Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-25-2005, 04:13 PM
Exsubmariner Exsubmariner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Now Declassified
Posts: 71
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

I read that one and immediately picked up the parody. Very Very well done.

I think Frank Herbert wrote about the mastery of language as the ultimate mastery of the political universe. Language being more powerful than Violence, Wealth, and Know How the three legs of the traditional Toffler Power Triangle. Orwell wrote about Similar concepts in 1984.

Regardless of language though, truth remains. Language can only be used to pervert it or obscure it. Facts are facts, history is history, regardless of what is written or said about them.

Done with the tangent.

X
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:32 PM
DVaut1 DVaut1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

[ QUOTE ]
I think Frank Herbert wrote about the mastery of language as the ultimate mastery of the political universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of this, did anyone notice (and I'm sure some of you did) how much hyper-masculinity exists in right-wing rhetoric? I think Herbert is onto something – maybe language can shed some light on political ideology.

You don't have to look very far in BillUCF's post to see how many illusions to gender BillUCF makes:

- "The Democratic party is falling apart and all they do is bitch about things."

- "Something must be genetically inferior in the liberal mind to cause them to cry like weak schools girls"

- "There is not one liberal alive that has the stones to do what that man did."

Maybe we can put all this to the side for a moment and wonder aloud to ourselves if we can't think of an example or two of the right-wing trying to paint its opponents as feminine.

Maybe we could also consider this study by the Pew Research Center...which identifies the most conservative voters in this country (what they title 'Enterprisers') as (surprise surprise!) being largely composed of males (almost 3 to 1).

And maybe...juuuuuustttt maybe...we can also wonder aloud to ourselves if the right's constant hyper-masculine rhetoric might indicate to us that right-wingers, in all their passion and fervor, are driven almost singularly by the motivation to be the toughest, most macho SOB in the room.

I won’t outright accuse staunch right-wingers of being entirely motivated by something that more or less amounts to one big dick-size contest...because I’m not sure it’s completely accurate.

Or maybe I just don’t have the stones to come out and say it to their faces.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:37 PM
Roybert Roybert is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Frank Herbert wrote about the mastery of language as the ultimate mastery of the political universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of this, did anyone notice (and I'm sure some of you did) how much hyper-masculinity exists in right-wing rhetoric? I think Herbert is onto something – maybe language can shed some light on political ideology.

You don't have to look very far in BillUCF's post to see how many illusions to gender BillUCF makes:

- "The Democratic party is falling apart and all they do is bitch about things."

- "Something must be genetically inferior in the liberal mind to cause them to cry like weak schools girls"

- "There is not one liberal alive that has the stones to do what that man did."

Maybe we can put all this to the side for a moment and wonder aloud to ourselves if we can't think of an example or two of the right-wing trying to paint its opponents as feminine.

Maybe we could also consider this study by the Pew Research Center...which identifies the most conservative voters in this country (what they title 'Enterprisers') as (surprise surprise!) being largely composed of males (almost 3 to 1).

And maybe...juuuuuustttt maybe...we can also wonder aloud to ourselves if the right's constant hyper-masculine rhetoric might indicate to us that right-wingers, in all their passion and fervor, are driven almost singularly by the motivation to be the toughest, most macho SOB in the room, so to speak.

I won’t outright accuse staunch right-wingers of being entirely motivated by something that more or less amounts to one big dick-size contest...because I’m not sure it’s completely accurate.

Or maybe I just don’t have the stones to come out and say it to their faces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we officially declare this to be both 'Post of the Day' and 'Thread of the Day' yet?

Great job, DVault.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:44 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

That's pretty funny actually.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:44 PM
sirio11 sirio11 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 11
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

This thread is pure genius.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-25-2005, 06:31 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

[ QUOTE ]
This is hysterical. You have really outdone yourself.
X

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread doesnt even come close to having the comedic effect of the other.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-25-2005, 06:33 PM
Exsubmariner Exsubmariner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Now Declassified
Posts: 71
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

Oh the party has begun.

This is really fascinating. Of course, I have heard this before from spineless egg heads wishing to prove their superiority over men who are actually capable of accomplishing great things. There may be a correlation between the type of people who make this sort of argument and the conspicuous lack of economic prosperity of the extremely well educated egg head class who may or may not be jealous that the star quarterback types grew up to own businesses and marry cheerleaders.

I really don't want to take this discussion to that level, though. I'd like to talk about masculinity in the realm of political ideaology for a while.

