GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine General
Music
Discuss music itself, plus music videos, performance DVDs, concerts, opera, and so on. la la la o/^
16

Obama unites the Dead
Topic by: Vanamonde
Posted: February 3, 2008 - 7:19 AM PST
Last Reply: October 28, 2008 - 9:28 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next
author topic: Obama unites the Dead
Catullus
post #21  on September 5, 2008 - 4:15 PM PDT  
lol which would be terrible because some right wing hockey mom with a teenage daughter pregnant would be our first female president.

I know its bad form to blame the parents but really how do you not? I highly doubt she got pregnant on her very first time unless she wasn't using BC. I do think parents have a lot of responsibility when their children do get pregnant before 18.

All the political correctness in the world isn't going to change that belief. 17 isn't that young in the grand scheme of teenage pregnancy since there are 13-14 year olds who get pregnant. That said its still too young in our society to really be responsible for a child without massive amounts of support from others.
Battie
post #22  on September 6, 2008 - 4:07 AM PDT  
You know, I largely respected McCain until now. There were times which the respect dipped and I thought he was a fool, but I always figured he at least had some integrity. With his choice of Palin..I'm completely disgusted. She is the example of everything I hate in ANY wing of politics. Ie, I know best, believe best...and everyone is going to be forced to go along with it. There was something I was reading about her last week, about her daughter and abortion. Apparently, she's also against abortion in cases of rape and incest (which is even extreme in abortion opponents - most will allow a choice in those cases). - For instance, whereas Mr. McCain would allow exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape or incest, Ms. Palin opposes any exception other than to save the life of the mother. If her daughter were raped, she said in a 2006 debate, "I would choose life." To me, this didn't sound like a woman who was speaking about her daughter's views, but a woman speaking about what she'd demand OF her daughter. And it just creeped me out on every level. I was viscerally nauseated by the quote. (And I've looked it up, Palin was the one who said SHE would choose life in her daughter's case. This is not a woman who would allow opposition to her view, even if her daughter didn't want it.)

I have absolutely no respect for Palin and now no respect for McCain. The woman is the worst kind of fanatic and has so little experience as to be laughable. A mayor and two-year governor of ALASKA. For the love of...RHODE ISLAND has a bigger population! There is less than 700,000 people in Alaska (though the number probably flucuates with seasonal work). There's more people in my CITY than in Alaska, ffs. Not even my metro area (which numbers around 5 mil), just my CITY. *bangs head against wall* This is a state with a low population, plenty of money and few 'problems' beyond ice. Exactly WHAT does she bring to the table beyond having a vagina and an extreme-right viewpoint? (I miss Gravel.)

Even if the VP is nothing but an ambassador with special priveleges, I still don't want her anywhere near federal office. God forbid McCain had a serious health issue and SHE had to take over. I'd flee to Mexico (and as my friends know, I won't even go there for vacation thanks to a little sex slavery instance with a girl I knew - fled to Mexico with a boyfriend, ended up sold into a brothel).

When I thought it might be a Clinton vs. McCain presidential fight, the only thing that would've made me vote for Clinton was the Supreme Court positions that might come up for grabs soon. Now, I wouldn't vote McCain if someone put a gun to my head.


That aside...I think Obama stands a chance of winning. This is a major election (no incumbent president, current president in disfavor, black man on the ticket of a major party, etc) and Obama has shown, repeatedly, that he can turn out voters. I caucused for him here in Texas...and at my precinct alone, Clinton won the vote and Obama won the caucus (we had about three times as many people stay for the delegate selection than the Clinton folks, too). As bad as this sounds, I never knew there were that many black people in my suburb (of Dallas). When the smoke finally cleared...the total number of votes awarded to both Clinton and Obama...Obama won Texas. She won the votes, he won the state.

My only quibble is his choice in VP. If he'd chosen someone from the South, I think he'd have the race tied up. But at least he chose someone very experienced. :)

Plus..My friend, who has never paid attention to politics and can barely remember anyone's names, is entranced with Obama. She actually, for the first time in like...8-9 years..wants to vote. Sadly, I don't think she's registered in her precinct. That will be the killer for most young voters. I'm going to try to get her to register and vote, even though it won't even count here. Damned red state.

Eh, I'm debating joining the silly "Obama Team" to get turnout here. Again, won't count...but at least it'll show that people who aren't Republican still can say what we want here. It'd be a start. I wish we could do away with the electoral process. Just go by who gets the majority. :( I feel disenfranchised!
Vanamonde
post #23  on September 6, 2008 - 7:17 AM PDT  
> On September 5, 2008 - 9:15 AM PDT Cinenaut wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Oh, answering my own question, Nancy Wilson noticed:
>
> "Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song "Barracuda" no longer be used to promote her image.
> ---------------------------------

i dunno. I think that "Barracuda" could be the theme song for the entire Republican party! Still, you would think that the megacorp sucking beast they are, they would be getting permission and playing royalities AS THE LAW DEMENDS. It seems that Jackson Brown, Van Halen, and a senator from the ole Band called Orelans are all upset by these copyright violations.

kaream
post #24  on September 6, 2008 - 8:53 AM PDT  
> On September 6, 2008 - 4:07 AM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Even if the VP is nothing but an ambassador with special priveleges, I still don't want her anywhere near federal office. God forbid McCain had a serious health issue and SHE had to take over.

This is exactly why I'm so disturbed by his blaming Iran for Al-Qaida in Iraq. There's no possible way this could have been a mere slip of the tongue. Either he honestly isn't aware that Al-Qaida represents the radical fringe of Wahhabist Sunni Islam as opposed to official Iranian Shi'ite Islam, the two factions busily murdering each other in the Iraq civil war, or he's at a point where his mind gets confused. Neither alternative seems promising for presidential decision-making.

Even if he isn't beginning to slip into the first stages of senility, I'd guess that given his history and temperament he's probably at significant risk for a major stroke at some point within the next four years.



> When the smoke finally cleared...the total number of votes awarded to both Clinton and Obama...Obama won Texas. She won the votes, he won the state.

This media-generated shorthand for how well Obama and Clinton did in each state's primary and or caucus (Texas being a special case because it had both) created a great deal of confusion, notoriously including Mark Penn, who almost single-handedly sank Clinton's campaign by not understanding that neither Clinton nor Obama "won" any state at all. In contrast to the winner-take-all state-by-state Republican primaries, and to the same method used for the Electoral College, Democratic delegates were proportionately assigned. This would be roughly analogous to a direct popular-vote election in November. Both Obama and Clinton won a large number of delegates from Texas, and from all other states, with a fairly small spread between them.


> Plus..My friend, who has never paid attention to politics and can barely remember anyone's names, is entranced with Obama. She actually, for the first time in like...8-9 years..wants to vote. Sadly, I don't think she's registered in her precinct. That will be the killer for most young voters. I'm going to try to get her to register and vote ...

This has always been a severe problem with young voters, particularly with would-be first-time voters. There are actually two -- or three -- separate problems, as you indicate. First, it's being tuned out from politics generally. Second, in most states registration deadlines occur pretty early in the process, before a lot of people start paying attention. And third, there's a kind of "magical thinking", to which young people in particular seem to be prone, where they think that excitement and enthusiasm about a candidate should count for a lot in making their wishes known, and that going to stand in line at a polling station is a mere formality that can be dispensed with.


> ...even though it won't even count here. Damned red state.
>
> Eh, I'm debating joining the silly "Obama Team" to get turnout here. Again, won't count...but at least it'll show that people who aren't Republican still can say what we want here. It'd be a start.

You're right, for several different reasons. Even when you're pretty sure your state may be safely in the opposing party's column, you still want to make them have to devote as much attention and money there as possible. And, you always want to continue building up your own party's organization and resources, and enthusiasm, for all future elections that will be coming along. Don't forget, too, that interest in a presidential election gives more opportunities to get voters out for state races, in the legislature and governor's office. You mustn't ever write Texas, or any state, off as a lost cause, because you still have to fight to increase your representation -- or at the very least to hold your own -- in these offices. And this year, not only nominal 'control' of both houses of Congress but actual filibuster-proof and veto-proof control will be of crucial importance, so you need to pay just as much attention to these contests as well.


> Just go by who gets the majority. :( I feel disenfranchised!

