DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: MissusDe on October 27, 2008, 01:16:27 AM
-
The impact of the financial crisis on the American presidential election has somewhat obscured the most important reason why the prospect of an Obama presidency is giving so many people nightmares. This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west.
Personally, I don?t give any credence to the ?support? for one candidate over the other that has been expressed by the enemies of civilisation (Iran and Hamas ?support? Obama, while an al Qaeda blogger ?supports? McCain). Their agenda is simply to sow confusion and promote American recriminations and disarray. Nor do I set much store by many of the remarks made by either candidate during the latter stages of this election campaign, since under this kind of pressure both will now say pretty much anything to win it. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23policy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&em&oref=slogin) has run a useful analysis of the candidates? foreign policy campaign statements which shows how Obama has carefully tacked to the ?hard power? agenda while McCain has in turn nodded towards ?soft power?.
No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and ? perhaps most crucially of all ? the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.
Here?s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America?s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.
Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west?s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That?s why he believes in ?soft power? ? diplomacy, aid, rectifying ?grievances? (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America?s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ?cut investments in unproven missile defense systems?; he will ?not weaponize space?; he will ?slow our development of future combat systems?; and he will also ?not develop nuclear weapons,? pledging to seek ?deep cuts? in America?s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America?s fault. ?A lot of evil?s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,? he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ?legitimate grievances?. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ?grievances? are legitimate?
To solve world conflict, Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny, which is currently fuelling the murderous global demonisation of Israel for having the temerity to defend itself and is even now preparing for a rerun of its own anti-Jew hate-fest of Durban 2, which preceded 9/11 by a matter of days.
McCain understands that Israel is the victim rather than the victimiser in the Middle East, that it is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished intention is to destroy it as a Jewish state, and that is both the first line of defence against the Islamist attack on the free world and its most immediate and important target.
Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel ? particularly through the ?settlements? ? is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders ? actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ?Auschwitz borders?.
Obama would thus speak to Iran?s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ?Zionist? Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel?s Likud Party. In similar vein, it is notable that Obama opposed the congressional resolution labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate by a wide margin with support from both parties. And had he had his way, there would have been no ?surge? in Iraq and America would instead have run up the white flag, with the incalculable bloodbath and strengthening of the jihad that would have followed.
Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists? camp. Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5983) lists Obama?s extensive connections to Islamists in general and the Nation of Islam in particular, and concludes with this astounding observation:
Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America?s strategic enemy; Obama?s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.
The hatred that these Islamist connections entertain towards Israel is reflected amongst Obama?s own advisers. With one notable exception in Dennis Ross, whose late arrival in Camp Obama suggests a cosmetic exercise designed to allay alarm among Israel supporters, his advisers are overwhelmingly not only hostile to Israel but perpetrate the loathesome canard that Jews have too much power over American policy.
The former Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, not only denounced Israel?s war against Hezbollah thus:
I think what the Israelis are doing today [2006] for example in Lebanon is in effect? maybe not in intent ? the killing of hostages
but also supports Mearsheimer and Walt?s notorious smear that the Jews have subverted America?s foreign policy in the interests of Israel. Merrill McPeak, vice chairman of Obama?s campaign and his chief military adviser, has similarly blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami (guess who) whom no ?politician wants to run against? and who he says exercise undue influence on America?s foreign affairs. Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ?monster? but who says she still expects to be in Obama?s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ?mammoth force? of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) -- and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ?good for the Jews?.
There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can?t sleep at night.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2545716/is-america-really-going-to-do-this.thtml (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2545716/is-america-really-going-to-do-this.thtml)
-
Sadly....probably "yes", Miss De. We need another Carter term to apparently wake the masses up, I'm afraid :-\
-
The rightwing thinks that everything that the US government does is exactly perfect and believes that USA is always Number One. We should pass our time cnating USA USA USA and waving our giant rubber fingers in a threatening way at all the other people in the world to remind them of how f*cking great we are. If they don't like us, we should bomb them into submission, bugger their economies, depose their leaders, and force all our lesser weak allies to do the same.
The left believes that what is great about the USA is that we have the ability to improve things continuously, and if we do not, and simply believe that all the dumbassed things that the country has done over the years (ie the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, torturing prisoners and overthowing democratically elected governments our oligarchy has disliked) should be celebrated, then we are failing in the promise of the country.
-
The rightwing thinks that everything that the US government does is exactly perfect and believes that USA is always Number One. We should pass our time cnating USA USA USA and waving our giant rubber fingers in a threatening way at all the other people in the world to remind them of how f*cking great we are. If they don't like us, we should bomb them into submission, bugger their economies, depose their leaders, and force all our lesser weak allies to do the same.
And of course, Xo will never be able to demonstrate anything close to such an accusatory premice, with too many to count times right here in the saloon, from members of the "rightwing", many a criticism has been leveled not just at the U.S., but at this administration as well. But that won't stop such asanine hyperbole, which by and large is his "obvious" trademark. By all means, continue, Xo
-
There are gradients within the annoying behavior of rightwingers, but the most fanatical are those who have this "USA is greatest and never screws up" attitude.
-
Melanie Phillips? The Spectator?
Seriously Missus? I expect this article from Sirs or Rich, but not you. I know you do not want your side to lose, but you are WAY above this.
Melanie Phillips is a FAR right hack in the UK that once worked for Rupert Murdoch. You ought to read some of her other articles. The Spectator is an upper-class right-wing magazine with an Atlanticist point of view. Boris Johnson was once the editor.
You'll note the Israeli apologist attitude with references to Auschwitz (completely irrelevant) and a Daniel Pipes citation ( ::) ).
There are some great articles and issues on which one could attack Obama or McCain - but this is just rubbish and should be confined to the dung heap. You're far better than Melanie Phillips or The Spectator, Missus.
-
Clearly, Missus' posting of this article is indicative of her worries about an Obama presidency.
It appears to me that Missus has fallen prey to the fear-mongers on the right who want her to be afraid of Obama and work harder to make McCain the winner.
IN trying to light a candle rather than curse the darker, what would make you feel easier about the apparently impending Obama presidency, Missus?
What would you like to be hearing from Obama's side to make you more at ease?
-
Daniel Pipes sucks. Everyone knows what the borders between Israel and Palestine will look like. Pre 1976 with no walls and Zionist enclaves. Auschwitz has NOTHING to do with Israel's borders with Palestine. This is just a propaganda scare piece, unworthy of being taken seriously by sentient being.
The truth is that if any US president will ever get a settlement in Palisrael, that someone will be Obama. McCain will simply muddle along with no results as Juniorbush did. The Palestinians will never trust him. Hell, I don't trust him.
There is no excuse for the US getting into war after war after war. At least the Russians are fighting with their former Soviet partners. McCain is just another soldier who has never met a war he does not like. OIncluding the one he was most famous for fighting in Vietnam, which, by the way was lost from the git-go.
-
Clearly, Missus' posting of this article is indicative of her worries about an Obama presidency.
It appears to me that Missus has fallen prey to the fear-mongers on the right who want her to be afraid of Obama and work harder to make McCain the winner.
IN trying to light a candle rather than curse the darker, what would make you feel easier about the apparently impending Obama presidency, Missus?
What would you like to be hearing from Obama's side to make you more at ease?
I can't answer for anyone elese , but I am indeed worried about a huge lurch to the left in the entire government. There is a faction of the left that never met an entitlement that they didn't like and we could wind up being stripped of property rights by a very leftist government, therby makeing us all dependant on one sort of dole or another.
Shortly after this half of the top 1% of wealthy Americans will move to Ireland.
-
I can't answer for anyone elese , but I am indeed worried about a huge lurch to the left in the entire government. There is a faction of the left that never met an entitlement that they didn't like and we could wind up being stripped of property rights by a very leftist government, therby makeing us all dependant on one sort of dole or another.
Shortly after this half of the top 1% of wealthy Americans will move to Ireland.
=====================
The danger is the huge lurch to the RIGHT that awarded the top 1% the ability to rook, cheat and rob the middle class of its rightful income in the first place. There is sure as hell a class war in the US. It started around the time of Reagan and with the help of the guys who wrote that wrinkled old ratbastard's scripts. So far, they have decimated and more the middle class.
Many of these superrich are actually paid huge amounts by the government in programs like farm subsidies and price support payments to the agribusinesses they own.
