Political Argument Arena!!!

[BayernWake]

Let's hope you never ask another guy for a tea bag...

Maybe they call it something different in England?

[tigerdave]

Inexperience has often been cited as a weakness of Obamas'. However, let's be honest, in our Presidential history there have been Presidents that were labeled as inexperienced but did a terrific job and there were experienced Presidents who did not do such a great job. The executive branch surronds itself with experienced people who help shape the decision making process. A President has a cabinet that probably has a wealth of experience at their disposal.

Be that as it may, it's particularly important when the candidate is virtually anonymous.

I think something that can cite Obama's true reach is his ability to get people to care about politics for the first time. So many people that I have talked with have expressed their disillusionment with American politics. These are well educated people who just have seen the crap of our system and wanted to avoid it at all costs. Now, they believe Obama is something that can change that, whether you agree with that or not he has brought a great deal of supporter through those means.

He's a slick talker who's gotten a ton of support with platitudes and bumper-sticker politics without getting terribly specific about what exactly he plans to do (other than criticize Bush, McCain and Clinton at the drop of a hat), I'll give him that. (Except that he'll tax the rich, and give it to the poor to try and level the playing field. Which, we all know, is socialist -- though I personally think it's Michelle driving that bus more than him, but I hope we don't get to find out.)

These are pretty damn large accusations. A bit of fear mongering?

Reverend Wright was not his spiritual mentor, he was his pastor....His friendly associations with the Weather Underground ringleader? I'd like to see a document or evidence of that charge because you are essentially calling him a pledged terrorist. Do you really think the public wouldn't already know about that? Why hasn't John McCain or Clinton pointed that out? Surely it would end his campaign don't you think?

Obama has referred to Wright as his spiritual mentor and confidant, only to rescind that once the "God Damn America" speech hit the airwaves. Convenient, no? And you cannot tell me that you would sit there in the pulpit for 20 YEARS without knowing this is the way this church operates. Moreover, how can Obama remain in such a church, in good conscience, when it so gruesomely perverts the doctrine of Christianity that he holds so dear? Surely that's a fair question, and yet no answer will come forth. At least, not one that smacks of anything other than trying to cover his own tracks and give a proper political answer.

As to the Weather Underground, Obama's own campaign confirmed that he and William Ayres have a friendly association. They've served on a public service board together and have given joint lectures more times than I care to remember (most or all of which were arranged by Michelle Obama, I may add). Why Clinton and McCain haven't latched onto this defies logic, IMO. My best guess is that Clinton is so afraid of going truly negative that she won't do it out of fear of backlash, and McCain is waiting for the RNC/other anti-lib groups and all that to do the dirty work for him, or he's waiting to shoot his load in the general election process. Your guess is as good as mine.

You can't possibly be serious. A left-leaning fear mongerer who wants to stifle people's opinions. Down with the First Amendment. Really?

Obama might be firing, or asking staffers to step down, for saying something controversial yes. That is common practice.

Pressuring superdelegates to forego their power in the political process over telling a couple of black kids who are swinging from tree branches to "stop playing around like monkeys" is standard operating procedure? Must've missed the memo on that one (and last time I checked, most monkeys hung out in trees -- this is all much ado about nothing and wouldn't have gotten a second thought if the kids were white or Mexican or Japanese.). This isn't about firing staffers, it's about exerting pressure on people who say things might offend someone who's hypersensitive, in the hopes that those potentially offensive words will be made redundant. Involuntarily silenced, as it were. Political correctness, and the pressure from hypersensitive people like Obama projects himself to continue the string of political correctness, will kill free speech. Period, end of discussion. (Unless I offended someone by saying that, in which case I sincerely apologize. Y'know, to be PC-friendly and all. Not.)

It may not result in a violation of the First Amendment by passing legislation (Oh, wait, that's already happening!), but the signs are there that certain things that are supposed to be constitutionally protected won't be tolerated.

A trillion bucks above and beyond current government spending? Where are you getting this?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/14/obamas-trillion-dollar-spending-plan.html

You're welcome.

Tax the shit out of the rich? You mean put it back to old levels before the Bush tax cuts? The richest 1% of people in this country have a 190:1 ratio of wealth to the median wealth. You think that's fair? 20% of families two years ago living under the poverty level (20,000 measly dollars) in 2006 in the richest country in the world and you want to tell me that is acceptable? Look, there are a great deal of rich people who didn't want these tax cuts...there is a duty of government to ensure the people of their country aren't suffering. Now these are all personal opinion...how can oil companies have favorable tax rates when the average American can't afford gas?

