posted
I went on a fieldtrip to whatever organization it is Ranger Rick fronts. Another fond memory from the Carter administration. But I can't remember what it was. I really want to say it was the World Wildlife Foundation, possibly before they were infiltrated by the Chinese.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I for real or just part of this Matrix? (didn’t the last two movies suck, first one ruled though)
I am impressed with the response to this line. How funny. I did have an ID a few years back but lost its password and email so got a new one. Don’t usually post much. But after seeing how much fun this has been I’ll probably check it out more often!
And I did get my question answered about if this is a liberal board. Seems pretty spilt to me. Which hey, that makes the world go round right?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Now just make sure that as long as you're here you don't lose sight of the fact that all right-thinking people lean to the right. I mean, why else would you use the same word for both types? Also, I hear that liberals like to eat their babies! They must be breeding like rabbits, though, because even what with them eating their babies and all the late-term abortions they're always having their numbers are still growing! Probably doing it out of wedlock, too. Or with animals or something. The sickos.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if the NWF and the WWF are affiliated in any way, but the WWF has a panda. Is all I'm saying. I'm not actually suggesting that all multinational interests actually serve the chinese. Not yet, for now.
Edit: I guess I would sound less whacked if I remind folks that I am half chinese, so it's cute when I make xenophobic remarks about them.
posted
He's not Ced. Ced would never use the same excuse twice about "lost my password". He's too devious for something like that. Besides Tom D's Ced-dar hasnt gone off yet.
posted
If Jay were Ced, he'd be a former Marine married to a legless black woman who had recently converted to Islam. Ced's pseudonyms were rarely subtle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere that this is the most depressing day of the year because by now we have gotten all our credit card bills from Christmas. Or more people have low seratonin related disorders due to the dark overproducing melatonin(depression, OCD, PTSD and other anxiety disorders).
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes - my sister told me that yesterday as well - -that January 25th was supposed to be documented as "the most depressing" day of the year (due to statistical evidence, I suppose). Due to post-holiday let-down, S.A.D., etc. I had never heard that before.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm conservative in a sense, but probably just a radical on everything else to be honest. My main issue with liberals is they tend to be a little elitist in their thoughts and ideas. Not that some rather pompous conservatives can be the same way. Its simply that its rather hard to find a "down to earth' liberal. Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of the same thing and that is leading the public, and in that sense American society, around by the tail. Its rather irritating to see at times how strong and amazing America an be at times and then notice how simple it would be to fix most of the weaknesses. The problem is the sides have defined themselves and see no gains for themselves by truely working together. Too many people want to stay in power or simply disagree for the sake of disagreeing with the other side. It seems rather.. hilarious to assume that because a person has a certain view on society that their view on economics could be wrong and vice versa.
Both sides are vastly negative and its embarassing to see. I find it embarassing to see how many people would call their leader retarded, stupid, inept , etc. How can you build something when you bring it down every day with your words and actions. How will my friends lives ever mean anything if all you can do is argue and call each other monsters and heretics. Our nation had these problems in its births and I suppose they will continue on until its end one day, it is simply depressing to watch.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My main issue with liberals is they tend to be a little elitist in their thoughts and ideas. Not that some rather pompous conservatives can be the same way. Its simply that its rather hard to find a "down to earth' liberal.
Since "elitist" seems to be one of the favorite accusations of Conservative rhetoric, I'm wondering if you can explain what you mean by that. What does it mean to be down-to-earth?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone actually called me elitist to my face not too long ago. It was surprisingly not that offensive. In fact, under the circumstances, I took it as a compliment. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I just want to know what people mean when they use it as some all-encompassing complaint or accusation.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my case, the person used it because I mentioned that a book that a bunch of people at my church were reading and studying didn't really have anything important to say to me. I said I personally felt that the author was "writing to the masses" and aiming her message at people with a fifth grade reading level and only an elementary knowledge of theology.
Now, I wasn't doing this to be ugly, I was asked why I hadn't joined the study and I answered truthfully - while it may be a fine book, it just didn't challenge me. With school and family obligations right now I'm not going to take a night out of my week to sit with a bunch of other women discussing a book that reveals nothing new to me. Then when he asked what books I would like to study I named about five or six that I thought would be appropriate, and I was told that I was an elitist, and if I wanted to study such things I may as well just go to seminary.
