Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Am I partaking in this discussion properly? Surely your buffoonic contradictions and ignorance are meant to be taken in jest!

W.G.

Image macros are not the Grimsby way I am a fan of.

Though in Azelma's case, it was appropriate. All it needs is a cat or 20.

Just posting in this thread to say hi to Grimsby.



Good 'morrow Noble Wizard!

I will be frank: it has been most frustrating for a well-educated gentleman such as myself to observe discussions of a political nature in which its participants are no less misinformed about the topics-at-hand than they are passionate. Indeed, given that my prior attempts at conducting discussion in the classical rationalistic manner were so quickly dismissed on the grounds of semantic wizardry (guilty as charged!) and compounded still by a series of ad hominem hissy-fits against other persons (which are, might I add, as embarrassing to you as they are irrelevant to myself) I fear today that the only way to make meaningful connexions with your generation of jaded suburbanites is through the jestful suggestion of relation between the personas of these bulletins and some of your popular culture's most beloved mythical characters. Am I wrong to assume that "Scum Bag Stephens" remains one of the latter? Perhaps I have not yet adequately grasped the foolhardy nature of his youthful demeanour -- then again, my experience in communicating in such an estranged manner is rather strange indeed!

And greetings to you, Necrachilles the Infamous! I trust that your suitorship of the opposite sex has proven more fruitful that my present endeavours here. I say, the next time you ejaculate upon her nubile visage, be sure to exclaim in a most boisterous tone of voice, "this one is for the Baron!" -- of course, I only jest!

Cheers,
Baron Wilhelm von Grimsby IV
--

I love you, consider it done.


Expect to see me sometime Thor's Day to assist in your bloodthirsty conquest to slay slow witted combatants in the ranked proving grounds.

Your image macros are moronic because the intent is to make a dumb and untenable argument by associating an image of a dumb person with statements that are pure common sense.

It is common sense to counterbalance one authority with another to limit the power of both (this is the foundation of our entire system of government).

It is common sense to ally with a political force that has a chance of winning (and achieving some aims) rather than ally with a political force that has no realistic chance (holding out for more radical changes and getting nothing).

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

wat

Not to mention the simpleton's assumption that because I am arguing a side I must have voted for that side, or either of the two major side.

Dvergar /
Quisling

This.

Couple more things:

1.) I did vote for Obama...that does not necessarily mean he has my vote automatically this time around.
2.) If you'll remember, government swelled under our previous president as well - so big government can happen no matter who is in office
3.) Is it more productive to simply waste votes on someone like Ron Paul (which could really end up helping the Democratic nominee anyway, since many Ron Paul supporters would have otherwise voted Republican)?
4.) Weena is correct, the image could have been improved with 15-20 cats. I find it quite disappointing that Grimsby did not consider this

The two candidate system isn't ideal, and 9 times out of 10 it just becomes a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. But it's the system we have in place, and one that I have to participate in if I want to have any sort of minor impact on our government.

My intent, in fact, was to demonstrate that the arguments to which the images refer were themselves dumb and untenable (though not solely by their proximation to the slogans expressed by "Scum Bag Stephens" -- surely their self-contradictory nature is itself demonstrative of this). Whether or not such sentiments express what you deem to be "common sense" is hardly relevant; a position which is "dumb" or "untenable" is dumb and untenable regardless of whether it is commonly believed.


It is also "common sense" to be swayed by emotion, prejudice, and bigotry rather than reason and evidence but I would hope that we can both agree that it would be folly indeed to abide by such principles when political interests are concerned. That aside -- and reverting here to the topic-at-hand –– I am continually perplexed as to why any person would believe that current parties in power are definitively interested in "counterbalanc[ing] one authority with another" (in this case, the authority of large businesses with the authority of large government) when so many recent actions -- such as tax breaks for the wealthiest of businessmen and "bail outs" for the most foolish -- would seem to suggest that the opposite is true. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.



