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 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:44 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Libs here in the states are all about their symbolism over substance - 'firsts' in their terms, meaning those perceived as victims in their liberal view - blacks, women, gays, etc. Except when that demographic 'victim' group rep is conservative. Then they aren't a victim. In that case they are an 'uncle Tom', a 'sell-out', or can be found in the dictionary between 'repulsive' and 'reptile' (Republican). Obama as a first is O.K. But not Condoleeza Rice. Hillary as a first is O.K. But not Elizabeth Dole. Funny how that works. To be a 'real' victim, you can't be conservative.


Yep, white wealthy straight people just can't get a fair shake in the US...


Now, that is not what I said at all, is it?


Well, you said that blacks, gays and women were perceived as victims whereas 'conservatives' (by which I assumed you meant whites, straights and males) were not. Historically black people, gay people and women have actually been discriminated against, but no one discriminates against white straight males. That was my point. If I misinterpreted what you meant by 'conservative' I apologise, but your phrasing implied 'conservative' was juxtaposed to black, gay and female.
"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 Mr Blue Sky » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:45 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Fair enough, although as ad hominem go, his weren't too harsh I don't think. He merely made his points in a forceful way, taking the opportunity to intellectually deride his opponents in the process. Many people do that, yourself included! :wink:


No, it was more like flailing out in desperation. I don't mind making a point in a forceful way. Something like 'believing, as you do, that America had charitable intentions during WWII is in gross disregard of the following facts....' would be intellectually deriding. But stomping ones foot and shouting 'answer my questions!!!! I think I am under matched in this debate' is nothing but desperation and loss of control (especially when I did address his fricken points). If he truly felt superior, he would not have reacted so emotionally. Why did I get under HIS skin?


Sounds like there's been some fun here in the past :)


Yeah, I didn't realise it was so long ago though, and it must have been if you can't remember it.
"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 Mr Blue Sky » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:49 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Fair enough, although as ad hominem go, his weren't too harsh I don't think. He merely made his points in a forceful way, taking the opportunity to intellectually deride his opponents in the process. Many people do that, yourself included! :wink:


No, it was more like flailing out in desperation. I don't mind making a point in a forceful way. Something like 'believing, as you do, that America had charitable intentions during WWII is in gross disregard of the following facts....' would be intellectually deriding. But stomping ones foot and shouting 'answer my questions!!!! I think I am under matched in this debate' is nothing but desperation and loss of control (especially when I did address his fricken points). If he truly felt superior, he would not have reacted so emotionally. Why did I get under HIS skin?


Well, I'm not an apologist for Hans but I'm sure he could pick phrases you came up with as well which were pretty similar. Besides, we're talking about issues that people have close to their hearts here, not playing backgammon over crumpets and tea. If people let their emotions show once in a while it's only natural I think.
"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 Mr Blue Sky » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:36 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Libs here in the states are all about their symbolism over substance - 'firsts' in their terms, meaning those perceived as victims in their liberal view - blacks, women, gays, etc. Except when that demographic 'victim' group rep is conservative. Then they aren't a victim. In that case they are an 'uncle Tom', a 'sell-out', or can be found in the dictionary between 'repulsive' and 'reptile' (Republican). Obama as a first is O.K. But not Condoleeza Rice. Hillary as a first is O.K. But not Elizabeth Dole. Funny how that works. To be a 'real' victim, you can't be conservative.


Yep, white wealthy straight people just can't get a fair shake in the US...


Now, that is not what I said at all, is it?


Well, you said that blacks, gays and women were perceived as victims whereas 'conservatives' (by which I assumed you meant whites, straights and males) were not. Historically black people, gay people and women have actually been discriminated against, but no one discriminates against white straight males. That was my point. If I misinterpreted what you meant by 'conservative' I apologise, but your phrasing implied 'conservative' was juxtaposed to black, gay and female.


Sorry, reading that again it's pretty obvious by 'conservative' you meant 'Republican'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
"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 the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:52 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
You can see how some of us of a more liberal bent felt a bit raw after supporting the war went against our base instincts anyhow? .


Sorry for the absence. Had to come back. Can't let y'all get too warm and fuzzy.

I'm afraid the base instincts of liberals (truly liberal) are that all war is bad, violence can never solve anything, on and on. Kind of like that Frasier episode where Frasier had his briefcase, keys and car stolen and he kept saying he believed in the 'basic goodness of man' or something like that. And the more common-sensical and down to earth Martin had to intervene with a dose of reality. Or when Frasier started kicking some ass due to rudeness (High Crane Drifter?) but then his pie-in-the-sky outlook ruined it.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:00 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
Libs here in the states are all about their symbolism over substance - 'firsts' in their terms, meaning those perceived as victims in their liberal view - blacks, women, gays, etc. Except when that demographic 'victim' group rep is conservative. Then they aren't a victim. In that case they are an 'uncle Tom', a 'sell-out', or can be found in the dictionary between 'repulsive' and 'reptile' (Republican). Obama as a first is O.K. But not Condoleeza Rice. Hillary as a first is O.K. But not Elizabeth Dole. Funny how that works. To be a 'real' victim, you can't be conservative.


Yep, white wealthy straight people just can't get a fair shake in the US...


Now, that is not what I said at all, is it?


Well, you said that blacks, gays and women were perceived as victims whereas 'conservatives' (by which I assumed you meant whites, straights and males) were not. Historically black people, gay people and women have actually been discriminated against, but no one discriminates against white straight males. That was my point. If I misinterpreted what you meant by 'conservative' I apologise, but your phrasing implied 'conservative' was juxtaposed to black, gay and female.


No. I meant that Black conservatives, female conservatives, gay conservatives, etc. are not treated as victims by libs. And as such, if one of them became president it would not be celebrated as a 'first'. They are treated as sell-outs or otherwise ignorant, misguided or ill-intentioned.
It is true that blacks, gays and women have been discriminated against historically. It is NOT true that straight white males are not discriminated against. It's part of the dysfunction of modern liberalism. Witness reverse discrimination here in the States, such as affirmative action.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:03 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Well, I'm not an apologist for Hans but I'm sure he could pick phrases you came up with as well which were pretty similar.


I'm derisive of liberals - or rather liberalism - in general. I was never personal in such a way with him or anyone else here.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:10 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Sorry, reading that again it's pretty obvious by 'conservative' you meant 'Republican'. Apologies for the misunderstanding.


Either, actually. But it's really conservatives that push liberal's buttons. A liberal Republican - and they do exist (we call them RINOs - Republican In Name Only) - are not so bad to them and actually they see them as friendly forces in enemy territory. There are a few not-so-liberal Democrats, but not many. Zel Miller retired a few years ago. Joe Lieberman is actually very neoconservative in a lot of ways. If Joe Lieberman was the Dem nominee (fat ass chance), I would have to seriously consider my vote.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:20 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:
You can see how some of us of a more liberal bent felt a bit raw after supporting the war went against our base instincts anyhow? .


Sorry for the absence. Had to come back. Can't let y'all get too warm and fuzzy.

I'm afraid the base instincts of liberals (truly liberal) are that all war is bad, violence can never solve anything, on and on. Kind of like that Frasier episode where Frasier had his briefcase, keys and car stolen and he kept saying he believed in the 'basic goodness of man' or something like that. And the more common-sensical and down to earth Martin had to intervene with a dose of reality. Or when Frasier started kicking some ass due to rudeness (High Crane Drifter?) but then his pie-in-the-sky outlook ruined it.


Which is why I don't class myself as truly Liberal, in the sense you mean. Some of my views would be considered quite right wing I imagine; we'd probably end up agreeing on the issue of economic migration, for example.
"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 Mr Blue Sky » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:28 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:No. I meant that Black conservatives, female conservatives, gay conservatives, etc. are not treated as victims by libs. And as such, if one of them became president it would not be celebrated as a 'first'. They are treated as sell-outs or otherwise ignorant, misguided or ill-intentioned.
It is true that blacks, gays and women have been discriminated against historically. It is NOT true that straight white males are not discriminated against. It's part of the dysfunction of modern liberalism. Witness reverse discrimination here in the States, such as affirmative action.


I'm quite certain if a Republican black or female candidate became President it would be considered a 'first' in exactly the same way as if Obama or Clinton became President. But we both know the Republicans will only put forward white male candidates don't we. They'll never risk alienating their support base with a female or black candidate, perish the thought!
"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 the Rightwing American » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:37 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:No. I meant that Black conservatives, female conservatives, gay conservatives, etc. are not treated as victims by libs. And as such, if one of them became president it would not be celebrated as a 'first'. They are treated as sell-outs or otherwise ignorant, misguided or ill-intentioned.
It is true that blacks, gays and women have been discriminated against historically. It is NOT true that straight white males are not discriminated against. It's part of the dysfunction of modern liberalism. Witness reverse discrimination here in the States, such as affirmative action.


I'm quite certain if a Republican black or female candidate became President it would be considered a 'first' in exactly the same way as if Obama or Clinton became President. But we both know the Republicans will only put forward white male candidates don't we. They'll never risk alienating their support base with a female or black candidate, perish the thought!


I don't think a minority Republican elected would be viewed the same way by most liberals. Not even close. The way they get dragged through the mud as sell-outs over here is outrageous. Do you really believe that Republicans will only put forward white candidates? Do you really believe that? I expected to see a :wink: emoticon. Do you not believe that if Colin Powell would want to run that Republicans would put him forward? Or Condaleeza Rice? This is the kind of mischaracterization of conservatives that reinforce my anti-liberalism. I'm pretty right wing and I would love to see a good, true right-wing minority candidate (they do exist) put forward and succeed at the highest level. I would love to see a Thomas Sowell enter politics. I would love to see Larry Elder run for congress. Powell and Rice are too 'moderate' for me, although I would vote for them over just about all dems put forward. I don't know where this supposed pervasive racist good 'ole boy right wing base is. Next time i'm with my boys, maybe i'll take my white hood off and have a better look around . :wink:
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:41 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:I don't think a minority Republican elected would be viewed the same way by most liberals. Not even close. The way they get dragged through the mud as sell-outs over here is outrageous. Do you really believe that Republicans will only put forward white candidates? Do you really believe that? I expected to see a :wink: emoticon. Do you not believe that if Colin Powell would want to run that Republicans would put him forward? Or Condaleeza Rice? This is the kind of mischaracterization of conservatives that reinforce my anti-liberalism. I'm pretty right wing and I would love to see a good, true right-wing minority candidate (they do exist) put forward and succeed at the highest level. I would love to see a Thomas Sowell enter politics. I would love to see Larry Elder run for congress. Powell and Rice are too 'moderate' for me, although I would vote for them over just about all dems put forward. I don't know where this supposed pervasive racist good 'ole boy right wing base is. Next time i'm with my boys, maybe i'll take my white hood off and have a better look around . :wink:


: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 » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:03 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Do you really believe that Republicans will only put forward white candidates? Do you really believe that? I expected to see a :wink: emoticon.


Here are the confirmed Republican candidates for the US Presidency in 2008...

ImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImage

And here's some more Republicans who were candidates for President in '08 but have subsequently withdrawn their candidacy...

ImageImageImageImage

Nice to see such a wide range of ethnically diverse candidates in the cultural mosaic that is the Republican party.

And yes, you can have your :wink: now.
"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 the Rightwing American » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:54 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Do you really believe that Republicans will only put forward white candidates? Do you really believe that? I expected to see a :wink: emoticon.


Here are the confirmed Republican candidates for the US Presidency in 2008...

ImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImage

And here's some more Republicans who were candidates for President in '08 but have subsequently withdrawn their candidacy...

ImageImageImageImage

Nice to see such a wide range of ethnically diverse candidates in the cultural mosaic that is the Republican party.

And yes, you can have your :wink: now.


Can't let you get away with this, BN. Again, do you honestly believe that if either Colin Powell or Condi Rice wanted to run that they would not have a lot support from the Republican establishment? Logical fallacy. Just because among the top (more about this in a moment) candidates there are no minorities does not mean that a viable candidate would not be put forward if they put themselves forward. The numbers, although changing, favor victimization Democrats. Unfortunately, too many minorities fall prey to this whining victimization mentality.
Now, a black Republican candidate named Alan Keys has once again entered the race. He took part in the recent Rep. debates. He is a former US ambassador and is in most issues extremely conservative. In most cases. He once had a following , but unfortunately has in recent years appeared a bit nutty, with ideas like a one-generation exemption from income taxes for blacks as reparations for slavery. He's now hard to figure out. He is very articulate and a hell of a debater. Also, Republican Bobby Jindal won Louisiana's governor race - in the heart of Dixi. He is of Indian ancestry.
Nice try, BN. Unfortunately, it doesn't rise above the usual liberal demagoguery one hears. That's disappointing but easily rebutted.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:46 pm

Sorry for the late reply JT, happy new year to you. :)

JT the Rightwing American wrote:do you honestly believe that if either Colin Powell or Condi Rice wanted to run that they would not have a lot support from the Republican establishment? Logical fallacy. Just because among the top (more about this in a moment) candidates there are no minorities does not mean that a viable candidate would not be put forward if they put themselves forward.


You are extremely naive if you think Colin Powell or Condi Rice don't want to be President of the United States. If Condi was a Democrat I can imagine she would have been encouraged to run, she certainly ticks all the boxes in terms of political capability. The problem for the Republicans is that they'd never be able to sell a black candidate to their largely conservative core voters. Can you imagine a black candidate winning Texas, for example? No Democrat has been elected to a statewide office in Texas since 1994. The Republicans have that state sewn up and they wouldn't risk alienating their core voters by putting forward anything other than a white male candidate.

Nice try, BN. Unfortunately, it doesn't rise above the usual liberal demagoguery one hears. That's disappointing but easily rebutted.


Well, I don't have as much opportunity to post here at the moment JT, but I look forward to reading your easy rebuttal of my liberal demagoguery with interest. :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 JT » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:42 pm

Happy New year, BN, you've always been a friendly debater in these threads. I appreciate that. Sometimes I fear that I'm a bit snippy-assed. I hope not.

Beer Necessity wrote:You are extremely naive if you think Colin Powell or Condi Rice don't want to be President of the United States. If Condi was a Democrat I can imagine she would have been encouraged to run, she certainly ticks all the boxes in terms of political capability. The problem for the Republicans is that they'd never be able to sell a black candidate to their largely conservative core voters. Can you imagine a black candidate winning Texas, for example?


Wow. Naivety is the issue here but I guess we will have to point fingers on that one. Powell has been approached on many occasions over a long period of time about running as a Republican. He (and Condi) simply do not want to run. At least at this time. Why would they be appointed Sec. State if the Republican community is so racist? They probably don't want to run because the lib media and political machine constantly drag them through the mud (especially Condi) because they resent their political affiliation. What you are saying is that we conservatives are basically racist. You talk about naivety, BN. Let me tell you, I am one of these conservative core voters you speak about. I am as white, racially and culturally, as the most pigmentally-challenged Anglo you can find (save albinos :lol: ) anywhere over there in the British Isles (what I like to call 'Lackamelanesia' :lol: ). I know my (white, conservative) people here in the USA. By and large, we are NOT racist, and we certainly would not be adversed to a good black candidate for president. Good meaning conservative. Trust me, BN, I have talked to, been around, and lived with many me's, over my entire adult life , growing up in Virginia and living in California, Hawaii, and Texas. One major, perhaps dominant, reason I am so anti-liberal is my perception that Liberals still view the world as it was in 1964. Furthermore, too many of them use these inaccuracies of political correctness to batter conservatives over the head, constantly and wrongly labeling us as racist, homophobic, fascist and more. I can imagine a black candidate winning Texas. If an Indian American can win the Louisiana governorship, why would it be unbelievable that a black could win similarly in Texas? And as for a democrat winning Texas, not a lot of Republicans win New York or California. Honestly, confusing conservative with racism is as un-nuanced, as naive, and as unfair as can be imagined.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:59 pm

Thought i'd throw in this Liberal opinion about the three Democratic candidates, by Michael Moore (cue automatic dismissal by many ;) )

Maybe we can throw in some Conservative writers' thoughts about the Republican candididates?

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.
''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 Jan 09, 2008 5:20 pm

Interesting.

He's wrong about Hillary though. She has admitted her mistakes in the war vote arena.

Edwards has now finished well behind in two primaries. He's going to be done after Super Tuesday.

Barack Obama is an amazing public speaker. He's not quite on the level that Reagan was or that Bill Clinton is but he's very good. Barack's problem is going to be that he isn't experienced enough to handle the bullshit that is going to be thrown at him in a general election. He's escaped most of it in the early goings because the media and the haters are so focused on Hillary that she gets all the negative publicity. If Barack wins the nomination, the gloves will come off and the Republicans will come out swigning HARD! He'll crumble like a cheap cracker.
Last edited by CatNamedRudy on Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:40 pm

Very interesting piece M-C, thanks for that. Crazy Right indeed! :D

JT, I haven't forgotten our little debate, I'll respond as soon as I can devote a bit of time. Some very interesting Primary results to discuss yesterday too...
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby CatNamedRudy » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:02 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Very interesting piece M-C, thanks for that. Crazy Right indeed! :D

JT, I haven't forgotten our little debate, I'll respond as soon as I can devote a bit of time. Some very interesting Primary results to discuss yesterday too...


The best thing about yesterdays primary results is that it made the media look like complete fools.

After Obama's Iowa victory, the media goes into a frenzy about how Clinton is going to drop out of the race and this is the end for her and blah, blah, blah! Nobody bothered to mention that Bill Clinton finished third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire in 1992! And we all know how that eventually worked out!

What I did find somewhat interesting in New Hampshire was the lack of support for Guiliani. He claims he wasn't "trying" in New Hampshire but I think that's a load of crap. Huckabee's finishing doesn't really surprise me because New Hampshire is a pretty liberal state and even for Republicans, Huckabee is a little too conservative.
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 the Rightwing American » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:34 am

....ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.



Crazy Left, indeed. Liberalism: symbolism over substance. Lets elect unqualified, nutty ideologues because they are 'victims' of white male oppression.

But again, where is the 'lie' that Bush told?
Last edited by JT the Rightwing American on Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:42 am

CatNamedRudy wrote:Interesting.

Barack's problem is going to be that he isn't experienced enough to handle the bullshit that is going to be thrown at him in a general election.


Why emphasize a purely political problem. What about the problems of lack of governmental experience and being liberal? I don't dislike Obama. Although other than his liberalism I have questions about the church in Chicago he belongs to - and it's black-centric ideology. Do you know about that? Many people don't due to the liberal mainstream media not drawing attention to it, like they will with early Ron Paul (who i don't like) supposed 'racist' writings.

The destructiveness of modern liberalism is to pernicious not to fight against it with everything we have. We don't hate Obama. We respect him in a lot of ways. Hillary,yea, we probably do hate. Not only is she ideologically uber-liberal, she is also cold, calculating, irritating, and even the liberal Carl Bernstein said his research led him to characterize a dominant part of her personality as 'having a problem telling the truth. Now, again, what 'lie' did Bush tell? He is much more authentic and believable than either of the Clintons.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:39 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
CatNamedRudy wrote:Interesting.

Barack's problem is going to be that he isn't experienced enough to handle the bullshit that is going to be thrown at him in a general election.


Why emphasize a purely political problem. What about the problems of lack of governmental experience and being liberal? I don't dislike Obama. Although other than his liberalism I have questions about the church in Chicago he belongs to - and it's black-centric ideology. Do you know about that? Many people don't due to the liberal mainstream media not drawing attention to it, like they will with early Ron Paul (who i don't like) supposed 'racist' writings.

The destructiveness of modern liberalism is to pernicious not to fight against it with everything we have. We don't hate Obama. We respect him in a lot of ways. Hillary,yea, we probably do hate. Not only is she ideologically uber-liberal, she is also cold, calculating, irritating, and even the liberal Carl Bernstein said his research led him to characterize a dominant part of her personality as 'having a problem telling the truth. Now, again, what 'lie' did Bush tell? He is much more authentic and believable than either of the Clintons.


"Vote for Hilary, you'll get Bill back in the White House!" That's the campaign message as far as I can tell, and very shrewd it is too. If the US constitution allowed for more that two terms he'd still be there, I think we all know that deep down.

Although I'll settle for Obama, he's extremely articulate which will be a refreshing change after the last 8 years. Either way it's win/win - there's no way a Republican will get in again this term, which is possibly the true reason people like Colin Powell and Condi aren't running. Much better for Condi to wait 4-8 years when she has a realistic hope of being elected.
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:34 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
"Vote for Hilary, you'll get Bill back in the White House!" That's the campaign message as far as I can tell, and very shrewd it is too. If the US constitution allowed for more that two terms he'd still be there, I think we all know that deep down.



I don't think so. He'd get the liberal vote again, but what else is new. He was loosing the independent vote - something he was successful at getting in his previous 2 wins - in part, the second time at least - because he took up a number of conservative causes like welfare reform (which I give him credit for - Bill is politically opportunistic rather than ideological like Hillary, and from an anti-liberal viewpoint that is mitigative) . We're very split, and you've got to get a lot of the independent vote these days.

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Although I'll settle for Obama, he's extremely articulate which will be a refreshing change after the last 8 years.


Yea, but I could pick any old bloke off the street who's articulate. I'm afraid in this day and age of threats to America - including liberalism itself - it is absolutely imperative that we elect someone who is far more than just articulate.

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Either way it's win/win - there's no way a Republican will get in again this term, which is possibly the true reason people like Colin Powell and Condi aren't running. Much better for Condi to wait 4-8 years when she has a realistic hope of being elected.


What happened to the 'other' real reason for Powell and Condi not entering - you know, us Right-wingers being racist? Now, it is true that the Demoncats have structural advantages next election. But 'no way a Republican will get in' is too liberal-optimistic. Hillary is extremely polarizing. Much of the independents won't vote for her and the Right-wing base will be super-energized to defeat her. The demoncats best hope would be the incompetent (due to inexperience (not to mention liberalism))Barrack Obama. But either way, the Right will be super-energized to undermine any liberal administration - but especially that of Hillary.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:07 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:What happened to the 'other' real reason for Powell and Condi not entering - you know, us Right-wingers being racist? Now, it is true that the Demoncats have structural advantages next election. But 'no way a Republican will get in' is too liberal-optimistic. Hillary is extremely polarizing. Much of the independents won't vote for her and the Right-wing base will be super-energized to defeat her. The demoncats best hope would be the incompetent (due to inexperience (not to mention liberalism))Barrack Obama. But either way, the Right will be super-energized to undermine any liberal administration - but especially that of Hillary.


Well, sorry if this offends but yes, I believe there's no way the strong southern Republican base would vote for a black candidate. IMO they'd prefer a white Democrat that a black Republican. And that's why Colin Powell or Condi haven't entered the race - they know too many of their own voters "ain't gonna vote for no nigger". Sorry about the language but you know the kind of people I'm talking about, and we both know they exist in the redneck gun-toting Republican heartland of the South.
"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 8 guests

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.