|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted May 26, 2007 10:09 PM |
|
|
Well, my brother likes Bush, nuff said. He's pissed at the Republican party because they've gotten too liberal. WHAT??? GOTTEN TOO LIBERAL???? They've been taken over by a bunch of fndamentalist nut cases and they've gotten too liberal????
*has aneurysm*
I'm not going to throw in the towel though. I live in a highly republican area, and my brother is the only one I know who actually likes Bush and all the other nuts in the party....so I have hope.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 05, 2007 06:14 AM |
|
|
Democrats' Debate
I've watched the debate twice now. I can't see anything really jumping out at me yet. Thus far I am still convinced that Edwards is simply not the right person, regardless of Obama's ethnicity he is still too much of an elitist ivy-leaguer and knows exactly the right calculated thing to say, while Hillary is really strong, Bill Richardson is too much the diplomat, and Kuccinich is still a non-continental sort of out of touch senator. There was one other who really caught my attention, Joe Biden. I felt really good listening to him and his opinions.
Problems:
1. Hillary didn't show much in the way of military focus.
2. Richardson offered to boycot the Beijing Olympics (obvious sign of a diplomat)
3. Obama not representative of broad America. Too wealthy and too idealogical
4. Edwards tries to act too much like he's mainstream. He is too wealthy and out of touch with his perfect hair and trial lawyer instincts.
5. Biden doesn't seem to be much of a uniter. He is very strong but doesn't seem like he can really raise much money.
6. Kuccinich is a lightweight in all aspects. LoL He is a great person but not much of a leader.
Strengths:
1. Hillary is a symbol of change and progress.
2. Richardson has done a phenomenal job as governor and diplomat abroad. Extremely charismatic.
3. Obama is able to do what many have not been able to since the conception of our country: unite the wealthy elitists, idealogs, and really bring in support and finances to anything he decides is important. The man can raise money among those who need it the least.
4. Edwards' approach from the beginning has always been to unite people across the spectrum, however unsuccessfully. He is not afraid to stand up to powerful senators, businessmen/women, and powerful religious sects.
5. Biden is the strongest on military of all the candidates. No other even comes close. The man would have considerable support among our top commanding brass in Washington which means a healthy nationale defense department. He also seems very much the moral compass for soldiers to follow.
6. Kuccinich is in fact the little guy who really and truly would never be bullied into any decision. He has a spark of fire in him that could never be put out. That guy could really show strength when the chips are down and the odds against him.
The democrats' debate was more or less uneventful but as I said Biden really showed me something I had not seen in him before. He seems very strong, stronger than I thought.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2007 12:30 PM |
|
|
I recently saw Biden on a late night talk show (maybe Leno). It was a very short interview sound bite without any detail, but I liked his ideas about an Iraq solution. He didn't follow the recent democratic trend to pull out at all costs, but his ideas were far better than the Bush ideas.
But then, what the hell do us amateurs know about this stuff? I don't claim to even begin to understand the complexities of the Middle East, let alone intelligently evaluate a solution offered by a politician. And that's why politicians say the things they do. Any politician should know just how complex the issues really are. But the voting public doesn't want to hear "excuses" about how complex things are, or the delicate balance of a multitude of facets to each issue. So the politicians make speeches filled with simplistic solutions to all the world's problems.
"When I become president everyone will receive $50K a year and nobody will have to work any more." Of course that's an over-exaggeration, but as over-exaggerated as it is, there will be some small portion of the population who will believe it without giving it a single thought as to whether it is realistic or not.
A good politician must find a proper balance between the truth about the complexity of issues, the truth that they really, at best, are only making educated guesses about solutions, vs the opposite which is so simplistic or idealistic that people see it for what it really is...political spin.
And I think we, as voters, are best to admit our own ignorance about the issues. We need to understand the interplay between our emotions and the (usually) opposing logic or common sense.
So as halfway intelligent people do we give up and say it's too complex to understand, and therefore won't vote? Or do we admit to our own limitations and do the best we can?
