Republican Rhetoric

[Creepy-male]

Isn't it interesting so much of republican rhetoric is centered around comparing people they don't like to either

• ****** - Nazis - Fascism
• Communists - Socialists - Marxists
• Terrorists - Muslims - Arabs

In fact I realize all three names have been thrown at Barrack Obama.... a Muslim, a Socialist, and sometimes compared to ******.

Everytime the Neo-Cons go to war with some power in an interventionalist manner it always begins with comparing them to Stalin/****** or calling them a Terrorist.

It all has to do with the History of this nation, defeating ******, the cold war, and now an era with terrorist attacks. Post WWII American society.

Before WWII the Republican Party and Conservatives had a totally different identity.

Meh its not so much that I support Barrack Obama, however I find the name calling to seem a little childish and intellectually devoid. Not to mention upon closer inspection its connection to the Neo-Con agenda, of interventionalism and policing the world in international manners.

The nature of the idea of labeling people terrorists, commies, and immediately attacking any dictator due to comparison with ****** and the association of America in WWII seems a little paranoid and arrogant.

I'm very skeptical that republicans can bring about a safer world, as it seems a little too over-bearing and paranoid. They are a little bit like hyper-reactive security guards, I'd expect the guardians of a nation in an ideal sense to seem more like jedi knights; patient, wise, diplomatic, masterful, etc.... meh but that's reality. Of course everyone knows liberals are just pussys so all we got to choose from is paranoid hillbillies and smart car/vespa owning / vegan liberals.

[jughead]

HErp DeRP

[Bluenoir]

The emphasis on the character of the individuals in the political arena seems to be more focused upon in the American arena moreso than that of other countries.

That's not to say Australian politics is not without its rhetoric, (It seems to be getting more prevalent here too) It's just that there is not as much point. We vote for a prime minister who is still subservient to the will of the party in power.

Politics is a popularity contest, you don't win those by appealing to reason.

[The Ineffable]

The emphasis on the character of the individuals in the political arena seems to be more focused upon in the American arena moreso than that of other countries.

At least compared to China, yes. And here's one of the reasons: http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17...re-scientists/

Anyone can admit that being into politics one has to bullshit one way or another, but today we have the professional bullshitters, who are educated to do this and can't do anything else. This may be the answer to the questions like "Why America is going down?" or "Why country X is going down?", those people are head-in-clouds though no one can change that, not only because they're in power, but they're merely part of this western current, which includes consumerism and other perversions of daily life.

[Bluenoir]

At least compared to China, yes. And here's one of the reasons: http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17...re-scientists/

Anyone can admit that being into politics one has to bullshit one way or another, but today we have the professional bullshitters, who are educated to do this and can't do anything else. This may be the answer to the questions like "Why America is going down?" or "Why country X is going down?", those people are head-in-clouds though no one can change that, not only because they're in power, but they're merely part of this western current, which includes consumerism and other perversions of daily life.

There is a debate here in my state concerning setting up supervised injection rooms. Heroin is pretty big problem in Victoria. The data from Sydney has shown conclusively that they save lives. No one has died from an overdose whilst using the facility and second, public safety has gone up many fold beacuse it takes users off the streets.

So following suit in Victoria would be a good idea no? NO!

The state government refuses to bugde beacuse injection rooms would be "normalising" herion. In other words. The premier would rather stay in bed with the christian right, then to listen to reason and save lives. As I said, populism over reason and decency.

Arrgh people are stupid here too.

[Bluenoir]

I do. I care beacuse they make the decisions that effect the society I live in. If I have to give anyone such power, then I hope they are are competent individuals working for the betterment of society.

Instead, all I see are careerists.

[Creepy-male]

They won't be. Safely count on the worst of the worst commandeering the reins; opportunities for power and control self-select for megalomaniacs and charlatans.

So cynical I love it, this is what I think in my head when I want to get a bigger sensation out of the experience of puking.

[Bluenoir]

Welcome to the ways of the world. How old are you?

Twenty one. I'm still desperately trying to hold on to the last remnants idealism and optimism I have left. As I get more and more involved in the wider world, I find myself ever rapidly descending into the pools of cynicism.

this picture is a good analogy.

[The Ineffable]

They won't be. Safely count on the worst of the worst commandeering the reins; opportunities for power and control self-select for megalomaniacs and charlatans.

