Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not playing a know-it-all...I'm merely calling into question your "know-it-all"-ness. I may not be correct in my assertions, as I'm not the biggest proponent of caring about politics as some people here are, but I'm just expressing my personal view of the silliness of all of this. If that makes me "dumb", so be it; I'm over it on this forum. Y'all are a bunch of random armchair philosophers anyway, so it barely matters to me if I'm considered stupid by you

Question away, but at least try a little better to understand what I'm saying before attacking it.

Are said politicians really honest, or are even their voting records engineered in such a way to make them seem honest to people like you guys who consider yourselves undeceived by the obvious corruption of the Fed? Sure, statistics tell some of the story, but they don't tell it all,

Well yeah, they don't tell everything, but they certainly tell more than campaign promises.

Also, I never claimed that voting records can't be deceptive, but I think comparing a guy's voting record to how much money and favors he gets from which special interest groups is a pretty good way to tell if something's fishy.

and I'm willing to bet that even if Ron Paul (ew) got into office, he'd do just as much ridiculous shit as a major-party candidate and would piss off basically everyone in the country with his antics (which you just so happen to agree with).

You're confusing me with Dakryn (again). I am not a die-hard Ron Paul supporter, and I certainly don't agree with all of his positions - I just think he's a pretty honest politician. To suggest that he would be 'just as corrupt' as Obama in the office of President is a pretty wild claim that I suspect you merely want to believe for the sake of saving your argument. Got any evidence to back that up with?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How could I provide evidence for that? It hasn't happened and (most likely) is not going to happen. I'm just saying I'm willing to bet that due to the power the president has, despite his pristine voting record, he's likely to change if put into the White House, and the change would probably be for the worse. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone, I'm just making a statement (impossible to back up as it is).

You already admitted that you figured Obama would be amazing and honest way back when, right? So you've obviously changed your opinion now, as anyone can see. Do you really think that if you were backing a 3rd party candidate (pretty much all of whom tend to be crazy motherfuckers who people who aren't versed in politics and who spend all day doing research about corruption and none about how politics have ever actually worked ) and he got elected, it wouldn't be similar to how you now feel about Obama? He seemed pretty honest, and his voting record wasn't really terrible. He has always been great at behind the scenes manipulating and whatnot. Why are your treasured "3rd party candidates" any better than he is? They're still human too, they want to get in there so they can do their own thing with the country. It's not benevolent, nor is it honest. They're politicians. They are in this for the power and for the deception. If they weren't, they'd be artists.

 

[skeptik]

No, they would be armchair philosophers.

Also, gift cards are the most stupid thing in the world ever.

 

[Dak]

How could I provide evidence for that? It hasn't happened and (most likely) is not going to happen. I'm just saying I'm willing to bet that due to the power the president has, despite his pristine voting record, he's likely to change if put into the White House, and the change would probably be for the worse. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone, I'm just making a statement (impossible to back up as it is).

Well I won't argue against that possiblity. However, most candidates with a prior voting record will campagin on a platform that conflicts with their former voting record to mirror what is perceived as current popular opinion. Then once in office, they will continue doing as they have been. Obama being a perfect example.Also, cabinet appointees are an excellent early indicator for a president if anything has changed.

and his voting record wasn't really terrible

Anyway, onto some other news:

Pentagon looking at ways to find problems in the ranks

Another "squeaky wheel gets the grease" situation on the surface. Never mind that Hasan's peers and superiors knew Hasan had been openly anti-US for a while, but couldn't do anything because of "political correctness".

Most bigger "shops" in the military have that "one guy". The social outcast who hides in the corner and talks to no one, and everyone makes jokes about them coming into work with a gun. Basically never happens, and that's on the enlisted side. it's not like any incidents like this will come "out of the blue". There are always "red flags", and it's not that they are missed. They are ignored, and for good reason. Oddness is not a reason for suspicion, as contrary to human nature as that is.

Direct threats and insinuations are reason for action, and there doesn't need to be some sort of new program to find the proverbial bright flashing light and loudspeaker.

