Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 10:19:35 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... 398
8926  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Unusual Presidential Elections on: April 06, 2007, 02:28:42 pm
I have heard a lot of references to Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over George McGovern.  It was one of the most lop-sided in history. McGovern's campaign is most famous for favoring a quick end to the VietNam War.  However, there must be other factors that resulted in a 49-state electoral college blow-out.  Why did Nixon, only modestly popular, win so easily?  And why was Massachusetts favoring McGovern by a comfortable margin at the same time?



I believe that the reason that Nixon won so big was because people simply did not trust McGovern and they felt comfortable under Richard Nixon.

Though I personally do not understand why they felt comfortable under Richard Nixon, he is probablly the only Republican President that I would not have had supported. I would have even taken Herbert Hoover over Richard Nixon. I would have voted for Hubert Humphrey any day over Richard Nixon and in 1972 probablly would not have even voted at all.

The reason that many people did not suppor t George McGovern is because they simply did not trust him. That is my oponion on why people gave Nixon such a big landslide.

Now about why Massachussetts went for McGovern by a comfortable margin is because of two reasons.

The first reason is that Massachussetts is so liberal. They probablly do not care who the candidates are, they will always vote for the democratic candidate. The people in Massachussetts are just too liberal to vote for a republican. The only republican that they might vote for is Mitt Romney. And even Romney would not be guarenteed a win in his homestate.

The second reason is the Kennedys. As all of you people who study Presidents and elections as I do, the Kennedys would have never voted for Richard Nixon. Though I do not know this, but I would not be surprised if Ted Kennedy had endorsed George McGovern and his whole family supported McGovern.

These two reasons are why McGovern did so well in Massachussetts.

Also McGovern's eventual running mate was a Kennedy in-law.

McGovern was sunk by the Eagleton fiasco when essentially his image as an anti-politican politican basically self-destructed, so the type of disenfranchised people he really needed to reach out to in order to win given his fairly radical by American Standards campaign, did not turned out to vote at all. At least that's the impression the Doctor of Gonzo gave me in his book on the election. He also seemed to suggest that Nixon was pushing Agnew forward more in a Machiavellian scheme to appeal to those democrats who thought McGovern was "too liberal". (The scheme was, if he was re-elected, Nixon suggested that he would try to make Agnew Republican candidate in 1976 - a sure fire Democratic victory then). All these factors plus by 1972 the rise of the Anti-radicals sank McGovern.
8927  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Preferred Parties- Worldwide on: April 06, 2007, 02:23:30 pm
Since 2003 we have had a new Film Censor and films are rarely banned here anymore - I think only "Spun" was banned out of the films released to the censor since his appointment.

Quote from: Merseysider
Ireland: I have absolutely no idea. Probably Labour, maybe Fine Gael back in the 80s under Garret FitzGerald when they were more progressive than they are now.

FitzGerald was somewhat a champion of the Liberal left (well, a little) you seem to hate so much.

See:
Quote from: Merseysider
Italy: one of the smaller parties at the right-wing end of Romano Prodi's Olive Tree coalition: I quite like Silvio Berlusconi though as anyone who attracts so much odium from the middle-class liberal left can't be that bad

Is this a new form of inverse of Class resentment.

8928  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: In which of the following instances would an abortion be morally justified? on: April 06, 2007, 01:49:42 pm
Options 1, 2, and 3.

Pretty much. This does not mean that abortion should be illegal in the cases of unexpected preganancy, just that it wouldn't be moral, whatever that means.
8929  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: OK, f**k Hugo Chavez on: April 06, 2007, 01:21:23 pm
There are many good reasons to dislike Chavez. This isn't one of them.

Yes. But it's the only one which matters to BRTD, apparently.
8930  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Preferred Parties- Worldwide on: April 06, 2007, 01:11:39 pm
What Colin said was mostly accurate on most issues - or at least the ones he knew (though Contraception without perscription was legalized only in 1978 iirc due to a supreme court case - Ireland in 1978 was quite a different country in some ways to Ireland now though.) as for morality, I don't much strip clubs as I have the self-respect to wait until a real woman comes along, but recently there was some furore when Stringfellows lap dance club opened in Dublin about a year ago or so with residential protests, etc soon afterwards it closed down due to lack of customers - perhaps Ireland isn't deprived enough for you BRTD, is that it?

@Verily: Knowing you I doubt you would vote for the PDs in Ireland, at least not now after 10 years goverment where they have mutated into a standard right wing party imo.
8931  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: what issues do you agree/disagree with most with the preceding atlasian on: April 06, 2007, 12:59:42 pm
Economics.  Plus he's personally detestable.

Please elaborate.
8932  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Of the four preceeding Atlasians, pick the ticket that would receive your vote on: April 02, 2007, 09:36:30 am
Yak's\Jas though I like Bacon King.
8933  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: what issues do you agree/disagree with most with the preceding atlasian on: April 02, 2007, 09:35:55 am
Agree: Tolerance, and the attitudes shown in his signature.
Disagree: Likes Humpert Humphrey.
8934  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Is raising a child as a fundamentalist child abuse? on: April 02, 2007, 09:32:22 am
It's a Hell of a lot better than raising them, say, Vegan.

How so?
8935  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: UK MPs Day 2: Adams on: April 02, 2007, 09:29:33 am
If he ran anywhere in the Republic of Ireland he would probably win.. so thanks to the Brits for creating this distraction of Sinn Fein work, effort and expenses.
8936  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: George W Bush on: April 02, 2007, 09:17:07 am
Strongly disapprove.

In 100 years, his failure to address global warming at a critical time may overshadow all the rest of his screwups.

We are gonna waste so much government money on the scientific theory of "Global Warming" it's sad.

Not as much as what's going to be wasted if the scientists are correct...
8937  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Why I have given up feminism on: April 02, 2007, 09:14:34 am
Though I must admit that I've never seen you before on this forum, it is good that you have seen the light.  Feminism is like a sponge that sucks the soul and drains out happiness and joy.

Now go and live life! 

I not sure whether this is an April fool or not, but if it isn't.. I'd like you to tell that to, oh well, a good proportion of the female of the species.

Feminism has probably been one of the most important liberating forces of the 20th Century - for men and women, despite some of the Nihilistic and misandrous writing which came from a small coterie of women in the 1970s and 80s who got far more attention then they deserved.

You want me to tell women that I don't care much for feminism?  You're acting as if they would stick their nose up at me and dismiss me as an anti-intellectual neanderthal, then go off with some wimp with a grad school degree who knows how to treat a woman with respect.

Quite the opposite, I've found.

Feminism has not liberated anyone.  It has kept both men and women alike in chains.  Feminism is a anti-human.  This is why feminists have on their side the homosexuals, the abortionists, and the environmentalists (who love trees more than their fellow man).

It is not the "women should have rights" part of feminism that I disagree with.  It is the entire philosophy behind it that I object to: that society is artificial and the power to shape it should be vested in the government, to 'shape' these people however necessary.  It is an extremely dangerous idea.

Fortunately, Nature always prevails.  Feminism won't succeed because it is a sterilizing philosophy.  Many of the older feminists are dying, without children of course.  The same will happen to the homosexuals and abortionists.  It is Nature's way of destroying a virus.

So I am not threatened by feminism or any of those things.  What I don't like is where it is written into the law and men can be thrown in jail based on lies, or sued out of all their money in a divorce.  I don't like when men have to pay child support for children that aren't their own.

I'm posting on this board because feminism is silly, just like a man putting on a dress is silly.  It's also one of the many obstacles towards manliness in this age.  You all need to stop reading about the glass ceiling and go play a sweaty game of football.


For a start, ever read about the Bronze age\pre-agrigrian Matriachal societies - I imagine those living in those societies have a very different notion of human nature then we do. After all Human nature has been throughout the justification for all sorts of reactionary movements - it's natural for humans to have slaves, it's natural to have kings, queen and the Feudal system, it's natural to hunt, live in the wild - killing animals with your bare hands, etc. All sorts of human structures such as supermarkets, Televisions, etc are "unnatural".

The core of feminism is that society is a malleable changable structure which has been throughout ran by men to opress women, while the second of those two points can be argued the first cannot without a complete and utter blindness to history, also despite what many seem to think there are other ways to change society than pressurizing the goverment as feminism that's why there are feminist charities, organizations, artists, etc. All societies are shaped in this way, including your own one in whatever era, every society in history has thought itself to be the ideal representation of "human nature".

Oh for all your "manliness" you seem to have a big persecution complex like most of the anti-feminists. "Help, Help your being oppressed" and what's Gridiron football anyway, lots of men tackling each other mindlessly - seems rather gay to me.

(And I know plently of Abortionists (well pro-choice people), feminists - including my own mother and enviormentalists, and if you think they are anything like you describe. Than you are the sheltered one.)

@Mac:
Last Names are only an example - naming a child shows who "owns" the child - historically speaking the child was the property of the father who could do what he pleased with him\her. The process of naming is just a relic from those days.

Evidence that Man are more philosophical then Women? History is a dangerous reference given the proportion in western culture of educated men to educated women.

How did we get "sameness" in the post-60s generation? I agree that gender roles are somewhat biological in that men and women lean towards certain types of activities, but to what exact activities and behaviour seems to be chosen by societal structure (which again is not the goverment, interesting that right-wing libertarians are making the same mistakes the old communists did in confusing the two.)
8938  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Preferred Parties- Worldwide on: April 02, 2007, 08:46:19 am
6. If you lived in Ireland you definetly be a green at least, if not a member of the Socialist party or even Socialist Workers Party (Hahahaha...). Your Irish equivalent would not vote for Labour.
I don't think he would go along with the Greens, but I do agree he wouldn't be a Labour voter either.

7. What's wrong with Ireland?
Dangerous question to ask BRTD, Gully. Probably best avoided.

He believes the Catholic hierarchy control the State and the people and that Protestants are, in general, oppressed.

I'm not sure if there are any states he hates more than Ireland, but I'd say we're at least top 10.

You're right perhaps not the Greens with their desire to enter a coalition with FG-lab. 100% the SWP type.

As an Irish protestant I certainly do not feel opressed.
8939  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Iraq Decision: Politics Aside on: April 01, 2007, 07:40:26 pm
Simple question.

No, it isn't.  Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster.  So would staying for the next twenty years.  The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).

I am amazed at how childish so many are about the situation in Iraq.

We are currently involved in a low intensity/protracted conflict.

The terrorists realize they cannot achieve a military victory but hope with the help of their allies in the media (like Michael Ware of CNN) to persuade the American public to cut and run.

Has no one bothered to read How We Won the War, by General Vo Nguyen Giap?

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.



Damn Student communists and media liberals, not wishing sacrifice their lives for the good of whatever the nation planned in Vietnam and whyever the hell the nation decided to for reason which seem completely unfathomable. Plus the Insurgency in Iraq isn't exactly one whole group.
8940  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Why I have given up feminism on: April 01, 2007, 07:35:42 pm
I know, I know.. I just find it hilarious he describes himself as a "libertarian". He seems to have very conservative prejudices to me.
8941  General Discussion / History / Re: US Presidents, Day 32: FD Roosevelt on: April 01, 2007, 07:28:52 pm
The worst President to ever take office and the only thing worse than his Presidency was the inability of the public to see his horribleness.

Why even bother fighting communism?  Roosevelt should've just sold all the land in America to the USSR.  At least it'd be more honest.

FDR was a practical politician who had no time for ideology, he is also highly responisible for the start of the Cold War. To claim he was sympathetic to Communism (or even Socialism, of which he was certainly not.) is just.. insane. But I expect little better from your black & white universe Mac - nice way to blame the mob at the end of your little rant there, sure big goverment is bad, not eating is rather worse, no?
8942  General Discussion / History / Re: US Presidents, Day 29: Harding on: April 01, 2007, 07:18:55 pm
Excellent President that knew the power of free market economics.

Or at least that's what speech writers taught him...

I doubt Harding had an intellectual or political thought in his life which couldn't have been lifted from a high school textbook.
8943  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How do you find the preceding poster's signature? on: April 01, 2007, 07:15:16 pm
With bafflement as to why being in Predator is seen as a good thing.
8944  General Discussion / History / Re: Great presidents that never were on: April 01, 2007, 07:11:32 pm
Benjamin Franklin, George Birney and Victoria Woodhull would have been interesting presidents.
8945  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How do you find the preceding poster's signature? on: April 01, 2007, 07:01:32 pm
With a great feeling of utter blandness.
8946  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Why I have given up feminism on: April 01, 2007, 06:59:16 pm
I feel like demolishing MaC's poins to be perfectly honest.

nclib: most feminists are intellectual, and of course, intellectualism is bad
Mac: first you are assuming that most feminists are intellectual.  I see it as quite the opposite-mostly in the form of 'men oppressed us for 6000 years, and that pisses me off, so I gotta get back at them'

Have you ever read any feminist literature? Not Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas and those crazies who were truly only ever listenened to in the explosion of radicalism in the 70s (Given the some of the things Dworkin experienced in relationships with men it's not surprising she turned out the way she did.) but liberal feminism, libertarian feminism.. Feminism is a movement designed by it's nature to be libertarian, to free one's self from pre-conceived roles of 'gender'. (That isn't to say that there aren't natural differences between Men and women, but these differences must only be seen under the interpretation of culture. 500 years ago people's conceptions of gender differences would be different from ours.)

-any woman who speaks her mind is a threat to patriarchy, and of course patriarchy is desirable. However, if she is conservative, she can criticize any man she wants
-no 'archy' is desirable.  If there are social norms, then it's not oppressive-difference between what's societally acceptable and legal.  I don't know where you get the 'if she's conservative she can criticize any man she wants. Huh   But in general it is better to have more conservatives in society than liberals.

How can social norms such as, say, the practice of sati (ie. wife-burning) not be considered oppresive. In the history of the world most of the major political leaders, artists, intellectuals, people whose viewpoints we use to interpret our own world were men. Nothing wrong with male intellectuals (even if many of them had views vilier than Valerie Solanas) but literature and history has very little focus on the minds of females.

A society with more conservatives than liberals should scare me. But it doesn't as it describes the vast majority of cultures. (I'm talking of mentality here, not of actual fixed poltical 'actions')

-if a woman is married, she should lose her right to not be raped
-Why marry?  Better yet-why would you marry and then not want sex?  I suppose marital rape does happen, but why would she ever abstain if her husband was good at pleasuring her?

Why marry? I don't know personally I couldn't give a fig about a ceremony whose romantic connections are pretty much a Chivarly era-upper class\Victorian construction, one which has lasted for some reason, possibly to do with religion, but I really don't care what anyone else does. Why shouldn't women wish to abstain from sex - perhaps she is heavily preganant, or is suffering from illness or perhaps she just doesn't bloody feel like it. That should be her decision as much as his. Ireland just illegalized martial rape roughly 7 years ago.


-some careers should not be held by a woman simply because she is female. It does not matter if she has the right qualities for the job
-load of crap, nobody still says this.  However there are physical limitations that are less likely for a woman to characteristically have.  If it involves lifting heavy machinery or something that requires a great burden of physical exertion-by the law of averages and the way humans are built, a greater percentage of men are qualified for that job.  Doesn't mean if she really wanted it she couldn't/shouldn't get it though.

What do you mean no-one says this? Look at the amount of women at head of major corporations recently, or political leaders, I have heard on this forum that Hilliary shouldn't be president simply because she's a she. (Admittely those were from annoying republicans anyway but it shows that such prejudices are still around). As for heavy machinery given that I have no personal body strength there are plently of women who could do a better job than me, a man.

-homosexuality behind closed doors is a threat to America
-no, but I am annoyed by the parades.  I know a guy that likes sheep and he doesn't go prancing around saying "OMG LOOK @ ME I'm T3h Bestiality"
What does homosexuality have to do with anything anyways?  It's not a problem for me.

Feminists allied with homosexuals as both women and gays were seen inferior within certain strands of mainstream culture at the time. The parades annoy me too. But free speech.

-women are meant to be mothers, regardless of whether they want to be
-if you take a pro-creation standpoint.  At this point in history, our world is overcrowding though.  Still, if there's a situation where in a family that a mother can opt for a full time job or staying home with the kids, it'd probably be incredibly beneficial to have a mom raising the kids rather than latch-key trying to raise them. 

Why can't, now here's a radical idea, the father educate and stay with kids and the woman work. Not saying this way is better than the vice-versa option. But if I ever have kids that is how I would like it to be.

-an embryo has more rights than a pregnant woman since the pregnant woman is a woman and the embryo might become a boy
-again, utter nonsense.  If your mom decided to abort you, would you support her decision?  Better yet, if a mom could end an 'inconvenience' in her life by taking another life-well all is the better, no?

Not a fan of abortion but your arguments here are strawmen.

-women should take their husband's last name when they marry since it shows that a man is the head of the household
-it's not a matter of that-it's more or less to show unity.  In Mexico they combine the woman and mens last names.  I don't see any problem with that either. 

Then how come in most cultures the children carry on the father's name? Family in western culture has usually been a very male-centred structure.
8947  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Why I have given up feminism on: April 01, 2007, 05:57:13 pm
Though I must admit that I've never seen you before on this forum, it is good that you have seen the light.  Feminism is like a sponge that sucks the soul and drains out happiness and joy.

Now go and live life! 

I not sure whether this is an April fool or not, but if it isn't.. I'd like you to tell that to, oh well, a good proportion of the female of the species.

Feminism has probably been one of the most important liberating forces of the 20th Century - for men and women, despite some of the Nihilistic and misandrous writing which came from a small coterie of women in the 1970s and 80s who got far more attention then they deserved.
8948  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Iraq Decision: Politics Aside on: April 01, 2007, 05:19:19 pm
When you have lost the argument, simplify to the point of imbecility.

Pretty much spot on there Lewis.

Both options put in this silly poll are stupid. If things stay as they are then the US is going to head to a slow and painful but sure defeat. A pull out would be even worse.
8949  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: George W Bush on: April 01, 2007, 05:17:26 pm
1. I don't enough about many other presidents to judge them as I won't vote 6, but Bush has been an epic fail of a presidency aswell as being an epic fail as a human being of decency. (Not that that is unique among US presidents)
8950  General Discussion / History / Re: US Presidents, Day 32: FD Roosevelt on: April 01, 2007, 04:59:14 pm
Socialist fool who eternally America with his economic policies and a man who sacrficed American lives to get into a war that was unnecessary to get into at that time.  A racist who locked up people because of their skin color.  Hey liberals, great man for a hero.  Especially when ur the accepting party

DWTL breaks his logical fallacy record once again! Will the boy from New Jersey ever stop?

(BTW DWTL, what's your opinion of Reagan's intervention in Granada?)
Pages: 1 ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... 398


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines