Bold Confessions of a Nerd-Party Candidate
- Thread starter BobProbst
- Start date
Funny? Um, I don't think so.
Appropriate? I don't think so.
I don't care if Obama was eight or not when they first "met". You conveniently forget that he and Ayers have had political dealings and the association with a terrorist is therefore of great importance. If anyone chooses to ignore that fact it is a reflection on them. Trying to be witty about this ignorance doesn't help make it better.
Troopergate continues, but God forbid someone talk about Obama's ties to a domestic terrorist through ACORN. Oh yes, so appropriate......
Grimhelm
First Post
If you are so interested in people's associations, then perhaps you should read this:
http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61673_hypocrisy_9382223.htm
If you read the article, perhaps it will become clear that these things are engineered solely for your distraction and nothing more. It is time to look beyond these peripheral concerns.
http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61673_hypocrisy_9382223.htm
If you read the article, perhaps it will become clear that these things are engineered solely for your distraction and nothing more. It is time to look beyond these peripheral concerns.
Last edited:
Whatever associations are true then we all need to know about them. I've never claimed otherwise. You and your sources are the ones not wanting to stay in the middle ground and consider all options. If McCain has ties to a terrorist, then lets see them all. I have no problem with that and you won't see me do anything to the contrary.
However, the fella linked in this post is a jerk that doesn't care about the truth and I called him out for it. What he says isn't funny unless you're a hater. For what it's worth, I never watch "jokes" or political satire of anyone just because, in thinking it funny, I admit bias and I feel dumbed down. I generally feel that the people that do so and that feel it's funny are sacrificing their open-mindedness, dignity and appearance of intelligence, at least so far as my opinion of them is concerned.
As far as ANWR, I've been for drilling since the early 90's.
However, the fella linked in this post is a jerk that doesn't care about the truth and I called him out for it. What he says isn't funny unless you're a hater. For what it's worth, I never watch "jokes" or political satire of anyone just because, in thinking it funny, I admit bias and I feel dumbed down. I generally feel that the people that do so and that feel it's funny are sacrificing their open-mindedness, dignity and appearance of intelligence, at least so far as my opinion of them is concerned.
As far as ANWR, I've been for drilling since the early 90's.
InzeladunMaster
First Post
I just don't think it is relevant; I'd rather judge a person by that person's actions, not people he knows and hangs out with.
As I said before:
The Associated Press: McCain linked to group in Iran-Contra affair
McCain apparently has ties to the Contras....
Seriously, I think people are going WAY overboard with tangential connections. Politicians meet and greet people. When people get involved in their community, who knows who they may be working with? They can't vet everybody they come into contact with.
If I were introduced to someone: "I'd like you to meet Professor Ayers; he teaches at the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the honor of Distinguished Professor; he also helped shape Chicago's school reform program and he serves on the board of a philanthopic organization. Also, he has edited and written many books and articles on education theory, policy and practice, and has appeared on many panels and symposia," I would think he was alright. It probably wouldn't even occur to me to check and see if he wasn't a terrorist who protested the Vietnam war when I was eight.
I don't even think I know the names of known terrorists from my childhood. Come to think of it, I never checked my boss or any of my fellow teachers at IBC to find out if they were terrorists in the past or not.
Imagine - you run for public office one day, and it comes out in the news you were friendly with someone at work who was a terrorist at one point in the past - and you had no idea!
Politicians cannot vet everybody - nor should they. Condemning people based on their associations is not right. Condemn them for their actions if condemn them you must, but don't condemn them for someone else's actions - or their association with someone you don't like.
I never heard of Bill Ayers prior to this election. As I stated before, if I had met him as a professor, I would have had no clue. If he took an interest in my career, I would have let him help with my career.
What do you think of Sarah Palin's association with her husband, who belongs to the Alaskan Independence Party, formed by a man who said, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." In 1991, the founder (Vogler) said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."
Bill Ayers fought against the Vietnam War, not against America - but Vogler was totally anti-American.
Personally, I don't think it matters. What can the candidates do for me and America is the only relevant thing. Is the candidate a leader I can follow, is the candidate's economic theories strong, and does the candidate have a foreign policy stance I admire? If it is outside of that, I really don't care.
I would not want to be judged based on the company I keep, so I won't judge others on that basis.
I am also tired of the Republicans using fear as a tactic - let's make people afraid of the alternative, so we are the only one left as a choice. Instead of focusing on the issues, they are attacking character - trying to get people to fear and distrust the other. The Republicans have done an amazing job of getting people to think that a Democrat vote = a terrorist attack - even though Republicans controlled the government at the time of 9-11...
As I said before:
The Associated Press: McCain linked to group in Iran-Contra affair
McCain apparently has ties to the Contras....
Seriously, I think people are going WAY overboard with tangential connections. Politicians meet and greet people. When people get involved in their community, who knows who they may be working with? They can't vet everybody they come into contact with.
If I were introduced to someone: "I'd like you to meet Professor Ayers; he teaches at the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the honor of Distinguished Professor; he also helped shape Chicago's school reform program and he serves on the board of a philanthopic organization. Also, he has edited and written many books and articles on education theory, policy and practice, and has appeared on many panels and symposia," I would think he was alright. It probably wouldn't even occur to me to check and see if he wasn't a terrorist who protested the Vietnam war when I was eight.
