Am off to bed having seen 30 minutes of the first US Presidential debate. Anyone who wants to watch more of it should seek counselling. In terms of content it is impossible to distinguish what either of them is actually proposing on taxation policy. What comes over to me is the lack of any divergence from a neo-liberal economic model.
But in terms of style and presentation, which I presume this is about, rather to my surprise Romney is coming over the better. He is glib whereas Obama is stuttering a lot; they are both achingly dull, but Obama’s phrases seem curiously disconnected and there are gaps when you can see the gears meshing in his head. Neither of them shows any evidence whatsoever of charisma.
Four years ago Obama was talking with apparent belief about the need for change and inspiring people to follow him. He may even at the time have believed much of what he promised, but given the speed of abandonment of principle in office, I doubt it. Now Obama is just trying to present as a more managerially competent neo-con; a managerially competent neo-con competition is about the only one Romney can actually perform in.
I don’t really care who wins – debate or election.
Interesting comparison, John G. I’ve been thinking that Hilary’s symptoms are remarkably similar to Miranda’s. Namely, overpowering delusions of adequacy associated with confusion. As in confusing very rich and influential people with human beings.
The condition is obviously progressive, and in the absence of wealth, very often leads to the Napoleon Ward of some secluded hospital with very large male nurses.
‘In fact his Miranda persona is the sole evidence for his being anything other than a psychopath…’
What precludes someone who is bisexual from being a psychopath?
no hope
just helmand dope
no change
just power, murder and money exchange
no point
just a trueman puppet show.
don’t change da bbc channel
cos the meat grinders are all the fucking same.
Kempe 4 Oct, 2012 – 7:11 am
“… at the very least he’s the lesser of two evils.”
That is the very essence of representative politics (party politics). It is always about the lesser evil, by definition, when one is forced to choose between this bundle or that, between “left”, “right”, “liberal” or some other hue. In principle under such a system it is perfectly plausible that turkeys consistently vote for Christmas – if the alternative choice is Christmas-every-day. This patent flaw of representative democracy is exploited to the full by our masters.
It is a fundamental problem and the solution must involve fundamental change – the introduction of issue politics as a parallel mechanism to party politics. Some people like to call it direct democracy, others call it hybrid direct-representative democracy, others citizen-lawmaking, some point out that it is the inevitable logical extension of the principle of popular sovereignty that the majority accept as the foundation of western democracy (including our politicians).
There are none so blind…
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RLnaibPcUsY
Just to pass the time whilst Craigs up to his neck in it in Newcastle.
The money system is the fabric of our unholy society.
The degenercy of our people, part of the mass take down of our natural instincts towards altruism.
I don’t understand the phycology behind our failings; I am sure we are being manipulated subversively.
Is the floride in the water, subliminal messaging techniques,
Frequency messages.
Something doesn’t ring true. How are we so naive and gullible.
Maybe we are not conditionioned towards suspicion.
Maybe we are all in my imagination.
How I have failed!
Mary: Either Miranda is a psychopath, or he is a bisexual psychopath. In that case he is not just a psychopath – i.e. something other than a psychopath as well.
Now get off my case, eh?
Gore Vidal once said:
Also he said:
This is a classic example of the subversion of morality by the equivocations of the moral relativist. It fails to distinguish hawk from heron, right from wrong, and arse from quim.
So to answer Mary’s question:
“What precludes someone who is bisexual from being a psychopath?”
The answer is: Absolutely nothing precludes bisexuals from psychopathic behaviour. Their divided loyalties diminish their moral human investment by the ambivalent condition of ‘running with the hare, and running with the hounds’. Bisexuality is an act of pure narcissism; putting ones orgasm above ones psycho-sexual function within a social setting. Easy cum, easy go.
I don’t think there’s any inherent failing with representational democracy it’s simply that today’s politicians are complete nonentities lacking any form of vision or charisma. There’s little difference between them; or their policies.
@ Jimmy Giro:
That.
Komodo wrote:
“The condition is obviously progressive, and in the absence of wealth, very often leads to the Napoleon Ward of some secluded hospital with very large male nurses.”
