Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Andrew74
Footballguy
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
I know I'm not the only one who had to fight the strong desire to have a cigarette right about here...
timschochet
Footballguy
35. The Bonfire of the Vanities
Tom Wolfe
1987, 690 pages
political satire
It's hard for me to believe that The Bonfire of the Vanities is nearly 30 years old, because it still strikes me as such a modern novel, our modern version of Huckleberry Finn or The Great Gatsby. Like those famous novels, Wolfe's masterpiece is an exploration of America- what makes us tick. Like Twain, Wolfe uses humor to make very serious points about our society. And though it was written 29 years ago, there is almost no topic covered in this exhaustive look at New York city race and class relations that isn't still an issue today. All of Wolfe's characters, from Sheldon to the boy he hit, could walk into 2016 and act the same, and their concerns would be exactly the same.
One of the ongoing political arguments I have had in this forum, with Slapdash, the Commish, and many others, is how powerful the so-called "Establishment" is in our society. They believe that it is VERY powerful, and a malignant force. I believe it is only powerful in limited instances, not malignant, and effectively helpless before populist forces. Tom Wolfe is one of the people who convinced me of my POV on this. In a few paragraphs late in the novel, he demolishes the theory of the "Power Elite" begun by C. Wright Mills that dominates our college campuses to this day. (That theory is, in simplistic terms: there is a group of elite businessmen and "powers" that make all important political decisions behind closed doors.) In the novel, Sheldon has been exposed as the rich businessman who hit a young black teen with his car and then fled the scene. He calls his dad, who was once an important lawyer, and his dad promises to "sound out" some of his friends who were once powerful judges. But seeing his name plastered on the TV news, and over the newspapers, Sheldon realizes how useless a bunch of old men at some club will be- what can they possibly do with public opinion? Thus the "power elite" theory crumbles. As does the prevalent view, in this forum, of "The Establishment". It has no power.
I wanted to mention that section, because it's been in my mind of late, but it's a very small part of a very sprawling and funny novel. Wolfe looks at every aspect of society and spares nobody. There are no good guys in this novel (which is one reason that it's not in my top 20.) But despite that the characters are strong and the events are well-written. To this day I still crack up thinking about certain scenes- how the chic restaurant deals with death, the funeral with the cantor trying to sign a record deal, the British drunk (who apparently was based on Christopher Hitchens), the completely cynical attitude of the civil rights leaders, etc.
Up next: Stephen King's most memorable villain...
Tom Wolfe
1987, 690 pages
political satire
It's hard for me to believe that The Bonfire of the Vanities is nearly 30 years old, because it still strikes me as such a modern novel, our modern version of Huckleberry Finn or The Great Gatsby. Like those famous novels, Wolfe's masterpiece is an exploration of America- what makes us tick. Like Twain, Wolfe uses humor to make very serious points about our society. And though it was written 29 years ago, there is almost no topic covered in this exhaustive look at New York city race and class relations that isn't still an issue today. All of Wolfe's characters, from Sheldon to the boy he hit, could walk into 2016 and act the same, and their concerns would be exactly the same.
One of the ongoing political arguments I have had in this forum, with Slapdash, the Commish, and many others, is how powerful the so-called "Establishment" is in our society. They believe that it is VERY powerful, and a malignant force. I believe it is only powerful in limited instances, not malignant, and effectively helpless before populist forces. Tom Wolfe is one of the people who convinced me of my POV on this. In a few paragraphs late in the novel, he demolishes the theory of the "Power Elite" begun by C. Wright Mills that dominates our college campuses to this day. (That theory is, in simplistic terms: there is a group of elite businessmen and "powers" that make all important political decisions behind closed doors.) In the novel, Sheldon has been exposed as the rich businessman who hit a young black teen with his car and then fled the scene. He calls his dad, who was once an important lawyer, and his dad promises to "sound out" some of his friends who were once powerful judges. But seeing his name plastered on the TV news, and over the newspapers, Sheldon realizes how useless a bunch of old men at some club will be- what can they possibly do with public opinion? Thus the "power elite" theory crumbles. As does the prevalent view, in this forum, of "The Establishment". It has no power.
I wanted to mention that section, because it's been in my mind of late, but it's a very small part of a very sprawling and funny novel. Wolfe looks at every aspect of society and spares nobody. There are no good guys in this novel (which is one reason that it's not in my top 20.) But despite that the characters are strong and the events are well-written. To this day I still crack up thinking about certain scenes- how the chic restaurant deals with death, the funeral with the cantor trying to sign a record deal, the British drunk (who apparently was based on Christopher Hitchens), the completely cynical attitude of the civil rights leaders, etc.
Up next: Stephen King's most memorable villain...
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim can you chill out and not inflame people?
