free speech


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

free speech

Postby jeremyp » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:00 am

As we have a national election should we not have a week to weigh in? Or are the powers that be waiting until November 7?
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: free speech

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:32 am

Why? Maybe one day, but a whole week? Ugh...count me out.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: free speech

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:37 am

jeremyp wrote:are the powers that be waiting until November 7?

Try July 4. Now is a recipe for disaster.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:14 am

I agree. Sure, if the mods said it's ok to have an election thread, we could talk about politics for a week. But do we really want to do that? I don't. It try not to talk to my friends about politics. There are people whom I like and with whom I'm pleased to spend time but who have political views that are totally opposite my own. The same is true about some close relatives. I find it best to confine our discussions to things of mutual interest other than politics.

I'm happy to share my thoughts with this track & field community on subjects "Not T&F"--movies, music, books, astronomy, whatever. But discussions of politics inevitably turn ugly these days. Why should we tolerate a hostile play environment?

Moreover, I don't think anything productive can come of it. Nobody is going to turn our liberals into conservatives, nor vice versa. Might we get some new insights? I doubt it. Anyone who wants to be enlightened by diverse views of the today's political choices can read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal on the web.

So I vote for keeping free speech limited to July 4. (No, I'm not under the illusion that I have a vote.)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby gh » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:53 am

we be debating it.... one different thing under consideration is throwing it open for one day... after the election.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: free speech

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:09 am

That sounds like a fine idea. After the election...
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:28 am

In the meanwhile, we'll just have to make do with this:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2012/10 ... 8_p465.gif

:)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby dukehjsteve » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:29 am

There was an interesting article in Time a few weeks ago, which basically said research shows that political arguments do not change any minds.... just the opposite... they further entrench the two opposing sides in their beliefs. So why have an open forum here ? It won't accomplish a thing.

Plus, to a certain degree, my/your views on politics are no one's business but our own.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: free speech

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:05 am

Conor Dary wrote:That sounds like a fine idea. After the election...

You might as well just make check boxes:

___ Worst Thing ever

____ Best Thing Ever

____ The Apocalypse is upon us

____ Keep the Good Times rollin'

____ I'm moving to Canada

____ Common Sense Prevails

____ If so-and-so comes over to gloat, I'm gonna belt him!

____ Ha - I told him so!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: free speech

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:06 am

At the moment I am so disgusted with politicians of all colors that I would certainly not participate in any debate no matter what.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: free speech

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:14 am

dukehjsteve wrote:There was an interesting article in Time a few weeks ago, which basically said research shows that political arguments do not change any minds.... just the opposite... they further entrench the two opposing sides in their beliefs. So why have an open forum here ? It won't accomplish a thing.

Plus, to a certain degree, my/your views on politics are no one's business but our own.


Yes, indeed. But of course, that private business takes public form in the voting booth--so they end up mattering to the society at large quite a bit.

It is "remarkable" (for lack of a better word) that all the political argumentation/reasoning in the world--here at least--fails to change anyone's mind about anything. Political views are typically a result of a complex matrix of experiences and values--which becomes a kind of conceptual self-regulating system that (largely) determines what new facts we take seriously. I'd venture that only the weight of real-world-events has some realistic chance of changing adults' political views--not argumentation or the presentation of specific facts.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: free speech

Postby gh » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:46 am

yet the pollsters would have us believe that there is still a significant bloc of people in the "undecided" camp... for whatever that's worth
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: free speech

Postby cullman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:57 am

gh wrote:we be debating it.... one different thing under consideration is throwing it open for one day... after the election.

Ahhh...a real debate...not that televised schtick drek posing as a debate. :?
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: free speech

Postby gm » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:44 pm

gh wrote:yet the pollsters would have us believe that there is still a significant bloc of people in the "undecided" camp... for whatever that's worth


The same doofus corps that can't decide whether to turn right or left from the middle lane of a three lane road...
gm
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: free speech

Postby jhc68 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:11 pm

I don't want to talk about the issues, let's just vote already!!!
I'm all in with Lewis Black: If you haven't made up your mind by now you've got no business voting at all.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:22 pm

Free Speech about politics is a bad idea at any time on this forum. It has no redeeming merit and only serves to alienate otherwise (reasonably) congenial people.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: free speech

Postby Master Po » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:15 am

lonewolf wrote:Free Speech about politics is a bad idea at any time on this forum. It has no redeeming merit and only serves to alienate otherwise (reasonably) congenial people.


Well said. thanks, lonewolf.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2643
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: free speech

Postby gh » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:53 am

The probable content of free-speech items is by definition going to be "controversial." That apparently also apparently means distasteful to some of you. Allow me to suggest a simple fix: DON'T OPEN THE THREAD! I guarantee, that way you can't be offended.

It's not as if the thread title is "pit bull adopts cute kitten" and you open it up and the first post is, "Candidate X is a raging asshole!"
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: free speech

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:22 am

gh wrote:The probable content of free-speech items is by definition going to be "controversial." That apparently also apparently means distasteful to some of you. Allow me to suggest a simple fix: DON'T OPEN THE THREAD! I guarantee, that way you can't be offended.

It's not as if the thread title is "pit bull adopts cute kitten" and you open it up and the first post is, "Candidate X is a raging asshole!"


Right. It is not like you have to open the thread or like gh put it, as I just noticed rereading the above, that there will put some false leader like "Free Prizes!!' to get you there. There are some threads, and posters, I completely avoid.

Depending on the outcome I am not at all sure I will be involved. But I think for one day after the election it is a fine idea.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: free speech

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:41 am

lonewolf wrote:Free Speech about politics is a bad idea at any time on this forum. It has no redeeming merit and only serves to alienate otherwise (reasonably) congenial people.

completely agree. Whatever happened to talking about T&F anyway.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:41 pm

preston wrote: Whatever happened to talking about T&F anyway.

We're still doing it. Just click on Historical or Current Events. :)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby gh » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:03 pm

Hokay, here's what the setup will be. There will be no opening of the Free Speech Forum.

There is now a single "what do you think of the election?" thread at the top of this forum. It will be open for a 24-hour period come the evening of election day.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: free speech

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:57 pm

Do we have to wait until the Hawaiian election window is closed?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: free speech

Postby jeremyp » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:35 am

Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: free speech

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:01 pm

jeremyp wrote:Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.


More like 47% and 47%. The other 6% are in a coma.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: free speech

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:03 pm

kuha wrote:
jeremyp wrote:Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.

More like 47% and 47%. The other 6% are in a coma.

Yeah, how on earth do people get this far into the campaigns and NOT know who they're voting for?! I don't believe they don't know.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: free speech

Postby Anthony Treacher » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:26 pm

Just reading the Culture Section p. 40 of my latest Sunday Times 21.10.12, Andrew Holgate's review of 'Serving Victoria: Life in the Royal Household' by Kate Hubbard. Something rang a bell:

'The boredom of life at a court bristling with bourgeois virtues but deliberately incubated from the louche world of the aristocracy was stultifying. The evenings were especially taxing, with conversation at dinner either nonexistent or crushingly banal. Politics and other awkward topics were banned, and intellectual subjects viewed with suspicion. "The dullness of our evenings," wrote one courtier, "is a thing impossible to describe." Even "lingering over the port", Hubbard reports drily, "was frowned on in the new era of sobriety."'

As a foreigner, I would have loved to have read you guys debating the election.
Anthony Treacher
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:48 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: free speech

Postby JRM » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:01 am

Marlow wrote:
kuha wrote:
jeremyp wrote:Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.

More like 47% and 47%. The other 6% are in a coma.

Yeah, how on earth do people get this far into the campaigns and NOT know who they're voting for?! I don't believe they don't know.


Undecided voters aside, there's a more pressing issue. Why is it that the notion of a winner-take-all popular vote is given any weight? Various polling agencies and the media are constantly touting results of national polls, as if they are some deciding factor. Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: free speech

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:24 am

JRM wrote:Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

Can you name the two states that are NOT winner-take-all for their Electors? God forbid that the election should come down to that!

Furthermore, I've heard all the pro-Electoral College arguments, and I still don't buy them. I say the popular vote wins, and if no candidate gets 50%, there's a run-off between the top two.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: free speech

Postby gm » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:40 am

JRM wrote:Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?


Balancing a checkbook is a mystery to most...how could the EC possibly be easier to understand?
gm
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:53 am

I think most people understand the basics of the EC. I assume they're still teaching it to kids in school. If not, what are they teaching--it's rather basic.

What I don't understand is why there hasn't been an outcry against it. Nobody--politicians, newspapers, tv pundits--utters a word against it. Ever. Why not?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby preston » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:55 am

Marlow wrote:
JRM wrote:Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

Can you name the two states that are NOT winner-take-all for their Electors? God forbid that the election should come down to that!

Furthermore, I've heard all the pro-Electoral College arguments, and I still don't buy them. I say the popular vote wins, and if no candidate gets 50%, there's a run-off between the top two.

and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

If they eliminate the electoral college, which I think should happen, then the courage is needed to also eliminate the senate. (that should save a lot of money!) California has more population than the 22 least populated states combined, but each person in California has effectively less say than the people in those 22 states.

Eliminate the senate. And give the residents of the District of Columbia EQUAL representation to the other citizens of the US.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: free speech

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:02 am

I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges? Why not eliminate suspicion that they would be partial to their campaign donors? Police chiefs are appointed, why not the sheriff? Sheriff's job is not a popularity contest, is it? Why do registrars of deeds or town clerk have to spend money on campaigns :shock: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:11 am

Pego wrote:I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges?

In some states, judges are appointed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_state_jud ... or_elected
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:19 am

preston wrote:and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: free speech

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:20 am

tandfman wrote:
Pego wrote:I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges?

In some states, judges are appointed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_state_jud ... or_elected


Thank you. I did not know this.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: free speech

Postby preston » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:38 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.

A plurality is the most votes and most votes make you the winner. It's a fallacy to believe that in a world where people are not only more partisan but ALSO choose their own facts that anyone who wins DOESN'T have a problem before they take office.

The Electoral College is NOT needed.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: free speech

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:39 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.

As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: free speech

Postby Blues » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:49 am

Pego wrote:I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges? Why not eliminate suspicion that they would be partial to their campaign donors? Police chiefs are appointed, why not the sheriff? Sheriff's job is not a popularity contest, is it? Why do registrars of deeds or town clerk have to spend money on campaigns :shock: ?


I think I prefer the election system.. Although some elected individuals could be somewhat partial to their campaign donors, I think it might be beneficial that whether they're chosen for the position or not isn't at the mercy of any possible bias or prejudice of the particular politician who's been given the power to appoint them.. It's a checks and balances thing...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: free speech

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:52 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:[As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.

My sentiments exactly..
I understand the rationale behind the design the Electoral College and could argue either side of EC vs popular with equal lack of conviction.
Actually, I tend to favor the system which elects my candidate. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests