If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Have you ever read the Devil's Dictionary? It's a satirical dictionary written by Ambrose Bierce who was known for his Civil War stories [he lived at that time]. I think you'd like it.
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
POLITICIAN, n.
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
My favorite was always this one:
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 26 2003, 04:35 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is.
i would not say "best guesses of what the persons intent is". i would say that politicians try to discredit by sucessfully characterizing or mischaracterizing their intentions.
I'm talking about "we the people" though. Not the politicians themselves.
I don't think Alex would be attempting to mischaracterize Bush, for example.
I think Alex believes Bush is bad and will ruin the country and hence the world if he stays in power.
I agree that political strategists are excellent at mischaracterizing politicians and probably do that more than the politicians themselves. There's certainly a healthy dose of those that just don't like the other person ot party and therefor guess that person's intentions as disingenuous.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 26 2003, 04:34 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Pd,
You mist be totally blind. Either that, or you are the thirstiest kool-aid drinker in the Liberal base.
Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the Democrat oppisition to that Hispanic and the reason it is a race issue. They paint themselves as the party of minorities; but they are really only the party of those minority people who believe in and want something for nothing. If they were truly the party of minorities they would be helping him.
Second, my point is that there was no comparable fuss raised about Bird's remarks (which happened less than 2 years ago) or LBJ's statement (which was revealed less than 2 years ago).
What's the matter? You don't think the Liberals have a chance on a level field (i.e. one where the same rules apply to both sides and any statement not preceded by "In my opinion" or "I believe" must be documentably true)? Frankly, I believe that they would soon fade into obscurity and become equal to the party represented by Pat Buchanan...
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 25 2003, 08:05 PM The best you can do is choose your vote according to the party ethos.
One one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police. On the other side you have the Democrats.
What's so hard about that choice? :P
Let's be fair...
On one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police.
On the other side you have the socialists, communists, collectivists, radical environmentalists and brainwashed underachievers that believe the world owes them something for nothing.
Dig, you should at least be objective if you are going to point out extremes.
The smart people, IMHO, can point out the shit on both sides.
that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.
Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
Both Wig and I are neither Democrat nor Republican. We're middle of the road. Don't think either party better than the other. You shouldn't confuse not bowing down to one party and considering the other evil with Republicans being "our friends". Sorry but I just cant believe that half the nation is evil and the other half good, that half the nation is honest and the other half corrupt and that the leading divider of these people is which major party they belong to.
From where I sit I see equal numbers of idiots and savants and charlatans in both those parties. I think both those parties have something to offer America and only in combination - systematically removing the extremes - do we get the best results.
Amusing that you think someone who has opinions that aren't lock-stepped into a party line is "trying to win a pissing match". The truth is that neither Wig nor I has a pissing match to win. How could I win? You believe that your good old boy network is honest and the other good old boy network is liars. You believe your party is good and the other evil. Your party is trying to do good for the people and the other is corrupt and only has selfish motivations at heart.
Come on, man. There's a current Democratic senator that is an ex-KKK member! Al Sharpton is every bit as racist and whacky and biblical as Pat Robertson. You know it's true. How many anti-Jewish remarks from the Democratic party does it take to equal the anti-black ones from the Republican.
Look around. Powell is the highest ranking minority in US government history. A minority woman is National Security Advisor. The man in charge is making minority hires [the best people for the job] at the highest levels of the administration.
I try to see the good of each party rather than the bad. I thin you're seeing only the good of one and only the bad of the other.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 26 2003, 04:26 PM that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.
Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
i was speaking of him as a Person
not a race
__________________
Need design work done? CLICK the SIG!
118156620-icq Forest AT silverclouddesign.com
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 26 2003, 07:26 PM that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.
Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Politicians think they are working when they are making new laws or more bureaucracy... no matter what party they are from, then its about *control* of the masses and sometime *ego trips*.
Yes, I understand that a civilized society needs laws and probably also some bureaucracy. But most of the real serious problems we have had have been taken care off decades ago, but still politicians find new things/issues etc. they need to control. Just look at how much the number of laws have increased in the last 20 years! Its rare for politicians to take a look at old laws and try and improve them - instead they make new laws with *their* names on them.
