Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on October 13, 2005, 01:50:47 PM
-
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2005/10/12/kennedy_ill_support_kerry_in_2008_race/
fabulous, looks like Kerry, Gore AND Clinton will be vying for the democratic party nomination for President.
Now Kennedy, the liberal Icon throws his weight (no pun intended) behind Kerry.
At this rate we will end of with another Bush in the White House.
Even I am starting to worry about that possibility. Time for new blood, not all this old baggage....
-
teddy will drink to that!!
-
I wonder whats really going on here.
I would have thought, based on all the media speculation, that Hillary would have been the obvious choice for Kennedy to back......
What sort of preposturing posturing is going on here?....
-
In my opinion, there is no way Hillary will get elected president. How that carpetbagger got elected to be a senate representative of NY is beyond belief. I think Kennedy knows this and is obviously backing the leading Democratic candidate. Gore stated repeatedly this week that he has no intention of running.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
[url]
At this rate we will end of with another Bush in the White House.
Even I am starting to worry about that possibility. Time for new blood, not all this old baggage....
NO! Even I as a Republican living in Florida do not want that ever.
Neither GW nor his father have been true to their conservative base. GHW betrayed the Reagan revolution and the son spends money like a sailor on leave. No, no more Bushs in the white house.
Unless its Condi. Now there is a bush I'd vote for!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I wonder whats really going on here.
I would have thought, based on all the media speculation, that Hillary would have been the obvious choice for Kennedy to back......
What sort of preposturing posturing is going on here?....
She does not want his endorcement. She is trying to move to the center.
-
Indeed, perhaps Kennedy's endorsement of Kerry is done as a personal favor to Clinton. :D
-
Originally posted by Eagler
teddy will drink to that!!
Is there something he won't drink too?
:D
-
Teddy+Hillary+booze+more booze+Buick+bridge= Great day for America!:D
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
In my opinion, there is no way Hillary will get elected president. How that carpetbagger got elected to be a senate representative of NY is beyond belief. I think Kennedy knows this and is obviously backing the leading Democratic candidate. Gore stated repeatedly this week that he has no intention of running.
Well, NY has a history of electing non-NYers to the Senate.
It's easy to get elected in NY. (I know this 'cause I lived there most of my life) All you need to do is blame all the problems people are having on Republicans and promise to bring a lot of State/Federal handouts home to the folks. Once your elected all bets are off. When the handouts don't come you just revert to item 1, blame it on Republicans.
In 31 years of living in Western NY I have yet to see one single Democrat politician bring one single new job to the area, not ONE! Mostly I saw company after company leave for greener pastures. Mostly to the South East, So that's where I moved to.
Here is a shining example: I asked my Father-in-Law once when we were home for his sons funeral when he started biotching about GW and the Republicans:
"Dad, Democrats have been running this city (Buffalo) and county for 100+ years, Your grandkids can't find jobs, your city is a crumbling mess, you pay $800.00+/month to heat and power your home in the winter and you blame this all on the president? What have your Democrat leaders done for you lately?"
Of course he didn't have an answer, not one! Then comes the next election and who does he vote for? Democrats. So you see, that's how Hillary got elected. If she thinks that will work for the rest of the US, she is sadly mistaken.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Well, NY has a history of electing non-NYers to the Senate.
It's easy to get elected in NY. (I know this 'cause I lived there most of my life) All you need to do is blame all the problems people are having on Republicans and promise to bring a lot of State/Federal handouts home to the folks. Once your elected all bets are off. When the handouts don't come you just revert to item 1, blame it on Republicans.
In 31 years of living in Western NY I have yet to see one single Democrat politician bring one single new job to the area, not ONE! Mostly I saw company after company leave for greener pastures. Mostly to the South East, So that's where I moved to.
Here is a shining example: I asked my Father-in-Law once when we were home for his sons funeral when he started biotching about GW and the Republicans:
"Dad, Democrats have been running this city (Buffalo) and county for 100+ years, Your grandkids can't find jobs, your city is a crumbling mess, you pay $800.00+/month to heat and power your home in the winter and you blame this all on the president? What have your Democrat leaders done for you lately?"
Of course he didn't have an answer, not one! Then comes the next election and who does he vote for? Democrats. So you see, that's how Hillary got elected. If she thinks that will work for the rest of the US, she is sadly mistaken.
Please explain to me what local leaders have to do with the price of energy?
And our dem leaders have done for us the same as our Rep leaders have done for us.
At the Fed level the last 40 years have been controlled by mostly reps. Look it up. 80% of the seats on the SC have been appointed by the Reps.
So if you dont like the situation then you know who to blame.
-
Uhmm,..not sure about other states, but the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) here in Texas regulates our natural gas and electricity prices. The head of the Texas PUC is not appointed. Just FYI.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Please explain to me what local leaders have to do with the price of energy?
I'd be happy to. You see NY state sits on quite a bit of Natural Gas, along with the greatest natural source of hydro-power in the world, Niagara Falls. So, when you look at your energy bills and complain about the energy company and don't bother to look at the last page that show that 40% of your energy bill is TAXES, then your an id10t! Every time they want to raise funds and don't want the general public to really know what's going on they raise taxes on Gas and Electric power. Don't know about your state but in NY while I lived there they did it numerous times.
And our dem leaders have done for us the same as our Rep leaders have done for us.
