This just in: Canada screws itself up royally

[Marril]

Last time I checked, the prequel trilogy wasn't source of great insight nor introspection about modern society.

Hey, if I wanted to turn to Star Wars for political commentary, I'd quote NJO instead of the prequel trilogy. That quote was just the first to come to mind. Oh yeah, and Ewoks weren't in the prequel trilogy.

Case in point: People will elect and/or let anyone come into power who wants to, and will only ever recognize it as a bad thing when **** starts to hit the fan.

 

[~Blazi-King~]

I am saddened by the fact that many people believe things like:
1. Marijuana has killed thousand of Americans.
2. The words, "Separation of church and state" are in the US Constitution.
3. The federal government has the power to dictate to the States what their policy on abortion will be; the Constitution gives the Supreme Court legislative power.
4. The Civil War was fought primarily because of slavery.
5. US currency has always been fiat currency.
6. Hitler was not elected.
7. The World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked by Iraqis.
8. Everyone can fit into the one-dimensional liberal/conservative spectrum.
9. The US government is not deficit spending.
10. Monopolies exist because of greedy rich people, not because of the government.
11. The fact that Republicans and Democrats oppose each other means that they are opposites; not similar in any way.
12. There has always been an income tax in America.

LOL People actually believe all those ?? Ummmmm Oooooooookay

1. How, do we officially know that ?
2. It is ? hmmmmm.
3. No they don't. To both.
4. Ummmm, no. I t was fought over money "&" slavery, not just one or the other because they are intetwined. Also, it was fought because slave owners also thought that releasing all the slaves at once would cause a "depression" and therefor put a strain on the southern economy....plus, if they had become free, where would they have lived. The fact is too that they would still be considered slaves because during that time you needed land to be something or to make a decent living, so therefor the slaves would not be able to get that kind of land and would have to be come indentured slaves.
5. LOL
6. Well he was an elected official that eventually took over. If I not mistaken ?
7. No, they were attacked by religious extremists from the middle-east who believed that what they were doing was right, and believed the word of another. LOL
8. Nope LOL
9. Yea right.
10. Thats definitely not true. Isnt it the government who helped create these monopolies in the first place, because the monopolies were helping the government by contributing money to campaigns to get certain officials elected? AKA Bedfellows ?
11. Ehhhhh wrong again. They are more alike than we care to admit.
12. LOL, I just took government and thats one of the reason why the "Articles of Confederation" failed to establish a government that could do anymore than issue postage stamps. Was because they was no way of getting money for the government to run.


Fortunately, I know better LOL, and am thankful for it :thumb: :wink:

 

[Baboon]

I do not know a whole lot about Canadian politics, so I will not go into detail there, but I do have one thing to say. It is absolutely appalling that every time any kind of political topic comes up on these boards, the first thing out of anyone's mouth is how terrible the conservatives are and how you can't possibly live with them in power. Yes, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But the fact that moderators not only allow this kind of extremely biased, very borderline bashing, but PARTAKE IN IT THEMSELVES disgusts me.

My condolences....
'mom

What kind of model are you setting for the many younger members here who have little understanding of politics? I know if I were younger and came in here, the first thing I would see is "Conservatives are the devil incarnate" and then believe it as fact. I hate to say it, but politics doesn't work like that, and it truly is a sad thing to see that so many of you believe that. At very least, there should be a presentation of the other side, not immediate dismissal of it as crap.

In America, yes, the Republicans (Conservatives) have done things wrong. On the other hand, so have the Democrats (Liberals). This is not about any particular issue. It's the fact that without even seeing what this new Prime Minister will do or giving him a chance at all, it's the end of the world in your eyes.
I'm just going to stop talking. Nobody here would respect my point anyway.
Let the liberal flamefest continue. =\

 

[SD PokeMom]

So because I'm a moderator here, I...or any other mod/admin, like 'Pop...don't get to state an opinion?

Nice...

'mom =/

 

[Baboon]

Moderator: one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
Mediator: One that mediates, especially one that reconciles differences between disputants.

I hardly consider your post to fall under the definition of "moderator". You most certainly can have an opinion, and I'm glad you do have one. Having an opinion is better than being ignorant of the situation. But honestly, I don't really think that post was appropriate for someone in your position.
But, regardless, you're in charge. Do whatever you feel like.

 

[Otaku]

Baboon, you make the mistake of thinking this is a neutral board. It isn't. I know, members such as you and I face a dilema when political threads: if we do not post, then some are lulled into thinking that the opinions expressed are unchallenged or mainstream. If we do post, there is little we can say or do. It is there board. Mods can't truly be bias free: they are, after all, only human. They can work hard to avoid flaunting their biases. Now, their stances on things like politics, at least if they are going to mod political threads, do need to be known. However, it works best to do this not in the thread, but in their member profiles. It would help to avoid unduely influencing things. That, or allow the mods an "off duty" account so that it isn't "the word of a mod" but just another fellow Gymmer's thoughts.

Trying to focus more on the subject at hand, I see that debate is fairly useless. Why? Because things one sides hold as fact are fantasy to the other, and vice versa. I've seen quite a few opinions on this thread masquerading as fact, and phantom figures used to justify their positions. All in all, this looks like something for a chatroom, not for Pokegym. I personally find it idiotic to allow these kinds of topics, even in the RTC. This is a Pokemon message board. Pokemon is a cartoon, a game, and many things, but it isn't a religion. It isn't a political group. Allowing this taints it, and smacks of an attempt at manipulating youth.

 

[SD PokeMom]

"...an attempt at manipulating youth"?!

Did a mod/admin START this thread, or any other thread YOU seem to find objectionable? Did we state 'believe as we say, or else'?

NO: a member of this community started the thread...just as any other member can...so to accuse US of some kind of attempt at 'indoctrination' is an INSULT.

'mom

 

[Baboon]

I absolutely never said that you're trying to "indoctrinate" your opinion, and I don't believe you are. The fact of the matter is that a Moderator is supposed to be just that. One who moderates discussion. Not one who fuels just one side of the discussion. An opinion coming from someone who is, in theory, supposed to act as the neutral moderator, may very well get looked upon as more than some other random person's opinion. Because of this, threads such as these inevitably and inadvertently turn to ones that may very well influence young people and even just the community as a whole's opinion towards one side of the argument. I know you or anyone else here is not intentionally trying to state "THIS IS THE FACT. LET IT BE KNOWN.", but that's just what it comes off as.
/end dispute

 

[PokePop]

Dictionary.com:
Moderator:
1. One that moderates, as:
a. One that arbitrates or mediates.
b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

Presides: pre·side
1. To hold the position of authority; act as chairperson or president.
2. To possess or exercise authority or control.

We go more for the second meaning here.


Regarding stifling debate: I seem to recall topics on how great Bush is and Intelligent Design.
Members posted quite strongly on both sides and the only control enforced was when bashing (of members) occurred.

Otaku: I'd like you to back up any claim of bias being applied to these kinds of threads. And are you accusing mods of pushing opinions as facts or using "phantoms" to push ideas???

 

[Joshman]

I think the Parti Rhinoceros should make a comeback.

 

[ZoraJolteon]

What's the conservatives opinion on her maj? Wikipedia has let me down.

 

[Otaku]

As there seems to be some confusion:

Baboon, you make the mistake of thinking this is a neutral board. It isn't. I know, members such as you and I face a dilema when political threads: if we do not post, then some are lulled into thinking that the opinions expressed are unchallenged or mainstream. If we do post, there is little we can say or do. It is there board.

This is my perception of reality. Can it be a faulty perception? Yes.

Mods can't truly be bias free: they are, after all, only human.

Everyone has bias. Your experiences create them. A bias isn't always unjustified. If a dog has bitten me twice before, is it wrong for me to be biased and expect it to bite me again, or bite someone else?

They can work hard to avoid flaunting their biases. Now, their stances on things like politics, at least if they are going to mod political threads, do need to be known. However, it works best to do this not in the thread, but in their member profiles. It would help to avoid unduely influencing things. That, or allow the mods an "off duty" account so that it isn't "the word of a mod" but just another fellow Gymmer's thoughts.

Just requoting this for completeness.

Trying to focus more on the subject at hand, I see that debate is fairly useless. Why? Because things one sides hold as fact are fantasy to the other, and vice versa. I've seen quite a few opinions on this thread masquerading as fact, and phantom figures used to justify their positions.

Please note that this was the beginning of a new paragraph. I confess I didn't indent, but I did leave a space between this and the previous paragraph when I initially posted it. This indicates a shift, in this case, trying to be a bit more on topic.

All in all, this looks like something for a chatroom, not for Pokegym. I personally find it idiotic to allow these kinds of topics, even in the RTC. This is a Pokemon message board. Pokemon is a cartoon, a game, and many things, but it isn't a religion. It isn't a political group. Allowing this taints it, and smacks of an attempt at manipulating youth.

And here I get off topic again, with a personal opinion I have seen little to convince me is ill founded.

Otaku: I'd like you to back up any claim of bias being applied to these kinds of threads.

