you are the one who is having a difficult time interpreting what I am saying. You even admitted you do not understand - and I assure you it is not because my points are oxymoronic - it is because they are complex ... as I said from the start:"
Yes, yes, I get it. You have foresnically constructed an airtight case proving that I can't comprehend your statements, and it's not because they're unclear, but because they are very complex and too much for me to mentally digest. I promised to never stop learning, but from this day forth I will rededicate myself to improving my reading comprehension because a guy from the old Penis Enlargement forum took the time out of his schedule to show me just how conceptually illiterate I have become. Note to self: spend less time attempting to negatively frame other's comments, spend more time attempting to understand the meaning of statements. Yes sir, you have empirically proved your point and then some. Sorry, that was pouring it on a little thick, but don't you feel just a little goofy when so seriously informing me that you have "proved" your accusations?
"Lastly, I have clearly only shown interest in posting here very casually as I feel, and actually preferring to tend to many other responsibilities and not get wrapped up in this at all and advocating that there are much better ways to spend the time and effort on this topic"
Well, same advice as before bro. You keep referring to the value of your time and how taxing and draining this apparently is for you - so if you have a better way to spend your time, have at it. This is entirely humerous to me, but as I said, your dire need to put me in my place pretty much ruined the thread so far as the original topic is concerned.
"Therefore, I had actually consistently shown absolutely no desire to take this as a challenge. This post of mine here is the first one that could really even be interpreted as challenging"
Uh, Hydromaxm, actually we were all just talking about Ron Paul and media topics when you saw the "c" word and decided it was time to take a bite out of me and let me know about all the ethical and civil lines I was crossing with my posts. As the kids say, you started it. There's also some sayings about the merit, or lack of merit, in losing your temper on the internet, but I'll spare us those little jewels.
"On the contrary, you have clearly been zealously and strategically formulating verbose posts that scream : "I'm right! I have a lot to say about this! Listen to me! This discussion is very valuable! I'm so experienced with this! C'mon, c'mon, trouble yourself to reply to me! "
Strategically? Yeeaaah . . . once again I think you're giving me a little too much credit. I am verbose though, which apparently really makes you angry. Sorry, this is the longest post yet.
I think your above comment pretty much sums it up, and I'm going to do some assuming about you, so maybe grab a stick to bite or something. Obviously you don't like the way I post or what I say - you think I'm a know-it-all that wants to post just to marvel at my own intelligence and knowledge about a subject that I'm familiar with. So, you couldn't stand it anymore and you ripped into me for my numerous trespasses and afronts to polite society. I'd say that some of your comments suggest that you're no stranger to agruing with people on the internet and it apparently 'consumes' you, and I also still think that you just really can't stand it when somebody is contrarian to you. Also, judging by the number of times you needed to remind me that I'm not a very sharp cookie, I'd say you derive a good deal of your self-confidence from feeling a little smarter than the guy next to you, and that instigates the need to take people to task on internet message boards for imaginary rhetorical crimes. Lots of assumptions in there, sue me.
So, I hope you'll take that all as toungue in cheek, as I assume your comments are as well. You're clearly a smart guy and I take your points - I even understand a few of them. I still don't really understand why you take such personal offense at this stuff or how it generates what seems like such strong emotion, but that's none of my business. And, yes, I intentionally wrote a ton on this post to be an ass - it's hard to resist when you make such an issue of the old "verbosity." Hopefully the joke isn't too obscured by its intended effect. Best Regards.
But seriously, I'll now attempt to defend myself here:
I went back and reread the thread, and I just can't seem to find the "nauseating" repetition and total disregard for your ideas that you describe. I don't have that many total posts on the subject you're all hot and obthered over - is that really enough material to agitate you this much? I seem to have an easy time pissing you off, so I'm really not trying to needle you with this, but your post repeatedly mentions some kind egregious lack of comprehnsion on my part, and I'm really not seeing it. I responded to some of your comments, added my own opinions, that's about it. To me it really looks like you just flew off the handle when I used the "c" word.
So far as the little subnote on the value of a civic culture, you said:
"Therefore, all of this chatter may be even more moot, in addition to the fact that we are essentially wasting time with our curiousity and expression in a manner which has no real or signifcant impact."
And then:
"My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] forum. Get it?"
My response was just to say that in democratic theory, things of marginal impact are still important, and also that I didn't really expect or care whether the conversation had any impact. I fail to see how that's so incredibly frustrating for you - but then again the last time I confessed to not understanding your rationale for something I predictably got a few "Amen!" barbs from you, so I don't really know how to phrase what I'm trying to say here. Basically, you either didn't understand what I meant or just misinterperated. Either way, I find it a little strange that you were so upset by me repeating a certain sentiment. Someties people talk right past each other, get over it. You'll be a happier guy.
Now, the conspiracy stuff. I'll take your word for it that I edited my post - I really don't recall, but if I took it out I'm sure it's because I realized it might open a whole other can of worms. So far as lumping you and Reber together, that was my mistake. "You Guys" was the wrong way to phrase my comments. In the post where you really get after me for using the word conspiracy, you overlooked the fact that in Reber's previous post he had a link called "Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul." That's what I was talking about in my post. In fact I wasn't even really addressing you with the conspiracy stuff. I know I said "you guys," but I really didn't mean to include your views with Reber's. He's cool with being associated with conspiracy stuff, you clearly are not.
So far as my crimes of assumption, I did have you pegged as a some sort of a conspiracy guy (not necessarily on this topic) based from your comments, such as:
"You want to talk conspiracy? I also guarantee, if somebody like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik were elected President, there would be another JFK and RFK incident"
"one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question."
"As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent."
"You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me."
So, those comments would normally lead a person to believe that you're at least open to the idea of conspiracies. You were outraged that I "labeled" you, but that's being pretty silly. I associated you with a person that I know believes there's some kind of conspiracy against Ron Paul, which prompted you to get pretty upset. Obviously you have some history of arguing with people about conspiracies and the topic is aggrivating for whatever reason. I don't care to know more, but reread the posts and I think you'll see that I wasn't specifically addressing you nor did I intentionally label you as a conspiracy guy.
On that note, all this whining - and I realize that's offensive, but really, you are whining a bit here - about character assasination? This is an anonymous internet forum and I'm fairly certain that there is at most a handful of people that will ever see this stuff. I don't think 'character assasination' is really possible under those circumstances. Also, do you really think I'm devious enough, or even care enough about this to intentionally try and portray you in a negative light? I had enjoyed reading and posting on the thread, I wasn't at all interested in having some kind of showdown with you.
And so, now the monster post:
"Here you go - again; giving more personal bullshit to reply to instead of actually giving me a chance to use the time that I may choose to allocate here to actually discuss the actual topic to further extent."
How can I take away your "chance" to reply on an internet forum? I don't take any of this stuff personally, but your post is loaded with taunts and some less than flattering commentary on my supposed total lack of any ability to understand the complexity of your ideas. When you choose to take a tone like that and say those sorts of things, I don't think it's really unwarranted of me to point out that you seem like a pretty angry person. Don't worry, my feelings aren't too wounded here, but your post was obviously angry, and I commented on that. I was pretty surprised by just how pissed you sounded.
"Wake up. The first two times I responded to your posts I was very civil, diplomatic, tactful and whatever else you want to call it along those lines."
Nothing wrong with being like that all the time . . . I've never understood peope who believe that being polite and civil is some kind of special mode of operation. It's the internet - why bother with the attitude? I'm sure you can cut me down to size in any state of mind.
"I am going to bluntly tell you to stop ASS-U-ME-ING - especially with such verbosity - which, when done in such a combo, illustrates quite clearly that you are in fact not really trying to understand what I am saying ... you are merely enjoying the slightest opportunity to spew as much of your views as possible."
Couple of strange things here. First of all, as I said, it's just funny that you're angry that I'm too verbose - you write just as I do, much if not more. Why do you care in the slightest how much I write? Kinda weird. And, if I assumed any conspiracy stuff about you, I think the quotes I provided above are demonstrative of why its reasonable.
Also, so far as my views, how come I always "spew" them? Your diction is pretty telling of your mental state here - something about me and what I write really, really pisses you off. Unless you consider spewing to be a good thing, in which case, thanks. Right back at you.
"Who is really being hostile when I point out that you have crossed the line in some aspect, in which case a mature man interested in mutual understanding in civil discourse would accept responsibility and apologize"
This is pretty crazy. I posted a response that obviously upset you, you blew me out with a very angry post, then all of a sudden I owe an apology for something? I think whatever perceived rivalry or war of words you're seeing here only existed for you. I was enjoying posting on the thread and I pretty much had no idea you were seething and getting preogressively more pissed off the entire time, nor that you were painstakingly attempting to get me to realize the many foolish errors and oversights I was perpetrating against your ideas.
"Now you're really starting to lose my respect. This is the second time you are distorting the reality of your own words - which some people call lying - clearly to try to cover your ass to an extent because you at least want to save yourself from what you perceive as a "hit" to your precious ego."
I really don't feel any need to "cover my ass." Why would I care in the first place and who exactly am I covering my ass from? I think it's more likely you don't want to have your reason for being so upset taken away, or whatever, I'm desperately attempting not assume anything here, as we know how you react to that mortal trespass.
I could point out that you hypocritically assume quite a few things in your above statement - but maybe that's just my monstersouly swollen and very demanding ego chiding me on again.
"The first time - you tossed around the word conspiracy to attempt to frame Reber and I as conspiracy theorists."
Once again, why the hell I would want to "frame" you? You seem to be sort of a paranoid guy. Reber does believe in conspiracies and is a proud conspiracy theorist. Like I said, and I know this is heartbreaking, if I implied that you are as well, it was because I was mistaken. Frame you? C'mon dude.
"since I had even just then QUOTED your own words ... you were staring at proof that you couldn't edit out like you did the first time. "
Good lord . . . I never denied saying it in the second post, where are you getting this from? Reber's link had the word "conspiracy in it," and I was attempting to direct my comments his way - I really didn't mean to include you in the fun, but you invited yourself. Seriously now, why are you so upset by this stuff? Did something bad happen to you? I mean, besides the physical pain that the stupidity of my posts seems to have caused.
"be ASS-U-ME-ing that Reber has no problem with your use of the word just because he hasn't specifically said so."
He has said so. He and I have talked at length about the subject. Kind of a big assumption on your part there, eh fella? Shoot, sorry, massively swollen ego got a hold of me again.
"Just like you were ASS-U-ME-ing what I thought about Ron Paul and that I thought his views were altogether consistent with mainstream views etc"
My point was that I think you severely overestimate the mass appeal of a guy like Ron Paul. You said something along the lines that you believed he would be able to change the nation and reprioritize politics for a lot of people if he had a larger audience. I didn't agree, I explained why. Like I said, I think that when people disagree with you, you get angry. Then perhaps your perceptions and responses are just a little bit influenced by said anger. C'mon, admit it, it's possible.
I'm assuming that by the way - sometimes its necessary for the mind to subsititue the most likely information for something that we don't know specifically. If I stick my hand out and catch a baseball, it's because I assume the laws of physics are in normal operation and its flight path is going to cross a certain point. It's not really clever to point out any and every statement with assumptive value, as many statements made by most people hold some form of assumption, inculding many of your own. I won't point it out from now on, but you should take a look at your own rhetoric before you get all hopping mad about somebody else's.
"I do not have a problem with the word at all. You have a problem with the word. You keep assuming and using it to character assassinate and frame people as kooky or silly conspiracy theorists"
World hear me now (or at least the one or two other people that will ever see this): I swear on my mother's eyes that I did not attempt to "frame" this guy as a "kooky" person. He believes that I have made a deliberate effort to do this, almost like a conspir . . . uh, nevermind. But let the record show, I'm not in the habit of 'framing' or 'character assasinating' in friendly conversations carried out over an internet message board. That would be pretty kooky indeed. Wait, are you framing me as kooky! Ha, I have you, hypocrite.
And, you do have some sort of problem with the word. It seems that if you even suspect it is being related to you in some way, you tend to get pretty freakin' upset. See your own posts for reference.
"in other words in desperate attempt for you to SHUT THE FUCK UP with this nauseous exhaustion by FINALLY understanding my point and how it is not at all in disagreement with yours"
Ah, nauseous exhaustion? Really? I think this is more funny than stomach churning or exhausting, you're making me feel bad here. I was quite entertained by the fact that you make a point of speaking to me as if I were a fairly stupid person, but then show your superior character and maturity by instructing me to "SHUT THE FUCK UP," boldly manifested in all caps as well. Okay, I get it man, you don't like what I have to say so I shouldn't say anything.
I wasn't really ever attempting to subvert or somehow 'prove you wrong' with my comments, I was just giving my take on things. I thought (assumed) that you thought Ron Paul was being unfairly snubbed by the media and that he really does have mass appeal. I disagreed. I'm sorry I didn't realize that in actuality we do agree, and I unfortunately still don't see how it is that we agree, but if you say so then I'll take your word for it.
"You have proven my point. You assumed, you labeled, you failed to retain, you failed to understand. YOU then persisted with behavior that I asked you to stop, and that deep down you knew was wrong because you even edited some of your posts, said it was a poor choice of words, and you continue to deny ...."
Damn, I've rally been up to some dastardly hijinks on this thread. I can tell you that, deep down, I had absolutlely no feeling whatsoever that what I was saying was "wrong." I also didn't see where you asked my to curb my horrendously offensive behavior, but I'll check back over the thread for it. We've established that I'm a pretty slow guy and have a hard time taking in the full complexity of your statements (except for "SHUT THE FUCK UP," which I feel confident in saying that I was able to comprehend right away), so maybe you should have been more direct with me. So, you know, it's all your fault.
"The primary thing I am "sick of" is the way you are using the word "conspiracy" and your intent behind it - character assassination and framing things you don't understand"
Character assasination, framing, etc. Same points again. Aren't I supposed to be kind of a jackass for repeating myself too much? But I digress, as I'm repeating myself by pointing out that you accuse me of repeating myself, repeatedly. We've established that I was referring to Reber's link, which has the word "conspiracy" in it. Show me somewhere on here where I've said "PenilePersist, you are a damned conspiracy theorist and therefore you are a kooky person whose views carry no weight" - otherwise the immense load of whining and indignity you're heaping on here looks just a little ridiculous, to me anyway. My opinion doesn't seem to hold a lot of weight with you, so you probably shouldn't worry about it.
"You took 5 paragraphs to reply to those 3 of mine."
No way, your parapgraphs are clearly much longer than mine. Ha.
"You responded to every single point, so this was just a rhetorical attempt to frame your ego."
Something as immense and demanding as my ego often requires a little framing. I ignored many of your comments.
"since it is full of character assassination, assumption, judgments based on assumption ... and vehemently redundant points ... stemming from a lack of understanding and bias combined with a zeal of wanting to be so verbose about the topic for reasons of both fact and theory that I will avoid discussing so as to not offend. "
Uh, just wanted to point out the continuing obsession with character assasination, assumptions, redundancy, etc. Oh yeah, I'm also too verbose and I don't understand anything you write. Looks like you got them all in there at once this time.
"The thing I really can't stand is HOW you are handling the discussion, NOT your actual points. AND, we barely actually disagree about the on topic points that have been made.... if we even disagree at all ... and due to your false assumptions, character assassination and failure to retain and or understand the points that I have made .... you don't even get that the only thing we are clearly starting to disagree with is HOW to have the conversation."
Mmm, once again I'll take your word that we agree. I hadn't even really been looking at this as some sort of pointed debate - as you did accurately notice, a lot of my posting was just me waxing my opinion on something because it interested me. You were the one that took it to be some kind of debate scenario.
I really don't see all these terrorist-style tactics that I'm supposedly employing or how I'm being so blatantly unethical, but that might be my serious inability to understand your writing acting up again. Mention of character assasination: check. Mention of making assumptions: check.
"I had already troubled myself to respond to you on TWO occasions herein - wherein I both replied to specific and on topic points very civilly, even having the patience to respond to your redundancy by re-explaining my same points in other words in hopes for you to understand."
You are truly a kind man for taking some of your time to attempt to steer me straight, and I apologize that your altruistic efforts were wasted. I can't imagine the agony that I put you through. Sarcasm aside, I would raise the point that if you hate what I have to say so much and find it so frustrating, you could have ignored it, but I think you yourself realize the irony of the situation here.
"clearly crossed the lines of civil, fair, discourse and actual shown no true intent to be fair and have mutual understanding"
Crossed the line? Fair discourse? Please, outline the rules for me next time. I was under the impression that I was shooting the breeze about Ron Paul on an internet forum, an activity for which I didn't know there was some kind of prescribed code of ethics. The more of this I read, the more I'm wondering how nefarious of a bastard you really think I am?
"merely intent to assume and pass judgment on those assumptions combined with your bias that leads to your character assassination and negative framing of points that you don't even understand as "silly" and such"
More framing, more character assasination. But, believe me, I will never use the word 'silly' in anything of even remote relation to something that you are discussing. We can see what happens.
"I think, though, if you are to be truly honest on this point of mine, then you would consider that this reply of yours was about your ego of not primarily wanting to validate your credibility for such discussion"
Not really, but I don't care if anybody feels that way. You suggested that I needed to find some kind of outlet in my life for my political interests, I was just explaining that I've had it and still have it. Pretty simple. Working in politics isn't something I'd really want to brag about. It's pretty easy to do and most people hate it. It's not like I was crowing about where I went to college or the size of my paycheck. But, my gigantic ego was no doubt involved at some level, as it seems to be with most of my comments.
"The most likely reality is, the only people that may even really give two shits about what we are saying here are posting in this thread. Everybody else mostly couldn't care less - if anybody else is even viewing this thread"
Yep. Makes me feel kind of dumb for even bothering to attempt a character assasination on you since nobody else is paying attention.
"Is all of the energy and passion and abundant content that you put into it really worth it without a better platform .... or is it just like mental masturbation to kill time ..... or in this case, our "circle jerk"
As long as it's entertaining, sure. I know it may be hard to believe, but it doesn't take a huge quantity of my energy or attention to respond on this thread. I have used it as a timekiller, particularly my first long response, which I wrote while staying awake to catch a flight. Why do you care so much about why or how I post? Kinda nosy aren't you? And who cares what the 'platform' is? I'm not looking for attention or recognition here.
"Hypocrite, but not exactly. The difference between us here is not that one of us read what we wrote and the other did not."
Eh, I have the same feeling about you, I just choose not to state it over and over and over again. Everybody is hypocritical about some things, so I always thought it was a pretty weak tactic to seriously accuse somebody of hypocrisy, although I've done it in my time. Get it?
"Hopefully you get it now. I'm sorry I didn't explain it in a way that you would understand before and I'm sorry that you assumed that I just don't understand your point, that really goes without saying, so you should just keep repeating it."
Alright, I admit, this is one of those times when I don't really understand you. All this abstract discussion of 'points' and interpretation is getting a little heady. We already established that your level of discourse is just a little too intricate for me to handle, so be charitable and bear with me.
After reading the thread I would argue that I was articulating my point further - you still commented that you didn't understand why I thought it was worth anybody's time to talk about this stuff - I believe I quoted you earlier in this post. I just said that I think civil society is built on . . . wait, I'm not supposed to repeat anything.
Here's what went on, as far as I can tell - I explained my take, you responded in a very similar manner as before, I tried to articualte my views a little better, then you got really pissed and took me to task, partly for repeating myself - something which you never do. If I'm wrong here feel free to put me back on track once more.
"You got that right. We agree here, as I'm sure we would on many other points if the discussion was kept more fair and civil - which is the only thing I've been posting about as of late."
Geeze, that's no fun. Honestly, the conversation about anything Ron Paul and media related was totally derailed by your need to point out what an unfair and devious commentator I am, and now we're just talking shit, which is also fun, but ultimately doesn't contain many of those lofty civic values that you know I love.
"Again, I'm sorry you did not understand. Again, I'm sorry that your lack of understanding combined with your zeal to reply as if you did understand has been problematic. Please consider letting it go if you don't understand, rather than framing your posts with judgments of me based on things that you assume about me."
And, I'm sorry that you prefer to be coy about telling me that I'm not as smart as you are by constantly referencing my inability "to understand." I really don't care if that's how you feel and I genuinely don't understand why you would be so upset by anything I said, but I think we would disagree as to what the origin of my inability to figure out your pissed-off state of mind actually is. It seems that I deliberately frame my posts with negative insinuations to discredit you - I understand that. I hope you will then understand that I really was not paying even remotely enough attention to this to even consider attempting 'to frame' anything. Really.
"I've actually interpreted what you said very accurately. I've even backed it up with hard evidence and this forum corroborates it with your own words that you can no longer edit like you tried to the first time. I've proven that you have shown a trend of being audacious enough to deny this, though, as well ... which doesn't surprise me if you have worked close with politicians ... because their bullshit can break good men down enough to rub off on the good men after a while."
Dang, I'm audacious now too? I'm coming off like a pretty bad guy here: a scheming, lying, unethical, mean-spirited, slow-witted, audacious egomaniac who commits character assasination.
Like I said, if I took out the word conspiracy when I was editing the post, and I believe you when you say I did, then I did it because I probably realized nobody was directly advocating such a thing at that point, although I know Reber a bit and I do believe that was his intention. I was trying to avoid anybody being pissed-off, but you found a way to make it happen anyway and waited until I wasn't even addressing your comments to go nuts over it. I'll also have to take your word that you accurately understand everything I mean, although I'd personally disagree on that one.
In my experience most politicians are very good people. I'd say I was more unethical in terms of what I would condone around the margins in the political world until I actually spent a lot of time in it. Most politicos are hardworking people with good intentions, and they're well aware that a lot of people really hate politicians going into the job. Lobbying on the other hand, well, that was pre-reform days. We were sleazy as hell. Consultants are only sleazy at the proper pay scale.
"I have actually proven that you are the one who is having a difficult time interpreting what I am saying. You even admitted you do not understand - and I assure you it is not because my points are oxymoronic - it is because they are complex ... as I said from the start:"
Yes, yes, I get it. You have foresnically constructed an airtight case proving that I can't comprehend your statements, and it's not because they're unclear, but because they are very complex and too much for me to mentally digest. I promised to never stop learning, but from this day forth I will rededicate myself to improving my reading comprehension because a guy from the old Penis Enlargement forum took the time out of his schedule to show me just how conceptually illiterate I have become. Note to self: spend less time attempting to negatively frame other's comments, spend more time attempting to understand the meaning of statements. Yes sir, you have empirically proved your point and then some. Sorry, that was pouring it on a little thick, but don't you feel just a little goofy when so seriously informing me that you have "proved" your accusations?
"Lastly, I have clearly only shown interest in posting here very casually as I feel, and actually preferring to tend to many other responsibilities and not get wrapped up in this at all and advocating that there are much better ways to spend the time and effort on this topic"
Well, same advice as before bro. You keep referring to the value of your time and how taxing and draining this apparently is for you - so if you have a better way to spend your time, have at it. This is entirely humerous to me, but as I said, your dire need to put me in my place pretty much ruined the thread so far as the original topic is concerned.
"Therefore, I had actually consistently shown absolutely no desire to take this as a challenge. This post of mine here is the first one that could really even be interpreted as challenging"
Uh, Hydromaxm, actually we were all just talking about Ron Paul and media topics when you saw the "c" word and decided it was time to take a bite out of me and let me know about all the ethical and civil lines I was crossing with my posts. As the kids say, you started it. There's also some sayings about the merit, or lack of merit, in losing your temper on the internet, but I'll spare us those little jewels.
"On the contrary, you have clearly been zealously and strategically formulating verbose posts that scream : "I'm right! I have a lot to say about this! Listen to me! This discussion is very valuable! I'm so experienced with this! C'mon, c'mon, trouble yourself to reply to me! "
Strategically? Yeeaaah . . . once again I think you're giving me a little too much credit. I am verbose though, which apparently really makes you angry. Sorry, this is the longest post yet.
I think your above comment pretty much sums it up, and I'm going to do some assuming about you, so maybe grab a stick to bite or something. Obviously you don't like the way I post or what I say - you think I'm a know-it-all that wants to post just to marvel at my own intelligence and knowledge about a subject that I'm familiar with. So, you couldn't stand it anymore and you ripped into me for my numerous trespasses and afronts to polite society. I'd say that some of your comments suggest that you're no stranger to agruing with people on the internet and it apparently 'consumes' you, and I also still think that you just really can't stand it when somebody is contrarian to you. Also, judging by the number of times you needed to remind me that I'm not a very sharp cookie, I'd say you derive a good deal of your self-confidence from feeling a little smarter than the guy next to you, and that instigates the need to take people to task on internet message boards for imaginary rhetorical crimes. Lots of assumptions in there, sue me.
So, I hope you'll take that all as toungue in cheek, as I assume your comments are as well. You're clearly a smart guy and I take your points - I even understand a few of them. I still don't really understand why you take such personal offense at this stuff or how it generates what seems like such strong emotion, but that's none of my business. And, yes, I intentionally wrote a ton on this post to be an ass - it's hard to resist when you make such an issue of the old "verbosity." Hopefully the joke isn't too obscured by its intended effect. Best Regards.
stridge said:
I have heard in the rumor-mill that McCain has been a serial adulterer and that the Democratic operatives that sling mud (not exclusive to Democrats) are well aware of it. He might be the dream candidate for the opponents. I have no idea how Guiliani could win in the general election. If the conservative Christians and NRA members stay home, which they will, I have no idea how the man is going to pull so many votes from across the aisle to ever make up for them. Romney...who knows?
Not that it means much of anything, but I myself am a Republican. However, I am a Reagan-type Republican that also is highly supportive of American industry and even organized labor (even though they tend to have some real assholes running the unions). Safe to say, I could hardly be more disappointed in this party that has now become a party of big spending and shipping jobs overseas, though both parties are guilty to a large extent on both. The bottom line is I have become almost completely politically disinterested. I actually used to get fired up about supporting candidates in elections, including some Democrats over the years. Now, I just sit back and laugh and wonder how I'll get screwed on a given day. I fully expect to just write-in something along the lines of "Donald Duck" in '08. I think anyone that really thinks we have quality representation on either side of the aisle has to have something wrong with him.
I disagree with Obama on several issues, I'm sure, but at least he's not part of the long-time "establisHydromaxent" within his party. There were some things I liked about Bill Clinton, but I cannot imagine living under the Hildebeast.
I pretty much agree. GWB is a genuine-hearted screw-up. I don't know if that is better or worse. Let's be a little fair too...he hinged his legacy on a gamble. I mean, there's no arguing had Iraq turned out different (and I feel it could have been better managed), had less resistance and outside interference, helped bring Iran to the bargaining table, etc. GWB would go down as one of the best Presidents we've ever had, like him or not. Instead, the opposite is true. Sometimes gamblers win, but they often lose. I'm okay with making his legacy stick to the results...he fucked up, plain and simple.
for the record i have no issue with the word 'conspiracy', to me conspiracy is a movement of people that don't swallow a great deal of what they're fed and strive to burrow and question... its like a quasi-political party, save the legaslative powers and a finely crafted seat in the parliment(and the like) of the land.
its a black or white word, depending, naturally, on your political bent; never grey. like Labour - Conservative, Demorcrat - Republican, and so forth... scrub that, they're nigh-on one and the same
it is widely used semantically, and i think we can all agree, to discredit, smear, and label in an ultra-negative fashion, the person/group who sides with whatever given sentiments, anygiven conspiracy may hold... moreover it is a device to avoid the question when backed into a corner, and because of the negative connotations encompassing the word, it will usually suffice as a get out of jail free card.
im a screenwriting student so economy of words is my stock & trade(and story, obviously) with that incite i proclaim both PP & Stridge as mega-loquacious
keep pushing
its a black or white word, depending, naturally, on your political bent; never grey. like Labour - Conservative, Demorcrat - Republican, and so forth... scrub that, they're nigh-on one and the same
it is widely used semantically, and i think we can all agree, to discredit, smear, and label in an ultra-negative fashion, the person/group who sides with whatever given sentiments, anygiven conspiracy may hold... moreover it is a device to avoid the question when backed into a corner, and because of the negative connotations encompassing the word, it will usually suffice as a get out of jail free card. im a screenwriting student so economy of words is my stock & trade(and story, obviously) with that incite i proclaim both PP & Stridge as mega-loquacious
keep pushing
penguinsfan said:I have heard in the rumor-mill that McCain has been a serial adulterer and that the Democratic operatives that sling mud (not exclusive to Democrats) are well aware of it. He might be the dream candidate for the opponents. I have no idea how Guiliani could win in the general election. If the conservative Christians and NRA members stay home, which they will, I have no idea how the man is going to pull so many votes from across the aisle to ever make up for them. Romney...who knows?
Not that it means much of anything, but I myself am a Republican. However, I am a Reagan-type Republican that also is highly supportive of American industry and even organized labor (even though they tend to have some real assholes running the unions). Safe to say, I could hardly be more disappointed in this party that has now become a party of big spending and shipping jobs overseas, though both parties are guilty to a large extent on both. The bottom line is I have become almost completely politically disinterested. I actually used to get fired up about supporting candidates in elections, including some Democrats over the years. Now, I just sit back and laugh and wonder how I'll get screwed on a given day. I fully expect to just write-in something along the lines of "Donald Duck" in '08. I think anyone that really thinks we have quality representation on either side of the aisle has to have something wrong with him.