Well at least you have both sides co complain about. In WNY they never give a Republican a chance to make a difference. A Republican can't get elected dog catcher there. My Republican leaders have done great for us here in my new home town/State. We have one of the fastest growing economies of any city in this country. (Jacksonville, FL)
At the Fed level the last 40 years have been controlled by mostly reps. Look it up. 80% of the seats on the SC have been appointed by the Reps.
So if you dont like the situation then you know who to blame.
I know they stopped teaching civics in school a long time ago so I'll give you a lesson.
Congress controls all fiscal allocations, i.e. THE MONEY! Congress has been controlled by Democrats almost exclusively since FDR. Only once prior to '94 has either house of Congress been controlled by Republicans and that was in 80-82 in the senate only. They lost it in the next mid-term. So fiscal policy was DOMINATED by Democrats throughout that period no matter who was in the white house.
What does the SC have to do with local politics? How do the Feds or the SC prevent local leaders from attracting jobs? It doesn't! Don't give me that Ray Davis, California excuse that its the Feds fault your state is bankrupt! Doesn't wash at all.
Here is another example: The BMW fiasco!
BMW approached the city of Buffalo, the County of Erie and the State of NY to build a new plant in WNY. IN order to make this a profitable venture they requested some tax incentives. Well, the local Dem leadership went ape-chit. They absolutely refused to endorse any kind of insenative to attract this new JOB CREATING project. So what did BMW do? They took the offer from Birmingham AL and built their plant there. Now along with the approximately 3000 jobs created by BMW another 2-3000 jobs were created by companies who setup shop to support BMW.
Birmingham 6000 Jobs, WNY 0
Want another one? In the Mid 70's Bethlehem Steel had one of it largest plants in Lackawanna NY just south of Buffalo. They were getting their butts handed to them by the German and Japanese steel industry dumping steel on the US market (No help from the peanut man either) so they needed to update the plant so they could be more competative, this was going to cost $$$. They went to the city of Lackawanna, County of Erie, State of NY and asked for some tax help, at least they asked do not raise our taxes. What did these Democrat leaders do? They raised taxes. So what did Bethlehem Steel do? The only thing they could do, they left. It was more cost effective to build a new plant in N. Carolina than to revamp the old one. 9000 jobs lost along with another 3000+ jobs lost in related industries. My uncle worked for one of those related industries his whole life. Only job he ever knew. When he lost that job it destroyed him, and he took his own life. He was just one of several.
And without the gory details:
Republic Steel: gone
American Standard: gone
Markel Industries: gone
These are just a few, There were many, many more.
So don't preach to me about the differences between Republican and Democrats because I've lived it. I lived through 12 years of hell under Mario Cuomo and watched him run the state into the ground. I also lived in FL for 15 years now and watched Republican administrations and legislatures build job creating business friendly communities that grow and provide a good life for all of us.
No my friend, there is a difference. Some of you are just to ideologically blinded to see the truth of it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Uhmm,..not sure about other states, but the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) here in Texas regulates our natural gas and electricity prices. The head of the Texas PUC is not appointed. Just FYI.
I NY it is similar. Rates are regulated by the PUC but Taxes are handled by the legislature. They don't need to ask permission to add more utility taxes. It just amazes me that an area with such resources as NY pays so much for their power. The people don't do anything about it. They just sit back and take it.
Here in J'ville we have the Jacksonville Electric Authority which produces our electricity and manages our water system. It is a quasi-government entity sort of like the Post Office. It is owned by the city but operated as a private company. Our power comes primarily from natural gas and oil. Mostly gas. Over the first 12 years I've lived here we have not had a single rate hike. 3 times we were given rebates by the JEA on our power bills. It is only in the last year that the JEA has had to, reluctantly, request rate hikes due to the raising cost of natural gas. Still even with the rates i run 4 computer, 6 ceiling fans, air conditioner, pool, 3 TVs electric stove, electric hot water tank, electric washer and dryer and my highest electric bill is $185.00/month.
This is an example of how government CAN work. Ya know the funny thing? When the JEA was created J'ville had a Democrat Mayor and city council. But they were Southern Democrats, back then there was a difference.
-
Not only is Hilary trying to move to the center this is another example of how the Democrats are a mess right now.
Editors note, I'm not picking on them just stating an opinion.
The Dems are more sharply devided than ever right now. Half of them think they have ignored their liberal hippie base and want to move more towardst he anti war anit everything base, while others do not agree and beleive the future of the democratic party needs to be more centered to attract the "morals/values" votes that republicans sweeped in the last 3 elections.
Then there's the part were some beleive the dems havn't done a good job of gettting their message out (WICH I AGREE WITH). Truth be told, unless it's "bush is evil" the dems don't have a message in wich they can ralley their base around let alone ralley a nation.
This is a classic example. Kennedy being an extreme liberal cannot endorse someone who's a centrist (or even one in pretending to be one)
-
"If he runs, I would support him," Kennedy told The Associated Press in an interview at his Boston office.
Whoopdy doo. That's a discussion point?
Dems aren't a mess. They've got 14 points nationally on the GOP. The GOP is tanking. What are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Nash
"If he runs, I would support him," Kennedy told The Associated Press in an interview at his Boston office.
Whoopdy doo. That's a discussion point?
Dems aren't a mess. They've got 14 points nationally on the GOP. The GOP is tanking. What are you talking about?
Really what's their message? Are they United on this message?
-
Nope.... They're not. You're right. They're still struggling to try and find it.
Er let me rephrase that, because they have many. They're still trying to settle on one.
Which they will. In the meantime, it's amazing how successful they've been to just let the Republicans unravel on their own.
One thing the Dems are horrible at is a unifying message. One thing they are great at is actually governing.
One thing the Republicans are great at is that unifying message (Guns, God, Gays). One thing they are horrible at is actually governing.
Take your pick.
The Dems are catching on, and will get their legs soon enough. Not like they really need 'em at this point.
-
2005 (we are here)
2006
2007
2008 (election is here)
get a grip folks....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nope.... They're not. You're right. They're still struggling to try and find it.
Er let me rephrase that, because they have many. They're still trying to settle on one.
Which they will. In the meantime, it's amazing how successful they've been to just let the Republicans unravel on their own.
One thing the Dems are horrible at is a unifying message. One thing they are great at is actually governing.
One thing the Republicans are great at is that unifying message (Guns, God, Gays). One thing they are horrible at is actually governing.
Take your pick.
The Dems are catching on, and will get their legs soon enough. Not like they really need 'em at this point.
Nash, I wholeheartedly agree with you. If the Dems weren't the rements of hippies and they werent socialist and they weren't trying to ban guns and they didn't try to raise taxes I'd vote for them if they had a serisous canidate.
GWB has turned me off to the republican party and I will agree with you he has done more harm to the to strive of conservatism than Bill Clinton.
I guess this is a dynamic of modern politics.
As far as catching on I'd agree that some of them are (see: Hillary) but the party overall has a base of liberalism. IMHO Liberal governments don't work to improve life they just maintain the status quo. I can't say the same (better or worse) about predominatly conservative local governments.
Thus its a confusing time in politics for me. I won't vote for another Bush Cronie but I will NEVER vote for a clinton pretending to be a moderate. I just wish the libertarian party had a bigger standing today.
-
Arkansas' state legislature has been run by solid democratic majorities since Reconstruction ended here in 1874. Republicans have NEVER controlled the state legislature in that time period.
Care to guess how the state ranks in almost every category measureable? If we're not at the bottom of the heap it's only because we've been sitting on top of Mississippi...but that won't last much longer.
-
didn't the greatest pres in recent history come from the bowels of arkansas?
(http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/Images/relive.jpg)
LOL
-
Originally posted by Eagler
didn't the greatest pres in recent history come from the bowels of arkansas?
LOL
No he was just the first black president.....ironic cause he did nothing for the furtherment of black people.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
didn't the greatest pres in recent history come from the bowels of arkansas?
(http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/Images/relive.jpg)
LOL
It was the chitz allright. Don`t know about the bowels, but definitely a Kaopectate moment.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
2005 (we are here)
2006
2007
2008 (election is here)
get a grip folks....
Grun... every week is an election year.
"2008 (election is here)" <--- bzzzt. Where were you in '94, how significant was that, and what did it have to do with the Presidential elections two years later?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nash, I wholeheartedly agree with you. If the Dems weren't the rements of hippies and they werent socialist and they weren't trying to ban guns and they didn't try to raise taxes I'd vote for them if they had a serisous canidate.
Jesus....
-
Nash, you will never understand this, but the majority of Americans will have nothing to do with your political views.
-
Dear leader is riding on a 37 to 39% high depending on who you talk to.
When you say "majority", you must be talking about people like me, right?
-
You think media polls represent America?
You have always been wrong regarding American politics.
-
"Media polls"...
Cute.
-
Nash, you are lost.
-
We'll see....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Dear leader is riding on a 37 to 39% high depending on who you talk to.
When you say "majority", you must be talking about people like me, right?
well that's just HIM! Not the veiws he was elected against. There's alot of right leaning people that are pissed with HIM because of a whole range of issues.
Even Ann Coulter is mad about his latest SC appointment if that says anything.
Originally posted by Nash
Jesus....
Yea I set my standards pretty high. But again I don't think you really tell me what the DNC stands for without looking at their website talking points.
-
nash... 2008 will be just like the last election was for you..
you will be sitting in canada with your nose pressed against the glass watching the real people vote.
lazs
-
What president didn't have bad numbers their second term?
I think a lot of the polls are reflecting peoples opinon of gas prices not their disapproval of him as a whole. I know I'm more than just a little miffed over it.
When Iraq finally takes more control of themselfs Bush's ratings will rise again.
Assuming the media will report it.
I also disagree that the Repubs are "tanking". They disagree on Miers which I can understand but they are pretty much staying on topic.
It's just taking time to fix the screw ups the Dems created. All the social PC BS that does nothing but create welfare dependent morons( we just call them Democrats for short :aok) who won't work because they have been raised to be helpless.
-
This last term of Bush has been a huge success for us gun owners and we won't forget it.
Lots of silly gun laws rolled back or stopped outright.... new constitutionalists on the supremes... the rest of the stuff is just political fluff.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
What president didn't have bad numbers their second term?
I dunno, I think President Bartlett has done pretty good on his second term, this whole 'military space shuttle' debacle aside. Still not sure if I'm voting for Vinick or Santos.
-
you will be sitting in canada with your nose pressed against the glass watching the real people vote.
====
:rofl
Classic Lazs
-
Santos, Vinick is too much of a politician for my taste.
