Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 27, 2017, 02:18:22 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 350 351 352 353 354 [355] 356 357 358 359 360 ... 468
8851  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do You Agree with this Statement? on: January 26, 2008, 06:39:12 am
When will people realize that these beloved Kennedy's did just as much bad as Nixon did?

Why should they believe something that isn't true?

The sinister political animal known as the Kennedy family was much worse than Nixon. Nobody cares to recognize that, though, because the Kennedy's are such a glorious bunch.  Roll Eyes

Kennedy didn't bomb Cambodia or overthrow Allende.

Next!

He did oversee that ever so successful mission in the Bay of Pigs.

Next.

How is the bay of pigs comparable to the hundreds of thousands deaths in Cambodia or installing a dictatorship in Latin America. I don't Understand...
8852  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Sex films sold in Algeria disguised as Islamic sermons on: January 24, 2008, 02:43:32 pm
FF.
8853  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do You Agree with this Statement? on: January 24, 2008, 11:41:40 am
Bit like the old Commie defense of Stalinism really. Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and so on. People aren't eggs though. In any case, Allende and his followers would have been voted out at the next election.

Exactly. Chile had at the time one of the strongest and most established parliamentary systems in Latin America - Allende had been in power for 3 years and approaching the end of his term and re-election (which he would have lost; his popularity went down the tubes after election). To support such a military action against him renders talk of "democracy" hypocritical at best.

Btw Bono, do you support the murder of this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Schneider
8854  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Obama ad: HRC will "say anything, and change nothing." on: January 24, 2008, 09:49:58 am
You Know I have that cartoon in my sig for a reason...

Simply but, I am already tired of this sh*t. Remind me what is all this about again - Best Dressed ten year old?
8855  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Survey USA: McCain defeats Clinton in MN, WI, NM and beats Obama in MA on: January 24, 2008, 09:31:14 am
I've ranted on the forum many times about how American liberalism and progressivism are "failed ideologies."  of course "liberal" is just an epithet to most of you people encompassing everyone from Evan Bayh to Bukharin so perhaps by your definition I am.

That's what I always thought.. 'Liberal' being someone who didn't agree Reagan\Reaganism very much. So Lincoln Chafee is a liberal republican (really a Wet\Red Tory) aswell as the cliche San Fransisco liberals (who are.. well, god knows.)

And yeah, anyone who thinks McCain can win MA.. is totally high on drugs. His numbers won't last.. if he wins, it will be close not "Wins MA" close.. wait until the ads comparing him to Bush.

Also the left-right Paradigm so really be abolished. It means nothing now, so should the "liberal-conservative" Paradigm. (Hell being liberal is very different now than what it was 100 years old, and being left-wing has changed quite a bit since the 1950s. Though I think Al would shout at me for suggesting such a thing.)

@Tweed: Yes - but the programs of the parties represent what they think appeals to the Median voter (note: voter. In the US this is important.) while also securing their position. What else could explain FDR's enthuaism for Small government in the 1920s to his shift to the New Deal in the 30s? The likes Spooner and Marx never appealed outside of intellectual circles. And Objectivism is a cult. Similiar to Trotskyists in Europe in the 70s actually.
8856  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Going through my movie collection...I realized something on: January 24, 2008, 09:10:03 am
I still use VHS (aswell as DVD..). Sad
8857  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do You Agree with this Statement? on: January 24, 2008, 09:03:49 am
When will people realize that these beloved Kennedy's did just as much bad as Nixon did?

Why should they believe something that isn't true?

The sinister political animal known as the Kennedy family was much worse than Nixon. Nobody cares to recognize that, though, because the Kennedy's are such a glorious bunch.  Roll Eyes

Kennedy didn't bomb Cambodia or overthrow Allende.

Next!
8858  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: What's the last movie you've seen? on: January 23, 2008, 10:07:19 am
The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

It's pretty good - could have needed a better explanation of the characters earlier on; plus a bit of editing during the middle.
8859  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Why didn't America give Mike Gravel the time of day? on: January 23, 2008, 08:51:23 am
Because.... Good lord just because.

You don't vote for someone just because you like what they say... he wouldn't have a hope in hell unless it was 1924 or 1972.
1924!? Don't you mean 1892?

I thought he meant 1932..

I have to agree with this though...

Even his supporters agree he is crazy.  Not eccentric crazy, but mentally ill crazy.

That's why he's awesome.
8860  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Why didn't America give Mike Gravel the time of day? on: January 22, 2008, 08:33:23 pm
He should have ran for President in 1972 with his current persona. He would have made a far more entertaining nominee than McGovern.

Would probably have done a little better as well.

He was actually seriously considered by McGovern to be his VP IIRC. (And finished Third in the VP nomination vote, as it was back then.)
8861  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the preceding signuture part 2? on: January 22, 2008, 07:51:26 pm
Both Quotes = Very True
8862  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Mr Hunter's UK Commentary Thread on: January 22, 2008, 07:40:27 pm
When has it ever been safe to walk the streets of London alone at night?

