In this Discussion
- beckysioux May 2008
- canoe7grape May 2008
- chancefrench11 December 2009
- cross98bengal February 2008
- DJRose May 2008
- dollarflame6 May 2008
- manx9shrine February 2008
- mayonaise January 2008
- moveadvice72 March 2008
- QueenofthePosers February 2008
- target35ghost February 2008
- Tempe Arizona September 2008
- thephantommilk May 2008
- tune1shade April 2008
- week84crab February 2008
- women60banana September 2008
Comments
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN? THIS was the man who sang "Bomb Iran."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I
100 years of war?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk...feature=related
I actually used to like McCain back in the day, when he worked more closely with the Democrats. But now, he's a fucking lunatic. He did the right thing in retracting his statement, but he's still a terror and an asshole.
And Alice, I think you're right too, that a person whose motivation was selfish could help the nation nonetheless. I'm not sure here whether that would happen or whether such a person would cause more damage. It's really hard to weigh. It's a lot to think about.
It's all a lot to think about...I hope I don't have to...
I know, lol. I mentioned that in my post. And, a few posts up, I wrote that I would never forgive him for doing that. I also posted the lyrics to the original anti-Muslim "Bomb Iran" song along with a youtube link too, lol.
I know that. I mentioned that in my post as well, teehee.
He didn't "retract" anything because he wasn't the one who said it. A Rush Limbough type of GOP radiohost said it, while making the introductory remarks at McCain rally. This is what makes the action so amazing; McCain had nothing personally to do with this man, and really could have and politically should have said "This man is not me. I'm not going to bother about what some other guy, who I don't even personally know, has said." Recall that last year, some other random guy made comments about Hillary Clinton: Hillary shouted that Obama should apologize to her, and Obama said, "What do I have to do with that guy? This is nonsense. I'm not going to apologize for some guy's comment." And we all agreed that Hillary was being silly and indeed, it's ridiculous to apologize for somebody else. Yet, that's exactly what McCain did.
And that's why I'm impressed. It was an act above and beyond the usual decorum, even above and beyond everyday kindness. All I'm saying is, that act makes me wonder if maybe he's not so bad.
I speaking now as someone who has not yet had the time to read through McCain's voting records and history. I plan to do that this weekend maybe or the week after (which will be my spring break). Maybe he really is awful and this was calculated, as Meg said. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. His record and his personal history will indicate his character. I just think he deserves the chance to be researched and judged beyond what negative things he says/does in the election season, because what he's done today was honorable beyond any normal measure.
I just hope that instead of weighing the potential harms of candidates, I can vote for the candidate who I know will work hard for the people.
I agree with that sentiment, but I still think that working hard in the right way is more important than just working hard. Someone may work hard for the people, believing that that entails reducing worker's rights so that businesses are more successful - but to me that's the wrong attitude and so it negates the fact that they're dedicated or honest or experienced or whatever. The policies and ideology are far more important than the qualities of the person implementing them.
And I did pretty horrible on my midterm.
And- and I'm tired.
So, I just decided to pretend tonight is the weekend, and I started looking thru McCain's record.
He's extremely, and I enphasize extremely, anti-abortion. I didn't know how extreme he was until I sat here and looked thru his votes. No funding for accidental pregency abortions, including none for teenagers. Females in the military forbidden from abortions even in overseas hospitals.
That's pretty infuriating. There are few things more disgusting then anti-choice men.
And then there's some votes I can't figure out, like no on funding for after-school children's programs.
I want to hear what he has to say on some of these things; I want to know if some of his votes that I disagree with were made in order to compromise down from the bill's original form, or maybe there was pork attached to the bill that he didn't agree with, or were they made because he sincerely believes afterschool kids didn't need the money.
ick, he voted no on tax benefits for hurricane victims. And a no on tuition help for students. And no on money for Native Americans...but yes on healthcare funding for Native Americans...What's up with that?
However, he did vote no on terminating the International Space Station funding. So, that's good...except odd, b/c the bill was actually not simply to cut the space station funds, but to divert them to veterans. And he is a veteran himself, so this is odd. I wonder the circumstances.