I don't even think I know the names of known terrorists from my childhood. Come to think of it, I never checked my boss or any of my fellow teachers at IBC to find out if they were terrorists in the past or not.
Imagine - you run for public office one day, and it comes out in the news you were friendly with someone at work who was a terrorist at one point in the past - and you had no idea!
Politicians cannot vet everybody - nor should they. Condemning people based on their associations is not right. Condemn them for their actions if condemn them you must, but don't condemn them for someone else's actions - or their association with someone you don't like.
I never heard of Bill Ayers prior to this election. As I stated before, if I had met him as a professor, I would have had no clue. If he took an interest in my career, I would have let him help with my career.
What do you think of Sarah Palin's association with her husband, who belongs to the Alaskan Independence Party, formed by a man who said, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." In 1991, the founder (Vogler) said, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."
Bill Ayers fought against the Vietnam War, not against America - but Vogler was totally anti-American.
Personally, I don't think it matters. What can the candidates do for me and America is the only relevant thing. Is the candidate a leader I can follow, is the candidate's economic theories strong, and does the candidate have a foreign policy stance I admire? If it is outside of that, I really don't care.
I would not want to be judged based on the company I keep, so I won't judge others on that basis.
I am also tired of the Republicans using fear as a tactic - let's make people afraid of the alternative, so we are the only one left as a choice. Instead of focusing on the issues, they are attacking character - trying to get people to fear and distrust the other. The Republicans have done an amazing job of getting people to think that a Democrat vote = a terrorist attack - even though Republicans controlled the government at the time of 9-11...
InzeladunMaster
First Post
I think some of the greatest truths are wonderfully illustrated via humor. I also think some comedians are geniuses - so laughing doesn't indicate a sacrifice of an appearance of intelligence. Since I can laugh at satire of my own positions, I don't think I am sacrificing open-mindedness or bias, either. Sometimes humor can make me understand something of what the other side sees - and can bring about empathy and understanding. Sometimes humor has even made me see the ludicrousness of certain "truths" I have held in the past.
I disagree with your position on humor and satire completely.
Grimhelm
First Post
Of course! Men of intelligence are very often men of cutting wit and humor. It is precisely because they are intelligent that they can see the funny side of many issues. Groucho Marx, Woody Allen, H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain... The list goes on and on. The greatest satirists were men of keen intelligence. How can we possibly expect someone who is stupid to write satire? By its very nature satire requires keen insight into the problems of society. Dunces make fart jokes while true satirists jab needles in to the very fabric of society, rendering that fabric impotent to delude us. Satirists tear down the things we hold dear and say, "Look, isn't this a little silly? If you look at it just so, you will see that we take ourselves way too seriously..."
I"m bolding this for emphasis, that this is my failing to continually not finish thoughts, with an explanation later why it happened this time.
I love humor too. BUT.....
It is no more appropriate to apply satire or other political humor right before an important election, than it is to use black humor when someone passes. This is my point that I did not make. It is a poor choice indeed to make jokes at someone's funeral, the same as making political jokes in the heat of the debate, or it is my opinion. For instance, the new movie from Stone. I don't believe now is the time for such a thing. A year ago or a year from now, it's appropriate and even funny. But releasing that kind of movie just before the election shows a lot of bad qualities on the part of the people responsible. It denigrates politics and the people involved. We can laugh at politics later, when the job is done.
More simply put, there is a time to laugh and there is a time to work or be serious. That's my opinion.
As far as the intelligence reference, it is directly related to the choice of when to make your joke. It's called timing. Some will argue that the time to make a joke is during a serious moment. That's true if the point of making your joke is to break tension. But, if the point of making your joke is to sling mud, score points, or attack people, then it's not really satire or comedy but just an attempt to hide behind comedy. I don't find that funny. I don't like people trying to fool me. It's like the guy that kicks you in the ass and when you turn around, he gives you that little smile and says "I was just kiddin' around..." I call BS on that every time. It's done with malice, and I don't laugh at that.
I'm in Florida on business since Sunday and will be until a week from tomorrow. It's done nothing but rain, and I just now found out there is a computer in the hotel I can use. I've used the one at the training center I'm here to attend but I can only use it when others aren't and during lunch and breaks, so I have posted fast the last couple of days. My haste has caused me to be less clear than usual, which is a real shame since I don't consider myself to be good at writing my thoughts down.
As for anti-American, I can sympathize with that. In a way I feel anti-American in some ways. Not saying I want America to be harmed, just that I've thought what it would be like to live in another country since I'm not always happy with how things happen here. I've always decided this is the best country in the world despite what failings there are.
Having never been to Alaska, I have no idea what it's like. I assume, without checking at this time, that it's an association started by natives, that is people indiginous to the Alaskan area before the "white man" came along. If not, then the idea that the natives of this country, who suffered under the American government as our country grew, being anti-American is something I am sympathetic with. I also think that any associations that Sarah Palin had with any anti-American group need to be checked into and her cooperating monitored.
for tat if you will. I don't think the Ayers-Obama connection is important because of any bias. I think it's important regardless of who it is. Period.
Like I said before, Troopergate continues and you'll not hear any complaining for me. I'll only complain if Troopergate or any partisan check continues and Ayers-Obama is ignored. Both need checked. All pertinent facts need to be checked.
I'm torn on Keating Five ties. I think it could be reexamined, but that's supposed to have been investigated and McCain cleared. I think both Presidential candidates careers are open to scrutiny. Not only does this include the Keating scandal but also the Ayers-Obama association.
I love humor too. BUT.....
It is no more appropriate to apply satire or other political humor right before an important election, than it is to use black humor when someone passes. This is my point that I did not make. It is a poor choice indeed to make jokes at someone's funeral, the same as making political jokes in the heat of the debate, or it is my opinion. For instance, the new movie from Stone. I don't believe now is the time for such a thing. A year ago or a year from now, it's appropriate and even funny. But releasing that kind of movie just before the election shows a lot of bad qualities on the part of the people responsible. It denigrates politics and the people involved. We can laugh at politics later, when the job is done.
More simply put, there is a time to laugh and there is a time to work or be serious. That's my opinion.
As far as the intelligence reference, it is directly related to the choice of when to make your joke. It's called timing. Some will argue that the time to make a joke is during a serious moment. That's true if the point of making your joke is to break tension. But, if the point of making your joke is to sling mud, score points, or attack people, then it's not really satire or comedy but just an attempt to hide behind comedy. I don't find that funny. I don't like people trying to fool me. It's like the guy that kicks you in the ass and when you turn around, he gives you that little smile and says "I was just kiddin' around..." I call BS on that every time. It's done with malice, and I don't laugh at that.
I'm in Florida on business since Sunday and will be until a week from tomorrow. It's done nothing but rain, and I just now found out there is a computer in the hotel I can use. I've used the one at the training center I'm here to attend but I can only use it when others aren't and during lunch and breaks, so I have posted fast the last couple of days. My haste has caused me to be less clear than usual, which is a real shame since I don't consider myself to be good at writing my thoughts down.
As for anti-American, I can sympathize with that. In a way I feel anti-American in some ways. Not saying I want America to be harmed, just that I've thought what it would be like to live in another country since I'm not always happy with how things happen here. I've always decided this is the best country in the world despite what failings there are.
Having never been to Alaska, I have no idea what it's like. I assume, without checking at this time, that it's an association started by natives, that is people indiginous to the Alaskan area before the "white man" came along. If not, then the idea that the natives of this country, who suffered under the American government as our country grew, being anti-American is something I am sympathetic with. I also think that any associations that Sarah Palin had with any anti-American group need to be checked into and her cooperating monitored.
for tat if you will. I don't think the Ayers-Obama connection is important because of any bias. I think it's important regardless of who it is. Period.Like I said before, Troopergate continues and you'll not hear any complaining for me. I'll only complain if Troopergate or any partisan check continues and Ayers-Obama is ignored. Both need checked. All pertinent facts need to be checked.
I'm torn on Keating Five ties. I think it could be reexamined, but that's supposed to have been investigated and McCain cleared. I think both Presidential candidates careers are open to scrutiny. Not only does this include the Keating scandal but also the Ayers-Obama association.
Grimhelm
First Post
You are certainly more lucid here in your thoughts, and you are also more objective in your opinions. This is good. However, your assertion that humor should be put on hold during elections is something with which I must take issue.
Humor is humor many times (perhaps all times) because it is deemed to be inappropriate. For this reason it might be argued that the elections are precisely the time to use more humor. Why? Because, as the Columbia Encyclopedia states:
From ancient times satirists have shared a common aim: to expose foolishness in all its guises — vanity, hypocrisy, pedantry, idolatry, bigotry, sentimentality — and to effect reform through such exposure.
We use satire to effect reform through the exposure of the absurd within the political arena. I don't know about you, but during the election is precisely the time to expose the absurd so that we might see the "truth" a bit more clearly. This is the real job of humor. It is to strip away the ridiculous. I can't think of a better time than the elections.
It is also not a modern phenomenon. Political satire and cartooning in America goes all the way back to Ben Franklin. It was useful and meaningful then and it is meaningful, necessary, and useful now.
Humor is humor many times (perhaps all times) because it is deemed to be inappropriate. For this reason it might be argued that the elections are precisely the time to use more humor. Why? Because, as the Columbia Encyclopedia states:
From ancient times satirists have shared a common aim: to expose foolishness in all its guises — vanity, hypocrisy, pedantry, idolatry, bigotry, sentimentality — and to effect reform through such exposure.
We use satire to effect reform through the exposure of the absurd within the political arena. I don't know about you, but during the election is precisely the time to expose the absurd so that we might see the "truth" a bit more clearly. This is the real job of humor. It is to strip away the ridiculous. I can't think of a better time than the elections.
It is also not a modern phenomenon. Political satire and cartooning in America goes all the way back to Ben Franklin. It was useful and meaningful then and it is meaningful, necessary, and useful now.
Similar Threads
