News and Current Events - 2012

[Tony_]

How 'bout to HAVE a conversation rather than a blanket condemnation of everything Republican and how disappointing the US and its policies are to every so called intelligent person in the universe (inluding all of Tony's new ones?) There ARE other opinions and whether I agree with them or not, there is no reason NOT to bring it up.

 Well, Doodler, I take this as referring to my earlier post about the staggering news, just these past several days, ignored by most, that the scientists now have the overwhelming evidence of probable intelligent life out there, past our blue skies.
 As a matter of fact, absurd as it may sound, those peoples would most likely have traits and peculiarities similar to our own.  Even here, Dolphins are not that much different.  Very goofy.

 So, yes, a conversation that is open, non-robotically cloned as liberal or conservative, is just what I, personally, would hope for here. Not that I have any right to that, of course.

 As for the challenges to your own methods of cracking the cinder-block walls of same-old, same-old thinking, I hardly think they are dishonest. We've covered Poe's Law, whereby you were exposed in some of your (much-needed) techniques.
  How about Jonathon Swift?  He said the resolution to the Irish problem was for the English to roast and eat Irish babies.  Would he be blasted here, taken literally, and thus ending satire and irony as a method of nudging people?
  FWIW, Doodler has  subtly bapped me inumerable times. By doing so, she has thereby shaken my thinking to the better.  Do I know when she is serious or not?  Not always.  But I do not think she is in any way dishonest.  Frankly, she reminds me of Annie Proulx.

 Meanwhile, back to the aliens.  If they are monitoring our planet, and scanning for references to themselves, I hope they would be welcome on our forum (under some IP address or other) and I hope they become Brokies.  Maybe some already are  .  But I do respectfully request of them that they stay OUT of the "Was Ennis Gay" thread.  That should be reserved for terrestials.  Of course, that would be a management and moderator decision  .  But they may have something to offer.  And we can only hope Jake is never snatched by the more fanatic....

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

^^^

To respond to Tony, I also want to disagree on the point that our posts here are a blanket disapproval of Republicans.

I responded to the question about which one of them I could support.  Some pages back.  I won't repeat it here.

The point is to look at the issues and discuss them. I posted here as well, I have tried to listen to Michelle Bachman, She is the one who turned me off, not the fact that she's a Republican.

In fact, I wish with all my heart there could be a worthy Republican candidate.  Maybe someday there will be, again.

IMO, merely posting some provocative statement with a few words in all-caps -- especially if you don't believe it -- is not fair to the rest of us.  Also the idea that somebody judges we need to be shaken up.  We are already shaken up for a century's worth!

[garyd]

One person has pm'd me and asked if I am modding with these posts responding to doodler. The answer is no. Linda is the moderator of this thread.

This, therefore, does raise the question as to why you consider it necessary to "step in"?
Doodler has been a participant in this and several other threads for quite a while. 
I can find nothing to support that she is exhibiting inappropriate internet behavior.  She is certainly not a "drive by" or "hit and run" poster nor is she anything near what I understand to be a "troll'. 
I also do not consider her posts to be "conversation killers" or frivolously provocative.   
A couple of us had some fun with the "lord helps those..."  post but the fact is, there are many people who actually do subscribe to that philosophy whether or not it is incorrectly attributed to the "Bible". 
I don't think it is important to the conversation as to whether or not Doodler actually subscribes to this trite little aphorism.

Doodler may not possess the superior level of conversational expertise to which you apparently aspire but I don't think her posts are deserving of such Sister Aloysius wrath.
 
I don't know if you have noticed but one must tread quite carefully on this thread when daring to present an alternative point of view. (Which is fine; the forum does not bill itself to be a bastion of conservative or even moderate thought....nor should it.) 
Debbie, (in response to an interesting query from Doodler by the way), has somehow mustered the intestinal fortitude to watch quite a few of the Republican Debates, made a cogent response which was met, by a respected member of the forum, with a dismissive and flippant response contributing little to the substance or continuation of the subject thus prompting the polite and ever gracious Debbie to post an unnecessary defense of her position.   
I see there has been no moderator outrage or posted lofty disgruntlement concerning the fact that Marge's post added little if anything to the desired aspirational tenor of the thread. 

[janjo]

I have no wish to step into the "modding" discussion, as I like to see all of the postings here which teach me lots of things that I don't know about US politics.
However, it does seem to me that it must be very frustrating to be a genuine Republican voter, when faced with the shower of religious right / mormon / evangelical candidates from which to choose a potential president.
There seems to be little in the way of new ideas for the better governance of the USA in any of their programmes, just hatred, extremism, and scapegoating. Presumably there are many sensible Republican voters who would like to see some more right wing financial management of the US economy who because of the religious extremism inherent in most, if not all of the candidates, don't feel that their views are represented at all.

[brokebacktom]

^^^^^

So true.

[Tony_]

 I don't know if you have noticed but one must tread quite carefully on this thread when daring to present an alternative point of view. (Which is fine; the forum does not bill itself to be a bastion of conservative or even moderate thought....nor should it.)  

 Gary, I've noticed one conservative poster just give up. Or that's what it seemed like, to me.  I did, myself, usually disagree with what he wrote, but never jumped in, as a courtesy, and also as a mark of good will.
  Your last post, BTW, on the closed thread, was  one of your best, but I forgot to say so, then. I was not aware of the nuances of your political beliefs.

Meanwhile, I was just kidding, of course, about aliens registering on this forum.  But I do have a quacky belief, if we ever were scanned, by an intelligent life form, they could do worse than trolling about here.  We're very interesting people persons.  And de-constructing our posts for emotions and reasoning, might do them some good.  Unless they are carnivorous and, well, foraging.  In which case.....it's haul tail time  .

[oilgun]

I have seen and read enough from other wars to know that this stuff goes on all the time
on all sides of the equation.  Just watch the miniseires THE PACIFIC.  Read Studs Terkel's
book THE GOOD WAR.  I read an article several years ago about some soldiers in one of
the Baltic countries who would go and dig up old WWII enemies bodies and urinate on them
because they were bad men.  For things like this to happen and then all sides get so offended
I have to laugh.  I remember talking to my cousin around 1970 when he came back from being
in Vietnam and some of the things he was saying went on would make your hair stand on end.
Nowadays where anything can be filmed and shown to the world in a minute, I have no doubt
there's countless atrocities on all sides that one can use to paint how horrible we all are.  And it's
not that I condone these things and when they arise they shouldn't be condemned for what they
are, but there's a lot of wisdom in the "You can't handle the truth," line made famous by Nicholson.
What are we to expect when we train our military to do unspeakable things and then send them to
places for years on end to carry out what they're taught and then we get so offended when they
act up.  I know--why don't we not send out troops into areas we have no business being in for
decades?

I don't see how this incident equates with losing whatever respect you had for Clinton and Obama.
I am curious as to how that translates?

I wasn't shocked by the video at all. Hey, I saw that infamous video of civilians getting gunned down while the marines in the helicopter laughed like they were playing a video game.

I was referring to Clinton's response to the video.  She seemed so upset, claiming that "it's absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behaviour that is expected from our military personnel.."  and the rest of the spin that she regurgitated.  Would this be the same values and standards of behaviour that allows the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?  Are the same values that allows assassinations, even of American citizens?  The USA is a rogue state and that's why I'm disappointed with the (murderous) Barack Obama.

I hate that the marines in the video will be made scapegoats, like the ones at Abu Ghraib, when the military brass and the administration are guilty of far greater crimes and are celebrated.

[garyd]

as I like to see all of the postings here which teach me lots of things that I don't know about US politics.

As do I. 
I caution, you however, that you are only really seeing/reading one side(far left side)  of the political spectrum on this thread.
I realize that statement is a generalization but I think it is "generally" accurate.

However, it does seem to me that it must be very frustrating to be a genuine Republican voter, when faced with the shower of religious right / mormon / evangelical candidates from which to choose a potential president.

It is frustrating. (though I would be at a complete loss as to how to describe/define a "genuine Republican voter".  }

I do think it is important to understand, however, that this frustration is shared by both Democrats and Republicans.  Due to our current "nominating" or "primary system" and the fact that all of the early primaries occur in small areas of the country which represent the more extreme political segments of both parties, the candidates must, or so they think, pander to the views of those voting.
Four years ago we were subjected to these three ring circus debates from both Democrats and Republicans.  The Republican "hopefuls" were just as obnoxious as they are this time around and the Democrat "hopefuls" , for the most part were falling all over themselves to see who could be anointed the most "progressive".  I can not find, and wish I had saved, President Obama's (then candidate) website which was chock-a-block full of every possible "kid in a candy store" left wing desire....end the war in a few weeks, close Guantanamo in a few days, universal, single payer, health care, $10,000 grants to the middle class, new scholarships, alternative fuel initiatives, and on and on.  All, would be funded by America's corrupt businesses and, of course, the evil rich who had always been evil but had become even more rich due to the evil Mr. Bush and his controller Darth Cheney. 

As has historically been the case, as Super Tuesday approached both Mr.Obama and Mr. McCain had already gravitated closer to the center and, once elected, President Obama, as it is with any President, moved firmly to the center since all find it impossible to lead from either the left or the right. And, though I thought it might be overcome, I fear President Obama's woeful lack of experience and understanding of executive leadership may prove to be his Achilles heel. 
This, along with the typical disenchantment of the far left with his perceived inability to deliver on his undeliverable campaign promises could result in his loss of the Presidency in November.

There seems to be little in the way of new ideas for the better governance of the USA in any of their programmes, just hatred, extremism, and scapegoating. Presumably there are many sensible Republican voters who would like to see some more right wing financial management of the US economy who because of the religious extremism inherent in most, if not all of the candidates, don't feel that their views are represented at all.

There are truckloads of excellent ideas on both sides of the political spectrum.  Congress, however, no matter how eloquent the President, will not just "get along" and enact the necessary financial safeguards, spending cuts, and revenue generating initiatives.  We need a leader with a plan and the skills necessary to see that the plan in implemented.
I would hate to see us elect a Ron Paul or a Mitt Romney simply due to our perception of their "consistency" or "executive leadership' abilities.  Mainly because, at the moment at least, their "plans" are mostly ideological hot air, and/or unproven, even disproven, theoretical nonsense.


[/quote]

[killersmom]

Well there is a reason for the board being called "Hot Topics" and this thread "News and Current Events".

I don't come in here much as a moderator, as the conversation tends to go along, with good respectful discussions. I don't add a lot here as a poster, due to lack of information most times, and my own personal idea of not getting into political discussions, but like Tony,  I learn an awful lot from what I do read and it has given me a lot of food for thought. I do, however, put the odd tidbit of non political news in here at times, as do others occasionally. I do, as the moderator, though, read every single post here.

Just like previous topics that tended to go off in left field a bit, and really did not stick to the true title of news and current events, I did not intervene until it got on the contentious side. I have let this current trend go until now, since it was fairly calm, but the last few pages the conversation has gotten past contentious.

So, I am asking everyone to take the conversation back to news and current events. Please be pleasant to one another and respect one another's opinions. We do this most of the time. I am not asking you to always agree with each other, that would be impossible, (and boring) but to respect others in here as we want to be respected. If you feel you disagree with another poster's opinion about something and cannot pose an answer in a respectable manner, then take it to pm and discuss it there, or just let it lie. I know this aspect would be hard, (I know from personal experience) but it can be done, (as I also know from personal experience).

So that's about it. I'll repeat, I am asking everyone to take the conversation back to news and current events.
Thanks.

[killersmom]

I would hate to see us elect a Ron Paul or a Mitt Romney simply due to our perception of their "consistency" or "executive leadership' abilities.  Mainly because, at the moment at least, their "plans" are mostly ideological hot air, and/or unproven, even disproven, theoretical nonsense.

Or as some exit polls have stated, that a certain percentage of the voters are voting for a candidates that has the best chance of defeating Obama. Opinions like this drive me nuts.

[killersmom]

Just an aside note for future reference. Back in 2008, we opened a thread for the elections of that year, when the primaries were over. I will do that again this year. It will be sometime around the first week in June. All the discussions will continue here until then.

Thanks.

[garyd]

Or as some exit polls have stated, that a certain percentage of the voters are voting for a candidates that has the best chance of defeating Obama. Opinions like this drive me nuts.

Yes, that IS a crazy maker but I guess at least they are thinking (if that is the right word ) outside their own little box and set of prejudices and ideas and attempting to find a practical alternative i.e someone who will appeal to most Republicans as well as the much-needed independent vote.  Such a person will not be a right wing nut case.....usually.

