Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby Rodge » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:11 pm

JT wrote:There is so much to pick apart in this latest offering, Rodge, but i'm tired and will go to bed in a minute so I've got to make it quick.

Rodge wrote:As you state in you latest post, you will not budge from your convictions; I am not asking for that. But at the same time please stop forcing your definitions of political 'leanings' onto us.


Who the hell is forcing any opinions on anyone around here? Good God, I wish I had that much power. Believe what the hell you want and don't let me or anyone else force a political or any other leaning on you.

Rodge wrote:The more I read your posts the more I am beginning to realise that they lack any substance as to what exactly you believe in. You spend more time bashing "modern" liberalism than actually telling us what you want in this world.


If you think I lack substance in defining my beliefs, then fine. Sometimes, Rodge, beliefs and 'wants' can be defined just as legitimately and substantively with exposing negatives. And damn sure can be as effective in terms of effecting change under the right circumstances. What do I want in this world? Lets start with defeating the over-bearing influence of modern liberalism. But I thought that would have been kind of obvious after my first post.
Rodge wrote:Do you ever concede that liberalism hasn't changed at all maybe you have. They say the older we get the more right wing we become. :wink:


No, I never concede that because I don't believe that. I have gradually become more right-wing as I get older, mainly I think due to the ever-increasing out-of-touch non-reality, destructiveness and dysfunction of liberalism. This is more true the farther we get from some of the over-reaching right-wing institutions of the first half of the 20th century. Wake up world, it aint pre-1964 any longer!

Rodge wrote:I am not confused by the definitions of racism; a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. It rings a few bells in many things said in this thread. It doesn't have to involve direct abuse to other races. Or is the definition above just a "modern" liberal form of propaganda?


Obviously if anything I have said here 'rings a few bells' concerning racism, Then, yes, you regrettably are confused by the definitions of racism. Sorry , but that is just more of what motivates me to write what I do.

Rodge wrote:So please feel free to tell us what you want from this world, but stop telling us what we believe and how wrong & perverse of us it is for us to believe it.


But what if 'what I want from this world' is for people like you to stop shoving liberalism down my throat? Look, as long as I am not into personal attacks - and I don't think I am - then I think I should continue to offer up what may be uncomfortable opinions. If you're offended - then feel free to join another thread. If being told you're 'wrong' is upsetting to you then the other threads in this forum should feel warm and cozy. I don't give two shits about the UN, Brussels, the rest of Western Europe's opinion, 'green' this or that, Chavez of Venezuela, Muslim 'sensitivity', so-called 'victimized' groups, people who are for some reason angry towards America or Caucasian men or meat-eaters or SUV drivers or church-goers or this or that or that or this. I'm sure there are things you don't give two shits for. You can gripe about them on here all you want. I may respond, but hey, ain't that what its all about? I'm not trying to stir up animosity. I am trying to stir up debate, and thoughtful consideration in an environment that has very few of the mind-set that myself and nearly half of at least the United States claim. I have nothing against you personally. But if I can take (but not without comment!) people insinuating I am a racist, fascist, war-monger, imperialist, greedy capitalist, homophobe, misogynist pig then fending off insinuations of being an effete pinko commie bastard should be a piece of cake. :wink:


Thankfully, at last, we have a response from JT, that gives us a clue as to the real man who is posting here rather than just pages of liberal bashing. Please do not worry JT, I fully respect the strength of your beliefs; how we define them is actually irrelevant (that includes the "pinko" part :lol: ). I am certainly not trying to convert you in any way shape or form. I couldn't care less whether people are racist, fascist, war-mongering, imperialist, greedy capitalists as long as they do not use their positions of power to force their beliefs on others. What you must realise is that as a liberal I find it very difficult to understand why people are so right winged (is that term OK with you?) probably in the same way that you cannot comprehend why people are liberal? I have no problem with, & do not feel uncomfortable by right wing opinions & beliefs, but so far you have not given us any to discuss, you spend all your time arguing against liberalism, and spend very little time giving us your own political views and ideals. I ask a direct question about what you want, and your response is "for people like you to stop shoving liberalism down my throat?" :shock: I'm sorry, but I'm not hearing anything new; you say you want to spark debate, but you are not giving us anything to debate. You think that I am labelling you by insinuation, but that's impossible as you never reveal your true beliefs; so far I can only label you as an anti-liberal :)
Maybe we should stop this general discussion about liberalism and be a little more specific. Immigration is always a good one to set the juices flowing, especially with Americas long and wonderful history of "open arms" policies :twisted:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:21 pm

Rodge wrote:Maybe we should stop this general discussion about liberalism and be a little more specific. Immigration is always a good one to set the juices flowing, especially with Americas long and wonderful history of "open arms" policies :twisted:


Well, between me touching on abortion and you mentioning immigration, there's a couple of unemotive, lighweight topics to dance around :lol:
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby JT » Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:56 pm

Rodge wrote:Thankfully, at last, we have a response from JT, that gives us a clue as to the real man who is posting here rather than just pages of liberal bashing.


My liberal 'bashing' gives you a 'clue' a to the 'real' man posting here. You just don't want to face it, in my opinion.

Rodge wrote:I am certainly not trying to convert you in any way shape or form. I couldn't care less whether people are racist, fascist, war-mongering, imperialist, greedy capitalists as long as they do not use their positions of power to force their beliefs on others.


Right. You (generally not personally) liberals and us non-liberals are always trying to convert, persuade, and 'force their beliefs on' (although that one is real difficult to do). Its called reality. Human interaction is in a sense about jockying for power - in almost everything we do. Why would the American main-stream-media be so insistent about locking up a fascistic power base for liberalism and then try to preach "diversity of opinion", "tolerance", and hypocritically decry governmental "abuse of power"? Don't give me that crap about 'forcing their beliefs on others'. If my little soap box on here is so powerful, threatening and abusive then what the hell would you call the BBC, NY Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN,LA Times, the UN,the EU, Greenpeace, Democratic party, universities, limousine-liberals with their media access?

Rodge wrote:What you must realise is that as a liberal I find it very difficult to understand why people are so right winged (is that term OK with you?) probably in the same way that you cannot comprehend why people are liberal?


Exactly. I find it difficult as well. So lets debate and try to find out.

Rodge wrote:I have no problem with, & do not feel uncomfortable by right wing opinions & beliefs, but so far you have not given us any to discuss, you spend all your time arguing against liberalism, and spend very little time giving us your own political views and ideals. I ask a direct question about what you want, and your response is "for people like you to stop shoving liberalism down my throat?" :shock: I'm sorry, but I'm not hearing anything new; you say you want to spark debate, but you are not giving us anything to debate.


Well, lets see. Here are some of my previous snippets. Are they 'nothing to

discuss'?

- Are there people in the South who are racist? yes. Just like there in
the U.K. or anywhere else. But is this the pervasive thing that is normally
attributed to Southern Republican - no.

- I have my own complaints about Southern culture, but the idea that
Powell or Rice haven't entered the race because Southern Republicans "ain't gonna vote for no nigger" is so far off base it cries out for ridicule

- There will be more people - many, many more people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black than won't vote for him because he is black

- The majority of the Southern Republican demographic would not have a problem voting for a truly conservative minority candidate - just as they didn't when they elected a Republican of Indian (Asian) ancestry governor in Louisi-daggon-ana.

- I think the Republican center-mass is too liberal. I do think some (too many) of the Religious Right (notice our mainstream media never talks about an 'irreligious Left') are not truly progressive enough (not the phony self-professed progressiveness of the Left). Witness the attitudes toward Mitt Romney - a Mormon. And Hick-abee's pandering to evangelical idiots. I have my issues with elements of Southern/midwestern culture, including their near-bigotry against certain religions.

- Now, on the education thing, I truly believe that the avant-garde of
social intellectuals have been tilting rightward for some time. They are able to resist the prevailing inertia of ideas in academia and the rest of our culture. A liberal Jewish New York intellectual is just a cliche in 2008. Maybe not 1964, but it is in 2008. Maybe Ayn Rand was truly ahead of her time after all

- Bush was doing something more real and necessary than 'playing of
voter's worst fears'. He was trying to counter the effects of complacency and the deleterious effects of anti-American liberalism. 9/11 was not our fault - and it could happen again.

- There are vestiges of regressive culture in the South in 2008, not the predominance of regressive culture that existed in 1955. I am not representative of 'those regressive southern Republicans'. But those regressive southern Republicans are not representative of Right-wing ideology either.

- much of what Americans are fed up with is Bush's departure from these conservative ideals - such as with his absolutely clueless and liberal stance on illegal immigration. Actually, Bush and McCain are similar on many of these issues. Except aggressive interrogations, where McCain is more liberal.

- I'll sit the election out if it's a McModerate/Hick-abee ticket.
Hickabee is a right-wing lie - actually surprisingly liberal, but pandering to the worst of the Right's voting block - anti-Mormon idiots who have no more depth than a typical liberal (although by accident some of their positions are on-the-money). If McModerate's mate is someone really more Rightward, then i'll vote to keep our country's Commander-in-chief and Chief Executive out of the hands of a circus freak.

- Classical liberalism is indeed all about the statue of liberty and other
American symbols and institutions.

- If you or anyone is truly a classical liberal Your alignment in my view would actually be closer to today's Right.

- It is true that blacks, gays and women have been discriminated against historically. It is NOT true that straight white males are not discriminated against.

- Joe Lieberman is actually very neoconservative in a lot of ways. If Joe Lieberman was the Dem nominee (fat ass chance), I would have to seriously consider my vote.

- I'm pretty right wing and I would love to see a good, true right-wing
minority candidate (they do exist) put forward and succeed at the highest level. I would love to see a Thomas Sowell enter politics. I would love to see Larry Elder run for congress.

- I know my (white, conservative) people here in the USA. By and large, we are NOT racist, and we certainly would not be adversed to a good black candidate for president. Good meaning conservative. Trust me, BN, I have talked to, been around, and lived with many me's, over my entire adult life , growing up in Virginia and living in California, Hawaii, and Texas. One major, perhaps dominant, reason I am so anti-liberal is my perception that Liberals still view the world as it was in 1964.

- If an Indian American can win the Louisiana governorship, why would it be unbelievable that a black could win similarly in Texas?

- in many fundamental ways Western Europe, the US, and some other peripheral countries (Aus., Can, SoAfrica, etc.) - i.e the 'West', share the same culture. As I like to say, Europe experienced the Renaissance, spawning an America that provided fuel that helped ignite the greatest advances in human history. BN, maybe because England spawned the greatest country in human history it has a claim to the title. When I compare the US with the British Empire, or the Roman Empire, or any other, certain things come to mind. First, despite what the lefty wackos
say, the US is probably the first non-empire Superpower in the history of the world. We exercise hegemonic influence, but we are not an 'empire'. There is a difference and its not a matter of mere nuance. If we wanted to be, we could use our military to really become an empire - taking over resources and subjugating people - simply by killing lots and lots of people like other empires did. Second, we are what I would consider to be the best example of the ideals of Classical Liberalism (again with European roots)- with our constitution, Bill of Rights and other governmental and cultural institutions.

And thats just a few. But of course you knew there was plenty to 'define' me and my beliefs, and plenty to spark legitimate debate. Lets abandon this near-ad hominem ping-pong game. Stop the red herring of 'nothing of substance to debate'. Stop attacking my legitimate, substantive criticism's of liberalism and counter-attack with your own legitimate, substantive criticism of my POINTS - not my approach.

Rodge wrote:You think that I am labelling you by insinuation, but that's impossible as you never reveal your true beliefs; so far I can only label you as an anti-liberal :)


I have said before that I characterize myself more as "anti-liberal" than I do as conservative or anything else. I see liberalism today as a rattle snake. So I'll take the role more as a rattle snake killer than as a reptologist (or whatever). But that does not undermine the legitimacy or truthfulness of my arguments. And again as for 'never revealing my 'true' beliefs - as the above partial snippet compendium shows - you have to know that is not true.

Rodge wrote:Immigration is always a good one to set the juices flowing, especially with Americas long and wonderful history of "open arms" policies :twisted:


Immigration (or more accurately - ILLEGAL immigration) is indeed a great topic - and one that gets my ire up. probably as I see it the MOST important issue America and the 'West' face. But i'm tired again and will talk to this 'specific' topic ater. And BN i'll continue to go through your return post later as well
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:26 pm

JT wrote:Immigration (or more accurately - ILLEGAL immigration) is indeed a great topic - and one that gets my ire up. probably as I see it the MOST important issue America and the 'West' face. But i'm tired again and will talk to this 'specific' topic ater. And BN i'll continue to go through your return post later as well


I'd be quite surprised if illegal immigration wasn't something we could all agree on, actually.

Also, with regards to Obama, I have already stated that I'm against 'affirmative action'. If I had the vote this November I'd give it to him because he's an extremely impressive individual who talks sense, and his policies are more in line with my own way of thinking. No doubt many Americans will be doing the same, and the colour of his skin won't enter into it. It's a shame if people do vote for him for the wrong reasons, but as I've previously stated, Bush was re-elected in 2004 for far worse reasons.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:53 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Also, with regards to Obama, I have already stated that I'm against 'affirmative action'. If I had the vote this November I'd give it to him because he's an extremely impressive individual who talks sense, and his policies are more in line with my own way of thinking. No doubt many Americans will be doing the same, and the colour of his skin won't enter into it. It's a shame if people do vote for him for the wrong reasons, but as I've previously stated, Bush was re-elected in 2004 for far worse reasons.


An 'extremely impressive individual'? Really? At least his policies - although he hasn't gotten too specific - you say are more in line with his. That on the surface is at least a good reason. Although I think that most people who will vote for him just 'cause hes black will say it is because of his 'policies' or his 'commitment to change' or this or that. But I know that he is nothing more than a symbol of a dysfunctional movement. He's ranked as the most liberal senator in the senate. That is the definition of 'extreme'. And in a statistical sense that can't be debated as fact. There can be nothing worse, imho, than an inexperienced 'most liberal Senator' in this crises stage for the future of not only the US but maybe the world.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:35 pm

JT wrote:My liberal 'bashing' gives you a 'clue' a to the 'real' man posting here. You just don't want to face it, in my opinion.


You really do have a high opinion of yourself don't you. As I said before, I couldn't care less if you lean towards conservatism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, fascism, neofascism nativism or nazism. Just stop labelling yourself as "anti-liberal", because that does not exist, have the balls to tell us what you are.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:37 pm

JT wrote: There can be nothing worse, imho, than an inexperienced 'most liberal Senator' in this crises stage for the future of not only the US but maybe the world.


I for one am looking forward to that future.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:47 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:My liberal 'bashing' gives you a 'clue' a to the 'real' man posting here. You just don't want to face it, in my opinion.


You really do have a high opinion of yourself don't you. As I said before, I couldn't care less if you lean towards conservatism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, fascism, neofascism nativism or nazism. Just stop labelling yourself as "anti-liberal", because that does not exist, have the balls to tell us what you are.


I don't know what your major malfunction seems to be concerning my labeling myself what the hell I want to label myself. And why any on this should send a signal to your brain that I think awfully highly of myself. If what I've 'told' you and everyone else here is not evidence enough of 'balls', then you'll have to look elsewhere for a playmate I suppose. I've said before that I'm actually pretty near center overall (slightly right generally, quite Right in a few ways, and a little left in a few (could support some forms of a socio-economic based 'affirmative-action' type program; believe government has a (limited) role as social welfare net). But more than anything, despite your refusal to accept it, I am anti-liberal. Sorry, but it's the truth, and yes, it does exist. I know that because I AM anti-liberal. If you don't think it exists then why did you ask me why I was anti-liberal? Are you confused?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:48 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: There can be nothing worse, imho, than an inexperienced 'most liberal Senator' in this crises stage for the future of not only the US but maybe the world.


I for one am looking forward to that future.


I'm quite sure you are.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:27 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:My liberal 'bashing' gives you a 'clue' a to the 'real' man posting here. You just don't want to face it, in my opinion.


You really do have a high opinion of yourself don't you. As I said before, I couldn't care less if you lean towards conservatism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, fascism, neofascism nativism or nazism. Just stop labelling yourself as "anti-liberal", because that does not exist, have the balls to tell us what you are.


I don't know what your major malfunction seems to be concerning my labeling myself what the hell I want to label myself. And why any on this should send a signal to your brain that I think awfully highly of myself. If what I've 'told' you and everyone else here is not evidence enough of 'balls', then you'll have to look elsewhere for a playmate I suppose. I've said before that I'm actually pretty near center overall (slightly right generally, quite Right in a few ways, and a little left in a few (could support some forms of a socio-economic based 'affirmative-action' type program; believe government has a (limited) role as social welfare net). But more than anything, despite your refusal to accept it, I am anti-liberal. Sorry, but it's the truth, and yes, it does exist. I know that because I AM anti-liberal. If you don't think it exists then why did you ask me why I was anti-liberal? Are you confused?


You really would make an excellent Politician. :wink:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:34 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: There can be nothing worse, imho, than an inexperienced 'most liberal Senator' in this crises stage for the future of not only the US but maybe the world.


I for one am looking forward to that future.


I'm quite sure you are.


I would think that there are many, many more people who are than who are not, and I don't just mean in the USA.
Last edited by Rodge on Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:41 pm

Just one thing I want to pick up on:-

JT wrote: - There will be more people - many, manymore people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black..


Where exactly do you get this infomation from? Are there people out there admitting that they are purely voting for him due to colour of his skin! Or is this just another example of cynicism & patronisation?
I am not that naive to believe that there aren't some out there who will vote due to the colour of his skin as they will for Hilary due to the fact that she is a woman, but I would think the majority will vote for anyone who will bring them out of 8 very black years, both nationally and internationally.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:11 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: There can be nothing worse, imho, than an inexperienced 'most liberal Senator' in this crises stage for the future of not only the US but maybe the world.


I for one am looking forward to that future.


I'm quite sure you are.


I would think that there are many, many more people who are than who are not, and I don't just mean in the USA.


No, not in the USA. Example, current polls between Clinton/McCain or Obama/McCain. Overseas, yes. Western Europe, for example, is generally much more liberal than the US. That has a lot to do with the decline of Western Europe in my opinion. Too much socialism is not, dare I say it, not very progressive.
For the black/woman symbolism thing, one has to be quite naive to think that a hell of a lot of people - liberals - are not going to vote for one of them for symbolic reasons mostly. Even if they don't admit it. I know you're not that naive, Rodge, so I'm sure you recognize that.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:17 am

Oh, and Rodge, I don't mean to get snotty. My last couple of posts have been that. But I have revealed my beliefs. Most of it via attacking what I call liberalism, but my beliefs have come through. If you want to know my belief on a certain issue, just ask. I'll address immigration that you brought up in my next post. Its pretty right wing......
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:37 am

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: There can be nothing worse, imho, than an inexperienced 'most liberal Senator' in this crises stage for the future of not only the US but maybe the world.


I for one am looking forward to that future.


I'm quite sure you are.


I would think that there are many, many more people who are than who are not, and I don't just mean in the USA.


No, not in the USA. Example, current polls between Clinton/McCain or Obama/McCain. Overseas, yes. Western Europe, for example, is generally much more liberal than the US. That has a lot to do with the decline of Western Europe in my opinion. Too much socialism is not, dare I say it, not very progressive.
For the black/woman symbolism thing, one has to be quite naive to think that a hell of a lot of people - liberals - are not going to vote for one of them for symbolic reasons mostly. Even if they don't admit it. I know you're not that naive, Rodge, so I'm sure you recognize that.


You're probably right (although I'd disagree with 'mostly' - I'm sure those people are in the minority), but I do think it's quite presumptuous of you to think you know better than the person voting what their reasons for voting that way are.

Having said that, I've probably made similar presumptions for the reasons why most southern Republicans won't be voting for Obama. And yes, I do find him a highly impressive individual. His policies and articulate manner aside, I admire him for getting as far up the political food chain as he has given the handicap (and it is a handicap, make no mistake) of being black. Like Thatcher in the UK, you have to have a hell of a lot of substance to make up for people's pre-conceived ideas about you. By the end of her term as PM, most people had forgotten she was even female! :lol:
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:45 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
You're probably right (although I'd disagree with 'mostly' - I'm sure those people are in the minority), but I do think it's quite presumptuous of you to think you know better than the person voting what their reasons for voting that way are.

Having said that, I've probably made similar presumptions for the reasons why most southern Republicans won't be voting for Obama. And yes, I do find him a highly impressive individual. His policies and articulate manner aside, I admire him for getting as far up the political food chain as he has given the handicap (and it is a handicap, make no mistake) of being black. Like Thatcher in the UK, you have to have a hell of a lot of substance to make up for people's pre-conceived ideas about you. By the end of her term as PM, most people had forgotten she was even female! :lol:


Being black for Obama is NOT a handicap! thats my point. Why else would the most liberal member of the Senate, with remarkably little experience, be at this point? Sorry, but it seems I do know better than many when it comes to the motivations for Obama-rama party goers. Chalk one up for presumptuousness, I guess. He has ridden the liberal dysfunction of symbolism-over-substance to the top of the political foodchain. If he were not black (actually half black) he would not be in the position he is in. It's reverse racism. It is not as pernicious as classic Old style white racism, but it is racism nonetheless.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:13 pm

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
You're probably right (although I'd disagree with 'mostly' - I'm sure those people are in the minority), but I do think it's quite presumptuous of you to think you know better than the person voting what their reasons for voting that way are.

Having said that, I've probably made similar presumptions for the reasons why most southern Republicans won't be voting for Obama. And yes, I do find him a highly impressive individual. His policies and articulate manner aside, I admire him for getting as far up the political food chain as he has given the handicap (and it is a handicap, make no mistake) of being black. Like Thatcher in the UK, you have to have a hell of a lot of substance to make up for people's pre-conceived ideas about you. By the end of her term as PM, most people had forgotten she was even female! :lol:


Being black for Obama is NOT a handicap! thats my point. Why else would the most liberal member of the Senate, with remarkably little experience, be at this point? Sorry, but it seems I do know better than many when it comes to the motivations for Obama-rama party goers. Chalk one up for presumptuousness, I guess. He has ridden the liberal dysfunction of symbolism-over-substance to the top of the political foodchain. If he were not black (actually half black) he would not be in the position he is in. It's reverse racism. It is not as pernicious as classic Old style white racism, but it is racism nonetheless.


I'm sorry mate but that's bollocks. If his only 'asset' was the fact that he is black why haven't a million others made it as far as him? Again, I'll use the example of Margaret Thatcher. No doubt some people voted for her just because she was a woman but to get to that position took a great deal of charisma, vision and ruthlessness. In other words, top notch political and leadership skills. Just like Obama. You may like to believe he's all style and no substance but he simply wouldn't have got where he has without substance. When he speaks, people listen. And many people (myself included) like what they hear.

Have you seen any polls that pit McCain against an Obama/Clinton Democrat 'dream ticket'? I'd be interested to see one of those, as that's the most likely choice America will face come November. Although Clinton seem to have her claws out for Obama right now, so maybe not...
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Rodge » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:44 pm

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
You're probably right (although I'd disagree with 'mostly' - I'm sure those people are in the minority), but I do think it's quite presumptuous of you to think you know better than the person voting what their reasons for voting that way are.

Having said that, I've probably made similar presumptions for the reasons why most southern Republicans won't be voting for Obama. And yes, I do find him a highly impressive individual. His policies and articulate manner aside, I admire him for getting as far up the political food chain as he has given the handicap (and it is a handicap, make no mistake) of being black. Like Thatcher in the UK, you have to have a hell of a lot of substance to make up for people's pre-conceived ideas about you. By the end of her term as PM, most people had forgotten she was even female! :lol:


Being black for Obama is NOT a handicap! thats my point. Why else would the most liberal member of the Senate, with remarkably little experience, be at this point? Sorry, but it seems I do know better than many when it comes to the motivations for Obama-rama party goers. Chalk one up for presumptuousness, I guess. He has ridden the liberal dysfunction of symbolism-over-substance to the top of the political foodchain. If he were not black (actually half black) he would not be in the position he is in. It's reverse racism. It is not as pernicious as classic Old style white racism, but it is racism nonetheless.


The colour of his skin may not be a handicap as with Clinton being a woman, but to be honest the fact that he IS a liberal is so much more of an asset. I'm sorry, but no matter how much you admire the guy, people are sick to death of Bush and his regime and how he has put the US in the eyes of the world. Yes, maybe the media has helped influence, but people do not buy "media" if they do not like what it says. Yes, the fact that Obama is black will have some influence but above all this is the fact that people like what he says.
You can put the best, most expensive label around a bottle of beer, spend millions on advertising and people will buy it, but they won't buy anymore if the contents leave a sour taste in their mouths.

EDIT: Please remember how this thread started: You are trying to convince us that America is the greatest nation and yet you are saying that the American people are such shallow robots that they could possibly vote someone into the Whitehouse due to the colour of their skin!! I may not be the biggest fan of US culture, but even I do not think it is that false?
Last edited by Rodge on Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:51 pm

JT wrote:Oh, and Rodge, I don't mean to get snotty. My last couple of posts have been that. But I have revealed my beliefs. Most of it via attacking what I call liberalism, but my beliefs have come through. If you want to know my belief on a certain issue, just ask. I'll address immigration that you brought up in my next post. Its pretty right wing......



Hey no worries. I am thick skinned and all the best debates do get heated at times. I apologise for pushing the same point over and over, I just wanted to try and get a better feel for what I am up against and adding pressure sometimes helps split the skin so to speak! You are a hard nut to crack even reading between the lines of you many posts. It may seem blatantly obvious to you, cause you know you!! I only chat to you for a few hours a week on a forum.
Oh and by the way, I never thought I'd see the adjective "snotty" in a post from you - you're beginning to sound like a young conservative from good old England there! :lol: :wink:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:03 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
I'm sorry mate but that's bollocks. If his only 'asset' was the fact that he is black why haven't a million others made it as far as him? Again, I'll use the example of Margaret Thatcher. No doubt some people voted for her just because she was a woman but to get to that position took a great deal of charisma, vision and ruthlessness. In other words, top notch political and leadership skills. Just like Obama. You may like to believe he's all style and no substance but he simply wouldn't have got where he has without substance. When he speaks, people listen. And many people (myself included) like what they hear.

Have you seen any polls that pit McCain against an Obama/Clinton Democrat 'dream ticket'? I'd be interested to see one of those, as that's the most likely choice America will face come November. Although Clinton seem to have her claws out for Obama right now, so maybe not...


Let me clarify. I'm not saying that Obama does not have ANY substance. He went to Harvard for goodness sakes. He actually does have substance, but not of the type that come even close to rising to President qualifications in this crises era (GW Bush really didn't either in 2000 - although he was chief executive of a state, a traditional Presidential precursor). I am saying that there are a hell of a lot of white guys out there with even more substance (other black guys as well). But Obama is where he is mainly because he is black and the media promoted him early on as 'a rising star'. But most of us Righties actually like Obama. But he does represent the dysfunction of liberalism. When are we going to hear about the black separatist church in Chicago that Obama is a member of? The main-stream (liberal) media ain't going to let you know about that, are they? But they sure will let you know, on the front page, about unfounded innuendo about McCain and a chick, won't they?
As I have exposed previously, Obama is rated as THE most liberal senator of the 100. That, by definition, rates him as extreme. Consider this: my favorite politician (and early 'contender' for the Republican presidential nomination) may be Tom Tancredo. Tancredo is quite Right-wing. His big issue is illegal immigration and the border. Tancredo has Right-wing balls (that would be two right ones and no left ones). He became my hero when he actually stood before the congress and explained that he believed some cultures are superior to others, and that he thought that of the USA was a superior one (this whole thing was in the context of south-of-the-border cultural encroachment on the U.S). He also had the balls (although the lib-stream media pounced on him for this one) to say it may be a good idea to publicly announce that a consequence of Muslim state involvement in terrorism against the U.S would be nuclear destruction of Mecca. He is I guess, by definition, extreme. Can you imagine him or someone as right-wing as him being hailed as some media darling? He was out of the race before the rest of the swooning media could finish their first Obamagasm. See the difference? The media are extremely powerful and extremely cor-lib-rupt.
Obama is extreme. He must be stopped.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:06 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
You're probably right (although I'd disagree with 'mostly' - I'm sure those people are in the minority), but I do think it's quite presumptuous of you to think you know better than the person voting what their reasons for voting that way are.

Having said that, I've probably made similar presumptions for the reasons why most southern Republicans won't be voting for Obama. And yes, I do find him a highly impressive individual. His policies and articulate manner aside, I admire him for getting as far up the political food chain as he has given the handicap (and it is a handicap, make no mistake) of being black. Like Thatcher in the UK, you have to have a hell of a lot of substance to make up for people's pre-conceived ideas about you. By the end of her term as PM, most people had forgotten she was even female! :lol:


Being black for Obama is NOT a handicap! thats my point. Why else would the most liberal member of the Senate, with remarkably little experience, be at this point? Sorry, but it seems I do know better than many when it comes to the motivations for Obama-rama party goers. Chalk one up for presumptuousness, I guess. He has ridden the liberal dysfunction of symbolism-over-substance to the top of the political foodchain. If he were not black (actually half black) he would not be in the position he is in. It's reverse racism. It is not as pernicious as classic Old style white racism, but it is racism nonetheless.


The colour of his skin may not be a handicap as with Clinton being a woman, but to be honest the fact that he IS a liberal is so much more of an asset. I'm sorry, but no matter how much you admire the guy, people are sick to death of Bush and his regime and how he has put the US in the eyes of the world. Yes, maybe the media has helped influence, but people do not buy "media" if they do not like what it says. Yes, the fact that Obama is black will have some influence but above all this is the fact that people like what he says.
You can put the best, most expensive label around a bottle of beer, spend millions on advertising and people will buy it, but they won't buy anymore if the contents leave a sour taste in their mouths.
EDIT: Please remember how this thread started: You are trying to convince us that America is the greatest nation and yet you are saying that the American people are such shallow robots that they could possibly vote someone into the Whitehouse due to the colour of their skin!! I may not be the biggest fan of US culture, but even I do not think it is that false?


Good analogy. :)

I'm quite surprised you don't think Clinton or Obama are 'handicapped' in trying to become President though - a role only ever inhabited by white males since 1776...
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:31 am

Rodge wrote:

The colour of his skin may not be a handicap as with Clinton being a woman, but to be honest the fact that he IS a liberal is so much more of an asset.


Don't forget that our center-mass here in the U.S is a good deal to the right of that in the UK. Being so much of a liberal here is only more of an asset to liberals (less than half the pop.), the main-lib-stream media (sometimes that is enough), and at times certain members of the uncommitted, politically un-centered (not necessarily a perjoritave), and yes - the clueless (ones that don't fit in any one ideology because they don't know enough to define themselves).


Rodge wrote: I'm sorry, but no matter how much you admire the guy, people are sick to death of Bush and his regime and how he has put the US in the eyes of the world.


I am disappointed to as great or greater degree with Bush as I admire him. He's a mixed bag. Some mismanagement, inarticulateness, not intellectual enough, crazy decisions (Harriet Myers for Sup Court Justice), and frustratingly liberal policies on things like illegal immigration. But the media has been extremely unfair to him.


Rodge wrote: EDIT: Please remember how this thread started: You are trying to convince us that America is the greatest nation and yet you are saying that the American people are such shallow robots that they could possibly vote someone into the Whitehouse due to the colour of their skin!! I may not be the biggest fan of US culture, but even I do not think it is that false?


Good point. It is one of those ironic realities,isn't it? Or is it? I have observed before that America promotes individualism and freedom and tends to put forth a pretty good bell curve in almost any thing. Some real good, some real bad, and a bunch of people somewhere in the middle. We have some of the best and some of the worst in some ways. A negative of our pop culture is its superficiality. But if something is hot, regardless of its substance, it can prevail.
Walter Cronkite (our retired, liberal, mega-iconic newsman) once said that the majority of our society was to ill-informed (or stupid, I forget which) to be entrusted to make the right electoral decisions. I tend to agree with him, but for opposite reasons. He was bemoaning conservative electoral success.
Having said that, don't forget we have an awful lot of people winning nobel prizes, have 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and more.
So yes, I guess it is kind of a duality. But I can only imagine what my opinion would be if I lived elsewhere - even in a nation as similar to us as the UK or Canada.
I guess I'm saying that an ideal society, in my view, will show a healthy bell curve. Being free to be erudite will of necessity uncover a lot of crap as well.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:34 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
I'm quite surprised you don't think Clinton or Obama are 'handicapped' in trying to become President though - a role only ever inhabited by white males since 1776...


maybe precisely why it is such an asset for him in our modern liberal paradigm.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:45 am

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
I'm quite surprised you don't think Clinton or Obama are 'handicapped' in trying to become President though - a role only ever inhabited by white males since 1776...


maybe precisely why it is such an asset for him in our modern liberal paradigm.


Come on JT, is that the best you can do? :wink:

If Obama had nothing extra about him, why haven't others made it this far before? Is there something unique about this point in history? Or is it just that Obama is an outstanding candidate?
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Rodge » Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:51 pm

JT wrote: Having said that, don't forget we have an awful lot of people winning nobel prizes, have 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and more.


Sounds very picky, but I've seen you state this before? How can this be when we have 3 in the Top 5 & 4 in the Top 10?? :)


Rank University
1 Harvard University, USA
2 University of Cambridge, UK
2 University of Oxford, UK

2 Yale University, USA
5 Imperial College London, UK
6 Princeton University, USA
7 California Institute of Technology, USA
7 University of Chicago, USA
9 University College London, UK
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.