Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 301

Thread: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

  1. #121
    Member clecirclecir@juno.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    eugene, or
    Posts
    101

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    example: check out "Armed Madhouse' by Greg Palast. Got a chapter devoted to the bush election.
    bleached black sheep rebel and wear my sweater

    Eels 4/13 -- Daniel Johnston 4/16 -- Coachella -- Clinic 5/18 -- Sasquatch 5/24-26 -- Pickathon 8/1-3 -- Radiohead 8/19 + 8/20

  2. #122
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    Those events all happened within the timespan of two years. I'm not just bringing up elections citations where results are being contested just to show you, I'm saying that these are becoming a growing trend as these new democracies are trying to conform to a system which isn't compatible with scam elections.

    In 2000, even among one of the most stable examples of democracy (the U.S.) there were disputed election results in six nations of the 64 presidential elections that year. The decade before in 1990, only three of the 48 presidential elections had disputed outcomes. And a decade before in 1980, all national elections were decisive.This all according to the U.S. think tank Freedom House.

    Part of this is the expansion of a growing number democracies springing up (over 51 since 1980), but I also would like to think the international election monitors do not solve the problem but only dilute the solution. Instead of claiming a 100-90 percent victory in the past, the Incumbents only have to rig the election to claim a modest victory, hovering above 50%. This small election margin obviously cause disputes from the opposition, who usually would rebuke the results.

    So instead of an outward victory, the scam elections are a dictators ill-conceived notion that marginally winning will sufficiently dodge international scrutiny.

    OK so
    A) you're basically agreeing what I already postulated in my initial response to you and you ignored at the time.
    B) do you have a link to your Freedom House statistics? Because I call BS on some of that. There are no qualifications to back those up. 6 out of 64 and 3 out of 48 and 0 (BS) out of who knows how many, don't impress me. I'd like to know what countries they're talking about.

  3. #123
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,864

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    The fact that you happen to observe several occurrences of an event doesn't increase the probability of that event occurring.
    this is wisdom. pay attention kids.
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  4. #124
    Member theburiedlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Califor nyah nyah
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    OK so
    A) you're basically agreeing what I already postulated in my initial response to you and you ignored at the time.
    B) do you have a link to your Freedom House statistics? Because I call BS on some of that. There are no qualifications to back those up. 6 out of 64 and 3 out of 48 and 0 (BS) out of who knows how many, don't impress me. I'd like to know what countries they're talking about.
    No, you stated there was no rise and that in fact I was just paying attention more to international politics.

    I received my sources from an article in "The Economist" which cited Freedom House, i'll get the specific title of that article when i return home.
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCoachellaHellYeah View Post
    this is fantastic news...we can all fist ourselves in peace now...
    http://www.last.fm/user/theburydlife

    2011 Wishlist: Soviet Soviet, Swans, Heroin and Your Veins, Lower Dens, The December Sound, Scarlet Youth, Faunts, Bad Lieutenant, The Besnard Lakes, The Raveonettes, Screen Vinyl Image, Sway

  5. #125
    Member theburiedlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Califor nyah nyah
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    The article is called "When voters settle nothing"

    The number seems to be rising. In 2006, four or possibly five elections fell into the “inconclusive” category: parliamentary votes in Thailand and Fiji were both overridden by the army; a general election in the Czech Republic produced a long stalemate; the presidential election in the Congo was disputed, though eventually accepted. The loser also disputed Mexico's presidential result and staged street protests, though the Federal Electoral Tribunal confirmed the outcome. There were 70 national votes for president or parliament that year (excluding referendums).

