Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: The Dog or the Girl?
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 250 (view)
 
The Dog or the Girl?
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:01:54 AM
I am quite relieved that this thread isn't what I thought it was when I first saw the caption 'The Dog or the Girl?'
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 26 (view)
 
girlfriend wants to meet her ex for coffee....is it fine with me?
Posted: 7/4/2011 4:03:43 AM
Post above: which is why it is 'worrisome, but not conclusive.' People keep secrets for 2 reasons: either there is more to the event than meets the eye, or they are worried that that the event might be misconstrued. Obviously, the former category spells trouble. You may have sent texts and withheld the act from your girlfriend while remaining faithful. My friends have done the same while committed to infidelity.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 8 (view)
 
im in love with a lesbian?
Posted: 7/4/2011 3:59:14 AM
Personally, while I have nothing against lesbians or bisexuals, I could never date one; I made up my mind on that ages ago. I like to know where the competition is coming from, and I just don't see a stable relationship with one. Besides, keeping in mind that my personal opinions are not public policy, and thank God, there's something undisciplined about an individual who goes whichever the way the wind blows. Being gay or lesbian, I can understand. Being bisexual is something else altogether.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 114 (view)
 
jealousy what does it mean
Posted: 7/3/2011 9:09:07 PM
I may be in the minority - no pun intended - but I do find it curiously uplifting if the woman I am in love with is a bit jealous. If the feeling is genuine, it means that she cares; if she is nonchalant, it may be time to hire a private eye. Like everything else, jealousy can be carried too far, and given the choice between heaps of jealousy, and none, I would choose none. A drama-free life is bliss, right next to ignorance . . .
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
girlfriend wants to meet her ex for coffee....is it fine with me?
Posted: 7/3/2011 8:58:21 PM
The fact that she withheld the texts from you, and other tidbits of information about her ex is worrisome, though not conclusive. The trouble is that if you try to forbid her from seeing him, she may become resentful. Or she may see him anyways, whether secretly or overtly. Not that I am a pacifist or anything, but it has been my experience that if something will occur, it usually does with or without the boyfriend's permission.

I would express my discomfort with the notion that she is even entertaining the idea of meeting with him, and then leave it up to her to decide. In any case, you would have said your piece . . .
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Is there such thing as Love at first Sight?
Posted: 7/3/2011 8:45:36 PM
First off, I do believe that there is such a thing as love at first sight. But the equities are against it. For that incident to have a chance there must be a double coincidence of wants: not only must you find him unbearably attractive, but he must return the same feeling with equal measure. It happened to me once, when I was younger, less cynical and more broke. We literally fell into each other's arms and were inseparable for 3 years.

There is a reason why most people are cautious at first, even when they know they are hopelessly immersed. Capitulate too quickly, and the other person might begin to experience buyer's remorse. Or worse, the other person may just be in it for the short term, but may fail to admit it until he scores. It is usually safer to draw things out. Still your heart. Meet at coffee shops. Have dinner. Go to the movies. And all the while, you are establishing the bond that will differentiate between true love and mere lust. Let this be a lesson learned. Time will dull the ache, and you will love again . . .
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 66 (view)
 
How quick is too quick?
Posted: 7/3/2011 8:22:10 PM
It is hardly an anomaly that you would be wild about each other from get go. That's kind of how it's supposed to be. I definitely think that it is within the realm of possibility to fall in love that quickly, and you shouldn't do anything to jeopardize it. But I would also be cautious, to minimize the harm if the relationship implodes and shards of ice go flying about the vicinity.

Of course, your new relationship might be quite short-lived if she discovers your post.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
 
How to tell your ex is still into you?
Posted: 7/3/2011 8:14:02 PM
While I am no dame, my input is that your ex is truly over you when she is able to ignore you for long periods, expresses no interest whatsoever in your affairs, and generally doesn't seem to mind whether you drop dead on the spot or thrive . . .
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 81 (view)
 
The Weiner scandal and the Duggars....
Posted: 6/21/2011 6:14:49 PM
People still dance around the halls of congress who have done far worse than Mr. Weiner. In fact, one senator who actually hired prostitutes for his nocturnal desires remains yet a senator, nevermind the fact that doing so was quite illegal.While his antics - texting graphic images of his private parts and less-than-impressive torso - were reprehensible, Mr. Weiner's thoughtless actions were not illegal. Morally reprehensible, perhaps, but not harmful to those happy recepients. While I am not suggesting that he should have been rewarded with a large box of Vaseline from the nearest Wal-Mart, I still believe the media made a fan-fare of nothing. He was bullied into retiring when his constituents would have had it otherwise.

And while the TV and radio saw lots of action from the media, ironically it was his weiner that saw the least action.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 89 (view)
 
Do men prefer long hair or short (on your head)
Posted: 6/20/2011 5:46:30 PM
Long hair lends an aura of mystery; it makes men want to uncover the allure. Plus, it denotes sophistication since it is not exactly the easiest way to go . . .
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 146 (view)
 
Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard.
Posted: 6/19/2011 9:20:49 AM

Yup. More or less what I said. But this case is not quite as simple as it might appear at first blush, since the unborn child in question was partially his as well. Hence, he is not just publishing the private life of a private citizen; it is about his own life too. I wouldn't be so sure which side the court will come out on. Unless there are strong precedents pointing one way or the other, this case might well be decided by the intermittent bowel movements of the presiding judge.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 145 (view)
 
Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard.
Posted: 6/19/2011 8:56:42 AM
From a lawyer's perspective, she has no cause of action for libel if she did, in fact, abort the baby. Truth is an absolute defense to libel. If her lawyer pursues that cause of action, he ought to be dangling, suspended from a billboard as well. The most sensible cause of action in this case would be one for false light invasion of privacy. This is the appropriate cause of action where the facts published by the defendant may be true, but nevertheless, mislead its intended audience. Truth is not a defense to an invasion of privacy cause of action. The message is misleading because it implies that the mother actually killed the child, perhaps with her bare hands, with a bone-handled steak knife, with a pair if scissors or, like Samson of biblical renown, with the jawbone of an ass.

This may just be an academic exercise, but I believe this is the right balance in situations like this: freedom of speech should be protected as intended by the U.S. Constitution, unless that freedom begins to rob others of their own freedom. In fact, courts implicitly recognize this to some degree. Which is why, if one threatens to kill someone, or, if one stalks someone, he may yet find himself enjoying the dubious comforts afforded by the county jail; a bucket for urine, and lice-infested cot for a bed. While a citizen may walk wherever he pleases, and say whatever he wishes, an invisible barrier is drawn when those activities begin to impinge upon the rights of others. But this isn't always the case. It is a slippery slope that must be negotiated with caution. And knee-length rubber boots.

This is a thorny case. The First Amendment, by definition, would not be needed if it only applied to speech that we find titillating or pleasing. Rather, its protections are most sorely needed when the speech in question is inherently repulsive. On the one hand, the 'jilted ex-boyfriend' should have every right to express his angst at the antics of his girlfriend if they dimnish his moral beliefs. On the other hand, his girlfriend is a private citizen whose private decisions should not be exposed and subjected to ridicule. If I were to exercise common sense, without the benefits of any existing precedents, I should think that the outcome of the case should be determined by whether the man in some way, shape or form, identified who he was talking about. Of course, if it is a small enclosed community, everyone might know who he was talking about even without the name.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 451 (view)
 
Why are men threatened by an Independent, educated woman???
Posted: 6/18/2011 7:26:24 PM
OP: The entire premise of your thread here is wrong, and you are asking the wrong question. By what miracle of logic did you conclude that men are threatened by 'an independent, educated woman?' Is that a scientific fact? I am no sage, but I can see why it isn't exactly raining men in your bedroom. Your post suggests that you take yourself too seriously, that you have a Godzilla-sized ego, and that you are prone to drawing the wrong conclusions. Why would they - those silly small men - not equate your attitude with feminism? Is feminism not all about the liberated woman who stands on an equal footing with any man, or even stands above him? And why does your post appear to denigrate 'feminism' when your perceptions and posture were evidently birthed by it?

I applaud feminists, would happily shake hands with them, and would not hesitate be a guest speaker at one of their man-bashing sessions. But at the end of the day, I want to go home to my sweet, loving girlfriend who doesn't see everything I say or do as an occasion to prove or assert her independence. I am not interested in a woman who can 'run with the big dogs.' I am interested in one who will lie with one dog - me. Fact is, as the name of this site suggests, there are plenty-of-fishes-in-the-sea, and for every woman who is out to prove her independence, there are two who just want to love and be loved in return.

Relationships are about compromises. I am not sure how you can wade into a relationship 'knowing what you want and what you will tolerate and not tolerate,' and then wonder why you are left on your own lonesome. Most men - I would include myself in that number - actually like the idea of a woman who has made something of herself. Times are hard, and a double income family is always desirable. Your education should enhance your income. This is an asset, not a liability. But men generally want no part of a high-maintainance woman who acts all high and mighty, and like they are not needed. If you are so self-sufficient, why even bother with a relationship with a man? Buy a male mannequin from Macys, set him up in your living room, tell him about your education, and exert your independence over him. I guarantee he will stay put. In fact, I'd stake my life on it.

I would suggest tweeking your attitude to life. Only dragons breathe fire, and they're all extinct.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Trust issues
Posted: 6/12/2011 9:21:16 AM
My first reaction is simply, run. Run like an African Lion has taken a sudden liking for you, and is moving in your direction at rapid speed, eyes aglitter, and jaws aslobbering. A lion's tendencies may be tamed such that they remain dormant, yet rarely will one hide its true spirit for long.

Constant calls from an ex-wife with whom he has cheated? A habitual liar? Can't hold a job? Love in the poorhouse, I've found, is only appealling in the movies. If you invest your heart and love in a vagabond, both will not long last. His vices are too great. Move on to the next. It is demonstrably true that there are plenty-of-fishes in the sea.

But this advice probably comes too late, given the date of the original post . . .
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 57 (view)
 
piercings on bf or gf private areas
Posted: 6/4/2011 9:52:50 AM
Different strokes for different folks, so this is no roast. For me, pain and sex don't mix, despite the efforts of the pornographic industry. I can hardly look at tattoos and piercings without thinking of when they were acquired, and who might have put them there.

For me, the body is a temple not a canvas. If I am attracted to a woman, I am already hooked. Every line in her face, every crinkle at the corner of her eyes, etc. makes for a study, and I always take my time.

Tattoos and piercings are very unwelcome distractions, and are a huge turn off for me. Rings belong on the ear lobes and on fingers, although I have had occasion to tolerate them on toes and nostrils. Tattooes, if they must exist, must be miniaturized, and in a non-conspicuous place. If they're too visible, they take away the option of being trashy when one chooses to be.

I do remember dating this drop-dead woman, who just happened to have angel wings tattooed on her shoulder blades, and sweeping into the middle of her back in an elaborate flair. I had to shut my eyes whenever we became physical in such a way that her back was facing me. While I crave transportation to heaven, I have absolutely no desire to violate a heavenly creature. My list of sins is already long enough, without that particular addition.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 404 (view)
 
How to tell a woman to start paying for part of the date
Posted: 6/4/2011 9:04:07 AM
One thing is certain: you shouldn't maintain the status quo. If she were already your girlfriend, then one might argue that perhaps she does domestic chores and other things that might counterbalance your bankrolling every adventure. I prefer honesty from the women I date. I have dated some who are truly old fashioned, and I've had no qualms paying for our adventures. Or misadventures. I've dated others who are more modernistic, and they have usually played more of a role, even if I insist on paying far more often than they do. The type of women that I dislike are the ones who adopt feminist principles, and yet expect me to pay for everything. Meaning that we split everything evenly, including the chores, but excluding payment for our activities, which all fall on me. Those types are not seeking equality. Rather, they're seeking privilege. I am sorry, I don't consider sex a gift; if it isn't mutual enjoyment, something is very wrong.

But the first 4 dates? That's inexcusable. It is just plain bad manners, especially with the coffee incident, when she invited you out. To some degree, it is the principle of it. If you like her, you have to broach the subject. I tend to do stuff like that with hypothetical questions. They're easier. But if you don't like her all that much, or haven't made up your mind, I would actually break it off. It doesn't bode well that she is so uncultured. Her actions mean that she is either rude or selfish. Neither is a particularly great attribute in anyone.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 73 (view)
 
America's Single Greatest Problem as a Nation
Posted: 5/31/2011 3:22:15 PM
I agree with most of the of points that you made, because they mirror mine, my flowery prose notwithstanding. But there are a number of issues that I would quibble with. I would tend to agree that people don't seem to care about being lied to nowadays, as long as such lies are being told by their favored politicians. I said as much in my erstwhile post.

But I disagree that such has always been the case. There was a time when Americans were actually genuinely patriotic, and cared about the fate of the country and its citizens. That period was strongest after the Revolutionary War; without question, the founding fathers would scarcely have tolerated a rabid liar, nor would such liars have long maintained political offices if discovered. They were given to introspection, knowing that they had fashioned a model that was entirely new in the world. That feeling once again soared in the aftermath of the Great Depression, and during and after World War II. Americans didn't just make a pass at being patriotic; they genuinely loved their country, and wanted to better it. They did not ignore truths merely because they were inconvenient, or invent new models of patriotism that actually espouse an increedible selfishness. The political divisions have been as sharply defined on several occasions as they are now. Notably in the days preceeding and succeding the Civil War. And once again in the 60s and the 70s, thanks to the Civil Rights era and the Watergate Scandal.

But the lies have never been whiter. I can't think of any instances when such blatant lies have been peddled with such impunity. These lies are not harmless, and cannot be said to be a permanent feature of politics. I don't care about the illegitimate child of a politician, the infidelity of a politician to his spouse, or whether he is a secret pagan. While one might consider such attributes or behavior immoral or reprehensible, they don't usually impel people to vote in a certain way even if they come attendant with a mild influence.

But telling taking the position that a death panel would convene if the healthcare bill passes, or asserting that 97% of Planned Parenthood's activities are dedicated to abortion are lies in a category so despicable as to compromise the political process. These are lies so calculated as to impassion the mob without reason or logic, and swindle them into voting against their own best interests. These lies compromise the democratic process and denigrate it to such a degree as to pose a real danger to its survival. If you know of any lies that rise to the same level in the history of the nation, I'd like to hear of them.

It seems that somewhere along the way, especially in the 2000s, politicians have learned that even a white lie, if repeated often enough and with conviction, effectively replaces the truth. The psychology behind that being, as you correctly observed, that people embrace a lie because its lack of truth in a very real way provides some justification and direction for their more base feelings which they are often loath to admit. Which is why, on the very day that Osama bin Laden was killed, with no basis, certain politicians and commentators were demanding that Obama apologize to the Bush defense team because it was torture that rendered the information. Nevermind the fact that none of these folks knew that to be true, and as came out later, was demonstrably false.

That, I believe is the trouble with our nation.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 71 (view)
 
America's Single Greatest Problem as a Nation
Posted: 5/30/2011 9:17:26 AM
The greatest problem that our nation has is this extreme polarization, and this nascent belief in political expediency; that the end justifies the means. Yes, it is true that politicians have always been rather susceptible to generalizations. It is a stock in trade that has always held true for the entire ilk. But peddling outright lies is in an entirely different realm altogether. A republic has never been easier to control; a democracy never so easily subverted as when its leaders and politicians show little respect for facts, and even when caught in their lies, stubbornly stick to their guns. Like one of our esteemed senators standing on the senate floor, and declaring that 95% of what Planned Parenthood does is cater to abortions, when it is a verifiable fact that quite the opposite is truth. And when confronted about the gaping disparity in that incredible statement, the esteemed senator asserted - incredibly - that his statement was not a factual one, despite the fact that it had a percentage; a numerical factor inserted into it. Our politicians no longer even have the good grace to feel embarassed when they are caught in outright lies which are nonetheless used for the sole purpose of influencing 'the people's' passions. Nor do 'the people' seem particularly angered at being so lied to, as long as such lies are being peddled by their favored politicians. These lies hold our citizens hostage, and stirs their passions without informing their positions.

Case in point: It is the belief that kings derived their divine rights from God that held most of Europe shackled to the manacles of mornachy for so many centuries. It was a blinding belief in religion that held the Roman Empire so bound to their Popes, nor was such folly restricted to countries that adhered to the Christian faith. Whether by religion or superstition, so many countries considered themselves bound, and would only acknowledge kings or leaders from specific bloodlines. Until the U.S. came along, that fledgling democracy, and gave the world a taste of what it had not seen, but had yearned for; a truth. An axiomatic principle, that no leader was a true one, unless elected by, of and for the people.

When our politicians lie so blatantly, and remain steadfast in their lies even when discovered, the danger cannot be overstated. An uninformed public is inherently incapable of acting in its own best interests, and has effectively been deprived of representation. Which is why so many cast their votes in such devotedly self-destructive fashion. Red herrings are laid in their paths: gay marriages, guns, racism, entitlements, etcetera, all of which serve to occlude the main issues. If things were normal, I would find myself a moderate in the center; a Catholic raised in a surbub of Oxford can hardly escape that fate. But as things stand, I could hardly claim to be in the center. The lies seem whiter on one side. The vindictiveness seems so much more forceful on the one side. And the information defficiency seems so much stronger on the one side. I cannot subscribe to that false equivalency which would suggest that both sides are equally cuplable for the state of affairs.

If one truly believes that being patriotic is loving one's country, and by extension, his own compatriots, then the state of affairs today is truly incomprehensible. Where the cause celebre appears to be this notion that there are two types of Americans: The one who eats naught but apple pies on his lunch breaks, whose blankets are made of stars and stripes, who works from dawn till dusk, and that other type, who lazes around all day long, who sets the country back with such lofty-sounding but silly ideas like global warming and mercy for the impoverished, and whose grasping hands will be the death of the American economy. It is a fallacy, but nonetheless, sweet nectar to those who are so inclined to believe such notions. Self-righteousness it is, and self-righteousness was ever a poor substitute for patriotism, or even pragmatism.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 35 (view)
 
The REAL Obama revealed at last...
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:57:39 PM
A very interesting post, especially by one who pupports to be African - albeit Nigerian - by virtue of which she has gained a penetrating insight of all the motivations that galvanize our current president.

I'll start by expressing serious doubts about the authenticity of your claims. I too, I am Igbo, by virtue of my father's rovings. I was born in Oregon, was raised mostly in the UK, and completed my last 2 years of high school in Nigeria. I can speak the language well enough, although with a bit of an accent. I can narrate the plot that led to the Biafran war, the key actors, and the fundamental issues that Nigeria - and other African nations - still face to this very day. What I fail to see, with any degree of clarity, is how that translates to the American experience.

It takes a certain amount of arrogance to proclaim that your thoughts and motivations hold true for every other transplanted African. I, for one, have never met any African who espouses anything remotely close to your view. From your words we are supposed to perceive you to be an enlightened intellectual; a true philantropist, cloaked and armored in the truth, whose dispositions are not governed by the motives that propel us puny mortals. In fact, you are so neutral in your predilections that you have elected to air your rather curious viewpoints rather than remain silent any longer in the face of the perncious danger posed by Obama. It is no less than your Christian duty, or so we should be led to believe.

In point of fact, I have met few Africans who caricature 'whiteys.' They are, on the whole, exceedingly grateful to have been afforded a chance to leave the bedlam at home for a more ordered society. Those among them who arrive by legal means; e.g. by a valid student visa, lottery ticket, etc. tend to be well educated, and integrate more seemlessly into the society. Those who arrive by more unorthodox means tend to engage in nefarious activities, including dabbling in the sale of controlled substances, credit fraud, etc. Whichever route is adopted is merely a means of survival. Racial characterizations are more of an American phenomenon, since the average African has endured more at the hands of a fellow 'black' than from invisible Caucasians. In fact, to some degree, if an African marries in the United States, it is apt to be to a Caucasian, since they are liable to have more in common (Obama's heritage is a case in point).

Africans - at some period in their lives - tend to experience a profusion of emotions, each vying for pride of place. Those left in the continent have immediate concerns that overshadow resentment of those who are so far beyond their reach and memories. The British attitude towards Africa was no less than that espoused by the Romans towards the tribes; divide and conquer. There was a mad rush amongst the colonial powers to establish territories loyal to their divergent sovereigns. The Dutch, the French, the English, the Spaniards and the Portugese were all partakers. Nigeria was amalgamated under Lord Lugard, not because the tribes were united, but because it was imperative that a territory be created, with nicely established boundaries, and which could be declared an English colony in order to foil plots by the other countries seeking to usurp lands and resources as well. Hence, Nigeria, comprising some 250 tribes who had always hated and mistrusted one another, was born. There was no attempt by the British to unite the tribes. In fact, such a unification was deemed - not incorrectly - as directly contrary to their purposes. If they were to maintain the tribes in relative equilibrium with a minimum number of Red Coats, it was essential that the tribes be played off against one another. The Nigerian tribes were very unlike the Italian city-states, or the Greek city-states. There were no feelings of 'state-hood' among the tribes. Divided though the Greeks and Italians were at most times, it took but the approach of a common enemy for them to unite. Hence, it was no strange phenomenon in history to find Athenians hastening to the rescue of the Spartans, or vice versa at the approach of a common enemy, say the Persians. The Nigerian tribes were entirely different in their attitudes; they hated one another more fiercely than the invading enemy. They had indigenous gods, cultures and languages; indeed to this very day they speak English in order to understand one another. Into this unhappy confluence stepped the British, who annexed the natural resources and maintained their control by ensuring that the animosity between the tribes was kept alive, though not so much so as to disrupt peace and order.

As the British pulled out of African nations en masse in the 60's, they tended to leave behind, either puppet governments responsive to their needs (Nigeria is the only oil-rich African nation, with a permanent place of honor in OPEC), or governments entirely apathetic to both citizens and external influences. The African concept of government that developed is to reward kit and kin, then the tribe, then the province (state), and then perhaps the country, exactly in that order. Such partial governments create huge disparities; there is almost no middle class. You are either exceedingly wealthy, driving the latest American cars, or you are so poor that your primary preoccupation is obtaining the next meal. Hence, the average African who has the good fortune to find himself in the United States, where the rule of law is pervasive, and where there is a nicely drafted Constitution protecting his rights, is apt to be grateful for the chance. He has seen the strife created by rogue governments run amok, which like wild beasts, are intemperate and entirely beyond control. He is probably somewhat conservative in his outlooks, owing not just to his experiences back home, but also to his affinity with the British system of governance. He is somewhat fatalistic; he understands that the strong rule the world, and to that extent, might express some discomfort and cynism towards the western notions of justice and chilvary. He is a realist, and knows that however the problems confronting his motherland began, they have been perpetuated by the actions of his own people.

Using myself as an example, I will own up to to a wee bit of an identity crisis growing up. A part of me cherished my British education, and gloried in all things western. Another part disdained most things African; I could not understand, until I gained maturity, why they could not seem to make any progress long after the British had departed their shores. I was angry, not with long-departed Caucasians , but with Africans, who seemed to have failed to make any progress since they gained their autonomy. I was angry at the excesses of those in power, and the constant stream of starving children presented by the media a scant few blocks from their gated neighborhoods. Any resentment towards the colonial powers among Africans died with the earlier generations, who suffered the direct rule of the British. It is plain to see that the problems that exist today in Nigeria (as a prototypical African nation), though inherited from the British, persist only through the actions of Africans themselves. Unlike South Africa, there is no 'white man' lurking in the bushes and sporting a blunderbuss to be deployed if his wishes fail to be carried out to the letter, and with immediate alacrity.

I cannot address your treatise in its entirety; it is far too long, and I have other competing uses for my time. I do however, rebuff the idea that you are the sum of the African experience in the western world. I reject the notion that you are capable of being a mouthpiece for all transplanted Africans. I spurn the notion that this novella that you have compiled embodies the truth of how emigrated Africans feel about anything . Attack Obama if you must - there are already a profusion of clarion calls to do so, and one more could scarcely make a difference - but desist from the subterfuge created by your touted kinship to other transplanted Africans. I can respect your point of view; it is only one amongst many, but I can hardly extend such respect to one that surreptitously claims kinship towards African viewpoints while doing its very best to undermine it. There is also another factor that one must take into account. Obama, in a very real sense, is not African, however keenly he might have felt his father's attentions. Raised in Indonesia and the United States, any pro-African feelings he might possess are surely borrowed, and cannot be said to be the quintessential African viewpoint. Additionally, his mother is Caucasian. If we were not living in such a race-conscious society, he could not be called 'black' without fear of contradiction. He is at least half-white, and if conventions are followed, the mother's genes dominate a child's traits. He must indeed be a remarkable fellow - doubtlessly a superhero - if despite his upbringing and the absence of his father, he emerges with a purely African viewpoint, whatever that may be characterized as.

Enough said...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1140 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/21/2008 6:53:22 PM
Yup. And I seem to recall that the media drove itself into a frenzy when Michelle Obama inartfully said that for the first time in her life, she was proud of her country. Course, she meant it as gratitude, but republicans saw it as a window of opportunity, and leapt in with both feet. Boy, did the media have a field day. Republicans were quick on the pounce. Radio shows notably in Tennessee had people calling in to castigate Obama and his wife. I remember one particular raspy, heavily accented voice saying "Oh, she is only proud now because her husband is running for president. Because they have a stake. Well, let me tell ya, I've always been proud of my country; from day one." I had no doubt that 'country' for that particular tobacco-chewing gentleman meant a verdant meadow, with two donkeys cropping grass and a hunk o' meat dangling over a merry fire. Nor was there any evidence that our country was particularly as 'proud' of him as he was of it. His meagre understanding of Washington politics would leave him in support of McCain merely because he looks like him, even if McCain is somewhat richer and somewhat inaccessible...

Notice that the media seems far more quiescent about madame Palin's spouse's possible involvement in the secession movement. Never mind that such a movement is of far more potency than Michelle Obama's spontaneous, off-the-cuff words. One was a poor choice of words, the other is an ideology. The 'liberal' media seems to enjoy far more access to liberal politicians than it does to our sanctimonious ones, rather like a fire that burns that which is in the closest proximity...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1108 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/17/2008 7:20:03 AM
I think it'd be super if she cedes more...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1059 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/15/2008 2:59:37 PM
Yup. That was a bit of a shocker. Rather like the devil condemning evil. Karl Rove, the devil incarnate and lord of lies if not of the flies, thinks McCain is lying too much. Ouch. Next Osama will be renouncing terrorism...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1035 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/14/2008 7:09:23 AM
'Because experience is important. Duh.'

Uhm. Here we go again. I thought I had already squared this issue away. W. Bush was the governor of Texas before he ascended to the White House. His father - a more astute man - had been president before him. His brother was also the governor of Florida. He had so much experience the lizards bobbed their heads in homage at his passing. He had more experience than a London prostitute. Yet that did not stop him from sodomizing the nation during his reign.

'I compare Obama to Bush. An overrated neophyte running a campaign as a Washington outsider, looking to mix things up.'

This one is puzzling, if not downright asinine. Bush was never a neophyte or a fledgling. He is the nearest thing we have to the royal family in England. He had the very same experience Madame Palen brags about as the ex-governor of Texas. He was very experienced in imposing capital punishment. Even more so if one throws in the nuclear family. And maybe things do need to be mixed up this time around.

'Biden has been in the Senate longer. So much for Obama's "change".'

Biden has little hopes of becoming the President with Obama in office, unless one of our more pious, gun-toting republican assasinates him. Obama does represent change, and Biden will merely be the Vice President. A vice president does not usually have much of an influence over the President. Bush is the rare exception, since Cheney is wearing the trousers in that relationship when he isn't out hunting. This is why the thought of McCain becoming the next President is so blood curdling. He might just croak, and we will find ourselves at the tender mercies of a vengeful hockey mum. Among other things, the Vice President's role would include 'presiding' over the senate. Ordinarily.

'That's a ludicrous argument. You cannot be seriously comparing leading a handful of children to managing the resources of the state with the largest land area.'

Oh, but I am. Those capricious children are more of a challenge than the redoubtable Palin ever faced as a governor. Being the governor of one of our more isolated states hardly qualifies any individual, man or woman, for the intricacies of Washington politics and the day to day grind of the nation's affairs.

'Democrats fumbled this one big time. They could have nominated BOTH experience and intellect: Hillary Clinton. They chose to go with the slick-talking charismatic orator instead. Big error.'

Now this is downright laughable. For years the republicans have disdained Clinton and the Clinton legacy. Mention Clinton anywhere and they started literally foaming at the mouth. The ones living in the rural areas would go for their guns. Never a good word had emerged from any stalwart republican about the Clintons, even during the campaign between Hillary and Obama. Now all of a sudden, after she was defeated by Obama, they have gained a new-found respect and admiration for her. This subterfuge - and make no mistake, it is definitely a subterfuge - is a very tranparent one. You want Hillary because you think that McCain would have made mince meat of her. In any case, she'd be a better candidate than Obama, with his questionable heritage and ethnicity. Ha! In a land founded on republican principles, charisma is now a bad thing? Popularity is now a thing to be scorned? I am not buying.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1028 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/14/2008 5:44:51 AM
Certain republicans - not all of them - had already engendered rumors that he was a Muslim. Fact Check: You can't simultaenously be a Christian and a Muslim. One religion necessarily contradicts the other, and even a world class juggler could scarcely hope to espouse the doctrines propagated by both. That being the case, a republican must choose which controversy delights him the most. Similarly, to be a man is the same as not being a woman, just as to be black cannot be the same same as being white. A republican must either choose to talk about Reverend Wright - and denounce Obama as a Christian schmuck who had the temerity to sit in the congregation at church and listen to his minister malign the US - or he could choose instead to allege that Obama is a rabid Muslim who owes his allegiance to the Middle East or Farrakhan. One accusation/theory/conclusion necessarily consumes the other. So choose, and choose wisely...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1027 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/14/2008 3:19:40 AM
Obama is a multi tasker's dream come true; he surpasses even Palin in this regard. Its amazing he's had all these unsavory friends. He is friends with Timothy McVeigh. Oh, I know the man's dead, but Obama's friendship transcends even death. He was friends with Hitler, although the man is/was - oh, I don't know - about 50 years his senior. He was friends with Mohammed Ali, the errant boxer and counselled him not to participate in the Vietnam war. He is also friends with Ossama Bin Laden; apparently the man saw the similarities between the names as being so striking that he declared his undying loyalty to Obama. Obama even found time to befriend Saddam Hussein - the friendly tyrant - before he was executed. He had looked into his eyes - like Bush did with Putin - and saw a kindred soul. During the Cold War, Obama dined regularly with the Politburo, and Gobarchev was his bosom friend, calling him 'a brother from another mother.' In honor of him, the Politburo proposed concocting a drink called the 'Black Russian,' to counterbalance the already existing 'White Russian.' In fact every 'merchant of evil' regardless of how highly or lowly placed, has found a friend in Obama, prince of thieves.

It is always dreadful to watch a republican eat, swallow and digest his own party's propaganda, with no research done about where the food came from. (It could have come from the unhygienic plantations of a swineherd, or from orchards adjoining a garbage disposal). Kind of like a canine eating its own excretion (i.e. shit). Show me any proof that these were ALL Obama's friends, and I will crown McCain the emperor of the contemporary continental US. You kind of owe it to yourself, if not to your nation, not to be a pawn in someone else's game. I research everything Obama says; I take nothing for granted. I also research McCain's utterances, to give him his due. Same for Madame Palin, and the results have not been palatable. You, on the other hand, are content to sit and eat scraps handed out under the table. If the best you can do is spout groundless contentions, surmise and conjecture, then I recommend exiting the forum and appropriating a bull horn on your way out. A bullhorn is far more effective when talking to a cowed audience...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1018 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/13/2008 5:15:21 PM
Again, not to flog this old horse - which is already lame - to death, but Sarah Palin's 'experience' makes not one jot of a difference. 'Executive' experience come in all shapes, hues and forms. I suppose a class monitor/prefect could claim executive experience. An aspiring CEO could claim executive experience. The head waiter, too, at any ramshackle restaurant has had executive experience. So has the manager at a night club. Hell, even the high school bully could claim executive experience, in so far as he is used to directing, and others falling over themselves to conform. But some of these are not quite so executive in their nature. Alaska is one in 50 states and arguably quite isolated from the quotidian activities of the nation as a whole.

But even if I were generous enough to concede that she has been the recipient of 'executive' experience, I would still have qualms. Some of her activities in Alaska have portrayed the picture of a vengeful woman who would ban books from a library, fire a highly placed individual (who also had executive experience) for failing to conform to her wishes, and fund a highly publicized ill-advised and ill fated-project. And even if that were not the case, Bush had all the experience in the world, but he is still going down in history as one of the most unsavory US presidents in recent times. He is the titular head of the republican party, but notice that he did not speak at the Republican Convention. Oh, she is a pitbull all right. The media has unearthed the fact that she did not withdraw her support from the bridge to nowhere until Congress gave it to the birds. But she proclaims at every interview that she withdrew her support. It is nearly a fib, but a sanctimonious evangelical Christian couldn't be lying. Not for such a little thing as becoming the Vice President of the U S of A. So if you must sell experience, be sure to wrap it in a brown bag, and peddle it like it is a bottle of alcholic beverage....
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1011 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/13/2008 1:37:46 PM
I am not sure why certain obstinate people keep alluding to Obama's lack of experience. The Bush family had so much experience that the American public was gagging on it. Yet that experience did not seem to mitigate Sir Bush's reign in the White House. People keep citing experience like it is the calming water that will douse the raging fires that Bush has lit. This time around, why not go for intellect rather than experience? I once watched a dog from my balcony determinedly chasing its tail. For a full 20 minutes, it was unrelentingly chasing that rather furry, wagging part of its anatomy. I had no idea what it intended to do once it apprehended the tail, but I nonetheless had to commend it for its efforts. But I could tell it had not learned from the experience. It was back at it with renewed fervor 2 days later.

McCaine has been in the US senate since before-Jesus-came, but I have yet to see any peerless ideas owing its origins to him. Oh, I understand that he is a warrior without peer, but the Office of the President requires just a wee bit of finesse. Governor Palin has had 'executive' experience because she is, in fact, a state governor 'in charge' of her state's national guard. Stop the press. I was once in charge of the cub scouts myself, which makes me uniquely qualified to seek the Presidency. I can also think of another individual who gained 'executive' experience as the governor of his state. That person would be none other than his royal bone head, George W. Bush. If a rational individual would vote against Obama, I implore such a person to come up with a better reason than the lack of experience. Lack of experience is better than a world of experience in the hands of any buffoon.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1009 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/13/2008 9:46:39 AM
Sure thing, Charlemagne...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1008 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/13/2008 9:13:36 AM
Sure, I'd be glad to correct you. You are right in so far as the executive and judicial functions in the US are clearly delineated in the Constitution. However, there is some substantial overlap. You see, the president does appoint the Supreme Court justices (congressional approval is merely perfunctory here). That choice can be made - and is usually made - based upon the political perspective of the candidate. Unfortunately, judges are only too human as we learn in law school; their verdicts often reflect personal biases and political perspectives. 3 of our current Supreme Court justices are older than McCain - I am sure you can agree that this is no mean achievement. This means that whoever the next president is will probably get to replace these justices before his term is up. And if these 3 justices believe in the moral 'wrongness' of Roe v. Wade in a court that is already leaning right by the efforts of the redoubtable Antonin Scalia, then that event could upset the balance in the Supreme Court. And yes, you might yet see a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Even Brown v. Board of education might be in peril as well if you assemble enough constipated right wing justices....
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 1003 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/12/2008 12:47:24 PM
Well, hopefully Obama's entry into the White House will effectively relegate the 'Bush Doctrine' to where it really belongs. Deep in the bushes. Unfortunately, I am not entirely convinced that the average GOP voter is a pragmatist. If he were he would not have voted Bush back in office, when he had already showed his hand and was exerting as much leadership as a sick cow. He'd lied to us, summarily ruined our economy and squandered all the goodwill we had earned abroad. It is downright peculiar that other nations now see us as the bully, when at the onset of the republic, we were the fledgling nation challenging others to adopt our moral mantle. It rankles. I guess - by their reckoning - it is better to have a member of the flock than a gentile in the Oval Office. Republicans rallied around him, crowned him with laurels and implored him to lead our nation for another 4 years. They bypassed Kerry - a knowledgable man - for a man of lesser intelligence who they could drink beer with. I have to say, I've never been more disappointed in my life. Republicans pride themselves on being patriotic, but can't see past partisanship. He did all these things in his first term, and it would have taken no genius to see that he had nothing to loose as he entered his second term. He knew that he was constitutionally barred from running for office again. Well, its probably a stretch to imagine that he has read our Constitution, let alone understood it. But I am sure someone told him about it. Now, they avoid Bush like the plague. At this 11th hour when he can do no more harm, some of them have finally conceded by their actions that it was the wrong choice. Up till last year, they were still defending him. But action speaks louder than words, and McCain has been avoiding him like he has a 'social' disease. Not much hope...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 999 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/12/2008 10:56:53 AM
Seems to me that one of the most fundamental concepts of feminism - indeed the bedrock upon which it was conceived - is freedom. The liberty to function in society on the same plateau as men; an egalitarian principle. For the life of me, I can't envision how a republican who is fanatically 'pro life' could be said to support the rights of women. Choice is indicative of freedom. Options are indicative of liberty. To be a feminist and supportive of women's rights is necassarily at odds with being supportive of a party that would legislate to end a woman's freedom to choose. I have never understood why this is not glaringly clear, or why any woman would choose to belong to a party so obviously against their interests. The veil of sanctimonious religiousness really does cloak reason and subvert logic.

Like many, I believe abortion is wrong, but the difference is that I have never advocated to have my personal opinion legislated into the law of the land. Perish the day that my perspectives on how things ought to be become public policy. If, of course, the republicans succeed in repealing Roe v. Wade, we would instantly be catapaulted back into the dark ages. We would be the only western, industrialized country that does not grant women the freedom of that partcular choice. The border to Canada would receive enhanced traffic as American women seeking abortion leave the land of the free to obtain services from Canada. An ironic spectacle, to be sure...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 998 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/12/2008 10:37:07 AM
Sexism in the Obama campaign?

Obama owes the American public an apology. It appears that he has more highly paid men in his campaign than he does women. This is definitely no accident, quirk of nature, twist of fate or coincidence. It must have been by design, not by default. He should have searched every hamlet, every village, every shopping mall, every hair dresser's parlor, every soccer game, every nook and cranny to ensure that he has an equal number of women as he does men in his campaign, and never mind the fact that women are not typically as involved in politics as men. He should not have embarked upon his campaign until he was assured of the fact that he had as many highly paid women as he does of men.

And while we're at it, we must also accuse him of racism, since he has more highly paid white men on his staff than he does black men. He should have searched every urban setting, every African nation, every Carribean isle, every basketball game, every southern State and possibly even every state and federal gaol to ensure that he hired an equal number of highly paid blacks. Never mind the fact that blacks are in the minority, and typically not as interested in politics as they might be.

Only when he had assembled a representative work force featuring such amazing equilibrium, should he have embarked upon his campaign. After all, McCain did go to such great lengths to prove his moral superiority. Otherwise any wise oracle, aspiring judge or indeed squalling infant should find him simultaenously guilty of drinking from the tainted goblet of racism and sexism.

Ha! Poppycock. I am sure you can see the unsightly flaws in your reasoning...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 959 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/10/2008 11:07:39 AM
'That ad is from a "527", an independent organization that McCain isn't a part of and has no control over. If that's your evidence, then we're going to start bringing up the plethora of lie-filled "smear" ads from moveon.org. You REALLY don't want to go there, trust me'


Well, Dallas, I was not claiming that the ad was generated by McCain. I said it was generated by republicans. I doubt '527' is a group claiming to be democrats. That still holds true. Never mind that McCain had no control over them, they still ran ads that presumably appealed to a republican audience. Certainly not democrats. And the average rank and file member has demonstrated an amazing propensity to be beguiled by such ads and propaganda. I actually don't think McCain would be that crass. Maybe Bush, since he converses on a daily basis with the Great Spirit. Presumably after consuming some spirits himself. But probably not McCain. The ad merely goes to bolster my early assertion that republicans were the first to name Obama a Muslim. (Seinfeld disclaimer: Not that there is anything wrong with being a Muslim, of course).
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 957 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/10/2008 8:39:34 AM
Kaos...Clinton never originated the accusations touting Obama as a Muslim. Despite the fact that she stood to gain from it. No, it owes its rather 'auspicious' beginnings to the republican war machine. There are numerous websites online that can clarify this. I have pasted a link to a republican ad generated in June below. And my opinion of Sarah Palin as a firm adherent to the republican doctrine is hardly subjective. She is steadfastly anti-abortion. She favors gun rights. Heck, she is quite the huntress herself, right next in line to Cheney I'd imagine. She is a 'Christian' in the militant sense of the word. None of these things are opinions; they are facts. Easily confirmed merely by watching her speeches. McCain back in 2000 was considered a Maverick. I would have voted for him then. He did not blindly bind himself to all the republican beliefs. He had one or two of his own that were not in keeping with their doctrine. That is why quite a few were leery of him, even though he has towed the line in order to consolidate the republican ranks behind him. These skeptics have found new hope in Palin. She exemplifies everything a rectitudinous republican stands for. If you find my rationale or facts to be wrong in anyway, I'd like to hear it. Indeed, I am all ears...