And then, right along with that, he voted no on the Veterans Affairs, HUD FY '96 Appropriations bill, which would have given 37 billion dollars to veterans and also funded environmental projects. What was the context of his vote?
But, on the other hand, he voted no on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which funds intelligence...an odd vote for someone so into national security.
And he voted no on drilling for oil in Alaska, and was against immunity for tobacco companies.
ok, this one's really confusing: first he voted no on increasing minimum wage, then 1 month later, he voted yes. I believe in the right to change your mind, but it's just not helpful when I'm trying to understand what he represents at the core. If he gave a nuanced explanation, that would be fine, except that I can't find one, as of right now. Must google. And what about the fact that he voted against Bush's tax cuts but now wants them permanent?
I also need to look at what bills he himself sponsored. I know he sponsored an ethics reform bill, so that's great...
My conclusion as of now: This man confuses me. I don't understand his positions (other than that he is anti-choice). Maybe I'm just not seeing things. Must read more later. Still don't know what kind of leader he is, much less what kind of person he is.
Alice- yeah, I don't mean work as in labor in any form. I mean that the focus is on bettering the nation, not avenging Daddy's Persian Gulf fiasco or securing oil or declaring a Crusade, while American children aren't getting the resources for education, American workers are getting laid off and the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.
I don't plan on voting for McCain. I want President Obama. But, I figure I should know something about the guy he might be running against, and God forbid, the guy who might be the alternative to Hillary or Nader. Will it be a choice between the lesser of 3 evils? Is McCain perhaps not so evil afterall? Would McCain be another nightmare who must be adamantly opposed? Are the choices all essentially the same? Must research more.
Hillary is considering suing Texas for their complex voting system. Would she do that if she were the one who won 11 states in a row?
Hillary has rolled out a Lydon Johnson-esque ad featuring a sleeping child and herself on the phone to protect this child from the horrors of the world. Obama responded by saying she already had her red phone moment, Iraq, and re-aired an ad in which a top national security guy endorses him.
Ppl are saying that McCain, born to military parents in the Panama Canal, is not eligible to be president. So Obama is cospomsoring a bill right now at this second that would make it clear to all that McCain (and all children born to military parents serving overseas) IS in fact eligible: "Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party's nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign," Obama said. Love, love, love. Seriously, an Obama-McCain election is going to be civil and focused on the issues.
Republicans do not play nice. Ever. Don't think that McCain is going to be any different. I'm already reading loads of repub blogs talking about all the ways that McCain can argue against Obama that Hillary can't do, and they're all DIRTY DIRTY tactics.
"I said 1, 2, 3
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
Next stop is Vietnam
and it's 4, 5, 6
open up the Pearly Gates
Ain't no time to wonder why WHOOPIE
we're all gonna die"
-Country Joe McDonald
1) During the debate, Billary said specifically that the reason she hasn't disclosed her tax returns or her Clinton years records or Clinton library donors for the Mar 4 voters to see (what are you hiding?) is that she was busy campaigning for president. Double standard, anyone? She said she didn't even have time to sleep, yet she had time to, in her words, "relax and have fun" on SNL
(that SNL skit is a whole other issue that irks me...It was pretty racist, what with the white guys with black makeup on, acting like buffoons...And ok, if you found the debate skit funny last week, the joke gets old when it's run a second time. Thanks to this endorsement from an authoritative, high standard piece of journalism-oops, actually, this was a NY comedy mainly watched by 14 year olds. Tina Fey, I found your "bitch is the new black" rather racist; the intentional use of the "black" word obviously has double meanings in this election.
2) What about NATO needed addressing these past 13 months?
3) People seem to be confusing Obama's NATO committee with the committee on Afghanistan, which is actually headed by John Kerry.
4) She missed the Telecom vote when she was in VIRGINIA campaigning, for grief's sake.
5) She only held 2 meetings herself. Big whoop.
6) She said she hadn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted in 2002 to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam Hussein. She didn't have time.
And another thing. Tony Rezco. If the worst thing you did in your life was get another lawn, you must be a pretty clean guy. Who cares about his stupid lawn? Check out the far worse Clinton analog, Mr. Hsu, and the case in which she's not a witness but a defendant: Paul V Clinton.
She makes me sick.
I admit I didn't see all of it, but I think you've gotta give SNL a break here, Sally. Yes, it wasn't politically correct, and yes, it probably had some racism/doublemeanings/whatever- but it's just supposed to be funny. I mean, they can't be funny and make amazing political commentary all the time.
and from what I did see, the Obama impersonator wasn't necessarily acting like a buffoon, just because all his answers got handed to him on a silver platter. For all the audience can see, he might have known the answer, but the "press" still favored him, which was the whole point.
(And Tina Fey isn't on SNL anymore, she's got her own show, 30 Rock or w/e. *is confused* )
Anyways, I don't think you can hold SNL to high standards- I mean, it's at least smarter/morepoliticallycorrect than Family Guy, and that's saying something for American culture.
There was another skit during the show, in which Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were made out to be total idiots. Wow, let's get all the black guys together and laugh. It was disgusting. Is Hillary associated with the white politicians? Do we lump her in with Bush? Or, hey, maybe we could lump her in with Nancy Pelosi? In reality, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have nothing to do with Obama; Sharpton's done nothing related to him and Jackson's support has been rather minimal.
No, no, only the black ppl get lumped together into one big idiotic parade. They were made to look like lumbering clowns. Barack Obama is a law professor and they made him some kind of retard. It's fine to make political jokes, but they did the debate skit for 2 weeks and in the second week, they also had this racist garbage. It's not funny when it's racist, I don't care what the show is. Black Americans were slaves not so long ago, and if we're at the point when we can find this kind of depiction funny, then we're socially sick. You can be funny without being racist. Look at John Stewart- his jokes focus on the issues. Even when he talks about race, its to mock people's racism, not reinforce it.
Tina Fey came back for one episode to endorse Hillary. She made a special appearance to specially say that we should vote for Hillary. I'd say watch it on youtube, but nbc pulled it off. but google it- there's lots of commentary.
P.S. I adore Tina Fey. I think she's comparable Jane Curtin (who I absolutely adore) in terms of SNL chops. The deadpan, the self-deprecating humor, amazing.
I haven't heard it, but as I said, my problem isn't political jokes or jokes about racism. It's when the jokes themselves are racist, and I doubt NPR was racist.
I didn't know they were different people writing that. But still, it was part of the show. Obama's distance from Sharpton and Jackson- I don't see how that's a worthy issue (do we ask why Hillary is distant from Nancy Pelosi?) , but even if it is, the idea can be mocked without being racist. A talented comedian can be funny and make his point without resorting to the "black buffoon" sketch.
It just wasn't well-written. To call something like that racist? Those are fighting words.
I'm not going to pretend that racism is no longer an issue. I just think that the word is overused, especially in cases like this where, as I said before, the issue isn't race so much as a criticism/making fun of a certain person who happens to be part of a minority. If you want to talk about racism, talk about the economic divide still present between the majority and the minority. Or even beyond that, what about sexism?
and Sally, sorry- I didn't realize you were complaining about those other ones as well.
I did see the cartoon bit and I would say that Obama was being portrayed as smart, or at least politically savvy, by keeping Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson at a distance, and the other two were unwanted and therefore duped into staying distant from him. And at the van in the end, I'm pretty sure the other guy was white, too.
But yeah, I do see what you mean in general, and it probably wasn't the best they could do- but like I said, there's only so much you can expect from SNL. They can't all be John Stewart'ses, haha.
So basically- yes, you're basically right, but I don't think you can get too upset over it.
/discussion?
Sharpton is reverend black man. Lieberman is a white man who supports torture. Distance from Lieberman is natural; it's not the same as lumping black ppl together.
