|
45
Clips
Summary
Comments (199)
Oct 27, 2008
So one reporter takes the side of McCain - versus the ENTIRE MAINSTREAM MEDIA taking the side of Barack Obama - and this is how liberals react? Imagine for one minute if Sarah Palin had asked Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric - if their questions were "a joke" or "I don't know who's writing your questions."
The liberals would be railing against Palin as an incompetent and it would be headline news everywhere. So when a reporter asks a Democrat legitimate questions or when a private citizen (Joe the Plumber) asks a Democratic presidential candidate a legitimate question about his socialistic tax plan - the liberal reaction is to attack and discredit the reporter and the private citizen - not to question the tax plan or ACORN, or whatever THAT was the Biden said about Obama in Seattle... It wasn't 24 hours before Joe dared to ask Barack "the question" that we knew A.) Joe didn't have a plumbers license B.) Joe owed back taxes and C.) John McCain was a fool for not 'vetting' Joe the Plumber prior to the debate. What a horrific and thugish ideology - This is what we have to look forward to from an Obama administration - the precedent is now set, don't you dare question the messiah, or the Democrats and the media will come after you. Amazing how 'intolerant' liberals are of conservative 'dissent' toward socialism... And liberals were worried about their civil rights being trounced under Bush, how about freedom of speech? Yeah its free, so long as you 100% agree with Obama... Saludos Comrades!
Oct 27, 2008
That's a little harsh. I think Biden acted like an experienced pol and shut down the questioner while Palin just flubbed it. The questioner asked if Obama was "Marxist" -- come on. That's just asking to be berated.
Oct 27, 2008
@jasongoldberg - Actually I think Biden handled the questions well - the point I'm trying to make is that when Joe Biden or Barack Obama get a tough question - and frankly the spreading the wealth around comment is tantamount to Marxism (too each according to his need, from each according to his ability) - the media and the campaign react by silencing the critic.
There are a lot of people out there (me included) who think Obama's policies are to change us into a socialist country. The problem is most liberals just don't believe it. They think Obama's talking about a 'progressive tax system' i.e. like the one we've always had and similar to what was under Clinton. What they don't understand is never did Clinton or any other liberal consider writing checks to the bottom 40% to level the playing field like Obama's proposing. That's Marxism... And it should give you and every other American pause...
Oct 28, 2008
I listened to this and thought Biden did his best to avoid the questions. He is clearly not used to difficult questions or to have his positions challenged. I would really like to see the media equally scrutinize both sides--it is their job after all!
http://www.socialmedian.com/story/1420360/editing-their-way-to-oblivion-journalism-sacrificed-for-power-and-pensions
Oct 28, 2008
@rpetty Amen Brutha! I run a blog at www.TheKookFringe.com - the gist of the blog is about mainstream media bias - the media is only scrutinizing the republicans while the dems get a pass, or worse when the dems get questioned like Biden in this interview - or when Joe the Plumber goaded Obama into saying "spreading the wealth around" - the mainstream media turned on the station, the reporter who asked the qeuestions, and also went after Joe the plumber and tried to discredit him, as if punishing the dissenter who dared ask the question changes the policies of a potential obama presidency... Not only is it biased, its turning into thuggish...
Oct 28, 2008
Asking if someone is a Marxist or a socialist is a tough question? No, it's just repeating viral e-mail smears. It's absurd on the face of it. No one who knows anything about Marx or Marxists, or marxists, or Sweden, for that matter would consider it a legitimate question.
Oct 28, 2008
@homosuperior @thekookfringecom @rpetty hey all -- check this out on http://election.socialmedian.com
Oct 28, 2008
I agree with Homosuperior here. Most Americans who repeat the 'socialist' smear, haven't a clue what socialism really is. For one thing it's not communism, and for another, Ralph Nader is about the nearest we've got to a socialist in this campaign and he is way way to the left of Obama. In Europe and the UK, Obama would definitely be considered for what he is - RIGHT of center.
Oct 28, 2008
Charlie Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. How you can equate that type of neutral question with "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?" is beyond me.
The socialism argument, end of America as we know it argument are nothing more than smear tactics. A 3% tax increase on the very wealthy and tax breaks for the middle class are nor socialism. Disagree or agree - just get your facts straight. Conservatives used to be against big government, now they are content to allow the federal government to dictate every aspect of our lives. That is the dangerous precedent set by George Bush. 
Oct 28, 2008
Socialism has a definition, and it is not "spread the wealth around" or "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Now, I'm not quite sure how Obama's tax plan advocates for Government seizing control of the means of production, certainly not anymore than the $700bn bailout plan and John McCain's advocacy of the government buying shares in failing banks.
Oct 28, 2008
If Obama were only talking about the 'progressive tax system' like we've always had then conservatives wouldn't be sounding the Alarm about socialism. Its not just income taxes he proposing changing, its dividends, capital gains (on stocks, home sales, etc), lifting the payroll tax cap, etc... So this notion that Obama only wants to raise the highest level from 36 - 39% is just the tip of the iceberg.
SOCIALISM: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. MARXISM: "FROM each according to his ability, TO each according to his need." You can call those who think Obama believes in those tenants as 'extremists' and that's fine, but those two definitions sound a lot like Obama... 
Oct 28, 2008
What is amazing is how the left says this is the "GOP talking point-spewing machine" when Senator McCain sits down and she drills him just the same. Should we say that she has a dual personality and now she is the evil left-wing media?
She asked hard questions and everyone gasped that finally someone directly questions the policies of Messiah Obama. Get a real news article instead of this left wing garbage that this website keeps on giving out. Politico.com is a much better standard for political journalism. 
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth Taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group is classic socialism, have you ever read the Nazi Party Platform?
Oct 28, 2008
And by the way, if the questions are so lame and Biden did such a great job of shooting them down why in the world would he refuse anymore interviews? Would you not want to jump at the chance to make someone look like a fool? You Libs are cry babies, what is Obama going to do when he gets in the White House and a reporter actually asks him a tough question, throw him out?
Oct 28, 2008
Did you know that the anchor woman's husband is an operative for the GOP? Nobody brings that up...but it's germaine. Comparing Marx and Obama has the same validity as comparing Hitler to Obama, and if you think that one holds true, you are rock-solid set in your ideals.
Oct 28, 2008
@politicalcrunch so taking $700bn from the taxpyaers and giving it to failing banks is socialist then. Thank you for proving my point. The "redistribution of wealth" is a tenet of socialism yes, and in that way our government has been socialist since the introduction of the present income tax system.
Oct 28, 2008
Who cares! The reporter asked legitimate questions, Marxism and socialism are about governing by a collective - Obamas opinions and ideals have been shaped by self proclaimed Marxists like William Ayers. I love it when libs jump on this bandwagon like Joe The Plumber owes back taxes and the reporters wife is a GOP operative as if that somehow changes the validity of the questions asked of the Messiah and Biden. Gwen Ifel is writing a book about Politics in the age of Obama that comes out on inaugeration day, did you say she was an operative for the Democratic party who shouldn't moderate the debate? Doubtful...
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth You're right, it is, and I assure most traditional conservatives were against the bailout. Let the banks fail and let new business models come into play. Its the capitalist way. If the government tinkers in the free market it just delays the inevitable or delays the recovery...
Oct 28, 2008
@obamapound - Really? Which "bush doctrine" was (the learned professor that Gibson is) he referring to?
Oct 28, 2008
@politicalcrunch and by the way, I am not a liberal. My politic beliefs tend to align with the GOP of the Teddy Roosevelt era, not the current hawkish, neo-con GOP. I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican, nor a Libertarian, or a member of any other party. Factionalism has gotten us where we are right now, I believe George Washington put it best in his farewell address: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."
Oct 28, 2008
The way I see it is Obama is trying to strengthen our economy by giving the middle class a bigger tax break but that is just part of the picture. Obama also wants to reform health care and education and all that would need money and to get that money, one thing he could do is to tax the rich. Period. This is not wealth redistribution. He does not talk $10 from A and gives $10 to B. He just takes more from A and less from B. That money from A and B will go into making healthcare and education better.
Oct 28, 2008
@thekookfringecom it wasn't the question, it's the answer. She could have asked Charles to clarify what the Bush Doctrine was. Instead she goes on and blabber on something that is totally out of context.
Oct 28, 2008
The funny thing is that in her debate Palin did refuse to answer questions: "And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear"
Look, this whole notion that Obama has some secret Marxist plan comes from an off-the-cuff remark in Ohio. I highly doubt that by "spreading the wealth" he meant what you all assume he meant. It seemed pretty clear that his argument was that if lower the taxes for all of the people making $250K and below they will have more money to save and spend and that that money they have would benefit small business owners. That was the context he was speaking in, and that was the content of his entire statement. It has, however, taken on a life of its own through constant repeating and distorting. It really saddens me that people are going to try and use something like this to further divide people and avoid talking about the issues.
Oct 28, 2008
@obamapound part of the problem is that government intervention in health care and education (as examples) pushes the argument towards socialist ideals. Universal healthcare is a synonym for socialized medicine. The Federal government was given very specific responsibilities as laid out in the constitution, and much of what it is involved in at present is an over-stepping of the constitutional boundaries. Healthcare, education, and many other programs should be left to the state governments.
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth Because the states are so good at managing money and services! Seriously, I agree with you in principle, just maybe not a good idea to leave national interests in the hands of states that either don't care or can't deal.
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth Obama does not want to mandate healthcare, IMO I feel that US healthcare is broke, health insurance company denying coverages, increasing premium is all about profit and greed.( just like wall st). Obama has the foresight to see the problem and wants to fix the problem before it escalates. This is leadership, this is what a good government should do. Protect the interest of its people.
Oct 28, 2008
@mauricereeves this is possible because the vast majority of voters are uneducated on the issues that really matter. That is why politicians call to base emotions (most notably fear) to speak to the public. This goes back to James Monroe and his belief that it was the responsibility of the "elitist leadership" to help mold public opinion.
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth Leaving healthcare at States level will just have all insurance companies set up shop at one State that has loose laws to protect against the buyers.
Oct 28, 2008
@billspaced the individual healthcare or education of an individual citizen is not of "national interest". The states at this point are no better or worse at managing money and services than is the federal government. Much of this atrophy in state provided services is due to federal intervention in what are essentially state services. States have become subservient to the Fed because that's what the system has become.
