Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 86453 times) |
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
  
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #325 on: Apr 18th, 2008, 4:41am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
 | I DIGRESS...
on Apr 17th, 2008, 10:05pm, steelkings wrote:Hey, Thats really cool Steve. With the irrational nature of children I fear you may be a little too educated to be a parent but then I remembered you and Gino had the practice chicken  you rescued from the streets of Hawaii. So you will be fine. If you can take any advice from a guy that has raised three of his own, it would be a simple as this. If you provide your child with three things: Love, a sense of trust and a little fun in life, you will be eventually gifted a tee shirt that reads "Worlds Greatest Dad". |
|
Thank you for the kind words, sk. I must admit, though, that I am somewhat disappointed by your summing up my future fathering abilities, our parenting potential, with the birdie story  (I almost wish I did not even share the birdie story with yous; not one person took it for the straightforward kind-hearted gesture it was; instead, I got bird shit lectures, and, in any event, here it comes up now to, in a sense, haunt me). But, I guess you were just kidding, so... But, then, there was also, "TOO EDUCATED to be a parent"...  Again, a joke,... I guess... Ha-ha! It is a reminder of in this cyber world how really little we all know each other, even me some 13,000 by and large lengthy posts where I've worn my heart on my sleeve later. Understand, I am certain that there is no ill-will to this part of your post, sk. Yet, in all honesty, reading it wasn't the pleasure (I guess) you intended it to be. Insofar as that is the case, this also serves as a reminder of how difficult it is to communicate effectively and accurately in the cyber environment. And, mind you, sk, I think you express yourself well in this post. It's just not satisfying, though, and I KNOW that you aren't here to please me and we aren't here to stroke one another. But, then again, what are we doing here? Being a subtle mix of just nice enough to get by but also not so nice that we really open up and share genuine sentiments...???
Anyway,... I guess I'm just PMS-in'... by proxy...  But, there is something to be said for what I'm sayin'... |
|
|  |
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #326 on: Apr 20th, 2008, 1:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
Okay, back to the "main" discussion,... which, mind you, is not really about politics,... which, mind you, I don't necessarily think is a bad thing. 
Anyway, bottom line, the "Who asked you?" thing is a copout.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #328 on: Apr 25th, 2008, 6:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
In response to this post, I can already see you guys saying, "This is the politics thread. What do you mean we shouldn't discuss ISSUES?" Well, I mean that we shouldn't discuss the issues per se. In doing so we go too far too quickly and find ourselves in too deep.  When we jump to the "issue", we have skipped a (critical) step and in the process made an assumption that is very likely incorrect. Ideology must first be hammered out. If the thinking on whatever issue is messed up, biased, manipulative, coercive, jaded, not (well-)thought-through, misinformed, inconsistent, nutty, or whatever, ultimately, most importantly, ILLogical, what use is it?
| I DIGRESS...
So, I'm talking to this Obama-supporting, global-warming, liberal Democrat... He's bitching to me about how he can't get a signal for his cell phone up at his vacation house somewhere in the mountains in Oregon. Playing to my conservative sensibilities, but still taking a shot at my philosophical training, he points out all the whacky "philosophical" reasons the "environmentalists" come up with to prevent the installation of a cell-phone signal tower in this mountain area. Of course, he points out all of the mostly silly shit that you can poke holes in easily: the signal tower will ruin the scenery (when, as he points out, they can make these towers anymore to look like trees) and potentially be a hazard to the wildlife, the frequencies will have an adverse affect on the wildlife, etc. And, then, of course, there was his "concern" for the safety for the growing community descending upon this area (mind you, he even points out that, though it is expensive, lan lines can be installed). He points out that they need to "progress" with the times. At the end of the day, bottom line, he wants to use his cellie in his mountain vacation home. Problem is,... making this mountain "cell phone-ready" requires energy,... electricity. This is going to turn this rural area not necessitating energy consumption for the purpose of fueling cell phones to now need it. What about global warming, though? Isn't it that if every American could reduce his or her energy consumption by even just 10%, we could make a small dent in our carbon footprint? Now, so that people can use their cell phones in their, by and large, vacation homes, we're talking about "electrifying" a whole mountain area that, heretofore, had very little carbon emission.  Thing is, the guy wants to use his cellie. What about that stance on global warming, though? As it turns out, it REALLY IS an inconvenient truth, isn't it? Mind you, this is not my position I am arguing. It's HIS. Therein lies the problem or, perhaps, should I say, the real "ISSUE"! |
|
| |
And, so, the beat goes on,... more voices just add to the cacophony of nonsense. I mean... if the thinking underlying a take on an issue is no good, the take itself is not going to be any better, and such a person's freedom of speech is really just tantamount to noise pollution.