Who said they need to be self-selected? China was a counter-example.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I'm Republican because of their economic policies, low taxes and pro business, but I hate Fox news. Everytime I watch Fox news, I feel like all Democrats are socialist idiots, the government is evil, and the world is coming to an end.

[Creepy-male]

Everytime I watch Fox news, I feel like all Democrats are socialist idiots, the government is evil, and the world is coming to an end.

Here's my alternate theory....

That's because you're (not your) an easily-influenced suggestible idiot and not really because there is any realistic reason to believe the democratic party is composed of socialists, the government is evil, and the world is coming to an end.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor for details

[Korpsy Knievel]

Here's my alternate theory....

That's because your an easily-influenced suggestible idiot and not really because there is any realistic reason to believe the democratic party is composed of socialists, the government is evil, and the world is coming to an end.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor for details

Reread the entire statement "your" responding to and unfuck "your're" reply.

[Creepy-male]

Reread the entire statement "your" responding to and unfuck "your're" reply.

oh thanks for the grammar check

[jughead]

I'm Republican because of their economic policies, low taxes and pro business, but I hate Fox news. Everytime I watch Fox news, I feel like all Democrats are socialist idiots, the government is evil, and the world is coming to an end.

And I vote Democrat because I haven't seen positive results out of any of these, most Democrats are closer to the center, and no "christian" autocrat conservative is going to get my vote. Fox News basically IS the Republican party. They've helped turn us into idiocracy. And the Tea Party is a company owned subsidiary under a different name to make it look like they aren't. All owned by larger parent corporations who are slaves to a sadistic law of maximum profit per cycle that destroys the earth and denigrates people into hierchal wage slaves for the Bannana Republic Oligarchy. My political philosophy is: take what works best and use it, but do not sacrifice large long term gains for piddling short term returns and includes basic human rights that the country was founded upon and all that become self-evident. And you feel like that when you watch fox news because its designed to do that. I feel anger and sickness.
I will vote third party or revolution should it be a valid option. Right now I say I want out.

[rat1]

Here's my alternate theory....

That's because you're (not your) an easily-influenced suggestible idiot and not really because there is any realistic reason to believe the democratic party is composed of socialists, the government is evil, and the world is coming to an end.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor for details

Actually, all 3 of his statements are semi-correct.

[Korpsy Knievel]

oh thanks for the grammar check

Oh, no problem at all. But actually it was a "reread what you're responding to so you don't ignore the fact that Br'er Dew appears to dislike FNC; you wouldn't want to make an ass of yourself by emo-flailing at the wrong target" check. However, when I brought it up with you in the catbox you disclosed an awareness of that distinction and that you'd knowingly ignored Dew's disclaimer in order to facilitate your emotionally satisfying spazfest. I myself am generally no friend of goppers, though I detest their false-opposition party as well --- our hegemonic political duopoly is little more than obscurantist kabuki meant to placate the disengaged drones of Fatso USA. And Fox is certainly a propaganda machine that encourages cretinism nationwide, just like most other major infotainment outlets. So I appreciate that Dew distances himself from that brand of noise while continuing to fly his party's flag. It suggests that he's capable of engaging in political discussion without resorting to shrill tribalism or purchasing everything that the snake-oil merchants put before him.

But anyhow, now that I know that you know that I know that you know, I'll assume henceforth that you crap your pants with purposeful intent each time it happens. And since it seems you're Fe valuing I can only imagine that the appropriate response to your scatological-cathartic outbursts is to applaud and egg you on. So: shine on, you crazy diaper!

Actually, all 3 of his statements are semi-correct.

Thanks for that demonstration of base-Ni's fuzzy math.

[tcaudilllg]

[...] now that I know that you know that I know that you know [...]

[Creepy-male]

Oh, no problem at all. But actually it was a "reread what you're responding to so you don't ignore the fact that Br'er Dew appears to dislike FNC; you wouldn't want to make an ass of yourself by emo-flailing at the wrong target" check. However, when I brought it up with you in the catbox you disclosed an awareness of that distinction and that you'd knowingly ignored Dew's disclaimer in order to facilitate your emotionally satisfying spazfest. I myself am generally no friend of goppers, though I detest their false-opposition party as well --- our hegemonic political duopoly is little more than obscurantist kabuki meant to placate the disengaged drones of Fatso USA. And Fox is certainly a propaganda machine that encourages cretinism nationwide, just like most other major infotainment outlets. So I appreciate that Dew distances himself from that brand of noise while continuing to fly his party's flag. It suggests that he's capable of engaging in political discussion without resorting to shrill tribalism or purchasing everything that the snake-oil merchants put before him.

But anyhow, now that I know that you know that I know that you know, I'll assume henceforth that you crap your pants with purposeful intent each time it happens. And since it seems you're Fe valuing I can only imagine that the appropriate response to your scatological-cathartic outbursts is to applaud and egg you on. So: shine on, you crazy diaper!

Lol what a long bumbling response, ftr, I knew he didn't like Fox News.

My criticism was more of the fact he actually FELT that way when listening to them.

He basically said, I don't like them, they make me feel anxious/afraid. From which I took as a suggestion that the rationale behind his dislike was fear mongering, that he didn't like the way the news made him feel.

That was my criticism that he actually allows a news program to make him feel that way, it seems weak and suggestible, like he can't look at reality and just laugh at the inherent ridiculousness of their statements rather than get anxious about it.

Also the fact he aligns ideologically with them in terms of partisanship, but merely dislikes the "fear mongering" of their network. Its like, "I like their message, just not their anxious delivery!".

Where as I'm saying, the message is crap, the delivery is crap.

I think your being a little presumptuous as to my motive in this all. It's one thing to criticize the outward content of what I am saying, but its deluded to act like you know what my whole strategy or gameplan here is, and obviously you don't, you didn't get that I was criticizing his emotional reaction to the news and not the statement "I dislike Fox News".

Also his affiliation with a particular partisan side but rejecting the "mainstream media" outlet of it, just seems like snakey politically correct bs. Media outlets constantly reshape their image to better suit their consistuents, as do politicians, and individuals do as well. Why base your concept of things off some dynamic clusterfuck?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Lol what a long bumbling response, ftr, I knew he didn't like Fox News.

My criticism was more of the fact he actually FELT that way when listening to them.

He basically said, I don't like them, they make me feel anxious/afraid. From which I took as a suggestion that the rationale behind his dislike was fear mongering, that he didn't like the way the news made him feel.

That was my criticism that he actually allows a news program to make him feel that way, it seems weak and suggestible, like he can't look at reality and just laugh at the inherent ridiculousness of their statements rather than get anxious about it.

Also the fact he aligns ideologically with them in terms of partisanship, but merely dislikes the "fear mongering" of their network. Its like, "I like their message, just not their anxious delivery!".

Where as I'm saying, the message is crap, the delivery is crap.

He seems to sensibly be rejecting FNC hysteria on a factual as well as emotional basis, both of which you've pretended (or pretended to pretend) to ignore. We'll find out whether you're compounding your errors on his next response, but I suspect you're just circling back to step in your original turd.

I think your being a little presumptuous as to my motive in this all. It's one thing to criticize the outward content of what I am saying, but its deluded to act like you know what my whole strategy or gameplan here is, and obviously you don't, you didn't get that I was criticizing his emotional reaction to the news and not the statement "I dislike Fox News".

Correction: Backpedaling to your original turd. I asked you in the catbox:

24/05/2011 23:10 <k0rpsey> HLD, did you figure out that Br'er Dew dislikes FNC?
24/05/2011 23:11 <HaveLucidDreamz> yea I'm just going to stick with misconstruing his point
24/05/2011 23:11 <k0rpsey> ok, sounds good.
24/05/2011 23:12 <HaveLucidDreamz> I really don't like him in general, so I think it could be fun

http://i.imgur.com/AtvfV.jpg

So what portion of your master plan am I missing here, deliberate misconstruer?

[Creepy-male]

He seems to be rejecting FNC hysteria on a factual as well as emotional basis

Actually I think the most sensible thing to say is right now that's ambiguous.

However my "hunch" is that MD is a die hard republican, christian moralist who has a social agenda and believes in classic conservative notions of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", likely because of the influence of his parents and the early socialization process he went through as a child.

I would guess his rejection of fox news is an attempt for him as a person to preserve this socialization process as he is emotionally attached to it, while attempting to transform the image of the ideology... i.e. "Not all republicans like Fox". I think this transformation is less the result of some insight he experienced into the nature of the social sphere around him, and more a way for him to resolve his social upbringing with the criticisms from other people. His thinking is that by acknowledging the prevalent criticism at Fox News being fear mongering, he can satisfy certain people who criticize his social upbringing (republican) without abandoning it.

I could be wrong, but I'm all ears to play this out and see what he has to say for himself, so that I can really figure out what the issue is.

My issue is that, maybe some of the old social paradigms certain people hold onto out of attachment, need to be abandoned in order to progress as a society. Playing media games is merely a distraction from this point, as it makes people feel good in terms of image, but its questionable exactly what has changed underneath the surface of that image.

[Creepy-male]

http://i.imgur.com/AtvfV.jpg

So what portion of your master plan am I missing here, deliberate misconstruer?

Lmao, yes I did say that, but I wasn't trying to go through an in depth exposition of my intention there, really I didn't want to talk about that in the chatbox with you, so I just said something that would get you to leave me alone about it in the chatbox.

To a certain extent, the only truth in that statement, is I think it could be fun to see him get upset over the fact he feels misrepresented. But that's not the sole reason I wrote what I did.

See that's presumptuous, your taking words as an expression of intent. Sometimes the intent isn't just in the factual statement, sometimes things are idiomatic or just devices/tactics, and not necessarily a true profession of their soul.

I also find it funny you said "sounds good" obviously you had some problems with it, but see, you didn't mention it there... did you? No because you were going with the flow of the conversation as well, not because it was a sincere expression of your soul that what I had just said really sounded good to you. How did you even hear a sound...... you didn't, I could get petty and start making tons of inconsequential statements. The fact is language is more than the face value, and I think its fairly obvious you don't understand my intent, although you'll argue to others you do, and really who cares if they believe your concept of things, after all I think most people are suggestible idiots, and its really no concern to me if an entire internet forum sides with you. Who gives a shit, its a fucking internet forum.

[Korpsy Knievel]

"Sounds good" = enjoy your troublemaking + stand by for retort.

Dew is low on my buddy list for several reasons and I regard him as fair game for critique (actually I regard everyone as fair game, including me). But whether I agree with him or not he does give thought to his opinions, so it's fair and reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. What you knowingly chose was to scapegoat him to inflate your own self esteem.

So have fun tying yourself in knots, whatever confused emotional battle with stereotypes it is that you're trying to spell out. We'll find out soon enough if Br'er Dew is the 2-dimensional cartoon character you've conveniently assumed him to be or if he's the halfway sensible person I think he is.

[Creepy-male]

What you knowingly chose was to scapegoat him to inflate your own self esteem.

That's actually a bad evaluation of my motive, at first I really didn't know the guy to well, but he already had a bad reputation from some people since his typing thread.

I didn't understand why, but then I noticed a few post, and to be honest he gives off this vibe occasionally where he says something nice and fun upfront but it has a very kind of mean undercurrent.

That's why I don't trust the guy tbh, he seems like he wears a mask of positivity like an e2w3 but underneath it is a possessive, jealous, lost person.

I don't think the guy confronts his demons, he actually convinces himself everything is fine in himself if he just spams smileys. But I think that this reaction is more out of fear of what lies beneath his subconscious.

I haven't bothered to give it an intellectual disposition until now, but instinctively, I get this impression, and I think my harshness comes from an instinctive attempt to try to crack open this facade and get a look at the man behind the curtain.

So in short, as these long posts are hard to digest for you. I don't think this is about picking on Mnt. Dew, I have a few real issues with the guy. But I don't go to the trouble of writing large expositions, usually short little comments with a little barb to help serve as a sort of skirmish before you send in the infantry etc.

I don't think we will figure out much about Mnt. Dew though as if I am correct about his positive/narcissistic borderline healthy e2w3 attitude. It would be very dumb of him to respond to this topic indignantly with support on his side already. In fact so much attention has been diverted off of him, it would probably be smart for him to just make for the exit without discussing thing and leave it. And if he did discuss it, it would be a mistake to discuss it from the standpoint of a defense, he already has you as his defender, he can just sit back and let you be his champion and not say a word and just say something politically correct about the entire thing.

I mean he is a big boy, he can speak for himself, you should let him explain his politically ideology or his thoughts on the current events or about republican rhetoric. It's not like I'm set on the emotional destruction of his core, its just a little prodding is all to hopefully shock him out of his prozac induced naiveity he seems to have.

