In all seriousness, the reason I troll is merely to point out the incredible hypocrisy on this board. It's so easy it makes me laugh. Like I said, 99% of you are great. I just hope that I held a mirror to the remaining 1%. And I apologize for distracting the rest of you. I sincerely do.
Kilarney, stop teasing. Artboy and Joe, stop reacting.
Kilarney, I don't remember you ever being this incendiary before. I don't know what prompted this, but seriously, I'm sorry I'd get mad about the Republican Candidates. They frustrate me, but I don't want bad things to happen to them. I changed the Palin thread just for you.
Future for McCain? This will probably be his last term as a Senator.
The real concern is whether or not Palin becomes the driving force of the Republican party or if a REAL Republican will show up and reform the party from within.
A landslide win for Obama is the best thing for the future of the Republican party. Hopefully those in power within the party will take a careful look at why they lost (and why they used to win) and clean themselves up.
Kate - It is their choice to let people make that association or not. Likewise, it is our choice whether to judge people by their own actions or the people they are associated with, no matter how loosely. If you assume that all republicans are nutjobs by association based on the actions of a few, you are as bad as the people who voted for McCain because Obama is black. How about the people who said Kay Hagan was a godless heathen because she accepted a private donation from a man who happened to be part of an Athiest organization? These kinds of associations are really not logical. Just because you don't actively oppose something does not mean you support it.
Kilarney, stop teasing. Artboy and Joe, stop reacting.
ButMoooOOOooOOOOom! He keeps posting onmyside of the forum! Make him stop!
I agree with Nuri. It's like blaming Obama for what his minister said.
No, it isn't, because Obama denounced his minister, LEADERSHIP in the party and many of its members are not denouncing and decrying these people! They are either ignoring them or inciting them to be bigots. It is a huge difference. EDIT: Associations do matter and how you deal with those associations matter even more. I am not talking about happening to know a bigot or a terrorist makes you a bigot or a terrorist. I am saying that the Republicans have allowed this to be a major voice in their party. If someone subscribes to the party, that is part of what they are subscribing to. The followers need to tell the leadership that is unacceptable and ruining the party. Many did last night by not voting for McCain, but they need to back it up with more action.
I agree with Nuri. It's like blaming Obama for what his minister said.
You have it backwards.
UmWhut?
The nut-jobs are choosing to support a candidate who may (or may not) support them. You can't judge someone based a minority of those who choose to support them. You can judge someone based on the people THEY choose to support or hang out with.
Example 1: A crazy racist donates money to a politician. This has no reflection on the politician. Example 2: A politician endorses some crazy racist and uses him to raise money. This has a serious negative reflection on that politician.
It's all about who is the follower and who is the leader. You can't blame a leader for what a small wacky minority of his followers do but you can blame a follower who chooses to follow a wacky leader.
Thanks for elaborating. Good point. I don't believe she was looking at it as Obama being a follower of the Rev. I think it was more from the point that one of his associates came on like a crazy.
I agree with Nuri. It's like blaming Obama for what his minister said.
No, it isn't, because Obama denounced his minister, LEADERSHIP in the party and many of its members are not denouncing and decrying these people! They are either ignoring them or inciting them to be bigots. It is a huge difference. EDIT: Associations do matter and how you deal with those associations matter even more. I am not talking about happening to know a bigot or a terrorist makes you a bigot or a terrorist. I am saying that the Republicans have allowed this to be a major voice in their party. If someone subscribes to the party, that is part of what they are subscribing to. The followers need to tell the leadership that is unacceptable and ruining the party. Many did last night by not voting for McCain, but they need to back it up with more action.
So, you have to actively denounce a radical, or else you're one of them?
EDIT: Reread the comment. Really though, other than voting, what other action can members of a political party take? You can't tell them that they can't express their opinion.
I agree with Nuri. It's like blaming Obama for what his minister said.
No, it isn't, because Obama denounced his minister, LEADERSHIP in the party and many of its members are not denouncing and decrying these people! They are either ignoring them or inciting them to be bigots. It is a huge difference. EDIT: Associations do matter and how you deal with those associations matter even more. I am not talking about happening to know a bigot or a terrorist makes you a bigot or a terrorist. I am saying that the Republicans have allowed this to be a major voice in their party. If someone subscribes to the party, that is part of what they are subscribing to. The followers need to tell the leadership that is unacceptable and ruining the party. Many did last night by not voting for McCain, but they need to back it up with more action.
So, you have to actively denounce a radical, or else you're one of them?
I think there's a sepctrum. If your followers boo the other guy, it's probably not required to disavow them. If they yell "Kill him!" at one of your rallies, you should probably say something.
I think there's a sepctrum. If your followers boo the other guy, it's probably not required to disavow them. If they yell "Kill him!" at one of your rallies, you should probably say something.
No. You shouldn't even dignify it with a response.
I think there's a sepctrum. If your followers boo the other guy, it's probably not required to disavow them. If they yell "Kill him!" at one of your rallies, you should probably say something.
No. You shouldn't even dignify it with a response.
I respectfully disagree. The type of person that would yell "Kill him!" is likely to take silence as an endorsement. You should always be very careful about statements that threaten violence. Those statements should have been condemned.
I think there's a sepctrum. If your followers boo the other guy, it's probably not required to disavow them. If they yell "Kill him!" at one of your rallies, you should probably say something.
No. You shouldn't even dignify it with a response.
I respectfully disagree. The type of person that would yell "Kill him!" is likely to take silence as an endorsement. You should always be very careful about statements that threaten violence. Those statements should have been condemned.
I would concur on that point. When it gets to that point of extremism, you should call someone out and say, "Hey, cut that the fuck out. You're ruining my party."
Of course, doing that would have sunk his chances of getting elected. It's a shitty game, that politicking.
What I'm hoping to see now is John McCain rescuing his political career by separating himself from the radical elements of his party. Maybe trying to spearhead a "sensible Republican" movement or something. The nutjobs can all rally around Palin.
I would concur on that point. When it gets to that point of extremism, you should call someone out and say, "Hey, cut that the fuck out. You're ruining my party."
If they come up to you and say it, you codemn it. When speaking to a large audience, I have found you should never directly address any individual's outbursts. It encourages more people to yell out in hopes of a direct response. It derails your performance, and throws off the rest of the audience. It's the same for any performer. An Opera singer should keep singing, and let security deal with a heckler, no matter how bad. A magician should keep doing tricks even if people yell out the secrets. A professional athlete should keep playing their hardest through all the boos. It's what a professional does.
When did anyone say "kill him?" at a McCain rally.
Google is your friend.
Also, I agree with Scott - interrupting one's speech in such a manner is highly undesirable. However, that does not prevent you from publicly condemning such behavior in your next speech.
I would concur on that point. When it gets to that point of extremism, you should call someone out and say, "Hey, cut that the fuck out. You're ruining my party."
If they come up to you and say it, you codemn it. When speaking to a large audience, I have found you should never directly address any individual's outbursts. It encourages more people to yell out in hopes of a direct response. It derails your performance, and throws off the rest of the audience. It's the same for any performer. An Opera singer should keep singing, and let security deal with a heckler, no matter how bad. A magician should keep doing tricks even if people yell out the secrets. A professional athlete should keep playing their hardest through all the boos. It's what a professional does.
True. I would encourage denouncing it at a later time, though. You should still get the message out there and say "I don't support this."
In this case, interrupting and speaking out would have been a Gekiga moment. McCain and Palin chose numerous times not to speak out, when they could have made a powerful statement. This tacit acceptance and lack of Gekiga spirit belies their better natures.
Comments
Could we get back on some sort of topic.
Seriously. Don't bother posting any responses.
I'll be back when the need arises.
In all seriousness, the reason I troll is merely to point out the incredible hypocrisy on this board. It's so easy it makes me laugh. Like I said, 99% of you are great. I just hope that I held a mirror to the remaining 1%. And I apologize for distracting the rest of you. I sincerely do.
As for the real topic: McCain lost. Yay! What do you think his career holds for him (what little of it is left)?
Kilarney, stop teasing. Artboy and Joe, stop reacting.
Kilarney, I don't remember you ever being this incendiary before. I don't know what prompted this, but seriously, I'm sorry I'd get mad about the Republican Candidates. They frustrate me, but I don't want bad things to happen to them. I changed the Palin thread just for you.
The real concern is whether or not Palin becomes the driving force of the Republican party or if a REAL Republican will show up and reform the party from within.
A landslide win for Obama is the best thing for the future of the Republican party. Hopefully those in power within the party will take a careful look at why they lost (and why they used to win) and clean themselves up.
EDIT: Associations do matter and how you deal with those associations matter even more. I am not talking about happening to know a bigot or a terrorist makes you a bigot or a terrorist. I am saying that the Republicans have allowed this to be a major voice in their party. If someone subscribes to the party, that is part of what they are subscribing to. The followers need to tell the leadership that is unacceptable and ruining the party. Many did last night by not voting for McCain, but they need to back it up with more action.
Heh, you picked that one up pretty quick. Indeed, before I posted this.
Example 1: A crazy racist donates money to a politician. This has no reflection on the politician.
Example 2: A politician endorses some crazy racist and uses him to raise money. This has a serious negative reflection on that politician.
It's all about who is the follower and who is the leader. You can't blame a leader for what a small wacky minority of his followers do but you can blame a follower who chooses to follow a wacky leader.
That is why I said she got it backwards.
I'll respond more when I get back from lunch.
EDIT: Reread the comment. Really though, other than voting, what other action can members of a political party take? You can't tell them that they can't express their opinion.
Of course, doing that would have sunk his chances of getting elected. It's a shitty game, that politicking.
What I'm hoping to see now is John McCain rescuing his political career by separating himself from the radical elements of his party. Maybe trying to spearhead a "sensible Republican" movement or something. The nutjobs can all rally around Palin.
Also, I agree with Scott - interrupting one's speech in such a manner is highly undesirable.
However, that does not prevent you from publicly condemning such behavior in your next speech.
This poor old lady and her brain which was filled with lies and fear.