Consider if you will, the first man to take ideals of masculinity to their conclusion who actually significantly changed the world. I'm talking about Phillip of Macedon. Father, or step father, of Alexander. Phillip had a vision. His vision was to take a relatively small number of men and train them into a highly efficient fighting force using the best technology available at the time in order to go out and take on the biggest empire on Earth. He figured that a well trained fighting force would be able to conquer a vastly numerically superior, but tactically inferior force and put an end to centuries of relentless invasion of Greece by the Persians. Couple his vision with the military genious of Alexander and the the world was changed forever.(BTW, I realize Alexander was at least bisexual, as was Phillip, so please don't try to derail the discussion by going down the gay agenda path. Oh yes, I've been wondering about your preferences.)

Phillip, by creating his army, brought about a period of human history in which adventurer conquerors shaped the world. Ceaser, Antony, Charlemaine, Attilla, Genghis right up to Napolean and most recently Hitler.

The things you can achieve with the proper application of a masculine ideal are staggering. You want wealth, conquer. You want to defend your home, conquer. You want to independence from the British Empire, conquer. You want to stop Facism, conquer. You want to win the Cold War, produce enough weapons that your enemy goes bankrupt trying to maintain parody. You want to stop terrorism, conquer.

Winning is not simply one thing. It's the only thing. Do you like to win at poker, Dvault? Where do you think that urge comes from? I'll tell you it's not from the organ that came up with "this is just one big penis size contest."

I can remember reading some studies done by the Army after WWII. What they found was that in combat, only 10% of soldiers actively sought to kill the enemy without being immediately put in personal physical jeapordy themselves. Later studies found that same 10% figure amoung people who were successful in business, sports, or other activities. God, I wish I had links. I'm going to look around and post them at a later time.

The point that I'm driving at, one of several actually, is that the 10% of the human population that I am talking about are going to have a disproportiate amount of control over resources. Another point is that same 10% are going to be directly interested in maintaining their ownership of those resources. They are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination and will wield their wealth to control policy and maintain the status quo to keep their positions when they feel threatened. These are the people who are going to go out and actively seek to kill the enemy in combat. Why? It serves their purposes. Simple. Pure.

Politics, at least the species you like to engage in has a shortcoming. That short coming is looking only for the win/win scenario. When something comes up that cannot have a win/win solution applied, the answer is invariably to stall the present situation where it is at so that it doesn't escallate. This is the thinking of Jimmy Carter, Neville Chamberlain types. Don't get me wrong, they were very smart guys. Jimmy could even be counted amoung the ranks of the "Nucular" (intentional Washington D.C. spelling) Navy. They just were incapable of taking the next logical political step that Churchill and Reagan, who came after them were capable of making.

I don't think you get the idea that sometimes, in politics, statecraft, whatever you want to call it, you must do what is necessary. Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Is it fair? Is it Democratic? It's not about fair or Democratic, it's about winning.

OK. Flame on.

X
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-25-2005, 08:06 PM
DVaut1 DVaut1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I have heard this before from spineless egg heads wishing to prove their superiority over men who are actually capable of accomplishing great things. There may be a correlation between the type of people who make this sort of argument and the conspicuous lack of economic prosperity of the extremely well educated egg head class who may or may not be jealous that the star quarterback types grew up to own businesses and marry cheerleaders.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Oh, there may be a correlation, huh? Please, feel free to provide some evidence of this any time. Somewhere, David Sklansky just shed a tear, I'm sure.

This board sure is funny sometimes. What are you guys thinking about when you invent this crap?

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't want to take this discussion to that level, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What level is that? The level where some crap you just made up might stand as something profound?

[ QUOTE ]
Consider if you will, the first man to take ideals of masculinity to their conclusion who actually significantly changed the world. I'm talking about Phillip of Macedon. Father, or step father, of Alexander. Phillip had a vision. His vision was to take a relatively small number of men and train them into a highly efficient fighting force using the best technology available at the time in order to go out and take on the biggest empire on Earth. He figured that a well trained fighting force would be able to conquer a vastly numerically superior, but tactically inferior force and put an end to centuries of relentless invasion of Greece by the Persians. Couple his vision with the military genious of Alexander and the the world was changed forever.(BTW, I realize Alexander was at least bisexual, as was Phillip, so please don't try to derail the discussion by going down the gay agenda path. Oh yes, I've been wondering about your preferences.)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, wow.