The Pentagon's action falls in line with military and government SOP though. When confronted with any kind of situation that can be cast in a negative light, just do/change something, regardless of whether previous SOP's had failed, and how ineffective and ridiculous the new program is, and tell the media it's being handled with utmost care by expert professionals.

It's like with the suicide problem in the military. Do they look at actually changing the conditions that facilitate high suicide rates? No. They sit everyone down all day on a regular basis to watch anti suicide power points and videos. How fucking stupid and pointless is that and what a waste of manpower for a day. But it checks off a box on a to do list and the suicides continue. While the Pentagon throws it's hands up and says "But they received the best anti-suicide training possible! We don't know why it's happening."

They know why and they don't give a damn other than that it's one less body available to die overseas for corporate interest.

 

[Dak]

Stop Withholding Taxes

Whether or not you agree with income taxation or not, the article covers a really good quick hit list of government theft and waste that is (obviously) just a tip of the iceberg.

You can either plan to do something about being robbed or sit back and continue to take it up the ass while smiling and laughing at "armchair philosophers". I don't enjoy economic theft and rape so I use this soapbox.

Bankers protest 9/11 trials in NY

Yeah, who cares about the human right to a fair trial.

 

[skeptik]

Do you honestly think any person in the world not benefiting from government waste supports government waste? Or that it's news? You don't need to preach to the choir about that.

 

[Dak]

Do you honestly think any person in the world not benefiting from government waste supports government waste? Or that it's news? You don't need to preach to the choir about that.

Because one person a choir makes.
My commentary was aimed at the sure to follow "But we need the taxes to fund all the things you enjoy blah blah".
Keep smiling.

 

[skeptik]

I didn't even comment on taxes at all, so get the fuck off of your high horse with your fucking "keep smiling" bullshit. Your commentary referred to government waste, and I referred to the fact that only an idiot would not have a problem with government waste. At which point was I disagreeing with you there?

And I'm the asshole.

 

[RedinTheSky]

Oddly enough I find that the Thomas Jefferson quotes are some of the most relevant information out of the Infowars stuff.

 

[Dak]

I didn't even comment on taxes at all.

So obviously that part wasn't aimed at you. Stop trying to force a fight.
Making snide comments at any whistle-blowing is all you do in these threads, and based off what you say here, that is all you do offline as well, if even that.

You haven't even been around much on any of this stuff but you suddenly assume I was attacking you. The keep smiling was an attack aimed at your apparent indifference to being economically assraped (since you decided to butt in with a "YA DER").

Don't argue you aren't indifferent, for indifference = inaction, since thought without action may as well not exist.

 

[skeptik]

You fucking quoted me you dipshit.

You're also an idiot making idiotic assumptions about my supposedly held beliefs, but that's nothing new.

God you're such a fucking moron. I hope you get raped.

 

[Cythraul]

dodens, why are you so angry all the time?

 

[skeptik]

I'm annoyed right now that Dakryn is being a fucking snarky jackass and using red herrings to insult me. Kind of like how you get when people do that to you.

 

[Cythraul]

ok

 

[Dak]

You fucking quoted me you dipshit.

You're also an idiot making idiotic assumptions about my supposedly held beliefs, but that's nothing new.

God you're such a fucking moron. I hope you get raped.

I apologize. I assumed it would be obvious to someone so quick to point out the obvious that the "sure to follow" wasn't including you as a contributor. I should have worded it more clearly. Happy?

I do not and have not actively supported any politician or pin-pointed myself on any particular dot on the political spectrum, and I don't intend to start doing so.

Statements like this one made by you over the course of time I have been on this board lead me to make a statement attacking your position of doing nothing but bash people who attempt to do anything, Edit: while at the same time claiming the system is broken. The system as laid out originally is not broken. The problem is it isn't followed.

 

[skeptik]

What the fuck is it that you're attempting to do? Are you fixing the problems? I make no apologies for viewing the political game from a more pragmatic than ideological point of view.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Sorry, work got a little busy over here. Back to the shitfest:

How could I provide evidence for that? It hasn't happened and (most likely) is not going to happen. I'm just saying I'm willing to bet that due to the power the president has, despite his pristine voting record, he's likely to change if put into the White House, and the change would probably be for the worse. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone, I'm just making a statement (impossible to back up as it is).