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Right but you choose to muck up the Ali thread, at least keep it in the Trump thread. Ali should be for remembering Ali.They chose Trump not me. I'm the least of their worries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
At least you admit you're trolling because of political differences.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Yep. The latest is tommyboy, who has been one of the worst anti-Muslim bigots in this forum for years, condemning them as a collective evil. And now he is filled with praise for Muhammad Ali. It's pretty shameful.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Why don't you take it up with him instead of "conversatives"? That's what makes you look like a troll and frankly just as ignorant as Trump.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because at least 60% of conservatives, possibly more, agree with Trump's bigotry toward Muslims.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Damn you can't even keep your own BS and stories straight. You go from conservatives to just talking about a few here to address tommyboy back to 60% of conservatives. Just admit you're full of crap, you posted something full of nonsense, and #### and move on.
timschochet
Footballguy
Damn you can't even keep your own BS and stories straight. You go from conservatives to just talking about a few here to address tommyboy back to 60% of conservatives. Just admit you're full of crap, you posted something full of nonsense, and #### and move on.
Not sure what you're going on about, but let's start over shall we?
1. Donald Trump has expressed bigoted views and proposals about Muslims.
2. A majority of conservatives agree with those views and proposals.
3. If you are one of those conservatives, it is hypocritical to the extreme for you to celebrate the life of Muhammad Ali.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
A link that a majority of conservatives are bigots towards all Muslims.
Not sure what you're going on about, but let's start over shall we?
1. Donald Trump has expressed bigoted views and proposals about Muslims.
2. A majority of conservatives agree with those views and proposals.
3. If you are one of those conservatives, it is hypocritical to the extreme for you to celebrate the life of Muhammad Ali.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Not sure what you're going on about, but let's start over shall we?
1. Donald Trump has expressed bigoted views and proposals about Muslims.
2. A majority of conservatives agree with those views and proposals.
3. If you are one of those conservatives, it is hypocritical to the extreme for you to celebrate the life of Muhammad Ali.
1. Link to his proposals about Muslims? Not terrorists but all muslims?
2. Link to a vote where conservatives agree the above linked proposals?
timschochet
Footballguy
Look it up yourself. He wants a temporary ban on all Muslims coming in. A majority of conservatives agree.
1. Link to his proposals about Muslims? Not terrorists but all muslims?
2. Link to a vote where conservatives agree the above linked proposals?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Exactly, you're full of crap as usual. You made an idiotic comment. You got called on it. You're making it worse by continue to defend your idiotic comment. The right thing to do would be admit you were wrong but at least shut up and let it just go away if you can't do that.
timschochet
Footballguy
Are you denying that Trump wants a temporary ban, or that a majority of conservatives agree with him? Which exactly is the "idiotic comment"??
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You said he made proposals for Muslims. What, exactly, are his proposals he's tried to pass? How many conservatives back this proposal?
timschochet
Footballguy
How can he pass anything? He's not in office yet.
His proposal, as you very well know, is that we ban all Muslims from coming into this country "for a temporary period of time, until we figure out what's going on." A majority of conservatives agree with this proposal. Do you deny any of this?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I deny anything that quotes a majority of conservatives. You're spouting nonsense based on a few loud mouth right wing talking heads. Trump won't ever accomplish that. He won't ever propose a bill attempting to. When he tries let me know.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Rambling Wreck, in the Ali thread you wrote:
Christ dude it's been pointed out to you multiple times that when you only have two candidates, you're going to support one of them but it doesn't mean you support 100% of their comments or ideals. Anyone that does is ignorant (See TGunz and any democrat). You're in here painting a group of people with a broad brush, which ironically is the EXACT same damn thing you hate Trump for doing. You're no better than he is.
The argument that I have been making for months now is that if you are a decent person you do NOT have two choices in this election. Simply put, Donald Trump is beyond the pale, because he is a bigot. It doesn't matter if you hate Hillary Clinton with the heat of a thousand suns and you think she's a liar and a crook and do not support her on any policy. Regardless of that, it is still IMMORAL to vote for Donald Trump. There is no excuse for it. None.
It is absolutely right to paint all those who vote for Donald Trump with a broad brush. Most of them are not racists, or bigots, or anti-intellectuals. But by voting for Trump you are enabling all of those things, and you should be ashamed for doing so.
Christ dude it's been pointed out to you multiple times that when you only have two candidates, you're going to support one of them but it doesn't mean you support 100% of their comments or ideals. Anyone that does is ignorant (See TGunz and any democrat). You're in here painting a group of people with a broad brush, which ironically is the EXACT same damn thing you hate Trump for doing. You're no better than he is.
The argument that I have been making for months now is that if you are a decent person you do NOT have two choices in this election. Simply put, Donald Trump is beyond the pale, because he is a bigot. It doesn't matter if you hate Hillary Clinton with the heat of a thousand suns and you think she's a liar and a crook and do not support her on any policy. Regardless of that, it is still IMMORAL to vote for Donald Trump. There is no excuse for it. None.