Why during The Good Old Days of course.

You forgot the obiligatory "When the tories were in power" bit.
8863  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do strip clubs benefit the economy? on: January 22, 2008, 07:20:56 pm
Of course. Business does in general.

Not if that Business acts like a reserve magnet to other businesses...

In General the answer is no but depends alot on the area. In a Rural area I can't imagine a situation where the answer would be 'yes' though.
8864  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do You Agree with this Statement? on: January 22, 2008, 07:19:28 pm
Agree 100% If I could have a different father to what JFK had.
8865  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Gully Foyle vs. John McCain on: January 22, 2008, 02:35:40 pm
Given that I am now a "Whiny Joe Lieberman Clone" shouldn't we be running mates? I mean in your universe (ie. the one only you live in) there is absolutely no difference between McCain and me.
8866  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: why is incest wrong? on: January 22, 2008, 02:32:56 pm
Well Tweed, no-one is told in school "Incest is wrong". Anyway Education is more subtle than that. But given that most school system in Ireland (and I imagine from what I have read, the US) pretend sex does not exist until you are 16 and half-pregnant\nearly a father it is not an issue.

I also doubt that believing Incest is wrong is the most irrational thing you believe.

As for an actual answer, That's beyond me. Though as I said Incest is often associated with Rural hicks - perhaps those with more time, less brain and less potential mates than someone living in a city or a massive extension to a city like LI.

I also doubt that 'nature' has anything to do with. The second law of internet debating (the first being Godwin o\c) is that when people say "Human Nature" they mean "Stuff which seems normal to me".
8867  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: whatever happened to the gene mccarthy/rfk voters? on: January 22, 2008, 02:23:44 pm
Quote
Your first point about McCarthy receiving support from pro-war Democrats is true, but only in the very, very early stages of the campaign, primarily in New Hampshire and Wisconsin before LBJ dropped out.

Which is where he ran strongest (mostly). O\c neither state was exactly a stronghold of "hippieland" or the supposed Educated Elite.

Out of curiosity, would it be possible to get a map of the 1968 D California primary between RFK and McCarthy. I think that would be interesting.

Quote
Also, I don't think you could really characterize them as "McCarthy Supporters" because they never really supported him.  Most of them probably ended up supporting Richard Nixon in the general election, with some Southerners going to Wallace and a few staying with Humphrey.

I agree. But it was significant enough to give him a stronger vote and showed how utterly dead the LBJ presidency was.

Quote
Blue collar support for McCarthy was limited at best, at least until RFK jumped in and took away pretty much all the blue collar support.

RFK: Blue Collar? Not really - It was mainly Humphrey who got the blue collar support (at least in 1972.. I admit I don't know too much detail about the 68' primaries as I do about the 72' ones.). RFK was the candidate of Minorities, Catholics and the more moderate liberal intellectuals.

I do know that McGovern actually did do fairly well in Blue Collar areas in the 72' primaries; especially at the start of the campaign before Humphrey came in strong and the Democratic establishment much less determined to stop him winning.

As for McCarthy, well, who do you think voted for him in Minnesota? (Though I admit that voting for senator and voting for president are two different things..)

Quote
Of course, McCarthy enjoyed slightly more support among rural whites, but still nothing like he enjoyed among the educated elite.

Even that support was tenuous in many cases.

Quote
The college students who would never support the Democrat at all were a lot smaller than people think, IMHO.  These were mainly people like the "Yippies" and some of the more radical members of "SDS," along with black nationalist movements like the Black Panther Party and SNCC (or what would become the radical SNCC if they had not segregated already, I can't really remember).

They were small (though not THAT small; significant enough that they became in many ways the faces of the student movement.) but fairly important. After the Riots in Chicago Abbie Hoffman made a prediction that his group (the Yippies - he was their leader) had just elected Richard Nixon. Given how close it was in the very end seems to indicate that there was some truth in it.

After all even at its peak what is known as "the Student movement" made up what... 1% of the population. If even that. And those groups like the yippies were a fraction of that. Yet they had enomorous cultural significance (Though more in Music than in Politics o\c) . The fact that this is the 40th Anniversary of 1968 and the students, et al are still being talked about just shows this.

Quote
Contrary to popular belief, at the time the Chicago protests were happening, most Americans strongly, strongly disapproved of the actions of the protesters.  In fact, most though the police exercised the right amount of brutality or were not brutal enough.

I would believe that, but it wasn't just protestors Daly's crew were attacking - often passing civilians aswell.

Quote
Also, the effect of causing people to stay home because of the riots in Chicago is minimal, with something like only 1% of Democrats refusing to vote because of what happened outside (and inside) the convention.  (However, you should note that the overall effect on the race from Chicago should not be pushed aside.)

It gave the impression that the party was in chaos and falling rapidly apart. For some Democratic conservatives it seemed to show how the youth movement was trying to take over the party (Lol: But many believed that..) I can't claim with certainly that if not for Chicago Humphrey would have won.. but it was surely a factor and remember it was really, really close.

