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 » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:08 am

Oh, looking forward to 'Super Tuesday' by the way - it's getting quite a bit of coverage here in the UK!
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:29 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
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.


It doesn't offend so much. It's just amazing to me how people can be so amiss in their 'read' on us. I'm as Right-wing as you can get and I'd much rather have a black Right-winger than a white Leftie. Are there people in the South who are racist? yes. Just like there in the U.K. or anywhere else. But is this the pervasive thing that is normally attributed to Southern Republican - no. They exits in the 'redneck gun-toting Republican heartland of the South' but despite the lies and demagoguery of liberals, it is no longer 1964. 'Progressive' my ass. They can't seem to progress beyond 1964. I have my own complaints about Southern culture, but the idea that Powell or Rice haven't entered the race because Southern Republicans "ain't gonna vote for no nigger" is so far off base it cries out for ridicule. But go ahead and believe it if you want. But I just find it amazing that people profess to know my mind better than I do.
What is more interesting to me than the so-called stereotypical conservative southern white racist is the different manifestations of racism amongst liberals. Now that is interesting.
Lastly, consider this: There will be more people - many, many more people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black than won't vote for him because he is black. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just out of touch with reality. Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:10 pm

JT wrote:It doesn't offend so much. It's just amazing to me how people can be so amiss in their 'read' on us. I'm as Right-wing as you can get and I'd much rather have a black Right-winger than a white Leftie. Are there people in the South who are racist? yes. Just like there in the U.K. or anywhere else. But is this the pervasive thing that is normally attributed to Southern Republican - no. They exits in the 'redneck gun-toting Republican heartland of the South' but despite the lies and demagoguery of liberals, it is no longer 1964. 'Progressive' my ass. They can't seem to progress beyond 1964.


Well, I didn't base ALL my opinions on Mississippi Burning y'know! :wink: Apart from the vast array of excellent movies and TV shows we glean from the US we are also treated to excellent US news coverage (Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC - take your pick) which often include quite insightful documentaries. I base my opinions on those up-to-date items rather than the history books (1964 being a full 8 years before I was born! :lol: ). You should come and live in the UK JT, the TV shows are virtually identical and the place is awash with Liberals - you'd love it!

I have my own complaints about Southern culture, but the idea that Powell or Rice haven't entered the race because Southern Republicans "ain't gonna vote for no nigger" is so far off base it cries out for ridicule. But go ahead and believe it if you want. But I just find it amazing that people profess to know my mind better than I do.
What is more interesting to me than the so-called stereotypical conservative southern white racist is the different manifestations of racism amongst liberals. Now that is interesting.


Now now, you may not have been offended by what I said earlier but you sure as heck have taken it personally. I never said "Powell and Condi won't run because people like YOU are too racist". I believe you're a highly educated chap well above such backward thinking. I just believe the majority of the Southern Republican demographic have those beliefs, based on what I've seen.

Lastly, consider this: There will be more people - many, many more people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black than won't vote for him because he is black. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just out of touch with reality. Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance.


I agree with you there - there's definitely a possibility of 'affirmative action' with Obama and that's not something I'd like to see. But to be frank people have voted Presidents in for far worse reasons than because they were black - Bush in 2004 comes to mind, his campaign was based almost entirely on playing on voters' worst fears.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:12 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Well, I didn't base ALL my opinions on Mississippi Burning y'know! :wink: Apart from the vast array of excellent movies and TV shows we glean from the US we are also treated to excellent US news coverage (Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC - take your pick) which often include quite insightful documentaries. I base my opinions on those up-to-date items rather than the history books (1964 being a full 8 years before I was born! :lol: )..........I just believe the majority of the Southern Republican demographic have those beliefs, based on what I've seen.


Blue, I think the answer is right there. The absolute biggest issue that gets to me in this day and age is the tremendous liberal bias in the media and it's destructive influence on forming world views and opinions. All of the alphabet soup save an F, an O, and an X have always tilted liberal. And your BBC as well. Now it's obvious. Of course! Thats all you get the chance to see! Of course the U.S is in 1964 (in terms of social issues) to you all over there! Just ask the BBC! or CNN. Heres a news flash from a source other than those of the lib-letter soup, one truly from 2008 rather than the 1955 prism that they view the world through: The majority of the Southern Republican demographic would not have a problem voting for a truly conservative minority candidate - just as they didn't when they elected a Republican of Indian (Asian) ancestry governor in Louisi-daggon-ana.


Mr Blue Sky wrote:You should come and live in the UK JT, the TV shows are virtually identical and the place is awash with Liberals - you'd love it!


I'd love the soccer, hate the liberal world view, have mixed feelings toward the weather, hate the food, love it that I wouldn't have to pay for basic health care (at least not directly), but move back to the good ole US of A when they tell me I couldn't be screened for prostate cancer because it "is not cost effective".


Mr Blue Sky wrote:Now now, you may not have been offended by what I said earlier but you sure as heck have taken it personally. I never said "Powell and Condi won't run because people like YOU are too racist". I believe you're a highly educated chap well above such backward thinking.


I know you're not saying that I personally am a racist, but its just that I consider myself to be as prototypically right-wing as just about any Republican. As a matter of fact, I think the Republican center-mass is too liberal. I do think some (too many) of the Religious Right (notice our mainstream media never talks about an 'irreligious Left') are not truly progressive enough (not the phony self-professed progressiveness of the Left). Witness the attitudes toward Mitt Romney - a Mormon. And Hick-abee's pandering to evangelical idiots. I have my issues with elements of Southern/midwestern culture, including their near-bigotry against certain religions. But its nothing like the dysfunction of modern liberalism, with its anti-American base, it's theo-phobic and uber-secular views, and its inability or unwillingness to see or admit reality due to it's ideological agenda. Not to mention the institutional forces - such as the lame stream media - who perpetuate it.
Now, on the education thing, I truly believe that the avant-garde of social intellectuals have been tilting rightward for some time. They are able to resist the prevailing inertia of ideas in academia and the rest of our culture. A liberal Jewish New York intellectual is just a cliche in 2008. Maybe not 1964, but it is in 2008. Maybe Ayn Rand was truly ahead of her time after all!
Do you all really still use 'chap'?

Lastly, consider this: There will be more people - many, many more people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black than won't vote for him because he is black. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just out of touch with reality. Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance.


Mr Blue Sky wrote:I agree with you there - there's definitely a possibility of 'affirmative action' with Obama and that's not something I'd like to see. But to be frank people have voted Presidents in for far worse reasons than because they were black - Bush in 2004 comes to mind, his campaign was based almost entirely on playing on voters' worst fears.


Bush was doing something more real and necessary than 'playing of voter's worst fears'. He was trying to counter the effects of complacency and the deleterious effects of anti-American liberalism. 9/11 was not our fault - and it could happen again.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:37 pm

I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November! :lol:
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:25 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November! :lol:


Yea, it looks that way. But we'll have him by the nuts squeezing every bit of what ever right-wingedness he may have out of him. He'll know which side of his bread is buttered. btw, McCain currently leads Clinton in head-to-head national polls.
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 Feb 06, 2008 8:00 pm

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November! :lol:


Yea, it looks that way. But we'll have him by the nuts squeezing every bit of what ever right-wingedness he may have out of him. He'll know which side of his bread is buttered. btw, McCain currently leads Clinton in head-to-head national polls.


I'm not overly concerned - either way we're getting a Liberal! I imagine Senator McCain is what you would refer to as a RINO, given his stance on immigration and the environment...
"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 Feb 08, 2008 6:54 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November! :lol:


Yea, it looks that way. But we'll have him by the nuts squeezing every bit of what ever right-wingedness he may have out of him. He'll know which side of his bread is buttered. btw, McCain currently leads Clinton in head-to-head national polls.


I'm not overly concerned - either way we're getting a Liberal! I imagine Senator McCain is what you would refer to as a RINO, given his stance on immigration and the environment...


Yea, certain issues point to too much of a liberal instinct (illegal immigration, interrogation, etc.), however, he supposedly has an '83% conservative voting record' over his career by one accounting. Besides, like I said, he knows which side of his bread is buttered. He'll have to be responsive to a more right-wing base to unite the party, get elected, and win re-election.There is no way he can win a close election in a 50/50 patriot/nut national split without us right-wingers coming out to vote. So you won't be getting the liberal you think you will. And if he thinks he is going continue to schmooz those fat-ass liberal nutjobs like Teddy Kennedy in the name of 'reaching across the aisle' or proving his ID as a 'maverick' he's got another thing a comin'. He doesn't have to prove that anymore. He knows his critics - his watchdog - is on his Right. And we'll be a watchin. I think on those especially contentious issues like illegal immigration he will have to capitulate. We've hammered the hell out of him and will intensify if he doesn't play ball. And the son-of-a-bitch better take on a right-wing running mate. And if its Hick-abee I aint votin. Stupid, Southern Baptist, anti-Mormon bigot. There's your stereotypical regressive Southern Republican, Blue Sky. Except with surprisingly liberal instincts and all polished up with a politicians veneer.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:47 am

JT wrote:Yea, certain issues point to too much of a liberal instinct (illegal immigration, interrogation, etc.), however, he supposedly has an '83% conservative voting record' over his career by one accounting. Besides, like I said, he knows which side of his bread is buttered. He'll have to be responsive to a more right-wing base to unite the party, get elected, and win re-election.There is no way he can win a close election in a 50/50 patriot/nut national split without us right-wingers coming out to vote. So you won't be getting the liberal you think you will. And if he thinks he is going continue to schmooz those fat-ass liberal nutjobs like Teddy Kennedy in the name of 'reaching across the aisle' or proving his ID as a 'maverick' he's got another thing a comin'. He doesn't have to prove that anymore. He knows his critics - his watchdog - is on his Right. And we'll be a watchin. I think on those especially contentious issues like illegal immigration he will have to capitulate. We've hammered the hell out of him and will intensify if he doesn't play ball. And the son-of-a-bitch better take on a right-wing running mate. And if its Hick-abee I aint votin. Stupid, Southern Baptist, anti-Mormon bigot. There's your stereotypical regressive Southern Republican, Blue Sky. Except with surprisingly liberal instincts and all polished up with a politicians veneer.


Well, you're obviously aware of this but you've re-enforced my views from an earlier post right there - you are NOT representative of those regressive southern Republicans JT; you're far too open and fair-minded (dare I say Liberal? :wink: ) My point was that the bible belt would reject candidates like Condi and Powell simply on grounds of race; they're far more comfortable with Hick-abee (love that pun! :lol: ). I mean, look how he did in those southern primaries, it's incredible really. Someone like him would be a disaster as President, and my fear (like yours, I suspect) is that he'll end up being the running mate for the eminently more sensible Senator McCain.

I still don't believe a Republican will win the race for the White House this year, but it has now become win-win as far as I'm concerned - If I could have my pick of Republicans to be President McCain would be right at the top of the list! He's possibly the most Liberal Republican presidential candidate in the Party's history.

I think whatever happens, the way the Primaries have gone proves that Americans are fed up of Bush's hard right policies and are ready to embrace another way. Roll on November!
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:20 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Well, you're obviously aware of this but you've re-enforced my views from an earlier post right there - you are NOT representative of those regressive southern Republicans JT; you're far too open and fair-minded (dare I say Liberal? :wink: )


I don't think I've re-enforced your views, as I interpret your views. You seem to think that the right-wing South (and the rest of Right-wingdom) is so racist that they won't vote even vote for a Right-wing minority. I know this not to be the case - just as Bobby Jindal of Louisiana knows it. There are vestiges of regressive culture in the South in 2008, not the predominance of regressive culture that existed in 1955. I am not representative of 'those regressive southern Republicans'. But those regressive southern Republicans are not representative of Right-wing ideology either.
I once got into a debate with a liberal convenience store clerk here in Southern California. He was insistent on asserting that the word 'liberal' was synonymous with 'open-mindedness'. So my rejection of modern liberalism in his mind was a rejection of 'open-mindedness'. He would not listen to my arguments of modern liberal corruption of any such ideal - with examples like the intolerance of political correctness, intolerance of university campuses toward right-wing speakers and the barring of military ROTC on campus, unfairness of affirmative action, etc. Look the word up in the dictionary, he said.


Mr Blue Sky wrote:My point was that the bible belt would reject candidates like Condi and Powell simply on grounds of race; they're far more comfortable with Hick-abee (love that pun! :lol: ). I mean, look how he did in those southern primaries, it's incredible really. Someone like him would be a disaster as President, and my fear (like yours, I suspect) is that he'll end up being the running mate for the eminently more sensible Senator McCain.


But they wouldn't reject a black, religious, right-wing candidate. It's just that Hickabee is closer to their ideal and not threatened by the dysfunctional, aggressive, and presumptuous agenda of effete liberals. Its not the color of his skin so much. I think there is the inaccuracy in your view.

Mr Blue Sky wrote:I think whatever happens, the way the Primaries have gone proves that Americans are fed up of Bush's hard right policies and are ready to embrace another way. Roll on November!


No, liberals are always fed up with sensible right-wing things, like aggressive interrogations, protecting ones self from militants of inferior cultures, sensible measures to gather intelligence against said militants from inferior cultures, seeing the world in realistic terms, and truly believing in the individual and individual responsibility. But much of what Americans are fed up with is Bush's departure from these conservative ideals - such as with his absolutely clueless and liberal stance on illegal immigration. Actually, Bush and McCain are similar on many of these issues. Except aggressive interrogations, where McCain is more liberal. Just imagine - a nuclear bomb is about to go off and Joe Liberal won't let us pour some water up Ahmed's nose to try to prevent it. The ultimate expression of liberal destructiveness and insanity.

"A Liberal is someone who is so broadminded, they can't even take their own side in a fight...."
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 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:34 pm

Again, I'll reply in detail when I have more time on my hands JT, I just had to post about that McCain/Hick-abee 'nightmare ticket' of yours becoming more of a reality now Mitt Romney has pulled out. Huckabee will be under great pressure to do likewise and leave McCain as the last man standing before the Republican party tears itself apart, but I expect him to stay in for the 'long haul', as he's often been quoted as saying, to give himself more leverage to run on McCain's ticket.

Either way, this ain't good news for staunch Republicans such as yourself JT. Doen't ya just love US politics? :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 » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:38 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Again, I'll reply in detail when I have more time on my hands JT, I just had to post about that McCain/Hick-abee 'nightmare ticket' of yours becoming more of a reality now Mitt Romney has pulled out. Huckabee will be under great pressure to do likewise and leave McCain as the last man standing before the Republican party tears itself apart, but I expect him to stay in for the 'long haul', as he's often been quoted as saying, to give himself more leverage to run on McCain's ticket.