Actually if West Wing doesn't get back to Martin Sheen they going to be gone next year. Sorry but I don't tune in to watch Jimmy Smits & Alan Alda.
-
Texas only in Texas does the Railroad Commison regulate trucking.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nash... 2008 will be just like the last election was for you..
you will be sitting in canada with your nose pressed against the glass watching the real people vote.
lazs
Like your very important vote, emanating from Dixon City California, tilted the balance.
You are the "real people?"
-
Nash, your vote counts for what?
-
Same as yours, probably.
-
Lookit.... I am as fully qualified to discuss US politics as you or anyone else.
You try to discredit my thoughts by saying "you don't have a say."
The thing is? Neither do you.
Now that that's settled, is it okay if we can discuss politics?
-
So Nash are you saying all of our votes are meaningless?
So we shouldn't bother to vote? Is that your message?
-
Not at all.
It is in fact a shame how few of you actually vote. Because it matters.
But one man's vote in Dixon doesn't take a single thing away from anything I say... the idea of it is pathetic.
The use of it, desperate or just lazy.
-
Since 1900 the Democrats held the Presidency for more than two consecutive terms just one time. 1932-1948 Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman.
Since 1900 the Republicans held the Presidency for more than two consecutive terms just one time. 1980-1988 Reagan, Reagan, Bush.
I think it's pretty unusual for the American public to give the Presidency to the same party three times in a row.
This one is the Democrats to lose. The last one really was too... so don't count them out.
-
But you're wrong Nash. We DO have a say, even if it's one vote in our particular state. Like an ocean is made up of tiny drops of water, a Presidential election victory is a conglomeration of millions of tiny little votes in each state.
Now which state are you voting in in 2008?
You're free to have your opinion; we all do, just like we all have .... jettison chutes.
But when the voting booths open here, they aren't going to let you in.
-
That's the funny thing.
The Republicans are constantly crying their eyes out.
"This is an outrage, that is an outrage."
In the last 25 years, how many of those years was a Democrat in office?
Eight?
Of the Government now - how many branches do the Democrats control?
None?
The criers want a Kleenex?
That's like asking me to feel sorry for a kid in a car sticking his neck out to mess with a bike rider and getting his head stripped clean off. Sorry - I aint gonna shed a tear.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But you're wrong Nash. We DO have a say, even if it's one vote in our particular state. Like an ocean is made up of tiny drops of water, a Presidential election victory is a conglomeration of millions of tiny little votes in each state.
Now which state are you voting in in 2008?
You're free to have your opinion; we all do, just like we all have .... jettison chutes.
But when the voting booths open here, they aren't going to let you in.
That's quaint.... I mean - that's funny man. Were you trying to be?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's the funny thing.
The Republicans are constantly crying their eyes out.
"This is an outrage, that is an outrage."
In the last 25 years, how many of those years was a Democrat in office?
Eight?
Depends on which office you refer.
You see the US government consists of three branches. The Judicial, the Legislative, and the Executive. The Legislative consists of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is made up of......
-
That's very interesting.
Gee.... whooda thunk. I had no idea.
-
Nash now you are just flailing your arms up in the air saying "look at me, look at me, I have a point to make" but a point we do not get, much like the entire democratic party except when we hear "bush is the evil"
Again what message do they have that is so much better than the republicans? You brought up Bush's poll numbers but really he's a lame duck president, do they really count?
-
A "lame duck" merely a half a year from his man date?
Lame duck happens two years into the 2nd term.
6 months and it's like, all expected that he should be lame? No siree.
If that were the case, why not limit it to 4 years max?
Otherwise it's like, "4 years in, then 4 years of uselessness".... as if half a Presidency of ineffectual garbage should be a given.
-
I was trying to humorously point out the compromise necessary in the federal government. Sorry you didn't catch that.
From FDR to Gingrich one party controlled the House, and except for a two year term or two the Senate as well.
A tremendous amont of legislation was passed during these seven or so decades. Legislation which increased the government outlay for entitlements pretty much cannot be touched.
With the majority of government outlay off limits for controls, spending and the strings that go with that spending has changed American society.
The Great Society welfare programs gave money to single mothers and by the law of unintended consequenses forced the father role model out of poor families causing all sorts of problems.
This problem cannot be solved in a year or a decade. The foundation for Social Security problem we are wrestling with was layed in the depths of the great depression, 70 years ago. This problem cannot be solved quickly.
10 years of legislature control is not enough time to fundamentally change the inertia of the ship of state. Especially when that control is not absolute. Compromise is practiced continuously.
-
Originally posted by Nash
A "lame duck" merely a half a year from his man date?
Lame duck happens two years into the 2nd term.
6 months and it's like, all expected that he should be lame? No siree.
If that were the case, why not limit it to 4 years max?
Otherwise it's like, "4 years in, then 4 years of uselessness".... as if half a Presidency of ineffectual garbage should be a given.
AGAIN this is ALL we hear from the democrats. Elighten us please! What are our alternatives?
"look at me, look at me, I have a point to make"
-
Yeah I know what you were " humorously" pointing out.
I don't think it's that funny. So I skipped it.
Human nature is what it is. Government cannot dictate nor control it. Forget about it. It is nevertheless thier job to govern it.
You go to war with the army you have.