Oct 28, 2008
@obamapound I didn't say anything about mandating healthcare coverage (that was Hilary Clinton's idea). And yes, I agree that the healthcare system is in trouble (or at least troublesome for those of us not making enough money to not care about our premiums), but it is in trouble because of Washington, not in spite of it. Additionally, if each state controlled it's own healthcare standards, insurance companies wouldn't be able to do what you suggest, coverage that did not meet that individual states' requirements would not be available. Insurance companies already do what you suggest because the federal standard does not focus on the health concerns of a given area, but on the average concerns of the entire country.
Oct 28, 2008
We've had socialized medicine in this country for a lot longer than people care to admit. We already provide health care for: government employees at all levels, military, veterans, the elderly, the poor, subsidize vaccinations, and absorb the cost of emergency room visits by the un and underinsured.
I don't know that we do a good job at any of those, or that it is the place of the government to run health care, but it's already here and more and more companies are seeking it. American companies are beginning to make the argument that they cannot continue to pay for the health care of their employees and compete against companies from nations that provide health care to its citizens. The Big Three automakers recently sat before Congress and pushed for universal health care, because it would save them money. It is perhaps true that there's no way to turn back the tide of government-run health care, and we should instead focus on countries that do make it work well. From what I've read Germany has a hybrid private and public insurance system that is held in high regard. Generally though, I do agree, government-run health care in other countries are a disaster.
Oct 28, 2008
@obamapound Actually her response was "In what respect Charlie?" - you obviously didn't see the interview but are getting your information from biased sources - this tells us alot about the state of current affairs in Democratic party politics. If you're for Obama you're going to believe that Sarah Palin is clueless and has no business being a VP nominee - you disregard the collossal gaffes of Joe Biden, but rail on Sarah Palin because she didn't know which Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson was referring to. You justify the blackballing of reporters and citizens who dare ask tough questions of their perspective Democratic leaders - nice job. Get ready for the coming "Liberal Thugocracy" - but don't worry, Obama and his supporters will justify it and spin it all as "what's in the best interest of the people." The media unfortunately will be all to willing to oblige the messiah...
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth No argument there! Most Conservatives do oppose giving 700 Billion to the banks, it is wrong as well, unfortunately we are stuck with McCain, Obama supports the bailout as well so I guess that means that we are all stuck with it!
Oct 28, 2008
@politicalcrunch Agreed, I am not stumping for Obama by any means, my problem is with the rhetoric being spouted by many conservatives (most notably John McCain and Sarah Palin) to promote the fear of a "Red" America as an attack on Barack Obama. @mauricereeves is correct in that there are already socialist programs well entrenched in our government (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc...) that people talk about saving as opposed to killing, yet since the majority of people are in favor of these programs, they are not seen as "socialist". Socialist was not a label attached to Obama until the whole Joe the Plumber thing happened, it's not quite as if he changed his tax plan after that time. This recent turn is a perfect display of what is wrong with our political system, the candidates we are left to choose from care more about preting on people's emotions and fears to win votes than by proving that they truly have the best answers to the issues we face as a country.
Oct 28, 2008
@thekookfringecom Oh yes, I watched that interview many times. "In what respect Charlie?", is not "What is the Bush Doctrine? Can you explain?"
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. "In what respect Charlie?" means "oh the bush doctrine, what about it?" She pretends to know what but actually not. Ordinary people might not know what Bush doctrine is, but the VP candidate that could possibly be Commander in Chief ought to know that.
Oct 28, 2008
@obamapound Protect the interests of its people my #@$>?`` what if I do not like nor want this plan? I still have to pay for it don't I? How is that in my interest? I am perfectly happy with my health coverage, polls show that %80 of people surveyed are happy with their current health care coverage! Look out for my interest, like SSI? Take 12.5% of my lifetime earnings and if I die within 1 year of retirement the Government gets to keep it all, not my family! Ya, that's looking out for my interests!
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth you're right the needs of an individual don't pertain, but the needs of the society do. Look at our educational system, currently "run by the state" (forget "no child left behind" for a moment) -- throw money at it and it still underperforms. But why? It must be poorly run. It's not because our students are stupid. It's because the system isn't serving them. An educated work force is one of the ways we can get back into being competitive on a world stage. THAT is a national interest.
Same argument could be made for healthcare. Or any other issue. This is not to suggest that I support socialism. I'm a product, as I'm sure you are, of hard work, sacrifice, and finding a talent that adds value to society. I think, however, that some of our citizens are denied the opportunity to hone their talents into employable skills (think inner-city).
Oct 28, 2008
@Politicalcrunch Obviously you are ignorance about Obama's healthcare policy, he has said many time, if you are happy with your healthcare policy, you get to keep whatever you have. In fact, he will help lower your current premium.
So stop reading foxnews and be in your own world. If all your care about is if your political party wins the election, then go on and do that and hide in your cave when election day comes and McCain loses.
Oct 28, 2008
@billspaced Our education system is a perfect example of why we do not want Government run health care! We spend more per child on education than anyone in the world and look what they have done with that! Do they fix it? No, they just demand more money! SSI and Medicare headed to disaster, they increase the SSI tax from the original 2% to 12% now and that still is not enough to keep it financially sound! Do you think that we can afford to keep doing these things?
Oct 28, 2008
@obamapound Do you think my employer is stupid? why in the world would he pay for my health care plan when the Gov is going to offer it up? why would he offer it for new employees? He gets rid of my coverage and adds it all to the bottom line!
Oct 28, 2008
@billspaced The problem is much bigger than that. The problem is that we "throw money at it" without ever addressing the root causes of the problems. Also, the school system does not underperform in all areas, it underperforms in areas where there are exterior factors (such as poverty, violence, etc...) that make for non-perfect environments for students. Iowa's schools are for the most part safe, well-run and perform well, why is this? Well, because there is a low level of poverty and a fairly safe environment for most of the children that attend the schools. Contrasted with Chicago with much higher levels of poverty and far less safe environments. Chicago has to recruit people to teach in their schools, in Iowa there are not enough jobs for all the teachers. The problem is that they think the school is the problem, they do nothing to address the environment surrounding the school that is the true problem.
Oct 28, 2008
@Politicalcrunch SSI is headed for disaster not because it's a failed policy per se but because the government keeps "borrowing" from it to pay for other things. Both sides are guilty of that, though you'd have thought that maybe the Republicans would have stood by their pledge to be fiscally conservative when they took control so long ago and have not been. They've been egregious in their run up of spending and debt.
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth So what's your answer? Remove poverty from Chicago? Easier said than done. DC has been trying to do that since at least the Johnson era. It's gotten progressively worse. I think we need to go back to our roots and figure out what's important to us as a NATION, not just as individuals. Surely, Adam Smith was right, in that the invisible hand would guide individuals to do the right thing, but that principle was better-served in a simpler society. We've interwoven so many aspects of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into various components of the economy, the political landscape, and globalism that it's hard to unravel and get to the root causes.
I'm not sure that poverty and unsafe schools are "causes" of poor education. Perhaps it's the other way around. Chicken or egg?
Oct 28, 2008
@MauriceReeves I agree. Doubled the national debt in 8 years! New record! At least George W. Bush may have staved off the dubious honor of being the first president to preside during 2 recessions. Either what we're in now isn't a recession, or it's worse. But don't call it a recession!
Oct 28, 2008
@billspaced well, in a perfect world, removing poverty would be the best solution, but obviously this is a less than perfect world. The problem is that you can't remove poverty, you have to address poverty and things like welfare do not address it, they "throw money at it" and hope it will go away. Many governmental programs enable poverty, and the move from a production based economy to a service based one has contributed significantly, especially in former industrial centers like Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc... I don't know which came first, but I would say that unsafe schools lead to poor educational systems as opposed to the other way around.
Oct 28, 2008
Man, we have really gotten off topic haven't we? Well, maybe not off topic, but we've certainly turned this into a much broader discussion than whether or not Obama is a socialist at heart.
Oct 28, 2008
@greghollingsworth Okay, let's get back on point: I don't think Obama is a socialist at heart. Do you? Is he the next Karl Marx? Upton Sinclair?
Oct 28, 2008
@billspaced no, not in the classical meaning of the term. The Big Red Scare made socialism into a dirty word in our country, and the cold war drove the point home for nearly 50 years. Was Teddy Roosevelt a socialist? No, was he socially progressive, yes. I see Obama as a social progressive/economic & political liberal. However, I think that as a president he will have the good sense to come back to the middle (which he has done throughout the campaign, knowing full well that the Democratic base alone would not get him elected). Remember, the last time we had a one-term senator from Illinois running for President we ended up with Abraham Lincoln. I'm not comparing the two directly, but historically speaking the last time the country was as politically divided as it seems to be right now was right before the civil war. There will not be another civil war, but whoever wins this election is going to have a whole lot of uniting to do, and the only way to do that is to embrace the non-party pieces of the electorate. Regardless of whether it's McCain or Obama, without the independents, they'll be a one termer.
Oct 28, 2008
The most expensive single piece of socialism in U.S history?
The Republican bailout of the credit/financial system in 2008. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather see the government of the people bailing it the people and not the corporations that provide millions of jobs for millions of Chinese and billions for the Chinese economy. Oh, wait...China's a communist country. Yeah, now it makes sense.
Oct 28, 2008
Oh and we might add, that if we can have corporate socialism (farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, tax loop-holes, etc.) we should be able to throw the least among us a bone from the table of capitalism. After all, the corporate elite have been flensing the carcass for years.
Oct 28, 2008
Look, the United States of America is one of two countries that does NOT provide free higher education to its citizens. The other one is Japan. And we have to import our brains from overseas. Yes, from all those "socialistic" economies. We need to wake up and realize that the profit motive isn't always in the best interest of our country or its citizens. But it surely helps the interest (rates, dividends) of those who are (in)vested in the system. One of the things that boggles the mind is that captitalism by its very nature is a system of winners and losers and no one, absolutely no one, has bothered to ask the question: who won in this financial mess the Republican administration helped engineer. Some people got very, very rich(er). And nobody's asking. After all, trillions don't just evaporate into thin air. Even if those trillions are only "on paper" they had to have landed on someone else's balance sheet.
Oct 28, 2008
@exModia What in world are you talking about? more Republicans opposed the bailout than did Democrats, I do believe that Obama voted for the bailout! I recall a whole bunch of Democrats running around accusing the Republicans who opposed the bailout of being "un-patriotic" & "irresponsible"!
Oct 28, 2008
@exmodia I agree with you on most of your points, but to be fair, this economic crisis is not solely the responsibility of one party. This collapse was a team effort, with just as many Democrats (not necessarily current members of COngress) to engineer this collapse as Republicans. The problems within our current system go far deeper than party allegiance. Incumbency rates don't trend toward one party, they are solid for both, and that is only one measure of how entrenched our "representatives" are. Statesmanship has been lost to career politicians, what was once seen as a service to your country is now a career, which is not what it was meant to be. Answer me this, why is the Presidency the only position in our government with constitutionally imposed term limits? To prevent the possibility of a monarchy. Yet we continually allow the Congressional aristocracy to exist. Like it or not there is a ruling class in this country, and as cliche as it may be, the people with the most gold, make the rules. If we ever want to see true change in our representative government, term limits need to be imposed on Representatives and Senators.
Oct 28, 2008
Sometimes I think what some on the right, (and some on the left at the beginning of this thing), are really afraid of is the possibility of someone actually bringing the different sides together. After all, many benefit from the status quo, even if it's in only being reminded that their side is "in charge." Obama is saying goodbye to all that, to quote Andrew Sullivan. Unity may very well smell like socialism to those who have benefited the most from the last, tragic 8 years.
Oct 28, 2008
They may have opposed it, but they were the ones who PROPOSED it to begin with to bailout the mess they helped create. This mess is not new. It was slowly burning away since the deregulations of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. The same system of deregulation that has led to a chaotic national air traffic control system (have we forgotten how Reagan famously destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers Union). My political science professor told us once that we don't see the net result of political policies until 20 years later. Well, the chickens have finally come home to roost.
Oct 28, 2008
Besides, Crunch, be serious. You can't be that politically naive. If you were a Republican in today's political climate, what incentive do you have to support your historically unpopular president in his bailout? Or to support your candidate and his Caribou Barbie running-mate? Zilch, Zippo, None, Nada, Squat! So, your best shot to make some noise with the local yokels back home who you will have to face in a few weeks at the polls where a Democratic juggernaut is gunning to take you down is to take some kind of stand. And when the Democrats come out and support YOUR president's and his financial team's proposal what stand can you possibly take? It's really not that hard to understand, now is it?
Oct 28, 2008
@exModia Could you please define "free" for us? are you under the impression that Government cost nothing?
Oct 28, 2008
Oh and for those of you that rail against socialism in the U.S. please read your history. Socialism has existed here in various guises and supported by various administrations (both Republican and Democratic) for decades. This bailout is not the first time we've nationalized a sector of the economy in the U.S. and it won't be the last. We have in the past nationalized the railroads, the airlines, the electrical grid (we still have nationalized electrical supply systems, just think of the TVA). There's this knee-jerk, nativist reaction that takes hold of a lot of American minds when their political party yells "socialism". The word is just a word and, frankly, as far as political systems go, has provided quite adequately for its citizens. Just take a close look at those societies that rank highest in the human development index. Americans need to become not only proficient in history, but in politics, realpolitiks and economics. Maybe we could hire some Swedish professors to teach our children.
Oct 28, 2008
@exModia You have got to be kidding me, where was Clinton in all of this? he certainly didn't add these regulations back did he? so I guess he is responsible too huh? I do believe that in the last 8 years there was ONE party who was trying to prevent this financial turmoil, that is right! 2003 Bush tried to regulate the size and pratices of freddie and Fannie warning that they could cause a financial crises (Democrats and some Republicans opposed it), in 2005 MR Greenspan said flat out that if they did not do something to restrict the size and practices of Fannie & Freddie that it would lead to a financial crises that would effect all of our financial markets, McCain & Bush supported reforming & REGULATING them, Democrats opposed it! Greenspan was correct in his prediction so you have to trust that he must have known what he was talking about when he said that failure to restrict the size of Fannie & Freddie would lead to a financial crises! I certainly did not see any Dems out there in 2005 trying to impose any regulation regarding our Financial system, NOPE, they were to busy opposing them!
Oct 28, 2008
@exModia So why in the world do you refer to "FREE higher education" there is no such thing!
Oct 28, 2008
Look, I'm going to get very plebian. Republicans only think about money. It's their god. It's the reason why they have bamboozled the religious wingnuts of the nation so they can milk them for votes so they can then get into office and make themselves and their cronies richer. The Dems at least pay lip service to the needs of the lower classes. Under any system of rational thought that's still a hell of a lot preferable than to be raped economically and be restricted civically. Republicans have this misguided notion that we should allow the nation's economy free reign (as long as it benefits the right people) while reigning in the freedoms of the populace. That has always been a historical recipe for revolution. Why it was that very system that sparked the American Revolution.
Oct 29, 2008
@Thekookfringecom I probably don't get the point as I'm just one of those "European Neanderthals" and I haven't heard the interview myself (and as you might have noticed I'm not a native English speaker...) but I can't help myself, it seems you are confusing cause and effect somehow. "The (mainstream) media" was not born as "the media". A "(mainstream) media" gene simply doesn't exist. The media is always some kind of mirror of the society - not just a liberal crowd hunting conservative politicians.
If someone would have asked me questions like these, my reaction clearly would be: "C'mon, You're insulting my intelligence...". Furthermore "mainstream media bias" is nonsense as media is driven mainly by two things: potential interest of - and impact on - their receipients, it's really that simple. Believe me: conservatives, liberals, socialists and the 20-something of political colors we have here in Europe, noone of them would be interested into answers of such kind of questions. BTW: Marxism has little to do with communism or socialism - probably a self-rating of one of those questions - but that's another story.
Oct 29, 2008
@schilke Really? Cause the last time I checked The New York Times, LA Times, etc. are also businesses. So at the end of the day they SHOULD be trying to increase their readership. Yet they continue to blast liberal biased drivel instead of news, and how are they rewarded? Ad revenues are down, readership is down, they're laying off employees, etc. On the flip side, you have FOX news, the news outlet liberals love to hate, yet its dominating the ratings, growing market share and kills it during prime time... Quite the opposite story of the rest of the mainstream media. So why is that? I would argue that FOX is much truer to their tag line of "We Report, You Decide." As opposed to the New York Times whose tag line should read - "We've decided, here's the report..." Readers and viewers aren't stupid, they choose with their feet... Right now FOX News is winning.
Oct 29, 2008
If FOX News is winning, why aren't there more networks going their way? I mean, the sincerest form of flattery is copying...but nobody else is following.
Point is, each network has carved out what it has determined to be its niche. Right, wrong, left, or indifferent. By your token, E! should be the news outlet of the decade. (Okay, I admit I don't know the highest-rated entertainment show, but it's probably some crap like Extra, or Talk Soup...you get my drift) Popularity does not equal good journalism. Nor, by the way, does poor popularity. I think ALL media is biased.
Oct 29, 2008
@billspaced I think we both agree that all media is biased to a degree. That said, I would argue that FOX news is less biased - at least there are always liberal commentators - even on O'Reilly last week where liberal guests actually outnumbered conservative guests. As opposed to MSNBC (which has dismal ratings) is all liberal all the time - here's an article validating that point - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i28df3fc9f6707d1478700b7bc78273ae
I believe that FOX is winning because it truly is MORE fair and balanced than the rest - I expect Obama supporters and liberals in general to go crazy over that remark, but you can't argue with results...
Oct 29, 2008
@thekookfringecom @billspaced As per usual, the discussion of media bias needs to be broken down into it's disparate pieces. The problem with the MSM is the 24 hour news cycle that the internet & CNN created. The "media" is no longer the 4th estate, that delineates information to the people, it is not even the press that we think of when we talk about the first amendment. News & opinion have become almost interchangeable at this point. Fox News for instance delivers very little news and a whole lot of opinion, same with MSNBC (less so with CNN). Hannity, O'Reilly, Olberman, Matthews, these are not journalists, they are commentators, pundits, talking heads, whatever you want to call them, they are biased because it is not their job to deliver news, it is their job to attract viewers, which they do very well. Fox is winning because MSNBC was a joke of a network until Olbermann came on board and turned it into the anti-Fox network. Fox has never hid what they are, they are conservative, moreover, they are the only truly conservative news network, so they capture the entire conservative viewership, whereas liberals split their time between the major news stations (ABC, NBC, CBS) and the cable news channels (MSNBC, CNN). Fox is no more fair and balanced than the others, it is solidly biased toward a conservative point of view (which is fine).
The other part of the discussion is whether or not you are receiving biased "news" coverage, which in some cases you are, at least according to a study that Bill O'Reilly took wholly out of context for his book "Culture Warrior". The UCLA study found that there is an overwhelmingly liberal bias in news departments of major newspapers and TV (the WSJ turned out to have the most liberal newsroom). But the people you're talking about are not presenting news, they are presenting their opinions as news, which is worse.
Oct 29, 2008
@thekookfringecom Ha ha ha ha. As a political science/media major in college this one really made me laugh. To say that FOX is less biased because they routinely invite liberal commentators to bait, harrangue and humiliate is kinda like saying that the old Soviet Union was an open society because they invited the Olympics.
Oct 29, 2008
@exModia Of course it made you laugh. You went to a liberal school who taught you how to present liberal ideology as news :-)
Greg Hollingswoth makes a great point, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al are in fact opinion shows like Olberman. When Im referring to FOX News's coverage I am referring to their afternoon shows with Shepard Smith, and Neil Covuto. If you believe they're biased, that's fine, but they're still winning, because if they are in fact opinion shows, they're presenting both opinions (Liberal and Conservative) much better than everyone else.
Oct 29, 2008
@thekookfringecom you think Neil Cavuto is unbiased? I'm not convinced.
I will, however, concede that as of late Shepard Smith has attempted to insert more balance, for example repudiating the statement that a vote for Obama means the death of Israel, but none of that means FoxNews as a whole is unbiased. Consider the whole "terrorist fist bump" statement. That's unbiased? Since when?
Oct 29, 2008
Again: even if you're able to put a media company into a pigeonhole it won't stop to act predominantly independant. There's a simple rule which can't be broken by a lot of money or political views: good, (apparently) bought or wrong news are no news, do that more than once and you're off (because the inviduals decide). One step further: the people love to see independent media, I would say, independence is a bestseller...
And - ahem - I can't resist to add that socialmedian (including all contributing users) is part of the "media" itself.
Oct 29, 2008
@thekookfringecom And this made me laugh even harder! You guys have absorbed way too much FOX into your brains. Look, you even jump and opine on the college I went to and you don't even know me to quote Armand Van Helden. In part this has been the reason for the unraveling and hopefully the ultimate extinction of the parochial American, nativist, hillbilly (oh, yes, I'm going to go there if you are going to act there), closeted, closed, uncosmopolitan mentality. This strident assumption of who and what people are based on their opinions is laughable. It's the reason you guys keep electing perverts who present themselves to you as the average Joe the Plumbers of the world Republicans and end up trying to seduce minors, having sex with hookers and attempting to pick up men in public restrooms. You get suckered because you let your itty-bitty, concentric tunnel vision blind you to the reality of the greater world we live in. Personally I don't see the point of who's winning among the news distilleries of America. That has no bearing on my life or yours.
Oct 29, 2008
And I really want to add my last comment to this forum that has fast degenerated into an AOL message board, that conservatives always forget to tell you that the United States of America was founded by the biggest liberals of their day. Because had men like Paine, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton been conservatives we would have Elizabeth II Deus Regina stamped on our money today. So, no, conservatism is NOT the American way because it is not the philosophy that founded this country.
Oct 29, 2008
@exmodia might I remind you that the conservative/liberal label stem from economic monikers, not political ones. Personally, liberal is not a strong enough descriptor of our founders, I tend to view them proudly as radicals, another moniker that has become a dirty word (not unlike socialism) thanks to radicals that do not hold similar ideals to those of our society. However, as radical as they were in severing ties to England, they were just as dedicated to extending the ideas of the revolution after it had ended. Washington, Adams and Hamilton were all branded conservative by Jefferson and his Republicans, although back then the dirty name was Federalist. Lastly, the GOP and the Democrats are very different parties than they were even 60 years ago. I challenge anyone to prove to me that the current GOP is truly the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Also, can we please try to keep the conversations civil. One of the many things I enjoy about this site/community is the incredible amount of intelligence I find in other members, and I would like to do everything I can to keep it from degenerating into an "AOL message board".
Oct 29, 2008
The last portion of my previous comment was not directed at any one person, simply an appeal to all who comment. My apologies to @exmodia if it appears I am directing it specifically at you, I was not.
Oct 29, 2008
@greghollingsworth Greg, let me remind you that conservatism/liberalism went under other names in Washington's day. Those names were Tory (or unionists or royalists or loyalists or "King's Men") and rebels (or rabble, or separatists, or patriots). As such, they were not only economic terms, they were foremost, political ones. But like I said before somewhere about 10 posts ago this board just took a desperate dive and there's scant little information to be gleaned here so I just wanted to interject quickly to rectify that last misconception that seems to be so firmly rooted in the American psyche. That being that to be a liberal is ultimately to be un-American when that couldn't be further from the truth of our history as a nation.
Oct 30, 2008
@1918 So, for the record, you think Obama is a socialist? How is he any different from McCain in that respect? After all, the government's job is to take YOUR money and SPREAD it around. Last time I checked, John McCain had been on the federal dole for nearly 40 years, taking your money and giving it to others. Plus, he's on a Navy disability. Hasn't he been gainfully employed for 30+ years?
Of course, Obama is not running for president of Europe. But I think you missed the point. Europe has always despised the US, but they always were a little jealous. Now, I'm not so sure the latter is true.
1918,
Oct 30, 2008
@billspaced - yes, I do think Obama is a dead on mainstream European socialist. If he were British he would be a powerful labour party minister. As far as Europe always despising the US, I don't agree with you, but I do agree that many Europeans are more than a little jealous of the ability of Americans to rise up the social/economic ladder based on their skills and work ethic rather than solely on their family caste or connections.
Oct 30, 2008
@1918 you're definitely wrong - he won't be a socialist - not even a "social democrat" what would be pretty much near to the center (at least in Germany) - eyebee is right here: Obama clearly would be right of the center, in most of all topics even right from the CDU (Mrs. Merkel's party). Believe me, Socialists don't have a good standing in Germany, but nevertheless both, either Republicans _and_ Democrats are conservative parties from our point of view (probably the Democrats with a more liberal attitude).
Oct 30, 2008
@1918 Good points. I think there's still some of the European "caste or connections" here, don't you? Barack might be given some credit for following the "American way" rather than the "European way" don't you think?
It's interesting to note that both Obama and Clinton (Bill) came from humble backgrounds and rose up through their abilities, talents, and yes -- connections (that they made themselves, not that they inherited from their families).
Oct 30, 2008
@1918 I have to disagree with you there re Obama being a Socialist in Europe. I would say that Schilke is much nearer the mark. Gordon Brown would be thought of as a Socialist in the US, but he's not in the UK. In fact, New Labour is about the same place politically as the Tory Party used to be, and to the right of any of the UK parties of the 1970's (Ted Heath's Tories for example). Oh, yes, I am fully aware that Obama isn't running for President of Europe! :)
1918,
Oct 30, 2008
I can't give much weight to what a political candidate SAYS he's going to do, because they'll say what they need to say to get elected. That's one thing all American politicians have in common. But senator Obama's past votes and actions all point towards a much more (American) Liberal/(European) Socialist type of mindset.
Oct 30, 2008
@1918 An interesting point of view, that Europeans rise up the social/economic ladder based solely on their family caste or connections. In that case at least half of the German political and economical elite would consist of nazis and/or royalists.
You should also be aware of another fact: the strong Obama support in Europe does *not* come from the poltical and economical elite - they're just jumping on a running train (I know it - I live here).
1918,
Oct 30, 2008
@schilke I'm not saying that in Europe it is impossible to rise from the bottom, just that there are many more obstacles when compared to the US. As far as Obama's support not coming from the elites, I agree, he has equal support in the US from the people who will benefit most from the government handouts and expanded social programs.
Oct 30, 2008
Governments the world over waste money. The GOP here in the US, has wasted huge amounts of money in the last eight years. The Dems won't be any different if Obama is elected and/or they get to be filibuster proof. Governments rarely, if ever, do anything efficiently - hence the huge trend to privatization in recent years.
That leads me to another point. Although Europe is perceived to be generally much more socialist inclined than the US, here where I live we have a city owned water utility, and a city owned taxpayer supported bus company. Water and public bus transportation were privatized in the UK back in 1986. In both the UK and parts of the US, taxpayers money goes into funding public transportation, but unlike the UK, here we at least got a chance to vote for a 0.5% increase in sales tax to fund our towns buses. You don't get anything like that kind of local democracy in the UK for example.
Oct 31, 2008
@exModia There was a smiley face after the comment about you going to liberal school. Try not to take this stuff so seriously. But honestly you're really showing off your inner elitist with all of the disdain for flyover country. I grew up in a big city (Boston), lived in some of the most liberal places on earth (San Francisco and Miami) and in one of the most divided cities in America (Memphis, TN) so I assure you, I've seen alot of the US political spectrum. I've even lived overseas (5 years, Europe and Latin America), so forgive me if I come off as slightly offended that we 'non-cosmopolitans' have a narrow world view. I'm really not sure how you went from disagreeing with FOX News ruling the cable news airwaves into a rip session on middle America... With regard to your follow-up comment, the political definitions of our founding fathers are so far from how we define liberals and conservatives today. Case and point - JFK, a liberal hero - was far more conservative than John McCain is today. Listen to his Berlin speech and juxtapose it to Obamas from earlier this year - not even close. Yet it was Kennedy who said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - Who is the liberal that would dare utter those words of personal responsibility today? JFK is rolling in his grave...
Oct 31, 2008
@thekookfringecom I think Obama has updated JFK a bit: Serve your country, and we'll help you get an education. But, more to your point, one of the things that has set Obama apart from classic liberals, is an insistence on personal responsibility. It's in nearly all his speeches, whether it's talking about the role of parents in education at African-American churches or about merit-pay in front of teacher's unions, and it's in the example of his life. I can only conclude that because it doesn't doesn't fit your idea of a liberal, that you've chosen to overlook its constancy throughout the campaign. Even conservative commentators have pointed it out.
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior Which "conservative" commentators have pointed that out? Lincoln Chaffey? I'll give you this, he has stated that parents need to be more involved with raising kids, and bravo to him for that. Perhaps he needs to better stand up for the nuclear family as one parent households are running amok in the US today. Here's the thing about Obama. I disagree with him politically, I don't understand why people aren't holding him accountable for his associations. I find it intellectually dishonest to believe that after 20 years of voluntarily sitting in the pews at Jeremiah Wright's church, having Mr. Wright marry he and Michelle, and after having Mr. Wright baptize his kids that he had 'no idea' that Mr. Wright was capable of saying the things he said on those tapes. I find it disingenuous that he dismisses his association with Bill Ayers as "a guy he knew" who committed "deplorable acts when Barack was 8" and that he is now "a college professor" as if these things somehow dismiss the fact that Bill Ayers SET A BOMB OFF AT THE PENTAGON, moreover, Bill Ayers is unrepentant, he only wishes he could have done more - if John McCain sat on two boards with him, the media would be all over his associations - funny too how the media has no problem association McCain with Bush. I find it amazing that in just 2001 Barack said that he wished the supreme court had more authority to "redistribute wealth in the US" and not a single mainstream media outlet has reported on it. I find it astounding that his campaign donation web site doesn't have even the most basic of security checks - i.e. matching a credit number to a name and an address - for accepting credit card donations - thereby opening the floodgates to anonymous donors and campaign finance fraud. It's OK though, Barack will just say "I didn't know" and all will be well with the media and his drones. At the end of the day though, my beef is with the one sided reporting of this election in the mainstream media - Republican = Bad, Democrat = Good. Let me also say that if John McCain were on tape at a party in 2003 praising Khalid Shalidi the LA Times would release the tape like yesterday, or at a bare minimum, release a transcript, but since its Obama, we may be privy to what's on the tape, but it'll be after the election. Way to be fair and balanced... Oh sorry, that's reserved for FOX News, who as far as I know, has never refused to release a tape or at a minimum a transcript...
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior PS - Buenos Aires is one of my favorite cities on earth - great town, great restaurants!
Oct 31, 2008
What sort of list can I present to you when you put the word conservative in quotes? In other words, you've discounted whatever I might say before I've even said it.
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior Name them... Most of the "conservatives" the mainstream media likes to use are those who are republicans in name only - the notable exceptions are Colin Powell (who's justification for voting for Obama I still don't understand) and Scott McClellan. So when I put "conservative" in quotes, I'm skeptical - the same way you may be skeptical if I sited Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller as "liberals."