Without making further (and, again, seemingly irrelevant) appeals to "common sense," if you are voting solely for the sake of solidarity with your fellow man, then you must be content to admit that your electoral system has been reduced to a mere popularity contest and, more importantly, admit that you are most pleased with the current state-of-affairs such that you have chosen not to enact any sort of change that may potentially server your better interests. Nevertheless, several recent polls suggest that the congressman in question, Ron Paul, is steadily advancing in popularity such that his popularity now stands at par with that of your current president. Should his popularity increase any further, then, by your "common sense" reasoning, the commoners who frequent these bulletins ought to cast their votes in his favour -- he is, after all, a "political force that has a chance of winning"!

W.G.

To be fair to Ron Pauls popularity equalling that of Obama, Obama is doing everything he can to meet Paul in the middle.

If Obama keeps going, by that logic, maybe Michael Vick should run against him.

You have shown that Ron Paul is gaining popularity, this is a good thing. However, that's a long way off from having a legitimate shot at the presidency. He needs to win his primary first. If he did, then you bet your ass I'd give him proper consideration and might even vote for him.

Unlike so many people, I have no allegiance to a specific party. I also have no problems evaluating candidates and making a decision based on who I think will do a better job.

Your assertion that I am a mongoloid because I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, yet voted for Obama is faulty. Ron Paul could not have won in 2008. He may yet be able to compete legitimately in 2012. Only time will tell.

Also, as has been pointed out...I was chugging the Obama Kool-Aid back in 2008.



What a great campaign song this would be:

Have I been vindicated of not voting for Obama because he's brown?

Fair enough. But, returning to the topic at hand, for what reasons would you choose not to support congressman Paul? Your analogy of Thanksgiving uncle, while sure to garner admiration among your buffoonic peers, hardly contributes any political insight (at least insofar as principled reasoning is concerned). Perhaps you could explain to me why the political principles to which Paul adheres are inferior to the political principles adhered to by the opposition of your choosing (keeping in mind, again, that popularity is not a political principle).


While this is true of anyone (and by virtue of the simple fact that no person can predict the future), surely even you can admit that an avowedly libertarian candidate is less likely to expand the reaches of government than the current or former administrations (which, as you rightly point out, have made no such measure to reduce the authority of the state).


The only vote that is "wasted" is the vote that is never made (or, perhaps in your case: the vote that is made disingenuously).


Perhaps your defeatist attitude will someday allow you to vote for the greatest of all evils. I hope that the following pictograph will be as relevant as it is chucklesome:



Best,
W.G.

I never once said Ron Paul's political principles were inferior to Obama's, or those of any other candidate. I said it was impractical to vote for him because he would not be able to win regardless (again, this could change in 2012...but in 2008, Ron Paul was not going to be elected...it was going to be McCain or Obama).

I chose not to support congressman Paul with my vote in 2008 because I feel it would not be a vote well spent. Do I support a lot of Ron Paul's viewpoints? Most definitely. Do I think he would be a good president, perhaps better than our current president? Yes.

BUT as a pessimist who realizes the type of system we have set up...I cannot support Ron Paul with votes UNLESS he wins the Republican Primary...or is otherwise able to change perception of his candidacy.

THIS is the perception that many have of Ron Paul's candidacy:



"Both Rand and Ron Paul have been talking about a run in 2012...so they have something in common with my father and I, which is we're also not going to get elected President." - Seth Meyers

I know it's not fair...but Ron has yet to show he could get a significant portion of the public behind him with their votes.



Certainly I agree. But what's the point if this libertarian candidate could never actually win and get into office to reduce government size?



This is the heart of our discussion - and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think votes can certainly be wasted. Voting for someone who has no shot of actually winning is a wasted vote. You might as well vote for Frosty the Snowman.

If it makes you feel good inside to vote for Ron Paul...then that's great, and you're adhering to your principals. However, I personally prefer to cast my votes for candidates that could actually win and actually be put in the position of making decisions.

My step mother has voted for Independents in the past, like Ross Perot. She calls it the "Fuck you vote." Basically, she doesn't like either the Republican or the Democrat, so she just says "Fuck you" and votes for the guy who definitely won't win.

I haven't reached that point in my pessimism...yet. If I do though, I would be voting for Ron Paul