I disagree with Obama on several issues, I'm sure, but at least he's not part of the long-time "establisHydromaxent" within his party. There were some things I liked about Bill Clinton, but I cannot imagine living under the Hildebeast.
I pretty much agree. GWB is a genuine-hearted screw-up. I don't know if that is better or worse. Let's be a little fair too...he hinged his legacy on a gamble. I mean, there's no arguing had Iraq turned out different (and I feel it could have been better managed), had less resistance and outside interference, helped bring Iran to the bargaining table, etc. GWB would go down as one of the best Presidents we've ever had, like him or not. Instead, the opposite is true. Sometimes gamblers win, but they often lose. I'm okay with making his legacy stick to the results...he fucked up, plain and simple.
Yeah, from everything I'm hearing, the top brass over at the DLC and other major Democratic brain trusts are sort of banking on McCain, as they think he'll contrast the most against Obama, who is expected to win despite Hillary's strong showing the last few weeks. They're scared of Giuliani - despite his weird record and numerous character problems, people seem to love the guy. I think they look at Giuliani and see a solid GOP candidate that hasn't been in Washington before, which is obviously a big plus for '08. Romney, I just don't know either. He does suprisingly well, but I see him being comfortable slipping into the VP role. A mormon president, in my mind, is a bigger leap for the voting public than a black of female president, but VP seems possible.
I'm showing my colors with this, but I actually like old Barack for quite a few reasons, though I haven't really made a decision by any means. His book was interesting and basically outlined the reasoning behind his policies, which I appreciated. So far as Hillary, we agree on that one. She makes a big show about being happy that Obama has been such a force in the race so far, but how pissed is she privately that the nomination wasn't just handed to her? Most of the analysts tended to agree that Barack got the drop on her in the first few months because her people, as highly paid and qualified as they are, simply weren't prepared to run a competative primary against anybody.
She might have been more prepared if she hadn't spent so much time pandering in the Senate by concerning herself with video game violence and flag burning - clearly two of the largest threats to our nation that a high profile senator should dedicate a lot of time towards. That kind of ruthless posturing to help shore up your credentials with the middle-right when there are a lot more pressing issues really, really makes me angry. She knows as well anybody that most people in this country had an opinion on her long ago and it probably won't be changed in most cases, and she squandered a lot of time that could have been spent really working on issues to bolster her image as a moderate, to no great response.
My main gripe with George W., and I hate to say it but folks like Bill Maher feel the same way, is that he filled his adminstration with incompitent people. And, when it became clear that even his inner circle of advisors had become dysfunctional, he wasn't a strong enough leader to deal with it. He chose loyalty over knowledge and experience when staffing the highest levels of government (Mike Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, Harriet Myers). Some of his choices were sharp, but he has demonstrated a pattern of failure and embarassment for the GOP with a lot of his decisions in this area.
That's how Bush knew to handle business from his days as governor in the insular world of Texas politics, but his inability to transition his leadership to a more sophisticated and serious style in the White House has caused some serious problems. Interestingly, as you point out, if the planning for Iraq had been on par and intended result achieved, then we're talking about one of the msot popular presidents of the last 100 years and probably another decade or so of obscurity for the Democrats.
I didn't vote in '04 as a protest over disappointment with the whole thing, but I regretted it. I'll be in the booth next year, but if Hillary actually wins the nomination I may just cross the Party line and cast a vote for McCain or Giuliani. Either one would make an effective leader and I actually believe in a divided government so I'm already conflicted about sending a liberal into the White House to shepard two solid Democratic majorities.
Reber187 said:for the record i have no issue with the word 'conspiracy', to me conspiracy is a movement of people that don't swallow a great deal of what they're fed and strive to burrow and question... its like a quasi-political party, save the legaslative powers and a finely crafted seat in the parliment(and the like) of the land.
its a black or white word, depending, naturally, on your political bent; never grey. like Labour - Conservative, Demorcrat - Republican, and so forth... scrub that, they're nigh-on one and the same
im a screenwriting student so economy of words is my stock & trade(and story, obviously) with that incite i proclaim both PP & Stridge as mega-loquacious
keep pushing
Mega-loquacious . . . I like that! Very nice change of pace from 'verbose.' That word sounds like a skin disease or something.
stridge said:
This is all I was going to read and reply to for now, maybe forever. However, when quoting your post and scrolling down to delete the mass of it, I read the last paragraph as well.
............
stridge said:
The topic is not at all personal to me. The way you were specifically addressing me, assuming things about me etc was, logically, the only thing that I took personal - since it was your personal address to me.
Of course, if I'm going to finally take time to reply to your verbosity, I will have to be verbose to be thorough. You can't "win" with that - but good thing I don't care since I don't take it so personally - as you are assuming I do -- AGAIN. I was not the originator in this case, however, but I don't really give a shit. I knew you'd actually say this and I can't really blame you for it. I'm not going to spend more time lashing out at you about how it's a cheap shot, it was just obvious you'd say it.
Thanks for the compliment about my intelligence. You're obviously quite smart as well. I'm sure you're a great guy too and that we'd get along quite well offline and we will again get along well on this forum sometime as we have in the past. The only problem I have with you, in this whole conversation which I hope isn't - but fear may be - a constant in your conversing ... is the assuming and the judgement and labelling/framing that comes with it, along with some denial (forgive me if you took ownership for some things I have not read). Your zeal to discuss such things is not a problem in itself, but it exacerbates/has exacerbated the other problems in this case.
Here's my reality in regards to this thread:
I only posted in it out of kinship to Reber, who I have become friends with through PM and a mutually beneficial transaction we completed. That's really it; otherwise, I would have not posted and simply ignored the thread or glanced at it and smiled or rolled my eyes or something depending on how the conversation was going in my absence.
The old me, which is now a contrained and marginalized part of me - though still present, that loved to spend hours talking about this stuff online and post with the same zeal and detail as you do, appeared for a short stint, albeit only in combination with my discipline battle with myself to explain that I don't even really wish to discuss this because, among many things, it distracts me from priorities and I think the discussion is more effective elsewhere. Then, as I was trying to be disciplined enough to hold back even more, I made the mistake of reading your posts that made me feel inclined to call you out on some of the bullshit I see you were pulling on a personal level whether your we consciously aware or not (yes, another compound phrase that you might THINK is redundant - like you thought polarized sides of the same coin was oxymornic -or something of that effect, but is actually intended to distinguish from subconscious awareness - which also may seem oxymornic but it is not in principle) /whether you intended to do it or not. Your reaction to my call out obviously caused my last post.
The point is, I never wanted this back and forth and I don't wish to continue it. Maybe I'll read more and reply later, but I don't want any of this trivial tension between us.
Thanks for the best regards. My best to you as well, sincerely.
stridge said:
Oh fuck. I was really trying not to read the rest of your post, but in hopes that there would be more positive things I started skimming the starts and ends of some of the paragraphs and found this ditty.
You assumed that I was intending to be "coy". Granted, there is more reason to be confused about such things with the lack of the full, dynamic, interpersonal effect with body language, tonality etc of forum posts. However, once again, this is consistant with your trend to ASS-U-ME.
The reality was, I was being sincere. I meant exactly what I typed and nothing more. The reality was, you simply didn't understand a lot of what I said and you even admitted it by saying "I don't understand a lot of what you've said". I was apologizing for, despite my multiple attempts in some cases, not giving sufficient enough explanation to you for you to understand - thus causing you to exacerbate your tendancy to assume and combine these assumptions with your tendancy to be so zealous and verbose that you give me a shitload to be angered with because you go on and on and on about something that you write as if I said or meant something even though I never actually said it NOR meant it.
You did AGAIN in this last post of yours. Damnit man. Take this into serious consideration because it is problematic and you are doing it over and over and over.
I think you are at least of equal intelligence if not smarter in some ways as I'm confident I am at least of equal intelligence and possibly smarter than you in some ways. I think this of everybody, for the most part, despite any superficial presenation because I recognize superficiality. We all have strengths and weaknesses. Thus, I am disturbed that you would even take something that I said to diffuse this trivial crap and take responsibility for some of the root cause, and turn it into another assumption where you put words/thoughts/attidude in my mouth/assign these traits to me that are not at all what I said or meant .... and YOU come off, genuinely have the effect of, somebody who is actually looking to start an argument and taking everything as a challenge (which doesn't surprise me when you say this is "fun", though I kinda hope I know what you meant) ..... which shows more reason to call you a hypocrite and delusional when you say those things of me when I'm just trying to stop this shit.
Humbly speaking ... the thing with text online is, you really need to acknowledge that if somebody didn't say something specifically then they likely did not mean it. The same fundamental should be in person as well, but in person you have more to read/hear/judge by than words. All of your posts, every single one of them in reply to me from the start of the thread .... assumed I said or meant one thing or another that I actually did not. Interstingly, the first time I encounted your on this forum was in the thread of PhillipK's gains where you were assuming something about err in his posts when you were actually in err. Humbly speaking, in attempt to explain that my own words mean what I said and nothing more, and in attempt to help all of us converse with you, all data that I have shows this is something you need to realize and correct because you do it over and over and over again.
I regret that more of this type of, excuse me - BULLSHIT, is in the rest of your last post. I will further try to not respond to it.
One thing I will reply to - yes, I'm very aware that plenty of politicians are good people ... but you are niave if you think that all of them are " *all* good" and surely that comment of mine was a bit humorous and referencing the obvious fact that politicians, in general, and in such cases, are often associated with bullshitters, con artists etc ... and, despite plenty of good ones, plenty of them actually do fit those associations. It was my humorous way of cutting you some slack in some of the characteristics in your conversation technique in this thread, since you said you have worked with politicians. Totally trivial though .... let's just LET IT GO. PLEASE (i say to myself as well).
Again, my sincere best.
stridge said:
I agree.I've said "loquacious" on many occasions before, but "mega-loquacious" is superior and I prefer both terms over "verbose", the latter just seemed like a good fit as of late. Need some diverity in vocabulary - to spice it up.
Reber, stridge and I and are certainly both guilty on occasion. So are/were many of the greatest minds ever. I'm sure we can be mega-concise as well, but - in light hearted joke spirit - doing so in stridge's presence would only lead to more of his ASS-U-ME-ing.
DAMNIT! Stridge, I tried to edit this into proper context with my post about my genuinely apology, which you erroneously assumed was a coy jab, but I was forbidden to edit due to time limit.
Here's the context I wish I put it in:
You keep on assuming I have all these underlying meanings in my posts instead of just actually reading and responding to the literal meaning of what I wrote. GOD DAMN THAT BULLSHIT IS FRUSTRATING!!!
Again:
You have charged yourself with your consistant examples of assuming. You have charged yourself with actually trying to look for a negative underlying meaning in my words instead of just taking them literally ... and if you had taken them literally then in most cases you would not have anything to argue about .... which further charges yourself with being the one actually wanting to argue ... let alone the fact that I have been trying to avoid this exchange from the beginning but fallen victim to my own discipline issues in attempt to derail your MASSIVELY and CONSISTANTLY erroenous assumptions ... which have been in such volume that you give me an amazing amount - due to your combined zeal to discuss in general - which leads to exacerbation of your assumptions ...to attempt to derail (however, I must pat myself on the back in saying that I could be showing less discipline).
I hope I did not just completely waste more of my time and that you accept and retain some or all of this in a positive manner.
Again, my sincere best.
Here's the context I wish I put it in:
PenilePersist said:
You keep on assuming I have all these underlying meanings in my posts instead of just actually reading and responding to the literal meaning of what I wrote. GOD DAMN THAT BULLSHIT IS FRUSTRATING!!!
Again:
PenilePersist said:
You have charged yourself with your consistant examples of assuming. You have charged yourself with actually trying to look for a negative underlying meaning in my words instead of just taking them literally ... and if you had taken them literally then in most cases you would not have anything to argue about .... which further charges yourself with being the one actually wanting to argue ... let alone the fact that I have been trying to avoid this exchange from the beginning but fallen victim to my own discipline issues in attempt to derail your MASSIVELY and CONSISTANTLY erroenous assumptions ... which have been in such volume that you give me an amazing amount - due to your combined zeal to discuss in general - which leads to exacerbation of your assumptions ...to attempt to derail (however, I must pat myself on the back in saying that I could be showing less discipline).
I hope I did not just completely waste more of my time and that you accept and retain some or all of this in a positive manner.
Again, my sincere best.
i've derived a trace of pleasure watching you two spar with one another, nothing like handbags at dawn rofl
coz its kinda apropos i can impart a piece of sage advice, and you can apply if you so wish so. the signals of tone and implication can get scrambled when reading words on page, an actor worth his salt will try a line 20 different ways until he knows hes either got it as it was in mind, or best fitting the subtext.
[the lesson is there is no lesson... unless you're an actor]
by the by you're both proper good with words and that.
keep pushing
coz its kinda apropos i can impart a piece of sage advice, and you can apply if you so wish so. the signals of tone and implication can get scrambled when reading words on page, an actor worth his salt will try a line 20 different ways until he knows hes either got it as it was in mind, or best fitting the subtext.
[the lesson is there is no lesson... unless you're an actor]
by the by you're both proper good with words and that.
keep pushing
Stridge,
FIRST OF ALL, LEARN HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FEATURE APPROPRIATELY. Quoting as much as you do with simple quotation marks makes for a HORRIBLE read of your posts. It's harder than a priapismed dick on an overdose viagra to find your thoughts from the ones you are quoting.
DAMNIT MAN!!! I may as well reply:
I'm a happy guy without this. The pain I feel is FOR YOU.
GOD DAMNIT. I cannot believe that you wrote all this shit again. You took two things I said in posts PRIOR to the one you should have been replying to if you wanted progression, and you quoted those previous quotes of mine that you had ALREADY replied to ...by rerplying in the SAME DAMNED WAY YOU REPLIED BEFORE. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? Should I just go back to beginning of the thread and say the same shit I already said in reply to quoting your previous posts ... or should I reply to your latest!?!?!?!? Of course I should do the latter ... and you should too!
If you had actually READ AND REPLIED TO THE LAST POST OF MINE .... NOT THE PREVIOUS ONES -AGAIN .... THEN MAYBE YOU WOULD FINALLY GET THE POINT INSTEAD OF BEING REDUNDANT AGAIN ... CAUSING ME TO BE REDUNDANT JUST TO POINT IT OUT!!!... LIKE I HAVE TO BE MEGA LOQUACIOUS TO REPLY TO YOUR MOUNDS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND ERRS DUE TO NOT ONLY YOU BEING GUILTY OF SUCH BUT YOU BEING GUILTY OF COMPOUNDING THOSE PROBLEMS DUE TO YOUR LOQUACIOUSNESS.
THIS is some of the nauseating exhaustion/redundancy from you!!!
You were doing it before and YOU'RE STILL DOING IT.
HERE is what I said in the reply you SHOULD have been replying to since you had not replied to it PREVIOUSLY.
and....
AGAIN - of course, we both understood before this thread existed, political discussion on even such small scale is of fundamental/foundational importance in a true Democratic Republic - and therefore very valuable. I agree. HOWEVER, that is not mutually exclusive of my point - of course - or I wouldn't have made it since I understood this from the beginning. My point is still accurate - this is HUGELY marginal. NOBODY REALLY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION ... except maybe the people posting in it ... and even to that extent .... I don't even really give a shit so I am growing angry with myself for even posting as we speak!!!! AND, some people in this thread aren't even citizens of the USA and not registered voters to vote for people like Ron Paul so it is even MORE insignificant!!!! DAMN! DO YOU THINK WE'VE CHANGED ANY SINGLE THING IN POLITICS WITH THIS DISCUSSION ..... NO WE HAVE NOT. However, people actually care about various forms of real media and the discussion and debates held therein, and more registered voters who are politicaly active in ways that would have effect from the media are interested, which is why those are the places where there is more significant real effect - where Presidential Debates are held and where our time is better spent discussing such things ... my point from the beginning and throughout this thread no matter how many times you keep on blabbing the fundamental/foundation thing with such passion as if I never read it, never ackowledge it even though I have repeatedly .... and as if I don't get it .... and as if it is in fact mutually exclusive of my points when it is in fact NOT mutually exclusive of my point(s).
GET IT!!! That's not a question.
It's not that I don't like what you have to say. It's not that I don't like that you have the zeal to be so detailed and loquacious about this type of "fundamentally valuable" discussion.
It's that you keep assuming and misunderstanding shit and due to your loquaciousness you go on and on and on off the deep end with your assumptions, misunderstanding and redundancy ... and no matter how many times I point it out ... you keep saying the same shit all over again as if I didn't get it ... thus being painfully exhausting painfully ad naseum. THAT is why I told you to "SHUT THE FUCK UP". That is why I am perturbed for me AND especially you by your loquaciousness/redundancy etc. If you made progressive points without all the assumption leading to mislabelling, misjudging etc etc etc then I would not complain at all at what you have to say or how much you say.
FIRST OF ALL, LEARN HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FEATURE APPROPRIATELY. Quoting as much as you do with simple quotation marks makes for a HORRIBLE read of your posts. It's harder than a priapismed dick on an overdose viagra to find your thoughts from the ones you are quoting.
DAMNIT MAN!!! I may as well reply:
stridge said:
I'm a happy guy without this. The pain I feel is FOR YOU.
GOD DAMNIT. I cannot believe that you wrote all this shit again. You took two things I said in posts PRIOR to the one you should have been replying to if you wanted progression, and you quoted those previous quotes of mine that you had ALREADY replied to ...by rerplying in the SAME DAMNED WAY YOU REPLIED BEFORE. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? Should I just go back to beginning of the thread and say the same shit I already said in reply to quoting your previous posts ... or should I reply to your latest!?!?!?!? Of course I should do the latter ... and you should too!
If you had actually READ AND REPLIED TO THE LAST POST OF MINE .... NOT THE PREVIOUS ONES -AGAIN .... THEN MAYBE YOU WOULD FINALLY GET THE POINT INSTEAD OF BEING REDUNDANT AGAIN ... CAUSING ME TO BE REDUNDANT JUST TO POINT IT OUT!!!... LIKE I HAVE TO BE MEGA LOQUACIOUS TO REPLY TO YOUR MOUNDS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND ERRS DUE TO NOT ONLY YOU BEING GUILTY OF SUCH BUT YOU BEING GUILTY OF COMPOUNDING THOSE PROBLEMS DUE TO YOUR LOQUACIOUSNESS.
THIS is some of the nauseating exhaustion/redundancy from you!!!
You were doing it before and YOU'RE STILL DOING IT.
HERE is what I said in the reply you SHOULD have been replying to since you had not replied to it PREVIOUSLY.
PenilePersist said:
and....
PenilePersist said:
AGAIN - of course, we both understood before this thread existed, political discussion on even such small scale is of fundamental/foundational importance in a true Democratic Republic - and therefore very valuable. I agree. HOWEVER, that is not mutually exclusive of my point - of course - or I wouldn't have made it since I understood this from the beginning. My point is still accurate - this is HUGELY marginal. NOBODY REALLY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION ... except maybe the people posting in it ... and even to that extent .... I don't even really give a shit so I am growing angry with myself for even posting as we speak!!!! AND, some people in this thread aren't even citizens of the USA and not registered voters to vote for people like Ron Paul so it is even MORE insignificant!!!! DAMN! DO YOU THINK WE'VE CHANGED ANY SINGLE THING IN POLITICS WITH THIS DISCUSSION ..... NO WE HAVE NOT. However, people actually care about various forms of real media and the discussion and debates held therein, and more registered voters who are politicaly active in ways that would have effect from the media are interested, which is why those are the places where there is more significant real effect - where Presidential Debates are held and where our time is better spent discussing such things ... my point from the beginning and throughout this thread no matter how many times you keep on blabbing the fundamental/foundation thing with such passion as if I never read it, never ackowledge it even though I have repeatedly .... and as if I don't get it .... and as if it is in fact mutually exclusive of my points when it is in fact NOT mutually exclusive of my point(s).
GET IT!!! That's not a question.
It's not that I don't like what you have to say. It's not that I don't like that you have the zeal to be so detailed and loquacious about this type of "fundamentally valuable" discussion.
It's that you keep assuming and misunderstanding shit and due to your loquaciousness you go on and on and on off the deep end with your assumptions, misunderstanding and redundancy ... and no matter how many times I point it out ... you keep saying the same shit all over again as if I didn't get it ... thus being painfully exhausting painfully ad naseum. THAT is why I told you to "SHUT THE FUCK UP". That is why I am perturbed for me AND especially you by your loquaciousness/redundancy etc. If you made progressive points without all the assumption leading to mislabelling, misjudging etc etc etc then I would not complain at all at what you have to say or how much you say.
Last edited:
Hey, I don't have time to properly respond at the moment - I will, howver, try to quote as you prefer next time around. I personally don't like the quoting function, as I find the triple embedding of quotes and such in some of your more recent posts to be very confusing as well, and I feel like simply quoting in context leads to a more simple and straight-forward structure to the post, but it's not a problem.
Sorry to see that my posting once again dragged you against your better judgement and upset you - I think if you actually do just read the thing you'll see that it's mostly humerous jabs at your writing style and tendencies rather than a very serious appraisal of our discussion here. I address a few of our "issues," but it was mainly just an effort to add levity and goof around.
I believe that you're not taking this seriously, but don't let it get the best of you either - it seems like my comments got your hackles up again, and honestly a Penis Enlargement forum isn't worth the stress.
I must also confess, with a degree of humor, that I actually did find some of your commentary in these last posts really very difficult to understand in context - so I'll be looking at them closely to try and make sure I have your full intended meaning. You do repeat your own points in close proximity and I think you probably have the ability to write very quickly, which can lead to a slightly windy organization in terms of following your thoughts.
You're a fine writer, but you'd probably be assisted by employing a little more economy of concept and length in your sentence construction. I'm not attempting to adopt a pedantic tone with the advice - but I think it's no joke at this point that I apparently really do have a difficult time understanding what you're trying to express at times. While I take my share of the blame for this, I don't consider myself to be a terrible reader or to have comprehension difficulty with too many concepts, so it's possible we're both pitching in.
My properly quoted reply to follow . . .
Sorry to see that my posting once again dragged you against your better judgement and upset you - I think if you actually do just read the thing you'll see that it's mostly humerous jabs at your writing style and tendencies rather than a very serious appraisal of our discussion here. I address a few of our "issues," but it was mainly just an effort to add levity and goof around.
I believe that you're not taking this seriously, but don't let it get the best of you either - it seems like my comments got your hackles up again, and honestly a Penis Enlargement forum isn't worth the stress.
I must also confess, with a degree of humor, that I actually did find some of your commentary in these last posts really very difficult to understand in context - so I'll be looking at them closely to try and make sure I have your full intended meaning. You do repeat your own points in close proximity and I think you probably have the ability to write very quickly, which can lead to a slightly windy organization in terms of following your thoughts.
You're a fine writer, but you'd probably be assisted by employing a little more economy of concept and length in your sentence construction. I'm not attempting to adopt a pedantic tone with the advice - but I think it's no joke at this point that I apparently really do have a difficult time understanding what you're trying to express at times. While I take my share of the blame for this, I don't consider myself to be a terrible reader or to have comprehension difficulty with too many concepts, so it's possible we're both pitching in.
My properly quoted reply to follow . . .
stridge said:
You don't even need to. I call a truce. I wanted to call one before I ever posted in this thread - believe me.
Yes, sometimes I totally ignore proper sentence structure, use a lot of run-ons and parentheticals etc in haste a free flow and it can make it difficult to read. My bad. I don't really give a shit, but maybe I should.
I'm baffled by your claim that you think using normal quotations is easier to follow than "coded quotes". To each his own.
Peace
Last edited:
How did Ron Paul look in that debate a couple nights ago?
He got slammed by Giuliani on a foreign policy/security comment where Giuliani demanded he retract a statement that implied that US foreign policy had caused 9/11, not theocratic intolerence from the Muslicm world. It was pretty much the story of the evening and gathered the single largest applause from the audience (Jesus, only Fox would allow applause during a televised debate).
Interestingly, Paul still did very well in online polling post debate. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe he placed highly in Fox's own running poll. I'm sure the clips are up on youtube.
Interestingly, Paul still did very well in online polling post debate. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe he placed highly in Fox's own running poll. I'm sure the clips are up on youtube.
Hey now, no need to call a truce - we're just talking here, aren't we?
Well, for a person that takes pretty serious offense to not being understood properly, I'd just think that it's in your own best interest to try and be as easy to understand as possible. That way you avoid these terribly frustrating encounters with guys like me . . .
I always just thought it was easier to take a post written as a solid format, similar to an article. I don't really write in the mindset of dividing my points or ideas, I just include the quotes as a point of refernce when responding to avoid being totally archane with my comments. It doesn't distract in other form of media I consume, so I suppose I never thought it was necessary for an internet forum I see where you're coming from though, hence the quoting from now on.
For this, I'd just like to say that once again, as a person that takes fairly serious offense at not being read properly, don't you find it just a little bit interesting that you're so eager to tell me that you were planning on completly ignoring the bulk of my comments but then comment profusly?
It is of course your complete right to do so, but honestly, you wouldn't take offense at, say, me stating that "well, I had planned on just ignoring whatever you had to say because it's not worth the trouble, but then there's this . . . " Trust me, my feelings aren't hurt, but don't scold a guy for not grasping your 'complexity' when you're up front with the fact that you don't feel you can even really be bothered with my replies in the first place. Technically I shouldn't feel guilty about not understanding your comments or not properly following any of your numerous orders since you've basically let me know you barely took a moment with what I wrote.
Indeed, 'win' is properly in quotes. I hope you're not taking this as a win/lose enterprise. So far as I'm concerned the only way to win here is to properly understand and appreciate one another's perspective.
I must beg to differ here. I was happily under the impression that a few of us were just spouting off about Ron Paul, editorial jurisdiction in the media, and the value of civic engagement, when you changed the tone and addressed my posting on a much different level. You percieved some slights coming from me and addressed them on the forum - maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by originator in this case, and if so ignore the above, but I'd say you're fairly obviously the 'orginator.'
All is always forgiven, but don't blame me if I gloss anything over or ASS-U-ME some points, as you've already made it clear that you had no intention of reading what I replied, despite your numerous responses. You can't get pissed if can't accurately figure out what you've read and haven't read.
Again with the effectiveness? I'll comment on this more further along as I noticed that you mention it again in a later post, but what gives? How is an exchange between you and me, which is largely about how you don't like the way in which I take your posts, more effective elsewhere? You keep alluding to this idea that nothing said here is worthwhile. If that's truly your opinion, then I stronngly suggest you don't trouble yourself with it. Otherwise, I'll go on record as saying this place is as effective as any other for you to explain your problems with my commentary.
Not oxymoronic, just an inaccurate description. The parties can't be hamperingly polarized into uselessness yet so ideologically similar as to be worthless in choosing between. To even state that each party is exactly one dead-set system of values is wrong - each represents an array of different views and neither strictly enforces policy on their members. They're organizational tools that must carry a "big tent" approach due to the characteristics of our democracy. You like Ron Paul's politics, and he's a Republican candidate, yet far from the party norm. Essentially, the 'two sides of the same coin' thing is a very, very simplified way of dismissing the party system as it stands.
Wait just a second - you can't have reasonably expected to take me to task for all my "bullshit," including my "labeling," "framing," and "spewing" of opinions, and not have expected a mega-loqacous guy like myself to respond. Two to tango and all that. I'm not going to take the blame on this one - you may not have wanted it, but I can't feel too sorry for you for not anticipating that I'd reply to your comments then you making the choice to continue replying.
You're an optomist eh? Please don't count on me for any positive things, too much pressure. Is that really why you were skimming? Better than totalling ignoring I suppose, which was the original intention.
It seems I was wrong, and so I do apologize. I may have been projecting my own sensibilities when I took your dozen or so apologies for my lack of comprehension as a means of pointing out my general thickness of skull. To be honest, I still get an inkling of that impression after having another look at the post, but believe when you say that's not the case. I have clearly perpetrated one of my legenday ASS-U-ME moments.
I meant the above refernced comment much more in the figurative sense, as in I didn't understand your motives our source of outrage. Once again, a prime example of talking right past each other. I thought it was pretty clear in its context, but I see not that you're a pretty literal person and took it to mean that I really couldn't comprehend the several paragraphs you had written. I'll take care not to mislead you in the future. For the record, I'm pretty sure I got your gist, for the most part, at least partially, more or less.
I won't tell you what to do, but I will 'suggest' that getting mad over this probably isn't worth the blood pressure.
Problematic for you . . . interesting for me, who knows for anybody else. Not with a wink, but I don't seem to have this deeply ingrained communicational handicap with anybody else.
I'm just including this as a prime example of what I mean when I say some of your comments are very difficult to follow. This statement is heavy on accusations, heavy on references, heavy on topic shifts, but very light on coherence. I'm doing my best, but really, how should I respond, internally or written, to this sort of comment?
To me, that's a more 'verbose' smattering of words and ideas than fifty clearly phrased and organized paragraphs. I'm generally not a very ordered person, but that passage runs the threshhold of chaos.
Well then, I'll have to extend my own demands this time around and ask that you follow your own rules. For example, if a person were to, oh, I don't know, never specifically call another person a conspiracy theorist, and yet find themselves bitterly acosted for "labeling" and "framing" somebody else as a "kooky" conspiracy advocate, I would expect that the upset party in question would recognize thay they were seriously overreacting to comments that weren't even directed towards them. Just a thought.
As we've been over, I casually used the second-person plural ("you guys" being my gentrified version of y'all I guess) when addressing Reber's use of a link, which contained the word 'conspiracy' in it. Never were you called a conspiracy theorist nor did I intentionally attempt to associate your opinions about Ron Paul with an organized conspiracy. Hey, they're your rules.
As I recall, and my recall is poor but we can always look it up, my error in that case was that I suck at math and incorrectly translated the metric and royal measurements by trying to compare them from the stats he listed. That was a math mistake, not reading comprehension, and I gladly apologized for my screw-up when it was pointed out.
Suggesting that this is indicative of some larger problem with my ability to understand others is pretty silly. It's similar to my auto insurance company refusing to cover for an accident because they happen to know that I once ran over a flagstone in my yard while mowing the grass and screwed up the blade on my John Deer, thus demonstrating that I have a crappy record operating motor vehicles. The incidents are only very superficially connected and don't properly inform on one another.
I am, however, flattered that you remembered my post.
Data? Huh?
Geez guy, are you building a RICO case against me here or something? I'll leave it up to anybody that happens accross this mess to decide whether I have some chronic problem with being able to understand the intentions of others (in psychological circles they call this autism).
But, let's not pretend that you pointing out your anger over the content of my posts is some kind of public service for me or my potential conversants better get along. As I mentioned, you're about the only guy that seems to have a profound difficulty with my communication skills. Well, you and my girlfriend, but with her it's intentional.
Ha, Didn't try very hard I see . . . sorry, too rich to resist. If I'm bullshit, then man, you're just a hungry fly.
Ah-Ha! Total lack of close reading or true understanding of my comment, and posibly a bigtime ASS-U-ME statement. I am pissed dude dammit!
As always, kidding, but that's not what I said. Do you really think that I would call Tom Delay a good and honest person. Listen, I may be a little dense and a serial assumer, but I did a pretty good stretch around Washinton, and I promise that sucks all the glorious naivety right out of a person. I said most politicians are very good and decent people, not all. Thinking that all politicians are good would be naive, but that's not what I said.
Now, during my brief jaunt around the lobbying world, I was nicely compensated to love politicians no matter what their personal character and professional habits were, which may have caused some residiual confusion, but I'm pretty sure that a decade of direct exposure to federal politics didn't leave me in a completely misinformed state of mind. I guess it would be either playing my hand or once again flexing my ego to say that members of my family are also in politics and that I grew up around some federal politicans and high level political workers, but then again I could also be letting you know that I've had more exposure to these people than web forums and cable news.
I would reluctantly suggest that a person believing that Ron Paul getting to debate the other candidates on national TV will somehow seriously change the political values of the country is a tad bit naive, but that would be getting back to the original thread topic, which is dead and gone at this point.
I'm an apologist. The nature of elective politics in this country necessitates bullshit. The greeks did it too, and they invented this stuff. Palm-greasing, flip-flopping, and log-rolling are just facts of life in elective government.
Mm, you didn't let it go before I even had a chance to let it go, so I don't feel bad in not letting it go either, since you didn't and it was your thing to begin with, er, wait . . . nevermind.
Sorry. Try to empathize - when you live in a world built on assumptions it's easy read too much into statements.
I guess all my little stabs at sarcastic humor were lost on the audience, or this was a case where you didn't read the post (by your own admission). To be brief, I acknowledged most of your protests against assumption in a pretty flippant way, meaning that while I do understand your grievance, I don't agree with its validity. Judging by your posts, you feel that damn near every word I write is predicated by a serious and patently false assumption. I may be wrong on many counts, but not everything I have said or offered an opinion on has been built around a flase assumption. That's just a very easy way to dismiss any of my rebuttals or points without actually addressing them. Sheesh.
I'm not sure I'd classify this as an argument so much as a good old-fashioned bitchfest, on either side. I feel like an argument has a specific topic, where as this seems to be me defending against the multiplicity of problems you have with my posts.
And so far as wanting to argue, let's have a look at that. I reply with my comments, hence a willingness to procede in the conversation (argument, as you like it), and yet you do the same, also indicating your willingness to participate. Unless you can prove to me that somebody has a gun yo your head and is forcing you to read this stuff and respond, you're just as much in the fray as I am.
I'd love to be able to take all the blame for your actions, but I'm really trying to get into the whole Ron Paul/libertarian/personal respsonbility frame of mind, so I can't offer up my services today, with regrets.
By the way, if somebody really does have a fun to your head, just type an asteriks and I'll send for help . . .
Not at all. Like I said before, this doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not terribly closer to figuring out exactly why you're so pissed about, although I'm quite sure it involves assumptions, not taking you literally, 'erring' on numerous accounts, writing way too much, and several other related issues. I do seem to have been acquitted of character assasinating and framing though, which is a very positive development.
Uh, thanks.
I was just using them to demonstrate a point and to try and place my comments in context, since your complaints ran all the way back to my very first posting. Now you're just getting mad about crazy stuff . . . and also, you mentioned my comments from a different thread entirely. Pot and kettle my friend . . . And really, we're free-thinking men, let's not constrict our ideas of progression to simple linear allignment. For shame.
Man, I like you, but I couldn't decide whether to consider this comment 'batshit crazy' or 'bugfuck crazy.' In the end, I thought I should just say something nice, and so, it sure doesn't lack for extravagent and nicely alternated punctuation. That's a compliment, so you can't accuse me of 'framing.'
Um, remember what I've been saying about being a little hard to follow? I will say though, you telegraph anger from the written word in a pretty effective manner. It's like I'm posting back and forth with Sam Kinison.
This reminds me of a William Burroughs book. There are revolving themes and repeated motifs, but in a totally random and intentionally disorienting presentation. Too much loquaciousness (you can still say verbose - I like loquacious but it wouldn't hurt to change it up a little every now and then), quoting of older posts, continual and astounding frequency of errors, more assumptions, compounding of these problems, by, uhh, compounding them - really, I think we'd be better off with you just giving me an itemized list. You can leave the caps lock off for that.
I guess you missed my jokes about nausea and redundancy in the post - they playful humor was supposed to defuse your impending volcanic anger at the post and cause you take a step back before seriously considering the content. PenilePersist, how I have failed you.
Damn you're a bossy guy. I have nothing to mention about this except to say that your insisted chronological sequencing is taking on Kurt Vonnegut levels of sophistication. I'm taking it as surreal, avante garde humor. I get it, really, I think.
Ah, now here's something substantive.
You missed my entire purpose from the very beginning. Firstly, I understand that you understand democratic theory and the inherent value of any political discourse.
What you have entirely missed, was that my point in explaining why it's valuable was simply my way of stating that I didn't care that the conversation was marginal, didn't effect anybody, didn't make a difference, didn't have a proper forum, and that nobody gives a shit.
The point you failed to take in, despite my restatements, was that I found value in the conversation, and that, of course, as you say you understand, any political discussion is worthwhile as the interaction of individuals is the building block of a civic culture. Hence, our little discussion, held value and I found it useful in this sense.
The point that I repeated, that has so profoundly enraged you, was meant to counter your point that it was marginal and non-important. Democratic theory states otherwise. If nobody has these conversations, there is no civic culture.
I hate to break it to you, but you inability to take my comments as a my reply to your insistence that it was somehow 'a waste of time' to even discuss the issue, is what facilitated your anger and frustration this entire time. Even now you seem to fail to connect that I repeated my belief in the value of insignificant conversation only in reaction to your repeatedly stating that it was not worthwhile because of the forum and that it wasn't really worth participating in. The only difference is that I wasn't very, very upset by your failure to grasp my meaning.
See above. Just because Reber can't vote for Ron Paul, a discussion of media politics and libertarian values is useless? Talking about Ron Paul is only usefull if it chaulks up to votes for the guy? Okaaay . . . Of course it's insignificant in the grand scheme, but guess what? If nobody has 'insignificant' conversations about politics, then there is no such thing as democratic involvement and civic culture. Once again, you're adament about the fact that you get my point on this, but ya sure don't act like it.
I won't resort to the all caps 'shout' method, but try to follow: I don't care, and never did care, if us bullshitting about Ron Paul was an important converstaion that made a difference - I only defended it on the grounds that any conversation about matters of public interest has at least a theoretical value. You say you agree, yet you protest having the conversation in the first place on the grounds that it's not 'doing anything.' Bit of a contradiction I'd say.
More of the same. As I said - I take your points:
1. You understand the nature of civic culture
2. You contend that this does not alter your belief that it's a waste of time to discuss these issues on a small forum such as this because it does not have tangible political results
My point: This is a contradcition. Civic culture doesn't exist without the insignificant discussions and even a discussion that effects nothing serves a theoretical good - pretty simple eh? You never bothered to examine why I might have repeated myself, only grew very pissed that I had done so. Not really worth all the fuss was it? Well, I hope not anyway.
I'm starting to recall Full Metal Jacket with all the shouting and orders floating around here . . .
Just to be a stickler, you have bitched me out for being loquacious.
I see. Well, considering my last post in response to you, the one that prompted all your responses, was mainly just screwing around and having a laugh at some of you eccentricities, I fail to see how I committed these errors all over again, but I don't think I'm being snide when I say that you may be the only one that really understands exactly what is perturbing you so badly.
I do hope my mega-post will clear up some your lingering concerns or at least release some of your tension, although I don't have a great track record so far.
Just in the interests of disclosure, I did not write this all at once and I certainly apologize in advance if this continues to to cause you the mental stress that I'm detecting slight notes of in your posts. As always, my best, and don't take it to heart. I'll freely admit that I wrote a good chunk of this while sitting around waiting for a fax, so you can chaulk much of my flippancy up to annoyance at having to miss a few hours of sleep waiting from some yahoo to send me a document.
stridge said:
i have indeed seen that clip and a select few others. Giuliani is fucking retarded, a jumbo retard(no disrespect to retards) the 9/11 commision report plainly states that foriegn policy in the middle east breeds and fuels terrorism and loathing toward the US, as does the CIA, who spent a great deal of energy investigating this very point in case and they exclaim exactly the same... not to mention the countless other authorities across the political spectrum who mirror the same view.
3 post debate online poll victories and its still barely given the light of day. honestly, if this was anyone of the generic cronies would it be plastered on the major networks? course it fucking would!!!
can you really not see the trend here?
the talking heads appear, the avid adversaries, another news anchor cunt who reads from a heavily biased script, then they set about to overwhelm with the same ultra-negative buzz lines over and over and over, the same lambasting rhetoric, the same tactics deployed to nullify and discredit, the same misinformation, the same untruths, the same blatent lies or avoidance of the facts... its fucking mind-bending! this is what a giant chunk of what the public are fed? utter maddness!
you never see on terrestrial news in England what i see on the net from your news everyday... NEVER.
my rant... DONE! up yours ya fuckers!!!!!
keep pushing
I would argue that Ron is getting a decent amount of attention - especially considering the more fringe nature of a lot of his beliefs. He's not getting anymore snubbed than Mike Huckabee or Duncan Hunter, and they're arguably much more well known to begin with.
The thing is, this is very early in the season, and a good showing in these first few cable debates and internet buzz still just doesn't translate into major public interest, or at least enough for news editors to justify running a lot of stories about the guy.
Take Mitt Romney - he's considered a first tier candidate and the 3rd place man right now and gets loads of press - but only a small percentage of the general public is aware of him and even fewew know much of anything about him. He's known in Iowa and New Hampshire where he's been campaigning his ass off for the primaries, not so much anywhere else. The recognition for a guy like Ron Paul is even lower. There are nine candidates in the debates right now, it's easy get looked over even if he is generating a strong buzz on the net.
One big source of publicity for Ron Paul is one of your fellow countrymen, but a current resident of the US - superblogger Andrew Sullivan. He's been pumping up Paul on his blog, which is one of the most widely read in the country, for the last week and a half.
So far as Giuliani, I used to look for reasons to give the guy more credit, but he's pissed me off as of late. The slam on Ron Paul was pretty dirty pool. He broke the format and he knows as well as anybody that it was a cheap shot, but that was just a case of a more seasoned and aggressive debater taking advantage. I used to think that Giuliani was at least sensible and a nice throw-back Republican, now I have some doubts. Out of the GOP field I was most impressed that McCain was rock solid on the torture issue while all the other candidates (except Ron Paul, actually) scrambled to appease the audience and boast about how they'd flush human rights down the toilet if we elected them.
McCain has his faults, but the isn't afraid to say the unpopular thing when it comes down to the wire, which is probably a good quality for a president.
The thing is, this is very early in the season, and a good showing in these first few cable debates and internet buzz still just doesn't translate into major public interest, or at least enough for news editors to justify running a lot of stories about the guy.
Take Mitt Romney - he's considered a first tier candidate and the 3rd place man right now and gets loads of press - but only a small percentage of the general public is aware of him and even fewew know much of anything about him. He's known in Iowa and New Hampshire where he's been campaigning his ass off for the primaries, not so much anywhere else. The recognition for a guy like Ron Paul is even lower. There are nine candidates in the debates right now, it's easy get looked over even if he is generating a strong buzz on the net.
One big source of publicity for Ron Paul is one of your fellow countrymen, but a current resident of the US - superblogger Andrew Sullivan. He's been pumping up Paul on his blog, which is one of the most widely read in the country, for the last week and a half.
So far as Giuliani, I used to look for reasons to give the guy more credit, but he's pissed me off as of late. The slam on Ron Paul was pretty dirty pool. He broke the format and he knows as well as anybody that it was a cheap shot, but that was just a case of a more seasoned and aggressive debater taking advantage. I used to think that Giuliani was at least sensible and a nice throw-back Republican, now I have some doubts. Out of the GOP field I was most impressed that McCain was rock solid on the torture issue while all the other candidates (except Ron Paul, actually) scrambled to appease the audience and boast about how they'd flush human rights down the toilet if we elected them.
McCain has his faults, but the isn't afraid to say the unpopular thing when it comes down to the wire, which is probably a good quality for a president.
stridge said:
He KILLED in the online poll - AGAIN. Of course, such polls are not always very accurate and are not always a fair representation of the voting public.
Guliani has obviously been grandstanding on the whole 9/11 shit - while multiplying his wealth by getting paid to talk about how good of a job he did even though there are large groups of emergency workers that say Guliani sucked and he took part in rapidly removing evidence from Ground Zero (ooooo - call me a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist now). He evokes 9/11 every single second he can - and that is all that he was trying to do with Ron Paul. He knows that too many of the viewers are still stupid enough to make it a popularity contest of who sways emotion the most - rather than who has the more sensible points. Obviously, Ron Paul was on target with why any foreign group would attack us. It's not because they are jealous or sickened by our own life in our own part of the world .... it is because they are pissed off about foreign policy effecting their every day life on the ground ... and they experience it and gather more intelligence on it than most people in the USA. :s
Now .... not at all surprised:
.... and you still don't think people like to try their best to shut Ron Paul up? They are just looking for an excuse because they know if he continues then he will start to sway more and more people with his logic opposed to emotion. It's obvious to anyone who has a clue - pardon me.
Last but not least, I see that Gordon Brown is the new PM now. Not surprised at all. I have been saying for over a year that he was going to be the next one simply because he attended the Bilderberg meeting and publicly rants about how much we all need a "New World Order" and then he hopped on the Climate Change train and said how it can help with the "New World Order" etc. If you see politicians attending Bilderberg meetings and saying this shit - you have great odds to bet massive amounts of money on their promotion in politics. Same shit happened with George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton, too. I've been keeping eyes on other Governors, Congressman and Senators .... as well and all signs are consistant.
Ron Paul has specifically discerned and denounce the global vision for a "New World Order". He is, naturally, already beginning to face a huge amount of resistance. There is no conpiracy theory here - just facts to make of as you will.
Ron Paul has specifically discerned and denounce the global vision for a "New World Order". He is, naturally, already beginning to face a huge amount of resistance. There is no conpiracy theory here - just facts to make of as you will.
Last edited:
PenilePersist said:
More "Kooky, Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist" for ya. Just backing my comments up since I suspect the "New World Order" phrase and "Bilderberg" comment isn't taken well.
First a note on my thoughts:
CNN talking about Bilderberg meetings for a "New World Order":
YouTube - CNN - Discusses Bilderberg plans for New World Order
Bilderberg was founded with Henry Kissinger back in 1954. Henry Kissinger had this to say at one of the meetings in 1992:
"New World Order" out of their own mouths:
January 18th, 2005:
Kissinger, on Charlie Rose, talking about how the "New World Order" or "New International Order" (he knows New World Order phrase it taking heat, so he is playing with words) :
"new world order" "kissinger" - Google Video
"There is a need for a New World Order"
YouTube - Kissinger NWO again
"new world order" "kissinger" - Google Video
Bush Sr on New World Order:
YouTube - New World Order
ClintonS on New World Order:
Bill: YouTube - PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON CALLS FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER
Hillary: YouTube - hillary clinton meeting wanting a 'new world order' 1984
Lou Dobbs talking about how Bush Jr fulfills his father's vision for a New World Order with the, Sovereignty Destroying, North American Union aka "Security and Propserity Partnership for North America" - SPP Home - (we all know Jr is a puppet, right?):
YouTube - CNN/DOBBS: W FULFILLS HIS DAD'S DREAM OFA NEW WORLD ORDER
Gordon Brown talking about the New World Order:
BBC: "Wants a New World Order" BBC NEWS | Politics | Brown wants a 'new world order'
Guardian: "Demands a New World Order" - on the Climate Change train:
Brown demands 'new world order' | UK Latest | Guardian Unlimited
Gordon Brown and Tony Blair asked about Bilderberg by Norman Baker of Parliament:
Ron Paul talks about how the New World Order is a plan to set up World Government and undermining National Sovereignty:
YouTube - Congressman Admits a Conspiracy for Global Gov't Exists
More on Global Governance (though focusing on Clinton a bit much, failing to talk about how Bush contributes - only talking about how Bush stopped one effort of Clinton's on occasion for unknown reasons) :
Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence - Google Video
Something that I fear will be pushed with Climate Change .... pay attention to the part on the "Biodiversity Treaty" , that Clinton and Gore apparently supported (and still support?), calling for depopulating the planet by 2/3s, and as much as sustaining only 500 Million people total world wide with only 20 Million people in the USA:
Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence - Google Video
Bill Clinton and Carrol Quigley:
"clinton attended bilderberg" - Google Search
Bill and Hillary have attended Bilderberg BEFORE their highest rise in political ranks.
"Stridge's boy", John Edwards, attended Bilderberg in 2004:
"john edwards" "bilderberg" "2004" - Google Search
There is more. You can find it.
Last edited:
Sridge, I'm not playing your argument game. It's over. Truce. Get over it. You are wasting your time.
By the way, you are getting better with the quote code, but you still don't know how to attribute the code to the proper people. It's really simple.
By the way, you are getting better with the quote code, but you still don't know how to attribute the code to the proper people. It's really simple.
Just Type an equal sign said:
Last edited: