Eplaya, a cross section of views?

[kiboy]

My mother was a crack whore. She didn't have many rules.

[Elderberry]

My mother was a crack whore. She didn't have many rules.

Mine too.

[kiboy]

Well ok I'll take a guess based on what that poster said. It's that there are some that are saying discussion of some issues are unimportant or irrelevant. For instance I think you said in a post that turnkeys are here to stay so there's no point in discussing them. Or something to that effect.

[pink]

I met two people at the M&G that were lurkers. They immediately knew who I was.

I know of quite a few people that don't attend every year, usually due to logistical & fiscal reasons. So not attending this last year, like Fishy & CD, isn't out of the ordinary.

[Elderberry]

Well ok I'll take a guess based on what that poster said. It's that there are some that are saying discussion of some issues are unimportant or irrelevant. For instance I think you said in a post that turnkeys are here to stay so there's no point in discussing them. Or something to that effect.

Based on how I actually feel about PnP camps, this would be a better paraphrase: PnP camps are here to stay so there's no point in ranting and raving about how they don't belong and focus on ways to integrate them into the community in as responsible a way as possible. i.e. solutions rather than bitching and ranting and raving.

[kiboy]

OK that's cool, as far as I know there have been suggestions to that end. But within any discussion you'll run the gamut of positions and imo they should all be heard. Within the discussions I've been reading some of the outrage at the turnkey practices needs to be questioned if what has been said is true. I'm guessing that many if not most aren't going to be a problem, UNLESS sleazy turnkey operations are allowed to operate unchallenged and they don't get special privileges that are unreasonable. I'm not sure what that means yet. I'm still gathering information before I take a hard stand on the issue. And I'll be curious to see what conclusions BORG comes to on all this bru ha ha.

[Dr. Pyro]

Oil has dropped below $50/barrel (down $2.83 to $49.86) and the State of Califuckingornia thinks it can somehow solve global warming by increasing the cost of a gallon of gas. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that looks out for the little guy, the poor, the disenfranchised. How is making it more expensive to have some poor single working mother to buy gasoline to get to work going to stop global warming? How is this helping some poor person-of-color trying to find work? They are hurting the very people they say they represent.The hypocracy of these yahoos in Sacramento flummoxes even me. But I don't doubt that some people on this board will support their war on the impoverished believing that somehow it's for the greater good.

So yes, I think the ePlaya does have a cross section of views. So there.

[Lonesomebri]

Oil has dropped below $50/barrel (down $2.83 to $49.86) and the State of Califuckingornia thinks it can somehow solve global warming by increasing the cost of a gallon of gas. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that looks out for the little guy, the poor, the disenfranchised. How is making it more expensive to have some poor single working mother to buy gasoline to get to work going to stop global warming? How is this helping some poor person-of-color trying to find work? They are hurting the very people they say they represent.The hypocracy of these yahoos in Sacramento flummoxes even me. But I don't doubt that some people on this board will support their war on the impoverished believing that somehow it's for the greater good.
So yes, I think the ePlaya does have a cross section of views. So there.

I suppose the issue is, who/what is the alternative. Sure the Democrats might piss on the poor and call it rain, but the main alternative will shit on the the poor and call it shit, and say that is all the poor deserve, so, there's that.......

[Elderberry]

Oil has dropped below $50/barrel (down $2.83 to $49.86) and the State of Califuckingornia thinks it can somehow solve global warming by increasing the cost of a gallon of gas. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that looks out for the little guy, the poor, the disenfranchised. How is making it more expensive to have some poor single working mother to buy gasoline to get to work going to stop global warming? How is this helping some poor person-of-color trying to find work? They are hurting the very people they say they represent.The hypocracy of these yahoos in Sacramento flummoxes even me. But I don't doubt that some people on this board will support their war on the impoverished believing that somehow it's for the greater good.

So yes, I think the ePlaya does have a cross section of views. So there.

It's a paradox.

I'd say the answer would be to raise the tax on gas and give the poor a way to get a rebate via their income tax.

[Lonesomebri]

Oil has dropped below $50/barrel (down $2.83 to $49.86) and the State of Califuckingornia thinks it can somehow solve global warming by increasing the cost of a gallon of gas. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that looks out for the little guy, the poor, the disenfranchised. How is making it more expensive to have some poor single working mother to buy gasoline to get to work going to stop global warming? How is this helping some poor person-of-color trying to find work? They are hurting the very people they say they represent.The hypocracy of these yahoos in Sacramento flummoxes even me. But I don't doubt that some people on this board will support their war on the impoverished believing that somehow it's for the greater good.
So yes, I think the ePlaya does have a cross section of views. So there.

According to the great thinkers found elsewhere on this board discussing ticket sales, anyone who lives in the US and has a car to drive is better off than most of the rest of the world and therefore really has nothing to complain, or even comment, on....

Strange that the single mother and poor person-of-color don't see the main alternative political party as salvation. Why is that? Maybe if some of your concern for these people was directed at why they vote for the Democrats over the Republicans, you know, actually finding out something about their lives, not just a prop to argue that you pay too much for gas....

And maybe Doc, {clears throat} if the alimony was paid, that single mother wouldn't be in such a bind.

[theCryptofishist]

There are a lot of cross views, at any rate.

[ranger magnum]

Pretty much what Crypto said.

[Corvus]

I suppose the issue is, who/what is the alternative. Sure the Democrats might piss on the poor and call it rain, but the main alternative will shit on the the poor and call it shit, and say that is all the poor deserve, so, there's that.......

Which is why I vote Libertarian -- I don't want to encourage either the Dems or the Pubs. I don't agree much with George Wallace's politics, but when he said there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties, he got it right.

[Dr. Pyro]

Strange that the single mother and poor person-of-color don't see the main alternative political party as salvation. Why is that? Maybe if some of your concern for these people was directed at why they vote for the Democrats over the Republicans, you know, actually finding out something about their lives.

That certainly explains why the Dems did so well last November.

[unjonharley]

The Dems do everything under handed.. Where to Reps do the same up front.

Nothing has changed in my life time.. From FDR to Ob..

[Lonesomebri]

The Dems do everything under handed.. Where to Reps do the same up front.
Nothing has changed in my life time.. From FDR to Ob..

Don't I know it. I always vote for the third, or forth, or fifth party. Which means all the bozos accused me of electing Bush Jr because I voted for a third party candidate. Clowns totally ignore the weak Dems, the failure of their candidates, the Supreme Court, Florida, Conservative voters, etc etc etc. The whole Iraq war thing, my fault (and Nader) because I voted for a third party. Try and find a better way and all the great thinkers will rain on your head, vote for the most liberal I can find and all the liberals accuse me of voting for the right-wing candidate. The Democrats destroyed the Left by crucifying Nader and anyone to the left as supporting the Right. Evil and underhanded. Vote for the person who tries to stick by the Constitution the most and the Conservatives accuse me of being a commie. Then the Conservatives were destroyed by the extremes of the Tea Party. From FDR to Obama, the best that capitalism could hope for, even if it isn't obvious. And everyone accuses me of throwing my vote away because I dared vote for who I actually wanted to win. The outrage.

This, more than anything, prepared me for the douche camp boutique hotel battles and the opposition I would face sticking to my opinion here.

Just like BRC, is there a cross section of views? As I tell anyone who hasn't been, there is a cross section of people covering the spectrum of any large city, there isn't one shared view or outlook.
And sure, as seen here, most of them are wrong.

[Elderberry]

There is a big difference between opinion and facts.

That is all. Over and out.

[FIGJAM]

I disagree!

[Lonesomebri]

There is a big difference between opinion and facts.

That is all. Over and out.

I would face sticking to my opinion here.

Yeah, my opinion, that's what I said, didn't you just read that? How about you?

Yes, it is always, ALWAYS, the guy pointing out "that's just your opinion" who thinks his opinions are the facts.

[vargaso]

Oil has dropped below $50/barrel (down $2.83 to $49.86) and the State of Califuckingornia thinks it can somehow solve global warming by increasing the cost of a gallon of gas. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that looks out for the little guy, the poor, the disenfranchised. How is making it more expensive to have some poor single working mother to buy gasoline to get to work going to stop global warming? How is this helping some poor person-of-color trying to find work? They are hurting the very people they say they represent.The hypocracy of these yahoos in Sacramento flummoxes even me. But I don't doubt that some people on this board will support their war on the impoverished believing that somehow it's for the greater good.

So yes, I think the ePlaya does have a cross section of views. So there.

