Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

World Shakuhachi Discussion / Go to Live Shakuhachi Chat

You are not logged in.


Tube of delight!

#1 2008-02-05 18:17:14

Seth
Member
From: Scarsdale, NY
Registered: 2005-10-24
Posts: 270

Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Yes, we are shakuhachi people - but most of us are also Americans and it is an election year!

Anyone willing to state their preference?

I know I am willing to state mine:

GO OBAMA!!!!!!

Offline

 

#2 2008-02-05 22:01:45

Yooper
Member
From: Michigan, on the WI border
Registered: 2007-11-26
Posts: 57

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

"preference" is far too strong a word for my feelings on the subject, but I think Obama might be the least bad of a bad lot.

I'm interested in what the non-Americans think about it.


"Simple and artless."

Offline

 

#3 2008-02-05 22:24:56

radi0gnome
Member
From: Kingston NY
Registered: 2006-12-29
Posts: 1030
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

I think the democrats are wimping out by making the choice either an African-American or a women. OPRAH for President!!! is what I say. Then we wouldn't have to listen to all the debates...


"Now birds record new harmonie, And trees do whistle melodies;
Now everything that nature breeds, Doth clad itself in pleasant weeds."
~ Thomas Watson - England's Helicon ca 1580

Offline

 

#4 2008-02-05 23:26:49

geni
Performer & Teacher
From: Boston MA
Registered: 2005-12-21
Posts: 830
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

go OBAMA!!! (I can't vote anyway)

Offline

 

#5 2008-02-05 23:54:17

nomaD43
Member
From: Portland, OR, USA
Registered: 2006-07-22
Posts: 96

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

radi0gnome wrote:

I think the democrats are wimping out by making the choice either an African-American or a women. OPRAH for President!!! is what I say. Then we wouldn't have to listen to all the debates...

Wasn't there a time when choosing a president (or any other elected official) meant looking at what they intended to accomplish in office rather than what they looked like? I was listening to the media reports on the primaries this evening and they are reporting that X% of white men are voting for this one and Y% of gay asian women are voting for that one, this ethnic/gender group favors this candidate because they can relate to him/her. Meanwhile the only you hear from the candidates is the other person did this or said that or doesn't know how to do the other.
This isn't American Idol - is it? Who cares if the president is a man, woman, caucasion, African-American, Baptist, Buddhist, Gay, Straight, tall, short, young, old, etc. What are they going to do when they get in there and start messing with our lives and livlihood?
Just my political rant.
Go Ross Perot!!

Offline

 

#6 2008-02-06 00:15:43

radi0gnome
Member
From: Kingston NY
Registered: 2006-12-29
Posts: 1030
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

nomaD43 wrote:

Wasn't there a time when choosing a president (or any other elected official) meant looking at what they intended to accomplish in office rather than what they looked like?

Yes, but when you break the couple of hundred year trend of having white males as candidates would you expect anything different from what we're seeing?


"Now birds record new harmonie, And trees do whistle melodies;
Now everything that nature breeds, Doth clad itself in pleasant weeds."
~ Thomas Watson - England's Helicon ca 1580

Offline

 

#7 2008-02-06 00:34:06

Seth
Member
From: Scarsdale, NY
Registered: 2005-10-24
Posts: 270

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

nomaD43 wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

I think the democrats are wimping out by making the choice either an African-American or a women. OPRAH for President!!! is what I say. Then we wouldn't have to listen to all the debates...

Wasn't there a time when choosing a president (or any other elected official) meant looking at what they intended to accomplish in office rather than what they looked like? I was listening to the media reports on the primaries this evening and they are reporting that X% of white men are voting for this one and Y% of gay asian women are voting for that one, this ethnic/gender group favors this candidate because they can relate to him/her. Meanwhile the only you hear from the candidates is the other person did this or said that or doesn't know how to do the other.
This isn't American Idol - is it? Who cares if the president is a man, woman, caucasion, African-American, Baptist, Buddhist, Gay, Straight, tall, short, young, old, etc. What are they going to do when they get in there and start messing with our lives and livlihood?
Just my political rant.
Go Ross Perot!!

Yes, on all points!  And that is why I say:  GO OBAMA!!!!

Offline

 

#8 2008-02-06 02:09:18

dstone
Member
From: Vancouver, Canada
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 552
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Yooper wrote:

I'm interested in what the non-Americans think about it.

Get the candidates on ice skates and let them throw down gloves and punch each other into submission.

Canadians obviously understand how important the USA is.  For better and worse.  So my only hope is that my southern neighbours spend plenty of quality meditation time between now and November.  Infinite potential down there.  Maybe that's why we're so envious and/or critical of them.

Aggregated opinions, as of yesterday... (1)
* 15% of Canadians would rather vote in America than Canada 
* 52% of Canadians named the USA when asked which countries stand out as negative forces in the world
* Canadians aren't as concerned with policies on terrorism or foreign policy as they are with environmental policies (though the trendy War On Terror(TM) is catching on)
* Strange Brew really needs to be remastered for HD and Blu-Ray

I'll get back to my federally mandated Canadian apathy now...

-Darren.


When it is rainy, I am in the rain. When it is windy, I am in the wind.  - Mitsuo Aida

Offline

 

#9 2008-02-08 08:15:26

nomaD43
Member
From: Portland, OR, USA
Registered: 2006-07-22
Posts: 96

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

radi0gnome wrote:

nomaD43 wrote:

Wasn't there a time when choosing a president (or any other elected official) meant looking at what they intended to accomplish in office rather than what they looked like?

Yes, but when you break the couple of hundred year trend of having white males as candidates would you expect anything different from what we're seeing?

Excellent point. Sad, but excellent. Kind the way the corporate world has gone in the latter part of the last century. Maybe by 2100 things will quiet down and people will just vote on issues and abilities and run honest, clean campaigns...
yeah right, never happen.

Offline

 

#10 2008-02-08 08:16:41

nomaD43
Member
From: Portland, OR, USA
Registered: 2006-07-22
Posts: 96

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

dstone wrote:

Yooper wrote:

I'm interested in what the non-Americans think about it.

Get the candidates on ice skates and let them throw down gloves and punch each other into submission.
-Darren.

In that case, I think Hillary would win.

Offline

 

#11 2008-02-11 07:45:29

radi0gnome
Member
From: Kingston NY
Registered: 2006-12-29
Posts: 1030
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

geni wrote:

go OBAMA!!! (I can't vote anyway)

GO DAVE CHAPELLE!!!! (he's not running anyway smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NMRawO9hI8


"Now birds record new harmonie, And trees do whistle melodies;
Now everything that nature breeds, Doth clad itself in pleasant weeds."
~ Thomas Watson - England's Helicon ca 1580

Offline

 

#12 2008-02-12 05:44:20

Jason
Member
From: San Diego
Registered: 2006-11-09
Posts: 10

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

'Majority rules' doesn't equal democracy. And the idea of a person representing another person's interests, or millions of people, is a ridiculous premise. Don't remember where I read this, but it's so true..."If it's humiliating to be ruled, how much more degrading is it to choose our masters?"

Politics is the only arena where the same formulas are applied over and over again after proving themselves ineffective 100% of the time...Driven by the antiquated notion and empty promises of 'progress'.

Offline

 

#13 2008-02-12 06:21:46

amokrun
Member
From: Finland
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 413

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Jason wrote:

'Majority rules' doesn't equal democracy.

Isn't this the main reason why US doesn't actually have a democracy at all? At least that's the way I've understood it. Most real democratic governments existed hundreds of years ago and mostly failed because letting everyone vote and picking the most popular result is the moral equivalent of having two wolves and a sheep decide what to eat for dinner. Then again, every type of government or event systems that don't have one have their downsides. If you protect the minorities too much you may end up in a silly situation where the majority of the people end up much worse than minorities do.

As I live in Finland I have no say in the politics of US. Personally I do not really vote here either. This may sound strange, but I don't think that I'm qualified to choose the best leader. I don't think most people are, but that's besides the point. Politics has turned into a sort of popularity contest lately where the winner is the guy who is most well known. During the twenty-some years I've been alive we've had an increasing number of athletes, race drivers, TV faces and other such celebrities get into politics because they are well known from their careers and thus get votes based on nothing but that. I can't really offer any solutions on fixing that apart from not letting every Joe Sixpack vote if their opinion is based solely on someone's track record in boxing.

Either way, I found Ron Paul to be an interesting person. It's too bad that he essentially gave up a while ago. I didn't agree with him on many things but it at least seemed like he wasn't running on the basis of trying to please everyone and being as vague as possible. I would much rather see a honest guy disagree with me than a liar claim to be on my side.

Offline

 

#14 2008-02-12 12:26:25

dstone
Member
From: Vancouver, Canada
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 552
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Jason wrote:

Don't remember where I read this, but it's so true..."If it's humiliating to be ruled, how much more degrading is it to choose our masters?"

More degrading?  I don't follow.  I think it's less degrading to have a choice in how my neighbourhood, region, or country is governed.

The phrase "our masters" is dramatic but not really correct for most political systems today.  Or are you suggesting "leaders" are unnecessary?  That's a reasonable but separate question.

-Darren.


When it is rainy, I am in the rain. When it is windy, I am in the wind.  - Mitsuo Aida

Offline

 

#15 2008-02-12 16:50:52

graham in oz
Member
Registered: 2005-10-09
Posts: 27

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

From Oz they all look as bad as each other but interesting that Obama  seems to rate with you folks. I wouldnt trust Hilary.

We have just had an election here and thrown out a tired reactionary rightwing gov that we have endured for 11 years.

We might now enter the 20th century even the 21st. At last.


graham in oz

Offline

 

#16 2008-02-13 00:49:08

Jason
Member
From: San Diego
Registered: 2006-11-09
Posts: 10

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

dstone wrote:

Jason wrote:

Don't remember where I read this, but it's so true..."If it's humiliating to be ruled, how much more degrading is it to choose our masters?"

More degrading?  I don't follow.  I think it's less degrading to have a choice in how my neighbourhood, region, or country is governed.

The phrase "our masters" is dramatic but not really correct for most political systems today.  Or are you suggesting "leaders" are unnecessary?  That's a reasonable but separate question.

-Darren.

Perhaps the both of us have different definitions of the word "leader". I'm not sure about you, but I don't need to be governed by somebody I don't know on a personal basis. The people we call "leaders" are complete strangers and professional conmen leading us to our own demise. I don't believe referring to them as masters is inappropriate or dramatic whatsoever.

Offline

 

#17 2008-02-13 04:03:47

dstone
Member
From: Vancouver, Canada
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 552
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Jason wrote:

Perhaps the both of us have different definitions of the word "leader". I'm not sure about you, but I don't need to be governed by somebody I don't know on a personal basis. The people we call "leaders" are complete strangers and professional conmen leading us to our own demise. I don't believe referring to them as masters is inappropriate or dramatic whatsoever.

That's cool.  We can agree that neither of us wants or needs governance.

So I'll stand by my preference.  Scenario 1 is being ruled by a stranger.  Bad.  Scenario 2 is being ruled by a stranger I had a (small) voice in choosing and with some (small) accountability to me.  Better.  How "small" varies by neighbourhood, region, and country.  But small is better than absent.  It's an increase.  Degradation involves a reduction.  I see elections as flawed but clearly an upgrade from slavery.  This is why I don't understand the quote: "If it's humiliating to be ruled, how much more degrading is it to choose our masters?"

-Darren.


When it is rainy, I am in the rain. When it is windy, I am in the wind.  - Mitsuo Aida

Offline

 

#18 2008-02-13 05:33:27

Tairaku 太楽
Administrator/Performer
From: Tasmania
Registered: 2005-10-07
Posts: 3226
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Of course none of us need governance, because we are angelic and never make any mistakes. What about the rest of the population? Duh! sad


'Progress means simplifying, not complicating' : Bruno Munari

http://www.myspace.com/tairakubrianritchie

Offline

 

#19 2008-02-15 12:52:23

Lance
Member
Registered: 2008-01-18
Posts: 74

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

"* 52% of Canadians named the USA when asked which countries stand out as negative forces in the world"

Wow. Without the U.S. much of the world would be living in the stoneage and disease and starvation would be on a massive scale. If socalism is a good idea then Hillary or Obama are a good choice.

Too bad a truly conservative candidate won't be in the running.

Can you tell I don't own a Prius?


“The firefly is a good lesson in light, and darkness”

Offline

 

#20 2008-02-15 13:15:36

Seth
Member
From: Scarsdale, NY
Registered: 2005-10-24
Posts: 270

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Lance wrote:

"* 52% of Canadians named the USA when asked which countries stand out as negative forces in the world"

Wow. Without the U.S. much of the world would be living in the stoneage and disease and starvation would be on a massive scale. If socalism is a good idea then Hillary or Obama are a good choice.

Too bad a truly conservative candidate won't be in the running.

Can you tell I don't own a Prius?

Cool there is a conservative on the forum!  I'm a conservative too! 

But sadly I am that old kind that really likes small government, AND small religion AND who respects the rule of laws AND who doesn't support foreign wars of choice AND who believes in basic fundamental honesty...so by these values  I kind of have to vote Democratic nowadays by default.   

When conservatives come back to the Republican party I'll be ready to come back too...

Offline

 

#21 2008-02-15 15:03:53

dstone
Member
From: Vancouver, Canada
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 552
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Seth wrote:

Cool there is a conservative on the forum!  I'm a conservative too! 

But sadly I am that old kind that really likes small government, AND small religion AND who respects the rule of laws AND who doesn't support foreign wars of choice AND who believes in basic fundamental honesty...so by these values  I kind of have to vote Democratic nowadays by default.   

When conservatives come back to the Republican party I'll be ready to come back too...

Seth, your desire for 1) small government, 2) small religion, and 3) non-support of foreign wars of choice makes it sound like "libertarian" might be a label worth considering, rather than "conservative".  I mean that as a complement.

"Conservative" is such a wide spectrum.  Small government?  Broadly, yes.  Small religion?  Mmmm, fighting words for some.  Throw in foreign wars, small-C, big-C, independents, and Libertarians.  This erodes and splits "The Republican Voter Base", whatever that meant in the first place.  Bad for the party, but is that really a problem?  Short term, probably.

Anarcholibertarianly,
-Darren.


When it is rainy, I am in the rain. When it is windy, I am in the wind.  - Mitsuo Aida

Offline

 

#22 2008-02-15 19:11:16

Seth
Member
From: Scarsdale, NY
Registered: 2005-10-24
Posts: 270

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

dstone wrote:

Seth wrote:

Cool there is a conservative on the forum!  I'm a conservative too! 

But sadly I am that old kind that really likes small government, AND small religion AND who respects the rule of laws AND who doesn't support foreign wars of choice AND who believes in basic fundamental honesty...so by these values  I kind of have to vote Democratic nowadays by default.   

When conservatives come back to the Republican party I'll be ready to come back too...

Seth, your desire for 1) small government, 2) small religion, and 3) non-support of foreign wars of choice makes it sound like "libertarian" might be a label worth considering, rather than "conservative".  I mean that as a complement.

"Conservative" is such a wide spectrum.  Small government?  Broadly, yes.  Small religion?  Mmmm, fighting words for some.  Throw in foreign wars, small-C, big-C, independents, and Libertarians.  This erodes and splits "The Republican Voter Base", whatever that meant in the first place.  Bad for the party, but is that really a problem?  Short term, probably.

Anarcholibertarianly,
-Darren.

No no no no no.....   Conservatives were originally people who were conservative about the use of government in trying to sort out world's problems.  For some reason a bunch of bible thumpers and trigger happy bumpkins managed to hijack this term.   So yes, there is a small cowardly group of people who are now calling themselves 'libertarians,' but I am not giving up on this fight.  George Bush is no conservative.  And most of the Republican Voter Base is no longer conservative either.

Strangely enough, the Democratic Party is now the genuine party of conservatives.

(In other words: yeah, you're right, but my approach is more annoying to republicans which is more than half the fun!)

Offline

 

#23 2008-02-15 22:32:19

Lance
Member
Registered: 2008-01-18
Posts: 74

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

"Strangely enough, the Democratic Party is now the genuine party of conservatives"

Humm. Socialized health care, talk about your small gov't, that'll do it.

It's so much nicer to talk about flutes isn't it....


“The firefly is a good lesson in light, and darkness”

Offline

 

#24 2008-02-15 22:32:43

dstone
Member
From: Vancouver, Canada
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 552
Website

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Seth wrote:

No no no no no.....   Conservatives were originally people who were conservative about the use of government in trying to sort out world's problems.  For some reason a bunch of bible thumpers and trigger happy bumpkins managed to hijack this term.   So yes, there is a small cowardly group of people who are now calling themselves 'libertarians,' but I am not giving up on this fight.  George Bush is no conservative.  And most of the Republican Voter Base is no longer conservative either.

Awesome.  Seth, I totally agree with your summary of what happened to Proper Conservative values.  (From what I understand of American history, anyways.)  Here in Canada, we never even started out with the same minimal-government passion you neighbours did there, so I actually don't mind the Libertarian label (depending on my mood).  But it makes sense that you see it as a step backwards.  I like the spirit!  Keep up the good fight!!

-Darren.


When it is rainy, I am in the rain. When it is windy, I am in the wind.  - Mitsuo Aida

Offline

 

#25 2008-02-16 00:26:08

Seth
Member
From: Scarsdale, NY
Registered: 2005-10-24
Posts: 270

Re: Maybe we shouldn't go here....

Lance wrote:

"Strangely enough, the Democratic Party is now the genuine party of conservatives"

Humm. Socialized health care, talk about your small gov't, that'll do it.

It's so much nicer to talk about flutes isn't it....

The government has expanded far faster under Bush and the "conservative" congress than under the Democrats.  And Bush pushed through the largest expansion of medicaid and medicare support of the past 30 years and unlike democrats HE NEVER TRIED TO FIND A WAY TO PAY FOR IT!  And he even stopped the government from negotiating with the drug companies for cheaper prices!   

So let's see what choice we have here:  The Democrats like big government ...yes.   And the Republicans like even bigger government with a boat load of corruption and lies!  I think the choice is pretty clear.  (See, as a conservative I also value the rule of law and transparency...those used to be republican values by the way...) 

Until republicans start holding their own party responsible for its actions things are only going to get a lot worse...

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson

Google