ShaggyJebus Posts
FpoD, I'm glad you're here, too. Your posts are often insightful, filled with passion, and say things that leave me thinking. Often, they render me speechless, forcing me to reconsider or rethink my own views. This last post is no different. It made me realize that I am idealistic about some things but abhor idealism in other things. When it comes to people in general, I like to be forgiving and try to look at the best. I want the highest amount of people pleased as possible. With politics, I am harsh and cold. I say that eventually in the future, the system will be changed, and that a third-party candidate may become President, but I refuse to believe that it will happen in my lifetime or even the next generation's lifetime.
This disparity isn't good. If I can be optimistic about people, I should be able to be optimistic about politics, and if I can be pessimistic about politics, I should be able to be pessimistic about people.
You raised some very good points, and I'm not sure how to reply to them. Obama's plans aren't perfect, and I think a lot of people decided to be Obama fans simply because he wasn't Bush. (He's got a funny name, he's young, and he's [half] black. That's about as far from Bush as you can get without going completely crazy.) That sort of behavior isn't commendable. If people are going to like Obama, it should be because they like his ideas.
I think if Obama's term goes well, nothing will change, at least for a while. People will believe that having a Republican in office, then a Democrat, then a Republican, and so on, is a fine system. But if Obama's term doesn't go well, more people may realize the many flaws of the two-party system and help to bring about a true change in politics. I'm actually not sure which I'd want, because on one hand, Obama doing well will mean that the country is doing well, but no real progress would be made, and on the other hand, Obama doing poorly would mean that the country is doing poorly, for the sake of progress.
Thinking is hard. Maybe it'd be better if America was abolished and the land split between Mexico and Canada. That way, illegal immigrants wouldn't have to be illegal, and draft dodgers wouldn't have to go as far to get away from war.
Wait, that joke doesn't make any sense.
This disparity isn't good. If I can be optimistic about people, I should be able to be optimistic about politics, and if I can be pessimistic about politics, I should be able to be pessimistic about people.
You raised some very good points, and I'm not sure how to reply to them. Obama's plans aren't perfect, and I think a lot of people decided to be Obama fans simply because he wasn't Bush. (He's got a funny name, he's young, and he's [half] black. That's about as far from Bush as you can get without going completely crazy.) That sort of behavior isn't commendable. If people are going to like Obama, it should be because they like his ideas.
I think if Obama's term goes well, nothing will change, at least for a while. People will believe that having a Republican in office, then a Democrat, then a Republican, and so on, is a fine system. But if Obama's term doesn't go well, more people may realize the many flaws of the two-party system and help to bring about a true change in politics. I'm actually not sure which I'd want, because on one hand, Obama doing well will mean that the country is doing well, but no real progress would be made, and on the other hand, Obama doing poorly would mean that the country is doing poorly, for the sake of progress.
Thinking is hard. Maybe it'd be better if America was abolished and the land split between Mexico and Canada. That way, illegal immigrants wouldn't have to be illegal, and draft dodgers wouldn't have to go as far to get away from war.
Wait, that joke doesn't make any sense.
animeholic1 wrote...
egward wrote...
ps3 for lifeOkay now to get serious and sorry about the random thing above. Why am I reminded of the girls that tried to sue mcdonald's when I read the story? It's a fact that people will try and sue for just about anything nowadays, tho microsoft isn't entirely without fault.
I can understand the guy wanting to get reimbursed for the scratched games, and by taking it to trail, it lets other 360 owners know that their discs will be scratched if they're stupid. (That should be a no-brainer, but there are so many warnings that I think it makes people dumb.) But the guy asking for $50,000 is totally inexcusable. Even if he does have to pay for a lawyer, $50,000 is too much.
If Obama was a bad choice for America, then I want to know what the right choice was. It certainly wasn't McCain, and there were no other choices. You can vote for a third-party, I respect a person sticking to their principles, but you can't say that a third-party had a chance of winning. So, it was a choice between either McCain or Obama. If both were wrong, then what do we do? Shrug our shoulders and say, "We're fucked"? No. One of those was better than the other, at least for this time. That person was Obama. Whatever problems he may have, he seems more capable of helping out America right now than McCain.