Oct 31, 2008
I think basically what you're saying is that you're the only one who gets to decide who's conservative and who's not, which can only mean conservative doesn't mean what you think it means, especially if you think you can apply it as if you were an apparatchik. Something Andrew Sullivan describes as the long slide of the conservative intelligentsia. I call it the dying gasps of a corrupt and degenerate ideology. And don't put labels in my mouth. Good night!
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior Touché! You put it about as accurately as anyone could. I couldn't have put it better. I believe this draws this sordid egomasturbation to a close. Can I marry you?
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and thankfully they're just that. The apparatchik comment is only mildly offensive. This is typical liberal banter, shut down and silence those you don't agree with by calling them communists, racists, homophobes, etc... When you're losing in the arena of ideas you can always blunt the discussion and resort to those things. That's fine, so we'll end it here. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior I follow @exModia and would like to say thank you, too. I feared @thekookfringecom would not take me serious as some of those liberals (or socialists) in ancient Europe.
But to say it absolutely clearly @thekookfringecom: this has *nothing* to do with your political views, it's just the style of your replies (like "whatever argument you use - you're proven to be wrong... says me, who's never wrong").
Oct 31, 2008
What I continue to wonder is where are the sane, reasonable conservatives? I just don't see them. Not on FriendFeed and not here. There are cases to made against an Obama presidency, there always have been, although less forcefully now after McCain's train wreck and post-Palin, but people who call themselves conservative on social networks seem unwilling or unable to make them. Socialist? Terrorist? Ayers' ghost-writing for Obama? Wright? Fake birth certificates? Etc. It's all fear-based and mostly irrational. Weird. So what exactly are they afraid of?
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior that's exactly what I have commented in another article here on socialmedian: Obama's social media presence is *not* a secret weapon, I believe that's more a failure of those who don't want to go this way or just don't care.
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior I'm lost. Help me understand what a "reasonable conservative" is. Site an example. My thinking is any reasonable conservative in your view is someone who agrees with you completely, but that would make them a liberal. My bigger beef has always been with the media coverage, its really easy to understand why there are so many who think, act and react the way most on this particular board do as the mainstream media has gone off the deep end with their fawning over Barack Obama. What I just don't understand is how you (and so many others) are so willing to dismiss things that Obama has said in his past "Like raising capital gains for fairness purposes" or "Using the supreme court to mandate redistributive change on our society." Those kinds of comments/thoughts fly in the face of what America was founded on. He really does want fundamental change, I believe him, I'm just drawing a different conlusion than you are, I believe he wants to turn us into communist russia. Just help me understand why you guys get upset at me for quoting what the man said and arriving at a reasonable conclusion that he may have actually meant it. That's the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, you somehow draw a different conclusion from Obama's statements. When he says he wants to "spread the wealth around" I hear socialist, you hear something else, but it isn't socialism. When he sits on a board with William Ayers, I am unwilling to excuse him as I wouldn't shake William Ayer's hand, never mind sit on a board with him, but you apparently would. When I see Jeremiah Wright refer to my country as US OF KKKA, I would have gotten up and walked out of the church, you imply that you would have stayed and cheered him on. The problem with Obama's associations is there's too many of them to explain away. You've made it very clear that the company Obama has kept over the years, no matter how radical, makes no difference to you. Like I said, I'm not going to change your mind. Consider this, if McCain had anything close to this, there is just no way, you or the mainstream media would let him get away with it. Just seems rather hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to me.
Oct 31, 2008
PS I'm sure you guys don't have a problem with Obama throwing reporters from the Newspapers who endorsed McCain off the Obama One airplane? Right? Somewhere, Hugo Chavez is smiling... http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm
Oct 31, 2008
@thekookfringecom No one gets upset at you. We're more amused by you. Especially when you use expressions like "turn us into communist russia", an entity that hasn't existed for a while now. Never mind that the Soviet Union was never really communist to begin with. It was Stalinist/Leninist. But that's a distinction that few Americans have been able to grasp and fewer still care to make.
Oct 31, 2008
@exModia There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Obama's a socialist, you've just chosen to ignore, dismiss and just not believe it... What is the difference between Stalinist/Leninst/Communist/Socialist? As far as I know, they're all anti-capitalist and collectivist.
Oct 31, 2008
@thekookfringecom So what if he is a socialist? It isn't illegal to be one in this country. As far as I know the Repubs haven't outlawed it yet. Personally, I think being politically ignorant is worse than being a socialist. And we have quite a lot more of the former in the U.S. but no one has a problem with those. The world didn't come to an end when Massachussetts legalized Gay marriage, it will not come to an end if America elects a socialist. We did it before. Franklin Roosevelt was about as socialist as we could dare get in the U.S. And by all accounts he ranks as one the great presidents of all time. So, rest easy kook, the world will survive Obama. Besides, the Red Scare hasn't worked since the days of McCarthy.
Oct 31, 2008
@thekookfringecom So there's evidence showing that Obama supports the overthrow of a capitalist economic system by having the workers take control of the means of production? Or do you simply mean that Obama supports "progressive" social programs? Socialism is much larger than the tax system, healthcare and educational reform. Just ask the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189688/october-28-2008/socialist-candidate-for-president---brian-moore
Oct 31, 2008
@exModia So you're admitting then that Obama's a socialist and that you're fine with that. Now we're getting somewhere. Its more important to achieve clarity than to necessarily agree. I find it odd that many of those who support Obama deny his socialist tendencies and statements. As a small business owner and capitalist who employs people and pays payroll and income taxes, of course I am opposed to a socialist agenda and a president who wants to use the tax system for purposes of Social and economic justice (his quotes, not mine - check "Dreams of Our Fathers.") Since you brought it up, with regard to gay marriage, the people of Massachusetts didn't legalize Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts did. Everytime the gay marriage question has come to a vote, its been shot down by a wide margin - even in California (took judges there to overrule the will of the people too.) BTW, I am not opposed whatsoever to Civil Unions, same rights priveledges, etc... I just don't like it when our representative democracy is sometimes hijacked by a politically active judiciary. One of the main reasons why Democrats and gay activists (for example) are so vehemently opposed to constructionist (conservative) judges, is because they know they'll never win the gay marriage issue in the court of public opinion, but if they can control the judiciary - then they're only an injunction away from what they want.
Oct 31, 2008
I would just like to interject here, since mr kook, I think you are a troll: Another conservative for Obama: http://tinyurl.com/6ypvs2
Oct 31, 2008
And now, a la Mr Kook, the Republican gatekeepers are saying that Ms Applebaum, described by David "Axis of Evil" Frum as "the greatest living expert on the crimes of communism," even she is not a conservative: http://tinyurl.com/6hyzul Let freedom reign!
Oct 31, 2008
Also not a conservative, I guess: "A former Republican Secretary of State and one of John McCain's most prominent supporters offered a stunningly frank and remarkably bleak assessment of Sarah Palin's capacity to handle the presidency should such a scenario arise." OF COURSE NOT! And that selection is McCain's single executive decision in this campaign. Palin. FAIL.
Oct 31, 2008
@homosuperior A troll? Nice. Which former secretary of state? Eagleberger? I heard that one too. The guy from cunningrealist.com - your post about 'another conservative' - also warns of buyers remorse about Obama. Unfortunately for democrats, this election has become a referendum on Bush. So you put forth a socialist to counterbalance the Bush years. You'll get your wish, it's 5-1 Obama wins this thing, we can always hope for a miracle. Try not to keep the blinders on and remember, I'm not firing these things off at you as personal insults, though the 'troll' comment basically confirms you've taken it that way. You're entitled, there's way to much vitriol out there on the left and sadly its all directed at conservatives, and you're perpetuating it. I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant of others view points - so long as those view points don't differ from their own. Keep up the good work. PS - why do you care about the US election? You live in Buenos Aires...
Oct 31, 2008
@thekookfringecom Putting words in my mouth has never ever worked on me. Not even when I was a kindergartener. I think you're more than a troll. I think you're a provocateur. Your line is to draw those you perceive as liberal into inane oxymoronic arguments and table-turning. But the beauty of this whole excercise lies in just how stupid you've come across. Underlying your arguments is a very subtle, but palpable mean-spiritedness and contempt for anything that's new or different. And that is ultimately the most anti-American sentiment of all.
Oct 31, 2008
@exModia Thank you Ex Modia, what you've now proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is your disdain of those who think differently than you do. A Troll, a provocateur? Subtle meanspiritedness? Me?? New and different? Obama? You're kidding.... right? Socialist utopias are as old (and consistently unsuccessful) as the hills. I absolutely love this thought process, I bring up past statements and goals of Obama and I'm subtlely meanspirited. I oppose his socialist ideas which have been tried and failed a thousand times over, and because he has a new face attached to it, I'm opposed to anything 'new.' Wish granted, when he wins you can drag me through the streets, but in four years when you and everyone you know is jobless don't blame me, I tried to warn you.
Oct 31, 2008
@thekookfringecom And in four years when we are better off then than we are now (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan), we will definitely drag you to through the streets. Actually we will start dragging you on November 4. Because anything, but anything, is better than George "Dubya" Bush or a continuation of his policies. Even the suspicion of it. So keep repeating "socialist" like a mantra. You're trying to drill that into whose consciousness? Maybe the Tooth Fairy will grant you your wish and make it so like a self-fulfulling prophecy. I know that I follow the polling data and right now, Obama has this election in the bag if the polls are to be believed. Even if McCain takes all the too-close to call states, Obama wins. So...we should start dragging you now. Because anything is better than GW. Even by Republican standards. And that's sorry state of the Republican Party in 2008. Gnewt Gingrich once prophecied the beginning of a "great Republican age" that would put the GOP in the majority for generations. Bill Clinton dealt that dream a solid death blow. Barack Obama will finish it off. All your side has left is the dying embers of what could have been.
Oct 31, 2008
Laughable. Time will tell, for the record, I hope you're right, I really do, but as a small business owner, I see the writing on the wall, and sadly its one of much higher taxes and fewer employees. You also confirmed my point that this election is little more than a referendum on Bush. That's just how it works in American politics, the economy's bad, get rid of the incumbent and his party... But Obama? God help us...
Oct 31, 2008
But it's more than GW. It's wide stances. It's congressional pages. It's the North Slope. It's wife battery. It's firings from the Attorney Generals office. It's WMDs. It's Osama bin Laden. It's the Taliban. It's Afghanistan. It's the Patriot Act. It's No Child Left Behind. It's Medicare. It's health insurance. It's gasoline prices. It's global warming. It's Roe v. Wade. It's Gay marriage. It's Gonzales and the unprecedented indictment of more federal officials than any administration in history. I could go on. But Americans may be naive, but they may be slow to react. But when they do react, it's a landslide. And let's not forget the squandering of a surplus handed to Bush by Clinton and the runup of the highest federal debt in history. Your party lost it's soul. You had dreams of the center and you will discover that those dreams are as empty as the center of a doughnut.
