The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
lennypops said:
The word seems to imply two clear things:

1) The person it applies to is defending something/one or an idea

2) The thing/person/idea being defended is controversial

That all seems fine to me. Of course it can be used by anyone. When you're at your Klan meetings you might call me a "feminism apologist" and within that context the word would totally work. The worst thing it does is make clear that some things are controversial. I'm sure we can all handle that.

So if I say I like roses in my garden it doesn't make sense to say I'm a "rose apologist". If I like weeds in my garden it just tells you something useful to describe me as a "dandelion apologist". It doesn't mean I'm good or bad. It doesn't say that dandelions are good or bad. It does tell you that a) I see no problem with them and b) other people do. That's all.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it means something similar to the following,

"How dare you say that. How dare you try to defend the indefensible, or discuss something which society abhors. You are not allowed to do that. You must know the unwritten rule regularly circulated by the media and other sources about discussing such issues in such a manner. What you seek to discuss is too fearful for words, or too wicked to contemplate. I hereby wave my politically correct higher ground card in your face. You are no longer allowed to open your mouth, or pick up your pen. Not only is what you have souht to discuss, morally represhensible, but you are a disgrace for seeking to raise the topic in any manner other than by spewing bile, and outright condemnation upon it. Do not say another word. I win."
 
RobSpur said:
In my opinion, it means something similar to the following,

"How dare you say that. How dare you try to defend the indefensible, or discuss something which society abhors. You are not allowed to do that. You must know the unwritten rule regularly circulated by the media and other sources about discussing such issues in such a manner. What you seek to discuss is too fearful for words, or too wicked to contemplate. I hereby wave my politically correct higher ground card in your face. You are no longer allowed to open your mouth, or pick up your pen. Not only is what you have souht to discuss, morally represhensible, but you are a disgrace for seeking to raise the topic in any manner other than by spewing bile, and outright condemnation upon it. Do not say another word. I win."
Click to expand...

Blimey - the voices in your head are even more verbose and paranoid than I thought. Must be exhausting.
 
Anyway, in brighter news, I see that the UN has this week appointed an Ambassador for "The Empowerment of Women" <diva>

No gender bias there at least.
 
He's reading up about the Ambassador readers.

It is actually true *.

Anyway, goodnight.


* the bit about the lynda carter vid was a joke obvs.
 
I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women
 
  • Like
Reactions: lennypops
I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"

I must not say that Lenny has, "mental feminist rants"
 
RobSpur said:
I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women

I must not joke about masturbating over videos of the UN's Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women
Click to expand...
Though in many ways your internal monologue is a scary and confused place it is sometimes quite amusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobSpur
RobSpur said:
In my opinion, it means something similar to the following,

"How dare you say that. How dare you try to defend the indefensible, or discuss something which society abhors. You are not allowed to do that. You must know the unwritten rule regularly circulated by the media and other sources about discussing such issues in such a manner. What you seek to discuss is too fearful for words, or too wicked to contemplate. I hereby wave my politically correct higher ground card in your face. You are no longer allowed to open your mouth, or pick up your pen. Not only is what you have souht to discuss, morally represhensible, but you are a disgrace for seeking to raise the topic in any manner other than by spewing bile, and outright condemnation upon it. Do not say another word. I win."
Click to expand...
Even if that were true it would be a useful word as it would be good to know that the writer had such extreme views.
 
lennypops said:
Constitutions are indeed a very weird idea. Especially since people then seem to have this idea that they are some eternal truth that must always be adhered to (and its hard to see how/why humans can't naturally gravitate towards this conclusion).