It's an interesting thing about elections and campaigns. How many of us get out a chalk board and place ticks marks for each candidate based on how they stand on the various issues? Maybe to some degree we do this, but more than likely we look at the whole package, not the individual components. We listen to their speeches and evaluate their ideas as best we can, but realistically that's just one part of the whole. That's where charisma and a pretty smile come into play. IMO, both of those really are important in any leadership role.
Of course I have opinions on the Middle East. But I also admit I don't understand all the complexities, even though I've recently done a lot of research about it. But hey, I still liked Biden's idea. If I were a dem, he'd get a point for that.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 05, 2007 05:48 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 17:49, 05 Jun 2007.
|
Well ....
I am a registered democrat and felt Biden really knew what he was talking about. I especially liked his ideas on gays in the military. When he says he's visited our soldiers right there with them in fox holes and such I really believed him. I think he's a honest guy and it doesn't seem like he's trying to make everyone happy. He has a lot of backbone. But as I said he doesn't seem like the sort to be able to bring together a lot of idealogical support from the financial elites of our country. One thing we simply can't escape is that no matter what plan or goals the future president might have, he/she is going to need a tremendous amount of money to get the job done. I really worry about his ability to raise money and get the backing of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the event he does become the leading democrat, he would need Hillary or Obama for that extra political power and support. Indeed I would think any leading candidate would need Hillary and Obama's exceptional talents at garnering political support and funding. Those two are our leading democrat muscle.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2007 09:18 AM |
|
|
I was just thinking the same thing about McCain. Just a few days ago I was taking a look at McCain and I realized how old he's getting. His face is drooping, and he looks tired. Basically, he's past his prime.
I backed him in the 2000 election. He was in his prime then and people even knew him, but I don't think he really began to shine in the public's view until later. And I think the reason he stood out is because he was such a contrast to the idiots who took over the Republican Party during the last half of the 90s and into the 2000s. He seemed to be the only person at a higher level in the party who spoke with common sense.
Not long ago he still had a youthful appearance, but that's changed rapidly. In six more years he'll be a very tired old man.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 07, 2007 05:50 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 17:50, 07 Jun 2007.
|
Yeah ....
I love McCain. He truly is great guy. I get a very good feeling of security and pride that he is a congressman of Arizona. If World War III or some kind of unpredictable Katrina-like catastrophe happened tomorrow I know he'd be one of our leading champions to handle the problem. I just love the guy. However the man is just too physically weak to handle the kinds of stresses we need in a president. Our president is going to be pervading an image to the rest of the world and I'd rather it wasn't the waning old man that may or may not be up to the task of leading the nation. I would otherwise vote for him in just about every other capacity. I think his immigration bill is a needed first step. I'm glad he's working on it. I'm proud to have him as a fellow American.
I also saw something else in the debates that I haven't mentioned yet. Unanimity among party members came out strong on both sides in my opinion. Well all except for Edwards' attempts to indirectly take jabs at Hillary by openly showing support and respect for Obama and many of his positions. I saw right through it and I believe that America will too. The old strategy goes: If you know you aren't going to win then do your best to take down your greatest rival with you. Who knows....maybe he cut a deal with Obama in private that no one knows about yet....maybe something for him as first pick for vice president if Obama wins??? Republicans were more united than ever. That has to be my greatest concern. That party is so darned united that it might impossible to defeat yet again. Remember the last election with Kerry vs. Bush: democrats came out in record numbers to vote for Kerry but so did republicans for Bush. No one thought the republicans would increase their showing that much. In the past they seemed to have a steady voting attendance and many thought it was all over when they saw how many democrats came out to vote.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 10, 2007 08:58 PM |
|
|
It's gratifying to see some thoughtful dialogue going on here. Between family and working on the campaign (I was out canvassing yesterday for Obama) I rarely get to weigh in anymore, but do try to keep up with the posts now and again. Since my name was mentioned I thought I'd drop a line.
1)Tom Tancredo: when I heard he was running I laughed out loud. I can't stand that guy and neither can most of my folks around here.
2) Ron Paul: Funny I have pretty much the same reaction to him as you do, Consis. I could definitely live with him if I had to. I'm still trying to figure out why he is wasting time running as a Republican. I don't think it's helping him and frankly think he'd do better on a bipartisan basis if he just bagged the whole Republican thingie and declared himself an "independent."
