Senate Candidate Attacked Over World of Warcraft

[RvLeshrac]

Spoiler: Massive Quote (Again)

Hitting it point by point: You've proven my point: The two biggest movements in recent memories, the ones most likely to actually cause real change? Both met the same fate: The idiots were given room to talk, the reasonable voices were for the most part ignored. Letting Reasonable Senator #5 get on the public talk circuit isn't going to lead to anything fun. Letting Redneck McCrazyHead go wild? Oh that'll draw in TONS of viewers.

There may be discussions here and there, but they aren't what dominate the media, and they aren't what the eyes of millions are drawn to. If you and five friends have an enlightened discussion on a forum, that's great for you and five friends. If the AP runs a piece on numbers, but those numbers are never brought up again or covered by a major news network? Not terribly helpful.

And again the core fault in your argument seeps through: you claim that you're a majority, that most people in your party are disillusioned with its direction, and yet you also keep hammering this "appeal to popularity" bit, claiming that you couldn't possibly fix things because there are so many people against you. It can be one or the other, but not both. Either the majority disagrees with the party platform (in which case you CAN fix things) or the majority agrees with the party's direction (in which case you don't get to complain about the stereotypes associated with the party since, for the majority of your party members, they apply perfectly).

And you HAVE to have the mass media helping in order to sway the numbers required to do a party restructuring. After all, you need popular support and like it or not popular support requires you not to become a joke in the media. That's not some crack at how everybody's brainwashed, it's simple logic: The major news and advertising networks have spent years studying how to influence people and draw attention. It stands to reason that they know by now how to influence people effectively.

Again, you're either a majority or you're not. You can't be both.

Second, doesn't the fact that two major political movements have risen up in the last four years (neither of which was fueled by the television/radio media originally, but rather by social media like Facebook), not to mention the existence of folks on both sides of the aisle who correctly point out many flaws in our government, sort of prove that it's entirely possible to fix things in the long term? Of course the media tore these movements apart, they represent the growing influence of the internet and the dying influence of mainstream media sources. But like it or not, those people are going to grow up and take over the jobs currently held by these "status quo" folks. In the long run, they will be replaced by a generation with less of an irrational fear of the internet and social media. So really, they're fighting a losing battle.

As for claiming you're a democrat: I've been arguing with multiple people across quite a few posts now. I have a hunch most of them are democrat given the way they seem to automatically assume the Republican party is really staffed by nothing but gay hating rednecks.

Who is relying on stereotypes now?

But if you ARE an independent, that kind of proves my point: Why haven't YOU risen up and formed a party to represent you and overthrow the shackles of this stupid broken two party system? You said so yourself it isn't hard. I'm sure it shouldn't take you more than a week or so.

Oh, that's easy. I don't believe in the party system. See, I'm an advocate of a statement that a wise man once said:

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

You get a cookie if you remember who said that. If you don't, educate yourself and Google it. A shame that there are too few people in today's society that remember these wise words.

And I wasn't calling you brainwashed, I was referring to legitimate studies showing that people are always significantly more biased than they thing and our brains are more than happy to let us keep reinforcing those biases. Your brain is more than happy to brainwash itself.

That's because the brain decides very early on what it wants to think, and eventually grows rigid in those beliefs once they've decided. This is why it's much more common for young people to change political affiliations than older folks.

And yes, some politicians occasionally do stupid things. You know what doesn't get reported on? Intelligent politicians doing intelligent things. There's a one sided flow of information where only the stupid things that are, for the most part, ultimately meaningless slips of the tongue or idiocy from people who don't deserve the spotlight in the first place is most of what we see.

You know what else doesn't get reported on very often? Teachers who do a good job teaching. Or police officers who do a good job protecting innocent life. Or firefighters who save lives. Yet we hear plenty of talks about how "useless" these people are whenever there's a contract dispute. Fox News in particular is especially eager to jump on these individuals, claiming they make a bajillion dollars a year and that they're just greedy and corrupt people seeking only their own benefits.

Fact of the matter is, bad news is the easiest kind of news to report. Good news isn't.

Long route through to say: The system is broken. It's not easy to fix. Stop pretending it isn't broken or that it isn't incredibly difficult to fix.

I'm not pretending it isn't broken, I'm saying that it's not incredibly difficult to fix. It's something that the parties could easily do if they wanted to, but they don't. They prefer it this way. People are easier to control when they're less educated on the issues (thanks to poor media coverage), discouraged from voting, and in general discouraged from standing up for their beliefs. The fact that you just roll over and accept that your party has been taken over by a hostile minority is proof positive that what they're doing is working, and your party will never be fixed so long as you throw up your hands and quit. There are outstanding members of your party who realize the problems with it. If you would try to rally behind them, you'd have a better shot. Heck, Ron Paul's been trying to save your party for years, and while he has problems of his own, the fact that most of your party refuses to at least acknowledge the sentiment behind his platform is very indicative of the problems your party faces.

At this point I think we're pretty much done here, as there's not a whole lot more either of us can say helpfully to the other, so a few closing comments:

I agree with you and George Washington on the party system being a bad plan. In fact, it seems that I agree with your basic points on quite a few things. Were we arguing in person instead of facelessly through the internet I have a hunch we'd pretty quickly have resolved this instead of quibbling over details. SIDENOTE: If you think you don't agree with my points, I can assure you that given I agree with yours it's probably because I have not articulated my points in the manner which I meant to.

So I guess that's my closing bit: We agree on more things than we don't, and it's time for me to go be angry at other people rather than pushing the few remaining details.

You support a party whose most highly supported figures are anti-choice, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-minority, and anti-woman. Todd Akin is VERY likely to win his election. Paul Broun is VERY likely to win his election. Paul Ryan will win at least one of his elections. Rand Paul is certainly on the 'winning' side. They have enormous financial support. They celebrated Strom Thurmond, a racist and segregationist. They derided Max Cleland, a vietnam veteran.

They've dishonoured every single atheist and gay soldier that has EVER served this country, repeatedly; publicly. They've made it clear that they believe atheists and gays should not be citizens. They've made it clear that they believe abortion should be punishable by death. They've made it clear that they will NEVER be willing to end the war on drugs. They've made it clear that they support funnelling trillions of tax dollars into highly profitable corporations while cutting every single social safety net out from under the millions of people those corporations have fired in the name of "outsourcing."

These aren't hyperbolic points. They're regular talking points. GOP leaders, leaders of the House and Senate, Presidents, Vice Presidents, and front-runner candidates have all stated these beliefs emphatically.

How you can continue to support such a vile and disgusting cancer on our society is beyond me.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

Snip

I stopped reading after you forgot that he had a democratic controlled congress for 2 years before they got voted out. Not 6 months. Funny how our election cycle for congress is every 2 years.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Snip

I stopped reading after you forgot that he had a democratic controlled congress for 2 years before they got voted out. Not 6 months. Funny how our election cycle for congress is every 2 years.

Thanks for not understanding how our government works.

You cannot pass legislation in the Senate without a 60 vote majority, unless the other party agrees not to filibuster your legislation. The Democrats only had a 59 votes until the Minnesota elections were finally decided. The Democrats only had 58 voting Senators because Ted Kennedy was ill.

When the Minnesota elections were decided, Kennedy was still confined to his home. Robert Byrd was hospitalised in May, and didn't return until July. Hence the reason numerous changes were made to the healthcare legislation: Obama needed the votes of at least two Republicans to pass the 60 vote mark.

If you'd like to be pedantic about it, Obama had a less than 80-day filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

In other news, if you don't understand how your government works, do us all a favor and keep your ass at home on election day.

 

[Siege_TF]

"And after work, sometimes, I have a drink at the pub. In the company of men, who aren't my husband!" Dun, dun DUUUUUN!
I'm starting to think American Dad isn't actually a parody of a an active Republican.

 

[afroebob]

I think it is more pathetic that a group will discredit the entire republican party because of what this douchebag says than the significantly less that will discredit her for playing WoW and I'm not even a republican.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

Snip

I stopped reading after you forgot that he had a democratic controlled congress for 2 years before they got voted out. Not 6 months. Funny how our election cycle for congress is every 2 years.

Thanks for not understanding how our government works.

You cannot pass legislation in the Senate without a 60 vote majority, unless the other party agrees not to filibuster your legislation. The Democrats only had a 59 votes until the Minnesota elections were finally decided. The Democrats only had 58 voting Senators because Ted Kennedy was ill.

When the Minnesota elections were decided, Kennedy was still confined to his home. Robert Byrd was hospitalised in May, and didn't return until July. Hence the reason numerous changes were made to the healthcare legislation: Obama needed the votes of at least two Republicans to pass the 60 vote mark.

If you'd like to be pedantic about it, Obama had a less than 80-day filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

In other news, if you don't understand how your government works, do us all a favor and keep your ass at home on election day.

I still stopped reading really early because you are very mad and cannot form a reasonable argument without sounding as if someone just killed jean grey and you're cyclops in the early days. However, even when the majority was held by the democrats in congress, filibuster proof or not, they still had the majority. My statement is none less true. He had the majority for 2 years.

If you want to blame anything, blame the faultiness of the system for not allowing them to vote in absentee. Also, lets look at this, he had over a year and a half to put together a series of bills he would like to see passed and discussed with his party such as Nancy Pelosi who could then discuss within their external groups outside of party affiliation but more as a specialized group, forgot the name for it but I'm sure the all mighty internet tough guy democrat will happily correct me if I'm wrong which I probably always will be in his eyes, and decide which they would want passed as well, organize it for the days that they came back and then vote then? Is that right? The 80 days which is a long ass amount of time in work hours and no I don't mean congressional work hours I mean regular people work hours, the hours both you and I probably work, I still think that congress and the house should put in more of a 10 hour day for such an important job. Sorry for the Tangent. To sum it all up, they wasted a year and a half waiting just fiddling with their thumbs and then the day comes and they think "oh shit, we need to push this shit through!". They had 2 years to write up, get reviews on, edit, reword, refine, polish, present, vote, and possibly pass stuff in 80 days. That's a year and a half of time people could have read the bills.

I still see no excuse. When I'm hired to a job, I do the job, when congress is elected to do the job, I expect them to do the job.

 

[RvLeshrac]

I think it is more pathetic that a group will discredit the entire republican party because of what this douchebag says than the significantly less that will discredit her for playing WoW and I'm not even a republican.

You're aware that the Party must approve these ads and mailings, yes?

 

[RvLeshrac]

Snip

I stopped reading after you forgot that he had a democratic controlled congress for 2 years before they got voted out. Not 6 months. Funny how our election cycle for congress is every 2 years.

Thanks for not understanding how our government works.

You cannot pass legislation in the Senate without a 60 vote majority, unless the other party agrees not to filibuster your legislation. The Democrats only had a 59 votes until the Minnesota elections were finally decided. The Democrats only had 58 voting Senators because Ted Kennedy was ill.

When the Minnesota elections were decided, Kennedy was still confined to his home. Robert Byrd was hospitalised in May, and didn't return until July. Hence the reason numerous changes were made to the healthcare legislation: Obama needed the votes of at least two Republicans to pass the 60 vote mark.

If you'd like to be pedantic about it, Obama had a less than 80-day filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

In other news, if you don't understand how your government works, do us all a favor and keep your ass at home on election day.

I still stopped reading really early because you are very mad and cannot form a reasonable argument without sounding as if someone just killed jean grey and you're cyclops in the early days. However, even when the majority was held by the democrats in congress, filibuster proof or not, they still had the majority. My statement is none less true. He had the majority for 2 years.

If you want to blame anything, blame the faultiness of the system for not allowing them to vote in absentee. Also, lets look at this, he had over a year and a half to put together a series of bills he would like to see passed and discussed with his party such as Nancy Pelosi who could then discuss within their external groups outside of party affiliation but more as a specialized group, forgot the name for it but I'm sure the all mighty internet tough guy democrat will happily correct me if I'm wrong which I probably always will be in his eyes, and decide which they would want passed as well, organize it for the days that they came back and then vote then? Is that right? The 80 days which is a long ass amount of time in work hours and no I don't mean congressional work hours I mean regular people work hours, the hours both you and I probably work, I still think that congress and the house should put in more of a 10 hour day for such an important job. Sorry for the Tangent. To sum it all up, they wasted a year and a half waiting just fiddling with their thumbs and then the day comes and they think "oh shit, we need to push this shit through!". They had 2 years to write up, get reviews on, edit, reword, refine, polish, present, vote, and possibly pass stuff in 80 days. That's a year and a half of time people could have read the bills.

I still see no excuse. When I'm hired to a job, I do the job, when congress is elected to do the job, I expect them to do the job.

You still understand absolutely nothing about the way our government works. You stay over there in fantasy-land where Congress works regular hours and legislation is discussed over a year prior to an election.

 

[Ikacprzak]

I don't understand why the Republicans are mocking her; they spend even more time in their own personal fantasy world. The difference being Azeroth is more well thought and consistent.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I hope no one ever recorded me playing Prototype if I run for office. WoW is all cartoony violence against comically oversized animals with weapons of ludicrous proportions. Prototype is about being a psychopathic cannibal who tears people apart with his bear hands.

 

[Adventurer2626]

It's apparent to me that the site founders are the ones having the difficulty distinguishing videogames from reality, not Colleen Lachowicz.

 

[Tomeran]

I think it is more pathetic that a group will discredit the entire republican party because of what this douchebag says than the significantly less that will discredit her for playing WoW and I'm not even a republican.

The funny thing about the republican party is that they dont really need other people properly discrediting them, they do a marvelous job at it themselves.

But normally I'd agree with you. Picking one person in a massive political movement and going after the whole thing would be wrong.

However: The thing is that this is not an isolated incident. This is not exactly the first time this party has made a statement/used a tactic like this. It happens so frequently to this party, from so many sources, that they have longed passed the point where they have actually earned this reputation.
There are undoubtetly good people out there that are republicans. Its just the party that has more turned out into some sort of monster through its represenatives(most of them) and tactics.

Their ideology has more shifted to attacking just about everyone and anything that doesnt agree full on with the republican agenda. It didnt use to be this way, but things have definetly gotten worse and more radical(and that applies, to some degree, to both parties) in the past decade. And that is never ever a good sign.

 

[Lonely Swordsman]

Is this actually allowed?
I always thought that there was some law that prohibits political campaigns from directly mentioning an opposing party or any specific members of said party by name or show their faces in adverts without their consent.

 

[Saika Renegade]

...This is a legitimate political concern now?

Shouldn't we be more worried if someone was skimming money off the top or trying to hide bodies?

Frankly I'm more comforted by the fact that at least Lachowicz' fantasy is more or less harmless, whereas this group seems to enjoy throwing out that 22.7 number as though it were gospel truth as to how much time she spends in a game rather than whatever amount of time she might actually spend in WoW.

Calling this a childish and immature jab is an insult to immature children.

 

[Taunta]

She's not the only government official that plays wow. His name escapes me, but I know there was a government official (not sure of his office either) who was a big wow player, and was around the wow forums all the time answering questions about government and encouraging wow players to vote.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

I say they should just run counter ads that read like this:

"Vote for me, I promise to slay every troll, to end every uprising of the undead!"


Would likely snag the gamer vote in a heartbeat, which is a big vote these days I'd imagine.