It is absolutely right to paint all those who vote for Donald Trump with a broad brush. Most of them are not racists, or bigots, or anti-intellectuals. But by voting for Trump you are enabling all of those things, and you should be ashamed for doing so.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not voting for Hillary or Donald, so this doesn't really apply to me, but... Can't an argument be made that racism in a President isn't truly harmful, in that he/she won't be able to pass any actual racist policies? However, corruption in a President could be extremely harmful. By that thought, it's better to vote for someone you know is a racist than someone you know is corrupt.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Spin it however you want. You're painting people with a broad brush and intolerant of those with different political views than yours. What is a bigot? "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions". That's pretty much you so you're no better than Trump.
And go pound sand preaching about morals. You're the clown that was defending the rapists because of the way that girl was dressed. You should have been banned from here for life for that but you damn sure have no right to preach morals to anyone.
And it's absolutely pathetic how you and a few others try to guilt trip people into voting for Hillary. Aren't you embarrassed? You're a pathetic, hypocriticial, bigot based on this one post alone. Get a grip.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Missed this. This absolutely disgusting . It's black & white , no shades of gray. Absolutely disgusting .
timschochet
Footballguy
34. Misery
Stephen King
1987; 320 pages
Suspense
On the face of it, Misery is Stephen King's most narcissistic novel. A popular writer is kidnapped by a crazed fan and forced to write a novel on pain or torture and death? OK, we get it Steve, some of your fans can be a bit nutty and obsessed at times, but come on now. This absurd plot is a bit much.
And yet he makes it work, and this might be his most exciting and suspenseful piece of fiction. A lot of the reason for this is Annie Wilkes, who is by far King's best villain, mostly because she is far more real than Randall Flagg and Pennywise (the only villains who come close to Annie are Greg Stillson and John Rainbird- we'll get to them later.) Also there is no supernatural element, so it's the writwr's wits against Annie.
The only slow part of the novel are the gothic inner fiction scenes involving Misery Chastain- but when King explains the process that goes into them, he provides insight into his writing style which is fascinating. One of his very best.
Up next: Pat Conroy's exploration of family and mental illness.
Stephen King
1987; 320 pages
Suspense
On the face of it, Misery is Stephen King's most narcissistic novel. A popular writer is kidnapped by a crazed fan and forced to write a novel on pain or torture and death? OK, we get it Steve, some of your fans can be a bit nutty and obsessed at times, but come on now. This absurd plot is a bit much.
And yet he makes it work, and this might be his most exciting and suspenseful piece of fiction. A lot of the reason for this is Annie Wilkes, who is by far King's best villain, mostly because she is far more real than Randall Flagg and Pennywise (the only villains who come close to Annie are Greg Stillson and John Rainbird- we'll get to them later.) Also there is no supernatural element, so it's the writwr's wits against Annie.
The only slow part of the novel are the gothic inner fiction scenes involving Misery Chastain- but when King explains the process that goes into them, he provides insight into his writing style which is fascinating. One of his very best.
Up next: Pat Conroy's exploration of family and mental illness.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I never argued that what Polanski did was OK. I never attempted to blame his victim.
What I tried to do, very poorly, was to distinguish on a moral scale Polanski's crime vs that of a priest who molests or rapes young children, with the latter being far worse. But the argument came out very wrong, I wrote some dumb things in defense of it, and I later apologized for what I wrote.
It's probably my worst moment in this forum, but it's still not close to what's been implied here.
What I tried to do, very poorly, was to distinguish on a moral scale Polanski's crime vs that of a priest who molests or rapes young children, with the latter being far worse. But the argument came out very wrong, I wrote some dumb things in defense of it, and I later apologized for what I wrote.
It's probably my worst moment in this forum, but it's still not close to what's been implied here.
Thorn
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Mind boggling that there's a moral scale and Polanski's crimes were somehow seen as more benign than anything. But, as you said it was dumb, you at your worst, and I hope your views on rape, whether it's Polanski or Brock or anyone, have evolved.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thorn
Footballguy
Same article:
And it’s not confined to the Republicans. A Fox News poll this December showed that even among Democrats there was broad support for the measure — as long as it was not identified with Trump himself. Some 45 percent of those polled favored banning Muslims when the plan was not identified as originating with Trump.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Misrepresent someone's character based on something they say? Nah you never do that to anyone else.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Thorn
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm a fan of Van Buren I argued for him in this thread further up and I will point out another good bit, a service he did running for the presidency in 1848 for the Free Soil Party. His presence in the race helped defeat Lewis Cass and ultimately led to the founding of the Republican Party. Anyway courageous acts by leaders are needed in times of crisis. Cass' election might have led to the permanent institutionalization of slavery for decades to come, it might have averted Civil War but it also might have destroyed the Union as States just went their own way under the concept of Popular Sovereignty
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The guy ran a third party campaign which led to the founding of the nation's third major political party and which may have saved the Union as what we know it today, instead of a balkanized, confederacy on the order of an EU.
Similar threads