Anyway, what else would I do but try to push my gay agenda on you? Or should I say... all over you . What else would a gay guy like me do? Clearly I'm only here to question masculinity and push my obvious gay agenda.

I would have discussed Phillip and Alexander's bisexuality, but since you preemptively thwarted my attempts to bring this down the gay agenda path, I'll just move on...

[ QUOTE ]
Phillip, by creating his army, brought about a period of human history in which adventurer conquerors shaped the world. Ceaser, Antony, Charlemaine, Attilla, Genghis right up to Napolean and most recently Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the list...particularly given the enviable nature of 'adventurer conquerors' like Hitler.

I always thought moral and ethical qualities are for pussies and gays, too.

[ QUOTE ]
The things you can achieve with the proper application of a masculine ideal are staggering. You want wealth, conquer. You want to defend your home, conquer. You want to independence from the British Empire, conquer. You want to stop Facism, conquer. You want to win the Cold War, produce enough weapons that your enemy goes bankrupt trying to maintain parody. You want to stop terrorism, conquer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Hitler was one of those indomitable ‘adventurer conquerors’ who shaped the world? Wasn’t he a fascist?

Perhaps there’s something not quite so admirable about ‘adventurer conquerors’?

I guess the complete, sophisticated, and multi-dimensional view of history presented here by exsubmariner doesn’t come without its idiosyncrasies, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Winning is not simply one thing. It's the only thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just knew the world was more or less explainable by some Lombari-like clichés. I only needed someone to spell it out like you have, X.

I guess there are going to be some philosophy departments at universities all around the world who are quite upset to find out they’ve just been wasting their time with Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, etc. – not to mention anyone who adheres to an organized religion! Think of what those poor saps have been chasing around looking for ‘meaning’ – those Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. have spent centuries looking for a deeper meaning to life – all they had to do was open their eyes!

What a bunch of pansies those dopes are. Obviously, life is all about winning!

Clearly, this is only the type of wisdom that our masculine overlords could generate…and by masculine overlords, I mean former high-school QBs (with help from their cheerleader wives) - for whom, according to Xsubmariner, the gods have appearently left the great wisdom of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you like to win at poker, Dvault?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, like most gays and women, I prefer to lose at poker – it mostly has to do with my non-functioning genitalia, as you will point out in a moment.

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you think that urge comes from? I'll tell you it's not from the organ that came up with "this is just one big penis size contest."

[/ QUOTE ]

My penis, obviously!

Initially, after reading some books by some egg-head know-it-alls….and by egg-head know-it-alls, I mean poor stiffs now subservient to former high school QBs…I thought (how stupidly!) that my urge to play poker was to make money!

How wrong I was. Little did I know, the urge to play poker came from my penis – the only rational explanation. It's the penis which drives all avarice in this world; women, being humans without penises, could never know what the desire for money is like.

And being gay and all, I wouldn’t know what greed is like. Neither would Annie Duke or Jennifer Harmon, either. Only adventurer conquerors know of want of money.

For the adventurer conquerors of the world, money isn't about having 'things' and 'materials' which might make life easier and more enjoyable. Money is just the way their penises keep score.

Thanks for the lesson, X...I don't know where my life would be without the wisdom in your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I can remember reading some studies done by the Army after WWII. What they found was that in combat, only 10% of soldiers actively sought to kill the enemy without being immediately put in personal physical jeapordy themselves. Later studies found that same 10% figure amoung people who were successful in business, sports, or other activities. God, I wish I had links. I'm going to look around and post them at a later time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only you had the links …if only…

[ QUOTE ]
The point that I'm driving at, one of several actually, is that the 10% of the human population that I am talking about are going to have a disproportiate amount of control over resources. Another point is that same 10% are going to be directly interested in maintaining their ownership of those resources. They are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination and will wield their wealth to control policy and maintain the status quo to keep their positions when they feel threatened. These are the people who are going to go out and actively seek to kill the enemy in combat. Why? It serves their purposes. Simple. Pure.

Politics, at least the species you like to engage in has a shortcoming. That short coming is looking only for the win/win scenario. When something comes up that cannot have a win/win solution applied, the answer is invariably to stall the present situation where it is at so that it doesn't escallate. This is the thinking of Jimmy Carter, Neville Chamberlain types. Don't get me wrong, they were very smart guys. Jimmy could even be counted amoung the ranks of the "Nucular" (intentional Washington D.C. spelling) Navy. They just were incapable of taking the next logical political step that Churchill and Reagan, who came after them were capable of making.