Doesn't matter if it's fair. The overwhelming majority of rich people have had to work extremely hard to get where they are (or one of their ancestors had to work extremely hard). In that context, punishing them for their hard work is what's unfair. I'm a believer in that you get what you make for yourself. This world isn't going to give you anything otherwise.

People with at least six-figure salaries account for 82% of US tax revenue under the current system. People above 75,000 in salary account for nearly (or exactly) 100%. Rich folks already pay plenty for being rich, whereas the poor people pay nothing in taxes and are eligible for varying levels of government subsidy (more on all this later) that rich people are not. But that's not the issue here. The issue is not that people are poor (not in totality, at least), it's that a great many people are misappropriating what money they do have, and screwing themselves over.

The average American owns the wrong car, wants the sports car or the Hummer rather than the economical cars (see more on this below). And complaints about gas prices aren't exactly valid, as they've been upwards of 5 bucks a gallon all over the world for years. We're simply catching up to the rest of the world because our peak of domestic oil production was in 1970 and now we have to pay market rate to keep up with our consumption practices. And we're still on the good end of the gas price spectrum. It's the food prices and everything else you should be concerned about since we're trying the whole ethanol thing (which, ironically takes lots and lots of energy to produce -- energy that primarily comes from...you guessed it, oil!) and all that. (Two words to solve the energy crisis: Go nuclear. Hell, even ********ing France figured that one out.)

If the big businesses didn't want those tax cuts, maybe legislation should be passed for them to be allowed donate more taxes than they're required to pay. Or, this could just be posturing from the left alleging that they didn't want them because they didn't ask for them. You show me someone who would oppose tax cuts on their own money, and I'll show you someone who's full of shit.

In either case, oil companies make a huge profit, yes. More than they should? That's not for you or I to judge. What we do know is that oil companies pump money back into energy research and their products create jobs for countless people around the world, not just Americans. Putting these guys out of business (or forcing them to scale back their productivity through increased tax burden) is bad for business in general.

Complete and utter destruction under which this nation was built? Come on man, I'm pretty sure that even the craziest imagined increased tax burden on the rich wouldn't do that. I also think Obama's other programs can create a lot of American jobs. He has talked about investing in green technology that would create thousands of jobs for average Americans. Start living paycheck to paycheck again? So you are admitting that most people can't even get by on what they are making right now? Most people if they get more money are more willing to spend money. This makes a middle class that is more willing to buy new cars, to invest in housing, to invest in general.

Calling Obama a socialist is pretty poor form though. I don't see how there is any evidence of this.

It is a statistical fact that, in general, Americans spend more than they make but that's not an indication that they can't get by on what they make more than it's an indication that Americans, generally, go for the $40,000 Lexus when they should be buying a $23,000 Dodge, or buy the $250,000 house when a $175,000 house would suffice. Misallocation of funds, as I stated above. This doesn't account for the truly poor, but it accounts for all these homeowners whose fears are being preyed upon by liberals who want to socialize these mortgages.

Green-technology is a sham, as is the whole "go green" movement (plant a tree, yes. Global warming? Not so much -- the average worldwide temperature has DROPPED over the last decade. Oh, and CO2 from all that energy expenditure? Decreases global temps. So plant a tree to make sure we don't hit another ice age and all's well.).

How about giving existing businesses more incentive to keep their operations here rather than shipping them off to places like India and China where the burdens aren't as onerous? Sounds like a ready-made solution that won't really have anything to do with excessive government spending -- y'know, like that 1.4 trillion bucks over five years (how was he going to pay for that again?) and stuff.

If you can't understand how Obama is a socialist, I don't think I can help you. Increased taxes on the rich to pay for government spending to even the playing field as much as possible for the poor. May not be USSR Marxiam, but it's still socialism at its core. Congratulations, Obama is a modern-day Robin Hood. I'd even argue that he could be angling to try and fulfill Black liberation by increasing the tax burden on the middle class as well as the rich to bolster the (predominantly minority) poor. But that might be a bit of a stretch, considering all we can tell is that he's got no real account of where all this new spending (1.4 trillion over five years!) is going to come from -- at least not an account he's willing to disclose other than fudging numbers that don't add up (see above link).

The problem with this culture is that Americans have a sense of entitlement, that everything should be served them on a silver platter, no matter the cost to others. Combined with the government handouts Obama plans to instill, this will kill the traditional American way of life - hard work and determination to make things better for yourself. Some people are poor, yes, and there are both lazy poor people and poor people who try to make an honest living. But you can't tell me that these people, given the proper motivation and direction, cannot make a better life for themselves without significant intervention. Obama's system rewards laziness and punishes hard work, to be frank, and conditions people to rely on government to help them through day to day life.

If people don't know how to make their life better, there are better ways of figuring out how to do so and sorting it out through personal responsibility rather than sitting around and essentially giving the government control of your life by being almost wholly subsidized.

And you want to talk about fear-mongering? What about the tactics of preying on people's natural fears (insecure finances, inability to send kids to college, save for retirement, etc. etc.)? Obama's done that pretty well, methinks. I'd be interested to know how many people would determine his induction of their support to be disingenuous if they actually paid attention to more than a rank outsider who talks a good game.

Oh, and for the record, I made a smidge over $23,000 last year for a family of three. Y'know, just so you don't think I'm some rich-bitch Republican who would lose his shirt if Obama gets elected or anything. I'd stand to gain quite a bit from his programs but am also smart enough to know they'll do more harm on the whole than good, even if they'd benefit me in the short term.

The private sector isn't just going to up and disappear. I'm relatively sure if you need open heart surgery there will be a way to get the best possible care for your buck. What is fundamentally wrong and messing with the right to life is the system we have now, where tons of people are not wealthy enough to afford proper healthcare. Where industry and lobbyists are so powerful that people can't afford their medication. That's absurd.

I'll readily agree that the prices of healthcare are skyrocketing and are by and large beyond reason. But that doesn't make socialzing the system the best course of action. With few exceptions, as outlined in prior posts, national healthcare systems cause more problems than they eliminate, starting with increasingly long lines at hospitals because people go to the doctor for anything and everything (and you think the nursing/doctor shortage is bad now?). Throw in the fact that essentially anyone presently in the country can get healthcare under the system irrespective of whether they are eligible citizens (see the UK for a prime example of this, where loads of people come from Africa and points unknown to get healthcare because they won't have to pay for it either in taxes or in medical bills - leaving the citizen taxpayers holding the bag). This doesn't even go into the fact that people who choose not to participate in these programs will (allegedly) have their wages garnished so they still pay for it to work anyway.

Cutting and running in Iraq is an option and its probably the best one....I'm not sure you know the logistics of the war right now if you think that leaving equates to Iran's power...Civil war seems inevitable, and a power-sharing democratic government sure doesn't. Find me more than 5 examples of a power-sharing government that came after a civil war and you can make your case quite strong.

I come from a military family (at least three generations, ARMY, Navy, and Marines), so I understand war pretty well. But thanks for the concern. :)

Until Ahmedinejad admits Israel has a right to exist, de-nukes, and concedes that the Holocaust indeed happened and there are gay men in Iran, I don't think he can be reasoned with on any level. You can't talk sense to a psychopath, and that's exactly why we need to stay in Iraq a la Germany, South Korea, Cuba, Japan, etc. You know and I know (even if you reject this, somewhere in that head of yours you know this is coming) the very first thing that will happen when the last US troop leaves Iraq is that Iran will (overtly and/or covertly) work to topple the democracy (which it hates, as is the case with all things non-Islamo-fascist) and instill an Islamic-law caliphate akin to the way it's done in Iran. Iraq is one step closer to Israel and gives Iran a thoroughfare to Syria, to whom it can channel WMDs to obliterate Israel and possibly reach the fringes of Europe, if so desired. Any of those points would be able to launch the full-scale obliteration of Israel that Ahmedinejad craves. The suggestion of civil war is purely postulatory and doesn't have much if any pertinence in this discussion. But any war that breaks out would be almost certainly sponsored by Iran in an attempt to restore Islamic order to Iraq, and would pose a far greater threat to not only our ally Israel, but to the United States' interests both at home and abroad. That is why leaving now is simply not an option, unless we want a Mid-East war the likes of which we've never seen (let's not forget, Israel has a pretty damn powerful military in its own right).