Either way, this ain't good news for staunch Republicans such as yourself JT. Doen't ya just love US politics? :wink:


I'll say this, though - at least the Republican landscape is a rich, ideological one. With the demoncats its all about symbolism and 'style' - hence the obama-RaMa carnival. If liberals, through the democratic party, have nothing more of substance in their bag than following a couple of vacuous symbols-of-modern-liberal-dysfunction lightweights - one with an extremely ambiguous mantra of 'change' and the other with a corrupt liberal institutional machine- then they deserve ridicule. Most of those I've heard voice support for 'bama-rama' and his 'change' have about a millimeter of depth supporting their reasons why. They don't seem to know their ass from RaMa's documented most liberal voting record in the senate. In my book that would make Rama 'extreme'. I thought it was just the kind of bitter partisanship and ideological poles that Obama-RaMa party-goers were trying to avoid. Again, confused arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of intellectually honest debate.
With the Right, its about the struggle between economic, foreign-policy, security, and social conservative ideals. With the left, its about which liberal lie of a symbol - the 'oppressed' black or the 'oppressed' woman - will we elect to be 'progressive' and move our country out of the 'regressive' Right-wing paradigm. After all, its the effete, cocktail-sipping, culturally elite thing to do. Join the limousine wagon.
I'll sit the election out if it's a McModerate/Hick-abee ticket. Hickabee is a right-wing lie - actually surprisingly liberal, but pandering to the worst of the Right's voting block - anti-Mormon idiots who have no more depth than a typical liberal (although by accident some of their positions are on-the-money). If McModerate's mate is someone really more Rightward, then i'll vote to keep our country's Commander-in-chief and Chief Executive out of the hands of a circus freak. But understand this: McCain will have his balls in the hands of the likes of me. And he will appoint those types of judges we demand. And besides our keeping him in check - his personal instincts,while shockingly lib-ass, are all-in-all more conservative than you think.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:50 pm

JT, I have been reading this thread with interest for some time and briefly bringing it back to the title subject.

I really do not understand how you can be so anti-liberal, and yet still live in a country which prides itself to be called the Land of the Free, and who's most well known landmark is the Statue of Liberty? Surely if you are so against Liberalism otherwise defined as the pursuit for individual liberty, then how can you be so hypocritical to stay in a country that has boasts about it's freedom & liberty?
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:44 am

Rodge wrote:JT, I have been reading this thread with interest for some time and briefly bringing it back to the title subject.

I really do not understand how you can be so anti-liberal, and yet still live in a country which prides itself to be called the Land of the Free, and who's most well known landmark is the Statue of Liberty? Surely if you are so against Liberalism otherwise defined as the pursuit for individual liberty, then how can you be so hypocritical to stay in a country that has boasts about it's freedom & liberty?


Hey Rodge.

To answer that question, its probably best to refer you to my anecdote on my conversation with a liberal in a convenience store. Its back a few posts. Classical liberalism is indeed all about the statue of liberty and other American symbols and institutions. But not dysfunctional modern liberalism. Two different animals.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:27 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:JT, I have been reading this thread with interest for some time and briefly bringing it back to the title subject.

I really do not understand how you can be so anti-liberal, and yet still live in a country which prides itself to be called the Land of the Free, and who's most well known landmark is the Statue of Liberty? Surely if you are so against Liberalism otherwise defined as the pursuit for individual liberty, then how can you be so hypocritical to stay in a country that has boasts about it's freedom & liberty?


Hey Rodge.

To answer that question, its probably best to refer you to my anecdote on my conversation with a liberal in a convenience store. Its back a few posts. Classical liberalism is indeed all about the statue of liberty and other American symbols and institutions. But not dysfunctional modern liberalism. Two different animals.


That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote! :lol:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:15 am

Rodge wrote:
That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote! :lol:


If you or anyone is truly a classical liberal Your alignment in my view would actually be closer to today's Right. But most people in my experience who criticize my opposition to modern liberalism and invoke an argument of founding concepts of liberty, etc., turn out on the slightest scratch of their surface to suffer from the dysfunction of modern lib. I do not know whether you fall into this category. However, what do you mean by 'extreme right'? And 'fascist madman'? Specifics, please? I would automatically be wary of any assessment of political orientation made within the context of Oxford University. And in our opinion any association made between Hitler and the modern Right is a worn cliche at best and only serves to strengthen our arguments. Hitler, or 'fascist', 'racist', '____phobe, etc. are demagogic trigger words long used, abused and confused by the Left.
Now, is the Left-wing long-time domination of the media an example of fascistic abuse of power? How about academia? Is the refusal by some American universities to allow the military ROTC programs on their campuses an example of fascistic abuse of power? How about the unfairness of affirmative action? Is that a fascistic abuse of power?
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 Feb 21, 2008 12:30 pm

I haven't bothered commenting on any of this for a while, as i wanted to see if just a fraction of ground could be conceded away from the diatribe of Conservatives being right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors.

I'd consider myself more to the 'right' of some around here even though i'd class myself pretty much as liberal if i was going to pigeon-hole it. I've agreed with you on a number of things, JT, even though at some fundamental level we're miles apart.

I'm genuinely curious to see you talk about any Democrat=liberal policies you think aren't complete crap, as much as i want to see any 'left wingers' point to any right wing policies that make sense. In a system where we're arguably living by a mix of the two best approaches from a bad bunch, then i find it inconceivable that you would really believe all liberal policy is useless and all conservative policy is superior in every way - i'd have to lose all respect for your objective integrity towards avoiding political party rigmarole and getting to the important issues. And that's not being wishy-washy, it being realistic enough to know that the world simply can't be black and white and neatly packaged.

Again, i'll come back to the point that whether they're in a Right or Left wing party, they'll close ranks to defend each other at the expense of the general population should the status quo be challenged. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I've picked out a few of your comments over your posts, as there's a bit of a mantra developing. That's all fair enough, but it's

"Crazy Left, indeed. Liberalism: symbolism over substance."

"What about the problems of lack of governmental experience and being liberal?"

"The demoncats best hope would be the incompetent (due to inexperience (not to mention liberalism))Barrack Obama."

"I'm afraid in this day and age of threats to America - including liberalism itself"

"Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance."

"I have my issues with elements of Southern/midwestern culture, including their near-bigotry against certain religions. But its nothing like the dysfunction of modern liberalism, with its anti-American base..."

"I'll say this, though - at least the Republican landscape is a rich, ideological one. With the demoncrats its all about symbolism and 'style' - hence the obama-RaMa carnival."

"No, liberals are always fed up with [b]sensible right-wing things,..."

All these can quite easily be reversed, hence you get upset when anything you see as ill-informed right-bashing is on the cards but are happy to keep putting in the digs against the left. I'm sure you must really like the back and forth, rather than being annoyed by what you see as repetition of so-called old fashioned myths about the right, seeing as you continue to do exactly the same in reverse to keep the flames fanned.

I'd say all political parties are more style over substance now - they all hire PR companies and marketing for heaven's sake. That direction has been well trodden now, which has led to people needing a hell of a budget to even campaign at a basic level and have their voice heard anywhere that people will see them. With luck, people will wake up and we can go down the very right wing path of anarchy, in it's true sense.

Just imagine - a nuclear bomb is about to go off and Joe Liberal won't let us pour some water up Ahmed's nose to try to prevent it. The ultimate expression of liberal destructiveness and insanity.

This sort of emotive comment is just as unproductive as me saying that a liberal approach probably wouldn't have caused any anger and resentment towards your nation, from certain factions, in the first place - the Nuke wouldn't be a problem without interfering Conservative agendas towards the rest of the self-proclaimed 'uncivilised' world? Why give a shit about what the rest of the world is up to, if they're so inferior that they offer nothing to better your nation. If you leave others' alone they pretty much ignore you too. That horse has bolted, but a policy of interference was never going to lead to fun and happiness. Nobody in the world gives a fuck, in a negative way, about Sweden or South Korea or a number of nations with stable economies and high standards of living.

As an aside, you'll probably also write this off as sounding like one of those scaredy-cat liberals, but why call your example Ahmed? Why not Timothy, for example, if we're looking at the types of people who've caused major internal destruction within your nation? After all Conservatives just point out the facts, rather than content themselves with style and emotiveness over substance, right?

(And i know you're not racist before anyone accuses me of painting that picture, it's more about highlighting the type of comment thrown 'liberally' around, for want of a better word, in the so-called 'War On Terror'.)

A Liberal is someone who is so broadminded, they can't even take their own side in a fight....


:) Not bad. How about: "A Conservative is so narrow-minded that they'd rather die in a fight that killed the other person than avoid the fight in the first place" I don't believe it, in general, but hey, if we're spouting these things...


If this has seemed to much like an attack on everything you've mentioned so far, allow me to end on an aggreeing note:
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.

This is the problem i have with Hillary - she reminds me, in many ways, of Cherie Booth/Blair.

I agreed with your points about Smiling Bill Clinton, too. He may have been a Democrat/liberal on the voting form, but a number of policies he signed off on would have been hammered if done by either Bush administration. I wonder how much he made out of lobbyists?

Having looked at the three candidates, would it surprise you that i'd probably say McCain looked the most stable of them all. I don't really think he'd look out of place at the head of either party though, much like Bill Clinton, imho. Opposames.

Agendas can be raised on the surface for the reason any of them would be chosen. Female vote, Black vote, Status Quo vote, and they'll all receive their share on that basis, along with argument and scrutiny. It's too much to expect each candidate will ever get votes purely on merit. I mentioned it somewhere else, but i wouldn't really care who was voted in, if they didn't symbolise so much power on the global front. I wish the US could withdraw from their perceived position of World Police. I actually think it may happen in the not to distant future, during global economic shifts. I think we're definitely on the path to further wars, though. But that's by the by.

And, finally, to lighten the load and end on a bit of fun:
I'd love the soccer, hate the liberal world view, have mixed feelings toward the weather, hate the food, love it that I wouldn't have to pay for basic health care (at least not directly), but move back to the good ole US of A when they tell me I couldn't be screened for prostate cancer because it "is not cost effective".

I still don't understand the bashing of the quality of UK food from a nation that gave us McDs, Fatty Arbuckles, TGI Friday, etc, etc. :lol:

And, you can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you ;)

I've left plenty of room for counter-attack in there, so look forward to the 'elephant' charge ;)
''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 Feb 21, 2008 12:55 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote! :lol:


If you or anyone is truly a classical liberal Your alignment in my view would actually be closer to today's Right. But most people in my experience who criticize my opposition to modern liberalism and invoke an argument of founding concepts of liberty, etc., turn out on the slightest scratch of their surface to suffer from the dysfunction of modern lib. I do not know whether you fall into this category. However, what do you mean by 'extreme right'? And 'fascist madman'? Specifics, please? I would automatically be wary of any assessment of political orientation made within the context of Oxford University. And in our opinion any association made between Hitler and the modern Right is a worn cliche at best and only serves to strengthen our arguments. Hitler, or 'fascist', 'racist', '____phobe, etc. are demagogic trigger words long used, abused and confused by the Left.
Now, is the Left-wing long-time domination of the media an example of fascistic abuse of power? How about academia? Is the refusal by some American universities to allow the military ROTC programs on their campuses an example of fascistic abuse of power? How about the unfairness of affirmative action? Is that a fascistic abuse of power?


Just as you label 'modern liberals' in a certain way, the BNP and 'right-wing groups' are in the public brain, even if you don't think that fits with your view of 'your' modern Right, and is cliched old school nonsense (much as you mischievously throw in pretty cliche liberal depictions, really ;) ). It's an association that can't easily be removed, i'm afraid :? In the same way modern liberalism has perceptions in your view, that others disagree with, people have certain things ingrained into them. It may well be a confusing, unfair, association nowadays, but it'll never go away. Also, you can't deny that you've thrown in many an 'anti-left' trigger word in your posts... 'liberal=anti-American' anyone?.

As extremes on either side are again opposames, i'll change Extreme Right and Hitler, mentioned above, to Extreme Left and Stalin. Is that better? Makes no difference does it. Both are dictatorships and represent abuse of power. Both are out of date, but still perceived as elements of the right and left by many people, so it makes no difference whether the right or left is mentioned in these circumstances. Just happened it was a BNP speaker at Oxford Uni, not one for the Socialist Workers' Party. Both are rambling nutters, imho, yet there will be the odd useful snippet to garner from within their useless output, so should never be denied a voice.
''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 Feb 21, 2008 6:48 pm

Great replies M-C, it won't surprise you to hear I agree with almost every word you said. I wish I had more time to devote to this debate, I'll probably have to leave work to do that!

Without wanting to derail the thread, I do have to pick you up on this:

And, you can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you


Cancer treatments in particular have a much higher survival rate in the US than the UK. Chronic under-investment in the NHS over the years (first by the Tories, then by the admin-crazy Labour Party wasting the extra funding they raised through higher NI charges) has left some of our cancer survival rates on a par with the third world. It's shameful really.
"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 » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:29 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Great replies M-C, it won't surprise you to hear I agree with almost every word you said. I wish I had more time to devote to this debate, I'll probably have to leave work to do that!

Thanks, but not really great. If there's enough for JT to laugh off and pick open, along with firing a broadside of some positive 'right-wing' opinions that i know JT can articulate, then i'm happy. It's never really going to get as aggressive as all of those other boards he mentioned (or as much as JT possibly wants it to get :D )

Mr Blue Sky wrote:Without wanting to derail the thread, I do have to pick you up on this:

And, you can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you


Cancer treatments in particular have a much higher survival rate in the US than the UK. Chronic under-investment in the NHS over the years (first by the Tories, then by the admin-crazy Labour Party wasting the extra funding they raised through higher NI charges) has left some of our cancer survival rates on a par with the third world. It's shameful really.


Oh, feel free to pick. I wasn't going to argue that. The US survival rates are certainly higher, although it would be interesting to see the trickle down into various demographics. I'm pretty sure there are decent figures in the UK's private healthcare market, though. Too many UK citizens still rely very heavily on the NHS to be this all encompassing saviour against all illness, when it's never going to be. The advantage of the US system may actually be that it forces the middle classes to invest in their own healthcare. But, some of the charges for the most basic of services can be scandalous.

I'm fairly pro-NHS, but the streamlining needed is there for all to see... and don't get me started on some of the abuses of the system and some of the work carried out under it's umbrella.
''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 » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:33 am

Thanks for coming in and posting a bunch, MC. Of course it will take me a while to respond - and respond in detail I want to do. For now I will just take a few snippets.

Moon-Crane wrote:I haven't bothered commenting on any of this for a while, as i wanted to see if just a fraction of ground could be conceded away from the diatribe of Conservatives being right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors.


I'll clarify a little. I'm not going to give a fraction of ground in my convictions about enormous dysfunction (sorry if thats getting a bit old, but it is most descriptive) of liberalism. That is not to say that Conservative is all right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors but my goodness, so many of that side's influential member's behavior is outrageous. Blaming us for 9/11 and such. As I have said, its not so much that i'm conservative, or that i'm against some of the ideals of liberalism. Its more that the liberal movement of the last half of the 20th century is a runaway train and a perversion of classical liberal ideals. On scales of political/social orientation, I actually fall very near the center (one scale - that on Alan Colmb's web site - I was smack center in terms of government involvement in citizen's lives and one click rightward on degree of economic laissez-faire) Furthermore, a liberal office holder can be a better manager than a conservative one (and vice-versa). Same goes for corruption (although ideologically I think liberalism itself suffers more from corruption). It's the destructive and ridiculousness of so much that is fundamental to modern liberalism that I am so strident about. At the risk of seeming overly acrimonious, superficial and narrow-minded, i'll continue in this vain because it is so important in my mind. But i do agree that a thoughtful approach is usually more persuasive. But it is thoughtful consideration that leads me to my 'diatribes'. To not be aggressive in my opinions would be giving in to 'open-mindedness' to a destructive and ridiculous degree. Give an inch? I won't give anything to seeing common ground with things like "America is evil", or "the world would be a better place without America" and things that like that. But, to give an inch for the sake of said open-mindedness: There is a place for government programs to help the disadvantaged (but.......); there is a place for thoughtful consideration about our application of power throughout the world (but.....); there is a point to be made about past discrimination against groups claiming grievances today (but......); there is a point in the fact no one can help the circumstances they were born into and the government does have a role in helping them become competitive (the kind of 'conservative' i am is one who idealizes the preeminence of fair competition - I don't idealize those born on 3rd base) (but......); There is a point to the idea that since America has so much power it needs to be especially thoughtful in the application of it - and the fact that the anger to certain actions/policies may therefor be disproportional vis a vis the outrageous behavior of other states (Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, the nutjob in Venezuela, etc) (but....)

I'm tired now. I'll go through the rest later.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:48 pm

JT wrote:Thanks for coming in and posting a bunch, MC. Of course it will take me a while to respond - and respond in detail I want to do. For now I will just take a few snippets.

Moon-Crane wrote:I haven't bothered commenting on any of this for a while, as i wanted to see if just a fraction of ground could be conceded away from the diatribe of Conservatives being right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors.


I'll clarify a little. I'm not going to give a fraction of ground in my convictions about enormous dysfunction (sorry if thats getting a bit old, but it is most descriptive) of liberalism. That is not to say that Conservative is all right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors but my goodness, so many of that side's influential member's behavior is outrageous. Blaming us for 9/11 and such. As I have said, its not so much that i'm conservative, or that i'm against some of the ideals of liberalism. Its more that the liberal movement of the last half of the 20th century is a runaway train and a perversion of classical liberal ideals. On scales of political/social orientation, I actually fall very near the center (one scale - that on Alan Colmb's web site - I was smack center in terms of government involvement in citizen's lives and one click rightward on degree of economic laissez-faire) Furthermore, a liberal office holder can be a better manager than a conservative one (and vice-versa). Same goes for corruption (although ideologically I think liberalism itself suffers more from corruption). It's the destructive and ridiculousness of so much that is fundamental to modern liberalism that I am so strident about. At the risk of seeming overly acrimonious, superficial and narrow-minded, i'll continue in this vain because it is so important in my mind. But i do agree that a thoughtful approach is usually more persuasive. But it is thoughtful consideration that leads me to my 'diatribes'. To not be aggressive in my opinions would be giving in to 'open-mindedness' to a destructive and ridiculous degree. Give an inch? I won't give anything to seeing common ground with things like "America is evil", or "the world would be a better place without America" and things that like that. But, to give an inch for the sake of said open-mindedness: There is a place for government programs to help the disadvantaged (but.......); there is a place for thoughtful consideration about our application of power throughout the world (but.....); there is a point to be made about past discrimination against groups claiming grievances today (but......); there is a point in the fact no one can help the circumstances they were born into and the government does have a role in helping them become competitive (the kind of 'conservative' i am is one who idealizes the preeminence of fair competition - I don't idealize those born on 3rd base) (but......); There is a point to the idea that since America has so much power it needs to be especially thoughtful in the application of it - and the fact that the anger to certain actions/policies may therefor be disproportional vis a vis the outrageous behavior of other states (Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, the nutjob in Venezuela, etc) (but....)

I'm tired now. I'll go through the rest later.


I have respect for you for holding ground on stuff. And i actually know from reading your posts over a fair amount of time that, contrary to some opinion, you're not really some extremist right winger :D I reckon you'll see enough holes i've left open to retort further without looking like an uber right conservative (not that it would bother you).

Even as a non-American I hate the throwaway 'America is crap because...' and other 'anti-American' comments a great deal - i might be hard pressed to say i dislike it as much as you, but i don't think i'm far off - simply because i don't like such laziness. But, I wouldn't necessarily label that as a liberal thing to do. It's quite a dirty tactic, by some people with a certain agenda, to associate the terms 'liberal' and 'anti-american' as synonymous. I'm sure there are just as many unfair associations drawn in reverse if i stop to think about it more (well, i could probably throw in the Conservative = Racist nonsense for starters), but that particular one is quite a contentious card to play to take advantage of the current climate.

I like your '(but...)' statements. Hopefully they'll open up some things for others to chime in with.

As a complete aside from the mischief. I keep hearing comments made about abortion being made illegal in the US before the year is out? Am i way off base with that info, and is it more complicated than that sounds, in terms of due process? I think some states have tried to pass laws that have subsequently been overturned, but many states have trigger laws in place for anything being passed? I haven't been able to find a great deal, so that maybe answers my own question, but is Roe vs Wade itself on the verge of being overturned? Maybe it's just being debated yet again because it's the 35th anniversary of the case?
''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 Rodge » Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:03 am

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote! :lol:


If you or anyone is truly a classical liberal Your alignment in my view would actually be closer to today's Right. But most people in my experience who criticize my opposition to modern liberalism and invoke an argument of founding concepts of liberty, etc., turn out on the slightest scratch of their surface to suffer from the dysfunction of modern lib. I do not know whether you fall into this category. However, what do you mean by 'extreme right'? And 'fascist madman'? Specifics, please? I would automatically be wary of any assessment of political orientation made within the context of Oxford University. And in our opinion any association made between Hitler and the modern Right is a worn cliche at best and only serves to strengthen our arguments. Hitler, or 'fascist', 'racist', '____phobe, etc. are demagogic trigger words long used, abused and confused by the Left.


As you state in you latest post, you will not budge from your convictions; I am not asking for that. But at the same time please stop forcing your definitions of political 'leanings' onto us. The more I read your posts the more I am beginning to realise that they lack any substance as to what exactly you believe in. You spend more time bashing "modern" liberalism than actually telling us what you want in this world. Do you ever concede that liberalism hasn't changed at all maybe you have. They say the older we get the more right wing we become. :wink:
I am not confused by the definitions of racism; a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. It rings a few bells in many things said in this thread. It doesn't have to involve direct abuse to other races. Or is the definition above just a "modern" liberal form of propaganda?
So please feel free to tell us what you want from this world, but stop telling us what we believe and how wrong & perverse of us it is for us to believe it.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:02 am

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


But what if 'what I want from this world' is for people like you to stop shoving liberalism down my throat? Look, as long as I am not into personal attacks - and I don't think I am - then I think I should continue to offer up what may be uncomfortable opinions. If you're offended - then feel free to join another thread. If being told you're 'wrong' is upsetting to you then the other threads in this forum should feel warm and cozy. I don't give two shits about the UN, Brussels, the rest of Western Europe's opinion, 'green' this or that, Chavez of Venezuela, Muslim 'sensitivity', so-called 'victimized' groups, people who are for some reason angry towards America or Caucasian men or meat-eaters or SUV drivers or church-goers or this or that or that or this. I'm sure there are things you don't give two shits for. You can gripe about them on here all you want. I may respond, but hey, ain't that what its all about? I'm not trying to stir up animosity. I am trying to stir up debate, and thoughtful consideration in an environment that has very few of the mind-set that myself and nearly half of at least the United States claim. I have nothing against you personally. But if I can take (but not without comment!) people insinuating I am a racist, fascist, war-monger, imperialist, greedy capitalist, homophobe, misogynist pig then fending off insinuations of being an effete pinko commie bastard should be a piece of cake. :wink:
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

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

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


Sorry I don't have time for more than a fleeting comment in this thread once again but I think that portion of your post is quite revealing. I'm sure there are many Americans who hold the same view as you if they're totally honest, and that's part of the problem. Not giving two shits about the world outside your front door would be fine if the US didn't have an interventionist policy, but what you seem to have now is a country that involves itself in the business of others without caring too much about the consequences on an economic, cultural and human level. It has to be all in or nothing IMO. And understanding the reasons why the US is so despised by other nations is vital for the planet's long term stability. No one wants to see another 9/11.

Job #1 would be to elect a Democrat to the White House. :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

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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.