• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Watch CSPAN Sometime....

Someone who is a better fanboy than I am commented to Greta about her mention in Equire. Seems she wasn't as hot as Charlieze Theron, but she got an honorable mention.

Greta Wodele, C-SPAN

Love at first sight: I saw her on C-SPAN one morning at seven, hosting Washington Journal, arranging newspapers, reading a few highlighted paragraphs, then glancing up to meet the camera's gaze as the sad and the mad phoned in to dump their drivel and delusion. It felt like opening a locket, seeing her that first time, wise in her silence, infinitely patient yet gently firm when it came time to move on to the next call.

She is not hot; she's beautiful. Her hair, thick and mahogany, shows no trace of having been put through much but a brush. Her dark eyes are moist, her smile prim and pink. Each facial plane -- her high, wide brow; that long, smooth heart-shaped stretch from cheekbone down to neck -- sings in milky harmony. That face would make old Plato -- Plato's dust -- rock hard.

She sits behind a desk, looking smart and chic and good enough to eat. I didn't even know her name -- Greta Wodele -- until an editor told me, which pissed me off: I didn't want to know it. Our love was pure as dawn; our love was Eden.

O, Greta! I need coffee; I want you. --Scott Raab
Click to expand...

In a society where Pam Anderson is considered perfection, and Britney, Lindsay and Paris get far more press than they deserve; seeing a real, gorgeous, intelligent, sexily demure, thoughtful, composed and delightfully personable woman be in the running against bleached, implanted, stupid/crazy/self-destructive bimbos makes me have a warm feeling in my tummy.
 
Lonewulf said:
And I answered.



More logic. Less emotion.

Next?
Click to expand...
Well gee golly williker you sure know what you are talking about
Lonewulf said:
Or, in particular, a democratic republic, with a minority of fools being voted for by a majority of incompetents.
Click to expand...
Hypocricy and emotional dribble at it's finest.
 
CFLarsen said:
What do you suggest, then?
Click to expand...

Although I don't personally think democracy is fatally flawed (there are problems, but whatever), I don't understand why a person would need to make any suggestion. Just as a person can tell that food is not tasty even if they do not know how to cook, people can determine that government is not good even if they do not know how to make a good government. The "if you think this sucks, then why don't you try better" is fallacious wherever it appears, no matter whether it is in the discussion of film or in politics.
 
technoextreme said:
Well gee golly williker you sure know what you are talking about

Hypocricy and emotional dribble at it's finest.
Click to expand...

Well gee golly willicker you sure put me in my place! :rolleyes:

Well, MY e-penis is bigger than yours.
 
Last edited:
...What phoney pieces of crap they are. What absolute garbage.

I've watched for 45 minutes now. Barbara Boxer (D) - useless trash. Senator Inhouf(?) (R) - useless trash. Al Gore - useless trash. It's a hearing on global warming. And none of them, I repeat, none of them have any interest in discussing the science or any other social aspects of this.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a rerun. I'm sure I saw this episode a while ago.
Would be "Inhofe" from Oklahoma. He was once voted the #3 stupidest senator.
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/
CNN ...We should point out in the recent five-year period, Senator Inhofe received more than $850,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/inhofe-diatribe/
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Boxer but her constituents seem to think well of her:
Barbara Boxer became a United States Senator in January 1993 after 10 years of service in the House of Representatives. Elected to a third term in 2004, she received more than 6.9 million votes, the highest total for any Senate candidate in American history.
http://boxer.senate.gov/about/bio/
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive that Al Gore not an elected official though.
 
Dana Perino should run for office though. Maybe after she quits and writes a scathing book about Bush.
 
Sorry, noticed this began last March. There was a recent Inhofe interview on CNN. He seems fairly immune to rational discourse.
Maybe I should go to bed.

Yeah Greta is hot but media people are supposed to be attractive. That's the point isn't it?
 
UserGoogol said:
Although I don't personally think democracy is fatally flawed (there are problems, but whatever), I don't understand why a person would need to make any suggestion. Just as a person can tell that food is not tasty even if they do not know how to cook, people can determine that government is not good even if they do not know how to make a good government. The "if you think this sucks, then why don't you try better" is fallacious wherever it appears, no matter whether it is in the discussion of film or in politics.
Click to expand...

Fallacious? It's what got us out of the caves, mate.

