RE: Idiot McCain (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/21/2008 6:51:24 PM)

        He's a real, live Ralph Steadman illustration.



Aynne -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/21/2008 8:05:22 PM)

PMRC was Tipper Gore's idiotic creation, that has what to do with Hillary?  
A shriller Bush? Not quite. McCain is Bush with elderly dementia. Hopefully Joe Leiberman will be able to follow him around and whisper in his ear for the rest of the election year. Kind of like ole Ronnie and Nancy, awww, the good old days..[:-]




quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

And has Hillary said or done anything to make us think that healthy dissent won't continue to be stifled under a Clinton presidency? 

PMRC ring a bell?  

Has she said or done anything to indicate that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', the Patriot Act, and so forth will be stricken on her first days in office? 

Hell, she won't even commit to ending the war, setting 2012 as the earliest timeframe to begin to prepare to aggressively start looking into considering some form of withdrawal of troops.

Looks like Bush with a shrill voice to me.





Asherdelampyr -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/21/2008 10:07:47 PM)

Hillary Clinton fully supported Tipper Gore in her efforts with the PMRC, as well as lots of other "family values" type of shit



Irishknight -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/21/2008 10:47:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: snappykappy

i can respect the office not the person who got elected to the office

Well said. 



peterK50 -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 4:53:41 AM)

I need an explaination on how yet another old-white-rich-male-career politician is going to effect "change" in Washington?



cjan -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 5:03:59 AM)

Imo, we will always have only a choice between the lesser of two evils under the current electoral process. Nothing will change until we have fundamental campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections with contributions and spending limits. Untill that time comes, if it ever does, the candidates will be beholding to special interest that fund their campaigns and to the back room corrupt party poobahs who call the shots. We, in the U.S. are just slightly better off than those "democracies" that field only one party candidate and have the "choice" to vote only "yes" or "no".



kittinSol -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 5:28:45 AM)

Not sure it makes the US democracy better, cjan. It's unbelievably strange, for example, that republican voters can go in and participate in the election of the democratic candidate, and vice-versa. It's like scoring your own goal at football: why is it designed that way that people don't have to belong to a party in order to vote for its candidate?



Sanity -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 5:47:06 AM)


Your "campaign reform" would make us more like the one-party "democracies" that you complain of by limiting free speech. What you're calling 'spending limits' are in fact free speech limits. Limiting advertising dollars for campaigns is limiting speech,  and that's not only unconstitutional it's also a very dangerous path to begin going down.

You are proposing speech limits and giving the government  ultimate control of who may or may not run for office.

Not a good idea.


quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Imo, we will always have only a choice between the lesser of two evils under the current electoral process. Nothing will change until we have fundamental campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections with contributions and spending limits. Untill that time comes, if it ever does, the candidates will be beholding to special interest that fund their campaigns and to the back room corrupt party poobahs who call the shots. We, in the U.S. are just slightly better off than those "democracies" that field only one party candidate and have the "choice" to vote only "yes" or "no".



kittinSol -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 5:48:58 AM)

So in effect, whomever has the most money has the most free speech.



Aynne -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 5:57:40 AM)

Asher,  Susan Baker co-founded the PMRC with Gore in 1985. 23 years ago...
As far as family values, the republican party uses that as their platform, not Clinton. You know, the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, stripping of civil liberties, all in the name of "keeping us safe".    Kind of sounds like "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. "

Who actually believes that? Jeesh..



Sanity -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:01:02 AM)

Oh, everything is supposed to be fair. I get it... Well, we could nationalize the newspapers and the airwaves I suppose, to make everything perfectly fair. Put Diebold in charge of who can advertise, and in charge of campaigns.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

So in effect, whomever has the most money has the most free speech.



kittinSol -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:05:36 AM)

Noooo, I didn't say it had to be fair, you did. I asked a pertinent question, though.

I think a little bit of transparency in party funding, as well as a self-imposed limitation on the amount of circus a media campaign will generate, wouldn't harm democracy, au contraire.

But you obviously prefer a song and dance to an informed debate :-) .



RealityLicks -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:13:45 AM)

quote:

  ORIGINAL: Gore Vidal
(on McCain)
"I’ve never met anyone in America who has the slightest respect for him. He went to a private school and came bottom of his class. He smashed up his aeroplane and became a prisoner of war, which he is trying to parlay into ‘war hero’."

In his view, McCain is “a goddamned fool. He was on television talking about mortgages, and it was quite clear he does not know what a mortgage is. His head rattles as he walks”.


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3952774.ece



kittinSol -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:15:40 AM)

Gore Vidal can be so deliciously bitchy [8D] .



Sanity -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:18:28 AM)

Informed debate?

Okay, we can pretend you weren't decrying the lack of fairness...

We can pretend anything you'd like, and call it "informed debate".

Paint it any color you like, sweety!



RealityLicks -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:19:16 AM)

"His head rattles".  Priceless.
[sm=lol.gif]



kittinSol -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:19:52 AM)

[8|]



Mercnbeth -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:37:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne
I will not support or respect the "leadership" of McCain any more than I have that lying incompetent idiotic buffoon Bush for the past excrutiating 8 years. Blind obedience to bad leadership is not patriotism and healthy dissent is necessary for a free democracy.
Respect for the office is not "blind obedience" or even "support". Coming from the perspective as a former apologist and supporter for President Bush the only respect remaining for him is in consideration of the office. "Buffoon"? Well - I won't go into that again but to say, he very intelligently planned and succeeded in serving his agenda. The cost was the credibility of his party, the destruction of the economy, and most importantly the death of US soldiers.

quote:

ORIGINAL kittinSol:
So in effect, whomever has the most money has the most free speech.


No, not in effect, in actuality. The status quo incumbents do more every day to make sure that trend continues and it becomes more difficult for a non incumbent to be elected. Its a circle of life thing. The incumbents put through laws benefiting those represented by PACs and the PACs produce issue ads, the incumbents get reelected. It isn't "free" speech - the tax payers foot the bill.



RealityLicks -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:43:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan
 We, in the U.S. are just slightly better off than those "democracies" that field only one party candidate and have the "choice" to vote only "yes" or "no".


I don't really see the advantage.  In the UK, the parties work out who should lead them and that person then has a major - but hardly final - say in the manifesto.  The manifesto is what voters are supposed to buy into. Or not.

I think the weakness in our sytem is that the manifesto is virtually never fully implemented ...but I'd always assumed the same was true in the US.

I'd echo kittinSol's questioning the wisdom of letting all voters have a say in who leads each party -- partly because as she says it is open to abuse but primarily because it feeds the cult of personality around the president.  Which leads me to my next point...

I cannot emphasise enough how much I prefer a system where the head of government and the head of state are two different people.  The head of government is simply an employee, paid to do a job.  The head of state however, has a symbolic significance best divorced from any real power in my view.  Two hats on one head doesn't seem sensible.

In Britain, no-one has to stand and applaud when the lying war-monger who currently runs the show enters the room.  The fact that your press corps does so - especially with a large population who may never see this person in the flesh and so rely on the media - is fundamentally flawed.




kittinSol -> RE: Idiot McCain (5/22/2008 6:44:44 AM)

So in actuality whomever has the most money is 'more equal' than the others [:D].



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875