Yes, the Electoral College is unfair in that way, but still there would be real disadvantages to eliminating it. The biggest losers would be any rural sparsely-populated areas, regardless of which state, because candidates would be spending all their attention and resources on vote-rich cities and suburban precincts.
Battie
post #25  on September 6, 2008 - 10:17 AM PDT  
> On September 6, 2008 - 8:53 AM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> This media-generated shorthand for how well Obama and Clinton did in each state's primary and or caucus (Texas being a special case because it had both) created a great deal of confusion, notoriously including Mark Penn, who almost single-handedly sank Clinton's campaign by not understanding that neither Clinton nor Obama "won" any state at all. In contrast to the winner-take-all state-by-state Republican primaries, and to the same method used for the Electoral College, Democratic delegates were proportionately assigned. This would be roughly analogous to a direct popular-vote election in November. Both Obama and Clinton won a large number of delegates from Texas, and from all other states, with a fairly small spread between them.
>

I was merely pointing out enthusiasm for his campaign (I'd never even attended primaries before, had no idea what they were).

> This has always been a severe problem with young voters, particularly with would-be first-time voters. There are actually two -- or three -- separate problems, as you indicate. First, it's being tuned out from politics generally. Second, in most states registration deadlines occur pretty early in the process, before a lot of people start paying attention. And third, there's a kind of "magical thinking", to which young people in particular seem to be prone, where they think that excitement and enthusiasm about a candidate should count for a lot in making their wishes known, and that going to stand in line at a polling station is a mere formality that can be dispensed with.
>

Yeah...my brother is going to vote though. :)

> Yes, the Electoral College is unfair in that way, but still there would be real disadvantages to eliminating it. The biggest losers would be any rural sparsely-populated areas, regardless of which state, because candidates would be spending all their attention and resources on vote-rich cities and suburban precincts.
> ---------------------------------

I get that, but as it stands, they spend the vast majority of their resources on "swing states" which usually have different agendas than the national one. For instance, when the Democrats campaigned in..Iowa? they talked about farming subsidies. A lot of people now believe the subsidies are, at best, unnecessary. But damned if the candidates didn't promise continuing support.

I think rural communities have a fine say in politics via representatives and, to a lesser extent, senators. A popular vote for president would allow the candidates to address more overall issues (which is what we need) and to stop making small promises to small communities. Just because a handful of Iowa or New Hampshire communities are suffering from job loss or whatever doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.

We talk about equal votes, but my vote isn't equal, not by a longshot. If you live in a 'red state,' and tend to vote 'blue,' your vote ain't crap. If you live in a 'blue state' and you vote red, the same goes. A popular vote would elimate this kind of nepotism within states. In other words, if people want a candidate to truly win, they'll vote. Maybe there are more 'red' voters than 'blue' in this country. Maybe not. Either way, it's unfair that Ohio and Florida voters have many more times a say in who becomes president than I do. I'd have to MOVE to actually have a say in a presidential election. Why should I give up my home just so I can choose who leads my country?
Battie
post #26  on September 6, 2008 - 10:22 AM PDT  
Furthermore, we're in a time of massive media coverage. Between internet and cable, pretty much all of us can access political coverage and be able to choose a candidate we think would be best. Exactly what are the rural communities losing? More say in what money they get? Why are rural communities more entitled to that than the rest of us (and keep in mind, I grew up in rural communities)?
kaream
post #27  on September 6, 2008 - 11:55 PM PDT  
> On September 4, 2008 - 10:15 AM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> This stupid Georgia business might well escalate further and get a lot nastier by Nov 4, especially if Cheney has anything further to do with it than he's already precipitating with his bear-baiting. (Think back to just a few months ago when Bush immediately recognized Kosovo's independence, to the deep dismay and anger of both Serbia and Russia. The situations in Kosovo and South Ossetia/ Abkhazia aren't exactly identical, but they're close. The issue in all three is territorial integrity vs. ethnic aspirations. I'm convinced that Saakashvili would never have launched his destructive invasion of S Ossetia without at least some whispered encouragement from Washington. Russia was basically put in a position where they pretty much had to respond in some manner, but not necessarily as strongly as they have.)
> ---------------------------------

I suppose anyone following the news other than election coverage might be vaguely aware that Cheney is off to Georgia and now Ukraine, giving god-knows-what kind of assurances of American 'support'. I have a funny feeling that we might be hearing a lot more about Ukraine between now and November 4. I don't know about Cheney -- he's a pretty smart fella -- but I'd be willing to place a small bet that John McCain's* knowledge of the extremely complex history of Ukraine, both recent and back into its earliest post-tribal days, approaches zero. Basically what we're hearing in the news is that Ukraine is frightened of Russia and is desperate to join NATO.