Here's the link to the ad...
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/21/01145/9285
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 954 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/10/2008 2:46:46 AM
Uhm. I do have a Political Science degree, for all that it is worth. I still fall short of understanding your rather unique perspective despite all the classes we took on statistics, demographics, and the general psychology of the mundane. According to you, every time 'another negative item appears about Sarah Palin, her popularity goes up.' I beg to differ. Palin's appeal to the GOP is owing to the fact that she is a newcomer to the scene who ardently believes everything the republicans hold true. A programmed automaton could scarcely be a more loyal adherent to the republican doctrine. And she is a former beauty pageant to boot. A hockey mum who dragged herself up by the bootstraps. A compelling story, especially for a party that has been, well, rather lacking in energizing even its own members. You should point those flaming guns at the republicans; they are generally at their best when they are engineering false rumors and innuendos. Frankly, after all the rumors that the GOP has contrived to spread about Obama; that he is a Muslim, that he is unpatriotic because he would not stand at attention during the national anthem, that he was sworn in as a member of Congress on the Koran, etc., I fail to see what platform you are standing on in making those accusations. Yours was the party that transformed John Kerry from a war hero to a coward who was poking fun at American troops. Well, it is fortunate that Palin is running against Obama who has taken a page from your besmirched book. Fight fire with fire, so to speak. Those who live in glass houses should avoid the use of slingshots.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Boycott Oprah?
Posted: 9/7/2008 8:50:47 AM
How tragic that Oprah is helping indigent people in Africa, rather than leaving it to the good 'ole G8 and trusty missionaries. And of course, since she is doing all those charitable works outside of the continental US, this just means that she must be shafting our country in the process. Oprah is not a journalist who ideally should remain neutral and steer clear of adopting sides (Fox News excepted). Nor have I ever known her to claim to be one. Rather she is a talk show host who features guests and programs according to her own inclinations. In making the decision of who should appear on her show, she has to keep her ratings in mind. She could have a monkey appear on her show on a whim. But she does not have to have an individual whose ideals do not coincide with her own on her show. It is her prerogative. And the station's. I would have thought this to be abundantly clear.
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 796 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/5/2008 4:57:09 AM
JFK was an invigorating figure and still is in the US. While the Bay of Pigs directive was botched as you correctly observed, I don't believe that the motivations instigating it are as transparent and as ridiculous as the motivations that prompted the Iraq war. Cuba posed a real threat and had proved a willing conduit to a dangerous enemy. Fidel Castro was bereft of reason, and was therefore entirely unpredictable. He has been somewhat softened by advancement in age, but that was then. We currently have a President that rather overemphasized the dire threat of the weapons possessed by Iraq - rusty rocket launchers, crudely assembled bombs, caches of Ak-47 (a weapon not renowned for its reliability), bows and arrows, sling shots, etc. hardly constitute weapons of mass destruction. Despite having a lot of mass. A US president is a commander-in-chief and his efforts - though commendable - can be thwarted by incompetent underlings. It is of crucial importance though, that the primary motivation of an encounter outside of the US should not be one motivated by self-serving short, term goals, but one that ultimatly promotes the interests of the US and world peace.

And yes, there was a kind of 'martyrdom' that one might associate with communism. Except it wasn't neccesarily martyrdom; it was more in the nature of exaggerated displays of patriotism from our soviet brethren because they knew that failure amounted to death from the hands of the infamous KGB once they returned to the home turf. The penalty for failure was so severe that quite a few of them defected rather than return to the not-so-so-homely homeland. In many ways the days of the USSR was far worse than anything terrorists can come up with. They were an empire, not a bunch misguided hooligans...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 786 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 7:25:18 PM
In 2000, I liked McCain quite a bit. I would have swallowed naked flames if that sacrifice would have meant that he would gain the office over Bush. With a proven military record I liked him because I felt that he was sincere. He was also a maverick, his own man, etcetera. I have learned a few things since that have rather chilled my ardor. Besides, at this time, more than ever, we need a President with the potential to undo the great harm that our current president has wreaked both internally and abroad. I believe Obama, with his 'lofty dreams,' his amiability and his intellect, is just such a man. And no, I am not one of those die hard fans of him. I would not throw my panties at him during his inspired speeches, even if I wasn't accustomed to wearing boxers. I just feel that hear and now, in this current race, he is the best we have. And if people are 'hissing you out of venues,' I think that's rather immature. In this forum, we would have a debate to see whether your support for McCain is one that you arrived at by credible reasons....
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 781 (view)
 
Factcheck..It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 6:19:57 PM
Right. Long day. I totally misread your statement. I wonder where that gentleman was from and how much he knows of US politics...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 779 (view)
 
Factcheck..It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 6:05:49 PM
'for a minute, I thought you meant Palin.'

Never mind. I thought you said you thought I was Palin..
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 777 (view)
 
Factcheck..It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 5:58:54 PM
'Well -- if I lived in the US -- which I don't -- I would have a very hard time voting for the Democrats on this one. Anyone that has wanted to be President since learning to walk, but has never had an executive post, never operated a business, never administered a town, city, county or a state -- has already written his memoirs twice and he hasn't even done much except make inspirational speeches sets off some serious alarms for me'

Interesting. But since you don't live in the US, I take it that you don't feel threatened by the thought of someone with all those anger management issues, possible senility and with no evidence of an intellect, becoming the president of the US? If you are not, you ought to be. Remember that the US has the most advanced weaponry in the world. We are not exactly hoping to strap nuclear war heads to the back of a shaggy goat and direct it to find our enemies; our delivery system is very precise. If that doesn't bother you as a member of the international community, I envy your fortitude. Mistaken though it might be. McCain is more of a warrior than Bush ever was. The lizards bob their heads in homage at his passage. They realize what danger he represents. You ought to be quaking in your boots, moccasins or slippers or whatever your preferred footwear is.

To say nothing of Obama, who has a law degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the US and by extension, the world. Who is familiar with legislatures and how they operate. Who engenders good will, wherever he goes. You ought to set up an image of him in your parlor and pray every morning that he ascends to the oval office in lieu of McCain. That would be prudent. And I d rather have a man who has been coveting the presidency for some time. He probably has some well laid out plans. As opposed to some other person who might have been having her morning coffee when she was informed that she was a prime candidate for the executive office....
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 768 (view)
 
Factcheck..It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 4:26:44 PM
Doubtlessly, the truth had stretch marks when she was done with her speech yesterday. Although she came dangerously close to telling outright fibs, I will not fault a politican for stretching the truth. As Caesar said to his cohorts "give the people what they want." He may have regretted his indulgence while he lay unmourned on the senate floor dying from multiple stab wounds, but it is far too soon to predict that end for the comely Ms. Palin. A certain amount of puffing and inflating is rather the norm with politicians, and the fault is rather with the audience than it is with the man or woman at the podium. Oh, how an audience loves a puppeteer and a consumate magician. With the flick of a wand he is supposed to dispel the worries and fears of the gathered faithful. The audience is rather aware that they are being unscrupulously wooed, but they'd rather have that than a chastisement. This is arguably why Jesus was not overly popular with the Pharisees and the Sadducees; he promised damnation and a scourge, rather than the usual profuse but empty assurances of bountiful harvests....
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 759 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 2:28:56 PM
A very enlightening poem that elicits laughter without the mirth. Inasmuch as I maintain a healthy respect for all drunk Jamaicans, that poem is somewhat crass. Palin did make a good speech yesterday, even if factually deficient in some aspects. She will either prove to be an asset to McCain in the future months, or she may shoot herself and McCain in the foot. Either way, she is off to a good start. I hear she is quite the huntress, and one can see a dalliance with Cheney (also an avid hunter, albeit a dangerous one to be around) in the offing. Time will tell, but in the mean time, I am giving her a chance to prove herself...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 757 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/4/2008 1:20:31 PM
I don't believe anyone thinks that reliance on alternative sources of energy will materialize, pronto. Rome wasn't built in a day. What democrats are advocating is that we should start making some serious efforts in that direction. Efforts that consist of more than simply advising the automotive industry to seek such alternative sources. Boost research on that issue, so to speak. The concepts are already tangible. We just need to figure out an efficient way to harness them. Oil is a very finite resource. It will be entirely depleted someday. Even more troubling though, is our reliance on foreign sources of said oil. As a republican, this should present something of a quandry. Our dependence on oil makes us reliant on nations whose ideologies and inclinations - to put it mildly - are not necessarily consonant with ours. We are - whether by default, quirk of faith, accident or design - enriching those countries whose citizens 'want to kill us' as Bush so eloquently asserted in one of his rare moments of brilliance. Since national security is evidently the republicans' concern to the exclusion of all else, I would have thought this would be of paramount interest for the party.

But oh, silly me. I had forgotten about the illustrious Haliburton and her beneficiaries. About Cheney and his cronies who dabble in oil - like so much blood - to the detriment of the country. That also 'seems like a double standard to me.'
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 704 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/3/2008 6:09:13 PM
Oh, I don't doubt that Obama may not be able to achieve some of the lofty ideals he has espoused, as alluring as they are. At least at the beginning. Politics by its very nature involves a series of compromises that might confound the illustrous James Bond himself, and gaining the White House is but one step in many. Well, its the biggest step actually. But after the angels set down their trumpets and the smog generated from the campaign trail dissipates, the president can then assess the situation and weigh the vying interests. It would take someone with both an advanced intellect and a backbone to push through all the mandates that he set for himself before being ushered into the White House. Despite the 'clear' delineation of the powers, an astute president can find creative ways of pushing through his agenda regardless of any opposition he may encounter from our distinguished Congress. Roosevelt was especially adept at this during the Great Depression. Obama seems to be possessed of the intellect to seek those loopholes out. You see, he was a lawyer, and a better breed of ferrets would be hard to find in the length and breadth of our land. Any land, actually. George Bush, great wizard that he is, used signing statements to defy congress. It appears that he was rather befuddled by the division of powers as set forth in the Constitution, and saw it as his Christian duty to inform Congress of his prerogative to ignore those laws which he felt were unconstitutional. It was the best he could do, poor soul, in light of his deficiencies. It would be tragic to burden McCain in the same manner, which is why I propose the Obama/Biden ticket with unbridled enthusiasm
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 636 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/3/2008 7:31:57 AM
'This is coming down to PALIN and OBAMA. This is amazing! What would have more trascendency in history? The first black MAN president or the first WOMAN vice president? OBAMA is black but he is still a MAN. The first WOMAN vice president of the most powerful nation on earth is more of trascendency!! Even NOSTRADAMUS saw it!'


That's right, even the paparazzi have come to the reluctant, but unanimous conclusion that Obama is in fact a man. In the quintessential Homo sapiens form. This, despite days of camping out by the john in the hopes of catching a glimpse of his private parts. While that's more than might be said for Michael Jackson, par exemple, I fail to see the point. 'Transcendency?' Ha! Palin is a woman, but she is still Caucasian. The first president in the 'leader of the free world' who isn't entirely of the Caucasian persuasion is more of a transendency. A wall-gecko foresaw this portentuous event in the glorious days of the erstwhile Civil War...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 608 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/2/2008 8:42:51 PM
'Well, you can disagree as much as you like'

A rather cheap dig, and one that was rather uncalled for, given that I was rather civil about my dissent. Not entirely unexpected, I suppose, given that I have come to expect such from folks unable to express themselves in a more cordial manner, latin name for 'Our Lord's Prayer,' notwithstanding. Well, each to his/her own counsel. I am off to bed, where I shall dream of the redoubtable Ms. Palin...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 601 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/2/2008 8:23:27 PM
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I cherish history as well, and I have a permanent impression of the birth of the colonies, when puritans established them in order to practice their religion free of the excesses to be found in their former metrpolis. Many of such reminders are still in evidence today, such as the origina significance of the state of 'Maryland.' The founding fathers undoubtedly set out to devise a constitution that would rectify the excesses in England, which was why the seperation of church and state was so dear to their hearts, and darn the Archbishop of Canterbury! Still. Their primarily protestant persuasion ruled their lives, and they treated Catholics and other denominations (still do to some degree) with ill concealed suspicion. Taking all that into consideration, I believe this to be an indelible part of American history, and one that should not be lost. I am sure you can see that as a black catholic, I have little to gain by that point of view. I am doubly a minority in that regard....
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 597 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/2/2008 8:09:32 PM
Charles....I am sure you must have realized by now that I am advocating such teachings at our schools not because of any deeply rooted belief in Christianity. As a black person, my hypocrisy certainly has very finite limits, and Christianity has its fair share of major flaws. However I do not feel that children should be deprived of any aspect of history, including that which we may disagree with or find distasteful. Children are astute and perceptive, and in time they should find no difficulty in taking a bite from the forbidden fruit, thereby learning to decipher right from wrong on their own account...
 Barredbard
Joined: 2/26/2008
Msg: 595 (view)
 
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/2/2008 7:55:03 PM
Nomadic...I am delighted! Anyone that knows the latin name of 'Our Lord's Prayer' is one to pay heed to. However, I disagree with you. Fundamentally. We inherited our legacy directly from Great Britain. At the time - all the founding fathers - great and small, were Christians. Presumably even the roaches and other minor biological fauna acknowledged and reflected this religious persuasion. The fledling nation that they set out to devise by the aid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were based on Christian notions of piety, fairplay and justice. It does not murder our diversity to have our history reflected in the training facilities for our youth. In every country in the world, children are exposed to whatever religion their ancestors practiced, if only while in elementary. Whether it is Isreal, Bora-bora, Paraguay or England. History is intertwined with culture, and to understand our culture - any culture - you need a firm grounding in history. I doubt that there is anyone currently in the US that does not know of its predominantly Christian history. Otherwise it would be a discrimination for virtually the entire nation to not work on Christmas day, whereas other religious holidays are not honored quite so devoutely. And in the same vein, in the name of diversity, we should become the tower of babel, and give up English as our Lingua Franca. This would mean speaking all the conceivable languages that we have in the cauldron that we call the US, including Hebrew, Arabic, a myriad of African dialects, etc. I am sure you can see the practical hurdle that this would impose. So rather than entirely denying our children any exposure whatsoever, I advocate that we at least expose them to that which was our forefathers' preoccupation, upon which the country was established....
 
Show ALL Forums