the q is silent
5/13/2008 11:53:00 PM
On May 14, 1:39 am, the q is silent <james.c.wag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 1:09 am, Joe <obri6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 6:50 pm, the q is silent <james.c.wag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If this newsgroup is any barometer of the level of political discourse
> > > among Americans of *above*-average intelligence (and I would like to
> > > believe that most of the Americans here are of above-average
> > > intelligence)... what the fuck am I coming back to?
>
> > The same nation that you left, and the same nation that's had the same
> > type of political discourse since the days of Jefferson and Jackson,,,
>
> Really, Joe? Jefferson and Jackson went on and on for weeks on end
> about who the blacks and the women were voting for and why, who was
> winning over the finnicky blue-collar white vote, which swing state
> primary results would be most relevant to the general election? Were
> the newspapers rehashing every "scandalous" pamphlet tossed off by
> every campaign, day-in, day-out, for ten weeks? Didn't Thomas Paine
> participate in some of those round-the-clock town-hall round-table
> pundit face-offs that were so popular?
>
> Don't feed me that stupid bullshit about how everything in American
> politics is the same as it's been for 200 years because John Adams
> tossed off some mud-slinging broadside once.
>
> But thanks for answering my question, apparently about as well as can
> be expected.
>
> -Jyqm
Just to clarify: I fully expect the vast majority of American
political discourse to be soul-crushingly stupid; in that very general
sense, little has changed over the years. But to attempt to claim that
the mind-numbing inanities that constitute 95% of all public
discussion of this election cycle are not in a class of supreme idiocy
and irrelevancy all their own strikes me as just plain silly. They've
been practicing for years for this one.
-Jyqm