Scratch

illusionist wrote:

...

If you are like me, who has taken to growing about 80% of my vegetables and storing water, you won't be hit hard by this. But if you are like the 99.99% of all other people who are dependent on the grocery store, or water company, you are screwed. Totally screwed.

...

Personally I think you're showing a bit of an extreme view illusionist. It seems to me like you're spreading rumors and fear more than actually benefiting the discussion. Remember what Paddle2See said:

Paddle2See wrote:

I like that the first post makes a point of quoting sources - I'd like to re-emphasize that.  This forum is for discussion of things you have read/watched - not a platform for your long-held and deeply cherished (but possibly groundless) opinions.  If you're going to post here, do your homework 

soupoftomato wrote:

Lucario621 wrote:

illusionist wrote:

...

If you are like me, who has taken to growing about 80% of my vegetables and storing water, you won't be hit hard by this. But if you are like the 99.99% of all other people who are dependent on the grocery store, or water company, you are screwed. Totally screwed.

...

Personally I think you're showing a bit of an extreme view illusionist. It seems to me like you're spreading rumors and fear more than actually benefiting the discussion. Remember what Paddle2See said:

Paddle2See wrote:

I like that the first post makes a point of quoting sources - I'd like to re-emphasize that.  This forum is for discussion of things you have read/watched - not a platform for your long-held and deeply cherished (but possibly groundless) opinions.  If you're going to post here, do your homework 

See, this is where there is a fine line. This is something illusionist believes, and we can't simply have the moderators say his opinion specifically is the one that isn't allowed here simply because it sounds unrealistic to people. He's clearly researched this, which is reading.

I have nothing else to say, so whatever. 

- - - - - - - - - -

Anyone else taken the iSideWith survey?

I side with GJ 98%

soupoftomato wrote:

See, this is where there is a fine line. This is something illusionist believes, and we can't simply have the moderators say his opinion specifically is the one that isn't allowed here simply because it sounds unrealistic to people. He's clearly researched this, which is reading.

I see where you're coming from soupoftomato. Believe me, I am trying to keep my opinion out of things, in favor of having an educated discussion between the Scratchers on this thread. However, I've looked at all of the posts on this thread and illusionist has only actually posted one external link, which is to the link to Wikipedia's "Velocity of Money" article. I think if he could focus more including facts and links to sources, and less running on making people scared about the world economy collapsing, then this discussion would be more open and productive.

CN12 wrote:

jukyter wrote:

CN12 wrote:

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else....made that happen." Remember that?

Is that an Obama quote
I'm sorry I don't keep track of every quote ever

Yep, that's an Obama quote.

It's an edited one, taken out of context, and picked from different areas of the actual speech to support certain views. Fox News ran the initial story on it I believe, and the story verged on blatant lying.

It's actual meaning, and the actual speech, was that the government is providing a system that ALLOWS you to make a business, and there are always influential people in your life. You have teachers that guided you, friends that supported you, etc. We shouldn't forget about them, we should celebrate everyone who is making an effort, essentially, not just businesses.

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-01 20:56:12)

veggieman001 wrote:

lucario showed me this really cool video and i think all you guys should watch it and stuff

I remember watching that. 
Don't remember why.

veggieman001 wrote:

CheeseMunchy wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

lucario showed me this really cool video and i think all you guys should watch it and stuff

I remember watching that. 
Don't remember why.

why's that a 

Good question.
I meant to put it on the bottom sentence.

soupoftomato wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

lucario showed me this removed and i think all you guys should watch it and stuff

Man
that is such an amazing video
but it has brief profane language!

it does??

Hey - this is for the most part surprisingly civil, considering the state of American political discourse these days. My hat is off to all those who've helped keep things on the level, and focused on points.

On a mostly related note: what would you all think about adopting BoingBoing's election year comment rules? (I know, I know, I'm a sucker for BoingBoing). They seem rather eminently sensible to me:

In the interest of not having every thread on every subject turn into a hissfest about whether Obama or Romney is a bigger doody-head, Boing Boing's election year rules are back on. These rules will remain in force for the rest of 2012.

• Please do not refer to candidates or parties unless they are mentioned in the post or clearly relevant to the subject. Example: In a post about radioactive scorpions who eat puppies, "They must be Republicans" is not a valid comment.

• In political discussions, please limit citations to credible news sources, credible statistic sites, etc. Links to candidate propaganda should only be used to demonstrate that candidate's stated position. Links to partisan websites will be treated as astroturf.

• Copy-pasted opinions and talking points will be treated as astroturf.

• Please do not stump for your candidate by shouting slogans. Content or G[ahem - stands for Get Out!]O.

• Please observe all the other niceties such as not repeating yourself and remaining civil.

Probably they could use a little tweaking, or maybe there are better alternatives? The greater issue is, I think: How do we have useful, constructive political discourse - key to the future success of our nation? My generation, (well, most of the adult generations these days) seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.

Last edited by Lightnin (2012-10-01 21:49:57)

Lightnin wrote:

Hey - this is for the most part surprisingly civil, considering the state of American political discourse these days. My hat is off to all those who've helped keep things on the level, and focused on points.

On a mostly related note: what would you all think about adopting BoingBoing's election year comment rules? (I know, I know, I'm a sucker for BoingBoing). They seem rather eminently sensible to me:

In the interest of not having every thread on every subject turn into a hissfest about whether Obama or Romney is a bigger doody-head, Boing Boing's election year rules are back on. These rules will remain in force for the rest of 2012.

• Please do not refer to candidates or parties unless they are mentioned in the post or clearly relevant to the subject. Example: In a post about radioactive scorpions who eat puppies, "They must be Republicans" is not a valid comment.

• In political discussions, please limit citations to credible news sources, credible statistic sites, etc. Links to candidate propaganda should only be used to demonstrate that candidate's stated position. Links to partisan websites will be treated as astroturf.

• Copy-pasted opinions and talking points will be treated as astroturf.

• Please do not stump for your candidate by shouting slogans. Content or G[ahem - stands for Get Out!]O.

• Please observe all the other niceties such as not repeating yourself and remaining civil.

Probably they could use a little tweaking, or maybe there are better alternatives?. The greater issue is, I think: How do we have useful, constructive political discourse - key to the future success of our nation? My generation, (well, most of the adult generations these days) seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.

aw, but i love calling people doody-heads

jokes aside, i definitely agree with these rules
and i too am pleasantly surprised by how well this topic has been going 

Last edited by veggieman001 (2012-10-01 21:49:51)

soupoftomato wrote:

Lightnin wrote:

Hey - this is for the most part surprisingly civil, considering the state of American political discourse these days. My hat is off to all those who've helped keep things on the level, and focused on points.

On a mostly related note: what would you all think about adopting BoingBoing's election year comment rules? (I know, I know, I'm a sucker for BoingBoing). They seem rather eminently sensible to me:

In the interest of not having every thread on every subject turn into a hissfest about whether Obama or Romney is a bigger doody-head, Boing Boing's election year rules are back on. These rules will remain in force for the rest of 2012.

• Please do not refer to candidates or parties unless they are mentioned in the post or clearly relevant to the subject. Example: In a post about radioactive scorpions who eat puppies, "They must be Republicans" is not a valid comment.

• In political discussions, please limit citations to credible news sources, credible statistic sites, etc. Links to candidate propaganda should only be used to demonstrate that candidate's stated position. Links to partisan websites will be treated as astroturf.

• Copy-pasted opinions and talking points will be treated as astroturf.

• Please do not stump for your candidate by shouting slogans. Content or G[ahem - stands for Get Out!]O.

• Please observe all the other niceties such as not repeating yourself and remaining civil.

Probably they could use a little tweaking, or maybe there are better alternatives? The greater issue is, I think: How do we have useful, constructive political discourse - key to the future success of our nation? My generation, (well, most of the adult generations these days) seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.

The first rule I think is fairly well kept. We never really bring up politics anywhere but this topic and when a subject may actually depend on it for discussion.

What is "astroturf"? As far as I know, it's fake grass.    And "copy-paste opinions" seems to reflect the two things in a negative light, but what is wrong with talking points, it seems to imply something of important discussion in the election if it is to be given that name? There isn't really anything wrong with talking about those, is there?

astroturfing!

soupoftomato wrote:

What is "astroturf"? As far as I know, it's fake grass.    And "copy-paste opinions" seems to reflect the two things in a negative light, but what is wrong with talking points, it seems to imply something of important discussion in the election if it is to be given that name? There isn't really anything wrong with talking about those, is there?

I like wikipedia's definition of "talking point":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point

In essence, they seem more like an attempt to manipulate the conversation than an attempt to genuinely engage with whatever is being discussed. So I guess I'd call most talking points intellectually dishonest, regardless of whether or not I agree with the political views of whoever is saying them. They tend to present the speaker's conclusions as manifestly simple, when the issues rarely are.

In my ideal world, the use of talking points would discredit their users in the eyes of the audience. And, well, this is clearly not my ideal world. 

CN12 wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

CN12 wrote:

Yep, that's an Obama quote.

It's an edited one, taken out of context, and picked from different areas of the actual speech to support certain views. Fox News ran the initial story on it I believe, and the story verged on blatant lying.

It's actual meaning, and the actual speech, was that the government is providing a system that ALLOWS you to make a business, and there are always influential people in your life. You have teachers that guided you, friends that supported you, etc. We shouldn't forget about them, we should celebrate everyone who is making an effort, essentially, not just businesses.

It's not edited.

it's not edited, technically, but it's still completely taken out of context which completely changes its meaning