Obama may raise taxes for some people, but so what? The economy is in a mess, and something needs to be done. It may not be the best decision, but it's not going to collapse civilization as we know it. McCain, on the other hand, was going to keep us in a worthless war that would continually drain our money. How would that help us?
Regardless of why people voted for Obama, whether it was because they were "idiots" or because they saw him as a better choice than McCain, people still voted for him. Yes, a lot of people don't follow politics closely, but a citizen is a citizen, and we can't take away the right to vote just because a person chooses to watch football instead of the news. We can't make people pass a test over political figures before they can vote. And the big thing is, this is nothing new. If uninformed people voting is "the death of a true democracy," then democracy's been dead for well over a hundred years. Hell, it's probably been dead since before it was even born, since back when the country was first started, people would just vote for their political party across the board:
"Hello, we're voting for senator and governor today, do you want to hear-"
"I'm voting Federalist."
And that was that.
And people voting due to charisma is definitely not new. I'm pretty sure that's why JFK got elected. Charisma, and his good looks.
If we're going to be upset about anything, we should be upset over the fact that no perfect person exists. We should lament over the fact that no matter what happens, no perfect person will step up and help the world. People will always have problems, will always make mistakes, will always do bad things, and we have to elect one of these horrible people into the position of President, because that's all we can do. We can bitch and moan about how it sucks, but it won't change a damn thing. It may even be good to bitch and moan, so we can let out our aggressions, but we have to remember that our crying isn't going to get the current guy out of office, isn't going to make him a better person, and more often than not, isn't going to change someone else's mind about the guy.
Obama may raise taxes for some people, but so what? The economy is in a mess, and something needs to be done. It may not be the best decision, but it's not going to collapse civilization as we know it. McCain, on the other hand, was going to keep us in a worthless war that would continually drain our money. How would that help us?
Regardless of why people voted for Obama, whether it was because they were "idiots" or because they saw him as a better choice than McCain, people still voted for him. Yes, a lot of people don't follow politics closely, but a citizen is a citizen, and we can't take away the right to vote just because a person chooses to watch football instead of the news. We can't make people pass a test over political figures before they can vote. And the big thing is, this is nothing new. If uninformed people voting is "the death of a true democracy," then democracy's been dead for well over a hundred years. Hell, it's probably been dead since before it was even born, since back when the country was first started, people would just vote for their political party across the board:
"Hello, we're voting for senator and governor today, do you want to hear-"
"I'm voting Federalist."
And that was that.
And people voting due to charisma is definitely not new. I'm pretty sure that's why JFK got elected. Charisma, and his good looks.
If we're going to be upset about anything, we should be upset over the fact that no perfect person exists. We should lament over the fact that no matter what happens, no perfect person will step up and help the world. People will always have problems, will always make mistakes, will always do bad things, and we have to elect one of these horrible people into the position of President, because that's all we can do. We can bitch and moan about how it sucks, but it won't change a damn thing. It may even be good to bitch and moan, so we can let out our aggressions, but we have to remember that our crying isn't going to get the current guy out of office, isn't going to make him a better person, and more often than not, isn't going to change someone else's mind about the guy.
Soul_Slayer wrote...
It was an unfair battle because Toradora (Taiga's anime) hasnt been subbed since episode 8 (episodes 9, 10, and 11 have yet to be subbed by anyone on the net)! That is so unfair, and is very damaging alone, plus there's the fact that its a new anime, and 8 episodes that it took about 1-2 weeks for each episode to be subbed is near impossible to leave a great enough impression on even the most devoted Toradora fan, and against an anime with 50+ episodes out... come on. It was a slaughter.wat?
This doesn't belong here, and episodes past eight have been subbed. The other day, I watched episodes eight, nine, and ten in a row. And I know episodes past that have been subbed by various groups.