Well, one bias is you seem to let people talk. You know, instead of just deleting their posts and hiding what they say. Seems you have a bias about free speech, or at least as much as it exists on a private board. You see, a bias isn't automatically a bad thing.

From www.webster.com, the third definition under bias:

3 a : [SIZE=-1]BENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]TENDENCY[/SIZE] b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : [SIZE=-1]PREJUDICE[/SIZE] c : an instance of such prejudice

So yes, a bias can be a bad thing, but it does not have to be. "Sometimes" unreasoned. Some people have a bias that leads them to always expect the best of people. I assume mods have some bias because they exist. Now, one bias I have seen is that conservatives will make things worse. You have some good evidence to support it, and at least I have seen some evidence against it.

And are you accusing mods of pushing opinions as facts or using "phantoms" to push ideas???

No. I wasn't. As I pointed out earlier, this was a second paragraph, indicating a subject shift from discussing Mods. I am sorry I wasn't more explicit.

Did a mod/admin START this thread, or any other thread YOU seem to find objectionable?

This thread, no. At least one other thread, yes. You remember, when Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away.

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24006

 

[ryanvergel]

That thread doesn't have any personal ideologies, it's simply an announcement.
In fact, 'mom didn't make a single interjection of her opinion in that entire thread.

This is a pokemon message board meant to facilitate players. Players have shown interest in WANTING the RTC to have these sorts of discussions, it would be a poor board to not facilitate the needs and wants of the members.

This is a FORUM, built around pokemon, but a forum nonetheless, which is created for the purpose of discussion. Members want to discuss these kinds of matters, so the forum must lend that right and ability out, in order for it to be a well-functioning forum.

 

[Baboon]

Sorry for going back on my word. I do have to interject once more. Indeed, there is no flat-out personal ideology written in the Rehnquist thread... However, at least how I read it was that "lord help us...=/" was a blatant "oh dear God, Bush gets to pick another". Is that an appropriate way to announce the death of the Chief Justice? =\
(And I apologize if it appears that I'm trying to bash you or anyone else.)

 

[ryanvergel]

Or, maybe help us find a good candidate.
Or, lord help us because our justices are all dying.

Or, we can spin it any way we want to.

 

[Otaku]

Baboon answered the comment about the thread's relevance. There was a request for something that one might find objectionable, of a political nature, that a mod had posted. Now, if everyone else thinks its fine and dandy, oh well. I find Ryan's attempt at spin quite pathetic. Reading the entire thread tends to explain what the comment meant. If it was misunderstood, then a post clarifying it would have been good, but often there are good reasons for not posting such a thing.

This is a pokemon message board meant to facilitate players. Players have shown interest in WANTING the RTC to have these sorts of discussions, it would be a poor board to not facilitate the needs and wants of the members.

This is a FORUM, built around pokemon, but a forum nonetheless, which is created for the purpose of discussion. Members want to discuss these kinds of matters, so the forum must lend that right and ability out, in order for it to be a well-functioning forum.

Wanting a Random Topic Center? Yes. Wanting a place to discuss politics on the board... okay, Ryan wants it, I don't. As for me, this is a Pokemon Forum. So discussions really should be about Pokemon. I've brought up other things, and not "controversial topics", and I've learned that generally only is relevant if you want/need Pokemon player's opinions. There are many message boards as well as other options for communicating more sensitive matters.

With that, I must stop. This is a topic for the author expressing disgust with the apparent choice of at least voting Canadians to take a right turn. I am not sure how we are to interact with that. I have aided in taking this too far off topic as is.

If a point needs to be debated further, one can contact me another way, such as private messages, instant messenger or via e-mail. For e-mail, include okegym" clearly in the subject line.

 

[ryanvergel]

Well, that's your opinion. This is designed to facilitate the members, and it is doing just that.
The thing is, you don't have to read any of this.

As it is, this is their board, and I like the way it's run, with input from members, and designed to facilitate discussion on a wide variety of issues that AFFECT players. It doesn't have to be ABOUT pokemon to AFFECT pokemon or its players.

 

[sneaselsrevenge]

Well put Ryan

 

[Myn_donos]

Well, it would be all fine and dandy if democracy worked even a tenth as well in practice as it does in theory. The problem is people are stupid. They only saw the Liberal sponsorship scandal and, despite that they were cleared on innumerable issues about it, the Conservatives just kept up their defamation of the Liberal party and it worked. People believed them and didn't even think about their votes.

It also doesn't help that the Conservatives are hypocritical to the extremes. They committed numerous instances of what can only be called libel to the Liberal party, and when the Liberals distributed a few ads that showed the Conservatives in a negative light, they lashed at them like it was the end of the world. Now, I'm not saying the Liberals are saints (personally I prefer the NDP, but to continue...), but the Conservatives seek only to do the American capitalist dream: to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Rest assured, Canada will only "flourish" in the eyes of the Americans if you're a Republican.

There really needs to be an intelligence test required to vote. The masses cannot be trusted to make an intelligent decision when it's been proven time and again throughout history that leaders can sway the public opinion to whatever belief they want for purely selfish ends.

Conservatives brought us such horrible things as GST and NAFTA. I'm just waiting to see what happens this time.

now on to canada's political system, as it is currently.
GST and Nafta was done under clinton, which i would like to point out, WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!
how is it a bad thing when your system works?(the guy won, quit griping and move on, god, no one likes a crybaby! its really the reason why gore couldn't win in america now, is beause he fussed about it)

"people are idiots", yet govenments base their whole economy off of its people who are idiots, so there fore you claim to be an idiot if you beleive people are idiots, as indeed, you yourself are a person(plural being people) so then if you truly think that, you are simply a tool being used by the governments for their own self interest and doing nothing about it.

you later go on and say people need tests in order to vote, trust me, conservitives want that just as much as you(especially since we feel most liberals would fail because their emotions(yes i say emotions and not logic, because i debate enough libs on this mattter to know they "feel" rather than use the brain on their shoulders that God/Evolution gave them)) so, it works both ways on this "test"

Since when does an elected official have to represent the majority? If few people vote, then it's very easy for an individual to get elected who DOESN'T represent the majority. Look at Bush, he certainly didn't have the "will of the people" behind him when he got elected.

Don't assume an elected official is the will of the people.

Also, myn, look into elite theory, you might be shocked.

Elite theory shows that the elite rule, not the people.

really? you mean the common man no longer rules*rolls eyes* im so glad you pointed that out, i mean how could i have missed that the campaigns of the past decade have been the msot expensive in history and no common man could afford to run agaisnt either the DNC or GOP? very few presidents have ver had the full backing of the people and the electorial votes. however, the president still wins by popular vote!(before you all say WTF!!!!! OMG!!!!! eleventyone111!!1!1111!11 FORDFORCUS!!!!!) think of it like this

who wins the presidency in America? the one with the most electorial Votes, the people vote, each state is worth so much in electorial votes. the state goes one way or another(if i remeber correctly, 1 sate splits its electrial votes, weakening itself imo)so it still done by the popular vote of the states.

and didnt bush win by the popular vote this last time by 6,000,000+ votes? correct me if i am wrong, but wasnt that the last tallied number or so for Bush's victory above and beyond the electorial votes required to win.


on an ending note, may God Bless Canada and let her gain glory in whatever it does (go Jesus land north!)

 

[Marril]

you later go on and say people need tests in order to vote, trust me, conservitives want that just as much as you(especially since we feel most liberals would fail because their emotions(yes i say emotions and not logic, because i debate enough libs on this mattter to know they "feel" rather than use the brain on their shoulders that God/Evolution gave them)) so, it works both ways on this "test"

You know, you can just come out and say you're a conservative and proud of it. I wouldn't hold it against you, really. I don't judge people primarily based on their political affiliation (unless they're a politician, but then again as the jokes go, those aren't people). Of course, who says level-headedness is entirely a conservative thing? That sounds like you're typecasting the opposition into being inferior to you—note that I have not done this in terms of people who hold a conservative viewpoint, I merely spoke ill of the conservative politicians, and you're saying, basically, that most/all liberals are overly emotional and can't think straight.

so there fore you claim to be an idiot if you beleive people are idiots, as indeed, you yourself are a person(plural being people) so then if you truly think that, you are simply a tool being used by the governments for their own self interest and doing nothing about it.

Ah, the good ol' "you are in your own generalizations" argument. While I won't deny that to some people I might be an idiot, I was more referring to the philosophy that while a person may be smart, collectively people are stupid—in other words, only when in large groups are people truly stupid (there are innumerable exceptions, but I'm talking generally).

and didnt bush win by the popular vote this last time by 6,000,000+ votes?

And how many people base their votes solely on trivial issues or else don't care enough to read up on the issues instead of just accepting the government's propaganda? It's my case, really, the government prides itself on keeping the populace either uninformed but to the limited output of the party, or else indoctrinated with their propaganda into believing them to be right. People, being generally lazy, are uninterested in reading up on the facts, and as such go with whatever their leaders tell them. Hence why Bush got in again—he made enough people believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, as it were (I'll translate so people don't jump to conclusions: he convinced enough people of enough falsehoods to make himself seem like a good choice if you ignored the truth).