The Glade 4.0

What part of "it is what it is" looks to be a defense? What part of that NEEDS a defense?

Ok, well, yeah, you can't see the forest for the trees. Got it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Interesting except there are no Federal-only elections. State's ballots coincide with the Federal Election Day (except for local only). This would keep people from showing up to vote simply to get a sticker, and hopefully cut down on people showing up only to vote a party line. At the very minimum it would make them look for some level of information and it might even have a side benefit of causing them to actually pursue it further and educate themselves on at least that issue, perhaps more.

_________________

How exactly do you know that he didn't misspeak?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Interesting except there are no Federal-only elections. State's ballots coincide with the Federal Election Day (except for local only). This would keep people from showing up to vote simply to get a sticker, and hopefully cut down on people showing up only to vote a party line. At the very minimum it would make them look for some level of information and it might even have a side benefit of causing them to actually pursue it further and educate themselves on at least that issue, perhaps more.[/quote]

I don't see why we need to cut down on people voting a "party line". Because other people don't like the available parties or lines? Sounds to me like "it should be harder for you to vote because of what you vote for."

I am becoming more and more suspicious of people assumign themselves to be educated and informed voters while assuming other people are not. Some of them are not, but there are plenty of people that are not identified with one fo the two major parties that assume themselves to be informed for that reason alone.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

kinda: informal contraction for "kind of".

used in a sentence: "you're kinda an idiot"...

It's not a declarative of total idiocy, it's recognition that someone possess certain idiotic tendencies.

"Kinda" mitigates any absolutes in the rest of the sentence that it's used in, except when read by folks that are kinda idiotic.



I totally agree.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I'd say that looking locally the fact that Detroit and Chicago continue to be single party cities while spiralling further and further down the shitter from financial, public safety and economical standpoints would demonstrate that something needs to be done in this country to shake people out of voting complacency and actually consider their choices before blindly voting party lines. Oh and not to pick sides, I am sure that if I tried I could find examples of Republican dominated cities spiralling themselves into the shitter too.

edit: Oh and that's not to say Republicans might do a better job or Democrats, just that competition is kind of necessary for improvement.

_________________

A dilemma perhaps best illustrated by Jack Johnson v John Jackson

_________________

It is generally polite to give people an out. Not sure the value of drilling home that someone's "blatantly wrong", other than stroking your own ego.

Money in elections has diminishing returns. At some point, spending more money isn't going to change anything. However, it's critically important that you have enough money to get your message out. So, if you're still in that zone where you're not seeing substantially diminishing returns, money can impact elections.

I don't see why we need to cut down on people voting a "party line". Because other people don't like the available parties or lines? Sounds to me like "it should be harder for you to vote because of what you vote for."

I am becoming more and more suspicious of people assumign themselves to be educated and informed voters while assuming other people are not. Some of them are not, but there are plenty of people that are not identified with one fo the two major parties that assume themselves to be informed for that reason alone.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree that competition is necessary for improvement, but I don't see that the lack thereof in Detroit or Chicago is primarily a result of people "blindly voting party lines". It's a matter of like-minded people congregating in these areas, and to a lesser extent, urban areas in general. What it would take to fix Detroit or Chicago is so viscerally unappealing to the voters there that they simply will not go for it, no matter how "informed" they are.

What I think we need more is less emphasis on population and more on geographic areas and local interests. We accept in this country that merely having more votes is not an absolute entitlement to having your way in everything; hence the existence of the Senate. We need a shift more in that direction, especially at the state and local level.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Win

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Taskiss forfits my 'polite' responses when his replies include ad hominim attacks.

See, there's the difference right there. I lost any respect for you not 'cause of how you treat me, but 'cause of your general creepiness. Heck, you could be nice to me and I'd still be creeped out by you.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

If that were true you'd just put me on ignore and be done with it. Instead you actually reply to me directly. This isn't about you being creeped out. This board if full of people who make 'creepy' comments. Its about you having an excuse to be obnoxious, name-calling and general childish behavior, with someone you have an ideological beef with. And thanks to slanderous statements by some people (who have gotten themselves banned for those statements) you have a ready made excuse for your behavior. And we're back to lack of self-awareness.

You're big on the "nothing's my fault" bandwagon aren't you?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

No, I wouldn't. You're entitled your your opinion and I'd even argue against banning you if it came to that. I need no excuse for the impression you've given me about yourself. Being a progressive liberal is the LEAST of the way's you've disgusted me.

There may be folks that make creepy comments, but you take the cake. Your flirtation with disaster ... relationship woes with the strippers, self mutilators, and other comments that show your true nature (you know what they were, I don't need to restart that little firestorm) ... just ... well, it's creepy. Then I see your pics in general and see your innocent looking children and I pity them for having to experience your baggage ... and that right there's the source of my impression of you. It ain't pretty.

Own who you present yourself as being, TheRiov. Don't blame folks for seeing you exactly the way you've shown yourself. If you don't like it, then instead of blaming folks for responding to what they see, do something about what you show them.



So, go ahead, keep throwing down. I'll keep being creeped out when you start off addressing me personally in your posts.

And this is why we think you don't understand ... period.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Ah. So if you really believe me to be all the things you describe, you're ok with associating with that sort of person. Got it.

See, if I ACTUALLY believed any of those things about someone here, either they would be banned or I would leave. I wouldn't associate. Nor should you.

But sure. You're welcome to judge me on the fact that I dated someone (25 years ago) who happened to have cut herself at one point, not while we were dating. I'm sure everyone in your past is a saint.

For the record, I never dated a stripper. I did date someone who wasn't quite vanilla. *shrug* it was educational. I don't see you railing against other people on the board who have had nontraditional relationships. But those are your prejudices.

You can be 'creeped out' all you want, but I at least treat you civilly as long as you do the same. Don't like my life choices? Fine. Has nothing to do with my politics so keep it out of the discussions of politics. If you can't behave like an adult, you know where the door is.

At a great distance, associating only by exchange of electrons. I have my standards.

You've earned your reputation, why dodge it?

I don't remember specifics about you, heck, I don't remember specifics about anyone. I get impressions. I read and post between system responses, drive-by posting. It's easier to associate my impressions when the username isn't easily confused with another poster, and also easier the more someone posts. For you it started small, no biggie. Got weirder and weirder, the impression I got more defined. I have no idea how long ago **** happened, I just remember you talking about **** that happened and you were all freaked out about it ... all the drama you communicated, all the angst you displayed... and you kept going back to the well. and going back, and going back.

That's my impression. I don't care how accurate the specifics are, heck, I don't even know for sure if it ever even happened the way you tell it. You could be lying for all I know. I don't care. You've just given an impression and I've noticed. Own it.





So this an example of you being civil in a political discussion... I didn't call you out, you came knocking.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Admittedly a distinct possibility, but my problem is when like-mindedness descends to the level of a xenophobic rejection of trying anything new. Perhaps my proposal would do nothing more than keep uninformed voters out of the polls but continuing this level of extreme group-think is self-destructive.

Sadly true, Cleveland has begun meandering down that path as well and if the voters there don't wake up and start voting for true changes it's probably no more than a decade from being Detroit.


The problem I have with this theory is that if an area or locality is, as you said, full of like-minded people then you end up with a senate full of the same ideas as the executive except now you have added a whole nother layer of bureacracy for the sake of bureacracy.

_________________

Hop -

It's hard to argue against the notion that voters should be informed. However, the thought of actually implementing a policy to prevent people from voting, based on any standard, is so cringe-worthy I can't really consider it.

First, I believe people should be able to select their representative based on whatever standard matters to them. We can preach to them that they should do their homework, but beyond that, it's their responsibility, not mine.

Second, any "test" would be immediately corrupted by the political process - even if it was just asking about what's on the ballot. For example, if it was a question about an issue, the candidates mobilizers would just tell people how to answer the test. Nobody would gain knowledge, they'd just be told how to answer the test so they could vote. I could imagine big signs or people walking around helping make sure people could pass the test to vote for their candidate.

Yeah I know

I am just so appalled by the current process and two-party system.

_________________

Does dating someone who at the time was a former stripper count as dating a stripper?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not unless dating a grown woman is the same as dating a little girl.

_________________

Once a stripper, always a stripper.

Unfortunately, an exam that determines whether people know what issue number is what on the ballot does nothing to counter this. All this would really do is give these people a new reason to scream that they were being oppressed.



Well, you can always move down here to Texas. It's quite a nice place.



I don't see how this would happen. Take Illinois, for example. Giving greater weight to representation by county, or district or however they apportion their state senate would tend to take power away from the like-minded of Chicago and give more to various other areas of the state, which run the gamut. States like New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania tend to be so dominated by one enormous city that we tend to perceive the entire state as being like-minded when it really isn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."