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 Moon-Crane » Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:31 pm

Barring some major shift of thought, I think it's setting up for McCain to throw away.

Even the so-called nutter liberal left-wing conspiracy theorist brigades are digging up all sorts of shit about Obama without even having to read anything spouted by Republican fans.

(as an aside, good to see DEK have a swipe at the Democrat Party on Boston Legal).

What does anyone make of the growing amount of people not relying on the dollar as the main value of oil and such things any more. I suppose some will simply put it down to anti-American mindsets, but any international business is more pragmatic than that, i'm certain.
''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 2:30 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Barring some major shift of thought, I think it's setting up for McCain to throw away.

Even the so-called nutter liberal left-wing conspiracy theorist brigades are digging up all sorts of shit about Obama without even having to read anything spouted by Republican fans.

(as an aside, good to see DEK have a swipe at the Democrat Party on Boston Legal).

What does anyone make of the growing amount of people not relying on the dollar as the main value of oil and such things any more. I suppose some will simply put it down to anti-American mindsets, but any international business is more pragmatic than that, i'm certain.


Yeah, last night's ep was even more politicised that usual, I meant to write something on the TV thread about that...

Do you really think the Presidency is McCain's to lose? I'm not sure if I've understood your first line properly, feel free to correct me. :)

I'm still pretty sure a Democrat will be in the White House by the end of the year. Once the debate moves on to Democrat vs Republican policy I'm sure the polls will swing even further away from McCain. It's not like things are all going hunky dory in the world right now and America just needs a 'safe pair of hands to keep the ship on course'. A major rethink is needed with regards to policies on Iraq, the economy and climate change.
"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 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:37 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Barring some major shift of thought, I think it's setting up for McCain to throw away.

Even the so-called nutter liberal left-wing conspiracy theorist brigades are digging up all sorts of shit about Obama without even having to read anything spouted by Republican fans.

(as an aside, good to see DEK have a swipe at the Democrat Party on Boston Legal).

What does anyone make of the growing amount of people not relying on the dollar as the main value of oil and such things any more. I suppose some will simply put it down to anti-American mindsets, but any international business is more pragmatic than that, i'm certain.


Yeah, last night's ep was even more politicised that usual, I meant to write something on the TV thread about that...

Do you really think the Presidency is McCain's to lose? I'm not sure if I've understood your first line properly, feel free to correct me. :)

I'm still pretty sure a Democrat will be in the White House by the end of the year. Once the debate moves on to Democrat vs Republican policy I'm sure the polls will swing even further away from McCain. It's not like things are all going hunky dory in the world right now and America just needs a 'safe pair of hands to keep the ship on course'. A major rethink is needed with regards to policies on Iraq, the economy and climate change.


I actually think it's Obama's campaign to lose. Although the shit on him will absolutely start flying now and I'm very concerned as to how he will handle it.
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 Mr Blue Sky » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:20 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Barring some major shift of thought, I think it's setting up for McCain to throw away.

Even the so-called nutter liberal left-wing conspiracy theorist brigades are digging up all sorts of shit about Obama without even having to read anything spouted by Republican fans.

(as an aside, good to see DEK have a swipe at the Democrat Party on Boston Legal).

What does anyone make of the growing amount of people not relying on the dollar as the main value of oil and such things any more. I suppose some will simply put it down to anti-American mindsets, but any international business is more pragmatic than that, i'm certain.


Yeah, last night's ep was even more politicised that usual, I meant to write something on the TV thread about that...

Do you really think the Presidency is McCain's to lose? I'm not sure if I've understood your first line properly, feel free to correct me. :)

I'm still pretty sure a Democrat will be in the White House by the end of the year. Once the debate moves on to Democrat vs Republican policy I'm sure the polls will swing even further away from McCain. It's not like things are all going hunky dory in the world right now and America just needs a 'safe pair of hands to keep the ship on course'. A major rethink is needed with regards to policies on Iraq, the economy and climate change.


I actually think it's Obama's campaign to lose. Although the shit on him will absolutely start flying now and I'm very concerned as to how he will handle it.


He'll do fine if that speech distancing himself from Pastor Wright is anything to go by.
"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 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:19 pm

That was nothing compared to what will happen if the Republicans start coming after him with everything they've got.

That speech was a lot of pretty words. He's an excellent speaker but when he gets cornered, he does have a hard time defending himself.
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 Moon-Crane » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:30 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Barring some major shift of thought, I think it's setting up for McCain to throw away.