If it was truely confidence he possessed and not a facade, it would hold up to the worst assualts, and I would genuinely appologize for my misunderstandings and admit he is my greater, but of course you never get to figure that out because everyone has to play mother hen and coddle the victim, when in fact they may just be a manipulator.

[Creepy-male]

Oh I'd also like to add what I wrote above wasn't necessarily a justification of my behavior that you are supposed to accept. It's fine if you want to go to your deathbed thinking what I said was "bad" or whatever the fuck.

My goal was more to explain my motives, and I think given the fact this is just an internet forum that it may be a good idea to just simply agree to disagree on this one if you aren't somehow convinced by what I just said (which I honestly don't think you will be, just gauging out of experience).

So I think its best to just put an end to this rather than draw it out for 10 pages with no real results. It's fine, we can just skip the 10 pages and get the the point... you think I'm dumb and I'm a self-esteem vampire. Great, check mark, noted. Move on.

[Korpsy Knievel]

You talk far too much.

[Creepy-male]

You talk far too much.

Deal with it, no one is forcing you to read anything.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Deal with it, no one is forcing you to read anything.

I dealt with your last three histrionic posts by barely glancing at them at all. You're just chasing your own tail and trying to fool yourself.

[Creepy-male]

I dealt with your last three histrionic posts by barely glancing at them at all. You're just chasing your own tail and trying to fool yourself.

That's nice.

[Korpsy Knievel]

That's nice.

Busted.

All you're doing is cathartically demonizing your ideological opponents, which is the same they're doing to you. Instead of indulging in total shitloss, if you actually want to understand mass perception control then turn your attention to the following:

Edward Bernays - The Engineering of Consent
Edward Bernays - Propaganda
Victor Klemperer - I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941
Victor Klemperer - Lingua Tertii Imperii
George Orwell - 1984
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
Frank Luntz - Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear

And the Adam Curtis movies, which can be found via torrent sites or on archive.org:
Century of the Self
The Power of Nightmares
The Trap
Pandora's Box
The Mayfair Set
The Living Dead

[Creepy-male]

All you're doing is cathartically demonizing your ideological opponents

ok histrionic sounded ridiculous, but this is more plausible.

The problem is that in reality bad ideology is more like a disease that spreads and its hard to tell who is infected and who is healthy.

There is obviously some source to the infection, but its nearly impossible to find and cure, before the disease will spread to overtake everything. Metaphorically speaking that is.

You could consider my probing to be sort of like a blood sample if you will.

At any rate, yea I think your correct on this.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I don't think we will figure out much about Mnt. Dew though as if I am correct about his positive/narcissistic borderline healthy e2w3 attitude. It would be very dumb of him to respond to this topic indignantly with support on his side already. In fact so much attention has been diverted off of him, it would probably be smart for him to just make for the exit without discussing thing and leave it. And if he did discuss it, it would be a mistake to discuss it from the standpoint of a defense, he already has you as his defender, he can just sit back and let you be his champion and not say a word and just say something politically correct about the entire thing.

Well, I feel the need to respond to any thread where I've been talked about so much, just to clarify things.

I don't think the guy confronts his demons, he actually convinces himself everything is fine in himself if he just spams smileys. But I think that this reaction is more out of fear of what lies beneath his subconscious.

I am no stranger to deep self-reflection. The other night I opened up to an LII friend, and she was amazed at how skeptical I was. She said she "didn't expect it", for me to be so "bubbly" and "outgoing" around others, and yet also be very "skeptical of people". She compared me to a couple other people, people who were more logical and reserved, and said it made sense if you found out they were skeptical of others. But I had surprised her.

I usually only open up one on one. When interacting with people, I generally find it's better to act in an open and friendly matter. Why?

I'll open up a bit for you. Some, I don't feel people would truly understand my 'demons' or some of the things I have gone through. Physical abuse from my father, being bullied in school, being depressed/suicidal, insane social pressures from Christian schools, etc. These are all things I have thoroughly dealt with, things which have made me stronger.

On the contrary, the reason I can freely and joyfully spam smilies isn't because I'm "afraid" of confronting my demons HLD, it's because I have dealt with each and every one of them and feel very unburdened. I almost feel like people who can't joyously communicate, people who aren't happy, are the people who haven't fully dealt with their own demons.

But I'm flattered you took so much notice of me, HLD.

My goal was more to explain my motives,

I'm glad you did. Maybe now you can understand me a bit better, since I've opened up some for you. To finish off this drastically long post, I just want to answer some specific questions/misconceptions about me:

Lol what a long bumbling response, ftr, I knew he didn't like Fox News.

My criticism was more of the fact he actually FELT that way when listening to them.

He basically said, I don't like them, they make me feel anxious/afraid. From which I took as a suggestion that the rationale behind his dislike was fear mongering, that he didn't like the way the news made him feel.

Like k0rpsey already explained, I am fine watching Fox. I find it hilarious sometimes how ridiculous it is. I was joking about getting that feeling after watching it sometimes, joking how much they use scare-tactics as a way of gaining followers.

However my "hunch" is that MD is a die hard republican, christian moralist who has a social agenda and believes in classic conservative notions of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", likely because of the influence of his parents and the early socialization process he went through as a child.

1) I would not consider myself "Christian" at this time. Simply agnostic. We can talk religion another time, but for this discussion here, I do not wish to be stereotyped as a mainstream US Christian.

2) I'm not a "die hard Republican" either. I agree with Democrats on many social issues. Like I said before, I generally side with Republicans heavily when it comes to economic issues. As a Finance major in university, I've found there's overwhelming statistical evidence of the effectiveness of lower taxes, small government, and deregulation as ingredients of economic success. Not just in the US, but examples of other countries as well.

I have developed my views on my own. I've heard the statistic, 90% of kids adopt the political viewpoint of their parents. I am in the 10%. I've had many arguments/discussions with my parents before about government, politicians, etc.

I could be wrong, but I'm all ears to play this out and see what he has to say for himself, so that I can really figure out what the issue is.

Hopefully this answers your questions. If not, just ask more. I'm really not sure that there is an "issue" here at all, though. Haha.

My issue is that, maybe some of the old social paradigms certain people hold onto out of attachment, need to be abandoned in order to progress as a society. Playing media games is merely a distraction from this point, as it makes people feel good in terms of image, but its questionable exactly what has changed underneath the surface of that image.

Change can be tough for people. Part of human nature. I think every society will always have a group of people who want to hold onto what they know, cling to what is familiar. I don't think we should worry about that group limiting progressive change, but rather focus on the positives and the potential of the more open-minded people in what an amazing future they can bring, and we can all achieve.

As far as me though, you're wasting your time if you think I'm holding back society. There are many window-lickers out there who would benefit from being pushed outside their comfort zones.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Busted.

All you're doing is cathartically demonizing your ideological opponents, which is the same they're doing to you. Instead of indulging in total shitloss, if you actually want to understand mass perception control then turn your attention to the following:

Edward Bernays - The Engineering of Consent
Edward Bernays - Propaganda
Victor Klemperer - I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941
Victor Klemperer - Lingua Tertii Imperii
George Orwell - 1984
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
Frank Luntz - Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear

And the Adam Curtis movies, which can be found via torrent sites or on archive.org:
Century of the Self
The Power of Nightmares
The Trap
Pandora's Box
The Mayfair Set
The Living Dead

The power the media has to influence people's perceptions, ideas, and opinions, is truly a scary, powerful thing today. I believe the media has more subconscious control and power than the direct control and power of the government.

Dew is low on my buddy list for several reasons and I regard him as fair game for critique (actually I regard everyone as fair game, including me). But whether I agree with him or not he does give thought to his opinions, so it's fair and reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. What you knowingly chose was to scapegoat him to inflate your own self esteem.

I know we've had our disagreements in the past k0rpsey, but it's rare any two people agree on everything. I know I've been rude before to you as well, and I'm sorry. There have been a few times before where we're actually in strong agreement, surprisingly. I wouldn't put you low on my buddy list; rather I greatly respect your opinions.

You actually remind me of an ILI friend IRL. We greatly respect each other, and the others' viewpoint can be understandable. But we get along better from a distance. So I'll end this feel-good euphoria and just say, not sure if you were sticking up for me or if you were just annoyed by HLD's prodding argument, but thanks.

We'll find out soon enough if Br'er Dew is the 2-dimensional cartoon character you've conveniently assumed him to be or if he's the halfway sensible person I think he is.

Why only "halfway" sensible? Haha.

[munenori2]

As a response to the OP, I think it's a common tactic in all political games. It's maybe a little more prevalent in the GOP, since they do try to draw more direct negative ideological correlations (and I would add feminists as a conceived
negative category), but democrats certainly do it as well. Weirdly, it seems to take a more pragmatic approach for them, appealing to the personal stakes and interests of voters, but then again, they also are proponents of social programs that help large swaths of the population. In the end, I think it's a pretty equitable game both sides play according to their strengths and the branding of their parties. Frankly, I just kind of favor candidates that don't give a fuck and proffer solutions to bigger problems regardless of their affiliation, but they don't tend to do too well in the political landscape.

[Creepy-male]

k you seem fine, lol

you have thoroughly convinced me, I don't think I really need to appologize though since k0rpsey got to be your knight in shining armor.

I would have preferred to just debate it out, but meh whatever either way you seem alright.

I really didn't literally mean you were suggestible, it was more of a presumptious claim to start up some dialogue, meh its soo ingrained into my psychology that I really don't realize it.

[munenori2]

[Creepy-male]

As a response to the OP, I think it's a common tactic in all political games. It's maybe a little more prevalent in the GOP, since they do try to draw more direct negative ideological correlations (and I would add feminists as a conceived
negative category), but democrats certainly do it as well. Weirdly, it seems to take a more pragmatic approach for them, appealing to the personal stakes and interests of voters, but then again, they also are proponents of social programs that help large swaths of the population. In the end, I think it's a pretty equitable game both sides play according to their strengths and the branding of their parties. Frankly, I just kind of favor candidates that don't give a fuck and proffer solutions to bigger problems regardless of their affiliation, but they don't tend to do too well in the political landscape.

Well I agree but I kind of disagree.

I agree its how things are down currently, but I disagree that its a good way of doing things. Its maybe a matter of integrity. Calling someone these extreme names is a bit of a deceitful tactic, as it kind of shrouds things from their true meaning.

Say when someone calls a german a "nazi" they disagree with; say recently I remember a video of a german who criticized scientology, and scientologists showed up yelling at the woman calling her a nazi.

Its the fact that what immediately comes to mind is the negative concept of the nazis. An imperialistic campaign to dominate other nations by force, then to systematically erradicate an entire race of people within their terrority. Surely the scientologists weren't meaning this, they weren't claiming this lady was engaged in an imperialistic campaign to dominate other nations by force, and systematically erradicate an entire race of people within their terrority.

However they say it off the cuff of their sleeve for ammunition. It's a very ingrained psychological reaction to do this kind of name calling, but it really doesn't serve any good as it dilutes dialogue down to a level that is below what people are capable of.

Instead of the scientologist explaining themselves, they resort to a retallation via name calling.

Republican Rhetoric seems to be similar, although extreme liberals have their bad rhetoric as well which was obviously more prevalant during a republican president. But... republican rhetoric tends to focus on the image of being the tough guy, the american hero, and the protector. It focuses on the image of america rescuing the world from injustice. This image was mainly formed post-WWII. It was formed around the new image of america post ww2, it was formed around the idea of threats from dictators on democracy, it was formed on the idea of protecting from terrorists, communists, etc......

I dislike it in part, because its all talk. I don't think the true guardians of a society/humanity/truth/whatever are necassrily affiliated to a specific aristocratic political party, and it seems self centered to take that image up... admitedly liberals take up the image of being artistic and intellectual to be fair, and true art and intellect itself isn't derived from a political platform but from ones humanity.

I dislike the rheoretic because it pressures you into siding with them or getting called untruthful names.

[munenori2]

Rhetoric by nature is deceitful. IMO it's posturing on an intellectual level that seeks to hide facts in favor of a certain valued perspective that can be sold to people who either don't think critically or are so little concerned with the topic that they'll effectively surf the facade of the issue without much care for a more nuanced viewpoint, which everyone is guilty of in some respects.

[Korpsy Knievel]

The power the media has to influence people's perceptions, ideas, and opinions, is truly a scary, powerful thing today. I believe the media has more subconscious control and power than the direct control and power of the government.

The media doesn't exist in a vacuum and the agenda of its bully pulpit is often guided by the hidden hand of government and business, not to mention that there's a profusion of revolving doors between the offices of all three.

Why only "halfway" sensible? Haha.

It will make perfect sense once you've met my lifelong guru, "Mr. Warmth" himself:

[krieger]

[munenori2]

looooool wow