[TheZookie007]

It may have taken him two tries to get the oath right but at least he is acting as a true president should:

BBC News: "Obama orders Guantanamo closure"

[midsize]

Quote:
notty said:

Hmm, what do I do with this mess? I know, let's open it up to the forumites! Time for Question Game:

Am I a right-wing Republican? If I am, what makes me a right-wing Republican?

Am I the ultimate cynic? If I am, what makes me the ultimate cynic?

Do I fail to understand "the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic?" Or is it that I understand, but find this behavior irresponsible? If it is the former, why do I fail to understand? If it is the later, why do I find it irresponsible?

Why am I not excited about some who cares about the middle class? Is it that I care more about the upper class? Or is that I care more about the invisible class, being those people near, at, or below the poverty level? Or none of the above? If so, why?

Do I fail to understand the excitement about potentially ending the occupation of Iraq? Or do I not care about Iraq? If so, why? Or did I realize a couple years ago that whichever Democratic candidate made it into office would withdraw the troops, making Iraq a bit of a non-factor?

Will Obama attack someone's character at any point during his term(s)? If not, why not?

Will Obama govern from common sense instead of theory? If so, why? How does that fit with his reputation as an intellectual? And what have you to say about his professorship at a university long known for its concentration on the theory of law rather than its practice?

Is Obama a champion of the environment? If he is, why does he support construction of additional coal and nuclear plants? Why does he support offshore drilling?

Did George W. Bush in fact wipe his ass with the Constitution? If so, how did he get it out of the display case? Do you think he watched National Treasure for some tips and tricks? Or, do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to the theft the Constitution? Or do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to anything? If so, why?

Do you think I think it's snicker-worthy that people would be excited about Obama? If so, why? Or do you think I think that people sometimes sacrifice their rationality to their enthusiasm? If so, do you think I might not want this to happen to my good friends in the forum? Or, am I just the party pooper? If so, why?

In the United States, are presidential candidates elected by popular vote? (hint: no) According to the polling data, did John McCain reach 270 electoral votes at any point during the campaign? What was Obama's margin of victory in the electoral college? Was it greater than 3%? If so, how much greater? Was McCain's campaign badly run? If so, why? If so, could it have been improved? If so, how could it have been improved? Could McCain have won the election with a better campaign? Was John McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate detrimental to his campaign? If so, why? Would he have received a larger portion of the electoral vote with a different vice presidential candidate? If so, why?

Weeeeeeeee!! I like Question Game!

Notty;

I'm not going to even try to answer all those questions, but I doubt you want answers anyway. However, I will offer a generalized answer to all of them that takes 2 parts.

First, the long history of your contributions to this forum leads me to the following conclusions about you:
You are enviably intelligent and articulate, and your politics are moderate, libertarian, and center-right with an intolerance of anything smacking of dogma. You present a persona of rational skepticism born of deep agnosticism which is itself the product of disillusionment.

Such skepticism is distrusted by people more prone to ideology, because they suspect it of having a hidden ideological motivation. Skepticism is especially suspect in a time when both rancor and exuberance are heightened by an election and its aftermath.

I believe this phenomenon is the fault of the culture of talk radio and the blogosphere, where it has become almost a comedic shtick by the most obviously polarized ideologues to present themselves as the souls of sweet reason and merely truth-seekers and -sayers, while spewing hypocritical, hyperbolic, divisive, extremist rhetoric. The effect of this has been to destroy the meaning of sincerity. It is impossible to say "I'm not taking anything away from Obama, I'm just sick of people adding so much to him" without someone saying "Suuure... another bitter right-wing 'hater' who can't bear to hear good things said about a fine man." No protestation to the contrary suffices to prove your sincerity, because no one believes anymore in the possibility of sincerity.

That's the good part.

You often come across in your posts with an attitude of smug, snotty, arch dismissiveness that I don't believe is accidental. This makes it easy to believe that your rational skepticism is really a self-indulgent cynicism born not of agnosticism but of projected self-loathing. It also makes your statements reek of a snarky provocation that is unbecoming to a person of your intelligence and character, and evokes the expected response from your interlocutors.

In short, the answer to all your questions is: this conflict with your current critics is partly the fault of a dysfunctional culture that has no room for sincere skepticism and punishes reason with vituperation, and partly the fault of your often obnoxious attitude obscuring your pleasant personality and congenial intellect.

Not a fan, but respectfully,

-mid

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Quote:
pedonbio said:

Quote:
notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  

So does David Duke.

That's bogus logic. For example:

"I have a beard and Jesus has a beard, therefore I am Jesus."

Your response assumes that Notty likes anyone because they are outside the mainstream. I am sure David Duke's other activitites alienate him from Notty's admiration.

Having said that I don't like Nader because he operates outside the system. He is a crank, a crochety old curmudgeon who is incapable of winning enough hearts and minds to build a coalition.

I liked Carter, but he proved you can't just expect Washington to talk to the hand. Clinton on the other hand proved that you need to be able to make deals to further your agenda.

I think Obama has a big mandate, but also has a well organized machine ready to thwart him at every turn if he tries to simply marginalize them because he thinks they are wrong.

I am excited because he seems smart enough and charismatic enough as Clinton, only with a beter agenda and not so much baggage.

[notty]

Quote:
midsize said:
Notty;

I'm not going to even try to answer all those questions, but I doubt you want answers anyway. However, I will offer a generalized answer to all of them that takes 2 parts.

First, the long history of your contributions to this forum leads me to the following conclusions about you:
You are enviably intelligent and articulate, and your politics are moderate, libertarian, and center-right with an intolerance of anything smacking of dogma. You present a persona of rational skepticism born of deep agnosticism which is itself the product of disillusionment.

Such skepticism is distrusted by people more prone to ideology, because they suspect it of having a hidden ideological motivation. Skepticism is especially suspect in a time when both rancor and exuberance are heightened by an election and its aftermath.

I believe this phenomenon is the fault of the culture of talk radio and the blogosphere, where it has become almost a comedic shtick by the most obviously polarized ideologues to present themselves as the souls of sweet reason and merely truth-seekers and -sayers, while spewing hypocritical, hyperbolic, divisive, extremist rhetoric. The effect of this has been to destroy the meaning of sincerity. It is impossible to say "I'm not taking anything away from Obama, I'm just sick of people adding so much to him" without someone saying "Suuure... another bitter right-wing 'hater' who can't bear to hear good things said about a fine man." No protestation to the contrary suffices to prove your sincerity, because no one believes anymore in the possibility of sincerity.

That's the good part.

You often come across in your posts with an attitude of smug, snotty, arch dismissiveness that I don't believe is accidental. This makes it easy to believe that your rational skepticism is really a self-indulgent cynicism born not of agnosticism but of projected self-loathing. It also makes your statements reek of a snarky provocation that is unbecoming to a person of your intelligence and character, and evokes the expected response from your interlocutors.

In short, the answer to all your questions is: this conflict with your current critics is partly the fault of a dysfunctional culture that has no room for sincere skepticism and punishes reason with vituperation, and partly the fault of your often obnoxious attitude obscuring your pleasant personality and congenial intellect.

Not a fan, but respectfully,

-mid

Midsize...I'm almost speechless. What an incredible post. Possibly the finest I've read. I must admit you understand me very well. In some ways, I'm rather immature. You know that phase ch1ldren go through when they feel the need to test their boundaries? When they act out, agitate, and misbehave? Well, it seems I never got over that.

You are also correct in that I don't like myself very much. There's a scene in "Sideways" where Miles stares into the bathroom mirror and says, "You are such a loser. You make me want to puke." It's a bittersweet moment for me, because I go through the same routine each day. I try to refrain from projecting my self-loathing onto other people, but alas, I don't always succeed.

Okay, I think that's enough sharing for today. I haven't been very nice to you Midsize, and I apologize for that. You were right about the monocots.

[Peter]

Janus: Legalize weed?

Yes, of course marijuana should be legalized. Is the United States of America supposed to be the land of the free or a fascist shithole?

[Peter]

notty: I'm sorry, but Nader didn't cost Gore anything.

I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida. If he wasn't in the race maybe half of those people would have stayed home and most of the other half would have voted for Gore. He would have won the state by tens of thousands of votes and we wouldn't have had to suffer the 8 years of the Bush nightmare.

[mofoapoo]

Quote:
BarnacleBill said:
The true faith of Islam is evil.  

You change it in an attempt to insult less people, but I still stopped taking you seriously.

[BarnacleBill]

Well then we're even.

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Quote:
peterh said:
notty: I'm sorry, but Nader didn't cost Gore anything.

I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida. If he wasn't in the race maybe half of those people would have stayed home and most of the other half would have voted for Gore. He would have won the state by tens of thousands of votes and we wouldn't have had to suffer the 8 years of the Bush nightmare.

Gore didn't even carry his home state. Really blame Nader all you want.

[TheZookie007]

Nader is an idiot, and his candidacy did have a negative effect on Gore, but not nearly as much as the loss of his home state of Tennessee to Bush. 97,000 votes is nothing to sniff at to be sure, but to lose Tennessee's 11 electoral college votes did more to doom Gore than anything Nader did.

Meanwhile, in other good news, Barack gets to keep his Crackberry after all.

[MasterDragonfly]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
Meanwhile, in other good news, Barack gets to keep his Crackberry after all.

That is way cool.  I haven't been following the Crackberry scene closely, but it would be interesting to see whether it can be (and whether it has been) set up to use PGP/GPG or similar.

And in related news, it seems that President Obama's administration might mean a boost for Open Source.

[notty]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
Nader is an idiot, blah blah blah...

Wow, that's very deep, Zookie. The breadth of your intellect is staggering.

Let's play the Role Reversal Game! I make the following post:

Quote:

Obama is an idiot, blah blah blah...

How do you respond?

[JJ]

The truce is over as Obama cartoonists fire away............

 

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
notty said:

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
Nader is an idiot, blah blah blah...

Wow, that's very deep, Zookie. The breadth of your intellect is staggering.

Let's play the Role Reversal Game! I make the following post:

Quote:

Obama is an idiot, blah blah blah...

How do you respond?

I respond by wondering why out of everything I had to say, you are harping on the "Nader is an idiot" part. But well, that's your prerogative.

[pedonbio]

Quote:
ROUNDandHEAVY said:

Quote:
pedonbio said:

Quote:
notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  

So does David Duke.

That's bogus logic. For example:

"I have a beard and Jesus has a beard, therefore I am Jesus."

Your response assumes that Notty likes anyone because they are outside the mainstream. I am sure David Duke's other activitites alienate him from Notty's admiration.

Having said that I don't like Nader because he operates outside the system. He is a crank, a crochety old curmudgeon who is incapable of winning enough hearts and minds to build a coalition.

I liked Carter, but he proved you can't just expect Washington to talk to the hand. Clinton on the other hand proved that you need to be able to make deals to further your agenda.

I think Obama has a big mandate, but also has a well organized machine ready to thwart him at every turn if he tries to simply marginalize them because he thinks they are wrong.

I am excited because he seems smart enough and charismatic enough as Clinton, only with a beter agenda and not so much baggage.

Actually, my point was logically perfect: The fact someone acts inside or outside "the mainstream" (whatever that is) is hardly a basis for admiration or contempt, and that was my point. I think notty simply quit writing before she made her point.

But your post is way off the mark. Notty has never said (that I could find) that she "likes" Nader. She has said that she "respects" him, which is the point at which we disagree. Apropos of "liking" him, those of us anywhere near the political pole notty and I are both fairly close to, know that NOBODY actually "likes" Ralph. He is personally arrogant, condescending, and a royal pain in the ass. I had a couple of really abrasive encounters with him when he worked for Warren Magnuson, and neither of us has bothered the other since. He doesn't, IMHO, eschew mainstream politics because he thinks it is corrupt, but because if he worked in it, he would actually have to treat other people with respect.

By the way, Zookie, did you compare Nader to Alan Keyes? Better not tell Keyes that!