Obama '08?

I missed most of it, but watched a video on their non-answers in regard to illegal immigration. I have never heard so many whys and wherefores, and evasive non-answers in my life. At the end of the answers, you realize there were no answers. Probably typical of the entire debate. Long on political speak, very short to non-existent on solutions. After all, a solution might make somebody upset and not vote for you, right?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I missed most of it, but watched a video on their non-answers in regard to illegal immigration. I have never heard so many whys and wherefores, and evasive non-answers in my life. At the end of the answers, you realize there were no answers. Probably typical of the entire debate. Long on political speak, very short to non-existent on solutions. After all, a solution might make somebody upset and not vote for you, right>

yes of course Oki evehtryone is wrong except you. It must be reassuring tok now you are the one that is right and the rest of america is wrong.

0 Replies

You are never wrong either I don't suppose dys? If you are never wrong, then I must be since you have claimed I am on virtually everything said here so far.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Looked like a tie to me.

of coarse it's a tie. Their both the same candidate.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Maybe. Certainly not a bad point. One that a lot of interesting things can be said about.

I'm just going to be more pithy though, and note how historical experience determines a lot of this stuff. Europeans used to have a lot of opportunities for "high national emotions" - in as many larger and smaller wars, ethnic clashes, and pogroms. We learned of the real dangers involved in rivalling jingoisms on a small, contiguous continent. This way is a lot safer. Maybe football arenas arent the worse place to live out one's high national emotions.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Maybe. Certainly not a bad point. One that a lot of interesting things can be said about.

I'm just going to be more pithy though, and note how historical experience determines a lot of this stuff. Europeans used to have a lot of opportunities for "high national emotions" - in as many larger and smaller wars, ethnic clashes, and pogroms. We learned of the real dangers involved in rivalling jingoisms on a small, contiguous continent. This way is a lot safer. Maybe football arenas arent the worse place to live out one's high national emotions.

I agree with your pithiness, on the whole, but would point out that pent-up emotions can sometimes get out of hand.

And in case you are unaware, I've never seen anyone bring an American flag to a sporting event - with the exception of the Olympics of course.

0 Replies

finn wrote:

Quote:

Be honest blatham, you are not suggesting that only I am batty, your are clearly suggesting that anyone who was put off by Mrs Obama's comments is batty - and actually, far worse

.

"Far worse" is your addition. "Batty, as regards this matter," was what I said.

Perhaps you perceive an underlying implication that I think being batty about certain sorts of things (say, the way some japanese are batty about those saucer-eyed anime characters) isn't of much significance to the tenor and well-being of a society, but that being batty about other sorts of things might be rather more significant, well, then you'd be right.

0 Replies

Not even a national anthem?

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

nimh wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
You've never been to a European soccer match?

Thats the thing, innit. We reserve that kind of thing for stuff like football matches, and just get on with things when it comes to the rest of our lives.
citizens of postmodern states

Yeah. Like Canada. It was granted a Post-Modernist State Certificate in 1948, the year I was born, and that's why we differ from America and resemble European countries in this aspect under discussion.

0 Replies

The only substantitive difference between the two candidates is how one of them makes you feel.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
nimh wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
You've never been to a European soccer match?

Thats the thing, innit. We reserve that kind of thing for stuff like football matches, and just get on with things when it comes to the rest of our lives.
citizens of postmodern states

Yeah. Like Canada. It was granted a Post-Modernist State Certificate in 1948, the year I was born, and that's why we differ from America and resemble European countries in this aspect under discussion.

Could it also be that most Americans also remember HOW this country was formed, and the sacrifices and the blood it took to become a country.
Remember, the US was the first country to ever break away from their colonial masters, we were the first country to ever declare our independence from another country, and we accomplished it.

Since then, most other countries have been "granted" independence from their european masters, and that includes Canada although to be honest I'm not totally sure how independent Canada is, based on their strange attachment to the queen and the royal govt.

Maybe thats why more americans seem to be more patriotic then more Europeans.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

The only substantitive difference between the two candidates is how one of them makes you feel.

How does Hillary make you feel?

0 Replies

"Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings"

Bob Dylan.

From what I have read most of the blood and sacrifice was on the part of the aboriginals and the Mexicans.

Declaring independence was quite easy really with 2000 miles of ocean between the contending parties and most European governments not being all that bothered about it and pretty well powerless to prevent it. Without European weapons technology clearing the tribes out of the way would have been impossible.

All it proved was that might is right.

But we are where we are and we have no choice but to go forward. Maybe Mr Obama represents what is known as the "revenge of the oppressed". A non-European name on the list of presidents will come sometime.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote-

Quote:

How does Hillary make you feel?

I have a number of "feelings" about the matter.

From my longtime study of powerful women, having choices I mean, I am shakin' in my boots, mi knees is knockin' and mi teeth are chatterin' like a lemur monkey on a freezing night.

Then I sometimes think that it is the natural outcome of the American Dream. That American men need to be taken in hand and managed by the hand that rocks the cradle and which "must be obeyed".

Imagining Mrs Clinton inspecting the Guard with Her Majesty the Queen conjures up scowling faces on the sofas up and down the length and breadth of our Sceptered Isle.

Looking at her performances I find it hard to believe anybody can want anything as much as Mrs Clinton seems to do. Occasionally I glimpse a sense that "winning" is the objective and the WH is forgotten.

The people I see sat behind her when she's working the audience are presumably to become members of her "team" should she win which I don't think she will as I have said from the start.

But I didn't believe Mrs Thatcher could win not even when I saw her take the keys of Downing Street. So what do I know? I was forced into believing it when she put all our noses to the grindstone. Camp beds on the night shifts were a commonplace so that extra income could be earned cleaning windows during the day. Which was great for the wives because they hardly ever saw their husbands and when they did see them they were knackered and earning two wages.

Mrs Thatcher put a stop to that. She was patriotic to a fault. A "Must win" fanatic. Now the wives have to go out and earn their keep and boy does in show.

I also wonder what humiliation she has in store for the faithless rake she married. Ambassador to Baku maybe.

0 Replies

So the debate seems to have gone pretty well. Hillary may have won on points; the end especially seems to have been good. The "Xerox" line seems to have fallen flat and gotten some bad reaction. She didn't do a fight-to-the-death sort of thing -- she seems somewhat resigned to the possibility that she might not win. Of course, that shows vulnerability that may help her. I dunno. I've never really gotten the vulnerability-helping-her thing, even though I believe that it has in the past.

At any rate, there needed to be something big to shake things out of where they are, IMO (and IPO -- In Pundits' Opinions), and that didn't seem to happen. No huge positives for Hillary, no huge negatives for Obama.

Plus I think Obama won a meta-point -- was this debate really necessary? Was new ground really covered?

What I remind myself of though is that of course I've been following things closely for a long time but that doesn't mean every voter has. There may be a bigger impact than I expect in either direction -- those who thought Obama didn't have substance (see, he does) or those who thought Hillary's campaign is already off the rails (she seemed authoritative and calm).

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

"Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings"

Bob Dylan.

From what I have read most of the blood and sacrifice was on the part of the aboriginals and the Mexicans.

Thats funny, I dont remember any Mexicans being in the continental army.
Tell us how many Mexican troops there were, and what colonial regiments they were assigned to.

There WERE however, about 5000 black soldiers fighting with the colonial army, and approx 20,000 blacks fighting with the British army.
The blacks fighting with the Brits had been promised freedom if they joined the Brit army.
Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Most Native Americans opposed the United States, since native lands were threatened by expanding American settlement. An estimated 13,000 warriors fought on the British side; the largest group, the Iroquois Confederacy, fielded about 1,500 men.
At the end of the war Britain negotiated the Paris peace treaty without consulting her Native American allies and ceded all Native American territory between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River to the United States. Full of resentment, Native Americans reluctantly confirmed these land cessions with the United States in a series of treaties, but the fighting would be renewed in conflicts along the frontier in the coming years, the largest being the Northwest Indian War.

Declaring independence was quite easy really with 2000 miles of ocean between the contending parties and most European governments not being all that bothered about it and pretty well powerless to prevent it. Without European weapons technology clearing the tribes out of the way would have been impossible.

So the 60,000 British and German troops in North America in 1779 show how little the Brits really cared about keeping the colonies.
And most European powers were secretly siding with the colonists, and it was the French that provided men, material, and ships to help the colonials defeat the Brits.

All it proved was that might is right.

Actually, the Brits and their German allies outnumbered the colonial forces throughout the entire war, but the colonists were more determined to win, because they had no choice.
For them it was win or die.

But we are where we are and we have no choice but to go forward. Maybe Mr Obama represents what is known as the "revenge of the oppressed". A non-European name on the list of presidents will come sometime.

0 Replies

I guess Hillary is getting desperate for ideas on how to beat Obama...

She set up a "help-line" so her supporters could call in and come up with ways to beat Obama.

But this is the most interesting part of the whole article...

Quote:

But even former president Bill Clinton has now said that if his wife fails on March 4, her campaign will be over.

He told an audience in Beaumont, Texas: "If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be."

Here is a link to the article...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/wuspols222.xml

0 Replies

I forgot to mention that during Mrs Thatcher's period of Iron Rule it was decreed that local authorities had to provide housing for any young lady who presented herself at the offices with a baby in her arms.

This led to a spate of teenage pregnancies due to the fact of how easy it is to get pregnant at that age and the known difficulty of getting your own pad and getting away from the "why don't you" brigade.

Of course, it goes without saying, that the houses had to meet certain minimum standards which required an army of tradesmen as these young ladies were very fond of ringing up about a draught in the front door or the central heating boiler making funny noises.

Then Mrs Thatcher decreed that council tenants had the right to buy their houses at a large discount which increased the longer they had been tenants. They were all on benefit anyway so the council paid their rent so all they had to do was sit tight and in the fullness of time a free house appeared which at today's prices is worth between $240,000 and $400,000 on average although it is double that in a few cases.

And now we have a property owning democracy. Good innit?

There's feminists who talk about it and there's proper feminists who do something about it.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

So the debate seems to have gone pretty well. Hillary may have won on points; the end especially seems to have been good. The "Xerox" line seems to have fallen flat and gotten some bad reaction. She didn't do a fight-to-the-death sort of thing -- she seems somewhat resigned to the possibility that she might not win. Of course, that shows vulnerability that may help her. I dunno. I've never really gotten the vulnerability-helping-her thing, even though I believe that it has in the past.

At any rate, there needed to be something big to shake things out of where they are, IMO (and IPO -- In Pundits' Opinions), and that didn't seem to happen. No huge positives for Hillary, no huge negatives for Obama.

Plus I think Obama won a meta-point -- was this debate really necessary? Was new ground really covered?

What I remind myself of though is that of course I've been following things closely for a long time but that doesn't mean every voter has. There may be a bigger impact than I expect in either direction -- those who thought Obama didn't have substance (see, he does) or those who thought Hillary's campaign is already off the rails (she seemed authoritative and calm).

I saw a lot of it. I thought Obama did much better than usual -- less pausing and much smoother delivery in general. His body language was good, I thought. I thought he answered a couple of attacks very well -- especially the thing about plagiarism but also, indirectly, the "Cult of Obama" hype that's been making the rounds. I thought her attacks fell flat across the board, but she's smart and changed tack. I noticed the change and the delivery in her final point, and everyone seems to think that will play well. Problem for me is, though I recall that her tone and delivery changed in the last question, I don't have any recollection of what she was actually talking about. That might not matter, though, if she can come off as a little more human and connect with people, which I think has been her weakness. She did appear to be borrowing heavily from Edwards, but that's probably to be expected.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Remember [..], we were the first country to ever declare our independence from another country, and we accomplished it. [..]

Maybe thats why more americans seem to be more patriotic then more Europeans.

The Netherlands fought an Eighty Years' War, also called "the Dutch Revolt" or the "Revolt of the Netherlands," to win its national independence from its Spanish overlords - and that was between 1568-1648. National independence was officially declared in 1581.

"In 1579, the northern half of the Seventeen Provinces formed the Union of Utrecht, a treaty in which they promised to support each other in their defense against the Spanish army. .. In 1581 the northern provinces adopted the Oath of Abjuration, the declaration of independence in which the provinces officially deposed Philip II. Philip II the son of Charles V, was not prepared to let them go easily and war continued until 1648 when Spain under King Philip IV finally recognised Dutch independence in the Treaty of Münster."
(link)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know