quote:

We thought we were the free market people!

Mentos Dan posted:

Dude's linkedin is amazing:

The Boyko posted:

Am I the only geek in the world who (in the words of the late Roger Ebert,) Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated that show?

I realized that the biggest fantasy about the whole thing is that it’s a society where power is proportional to stupidity. You have an entire society of people whose main characteristic is that they have lofty ambitions and poor impulse control. Of COURSE they’re going to screw things up for themselves and others. But I guess I’m just one of those guys who CAN look away from a trainwreck – especially when the whole point is to see how characters decide to aim the train instead of diverting it safely onto another track. Really – the only thing that could get me to watch Game of Thrones right now is if Ash Williams shows up, yells “Listen up, you primitive screwheads, this is my BOOMSTICK,” then proceeds to institute a constitutional democracy.

Mo_Steel posted:

"Delegated authority appropriately when necessary to qualified, passionate, and brilliant people."

Jagchosis posted:

what game of thrones is missing is constitutional democracy

Jagchosis posted:

yes brian, we are a loving and welcoming family here at somethingisawful, please come back. as a gesture of good will i have made you your very own ponytar!

Jagchosis posted:

ThirdPartyView posted:

Well, then, I can only imagine the context of that comment...

ThirdPartyView posted:

Well, then, I can only imagine the context of that comment...

Jagchosis posted:

hmm maybe i should put his posts in context more

quote:

What has happened so far with the health
I have high blood pressure - runs in my family. I take medication to handle it, but very stressful days - like the past two weeks, yesterday, and this morning, can cause it to spike.
There is no doubt in my mind the stress is worth it, but you knew that.
Suspecting my blood pressure was “a little elevated” I tested it at the supermarket. It showed that I had high stage II hypertension. The pharmacist told me to call my doctor. My doctor told me to call urgent care. Urgent care told me to go to the emergency room. So did Prof. Lessig.
And mostly, it was just waiting, lying down, in a dark room. For about eight hours, while I pretty much just waited.

The only reason I could relax is because you guys were so awesome and able to help pull things together when I couldn’t be there.
I’m going to get some rest now. Tonight Aaron Lifshin is handling the site migration; and there are some clever people thinking of even cleverer solutions than I could have alone. In a way, this was a HUGE blessing in disguise because it brought so many smart people together to the point where this site will run way better than I could have done alone.

— BB

Jagchosis posted:

hmm maybe i should put his posts in context more

MothraAttack posted:

You know on some level he believes there's a literal "pro-spanking lobby," and he's OK with it.

Sogol posted:

His message to the the troops during the challenging creation of the site.

http://mayoneus.tumblr.com/video_file/84550349933/tumblr_n4yt46oX6Y1taedaf

I am worried that his eyes seem to be retreating into his skull.

Followed by this:

http://mayoneus.tumblr.com/image/84593828178

And finally...


I am worried about Brian.

goatse.cx posted:

a bunch of really stupid bullshit

Mentos Dan posted:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boyko

Mayor Dave posted:

lmao he's a south park republican

Jagchosis posted:

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Don't do this.

Mayor Dave posted:

do this forever

quote:

References

^ Note: the official spelling is Mayday PAC according to its director Brian Boyko, although there have been instances when it was spelled with other variations such as May Day PAC, May Day Super PAC, MayDay PAC, and others; for further information, see discussion on the talk page.

Mentos Dan posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC

goatse.cx posted:

On paper, I think progressives - the rank and file at least - have better ideas about how to move the country forward than the rank-and-file conservatives. But what's interesting is that while I'm a progressive, almost no elected Democrats are actually working to solve the country's problems. (Granted, I feel almost no elected Republicans are either.)
I also have come to the realization that at the rank-and-file level, progressives and conservatives agree far more often than we think we do. And I'm on Reddit to test out this theory.
Progressives - at least from what I have experienced - tend to believe that they have good ideas and that conservatives' primary goals are to block those good ideas. I'm not so sure this is the case. I think that conservatives believe they have good ideas and that progressives' primary goals are to block those ideas as well.
But when I think about it, when I think: "What do Conservatives want?" I have to think to myself: Well, hell, I can't think of any progressive that would be opposed to 95% of that...
One of the big issues of conservatives is a balanced budget and lowered national debt. Heck, progressives want that too.
Conservatives want less governmental regulation in starting up small businesses, progressives wouldn't mind getting rid of some of the cruft if we made sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Conservatives want free markets, not crony capitalism... which is something that took me by surprise, because most progressives think that conservatives want crony capitalism, not free markets! We thought we were the free market people!
What if we both are?
And, on the other side, I don't think that conservatives necessarily want to block environmental regulation because they don't like the environment or they don't want clean air or preservation of wildlife. They just want to also make sure that they have jobs as well. I don't think conservatives are necessarily against solar power or alternative energy sources so long as they're cost effective. (And solar has a lot of military uses that conservatives love - getting batteries/fuel shipped in might give away the position of soldiers in the field, but being able to recharge electronics through solar can help keep them safe.)
I also think that conservatives are necessarily opposed to even basic social services - they just "are tired of paying for other people," as my Dad put it.
This is my theory: That if conservatives actually pointed out what they actually wanted - that progressives would have no opposition to 90% of it, and if progressives pointed out what they actually wanted, conservatives would have no objection to 90% of it.
That's the first part of the theory I want to test: In this thread, can you please point out what you feel you want?
But if I'm right... then why does it seem like we're 100% opposed to each other?
For that, I have a second part of the theory.
And that is that we're both being played for chumps.
See, I think that there are two problems: right now, money is very important to running for political office. 95% of house races were won by the candidate who spent the most money. And due to gerrymandering, (and both sides do it) and "natural" safe-seats, we don't have a very strong ability to hold elected officials accountable on either side of the aisle.
In short, this has created a strong incentive to keep the significant funders of campaigns happy. And those funders are not from a broad cross-section of America. There are only about 150,000 of them, or 0.05% of America - the special interests, corporate and union concerns that fund elections.
So neither of us are going to get the things we think this country needs, let alone what we want - if the funders can effectively use their influence to block reform. The same system of corruption that blocks reforms that the left wants also blocks reforms that the right wants.
When we ask why Washington is so screwed up, I think it's simply because the Legislature was designed (as stated in Federalist #52) to be "dependent upon the people alone." But members of congress are far more dependent upon the funders of their campaigns than on the people/the voters. This creates a mis-aligned incentive, where politicians have to do what's best for the funders first.
This is a "systemic corruption" - a corruption that can't be solved simply by replacing the people in power with someone of an opposing party.
To be sure, rank and file progressives don't like elected Republicans; but you'd be surprised how little the rank and file progressives like the Democrats as well. Look at Nancy Pelosi's extended interview on the Daily Show. She's completely oblivious to the fact that most progressives believe, rightly, that politicians are beholden to the money and not to the voter. And she believes that the Democratic Party isn't beholden to special interests the way that Republicans are! She clearly does not represent the progressives I know!
She doesn't get it, and she's never going to get it. And she was until recently our party leader in the legislature!
I think that Red and Blue have been fighting each other because we've been played one against the other by "green". That we have more in common with each other than we do with the deep-pocketed interests who wield undue influence over our elected officials in this country. That our political dysfunction is being bred because crony capitalists are feeding upon that dysfunction.
And I know that there are some great reformers on both sides of the aisle working towards it: Jim Ruebens (R Sen. Candidate, NH), Fmr. Gov. Buddy Roemer (R-Louisiana), but also Jeff Kurzon (D Cong. Candidate, NY)... and I think that we should find some sort of way to point out the real reformers on both sides of the aisle. I think that most progressives would vote for a Republican who seeks to reform the system over a Democrat who doesn't, and vice versa. We just need a way to identify them quickly - call 'em "mavericks" (like John McCain) or "rebels" or something. I'd vote for a "Rebel Republican" over a "Democrat" any day. Because while I might not agree with them on issues #2-#1000, the first issue is this systemic corruption. Until we fix that issue, we're not going anywhere.
I actually was talking to a friend of mine who actually works for the Democratic Party, and led with this line: "We will have more success advancing an agenda that progressives want in the medium to long term by supporting Republican candidates who work to end systemic corruption than by supporting Democratic candidates who do not." He was flabbergasted by this statement (which stood against everything he "knew" to be "true" in politics), but after convincing him of the need for real reform in how our candidates raise money to run for office, he ended up agreeing with me.
Cause that's really what's blocking both of us. We can't get what either of us want until we start addressing this problem.
We can argue about what form reform can take later, but I believe that we need to first agree that we need reform.
I'd like to start what I'd like to call a "cross-partisan" movement. Not bi-partisan, because we don't agree on anything else. But cross-partisan. I'm going to do my best to push for reform on the progressive end, but I'd like to lend aid and support where I can to conservatives pushing for reform on the conservative end. We do not have to work together, but we should be working concurrently towards the same goal.
Is this possible?
I'd really, really like your genuine thoughts on this.
-- Brian Boyko -- Disgruntled Democrat

XyloJW posted:

I can guarantee you he did not use the pseudonym Funksaw on RPGNet so no whoever that is is not this guy.

XyloJW posted:

Well wait I guess maybe it is? I dunno.

Ettin posted:

It is! He was banned for trying to start a proletariat uprising against the moderators though.

I for one am glad to see he has raised his ambitions from tabletop roleplaying forums to the national stage.

XyloJW posted:

I am beyond confused why he used his real full name as his account name for every website in the past 10 years, except RPGNet.

XyloJW posted:

I am beyond confused why he used his real full name as his account name for every website in the past 10 years, except RPGNet.

Elotana posted:

His RPGNet account is from 12 years ago.

XyloJW posted:

I am beyond confused why he used his real full name as his account name for every website in the past 10 years

Jagchosis posted:

sounds like opinion is split. maybe... maybe the truth is in the middle?

Pan Ache posted:

i like the op and what he stands for and my advice is to open up a hotdog stand somewhere, anywhere, I mean seriously who doesn't love a good dog

Ettin posted:

It is! He was banned for trying to start a proletariat uprising against the moderators though.

I for one am glad to see he has raised his ambitions from tabletop roleplaying forums to the national stage.

Jagchosis posted:

livin the dream