It's especially ironic that Americans get all bent out of shape about potential change or deletion to the second amendment. The second amendment. You know - the thing that was added/changed. The thing that, by its very existence, shows that governmental constitutions aren't eternal and set in stone. Especially, maybe, when considering the role/legality/utility of tools that are designed only to kill things. It's ****ing insane.
Click to expand...
What really stands out about the US Constitution is that there is not a single thing within it that addresses the American people, as it breaks down as follows...
Article One: Congress
Article Two: POTUS (yes, the US Constitution placed more importance on Congress than the President)
Article Three: the judicial branch
Article Four: relations between state and federal government, as well as admitting states to the Union
Article Five: amending the Constitution
Article Six: making the Constitution the supreme law of the land
Article Seven: set the number of state ratification in order for the Constitution to take effect

It was another fifteen years before the Bill of Rights was drawn up to compensate for such a glaring oversight, which is worth remembering the next time somebody bangs on about their "Constitutional right" to do something.
 
There is one glaring issue at the moment regarding the presidential system, which is that due to changes in demographics, the republican party might never get reelected. Which basically means the end of a meaningful democracy in the US.

A second glaring issue is that 21st century democracy appears to essentially mean a battle of dirt in the media.

A third glaring issue is that the mainstream media channels appear to be able essentially decide the election.
 
There's a theory doing the rounds that Trump is actually a Trojan horse installed by Hillary in order to make sure she wins the election. It's a theory riddled with so many gaps in logic that it almost makes the writing on The Walking Dead look borderline competent.

I mean, come on, are we supposed to believe that Donald Trump okayed a plan that would see him go to jail for fraud the second he accepted a single dollar in campaign donations, let alone the millions he's received during this campaign, or that such a plan could be put into place without a single person who was in on it letting slip that it was a scheme? Considering the amount of campaign managers Trump has hired and fired, that's a lot of people that would need to be briefed about the plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
RobSpur said:
There is one glaring issue at the moment regarding the presidential system, which is that due to changes in demographics, the republican party might never get reelected. Which basically means the end of a meaningful democracy in the US.

A second glaring issue is that 21st century democracy appears to essentially mean a battle of dirt in the media.

A third glaring issue is that the mainstream media channels appear to be able essentially decide the election.
Click to expand...
1) I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion? The House of Representatives will most likely be Republican controlled even if the Democrats win the popular vote. 2) Agreed
3) Surely there are more non-mainstream media than ever before which I thought would be a good thing but seems to have led to very polarised views.
 
RobSpur said:
There is one glaring issue at the moment regarding the presidential system, which is that due to changes in demographics, the republican party might never get reelected. Which basically means the end of a meaningful democracy in the US.
Click to expand...

Or change and actually become appealing to the electorate you need to vote for you,
regardless of the demographics.
 
RobSpur said:
There is one glaring issue at the moment regarding the presidential system, which is that due to changes in demographics, the republican party might never get reelected. Which basically means the end of a meaningful democracy in the US.

A second glaring issue is that 21st century democracy appears to essentially mean a battle of dirt in the media.

A third glaring issue is that the mainstream media channels appear to be able essentially decide the election.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Republican party should've considered this before they alienated virtually everybody?
In order to vote for them now, you've essentially got to be a white, straight, male, Christian, gun owner who's extremely self-interested.
Even then you're probably pushing it.

The party can hardly complain about dirt battles either, especially when it's Clinton that they're up against.
They've been attempting to slur the woman for about 30 bloody years now, so even when they do find something, nobody cares.
Anything that Wikileaks digs up on the Democrats falls by the wayside, as everyone's sick of birther crap and "Benghazi!!" every day.

The Trump cry against mainstream media is particularly laughable, as they're the reason that he won the nomination.
They've given him billions in free advertising and it's backfired horribly, as everything that he says makes him look bad.
The rest of the party should be ashamed that they couldn't find anything on him, as there was tons of it.
How did they fail to find a single thing to eliminate him from the running? His closet has so many skeletons in it that it resembles a mausoleum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
Closer to home, it's emerged that upon hearing that Boris Johnson crashed out of the Tory leadership race, David Cameron sent him a text reading "You should've stuck with me, mate" - which is possibly the first thing Cameron has done that made him appear human

Wouldn't it have been wiser if, knowing that Boris had designs on his job, Cameron kept his enemies close and found a spot for him in the cabinet to keep a leash on him? Except that was hardly Cameron's way of doing things, given how long he took to address the Scots referendum or Britait campaign, and made an utter hash of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back