Quote
Your final point about McGovern not being an elitist is one I have to agree with.  In 1968, McGovern actually attempted to stand-in for RFK at the convention, receiving a I believe a little under 200 delegates.  However, just because he wasn't elitist doesn't mean CREEP didn't try to paint him as one.

Yes. Though to be honest it wasn't hard in 1972 - especially spouting anti-Vietnam views; which often were in the student movement and the hippies and etc a strong resentment of the military. They would claim that is because they were pacifists but that's not how most Americans saw it.
8868  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which cities/towns/villages/suburbs did you live in? on: January 22, 2008, 02:06:20 pm
I've lived in the same house since circa August 1986. February 1990.
8869  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: whatever happened to the gene mccarthy/rfk voters? on: January 22, 2008, 08:06:17 am
^^^ That's Vaguely right. Though McCarthy at the start of campaign got support from people who wanted to escalate the war, not end it. That's because he acted as an "opposition to LBJ" weather vain. Also there was a decent amount of blue collar support for McCarthy in the Primary as there would be for McGovern four years later - especially in areas with weaker unions.. but that dissapated hard in the general of 1972, probably due to "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion". Of course there was always an element of hardcore in the Student movement who would never support a presidential candidate for the Democrats.. these were the people at Chicago and probably make up a good deal of ageing hippies themselves.

Also I don't really see McGovern as an elitist... the people he was (unfairly) associated with though...

8870  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: why is incest wrong? on: January 22, 2008, 07:41:54 am
Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious...

Well, I meant direct siblings and parents - cousin marriages have been rather common throughout history for the reason you stated above. Sibling/Parental incest is generally considered disgusting and therefore "wrong" due to our instincts, but I'd say the stigma against cousin incest is mainly a cultural phenomenon.

Usually in most societies that is the case though in some Sister-Brother marriages aren't totally unheard of. Never heard of a society where relations between a Mother and Son were not totally taboo.

Of course then there is sexual abuse; which just adds to the notion that the stigma is mainly societal and 'natural' (whatever that is.)
8871  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: why is incest wrong? on: January 22, 2008, 07:32:56 am
Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious... It is 'wrong' because it represents "Closedness" to the world. It's interesting to note most of things the society considers Paraphilias Incest is the only one isn't considered related to Urban Bohemians but rather Rednecks.

* - If you want to be really technically, every single sexual relationship is incentous as every human being is related via the same Mother going back when Homo Sapiens were a minor tribe of hominids in the Sands of East Africa.
8872  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What Weimar Republic party would the preceding poster best fit in? on: January 21, 2008, 08:00:19 pm
SDP.
8873  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which parts of the Contract with America would you support? on: January 21, 2008, 07:57:01 pm
Only 10. Though a bit unsure on 5. Dumb name though.
8874  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How did your ancestors vote? on: January 21, 2008, 07:55:10 pm
Unionist.
8875  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: OK, now no question, I'd vote for Hillary in the general, no reservations on: January 21, 2008, 07:53:47 pm
For a start at present the Trend is towards increasing turnout. I suspect alot of this has to do with emotions towards Bush rather than anything really substantial. When turnout fell below 50% for the first time ever in a Presidential race in 1996 there was alot of typical meaningless soul-searching about "American Democracy" Whatever that is - The simple fact that both candidates in a way benefited from the low turnout (Clinton got re-elected while with high turnouts that would be more dubious as you get alot of independents while Dole didn't get destroyed as some predicted which might have happened if it weren't for the perception of it being a pointless and finished race.) was ignored.

Also between 2000 and 2004 there was a clear attempt by some Democrats to court Nader voters (many of whom are quite worth hating..) which clearly would not have happened if 3% of voters in 2000 didn't go for Nader (and o\c exaggerated by the whole "close Election" thing.)

Quote
I don't doubt that 50% VAP turnout is no reason for them to worry, but perhaps 15% or 10% or 5% would be.  either the trend will accelerate, and we'll see, or it won't and we won't.

For it to reach that levels you would have make voting an elitist exercise away from the notion of "Civil duty" in the first place - and for that to happen within the present course of events (which is unthinkable..) would probably mean your revolution has already started.

But whither Revolution?

Quote
What you don't appear to understand, I don't understand why you don't understand, is that there is no reason for the political establishment to worry about low turnouts. Turnout in mid-term elections, which unlike most other countries matter a hell of a lot in the U.S, is comical (or tragic; depends on your perspective) and has been for years.

Less true (not but entirely untrue) btw in countries which have a more proportional electoral system.

Quote
Apathy is not a Revolutionary stance.

Essentially true - and Apathy is the reason most people don't vote. I think there is a sense even among non-voters that 'the system' works, but they don't quite the people running it. Which is different from you want Tweed.

Btw BRTD from what I know Nader ain't going to run. I *think* Camejo or possibly Medea Benjamin might (as the Greens nominee.. unless they choose McKinney. Which I really hope they don't.)
Pages: 1 ... 350 351 352 353 354 [355] 356 357 358 359 360 ... 468


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines