Obama '08?

real life wrote:

It's just the Cyclo philosophy. He sees himself as a reasonable person sharing his POV. And when he can't support his view, it's your fault cuz you're a troll. Simple.

Take your ball and go home , Cyclo.

There's koolaid in the fridge waiting for ya.

Cyclo is a reasonable person, with a few exceptions, those on the right here merely regurgitate right-wing and oil industry talking points and propaganda as well as denying established scientific fact. Arguing with fence posts is a big waste of time.

It is a total waste of time trying to have discussion with "flat-earthers" who refuse to accept established scientific fact.

The best solution to the climate change crisis is the elimination of the human race. After what we have done to this planet, we really no longer have any right to continue to abuse it to sustain ourselves.

Roxxxanne wrote:

real life wrote:

It's just the Cyclo philosophy. He sees himself as a reasonable person sharing his POV. And when he can't support his view, it's your fault cuz you're a troll. Simple.

Take your ball and go home , Cyclo.

There's koolaid in the fridge waiting for ya.

Cyclo is a reasonable person, with a few exceptions, those on the right here merely regurgitate right-wing and oil industry talking points and propaganda as well as denying established scientific fact. Arguing with fence posts is a big waste of time.

It is a total waste of time trying to have discussion with "flat-earthers" who refuse to accept established scientific fact.

This sort of encapsulates the Cyclo vs real life ( & woiyo) dialogue over steps (mandatory or otherwise) needed to significantly reduce our consumption of petroleum or fossil fuels generally. I believe the discussion centered on the proposals of the various candidates; how effective or ineffective they might be; and whether they may imply that some of the steps Cyclo and others believe we should all take to reduce energy consumprion should or will soon be made mandatory by government action. Eventually it degenerated to name calling; "You're a troll and I ain't goanna talk to you no more". and stuff like that.

Overall a conversation that was neither entertaining nor enlightening, but one representative of many others that - for me, at least - reduce the attractiveness of these threads.

Roxxxxanne now adds her nonsensical bit to further degrade the dialogue - If all the "flat-earthers" and the "fenceposts" do leave, you will be left to your own devices, and I suspect will begin to find each other a bit tiresome in the process.

Roxxxanne wrote:

The best solution to the climate change crisis is the elimination of the human race. After what we have done to this planet, we really no longer have any right to continue to abuse it to sustain ourselves.

This at least is an honest and self-consistent argument for AG, and one that, though usually left unspoken, is in my opinion, a fairly common motivation among AGW zealots. Unfortunately it doesn't lead to any constructive solution.

I thought you had a crush on roxxxmanne....

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

real life wrote:

It's just the Cyclo philosophy. He sees himself as a reasonable person sharing his POV. And when he can't support his view, it's your fault cuz you're a troll. Simple.

Take your ball and go home , Cyclo.

There's koolaid in the fridge waiting for ya.

Cyclo is a reasonable person, with a few exceptions, those on the right here merely regurgitate right-wing and oil industry talking points and propaganda as well as denying established scientific fact. Arguing with fence posts is a big waste of time.

It is a total waste of time trying to have discussion with "flat-earthers" who refuse to accept established scientific fact.

This sort of encapsulates the Cyclo vs real life ( & woiyo) dialogue over steps (mandatory or otherwise) needed to significantly reduce our consumption of petroleum or fossil fuels generally. I believe the discussion centered on the proposals of the various candidates; how effective or ineffective they might be; and whether they may imply that some of the steps Cyclo and others believe we should all take to reduce energy consumprion should or will soon be made mandatory by government action. Eventually it degenerated to name calling; "You're a troll and I ain't goanna talk to you no more". and stuff like that.

Overall a conversation that was neither entertaining nor enlightening, but one representative of many others that - for me, at least - reduce the attractiveness of these threads.

Roxxxxanne now adds her nonsensical bit to further degrade the dialogue - If all the "flat-earthers" and the "fenceposts" do leave, you will be left to your own devices, and I suspect will begin to find each other a bit tiresome in the process.

Roxxxanne wrote:

The best solution to the climate change crisis is the elimination of the human race. After what we have done to this planet, we really no longer have any right to continue to abuse it to sustain ourselves.

This at least is an honest and self-consistent argument for AG, and one that, though usually left unspoken, is in my opinion, a fairly common motivation among AGW zealots. Unfortunately it doesn't lead to any constructive solution.

Isn't this the dilemma of participating in these sorts of forums?

I don't know if there is a single A2Ker (with the possible exception of Sozobe) that hasn't responded, with exasperation, to a particularly pointed post of the usual outlandish idiots ---including you and me georgeb.

So what?

Nimh castigates other posters for the offenses of which he himself is guilty, and so do I.

So do most of us.

Every now and then we are going to get all full of ourselves and bloviate. It makes us feel good, but it doesn't make us right.

65% of the exchange in this forum is childish bickering or idiotic rants.

Another 25% is relatively clever replies to the aforementioned 65%

5% is seemingly rational commentary that is really nothing but a measured recitation of partisan pap.

The final 5% is the reason I keep coming back here.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

real life wrote:

It's just the Cyclo philosophy. He sees himself as a reasonable person sharing his POV. And when he can't support his view, it's your fault cuz you're a troll. Simple.

Take your ball and go home , Cyclo.

There's koolaid in the fridge waiting for ya.

Cyclo is a reasonable person, with a few exceptions, those on the right here merely regurgitate right-wing and oil industry talking points and propaganda as well as denying established scientific fact. Arguing with fence posts is a big waste of time.

It is a total waste of time trying to have discussion with "flat-earthers" who refuse to accept established scientific fact.

This sort of encapsulates the Cyclo vs real life ( & woiyo) dialogue over steps (mandatory or otherwise) needed to significantly reduce our consumption of petroleum or fossil fuels generally. I believe the discussion centered on the proposals of the various candidates; how effective or ineffective they might be; and whether they may imply that some of the steps Cyclo and others believe we should all take to reduce energy consumprion should or will soon be made mandatory by government action. Eventually it degenerated to name calling; "You're a troll and I ain't goanna talk to you no more". and stuff like that.

Overall a conversation that was neither entertaining nor enlightening, but one representative of many others that - for me, at least - reduce the attractiveness of these threads.

Roxxxxanne now adds her nonsensical bit to further degrade the dialogue - If all the "flat-earthers" and the "fenceposts" do leave, you will be left to your own devices, and I suspect will begin to find each other a bit tiresome in the process.

Roxxxanne wrote:

The best solution to the climate change crisis is the elimination of the human race. After what we have done to this planet, we really no longer have any right to continue to abuse it to sustain ourselves.

This at least is an honest and self-consistent argument for AG, and one that, though usually left unspoken, is in my opinion, a fairly common motivation among AGW zealots. Unfortunately it doesn't lead to any constructive solution.

Isn't this the dilemma of participating in these sorts of forums?

I don't know if there is a single A2Ker (with the possible exception of Sozobe) that hasn't responded, with exasperation, to a particularly pointed post of the usual outlandish idiots ---including you and me georgeb.

So what?

Nimh castigates other posters for the offenses of which he himself is guilty, and so do I.

So do most of us.

Every now and then we are going to get all full of ourselves and bloviate. It makes us feel good, but it doesn't make us right.

65% of the exchange in this forum is childish bickering or idiotic rants.

Another 25% is relatively clever replies to the aforementioned 65%

5% is seemingly rational commentary that is really nothing but a measured recitation of partisan pap.

The final 5% is the reason I keep coming back here.

Final 5%=Cybersex

Final 5%=Cybersex

And Clinton trounces Obama in Kentucky:
Hillary Clinton 459,145 67.22% 37 delegates
Barack Obama 209,771 30.71% 14 delegates.

That is a 250,000 vote gain by Clinton.

Thats a pretty poor showing for the frontrunner it seems. Obama wins in Oregon, but by much less of a margin.

Isn't this the dilemma of participating in these sorts of forums?

I don't know if there is a single A2Ker (with the possible exception of Sozobe) that hasn't responded, with exasperation, to a particularly pointed post of the usual outlandish idiots ---including you and me georgeb.

So what?

Nimh castigates other posters for the offenses of which he himself is guilty, and so do I.

So do most of us.

Every now and then we are going to get all full of ourselves and bloviate. It makes us feel good, but it doesn't make us right.

65% of the exchange in this forum is childish bickering or idiotic rants.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008
American Idol and American Politics

I find it a little eerie how closely the finale of the television program American Idol resembles the presidential race.

Here you have an older male from the school of hard knocks; a younger, soulful man who inspires his peers; and a woman candidate who shows amazing resilience.

In a way, both Idol and the presidential race exemplify a sort of 'family romance' of American society.

Syesha Mercado was in the bottom three on a number of occasions, but she remained in the competition almost to the end. Don Kaplan wrote of her:



' Every week the bubbly brunette . . . has been on the verge of going home. And every week, it's been someone else who gets the boot . . . "Idol" fanatics have been saying for weeks that each episode of "Idol" would be Mercado's last. "But she keeps breaking through," says Michelle Boros . . . Boros thinks the singer has been underestimated by the experts because "she doesn't quite have that personality X-factor that the 'Idol' people like." . . . Kid Kelly, Sirius radio's vice president of music programming believes Mercado is hanging on because "she's a chameleon. She has this ability to transform herself each week - and at the end of the day, she's very talented." '


So you have the woman candidate who is a determined survivor even though it was pretty clear early on that she would not be the winner (winners don't keep being sent to the endangered zone). Ms. Mercado is said to have gotten through the stress of all those close calls by depending on her man.

As for the younger man in the competition, his fans complained that it was unfair to say that David Archuleta was 'inexperienced'. They pointed to his extensive experience on 'Star Search.'

Angie Mohr disagrees, writing:


' David Archuleta, being 17, appeals to younger teens and tweens and that is where his fanbase lies. He is the "pretty boy" of the two and his shy, halting interview responses highlight his youth and inexperience. '


Despite his charisma and almost cult-like following, Archuleta was dogged by controversy and upstaged by a key mentor who proved so disruptive that in the end he had to be banned from the set.

Mohr adds of rocker David Cook:


' David Cook has the rebel just-crawled-out-of-bed, tousled look that draws older teen and early twenties girls but also speaks to the boys-turning-men in the same age range. '


Simon Cowell said of David Cook on Late Night with Jay Leno,


' "Who would I like to win? I'm going to say David Cook," the acerbic judge told Leno. "Only because the guy started off working in a bar. You know, I kinda feel he deserves to win more. Where the other guy, you know, he's 17, cute, you know, hasn't had to work quite as hard as the other one." '

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Isn't this the dilemma of participating in these sorts of forums?

I don't know if there is a single A2Ker (with the possible exception of Sozobe) that hasn't responded, with exasperation, to a particularly pointed post of the usual outlandish idiots ---including you and me georgeb.

So what?

Nimh castigates other posters for the offenses of which he himself is guilty, and so do I.

So do most of us.

Every now and then we are going to get all full of ourselves and bloviate. It makes us feel good, but it doesn't make us right.

65% of the exchange in this forum is childish bickering or idiotic rants.

True dat.

American Idol and American Politics

[..]


So you have the woman candidate who is a determined survivor even though it was pretty clear early on that she would not be the winner (winners don't keep being sent to the endangered zone).