IC Forum Archive

extralife · Posts: 3316

Sawtooth wrote:

Well! Looks like we're banning same-sex marriage! More importantly: same-sex civil unions!

So are we. I'm pretty deflated right now.

the vinculum gate · Posts: 2868

WE WON

108 · Posts: 2600

Mr. Business wrote:

Also, Tim, I thought that you had abandoned the politics of America to embrace the promised land of Japanananana?

I may have joked about that once or twice? Not really, though. Because I still have an American passport and because Americans are so adamant in their belief that their nation is the world that their politics become world politics, anyway.

extralife · Posts: 3316

the vinculum gate wrote:

WE WON

Nobody won shit tonight, really.

Brock · Posts: 421

showka wrote:

I'm in Texas too. I voted for Chris Bell because I actually watched the debates and was incredibly dissapointed by the avalanche of cliches that poured fourth from Kinky Friedmen's mouth. Bell also said there was a big chance for him to win, and it made me think that maybe all of the pissed off Democrats would get together and vote for him instead of Kinky or the Strayhorn, and he'd get the most votes of all the non-Perry voters.

Well, lucky me, I was right. Unfortunately 30% isn't enough to stop Perry's 39%. Fuck.

Man, I feel like slapping all these people who have been all "LOL KINKY IS GONNA GET THIS GUYS" for the past few weeks.

Of course, I forgot to register, so I guess I'm in no position to talk.

Sawtooth · Posts: 2350

you can't register at the polling place? that's what i did.

Captain EO · Posts: 371

NorCal checking in:
I voted Peace & Freedom Party every chance I got. Gotta love anything that Bob Avakian was involved in.

And fuck prop 86. I may be five kinds of communist, but a $2.10 added to cigarettes? Fuck that... It's just an attempt to keep the proletarian under the heel of the bourgeoisie. Yeah, that's it.

showka · Posts: 994

The news is saying the Democrats will control the house. That's cool, I really like Nancy Pelosi. The only non-fiction book I've ever read that was penned by someone I could tell was a pretty big conservative was about the threat posed by China in the coming years and decades. The guy hated Clinton for all the consessions he'd given China, but it seemed like he was much more ambivelent towards Pelosi. Also, I like that snicker she has in that clip they show of her on the Colbert Report. Sexy. I'd like to make love to her and make her have my abortion without telling her parents. Naughty girl.

The Democrats need three Senate seats to win, so goes the TV banter. Harold Ford looks like he will lose, which saddens me greatly. My girlfriend is from Tennessee and was really excited about Ford. The Virginia race looks close though. Probably best to go to sleep since none of the talking heads will know shit until tommorow.

km · Posts: 171

guys, it looks like it's down to 3 states for the senate... and i'm in the one that looks to lose it for the democrats.

sorry guys, i tried :(

Crazy Bacon Lips · Posts: 783

Election results are here, if anyone's curious. And what's all this about "winning" by three fucking seats? If you want big changes you need a huge majority, not this incremental shit. Although you have to start somewhere, I guess.

km · Posts: 171

My roommate just told me that Claire McCaskill shouldn't be in the Senate because she is a woman.

klikbeep · Posts: 485

km wrote:

My roommate just told me that Claire McCaskill shouldn't be in the Senate because she is a woman.

Normally, I'd have no problem with a woman Senator -- as long as it's after menopause. Otherwise you might have them breaking down in tears over farm subsidies or something once a month.

evnvnv · Posts: 333

this thread was very entertaining.

Also: WAY TO GO CALIFORNIA. I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT FOUR MORE YEARS OF GLOBAL RIDICULE FOR HAVING A JOKE FOR A GOVERNOR.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

extralife wrote:

the vinculum gate wrote:

WE WON

Nobody won shit tonight, really.

Man that's deep.

dhex · Posts: 2963

hey james i don't use republocrats the terms is "statist whore" - not that i presume to instruct the master, of course.

showka · Posts: 994

I just went to talk to a friend at the office and half way through I noticed his eyes were blood-shot as though he had been tearing up.

A few months back the guy mentioned hearing about some brush fire on WOAI (which is a local station that plays Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity yet is perceived as being the city's oldest news station and is somehow treated with respect for its minute amount of local news coverage), so, shit. Guess he's a big time Republican. Ease up, man, the Senate still hasn't been decided.

dhex · Posts: 2963

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

LW Joestar wrote:

I am voting purely on the net neutrality issue. Nothing else means anything to me. I realized this the other day.

Maybe if something about file sharing comes up, also.

...

I regularly vote yes on that "required parental notification/consent" thing just because I actually want them to suffer. Seriously.

Oh, I see.

God damn it Joestar, what the fuck is wrong with you.

LW Joestar · Posts: 1358

Mister Toups wrote:

LW Joestar wrote:

I am voting purely on the net neutrality issue. Nothing else means anything to me. I realized this the other day.

Maybe if something about file sharing comes up, also.

...

I regularly vote yes on that "required parental notification/consent" thing just because I actually want them to suffer. Seriously.

Oh, I see.

God damn it Joestar, what the fuck is wrong with you.

^_^

showka · Posts: 994

I spent the 2004 election at a Republican victory party. My girlfriend drug me there because she had to cover it for her reporting class and was sure Kerry would win. It was excruciating, because of my press affiliation I couldn't even argue with anyone and had to sit back and smile as they sat back and regailed me with their personal motivations for becoming the ardent fiends they were.

That night taught me several things: first off, truly hardcore Republicans are entirely delusional, and there'd be no point in trying to ration with them even if I could. I'm sure the hardcore Democrats are the same way... nah, I'm not. There's no way they could be, and anyway I don't have evidence to support that notion. I just put the sentence before last in so I'd appear balanced and non-partisan.

I had a mid-40's lesbian tell me that she voted against Kerry because Senator Edwards had mentioned that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, which she deemed to be disrespectful. I also had a guy in a "look-at-me-I'm-an-intellectual" outfit tell me in a high pitched nasally voice he once had thought he was a Democrat but then reazlied that he was a Republican because he was, quote, a "man's man." Then he kept talking about all of the great literature he read, as if to convince me that on top of his raw manly steele, he also had smarts too. One man spoke to my girlfriend and I for over 40 minutes (I timed this) about his views on Iraq and how some antedote where he got his car scratched up by neighborhood punks that the police and neighbors did nothing about (yet HE spoke out) was a just like the UN / Democrats and Iraq. Then he devolved into yelling about how he was always for Vietnam and his mom was weak and wasn't, and things got crazier from there. Ten minutes in my girlfriend quit taking notes and tried to end the conversation multiple times before we just sat there, mostly not looking at him, for the duration of his tirade.

The second thing I learned that night is Fox news is totally orchestrated bullshit. I mean I knew they stretched bigger issues, but watching them that night it was clear they were just making everything up as they went along to enhance the drama. They made Alaska into a mini-drama about who it might go to yet assigned Ohio to Bush relatively early compared to everyone else. There were actually three TVs on, one set to CBS, ABC, and FOX originally, but by the end of the night the Republicans had decided pure FOX was all they needed, and thus did Brit Hume's horrific visage pour fourth from three big screen TVs at once.

dhex wrote:

that was nyc in 2004 for the most part. everyone's a downer when they lose.

I was just mad after 2004. The realization that the carnival of hell I'd attended the night before had any bearing on reality took a week or so to really hit me, and I'd had so much practice burying my emotions that night it was hard to really feel down about it.

It's probably different because I live in Texas, where there's no hope for anybody winning any Democratic anything ever. When New Yorkers think the nation is moving into a bad election, they cry to their athesist lords "WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO US?" When I feel the nation is moving in a bad direction, I just have to look outside to see the reason why. The reason normally is that people down here always assume Democrats are terrible. Regardless of how shitty things are or whether or not they think Bush is an idiot, the average Texan will have some snide, cliched and often outdated general critic about Democrats ready when questioned about any of them.

dhex · Posts: 2963

aderack · Posts: 5018

James wrote:

LOL REAL PEOPLE SUFFERING WHILE I DOWNLOAD ANIMU AND WONDER WHY THE SHEEPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND ME ;_;

There are not enough fists in the world to punch you clean back into your mother's cunt and then punch her back into your grandfather's balls like so much fucking waste

Oh. Now I understand where that other thread came from.

Go right on ahead, then! I suppose it's justified here.

aderack · Posts: 5018

dhex wrote:

lots of states moving against eminent domain seizures for private use

The California one, anyway, wasn't quite what it sounds like on the surface. In effect what it was was an attempt to classify any governmental interference with real estate as an eminent domain issue -- so if you're a landlord and want to kick out someone with rent control so you can turn his apartment into a condo and earn more money, well. That's none of the government's business! They'll have to pay up, if they've got anything to say. Likewise with environmental issues and etcetera.

Though in principle it sounds nice not to let the gestapo march in and take your shit, it's not really that simple -- not here at least.

dhex · Posts: 2963

the california statute had a bunch of weird shit stapled on it. arizona was pretty straightforward in comparison.

ultimately, the state can still seize your home for a number of reasons beyond private takings; it's just that the notion of private takings is a bit too much for voters, it would seem. that's a good thing, at least in the sense that while people are ok with stealing the property of others, they're not so ok with stealing it for wal-mart. the differences that make a difference i guess.

aderack · Posts: 5018

Yeah. I guess that's not so much a problem here, as SF doesn't even let Wal-Mart (or its like) into the city without a long debate. Result: I think there's a Best Buy or something way down in an industrial nightmare south of Market where someone figured it wouldn't do any harm.

dhex · Posts: 2963

zoning is a strange thing, as you live in the other communist capital of the united states and surely understand.

i.e. wal-mart will never get into new york, and ikea had a big time of it. but ginormous gourmet organic food markets will always be welcomed. i'm sure whole foods/trader joe's is far too right-wing for you guys but the distinction here is always a bit more fashion-conscious. things being a bit more stalinist in nyc, that is.

we do have green markets and incredibly arrogant cyclists, however, so...

artifact · Posts: 86

showka wrote:

The second thing I learned that night is Fox news is totally orchestrated bullshit.

Damn, you just learned that last night? Here, I'll give you a head start on your next epiphany: so is every other American network.

Captain EO · Posts: 371

Does PBS not count as a network? Dhex, don't start talking about them fellating FDR.

dhex · Posts: 2963

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

dhex wrote:

i.e. wal-mart will never get into new york, and ikea had a big time of it. but ginormous gourmet organic food markets will always be welcomed. i'm sure whole foods/trader joe's is far too right-wing for you guys but the distinction here is always a bit more fashion-conscious. things being a bit more stalinist in nyc, that is.

Wal-mart has actually been trying to buy the block I live on in Brooklyn. According to a few birdies in the neighborhood, they are maybe/sorta/kinda responsible for two fires around the block which for whatever reason, the police and fire department have flat out refused to investigate.

Apparently, everyone on my block was willing to sell, with the exception of two home owners, and my roommate happens to be one of them. Hence why our neighbors fucking hate us with a passion.

showka · Posts: 994

Don't sell. You guys are like the real life Goonies.

Yeti · Posts: 10

finnagain wrote:

Oregon has a litany of "AMENDS CONSTITUTION" laws on the ballot this election. I'm usually pretty leery of voting for an amendment to the constitution -- and since we're one of the states that already banned gay marriage, legalized medicinal marijuana, banned public smoking, and enacted urban-growth restrictions -- issues worth amending in a state constitution, for better or worse -- none of the amendments seem like very good ideas to me.

I did vote to maintain countywide library services, although that measure seems doomed to fail here. Which is a shame because I use EBSCO a lot. That'd be the first thing to go.

That's a dirty lie. We haven't voted to ban public smoking. Only a few of our districts have it banned in restaurants and what not (Corvallis, Eugene). Although Mother Portlandia will be joining them soon. We did have that one interesting thing if we should have to notify parents for abortions (I voted NO!). Also we had.. yeah nothing else very interesting. Besides the medical niceness which will probably not pass because the damn southern part of our state hates taxes. Also we had the stupid judge thing.

Also, KEATING FOR THE WIN (except he has no chance so instead KULINGOWSKI).

extralife · Posts: 3316

FortNinety wrote:

extralife wrote:

the vinculum gate wrote:

WE WON

Nobody won shit tonight, really.

Man that's deep.

It isn't meant to be deep. It's meant to be true.

How did the democrats win this election? By trying to be republicans! Either that, or by saying that Iraq is a mess, which is true, but conveinently forgetting that over nintey percent of democrats voted to go to war. And not a single one of them has offered a solution, and, likely, won't try to anytime soon.

showka · Posts: 994

Kerry has already proposed multiple solutions that have been voted against, many of which involved setting a time table (oh nos!) and then getting the hell out. You can disagree with them but it's not true to say "not a single" has offered a solution. Hell, just kicking out Rumsfeld may not be a solution but it will solve part of the problem.

And the "authorization to use force" vote was just something the Republicans staged so they could win the 2002 elections. Part of it entailed that the inspectors be given enough time to finish. Bush violated it anyway, so you can't blame the Democrats for giving him the authorization since their authorization was dependent on a clause that was never satisified, and Bush just ended up doing what he would've done in the first place. The vote was just meant to fuck the Democrats both ways - to make them lame ducks if they voted against it, and to make them unable to critizice the war later when the vote was spun.

The whole "Democrats in Republicans clothing" theory is something I'd previously only heard about from Fox news.

extralife · Posts: 3316

By "from fox news" you really mean "from salon"

This is what I see. I don't particularly care if Salon's pundits are doing damage control. And yes, I read Salon.

I mean, look, this is better than it would be if the Republicans continued with their cart blanche lets fuck everything up stance, but I didn't vote for a single democrat yesterday, and there's a reason for that. They aren't much better; I'd much rather vote for someone than against someone else.

showka · Posts: 994

Damage control? Me no understand you.

I don't want to get into an endless debate about this, but I don't understand how any party or politics could be only a "little better" than Bush right now. I mean, fuck. The guy has done almost every thing he could wrong. 9/11 on his watch, Iraq as his idea, led on his watch, the national debt increased by several trillion dollars, a botched attempt to destroy social secrurity... How could anyone who lived through the last six years and reads Salon think Gore or Kerry would've been "not much better?"

I'm not really sure why people think the Democrats don't "stand for things." They all have platforms, and they all have ideas they push try to push forward, even though they, until recently, had no power. So what things are these things you guys talking about standing for? Broad based isms or idealogies?

GcDiaz · Posts: 1057

showka wrote:

Kerry has already proposed multiple solutions that have been voted against, many of which involved setting a time table (oh nos!) and then getting the hell out.

That is no solution. That's telling the sheeple what they want to hear. Think about it a little more.

showka · Posts: 994

GcDiaz wrote:

showka wrote:

Kerry has already proposed multiple solutions that have been voted against, many of which involved setting a time table (oh nos!) and then getting the hell out.

That is no solution. That's telling the sheeple what they want to hear. Think about it a little more.

Should it last forever? The fact is if we leave Iraq and the place falls apart it'll be because we didn't put a government in place that had any support from its people. Kerry was asked by some interviewer what would happen if we left and then Iraq descended into chaos, to which he bluntly said "So what that would happen anyway," which is true. I really don't think we're working any magic there right now, we're just holding the shit hole together like band aid. So either we'll get it right or we won't. Or maybe, just maybe, we'll stay so long and the leadership of the war effort will change hands so many times we'll eventually find someone who knows what they're doing and they'll bring peace to Iraq, although they'd probably need more troops to do it by that point. But I think this last possibility is a costly fantasy, and we shoudln't waste time, lives and money indulging it.

the vinculum gate · Posts: 2868

is extralife one of those guys who think politicians shouldn't change their minds/admit their mistakes?

also sheeple should be wordfiltered into 'don't actually listen to anything i'm saying.' at least my brain filters it to that.

zebadayus · Posts: 672

Shit I forgot to vote.

What a bummer. I was going to vote for some cool stuff too.

GcDiaz · Posts: 1057

showka wrote:

GcDiaz wrote:

showka wrote:

Kerry has already proposed multiple solutions that have been voted against, many of which involved setting a time table (oh nos!) and then getting the hell out.

That is no solution. That's telling the sheeple what they want to hear. Think about it a little more.

Should it last forever? The fact is if we leave Iraq and the place falls apart it'll be because we didn't put a government in place that had any support from its people.

Exactly, and that is what we need to do. Understand, when it comes down to it people just want to feel safe (just look at the overwhelming initial support for Patriot 1). Train the current Iraqi forces to the level where they can actually provide that security, and the people will support their new government. They won't need us anymore. Only politicians have the balls to say we can do this according to any "deadline", and only wishful thinkers can believe it.

Sheeple = a little term I use for anyone who'd rather follow than think and analyze for him/herself. Filter it any fucking way you want.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

sheeple is a retarded term used by retarded conspiracy theorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

Anyway, as great as the democratic win is, they still don't have much say over what happens in Iraq. But getting rid of Rummy is always a good start. Though the Democrats might have some control over where the money is going. It's been 3 years and they are still having problems with utilities. that alone would turn me violent.

Captain EO · Posts: 371

GcDiaz wrote:

Sheeple = a little term I use for anyone who'd rather follow than think and analyze for him/herself. Filter it any fucking way you want.

So how's the view from the ivory tower?

GcDiaz · Posts: 1057

Captain EO wrote:

GcDiaz wrote:

Sheeple = a little term I use for anyone who'd rather follow than think and analyze for him/herself. Filter it any fucking way you want.

So how's the view from the ivory tower?

I honestly wouldn't know. Quit pigeonholing me.

extralife · Posts: 3316

showka wrote:

Damage control? Me no understand you.

I don't want to get into an endless debate about this, but I don't understand how any party or politics could be only a "little better" than Bush right now. I mean, fuck. The guy has done almost every thing he could wrong. 9/11 on his watch, Iraq as his idea, led on his watch, the national debt increased by several trillion dollars, a botched attempt to destroy social secrurity... How could anyone who lived through the last six years and reads Salon think Gore or Kerry would've been "not much better?"

I'm not really sure why people think the Democrats don't "stand for things." They all have platforms, and they all have ideas they push try to push forward, even though they, until recently, had no power. So what things are these things you guys talking about standing for? Broad based isms or idealogies?

I never said anything about Kerry or Gore, so lets not go there. I think Gore would've been a fine president, but I don't think he'd have been a popular one. Kerry...well, I don't know about Kerry. Oh well.

My previous post was a little confusing, I must say. What I really meant be Salon doing "damage control" is that this isn't the kind of sweeping referendum on the state of this country that people are making it out to be, I don't think. People weren't really voting for anything, so much as they were saying Iraq was a bad idea (memo: it was always a bad idea, but you voted for Bush to continue it two years ago. Good job). They weren't voting for democratic ideals--they were voting for an able bodied person that isn't affiliated with Bush or Delay to come out and say "Iraq was bad, corruption is bad...and I still don't like gays or abortion." The only issue I saw anyone voting FOR, nation wide, was the stem cell thing, and that was most probably only because a thirty second TV spot of a dude they used to see in movies.

This isn't '80 or '94, is what I'm trying to say. The democrats don't represent a clear change so much as they represent a hope that maybe our government doesn't have to be this incompetent. That's not really something I can get behind with a swelled chest and renewed vigor.

On the other hand, Rummy being canned is fantastic news. Hopefully he takes his neocon DoD cronnies with him, and someone locks Cheney in a closet for the next few years.

dhex · Posts: 2963

the ivory steeple sheeple were fucking with my feeble people.

the smugness of conspiracy theorists is pretty nifty up close. especially if you get them on a twin thread of "2012" and "maritime banking laws are the true rule of america." i pity the sheeple who don't get that. it's so obvious if you open your eyes to the truth, ruth.

Sawtooth · Posts: 2350

oh god sheeple

we did class critique in lithography and some guy made a print of a bunch of sheep weaving in and out of a flag with the TWIN TOWERS in the background and all that ridiculous hamfisted cliched bullcrap. I would have stood up and started yelling if I didn't have enough enemies in that classroom :(

GcDiaz · Posts: 1057

Jesus Christ, I've been using that fucking word, with the meaning outlined above, since 2000! I DO NOT CARE how it has been misappropriated, but I wish some of you would think of the historical record before guessing my intent.

Psiga · Posts: 3990

dhex wrote:

i'm sure whole foods/trader joe's is far too right-wing for you guys but the distinction here is always a bit more fashion-conscious.

I need to go to my local Whole Foods soon -- they've got some excellent mango gelato, and I'd also like to take pictures of the place with my newish camera. Also have to go back to Trader Joe's soon! Almost out of chocolate, and my favorite kind for the price is their giant "Pound Plus" bar of belgian chocolate with almonds.

On the topic of Wal-Mart, has anyone 'round here shopped at the new Wal-Mart grocery stores? They're awesome, have disgustingly low prices, and every day, rain or shine, there are picketers in front.

Maybe I should look into what they're picketing about some day! One of the signs that I read said something about how Wal-Mart costs the nation millions and millions in welfare for the people put out of jobs -- which, to me, seems like a nice use of tax dollars. It's like tax money going toward discounts on groceries. If we had any reason to believe that the government would reduce my taxes if I did not support welfare-necessitating business practices, that would be another story.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

GcDiaz wrote:

Jesus Christ, I've been using that fucking word, with the meaning outlined above, since 2000! I DO NOT CARE how it has been misappropriated, but I wish some of you would think of the historical record before guessing my intent.

You're the one who misappropriated it.