And no, they won't be moving to Ireland at all. Ireland taxes income on investments. What Ireland does not tax is income produced by works of art: paintings, fiction, poetry, music and such. They won't be moving to Ireland at all.
Frankly, it would not bother me if they all moved, so long as their money stayed here.
I could manage to get along without Donald Trump, Carl Icahn, Richard Mellon Scaife and their ilk quite well. So could we all. They add nothing to our socirety or culture and they take so much away.
What I don't understand is what evil spell have these villains cast upon people who have ZERO hope of ever being megazillionaires. Most of them made their money from stuff like weapons and insider trading, or they simply inherited from people who did those things or were just out and out crooks.
-
There is no "unprecedented" threat to America. There is a real historical precedent of a much greater threat, specifically a nuclear-armed U.S.S.R., building missile launch pads in Cuba. By comparison, the "threat" of some puny Middle Eastern nation not even in possession of nuclear weapons, being crazy enough to launch a single nuke on the U.S. (in return for instant annihilation) is pure fiction. The same kind of hysterical, irrational bullshit that enabled a lying Bush administration to panic the American people into backing his ill-fated war on Iraq
However, there IS some evidence of an "unprecedented" threat to Israel, in the growing regional power of Iran, as well as militant Sunni groups who threaten the established U.S. puppet regimes in the region. This would naturally be of great interest to persons such as Melanie Phillips, who in addition to writing a column for the Daily Mail, is also a contributor to the Jewish Chronicle. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/ (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/))
It is interesting how Phillips takes for granted that the most absurd anti-Islamic fantasies are true: <<McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other.>> OTOH, some basic home truths which are never mentioned in the MSM, let alone discussed in detail, are dismissed out of hand and without any argument even being considered: <<Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, . . . supports Mearsheimer and Walt's notorious smear that the Jews have subverted America's foreign policy in the interests of Israel. >> Actually, they call attention to the influence that the Zionist lobby exercises on U.S. foreign policy, a public discussion which Phillips and other Zionist agents desperately want never to happen. For very obvious reasons.
Read the article again. It's a desperate plea by a very panicked Zionist for Americans never to sit down with Arabs to discuss their differences (and the Arab-Israeli conflict) honestly and frankly but rather to continue blindly supporting the State of Israel in all its conflicts, whatever the cost to the U.S. in the Near East and around the world. It's the visible despair of a Jew who believes that the West Bank was promised by God to the Jewish people and is now about to slip out of their fingers and into the hands of the Arabs who actually live there, due to some moral failing of Barack Obama, who may refuse to support the Israelis their 40-year military occupation of this territory.
-
I can't answer for anyone elese , but I am indeed worried about a huge lurch to the left in the entire government. There is a faction of the left that never met an entitlement that they didn't like and we could wind up being stripped of property rights by a very leftist government, therby makeing us all dependant on one sort of dole or another.
Shortly after this half of the top 1% of wealthy Americans will move to Ireland.
How anyone in the world can worry about someone spending too much money from the government when the right had complete control for six years and spent like drunken sailors with reckless abandon is completely beyond me.
How can the Dems do ANY WORSE? Cut checks for 1.4TRILLION dollars instead of the $700BILLION the GOP has? Start more wars that cost more than 10BILLION a month?
-
Frankly, it would not bother me if they all moved, so long as their money stayed here.
Well there you are , you never understood the fable of the Goose that laid golden eggs.
If the people who are creating wealth move somewhere , they are going to start produceing the wealth there.
-
I can't answer for anyone elese , but I am indeed worried about a huge lurch to the left in the entire government. There is a faction of the left that never met an entitlement that they didn't like and we could wind up being stripped of property rights by a very leftist government, therby makeing us all dependant on one sort of dole or another.
Shortly after this half of the top 1% of wealthy Americans will move to Ireland.
How anyone in the world can worry about someone spending too much money from the government when the right had complete control for six years and spent like drunken sailors with reckless abandon is completely beyond me.
How can the Dems do ANY WORSE? Cut checks for 1.4TRILLION dollars instead of the $700BILLION the GOP has? Start more wars that cost more than 10BILLION a month?
When I think of Democrats in control, I think of a government that pays its bills and makes cuts AND supplies health care and so forth. Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Phil Bredesen and so forth.
All this bull hockey about tax and spend Dems may have been true in the 60's and 70's but hasn't been true for a really long time. It's another GOP-concocted lie designed to scare their base.
It's just flat-out false.
And even if it were true, the right is just as guilty. At least the left would spend it to help poor people as opposed to your GOP governmental types who line their own pockets and give welfare to billionaires who don't need it.
-
[
When I think of Democrats in control, I think of a government that pays its bills and makes cuts AND supplies health care and so forth. Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Phil Bredesen and so forth.
Huh?
Bill Clinton was pretty lucky to be President during the Silicon Valley boom, but what did he do to cause it?
He was also lucky to be President during the time that the Baby Boom reached its peak earning years , but what did he do to cause that?
Try subtracting Social Security payments from the picture , Volla" no surplusses of any kind.
Track the national Debt during this period , how far was it really recovered?
Clinton was a total failure for his first two years , then with the help of a Republican Congress he began to succeed ,...somewhat.
As to Republicans doing better ,.... well you got a point there , the guys that were elected to effect change forgot all about it after a while and just became more of the same , how embarrasing for us.
-
>>Seriously Missus? I expect this article from Sirs or Rich, but not you.<<
And of course I expect this kind of cowardice from JS.
-
Frankly, it would not bother me if they all moved, so long as their money stayed here.
Well there you are , you never understood the fable of the Goose that laid golden eggs.
If the people who are creating wealth move somewhere , they are going to start produceing the wealth there.
]
]
Flash! Money is what makes money. Take away all of Trump's or Icahn's money and come back in a year and see how much they have made. These people are not magic geese. The same capital could probably generate even more money and more jobs than these "magic geese people" you worship.
It would be amusing to see how well Trump might manage to bullshit his way to fame and fortune in the country that produces most of the world's blarney> Here, he is a champion bullsh*tter. But in Ireland, he'd be the rankest of amateurs.
You can believe in magic geese if you wish, and the Tooth Fairy as well.
-
Frankly, it would not bother me if they all moved, so long as their money stayed here.
Well there you are , you never understood the fable of the Goose that laid golden eggs.
If the people who are creating wealth move somewhere , they are going to start produceing the wealth there.
]
]
Flash! Money is what makes money. Take away all of Trump's or Icahn's money and come back in a year and see how much they have made. These people are not magic geese. The same capital could probably generate even more money and more jobs than these "magic geese people" you worship.
It would be amusing to see how well Trump might manage to bullshit his way to fame and fortune in the country that produces most of the world's blarney> Here, he is a champion bullsh*tter. But in Ireland, he'd be the rankest of amateurs.
You can believe in magic geese if you wish, and the Tooth Fairy as well.
You seem to beleivein spontainious generation.
Money that is distributed unearned is sterile , where has such money ever made more of itself?
-
Yes, JSov. Seriously.
Here is what concerns me:
The media has failed to explore issues about Barack Obama's past associations and his core beliefs which will impact his actions if elected - and I have yet to see a Democrat who cares. There are legitimate questions about him that need to be answered; if any one of these questions were to be raised about McCain, you know damn well that we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Apparently you're satisfied with what he proposes for our country. I don't trust Obama or his political agenda, and I am having great difficulty understanding those who do.
-
Apparently you're satisfied with what he proposes for our country. I don't trust Obama or his political agenda, and I am having great difficulty understanding those who do.
Am I in favor of the top 1% owning 38% of all wealth? HELL NO!
Do I want them to continue owning even a larger percentage of it?
Again, HELL NO!
And why would that be?
Countries that have an unequal distribution of wealth are far less pleasant places to live in, Go live in any of them, and you will see. If you are poor, prepare to starve. If you are rich, prepare to be forced to hire armed guards or have your children kidnapped, be forced to live in a gated community like a convict in a prison.
As for McCain what has he to offer? If he lives, more war. He really likes war.
More dead, more maimed for life.
If he dies, then we shall have President Ditz.
-
>>Apparently you're satisfied with what he proposes for our country. I don't trust Obama or his political agenda, and I am having great difficulty understanding those who do.<<
The folks who support Obama haven't the slightest idea who the man is. He refuses to release any of his college documents, his state senate documents, nothing of any kind. The media doesn't care, democrats don't care. We could actually elect a radical socialist who wants to rewrite the Constitution. He's dined with terrorists and their supporters. Mostly by accident we've heard him admit to his opposition to the American system of government. They don't care. It truly is very hard to understand these people. Personally I think it's rooted in their rage. Obama was a perfect pick. He's Black which means the left cannot, or will not ask the hard questions. He also allows them to call anyone who disagrees with his a racist, their favorite attack of all. And in the end it all goes back to their debilitating support for the reprobate Bill Clinton. So like I said before, they could nominate Idi Amin and they'd deny his crimes and vote for him.
-
Yes, JSov. Seriously.
Here is what concerns me:
The media has failed to explore issues about Barack Obama's past associations and his core beliefs which will impact his actions if elected - and I have yet to see a Democrat who cares. There are legitimate questions about him that need to be answered; if any one of these questions were to be raised about McCain, you know damn well that we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Apparently you're satisfied with what he proposes for our country. I don't trust Obama or his political agenda, and I am having great difficulty understanding those who do.
That would be quite a stretch. I'm not satisfied with his half-ass healthcare plan as just one of many examples.
The problem is that I'm faced with a choice. The other side of the same coin is McCain and Palin. If you held a gun to my head Missus, I would not vote for Governor Palin. Why? Because she believes in an economics of supply-side theories and providing the wealthy more and more. Add to that her lightweight political acumen and it creates a very dangerous combination.
And what of McCain's associations? This is the same man who took an endorsement from Pastor Hagee, a Protestant preacher who claims that Hitler was only doing the work of the Lord. The media did not make a great deal of noise about that. I don't buy into the right wing victimhood theories. George W Bush got a great deal of love from the media as well as no real journalistic criticism of the build-up to the Iraq War.
The real problem of the right wing in this election is not Obama - it is your choice for a candidate. John McCain was an extremely poor choice. As the polls show, he was soundly defeated in all three debates. He is seen as a dinosaur and throwing the maverick card when you've been inside Washington for nearly 30 years just doesn't play well. Then attacking the sitting Republican President, when you played up your voting record with the man in the primaries just screams hypocrisy. Then selecting Governor Palin? That was an incredible bomb.
Obama is what he is. The truth of the matter is that the guy won his way up in Chicago. He's a political mind. I wouldn't trust him either. He'll run over anyone to win - but right now the Democrats want a winner. Obama is that guy. McCain is a loser. You can be bitter about it, but that's how the game is played and Obama is simply better at it.
-
Yes, JSov. Seriously.
Here is what concerns me:
The media has failed to explore issues about Barack Obama's past associations and his core beliefs which will impact his actions if elected - and I have yet to see a Democrat who cares. There are legitimate questions about him that need to be answered; if any one of these questions were to be raised about McCain, you know damn well that we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Apparently you're satisfied with what he proposes for our country. I don't trust Obama or his political agenda, and I am having great difficulty understanding those who do.
So, now you're understanding those of us on the left way back in 2000 and then very much so in 2004.
-
The only real person in this election is Palin.
Unfortunately, this woman being demonized in 2008 will not be the same woman being demonized in 2012, , she will be forced to become smoother, slicker, more programmed and handled and that is a shame.
-
The only real person in this election is Palin.
Unfortunately, this woman being demonized in 2008 will not be the same woman being demonized in 2012, , she will be forced to become smoother, slicker, more programmed and handled and that is a shame.
I would say that any, and I mean ANY, member of 3DHS would be head and shoulders above Sarah Palin as qualified intellectually to be president of the US.
Even RR and even rich.
There is a difference between being "programmed" like Palin will have to be and being wise or smart like one of us and certainly Obama is.
Palin is not articulate or intellectually curious.
She is, however, SHREWD. Shrewd as in sneaky and snide not shrewd as in Rovian.
-
I would say that any, and I mean ANY, member of 3DHS would be head and shoulders above Sarah Palin as qualified intellectually to be president of the US.
Believe your own garbage.
You don't get elected to city council and mayor twice as well as beating an incumbent governor in the primaries by being a dumbass.
-
I would say that any, and I mean ANY, member of 3DHS would be head and shoulders above Sarah Palin as qualified intellectually to be president of the US.
Believe your own garbage.
You don't get elected to city council and mayor twice as well as beating an incumbent governor in the primaries by being a dumbass.
I submit that if what you say is true, then Palin is the exception to that rule.
Knowing a couple of city council members and having watched my own mayor for the last few years, I submit your statement is flatly false. Dumbasses get elected all the time. You'd think after 8 years of Bush you would have learned something.
-
You'd think after 8 years of Bush you would have learned something.
What I have learned is that anyone one who doesn't think smell dress and act like your ilk is a dumbass.
You guys don't handle intellectual diversity very well.
-
You'd think after 8 years of Bush you would have learned something.
What I have learned is that anyone one who doesn't think smell dress and act like your ilk is a dumbass.
You guys don't handle intellectual diversity very well.
If Palin showed any kind of intellectual prowess other than being able to spew sarcasm, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Matt Damon described the possibility of her being the president as "a bad Disney movie" but he didn't really think it through. In those types of bad Disney movies that he's talking about, a "normal" person would, through some kind of weird set of circumstances be made the president of a company or the US and would spend the second act failing to rise to the occasion till that "normal" person would then call on some inner strength or downhome wisdom that would then allow them to take command of the situation and bring us all in for that expected, exultant landing before the credits role. (We'd then laugh at the actors as they danced to some early 90's dance hit and goofed for the cameras.)
The Sarah Palin version would go a totally different way. Much like that guy that got sent to Viet Nam accidentally in place of his buddy, Palin would fail completely and all her supporters would abandon her and in a fit of righteous rage, she would make choices that would result in America being wiped off the map in slow motion images of mushroom clouds reflected in Palin's oh so smart glasses which allow those shallow, "blank-stare" eyes to be seen filling with tears as Mozart's Requiem Mass shatters blasts out over the audience.
Palin has no inner wisdom. Palin has no folksy smarts. Palin is lacking in intellect and wisdom that she has actually made McCain, a reasonable man, more stupid.
-
<<You guys don't handle intellectual diversity very well.>>
Once again BT amazes by the sheer ingenuity with which he defends the indefensible.
So now Palin's contribution is not to intellectual excellence, which all of us can understand, and which Obama personifies, but to "intellectual diversity." I guess we could achieve even more "intellectual diversity" by admitting Joe the Plumber to the inner governing circle, and for the ultimate in intellectual diversity, how about Bristol and her shotgun-husband-to-be, Levi the Fuckin Redneck?
-
<<You don't get elected to city council and mayor twice as well as beating an incumbent governor in the primaries by being a dumbass.>>
I see you're not acquainted with the former mayor of the City of Toronto, Mel "Bad Boy" Lastman.
-
You'd think after 8 years of Bush you would have learned something.
What I have learned is that anyone one who doesn't think smell dress and act like your ilk is a dumbass.
You guys don't handle intellectual diversity very well.
If Palin showed any kind of intellectual prowess other than being able to spew sarcasm, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Matt Damon described the possibility of her being the president as "a bad Disney movie" but he didn't really think it through. In those types of bad Disney movies that he's talking about, a "normal" person would, through some kind of weird set of circumstances be made the president of a company or the US and would spend the second act failing to rise to the occasion till that "normal" person would then call on some inner strength or downhome wisdom that would then allow them to take command of the situation and bring us all in for that expected, exultant landing before the credits role. (We'd then laugh at the actors as they danced to some early 90's dance hit and goofed for the cameras.)
The Sarah Palin version would go a totally different way. Much like that guy that got sent to Viet Nam accidentally in place of his buddy, Palin would fail completely and all her supporters would abandon her and in a fit of righteous rage, she would make choices that would result in America being wiped off the map in slow motion images of mushroom clouds reflected in Palin's oh so smart glasses which allow those shallow, "blank-stare" eyes to be seen filling with tears as Mozart's Requiem Mass shatters blasts out over the audience.
Palin has no inner wisdom. Palin has no folksy smarts. Palin is lacking in intellect and wisdom that she has actually made McCain, a reasonable man, more stupid.
Matt Damon?
And this is the fount of your intellectual political discourse. The guy is an actor. Much like Obama.
-
Brass wrote:
>>Matt Damon described ... <<
Matt Damon huh?
He's not an expert, he just plays one on TV?
::)
-
So, now you're understanding those of us on the left way back in 2000 and then very much so in 2004.
No. To understand that, I'd need to be possessed of the kind of mindset that would believe the only possible explanation for an Obama win is that the election was stolen. However, my mind doesn't work along those lines.
If McCain loses, it will be because his campaign was poorly managed. And I'll be very surprised if McCain attempts to shift the blame on anyone except himself.
-
I see you're not acquainted with the former mayor of the City of Toronto, Mel "Bad Boy" Lastman.
Looks like Lastman did well for himself. Why would you think him dumb?
-
Palin is a bad Disney movie come to life at least up to her nomination.
The conclusion would be for her to become president, possibly in some way connected to a sled dog race.
But this won't happen unless we are truly cursed.
-
Lastman was a smart businessman, and a great Mayor of the City of North York, but as Mayor of the City of Toronto, he's remembered for some pretty dumb remarks. The general consensus is that he was way out of his depth.
When he was put on a team to drum up international support for Toronto as an Olympic Games site, he gave a press conference about his upcoming trip to Africa and told the press that he had visions of himself and his wife Marilyn being cooked in a big pot of boiling water while a bunch of "cannibals" danced around them. In another part of the same interview, he said that he wasn't really sure about going to Africa because Marilyn was afraid of snakes.
During the SARS epidemic in Toronto, Lastman went on U.S. national TV to reassure American tourists. When asked by his interviewer about the actual number of SARS victims in Toronto, he said didn't know, but that it was very, very small. When asked about the WHO (World Health Organization) travel advisory on Toronto, he asked, apparently baffled, who these people (WHO) were and claimed he had never heard of them. There were other huge gaffes that only Torontonians would recognize.
Once, in a screaming tirade at the man who ultimately succeeded him as Mayor, he told him, "You'll never be Mayor of Toronto, and you know why? Because you say dumb and stupid things." The next day, someone on the Toronto Star wrote that he thought that was a job requirement. Another time he tried to call out the Army to clear the snow off Toronto streets. And yet another time, he seriously proposed that Toronto secede from the Province of Ontario over a tax-distribution disagreement with the Province.
Lastman is actually a great example of a man who excelled in business and as a small suburban mayor (he was winning his later terms by acclamation) but was a total, embarrassing failure in the larger role. I was just kidding when I called him "dumb," he's not "dumb" and probably, neither is Palin, but the point is you can be smart in a minor role and still be a real dummy in a major role.
-
Is woman smart really the same as man smart?
-
What's dumb about calling out the Army to help clear the streets of Toronto?
Looks like he had a good run in politics. He was the first mayor of Megapolis Toronto beating the favorite by putting together a coalition of suburban voters.
I don't think him dumb. I think he just was a bigger target on a bigger stage.
-
<<What's dumb about calling out the Army to help clear the streets of Toronto?>>
It's ridiculous. Toronto's always been able to clear the snow off its streets. That's not what the Army is for.
<<Looks like he had a good run in politics. He was the first mayor of Megapolis Toronto beating the favorite by putting together a coalition of suburban voters.>>
By that stage of his life, he'd been in politics too long. He was getting old and really stupid. The stuff I quoted was abysmally dumb. Maybe he just didn't care any more.
<<I don't think him dumb. I think he just was a bigger target on a bigger stage.>>
That "cannibal" shit wasn't dumb? The guy was going to Africa to line up support for Toronto as an Olympic site. Not one African country voted in favour of Toronto. He was supposed to be a goodwill ambassador.
-
<<What's dumb about calling out the Army to help clear the streets of Toronto?>>
It's ridiculous. Toronto's always been able to clear the snow off its streets. That's not what the Army is for.
<<Looks like he had a good run in politics. He was the first mayor of Megapolis Toronto beating the favorite by putting together a coalition of suburban voters.>>
By that stage of his life, he'd been in politics too long. He was getting old and really stupid. The stuff I quoted was abysmally dumb. Maybe he just didn't care any more.
<<I don't think him dumb. I think he just was a bigger target on a bigger stage.>>
That "cannibal" shit wasn't dumb? The guy was going to Africa to line up support for Toronto as an Olympic site. Not one African country voted in favour of Toronto. He was supposed to be a goodwill ambassador.
He seriously saved Toronto a headache didn't he?
-
That "cannibal" shit wasn't dumb? The guy was going to Africa to line up support for Toronto as an Olympic site. Not one African country voted in favour of Toronto. He was supposed to be a goodwill ambassador.
According to Wiki, the remark didn't cost Toronto one vote.
I am heartened to hear Toronto is so self sufficient. Perhaps they could train the folks in New Orleans.
-
I would say that any, and I mean ANY, member of 3DHS would be head and shoulders above Sarah Palin as qualified intellectually to be president of the US.
Believe your own garbage.
You don't get elected to city council and mayor twice as well as beating an incumbent governor in the primaries by being a dumbass.
I'm not sure if this is written in anger or not Bt, but a cursory look at the past shows it to be false.
Mayor Berry of Washington DC was by no means a brilliant man. True, he was not a governor, but his city was as big as Alaska in population. Governor Gilmore was easily one of the worst governors Virginia has EVER had in its very long history. The guy is a complete idiot and witness how many Republicans are going to vote for Mark Warner in the Senatorial election this year. Regardless of party affiliation, Gilmore is a genuine dumbass and Berry is right there with him.
It isn't that difficult to see how one could rise to that level. There are various paths to take: populism, personal charm, bullying, family name, patronage, etc. Boss Tweed, for example, was by no means an Oxford graduate, but he knew all about running a political machine. The Borgia's were by no means a pious and holy family, but they bullied and bought their way to a papacy.
I don't think Sarah Palin is any closer to a "real person" than anyone else. I think she is a lightweight, but I say that in a political sense. What I mean by that is I don't think GOP voters will elect her to a nationwide office (the Couric interview is evidence of a lightweight). I don't like her because I think she's willing to throw herself to the lowest common denominator.
-
Mayor Berry of Washington DC was by no means a brilliant man. True, he was not a governor, but his city was as big as Alaska in population.
There were other things going on with Barry and DC politics. After all, he was elected again AFTER SERVING TIME FOR A FELONY. There is a hard core Democratic constituency that would elect ANYONE who the Democrats proposed, and background did not matter.
-
But that is exactly my point Ami. The premise of democracy is not that the most intelligent candidates are elected to office. It is a choice for voters. Therefore the notion that being elected to city council, mayor, and governor automatically requires keen intellect is clearly not true. The only thing it requires with certainty is a plurality of votes (at least in most American systems). There are a host of other variables involved which vary depending upon political, economic, social, and other factors.
-
Therefore the notion that being elected to city council, mayor, and governor automatically requires keen intellect is clearly not true.
I don't believe that he said it requires a "keen intellect" - he said that it's not likely something to be done by someone who is stupid. Barry sometimes said and did things that were idiotic, but he is not a stupid man. Just someone that knew he could get away with just about anything and still be re-elected.
-
I'm not sure if this is written in anger or not Bt, but a cursory look at the past shows it to be false.
For every exception to the rule i can show 3 or 4 public servants who are not dumb asses.
I think the definition of dumb ass has been dumbed down to mean anyone a person disagrees with.
-
That's probably true Bt.
In fact, I think that the attack on the public sector as "inefficient" and "part of the problem" has led to a belief by many that all public servants are lacking.
-
I'm not sure if this is written in anger or not Bt, but a cursory look at the past shows it to be false.
For every exception to the rule i can show 3 or 4 public servants who are not dumb asses. I think the definition of dumb ass has been dumbed down to mean anyone a person disagrees with.
Kinda long the lines that anyone who's a conservative who supported Bush must be a torture/war loving fascist, anyone in the military is low hanging fruit, and anyone from the south must be a racist
-
<<According to Wiki, the remark didn't cost Toronto one vote. >>
According to Wiki, the remark didn't change the outcome, i.e., Toronto didn't get the Games. As I recall it, not a single African country voted for Canada and that was attributed to the cannibal remarks. Which any way you look at them were extremely dumb and embarrassing.
-
Which any way you look at them were extremely dumb and embarrassing.
Or honest and uncalculated.