Barlow essay on Burning Man and Schwartzenegger

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:19 pm

Well, I understand what you were saying now, but I disagree. This is a conspiracy theory, and one predicated on many, many spurious assumptions.

I know it sounds far fetched but I was told the same when I said to friends in 2000 G.W. Bush would be placed in office by the
electoral college.

Yes I did agree with you there.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:26 pm

DE FACTO wrote:I know it sounds far fetched but I was told the same when I said to friends in 2000 G.W. Bush would be placed in office by the
electoral college

I don't actually see anything particularly sinister or compelling here.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:27 pm

mind you they were mad at me then and are still mad at me now.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:27 pm

DE FACTO wrote:mind you they were mad at me then and are still mad at me now.

I'm quite sure you are used to it.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:28 pm

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:31 pm

blyslv wrote:Your writing is so clotted that the only thing revealed is a lazy writer.

Just to answer you question; I'm not lazy, just trying to cut down the use of bandwith.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:33 pm

DE FACTO wrote:
Don Muerto wrote:Staying with the current events of the day/s, the results of the Massachusetts Gay marriage issue has made many in that state upset enough to draw up a bill to rewrite thier constitution. Thus creating the "buzz word" affect. (for lack of better words) in 2 years "rewrite the constitution" should be the buzz word for at least 2 years after that. which should subsequentialy cause the thought process of rewriting the actual constitution of the united states.

Every legislative session has bills proposed to change the Consitution. The US Consitution has been "re-written" several times. They are called amendments, and most Right Thinking People (those that agree with ME!) think that the amendments are a good thing. There are bigger things to worry about then some proposals to amend a constitution.

(De facto -- when I see you write like this, it makes the gibberish you post seem even more infuriating ... strong word ... hissy fit making.)

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:38 pm

blyslv wrote: (De facto -- when I see you write like this, it makes the gibberish you post seem even more infuriating ... strong word ... hissy fit making.)

Yes I know. I'm trying to get a compromise worked out. The only way to acomplish this is by practice.

blyslv wrote:Every legislative session has bills proposed to change the Consitution. The US Consitution has been "re-written" several times. They are called amendments, and most Right Thinking People (those that agree with ME!) think that the amendments are a good thing. There are bigger things to worry about then some proposals to amend a constitution.

All I can say is "I agree" I now am scaring myself.

III · Post by **III** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:50 pm

>understanding that they understand what I'm talking about

i'm sure that your understanding is entirely delusional. it's most likely that they agree with you only to make you go away.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:58 pm

III wrote:>understanding that they understand what I'm talking about

i'm sure that your understanding is entirely delusional. it's most likely that they agree with you only to make you go away.

You can always not say anything. Or stop trolling me.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/

Are you understanding me?

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 7:07 pm

Are you understanding me?

You're fucking kidding. Right?

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 7:35 pm

<sigh>

You guys have'nt figured out yet that attacking me does not work.

I respond to attacks, usually in kind.

It would be nice if it would stop. But it seems like this is what you prefer.

So keep going. It seems you need to get it out of your system.

You'll get tired.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 7:41 pm

(PLONK!)

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:02 pm

Badger wrote:(PLONK!)

that's right. that's much better. Mind you I've never done anything to you except good.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... highlight=

So hey.

keep creating your drama. like I said I'll wait till you get it out of your systems.

SED · Post by **SED** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:54 pm

I actually held hope that Arnold wouldn't be so bad, and he might not be. But I remember him going on about leadership so many times, then I heard him say the other day that that he would put the taxation issue up to popluar vote. Somebody correct my facts if I got them wrong, but it sure sounded like a cop out to me.

As far as Barlow is concerned, I like what he wrote for the Dead much better than his Burning Man essay.

Regarding De Facto, engaging in anything with him is like wrestling a pig. You just get covered in filth and soon enough you realize that the pig likes it. I used to enjoy taking shots at him from time to time, but he's just a fart-filled punching bag. He serves no purpose and contributes nothing.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:04 pm

SED wrote: Regarding De Facto, engaging in anything with him is like wrestling a pig. You just get covered in filth and soon enough you realize that the pig likes it. I used to enjoy taking shots at him from time to time, but he's just a fart-filled punching bag. He serves no purpose and contributes nothing.

I understand. so i will not dignify that with a reply.

oops i just did huh?

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:47 pm

so i will not dignify that with a reply.

Isotopiatranslat-o-tron: That ballbusting bastard...must think.....of a....witty....reply. Can't. Head....hurts....

No use.

No.......use.....

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:48 pm

Isotopia wrote:
so i will not dignify that with a reply.
Isotopiatranslat-o-rtron: That ballbusting bastard...must think.....of a....witty....reply. Can't. Head....hurts....

No use.

No.......use.....

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:53 pm

(PLONK!)

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:14 am

SED wrote:I actually held hope that Arnold wouldn't be so bad, and he might not be. But I remember him going on about leadership so many times, then I heard him say the other day that that he would put the taxation issue up to popluar vote. Somebody correct my facts if I got them wrong, but it sure sounded like a cop out to me.

As far as Barlow is concerned, I like what he wrote for the Dead much better than his Burning Man essay.

Regarding De Facto, engaging in anything with him is like wrestling a pig. You just get covered in filth and soon enough you realize that the pig likes it. I used to enjoy taking shots at him from time to time, but he's just a fart-filled punching bag. He serves no purpose and contributes nothing.

Here here.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 7:10 pm

I read this morning newspaper's account of the governator's latest, and i'm thinking maybe we elected a somewhat ordinary guy...

"Well, I mean, you know, the Republicans have a choice. It is the fiscal recovery bond or raising taxes. That is the choice that is up to them, because I am only going to make cuts to a certain point,'' Schwarzenegger said.

"I'm not going to cut dog food for blind people,'' he added, referring to state assistance for seeing-eye dogs. "It won't happen. I'm not going to take prosthetics from people with disabilities and all that stuff. There is a certain point where I stop."

Besides all this over analysis of whether Barlow is an alpha male, and (admittedly..my bad) Arnold is an environmentalist, maybe we just elected a somewhat ordinary person. What do you think?

alice · Post by **alice** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 9:32 pm

while arnold may have some ordinary ideas, i think he's prolly as far from ordinary as anyone can be.

i know i rag on him, but i do have great respect for anyone who makes something out of themselves as he has.

in fact, i'm not worried about him as a politician or a person; i worry about the true source of power.

stupid, rich white men who own the world, the power and the influence.

i hope he's not a puppet.

and i hope that he will be able to affect the changes he talks about.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:47 pm

WTF happened to Arnold's promises to cut the fat outta the budget? There's plenty of that. I happen to know for a FACT that a LOT of the money intended to help the poor never gets to them, it's all stolen by those who're supposed to be doling it out to them.

I think the healthiest thing we can probably do next election is throw out ALL INCUMBENTS, no matter what.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:48 am

aforceforgood wrote:WTF happened to Arnold's promises to cut the fat outta the budget? There's plenty of that. I happen to know for a FACT that a LOT of the money intended to help the poor never gets to them, it's all stolen by those who're supposed to be doling it out to them.

I think the healthiest thing we can probably do next election is throw out ALL INCUMBENTS, no matter what.

Whuhuh?

You already threw out the incumbent and REPLACED HIM WITH A REPUBLICAN.

You people are WORSE THAN THE NADERITES.

And why wait until the next election -- why not RECALL ARNOLD NOW?

The cost of the recall election obviously means MONEY DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT TO YOU --

so why complain about how any GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SPENDS YOUR MONEY?

Thank you all for LISTENING TO ME.

Blenderhead · Post by **Blenderhead** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:02 am

Bob wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:WTF happened to Arnold's promises to cut the fat outta the budget? There's plenty of that. I happen to know for a FACT that a LOT of the money intended to help the poor never gets to them, it's all stolen by those who're supposed to be doling it out to them.

I think the healthiest thing we can probably do next election is throw out ALL INCUMBENTS, no matter what.
Whuhuh?

You already threw out the incumbent and REPLACED HIM WITH A REPUBLICAN.

You people are WORSE THAN THE NADERITES.

And why wait until the next election -- why not RECALL ARNOLD NOW?

The cost of the recall election obviously means MONEY DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT TO YOU --

so why complain about how any GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SPENDS YOUR MONEY?

Thank you all for LISTENING TO ME.

and a good morning to you, too, Bob!

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:31 am

Shut up, I'm having a RHETORICAL CONVERSATION.

- Max Bialystock

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:12 am

(swooon... I <heart> Bob when he's cranky)

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:44 pm

Bob wrote:You already threw out the incumbent and REPLACED HIM WITH A REPUBLICAN.

You people are WORSE THAN THE NADERITES.

I'm starting a pledge drive to help people who've been poisoned by the establishment's propaganda- I hereby pledge $3, a ball of lint I found in my pocket and 17 inches of string towards curing people of the mental disease of categorization.

People, can we please get past the simplistic generalizing categorizations? They only muddy the waters. And if there was ever a case where categorizing someone as a republican is utterly ridiculous, Schwarzennegger's GOT to be it. Saying he's a republican is kind of like saying he's a man. It's correct, but it leaves out a boatload of more pertinent information about what you're trying to describe. He's one of a kind, for good or bad.

Neither party gives a damn about you, their motivations are power and money, and they will NOT do the right thing unless we watch over their shoulder and MAKE SURE they do it.

Deal with it, accept and internalize that fact, or please don't pretend you have anything intelligent to say about politics.

Don Muerto · Post by **Don Muerto** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:58 pm

aforceforgood wrote:People, can we please get past the simplistic generalizing categorizations?

You mean categorizations like 'incumbent'?

What really is the difference between somebody categorizing Schwarzenegger as a Republican, and you categorizing him, Gray Davis and every other politician into a fit-all box of 'incumbent'?

So, say we toss out every professional politician regardless of merit and stripe. What then? Will the amateurs that replace them suddenly know how to work the byzantine controls of government? Will they be able to effectively interact with the bureaucracies? Or will your incumbent purge include the staff of every public entity down to school-boards and water districts?

aforceforgood wrote:Neither party gives a damn about you, their motivations are power and money, and they will NOT do the right thing unless we watch over their shoulder and MAKE SURE they do it.

Deal with it, accept and internalize that fact, or please don't pretend you have anything intelligent to say about politics.

I happen to agree with the first sentence above, but I can't muster the arrogance to believe the second. I have never had the market cornered on intelligence though, YMMV.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:14 pm

It is a generalization, but with a difference- when I hear "democrat" or "republican", those words mean as much to me as if they were sports teams, where the Raiders would be "good" and the Broncos would be "bad" or vice versa. It's an oversimplification that I don't see as useful, and more likely it's harmful, since you want to be on the "good" team, and want to believe the best of people on your "team". It's human nature. And the sociopaths who run for public office capitalize on that, lying shamelessly.

As for throwing out all incumbents, I realize in the real world that will not happen, but I believe our electorate has rightly been judged by pols as being asleep since they've been getting away with murder, and with "throwing out all incumbents" as the starting point of my wish, I'd be overjoyed if people did throw out 50% of incumbents. I think that would be a good start. Obviously, people aren't just going to accept and adopt my suggestion mindlessly and vote out people they believe in and think are doing a good job, but hopefully it will start them thinking about the usefulness of firing a few of the legislators who've worked against the best interests of the people... which would go far towards throwing a little much-needed fear into those that remain that they can actually be fired if they don't perform.

And I was completely serious about knowing for a fact that there's a huge amount of graft in government (read; money you're paying in taxes that ends up in some pols bed-buddie's pockets, not going to running or improving the state, nation, etc.). Is anyone suprised by this? Pruning the branches will enable replacing some of the diseased limbs, hopefully resulting in a higher percentage of healthier (honest non-stealing) ones. It sure isn't going to heal itself if we just leave it alone.

Barlow essay on Burning Man and Schwartzenegger

Trolling again