3) Republicans gotten "too liberal"? Binabik, while your point is not lost on me, I think what your brother is thinking might be along the lines that the Republican party used to stand for "out of your money and into your morals." But under Bush they've pretty much gotten into both. There are two main kinds of Republicans: Those that are both fiscally and socially conservative, and those that are fiscal conservatives and social liberals (moderate Republicans). The Republicans have become fiscal liberals in an odd sort of way under Bush with their out-of-control spending (though certainly NOT in any manner beneficial to those in most need). This has become most offensive to fiscal conservative moderate Republicans, which is one of the main reasons moderates are defecting from the party in large numbers. The only remaining attractive element to the party is now gone.
4) United Republicans: Yes, once again this is why we need to consider very carefully choosing a Democratic candidate that can defeat the strongest Republican one -- especially if it's a moderate Republican who could reunite the party -- by crossing over the isle. This is especially true when comparing Clinton with Obama and most of the others. The polls that ask: "Who would you absolutely never vote for under any circumstances?" Nearly half the poll subjects reliably answer "Hillary Clinton" up to 50% or over. And that doesn't include the other double-digits who say they "probably" wouldn't vote for her. By comparison, Obama's scores have dropped to the single digits on the first question, and low double digits on the second one. In fact he's one of the lowest scorers on these kinds of questions, or Republicans and Democrats alike. Hillary's problem is that while she has a huge swath of absolute adoring constitutents, the other half apparently can't stand her, and they aren't budging an inch. If anything the anti-Clinton numbers appear to be growing.
Meanwhile, go to the Obama 08 website and peruse around to all the "Republicans for Obama" groups that are popping up around the country. Read some of their comments. Something's happening here, folks. The isle is clearly being crossed with increasing numbers.
So when comparing the neck-in-neck favorable polling scores of Clinton and Obama, don't be fooled into thinking they have an equal chance in the general election. Witness that polling website I cited up above someplace (which regularly updates most of the major polls that are typically relied upon).
The moral is, if we want to rush once again like lemmings headlong toward another 'bout of near certain defeat by backing a candidate that can't garner the support of the moderate constituency in this country, then back Hillary Clinton. I can't emphasize enough how strategically important it is to consider such points at this most critical moment in history.
<EDIT>
Okay, here's one of the websites: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
I'll try and find the other one in a bit.
<EDIT> Well I'm just going to save these to the cite as I find them in case I can't find the one I'm looking for...
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html
http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/HC060222.htm
Hmmm. This just in... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070610/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_3
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 11, 2007 01:56 AM |
|
|
That Doesn't Mean Anything
It doesn't matter what Obama and Powell are talking about. That doesn't influence my decision at all. The only thing it tells me is that the Obama camp is focusing too much in a single ethnic direction. It's like Oprah supporting Obama, whoopty-flippin-do! Some people just can't get past that whole white/black issue.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted June 11, 2007 07:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Some people just can't get past that whole white/black issue.
/scratches head.
"Uh, like you?"
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2007 12:01 AM |
|
|
Consis, why do you dislike "elitist ivy-leaguers"? Most of them should be respected for having made it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 12, 2007 12:02 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 00:10, 12 Jun 2007.
|
Eh?
That's my best complaint. I certainly haven't heard any ideas from you on how to approach racism in this country.
Edit: Mvassilev
I don't respect anyone who seperates themselves from poverty. If after an Ivy-League educated elitist got his/her education, and then their obviously well-respected job, and then directed their every effort toward helping the poor & sick & beaten & abused & neglected persons of the city which bore him/her out into the world then my opinion of them would change overnight.
There are so many examples of people who did just as much and then went on to become some the world's most famous persons: Moses, Schindler, Mohandis K Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr, Pope John Paul II, and many others.
If you have ever watched Oprah Winfrey she always asks this question to all of her guests whom clearly are filthy rich: "Would you ever give it all up, your wealth?"
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2007 05:55 PM |
|
|
How do you suggest they help the poor? Charity? That wouldn't work. Many would just drink the money away.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 12, 2007 06:24 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 18:28, 12 Jun 2007.
|
Helping The Poor
Poverty will never be eradicated. And those who engage it will never feel pointless. Any help of any kind is a good thing. There is no single or united action that can ever expect to remove poverty from our existence. Anyone who gives is doing a good thing. Anyone who is helping others to give is doing a good thing. Anyone who spares but a small moment of their time in effort to devote even a few critical thoughts toward stemming the impoverished tide is doing a good thing.
How much a person gives is of no consequence, but that he or she gave at all was the true significance. Some people can live their whole lives having never given a single thought to the idea of fighting back the human condition that is poverty incarnate. Others may spend a lifetime of service in efforts to thwarting the thing's every edge and line of growth. We can't judge those who decide not to devote energy to it!
But we can ask ourselves if it isn't a good thing to spare some time to look at. It is not racially, nationally, or gender biased. It encompasses all ages, races, and is in every nation spanning the entire world. No one knows why it is or how it came to be. We only know that here it is and here it shall stay. Upon which this logic is justifiably argued: "If it can never be stopped then what does it matter if I waste my time in trying to fight it?"
If you are like me then some of you might believe that it has more to do with what's in your heart than anything else. If you are like me, and believe in God, then you might find a tugging question pulling at the heart inside yourself: "Why shouldn't I do something about it? What is stopping me? What is wrong with helping someone who needs it?"
I only hope that our country's most capable persons utilize the tools they acquire through their achievments. To answer your question Mvassilev I think the best way to help the poor is to reach everyone who is willing to share some of their time in an effort to the cause. Inspiring people to do it is the best way but no easy task. But "Time" is the answer. A person who devotes any amount of time is the most helpful. Charity is only one method of time expenditure.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 16, 2007 02:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter what Obama and Powell are talking about. That doesn't influence my decision at all. The only thing it tells me is that the Obama camp is focusing too much in a single ethnic direction. It's like Oprah supporting Obama, whoopty-flippin-do! Some people just can't get past that whole white/black issue.
Speaking of scratching heads.
Consis, you surprise me. Exactly who is it that is focusing in a "single ethnic direction" anyway? I'm frankly embarassed for you, my darlin, right now.
How is it that consulting with one of the most gifted secretaries-of-state that we've had in decades, about issues he was right about all along, constitutes "focusig in a single ethnic direction," unless you're implying that Obama consulted with Powell because they're both of black descent?
What the hell were you thinking when you posted this post?
I have always thought of you as a true-blooded American, one who believes in "the American Dream" and focuses on people and their stances on the issues, not on race. There was nothing about their meeting to imply that they were meeting because they have a common ancestry. As far as it looks, it was the totally incidental common ancestry of being gifted diplomats who are working together on the common agenda of how to get us all out of this mess we're in.
I suggest you rethink this whole line of thought once again, my friend. At first blush, however, it comes across as an arbitrary judgement based on skin color.
Please.
More to come tomorrow on your other points on poverty, and whether an "ivy league" should be seriously considered as having the best interests of the poor -- and of the country at large -- at heart. Try and do some research on the last president we had that WASN'T an Ivy-Leaguer. Unles you're suggesting that people who start out poor should remain so in the interests of the bretheren and sisteren. How American is that???? You're faulting people who succeed in this capitalist society you've so ardently defended, and which you accused me of taking advantage of as a non-working person when you and I first started communicating here.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND, MAN. Either people are expected to "make it" in this society because opportunity is staring them in the face to do so and you fault them for it, or people fail to make it and you fault them for not doing so. In my case, I was making it and you faulted me for not making it, at least at first.
I know you're better than that. But perhaps we all misunderstood what you were trying to say.....
P.S. I still love you and I miss you.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 16, 2007 06:09 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 06:13, 16 Jun 2007.
|
Peacemaker,
I don't recall faulting you for not working. What the hell are you talking about?
Listen to me for a moment Peacemaker. It is very possible that mr Obama has had other such meetings and maybe even with some other generals......but not a single peep of it has come through the newspapers. I like to think of myself as "plugged in". Why would they only report this big significant meeting with Powell? And what about the other candidates? I know some of the others have actually met in person with Powell too but it never made front page news. Why? Why is it such a big deal that Obama meets with him? Other candidates have more money and some are more popular. Why wasn't it front page news when some of them met with him?
And don't even think about trying to compare yesterday's ivy-league presidents to today's ivy-league candidates. Those times were different and the men who became president different also! Every time I hear someone rattle off Obama's greatest achievments thus far is that he somehow or other became leader of his little club while he was there. Oh how lovely to get a member's-only jacket for winning the prize for most popular among classmates. Now on to the White House and leading the nation in a global economy!
Your candidate is not ready. I'm still looking for some great achievment from Obama. He's too green, not yet ripe. If he had some experience as a mayor or governor then that would change everything.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 16, 2007 06:45 AM |
|
|
Here's the whole exchange in "Why the Hatred" Thread, 2003.
Quote:
Oops -- been missing this one for a while.
As the descendant of one of its victim peoples, I can tell you with great certainty why others express dislike of the U.S. It is its arrogance in both word and deed.
America has some unique traits. It is a country borne of violence, thrust forth across the continent on the misguided theory of Manifest Destiny; the belief that God has granted it the absolute right to run dominion wherever it sees fit. America has a life all its own when it comes to foisting itself into the space and business of whomever it wants to in order to achieve whatever is in its best interest. Its self-justified trajectory is nothing short of Machiavallian.
This is not always true in reality, of course. But the attitude is always there; we are right, of course we are right. We are America. How dare people resent us for that? America has the right to intrude elsewhere if it thinks elsewhere needs intruding. It has the absolute right to plant the juggernaut boot of its influence in any culture or society, despite the impact on that socio-economic system and the culture, because it stands for Freedom and Goodness.
Just because you happen to do something good some of the time while you bluster about exporting your global dominance, does not mean you aren't blustering about. Enough blustering makes others suspicious, even when your motives are pure. And you guys believe me, I have had a real direct taste of how impure the government's motives can be, and how little people in America know about it.
As is the case with all generalizations, there is a thread of truth behind the overgeneralization about American stupidity. Americans have perhaps the broadest access to information in the world, yet they seem to know less about the rest of the world than the citizenries of other countries. Americans generally have an attitude that the rest of the world is either just sort-of sitting around waiting to be Americanized, or scrambling to be more like America. America tends to see itself as the center of the world, and appears to be largely or completely unaware that it has a very specific culture, distinct in many ways from the cultures of other peoples, which those other peoples may or may not choose to emulate in whole or in part. Understandably, citizens of other countries tend to resent that attitude.
Certainly there are elements of the American political-economic system that others can benfit from. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But we tend to ram it down other peoples' throats without even realizing it. Part of the old Manifest Destiny attitude whence we were spawned. Our product is freedom, yet we ironically attempt to propagate that freedom by frequently engaging in acts which smell suspiciously like a complete disregard for the sovereignty and rights to self-determination of other peoples, and a complete lack of awareness, or even outright contempt, for socio-economi-cultural systems that are radically different from our own.
That's why all the hatred.
____________
I have PMS and a handgun. Any questions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Edit Post | Quote Reply
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
posted January 01, 2004 03:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outrageously incredulous!
(above post quoted and deleted here)
Unbelievably outrageous! I'm so upset right now I can't even think of a worthwhile response! This is without question a complete lack of regard for the hardworking peoples in this country who break their backs daily so that people like you can sit around and cry foulplay of the worst ignorance!
Now straighten me out here, Consis, but I could swear you jumped to a conclusion about me based on my comments, and possibly my race and my attitude toward American society in general in my post. Remember, when you responded to me in this one, I was a fully-employed black-robe at that time. A juris doctorate, a former assistant attorney general, and at that time a personnel judge for the city and county in which I live. You knew none of that at the time you responded to me. Since that first fiery exchange, we have made friends. You and I have both realized since then that initial impressions leave a person with just enough information to be disabled when it comes to judging either a person or a situation.
More to come on the rest of your post later.
On the meeting with Powell: No, there's been no press and I highly doubt that there have been meetings between Powell and the other candidates. If there had been they should have been both brave enough and proud enough to press them. Either they weren't, or such meetings have not taken place. Remember, it's no great plus in the eyes of many who continue to condemn Powell for his role in the UN fiasco to associates themselves with him. It's just that Obama continues, like I and many others do, to recognize that Powell, among many others, saw the fiasco that is now the reality of the Iraq war on the horizon.
Please stop jumping to conclusions, my dear. Your fishing expedition for excuses to be in attack mode are beginning to become rather transparent.
XOXO
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2007 07:06 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 07:07, 16 Jun 2007.
|
beep
Slow down guys and let me catch up
I get back from my nightly walk composing what I might say, and bam, two more posts for a slow reader like me to wade through....
edit: ah, ok....I won't get involved in a spat between you two, so I can skip over most of it
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2007 08:23 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 08:53, 16 Jun 2007.
|
I've had broadband for going on a year now and I still like playing with it
....sooo, I ripped and uploaded a little mood music....
amazing how this could be a modern song
most definitely still appropriate
About Powell:
I don't know anything about the meeting, but I assume it was just a photo op. Seeing the two together in public strongly implies a Powell endorsement. Powell is still very well respected and liked. I think an endorsement by him is far more positive than negative. He admitted his mistakes at the UN presentation, and he admitted them FAR earlier than most other people. When he began to see the way things really were he publicly split with the president and spoke out against the president's policies.....Secretaries of State just don't do that...ever!!! He gained my respect for that even if he hadn't already earned it for other things.
About experience:
I have mixed feelings on this one. It wasn't that long ago (mid 80s-early 90s) when there was a strong public sentiment to throw the "entrenched career politicians" the hell out of there and replace them with some new blood. But at the same time the public contradicted themselves by bringing up the issue of experience with some candidates.
I guess the idea is that if someone has intelligence, common sense, and knows how to manage people and delegate tasks, then they have what it takes. I look at relevant experience as a plus, but not mandatory. And the type of experience makes a difference also.
In my opinion the experience as governor of a large state is more relevant to the presidency than experience as a Senator. (executive branch vs legislative branch) And I think experience as a mayor is not much experience at all except maybe the mayor of the very largest cities. On the other hand, I think that if a person has been in office a very long time, then Senator/Governor reverses itself and experience as a Senator becomes more relevant.
But bottom line is that I don't place much weight on experience of any type. Although one nice thing about experience is that it gives a track record on the issues and the way they think. One concern I have about Obama (besides being an evil democrat) is that I question if he is strong enough to play with the big dogs? If he got in office, I have serious doubts if he can stand up to the party leadership. I suspect that the powers that be are quite capable of tearing him a new ***hole.
About race:
This is what I most wanted to write about, but this is already long. So I'll post and maybe edit later.
The other big issue I wanted to address is Obama's support for strengthening the unions. Long story short is that I'm **VERY** anti-union (with a couple exceptions).
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 16, 2007 06:24 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 18:34, 16 Jun 2007.
|
Peacemaker,
This is the second time you've brought that initial post and disagreement up with me. I've stood by my disagreement before and I shall do it again. I STILL DISAGREE WITH IT! I still have the same problem with your post today as I did before.
Quote:
America has some unique traits. It is a country borne of violence, thrust forth across the continent on the misguided theory of Manifest Destiny; the belief that God has granted it the absolute right to run dominion wherever it sees fit.
First of all this statement is simply untrue. America is not unique in this regard. But it doesn't surprise me to hear you say this. Being proud of your heritage is one matter but to further encourage discontent in the spirit of Native American sovereignty is absurd. I am aware that many native americans actively and formally protest the 4th of July. Where we celebrate independence, many native americans cry an invasion of illegitimate nationhooders. But this philosophy ignores the many historic contributions native americans have made for this country in great wars such as WWII and many others. Open volunteers too mind you. Choosing to actively seek and pursue their own happiness. That is something this country has afforded all native americans. If you want to go toe to toe with me for every ebb and flow of native american vs this country then by all means let the bell ring. I'll be in my corner waiting for you to come out and start swinging. I know what almost every american knows about native americans. They have as much right to be in this country as anyone else. I agree that the philosophy behind manifest destiny is terribly flawed and downright ill-conceived. That isn't my disagreement. But I will not sit idly by and let you decry that this great nation was borne of violence. As if to say that the colonists and future americans are somehow violent in a seperate light from the native americans. Man/woman kind itself is violent. Don't try and seperate one violence for another.
Quote:
America has a life all its own when it comes to foisting itself into the space and business of whomever it wants to in order to achieve whatever is in its best interest. Its self-justified trajectory is nothing short of Machiavallian.
Machiavallian? Our self-justified trajectory is machiavallian? There is a danger for this and people know it. But we are far from being definitively characterized as such. It seems to me that you feel inclined to paint a metaphorically colorful picture of the very country that gives you the right to voice such things. You are calling my country (and yours) a lot of insulting names. Do you enjoy saying such things about this country? What ever happened to responding appropriately? I expect more from someone of your background. You could temper your remarks but choose not to. Your words don't sound like those found in a leader but rather a disgruntled employee. Is that what the real problem is here? Were you wronged in some way and now feel you're owed something? Do you feel america owes you for your ills, whatever they might have been? It all seems a bit selfish if you ask me. As if to say or imply, "What can my country do for me? What can my country do for my ancestry? This country owes my very distant ancestors an apology!"
Quote:
This is not always true in reality, of course. But the attitude is always there; we are right, of course we are right. We are America. How dare people resent us for that? America has the right to intrude elsewhere if it thinks elsewhere needs intruding. It has the absolute right to plant the juggernaut boot of its influence in any culture or society, despite the impact on that socio-economic system and the culture, because it stands for Freedom and Goodness.
Juggernaut boot of our influence? So if we spring forth a McDonalds in Russia then we're somehow forcefully exerting our intrusive influence?
Quote:
Just because you happen to do something good some of the time while you bluster about exporting your global dominance, does not mean you aren't blustering about. Enough blustering makes others suspicious, even when your motives are pure. And you guys believe me, I have had a real direct taste of how impure the government's motives can be, and how little people in America know about it.
I'm dying to hear about this 'real direct taste of how impure (MY) government's motives can be'.......and how you seem to retain some sort of exclusivity on the insights of such a thing. Let's all listen to Peacemaker because she knows something we don't about the government!
Quote:
Americans have perhaps the broadest access to information in the world, yet they seem to know less about the rest of the world than the citizenries of other countries. Americans generally have an attitude that the rest of the world is either just sort-of sitting around waiting to be Americanized, or scrambling to be more like America. America tends to see itself as the center of the world, and appears to be largely or completely unaware that it has a very specific culture, distinct in many ways from the cultures of other peoples, which those other peoples may or may not choose to emulate in whole or in part.
How well you seem to know your fellow americans. If I didn't know better I'd almost say that you were attempting to speak for your fellow americans. No ofcourse not, you wouldn't. Please tell me you wouldn't try and speak for all americans. How very american of you to think that you could.
Quote:
We tend to ram it down other peoples' throats without even realizing it. Part of the old Manifest Destiny attitude whence we were spawned.
Clearly attempting to link your despondent version of native american philosophy in today's america.
Quote:
Our product is freedom, yet we ironically attempt to propagate that freedom by frequently engaging in acts which smell suspiciously like a complete disregard for the sovereignty and rights to self-determination of other peoples, and a complete lack of awareness, or even outright contempt, for socio-economi-cultural systems that are radically different from our own.
If this was in context with our invasion of Iraq then you would have firm ground to stand on. If it isn't then I feel sorry for you and your paranoia.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Orfinn
Supreme Hero
Werewolf Duke
|
|
posted June 16, 2007 06:37 PM |
|
Edited by Orfinn at 18:39, 16 Jun 2007.
|
I just hope the new president will be alot wiser and more competent than Bush and that the person will be a democrat. Also i hope it will either be a brown man or a woman either brown or white. At least with either of these discrimination will get a hard time..I hope.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
