US 2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread - Part 9 - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-26-2008, 10:07 PM   #561
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Even more curious is, again there comes this BS that left/liberal equals socialist.
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:08 PM   #562
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 09:35 AM
financeguy, I keep meaning to ask you (and sorry to interrupt the thread to do it) - who is that in your avatar?
__________________

corianderstem is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:09 PM   #563
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Why House Republicans Balked - Capitol Briefing
Here's a good breakdown of what conservatives are doing now. They are trying to realign themselves more to the right because they have been caught with their pants down by being to "moderate" on issues.

Dr. Frankenstein’s Wall Street by Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online

Here's a good article talking about things that politicians can't talk about. The investors themselves are part of the problem, and not just Washington and Wall Street.

An Old Story by Michelle Malkin on National Review Online
Another microeconomics lesson for us. It's fun to blame politicians and sometimes they should be blamed but we need to look at ourselves and lives we live.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:14 PM   #564
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
financeguy, I keep meaning to ask you (and sorry to interrupt the thread to do it) - who is that in your avatar?
I don't actually know. Someone on here sent it to me.
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:15 PM   #565
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:35 PM
John Oliver a couple weeks ago ran around like this.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:16 PM   #566
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Huh. Oh well.

It always makes me think of Bill Nye the Science Guy (albeit with glasses):



Back to politics. That's fun.
corianderstem is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:28 PM   #567
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:35 AM
I think it's actually that crazy guy with the loud commercials running around DC yelling about how we can get money from the government.
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:33 PM   #568
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Edge View Post
That's quite a leap from not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. I'm not saying that it wasn't an idiotic statement, but I'm willing to guess that he just got his facts and figures wrong, and perhaps he needs a refresher course in early 20th century history.

Early 21st century history needs no refresher course. Specifically when you are in the running for the #2 spot, and your interviewer is asking you a question about the policy of the head of your country (and party) currently in office.
Hardly anyone knows what the fuckin "Bush Doctrine" is - it's actually many things rolled into one. I would completely give up on that one. Nobody cares, specifically the average voter. Stick with the Katie interview - now THAT was something else!!!
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:35 PM   #569
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Hardly anyone knows what the fuckin "Bush Doctrine" is - it's actually many things rolled into one. I would completely give up on that one. Nobody cares, specifically the average voter. Stick with the Katie interview - now THAT was something else!!!
So the average American is supposed to see a politician saying they aren't aware about a lot of politics, and the average American is supposed to nod and say, "I like that she doesn't know - I can relate to that!"
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:37 PM   #570
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
So the average American is supposed to see a politician saying they aren't aware about a lot of politics, and the average American is supposed to nod and say, "I like that she doesn't know - I can relate to that!"
Ronald Reagan.

I rest my case.
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:40 PM   #571
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Mainstream media's bias is nowhere close to Rush's bias. If you are honestly suggesting that Rush's bias is comparable to the bias at NBC, ABC etc, you have lost all credibility on this one.
If you are a fair minded and you understand politics you can't tell me what is happening to Palin is not over the top? ABC edited her transcripts to try to make her look bad, they allowed left-wing bloggers to question Palin's son's paternity. Isn't it obvious who's kid it was? MSNBC had to fire staff who were overly biased. The New York Times did so too. What about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas? What about 90% of the artist community using their celebrity status on TV?

Rush Limbaugh is supplying a demand for news and opinions of a conservative nature. He's not trying to make an ABC. It's the "Rush Limbaugh show for Advanced Conservative studies." He's a pundit. If the major networks were so fair people would feel their opinions were given equal say and Rush would be out of a job. He's popular and wealthy because there is a HUGE demand for what he does. He's not indoctrinating conservatives. Conservatives are rising him up because they get what they need from him. Conservatives don't agree with him on everything, but they at least have a platform to respond to attacks in the other venues.

Certainly immigration and the war were sticking points for his show and he had to ride that one out. The overspending the Republicans were doing was a huge irritant for conservatives and they are trying to go back to the basics with Palin. McCain has also pushed for vetoing bad spending.

This push for Conservative media has been going on for sometime and it's now in the past 10 years showing up more openly. Especially on Fox news.

I know socialists. I've been to university and seen teachers give conservatives low marks simply for their opinions, including myself. They should be marking for knowledge of the subject, not political views. Some left wing professors weren't so bad but that was under threats from parents and students.

Socialists don't like equal opportunity for ideas because they don't believe it. They know that having only one point of view enmasse will convince most people just from saturation. It makes sense they would want to dominate media. Not all people are influenced by it, but the more people are uneducated of the issues the more they will rely on mainstream media as a fast food way of getting their knowledge. People can be misled easily this way. The left knows that and is ruthless with it.

It would be nice to have an unbiased media but the left and the right have different views on the world and it shows in their priorities. These priorities conflict and lead to confrontation and defensiveness. This leads to left wing media vs. right wing media. I don't see this changing at all. With jobs we can't always keep up to date so reporters end up with that task. It's up to us to weigh both sides and then make a decision. By all means look at other points of view. I did. In fact it will help you make your decisions easier. Especially if you read classic books on economics, politics, history, and philosophy. If your education is better than media people you can see bias even easier and sometimes guess what people will say next.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:44 PM   #572
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
I just think Rush is an irritating blowhard, is all.

Obviously, you disagree.
Yes he's not subtle. He also makes fun of his enemies. There are more subtilties with National Review if that's what you're looking for.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:46 PM   #573
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I find this a curious statement. Socialists are rather good on military. China invests heavily in their military, as did the USSR. North Korea invests in its military while its people starve.

True conservatives realise that an excessive big government milit-ind complex is yet another threat to freedom.



Strongbow, a socialist contributor to FYM, is obsessed with having a huge military.
Most socialists today want to decrease spending on military and increase spending on domestic social policies. The area that makes them militaristic is that enemies look at them as weak and altercations start from that perceived weakness.

Usually leftists decry overspending more on military. They tend to be mum on other areas. Just look at Barack Obama, or even Bill Clinton.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:52 PM   #574
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Even more curious is, again there comes this BS that left/liberal equals socialist.
They are socialists. Or more accurate. Fabian Socialists. They want to change society slowly. Make no mistake. The liberals in university do read Karl Marx and gloat over him. If you don't like Marx then you probably are more moderate and there are some liberals that don't agree on everything of the left. Nobody has made a party called the "Moderate party" yet.

What liberals do in university now is to try and change terms like "social justice" to "Civic virtue". They also adopted Clinton's idea of government expenditure as "investments". An investment is an investment and an expenditure is an expenditure. You can't fool this accountant.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 10:56 PM   #575
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Make no mistake. The liberals in university do read Karl Marx and gloat over him. If you don't like Marx then you probably are more moderate and there are some liberals that don't agree on everything of the left. Nobody has made a party called the "Moderate party" yet.
No, Vincent is actually a committed socialist.

On account of him gloating over Marx at university, as all liberals are wont to do.

I happen to know that all the liberals on this forum gloat over Marx in a most despicable and un-American fashion.

Sorry, but I just can't take your posts seriously. You have a very simplistic take on things.
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:00 PM   #576
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
They are socialists. Or more accurate. Fabian Socialists. They want to change society slowly. Make no mistake. The liberals in university do read Karl Marx and gloat over him. If you don't like Marx then you probably are more moderate and there are some liberals that don't agree on everything of the left.
If you're actually seriously making this argument then, like financeguy said, it's hard to take you seriously.
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:00 PM   #577
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Where has this "Purpleoscar" person been. I might not agree with everything he says but at least he seems passionate about it. Adds a little spice around here. Keep em' coming.
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:31 PM   #578
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer substance to spice.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 02:21 AM   #579
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Where has this "Purpleoscar" person been. I might not agree with everything he says but at least he seems passionate about it. Adds a little spice around here. Keep em' coming.
I totally agree with you. I disagree with a lot of what purpleoscar has said about OUR media, and I am glad to explain why. That's not the point.

Let's bring some fucking different views in around here.
That's the point.

NBCrusader was one who was ran off by the Christian haters around here, he was a GREAT conservative voice. Diamond, FG and Sting have the balls, give it up to them. 2861 and others are hanging in there as well. 85% for Obama in the recent FYM poll is just...pitiful. The choir preaching to the choir. C'mon, folks.

Speaking of, Mr. Harry Vest, since Hillary dropped out of the race, you have been among the most even minded posters I've seen on the whole of FYM. Astonishing.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your irrational, conspiratorial, distaste for her.

Especially considering the campaign we've seen from Obama since he got his nose bloodied. Thankfully, he's gotten tougher in recent weeks. She'd be cleaning McCain's clock right now with the advent of this economic disaster.
That's what politics are about. It's not the image you hold yourself up as, it's the image that's left after you've been savaged.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 04:04 AM   #580
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I find this a curious statement. Socialists are rather good on military. China invests heavily in their military, as did the USSR. North Korea invests in its military while its people starve.

True conservatives realise that an excessive big government milit-ind complex is yet another threat to freedom.



Strongbow, a socialist contributor to FYM, is obsessed with having a huge military.
The most important job the President has is protecting the country and its interest. Failure to do that makes any other national policy goals impossible. In order to protect the country, you don't necessarily need to have a large military, but you must have one that can meet the country's national security requirements.

The United States along with its NATO allies attempted to build an alliance that shared the burdens of defending Europe from a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The Soviets spent much of the Cold War attempting to have and offensive capability in which they could overrun Western Europe in a matter of weeks. Such an offensive capability requires many times the money and resources it would take to simply maintain a defensive capability and went well beyond the Soviet Unions basic requirements for its national security.


As for Ike, while he was a good General, as President he was rather poor when it came to the proper level of defense spending and overall Cold War strategy. He wrongly believed that the United States could exclusively depend on Nuclear Weapons for most of its national security needs and could reduce spending on the conventional military which took up the majority of the defense budget. The budget cuts were opposed by the military under Ike and hurt the country's conventional defense capability. Once Kennedy became President, he correctly took the country away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and massive nuclear retaliation to a policy of "flexible response", which meant the country would rely on all aspects of its military structure(conventional and nuclear) to deter war in Europe and elsewhere instead of simply the incredible and increasingly not credible threat of full scale nuclear retaliation for any type of conflict in Europe.

By the late 1960s, the Soviets had developed a survivable second strike capability making the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States in response to a conventional invasion of Europe essentially suicide. The only way to credibly deter a conventional invasion of Europe by the Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces was by maintaining a sufficient conventional military capability in Europe. Once the Soviets reached Nuclear Parity with the United States, Nuclear weapons really only become effective at detering the Soviets use of such weapons.

Ike failed to see the need to maintain a credible conventional defensive structure in Europe and mistakenly believed that NATO could continue to primarily rely on a nuclear weapons and would not need the more expensive conventional military force structure to deter an invasion. Kennedy, much to the relief of the US military and prior to the Soviets achieving Nuclear parity with the United States, started to correct this mistake.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×