Even the so-called nutter liberal left-wing conspiracy theorist brigades are digging up all sorts of shit about Obama without even having to read anything spouted by Republican fans.

(as an aside, good to see DEK have a swipe at the Democrat Party on Boston Legal).

What does anyone make of the growing amount of people not relying on the dollar as the main value of oil and such things any more. I suppose some will simply put it down to anti-American mindsets, but any international business is more pragmatic than that, i'm certain.


Yeah, last night's ep was even more politicised that usual, I meant to write something on the TV thread about that...

Do you really think the Presidency is McCain's to lose? I'm not sure if I've understood your first line properly, feel free to correct me. :)

I'm still pretty sure a Democrat will be in the White House by the end of the year. Once the debate moves on to Democrat vs Republican policy I'm sure the polls will swing even further away from McCain. It's not like things are all going hunky dory in the world right now and America just needs a 'safe pair of hands to keep the ship on course'. A major rethink is needed with regards to policies on Iraq, the economy and climate change.


You didn't misread it mate :D I just feel that when the dirt starts flying and terror and national security starts to be pounded back into the forefront of the nation's minds that the swing voters will more likely stick with the 'safe' white male than the untested, young, black upstart in 'these dangerous times'.

The one thing that Hillary did, which Obama is more coy about admitting, was sign everything that backed keeping the troops overseas, agreeing further military funding, and waving through even tighter laws on restricting civil liberty - so she'd maybe have had more chance when the card was played to prey on people's worries. McCain v Clinton was more closely giving people more or less the same continuance of policies, whichever way the vote went, than McCain v Obama seems to imho.
''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 » Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:20 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Barring some major shift of thought, I think it's setting up for McCain to throw away.

Even the so-called nutter liberal left-wing conspiracy theorist brigades are digging up all sorts of shit about Obama without even having to read anything spouted by Republican fans.

(as an aside, good to see DEK have a swipe at the Democrat Party on Boston Legal).

What does anyone make of the growing amount of people not relying on the dollar as the main value of oil and such things any more. I suppose some will simply put it down to anti-American mindsets, but any international business is more pragmatic than that, i'm certain.


Yeah, last night's ep was even more politicised that usual, I meant to write something on the TV thread about that...

Do you really think the Presidency is McCain's to lose? I'm not sure if I've understood your first line properly, feel free to correct me. :)

I'm still pretty sure a Democrat will be in the White House by the end of the year. Once the debate moves on to Democrat vs Republican policy I'm sure the polls will swing even further away from McCain. It's not like things are all going hunky dory in the world right now and America just needs a 'safe pair of hands to keep the ship on course'. A major rethink is needed with regards to policies on Iraq, the economy and climate change.


You didn't misread it mate :D I just feel that when the dirt starts flying and terror and national security starts to be pounded back into the forefront of the nation's minds that the swing voters will more likely stick with the 'safe' white male than the untested, young, black upstart in 'these dangerous times'.

The one thing that Hillary did, which Obama is more coy about admitting, was sign everything that backed keeping the troops overseas, agreeing further military funding, and waving through even tighter laws on restricting civil liberty - so she'd maybe have had more chance when the card was played to prey on people's worries. McCain v Clinton was more closely giving people more or less the same continuance of policies, whichever way the vote went, than McCain v Obama seems to imho.


Ah right, I see where you're coming from, fair enough. It'll definitely be interesting to see which way the debate pans out. Personally I think the electorate have had enough of Iraq and the sooner the troops are home (protecting their own country, it could be argued), the better.

Also, which politician said "It's the economy, stupid!" when asked what the important issues were. I know that's not so much down to Bush/The Republicans as macro-economic cycles but the public likes to blame/praise whoever's in charge when it comes to the economy, so Obama will definitely have a strong card to play there.
"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 » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:16 pm

Also, which politician said "It's the economy, stupid!" when asked what the important issues were. I know that's not so much down to Bush/The Republicans as macro-economic cycles but the public likes to blame/praise whoever's in charge when it comes to the economy, so Obama will definitely have a strong card to play there.


"It's the economy stupid" was the battle cry at Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in 1992. James Carville is given credit for it as it was he who placed the sign at Clinton's Little Rock office.

Focus on the economy worked wonders for Clinton and I do think it's something that Obama should try and focus on.

The war and the economy are going to be huge issues. And as to the war, it's going to be like 2004 all over again. It's going to be McCain talking about terrorism and how we have to stay in Iraq to keep America safe and it's going to be Obama saying we need to get out. Then it will be Republicans calling Obama "Un American" because we is against the war and there will be a big issue about how he was never in the military and yada, yada, yada. Democrats will be going on a tirade about McCain being a war monger and blah, blah, blah.

At this point I want two things from my President. I want for oil prices to go down (which would make the price of just about everything go down) and I want gradual troop withdrawal.
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 Mr Blue Sky » Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:07 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:"It's the economy stupid" was the battle cry at Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in 1992. James Carville is given credit for it as it was he who placed the sign at Clinton's Little Rock office.

Focus on the economy worked wonders for Clinton and I do think it's something that Obama should try and focus on.


Ah right, cheers, I didn't realise the quote was that recent, actually. For some reason I thought it was Abe Lincoln! :lol:

The war and the economy are going to be huge issues. And as to the war, it's going to be like 2004 all over again. It's going to be McCain talking about terrorism and how we have to stay in Iraq to keep America safe and it's going to be Obama saying we need to get out. Then it will be Republicans calling Obama "Un American" because we is against the war and there will be a big issue about how he was never in the military and yada, yada, yada. Democrats will be going on a tirade about McCain being a war monger and blah, blah, blah.


Yes, but while playing on peoples' fears in 2004 worked well, it will be a much tougher trick to pull off second time around, as 9/11 isn't quite as fresh in the electorate's mind. I definitely think that played a huge part in Bush's win over Kerry in '04. Also, McCain has fairly liberal tendancies himself so I don't think he'll do a great job of arguing against Obama's liberal ideals with much conviction. We'll have to see, but I reckon the Republicans will get spanked this fall. :D
"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 » Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:33 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:"It's the economy stupid" was the battle cry at Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in 1992. James Carville is given credit for it as it was he who placed the sign at Clinton's Little Rock office.

Focus on the economy worked wonders for Clinton and I do think it's something that Obama should try and focus on.


Ah right, cheers, I didn't realise the quote was that recent, actually. For some reason I thought it was Abe Lincoln! :lol:

The war and the economy are going to be huge issues. And as to the war, it's going to be like 2004 all over again. It's going to be McCain talking about terrorism and how we have to stay in Iraq to keep America safe and it's going to be Obama saying we need to get out. Then it will be Republicans calling Obama "Un American" because we is against the war and there will be a big issue about how he was never in the military and yada, yada, yada. Democrats will be going on a tirade about McCain being a war monger and blah, blah, blah.


Yes, but while playing on peoples' fears in 2004 worked well, it will be a much tougher trick to pull off second time around, as 9/11 isn't quite as fresh in the electorate's mind. I definitely think that played a huge part in Bush's win over Kerry in '04. Also, McCain has fairly liberal tendancies himself so I don't think he'll do a great job of arguing against Obama's liberal ideals with much conviction. We'll have to see, but I reckon the Republicans will get spanked this fall. :D


I think you're right. They'll try and push the un-American thing but it's not going to have the same effect.

And even though McCain is more liberal than the present regime, he's still a Republican. The Battle Cry already being tossed around by the Dems is John McCain: More of the Same!
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 » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:54 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:
I actually think it's Obama's campaign to lose. Although the shit on him will absolutely start flying now and I'm very concerned as to how he will handle it.


But its real shit. Extreme liberal shit. judgement shit. Inexperience shit. But its all real.
Last edited by JT on Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:02 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Yes, but while playing on peoples' fears in 2004 worked well, it will be a much tougher trick to pull off second time around, as 9/11 isn't quite as fresh in the electorate's mind.


Isn't that a problem? Isn't that synonymous with complacency? And is it as much 'playing on peoples fears' or is it better characterized as appropriate leadership in the face of a real (and demonstrated!) threat? It is absolutely stunning, and dangerous, how liberals downplay the real threat, diverting attention to imagined threats such as right-wing fascists at home.


Mr Blue Sky wrote: Also, McCain has fairly liberal tendancies himself so I don't think he'll do a great job of arguing against Obama's liberal ideals with much conviction


Big difference between McCain's 'liberalism' and Obama's liberal ideals. Talk to Obama's 'pastor', or William Ayers. They'll tell ya.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:11 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:
They'll try and push the un-American thing but it's not going to have the same effect.


As if its merely just some sort of campaign talking point. 'The un-American thing'. The acid test for the grip that dysfunctional liberal ideology has on us is that a veritable enemy of our country could be elected it's next President.

(care to jump in on the 'veritable enemy' part? I'll stand by it. Ask his lifelong 'mentor'. Ask William Ayers, a friend. Ask his wife. Ask the core constituency of the extreme Left. They'll tell ya. They are as much an enemy of the US as the French elite are. Ask Mitterand. Ole Francois was quoted as saying 'The French masses don't know it, but we are at war with the 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 » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:29 pm

JT wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:
They'll try and push the un-American thing but it's not going to have the same effect.


As if its merely just some sort of campaign talking point. 'The un-American thing'. The acid test for the grip that dysfunctional liberal ideology has on us is that a veritable enemy of our country could be elected it's next President.

(care to jump in on the 'veritable enemy' part? I'll stand by it. Ask his lifelong 'mentor'. Ask William Ayers, a friend. Ask his wife. Ask the core constituency of the extreme Left. They'll tell ya. They are as much an enemy of the US as the French elite are. Ask Mitterand. Ole Francois was quoted as saying 'The French masses don't know it, but we are at war with the US'.)

Jesus, let it go with the French already - Mitterand's been dead for 12 years - he hardly reflects the view of all French people today, or even back then. It's as stupid as taking the old line from Condoleeza Rice, when she said 'Forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France' - moronic, and doesn't hold true at all. If someone said something as flippant as the US are an enemy of a peaceful world - that sounds equally as dumb, no?

Do you seriously feel under threat from any terrorist activity? I certainly don't. That's not to say nothing can ever happen, but it's simply an untruth to scare people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent. You've got to weigh up the pros and cons, realistically, for all of life's potential dangers, otherwise you'd never leave a shelter in some remote Alaskan mountains.

You mentioned in a previous post that it's "absolutely stunning, and dangerous, how liberals downplay the real threat" - how about looking at it as putting the 'threat' into perspective with other issues that people have to cope with. What sort of life is it to be suspicious of anyone and everyone around you? I'd rather be dead than living a 'life' where everything i say and do (allowed to do) or have ever done is monitored and controlled in the name of 'national security'. Why should people be seen as unpatriotic for daring to question their government steamroller? I don't believe, in reality, that the mainstream Democrats hold any different position from the Republicans on these issues anyway, whatever tub gets thumped as the current opposition.

Take it to the ridiculous extreme. Obama gets in, continues to tighten personal freedom laws and decides that your posts are personal attacks and thus tantamount to terrorism and inciting people with anti-government feeling. Along with anti-Democrat sites you visit, that labels you as 'a threat to American freedom' so they arrest you and stick you in 'detention' until they can be bothered to get round to investigating. Give it four or five years, it doesn't matter. What a load of bollocks, eh? It would simply never happen? It's easy to laugh off at the moment of course. All those people released from Guantanamo Bay without any charges are obviously all really guilty of everything - just that the liberal laws are too relaxed to be able to convict them easily, is the real reason of course, isn't it?

We're simply not all going to be 'turned into Muslims', or blown up by terrorists by not having a non-Republican in the White House. Instilling fear is a despicable tactic to employ, and Bush/Cheney et al, have been just as guilty of employing it as those idiots in Al Qaeeda.
''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 » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:44 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:It's not like things are all going hunky dory in the world right now and America just needs a 'safe pair of hands to keep the ship on course'. A major rethink is needed with regards to policies on Iraq, the economy and climate change.


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

Postby JT » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:46 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
He'll do fine if that speech distancing himself from Pastor Wright is anything to go by.


You mean he'll do fine if obvious lies and political posturing like trying to distance himself from his left-wing 20 year mentor work.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:52 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Jesus, let it go with the French already - Mitterand's been dead for 12 years - he hardly reflects the view of all French people today, or even back then. It's as stupid as taking the old line from Condoleeza Rice, when she said 'Forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France' - moronic, and doesn't hold true at all. If someone said something as flippant as the US are an enemy of a peaceful world - that sounds equally as dumb, no?



No, I won't let it go. It continues to represent the major sentiment of French and EU elite (not necessarily the normal masses). Doesn't matter how long Mitterand has been dead for. I'm certain you can understand that its not a Mitterand issue. And no, its not 'equally dumb' what Rice said. It makes sense.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:14 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:
Do you seriously feel under threat from any terrorist activity? I certainly don't. That's not to say nothing can ever happen, but it's simply an untruth to scare people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent. You've got to weigh up the pros and cons, realistically, for all of life's potential dangers, otherwise you'd never leave a shelter in some remote Alaskan mountains.


You have got to be absolutely kidding us! It's historical record, my friend. Take away counter-terrorism efforts and attacks would be imminent. An 'untruth' to 'scare' people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent? I don't know what reality you live under, MC. I'm glad it's not mine.

Moon-Crane wrote:You mentioned in a previous post that it's "absolutely stunning, and dangerous, how liberals downplay the real threat" - how about looking at it as putting the 'threat' into perspective with other issues that people have to cope with. What sort of life is it to be suspicious of anyone and everyone around you? I'd rather be dead than living a 'life' where everything i say and do (allowed to do) or have ever done is monitored and controlled in the name of 'national security'.


we are not talking about irrational suspicion of everyone. I'm not suspicious of many nuns or Mormons. We're talking about the opposite - irrational lack of suspicion of anyone but our own government.

Moon-Crane wrote:Why should people be seen as unpatriotic for daring to question their government steamroller?


Its about the degree and the nature of the questioning. I question the 'government steamroller' all the time - but not on obviously critical and real issues like Muslim extremists.
Moon-Crane wrote:I don't believe, in reality, that the mainstream Democrats hold any different position from the Republicans on these issues anyway, whatever tub gets thumped as the current opposition.


Yea, they do. Even if their rhetoric belies it. Even above board, 'the war was wrong and we need to get out of there now' is quite different than most Republicans or right-wingers.

Moon-Crane wrote:Take it to the ridiculous extreme. Obama gets in, continues to tighten personal freedom laws and decides that your posts are personal attacks and thus tantamount to terrorism and inciting people with anti-government feeling. Along with anti-Democrat sites you visit, that labels you as 'a threat to American freedom' so they arrest you and stick you in 'detention' until they can be bothered to get round to investigating. Give it four or five years, it doesn't matter. What a load of bollocks, eh? It would simply never happen? It's easy to laugh off at the moment of course. All those people released from Guantanamo Bay without any charges are obviously all really guilty of everything - just that the liberal laws are too relaxed to be able to convict them easily, is the real reason of course, isn't it?


Come on. Thats ridiculous. Do I really need to pinpoint the logical fallacies running through the above?

Moon-Crane wrote:We're simply not all going to be 'turned into Muslims'


Really, with all my unsophistication and fear-mongering, I thought I really was going to be turned into a Muslim.

Moon-Crane wrote:or blown up by terrorists by not having a non-Republican in the White House. Instilling fear is a despicable tactic to employ, and Bush/Cheney et al, have been just as guilty of employing it as those idiots in Al Qaeeda.


We are going to be 'blown up' by terrorists at some point - to some degree. The variable is what are we going to do in defense. That is influenced by our National leaders. Rational, legitimate, warranted concern is necessary for survival, not a 'despicable tactic'. Irrational, illegitimate, unwarranted fear of these legitimate concerns IS, however, a despicable tactic to employ. And furthermore, to equate Bush/Cheney policies, tactics and rhetoric in support of our security and to defend against liberal anti-Americanism and National complacency with Al Qaeda is woefully out of place.
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 » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:23 pm

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
Do you seriously feel under threat from any terrorist activity? I certainly don't. That's not to say nothing can ever happen, but it's simply an untruth to scare people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent. You've got to weigh up the pros and cons, realistically, for all of life's potential dangers, otherwise you'd never leave a shelter in some remote Alaskan mountains.


You have got to be absolutely kidding us! It's historical record, my friend. Take away counter-terrorism efforts and attacks would be imminent. An 'untruth' to 'scare' people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent? I don't know what reality you live under, MC. I'm glad it's not mine.

Moon-Crane wrote:You mentioned in a previous post that it's "absolutely stunning, and dangerous, how liberals downplay the real threat" - how about looking at it as putting the 'threat' into perspective with other issues that people have to cope with. What sort of life is it to be suspicious of anyone and everyone around you? I'd rather be dead than living a 'life' where everything i say and do (allowed to do) or have ever done is monitored and controlled in the name of 'national security'.


we are not talking about irrational suspicion of everyone. I'm not suspicious of many nuns or Mormons. We're talking about the opposite - irrational lack of suspicion of anyone but our own government.

Moon-Crane wrote:Why should people be seen as unpatriotic for daring to question their government steamroller?


Its about the degree and the nature of the questioning. I question the 'government steamroller' all the time - but not on obviously critical and real issues like Muslim extremists.
Moon-Crane wrote:I don't believe, in reality, that the mainstream Democrats hold any different position from the Republicans on these issues anyway, whatever tub gets thumped as the current opposition.


Yea, they do. Even if their rhetoric belies it. Even above board, 'the war was wrong and we need to get out of there now' is quite different than most Republicans or right-wingers.

Moon-Crane wrote:Take it to the ridiculous extreme. Obama gets in, continues to tighten personal freedom laws and decides that your posts are personal attacks and thus tantamount to terrorism and inciting people with anti-government feeling. Along with anti-Democrat sites you visit, that labels you as 'a threat to American freedom' so they arrest you and stick you in 'detention' until they can be bothered to get round to investigating. Give it four or five years, it doesn't matter. What a load of bollocks, eh? It would simply never happen? It's easy to laugh off at the moment of course. All those people released from Guantanamo Bay without any charges are obviously all really guilty of everything - just that the liberal laws are too relaxed to be able to convict them easily, is the real reason of course, isn't it?


Come on. Thats ridiculous. Do I really need to pinpoint the logical fallacies running through the above?

Moon-Crane wrote:We're simply not all going to be 'turned into Muslims'


Really, with all my unsophistication and fear-mongering, I thought I really was going to be turned into a Muslim.

Moon-Crane wrote:or blown up by terrorists by not having a non-Republican in the White House. Instilling fear is a despicable tactic to employ, and Bush/Cheney et al, have been just as guilty of employing it as those idiots in Al Qaeeda.


We are going to be 'blown up' by terrorists at some point - to some degree. The variable is what are we going to do in defense. That is influenced by our National leaders. Rational, legitimate, warranted concern is necessary for survival, not a 'despicable tactic'. Irrational, illegitimate, unwarranted fear of these legitimate concerns IS, however, a despicable tactic to employ. And furthermore, to equate Bush/Cheney policies, tactics and rhetoric in support of our security and to defend against liberal anti-Americanism and National complacency with Al Qaeda is woefully out of place.


Hey, JT, make love, not war! The Obama-rama party's about to get started! :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 CatNamedRudy » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:25 pm

Obama-Palooza is in Wisconsin today!

He's actually speaking at a Town Hall style meeting in my dad's hometown. Kaukauna, WI.
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 Moon-Crane » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:26 pm

JT wrote:No, I won't let it go. It continues to represent the major sentiment of French and EU elite (not necessarily the normal masses). Doesn't matter how long Mitterand has been dead for. I'm certain you can understand that its not a Mitterand issue. And no, its not 'equally dumb' what Rice said. It makes sense.


Yeah, but you always bash the French as a nation (the normal masses) for such feeling, no?
''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 » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:53 pm

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
Do you seriously feel under threat from any terrorist activity? I certainly don't. That's not to say nothing can ever happen, but it's simply an untruth to scare people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent. You've got to weigh up the pros and cons, realistically, for all of life's potential dangers, otherwise you'd never leave a shelter in some remote Alaskan mountains.


You have got to be absolutely kidding us! It's historical record, my friend. Take away counter-terrorism efforts and attacks would be imminent. An 'untruth' to 'scare' people into thinking some deadly attack is imminent? I don't know what reality you live under, MC. I'm glad it's not mine.

You've got to be kidding. You obviously didn't read what i said. I didn't say terrorist activity didn't exist for Christ's sake, I said put it into perspective with other problems in life. It's not going to jump in and blow me up because i reject the need for a national database scheme or unregulated wiretapping. You can take sufficient precaution without turning into a complete Police State. Surveillance and intelligence doesn't have to be Orwellian.

Moon-Crane wrote:You mentioned in a previous post that it's "absolutely stunning, and dangerous, how liberals downplay the real threat" - how about looking at it as putting the 'threat' into perspective with other issues that people have to cope with. What sort of life is it to be suspicious of anyone and everyone around you? I'd rather be dead than living a 'life' where everything i say and do (allowed to do) or have ever done is monitored and controlled in the name of 'national security'.


we are not talking about irrational suspicion of everyone. I'm not suspicious of many nuns or Mormons. We're talking about the opposite - irrational lack of suspicion of anyone but our own government.

Of course, not, just those with middle eastern looks. Maybe everyone who looks like Tim McVeigh should be monitored?

Moon-Crane wrote:Why should people be seen as unpatriotic for daring to question their government steamroller?


Its about the degree and the nature of the questioning. I question the 'government steamroller' all the time - but not on obviously critical and real issues like Muslim extremists.

You don't question anything that's brought forth as long as it uses the words muslim extremist in defence of it? That's like the amount of shit that goes on in the UK in the name of 'protecting children'.

Moon-Crane wrote:I don't believe, in reality, that the mainstream Democrats hold any different position from the Republicans on these issues anyway, whatever tub gets thumped as the current opposition.


Yea, they do. Even if their rhetoric belies it. Even above board, 'the war was wrong and we need to get out of there now' is quite different than most Republicans or right-wingers.

No, they don't. Even if their rhetoric belies it. 'The war is wrong' yadda yadda comes from the same people who ultimately help push through various things that assist the war.

Moon-Crane wrote:Take it to the ridiculous extreme. Obama gets in, continues to tighten personal freedom laws and decides that your posts are personal attacks and thus tantamount to terrorism and inciting people with anti-government feeling. Along with anti-Democrat sites you visit, that labels you as 'a threat to American freedom' so they arrest you and stick you in 'detention' until they can be bothered to get round to investigating. Give it four or five years, it doesn't matter. What a load of bollocks, eh? It would simply never happen? It's easy to laugh off at the moment of course. All those people released from Guantanamo Bay without any charges are obviously all really guilty of everything - just that the liberal laws are too relaxed to be able to convict them easily, is the real reason of course, isn't it?


Come on. Thats ridiculous. Do I really need to pinpoint the logical fallacies running through the above?
I don't know why you should have the monopoly on the ridiculous.

Moon-Crane wrote:We're simply not all going to be 'turned into Muslims'


Really, with all my unsophistication and fear-mongering, I thought I really was going to be turned into a Muslim.

Very good. Yet i believe the joke belies a strange belief.

Moon-Crane wrote:or blown up by terrorists by not having a non-Republican in the White House. Instilling fear is a despicable tactic to employ, and Bush/Cheney et al, have been just as guilty of employing it as those idiots in Al Qaeeda.


We are going to be 'blown up' by terrorists at some point - to some degree. The variable is what are we going to do in defense. That is influenced by our National leaders. Rational, legitimate, warranted concern is necessary for survival, not a 'despicable tactic'. Irrational, illegitimate, unwarranted fear of these legitimate concerns IS, however, a despicable tactic to employ. And furthermore, to equate Bush/Cheney policies, tactics and rhetoric in support of our security and to defend against liberal anti-Americanism and National complacency with Al Qaeda is woefully out of place.


My God, JT, let's just nuke the whole world now to keep us safe and get it over with. If being killed by a terrorist is the highest priority worry on your list in life, then i envy you.

Just to conclude. If you're going to make such stupid posts about things then i feel vindicated in responding with a few equally as ludicrous. You're never likely to be in the outrageous situation i facetiously pointed out, thankfully, but I bet Anne Frank's family never imagined what far-fetched things could happen to them in democratic Germany.
''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 » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:54 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Hey, JT, make love, not war! The Obama-rama party's about to get started! :lol:


: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 Mr Blue Sky » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:45 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:My God, JT, let's just nuke the whole world now to keep us safe and get it over with. If being killed by a terrorist is the highest priority worry on your list in life, then i envy you.


I've been around the mill a bit on this debate so I'm jaded now, but that's basically the whole right/left argument summed up for me. Democrats want to preserve our civil liberties and Republicans want to give them all away. Who needs terrorists, eh?
"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 » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:11 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:My God, JT, let's just nuke the whole world now to keep us safe and get it over with. If being killed by a terrorist is the highest priority worry on your list in life, then i envy you.


I've been around the mill a bit on this debate so I'm jaded now, but that's basically the whole right/left argument summed up for me. Democrats want to preserve our civil liberties and Republicans want to give them all away. Who needs terrorists, eh?


Well, aside from wanting to stir up a bit of an argument yesterday, i wish it was that simple a line in the sand. I see all front-line mainstream politicians, Republican/Democratic/Conservative/Labour as scrambling to curb civil liberties. Cameron could calculate there would be enough support for 42 day detention in the UK without having to be seen to endorse a crumbling Brown. As much as he pays lip service to being against such a thing, he simply won't commit to reversing such a law if it were in place and he became PM.
''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

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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.