Is it a cure for AIDS or the rights of (lab-test) animals??? Can't readily have them both!!! There are the webs of inconsistency and hypocrisy that I find burn-the-candle-at-both-ends liberals tend to weave... Don't get me wrong. There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle when it comes to personal matters. I'm talking about big-picture ideological hypocrisy, to which liberals seem to be much more susceptible than conservatives.
"Philosophy is the unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly." - William James
It is in that sense that we need more Philosophy, especially in America right now!!!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #329 on: Apr 26th, 2008, 7:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
Point being...
It's not what you think. It's how you think it.
If the thought that went into "what"ever is stinkin' thinkin', the conclusion is going to stink. However, if how something was thought up was good, "what"ever it is will be, at least, in the ballpark of good.
I spent a few hours today (on a shopping run for work) with this really sharp guy who did his schooling at Cal Berkeley. This guy is NO dummy. I digress... He's doing The Conquest of Happiness as per my "Selected Readings" on the "Philosophy Corner" thread here on "the Sidelines". In any event, I was helping him make his position on the Iraq war, which, mind you, I do NOT share, (even) more reasonable (than it already was), tightening some nuts and bolts, and ultimately stronger. In VERY short, he was saying that 4,000 American lives have been needlessly lost in Iraq. His argument, as he was presenting it, was really emphasizing the numbers though, which, to someone reasonable who happens to be on the other side, is not the strength of his position. In fact, it's a weak point. It's not the point at which his position is persuasive. Its persuasiveness, even to a reasonable person on the other side of the proverbial aisle, lies in defining what exactly he means by "needlessly". At any rate, one (of my Republican-leaning cohorts) might ask, "Why in God's name would you do THAT?" It is because all I ultimately want to see is well-reasoned, level-headed, fair-minded discussion. Even though I rail against the "let's agree to disagree" mindset, I am actually NOT striving for agreement at all. Hell, with an issue like Iraq, there is no certainty. I know where I stand. But, I know just where my position can be legitimately disagreed with. I'm just pushing my interlocutor to (be able to) dissect his or her own position the same way and, then, meet me at these legitimately sticky points on both sides and, perhaps, THEN even push my position... to the point of my having to either improve it OR back off it, at least in part. But, I want/need my interlocutor to be able to get there (with me). If he or she cannot even get there with his or her own position, there is no hope because the depth of reflection and understanding will not match up. The better all parties representing all sides of the topic can articulate their positions, the better the conversation will be. Coming back around, it's just that "let's agree to disagree" is typically used as a mere lazy copout. This is what I've been bustin' hump trying to get across and facilitate here to, I'm not going to say no, but relatively little avail.
While "what" to think cannot, should not, be taught, "how" to think can and, in fact, should. It's a skill, and enter Philosophy. As I once was told, "Philosophy regards the mastery of the art of thinking." For whatever it's worth, you've got a guy around here who's genuinely passionate about and, moreover, happens to have higher degrees in the stuff. If you've ever been trained in something, thought you acquired a level of expertise at it, and thought it made a difference and was valuable, consider that maybe, just maybe, my training has had the same kind of impact on me. 
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 26th, 2008, 10:38pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #330 on: Jul 13th, 2008, 7:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 18th, 2003, 1:26pm, StegRock wrote:Along the lines of what Philly says, the REAL goal with and the ULTIMATE determinations of the success of all our efforts these days are long-term and won't even be realized/known for at least 10 to 15 years and probably not REALLY for 25 to 50 years. History will be the judge... as it always is (as most of this kind of stuff is done by looking far down the road, lifetimes down the road, which your average people just looking around themselves can't comprehend).
If in 20 to 50 years we have succeeded with building a "South Korea" out of the rubble that is Iraq and Afganistan, we will have succeeded BIG-TIME. Two muslim nations basically on either side of the middle east joining modernity and becoming part of the rest of the modern world. HUGE SUCCESS! If it can be done in South Korea, it can be done in those places. |
|
Real quick (I'm all riled up watching Meet The Press today),... once again,... regarding getting our troops out of Iraq,... HELLLL-LLO!!! Anybody who thought a BIG part of THE POINT wasn't to establish bases in Iraq... and Afganistan, so we're on both ends of and can begin to put the sqeeze and get a handle (in the long run) on the middle east, is fooling themselves. From day one, this was a "bigger picture" effort being explained to a small-minded constituency with a short attention span who need to be force-fed "facts" because they are incapable of seeing beyond right now. And, for those who want to hype-up the "lying" aspect of that, learn your history. Think, "Themistocles, and how he had to sell the Athenians on expanding the Navy in 483-482 B.C.!" Pulling active troops is one thing, but, folks, we ain't goin' anywhere for SOME time, and we shouldn't, not just in terms of the short term, but also the long term. We're probably not much more than 10% into the "bigger picture" mission, which a wussy, 21st-century American public can't even stomach anymore. Don't get me wrong... No one wants war, but we forget that during WWII the death toll in our military forces over a shorter period of time was close to 50,000 TIMES the number we've experienced in both Iraq and Afganistan. Let's, at least, get some perspective here...
...
On another note,  to and God bless both Tim Russert and Tony Snow... Wonderful human beings and good Americans to boot. You guys will be sorely missed,... especially vis-a-vis our present-day media culture.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2008, 4:02am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #331 on: Aug 28th, 2008, 11:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I am honestly very much so taken with Barack Obama's biography, and its presentation at the DNC, I thought, was powerful. But, is it me (probably, I know), or was his DNC acceptance speech (at least, somewhat) disappointing??? A LOT of "what, what, what, what, what, what,..." but not a whole lot of "how!" And, even when a little "how" was addressed it ended up being pretty much more "what." He even went as far as to say that he is going to facilitate a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. How the hell you gonna pull that off? By supporting a policy of social conservatism, cracking down on the envelope of sexuality, violence, etc. that our entertainment industry pushes. NOT! I don't know... For a guy whose speech at the last DNC I found VERY inspirational... and even inspiring, I thought his speech tonight lacked such inspiration.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #332 on: Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom does Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives; America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy..
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #334 on: Aug 30th, 2008, 10:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 30th, 2008, 7:23pm, Callie wrote:| But, MC, that was a great post! |
|
SECONDED! That post was...  , MC!!!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #335 on: Sep 4th, 2008, 3:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
Granted,... vis-a-vis MC's insightful post,... he is the leading esquire of the  's, but Rudy Guiliani's speech was awesome... "Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy." Great stuff! AND, THEN, Sarah Palin ROCKED THE HOUSE!  Old Johnnie Mac ain't gonna have to get his hands dirty at all. The hockey mom'll (GO DU!!!) do all the dirty work. She reminds me of a tough librarian you AIN'T turning in the book late to.  You can see that she can be a bitch on wheels...  IN A GOOD,... GREAT WAY, mind you, when she needs to be!!!  She'll undress you without your even knowing it. GREAT wit!!! And, her resume, for a VP canidate,...  just fine!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #336 on: Sep 4th, 2008, 10:33am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Sep 4th, 2008, 3:51am, StegRock wrote:| Granted,... vis-a-vis MC's insightful post,... he is the leading esquire of the 's, but Rudy Guiliani's speech was awesome... "Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy." Great stuff! AND, THEN, Sarah Palin ROCKED THE HOUSE! Old Johnnie Mac ain't gonna have to get his hands dirty at all. The hockey mom'll (GO DU!!!) do all the dirty work. She reminds me of a tough librarian you AIN'T turning in the book late to. You can see that she can be a bitch on wheels... IN A GOOD,... GREAT WAY, mind you, when she needs to be!!! She'll undress you without your even knowing it. GREAT wit!!! And, her resume, for a VP canidate,... just fine! |
|
This ticket is exactly what this country needs right now!!! I am so pumped up!! I don't see how anyone could even think Obama/Biden is a good fit, especially if they watched last night. Palin was dead on perfect. Guliani was remarkable...."Drill baby, drill"  - priceless! 
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 4th, 2008, 10:36am by MordecaiCourage » |
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '93, '03, '07, '12, '18, '22
# 54
Posts: 489
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #337 on: Sep 5th, 2008, 1:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
I have never found myself at this board so for me to actually post means MC really piqued my interest. I apologize I didn't get right to this (and now I am a bit behind) but here goes:
on Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. |
|
Really? Just the Dems? What needs to be accurately pointed out here is that the presidency of the United States is actually a party for lawyers. 25 of the 42 presidents have been lawyers - a whopping 59.5%. The more important observation on this lawyer issue is why is there such a strong relationship between the understanding (or believed understanding) of law and power itself (or the power structure of America at least)?
on Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen... The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow. |
|
Is this really true or an ill-informed blanket statement? If you are talking about the U.S. being in a grossly inflated litigious society, I would completely agree with you and say the pendulum has left the building. However, in the same general timeframe, these highly regarded businesses and businessmen you hold in high regard have taken it on the chin (as well as deserted Americans):
Enron (with very visible ties to the current administration), Qwest, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, WorldCom, Tyco, Sunbeam, Adelphia, Polaroid. Of course this isn't the full and final list, this is just a small group of businesses that have erred grossly and in many cases without regard for the American people they served or employed. And isn't that what we are really talking about here, the bottom line, the American people?
It sounds like more than anything, money is the motivator for power here while including some combination of law. Maybe that is where this discussion should be heading, on why law and money are so intertwined and important when it comes to the entire political picture instead of specific party politics.
Anyway, I am calling you out MC and asking for exact proof where "...The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America ." I just would like specific instances where this has taken place and in what exact context.
on Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| Against whom does Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation. |
|
Again, really? What are your specific instances? I think it would be in everyone's best interest (as proof to Obama's incompetence) to have this information visible and easily accessible.
on Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay... |
|
Although from the sounds of it, Delay had no problems draping himself with the law when trying to redistrict the state or the counties in question to benefit the republican party - and I'm just mentioning the push to change the map, nothing else.
on Aug 29th, 2008, 10:59pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. |
|
You are absolutely right on this. But it opens up other cans. What did the founding fathers mean or intend when they said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I have a hard time believing that this amendment can be easily interpreted, let alone be confident that the founding fathers had our present society in mind when they put this to paper.
Okay, there is my rant for this evening. Again, sorry for the delay in response!
|
|
Logged |
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better. Burn her anyway!
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #338 on: Sep 21st, 2008, 7:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think MC was going "bigger picture", and I think forests were getting lost in trees. Big government and rampant litigiousness are surely products of lawyers... and more so the Democratic party. Our vast welfare "state", programs such as Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU surely receive their backing from Democrats, who tend to be lawyers trying to fix things with (legal) systems. Also, I don't think MC was looking for a history lesson. He was not talking about the history of the Office of the President. He is talking about the present state of affairs, and insofar as that is the case I think he has a point. A quick glance at the biographies of our Presidents tells you that there is no dearth of representation by this "noblest" of professions on both sides of the aisle. However, the present leadership of the Democratic party seems to be littered with lawyers, whereas, this is not so much the case with the Republican party. Just compare the present tickets: TWO lawyers against two NON-lawyers. And, anytime rich, Ivy League lawyers are the spokespersons for the poor, huddled masses, watch out!
Now, where Markie has his point is in calling for scrutiny of the connection between money, lawyers and the power establishment, regradless of party affiliation. He words it thusly: "It sounds like more than anything, money is the motivator for power here while including some combination of law. Maybe that is where this discussion should be heading, on why law and money are so intertwined and important when it comes to the entire political picture instead of specific party politics." Honestly, while I absolutely appreciate the sensibility, the expression there is a bit muddled. I do think, though, that, while we can surely get lost in the nuances, the "bottom line" answer to all that is a bit simple. First of all, and this is Political Science 101, "democratic" governments do their work via "the Law", i.e. the creation, execution and review of laws and regulations, i.e. legislation, regulation and enforcement, and jurisprudence. But, on the governmental level, it is probably easily argued that legislation is job one. Secondly, that money and power go together should not be a mystery to anyone, anywhere, at any time in world history [and I don't think it, nor the Poli-Sci 101 lesson above, is to Markie, but given the way he expressed himself in that aforementioned quote I felt these (assumed premises) needed to be explicitly stated]. The involvement of lawyers in politics and the power structure is a very natural, and perhaps somewhat incidental, matter of job security. Legislation, while for the rest of us is (just) a matter of the so-called greater good, for lawyers it is also a matter of job procreation. While the (filing and motion) system is such that lawyers and judges can literally create work for themselves on the ground in small ways, federal and even state legislation is where the flood gates of litigation can be opened. Doctors, journalists, professors, etc., etc., etc., just to name a few so-called "high-end" professions, don't tend toward politics because, simply put, the cash incentive is low, and relative to lawyers, non-existent. Furthermore, the headaches are greater, insurmountable, if you don't share the view that "the Law" is the ultimate answer... because it IS in this system. Now, the group with the second-biggest incentive to get involved in politics, logically speaking, is BIG business, businesspeople involved in the big-ticket items of government, such as oil, military technology and banking, and this is where the ugliness on the Republican side of the aisle surely lies. So, why don't party politics overcome that? I, in retort, ask, "How can it?" It just is what it is. In large part, government = money, power and law. We do the best we can within that (ugly) framework. The more interesting investigation, then, would be into how it is that we come to think otherwise... And, the more intriguing speculation, what I am interested in, would be into how we can overcome it.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #339 on: Oct 8th, 2008, 11:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
Our pride is based on a
very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago:
We hold these truths to be selfevident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
That is the true genius of America, a faith a
faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small
miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and
safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a
sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without
paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and
that our votes will be counted.
---------------------------------------------------------------
People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their
bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in
America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice
our country into Red States and Blue States;
Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We
worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around
in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got
some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there
are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to
the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do
we participate in a politics of hope?
-----------------------------------------------------------
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
B. Obama 2004 DNC
B.Obama 2008 DNC
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #340 on: Oct 9th, 2008, 5:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Whence is the above? Is it a political/campaign speech that someone made? Are these copy-and-pastes from Obama's 2004-2008 DNC speeches (note that I thought Obama's 2004 DNC speech was spectacular, but I also thought Schwarzenegger's 2004 RNC speech was, as well)? Most importantly, though, what is the specific point (of this post) vis-a-vis the heretofore ongoing discussion? It seems non sequitur and "merely political", which is the only thing that frustrates me. There isn't even any commentary provided with the above (from what I can tell). It just looks like a copy-and-paste. Look... Just to get things straight, I much more so appreciate and respect a person who has and expresses a well-thought-out take different from mine and doesn't get offended by intelligent argumentation from that opposing vantagepoint than someone who holds a simpleminded position which just so happens to be in agreement with mine but isn't well-thought-through at all.
Now with (all due) respect to the post, I am contemplating arguing with it. But, a) it's usually not a productive enterprise arguing with copy-and-pasted speeches of other people because they are not here to represent themselves and the words come with an "authority" impossible to match by anyone here, and b) by and large, the copy-and-pasted portions above express generalities and political platitudes that cannot be argued with with any degree of specificity, in fact much of it is just generally agreeable (political) rhetoric, and cannot be broken down without dialoguing with the person who said them [which, again, is a source of my frustrations about merely copy-and-pasted content (the brand of which JYJ used to be notorious for on this thread) because it gets US away from dialoguing WITH ONE ANOTHER and just has us posting long-winded bumper stickers of sorts in each others' faces, which is, especially during this heated political season, what I feel the above post merely is].
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #342 on: Oct 12th, 2008, 2:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Now feel free to correct me if I am getting this wrong, guys and gals, as regards the current economic crisis we are enduring, but, as I am understanding it, there is equal blame to be placed at the feet of both Republican deregulation philosophy as there is Democrat welfare philosophy. HOWEVER, it seems to me that the Democrats actually took advantage of the Republican penchant for deregulation to advance their welfare agenda in the housing sector via (Clinton-appointed higher-ups in) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and block voting of congressional Democrats on the Securities Commission (or whatever it's called).
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #343 on: Nov 4th, 2008, 3:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2008, 3:01pm, sk wrote:| Its prelude to a comment that I will deliver. It would have come with the cut and paste but I ran out of time. Im sunning in Florida and will bring it when Im ready for a discussion( fight). Now Im non stressing! |
|
Yea, that happened... 
MOVING RIGHT ALONG,... my mother spoke to someone who is on the fence but ultimately has decided not to vote for McCain because he fears that McCain may not be all too long for the earth and doesn't want the reigns turned over to Palin. Although I disagree with the premise that planning on McCain's dying is a reason not to vote for him, I actually see this line of reasoning as a reason to vote FOR McCain. Palin is the ONE Washington outsider in this Presidential race. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that McCain passes away two or three years in. I would LOVE to see the Washington OUTSIDER, Palin, who also isn't afraid to give it to her own party mind you, do her thang for a year or two. In such a short amount of time, she couldn't do that much damage, BUT she could do quite a bit of good. Look, I'm actually pretty much 51-49 for McCain in this election. If it were only for a two-year term, I might actually be 51-49 for Obama, whose lack of experience gives me pause. But, in any event, my point here is that this sensibility is even stronger for a Washington outsider like Palin. Heck, on a two-year term, I wish she'd be heading the ticket. I think someone OUTSIDE the beltway, and even perhaps a little green, might be just what we need,... just not for a whole four years.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #344 on: Nov 4th, 2008, 7:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 4th, 2008, 3:59am, StegRock wrote:
Yea, that happened...
|
|
I'm running the Deuce league and just didn't seem to have the time. 
Actually I forgot about it.
------------------------------------------------------
I think Sara Palin, if McCain loses, Will become less a foot note in american politics than Geraldine Ferarro. In fact she will become the scapegoat of this general election. The Republican party would never take another chance on her and an independent cant win. She would be lucky to win any seat in her own State two years from now without the support of the RNC.
I'm still holding out hope for the Heffner " Ladies of politics" issue. Somebodys paying for all those new clothes after the election. 
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 4th, 2008, 7:07am by sk » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #346 on: Nov 4th, 2008, 3:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
For whatever it's worth, I think both of these "analyses" (boy, I miss seeing that word so prevalent around here as it once was up in "the Red Zone ) are very astute and the kind of thoughtful responses and dialogue I want "the Gridiron" to be about, and, mind you, it has nothing to do with their compatibility or agreement... The two commentaries are not compatible and in agreement, but are nevertheless well-thought-out, well-formed, pithy and ultimately solid takes... ...
on Nov 4th, 2008, 7:02am, sk wrote:| I think Sara Palin, if McCain loses, Will become less a foot note in american politics than Geraldine Ferarro. In fact she will become the scapegoat of this general election. The Republican party would never take another chance on her and an independent cant win. She would be lucky to win any seat in her own State two years from now without the support of the RNC. |
|
on Nov 4th, 2008, 8:13am, Philly wrote:For what it's worth... I think that Barack Obama has less of a chance of surviving a four-year presidential term than John McCain has.
Honestly, I like Palin better than any of the other players in this election too. She's the real maverick and I like the fact that she's not a slave to party politics. But the last time I voted for a Washington outsider (Jon Corzine for Congress), he ended up becoming a Washington insider and the worst and most corrupt NJ governor I've seen in my lifetime. |
|
Again, GREAT stuff... worth  posting, worth  reading!
...
THAT SAID, the most astute statement of all was this...
on Nov 4th, 2008, 7:02am, sk wrote:| I'm running the Deuce league and just didn't seem to have the time. |
|
 ...
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #347 on: Nov 5th, 2008, 1:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
My post-election insight on this historical election victory... 
First and foremost, congratulations and good luck to President-elect Obama! 
As per my post above, I'm not unhappy that Obama won. (I sort of think it needed to happen... for a multitude of reasons.) On the other hand, had McCain won, note that I'm not going to say that I would have been happy; again, I would have been not unhappy. What I am happy about,... I am happy that this election is over, and went the way it did, because of the absolute unrelenting, unreasonable, over-the-top nasty vitriol liberals have embodied throughout this process and over the last few years. I will be happy to live without that out-of-control, unbalanced vitriolic negativity surrounding me. And, implicit in that claim is that I firmly believe that conservatives will not comport themselves in such an embarrassingly unsavory crazed, cry-baby, over-the-top unfair and biased manner. I, in fact, have much respect for Barack Obama. But, for liberal Democrats, this election is an, albeit needed, pacifier,  four or perhaps eight years to gather their senses.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 5th, 2008, 5:05pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #348 on: Nov 5th, 2008, 4:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| I will be happy to live without that out-of-control, unbalanced vitriolic negativity surrounding me. And, implicit in that claim is that I firmly believe that conservatives will not comport themselves in such an embarrassingly unsavory crazed, cry-baby, over-the-top unfair and biased manner. I, in fact, have much respect for Barack Obama. But, for liberal Democrats, this election is an, albeit needed, pacifier, four or perhaps eight years to gather their senses. |
|
 I was really hoping to not take the bait but......If you are saying that only the Dems ran a negitive campaign, then you missed half of it. The RNC called Obama everything but a nigger in the first half of this campaign. It wasnt until the liberal in sheeps clothing, (McCain) said enough is enough, that they slowed it down. | I DIGRESS...
McCain really is a good man with a moderate liberal back ground that simply got caught up in the systems ugliness. And it cost him the presidency. |
|
| |
Im also throwing fear into the negitive category. For the last 71/2 years this country has been governed by fear. If you cant beat them with Negitivity then throw in whats worked for 8 years. Drop in some fear. Dont think for a minute that the vitrolic little old lady that went on stage at that McCain town hall meeting and called Obama an Arab wasnt planted. Yes, McCain said The right thing. Saying that Obama was a good man with an Arab name, Yada yada. But the bitter sub-message was clear. Obama's an Arab. Lets scare people into voting for McCain. No fucking way is anyone gonna get handed a mic to ask a question that they dont already know what the question is. Not at an RNC forum, anyway. Every news channel in the world picked up on that sound bite. A little wag the dog by the RNC? I think it went something like this in the control booth..
Bob Rightwing: "That little lady over there thinks Obama is a Arab. Give her the Mic."
Steve Redstate: Fuckin "A"!....Senetor hurry and Hand that ole bag the Mic. She thinks Obama's an Arab"
Bob Rightwing: Thats not an old bag! Thats my aunt.
This country stood up and said thats it! We are over that shit. The negitive tone of the RNC campain is exactly what got McCain beat.
| I DIGRESS...
People arent tired of listening to the complaints. No, No! They are tired of being scared.
Did you notice last night, during McCains concession speech, The rallys and cheers from around the world. Asia, Europe, PAKISAN, all were happy to see leadership change in America. These people all over the world were in the streets celebrating Americas decision. This isnt because they see this as a weaker America. Not at all. This is because it give the rest of the world hope that America will make more decisions based upon compassion and not greed.  A world full of hope makes me feel much safer living right here in America. Is it possible we could see a day where people wont want to hurt us as much anymore? Not because they dont want what we have (Freedom) but because they are not scared of us anymore. Is there really anyone out there that doesnt think that hate doesnt accompany fear. |
|
| |
Purhaps I misunderstood . Now if you are refering to what would have been had Obama lost. You are right, the Libs of this country would have been upset. You would have heard it over and over. However, Check out the other side of the coin. Flip the radio dial over to the ole Rush Limbaugh show. I'm sure his mood is positive.Yikes. Check out Fox news. Yikes again. You are going to get plenty of "Vitrolic Negitivity" no matter what happend in this election. 
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 5th, 2008, 4:47pm by sk » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #349 on: Nov 5th, 2008, 8:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Interesting analysis, I guess, sk, on some points in general, but poor in specific response to my post, which means I have been misinterpreted yet again,  which bums me out because that causes us to get away from speaking "with" each other in favor of speaking "at" each other. What causes people to speak "at" instead of "with" one another, besides blatant disrespect, is misinterpretation. "Getting" your interlocutor is the key to effective communication. "Assuming" is not, and "assuming you get your interlocutor (moreover, when in fact you don't)" (not that that is what you did here, sk; you actually hedged your language in an effort to express that you weren't) is even worse. One great exercise in the enterprise of more effectively communicating is to be generous in your interpretation and, perhaps, ask rather than assume and rail. Alternatively, if that's a bit much, just frame your post more "in general" as a general "since we are sharing our thoughts on x topic, this is the way I see things", and, at least, that'll remove the presumptuousness. The conversation then becomes one of sharing our thoughts in general on a topic, not as deep [and, I think, (intellectually) satisfying] of a venture, but at least we don't run the risk of getting one another wrong, and yet we would still be doing a sort of back-and-forth or building-upon, i.e. having a true conversation "with" one another. Another tip is to keep your focus narrow, keep it to what you (pretty much) know. That way you don't "expose" yourself (in both senses) to too much scrutiny (which is what you do below), which is what making a lot of assumptions and speaking in platitudes and sweeping, no less one-sided, generalities leads to. The more ground you try to cover, the more ducks you have to have in a row, both factually and logically, and this isn't even taking into consideration partisan talk. Along these lines, notice my praise for your last post, which was not overly broad in scope and not presumptuous with regards to my prior post and, yet, generally responsive to it. 
on Nov 5th, 2008, 4:34pm, sk wrote:| I was really hoping to not take the bait but......If you are saying that only the Dems ran a negitive campaign, then you missed half of it. |
|
I'm not talking about campaign tactics and rhetoric. I'm talking about my day-to-day. I'm talking about the gal in my class, the guy on my web site, what's on my TV in general, etc., etc. In general, I don't know what to make of what you wrote (there's some admixture of truth and half-truth and non-truth and hyperbole), but, as a specific response to what I wrote, it's way off the mark. So, I can go ahead and delete a lot of it {as I have no interest in wading through flam[e] boyant [partisan(-seeming)] rhetoric}. It is what it is. You see what you want to see, at the end of the day.
What I will say in response to this part of your post, sk, the fact that you think that I (or we) doN'T get subtle or subliminal negative (about the other) [or, for that matter, positive (about oneself)] political campaign tactics [and, moreover, need you to explain it] is presumptive in that lame way I just discussed above and, again, detracts from the conversation. That subtle negative/positive campaign bullshit happens on both sides of the aisle (and, if you're really objective and have not been bamboozled by one side, you should be able to see it and describe it on both sides). So, there's no reason to get caught up in it [I could actually sit here and rail, myself, against a handful of McCain's cheesy positive subtle (but actually not so subtle) campaign tacks, but it's not worth going there; it's actually too much work... to do absolutely fairly, when, at the end of the day, it already is, in a sense, fair as in evenly-distributed]. Again, I'm speaking beyond that merely political bullshit.
Quote: | I DIGRESS...
People arent tired of listening to the complaints. No, No! They are tired of being scared. |
|
| |
|
|
Speak for yourself, man. Who are these people? I know I'm not one of them.
Quote: | I DIGRESS...
Did you notice last night, during McCains concession speech, The rallys and cheers from around the world. Asia, Europe, PAKISAN, all were happy to see leadership change in America. These people all over the world were in the streets celebrating Americas decision. This isnt because they see this as a weaker America. Not at all. This is because it give the rest of the world hope that America will make more decisions based upon compassion and not greed. A world full of hope makes me feel much safer living right here in America. Is it possible we could see a day where people wont want to hurt us as much anymore? Not because they dont want what we have (Freedom) but because they are not scared of us anymore. Is there really anyone out there that doesnt think that hate doesnt accompany fear. |
|
| |
|
|
There is A LOT being assumed there, sk, that I don't have the energy to unpack, and, frankly speaking, some naivety when it comes to things international. You are covering A LOT of ground there. Just speaking simply, i.e., this doesn't come close to "unpacking it all"... Are cheering Pakistanis really something to hang our hats on? Didn't they also cheer in the streets on 9/11? Is the Pakistani stamp of approval the barometer of good decision-making in American politics? You speak for whole continents, no less countries. Your take on how internationals look at and to America is, honestly, fanciful. There may be more than just a kernel of truth to what you say about the role of "fear" in all this, but what you say about "weakness" is rather off-base, man. In fact, logically speaking, not being afraid is indicative of your competitor's being weak. Now, that's a tight correlation, not some loosely pasted-together rhetoric (but, to your credit, at least not cut-and-pasted ... ). This is not to say that our m.o. should be to actively instill fear in other countries, but do not underestimate the negative and envious feelings people in other countries have toward America and, mind you, (middle-ground alert) some of those feelings are legitimate and indicative of an ugly side of America('s presence abroad), but many are not rationally and fairly founded, and know that abroad there is some level of anticipation of the fall of the American empire (which was just as palpable under Clinton as anyone else). (Please, sk, understand that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. This comes with vast experiences to back it up that I'm not outlining here because I don't have ALL day to be doing this. That said, I'm sure I've hinted at stuff here and there, including previously on this very thread. In the very least, the truth is somewhere BETWEEN what you say and what I say, which, in and of itself, is enough to emasculate your point.)