Nov 05, 2008
Nov 05, 2008
@exModia Congrats. He ran a great campaign. The only solace diehard conservatives like me have is the fact that he won't have a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Therefore visions of the socialist utopia may be on hold... for now. Sadly, people like yourself feel genuine hatred toward people like me, evidenced by the fact that you couldn't wait to send that e-mail. If it had been the other way around, I doubt you would have been nearly as conciliatory or gracious. That said, he's OUR president elect now, so its time to get behind him and support him (where I can...) Next up the mid term elections... The Kook...
Nov 05, 2008
@thekookfringecom Yes, you are right. Had it been the other way around I wouldn't have struck a conciliatory note. How could I possibly reconcile the travesty of government foisted on our great nation for the past 8 years? That boggles any rational mind. You can look forward to the midterm election. But as always, the conservative fringe underestimates the dynamic of a society that is constantly at work trying to perfect its democracy. This election is no minor blip. It's a generational sea-change. It's an indication that the old guard, the generations of World War II and the Cold War are being retired. The New America is taking shape. And I for one, am justifiably proud to be a member of that New America, of the generation that finally shattered in dramatic fashion, the racial barrier to the White House by electing the son of a White American woman from Kansas and an African from Kenya. A man who few realize is the direct descendant of a Supreme Court Justice from the days of the founding of the Democratic Party under Thomas Jefferson. Ironically, that ancestor of Obama's was a slave owner. How fitting indeed!
Nov 05, 2008
@thekookfringecom And let me remind you. Not all the senate races have been settled. There is still a good chance that we will have the filibuster-proof senate our new president will need to govern effectively.
Nov 05, 2008
To continue with your drivel is pointless, you can't even be a classy winner. I even extended an olive branch and you broke it. Your anger is palatable, now that Barack has won, that anger has to go somewhere. Enjoy your victory for now, but Jimmy Carter had similar ideas to Barack's. Perhaps you're too young to remember how that turned out. With regard to race, it is a proud moment for all Americans. But don't discount those who came before him. Other blacks have done some amazing things too. Martin Luther King, Condi Rice, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas and even Michael Steele, but I forgot, they're all Republicans (yes, even Martin Luther King) so you'd never be willing to recognize the color barrier they broke, because they won't count in your closed mind.
BTW, you'll note despite Barack's impressive win, conservatism is still alive and well, because for like the 25th time now, Gay Marriage was banned again. This time in Ultra liberal California and Florida. That's OK though, the gay mafia can always turn to their activist friends in the judiciary and the ACLU to turn over the will of the people. Take your parting shots and feel good about yourself. You're officially on the kook fringe.
Nov 05, 2008
@thekookfringecom Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas were house Negroes. Period. And as an American who is NOT white, you're the last to tell me about recognizing the the "color barriers [that] they broke". And Conservatism suffered the stunning deafeat of the restrictions to abortion in those states too. So, those anti-Gay proposals prove only that Americans have a while to go before they fully understand homosexuality.
And Gay marriage will not be decided by politicians. The Constitution of the United States doesn't permit the unequal application of laws. Rights must be extended to all citizens equally. This will be settled by the Supreme Court and when they rule, no one, but no one can take away our right to legally certify our love for one another. We in the Gay community are used to long, drawn out political fights. We don't roll over and give up. We pass the torch from one generation of LGBTQ folk to the next and we keep on fighting for progressive, democratic change in our country. The fight is not over by a long shot. There is nothing sadder than a man living on the wrong side of history. Except maybe an entire political party.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom And let me remind you that it was you who declared that if Barack Obama wins, you would allow yourself to be dragged through the streets. Talk about pointless drivel.
1918,
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia don't discount gains made with the consent and affirmation of your fellow man. Putting all of your hopes and dreams in the hands of 9 lawyers is dicey at best, and that's true for both sides of the issue.
The best way is to convince fellow voters that they should vote the way you would like them to. That way, you know you that you have made real progress. When the Supreme Court set the Dred Scott decision did that make slavery "right"? Should that ruling never have been overturned? Unless you can look back and say you agree with every decision the Supreme Court has ever made, don't trust them with your future.
Nov 06, 2008
Cry me a river. Let me add racist to your list of notable attributes. "House Negroes?" You should be ashamed of yourself. Was Martin Luther "the Registered Republican" King a House Negro too? I don't care what color you are, nor should you care what color I am. We're "post racial" now, remember? We're having a debate, and you just pulled the race card to blunt the discussion. So now I am supposed to roll over and let you say what you want and take it, uh uh, no more, the race card has just been marginalized. Here's some kleenex. This gay marriage thing, the proposals that passed AGAIN aren't anti-gay, they're PRO-traditional values, PRO-Family and PRO-marriage. Concepts YOU'LL never understand. There's another part of the Constitution you apparently chose to ignore - that little part about BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE - not by judicial fiat for the gay populace forced down the people's throats. Much like the election, the people have spoken (not the politicians) about gay marriage and to rehash they said you can love who you want, you can sleep with who you want, its a free country, you just can't marry them. You need to call it something else, call it a civil union. It just isn't marriage. Unlike you, I don't systematically hate or convict someone of thougt crime who doesn't agree with me lock step, I respect others opinions, you on the other hand are a full blown extremist who wants not to peacefully co-exist, you want to silence your opposition. Congratulations on your acceptance to the gay mafia.
Nov 06, 2008
@1918 I'm not stating that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench. I'm stating that they should apply the clauses of the Constitution that have been there since it was written and which patently guarantee civil marriage for Gay citizens.
Those clauses are the True Faith And Credit Clause and the 14th Amendment which very clearly state that all citizens should be treated equally under the laws of the United States. It is interesting that you bring up the Dred Scott decision because it was that 14th Amendment that overturned it.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Someone sounds very, very angry. In New Yorck City gay slang: you are a knot. There was a time when we couldn't sleep with whom we wanted. It took the Supreme Court taking the State of Texas to task to overturn those laws. And for your information, I don't accept the Gay Mafia. I am a card-carrying member.
Nov 06, 2008
Conservatives are terrified that the original wording of the Constitution will be implemented vis a vis Gay marriage. They argue that the Supreme Court should strictly interpret the Constitution when it benefits them. But on this issue they don't hesitate to start backpedaling. On this issue they want "the people to vote" and if the Supreme Court intervenes they want it to actively legislate against Gay marriage. It's the tired double-standard that has cost them two elections in a row and turned the United States into a lovelier shade of blue in one night.
Nov 06, 2008
@exmodia @thekookfringecom You guys crack me up. You're both so committed to your faction that you're missing the much bigger point, America (a right-center nation) has just elected a non-white, left-center president and extended the majority of the left-center democrats in Congress. America right now is looking for change anywhere they can find it.
For the record, I agree with @exmodia that marriage should not be disallowed for homosexuals. Straight couples (and a 47% divorce rate) have lost the right to call "traditional values" into play when discussing marriage in my opinion. Additionally, the LGBT community is not asking for religious marriage, they're asking for civil marriage and the legal rights that come along with it, so yes @thekookfringecom, you are correct, they should accept civil marriage, that's what they're asking for. The government cannot tell churches to marry individuals, nor should it be able to. What these citizens deserve is equal protection under the law, as the constitution prescribes. Also, while Martin Luther ("The Registered Republican") King Jr. would tell you if he were alive today, is that the GOP of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and even Dwight Eisenhower is not the GOP of today. I can almost guarantee you that were he alive, he would have switched his affiliation long ago, probably around the time that the Dixiecrats started to become GOP members. @exmodia I do have to agree that referring to Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas as "house negroes" is a racist statement, and one that saddens me. While I do not agree with either of those two people on most things, I respect their accomplishments, as we all should. Although @thekookfringecom is wrong, we are not a "post-racial" society. As a society we may be more accepting of African-Americans holding positions of power more than we have ever been, but we are far from being at a point where race ceases to be a consideration, if we were we wouldn't even be discussing the fact that we elected a "black president". Personally, I was happy to see Obama win, although I did not vote for him (full disclosure, I voted for Barr), but Obama winning gave me hope that as a society we are progressing towards a day where race, gender, sexual preference, etc... cease to be obstacles for anyone in our country.
Nov 06, 2008
@greghollingsworth I can respect your opinions, especially when you clearly articulate them without any obvious bias towards one view or the other but follow your ideals of what's just and fair. Fairness is what most opponents of Gay civil rights fail to understand. I suspect that deep down, they understand it's meaning. But I also suspect that deep down, they don't feel that LGBT people are entitled to their government giving them an equal and fair stake as prescribed by the Constitution. One of the things that struck me as I stood in Times Square with many, many friends on Tuesday night was the joyous relief that was clearly written on the faces of many African-Americans there. They understood that a measure of fairness had finally been achieved. We only ask for the same. And people always forget that Martin Luther ("The Registered Republican") King, Jr. understood that concept. He was, after all, pro-Gay rights in his day. That, and his opposition to violent protest were the things that created a divide between him and Malcolm X. I might add, that Connecticut rejected a measure to amend their constitution to allow ballot initiatives because they clearly saw it as an attempt by out of state anti-Gay activists to try to overturn this year's court decision legalizing Gay marriage in their state. They were explicitly opposed to discriminating against LGBT citizens of Connecticut. I have written before that New England still retains its role as the place where social revolutions begin in our country. It's their history as the birth place of freedom. And eventually, it spreads. So, no, we don't give up. We continue to fight. And we will get there as a people.
Nov 06, 2008
man, some strong feelings came to light here! Obama won, we need to rally around him and rebuild what's left of our tarnished image, financial industry, infrastructure, and economy. No one here can doubt that the economic mess we're in exists. You may declare "It's not a recession" but you cannot say that we're in a good spot.
So, let's get back on track and figure out how to bring American ingenuity into the mix and stop relying on ideology to solve our problems. Wash our hands of the last 8 years. They haven't been good, by any stretch of the imagination. I cannot say Obama will make it all better, but I think he'll try.
Nov 06, 2008
@billspaced That's precisely what we are attempting to do in the Gay community, Bill. We're attempting to wash our hands of the last 8 years of vicious attacks on our community from the rabid right wing of the Republican Party. But let me remind you, we voted in staggering numbers for Obama. And let me remind you, Dr. King said that "I am not free until we are all free."
Nov 06, 2008
@greghollingsworth Thank you for playing the role of mediator :-) Great commentary. I actually agree with exmodia that gays should be allowed equal protection under the law, where we differ is on the term marriage. In my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of every state where a vote on this issue has actually taken place) the word 'marriage' equals one man, one woman. The same way red is red, and blue is blue. Now, if gays want equal rights under the law fine, but its not marriage, it needs to be called something else. Exmodia wants to stick it to traditionalists so badly that he just has to have the word marriage. As you said, why would they want it? With a 47% divorce rate, lets see if gays can be more successful with civil unions. I don't appreciate the tone of exmodia with regard to race, for some reason people of color who are Republicans don't count in the minds of people who are obsessed with race. Lastly, for all of the clamour about how racist Republicans and conservatives are, I find it ironic that Bush had the most minorities appointed to cabinet positions - blacks, hispanics and women. Yet these appointments go unnoticed by people like exmodia because he genuinely believes the black appointees in particular are "house negroes" and don't represent the black community. I agree with him, they don't represent black america, they represent the best of what America has to offer, he just doesn't see it that way.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom What is so special about the word marriage when, as Greg pointed it out, heteros have pretty much made a mockery of that institution with no help from us? What's so special about it? Straight people do not own that word.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom And you are wrong. Bush's appointees do not represent my community. They don't represent the Black community. The Black community loathed Bush. The Latino community loathed him too. Just because he appointed members of our communities didn't make him any more than what he was in our eyes. We are past the days when a bone thrown at the dog would stop him from barking. Alex Castellanos, the conservative, Hispanic, Republican strategist said it best: "The Republican Party cannot possibly think they can appoint minorities and not act on their needs and hopes and aspirations and expect to earn their trust, respect and their votes. It will not happen. This party has become, practically overnight, a party of southern White right-wing extremists." Too bad for Mr. Castellanos that he has tried mightily to make the Republican case to the Hispanic community. The only ones who paid attention were the exile community in Miami. And they voted for Obama this year. And you can call me a racist if it pleases you. But in the neighborhoods where I grew up in New York City, we call house negroes by their name. And I'm being kind. Because my mother and father call Condi Rice things that I myself am ashamed to repeat in a public forum. And they are two people who fought the good fight in the 1960s as members of SNICC. They fought cops in Birmingham. They marched in D.C. They were jailed in Raleigh, North Carolina. And they returned back to New York to work in the poorest neighborhoods in city as teachers and tried to pass on what they had witnessed and what they had learned. They taught me not to get blindsided by empty, ceremonial acts. And they taught me to call a spade a spade and an Uncle Tom an Uncle Tom. They made sure I knew the difference and that has served mightily in my adult life.
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia You're hopeless dude. If the word marriage is so special why do you crave it so badly other than to stick it to conservatives? If you have equal rights under the law, what's wrong with civil unions? You've already said there are two differnt kinds of black people, those who 'represent' and those 'house negroes.' So why not two differnt kinds of equal protection under the law? I don't want my officials to represent the "black community", the "hispanic community", or the "gay community." I want them to represent America, and so should you. By demanding that elected officials represent factions of the country as opposed to the whole country is not only a recipe for disaster, it is blatantly divisive, racist and unamerican.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom The reason this is an issue is because of the religious implications that the word marriage brings with it. There are many different definitions of the word marriage, not all of which have anything to do with "one man and one woman". The problem is that the government assigned specific rights to "married couples" and to create a seperate classification for those rights for others creates a de facto "seperate but equal" system.
In terms of race, I am dissapointed when I hear terms like "house negro" or "uncle tom" thrown around by anyone for the simple fact that it shows regressive tendencies that keep our society in the past. Yes, George Bush appointed more minorities in his administration than any president prior to him, but that alone doesn't make him a great man, or even a great president (in my opinion he is certainly not the latter). What it makes him is someone who, at least in terms of politics, has moved past race in his decisions of who is best qualified for a given job, and for that I applaud him. However, Pres. Bush, like many before him, makes no effort to reach out past those of a like mind, and this I believe has led to many of the issues created during his presidency. Although I do believe that people like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, etc... do represent Black America. I think what the "black community" fails to see sometimes is just how diverse their community is, not unlike "white America" is full of people of different beliefs, ethics, morals, etc... Every community has it's own distinct subsets, and there is no one person, or one set of people who can represent any of us perfectly; white, black, asian, latino, indian (as in from India), etc...
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom We crave it because it is being denied for no apparent reason other than out of sheer and unbridled privilege claimed by some under laws that ought and should be equal to all. And two different kinds of equal protection was settled in the 1950s when the Court took up the case of the Board of Education of Little Rock. Seperate but equal is not equal. We will not be Jim Crowed. I'm sorry my confused brother. But we did learn something from Dr. King.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom okay, got to call you out here, how can you say "I don't want my officials to represent the "black community", the "hispanic community", or the "gay community." I want them to represent America, and so should you..." and still say that we should have seperate institutions based on sexual preference?
I agree with you that we need to move past seeing ourselves as factions in competition with eachother, but by advocating for a separate system for gays, you are advocating for the creation of a second set of Americans, forever judged by their sexuality as opposed to the quality of their character and/or contributions to society.
Nov 06, 2008
I think that what gets lost in this discussion is the simple fact that we love our country. We want her to rise to her potential and to stand for honest, sincere freedom for all people regardless of who they are or who they love. We want our country to see all of her children as fully worthy of her protections. When one word our of the hundreds of thousands in the English dictionary can cause our nation to restrict rights and privileges to one group of citizens, it has not achieved any of the ideals of Dr. King because like he said..."I am not free until we are all free."
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia Its good to see that your parents raised you to be a racist. You've got to get off this idea that if you're black you MUST think the same way I do or risk "house negro" status. BTW, what does "house negro" really mean? I haven't a clue, but I can tell it isn't flattering or complementary. What is there not to love about Condi Rice? What an amazing AMERICAN story. I'm sure you love Colin Powell now, but hated him when he was in the Bush administration. Greg, you are correct, Bush looked past color and chose people he thought had the best qualifications. Exmodia can say what he wants, but as far as I can tell he wants to impose diversity of thought upon the white and straight community, but refuses to recognize diversity of thought in his own. A megalomanic if there ever was one...
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom I have never had any admiration for Condi Rice. I knew about her and her political views long before she was involved in politics, while she was still a professor at Stanford. Maybe, Kook, you should bone up on your reading. And yes, diversity of thought is worthy a ideal. And you have no conception what my thought processes are. I think you should check yourself before you wreck yourself because I personally don't care what the straight or White community thinks. I care about the freedoms and rights that my government has a duty to extend to me and my Gay brothers and sisters. Or should we wait patiently until you and yours decide that we deserve it?
Nov 06, 2008
@greghollingsworth An excellent point. I look at it this way, marriage as a term, defined if you will, means 1 man, 1 woman. Separate from that is equal protection under the law. I'm all for equal protection, which as I understand at its core is what this debate is all about, correct? Civil unions, in my mind are like a different classification of drivers license. You want to drive an 18 wheeler, you need an 18-wheeler license. Different from a standard car drivers license. But BOTH are drivers licenses and the same laws and rules apply on the roads.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom In your Bible, marriage meant one man and many, many women. It still does for fundamentalist Mormons. The idea and conception of marriage has changed historically. It's a plastic term that has been interpreted and re-interpreted with the times. The times, they are a-changin'. Oh, and vehicles don't have rights or protections under the laws of our country. People do. Oh, and it's OK if you see Gay people as different. We don't have a problem with that. We have a problem with our government seeing us and treating us as different.
Nov 06, 2008
Look, I'm fully aware that there are many LGBT people who think that a separate system of Gay unions is acceptable. That as long as we achieve the semblance of equality, we've gotten what we are due. But honestly, how different is that from separate water fountains? Blacks were still drinking the same water, from the same water-distribution system? They just had a different water fountain they were required to use. So, the logic goes, Gays will have a different word that we will be required to use and still drink from similar protections. Therefore, a return to the Jim Crow South is the best that our government can offer us? We don't think so and we won't accept it. You saw the rioting in West Hollywood on this morning's news? That could very well be many, many urban areas in the years to come.
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia I don't have a bible and now you've transitioned to insulting straight people. You lost exmodia, again and again. Marriage equals one man and one woman - the people have spoken, clearly, loudly and definitively... Again. But in your mind there must be an excuse, there must be a reason. Americans don't hate gay people, we just reject the notion that the values of 10% of the population need to be imposed on the rest of us, we resent judcial fiat and legislation from the bench. There are approximately 30 million gays in America, that means 270 million are straight. You're in the minority on the gay marriage issue. Through the ages perhaps marriage was a plastic term, but in America the people have decided that it means 1 man, 1 woman. I am all for equal protection (most Americans are), we're disagreeing (adamently) over semantics. Most Americans believe in that simple definition of marriage and you're telling them to f-themselves.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Let me ask you a simple, straightforward question. How does a gay couple getting "married" directly effect you?
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia There is also something covered under the law known as a BFOQ (Bona fide, occupational qualification.) It is not sexist for example to require an actress to play the role of a woman in a movie script. The same way its a BFOQ that in order to have 'marriage' you must be a man and a woman.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Well, the South rejected the notion that the civil rights of 10% of the population had to be imposed on them. We know how that turned out. And please, if you are going to engage in debates about meanings, please, I implore you, READ so you will be enlightened. No one can cite what is a religious interpretation of marriage without having read the Bible. I was raised a Catholic and I was required to read it. I'm sure those who would use the religious meaning of the word "marriage" would be familiar with it's history in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Now, since you say that we are disgreeing over semantics, is semantics that important to restrict a word that has morphed many times in its history to one special group of people? The Romans had a very distinct idea of marriage. I might add that they had a very distinct idea of homosexuality. So did the Greeks. So did the Egyptians who thought nothing of marrying their own brothers and sisters. Even in my great-grandparents day it was quite customary to marry cousins. And history clearly records the inbreeding among European royalty which led to hemophilia being called the "royal disease" becuase cousins marrying cousins and siblings marrying siblings (with the consent and protection of the Church) led to that gene being prevalent among nearly all European royal houses. Now, yes, we are in the minority. So were Blacks and guess what, they still are. But it didn't stop the government from getting rid of separate drinking fountains.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Are you serious? Tell me your joking. You can't possibly be equating a job qualification with rights and protections and the creation of a separate category of civil marriage? And frankly, historically, women were not allowed to be actors. In Shakespeares day all actors were men. Which led to the word "drag" which we still use in the Gay community to this day. That word stood for "dressed as girl" in stage directions during William Shakespeare's era. And it still survives in the Gay vernacular to this day. He he he.