Some governments preside over their country - and others spend their time wishing thier country was something else and trying to govern a country that isn't, and will never be.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah I know what you were " humorously" pointing out.
I don't think it's that funny. So I skipped it.
Human nature is what it is. Government cannot dictate nor control it. Forget about it. It is nevertheless thier job to govern it.
You go to war with the army you have.
Some governments preside over their country - and others spend their time wishing thier country was something else and trying to govern a country that isn't, and will never be.
again more retoric worthy of the DNC railing against the "bush regiem" Nothing about what you'd do better. Nothing about what you'd change. Nothing positive. Nothing we havn't heard the last 5 years.
Tell me again how the democrats are going to sweep the next elections with this mesage?
EDIT:
Oops almost forgot:
"look at me, look at me, I have a point to make"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Some governments preside over their country - and others spend their time wishing thier country was something else and trying to govern a country that isn't, and will never be.
Many possible Olympic Champions are not because they never wished enough.
-
Touching.
Too bad, eh?
-
too bad you don't get it.
-
Too bad, but I did.
And again, pardon me if I sidestepped it.
Maybe it's funny to you.
-
uh huh
-
uh huh
-
Originally posted by Nash
I sidestepped it.
Just like every other liberal out there.....
seriously, give me a reason to vote different on the ballot. You can spout all the things wrong that this administration has done but it doesn't hold a lick of water during senate elections because we are not re-electing GWB. In 2008 Dems cant use GWB as a stance because he isn't running. What the other guy does wrong isn't a message unless you have a solution.
-
pardon me if I sidestepped it.
The problem is Gunny, is that the "it" to which I referred was to was the concept of having an underlying philosophy and applying it to governance and the difficulty in redirecting the inertia of 70 years of virtually one party rule in congress.
Congress has a much bigger hand in setting the course of US government as it rights the laws, it approve judges, it can impeach judges and executives, it can override vetoes. Who is in the white house does not make much difference if congress does not agree.
The subject of my "three branches" post was pointing out the relative weakness of the president as spelled out in the constitution, but the humor clouded that for those who do not see.
-
poor nash... can't even face facts...
You aren't one of us... you don't get to vote and you don't get to really know us... you get to read about us in publications that we see and don't recognize ourselves in.... you don't live amoung us and you don't know how we think.
you don't know what we talk about or care about. you are, as someone said.... flapping your arms and screaming "look at me.. look at me"
your opinions all show this lack of understanding and it is silly at best and annoying at worst... Like an American spouting off about canadian political events.
For me... Bush is doing more than I expected.... he has rolled back a lot of silly gun laws and created new laws to protect our rights... most important... he has installed 2 new Supremes who aren't ruth bader commie and will do more to protect our freedoms than he could ever do...
The democrats legacy is socialism and liberal commie judges. Bush is rolling some of that back... Not as good as having a libertarian in but...
A thousand times better than the alterntive.
lazs
-
Nash,
Actually I do vote, regularly as I take the right to vote seriously. You on the other hand are not eligible to vote. That makes your opinion rather pointless and relegates it to position of being of no consequence.
You entire point, from what I have seen, seems to be simply that the Bush Presidency is bad. :furious Since you have no influence in either electing him or anyone else in this country your point is simply meaningless. :cry
Is there not enough in your own country for you to spend your time dealing with? :huh
-
Voting and stating an opinion are two seperate events.
One happens in the booth, and the other happens here. If you don't agree with my opinions, fine - say so - that's what a BBS is about. But trying to negate my opinions by saying I can't vote is laughable. Because....true, I can't vote.... yet voila, I somehow still have an opinion.
Funny how that works.
If you can't talk about an issue except to take issue with the person talking, then you really don't have anything to say. Yet you want to lecture me about "pointless" and of "no consequence?" That's hilarious. It means nothing to me - it never has.
-
your opinion is not based on knowing or living with the people you have an opinion about..
it is worthless. It is as important as your vote.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you can't talk about an issue except to take issue with the person talking, then you really don't have anything to say. Yet you want to lecture me about "pointless" and of "no consequence?" That's hilarious. It means nothing to me - it never has.
Originally posted by Nash
I sidestepped it.
[flailing arms]"look at me, look at me, I have a point to make"[/flailing arms]
-
Once again, you missed the point. I didn't say you did not have an opinion. What I am saying is your opinion is of no consquence. You do not live here, you do not vote here (if you vote anywhere) and your opionion about American politics is inconsequential. That you come on an American BBS to state it is of no value. Lastly the only thing you seem to have said regarding the political situation is that you do not like Bush. Fine, how about just saying it once and then being "quiet". Repeating it makes it neither more valid nor in your case pertinant to us. It's rather like an American repeatedly saying, Canadians can't do anything but say "eh" at the end of every sentence and talk about hockey.
You really aren't trying to take over for skydancer are you??
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I didn't say you did not have an opinion. What I am saying is your opinion is of no consquence.
That still doesn't make sense to me. Why does it matter that opinions are of no consequence? Does that mean you should refrain from talking about football? Because as far as I know, no opinion ever changed the outcome of a game. Opinions about it are of no consequence. How about cars? Or places? What consequence do your opinions have on these?
When you get right down to it, your own opinion about politics is of no consequence, despite the fact that you vote. Tell me, voter, because I'd like to know. What consequence do you think your opinion on politics has on politics?
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
She does not want his endorcement. She is trying to move to the center.
Or give the appearance of moving to the center, while staying firmly planted to the left.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again more retoric worthy of the DNC railing against the "bush regiem" Nothing about what you'd do better. Nothing about what you'd change. Nothing positive. Nothing we havn't heard the last 5 years.
Tell me again how the democrats are going to sweep the next elections with this mesage?
EDIT:
Oops almost forgot:
Gunslinger.
In this case does DNC stand for Democratic National Commitee, or Desperatly Nuerotic Canadian??
-
Desperately Neurotic Canadian - good one :aok
His opinion is welcome as I am sure many on this board relate to his usually “180 out from my view" slant. But that slant lost in 00 & 02 & 04. Thinking that is best for this country, I hope it continues its streak in 06, 08 & beyond
Nash
-
-
I know... he is entitled to his ill informed and ill thought out opinions it just that....
It's annoying and disturbing to think that an actual male... even a canadian one... would think like that.
lazs
-
Think like what?
See.... that's the thing.
You can't put into words what I think without resorting to ridiculous cartoons of who I am.
I dare you, lazs. Sum up my beliefs, and tell me what problems you have with them. Do it without resorting to boxing me into something I'm really not.
Just take my views, my actual views and not the ones involving loafers (that just makes you sound ancient), and then one by one, dismantle them.
It'd be something new. And that's why, coming from you, I'll not hold my breath.
-
your views are a moving target.... much like a womans but....
like a womans they are allmost universally socialist.
you are your own caracature... I did not create you. You jump in and then back off when you are proven wrong or silly. I do not believe that you have any core beliefs and the ones you calim to are merely what you think sounds good to the girls you go out with..
but then.... it could just be that you are both young and canadian..
lazs
-
How old are you nash?
Im guessing 36?
-
Interesting.
A diatribe on what you think my views are, without mentioning a single one of them and what exactly your big problem is.
Am I supposed to take you seriously? Help me out here, lazs. I've gotten to the point where I don't read past the second line of any of anything you say anymore. Your posts oscillate between a lonely sort of vacancy and the crescendo of a thousand needles bouncing on broken records.
Vacant.
I do so enjoy our breakfasts together lazs, but then again, I enjoy the breakfasts with my Grandfather. Endearing, but aside from the things you and I could never share, substantively they are meaningless.
-
40??
-
Like I said nash... you are a moving target... you have no views save an overall disgust for christians and republicans and a childish belief in all things socialist.
you calim that Bush is the great satan in one breath and that he is getting nothing done in the next...
neither is true unless you are a socialist. he is not all that effective but... he has accomplished a lot so far as I am concerned.. he has undid a lot of the damage that klinton caused and will put 2 supreme court justices on that will not think like a canadian.
For proof.... I offer the fact that you thought kerrie would make a good president.
oh... I'm guessing early thirties but pretending to be late twenties.
lazs
-
You said:
"your opinion is not based on knowing or living with the people you have an opinion about.."
Good guess, but untrue.
And I know enough to know that when it comes to folks like you - your bark is far bigger than your bite. Unsurprising but still... thank god it is so.
I'm looking at what you just wrote, and it sent me off into a daydream:
A nation just of people exactly like you - and what would that resemble. Thankfully I was snapped out of it.
You deign to represent America, but you don't. Not even close, lazs. Were it so? I'd have washed my hands clean of this place.
I don't know why exactly it is that the AH BBS has become the flop-house of the lazy and dim... but despite your criticism of my knowledge of America, I know..... know that you do not represent them.
Granted, it's become such lately that my knowledge resembles a leap of faith, sadly.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't know why exactly it is that the AH BBS has become the flop-house of the lazy and dim...
present company exepted...?
-
nope - me too. :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
When you get right down to it, your own opinion about politics is of no consequence, despite the fact that you vote. Tell me, voter, because I'd like to know. What consequence do you think your opinion on politics has on politics?
My opinion has an impact on politics because I can vote and do vote. That is the most relevant part of participatory politics. Placing words on a bbs (and for the most part rather meaningless ones since you do not state a position other than you do not like the Bush administration) is of no consequence. Being an outsider of the system and stating an opinion accomplishes nothing. Being inside the system and placing a vote does accomplish something as I have now placed my opinion where it can be counted and influence the representative to the government I helped to elect. The fact that I am not responsible for the majority of the power to elect is irrelevent. The fact that I cared enough to vote and particiapate rather than just produce a useless diatribe makes me a part of the governing process. Merely saying something yet doing nothing does not. If that is not comprehensible to you with the distictions I have stated, there is no further reason to carry on the "conversation" and give you any further attention.
If you wanted to talk about something in your country there might be some interest as there is very little news from or about Canada in our press.
-
Out of interest, and for the record, Holden.
What percentage of the things lazs says represents your thoughts?
80%?
60%?
40%?
Roughly.... How do you generally find yourself matching up with lazs views?
Does he speak for you, more or less?
If yes... in what ways?
If not, would I be out of line in asking why it is that you never tire in going after me, but have not a single lick of a thing to say about lazs?
You remind me of Toad. Once the world's apologist, and now the incredible shrinking man.
Time to get you on the record.
First of all - the question nearest and dearest to lazs' heart: Should women be able to vote?
And....
Bush yeah or nay?
Iraq Yeah or nay?
Brownie doing a heck of a job or not?
Tax cuts working out?
Miers a bastion of scholarship?
DeLay not guilty?
Frist not guilty?
Rove not guilty?
Libby not guilty?
Intelligent design - your thoughts?
Schiavo - to pull or not to pull?
That'll do.
You're a smart man, and I'm in need of an education. Please, at least for me, be an example of an American.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Being an outsider of the system and stating an opinion accomplishes nothing. Being inside the system and placing a vote does accomplish something...
You never took logic did ya?
-
Hillary for President?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/279_1129441916_snoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Nash
You never took logic did ya?
Yes I did and again you state nothing but post a veiled ad hominum "attack". Conversation is over, such as it was. You are not worth taking the time to deal with.
-
Didn't think so.... Christ, it's obvious.
You have a problem? You're gonna need to do a lot better.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Out of interest, and for the record, Holden.
What percentage of the things lazs says represents your thoughts?
80%?
60%?
40%?
Roughly.... How do you generally find yourself matching up with lazs views?
Does he speak for you, more or less? I speak for me.
If yes... in what ways?
If not, would I be out of line in asking why it is that you never tire in going after me, but have not a single lick of a thing to say about lazs?
You remind me of Toad. Once the world's apologist, and now the incredible shrinking man.
Time to get you on the record.
First of all - the question nearest and dearest to lazs' heart: Should women be able to vote?
of course
And....
Bush yeah or nay? I would have preferred a better choice but it was unavailable to me.
Iraq Yeah or nay? Iraq needed to be done. We were there anyway doing no fly stuff, and according to Unicef the sanctions killed millions.
Brownie doing a heck of a job or not? Not anymore... Relief efforts were bungled at the local and state level too but those officials still have their jobs.
Tax cuts working out? yes
Miers a bastion of scholarship? no data
DeLay not guilty? not guilty unless proven
Frist not guilty? not guilty unless proven
Rove not guilty? not guilty unless proven
Libby not guilty? not guilty unless proven
Intelligent design - your thoughts? it's bs
Schiavo - to pull or not to pull? pull
That'll do.
You're a smart man, and I'm in need of an education. Please, at least for me, be an example of an American.
I guess I hit a nerve.
edit> Sorry if attempting to correct a misperception is "going after you" You will note that my first post (and the following posts for that matter) was not a personal attack, it was my view (the correct view) that congress, not the president, is the power in the federal government of the USA according to the constitution.
Your post (to which I was responding) seemed to be incorrectly pointing out since the republicans have had the white house several times since FDR that they were in charge.
While they did win the white house several times in that period, they did not have the complete legislature until GB2. Demos had the senate and house from 1932 to 1952... from 1954 to Reagan. In Ike's and Reagan's terms, Demos lost the senate for a couple years, but not the house. Not until '94 was the house won by republicans. Then of course, no executive.... until 2001.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You remind me of Toad. Once the world's apologist, and now the incredible shrinking man.
LOL... you have become your enemy.
Congrats.
-
nash... you loaded the questions... I rarely speak about those things that you asked holden but... judging by what he answered on em... we are more than 80% in agreement. on creativism... I don't care one way or the other.. never said that is how it is... just that it is every bit as possible as anything else... and how would that make living in my world so hard for you?
explain how my views would make things in the world so bad? I pretty much let people do whatever they want... you are the one making up all the rules...
The fair way would be to simply ask... what percentage of my views (on everything ever discussed here) do you agree with and what percentage of nash's opinions do you agree with.
You can look at it as a popularity contest or as a way of telling how Americans here feel compared to how you think they feel.
better yet....
How many people here think that I am dishonest and wishy washy and how many people think you are dishonest and wishy washy? That would play more to the political scene eh?
lazs
-
Holden answered the questions?
Look... This thread is retarded. I actually blame Nuke for it, but it's the same thing with you, lazs. You seem unable to respond to the content of anything I say. Every single time it's: "Poor Nash" and "you" "you" "you"... and the next thing ya know, it's like, all the thread is about.
Because I'm not going to just sit there and lump it.... so I end up doing the same - to you, to Holden, to Toad, to Maverick etc.... And look what happens? Just stupid.
I'm pretty sure it aint gonna change, but as far as this thread goes... it's played.
-
same old nash... attack and then retreat when you don't get your way.
holden answered your questions except for the percentage one... the questions were bogus anyway since I never really gave much in the way of opinions on the subjects you posed or... wasn't all that interested. Holden expressed mostly my views.
As for toad? I think you are angry at him because he negates your vauge and disjointed thinking by bringing in the real facts... this spoils your whole "feel" for the thing... Makes you mad and you either attack and retreat or simply retreat and try a different tact...
plus... it is so fun to watch you get all flustered. You act like no one has ever done it to you before....it's kinda cute and..... pathetic...
lazs
-
...and you want to dial it up?
No thanks. Sorry.
-
Nash, your perspective on current world events amuses me. Do you ever take a few steps back and try to look at current events in a rational, historical perspective?
You seem to jump from headline to headline and disregard logic and reason.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Holden answered the questions?
Except for the strange percentage estimate, yes.
-
Ah, I see now - they were within the quote itself. Thank you.
-
I'm wondering... I'll bet that there are more than a few Canadians that work for the media in this country.
Like it or not, vote or not, if they do, they have the power to shape opinion and affect the actions of actual voters.
But nevermind that...
The world is getting smaller every day. The policies of our government affect millions of people, and not just those within our borders. This just in.
I'm rather surprised that you guys are so threatened by the opinion of one mere Canadian. Take his opinions for what they are, a difference in perspective. Take what you can from his view and if they don't reconcile with your own, that's perfectly fine. Opinions should be tested.
-
threatened? hardly. We sometimes feel that we are being attacked by someone who has no idea about what is going on in this country but "threatened" is too strong a word.
My brother is a canadian... I don't claim that fact makes me an expert.... things can't possibly be as bad as he says I figure.
nope sandy.... I'm not really interested in your one world government theory... I'm the one who wants to boot the UN right?
probly 90% of the people in Amercia do not want the UN making laws in this country or leading American troops... I believe the last poll was in the nineties... Why didn't nash ask about that? How bout gun control? death penalty? lots of things I really do talk about... instead... he brings up things that I rarely touch on but that he thinks are world shattering... ends up...I pretty much agree with holdens answers on most of em.
I also agree with holden that his opinions are his. Mine are mine. We may agree to a point... I don't think either of us agrees much with nash tho.
lazs
-
Who said anything about the U.N.?
It's like this... I think that the average citizen of Canada (as well as many other countries) is probably better informed about the U.S., our policies, and our current events than we are of theirs. Our culture is a pervasive one. We touch everything on a global scale.
-
"your opinion is not based on knowing or living with the people you have an opinion about.."
huh... how do you validate your opinions about women , blacks and city dwellers, as you don't live with any of these groups either?
-
I have contact with all those groups.... the American versions anyway... the blacks not so much anymore except to see em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have contact with all those groups.... the American versions anyway... the blacks not so much anymore except to see em.
lazs
Well that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
>>There ya go Nash...
;)
-
In what way holden? "the most"? that is hard to believe.
You saying that I don't have contact with those groups? I "live" in the same country that they do... torque or nash do not. even if they do live with the groups mentioned.... they live with the canadian versions.
I admit that I have no contact with colored people these days... I avoid it and there are none around me in any case.. I used to live in a large city and was around em all the time tho... still... that is old outdated info that I ignore.
I met a fireman the other day who was colored... well spoken and well groomed... he had a sense of humor and seemed fairly bright.... he hadn't spoken a pargraph before he had the conversation aimed at racial biggotry... his version of it... I imitated his vacant smile and wandered off.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I admit that I have no contact with colored people these days...
Colored people? [Cockney-Monty Python Accent]Oh, wha a give-away... You 'erd 'im repressin' me di-nt you? Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed![/Cockney-Monty Python Accent]
>>How bout that Nash? twice in one thread...
-
the national association for the advancement of colored people might dissagree. I use their own terms because I can never keep up with what the other colored leaders claim is the newest proper term. If you have one that you particularly like I will be glad to use that one tho.
truth is... we probly do not agree on a lot of things... we probly don't agree totaly on the things we appear to agree on nor diagree totaly on the things we apear to disagree on... this is too limitied a venue to really know.. I just think nash's examples were especialy bogus but.... I was not at all surprised... he is a hit and run kinda guy.... hit hard and run away before he get's proven wrong...
lazs
-
I disagree
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...hit hard and run away before he get's proven wrong...
lazs
Proven wrong about what? Is there anything here to be proven wrong about?
Answer: no.
Wishy washy? Maybe. I do hold core values of my own, but I'm sympathetic to your confusion, because the diligent and continuous excercise of their flexibility and strength is itself a value that I consider to be core. And of that, I am as unflinching as you in your belief that you can rest upon the one magic set of values that you've decided to lean on.
Go ahead and place a value judgement on that. Demonstrate the true value of having core beliefs - cemented - other than one's own purely selfish psychological need for order and the need to Know that they are right. You seem to be holding onto your values like a child holding onto his blanket.
I'm not that scared of the world. I'm not that scared of me. I'm not that scared of what I'd find if I stretched and put myself out on a limb. In fact, I've got a sneaking suspicion that it makes me stronger.
And no.... "hit and run" aint my thing. Fact is, I spend far too much time than is healthy hangin' around (as evidenced by this post). I thought that this thread had become retarded. If you think I've "run", can you please enlighten me on the thing I'm supposedly running from?
Holden - okay you've redeemed yourself (joking - 'cuz I know that you know you never had to, I was being an arse, you're always alright in my books... and I'm pretty sure you know that too).
-
Originally posted by Nash
I was being an arse, you're always alright in my books... and I'm pretty sure you know that too).
Well hell, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
-
I feel so.. so... so..... warm inside!
What a happy thread!
Purty soon someone will bust out with the Barney song!
-
I love you!
-
nash.. hit and run.. you seriously don't notice? you say something outrageous that you get from the news and then back off when no one is on your side of the issue.
core beliefs... yes... we all have em... they should not be flexible. I don't know what yours are. You won't murder children? welll except if... You won't.... you won't what? I have seen no evidence of core beliefs in you.
I think you can find a convienient gray area in any of your so called core beliefs.... As a former drug addict myself, I know that you have... But as one who has been there I believe that strong core beliefs are even more important.
going out on a limb? you don't go out on a limb you flail your arms wildly to keep your balance on the tightrope you walk.
lazs
-
hehehe...laz...
next time, i'll check their vin numbers...