I don't understand how you can say that Washington is fundamentally broken and then back Clinton or McCain who will bring more of the same. Explain to me what you think they will do that will fix all of our apparent problems.

Stop your fear-mongering and stick to actual arguments because comments like these are just nuts.

Aha. I get it. I'm little more than a fearmonger who doesn't know what the ******** he's talking about. Forgive me, I've seen the error of my ways. Obama in '08! :rolleyes:

How nice of you to resort to the typical "Republicans are fascist" line when you've run out of things to say. But to quote that goddamn hippie Al Gore, "You have insulted my character, but I refuse to respond in kind." :)

I never said I backed McCain or Hillary. In fact, I said I'm not a big fan of either, but I'm slightly less worried about them than I am Obama because at the very least I know what I will get from them because they've been in the public eye long enough that you know what they're about, and their policies have been known for some time. Whereas Barack Obama has effectively risen out of nowhere to prominence and may well be the next President of the United States without us knowing anything (of import) about the man. He could be a great guy, yes, and a great president. He could also be a Manchurian candidate for something nefarious. Or the Antichrist. Who the hell knows. But better the devil you know, etc. etc.

But in seriousness, I've got every right to want any presidential candidate thoroughly vetted and scrutinized. And what little we've been able to glimpse of Obama, I don't like. As far as the clearances comment goes, I have heard it on the radio and online, but the sources escape me. So it's not based in hearsay as you suggest, but I concede I can't substantiate it beyond saying what I've already said.

[ToonUSA]

I hate to jump into Dave and yours' discussion but these struck me as absolutely ridiculous.

You say he thinks he can walk around and negotiate with everyone, that is false. He does WANT to be diplomatic, to avoid war and fighting at all costs. He has said he will SPEAK to Iran, not that he will bend over and let them do us up the ass. There is a major difference. And he has on more than one occasion admitted that if necessary he is prepared to use our military might. He just prefers not to. Compare that with McCain who is gearing up for a war in Iran that would
destroy the United States.
Do you for one second believe Barack Obama has the testicular fortitude to make the decision to send the United States to war? He's done nothing but lip service in this department, and I hope to God that's all we ever get from him. There's 150 million people all over the Islamic world hoping he wins the election.

A war with Iran would destroy the United States? Possibly hurt us economically, but the only place being destroyed would be the Islamic Republic of Iran. What's wrong with McCain wanting to confront those who threaten bringing violence to our doorstep?


Cutting and running in Iraq is an option and its probably the best one. I will have to make a whole separate argument for this but I am willing to do so when I get the chance. Cleaning up our own mess? If you break it you have to fix it right?
I await the reasoning behind this with bated breath.

Uhh I'm not sure you know the logistics of the war right now if you think that leaving equates to Iran's power. Actually what we have done in Iraq up until this point is support a Shia minority that actually benefits Iran. We've already eliminated their greatest threat in the region, and made them a hegemonic power. We are going to need Iran to police Iraq no matter what, and we are going to have to pander to their needs. Like it or not our policy has just helped Iran in a way they could have only dreamed before the war.
Having 100,000 US troops in their backyard isn't exactly what they were hoping for, and this ghastly talk of us pandering to Iran's needs is some sick joke of yours right? Where does that come from?

The whole point of the surge was to reduce violence and create stability so political gains could be made. However, the surge is over now, and the political process has not made too much progress at all. Sadr, as it has become increasingly clear that he can't achieve power through political means, has gone back to violence(Basra). One of the major reasons violence had decreased is his ceasefire. Add that to the fact that we were paying off a ton of militias to fight with us, and you see that the surge isn't exactly as successful as the Bush administration wants it to appear. Civil war seems inevitable, and a power-sharing democratic government sure doesn't. Find me more than 5 examples of a power-sharing government that came after a civil war and you can make your case quite strong.

Why don't you cite 5 examples that a civil war is coming in Iraq?

[JaredSS07]

Ohhhhhhh I thought you meant Britain caused the Iraq clusterbungle via something they did in the current war. I knew that didn't make sense.

It is a good lesson for us that if we don't leave Iraq with a good, stable, and legitimate government, another assbag like Saddam will grab power. In my mind, that removes the possibility of leaving anytime soon.

[tigerdave]

I hate to jump into Dave and yours' discussion but these struck me as absolutely ridiculous.

By all means, feel free. The more the merrier. :)

[mplsTOON]

I was going to wade in and join in the fun, but unfortunately when the fun is based on flawed data and a misunderstanding of facts that are convoluted to support fallacies, IMHO its counterproductive to my discourse and to my points.

I'll not complain about the level of discourse (its good) but I'll site a incorrect fact that highlights and prevents me from simple discussion:

Green-technology is a sham, as is the whole "go green" movement (plant a tree, yes. Global warming? Not so much -- the average worldwide temperature has DROPPED over the last decade. Oh, and CO2 from all that energy expenditure? Decreases global temps. So plant a tree to make sure we don't hit another ice age and all's well.).

Dave's assumption that global warming in not true because of the "fact" that temperatures have dropped globally over the past decade.
Problem is Climate "change" has nothing to do with a small narrow and simple statistic such as weather. Weather is a relative term to describe an micro climate (local area) over a short term. Climate refers to the dynamics of a complex fluid body (atmosphere) over the whole recorded history of recorded weather (a century plus of recorded micro-climates) versus the variables of the atmosphere (moisture, pressure etc).

Its basic, yet complicated, College level math. When you broaden the complexity, increase and make room for the variables, either in the years viewed or by the mitigating effects of those years, you will see a systemic increase in Global temps, with a few decreases thrown in in certain parts due to certain variables, but over all temperature change has been warming overall in Climactic time. Its a proven increase and pretty statistically significant increase.

(Its like saying Alan Shearer was not a good goal striker only when you look at the number of goals scored on teh sunny days in the last two months of his last season in the EPL and not at his overall number of goals scored in all competitions in all seasons for all clubs he played for.)

In short, pointing at local average temperatures as the sole proven fact that climate change is hooey is too simple an explanation. The Atmosphere and climate are too complex and too interrelated systems that are too dynamic variable to be explained by just temperature alone.

Here is an example of what I mean when I cite Climatic complexity:
Breckenridge Colorado had 48" of snow this April alone, and new record low temperature for April. Overall April was colder this year but not below average. The climatic difference between April 08 and April 98 is not because its colder there this winter, or because they had more snow (snow depth only turns air temps cold if there is sun to melt the snow and add cold wet air to the local atmosphere); its because of the persistent high pressure that has stationed itself over the northern Pacific (La Niña effect) that has the Jetstream bending south inland of Seattle and bringing down the high atmospheric Low pressure that normally goes North over and into Manitoba and Saskatchewan, down over Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado then back up into the Upper Midwest. This has not been the case since the early 20th century (1908 here in Minnesota to be exact) and that change was thought to be caused by a volcano erupting in S America and flooding the atmosphere with dust and debris from the eruption. We now know that this is due to the La Niña effect and it has been happening more regularly and been getting more and more intense, adding more variablity to our Climate and atmosphere.

Now is Climate change natural or is it man made? Both. If we do this will we avoid another ice age? Probably not, but we will prevent it from arriving sooner and be more prepared for it if it goes tits up too quickly. Man does have a large part to play in it as green house gasses and CO2 emissions and are proven to affect (note: Affect not Effect--CO2 emissions CAN raise temps BTW...and they also CAN lower them in some cases as well.) climate and by extension weather (local temps, rain, clouds etc...) and to speed up the change either for good or bad.

Rather than denying and whistling past the grave yard, or decrying it as fallacy, or mocking it as some sort of snake oil to be sold at a profit based on limited facts, a bit more of a broader understanding and research would show this is clearly happening, and its even happening quicker than the math is predicting, and that we are helping it change faster than is healthy for us and our children.

I say this not to make you become "green" (Green is a noun not an adjective BTW) or become an Air Jehovah(Birkenstock) hemp wearing hippie tree hugger. Nor is it to "brainwash you" into recycling, composting and riding to work like I do daily(yes I ride a bike up here even when its below zero and snowing...uphill in three feet of snow,... both ways...:D). It's to help you see that what happens now will effect your kids future even more than it effects you now.

Now I'm a live and let live kind of guy. But when I see someone getting risky with my future based on their false assumptions (and in some cases downright stupid actions--like ya know invading the wrong country and selling our national treasures to the lowest bidder--thats for another rant), it scares me. It scares me because that while I know cannot change a mind, I can only present it with what I see and hope it'll at least see enough of it to realize that we can work together so we won't ruin things irreperably.

:)

...and that is why I can't argue in regards to political thought. Because I am flawed and sometimes I do not see things as others do, and I unfortunately don't have the time to try and explain myself, and all of my complex reasons, views, beliefs and thoughts in an understandable way without ruining the discourse and being relegated to pissing contest thread...

shite that was rant and half...

[BayernWake]

mplsTOON is smart

[tigerdave]

Oh yeah? Well we've had climate change for billions of years. :D

Seriously. The climate changes all the time. That was part of my point that I omitted. Do we need to be good stewards of the earth? Absolutely. Are we approaching the point of no return as far as saving the environment goes? I don't think we're anywhere close to what ELF, Al Gore and Greenpeace would have you believe.

[Russell1892]

I would say that whether you believe climate change is a man-made problem, a natural cycle or both you must recognise that the oil will run out eventually? I've heard differing estimates but they seem to be around the 50-100 years worth of oil left. That alone should point towards finding alternatives and something that will effect your kids and grandkids. Not to mention our dependence on the middle east has generally been sh*t politically.

Personally I think electric cars powered by nuclear power stations seems to be the least bad way to go, and should be the long term aim. Anyone seen the film "Who killed the Electric Car?"

Ironically Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have both made the CO2 problem much worse through their protests against Nuclear power in the 60s and 70s. :rolleyes: I also dislike their constant protests without having any viable alternatives suggested. They seem to be hypocrites. Or Hippiecrits ... okay I'll get my coat.

[mplsTOON]

Oh yeah? Well we've had climate change for billions of years. :D

Seriously. The climate changes all the time. That was part of my point that I omitted. Do we need to be good stewards of the earth? Absolutely. Are we approaching the point of no return as far as saving the environment goes? I don't think we're anywhere close to what ELF and Greenpeace would have you believe.

fixed your post.

BTW AL Gore, is not as rabid as Greenpeace or the hippes, er- arsonists er- radicals at ELF are. Despite attempts to paint him as such he is the only one who has promoted the most practical, un-radical, free market approach to climate change: carbon offset credits. Which IMHO are little more than an instant karmic excuse to keep stoking the coal plant and driving the 3 MPG SUV that seats 26 and has eight cupholders per passenger with one eye on the road...in stop and go traffic between strip malls in exurbia.

This does not mean I do not think they are a "Good idea", if thats what floats yer boat go right ahead. There are cheaper, easier, and more direct things a person can do that incrementally can make a bigger impact than paying for someone else's gluttony.

[mplsTOON]

mplsTOON is smart

I can reads very purty like...

[JaredSS07]

Sounds Good, But ... (http://www.newsweek.com/id/130628)
We can't afford to make any more mistakes in how to 'save the planet.' Start by ditching corn ethanol.

I enjoyed this article for it's logical take on being eco-friendly.

[ToonUSA]

So after the minor commercial break to discuss a fraction of what the actual discussion has been (not a bad detour to be fair), we find ourselves back with the Presidential debate.

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a927/a927_bm.gif

Your move Libs...

[mplsTOON]

So after the minor commercial break to discuss a fraction of what the actual discussion has been (not a bad detour to be fair), we find ourselves back with the Presidential debate.

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a927/a927_bm.gif

Your move Libs...

This is the type of BS that I despise and absolutely turns me off to discussing politics. Its the equivalent of walking into a discussion dropping trou, shitting on the floor, smirking and walking out.

I will admit the metaphor is freaking funny BTW, but still i am not going to shit on the floor also, nor am i going to sit in the room smelling it.

How does one respond to that and what does it do actually solve any problems that we face?

[ToonUSA]

This is the type of BS that I despise and absolutely turns me off to discussing politics. Its the equivalent of walking into a discussion dropping trou, shitting on the floor, smirking and walking out.

I will admit the metaphor is freaking funny BTW, but still i am not going to shit on the floor also, nor am i going to sit in the room smelling it.

How does one respond to that and what does it do actually solve any problems that we face?

How is it shitting on the floor? I've already made a post relating to the subject we were discussing and that picture is a funny reinforcement of my position. It was an attempt to prompt folks back to the discussion we were having in the 1st place.