    The year 2000 saw roughly the same number: the American presidential election, plus five other such votes, out of 64 in total (the others were in Thailand again, Peru, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia and Serbia). Going back further, all but three of the 48 national elections held in 1990 had clear, accepted results (exceptions were Myanmar, Grenada and Suriname). In 1980, all the national elections were decisive.
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCoachellaHellYeah View Post
    this is fantastic news...we can all fist ourselves in peace now...
    http://www.last.fm/user/theburydlife

    2011 Wishlist: Soviet Soviet, Swans, Heroin and Your Veins, Lower Dens, The December Sound, Scarlet Youth, Faunts, Bad Lieutenant, The Besnard Lakes, The Raveonettes, Screen Vinyl Image, Sway

  6. #126
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    No, you stated there was no rise and that in fact I was just paying attention more to international politics.
    go back and read the whole thing this time.

  7. #127
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    OK here's the entire text of that article. (I now understand why you didn't post the entire thing)

    “PEOPLE have given their verdict, we respect it.” When, in February, a spokesman for Pakistan's ruling party made that stoical analysis of a parliamentary election, cynics braced themselves for a long struggle: despite his party's self-denying words, President Pervez Musharraf would resist all efforts to dislodge him. And that is what has happened.

    Whatever the final outcome of last weekend's ballot in Zimbabwe, it too could be followed by an ever-lengthening set of wrangles that determine nothing quickly. In a typically inconclusive election, results take ages to trickle out, the outcome is disputed by the opposition and by foreign observers; and, most important, the outcome is (at best) one element in a broader political settlement, or (at worst) a catalyst for even more power struggles.

    In theory, votes should be decisive. People are consulted; a new government is formed; the losers accept the result and political discussions begin again on a new basis. The recent elections in Spain, Taiwan and Malaysia conform to that ideal.

    But even in the most stable countries, it does not always happen that way. In rare cases, voters are so evenly split that they cannot decide who should form a government—as happened in America's 2000 presidential election. But normally vote tallies and the shape of the new government are clear pretty soon. And that is true even in countries with proportional representation and traditions of coalition-building. People in such places can usually guess who will head the new coalition and what its overall complexion will be.

    Recent months have seen an increasing number of elections in which the vote itself is only a small factor in the eventual outcome. The Kenyan poll in December 2007 is the best case. There was a vote and, in principle, a new government. But the link between the two was tenuous. Tribal violence, internationally sponsored power-sharing talks and constitutional amendments had as much to do with the shape of the deal as the election did.

    This was an extreme case, but not a unique one. Two recent polls in the Caucasus failed to bring stability: after Georgia's presidential race in January, the opposition staged a hunger strike to contest the results. A far bloodier outcome followed Armenia's ballot in February: eight people were killed when the police laid into supporters of an aggrieved opposition.

    Two parliamentary elections in Asia—in Thailand in December 2007, and then Pakistan's—have helped to remove the power base of military dictators but left a lot of what might be called ordinary politics undecided. If you include Belgium, where a new government took nine months to settle and seems to have been formed with scantish reference to the poll result, you find that of 21 countries which have elected new governments in the past four months, the result of the vote itself was less than decisive in at least six.

    The number seems to be rising. In 2006, four or possibly five elections fell into the “inconclusive” category: parliamentary votes in Thailand and Fiji were both overridden by the army; a general election in the Czech Republic produced a long stalemate; the presidential election in the Congo was disputed, though eventually accepted. The loser also disputed Mexico's presidential result and staged street protests, though the Federal Electoral Tribunal confirmed the outcome. There were 70 national votes for president or parliament that year (excluding referendums).

    The year 2000 saw roughly the same number: the American presidential election, plus five other such votes, out of 64 in total (the others were in Thailand again, Peru, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia and Serbia). Going back further, all but three of the 48 national elections held in 1990 had clear, accepted results (exceptions were Myanmar, Grenada and Suriname). In 1980, all the national elections were decisive.

    So the number of inconclusive elections seems to be rising. Why? One simple answer is that there are more elections now, and that some go off at half-cock. According to Freedom House, an American think-tank, the number of electoral democracies has risen from fewer than 70 in the 1980s to almost 100 in 1992 and to 121 in 2007. Many recent polls took place in new democracies where those in power are reluctant to step down (because ceding power risks losing everything) and opponents balk at accepting the result because they (rightly) mistrust their rulers.

    Another factor: the prevalence of election monitors may have changed the way elections are rigged. Instead of claiming to have won by 99% before lunch, new democracies put on a show of sophistication and claim modest victories by, say, 53% to 47%. (Sceptics note that 53% was the winning share claimed in both Armenia and Georgia; but in the Georgian case observers did agree that the incumbent, Mikheil Saakashvili, had clearly topped the poll.)

    When the margin is slim, counting disputes increase and challenges are more likely. Sometimes this produces dramatic outcomes: the uprisings in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in 2003-05 all sprang from disputed polls. And sometimes it merely prolongs political machinations.

    Elections, in fact, are just one part of the network of institutions (like honest courts) that need to be in place for democracy to work properly. Without those institutions, voting sometimes seems, at least in the short term, to make things worse.
    My problem with this this article is the same one I have with your question (because it seems they are identical). There is no real study of a rise in the RATE of disputed elections. The author just claims that it "feels" like there's more, and even suggests that it could simply be directly related to the number of elections out there. If contested elections are more common it's likely only because there are more of them. The increased likelihood of any particular election being contested has not been demonstrated by the article/you.

    My technology postulate is also supported by the author as far as possible cause of an increased rate (if in fact one exists).

    Basically the author of this article is just doing some literary masturbation. It's not really saying anything at all.

    oh yeah and I still think those "stats" are shaky at best.
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 04-10-2008 at 10:06 AM.

  8. #128
    Member theburiedlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Califor nyah nyah
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    OK here's the entire text of that article. (I now understand why you didn't post the entire thing)

    My problem with this this article is the same one I have with your question (because it seems they are identical). There is no real study of a rise in the RATE of disputed elections. The author just claims that it "feels" like there's more, and even suggests that it could simply be directly related to the number of elections out there. If contested elections are more common it's likely only because there are more of them. The increased likelihood of any particular election being contested has not been demonstrated by the article/you.

    My technology postulate is also supported by the author as far as possible cause of an increased rate (if in fact one exists).

    Basically the author of this article is just doing some literary masturbation. It's not really saying anything at all.

    oh yeah and I still think those "stats" are shaky at best.
    Your arbitrary analysis of this situation is no more credible than the conclusions the author has reached in the article. While he provides statistics suggesting a trend you continue to assert that this is a repeating pattern in global politics, something which you have only defended by attempting to discredit my sources. Calling a credible human rights organizations statistics "shaky" sheds light into how partial you are at looking at raw data and interpreting it to support you thesis (which you try and credit as more substantiated than mine).

    What I argued was over the decade the percentage of election results which wound up being contested has risen (evident). Therefore my interpretation of that data led me to believe that a growing number of democracies are experiencing election problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCoachellaHellYeah View Post
    this is fantastic news...we can all fist ourselves in peace now...
    http://www.last.fm/user/theburydlife

    2011 Wishlist: Soviet Soviet, Swans, Heroin and Your Veins, Lower Dens, The December Sound, Scarlet Youth, Faunts, Bad Lieutenant, The Besnard Lakes, The Raveonettes, Screen Vinyl Image, Sway

  9. #129
    Coachella Junkie greghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    6,061

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    Those events all happened within the timespan of two years. I'm not just bringing up elections citations where results are being contested just to show you, I'm saying that these are becoming a growing trend as these new democracies are trying to conform to a system which isn't compatible with scam elections.

    In 2000, even among one of the most stable examples of democracy (the U.S.) there were disputed election results in six nations of the 64 presidential elections that year. The decade before in 1990, only three of the 48 presidential elections had disputed outcomes. And a decade before in 1980, all national elections were decisive.This all according to the U.S. think tank Freedom House.

    Part of this is the expansion of a growing number democracies springing up (over 51 since 1980), but I also would like to think the international election monitors do not solve the problem but only dilute the solution. Instead of claiming a 100-90 percent victory in the past, the Incumbents only have to rig the election to claim a modest victory, hovering above 50%. This small election margin obviously cause disputes from the opposition, who usually would rebuke the results.

    So instead of an outward victory, the scam elections are a dictators ill-conceived notion that marginally winning will sufficiently dodge international scrutiny.
    Don't forget that the U.S. also plays a huge role in elections across the globe. Since the 1950s, the U.S. has rigged elections across Asian, Africa, and L. America as a way to maintain a balance of power and favorable economic policies. And when an election cannot be rigged, the leader is either assassinated by "party members" who happened to be trained and funded by the CIA. That, or the leader is labeled a communist or a terrorist, and embargoes are used to effectively kill the state's economy, which results in more dissent and opposition, which in the developing world, often leads to civil war. At which point the U.S. comes back in with its guns and $, and supports the overthrow of "leftist dictators", even though they had won elections via popular support. This is still happening today in the very countries you mentioned.

    I understand what you're saying, and you have a point, but you should do a comparative analysis of international politics that stretches further back then two decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanfairchild View Post
    Has Pitchfork revealed it's top 200 covers by Arcade Fire yet?

  10. #130
    Member theburiedlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Califor nyah nyah
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Yeah i understand that the information should stretch further back but I didn't exactly want to delve into the quagmire of Interventionism by the U.S. on global affairs on my election story.
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCoachellaHellYeah View Post
    this is fantastic news...we can all fist ourselves in peace now...
    http://www.last.fm/user/theburydlife

    2011 Wishlist: Soviet Soviet, Swans, Heroin and Your Veins, Lower Dens, The December Sound, Scarlet Youth, Faunts, Bad Lieutenant, The Besnard Lakes, The Raveonettes, Screen Vinyl Image, Sway

  11. #131
    Coachella Junkie greghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    6,061

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Well, I'm sorry, but that's part of it. U.S. interventionism is part of the story of global elections. Otherwise your comments are short-sighted and ill-informed. While I agree that the last two years has seen a lot of contested elections, there is more going on than just what is happening in particular states. No state is isolated in this world, not even North Korea. International influence is impossible to overlook.

    Also, expanded media coverage means that we actually hear about it, whereas 20, even 10 years ago, these things would not be getting international media attention.
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanfairchild View Post
    Has Pitchfork revealed it's top 200 covers by Arcade Fire yet?

  12. #132

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    how many people watch real time with bill maher?
    has to be the best thing on tv no?
    Its alright to show the late greats love But some of y’all is riding dicks and don’t know it like a date rape drug

  13. #133
    Coachella Junkie greghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    6,061

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Yes. I was sad when Politically Incorrect got canned several years ago, that was by far the best political discussion show that tv has ever seen. Real Time is pretty fucking good too, but with W and Cheney, they have so much ammunition. It was great watching people rip on the Clinton White House on PI. If only they knew what was in store for is, they might not have been so hard on Bill
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanfairchild View Post
    Has Pitchfork revealed it's top 200 covers by Arcade Fire yet?

  14. #134

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    hes a true legend man.
    smart guy too. tho your right too much bush/cheney ammo.
    and his guests are surprisingly pretty good.

    id love to just sit dowwn and shoot the shit with that guy
    maybe hell swing down to coachella this year?
    probably not .....
    Its alright to show the late greats love But some of y’all is riding dicks and don’t know it like a date rape drug

  15. #135
    Coachella Junkie Blinken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,685

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    I really like Real Time, Although i am a little annoyed with Bill Maher lately. Before the Surge in Iraq, he said multiple times, "Either get the fuck out, or put in more troops and get the job done right." Well when they did that he did an immediate 180 and said we just need to get out, and that the surge was horrible idea. I am not defending the surge by the way, don't want to open up that debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by TomAz View Post
    The Smiths - makes me think bin Laden has a point.

  16. #136
    Coachella Junkie greghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    6,061

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by londontoronto View Post
    hes a true legend man.
    smart guy too. tho your right too much bush/cheney ammo.
    and his guests are surprisingly pretty good.

    id love to just sit dowwn and shoot the shit with that guy
    maybe hell swing down to coachella this year?
    probably not .....
    I would flip if I saw Maher at Coachella. I would immediately walk over and spark a joint.
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanfairchild View Post
    Has Pitchfork revealed it's top 200 covers by Arcade Fire yet?

  17. #137
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    Your arbitrary analysis of this situation is no more credible than the conclusions the author has reached in the article.
    um... ya exactly. Thanks for further articulating my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    While he provides statistics suggesting a trend you continue to assert that this is a repeating pattern in global politics, something which you have only defended by attempting to discredit my sources. Calling a credible human rights organizations statistics "shaky" sheds light into how partial you are at looking at raw data and interpreting it to support you thesis (which you try and credit as more substantiated than mine).
    dude, you need some stats and logic training. Even the author of that article wouldn't be in your corner here. You're leaping to a conclusion the author didn't have the balls to make. Those are not real stats that he presented in a clinical sense. He's just throwing out numbers that he thinks might demonstrate a trend. He goes no further.

    There was no study, that is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    What I argued was over the decade the percentage of election results which wound up being contested has risen (evident). Therefore my interpretation of that data led me to believe that a growing number of democracies are experiencing election problems.
    First of all, you didn't argue much at all. You cut and pasted chunks of that, and you really don't understand what stats and how to critically interpret them. Again even the author does not assert powerfully that rates of election challenges are rising. In fact, the authors more logical argument is that the rate is NOT increasing relative to the number of free elections. His postulate for the reverse is the increased elect monitoring. He doesn't make a conclusion either way.

    Lastly, you don't even understand how to debate. You made a strong assertion and then faulted me for not having proof that you're wrong after not even putting forth anything yourself. ya go ahead and talk about your #'s again. yawn. If the author had intended for those numbers to be conlcusive he would have cited the study where they came from. He didn't, because it was not his intention to proved them as proof of anything.

  18. #138
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,864

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    but what about the symbolism?
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  19. #139
    Coachella Junkie greghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    6,061

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    um... ya exactly. Thanks for further articulating my point.


    dude, you need some stats and logic training. Even the author of that article wouldn't be in your corner here. You're leaping to a conclusion the author didn't have the balls to make. Those are not real stats that he presented in a clinical sense. He's just throwing out numbers that he thinks might demonstrate a trend. He goes no further.

    There was no study, that is not science.


    First of all, you didn't argue much at all. You cut and pasted chunks of that, and you really don't understand what stats and how to critically interpret them. Again even the author does not assert powerfully that rates of election challenges are rising. In fact, the authors more logical argument is that the rate is NOT increasing relative to the number of free elections. His postulate for the reverse is the increased elect monitoring. He doesn't make a conclusion either way.

    Lastly, you don't even understand how to debate. You made a strong assertion and then faulted me for not having proof that you're wrong after not even putting forth anything yourself. ya go ahead and talk about your #'s again. yawn. If the author had intended for those numbers to be conlcusive he would have cited the study where they came from. He didn't, because it was not his intention to proved them as proof of anything.
    Checkmate.
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanfairchild View Post
    Has Pitchfork revealed it's top 200 covers by Arcade Fire yet?

  20. #140
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TomAz View Post
    but what about the symbolism?
    I just passed a door with a symbol on it that looked like this:



    I went through the door and pissed.

  21. #141
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,864

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    deep, man
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  22. #142

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by greghead View Post
    I would flip if I saw Maher at Coachella. I would immediately walk over and spark a joint.
    FOR sure, id beg him to smoke a joint with me.
    he is 'the dude'.
    Its alright to show the late greats love But some of y’all is riding dicks and don’t know it like a date rape drug

  23. #143
    Member theburiedlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Califor nyah nyah
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    um... ya exactly. Thanks for further articulating my point.
    OK, because you can't comprehend the original opinion I expressed at conception I'll repeat it again. I thought (based on recent news and the article that i read), that the rising numbers of contested elections was a concerning matter in our democratic system.

    I didn't make any conclusions other than those which i reached through me personal perspective. You took my opinion and skewed it to represent me stating it as fact. When i backed up my opinions with credible sources and "numbers" which helped demonstrate why I reached such a conclusion.

    I was not trying to make an outlandish statement but rather attempting to discuss something which I found concerning. Yet you find the need to go after and ridicule anyone trying to interpret data, especially if it doesn't agree with your sentiments. Those numbers were not a study, but statistics reported by Freedom House, which deems it applicable in this argument, no matter how hard you try and discredit the exact sources, you can only fault the vagueness of the study.

    I was only trying to couple this article with the recent boom of contested elections occurring in the past couple of years, in an attempt to discuss the possibility. Coming into these discussions with an adverse and hostile tone of ridicule doesn't lend much to the sake of discussion. I wasn't trying to argue the point but rather test my opinion against the sentiments of others.

    You are looking for an argument because for the sake of argumentation and the occasional opportune chance to get personal with people for motives unknown. I'm not upset, but rather disappointed with how hostile and unreceptive you have been. This is a discussion thread, not meant for the quasi-condescension of others by habitual trolls.
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCoachellaHellYeah View Post
    this is fantastic news...we can all fist ourselves in peace now...
    http://www.last.fm/user/theburydlife

    2011 Wishlist: Soviet Soviet, Swans, Heroin and Your Veins, Lower Dens, The December Sound, Scarlet Youth, Faunts, Bad Lieutenant, The Besnard Lakes, The Raveonettes, Screen Vinyl Image, Sway

  24. #144
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    OK, because you can't comprehend the original opinion I expressed at conception I'll repeat it again. I thought (based on recent news and the article that i read), that the rising numbers of contested elections was a concerning matter in our democratic system.

    I didn't make any conclusions other than those which i reached through me personal perspective. You took my opinion and skewed it to represent me stating it as fact. When i backed up my opinions with credible sources and "numbers" which helped demonstrate why I reached such a conclusion.

    I was not trying to make an outlandish statement but rather attempting to discuss something which I found concerning. Yet you find the need to go after and ridicule anyone trying to interpret data, especially if it doesn't agree with your sentiments. Those numbers were not a study, but statistics reported by Freedom House, which deems it applicable in this argument, no matter how hard you try and discredit the exact sources, you can only fault the vagueness of the study.

    I was only trying to couple this article with the recent boom of contested elections occurring in the past couple of years, in an attempt to discuss the possibility. Coming into these discussions with an adverse and hostile tone of ridicule doesn't lend much to the sake of discussion. I wasn't trying to argue the point but rather test my opinion against the sentiments of others.

    You are looking for an argument because for the sake of argumentation and the occasional opportune chance to get personal with people for motives unknown. I'm not upset, but rather disappointed with how hostile and unreceptive you have been. This is a discussion thread, not meant for the quasi-condescension of others by habitual trolls.
    please oh please will sombody cut the pull-string in this guy's back.


    Look dude, I'm not an idiot, I can read what you wrote, you only wrote it 3 fucking times. You clearly had a pre-concieved conclusion about the likelihood of elections being contested. When more than one of us suggested that it there was likely no disproportionate amount relative to history you kept blindly swinging away with your cut&pasted examples. You are not arguing. You clearly don't understand how to critically evaluate statistics, in fact you don't even really know what they are. Real statistics and from qualified publish study have to be cited. I'd even grant some exceptions in this case but the author wasn't even trying that hard. He was just wagging his dick around, which is fine, and frequently interesting and entertaining. The article is just intended to get you thinking on the subject. You leapt to the finish line without knowing how to get there.

    You didn't even read my initial responses to you. I didn't get personal with you. I don't know who the fuck you are. I'm attacking your logic, and you're getting pissy about it. If you were going to get whiney about someone refuting your assertion then you should have come better prepared to elucidate and defend it.

    Let switch positions for a moment and I'll mirror this argument for you with another subject. It'll be an abridged version. I'll be you and you be me. Here we go:


    ME: What does everyone think of the increasing prevalence of sluts out there these days?

    YOU: I don't think there are any more sluts then there always have been. Maybe you're just noticing them more. If somehow girls have gotten sluttier then maybe it's the media.

    ME: No. that has nothing to do with it. In this last year I got 7 blow jobs from 5 girls I know. Two years ago I got 2 blow jobs from 4 girls I knew. Four years ago I got no blow jobs from some non-zero number of girls I knew.

    GREGHEAD: Girls aren't any sluttier nowadays then they ever have been. Remember the Greeks and Romans? Fucking ho-bags, all of 'em.

    ME: No. There's so many sluts out there. I saw some girl making out with two dudes at the same time at a club last weekend. My best friend told me he hooked up with 6 girls last month, and only one of them turned out to be a man. Hell, just the other day some slut asked if I would take a dump on her chest. Lots of sluts, I tell you.

    YOU: I'm telling you chicks aren't sluttier. Maybe you just know more of them. Alright fine if you insist there are more sluts then cite some sort of source for this.

    ME: Here check out this article from STUFF magazine:
    "sluts heineken ipods sluts dane cook sluts lohan smirnoff sluts blah blah blah chicks are slutty. They learn it on TV"

    YOU: That proves nothing. The article is just speculating without anything solid to back it up.

    ME: uh well prove to me that there AREN'T any more sluts out here. You can't, can you? oh and btw maybe the media makes them slutty.

    YOU: I don't have to. You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

    ME: YOU JUST AREN'T CAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING WHAT I'M SAYING ABOUT THESE SLUTS.


    aaaaaaand scene.

    That's basically what this little exchange sounds like.

  25. #145
    Member theburiedlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Califor nyah nyah
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    You are not arguing. You clearly don't understand how to critically evaluate statistics, in fact you don't even really know what they are. Real statistics and from qualified publish study have to be cited. I'd even grant some exceptions in this case but the author wasn't even trying that hard. He was just wagging his dick around, which is fine, and frequently interesting and entertaining. The article is just intended to get you thinking on the subject. You leapt to the finish line without knowing how to get there.

    I think you are taking my arguments for concrete statements. I was offering my conclusion which I reached gathered from data. I feel like I have to repeat myself to you to drill into your head this wasn't an argument, but rather me trying to reconcile recent events in foreign nations with an interesting article which grabbed my attention in a loose attempt to connect the two. You are right, i cannot find concrete evidence of a trend nor did I ever say "I know for a fact this is happening" or even once refer to my background evidence as statistics.


    You didn't even read my initial responses to you. I didn't get personal with you. I don't know who the fuck you are.

    I heard your opinions in the first response (and the several others) to my statement which was relevant and impartial, but as we progressed through the discussion you started to imply simple hints indicating jabs at my character and intellect. As your arguments progress your writing style is rather biting and personal.

    Vegas makes a LOT of money on roulette tables because of people like you.

    you need some stats and logic training

    you don't even understand how to debate
    Thats not an integral part of a discussion.

    My mistake was not taking you at your word at the initial part of the discussion, but you seemed to shrug off the evidence as if Clifford the Big Red Dog wrote it, not even considering the article's point being potentially merited by the recent events.

    I was making a big leap, but in trying to predict an outcome from such data and events requires at exactly that at times, especially when you want to explore the outcomes of expressing those ideas (which obviously is tantamount to getting flamed). My logic was valid, just the way in reach I reached my conclusions may not properly executed, and I acknowledge that now.

    But hey, I haven't threated to beat you up at Coachella. Thats progress, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCoachellaHellYeah View Post
    this is fantastic news...we can all fist ourselves in peace now...
    http://www.last.fm/user/theburydlife

    2011 Wishlist: Soviet Soviet, Swans, Heroin and Your Veins, Lower Dens, The December Sound, Scarlet Youth, Faunts, Bad Lieutenant, The Besnard Lakes, The Raveonettes, Screen Vinyl Image, Sway

  26. #146
    Young blood
    Guest

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    dude, sluts.

  27. #147
    Coachella Junkie chairmenmeow47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    aquabania
    Posts
    17,494

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    this thread needs a do-over.

    and protest china, not the olympics!
    Quote Originally Posted by malcolmjamalawesome View Post
    It's when we discuss Coachella that we are at our collective dipshittiest.

  28. #148
    zeezus amyzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Arizzzona
    Posts
    40,893

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    why do I keep clicking on this thread??
    Quote Originally Posted by guedita View Post
    Because fucking millenials that's what

  29. #149
    Young blood
    Guest

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    boycott this thread!

  30. #150
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,391

    Default Re: Intelligent Politics Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by theburiedlife View Post
    I think you are taking my arguments for concrete statements. I was offering my conclusion which I reached gathered from data. I feel like I have to repeat myself to you to drill into your head this wasn't an argument, but rather me trying to reconcile recent events in foreign nations with an interesting article which grabbed my attention in a loose attempt to connect the two. You are right, i cannot find concrete evidence of a trend nor did I ever say "I know for a fact this is happening" or even once refer to my background evidence as statistics.





    I heard your opinions in the first response (and the several others) to my statement which was relevant and impartial, but as we progressed through the discussion you started to imply simple hints indicating jabs at my character and intellect. As your arguments progress your writing style is rather biting and personal.



    Thats not an integral part of a discussion.

    My mistake was not taking you at your word at the initial part of the discussion, but you seemed to shrug off the evidence as if Clifford the Big Red Dog wrote it, not even considering the article's point being potentially merited by the recent events.

    I was making a big leap, but in trying to predict an outcome from such data and events requires at exactly that at times, especially when you want to explore the outcomes of expressing those ideas (which obviously is tantamount to getting flamed). My logic was valid, just the way in reach I reached my conclusions may not properly executed, and I acknowledge that now.

    But hey, I haven't threated to beat you up at Coachella. Thats progress, right?
    I did not shrug off anything you said at the outset. It's only after you appeared to be dead set on trying to prove your point with the same old examples that I made desperate attempts get some sort of real argument out of you.

    And let me be clear that I don't think the hypothesis you're putting forth is a poor one. IIn fact, I might even agree with it (but probably not). I just would rather hear something more than that article and a few examples. I realize you hadn't been presented with clinching arguments against your point, but you responses didn't seem as though you had given them thought. Tell my why you think I'm wrong with something other than what you've already said if it's clear I've heard you say it.

    Now what's it going to take for you to threaten to fight me? Don't deprive me of my one goal on this board. Give me some small info on your girlfriend/boyfriend,blowup doll or something. Anything.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 474
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 12:09 PM
  2. Air Car discussion thread.
    By Hannahrain in forum Music Lounge
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 11:10 PM
  3. Spliff politics
    By foto_synthesis in forum Past Experiences
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-01-2007, 06:45 PM
  4. RATM's crappy politics
    By jorona79 in forum Line Up/Artists
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 07:40 PM
  5. The Politics Of Scalping (Part II)
    By mob roulette in forum Music Lounge
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-22-2007, 01:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •