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 Mr Blue Sky » Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:28 am

I had to laugh at the recent Sarah Palin goings-on. McCain pulled a real surprise in appointing her, and took a big gamble too. Presumably the main point was to appeal to the voters who were hoping to have Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate, and taking the headlines away from Obama for a change won't have hurt, either.

She was packaged as an ultra-conservative right-winger, I'm guessing to appeal to the core Republican base. How ironic then, that her 17 year old unmarried daughter has just announced she's pregnant! :lol: As one commentator said today, I bet McCain didn't know that when he appointed Sarah Palin!

I can only imagine what pressure was brought to bear on that poor young lass when issuing the statement that she intended to keep the baby and marry the father. No doubt that young man has already been visited to make sure he causes no more political embarrassment to the Republican party by deciding not to marry her! :wink:

This has to be one of the biggest own-goals in recent political history. I look forward to seeing the movie some day!
"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 » Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:53 pm

I'm not happy about any my choices really. If I didn't think it would result in McCain winning, I'd write in Hillary!

But I can't bear the thought of John McCain-More of the Same for another 4 years so I'll throw my vote to Barack and pray it works out!

The only positive I can see in McCain actually winning is that it will allow Hillary to run in 2012 and all those who voted for Obama in the primary this time around because he was a Traveling Salvation Show who spoke well will realize they should have voted for her in the first place and then she'll win!

McCain is using Hillary in one of his ads. It's her saying that she brings a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama brings a nice speech he made in 2002. Sad to say, that it's true.

I'm worried about the next four years no matter who wins this election.
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 Sep 03, 2008 6:14 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote: How ironic then, that her 17 year old unmarried daughter has just announced she's pregnant! :lol: As one commentator said today, I bet McCain didn't know that when he appointed Sarah Palin!



Bet he did. I don't know where the sense of irony comes from. Even though conservatives believe in marriage before sex, etc. one of her 5 children that she didn't abort does the naughty and gets pregnant? I'm now supposed to scream 'hypocrite' and point my finger at the right-wing mom?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:19 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:I'm not happy about any my choices really. If I didn't think it would result in McCain winning, I'd write in Hillary!

But I can't bear the thought of John McCain-More of the Same for another 4 years so I'll throw my vote to Barack and pray it works out!

The only positive I can see in McCain actually winning is that it will allow Hillary to run in 2012 and all those who voted for Obama in the primary this time around because he was a Traveling Salvation Show who spoke well will realize they should have voted for her in the first place and then she'll win!

McCain is using Hillary in one of his ads. It's her saying that she brings a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama brings a nice speech he made in 2002. Sad to say, that it's true.

I'm worried about the next four years no matter who wins this election.


I'm still a little puzzled about your default choice, cat. Its been so long I forgot. Is it the war stance that swings it for you? Or are you generally that liberal? McCain ain't that un-liberal. McCain seems to be the most centrist of any of the four ticket mates by a damn sight. Obamarrama is the most liberal of all U.S senators and Biden is the 3rd most liberal. Once again, that is by definition extreme.
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 » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:51 am

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote: How ironic then, that her 17 year old unmarried daughter has just announced she's pregnant! :lol: As one commentator said today, I bet McCain didn't know that when he appointed Sarah Palin!



Bet he did. I don't know where the sense of irony comes from. Even though conservatives believe in marriage before sex, etc. one of her 5 children that she didn't abort does the naughty and gets pregnant? I'm now supposed to scream 'hypocrite' and point my finger at the right-wing mom?


Not you, maybe. But many core Republican supporters will be up in arms that Ms 'Family Values' Palin's daughter is pregnant age 17. Many will believe this reflects poorly on her as a mother. Not me of course, being an enlightened liberal... :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 Moon-Crane » Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:59 am

JT wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:I'm not happy about any my choices really. If I didn't think it would result in McCain winning, I'd write in Hillary!

But I can't bear the thought of John McCain-More of the Same for another 4 years so I'll throw my vote to Barack and pray it works out!

The only positive I can see in McCain actually winning is that it will allow Hillary to run in 2012 and all those who voted for Obama in the primary this time around because he was a Traveling Salvation Show who spoke well will realize they should have voted for her in the first place and then she'll win!

McCain is using Hillary in one of his ads. It's her saying that she brings a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama brings a nice speech he made in 2002. Sad to say, that it's true.

I'm worried about the next four years no matter who wins this election.


I'm still a little puzzled about your default choice, cat. Its been so long I forgot. Is it the war stance that swings it for you? Or are you generally that liberal? McCain ain't that un-liberal. McCain seems to be the most centrist of any of the four ticket mates by a damn sight. Obamarrama is the most liberal of all U.S senators and Biden is the 3rd most liberal. Once again, that is by definition extreme.


It can't be that, seeing as Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion - whatever the views of the right or wrong of that decision, she can never undo that position.

As an outsider, i'm more positive about the affect of Obama in power than i would have been about Hillary. I have no problem with McCain, but i think the party is damaged goods in the eyes of the World at the moment... care what you will about that - I know the world view will be the least concern for you, Stateside.
''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 CatNamedRudy » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:53 am

JT wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:I'm not happy about any my choices really. If I didn't think it would result in McCain winning, I'd write in Hillary!

But I can't bear the thought of John McCain-More of the Same for another 4 years so I'll throw my vote to Barack and pray it works out!

The only positive I can see in McCain actually winning is that it will allow Hillary to run in 2012 and all those who voted for Obama in the primary this time around because he was a Traveling Salvation Show who spoke well will realize they should have voted for her in the first place and then she'll win!

McCain is using Hillary in one of his ads. It's her saying that she brings a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama brings a nice speech he made in 2002. Sad to say, that it's true.

I'm worried about the next four years no matter who wins this election.


I'm still a little puzzled about your default choice, cat. Its been so long I forgot. Is it the war stance that swings it for you? Or are you generally that liberal? McCain ain't that un-liberal. McCain seems to be the most centrist of any of the four ticket mates by a damn sight. Obamarrama is the most liberal of all U.S senators and Biden is the 3rd most liberal. Once again, that is by definition extreme.


My stance is that this country is not in better shape than it was 8 years ago and that is in large part due to George W. Bush and Company. John McCain is more of the same.

And yes MC, Hillary voted to authorize military force in Iraq. So did everybody in congress except Russ Feingold. That doesn't mean I supported it. I don't support everything my party does nor do I support or agree with everything a particular candidate does even if I like that candidate. Hillary isn't an advocate of same sex marriage either but I still support her because that's just one of many things to be dealt with.

I am against this stupid war and I was from the very beginning. It's pointless and it was conducted on false information and downright lies. I don't think McCain will do much to get us the hell out of it and I think Obama will be better at smoothing over our relationships with other countries.
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 » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:09 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:My stance is that this country is not in better shape than it was 8 years ago and that is in large part due to George W. Bush and Company. John McCain is more of the same.

And yes MC, Hillary voted to authorize military force in Iraq. So did everybody in congress except Russ Feingold. That doesn't mean I supported it. I don't support everything my party does nor do I support or agree with everything a particular candidate does even if I like that candidate. Hillary isn't an advocate of same sex marriage either but I still support her because that's just one of many things to be dealt with.

I am against this stupid war and I was from the very beginning. It's pointless and it was conducted on false information and downright lies. I don't think McCain will do much to get us the hell out of it and I think Obama will be better at smoothing over our relationships with other countries.


I actually agree with your position. JT just mentioned the war thing, so all i was trying to say was that the war was unlikely to be the main reason for you to support the Democrats. It was likely based on a combination of things - much like i'd hope his Republican support would be.

If it had been your primary concern then you'd unlikely be able to support Hillary - or many mainstream politicians really. Being able to back Clinton while disagreeing with some of her beliefs should show it wasn't a deciding factor. It's neither an attack on her or in any way trying to show that your support can't marry because of her stance on some issues.

There can't be a politician out there that any serious supporter could agrees with 100% on all issues. Never going to happen with any sensible independent thinking person.

I guess it easily shows that you're not one of these fabled liberal extremists :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 CatNamedRudy » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:27 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:My stance is that this country is not in better shape than it was 8 years ago and that is in large part due to George W. Bush and Company. John McCain is more of the same.

And yes MC, Hillary voted to authorize military force in Iraq. So did everybody in congress except Russ Feingold. That doesn't mean I supported it. I don't support everything my party does nor do I support or agree with everything a particular candidate does even if I like that candidate. Hillary isn't an advocate of same sex marriage either but I still support her because that's just one of many things to be dealt with.

I am against this stupid war and I was from the very beginning. It's pointless and it was conducted on false information and downright lies. I don't think McCain will do much to get us the hell out of it and I think Obama will be better at smoothing over our relationships with other countries.


I actually agree with your position. JT just mentioned the war thing, so all i was trying to say was that the war was unlikely to be the main reason for you to support the Democrats. It was likely based on a combination of things - much like i'd hope his Republican support would be.

If it had been your primary concern then you'd unlikely be able to support Hillary - or many mainstream politicians really. Being able to back Clinton while disagreeing with some of her beliefs should show it wasn't a deciding factor. It's neither an attack on her or in any way trying to show that your support can't marry because of her stance on some issues.

There can't be a politician out there that any serious supporter could agrees with 100% on all issues. Never going to happen with any sensible independent thinking person.

I guess it easily shows that you're not one of these fabled liberal extremists :lol:


:)

Definitely not a liberal extremist! I'm actually fairly middle of the road. Obviously I lean more to the left than to the right but on occasion there are things that I agree with the right on.
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 Sep 03, 2008 7:05 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:i think the party is damaged goods in the eyes of the World at the moment... care what you will about that - I know the world view will be the least concern for you, Stateside.


You got that right. Unfortunately, the fact that the Republican party is damaged goods 'in the eyes of the world' is probably a good thing. The fact that the Republican party is, in specific ways, damaged goods in the eyes of many Republicans is not a good thing. But relatively speaking, the Democratic party is an atrocity.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:13 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:
JT wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:I'm not happy about any my choices really. If I didn't think it would result in McCain winning, I'd write in Hillary!

But I can't bear the thought of John McCain-More of the Same for another 4 years so I'll throw my vote to Barack and pray it works out!

The only positive I can see in McCain actually winning is that it will allow Hillary to run in 2012 and all those who voted for Obama in the primary this time around because he was a Traveling Salvation Show who spoke well will realize they should have voted for her in the first place and then she'll win!

McCain is using Hillary in one of his ads. It's her saying that she brings a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama brings a nice speech he made in 2002. Sad to say, that it's true.

I'm worried about the next four years no matter who wins this election.


I'm still a little puzzled about your default choice, cat. Its been so long I forgot. Is it the war stance that swings it for you? Or are you generally that liberal? McCain ain't that un-liberal. McCain seems to be the most centrist of any of the four ticket mates by a damn sight. Obamarrama is the most liberal of all U.S senators and Biden is the 3rd most liberal. Once again, that is by definition extreme.


My stance is that this country is not in better shape than it was 8 years ago and that is in large part due to George W. Bush and Company. John McCain is more of the same.

And yes MC, Hillary voted to authorize military force in Iraq. So did everybody in congress except Russ Feingold. That doesn't mean I supported it. I don't support everything my party does nor do I support or agree with everything a particular candidate does even if I like that candidate. Hillary isn't an advocate of same sex marriage either but I still support her because that's just one of many things to be dealt with.

I am against this stupid war and I was from the very beginning. It's pointless and it was conducted on false information and downright lies. I don't think McCain will do much to get us the hell out of it and I think Obama will be better at smoothing over our relationships with other countries.


O.K but in what ways are we worse off than 8 years ago that is 1. Bush's fault and 2. the result of a policy shared by McCain? And how would Obama or any other liberal Democrat correct it? International perceptions? I'll say it again, if France is happy with an Obama presidency, we should vote the other way.
And just for my edification, what was the 'false information and downright lies' on which the war was conducted? WMD? I'm not arguing it wasn't a stupid war. I was on the fence about it leading up to it, but leaning towards it. I think it is too early to tell because the intended fruit is mid and long term. But I will say this: due to the reaction of the Left and their primary vehicle the main-stream media, the war may have been a mistake FOR THAT REASON ALONE.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby CatNamedRudy » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:25 pm

WMD, Iraq being a direct threat to the US. Neither of those were true and Colin Powell KNEW it when he was presenting the BS to the UN. He was uncomfortable with the whole ordeal and I lost a great deal of respect for him beause he was presenting information he knew to be false.

The economy is worse than it was. We have a HUGE deficit that we didn't have before. Gas prices are outrageous. We are NOT more secure no matter how the right tries to spin it. The rest of the world leaders (not just France) don't trust the US govt. and think we're arrogant fucks (more now than they did before) and we're involved in a pointless costly ridiculous war!

And yes, it IS Bush's fault. The buck stops with him and good or bad, he takes the credit and he takes the blame. That's the way it is. And yes, McCain voted along party lines the majority of the time so yes, it is policies he's supported.

And yes, I think Obama will do a much better job at repairing our reputation around the world. And not just in France.
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 Sep 07, 2008 9:32 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:WMD, Iraq being a direct threat to the US. Neither of those were true and Colin Powell KNEW it when he was presenting the BS to the UN.


You really believe that Colin powell 'KNEW' that they did not have WMD, when not even our CIA or other Intel agencies around the world knew that? Come on now. And you don't think that after 9/11 and the demonstration of what a band of Muslim extremists can do with some money and support, that a Saddam Hussein - secular or not, with his motive for doing the U.S harm - should not be viewed as a threat? I'm not talking about them sending intercontinental ballistic missles, or long-range bombers or anything like that. Don't need to. 9/11 proved that.



CatNamedRudy wrote:The economy is worse than it was.


I don't think it is worse. Remember, in 2001 we were in an official recession. Today segments of the economy certainly are worse - housing, gas etc. But remember, these macroeconomic cycles happen continuously. Fiscal policy can only do so much.

CatNamedRudy wrote: We have a HUGE deficit that we didn't have before.


agreed. We Right-wingers don't like everything Bush has done, and thats one thing.

CatNamedRudy wrote:We are NOT more secure no matter how the right tries to spin it.


Yes, we are. We were letting these Muslim extremist nuts run around like they owned the place 8 years ago. Remember the FAA rule that fined airlines for taking more than two 'middle eastern looking men' into secondary questioning in airport security screening? If it weren't for us Right-wingers, this typical, stupid type of thing would still be rampant. And that ain't spin.


CatNamedRudy wrote:The rest of the world leaders (not just France) don't trust the US govt. and think we're arrogant fucks


Too bad that they don't 'trust' us. We don't trust them. Many of them (especially France) try to backstab us as often as they can. They can think we are arrogant fucks all they want - just as we can think they are arrogant fucks. Our world views are diverging ever more as time goes on. We don't have to see eye to eye. Viva la.....

CatNamedRudy wrote:And yes, it IS Bush's fault. The buck stops with him and good or bad, he takes the credit and he takes the blame. That's the way it is.


Let me get this straight. An asteroid hits earth - lets say France - and its Bush's fault? Thats about as precise as your argument seems to be. I would prefer a little more precise and reasonable assessment of performance. I didn't blame everything on Clinton, and I wouldn't on Obama.

As far as McCain and the party line:
Again I don't agree with your charge that Right-wingers, or even the Republicans, are to blame for what you see as problems. If its the war, fine. I don't know if the war was a bad idea or not. I see the intended fruits as being mid to long term. I was on the fence about it from the beginning. But one thing I can say is this: It may be that the war was a bad idea especially because of the behavior of the Left and their major institutional ally the main-stream media. They made sure the war would be perceived in a negative light regardless.

CatNamedRudy wrote:And yes, I think Obama will do a much better job at repairing our reputation around the world. And not just in France.


Actually, I think I agree with you here. But again, thats not a good thing! Again, we are continually diverging with respect to world view. Certainly it would be good to have a 'better' reputation around the world - but at what price?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby CatNamedRudy » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:45 pm

Whoa, whoa, whoa...back the truck up!

I didn't say George W. Bush was responsible for every single bad thing that has happened since he took office.

I said he was responsible for governmental things such as the war, the crappy state of our economy and the crappy relationship with have with other countries around the world.

Those things ARE his fault. Whether he was directly responsible for them or not, he has to take responsibility for them. As I said, the buck stops with him.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton but he took responsibility when he screwed up. (not in his personal life mind you and that was stupid of him) When Mogadishu went terribly, terribly wrong, he came out and said he screwed up. He admitted mistakes and that's one of the things that pisses me off more than anything about Bush. He NEVER admits when he screws up. Take some responsibility for once in your life man! Own up to your screw ups!

And yes, I absolutely believe that Colin Powell KNEW he was presenting false information to the UN. I believe it 100%.

And I don't feel safer and I don't think this country is safer than it was 8 years ago. People on planes are more alert. That has nothing to do with George Bush. It has to do with 9/11. People are just more aware. Not due to any policies.

You think it's a good thing that our allies hate us? Wow. That's kind of scary. And incredibly elitist of you!
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 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:10 pm

Hey JT, you got me thinking when you mentioned US talk radio on another thread.

I was wondering what the current situation is regarding the backing of McCain, with his more 'liberal' perception, and how he managed to get the Republican vote, while seemingly pretty unpopular on the talk radio circuit?

Do you think the biggest (loudest?) talk show hosts are having less influence on their listeners? Have they ever had the alleged influence attributed to them?
''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 » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:10 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa...back the truck up!

I didn't say George W. Bush was responsible for every single bad thing that has happened since he took office.

I said he was responsible for governmental things such as the war, the crappy state of our economy and the crappy relationship with have with other countries around the world.


But thats what i'm talking about. 'The crappy state of our economy'? He's responsible for that? Can you be even a little more specific? Can you even point to specific policy choices that have made the economy 'crappy'? And was it Clinton's fault that we had the .com burst leading to the 2001 recession? Don't you think that the 'buck stops with him' is awfully simplistic? Do you understand the true extent of governmental power of the presidency?

CatNamedRudy wrote:Say what you want about Bill Clinton but he took responsibility when he screwed up. (not in his personal life mind you and that was stupid of him) When Mogadishu went terribly, terribly wrong, he came out and said he screwed up. He admitted mistakes and that's one of the things that pisses me off more than anything about Bush. He NEVER admits when he screws up. Take some responsibility for once in your life man! Own up to your screw ups!


I'm not going to stick up too much for Bush with respect to admitting mistakes, but I will say this: Bush was under constant bombardment by the main-stream media - which is disgracefully corrupt with respect to ideological balance. That fact unfortunately helped Bush's defensiveness, much as it did Nixon's some 35 years ago.

CatNamedRudy wrote:And yes, I absolutely believe that Colin Powell KNEW he was presenting false information to the UN. I believe it 100%.


O.K we know you believe that. The question is, despite all the evidence that the major Intel agencies did not know that Iraq did not still have wmd, why do you STILL believe Colin Powell 'knew he was presenting false information to the UN'. And you believe this '100%'. How do you square those two things?

CatNamedRudy wrote:And I don't feel safer and I don't think this country is safer than it was 8 years ago. People on planes are more alert. That has nothing to do with George Bush. It has to do with 9/11. People are just more aware. Not due to any policies.


Oh really? So when George Bush is criticized for using 'fear' in a fascistic way when he is simply trying to lead the country by combating complacency, thats fair? But when people on planes are more alert, thats not the result of Bush's fascistic 'fear-mongering'? or as I would call it, reasonable leadership to combat complacency and the real - and demonstrated - threat of terrorism.

CatNamedRudy wrote:You think it's a good thing that our allies hate us? Wow. That's kind of scary. And incredibly elitist of you!


If the choice is between 1. Making western Europe (and yes, France too) happy by behaving as they would see fit and 2. Making the unfortunate but necessary decision to behave as our values dictate while sacrificing some international good-will, I would easily make the decision in favor of the latter. Some compromise for the sake of international good-will is understandable. But the realization that we have differing world-views and are inescapably moving even farther apart is a reality that none of the protesting and nose-thumbing on either side can assuage.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:29 am

Moon-Crane wrote:Hey JT, you got me thinking when you mentioned US talk radio on another thread.

I was wondering what the current situation is regarding the backing of McCain, with his more 'liberal' perception, and how he managed to get the Republican vote, while seemingly pretty unpopular on the talk radio circuit?

Do you think the biggest (loudest?) talk show hosts are having less influence on their listeners? Have they ever had the alleged influence attributed to them?


The current situation regarding the backing of McCain is that he got the 'base' of the right-wing energized with his vp pick. Many of us couldn't bring ourselves to be excited about McCain - with all his liberal bullshit tendencies. But with an ultra-liberal, most-liberal-senator-in-the-US-senate poised to move into the white house, we were just waiting for something to vote for, rather than just against. Thats why some polls have McCain beyond the margin of error up in some key states now. Yes, McCain is pretty unpopular amongst the talk show hosts. And yes, they have the alleged influence attributed to them. Why the influence? Because when the likes of Rush Limbaugh broke on the scene in the late 1980's there was a pent-up demand for what he had to offer. Why was there a pent-up demand? Because since about the end of frickin WWII all we had were the main-stream media - and the main-stream media have been a quasi-fascistic, monopolistic and corrupt, unelected liberal power block. The arrival of the 'alternative media' provided the bereaved right-wing the long-awaited relief it so desperately needed.
I will say this, however: At this point in time I think it would be wise for the right-wing radio talk set to dampen their overt shrillness and adopt a more - well, less shrill - tone. It was understandable at first, after all those years of the slow drip of main-stream media liberalism. When Limbaugh came on, I remember thinking - actually saying - 'Can he really say things like that? The MSM had us so brain-washed with their slow drip. People often criticize the right-wind radio people for their often over-the-top approach, but I counter by saying that at least you know where they come from and at least they aren't the lying snake-in-the-grass that the MSM 'professionals' have been since oh about 19 frickin 46.
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 » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:34 am

JT wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa...back the truck up!

I didn't say George W. Bush was responsible for every single bad thing that has happened since he took office.

I said he was responsible for governmental things such as the war, the crappy state of our economy and the crappy relationship with have with other countries around the world.


But thats what i'm talking about. 'The crappy state of our economy'? He's responsible for that? Can you be even a little more specific? Can you even point to specific policy choices that have made the economy 'crappy'? And was it Clinton's fault that we had the .com burst leading to the 2001 recession? Don't you think that the 'buck stops with him' is awfully simplistic? Do you understand the true extent of governmental power of the presidency?


I'm sure there's more examples than the one I'm about to give, but this was all I could find in the time I have available. I remember this being one of Bush's first acts as President, although I had to get the precise details from Wiki...

"Facing opposition in Congress for an initially proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the nation in 2001 to increase public support for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers. With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Economists, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, opposed the tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook considerably."

Seems to me like those ten Nobel laureates were right and Bush was wrong. Of course there are many other factors contributing to the macro-economic cycle but you asked for one policy decision which affected the economy and there it is. A classic example of a politician doing something for the sake of popularity against all expert economic advice.
"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 Sep 10, 2008 10:46 am

JT wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:You think it's a good thing that our allies hate us? Wow. That's kind of scary. And incredibly elitist of you!


If the choice is between 1. Making western Europe (and yes, France too) happy by behaving as they would see fit and 2. Making the unfortunate but necessary decision to behave as our values dictate while sacrificing some international good-will, I would easily make the decision in favor of the latter. Some compromise for the sake of international good-will is understandable. But the realization that we have differing world-views and are inescapably moving even farther apart is a reality that none of the protesting and nose-thumbing on either side can assuage.


Fair point. I wouldn't worry about putting Europe's nose out of joint. We've been doing it for years - even though we're a part of Europe - we'll never be a part of Europe, if you know what i mean. We're fairly despised - bar maybe somewhere like Malta. If we weren't such a wealthy component, there'd be no time at all for us.

There's a solid accord between the UK and US, which is much more useful than either nation trying to keep friends with European government - i stress government, as, with everywhere, the general populace of the continent are fine, with the majority not at all reflective of those in power.

We have certain influential types trying to 'integrate' us within the European Union umbrella, but it's hardly news that there is determined resistance - and if your average Joe was given the choice of 'siding' with the US or the EU i think there'd be little doubt that the US/UK relationship would win.

The EU is an excuse for even greater centralised government power - which is the least necessary thing in the World, imho. It's always handy to keep things amicable with as many nations as possible throughout the world, but it's right to say no when something's not right. A Star Trek like Utopian world where everything is built on altruism is a pipedream, so doing anything it takes to keep an international friendship isn't always the best choice. Resentment festers when grievances aren't aired.

Having bitched about the EU, the state of the US/UK/EU relationship is still healthy enough. The differing threats of the Middle and Far East pull all 'Western' politicians together enough for now.
''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 CatNamedRudy » Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:01 pm

Well, I guess I'm alone in thinking that having a leader that other leaders respect and want to deal with is a good thing. Nevermind the fact that it's easier to get things done when you have other people that are willing to help you and work with you. Nevermind that if you're an arrogant ass other people don't want to listen to you or lend you hand when you need it.

I'd rather the US not have to go at things alone. It's rather taxing on our system and when you're talking about using military force, it's rather taxing on our troops.

As for the crappy economy Bush is responsible for: BS posted at least one example. I can say his giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% and not really doing much to help the group that puts the most money INTO the economy (the would be the middle class) hasn't really helped much.

Additionally, this war has cost us billions of dollars which certainly hasn't helped matters. This war that is HIS FAULT!

And the guy is an OIL man. All of his buddies and cronies are in the oil business but somehow he couldn't even make that work. Oil prices have gone up and up and thus the cost of everything else has skyrocketed. You can say oil prices aren't his fault and I agree that they are not his fault alone but he's really not done much to ease the situation. Though I'll give him credit for saying "fuck it" I'm going to lift restrictions on off shore drilling no matter what the environmentalists say. (that was not a sarcastic remark BTW, I mean that. I think that was a good move).

And while I enjoyed my $600.00 stimulus check, most people I know didn't put it toward much of anything except bills. I had the luxary of spending it on a vacation and I did in fact put it back in the system but most people didn't. And even if they had, what it would have shown was a very short spike.

As for blaming Clinton for the dot com bust...no I don't blame him for that entirely BUT I will place some of the blame on how the dot com boom was handled. Clinton was lucky in that he had technology on his side and he happened to be in office at the right time. I give him credit because he knew what to do when he had the opportunity and he did it. However, I will place a bit of the blame for the bust on him because what happened was that the economy grew so fast it got out of control and there was nowhere it could go but down. There should have been a bit more control on the situation and there wasn't.

Please don't patronize me! I'm very well aware of the power and responsibilities of the President of the US. There's a reason we have checks and balances and I know full well that the power of the office does not allow him or her (because eventually there will be a her) to do whatever the hell he or she chooses to do. That being said, the ultimate responsibility lies with them. It's part of the job.

If you're not going to place any of the responsibility of the State of the Union on our leaders JT then what difference does it make to you who is in office?
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 » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:27 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:Well, I guess I'm alone in thinking that having a leader that other leaders respect and want to deal with is a good thing. Nevermind the fact that it's easier to get things done when you have other people that are willing to help you and work with you. Nevermind that if you're an arrogant ass other people don't want to listen to you or lend you hand when you need it.

I'd rather the US not have to go at things alone. It's rather taxing on our system and when you're talking about using military force, it's rather taxing on our troops.


Whoa. I'm not sure how you're alone there? I certainly said that it's better to do be on amicable terms with as many countries as possible, as best as you can be. I didn't hear JT dispute that either. I do agree with JT, however, that there's a limit to how far you should go to appease another nation just to keep them onside - there has to be a line. Whether that line has been reached between the US and mainland Europe for anything sensible is a different debate.

I obviously can't speak from a US perspective, but i can see that no matter what positive things the UK does for Europe, we're seen as outsiders to the mainland. Politicians and business leaders of various countries are regularly snide and detrimental to the UK. If we didn't stand ground on some of the things that make us unpopular, though, i think we'd be worse off.

I think that's why the US/UK seem to keep a better relationship with each other than with other EU nations. Most probably cultural and idealogical leanings.

I don't think the US will ever have to stand alone - while the bulk of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are from the US, there are many UK troops out there, with a number of other nations working alongside them.

Bombing raids were carried out in the likes of Afghanistan and Sudan during the Clinton regime - on flimsy intelligence, and NATO was very active in Kosovo (at a time when many of the big EU nations had so-called liberal leaders in place), so Western nations, for all the grumbles, will back the US when called upon. They're far from turning their backs on the US because of Bush, that i can see.

To be clear, it's definitely helpful to have support of other nations. No country on Earth could prosper in a cocoon.
''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 CatNamedRudy » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:45 pm

Whoa. I'm not sure how you're alone there? I certainly said that it's better to do be on amicable terms with as many countries as possible, as best as you can be. I didn't hear JT dispute that either.


JT stated that he thinks Bush pissing off our allies is a good thing. Doesn't sound to me like he thinks it's better to be on amicable terms with them.

I'm not saying that the US should bend over backwards to appease other countries but I also think the good will that existed just after 9/11 and all the willingness to assist in whatever way was needed was squandered because Bush is a maverick and he thinks he can do whatever he wants.

Yes, we have the UK but I think even that relationship has been a bit strained.

I just think that relations and cooperativeness with other nations takes a lot less work when they don't view you as a bully and they have some respect for you.
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 Hans the German Butler » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:22 pm

The top and bottom of the economic troubles in both the US and UK is essentially the arrogant presumption that the world economy would continue to grow. People were seeing a 14% growth rate in India, 9% year on year in China, the creation of Indian and Chinese billionaires and potentially lucrative export markets, 84 quarters of unbroken growth for the UK economy.

That presumption led to some outstandingly bad decisions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined must have topped the $1 Trillion mark for the US by now, especially when you consider that a single tomahawk cruise missile costs circa $1 million.

The US stimulus package cost over $1 Trillion and did little to reinvigorate the economy. That said it was a package designed to give back hard-earned money. Compare that to the UK's 10p tax debacle! Neutral in economic terms until and extra £4billion had to be found to compensate the losers.

In 1997, New Labour inherited an £80billion per year surplus, which could have been used partially for investment and partially to clear the national debt - getting the house in order in a time of growth. Rather than do that, Brown kept spending money like a drunken sailor and ratcheted debt repayment up to 40% of GDP (more depending on how you measure it).

With a budget deficit in the US now running into the trillions, it hard to imagine that the US government, either the Treasury or the Executive, were not working in the same economic school of thought.

Now the whole things come crashing down, there's nothing for a rainy day. The US Treasury/Federal Reserve decision to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae seems a good one for the medium/longer term but whoever takes the election in November will have one hell of a clean up job come January, especially as it looks as though Lehmanns' is going to need saving too.

I suppose that's the long way of saying that the Bush administration is as culpable as Gordon Brown for their countries economic woes. They may have had limited control when it came to the barrel price of oil and the blighted corn, rice and maize crops that triggered the food price inflation. But they certainly had no contingency plans.
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:57 pm

Is Ron Paul still running as an independent? is he back as the head of the Libertarian or Constitutionalist ranks?
''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 Sep 18, 2008 6:29 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:
JT stated that he thinks Bush pissing off our allies is a good thing. Doesn't sound to me like he thinks it's better to be on amicable terms with them.



Cat, go back and re-read what I stated. I did not say what you claim above.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

© 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.