Nov 06, 2008
@greghollingsworth Ahhh, the gotcha question. I view gay marriage as an attack on the traditional family. I view gay marriage being imposed by the gay mafia on the populace that clearly doesn't want it. I don't want my children to be taught in kindegarten that Joey has a mom and a dad, and Stevie has a daddy and a daddy and both are OK. I've stated over and over again that I am for equal protection, but I fear that gay marriage won't be enough for people like Ex Modia, what's next? Why can't I marry two people? Why not three? Why not my dog? I think it sends a confusing message to kids. You may disagree, and that's fine - that's my take. In the bigger picture, as a nation we're by the people for the people. We the people have stated that we recognize marriage as one man, one woman. If the populace ultimately agrees with Ex Modia, then so be it, but for today marriage carries one definition.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom It wasn't a gotcha question, I wanted to know specifically why you were against gay marriage. I cannot formulate an argument effectively without knowing the stance of my "opponent" in any given debate over an issue.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Which traditional family are you speaking of? Because the traditional family in Black households is one female raising kids without a father. The traditional family in Dominican households is the same. The traditional family in most families in the U.S. are divorced parents raising kids from different spouses. Welcome to the new reality. There is always a danger when we look back to tradition that we will lag behind reality. But you didn't specify: how does Gays using the word marriage affect your life in any measurable way?
Nov 06, 2008
My cousins in Spain made an interesting observation. Spain granted full marriage to Gays. It was once the most conservative, machoistic, Catholic nation in Western Europe. The Church bitterly opposed the measure. But today, Gays get married in the land of the "Catholic Kings, the defenders of the True Faith." And today, the E.U., which has expanded rights and freedoms beyond what America has been able to do, is more advanced, their currency is more powerful, their economy surpassed us this year as the largest in the world, and they have better rates of HIV infections, lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases, they live longer than we do, and have a more progressive outlook on immigration and social issues. But when the U.S. shook off the shackles of King George III, and embarked on this marvelous new experiment called democracy, Spain was a feudal, backward country. Straights in Spain have benefited handsomely from Gay marriage as the booming tourist industry bears witness in places like Ibiza and Sitges. Their economy is now among the most dynamic in Europe. Professional Gay men and women from all over the world arrive at Barajas Airport ready to serve the needs of the Spanish economy and bring with them the brain trust that a modern nation needs to compete on a global scale. No surprise that the Spanish, 30 years after the fall fascism and the death of Francisco Franco, helped design and build the E.U.'s component to the international Space Station. And I tell them, yes, you are right. But America was stigmatized by the African-American civil rights movement. There are segments of the population that feel that every group wants to dismember the social fabric of the nation by making demands on it. They don't see what you see, that expanding freedoms and protections without regard to sentiment or deeply held beliefs ultimately benefits all.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Oh and that dog reference is really stupid. If you will excuse my use of the word. Dogs don't have legal standing to enter into any contractual obligation in our country. And a civil marriage is a legal, contractual obligation. That's always been the boogey man. But animals can't not sign a marriage license. Now as far as polyamory (multiple married partners). That is really a cultural issue. There are many, many, many countries where it is perfectly legal. Most muslim countries allow it. Many other "traditional" countries permit or put up with it because its has been the "traditional" definiton of marriage in their societies. But even in those societies there are groups of women who have been branded "radicals" who are fighting to limit marriage to "between one man and one woman". The more "radical" elements want the wording changed to simply "between two human beings". You see...it's all relative. And those definitions of marriage are culturally based. Only when the culture begins to shift, do we find ourselves clashing over them. And the people of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey would beg to differ on what "you" the people have decided.
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia Good points all. Look, I think you need to understand that we're coming at this issue from two entirely different places. You're gay, living in Manhattan, I'm straight, married, two kids and living in the suburbs in sunny Florida. "Traditional family values" (defined in my mind as a man, woman - married, dog and 2.2 kids) So when I frame this debate its from that perspective. If you live in chelsea or lower Manhattan - you tend to be surrounded by like minded people. In your case, and by your own admission - a card carrying member of the gay mafia. Of course we're going to look at this differently. Which is why as a country we let the people decide the most controversial of issues. Like we've already done with gay marriage. Spain's a wonderful country, because its Spain and not America. America is great, because it is America and not Spain. If Spain is your ideal, take some Spanish courses and move to Ibiza. If you've travelled a lot and seen alot, you would recognize that America is flawed, but even with her flaws, there still is no place like America. There is a reason why people come from around the world to live the American dream. Its not because we're Europe or Spain.
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia It's all "relative" when you draw on the international law or culture of choice that best matches your argument, its not relative here in the USA, we've made the decision already and defined marriage. If we get to pick and choose international laws and apply them here to make our cases, then you need to be careful, because in the middle east (Iran and Saudi Arabia for example) they execute gays, so I'm not so sure you want to be using the middle east as a "Relative" example.
Nov 06, 2008
@robdiana Sorry, just wanted to play with the new feature again. Damn, this story has legs. Missed it the first time, thanks for pointing it out!
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom I have news for you. People are coming to America. But it's people who can't fully contribute to the nation right away. The more educated, gifted people have begun to look at our country as a place to avoid because of parochial, repressive social policies. Just last month I drove a friend to the airport. He had accepted a job in Munich that opened up with his company because in Germany, he has partner benefits for him and his lover. Not in America. Those were two, one Oxford-educated the other Sorbonne-educated professionals in computer science that are now working for the Federal Republic of Germany and not the United States of America. The Bush presidency made it worse. The figures are so dramatic that even the Bush people acknowledged that we were losing our competitive advantage in attracting the best minds in the world. And for your edification I would never live in Chelsea. I don't do well in Gay ghettos and I have a personal abhorrence to the party lifestyle in that neighborhood. I like living in quite neighborhoods where I can get a good night's sleep. And moving to Ibiza is out of the question for two reasons. The first and most important reason is that this is my country and it's where I belong and it is the country I want to help move forward. The second, is that Ibiza is tiny island that has virtually no residential space available even for the locals who once called it home. It's become an island-wide tourist playground. But even if there were space available I wouldn't move. Spain doesn't need me. America does. Now if I could get married tomorrow, how would that affect your life in any measurable way?
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom Bullshit. It was relative in Utah over a hundred years ago. Mormons practiced polygyny because that is what they read in the Old Testament and because Jesus never condemned it in the new one. They sincerely felt they were following the "traditional", biblically ordained institution of marriage, honestly, they were. The government stepped in and said no, you are no longer living in Moses' time. Guess what, neither are you. But you have yet to specify what's in it for you to deny me and my lover from getting a civil marriage license. How do you benefit from denying us that right?
Nov 06, 2008
This conversation reminds me of a Religious Studies professor in college that made the comment that people always abhor those that on the surface seem less like them. She called it the "eek" factor and illustrated her point by applying it to race. According to her, the closer the racial characteristics to European features, the more comfortable Americans are. The further those characteristics are, the more uncomfortable we feel. This isn't about rights, or laws, or even the definition of marriage. This is about maintaining personal comfort levels. Guess what, laws are not made to make anyone feel comfortable. Laws are made because they are right, they are just, and they are necessary.
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia Well by that definition, you must be extremely uncomfortable around straight traditionalists. EEEEEK! Breeders!
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom And what definition is that? I do notice that you are fairly fluent in Gay culture. Ibiza, Chelsea, breeders? But again, what makes you uncomfortable if my lover and I go down to the Dade County Clerk's Office and get a marriage license? How would that change your life irrevocably in Florida?
Nov 06, 2008
You see Kook, there's something we have always known about straight people. Straight people have a morbid fascination with Gays. We don't have that fascination with straights. After all, every Gay person is usually the product of two straight people, so we know what that lifestyle is about. Most of us actually have to pretend we're straight and live it for a while before coming out of the closet. Straight people on the other hand, have this insatiable appetite to try to curb our behaviour and restrict it. In essence, they take more notice of us and our lives than we care to take of theirs. We don't really bother ourselves too much with what straights do, who they do it with or how they do it. We know. Once we come out and accept ourselves for who we are we just want what everybody else wants. We don't even demand acceptance. But we do demand respect as those LGBT folks proved to the LAPD last night. We aren't concerned with taking over society. There is no Gay Agenda, because I haven't received the memo from Corporate Headquarters yet. There is a human agenda. And what we hope, what we pray, is that straights will recognize the humanity of us all.
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom OK, I'll meet you half way and think of you as Gay on the dick issue. How's that?
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia @thekookfringecom are we there yet? are we there yet? I feel like little kid in the back of the station-wagon barreling down the highway wondering, "are we there yet?" "are we there yet?" -- only in this case I think the car passed our exit long ago.
Nov 06, 2008
@jasongoldberg @exModia We're not lost, Exmodia just doesn't know where he is... The argument is getting circular, now if I could just get exmodia to agree to disagree then this thing ends days ago... But he is apparently only capable of agreeing with himself...
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom @rpetty lol. Agree. I'm all for a great debate...that's what socialmedian was designed for and we've pushed really hard to increase the interactivity on the site. My joke was that this one is just going on and on and on and on. @rpetty good idea on enabling users to get off a specific comment string.
Nov 06, 2008
Personally I have to apologize. I may seem to come across as a Radical Faerie. But I take strong positions and hold them regardless of the issue. I'm more concerned with social justice than anything else. But in this issue it helps that I'm a card-carrying member of the Gay Mafia.
Nov 06, 2008
I'm agreeing to disagree and moving on, Ex Modia its up to you... Yes we can!
Nov 06, 2008
@exModia Something tells me that you may not come across as this militant in real life...
Nov 06, 2008
@thekookfringecom I'm actually more of a clown. But don't misjudge me Kook. I will take to the streets in defense of what I believe. What those guys did in LA, hell, I have done it many times for many different causes. I honestly love my country. I think my country is great enough, civil enough, and strong enough to extend the same and equal rights to all her citizens. And I believe that we all win when she does.
Nov 07, 2008
@jasongoldberg @rpetty thanks - I've been thinking the same before but had no time to make up a ticket ;)
Add something
Share this story
Topics
Add Topics
Comma Separated.
|