New generations of politicians will continue to make new laws, because that is what they are told by the politicians before them etc. They think their name will be remember, but it will only last until a new generation of politicians make new laws.
We should make a law that politicians only could update or remove old laws - no more new laws. That way we could have less and less laws, a more transparent goverment, and more freedom too the people!
You have to understand. I am against curtailing free speech, banning books, the religious right, and the Patriot Act.
For me, there are a few basic principles which are important to me:
1. The system works. The American form of government is a good one. Constitutional Republic
with strong checks and balances on individual and government power.
2. The rule of law
3. Libertarian ideals
In just this thread, I stated that "Though the Republicans lead this category [racist remarks] by far, the Democrats do have their moments" and gave a few examples. I view that as a statement demonstrating that there are examples of racism in both camps but a statement primarily AGAINST Republicans as I said they lead the category. I then pointed out David Duke's book on "Jewish Supremacism". On the whole, I think I've primarily made anti-Republican remarks today. If you choose to see them as any different I'd say that is not a fair assessment at all. When I debate with Torone or MikeAI, they don't claim I'm "primarily a Democrat". What's the difference?
Though I would vote against the Patriot Act if there were a referendum, I think it wouldn't be the end of the world, that it's keeping in line with other legislation passed in times of perceived crisis in the US, and that if passed it wouldn't effect my life. I think it's quite possible that it would come and go just like many other such acts passed as a reaction to say WW I or WW II. Those are two different ideals in conflict. My position is perfectly public. The Patriot Act is against my libertarian philosophy. The Patriot Act is not the beginning of an Orwellian America/Oceana that would spell the end of all liberties. There are issues of national security which may make such an act justifiable and historically that has been the case. Now that I've said that let's see if I'm labelled a conservative or a liberal today.
I don't think either party has a broad and consistent enough theme that I can sign up to either one. Different people have different agendas and within any one particular party there are a quite wide range of political views and personalities. Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton are three completely different politicians. I can't judge them as "Democrats". I judge them on their individual merits. Parties change in time to reflect political reality. Parties don't dictate the borderline. People dictate the borderline. The libertarian party does reflect my philosophical views but I think by itself it would be a disaster if taken 100%.
Checks and balances on government and individual power are the guiding principle of the Constitution. Here is our strength.
"Just barely black"? WTF, man. I don't even think you believe you own words. Secretary of State is hardly a "token" position. Powell is the highest ranking minority in the history of the United States. That you would care to denigrate him on the basis of his "percentage of blackness" seems to me a sign that you are only pro-minority for Democrats but not so for Republicans. Isn't the principle more important than the party? <-_<
I liked Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They are men who did their job. Both in character and
deeds they have their faults and they have their strengths. You can tell the story of any of their presidencies in such a way that they either saved the country or ruined it. I rather suspect the truth, for what's it's worth, is halfway in between those views for each of these men.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 04:55 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Republican Presidents are obligated to nominate conservative judges, and stump for Republican senatorial and gubernatorial candidates. Although you have to weigh the individual merits of each prospective candidate for any position, his party affiliation still should be your main criteria, because no matter how good you think the guy might be, he's still gonna have to pay his debts once he gets into office. The Republicans are indebted to all the wrong constituencies. Do you want to bring back the era of small government, states rights Repubs? Vote Democrat. Watch how fast the Repubs stop pandering to the lowest common denominator as soon as it stops winning them elections. Your man Shrub was making a lot of noise about bipartisanship and appointing a democrat to the cabinet and whatnot when he was running for election, and then immediately veered hard to the right once he was in office. Why? He had to pay his debts to the people who got him in office.
I liked Reagan until Iran-Contra, imho that was REAL treason against this nation. It was also pretty well established after he left office that his campaign team was in contact with the Iranian hostage takers and they made a deal to release them only after Reagan was inaugurated. If true, this is just too evil to tolerate.
Bush Sr. seemed like a pretty good man and I have nothing but love for Clinton for the most part. Shrub, I just hate him. He's awful. The worst President in my lifetime for all the reasons I stated above. Goddam I can't believe we gave the Presidency to a born-again Christian in the 21st century. It's like we're going backwards. He probably thinks war in the Middle East is going to bring about the Rapture.
Originally posted by Torone@Apr 26 2003, 05:35 AM Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the Democrat oppisition to that Hispanic and the reason it is a race issue.
Two words. Dade County. Bush is going to beat the Democrats to death with the Estrada/Latino issue when he campaigns in South Florida. Dems made a bad political move on this one.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 06:33 PM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
This below image is still my favorite illustration of why political debates cannot be won and why there is no one "right" answer... only beliefs and opinions. political debates have not changed since the early days of civilization itself. Plato and others debated the very same issues 2400 years ago with no greater success than people have in the year 2003. the same concerns, the same fears, the same theories, the same worries, the same predictions of how it will all go wrong if we continue down the path of "XYZ".... the same emotions and the same confusing of opinion with fact.
Yet here we are. still going strong. never perfect as no country is, but clearly doing ok.
We live in a Democratic Republic that is a system of agreement built on dissagreement. there is no right or wrong between Democrats and Republicans. there is only successful and unsuccessful debate. the winning argument does not have to be "right". ask OJ. It amazes me that people can believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. its probably rational behavior... but its very illogical. it is self comforting i guess and part of a process of self affirmation, that serves to fortify the walls of beliefs that we build around ourselves that protect us from having to carefully weigh and consider an overwhelming amount of information and make an incalculable number of decisions everyday. easier to just tow the party line and take the good with the bad.... afterall, for any shot fired at either party, there is always something to fire back. Much easier to argue about nothing and use mindless rhetoric about which President can't spell and which lied under oath than to argue about something as massively complicated as financial markets, economies, macro-economics and global politics.
Anyone that thinks they are "right" in their views or political opinions or beliefs are acting logically and probably normally... but i think that the reality is that if you cannot allow yourself to see both sides as objectively as possible, then it cannot be logical to conclude that your views or opinions are more correct than others. The magic of the system we have however is that it fully takes this into account and in the end, it is the ranting of those at opposite ends of the spectrum that allow us to define the center.
Colin and i are very similar in our political views. We understand and agree on the need for Republicans and Democrats. But i think we both place our faith in the system, not individuals. Its the system itself, that has worked extraordinarilly well since its beginning and continues to work well. If you took a micro view of the system you would see a lot you dont agree with and a lot of things you think should be changed. Step back and take a look at the system as a whole and you see an economic and political system that has created the worlds only super power and the worlds strongest economy. it has not functioned perfectly all the time... but it has proven to be incredibly resilient, self correcting and effective.
to argue that "republicans are better because..." or "democrats are better because..." is just silly. if the arguement was strong enough for either statement, they would be in power indefinately.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 12:54 AM Bullshit. If you're voting with Santorum, Jerry Falwell and David Duke, you're wrong. End of story.
how do you define wrong?
is Jerry Fallwells mother wrong if she votes for her son?
is anyone wrong that votes for someone they believe in?
is anyone wrong to vote for someone that best represents their views?
is anyone wrong that does what they believe to be the right thing?
is anyone wrong that expresses themselves within the framework of the Constitution and legal voting process?
how do you decide who is wrong?
who decides who is wrong?
if i would be "wrong" to vote for Jerry Fallwell... how do you PROVE i am wrong?
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:29 AM if you don't know why it's wrong to vote for Jerry Falwell, there are no words that will clarify it for you.
i did not make the remark that it was "wrong", you did.
you are telling people what is right and wrong. i am just curious how those decisions are made. you object to people telling you what is right and wrong... yet freely tell others what is right and wrong.
how do you decide what is right and wrong? you are telling me that it is "wrong" to vote for someone. how can that be "wrong"? This is an excellent chance to make your case.
Dig... the point is this... "wrong" in politics is your opinion. its not fact. You are not saying "it may be a mistake" , "i would not agree with that choice" , "i think thats a poor choice" ... in which case, MANY would agree with you. You are saying that you are right and anyone else that makes that choice is "wrong"
You may believe your opinion to be fact but i dont think others will agree with you. You perceive the world. you interpret the information you see, hear, read, feel, touch, smell etc.... you then make conclusions based on what you believe to be consistent with your own ideas about what makes the world turns. We all do that.
What you are doing is the equivelent of looking at that image that shows both an old woman and a young girl and seeing only one person. You see the information that supports your idea of what you see... and you refuse to listen to or accept that there is another person in the same image. Similarly, other people are often arguing that they see the opposite and refuse to see what you see. I believe that in two party politics, there is two people in the image and there is all the information right there to show both.
... we all just need to open our eyes a little and be a little more receptive. when you have boiled everything down to "you are wrong, i am right and its just that fucking simple" ... you cannot possibly be seeing all sides of the arguement clearly or weighing them evenly.
I agree with the idea that voting for Jerry Falwell is wrong in my opinion, because I don't believe in much of what he stands for. Much of what he stands for is wrong in my personal system of values.
But some of the stuff that I'm reading in this thread amuses me greatly. It takes a genuinely shallow mind to believe in the way that the GOP is playing the race card over the judicial nominee. I'm not personally convinced that this tactic will play very well to anyone outside the choir loft. I think it's quite likely that a great many people will recognize it for the cynical ploy that it is, and a number of non-Hispanics (pro-choice advocates in particular) may be offended enough to counterbalance any gains the GOP may realize from it.
The attempt to depict Sharpton as some kind of counter-Robertson is at least equally, if not far more shallow. It surely is pathetic, however.
And while I agree to a point with the very philosophical approach to the whole issue of politics put forth by Colin and JR, there is something about it that bothers me. The thing about it is, in REALITY if you are staring at a figure in the shadows it will, to use your example, ultimately turn out to be an old woman or a young girl.
What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 11:10 AM The attempt to depict Sharpton as some kind of counter-Robertson is at least equally, if not far more shallow. It surely is pathetic, however.
Why? Sharpton is every bit the lunatic fringe racist that Pat Robertson is.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 08:10 AM What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.
PD, i think that for the most part we agree. i think that the fears, concerns, paranoia, debate, arguing etc are all very necessary to the functioning of the political system. I think its necessary in a two party system to yell "Bush is an idiot" and "vote for Reverand Al Sharpton because he can definately run a country"... i think that all the fighting, arguing and debating that would follow are necessary to the success of the system as a whole.
thats the greater paradox to me.
- a person that is balanced in his views, should be in the middle.
- if all people were balanced and in the middle, the political system would grind to a halt and cease to function.
Just as Colin said when he remarked that he usually finds himself in the middle because he can see both sides of the argument. i think that would not be healthy as a whole because it leads to indecision and innaction. As it is, we are left to choose from the stronger arguments or at least we can vote against the weaker arguments.
i think thats healthy.
to me, its also a bigger question of how do i really want to live my life. i personally refuse to live in fear, being paranoid and insecure about "what might be". a lot of things "might be". life is risky... and no matter what, we will all die anyway. i may get hit by a car or struck by lightening, or stabbed in a night club. ... i may get accidentally arrested for Child porn or something else. a lot of things may happen and no amount of worrying will diminish the odds of every possibility becoming reality and increase the quality of my life.
I think that most of the risks/fears people talk about politically like Homeland Security - i.e. "yeah, will how will you feel if you were the one who...." are acceptable. I have not seen evidence that they are not.
I also don't think that any policies that are not popular cannot be reversed had they become politically unpopular. To date, i think that the fact that this organization exists indicates that the majority of people are willing to accept it. Thats how the system works and i accept that. Other than that, i am going to continue to work, travel, invest money and be happy with my wife. When i think that the USA is threatening to make that impossible for me, i will leave.
We are all gonna die anyway.
In the end, all we can do is smile and wait.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 11:10 AM What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.
I think it's quite sane to question the Patriot Act and whether it is a good law or not. It's quite another to think that the end of our society is here, that the Constitution is now a worthless document, that the Republicans are secretly taking over, that America is now on an unstoppable road to ruin, that the system of government we are living under is thus null and void and that we're heading towards an Orwellian finish and and are just a little behind schedule on 1984.
I agree with your premise. "The system" does require alarmists in order to be most effectively resilient. Now, the thing about the alarmists is that they are almost always wrong. The reality hardly ever turns out to be as bad as the predictions. The worst case is just that. It's not likely nor does it hardly ever occur.
I'd rather be right than wrong but necessary. But hey, thats just me.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
so... we need the alarmists to hold off the power grabbing Republicans in order to keep them from turning our country into a police state, but actually the alarmists are wrong and crazy and we don't need them because the Republicans aren't really power-mad?
No, Al Sharpton isn't nearly as bad as Falwell. Sharpton is an attention whore who seeks power and can't get it, who primarily seeks to redress issues of injustice towards colored folk. Falwell is a religious freak who sets the tune that Republicans dance to, and his agenda is to outlaw blowjobs, Huckleberry Finn and Evolution.
I think it's quite sane to question the Patriot Act and whether it is a good law or not. It's quite another to think that the end of our society is here, that the Constitution is now a worthless document, that the Republicans are secretly taking over, that America is now on an unstoppable road to ruin, that the system of government we are living under is thus null and void and that we're heading towards an Orwellian finish and and are just a little behind schedule on 1984.
------------
if your favored party is so evil that it's got a large % of the public believing this is true, why are you still voting for them? Why do you still defend them? Are you just committed to them no matter how evil they get, no matter what they do? At what point do you say to yourself 'I was wrong, these fuckers are just no good'? Does that point even exist with you?
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:55 PM so... we need the alarmists to hold off the power grabbing Republicans in order to keep them from turning our country into a police state, but actually the alarmists are wrong and crazy and we don't need them because the Republicans aren't really power-mad?
There are alarmists in both parties. Let's not make it a party thing. Now, Dig. You think you'll be living in a police state because of Patriot Act? Only Republicans pass such laws?
Let's test ya for bias.
Did you think you'd be living in a police state if the Communications Decency Act had passed?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:59 PM if your favored party is so evil that it's got a large % of the public believing this is true, why are you still voting for them? Why do you still defend them? Are you just committed to them no matter how evil they get, no matter what they do? At what point do you say to yourself 'I was wrong, these fuckers are just no good'? Does that point even exist with you?
Dig,
I'm sorry I don't share your view that I have to belong to a party and cheer it on like it's a football game. I don't hold a chosen party platform point close to heart that I refuse to see there is any point but the Politburo one. At election time I don't sit in front of the tv with a beer cheering each Democratic Party win and Republican loss. You don't get it. I just don't view the world that way.
I don't have a favored party. I have no party to defend. I am committed to no party.
That's you, brother. Not me. Don't confuse.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
As far as Estrada, I think there are people that view such an event through many lenses. As far as Latinos, some will hold their political party status as an important self-image. To others, their self-image will be dominated by the concept of "Latino". Some will be mixed.
I think if you work out the possibilities, it is more likely that neutral Latinos will vote Republican than any other change as a result of the Estrada nomination.
Bush picks up votes in my opinion.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 05:24 PM it's not a football game, bro, it's your life and your country and the laws under which you will be governed. Choose wisely.
Hey Dig,
For 225 years people have been predicting the end of the American way of life and no one has been right yet. We're only getting better.
I am not interested so much in chosing as much as I am in observing. From where I stand, each party has the same number of idiots and savants. For me, there are issues, there are politicians, and there are parties; the last of which is the least important. Parties change. Platforms are amorphous. Today's Republican Party is not the party of Lincoln. Today's Democratic Party is not even the party of LBJ or Kennedy. Times change and they change fast.
Gephard is not Lieberman and just because they are in the same party doesn't mean I would necessarily lump them together. If they had the same views, they wouldn't need to run against each other. The simple fact that they are different is proof that neither party has a monopoly on truth. A party may have some broad outlines which are applicable on average but even the platforms themselves are influenced by the candidates themselves. There are pro-life Republicans and Democrats that will sign CDA-like documents into law.
I find both Bush or Lieberman very much preferable to Sharpton or Falwell.
My idea of bliss is a Republican President and a Democratic House or vice versa.
The political system as outlined in the US Constitution is designed to remove extremism. It's a self-correcting system as much as a governmental process can be anyway. I believe the American system of government is an excellent system of government. I am amazed at the forethought and political insights that the founders of the US had. The early post-Revolutionary period writings of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Hamilton, and others are very powerful. The principles they wished to uphold and the system of checks and balances they designed to prevent the problems they had observed in other governments were quite extraordinary.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 28 2003, 06:30 PM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Colin@Apr 28 2003, 04:14 PM As far as Estrada, I think there are people that view such an event through many lenses. As far as Latinos, some will hold their political party status as an important self-image. To others, their self-image will be dominated by the concept of "Latino". Some will be mixed.
I think if you work out the possibilities, it is more likely that neutral Latinos will vote Republican than any other change as a result of the Estrada nomination.
Bush picks up votes in my opinion.
I don't doubt that it will be effective for some people; I think the gain may be neglible, and still think the backlash against it (which will be a lot harder to measure) may more than counteract it. I really wonder how many people are actually gullible enough to fall for it; the folks that are actually saying it as if they believe it don't have a lot of credibility. You call it a gain for the Republicans; I call it a wash at best, and a pretty crude, dispicable play of race politics REGARDLESS of the results.
Still, playing the race card is a time honored tradition in American politcs. Until about 30 years ago it was mostly a Democratic technique; that baton was passed (thank you Massa Mitchell!) during the Nixon Administration.
It will be interesting to see if they can continue to play the race card both ways - attempting to paint the Democrats as anti-Hispanic because they oppose one specific conservative judicial nominee, yet continuing to chip away at things like Affirmative Action and other attempts to level the playing field while professing their desire to be more inclusive.
[quote]Why? Sharpton is every bit the lunatic fringe racist that Pat Robertson is. [quote]
I don't know that I've ever characterized either person as racist. I know that some of Robertson's contemporaries have some peculiar ideas of race (i.e., Bob Jones); and I think that characterizing Sharpton's advocacy for African Americans as "racist" is false, misleading, and downright incorrect (since wrong is a loaded word in this thread).
I don't know how I'd feel about Sharpton if I thought he was a serious political force. I find him contemptable, personally. Frankly, if he motivates a segment of the African American community to work harder against Bush and gracefully bows out at a later date in favor of another politician, he will be acting as nothing more than a somewhat non-traditional "favorite son." The paranoid side of me wonders where he's getting his money - Buchannan once suggested that Nixon fund Dick Gregory's third party campaign to deprive the Democrats of some black votes, so who knows?
But comparing the power and influence of Sharpton to Robertson takes some damn fucking good drugs.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
It will be interesting to see if they can continue to play the race card both ways - attempting to paint the Democrats as anti-Hispanic because they oppose one specific conservative judicial nominee, yet continuing to chip away at things like Affirmative Action and other attempts to level the playing field while professing their desire to be more inclusive.
-----------
This is why the Repubs play so hard to the Bubba demographic. The subterfuge isn't complex, but for the flag waving crowd the idea that Repubs could nominate a minority for a certain position and still be working against minority interests is a labyrinthine concept of Machiavellian subtlety. Educated people are supposed to know better.
What exactly does the Republican party stand for anyway? Rugged individualism? How do you reconcile that with the Patriot Act? How can you have supposed 'libertarians' and the Religious Right in the same party and have the party aimed at some specific ethical goal? I don't think you can. States rights? How can you reconcile that with the War On Drugs?
I just want to know, from those who identify themselves as conservative, what exactly does that word mean to you? What is the concept behind it that you're defending and how do the Republicans defend that concept?
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 07:06 PM I don't doubt that it will be effective for some people; I think the gain may be neglible, and still think the backlash against it (which will be a lot harder to measure) may more than counteract it. I really wonder how many people are actually gullible enough to fall for it; the folks that are actually saying it as if they believe it don't have a lot of credibility. You call it a gain for the Republicans; I call it a wash at best, and a pretty crude, dispicable play of race politics REGARDLESS of the results.
Sure, yeah. Maybe, but I'll take a bet the GOP is running commercials highlighting the Estrada nomination under the auspices of "Citizens for an Elephantine World" in South Florida come election time.
Dirty? Of course!
James Carville, Karl Rove. These guys are ruthless killers. Southern no fly zone. No comfort. There are no rules.
How many people are that gullilble? That's a good question. I don't know how to answer that question in terms of gullibleness.How many people think OJ was guilty? Would the poll results for blacks and whites differ? Why?
Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 05:15 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 07:51 PM How can you have supposed 'libertarians' and the Religious Right in the same party and have the party aimed at some specific ethical goal?
Is that a new party? I've never in my life heard a Libertarian describe themselves as a member of the Religious Right. California must be a weird place, man. Strange goings on over there. Please explain. What party is THAT?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
no but you hear plenty of people who talk conservative and vote republican describe themselves as libertarian. Re-read the post, there's a question in it I would genuinely like to see answered.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 03:28 AM no but you hear plenty of people who talk conservative and vote republican describe themselves as libertarian. Re-read the post, there's a question in it I would genuinely like to see answered.
Is this coming from this thread? Wig or Me? I think we're the only ones that called ourselves Libertarians. I think JR would probably define himself as independent but I'm not sure really. We'll have to ask him.
I describe myself as a libertarian because my philosophical views of what the world should be are best represented by the libertarian viewpoint. Now, this philosophical viewpoint assumes everyone else will cooperate. If they don't, it doesn't function properly. For example, from my reading of the libertarian platform, military spending would end up greatly reduced. However, I believe it is important to have a very powerful military and I think it should be used for political means on occasion. Now, that is NOT a libertarian view. Nor is it only a Republican view or a Democratic one. The truth is that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush used the military for political means and I mean in the Clausewitzian sense. Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon did too. "Containment" is a political doctrine that required force.
The more I look at the realities of the world the less I can live in my libertarian fantasy-world. Life is a dangerous business and part of the function of government is to serve and protect. It aims to preserve the people and itself. So this starts to break down for me. I can only half-heartedly call myself a libertarian today.
If I turned next to the Democratic Party and then the Republican Party the same sort of absurdities arise. There are a lot of things I don't like about either party. However, I don't really view it that way. I tend to think of the the system as a whole and that the worst of each party is smoothed over in-effect by a system of checks and balances designed to do just that. I think the Republican or Democratic Party left to their own would not be a good thing.
Know what, Dig? I think George Bush is doing a great job as president. I think the world is a better place. It has nothing to do with a party position.
I'm not sure if you are insinuating that Wig or I is a "Conservative that votes Republican that describes themselves as Libertarian". I really don't care. I've seen no difference between Republicans or Democrats as far as intellect, wisdom, kindness or any other positive human quality. Call me a Republican and I'll just say "You're not paying attention but thank you". I would say you missed last week where I was defending Bill Clinton's presidency. I'd say you missed Sword thinking the opposite; that I was part of the "Blame America First crowd". [He's since realized differently]. There are plenty of people I respect that are Republicans. There are plenty of people I respect that are Democrats.
I'm not sure which of your questions you want answered. If you want to ask a Republican questions about the Republican party, there are plenty here to answer for you. If you want my views of the Republican Party you're going to hear that I agree with them in some places and disagree with others. Where I agree with them, you'll disagree. You'll say "how can you be such a moron to agree with anything that comes from that party? They are stupid, dirty, cheating, racist, and evil. You should be smarter than that. Educated people should know better than that." I don't know how to address that, Dig. The school of thought that one party is always right and the other is always wrong is kinda crazy to me and claiming that one party has a monopoly on education or intelligence is absurd in the face of the evidence.
You're right about one thing. I do wave a flag. When did that become a bad thing?
Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 05:06 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
04-26-2003
Linear Mode