The price of a gallon of gas is relatively low today. In 6 months, it could very well be 4 bucks a gallon. I'm all for taxing that gas (and for taxing dat ass!) if it means less dependency on crazy-ass theocratic single-industry economies like Saudi Arabia. Or crazy-ass backwards-Marxist Venezuela. I'm all for weaning us off of plutocratic oil companies and the insane subsidies we funnel to them, no questions asked. I'm all for using that gas tax to fund R&D on alternative fuel and energy technologies, if only to create more competition for the oil industry.

To my mind, complaining about a few cents more per gallon is shortsighted at best, and cynical, if you're aware of the whole game, at worst. Anyone who favors the oil industry status quo should realize that that scenario was not the result of the hallowed and unfettered "free market," but instead due almost solely to government policy and heavy subsidization.

So yeah, tax dat gas!

[unjonharley]

If it were not for some creative maneuvers I would be a street person...

I grow some of my food.. I ride a trike to the store.. I catch a care van to medical appointment.. I pinch every penny until Lincoin's nose bleeds.. I do my best to stay healthy.. I use the car when I'm feeling lazy.. It a privilege to drive not a right

I say put a dollar tax on the gas coming out of the refinery.. Pry the stupid people out of there"look" good car/trucks.. It would cost me an extra $50 to drive to Burning Man and back..

The hair on my neck stands up when I think of today's low gas price.. Is it just another red herring?.. Price drop at the same time all the new cars are coming out..

[vargaso]

The Dems do everything under handed.. Where to Reps do the same up front.
Nothing has changed in my life time.. From FDR to Ob..

Don't I know it. I always vote for the third, or forth, or fifth party. Which means all the bozos accused me of electing Bush Jr because I voted for a third party candidate. Clowns totally ignore the weak Dems, the failure of their candidates, the Supreme Court, Florida, Conservative voters, etc etc etc. The whole Iraq war thing, my fault (and Nader) because I voted for a third party. Try and find a better way and all the great thinkers will rain on your head, vote for the most liberal I can find and all the liberals accuse me of voting for the right-wing candidate. The Democrats destroyed the Left by crucifying Nader and anyone to the left as supporting the Right. Evil and underhanded. Vote for the person who tries to stick by the Constitution the most and the Conservatives accuse me of being a commie. Then the Conservatives were destroyed by the extremes of the Tea Party. From FDR to Obama, the best that capitalism could hope for, even if it isn't obvious. And everyone accuses me of throwing my vote away because I dared vote for who I actually wanted to win. The outrage.

This, more than anything, prepared me for the douche camp boutique hotel battles and the opposition I would face sticking to my opinion here.

Just like BRC, is there a cross section of views? As I tell anyone who hasn't been, there is a cross section of people covering the spectrum of any large city, there isn't one shared view or outlook.
And sure, as seen here, most of them are wrong.

I voted for Nader too, but only because I live in California where the electoral college would lean Democrat no matter what I do. If I was living in a red state, I'd have voted for Gore. I'm not idealistic enough to think a third party is going to ever win a national election in my life time, so the lesser of two evils is good enough for me. In the case of the 2000 election, I genuinely believe a Gore presidency would have meant a different and even better outcome post 9/11. And it's almost indisputable that Nader syphoned away enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to "win". MAYBE those Nader voters in red states would not have voted at all otherwise. And maybe not giving Gore the win was a statement enough for Nader voters. It's fun/maddening to think about it all, and of course, people should vote for who they want. Anyhoo, I save my idealism for local politics where I think it can matter more.

[TomServo]

Hope this is the right forum for this topic but Mods feel free to move it.


Some of the discussions here have got me wondering how well Eplaya represents a cross section of the Burner population and their views as a whole. Do you think this forum is a pretty balanced representation of burner population as a whole or do you think it's skewed to one particular view or another? Why?

It is fluid...attitudes here change. It used to be anarchy, until the mods. But, for the most part its a forum for concentrated views..and is still NOT Burning Man.

[Lonesomebri]

... And it's almost indisputable that Nader syphoned away enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to "win". MAYBE those Nader voters in red states would not have voted at all otherwise. And maybe not giving Gore the win was a statement enough for Nader voters. It's fun/maddening to think about it all, and of course, people should vote for who they want. Anyhoo, I save my idealism for local politics where I think it can matter more.

Gore siphoned off enough of the anti-war votes to let Bush beat Nader, or all the other things like the Courts and the Demo's internal problems siphoned off enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to win, thus it is their fault and not Nader's, but it sure is easier to blame the weakest, most inconsequential, idealistic player. For all we know had 9/11 happened on Gore's watch, he would have nuked someone to look tough. At the end of the day, no matter how corrupt Bush, no matter how complacent and ineffectual Gore, blame Nader. To me, that is a serious problem. With that dynamic in place there really is no hope for any progressive change; the status quo is seen as the only accepted force for change, while the forces of change are labeled the defenders of the status quo. Oh well, the Democrats attacking Nader while Bush trounced them, and they voted for his war and tax cuts, reminded me of Bush attacking Iraq because some Saudis attacked the US.

[vargaso]

... And it's almost indisputable that Nader syphoned away enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to "win". MAYBE those Nader voters in red states would not have voted at all otherwise. And maybe not giving Gore the win was a statement enough for Nader voters. It's fun/maddening to think about it all, and of course, people should vote for who they want. Anyhoo, I save my idealism for local politics where I think it can matter more.

Gore siphoned off enough of the anti-war votes to let Bush beat Nader, or all the other things like the Courts and the Demo's internal problems siphoned off enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to win, thus it is their fault and not Nader's, but it sure is easier to blame the weakest, most inconsequential, idealistic player. For all we know had 9/11 happened on Gore's watch, he would have nuked someone to look tough. At the end of the day, no matter how corrupt Bush, no matter how complacent and ineffectual Gore, blame Nader. To me, that is a serious problem. With that dynamic in place there really is no hope for any progressive change; the status quo is seen as the only accepted force for change, while the forces of change are labeled the defenders of the status quo. Oh well, the Democrats attacking Nader while Bush trounced them, and they voted for his war and tax cuts, reminded me of Bush attacking Iraq because some Saudis attacked the US.

I don't "blame" Nader or those who voted for him (like me!). It's simply a fact that with our mostly two-party system and bifurcated voting blocs, any 3rd party candidate that gets the kind of votes Nader got (or Perot before him) will result in the party most ideologically different from them winning the election. For national elections, I'm not that interested in anything but the result. I'd prefer a Democrat to win. If a left-of-center 3rd party candidate gets enough votes in a close election, the Republican will win. It's just how it is.

[TomServo]

... And it's almost indisputable that Nader syphoned away enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to "win". MAYBE those Nader voters in red states would not have voted at all otherwise. And maybe not giving Gore the win was a statement enough for Nader voters. It's fun/maddening to think about it all, and of course, people should vote for who they want. Anyhoo, I save my idealism for local politics where I think it can matter more.

Gore siphoned off enough of the anti-war votes to let Bush beat Nader, or all the other things like the Courts and the Demo's internal problems siphoned off enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to win, thus it is their fault and not Nader's, but it sure is easier to blame the weakest, most inconsequential, idealistic player. For all we know had 9/11 happened on Gore's watch, he would have nuked someone to look tough. At the end of the day, no matter how corrupt Bush, no matter how complacent and ineffectual Gore, blame Nader. To me, that is a serious problem. With that dynamic in place there really is no hope for any progressive change; the status quo is seen as the only accepted force for change, while the forces of change are labeled the defenders of the status quo. Oh well, the Democrats attacking Nader while Bush trounced them, and they voted for his war and tax cuts, reminded me of Bush attacking Iraq because some Saudis attacked the US.

I don't "blame" Nader or those who voted for him (like me!). It's simply a fact that with our mostly two-party system and bifurcated voting blocs, any 3rd party candidate that gets the kind of votes Nader got (or Perot before him) will result in the party most ideologically different from them winning the election. For national elections, I'm not that interested in anything but the result. I'd prefer a Democrat to win. If a left-of-center 3rd party candidate gets enough votes in a close election, the Republican will win. It's just how it is.

I'm all for thread drift..but this is retarded

[vargaso]

I'm all for thread drift..but this is retarded

Agreed.

[Elderberry]

Oh look, there's a thread for that: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=28079

[tamarakay]

I hope Green Bay wins Sunday

[unjonharley]

I hope Green Bay wins Sunday

Lived in Wisc. 1/3 of my life before moving to the left coast..
Hope to see the game on TV>>