The wrong side must not win
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 17:12
VIEWED: 8309
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
But beyond all that, it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.
Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.
But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.
I think you've got the wrong impression of things, Byte. You say you see them as being "in cahoots", while what I see is two sides being funded by the same people, and then being egged on to fight each other. The corporation has bet on both sides, and is going to win no matter what, but that doesn't mean the two sides agree with each other or like each other.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.
But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.
the system you have, is the system you have and both sides enter into its machinations, because frankly they have no choice. I think the biggest issue is how much money you have to spend to get elected as pres, which means either you have to have a very deep back pocket, or you have to find those who do to back you. In which case, you have the powerful and the wealthy's interests always at the forefront. Yes, I believe this too.
And that is not a problem with CANDIDATES and PARTIES, but with CAMPAIGN FINANCE.
We can pass laws regarding these things.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, yeah, poor misunderstood CTS.
Except this is how it REALLY went - with quotes- and not the way you would like us to think...
Quote:
Yeah well, you think Somalia is a pristine example of the greatness that is anarchy.- Kiki
Um, no. I do not.-CTS
Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish. So you'll pardon me if I don't take YOUR judgment as an example to follow. -Signy
Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did. Signy
I absolutely wish. In fact, I dare you to find that thread. I absolutely NEVER said any such thing. I DARE you to prove I did. No end to your outright lies is there?- CTS
Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread. It may take me a week because I'll be out of town on business, but in the meantime, in that thread you started with a story about how your husband had traveled to that part of the world. Ringing any bells now?-Signy
Yeah, you do that. (Snicker. Snort.) You'll need to invent more lies, cause I never ever said any such thing. -CTS
HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of... http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743 -Signy
Great. You proved I said that Somalia is NOT an example of anarchy. Thank you for your support. It is so rare that it almost makes up for the lie you and Kiki told about me in the first place.
CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered.-Signy
So you accused me of lying right off the bat, not once but three times and YOUR panties are in a twist??? And FREM thinks I'M sympathy-baiting?? Wow. If anyone owes anyone an apology, I think you and Frem both owe me one... From YOU something along the lines of... I'm sorry I accused you of lying, but thanks for posting the link so we can ALL see what I wrote would be appropriate. And from FREM, something along the lines of I'm sorry I also accused you of lying, despite all evidence to the contrary would be fair. But seeing as you like to martyr yourself (OH POOR ME!!) and Frem buys into it, I won't expect it from either of you.
Back to the original discussion at-hand. I'm with Kwicko on this one. If you absolutely FORCE me to choose between more evil and less evil, I will choose less evil. But fortunately, those aren't our only choices. Dreamtrove (remember DT?) once said that the best time to influence parties is in the primaries. If the two party candidates are not to your liking, vote third-party. NOT voting is truly a waste, as political parties correctly discount non-voters. Or you can run for office yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um, you're MISREMEMBERING again. Read what you just posted, you misremembering bitch.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So you accused me of lying right off the bat,
I accused you of lying AFTER you refused to accept my correction of Kiki's misremembrance. Which is to say, after you accused me of lying first.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uhm, you did. See the post WITH QUOTES.
But why should you believe your own lying eyes? damn them!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS... Wow, so I refuse to accept your word about something???
STOP THE PRESSES!!
And that automatically means I "accuse you of "lying"??
PRINT NEW HEADLINES!
So...can I provide you with a cross so you can crucify yourself in front of us, and tell us (once again) "OH POOR ME!!" ? 
There are several reasons why two people might have a disagreement over what was said:
One- or both- parties misremember what was said. Given the problems with eyewitness testimony, that happens a lot.
One party was not clear in representing, or the other party was not clear in comprehending, the content of the statement- or both. This ALSO happens a lot. Now, I have not actually had time to devote to parsing through every single thing you said in that thread -it twas four pages- but you said a lot, and one of the things that you said was than Somalia might be a great example of anarchy if only everyone was armed. Given that a lot of people spend a lot of time warring in that nation already, it seems as "more guns" is not a realistic answer.
One or both parties DELIBERATELY misrepresents what the other party said. Given that (in this case) the other party offered to go back in history and find the fortuitously recorded statements... do you really credit this as a possibility?
Usually, when I come to complete loggerheads over who said what, I tend to work through the first two possibilities first because that is where the problem usually is. That's assuming the other party isn't whinging and crying about how they're being "lied" about. At THAT point, in non-legal circumstances, I tend to resort to "FUCK YOU" - and with good reason. 
Oh, and BTW FREM...?
"Science" is not a priesthood nor is it a canon. It is an activity linking evidence to theory. If you want to be anti-science, just remember that means also being "anti-evidence". After you....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...We need a trainwreck emoticon.
Invectives were said on both sides, and it doesn't really matter who started it. CTS was not incorrect about what she said about Somalia, which is the original point of contention. All previous arguments are not part of this conversation. No one expects anyone to apologize. There does not need to be a new point of contention about who is lying or dishonest or not; it's just escalating the bad blood into another flame war.
I would suggest everyone takes a breather. You don't have to follow my advice, but I don't think it will do any of you any good to keep going.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, but who started it?
Invectives were said on both sides
I think I showed remarkable forbearance, considering. I truly detest CTS, with good reason.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I said, the only thing that matters here is the outcome, and this can have absolutely no good end for either of you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
Just to refresh your memory of the actual posts:
Quote:
Yeah well, you think Somalia is a pristine example of the greatness that is anarchy.- Kiki
Um, no. I do not.-CTS
Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish. So you'll pardon me if I don't take YOUR judgment as an example to follow. -Signy
Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did. Signy
I absolutely wish. In fact, I dare you to find that thread. I absolutely NEVER said any such thing. I DARE you to prove I did. NO END TO YOUR OUTRIGHT LIES is there?- CTS
Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread. It may take me a week because I'll be out of town on business, but in the meantime, in that thread you started with a story about how your husband had traveled to that part of the world. Ringing any bells now?-Signy
Yeah, you do that. (SNICKER. SNORT.) You'll need to INVENT MORE LIES, cause I never ever said any such thing. -CTS
HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of... http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743 -Signy
Great. You proved I said that Somalia is NOT an example of anarchy. Thank you for your support. IT IS SO RARE THAT IT ALMOST MAKES UP FOR THE LIE you and Kiki told about me in the first place.
CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered.-Signy
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME