Brought to you by CFC

[classical_hero]

I came to post that one also.

 

[Optical]

I quite liked this one:

"Terrorist, n. 1. Whatever the hell we want it to mean."

 

[Borachio]

I quite liked this. I'd not thought of it before.

So early humans tried to anthropomorphize God, and modern humans are trying to phenomenalize God.

 

[Takhisis]

I've managed to go 30-odd years without ever removing my pyjamas.

The confessions some CFCers make!

 

[Arakhor]

Funnily enough, I thought that "in my sleep" was originally appended to that phrase.

 

[warpus]

Confessions of Tobias Funke, analrapist, never-nude, always-pajamas

 

[classical_hero]

Link to video.

Obviously God is Thor then.

 

[Arakhor]

Or Kynareth, the goddess of wind, air and sky. Either way, he/she has good taste.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Confessions of Tobias Funke, analrapist, never-nude, always-pajamas

A man who recently blue himself.

 

[cardgame]

I almost completely identify with my personality: I think of it as myself, really.

Priceless

 

[Borachio]

Is it?

(I'll presume you mean "priceless" in a positive way, until you tell me otherwise. So in the meantime, thanks.)

 

[Muhammed]

yea I like it too, Borachio. Got it from somewhere?

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. Outta my head! Honestly, it was just an off the cuff remark. I little thought it would raise an eyebrow.

 

[Phrossack]

Kim Jong Un is probably on the lobsters' payroll. They're just using him as a distraction while they plan the real attack.

From the Avatars/User Titles thread.

 

[Antilogic]

Mobby, can you please change your avatar? I'm getting you confused with ghostrighter.

Seriously, go and read this in its original context. It's proof of JR's genius.

 

[choxorn]

This is your brain.

This is your brain on drugs.

V, obviously X-Com UFO: Enemy Unknown is better than Mass Effect or Battlefield.

 

[cardgame]

I too witnessed and applauded that post.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is a key point, which cuts to the heart of my concerns with American politics: the issue is less the presence of extremists, than the normalisation of extremism.

The picture that's most often painted of Republicans, both here at CFC and in the wider world, is of racist, misogynistic, anti-scientific, warmongering, theocratic bigots. Since the party has so many of these people in its 'tail' (good term there, TF), it's an easy thing to come up with endless examples to support that picture. Indeed, you don't even have to say that all Republicans are like that - you can explicitly mention some exceptions, but by repeating the same picture over and over, a clear impression is left of a party full-to-the-brim with evil whackos.

And here's the thing: in terms of pure, cynical politics, it's exactly the right move for Democrats to make. As the Republican brand becomes more and more toxic, decent and reasonable people flee the party, making it progressively less and less electable. The smart move here is always to target the more moderate Republicans, and force them to either cleave crazy - reducing their electoral chances - or to distance themselves from the party at large, and lose support from their own political bases. Either way, the result is a more extreme party, with reduced electoral prospects.

What you have to ask yourself, though, is whether this is a good thing for the country. Certainly, whilst the Republican Party continues to wield considerable influence across much of the USA, it would seem quite negative indeed. More extreme, unreasonable people in positions of power cannot be a good thing. Perhaps, though, we could take the longer view, and imagine (as many Democrats have) an America in which the Republican Party becomes incapable of challenging for power at the national level. Is that a vision of a better future? I think not, and for at least two major reasons...

Firstly, you have the dangers inherent to an over-dominant political machine, and especially one which already has issues with corruption, as well as a strong instinct towards centralisation and increased governmental powers. Secondly, you have the marginalisation of a large swathe of increasingly radical political opinion, grounded in specific religious, ethnic, geographical, and cultural factors. In places with long-standing anti-authoritarian and separatist traditions, not to mention a near-ubiquitous gun culture, this has the potential to become very dangerous indeed.

Absent a radical change in the nature of its electoral systems, allowing other parties the chance to grow to national significance, America needs the GOP healthy and competitive. For that reason (amongst others), the extremist trend is a very bad thing. But by relentlessly focusing on that trend, and using it as a stick to beat Republicans in general, we only strengthen the position of those extremists in the party and in the broader right-wing of American politics.

I rather liked this.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Me too, though it really just comes down to the POV that power needs counterbalance. And that parties will change with the degree of counterbalance they'll receive. And the rest has been challenged by Cutless in the following (no idea who is right, but well, Cutless is American at least).

 

[W|M]

• Our game designers have developed a new addictive game of Civilization. How shall we proceed?
  1. Send congratulations to the developers. Our people should enjoy this game.
     All cities +5 (suffer a -20 diplomatic penalty from your wife.)
  2. This game seems to have great educational potential. Suggest that it be used in our educational system.
     All cities +10 (suffer a -20 diplomatic penalty from your wife.)
  3. Computer games? They have no place in our society! Sell the franchise to foreign buyers!
     Recieve 250 (loose 500 to your wife.)

Hmm, that does look like a very good science boost