Which brings us back to Jimmy Savile [no relation].
Maybe we should create a game called: ‘Six degrees to Jimmy Savile’… wait a minute, I smell Bacon !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o5imvMVsVCQ
@JimmyGiro, you’re taking a very odd position on bisexuality. Surely the individualism in your hard-right views would discourage you from thinking that people should consider their “psycho-sexual function within a social setting”? Equally, maybe people define themselves as bisexual because they are, you know, attracted to both sexes (or both genders)?
You’ve earlier suggested that it is political correctness that prevents people from criticising gay sexuality, but perhaps that statement is intended to insulate you from accusations of homophobia? I mean, all things aside, it is quite possible for a person to be homophobic, right? And I’d say a statement of “Bisexuality is an act of pure narcissism” qualifies you for that category, and that is saddening.
I’d say you’ve misunderstood Gore Vidal. If he said the things you attribute to him, he appears not to be condemning non-heterosexual behaviours, but their endless classification. Perhaps he was suggesting that “everyone is a bit of bi”, or that human nature would tend towards it if not for strong social norms.
@Komodo – perhaps I have missed some part of the conversation, but be nice to Mary. No reason to flicker your lizard tongue!
Back on topic, the difference between leaders of the ‘free world’, ultimately reflects the the degree of expectations of the masses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=2jtd3GR38wo&NR=1
oddie at 4 Oct, 2012 – 3:21 am
“i don’t care either, craig, except for the greater possibility of an attack on iran if romney wins”
Me 3.
And the Romney quote: “I would ask Netanyahu what he wants me to do”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd_MBxwy__k
(When does Netanyahu face re-election btw?)
I was the idiot who stayed up for the whole thing – albeit lying on the couch with two pillows under my head, and a Kerry shawl over the rest. Now I’m shattered. [FWIW, Romney “won” IMO – Obama looked haggard and on the back foot.]
On a different topic: I have been infuriated by Sky News ‘reporters/presenters’ in Wales on the case of little Alice Jones, making a mangle of various placenames, including Machynlleth and Dolgellau. If they can go to the trouble of getting placenames in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and god knows where else, right, why not in Wales?? The Welsh double L is not that difficult at all. They could so easily spend five minutes learning from a local person, and stop the stupidity that’s going on.
No wonder minority languages haven’t a hope, with such disrespect and carelessness on a nationwide channel. And I’m not alone – the criticism has been all over Twitter for the past few days.
Ok, ok, I’ll go back to bed. 😉
@ kempe
”no form of vision and charisma”
State the obvious!
Back to my previous post.
“manipulated subversively”
T h a t w I l l b e t h e m e d I a t h e n.
Craig you,d be better talking to 5 year olds.
We are being blagged.
Three apposite quotations:
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt”. – Bertrand Russell
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”. – William Butler Yeats
“A bureaucracy is very much like a cesspool, the really big chunks float to the top”. – Imhoff’s Law
The Welsh double L is not that difficult at all. They could so easily spend five minutes learning from a local person, and stop the stupidity that’s going on.
Me llama Komodo….that’s how you pronounce “ll”, amigo. The Welsh could so easily spend five minutes learning from a Madrileno…
Komodo I thought that your response ‘Now get off my case, eh?’
to my query on Miranda/psychopath/bisexual was rather rude and unnecessary.
Nuid: I think they get Welsh names wrong on purpose, it’s a little joke with them. The BBC has been doing it for years, even though – as you say – they manage to get all manner of complex foreign names bang on, through the use of their excellent pronunciation department. But Welsh names? Naah. Just make a complete hash of it, or wade through in a stuttering way with a bemused frown (and possibly a slight shake of the head). Typical anti-Welsh condescension from the English that we’re well used to.
I hope Obama wins as he’s less bad than Romney, though i agree he’s basically a conservative (and even neo-conservative) in foreign policy too. He is at least holding back war with Iran (at least for now), though this may be just to weaken it with sanctions and by removing it’s allies (e.g Assad) before attacking it.
Jon @4 Oct, 2012 – 2:54 pm
“If he said the things you attribute to him, he appears not to be condemning non-heterosexual behaviours, but their endless classification. Perhaps he was suggesting that “everyone is a bit of bi”, or that human nature would tend towards it if not for strong social norms.”
Would you therefore conclude that the behaviour of homosexuals is constrained by the ‘social norms’? And that those ‘social norms’ are a hindrance to the true desires of homosexuals, by the ‘homophobic’ ethos?
Hey Jimmy,
I’ll try to answer your question, but I am not sure I understand it. Hopefully this will suffice, but if you would like to clarify, I will happily respond further.
The behaviour of everyone is constrained to some degree by social norms. Gay lifestyles are not constrained as much as they were, since social norms are greatly changing – in the UK because of civil ceremonies, anti-hate and anti-discrimination legislation, and also because gay marriage is quite likely to happen.
Certainly the social norm was homophobic (without quote marks), but it is much less so now. I mentioned on a recent thread that I felt that this was due to the declining power of religion to exercise control over society, which I regard as a good thing.
JimmyGiro (4 Oct, 2012 – 5:53 pm): Indeed the behaviour of homosexuals is constrained! With all the homophobic attitudes that still abound, even in these supposedly enlightened times, it would be rather daft to think otherwise.
The largest cause of death for teenagers, particularly in America, is through suicide as a result of bullying for being gay. The practice was only decriminalised relatively recently, and is still punishable by death in parts of the world. There are cranks going around offering supposed cures, as with the “pray the gay away” evangelical nutcases.
Personally, I think homophobes are those who are a bit inclined towards gay tendencies themselves, and it absolutely terrifies the bejesus out of them. What do you reckon, me old fruit?
@Glenn – yes, I agree. My post was a bit UK-centric; attitudes elsewhere in the world are often disgraceful. We should remember that it is only within a generation that such relationships (between men at any rate) were illegal in the UK.
“The behaviour of everyone is constrained to some degree by social norms. Gay lifestyles are not constrained as much as they were, since social norms are greatly changing – in the UK because of civil ceremonies, anti-hate and anti-discrimination legislation, and also because gay marriage is quite likely to happen.
Certainly the social norm was homophobic (without quote marks), but it is much less so now. I mentioned on a recent thread that I felt that this was due to the declining power of religion to exercise control over society, which I regard as a good thing.”
Do you hate siblings that fall in love with each other?
@JimmyGiro – no. But there are genetic and psychological reasons why siblings should not have a sexual relationship.
But we’re not talking about incest – we’re talking about what appears to be your perspective against non-straight sexual relationships between people who are not biologically related, and who are able to give adult consent. It isn’t a conspiracy against the family as you’ve elsewhere implied – it is just about what gender types an individual is attracted to.
There are reasons to care, Craig. America’s energy policy will affect us all. There is such a thing as the better of two evils.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/obama-vs-romney-who-has-the-best-energy-plan/573
“no. There are genetic and psychological reasons why siblings should not have a sexual relationship.”
And what are the ‘genetic and psychological reasons’ for making homosexuality a virtue to be protected in law?
The argument of Gore, and I assume that it is an argument you too agree with, is that all sexuality is normal because it happens: “The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.”
Hence the Gore postulate would imply incest to be as ‘normal’ as homosexuality, or any other sexuality.
@glenn
They get Scottish place names wrong too. For a long time I believed that it was because they were too stupid to ask anyone about anything. But I’m a conspiracy theorist now – almost invariably fits better with the evidence. We used to be called scientists. Those were the days.
Jon the moderator wrote:
“I’ll try to answer your question, but I am not sure I understand it. Hopefully this will suffice, but if you would like to clarify, I will happily respond further.”
Obviously you aren’t that happy to respond further, as you have fallen pray to your moderating lust, and ‘time censored’ my comments !!!
There aught to be a law against it… oh yes, there was once, it was called freedom of expression. Then the Marxist-Feminists took control of the bureaucracy…
[Jon/Mod: I’ve not censored your comments in any way at all Jimmy.]