If you feel so inclined you could respond to my post, unless you agree then kudos for having a brain. :D

[Russell1892]

uOivzoRc0I8 (http://v=uOivzoRc0I8)

This guy could be the mayor of London next week. :D

[mplsTOON]

How is it shitting on the floor? I've already made a post relating to the subject we were discussing and that picture is a funny reinforcement of my position. It was an attempt to prompt folks back to the discussion we were having in the 1st place.

If you feel so inclined you could respond to my post, unless you agree then kudos for having a brain. :D

Firstly, in an ironic Steven Col-bear Re-por way its a pretty funny illustration of mocking a stereotypically Republican mindset. But it does nothing to stimulate me to discuss your points what ever they may be...

By that I mean what was your point of posting it? That you must vote Republican because a black man and/or a white woman are unqualified to be president? That choosing someone for president other than a white male will lead to Gotterdammerung for America? That the Republican destiny is to save the world from Librulism? Or are you mocking the Republican steroetypes that you have defended here?

Taken by itself, without some kind of context to ground it to a particular meaning, the immediate meaning one can construe from that image is racist and sexist: "That the choice is clear, we will go to hell in a hand basket if we elect a woman or an African American as president." And the more I think about it and dissect it in an analytical attempt to derive your reason for posting it, the more I tend to believe it to a be a pretty damning image that does not reflect well upon you. In short, IMO and I'm sorry but I don't want to go there and discuss racial and political issues with you.

Secondly you missed my point when I said that I dislike that specific type of commentary being disguised as a "discourse" or discussion. Its not. Its the equivalent of Michael Moore leaving a picture of a Colombine victim on the doorstep of Charlton Heston's House, when he was the mouthpiece of the NRA; or Hilary Clinton "tearing up" before the Dem primaries in New Hampshire. Its agitprop whose point is to generate a reaction and not a discussion. Its Dramatic propaganda. Its "shitting on the floor and walking away with a smirk."

Thirdly, by finishing with "unless you agree then kudos for having a brain." and attempting to declare your ironic intent with a ":D" is "Shitting" on the floor. You are not looking for a discussion you are looking for a reaction.

This is the level of discourse I dislike and since this is what passes for acceptable discussion I prefer to bow out, walk away and not piss myself off and blow and O-Ring about it. My outrage meter pegged somewhere back in 2003....

I am finding more and more that the old adage: "Two things never discussed in good company is politics and religion; because both are understood to be the others best company."

[JaredSS07]

I am finding more and more that the old adage: "Two things never discussed in good company is politics and religion; because both are understood to be the others best company."

I find it annoying that no one uses that great adage with me. Not only do I deal with politics as my job, but everywhere I go someone wants an opinion on politics or wants to argue about it. My dad is a mechanic, so when I was younger and wanted a classic car to work on with him, he always said, "I am a mechanic all day, why would I want to be a mechanic in my free time?" Now I know how he felt.

Anyway...

I think I missed the picture that started this storm. Can I get a link or something?

[mplsTOON]

This guy could be the mayor of London next week. :D

WTF was that real? That was a rugby tackle...

We here in the Upper Midwest have our share of characters who seem to graviatte toward higher offices:

Take this guy, the former Govenor of Minnesota:
http://www.collegeinsider.com/angela/images/lento-jesse.jpg
and we are still recovering form his bold idea to cut funding for roads and bridges because we needed to be "Taught a lesson" in fiscal management. Mr Ventura, the residents of Minneapolis and victims of the 35W bridge collapse salute you you prick...BTW thanks for getting the DFL and Republicans to unite and work together against you.



and this guy may be elected to the US senate from Minnesota:
http://www.vosaclub.org/uploads/stuart%20smalley.jpg
Who IMO I am very sceptical about electing, but its not because he ran over my wife's toes with a shopping car at a grocery store last month...its because well,.. gosh darnit, people like him!

[Russell1892]

[quote=mplsTOON;14462685]WTF was that real? That was a rugby tackle...
quote]

Indeed it was... it was in a charity game England V Germany, Boris Johnson got subbed on and proceeded to headbutt a German in the stomach. He has a reputation for putting his foot in it and generally not having any idea what he's doing (politically.. not just during a kickabout). He is hilarious though... he's like a post-modern politician in that he actually says what he thinks and then gets in trouble for it.

Is that Jesse "The Body" Ventura? I remember him from when I used to watch wrestling as a kid... heard he got elected to something somewhere. I'll never understand American voting tendencies.. Arnie, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Jesse Ventura. :rolleyes: