Shireroth

Hesam Jayatar wrote:Conservative: Do any of you understand just how far right the republican party is in comparison to other conservative parties in the western world?

In the Swedish parliament, we have seven parties, as follows (from left to right):

Left Party, Greens, Social Democrats, People's Party, Center Party, Moderates, Christian Democrats.

I think that it is rather telling that the only party that sent representatives to the Republican convention were the Moderates. They did however send reps to the Democratic convention as well, together with all the other parties. So, if the politicians in the parliament were to join one of the American parties, all members except a few from the Moderates and the Christian Democrats would join the Democrats. So what does this say about Swedish politics? Well, it does say that we are, generally, very liberal. But it also says that the American conservatives are far more right wing than any mainstream parties in Sweden.

Jonas wrote:IF there is corruption. It isn't proved yet. I thought you weren't guilty until someone proved otherwise?
Even if she was corrupt, do you really think that the other party isn't?

Yes, IF is definitely the operative word, but Palin's doing a wonderful job preventing herself from even being proven innocent by resisting investigation.

And so what about the other party? All this is is simply an instance of her supporters saying she fights corruption, and how, if this interpretation of events is true, would make her seem a tad hypocritical. Sure, everyone is hypocritical in one way or another, but it's the big ones that people tend to care about, or frankly even remember.

I also find the grunt work being done to contain this as interesting. Some hardcore supporters are as convinced that the liberal media is not only hamming up this story but that they've outright made it up completely (and not even the story, but the blockage of the investigation as well. Quite the reality denial), as they are that Obama is a closet Muslim.

It'll be interesting once it plays out, but you are ASSUMED innocent, not proven innocent. "Rumors of corruption" still looks better than "An official investigation of corruption is currently underway." Even if she's totally innocent, why would she want a potentially scandalous investigation to hurt her already precarious reputation? There are plenty of reasons why she could not want an investigation, it's wrong to just assume she's guilty.

Now, about assessing someone: if you would critize or condemn someone just by relying on word-of-mouth, the gossip-mongers will have won again. All the Repubtlican National Convention speeches are available online, without editorializing, at cspan.org. If you don't know how thorough and reliable your source is, how do you know to form your opinions about someone based just on hearsay? Just listen to what these speakers say, without the editorial filter of a commerntator, and make up your own mind.

Remember also that the speeches of the candidates are not the end-all-be-all, especially when they're talking about the other side. Have you listened to the speeches from both sides? So far I've heard Obama's and Palin's, and I'm going to see McCain's as soon as I finish this homework I'm supposed to be doing . And check out more deeply any cracks they make at the other side.

This may strike you as overly skeptical... maybe it is... but we're talking American politics, here. There's so much mud being thrown around it's hard to find out what's really true and what has been twisted unrecognizably.

Oh, and another funny Jon Stewart clip, just because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxGcn7lmTWY

Bayen wrote:It'll be interesting once it plays out, but you are ASSUMED innocent, not proven innocent. "Rumors of corruption" still looks better than "An official investigation of corruption is currently underway." Even if she's totally innocent, why would she want a potentially scandalous investigation to hurt her already precarious reputation? There are plenty of reasons why she could not want an investigation, it's wrong to just assume she's guilty.

You want lulz?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viVAAy_qkx0


And found innocent of allegations of corruption look better than resisting investigation of corruption tooth and nail. And it isn't just a simple resistance. It's more like the Alaska State Legislature asking people in her administration to come testify, and them sort of not going, and now the Legislature is going to start subpoenaing people.

EDIT: Corrected for facts.

Ari Rahikkala wrote:I like this thread.

I don't like this thread anymore.

Chrimigules wrote:You want lulz?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viVAAy_qkx0

I didn't think it was that funny... I still like to keep the dream that the average person is somewhat reasonable...

Dreams...

Ari Rahikkala wrote:

Ari Rahikkala wrote:I like this thread.

I don't like this thread anymore.

Welcome to the club, I never liked this thread. I want to gtfo of the US because of this thread.

Unfortunately, the only Drexel-sponsored study abroad programs to Sweden and Finland are for engineering students only.

Corey--do you and others of your generation really detest this country so much that you don't want to live here any more? I have never understood that mentality. My generation was told that if we didn't like the way things were going, or the current laws, we should do something about them--get involved in some positive way in trying to change the laws, people's attitudes, etc., without rejecting the entire country and everything about it. This doesn't seem to be an option in a lot of people's minds. The main reason most people go into positions of responsibility, and then into politics, is usually because they feel they can make a difference, and help bring positive change to their schools, or to government, or to society at large.

Don't give up on this country's capacity to change for the better when the people's attitudes are changed. When Americans realize they have been wronging their fellow citizens, they eventually clamor for an improvement in the way things are done. Your generation has the imagination and energy to do this, but if gone about in a destructive and negative way, the entrenched system will only become more stubbonnly unreasonable.

Just as it is impossible to force people's minds and hearts to change, even if you can force them to abide physically with a law or regulation, so it is nearly impossible to bring people to change what they don't feel is necessary, until convinced.

I followed you until the last paragraph, when I got confused.

Carol:

This nation's government works...for other people. I don't like the way it's run, personally, so I might as well just leave and find someplace that does work for me. If people think the policies of the government work, and they happen to be doing fairly alright, I will not try to convince them otherwise. I'll just find others who think the way I do and go to them. Simplifies the system a bit.

Bayen--

My last point was that you can't force people's minds and attitudes to change. You might force them to behave in a certain way, but that doesn't touch their inner core. In order for real change to occur, people's minds and attitudes need to be persuaded or convinced that those changes should be made, to be worked for. And persuasion works best when the one trying to persuade goes about it in a reasonable, measured way, without hostile or abrasive confrontations.

Corey--

If you can find a society in which you feel at home, and where the political and social system agree with your convictions, I wish you well. As for me, I prefer to try to work one-on-one to change people's hearts and minds. Sometimes it works; sometimes, not, but just cutting and running from an unpleasant reality has never been my style.

If you can find a society in which you feel at home, and where the political and social system agree with your convictions, I wish you well. As for me, I prefer to try to work one-on-one to change people's hearts and minds. Sometimes it works; sometimes, not, but just cutting and running from an unpleasant reality has never been my style.

Right. New rule, anyone who uses the phrase "cut and run" from now on will be hanged.

But I think Corey's got a point. Our whole generation is pretty cynical about politics and the possibility for change. The defining political event of your generation was Watergate; the take-home lesson was that politicians were crooks but that change was possible and those crooks eventually had to pay for their misdeeds (for values of "pay" equal to "get a presidential pardon"). The defining event of our generation was watching Bush gut the country, then get all excited about Kerry (well, as excited as one can get about Kerry) and then see Bush fear-monger and negative-ad his way into re-election. The take-home lesson was ignorance is an unstoppable political force, and it's only getting more popular.

I realize that "Everyone who doesn't share my political opinions is stupid" is a classic disgruntled college kid complaint. But it's not just people who don't share my opinions. I mean, there are a lot of people who still think Saddam Hussein directly ordered the 9-11 attacks, and vote based on that assumption. There are a lot of people who aren't even aware we have a federal deficit, and vote solely on which candidate opposes gay people more. And at least they have a real reason for their vote; many other people can't say the same.

I know people who are trying to "solve" the problem. They walk around planting "GO OBAMA!" or "GO MCCAIN!" signs in people's yards. The problem is deeper than insufficient lawn signs. I know other people involved in political debates. Yeah, even some of you. How's that working out for you? When I try it, I immediately become Part of the Problem - ie, the Guy Angrily Arguing For Liberal Views who sits opposite the Guy Angrily Arguing For Conservative Views. The problem is deeper than surface-level political disagreements. It's even deeper than whether McCain or Obama gets elected this cycle, or than the difference between the Democrats and Republicans, or than the difference between the Republicrats and the Libertarians/Greens/whoever.

The problem is human nature, American demographics, and the social and economic incentives underlying the whole system. I suspect the quickest solution is probably technological fixes to human nature, but I intend to be in a country I can be proud of while I'm waiting for them / working for them to happen. If that sounds insufficiently patriotic, so be it; I find most aspects of modern patriotism sorta weird.

[quote='http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion ... y_life_for']My wife would be widowed and my children orphaned, but they would take solace in the knowledge that I had given my life to a cause that the people of some nation believed in.[/quote]

This is just... stupid...
What is the wife with a dead husband?
With guys like this, wars still exist. If everyone says they don't want to fight for a country, then there is no war!

Hint: It's The Onion.

Ari Rahikkala wrote:Hint: It's The Onion.

I don't know what the Onion has as reputation.

Jonas--

The Onion specializes in writing spoof reports about real-sounding subjects. Even if the topic of the article exists, the artcle is a farce; a joke; not-to-be-believed. Don't put your confidence in their "truth." Ever.

I thought the spoofiness of the article was self evident, but evidently not.

So did I... I guess some things are more self-evident when one is totally fluent in the language in which the satire is written.

Probably.

'Right,' he said. 'We've done it the modern way, now let's try policing like grandfather used to do it. It's time to -'
'Prod buttock, sir?' said Carrot, hurriedly.
'Close,' said Vimes, taking a deep drag and blowing out a smoke ring, 'but no cigar.'

Definitely one of my favorites! Too bad Pratchett's Discworld series isn't made mandatory reading! Is there nothing safe from his satirical wit?

I love his dry British humor. That's why I only read his books in English, never the translated Swedish version. You lose at least 50% of the jokes in the translation. The same with animated movies.

Yay Discworld!

Piers Anthony is also good with the satirical fantasy in Incarnations of Immortality...

Politics is too important to be left to politicians... or the electorate for that matter.

lol http://vetpalin.com

more lol, except this time it's actually meant to be funny . Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton.

Now, that has got to be one of the cleverest skits involving those two strong, powerful women. To think that this country's people have come so far that the two major political parties have championed so many capable candidates who are seen as different, one for his ethnic mix, one for his advancing age,. and the other two for their gender. Just a decade or so ago, this combination of serious major candidates would have seemed unthinkable to many. No matter who is elected in November, the victor(s) will challenge the traditional requirements that our leaders come from the "old boys' network."

They'll still come from the old boys' club. The old boys' club would simply include a larger diversity, and probably have to be renamed the Nonagist Persons' Club. You know, for political correctness.