The easiest job in the world is to criticize. It's a lot harder to think of improvements.
 
Lonewulf said:
Well gee golly willicker you sure put me in my place! :rolleyes:

Well, MY e-penis is bigger than yours.
Click to expand...
So you hate emotional tripe and said we should get rid of it in politics. You get called on the fact that your first post on this topic was emotional tripe. You respond with more emotional tripe.
 
CFLarsen said:
Fallacious? It's what got us out of the caves, mate.

The easiest job in the world is to criticize. It's a lot harder to think of improvements.
Click to expand...

The purpose of logic is not to get us out of caves, but to arrive at truth. Even if a statement has no immediate practical application, it is still true, and thus may be useful at some point in the future.

Criticism can be easy, but it is not unimportant. When done properly, criticism is one of the most important foundations of critical thinking. The heart of skepticism is to question old ideas and old concepts and reveal them as the bunk they were all along. Building up new ideas to replace them is of course a necessary complement to this, but there's no shame in a little division of labor.
 
technoextreme said:
So you hate emotional tripe and said we should get rid of it in politics. You get called on the fact that your first post on this topic was emotional tripe. You respond with more emotional tripe.
Click to expand...

Except that I can show, empirically, that many of the people in politics are incompetent.

G.W. Bush, anyone?

Try again, Techno. If you keep saying that it's "emotionally tripe", maybe reality will warp around it and actually agree with you for once.

Actually, forget it. I'm just gonna throw you on my ignore list, with the rest of the trash.
 
Lonewulf said:
Except that I can show, empirically, that many of the people in politics are incompetent.
Click to expand...
So why not show it? You just take the intellectually void route and say minority of fools. Not only that but you sidestepped the fact that you called the voting population idiots. How do you prove that?
 
technoextreme said:
So why not show it? You just take the intellectually void route and say minority of fools. Not only that but you sidestepped the fact that you called the voting population idiots. How do you prove that?
Click to expand...
A couple of data points in support of . . .

Re election of Bill Clinton

Re election of George W Bush

Election of Martin Sheen as Mayor of Malibu

You want more? ;)

DR
 
How about something easier?

Can anyone, Techno included, actually demonstrate a good politician that was elected? One that was honest, intelligent, and actually able to obey the law? I'm thinking of modern ones, and I'm coming up blank. G.W. Bush senior and junior, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Nixon. Hell, Kennedy made plenty of ****-ups himself.

And don't make me get into local politics. Baptist creationists ftl.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
And people wonder why I don't vote. If you vote, this is what you are voting for. I hope you are proud.
Click to expand...
The people who voted may have made ill informed decisions or voted based on meticulous research. They may regret their decision or they may be happy with the results. But at least they participated in the process. At least they had guts to make a decision. Yes, I'm proud to be a participant in the election process. I don't regret forfeiting my right to be a smug, righteously indignant, outsider taking pot shots at people who at least make an effort.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
The people who voted may have made ill informed decisions or voted based on meticulous research. They may regret their decision or they may be happy with the results. But at least they participated in the process. At least they had guts to make a decision. Yes, I'm proud to be a participant in the election process. I don't regret forfeiting my right to be a smug, righteously indignant, outsider taking pot shots at people who at least make an effort.
Click to expand...

Better than being a smug, righteously indignant, insider taking pot shots at people who realize what the system really is, right?

Hey, this insulting thing can go both ways!

I always liked the false dichotomy of politics. If you have two officials to be elected, it's your patriotic duty to vote, even if they're utter morons; the "lesser evil" type of dichotomy. I'm sorry, but if I have to shop at a store, and I have to choose between Lame-O Product A and Crappy Product B, I don't choose one because it's my "duty", I go across the street to walmart and get my frickin' choice.

But, to be fair, there's a lot you can do with your local election process. Just in America, just make sure that you're Christian; if you're not, you don't stand a chance in politics. Especially if you're atheist. ;)
 
Last edited:
Right. Specifically, there's CSPAN, which covers the House of Representatives, and CSPAN2, which covers the Senate.

CSPAN can be misleading for outsiders, because sometimes they will show sessions of congressional committees which don't include all the congressmen; this can cause some people to wonder why the room is so incredibly empty. I've seen sessions were there couldn't have been more than a dozen people and a janitor in the chambers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom