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 JT » Thu May 08, 2008 5:52 pm

LaughingIsLife wrote:Good question. I actually decided not to vote, because I have no idea who I would want to be our President. Who are you voting for?

By the way, I love your signature quote - that was from the pilot, right?

Edit: If I were to vote, I would not choose Obama, no. His pastor and wife alone scared me into fearing his possible Presidency. His pastor is crazy as hell.

JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Very good. So thoughtful at such a young age. If you recognize the red flags with Obama, however, you may have enough natural instinct to be entrusted with the vote!
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Lil » Fri May 09, 2008 3:25 pm

Let me answer that with a HELL NO!! :wink:

he might even be the next anti-Christ.

JT wrote:
LaughingIsLife wrote:Good question. I actually decided not to vote, because I have no idea who I would want to be our President. Who are you voting for?

By the way, I love your signature quote - that was from the pilot, right?

Edit: If I were to vote, I would not choose Obama, no. His pastor and wife alone scared me into fearing his possible Presidency. His pastor is crazy as hell.

JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Very good. So thoughtful at such a young age. If you recognize the red flags with Obama, however, you may have enough natural instinct to be entrusted with the vote!
User avatar
Lil
 
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:30 am
Location: New York

Postby Paddy » Sat May 10, 2008 9:27 am

LaughingIsLife wrote:Let me answer that with a HELL NO!! :wink:

he might even be the next anti-Christ.

JT wrote:
LaughingIsLife wrote:Good question. I actually decided not to vote, because I have no idea who I would want to be our President. Who are you voting for?

By the way, I love your signature quote - that was from the pilot, right?

Edit: If I were to vote, I would not choose Obama, no. His pastor and wife alone scared me into fearing his possible Presidency. His pastor is crazy as hell.

JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Very good. So thoughtful at such a young age. If you recognize the red flags with Obama, however, you may have enough natural instinct to be entrusted with the vote!


So LIL, who's going to win, Clinton or Obama?
"There are a number of things in this muffin I don't care for. Away wrinkly thing!"
User avatar
Paddy
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby Lil » Sat May 10, 2008 11:30 pm

Well, if it was my choice, I suppose I would want Clinton. But Clinton isn't doing that well at this point - at least that's what I hear on the news. Obama is getting more votes than her. :shock:

Paddy wrote:
LaughingIsLife wrote:Let me answer that with a HELL NO!! :wink:

he might even be the next anti-Christ.

JT wrote:
LaughingIsLife wrote:Good question. I actually decided not to vote, because I have no idea who I would want to be our President. Who are you voting for?

By the way, I love your signature quote - that was from the pilot, right?

Edit: If I were to vote, I would not choose Obama, no. His pastor and wife alone scared me into fearing his possible Presidency. His pastor is crazy as hell.

JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Very good. So thoughtful at such a young age. If you recognize the red flags with Obama, however, you may have enough natural instinct to be entrusted with the vote!


So LIL, who's going to win, Clinton or Obama?
User avatar
Lil
 
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:30 am
Location: New York

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue May 13, 2008 5:08 am

JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Better get practising that salute, JT. He'll be your Commander-in-Chief by the end of this year. :)
"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 » Wed May 14, 2008 2:20 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Better get practising that salute, JT. He'll be your Commander-in-Chief by the end of this year. :)


What salute would that be? The 'Black power' salute of the 1960's?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby CatNamedRudy » Wed May 14, 2008 4:33 pm

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Better get practising that salute, JT. He'll be your Commander-in-Chief by the end of this year. :)


What salute would that be? The 'Black power' salute of the 1960's?


Whoa! Back the truck up here! Are you implying that if he is elected, he should not be saluted by the military because you disagree with his politics?
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Postby Paddy » Wed May 14, 2008 7:06 pm

Good win for clinton in west virginia. :shock:
"There are a number of things in this muffin I don't care for. Away wrinkly thing!"
User avatar
Paddy
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Thu May 15, 2008 7:17 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:
JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Better get practising that salute, JT. He'll be your Commander-in-Chief by the end of this year. :)


What salute would that be? The 'Black power' salute of the 1960's?


Whoa! Back the truck up here! Are you implying that if he is elected, he should not be saluted by the military because you disagree with his politics?


I'm sure he's just kidding. :wink:
"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 CatNamedRudy » Thu May 15, 2008 7:05 pm

I just sort of found that an odd comment. Even if he was kidding.
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Postby JT » Sun May 18, 2008 8:30 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:
JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Goin' for Obama, LaughingIsLife? :love10:

Just wondering.


Better get practising that salute, JT. He'll be your Commander-in-Chief by the end of this year. :)


What salute would that be? The 'Black power' salute of the 1960's?


Whoa! Back the truck up here! Are you implying that if he is elected, he should not be saluted by the military because you disagree with his politics?


How in hell did you get that from my post?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Sun May 18, 2008 8:39 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:I just sort of found that an odd comment. Even if he was kidding.


Why an odd comment? If his personal mentor is someone who would have no problem with that sort of Afro-centric, extremist behavior and he himself is so liberal, why would such a comment - albeit meant to be facetious - be considered 'odd'?

I didn't understand the interpretation of refusing to salute him as Commander In Chief. Now, it is true that during the Clinton reign many in the military did not like him, resented his being their CIC, and only went through the mechanics of protocol. I wouldn't refuse to salute a President Obama, but I would be more proud and happy of voting for his opponent than of saluting him.
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 May 19, 2008 8:21 am

JT wrote:I didn't understand the interpretation of refusing to salute him as Commander In Chief. Now, it is true that during the Clinton reign many in the military did not like him, resented his being their CIC, and only went through the mechanics of protocol. I wouldn't refuse to salute a President Obama, but I would be more proud and happy of voting for his opponent than of saluting him.


Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? :wink:

I am worried that once voters get to the ballot box they'll go for the 'safe' option of McCain though. You can pretty much forget Clinton at this point, she's dead in the water.
"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 » Thu May 22, 2008 3:13 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:I didn't understand the interpretation of refusing to salute him as Commander In Chief. Now, it is true that during the Clinton reign many in the military did not like him, resented his being their CIC, and only went through the mechanics of protocol. I wouldn't refuse to salute a President Obama, but I would be more proud and happy of voting for his opponent than of saluting him.


Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? :wink:

I am worried that once voters get to the ballot box they'll go for the 'safe' option of McCain though. You can pretty much forget Clinton at this point, she's dead in the water.


Yes, McCain is the safe option, in many ways. A 'President Obama' would only be a miserable affirmation of the ridiculous extent to which liberalism has corrupted the direction of this country. And also an affirmation of the silliness of so much of the American voting population.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri May 23, 2008 12:33 pm

It doesn't actually matter which figurehead 'wins' the presidency. The upcoming Bilderberg meeting will be sorting out the rules for the next term anyway.
''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 May 24, 2008 5:49 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:It doesn't actually matter which figurehead 'wins' the presidency. The upcoming Bilderberg meeting will be sorting out the rules for the next term anyway.


Do you really believe that?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Sat May 24, 2008 5:54 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:It doesn't actually matter which figurehead 'wins' the presidency. The upcoming Bilderberg meeting will be sorting out the rules for the next term anyway.


:lol: :lol:

Yeah, It's reassuring that Kenneth Clarke and Mrs Bill Gates may dictate world events!!!! :?
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat May 24, 2008 10:56 pm

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:It doesn't actually matter which figurehead 'wins' the presidency. The upcoming Bilderberg meeting will be sorting out the rules for the next term anyway.


Do you really believe that?


I certainly believe major corporations and the main financial institutions hold more power than politicians in this World. You can see how lobbying works in the US to see the nonsense of self-interest. It's the same in all countries. All the political leaders/parties i've known in my lifetime have been opposames, pushing the same agendas from purportedly different angles. If someone can tell me what was different between Thatcherism and the Blair years, feel free.

Who's fighting the corner of people who wish to debate any concerns over the use national identity schemes, dna databases, privacy, globalisation, etc, etc, and doesn't bend over and take it when a corp demands subsidies, tax cuts or law changes to keep it's business from shipping out.

Whoever gets in between Edwards, Clinton and Obama will make little difference, imo - in the same way it'll make no difference if Cameron, Brown or another is PM of the UK. No one's going to question laws that are, of course, 'protecting' us from those darn terrorists. I'm sure only liberals and communists would question what's best for us.
''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 » Mon May 26, 2008 5:42 am

Moon-Crane wrote:the nonsense of self-interest.


I don't disagree that the importance of political office holders is probably generally overvalued, and that the influence of other institutions such as business and media are undervalued. But enterprises that seek to meet societal needs, such as businesses (albeit by satisfying their self-interest), are important. Self-interest is a basic reality and, if properly regulated, is the primary engine of progress. Just ask my good friend Ayn Rand. It's much more efficient than anything Ted Kennedy can legislate.

BTW, I heard a while back that the movie rights to 'Atlas Shrugged' were sold. I would love to see a good, non-lib-assed, treatment of that classic.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Mon May 26, 2008 5:46 am

Moon-Crane wrote: No one's going to question laws that are, of course, 'protecting' us from those darn terrorists. I'm sure only liberals and communists would question what's best for us.


I question those who 'question' these commonsense laws more than I do the laws. Yes, with respect to the patriot act, etc, it is only liberals and communists who 'question' what's 'best' for 'us'.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Tue May 27, 2008 10:28 am

JT wrote:I don't disagree that the importance of political office holders is probably generally overvalued, and that the influence of other institutions such as business and media are undervalued. But enterprises that seek to meet societal needs, such as businesses (albeit by satisfying their self-interest), are important. Self-interest is a basic reality and, if properly regulated, is the primary engine of progress. Just ask my good friend Ayn Rand. It's much more efficient than anything Ted Kennedy can legislate.

BTW, I heard a while back that the movie rights to 'Atlas Shrugged' were sold. I would love to see a good, non-lib-assed, treatment of that classic.


Then it boils back down to what you consider as an enterprise meeting societal needs and what proper regulation is in comparison to myself or anyone else. Are the largest companies around really meeting societal needs when you look closely? Are the arms manufacturers who build our defences, for example, really acting in our best interests by selling their goodies to the enemy?

Corporations have no discrimination over borders or nationality, so how are they in the interests of the people? By definition, a corp looks after its own needs, not what society needs. Whether it deals in something a society can do without is a different argument. Maybe we shouldn't complain about enterprising businesses farming out the jobs to cheaper parts of the world, as, hey, they're doing it in our best interests. Let's build build build, and subsidise a mini-nation of factories and call centres on the Mexican borders.

If you're genuinely growing as a company that is purely giving the customer what it wants, then there's no need at all to lobby/bribe/ blackmail/force law changes or close down the opposition through your financial clout and political connections.

I think there's more to democracy than the flawed neoclassical economics of Milton Friedman, Robert Solow et al (all laughingly given the title of Nobel Prize winners in Economics - a prize that doesn't exist!). Maybe, one day, the likes of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen will be spoken about in similar tones.
''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 Moon-Crane » Tue May 27, 2008 10:41 am

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote: No one's going to question laws that are, of course, 'protecting' us from those darn terrorists. I'm sure only liberals and communists would question what's best for us.


I question those who 'question' these commonsense laws more than I do the laws. Yes, with respect to the patriot act, etc, it is only liberals and communists who 'question' what's 'best' for 'us'.


It's probable that Naomi Klein is the exact type of liberal whack job you can easily justify laughing off - but she delivers the most articulate evaluation of a subject i've been following for a few years in the link below. This is happening now:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye/print

The next person to say "if you're not doing anything wrong then you shouldn't worry about being spied on gets a punch in the face. :?
''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 Mr Blue Sky » Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:53 am

Great to see Barrack Obama secure the Democratic nomination last night. I'm slightly worried that his lead over McCain is only 5 points as opposed to the 11 points Clinton would have had if she'd been nominated, but I think the Democrats have chosen the right person to be the next potential President. Not sure about Hillary as Vice though, too much has been said I think.

Hopefully as we have a fully fledged Republican vs Democrat campaign now (rather than Democratic civil war!) the gap will widen further, especially as voters become more aware of Obama's policies and personal vision. I just hope race doesn't become too much of an issue; it would be a travesty if the best candidate didn't become President just because people get itchy feet at the ballot box.
"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 Moon-Crane » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:05 pm

It's seriously only a two-party race for Pres in reality, but here's some of the Libertarian candidates competing to lead their, albeit small, party.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fsb/0805/gallery.small_biz_owners_for_prez.fsb/index.html
''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 Mr Blue Sky » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:30 am

Moon-Crane wrote:It's seriously only a two-party race for Pres in reality, but here's some of the Libertarian candidates competing to lead their, albeit small, party.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fsb/0805/gallery.small_biz_owners_for_prez.fsb/index.html


Interesting stuff.

I see Clinton's due to finally 'conceed' tomorrow and back Obama. I wonder how many of her staunch supporters will be able to do likewise? He's gonna need all the support he can muster against McCain with such a slim lead...
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


© 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.