I don't think you get the idea that sometimes, in politics, statecraft, whatever you want to call it, you must do what is necessary. Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Is it fair? Is it Democratic? It's not about fair or Democratic, it's about winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’d come up with more stupid sarcastic comments, but this is getting boring.

Actually, it got boring a long time ago.

But, obviously, you used a few hundred words to describe something that’s completely improvable and not worth of any kind of serious consideration short of "wow, this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read" - even that might be pushing it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-25-2005, 08:13 PM
ptmusic ptmusic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 513
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh the party has begun.

This is really fascinating. Of course, I have heard this before from spineless egg heads wishing to prove their superiority over men who are actually capable of accomplishing great things. There may be a correlation between the type of people who make this sort of argument and the conspicuous lack of economic prosperity of the extremely well educated egg head class who may or may not be jealous that the star quarterback types grew up to own businesses and marry cheerleaders.

I really don't want to take this discussion to that level, though. I'd like to talk about masculinity in the realm of political ideaology for a while.

Consider if you will, the first man to take ideals of masculinity to their conclusion who actually significantly changed the world. I'm talking about Phillip of Macedon. Father, or step father, of Alexander. Phillip had a vision. His vision was to take a relatively small number of men and train them into a highly efficient fighting force using the best technology available at the time in order to go out and take on the biggest empire on Earth. He figured that a well trained fighting force would be able to conquer a vastly numerically superior, but tactically inferior force and put an end to centuries of relentless invasion of Greece by the Persians. Couple his vision with the military genious of Alexander and the the world was changed forever.(BTW, I realize Alexander was at least bisexual, as was Phillip, so please don't try to derail the discussion by going down the gay agenda path. Oh yes, I've been wondering about your preferences.)

Phillip, by creating his army, brought about a period of human history in which adventurer conquerors shaped the world. Ceaser, Antony, Charlemaine, Attilla, Genghis right up to Napolean and most recently Hitler.

The things you can achieve with the proper application of a masculine ideal are staggering. You want wealth, conquer. You want to defend your home, conquer. You want to independence from the British Empire, conquer. You want to stop Facism, conquer. You want to win the Cold War, produce enough weapons that your enemy goes bankrupt trying to maintain parody. You want to stop terrorism, conquer.

Winning is not simply one thing. It's the only thing. Do you like to win at poker, Dvault? Where do you think that urge comes from? I'll tell you it's not from the organ that came up with "this is just one big penis size contest."

I can remember reading some studies done by the Army after WWII. What they found was that in combat, only 10% of soldiers actively sought to kill the enemy without being immediately put in personal physical jeapordy themselves. Later studies found that same 10% figure amoung people who were successful in business, sports, or other activities. God, I wish I had links. I'm going to look around and post them at a later time.

The point that I'm driving at, one of several actually, is that the 10% of the human population that I am talking about are going to have a disproportiate amount of control over resources. Another point is that same 10% are going to be directly interested in maintaining their ownership of those resources. They are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination and will wield their wealth to control policy and maintain the status quo to keep their positions when they feel threatened. These are the people who are going to go out and actively seek to kill the enemy in combat. Why? It serves their purposes. Simple. Pure.

Politics, at least the species you like to engage in has a shortcoming. That short coming is looking only for the win/win scenario. When something comes up that cannot have a win/win solution applied, the answer is invariably to stall the present situation where it is at so that it doesn't escallate. This is the thinking of Jimmy Carter, Neville Chamberlain types. Don't get me wrong, they were very smart guys. Jimmy could even be counted amoung the ranks of the "Nucular" (intentional Washington D.C. spelling) Navy. They just were incapable of taking the next logical political step that Churchill and Reagan, who came after them were capable of making.

I don't think you get the idea that sometimes, in politics, statecraft, whatever you want to call it, you must do what is necessary. Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Is it fair? Is it Democratic? It's not about fair or Democratic, it's about winning.

OK. Flame on.

X

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservatives obviously have small penises; that's why they talk this way. A recent study should suffice as proof.

-ptmusic
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-25-2005, 09:28 PM
Roybert Roybert is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Aliens and the US Government (a few facts)

Awww, what the hell ...

[ QUOTE ]
...star quarterback types grew up to own businesses and marry cheerleaders.

[/ QUOTE ]





Which lucky, star quarterback got to marry this cheerleader, girls?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.