Now, generally speaking, greed in America is out of control. I couldn't agree more, sk. But, this is a MUCH BIGGER problem that neither this election nor any merely partisan paradigm is going to solve. The definition of "good" in America is "a pile of money", not "what I experience when I open my front door and look outside". Until that is no longer the case, it really doesn't matter, trickle down or tax hike. But, also, once it is no longer the case, and "good" in America isn't a "pile of money", but rather "what I experience when I open my front door and look outside", it, again, won't matter. The job will get done one way or the other. So, my point, the answer to the problem of greed in America doesn't lie in politics. It's just a different way of shifting the money around. The middle tends to lose no matter what.
I don't know about your juxtaposition of greed with compassion. I mean I get your sensibility, but I think it is more partisan than objective. Regardless of what political administration has been in power, America has always been VERY charitable to other countries. As such, the only way I can make sense of your inclusion of compassion there is, unfortunately, in a partisan way, i.e. Republicans are mean and cold and full of ire and Democrats are warm and fuzzy and full of hope, which is partisan BS. As for hope, if "hope" is a code word for "different", then okay. If not, then it's partisanship. Either way, in any event, it's just fluff.
Okay, I can't do this anymore. I've got to stop. My trying to respond to your spiel here, which is all over the place, is causing me to start to go all over the place and inherit all the holes/jumping around that is inherent in what you wrote, i.e., because you jump around and I'm trying to respond to you point-by-point, I'm starting to jump around and present arguments that aren't tight that I, myself, could argue against.
But, brother, you've got to know that, setting the one-sidedness to the side, what you wrote is by and large just (partisan) feel-good talk. It's not weaved together tightly by fact and logic. There is just not a whole lot to sink one's teeth into,... which is fine. But, you've got to see it for what it is... if you are seeking to improve your intercommunications skills, at least in terms of writing, at least on THIS message-board forum. (At least, I'm going to keep you on your toes.)
Quote:
You did,... but not even in the way you think you did... as you go on...
Quote:| Now if you are refering to what would have been had Obama lost. You are right, the Libs of this country would have been upset. You would have heard it over and over. However, Check out the other side of the coin. Flip the radio dial over to the ole Rush Limbaugh show. I'm sure his mood is positive.Yikes. Check out Fox news. Yikes again. You are going to get plenty of "Vitrolic Negitivity" no matter what happend in this election. |
|
Again, reading my rather unSteggie-like short, pithy post, I don't even know how this is what I even could have been interpreted as meaning, but, in any event, I just flat-out disagree. But, that's my subjective take, so it is what it is. I don't know about Rush. He's typically over-the-top to me too. But, Fox News I find to be far from vitriolically negative and, in fact, very even-handed and fair-minded overall and, moreover, in the wake of the election results, especially vis-a-vis MSNBC, CNN and the networks. But, I guess relative to the latters' champagne  bottle cork-popping, Fox News seems vitriolically negative, or, at least, sober. I counter your claim and state that I think that characterizing Fox News as vitriolically negative is more so partisan rhetoric than objective truth. I could argue it out, but again I, we don't have ALL day... month. All I can say is that I turn on Fox News and do not have the same experience as you.
My post above was simply very personal. And, by the way, I don't identify myself as a Republican. It's just that I have come to identify with the Republican Party better. But, in fact, there was a time when I identified myself AS a Democrat. Then, I became my own person, no longer identifying myself "as" anything... political, nor do I get very excited or disappointed about elections and matters of politics. Put another way, politics is not a religion; it's not my religion, at least.
Please, sk, before you go to respond in a knee-jerk fashion, try to get whence I am coming here, so as to, at least, permit me to justify in my mind the roughly four and a half hours I just spent writing this. Hear it out! See if you can argue against yourself a little bit. See if you can't argue some of my points for me. Then, after such a filtering process, see what you are left with... and then post (hopefully middle-ground pith that, moreover, doesn't get your interlocutor here  terribly wrong).
Thank you for your anticipated consideration and due diligence in discourse.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
) 
