|
Post by Onjel on Oct 4, 2008 11:39:26 GMT -5
BUFFY: New semester, new classes. Whole new vistas of knowledge to be confused and intimidated by.
TARA: I think this one's gonna be kind of fun. Greek Art's gonna touch on so many things -- mythology, history, philosophy...
BUFFY: The professor spit too much when he talked. It was like being at Sea World. The first five rows will get wet.
TARA: That was just, you know, um, enthusiasm.
BUFFY: It seemed very much like saliva.
TARA: We'll sit farther back next time The more-exciting-than-usual candidate choices this election year prompted discussions over creating a place where The Rules could be relaxed in order to discuss them. Then, the idea of political discussion being allowed prompted the idea of experimenting with ALL topics being allowed. So we created this space in which to do that.
Welcome to the Open Topic Discussion- Part 3! You are welcome to talk here about pretty much whatever you want. Religion, politics, philosophy... you name it!
But, before we go any further, here's the deal:While we have relaxed the rules about religion and politics only in this forum, we're still adhering to the "no bashing" rules. There's a little black button up above if you need a refresher on those.
Please keep any disagreements potentially created here from carrying over to the other threads. This forum may be suspended if we feel it becomes detrimental to the harmony of the S'cubies.
Technopagans do reserve the right to reprimand, apply strikes and modify/delete posts if posters don't take the rules seriously.
With that said, we'd also like to address the fact that techs will probably frequently be involved in the discourse. While they will strive to adhere to the rules themselves, it is quite possible that, at some point, the regular members may feel they have stepped out of bounds. If you feel a board admin is out of line, please report this to the other Techs and/or your CoW members. And that's pretty much it! Follow those guidelines and we should all be good. Oh, and if you don't wanna get wet, you might want to sit a bit to the back. VladI'll be copying some of the more recent posts over from the last thread so people can continue the discussion over here if they so choose.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 4, 2008 11:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 4, 2008 11:50:51 GMT -5
From the last part: I don't think this is presented fairly in this article. As to the point about others also saying that McCain's time in the POW camp has caused temperment issues, I find it objectionable to make this kind of very public claim about anyone without both the proper expertise and a complete and current examination of the subject. From what you say, it sounds like most people making this claim have accumulated neither the expertise nor the examination, and that one (or two?) have the expertise only. I can see private speculation, but public speculation in a widely read mag . . . to me, it's wrong, and it's all about spin. I agree that the article had a very negative spin to it. Doesn't mean that the facts presented are necessarily wrong or that the opinions presented should be discounted. (That would require some fact checking and an assessment of the people offering their opinions about McCain's character. Some of the incidents described I've definitely heard before, so I don't think the article is entirely off base.) The reason that that quote stuck out for me was because it jived with my impressions of McCain's attitudes, particularly about foreign policy. It struck me that his experience as a POW may have had a role in shaping those attitudes. So, to me, Wilkerson's comment suggests a cause for certain already made observations, rather than speculation about what kind of person McCain may be or what he may do. A man is influenced by the sum of his life experiences. Which is not to say that said life experiences should disqualify from any endeavor he wishes to pursue; I would be against such discriminatory action. But I do believe that it's important to carefully consider both the positive and negative influence these life experiences have on the person in question and to be cautious if warranted. Which is what I think Wilkerson was trying to say about McCain having been a POW. Liz - I'm glad for all the sharing of info that goes on here, so believe me, I am not criticizing you for posting this, not in the least. My problem with it is not about how negative it is. It's perfectly OK, to me, for an article to be negative about a candidate. But imagine that someone had said this about Joe Biden (who is also known to have a temper): "In some respects, I'm not sure that's the kind of character I want sitting in the Oval Office. I'm not sure that losing a wife and daughter so suddenly and traumatically doesn't do something to you. Doesn't do something to you psychologically, doesn't do something to you that might make you a little more volatile, a little less apt to listen to reason, a little more inclined to be volcanic in your temperament." It's just outrageous to me, to suggest this in this way. Point out the facts. Point out the things you KNOW - the behavior you can document and find objectionable - and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 4, 2008 21:47:05 GMT -5
If found this very inspiring:
President of the AFL-CIO speaking to union workers (Joe Six-Pack?) about not only voting for Obama but challenging any racist co-workers about voting against him.
These are the Democrats I recall from my youth, not the "elitists" they are so often cast as now.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 4, 2008 23:41:09 GMT -5
If found this very inspiring: President of the AFL-CIO speaking to union workers (Joe Six-Pack?) about not only voting for Obama but challenging any racist co-workers about voting against him. These are the Democrats I recall from my youth, not the "elitists" they are so often cast as now. So, is the message being sent that if one doesn't vote for Obama one is perforce a racist? I can see some real disturbing undertones in that premise. Or is the message to challenge avowed racists about being racists? A valid message with no disturbing undertones, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 5, 2008 0:31:35 GMT -5
If found this very inspiring: President of the AFL-CIO speaking to union workers (Joe Six-Pack?) about not only voting for Obama but challenging any racist co-workers about voting against him. These are the Democrats I recall from my youth, not the "elitists" they are so often cast as now. So, is the message being sent that if one doesn't vote for Obama one is perforce a racist? I can see some real disturbing undertones in that premise. Or is the message to challenge avowed racists about being racists? A valid message with no disturbing undertones, IMO. I think the distinction is between people who are planning to vote against Obama who have differences with his political positions and people who are planning to vote against him soley because he is a person of color. And since this is a Union leader addressing his membership, the problem he's addressing is within that membership- where the mere fact that the Republican Party has, after a flirtation with unions during the seventies and eighties has been increasingly anti-union since leads most Union officials to greater vehemence on the subject of voting for the boss class this year.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 5, 2008 8:12:18 GMT -5
So, is the message being sent that if one doesn't vote for Obama one is perforce a racist? I can see some real disturbing undertones in that premise. Or is the message to challenge avowed racists about being racists? A valid message with no disturbing undertones, IMO. I think the distinction is between people who are planning to vote against Obama who have differences with his political positions and people who are planning to vote against him soley because he is a person of color. And since this is a Union leader addressing his membership, the problem he's addressing is within that membership- where the mere fact that the Republican Party has, after a flirtation with unions during the seventies and eighties has been increasingly anti-union since leads most Union officials to greater vehemence on the subject of voting for the boss class this year. Well, we can only hear things from our own perspective (or, that's how we mostly choose to hear/read things unless working very hard to step outside of that and view from someone elses's) but I only heard him saying: "you know that Obama is the best guy for the unions so don't let the fact that he is black sway you against him." I.e. union-brotherhood trumps racism. Since I grew up in Pittsburgh surrounded by United Steel Workers and the granddaughter of a coal-miner who helped organize the unions there I know that (historically) union loyalties went so deep that they trumped religion, nationalism (irish vs polish, etc), possibly even family loyalties (I'm sure there are movies made about these conflicts.) That may have died down some since, but I think that is the fervor this guy is attempting to invoke: vote for the ticket who will do the most for us as a union. And he knows full, full, full well that some of these folks would most naturally vote against the young, black, "foreign"named, college-sounding guy in favor of the old, white, "one-of-us" war vet without looking any deeper at who they actually are and what their proposals are unless given a reason to trump those other "loyalties." 3 of my siblings(historically quite Republican but leaning toward Obama) are totally flabbergasted by their in-laws (who live in rural NY and PA) have sent them emails about Obama being a Muslim and quite seriously believe that. These folks aren't going to be swayed by logical arguments from young whipper-snappers (even their kids) but if their union boss vouches for him, says "this guy is OK and he's going to take care of us", well---that's money in the bank to them. The guy speaking in the video? Could be the twin of my brother.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 5, 2008 10:22:14 GMT -5
So, is the message being sent that if one doesn't vote for Obama one is perforce a racist? I can see some real disturbing undertones in that premise. Or is the message to challenge avowed racists about being racists? A valid message with no disturbing undertones, IMO. I think the distinction is between people who are planning to vote against Obama who have differences with his political positions and people who are planning to vote against him soley because he is a person of color. And since this is a Union leader addressing his membership, the problem he's addressing is within that membership- where the mere fact that the Republican Party has, after a flirtation with unions during the seventies and eighties has been increasingly anti-union since leads most Union officials to greater vehemence on the subject of voting for the boss class this year. Thank you for answering my question and clarifying it for me.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 5, 2008 10:26:40 GMT -5
I think the distinction is between people who are planning to vote against Obama who have differences with his political positions and people who are planning to vote against him soley because he is a person of color. And since this is a Union leader addressing his membership, the problem he's addressing is within that membership- where the mere fact that the Republican Party has, after a flirtation with unions during the seventies and eighties has been increasingly anti-union since leads most Union officials to greater vehemence on the subject of voting for the boss class this year. Well, we can only hear things from our own perspective (or, that's how we mostly choose to hear/read things unless working very hard to step outside of that and view from someone elses's) but I only heard him saying: "you know that Obama is the best guy for the unions so don't let the fact that he is black sway you against him." I.e. union-brotherhood trumps racism. Since I grew up in Pittsburgh surrounded by United Steel Workers and the granddaughter of a coal-miner who helped organize the unions there I know that (historically) union loyalties went so deep that they trumped religion, nationalism (irish vs polish, etc), possibly even family loyalties (I'm sure there are movies made about these conflicts.) That may have died down some since, but I think that is the fervor this guy is attempting to invoke: vote for the ticket who will do the most for us as a union. And he knows full, full, full well that some of these folks would most naturally vote against the young, black, "foreign"named, college-sounding guy in favor of the old, white, "one-of-us" war vet without looking any deeper at who they actually are and what their proposals are unless given a reason to trump those other "loyalties." 3 of my siblings(historically quite Republican but leaning toward Obama) are totally flabbergasted by their in-laws (who live in rural NY and PA) have sent them emails about Obama being a Muslim and quite seriously believe that. These folks aren't going to be swayed by logical arguments from young whipper-snappers (even their kids) but if their union boss vouches for him, says "this guy is OK and he's going to take care of us", well---that's money in the bank to them. The guy speaking in the video? Could be the twin of my brother. I never said anything about how I interpreted the speaker's message. I asked for clarification, for which I thank you and Julia for providing to me. The two possibilities I mentioned, and there were more but it was late, were not related and I simply wanted additional clarification of the message that the speaker intended to get across, hoping that it was not the first possibility in my post.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 5, 2008 15:54:07 GMT -5
Well, we can only hear things from our own perspective (or, that's how we mostly choose to hear/read things unless working very hard to step outside of that and view from someone elses's) but I only heard him saying: "you know that Obama is the best guy for the unions so don't let the fact that he is black sway you against him." I.e. union-brotherhood trumps racism. Since I grew up in Pittsburgh surrounded by United Steel Workers and the granddaughter of a coal-miner who helped organize the unions there I know that (historically) union loyalties went so deep that they trumped religion, nationalism (irish vs polish, etc), possibly even family loyalties (I'm sure there are movies made about these conflicts.) That may have died down some since, but I think that is the fervor this guy is attempting to invoke: vote for the ticket who will do the most for us as a union. And he knows full, full, full well that some of these folks would most naturally vote against the young, black, "foreign"named, college-sounding guy in favor of the old, white, "one-of-us" war vet without looking any deeper at who they actually are and what their proposals are unless given a reason to trump those other "loyalties." 3 of my siblings(historically quite Republican but leaning toward Obama) are totally flabbergasted by their in-laws (who live in rural NY and PA) have sent them emails about Obama being a Muslim and quite seriously believe that. These folks aren't going to be swayed by logical arguments from young whipper-snappers (even their kids) but if their union boss vouches for him, says "this guy is OK and he's going to take care of us", well---that's money in the bank to them. The guy speaking in the video? Could be the twin of my brother. I never said anything about how I interpreted the speaker's message. I asked for clarification, for which I thank you and Julia for providing to me. The two possibilities I mentioned, and there were more but it was late, were not related and I simply wanted additional clarification of the message that the speaker intended to get across, hoping that it was not the first possibility in my post. Onj- Actually, sentence in red was written more as disclaimer as to how I heard what he said, while allowing that someone else (not necessarily you, but meaning there might indeed be other people) who heard it through a different filter. I knew you were asking a "value-free" direct question. Just meant to add to my voice to explain why it spoke to me.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 5, 2008 16:35:27 GMT -5
I never said anything about how I interpreted the speaker's message. I asked for clarification, for which I thank you and Julia for providing to me. The two possibilities I mentioned, and there were more but it was late, were not related and I simply wanted additional clarification of the message that the speaker intended to get across, hoping that it was not the first possibility in my post. Onj- Actually, sentence in red was written more as disclaimer as to how I heard what he said, while allowing that someone else (not necessarily you, but meaning there might indeed be other people) who heard it through a different filter. I knew you were asking a "value-free" direct question. Just meant to add to my voice to explain why it spoke to me. Ah. Sorry. I misunderstood. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 5, 2008 18:32:50 GMT -5
Well, here it comes. The McCain camp has finally gone truly negative. "Obama consorts with terrorists," that sort of thing.
Sad, really. I guess this is all they have left.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 5, 2008 19:26:06 GMT -5
Well, here it comes. The McCain camp has finally gone truly negative. "Obama consorts with terrorists," that sort of thing. Sad, really. I guess this is all they have left. That was my thought, too - that it smacked of desperation. I suspect (or hope, anyhow) that it's the sort of thing that will speak mostly to the already converted.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 5, 2008 20:20:06 GMT -5
Well, here it comes. The McCain camp has finally gone truly negative. "Obama consorts with terrorists," that sort of thing. Sad, really. I guess this is all they have left. That was my thought, too - that it smacked of desperation. I suspect (or hope, anyhow) that it's the sort of thing that will speak mostly to the already converted. It may be too late - the shift is so strong that one national poll has Obama up by 12 points today, which is a landslide if it holds. So it's possible that middle America has already identified with Obama/Biden and will just take this for what it is - desperation and dirty politics. They've pushed back hard on the terrorist thing today, which is good. Not gonna let themselves get swiftboated.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 5, 2008 23:43:41 GMT -5
That was my thought, too - that it smacked of desperation. I suspect (or hope, anyhow) that it's the sort of thing that will speak mostly to the already converted. It may be too late - the shift is so strong that one national poll has Obama up by 12 points today, which is a landslide if it holds. So it's possible that middle America has already identified with Obama/Biden and will just take this for what it is - desperation and dirty politics. They've pushed back hard on the terrorist thing today, which is good. Not gonna let themselves get swiftboated. More importantly, I think, is that McCain's likability rating is so low that negative attacks on his opponent are prone to make people view him more negatively. Julia,a lot of this stuff was brought up in the primaries, too, so people are not surprised by it.
|
|