Sexism- I have to disagree about calling sexism a "deeper issue" than racism. I really, really don't think we can make that kind of hierarchy. I'm pretty disappointed with the feminist old gaurde, to be honest, especially Gloria Steinem, whom I used to worship and read over and over, but Gloria, b/c of what you've been saying now, I can't look up to you anymore. Just b/c someone is a woman doesn't mean we should vote for her. Anne Coulter's a woman. Eva Braun (Hitler's gf) was a woman. Would we vote for them? The goal of feminism is equality, being able to look past gender and examine actual issues and qualifications. Steinem and the old gaurde have failed at their own objective. I wish she had said "Hillary's plan on point X is better," or "Hillary achieved X and Y as a senator." Then maybe we could evaluate those points. But instead, all Gloria did was support the candidate with the right chromosomes according to her. And yeah, that's sexist. She and anyone else who votes against or for a candidate b/c of gender (or race) should be ashamed.
I have to add here that Hillary's ads were discovered today to have darkened Obama's skin. She's also cried- or at least gotten chocked up and watery- on two nights before two primaries, and blamed her stumbling in one of the earlier debates on intimidation by being in a room full of men. And after losing 11 primaries in a row, she whined that she was being treated unfairly by the media. Poor female victim. If anyone's been sexist, it's Hillary Clinton. If some ppl are putting her down b/c she's a woman, that's bad, but she is putting herself down as a woman by playing to stereotypes and reaching for the gender card when it's convenient, just to win votes, and that's worse.
Hillary will not be the only woman to run for president. We will have a woman in the white house, when we have a female candidate who meets the right qualifications. btw, there have been 29 female governors, and only 3 black governors. There have been 35 female senators and 4 black senators. I'd say women are doing just fine compared to blacks.
As much as Al Sharpton is revered, he is STILL a polarizing figure. That doesn't discount his efforts or what he's done, it's just the truth.
I AM TOTALLY SEEING AL SHARPTON SPEAK TOMORROW NIGHT. I am so excited.
Al Sharpton at Concordia? A+ I say!
Really, he was a great speaker. Even if you don't agree with all of his politics, one could tell that the whole room understood his discussion on the absolute need for the population to be involved in any form of activism they can. The comment about living life so that people don't have to invent achievements to put in your eulogy seemed especially powerful; I've been terrified for a long time about never "being somebody." And, though he stressed that he was making no endorsement, he did make mention of the Democratic Party's willingness to "bend the rules" (specifically in reference to the changing policy regarding counting/not counting delegates from Michigan and Florida).
But more than the presidential race, he addressed the need to continue fighting against police brutality and for equal rights among everyone (i.e. unequal rights are unequal rights, discrimination against one person is not "better" or "worse" than discrimination against another type of person).
All in all, a pretty awesome night.
I feel like I should make something clear too, in all of these arguments, I really am playing devil's advocate. Currently, I am leaning towards being an Obama supporter, I just come across super-Hillary by juxtaposition; I honestly think he would be the stronger candidate against McCain and, really, McCain in office is the last thing I want. I just tend to be the cynic, as I've mentioned before. I don't trust politics based on ideology (which my mom doesn't understand at all) and I don't like when I mentioned my reservations about Obama, people literally asking me if I then didn't care about "hope" and "change." But, even with Al Sharpton's talk tonight, he mentioned the need for figureheads to dramatize problems so that the people would listen and that they would be addressed and, if anyone can do that, Senator Obama seems like the most capable person to carry out this task.
That's so awesome! It sounds like it was really cool night. I'm jealous!
About you playing devil's advocate- I think it's really admirable that you're objective. I, on the other hand, tend to get a little too riled up and need to take a lesson from you. I'm on edge since negative campaigning worked in Ohio, and there doesn't seem to be a way to respond to negative campaigning except a negative rebuttal, which, as David Brooks points out, doesn't fly for a campaign that was meant to be different. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?hp
They (and I) need to take a breath and take a lesson from you.
PS: My Obama pin fell of my coat and now it's lost. That makes me super nervous about omens.