This is pretty much how candidates were nominated back in the good old days of "smoke filled" back rooms at national political conventions.  I am not so sure our current system is all that much of an improvement. 

[killersmom]

Yes, that IS a crazy maker but I guess at least they are thinking (if that is the right word ) outside their own little box and set of prejudices and ideas and attempting to find a practical alternative i.e someone who will appeal to most Republicans as well as the much-needed independent vote.  Such a person will not be a right wing nut case.....usually.

This is pretty much how candidates were nominated back in the good old days of "smoke filled" back rooms at national political conventions.  I am not so sure our current system is all that much of an improvement. 

Very true, Gary, it has not improved much, if at all. I guess my point here is that this thought is even in the equation. Instead of being concerned and backing someone who will even attempt to solve some of the big issues, they are using this as one of the reasons.

Although what you said in an earlier post is very true as well. I cannot see any of the candidates, Independent, Republican or Democrat accomplishing much of anything without true bipartisanship. This just is not in the equation of two or three party politics.

[Marge_Innavera]

[Huntsman] does support "bipartisanship" and he doesn't seem tied to standard party or religious rhetoric.  Although he doesn't support gay marriage (none of them do, Republicans or Democrats) he supports same-sex civil unions and isn't afraid to say so, despite being a good Mormon.

A member of a church that's spent millions engineering anti-gay votes from Maine to California -- literally.  Most of Huntsman's image, if one can call it that, of the 'palatable' Republican candidate is based on his comparatively low profile and low polling numbers; in that context, talk is not only cheap but low-risk.  

For a candidate to oppose marriage equality but "support civil unions" was something we were all expected to be impressed by in 2008, and God/dess knows plenty of people saluted that particular flag when it was run up the flagpole on the Democratic side. Now it's a hallmark of relative enlightenment on the GOP side.  I do know that Obama said the same thing and now claims to be "evolving"; I doubt Huntsman would see much 'evolution' once he got to the White House.

Nothing I've seen or heard from Huntsman shows any indication that he's much different from the rest of the GOP field, his reply to Romney about divisiveness notwithstanding.  He's reasonable only by contrast, especially in view of his support for gutting sorry, reforming Social Security and Medicare.

[garyd]

A member of a church that's spent millions engineering anti-gay votes from Maine to California -- literally.  Talk is cheap, not to mention low-risk for someone who's not seen as having a realistic chance of winning.

For a candidate to oppose marriage equality but "support civil unions" was something we were all expected to be impressed by in 2008, and God/dess knows plenty of people saluted that particular flag when it was run up the flagpole on the Democratic side.  That was then; this is now.  

No, thank you.  Nothing I've seen or heard from Huntsman shows any indication that he's much different from the rest of the GOP field, his reply to Romney about divisiveness notwithstanding.  People who see Huntsman as the palatable Republican are doing so mainly on the basis of his comparatively low profile, and ignoring pesky little details like his support for gutting sorry, reforming Social Security and Medicare.

I admit I have not read everything he has to say about Medicare and Social Security.  However, I do know that both need some major adjustments.  Social Security might be viable until 2037 but only if the government can print, borrow, or steal all the money that it owes to the so called trust fund. 
I don't think means testing is gutting the system.  It is a viable alternative and should be studied.  I simply do no think we should view Social Security as a universal "retirement program" but rather as a safety net for those who truly need one or as one small part of one's retirement strategy for those who have the ability to supply a significant amount of their own retirement funding.   
I also think that we should bite the bullet and not put a cap on payroll contributions though I would very much like to see a financial analysis demonstrating the degree to which this would help. 
Medicare is here to stay but it, combined with the new medical legislation, is a financial disaster in the making and needs to be addressed.  Confiscating the entire wealth of the top 1% would not fix the problem and continuing to harangue about it, while soothing to progressive soul, will not quench the financial thirst. 

I am just as suspect as you regarding his stance on social issues and I remain quite skeptical of not only his faith but any thinking person's adherence to Mormon "theology".   (Take this with a grain of salt as I am not the most religious person to begin with.)
Finally, to be honest, I think all "unions" should be considered from a government standpoint as "civil unions".  I tend to like the system, as I understand it anyway, employed in Britain.