2008 could not have been an easier choice. The last few months I
suppose I was persuaded by the idea that spending was out of control.
And yes, it is to a certain extent. But really, I liked what Obama had
to say about that, and the other issues in his acceptance speech.
Mostly, I liked the way Bill Clinton and Obama addressed this notion of
"I built it". They didn't back away from that. They expanded upon it.
I liked the way Clinton addressed the " why do "they" hate Obama" issue
so much.
In both speeches they took the harshest criticisms and addressed them.
But as I said, I wanted Romney to be inspirational in his speech.
Whether you like him or not, Ryan gave a good speech. Condoleeza gave a
good speech. Linda Martinez gave a good speech. Rubio did as well.
Much better than Castro I thought.
But Mitt blew it. So, yes, I was somewhat a swing voter. But for now
I've swung the other way.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
<emilymae.reyn@...> wrote:
>
> <snip> BTW. I confess. I wanted to have a reason to support Romney.
But his acceptance speech was so lame, so out of touch, that it really
pushed me into the other camp. Barry nailed his. oops. Barack that
is.
>
> OMG, Steve, are you one of the elusive "swing voters?" I've never met
one of those - although seems there were a bunch during the 2008
election that just couldn't stomach more GOP after 8-years of Bush. OR,
am I so ironed out right now, that this is a joke.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > Wow, I am promoted to the big leagues. (Don't blow it Steve. Don't
> > blow it.)
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@>
> > wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@
wrote:
> > >
> > > Authfriend: Irony is pretty easy to detect if one is in good
contact
> > > with reality, because the variance from reality in the
> > > ironic material is clear. It's really just a matter of
> > > common sense.
> > >
> > > RESPONSE: But what makes the irony do its job, is its *actual*
> > relationship to reality. Irony becomes reality's comment on
something
> > less than the truth--or against the truth. The reason irony works is
> > that while the irony is going on *it becomes a comment on the actual
> > truth".
> > >
> > > So, for instance, my having two identities (as identified by
Steve):
> > if I was not achieving some effect which could not be achieved any
other
> > way, then the impression people would have gotten would be in line
with
> > Steve's experience (this is a bad thing Robin is doing). But as it
> > turned out, I was writing pretty much exactly what this person would
> > have written back to me; so the irony turned on the degree to which
my
> > representation of that person's point of view was *true*.
> > Robin. What you say is true. I think the first, most recent case
was
> > you responding as Susan to one of Barry's posts. And yes, I think
you
> > picked up, to some extent, how Susan often replies to Barry. But so
> > what. I thought it was in bad taste. It seemed to me that the
> > objective was to humiliate Susan. But evidently you feel that it
served
> > a higher purpose.
> > Bottom line: I just wouldn't care to put words in some elses mouth.
> > Tell me again, what was gained by replying as Susan, if you don't
mind.
> > > What actually got Steve was unconsciously how powerfully he was
> > offended by how successfully I had put myself in the place of this
other
> > person. Do you really think this is that hard to do. I think most
of us
> > can pretty well predict how others are going to respond to the
different
> > posts here. And could, if we wanted, reply as one or other person.
Do
> > you really feel this is an accomplishment of some sort?Had what I
done
> > not justified itself in the effect, then it would have seemed
strange
> > and indefensible--and just plain silly. But what happened there is
that
> > I know my adversary so well that I knew how he would respond to what
I
> > said, so I preempted him. Your chest is sticking out.Thus proving by
the
> > efficacy of this deployment of irony that this person is very
> > predictable in what he will say--*when he is up against some
challenge
> > to his ultimate beliefs, or his personal modus operandi*.
> > I guess we should be grateful for the lessons you are trying to
impart.
> > > Steve's objection thus became the protest at the potency of the
effect
> > of this ironic set-up: Robin speaking in the voice of his adversary.
> > Something in Steve *very much caught the irony* and reacted to it
> > because it unsettled his way of viewing the world in terms of who he
> > wants to win--something he appears to have no control over. If, the
> > irony was not appropriate, effective, justified, then Steve's
reaction
> > would be the natural one; indeed it would be reality's verdict on
the
> > failure of the irony.
> > Yes, you have me all figured out. I accept your analysis. For all
I
> > know it might be entirely accurate, but I think you are missing the
mark
> > by a pretty wide margin. At least according to my first person
> > ontology. (fist gesture)
> > > Irony only will have its intended effect if in its expression it
is
> > making a comment upon something *objectively*. Irony doesn't work if
it
> > is expressing but an opinion. Else there would be an answer to it:
And
> > if the irony does what it is supposed to do, there is no response
> > possible (from the person who is the object of the irony). There
must be
> > truth in there. Irony is the way nowadays where a truth gets to make
its
> > impact on persons without their having the chance to defend
themselves
> > with their belief systems.
> > >
> > > Of course the subject of the irony doesn't like it one bit and
will
> > react. But the point here again is: Irony only works by having, yes,
a
> > variance from reality, but in a deeper sense, by having a very deep
and
> > truthful relationship with reality.
> > >
> > > Mitt Romney's devout Mormonism (at least in his particular case)
> > deprives him of an essential element in his campaigning that Barack
> > Obama has in spades: the ability to mock himself with extreme wit
and
> > hilarity. Mitt Romney is deficient on the irony front, and it will
kill
> > him in the election. He cannot quite neutralize (or universalize)
> > himself as a human being inside the universe--his Mormonism runs so
deep
> > in him; it seems to have virtually created him. The Broadway play
*The
> > Book of Mormon* is funnier and more sophisticated and more truthful
than
> > Mitt Romney can ever be.
> > >
> > > I have not seen the play but Matt Stone and Trey Parker have seen
the
> > irony in Mormonism, and they are, even though not attacking the
> > religious truth of Mormonism, making it abundantly clear that that
> > religion does not possess enough of reality inside of it not to
deserve
> > to be mocked in the most subtle ways--which is what happens in that
> > play--even as Mormons have taken ad space on the playbill: If you're
> > going to see the musical, you should read the actual Book of
Mormon.
> > For me, the ultimate stroke of irony.
> > >
> > > I plan to spend Christmas in Manhattan. I am hoping to be able to
see
> > *The Book of Mormon*. Steve should imagine himself being a believing
> > member of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and
come
> > to the play with me. He would realize that the laughs are being
driven
> > by the relationship between reality and how Mormonism is ultimately
> > received and judged by that reality.
> > Yes, I need to work on my sense of humor. I tend to be too serious
I
> > guess. (hey, is this "irony"?)
> > > I took my chances representing the views of my adversary--and from
all
> > that I can tell, I fulfilled the stringent metaphysic of irony.
> > I think you nailed it. I think you were able to take on the voice
of
> > your "adversary". But I'm still missing what is the payoff?
> > > Now if my adversary could take what I did *and see the inadvertent
> > irony of my doing this*--thus seeing another level of irony (at my
> > expense)--he would have done this. But there was nothing to
say--Only
> > Steve could address that post. And he was taking out ad space on the
> > playbill for his own self-Mormonism.
> > I like this. I think I will replace my first person ontology with my
> > self-Mormonism.
> > BTW. I confess. I wanted to have a reason to support Romney. But
his
> > acceptance speech was so lame, so out of touch, that it really
pushed me
> > into the other camp. Barry nailed his. oops. Barack that is.
> >
>