In fact it's much more complicated than that; there are large areas, primarily in eastern and southern Ukraine, that are ethnically and linguistically Russian, who deeply resent Ukrainian being the only officially-recognized language throughout the nation's current borders, who remember that Kiev was the original capital of Russia, and who want nothing at all to do with NATO. According to Wikipedia, in Crimea, the gateway to the Black Sea, only 10% speak Ukrainian, and Russian is the everyday language used by nearly everyone. Wikipedia has several different articles about Ukraine's history and recent politics that are well worth reading.

If you thought there was trouble in Georgia, just wait until the shit hits the fan in Ukraine.


*I'd guess that Obama, as well, is not necessarily all that fluent in Ukrainian history and politics either; but
--Obama actually seeks out and listens to expert advice in areas where he's weak, where McCain keeps giving the impression that whatever he doesn't know isn't worth knowing;
--Joe Biden has made it his business to know this stuff inside out for the past 35 years; and
--I don't think we need to bother our own pretty little heads wondering about Sarah Palin's expertise on the subject. (Hey, she's in favor of Alaskan secession and independence, isn't she!)
kaream
post #28  on September 7, 2008 - 8:19 AM PDT  
A minor case of poster's remorse, for clicking the 'post' button prematurely:

In fact it's much more complicated than that; there are large areas, primarily in eastern and southern Ukraine, that are ethnically and linguistically Russian, who deeply resent Ukrainian being the only officially-recognized language throughout the nation's current borders, who remember that Kiev was the ancestral seat and capital of the Russian people, in much the same way that the Serbs have always regarded Kosovo as their own ancestral homeland, and who want nothing at all to do with NATO. According to Wikipedia, in Crimea, the gateway to the Black Sea, only 10% speak Ukrainian, and Russian is the everyday language used by nearly everyone. The great port city of Sevastopol is the home base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and carries deep emotional significance for its roles in both the Crimean War and WWII. I'm not finding the reference right now, but I've read that Crimea was transferred to Ukrainian territory by Stalin solely for Soviet administrative convenience.

and

--Obama actively seeks out and listens to expert advice in areas where he's weak, ...
kaream
post #29  on September 7, 2008 - 9:48 AM PDT  
And:

--Joe Biden has made it his business to know this stuff inside out for the past 35 years.

There's a real problem here is this regard. However much Biden may understand the historical ethnic implications of the situations in both Georgia and Ukraine, especially in the middle of a heated election campaign, and even more especially with Dick Cheney running around vowing US support in opposing Russia, he would be crucified for even suggesting that Russia might have any legitimate interests in either country, especially given the ferocity of Russia's response in Georgia. At this point there's no way to have a rational and thoughtful discussion of these problems. We can only assume that had Biden -- or anyone else other than this present crew in the White House -- been in an administration when these issues first began to bubble up, American diplomacy might have taken a much less simplistic and confrontational stance. I suspect our diplomacy with Kosovo and Serbia might have also been aimed more toward defusing rather than exacerbating tensions.

I'm not at all meaning to suggest that ethnic Albanian Kosovars, or ethnic Georgians or Ukrainians, do not have serious and legitimate reasons for the various stances and actions they've taken over the past couple of decades. But since 2001 the mindset of this administration has been to see these complexities in black-and-white Cold War terms, with no hint of subtlety.
kaream
post #30  on September 7, 2008 - 10:45 AM PDT  
> On September 6, 2008 - 10:17 AM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I get that, but as it stands, they spend the vast majority of their resources on "swing states" which usually have different agendas than the national one. For instance, when the Democrats campaigned in..Iowa? they talked about farming subsidies. A lot of people now believe the subsidies are, at best, unnecessary. But damned if the candidates didn't promise continuing support.
>
> I think rural communities have a fine say in politics via representatives and, to a lesser extent, senators. A popular vote for president would allow the candidates to address more overall issues (which is what we need) and to stop making small promises to small communities. Just because a handful of Iowa or New Hampshire communities are suffering from job loss or whatever doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.
>
> We talk about equal votes, but my vote isn't equal, not by a longshot. If you live in a 'red state,' and tend to vote 'blue,' your vote ain't crap. If you live in a 'blue state' and you vote red, the same goes. A popular vote would elimate this kind of nepotism within states. In other words, if people want a candidate to truly win, they'll vote. Maybe there are more 'red' voters than 'blue' in this country. Maybe not. Either way, it's unfair that Ohio and Florida voters have many more times a say in who becomes president than I do. I'd have to MOVE to actually have a say in a presidential election. Why should I give up my home just so I can choose who leads my country?
> ---------------------------------

and

> On September 6, 2008 - 10:22 AM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Furthermore, we're in a time of massive media coverage. Between internet and cable, pretty much all of us can access political coverage and be able to choose a candidate we think would be best. Exactly what are the rural communities losing? More say in what money they get? Why are rural communities more entitled to that than the rest of us (and keep in mind, I grew up in rural communities)?
> ---------------------------------


Battie, these are all excellent points, and I agree with you entirely. I think you may even be right about the relative influence of representatives and senators in real terms, even though theoretically it was supposed to be the other way around when the makeup of the two houses of Congress was being fought over in the constitutional convention.
Vanamonde
post #31  on September 7, 2008 - 11:25 AM PDT  
> On September 7, 2008 - 10:45 AM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Battie, these are all excellent points, and I agree with you entirely. I think you may even be right about the relative influence of representatives and senators in real terms, even though theoretically it was supposed to be the other way around when the makeup of the two houses of Congress was being fought over in the constitutional convention.
> ---------------------------------

Were not U.S. Senators selected by some other means than a popular election originally? It has been about 40 years since I studied this.

The older I get, more leary I am of mob rule. Hell, I think a random draft might give us better representation in Congress than what we have now. Think of it - Congress would over half female and less than 5% lawyers. One term. Think of it as a draft with better pay and no boot camp.
kaream
post #32  on September 7, 2008 - 2:13 PM PDT  
> On September 7, 2008 - 11:25 AM PDT Vanamonde wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Were not U.S. Senators selected by some other means than a popular election originally? It has been about 40 years since I studied this.
>
> The older I get, more leary I am of mob rule. Hell, I think a random draft might give us better representation in Congress than what we have now. Think of it - Congress would over half female and less than 5% lawyers. One term. Think of it as a draft with better pay and no boot camp.
> ---------------------------------

Wikipedia:
"Originally, Senators were elected by the state legislatures, not by the citizens. Direct election was established in 1913 by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, although as many as 29 had previously provided for direct election by way of referendum confirmed by the legislature."

For that matter, presidential elections are still indirect, as Battie has discussed, via the Electoral College, but in a much more complicated fashion than was the case with Senators. When you vote, you're actually voting not for the candidates themselves but for a slate of pledged electors. However it's not generally understood but in fact any Elector, once chosen by whatever method, is legally free to vote for -- to elect -- anyone s/he pleases for president and vice-president.
kaream
post #33  on September 7, 2008 - 2:22 PM PDT  
> On September 7, 2008 - 2:13 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> For that matter, presidential elections are still indirect, as Battie has discussed, via the Electoral College, but in a much more complicated fashion than was the case with Senators. When you vote, you're actually voting not for the candidates themselves but for a slate of pledged electors. However it's not generally understood but in fact any Elector, once chosen by whatever method, is legally free to vote for -- to elect -- anyone s/he pleases for president and vice-president.
> ---------------------------------

An interesting situation could arise if the winning candidate for president should die or become unfit to serve sometime between Nov 4 and Dec 15 (when the actual election will take place). The whole thing would be up for grabs.
kaream
post #34  on September 7, 2008 - 2:55 PM PDT  
And here's another complication: both Maine, with 4 electors, and Nebraska, with 5, apportion their electoral votes rather than using the winner-take-all method used by all other states, but using a complex formula. To date neither of these two states have split their electoral votes, but if any larger states such as Texas (tending red) or California or New York (both tending blue) were to adopt this method, it would be a mess. Suppose both CA and NY were doing this now, and no offsetting red states. Obama could win both by comfortable margins, but would still have to split these electoral votes with McCain.
Battie
post #35  on September 7, 2008 - 3:35 PM PDT  
I had a horrible nightmare last night. I was sitting in a room full of friends and strangers (it looked like an Obama campaign room). We were watching the election coverage...they announced McCain/Palin won. And I completely lost it. >_<

I reserve the right to move to Australia if they win. (In the dream, I said, 'I don't wanna move to Europe!' I think I was referencing something I'd said in RL about Obama losing.)
kaream
post #36  on September 7, 2008 - 4:03 PM PDT  
> On September 7, 2008 - 8:19 AM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
Crimea was transferred to Ukrainian territory by Stalin solely for Soviet administrative convenience.
> ---------------------------------

Um -- entirely by coincidence, an AP article on Crimea appearing in today's local paper says it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by Krushchev. However, this article makes it sound as though the status of Crimea is pretty much the only source of tension between Ukraine and Russia, which is a gross and very misleading oversimplification. But at least it's a beginning by the news media in attempting to explain the situation. I guess everyone has forgotten the contested 2004 Ukrainian election, pitting Russia-allied Viktor Yanukovych against West-leaning Viktor Yushchenko, and all the different currents of anger and resentment swirling throughout the whole country. But what the hey -- we're Americans -- we don't need to know about all them furrin countries, except to feel smug when "our side" is winning.
Catullus
post #37  on September 8, 2008 - 1:49 AM PDT  
> On September 5, 2008 - 4:15 PM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On September 5, 2008 - 4:11 PM PDT Catullus wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > the only interesting part of mccain winning is that I think its very likely to be the cause of the first female president.
> >
> > Mccain is so old I am thinking that its more likely he will die of some age related illness before the 4 years is up than not.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Actually, I think the age per se is less a worry (heck, my dad just turned 70 and is in great health, knock on wood, lots of energy), than his health at that age. He's had numerous health issues over the years, and it's that combined with his age that makes it a worry. Oh well, at least he chose a well-qualified candidate to be second in command.
> ---------------------------------

Oh well, at least he chose a well-qualified candidate to be second in command.

I hope that was sarcasm lol

anyway I will leave the discussion to you people, I have discovered a new form of crack that I must indulge in for the next several weeks/months (warhammer online)
Battie
post #38  on September 8, 2008 - 5:41 AM PDT  
> On September 8, 2008 - 1:49 AM PDT Catullus wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> anyway I will leave the discussion to you people, I have discovered a new form of crack that I must indulge in for the next several weeks/months (warhammer online)
> ---------------------------------

My crack: Mercenaries 2. That, and I'm about to buy some DVDs...Bliss, for one. A friend told me it was good, and for $9, who can argue? If I hate it, I can always give it to a friend. :D
underdog
post #39  on September 8, 2008 - 12:51 PM PDT  
> On September 8, 2008 - 1:49 AM PDT Catullus wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Oh well, at least he chose a well-qualified candidate to be second in command.
>
> I hope that was sarcasm lol
>
> anyway I will leave the discussion to you people, I have discovered a new form of crack that I must indulge in for the next several weeks/months (warhammer online)
> ---------------------------------

it wasn't obvious?

Okay, then: " :-/ "

Great discussion here folks, thanks for keeping it amiable, too.

I wonder if I can work for GC from Canada?
kaream
post #40  on September 8, 2008 - 7:22 PM PDT  
> On September 8, 2008 - 12:51 PM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Great discussion here folks, thanks for keeping it amiable, too.
> ---------------------------------

I guess GC doesn't have a lot of subscribers who are members of the Eagle Forum or the John Birch Society (which believe it or not is still around) -- at least not who read and post in these boards. It seems we mostly are finding ourselves on the same side of the fence.

You know, this thread started out in the Music section (lol), so I think you must have moved it over here to Off Topic & Games?

Anyway, while I'm here now I have another couple of thoughts on politics that might be worth sharing.

It seems to me that voters want simple easy-to-understand answers to questions; not necessarily 6-word soundbites, but once you get past 15-20 words, people start tuning out and thinking you're hedging or hair-splitting. In general, Republicans tend to be much better than Democrats at giving strong, quick, short answers that sound good, but are mostly empty of real content. Once you start analyzing and explaining nuances, you get a lot of eye-rolling in your audience. But if short answers were correct and sufficient, most of these questions and issues would have been solved long ago.

Another thing that always bugs me is voting records. We're going to be hearing a lot more about "he voted for/against (fill in the blank)", or "he voted 'present'" or "he didn't have the courage of his convictions to vote at all", etc. Most of this is crapola. Clean bills coming up for a vote in either Congress or a legislature are few and far between. Most are bad compromises; many will have stuff that you're specially anxious for, but also stuff that you're dead set against. So you always have to weigh whether the bad stuff or the good stuff in each bill is the more important -- and you also have to weigh how will my vote be interpreted by the folks back home. Obama has explained that voting 'present' in the Illinois legislature is a specific parliamentary tactic, but this is too messy a concept for voters to comprehend. And in general, legislators do want to go on record for or against the grossly oversimplified issue that a complex bill will purport to address, but there's also the point that very few votes will be close, or a surprise, and it's clear that a bill is going to pass or fail whether you vote on it or not. So I mostly tune out the voting records nonsense that gets tossed around.
page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.