After sitting through boring forums and spending minutes analyzing the candidates for SBP, I have come to the following conclusions about each of them:
Shruti Shah: Shruti seems to focus on making the size of student government smaller. This is without a doubt the most brilliant thing for which I have ever heard an SBP candidate advocate.
Greg Strompolos: Greg has one platform point that he ever reiterates: bring Google Apps to campus. Personally, I have no idea what that means.
Monique Hardin: Seems to be a nice person who wants to hold office hours in the pit. Believe me, I will not be going.
Nash Keune: Nash’s campaign is funny and anyone who doesn’t think so probably takes student politics too seriously.
Joe Levin-Manning: From what he has said at the forums I have no idea for what Joe stands.
Hogan Medlin: Frankly, Hogan’s eagerness and major in political science turns me off. But, alas, people who want to be SBP are the people who run for SBP.
I’ve met most of the candidates, and they are nice people. However, from what I can tell, Shruti and Monique are the only ones with sticking points (the ones all of them reiterate at the forums) that address issues within their power to address. And, from what I think, out of those two only Shruti has an idea worth implementing.
Overall though, I find it increasingly stupid to care what the SBP candidates do or think. For instance, all of the SBP candidates participated in the Bounce Forum last night. There they each proved themselves to be basically the same (I refer to the “serious” candidates — you be the judge). I watched them grandly laugh at jokes that maybe the most jaded of third graders would smirk at.
To be clear, I am saying they are frauds who, for the most part, believe that student government matters beyond the regulation of our student fees. The mentality that all problems ever known to man must be addressed through one channel, that of government fiat, has flooded over to saturate the debate. They are delusional, and should think about getting real jobs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/evening…
For Dent, Dexter and Co., regarding the supposed honesty of corporations in the absence of government regulation. It appears that Toyota was doing some serious foot dragging on fixing their fatally unsafe product. Not only did they fail to inform Toyota-buyers of the potential problems even after receiving multiple reports of the sticking gas pedals, but they tried to deflect blame for the problem in multiple different directions. A neat little case study in corporate hoodwinking this could turn out to be. Too bad for them that we have an "overbearing master" of a federal government that's always scrutinizing corporate practices. For the last year or so, at least.
On the bright side for conservatives, however, thanks to the Citizens United case the foreign-owned Toyota corporation will now probably be able to spend unlimited amounts of money in US federal election campaigns. Next time they, or any corporation, wants to sell us all a product that's going to kill us, they can pull financial punches to blunt the force of government regulation. Maybe the politicians whose campaigns they indirectly bankroll will take to wearing their logos on the backs of their suits when they sit in Congress. It could be just like NASCAR, and we'd all know who everyone's sponsor was!
From the article:
"Toyota has said it first received a complaint of sticking gas pedals back in 2007 but determined its cars were not at fault, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds.
Former NHTSA administrator Joan Claybrook said Toyota has long been resistant to regulation.
"I think Toyota has been recalcitrant and very secretive and it does not like to recall vehicles and I think it did everything it could to delay this issue," Claybrook told Reynolds.
"The first line of defense is 'The consumer was wrong, they stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake. It's their fault,'" Claybrook said…
…Federal data show Toyota accelerator complaints have markedly increased in the last two years and totaled nearly 600 in 2009 – facts excluded from sales pitches to customers."
Jonathan, not even the most radical libertarian would suggest that markets do not need regulation. All markets need all kinds of regulation. It's just that it's possible to devise more democratic, consumer-based, non-governmental regulatory mechanisms in a number of cases.
Nobody here believes that corporations – or governments – are honest in the absence of regulation (not necessarily government regulation, mind you!)
Maybe not, but you do think, in the context of the recent court interpretation of the unconstitutionality of FEC regulations, that "[if] corporation[s are] speaking, it's probably because the owners of this capital have something to say about the very powerful interests of government." To assume such benign motives from a corporation (as if the fictional human were a beleaguered individual simply struggling for its rights against an "overbearing master") borders on saying that if we didn't regulate corporations, they wouldn't tamper with our elections. It is, in a way, an assumption of corporate honesty. If we don't step on their toes, they won't screw us over. My whole point with the Toyota example is that corporations already use misinformation and the natural inertia of consumer reporting to screw people over for their bottom lines. In the wake of Citizens United, we have absolutely no reason to believe that they will not proactively use their billions of dollars to get candidates elected that will vote in ways favorable to their interests. There might be democratic, non-governmental regulatory mechanisms for correcting the imbalances of the market, but when it comes to soft and hard money spending in elections, to forgo government regulation will have the most undemocratic results imaginable.
I feel like I'm going crazy.
Well, the government does regulate corporate speech. In fact, the Citizens United ruling did not overturn disclosure and disclaimer requirements. For years, the government didn't censor political speech, and there was no democratic disaster… and really not that much corporate spending as a portion of total campaign contributions.
There's no reason that political parties, which have nearly identical fundraising schemes as Citizens United has, should get special treatment and have a monopoly on spreading information. You seem to trust political parties as intrinsically "benign." I am rightly skeptical of every statement from either corporations or political parties, as both are out for the good of their members, and I want both to be able to disseminate information.
"For years, the government didn't censor political speech, and there was no democratic disaster."
American politicians first hit on the rhetoric of campaign finance reform in a big way during the Progressive Era, because before that time there were no limits to corporate bankrolling of candidates. It was called the Gilded Age, and it was nothing at all if it wasn't a travesty of democracy, a veritable "democratic disaster," as you call it. In fact, the example of Progressive Era reforms flies right in the face of the Court's statement in their majority decision in Citizens United, which I have quoted elsewhere, that citizen's perceptions of corporate influence on candidates will not cause them to loose faith in democracy and will not suggest corruption. What a lack of historical consciousness on the part of the Court majority: have they totally forgotten about the massive reforms required during the Progressive era, specifically because people were losing faith in American democracy on account of the overwhelming and unregulated influence of corporations? For all the railing conservatives do about liberal activist judges, Scalia and Co. are a bunch of ideological rats in black gowns.
The reason that political parties should be able to do things that corporations cannot is because corporations often have incomparably massive spending powers and (here's the kicker) they are oriented solely towards their profit margin. This is a blueprint for the subversion of public institutions. It is not that I think political parties are intrinsically benign; far from it, in fact. What I do find to be relatively benign is the public sector. It might be inefficient, but it doesn't make money by externalizing costs and dumping poison in our rivers. Even if you think public sector strikes put people at risk, its nothing compared to private-sector malfeasance. I also do not support giving political parties a monopoly on political speech; no liberal or leftist does. I actually support multiparty parliamentarian democracy specifically to avoid the natural duopoly of the American system, and I love the robust debate generated by non-profits and advocacy groups. Once advocacy groups and political parties start focusing on turning profits more than giving the people a political voice, I'll advocate regulating them too.
"…no liberal or leftist does."
Other than the eastern Communists and their political descendants, that is. But they are obviously not a relevant example in this case.
"it's possible to devise more democratic, consumer-based, non-governmental regulatory mechanisms in a number of cases"
I believe you are speaking from your hindquarters. What exactly is a "democratic, consumer-based, non-governmental regulatory mechanism?"
Jonathan, what are you talking about?
Jonathan,
This is one of the things that drives me crazy: Seeing conservatives so ideological about something like “free markets.” There’s no such thing as a “free market,” anyway. Conservatives would be much better off (and perhaps liberals, too) if they would just handle the issues as they come–if they’d just roll with the punches, so to speak, instead of demanding that the markets be run just so. Conservative outrage at Obama’s plans is also misdirected, I would say, in that most outraged conservatives don’t really understand the policies that they are outraged about. Hence, McCain could only attack Obama on the grounds that he was a “socialist,” and it didn’t work. I think McCain would have won the election if he had promised to get control of the border and to protect American manufacturing jobs (even though that wouldn’t have been very “free market” of him).
You see, the average conservative is told what to think by Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc., and none of the above really addresses the most important conservative issues. Hence, conservatives, who realize that SOMETHING isn’t right with the nation they inhabit, assume that the passionate voices they hear 24/7 are correct and have all the answers–after all, they do hate Obama and the other liberals…
Being an economic ideologue is just immature and not very intelligent. I don’t care how the economy is run, provided that other issues (such as immigration) are dealt with properly. I would vote for an open socialist if he promised to get control of the border and place a moratorium on immigration.
Why is it bad to be an economic ideologue but good to be an immigration ideologue?
Riley,
Conservatism is based on the idea that human nature is flawed and fixed, what Dr. Thomas Sowell calls the "constrained vision." According to this philosophy, people, both citizens and rulers, can only know and do so much. Also, their flaws have to be accounted for. Hence James Madison's famous remark in the 51st Federalist: "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Extending the logic a bit further, since rulers are people and can only know and do so much, we know that their power over the economy, which involves massive amounts of information and many problems which markets tend to resolve, should be limited. According to Adam Smith, people work to further their own interests, and the collective results of people pursuing their own interests is that we all get what we want. This is what Smith called the "Invisible Hand," if you will recall.
This philosophy also explains why conservatives are not libertarians or anarchists. We know that men are not "angels," as Madison pointed out, and they often tend to make bad choices; for this reason we have the necessary evil that is government.
I hope this helps explain why conservatism as a philosophy is better than "just roll[ing] with the punches," as you advocate above. It is not merely a vague sense of frustration that we can't do what we want with our own money, although that position certainly has merit as well.
If you need me to explain why socialism is bad (and I do mean immoral, not just inefficient), please don't hesitate to ask.
An eloquent summary if I've ever read one.
Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed.
Can I say I agree again? Good job Justin. : ]
Maggie? Haha I am vindicated!
Chris: Good point. I’m not an immigration ideologue. If you would call me an ideologue for being strongly against illegal immigration, the current handling of immigration in general, and the phenomenally large number of immigrant (both legal and illegal) that this country accepts every year, I would say that you don’t know what an “ideologue” is. I am in favor of a MORATORIUM on immigration, which, as its Latin root suggests, is a TEMPORARY halt on immigration. I don’t have much of an ideology, or at least I don’t have an inordinately pervasive ideology. I think it’s ridiculous that mainstream conservatives completely ignore the immigration issue, and then have the gall to imply that I am an “ideologue” for being concerned about it.
Cheston: I have certain fundamental disagreements with you. First, I’m not dedicated to the political “philosophy” known as “conservatism.” I’m dedicated to my God, nation, people, family, and community. If you’re going to bring up immorality, I would say that it is immoral to be committed to a certain political philosophy over and above your commitment to your nation.
I don’t think that Thomas Sowell has any more authority on what’s “conservative” than any number of other self-identifying conservatives (including the man you guys seem to hate, Pat Buchanan). If we look at the Latin root of the word “conservative,” we see that it is probably conservare—“to maintain.” My idea of being a conservative isn’t your nebulous and contrived nonsense that tries to justify philosophically everything Republican and (politically) American (I’m being slightly facetious with the Republican comment). I’m a conservative because I want to “maintain” what I consider good. I want to maintain the American people, which is why I’m not in favor of Mexico and South America cramming in. I want to “maintain” the absence of Islam, which is why I’m against Islamic immigration. I’d like to maintain American manufacturing jobs (I guess I’m some sort of a “socialist” for that…and therefore immoral). There are obviously other things that I’d like to maintain, but I’m not going to list them all here. Sowell can say what he will, or define the word “conservative” as he may, but it doesn’t change the root definition of the word.
Also, I don’t think that government is a “necessary evil.” I guess that’s one difference between the Protestant perspective (forgive me for judging you) and the Catholic perspective. You see, in Catholicism, there is hierarchy everywhere, even among angels, which suggests that “government” even exists among the angels. Government is organically produced from the natural social interactions that occur between humans in a community. There is even government in a nuclear family, even though most nuclear families don’t have written rules (such as a Constitution). I would hardly call the authority that a father wields over his son unjust, or “evil.” A son, by Catholic standards, is to obey his father’s commands unless his father’s commands directly contradict objective morality. In other words, even if a man tells his son something so arbitrary as to eat–exclusively—vanilla ice cream, when he eats ice cream at all, and never to eat chocolate, his son is to obey his father, because not eating chocolate ice cream does not contradict virtue. This is a form of “government.”
To be a true socialist is to be an economic ideologue, so I would agree that being a true socialist is not morally preferable. But I would also say equally as much that to be a true capitalist is to be an economic ideologue, so I would argue further that being a true capitalist is not morally preferable.
Riley, having an ideology is not a bad thing. Being an ideologue is not a bad thing; it does not imply a lack of thinking, and the vast majority of the time it isn't. You seem to think that believing strongly in anything is some kind of vice; I would contend that it is necessary in order to get your priorities straight.
You say "I’m dedicated to my God, nation, people, family, and community." Well, that's great, but isn't that an ideology? or doesn't it imply one? Are you saying you have no philosophical framework for understanding the relationships between these? And how do you know what's good for your nation, your people, etc., without a certain amount of "ideology"? Don't you need to have a basic understanding of these things and an idea where they should be going?
Check out Jonah Goldberg from today:
"The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then “ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth.” Russell’s point was that there’s nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.
Our values, customs, traditions, and principles provide insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it’s often called an ideology, and there’s no reason to apologize for having one."
After all, how can we say our country is good if we don't have any idea what "good" constitutes? And if we cannot say it is good, why the hell would we fight for it?
As for the logic of trade restrictions, the immorality of socialism, government as a necessary evil, etc., that's another discussion, and I have a lot of homework to do, so maybe next time…
I don't understand why the Carolina Review folks have such a negative opinion of Student Government and the people who care about Student Government. SG gives college kids a chance to play grown-up by participating in extremely small-scale versions of an actual government, possibly in preparation for a career in political science. Isn't that exactly what the Carolina Review does? CR gives 19 year olds with no life experience or original ideas a chance to pretend that they're capable of forming political opinions that don't rehash conservative talking points that have been around for over 30 years?
Actually, I quoted Adam Smith above, and he wrote Wealth of Nations in 1776, so those talking points have been around closer to 200 years 😉
Seriously, though, do you think ideas being old makes them bad? What kind of a prig are you?
There's nothing inherently wrong with an old idea. But stagnant ideology is a problem.
Grand New Party was one of the most exciting books I've read in the past few years, truly innovative in its perspective, and I see none of the ideas incorporated into mainstream conservatism. At the GOP's peril, no less.
The Weekly Standard makes me want to die. NR is okay. Honestly, all of my favorite conservative writers are with The Atlantic, so I don't horse around with any of the others any more.
Haha. Ouch. Nevertheless, funny. You have to understand though that conservativism, even when the ideas are 30 years old (did you just make that number up?), is not exactly disseminated on this campus. Besides, as for me, I am just having fun. Don't have to read us, brothah.
It was a somewhat random number, based vaguely on the Reagan years. Though the ideology obviously predates Reagan.
I personally have a negative opinion of student government because it's ridiculous, it does nothing and it appears to me to be full of self-important people who like to go on power trips and operate under the delusion that they are actually making a difference in the world.
I was unnecessarily harsh on Carolina Review. My actual point is that ALL student organizations are pretty much pointless, from the CR to Student government. The only difference is that Student Government gets a boatload of money to piddle away, whereas the CR only gets a wheelbarrow-load.
Basically all student groups are self-important- it's inherently self important to say that every student at Carolina should kick into a pot so that YOU can pursue your personal niche interest. And whether you think you're influencing grade inflation, tuition, or people's political beliefs, the odds are good that you're not actually doing squat. The only thing you might do is gain some experience that might come in handy later in life. So if someone wants to pursue a career in politics and thinks being SBP would provide some useful experience, good for him/her. If someone wants to apply to graduate school or a job at the Heritage Foundation and thinks contributing to a conservative campus magazine might give him useful experience, so be it. At least my fees are going to the best possible purpose- educating a student.
My main beef is with groups and events that "raise awareness." If you are a college student and are not aware that horrible atrocities are perpetrated in other countries, then you'll probably obliviously walk past an "art installation" (that cost thousands of dollars in student fees) depicting tragedy without having your "awareness" raised. I find awareness-raising groups much more offensive and self-important than student government.
Two thumbs mostly up. But it's not necessary to have such a negative tone (besides here, where you are merely stating your point). I prefer to acknowledge these facts, then move on and encourage students to use their time here to train academically so that they may later contribute to the global economy. I want to see alumni produce, teach developing countries that the foundations of prosperity are rule of law and property rights and an independent central bank, etc, and generally improve the world.
You correctly point out that the point of extracurricular activities here should be to train for situations further down the road. Carolina Review aims to do more than merely convince the study body that certain policies are the most effective. We want to instill in students the sense that the world's problems are big and complex and can't be explained away by that Little Red Book or instantly solved by economic planning.
Like I said, I was too harsh. Each member of CR is a sparkling, unique jewel, undoubtedly, and it's unfair to presume that because you are young, you don't have the perspective necessary to interpret The Events Of The Day. Truth be told, when I wrote the first post I was in a sour mood because of Crowder's excessive Lady Gaga humming.
But still, I hold to my original point. I think it's strange that the CR folks are so harsh on the people who want to run for Student Body President when really, both groups are similar in motivations, effectiveness, and usefulness.
I will find out who you are. And when I do, I will hum Lady Gaga to you.
Whatever man, I know what I heard.
I would agree that any political philosopher is going to have ideologies to a certain extent, regardless of how hard he tries not to tie himself down. That’s why I said to Chris: “I don’t have much of an ideology, or at least I don’t have an inordinately pervasive ideology.” But the economy is, to me, of an incredibly low order. I think that it should fall relatively low on the totem pole. As a result, I have very little respect for people who think that all our problems can be solved by better handling our money, taxes, banking system, markets, or any financial business at all. And don’t kid yourself—there are plenty of conservatives who focus almost solely on financial matters. Many followers of Ron Paul can’t seem to talk about money enough. McCain lost the election trying to convince Americans that Obama was a bad pick on the grounds that his policies were “socialist.”
I’d like to think that my ideologies pertain to relatively more important topics. I consider the threat that immigration poses to the Western world of momentous importance. It therefore annoys me to hear conservative leaders talking about how the GOP needs to reach out to Hispanics in order to win future elections. This is blatant opportunism and power-mongering by a political party. It has nothing to do with the good of the nation, and everything to do with keeping the GOP powerful. When I hear crap like this, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is blurred in my mind.
Look, Russia survived the evils of the communist ideology. Why and how? Because Russia was a strong nation rooted in a history of strong nationhood and culture. A strong nation can handle bad economic policy. Mother Russia never died in the minds of the Russian people, and Russians knew what Russia was. (Now, however, Russia is facing the same problems that the rest of the West is facing—low birthrates, dying pride, faintheartedness, etc. And please don’t say that this is a result of communism, because First World nations are suffering from these things as well. China, as a nation, seems to be doing quite well despite its recent communist history. Can we say the same about America? I mean, what is America at this point if not a land of wealth backed up by a badass military? As soon as we face a few years of bad economic policy, we stand the chance of being completely Balkanized. Why? Because the only thing we have holding us together is our mutual desire to be wealthy. But when that wealth dries up, what will hold us together?
I don't think Nash's campaign isn't funny because I take student government too seriously (in fact, I could care less about SG). He isn't funny because he isn't funny. In a group of unfunny people, he MIGHT be considered funny, but no, he is not funny. Never has been and is a disgrace to the human race.
I hope you think you're funny, because if you are serious you are seriously disgraceful.
Seems like everyone had a great time at the BoUNCe forum except for Nash and his people, who were ironically, acting way too serious to have any fun. BoUNCe isn't exactly known to be the beacon of extremely intelligent humor, especially in improv situations while working off of people who don't have comedic/performing experience. It was meant to be silly, and most of the audience took it lightly, laughed at silly/stupid rock puns, and had fun. Honestly, the forums are for us to provide a framework and prompt the candidates so they can be funny. Nash hardly made any witty jokes and looked extremely uncomfortable and embarrassed the entire time. He didn't even want to participate in the last event, it was as if he had just given up. That's not our fault.
For a "funny" candidate, he really missed out on his chance to shine. He even came up to one of us afterward saying that he had "had some stuff planned" but didn't do anything. We knew about the security guards beforehand (BoUNCe has spies everywhere) and had even overheard some plans for y'all to "upstage" (your words, not mine) us, so we were kind of excited to see what you guys came up with and even came up with some funny counter plans. Heck I even sent out an email to all the candidates warning them of two of the events in hopes that Nash (and the rest of them) would have something funny prepared. But nothing happened. We were waiting for some funny retorts to the insults we threw at him, which were a lot of course, as he is the "funny" candidate and the "upstage" remark didn't really rub us the right way, and we thought he would come up with some good stuff. But he didn't.
I'm not trying to start an internet flame war here because that's just stupid, but I did want to take a chance to defend ourselves. Most everyone at the Smackdown just relaxed, laughed, and had a good time. I don't really know why you guys didn't.
With all due respect Heather, how was Nash supposed to make witty jokes when the MC cut him off every time he tried to talk?
He had the opportunity to talk during the Pit Preacher rant and the Bromancing events. In fact, those were the two events that I emailed the candidates about beforehand, so he could’ve even prepared funny things to say if he wanted.
Nash told me afterward he got cut off halfway through his pit preacher rant and wasn't allowed to finish. The bromance segment was funny though…I failed to keep a straight face for that one. It was the type of comedic give and take that I was expecting all along.
Here's the tough truth, and its time for the Review Crew to face up to it:
Nash's campaign was a great excuse for the CR kids to have their inside jokes, which, like most college conservatives, they desperately love (see O'Keefe & Co). And for a few days it really was novel and funny. I chuckled at the invading-Iran jokes myself, and even the narwhal shtick had a little bit of comedic staying power. But every day that it continued after about the fifth or sixth day painfully reminded anyone paying attention that all this is is a chance for the kids in the conservative echo chamber to remind everyone at UNC that they exist. I have not a doubt in my mind that UNC students read the names of CR writers more in one day's worth of DTH articles about Nash's campaign than they do in Carolina Review by-lines all year. This isn't an insult to CR, it's just a common sense analysis: the jokes up, guys. Time to let it go.
Even Stephen Colbert, who is a successful comedian, dropped his satirical presidential bid after a few weeks. He found a graceful exit strategy and he took it. Why? Because one joke only gets you so far. Real comedians who are both funny and politically relevant get that. Nash doesn't seem to.
Pattishall, get over yourself, buddy. Think whatever you want, but Nash's campaign was never meant to be a conservative parody. His friends happen to be like him, and he is conservative. If you don't like it, don't laugh.
This isn't about conservative parodies or politics. It's not about me not liking something or not laughing. It's about everyone involved with this campaign looking stupid because they desperately held on to a joke long after it stopped being funny. I was just trying to help. It's y'alls reputations on the line; not mine. Just don't be surprised if everyone on campus starts thinking the CR kids are even bigger tone-deaf pricks than they already do. It's not what I think, but it's the slippery slope you're all heading down by insisting to the world that you're comedians. I am in no way trying to insult any of you by saying these things, by the way.
I know, I'm sorry. I didn't mean anything. I still like you. But, for your information, the closed-minded liberals will hate us (I think literally hate) no matter what.
Oh my, some people just do not get it…
I mean, do you really think this campaign is a Carolina Review stunt? As Chief of Staff, I know these stats, and we have had about 50 people working on this campaign in some capacity. Of those, less than 10 are current or former Review staff.
I don't think its entirely a CR stunt. But the fact that Nash is the candidate, and most of the top staffers are prominent CR kids, and the platform contains multiple digs at activist/liberal student government functions, makes a pretty good case that it is at least partly, and I would bet mostly, a CR stunt. Does that strike you as unreasonable analysis?
Anyway, I retract the negative things I said about the campaign. It's harmless fun, I understand that. Dexter is right for once: it's all a part of the interesting process of living. Keep on rockin' in the free world.
It doesn't strike me as unreasonable, but I'd say that it's more accurate to say that the senior campaign staffers are Nash's friends, and most of Nash's friends happen to be CR staff.
I didn't expect the forum to be so obnoxiously stupid. I guess I should have guessed it, but I thought it might be funny so I went. It was not funny. I didn't have a good time because your jokes were offensive and stupid and made me uncomfertable.
Why did no one else except for people involved with the Nash campaign find our jokes offensive, stupid, and unfunny? And of course you were uncomfortable, because your "funny" candidate was very obviously unfunny. I felt uncomfortable every time he spoke too.
I find it incredibly bizarre that of all people, it was Nash's campaign crew that were the ones unable to let go and simply enjoy some silly and stupid jokes. The most offensive joke of the night (which literally made me run to the other side of Hamilton and give our staff member playing Olmec a stern talking to) was used on Shruti, and even she came up to me afterward and told us what a great time she had. Everyone else understood it was all in good fun and took it lightly.
This is a very serious thread for a comedy group's complaints about a comedy candidate. Everyone needs to chill out; none of this really matters anyways. It's all a part of the interesting experience that is life.
I do think that BoUNCe could have employed simple irony to greater effect; some people enjoy more 'clean' humor that discards the worst racial or sexual punch lines and replaces them with clever fun-poking aimed at the candidates. The former type of jokes failed to draw as many laughs during the second half of the show, probably because people had heard those types of jokes already.
There are a lot of silly accusations here. I'm turning this thread off if the petty flaming continues. Feel free to make constructive criticism.
Heather- After watching the video BoUNCe used for the forum, I was struck that the funniest part was dropping the "f bomb". Is this a junior high organization that's part of a campus outreach or something?
Cause I'm funnier and that's what the show is about?
If you were actually funnier than Nash, you wouldn't have had to keep him from talking in order to demonstrate the point.
If he was funnier he could have cut me off, not like I physically stopped him from talking. He had ample opportunity to demonstrate his fabled wit, but he didn't – especially during the Pit Preacher rant. As the emcee its my job to keep the energy going during the show. He was bringing it down, so I cut him off. I didn't give the candidates that much of a chance unless they were really funny and the best Nash had was a Bible joke? Really? Seriously? A bible joke?
You're right, he should have just said the word "penis" 10 times in a row. That would have been funnier [/sarcasm].
Probably. Couldn't have hurt.
My main issue here is not just Nash not being all that funny, because honestly, even though I think that, I don't really care. It doesn't bother me. My issue is you guys accusing us at BoUNCe of not being funny when frankly, everyone at the Smackdown except for you guys had a good time and laughed their butts off. Every candidate came up to me and our MC and thanked us. People from the audience that I didn't even know came up to me and said that they had a good time. Every time I looked at the audience, everyone was laughing but you guys. I know you guys aren't above our silly and often immature brand of humor, because you guys say "Narwhal" and think it's funny. I just don't really understand why you guys were so uptight throughout the whole event and afterward and why you felt the need to dis us on this blog.
If by "you guys" you mean the security guards, we weren't supposed to laugh and actively suppressed laughter simply because that was our job. If you meant everyone there from our campaign, well I definitely saw some of them laughing and plenty of people not on our campaign who were not laughing (eg the people on the back row).
Repeating "Video" twenty times may have been funny in kindergarten, but, for better or for worse, some of us have evolved. "Often immature"? Correction: ALWAYS immature. Shockingly, there is more to humor than making outrageous racial or sexual jokes or just cussing. I know that to do so requires a cranial capacity greater than what BoUNCe collectively possesses, but nonetheless…
Real jobs like….complaining about the issues while doing nothing to fix them?
Oh, wait. That position is filled.
Haha
" I would vote for an open socialist if he promised to get control of the border and place a moratorium on immigration."
Yes, I'm sure many YWC folks would vote for the first National Socialist they saw on a ballot.
Fascists and Nazis were nationalist, corporatist crazies. Left-wing socialists are neither nationalists nor corporatists. As always when discussing Nazism, emphasis should be rendered on the first term: we are not talking about National SOCIALISTS, but rather NATIONAL socialists. Socialism exists on the right and the left, and when it is in defense of a traditional racial or social composition and an organic, corporate hierarchy (as we see in fascism and, to a lesser extent, in Burke) most historians call it a right-wing phenomenon. I know you and Goldberg disagree, but that is that in a nut-shell.
Leif Eirikson has a much funnier fake campaign than Nash does.
false