*shrug* Heck, if the teaching thing doesn't work out, maybe I will. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, was it said in a negative way, or just an observation? Because any time I've heard someone call someone else an elitist, it's been accompanied by this revolted disgust, in the same tone of voice that someone would say "scumbag."
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would first say I don't think one side or the other is more prone to elitism. I would define elitism as thinking that just because you are smart or rich, you are entitled to certain things without applying your "gifts" to anything useful. That is, in America is great because of the opportunity to excel and reach your potential. But to simply worship your own potential and not do anything with it is elitist. I guess I am an elitist because I acnknowledge my potential without doing anything about it. Maybe. I don't know.
P.S. I guess the difference is insisting that others validate your wonderfulness even though you have done nothing to make it self-evident.
posted
I will freely admit to being an elitist. I think that I am better than most people. Moreover, I think that many of the things I like are objectively better than the things other people like.
I suspect that the vast majority of people in this country feel this way to some degree, mind you. We only call it "elitist" when we're talking about things that cost more money or require more education to appreciate than their alternatives, however.
It's not that there's not conservatives (and Libertarians, like me) here, it's just that they tend to be shouted down by a cacaphony of talking points and propaganda along with the occasional questioning of basic axia such as "Is it really GOOD to be free and happy? Maybe some people don't WANT to be free and happy!"
Btw, don't let yourself be intimidated by Tom. He just writes well. He did it professionally. Lots of people here like him, though, which is boggling.
On the other hand, be ready to back up what you say, perferably with links (to news sites the liberals will accept. Don't like to Drudge or Newsmax unless they are linking from somewhere else.)
You will be straw manned and attacked on semantics.
And you will probably leave as so many have. (I've done it like 3 times but I always come back. I'm sure certain people wish I wouldn't.) Just don't make a huff when you do. Huffy exits make it hard to come back when you calm down.
It IS worth being here. Try to stay away from the political threads if you're easily frustratable and stick to the more fluffy or entertainment related threads. I logged in today, for instance, to see if anything interesting had been said in the "Battlestar Galactica" or "24" threads.
posted
"it's just that they tend to be shouted down by a cacaphony of talking points and propaganda along with the occasional questioning of basic axia such as 'Is it really GOOD to be free and happy? Maybe some people don't WANT to be free and happy!'"
And Pix has been known on occasion to exaggerate her case. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh come on Tom... you don't remember Tres's big "Do people in the middle east really want to be free?" argument?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest- I am one of those annoying people who changes screennames. Unless you didn't mean me.
Ela- I guess that's possible. Though apparently the board favored Kerry over Bush. But I don't know how many Bush supporters may have just avoided the board that week. I think the conservatives just have a greater tendency to be quiet. It's kind of the nature of conservatism, as opposed to progressivism which I am thinking is kind of similar to liberalism.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you don't remember Tres's big 'Do people in the middle east really want to be free?' argument?"
You apparently still think that Tresopax/Xaposert actually engages in honest argument, then? See, I haven't thought that for over two years, now.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you really have any reliable way to back up your assertion that this board favored Kerry over Bush, for the reasons you stated in your post.
In fact, though Kerry won in an informal exit poll here, I would bet that more Hatrack members voted for Bush.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't vote in it. But neither did Princess Leah. We both left the board shortly before the election. I was more conservative, she more liberal. She couldn't take the crankies, and I was being too cranky.
posted
It doesn't really matter if the exit poll is right or wrong, anyway, Porter.
I don't think you can tell anything from a self-selected poll.
And I know some people who consider themselves conservative, but voted Kerry because they disagree with some of the things Bush did in his first term. By the same token, some who normally vote Democrat (and consider themselves liberal) supported Bush cause they felt he was strong on terror, morals, and the like. (Many normally liberal Jews voted Bush cause they felt he was "good for Israel.")
[ January 26, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the polls that leaked might have had equal participation by Kerry and Bush voters, but they were limited to a specific time of day that might have favored Kerry. Not all the polls leaked.
quote:Oh come on Tom... you don't remember Tres's big "Do people in the middle east really want to be free?" argument?
Hmmm... I don't remember that one. I do remember one about whether or not the people in the middle east really wanted a DEMOCRACY - but what what was suggested in that thread, the point was that freedom was possible in non-democratic regimes and that, in fact, FORCING democracy upon them would be taking their freedom. Incidently, I have been proven correct that there is a large faction that doesn't want a democracy, but I have also been proven mistaken in suggesting this faction may represent 50% of the people, as Iraqi polls have shown it is more like a quarter.
More importantly, though, you can't use me an example of what's wrong with liberals because I am not a liberal in any conventional way. I am only a liberal in the vaguest possible sense of the term, or in the shallowest possible sense (the "anyone who votes Kerry is liberal" sense). Keep in mind that, just as you suggest I had a thread claiming the Middle East doesn't want to be free, I have had recent threads that have been interpretted to suggest I was saying the following strawman conservative things, among others:
-Gay people can't get married -Creationism belongs in school science class just as much as Evolution does (this one was actually what I did mean, and do believe) -Pharmacists should be able to deny abortion medicine because their faith thinks that medicine is wrong (This was what I meant too, but I think I was somewhat well-refuted and am not so sure if I believe it now.) -Racism is completely gone And so on... not to mention my repeated complaints against big-government economic policies.
Thus it is inaccurate to try to use me an example of the "liberals" on this board, what motivates them, of how they act.
quote:You apparently still think that Tresopax/Xaposert actually engages in honest argument, then? See, I haven't thought that for over two years, now.
Explain yourself. I think I've argued very honestly - perhaps even moreso than you. I do not, for instance, throw out lines like the quote above without backing them up with a good reason.
I can say, honestly, that I don't think I've ever given any argument on this forum that I knew was wrong when I was giving it. This is not to say I think every conclusion I am advancing is necessarily right, because in many cases I can also think of an equally valid argument from the opposite side that leads to an opposite conclusion.
If you think this is dishonesty, I'd definitely like to discuss that more, because I couldn't disagree more. I think it is CRITICAL that a person recognizes that two different arguments can both seem completely right and yet lead to totally opposing conclusions. And the only real effective way to find which is right and which is wrong is to advocate one in contrast to the other, to see if that one will hold up, if it will fold, of if it will illuminate a fault in the other.
Nothing is more dangerous than believing one thing based on one reason, and then rejecting all other arguments just because, even if they seem right, they lead to a conclusion you don't believe. This problem is very evident these days - where certain conservatives absolutely refuse to consider certain lines of argument solely on the grouds that they have already committed to another line of argument that leads to the conservative conclusion. Similarly, certain liberals refuse to even consider the conservative arguments just because they have already concluded Bush is wrong, and thus reject even seemingly good reasons out of hand for coming to that conclusion.
So, Tom, I'm not sure where we disagree - If (1) you think I am lying when I act like I think a certain argument is a good one, you are mistaken. I don't give arguments I think are wrong. OR, if (2) you think I am being dishonest by giving one argument while simultaneously accepting an alternative conclusion based on a different argument, you are correct that I do that, but I think you are wrong that it is dishonest. In fact, I'd argue it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise (and that you should not pretend otherwise either, if you do!) - to pretend there are no other valid arguments than the one that leads to the conclusion I most believe.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there is one significant exception to this, and that's when I intentionally say ridiculous things just to have some fun, assuming everyone will know they are intentionally ridiculous - usually these are related to certain unlikely-to-win sports teams that I claim are locks to "dominate." I usually think it is fairly obvious when I'm doing this, though - or at least that it should be. I have been known to mix my serious and absurd a bit much, so I suppose I could understand if there was confusion on something like that. I'm not too concerned though - as long as you actually fairly judge my line of argument when I mean it, it doesn't matter if you think I'm just making it up for the sake of whatever.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Tom D![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Wow, I had no idea this one was also Jay. And it was almost exactly a year ago.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Elitist!