If we really cared we could just research several past Presidents (or really any kind of high-profile elected official) and how their pre-election voting records compared to their post-election ones. I'm not really going to bother taking a side on this question, because I don't need to - it's clearly possible for someone to run for office without making exaggerated bullshit claims that aren't backed by their voting record, and to act with a shred of ethical courage once in office. You're the one going out of your way to assert that this is most likely impossible for any human being to manage, so maybe you should actually look up someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich and tell me how wildly inconsistent you think their stated positions and their voting records are.

You already admitted that you figured Obama would be amazing and honest way back when, right? So you've obviously changed your opinion now, as anyone can see. Do you really think that if you were backing a 3rd party candidate (pretty much all of whom tend to be crazy motherfuckers who people who aren't versed in politics and who spend all day doing research about corruption and none about how politics have ever actually worked ) and he got elected, it wouldn't be similar to how you now feel about Obama? He seemed pretty honest, and his voting record wasn't really terrible. He has always been great at behind the scenes manipulating and whatnot. Why are your treasured "3rd party candidates" any better than he is? They're still human too, they want to get in there so they can do their own thing with the country. It's not benevolent, nor is it honest. They're politicians. They are in this for the power and for the deception. If they weren't, they'd be artists.

I wasn't looking very carefully for signs of corruption/corruptibility in him last year, and I think I even acknowledged that he had a slightly shady history, though I didn't think that mattered so much compared to his stated positions. After seeing how thoroughly his administration has adopted some of the worst practices of the Bush administration, I've had to reconsider the comparative importance of stated positions and personal character.

I think I can say with confidence that Ralph Nader would have been a better alternative to Obama for liberals in terms of personal character. Nader has spent much of his life advocating and promoting consumer rights, and he's also not afraid to risk his political reputation with controversial statements (remember his "Uncle Tom for the corporations" remark on Obama after the election?).

It's really sad that so many people look at the quirks and unorthodox views of minor/independent candidates and conclude from there that these guys are "unqualified" for any positions of importance. Ron Paul has been in the House of Representatives forever, and the worst you could probably accuse him of is supporting tax cuts during deficit times (but then again, that's probably what a lot of his constituents elect him for). Even if he's a little too hardcore libertarian, how is that worse than being merely a puppet of corporate interests?

And as I said, it's pretty clear that there are politicians with a boatload more political courage than Obama, so I see no substantial basis in your blanket condemnation of all politicians as roughly equally corrupt. That's a poor excuse of an argument for there being "no other choice" than someone like Obama.

 

[Dak]

What the fuck is it that you're attempting to do? Are you fixing the problems?

What am I doing? Attempting to foster conversation about real issues wherever I can for one, as opposed to just making small talk.

Also doing the most important thing anyone can do which is make sure their own "household" is managed properly first. Since most Americans are in massive amounts of debt it makes sense that the country is as well, since we the people as a collective didn't see the danger.

And finally, voting based off ideals, not compromise. That is how to make votes actually count. Regardless whether an evil or lesser of evils wins, every vote for a "non-evil" is a voice that is being heard. Or in the case of a non-evil not being on a ballot, silence (in the form of not voting) can be deafening, if there is enough of it.

I make no apologies for viewing the political game from a more pragmatic than ideological point of view.

So what was wrong with my assumption?

Anyway, I am much more curious about what you consider a pragmatic point of view. If it's the "anything is better than nothing" approach, that isn't pragmatism.

I prefer to get you to state some opinions on this thing instead of floating around on some foggy intellectual cloud laughing at us mortals. If you think I am being "snarky" on this, oh well. That's the kettle calling the pot black.

 

[skeptik]

Pragmatic meaning looking at things that are actually possible and going with the best of all logical and realistic possibilities. There are times when holding out for an ideal too long without compromise does more to jeopardize the realistic possibility of that ideal ever coming to fruition than it is to acknowledge that there are steps that need to be taken to get there first.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Do you think voting for minor or independent politicians is an example of jeopardizing the realistic possibility of progress by holding out for an ideal?