Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Democrats don't take the black vote for granted. If I'm not mistaken their nominee is black

No one ever said that someone must be a racist if he votes against Obama. No one at all.

Republicans are held to a higher standard on gay marriage because they put it on the ballot, they openly support constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage and they shamelessly placed on the ballot in 2004 to bring out their block vote -- Christian Conservatives (aka The God Squad). Democrats are not out promoting a constitutional amendment and they do not pound their chests, as Karl Rove did in 2004, saying how their strategy of putting the gay amendment on state ballots throughout the country ensured Bush's re-election.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/slater.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why would a black person be a racist if they voted against Obama? I can see why people would vote against Obama and for McCain and quite frankly I can't come up with a valid reason that has anything to do with skin color. Since I will be voting against McCain and Sarah Palin, does that make me an ageist and a woman hater?

I really enjoy this thread and much of the sparring here but I find that I am very disheartened. Its proven to me yet again how very naive I am. And a little ignorant. It's making me afraid of what I can say in this thread for fear that I would be ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Palin represents ‘fatal cancer’ to GOP, conservative says

Posted: 04:19 PM ET

From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

(CNN) – Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, who has expressed doubts about Sarah Palin’s readiness to serve as vice president, said this week the Alaska governor “represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.”

Brooks praised Palin’s debate performance and called her a natural political talent, but told a New York audience Monday that “experience matters”: “Do I think she’s ready to be president or vice president? No, she’s not even close to that,” he said.

“…Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas,” he also said, in remarks first reported by the Huffington Post. “But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."

Other prominent conservatives, including George Will and David Frum, have publicly questioned Palin's readiness to be vice president. Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter, said late last month that recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

Brooks himself has also written skeptically about Palin. "Sarah Palin has many virtues," he wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy...day-open-thread

Look at the button on their Open Thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

You know...."violence" leads to more "violence". If you retaliate, you're just as responsbile as the person who "starated it" which eventually nobody will remember who "started it".......the "violence" will just continue.

There's no need to attack each other.

To quote Robert from Brothers & Sisters: "You're all grown ups. Get a filter!"

And to show that I'm serious about this thread and that I've had enough If there is ANY negative talk towards a member in this thread, they will be suspended. If you don't like it. Fine. I'm ready to pull the trigger.

So my advice, just talk about the issues and don't diss anyone.

To use the Homeland Security Advisory System - this thread is now RED for SEVERE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's up Max. I was going respond to your entire post, but this particular paragraph is near and dear to me.

What Jess said above is a lot of the reason why I am more likely to dislike a Republican opposed to gay marriage than a Democrat. The Republican party has been using gay marriage as a wedge issue for the past 8 years under the leadership of GWB and his right-hand man, Karl Rove. Jess is right - the Republican party put this issue in the spotlight, encouraged ballot issues in every state and were proud of it. Not to mention that GWB is the first president in history that attempted to write discrimination into the US Constitution by way of his gay marriage ban. Casting anyone (including straight couples that don't believe in "traditional" marriage) as second class citizens because they can not get married.

I will add that the only political figures that have supported "conversion" programs (like Palin) belong to the Republican party. Mind you, I didn't say all Republicans. But the ones that have come out in support of such nonsense are of the right wing persuasion. They're wrong. These programs do not work. How would you feel if a politician told you that not only you're not allowed to marry the person you love, but that your entire life is wrong and they want to change it?

Being gay is not something someone chooses. That's a fact. You can't "choose" to be gay anymore than you can "choose" to be straight. And to have a politician, one that is supposed to represent you in Congress, announce it's wrong and you must change...well, believe me. It's not a good feeling.

Concerning Democrats. IMHO, they are more accepting of the GLBT community than Republicans are. Other than gay marriage, Bill Clinton wanted to end the ban on gays in the military when he was elected. And who lead the opposition? Republicans. IA that Dems are given a pass a lot of the time on the gay marriage issue for the reason you said "to get elected". But they have traditionally done more for GLBT than Republicans. Ronald Reagan didn't even say the word "AIDS" until his second term because up until that time, he thought it was a "gay disease". And did you know that there is a gay Republican group - the Log Cabin Republicans - that the Republican party has barred from attending the convention every year since GWB was campaigning?

You see the history there? I think the extra scrutiny of Republicans IRT gay issues is warranted because of it.

I hope that everyone feels welcome to express how they feel in this thread. That's what makes it so much fun. At first, it can be quite intimidating because you never know how your posts will come across to others, regardless of how innocuous you feel they are when you're posting them. But most of us here are, I think, fairly objective and open-minded.

Heck, I'm a liberal through and through but even I find myself nodding (at times) to posts by Brian or Casey.

On the hopes that you will check back into the thread, Brian. I sincerely hope that you reconsider and continue posting here with us. I enjoy your posts, whether we agree ideologically or not, I think we have a lot of fun debating the issues. Come back, buddy! :unsure::unsure::unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This merits a "yes" and "no" response for me. In the grand scheme of things "yes" because McCain probably just meant "that one" as in that one senator.

From a political strategic standpoint "no" and I think it's really the surrogates and other "offended" peope that are running with that. I read an excerpt from Michelle Obama's Larry King transcript and she didn't make anything of it. I think some people just want to use it to their advantage because McCain and now Palin are trying to imply that Barack Obama is unAmerican and make people fear him. No one is going to make the distinction between fearing him as a candidate and fearing him as a black man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I thought his remark "that one" was a a misspeak until I read that story. I thought McCain had meant to say, "which senator vote for it, that one"

When I read that article, it appears that it was intentional and intended to be belittling. McCain has an awful temper, and appears not to be a very good loser. It behaved badly when he was against Bush in the 2000 primaries.

I now think the comment was both disrespectful, intentional and petty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I still think he meant that one senator but because he's such an angry man full of contempt for Obama, he could not control his tone.

The message of his campaign lends itself to his not getting the benefit of the doubt and the fact that his campaign issued "The One" Obama cufflinks doesn't help his cause. He needs to drop the obsession but that's probably hard since certain people in his party seem to have it just as bad like Elizabeth Hasselback.

Since you and GGL articulated the Republicans and the gay marriage issue so well, I just want to reiterate that I see nothing wrong with bloc voting and I don't see a reason to be bothered by anyone who implies that it's done because people don't think for themselves. Even if that is the reason then so what.

There were two groups of people denied the right to vote and it was gender and race related. Women happen to come in all races and black people happen to come in both genders (I know duh). Since we're not that far removed from the Civil Rights movement and the Republican party doesn't seem to be all encompassing then it's not surprising, shocking or strange that most black voters are Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks as always @alwaysAMC The remote was panned in the soap press at the time, especially Philip wandering around in the costume as well as some of the comedy.  I have to admit it didn't bother me, even though I knew how ludicrous the idea was of the Spauldings having a wedding at a theme park. I thought there were some fun moments and I did like the scene where Lucy got to cry and grieve over what Brent had done to her.  I think I was just glad to get away from the stories in Springfield, which were bad and getting worse.  There are a number of attempts at revamping the opening music in 1996. I'll be interested in what you think of them. I remember being glad they updated the photos but also noticing how cheap they looked. The show did need a new opening. Sadly, Rauch would instead just not even have an opening for over 5 years.
    • BTG: - Shelley Curtis first listed as Director on May 19   Another FOJulie director. 
    • It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a good soap cat fight so this was highly satisfying. Loved the Drew/Curtis scenes. Drew may not end up murdered but someone is going to try and kill him and it feels like it’s going to be much sooner than later. Who thought Dante ranting and raving for weeks on end would be good writing just to create angst between him and Gio. I really don’t think you needed to make Dante this fuc.king annoying.
    • I get what you're saying, in that this is what allows you to accept what you are watching, and that works for you. But for me, changing the traits of a character that much with a recast and new writing, then they are no longer the same character.  I am unable to accept that a villain is now just a nice dude because the show wants me to, I just cannot.  If they want a grey character, then they should write off the villain and *create* a new character who is grey.  I'll never accept that Sonny Corinthos is a nice guy, despite what GH wants me to think.  Same goes for the villains on DAYS. It's frustrating for me, and not enjoyable.  It occurs to me that I watch soaps to be entertained, and the current show is just making me angry and irritated. It's not fun for me.  I want to honor Drake to see John's story conclude, but there isn't much of interest to me anymore at all, so I'll probably stop following the show in a few weeks.
    • The wikipedia article doesn't explain much. I watched the Party of Five reboot, it was on Freeform in 2020.  It was five years ago, but I'll tell you what I remember: In the original Party of Five series , the parents died, and the five sibling orphans worked together to raise themselves with the older ones looking out for the younger, while managing the family restaurant.  The oldest child wants to have fun but ends up assuming the responsibility. In the 2020 reboot: The family were Mexican, the parents were undocumented, and the oldest child is an adult who could stay in the US for DACA.  In the reboot, instead of the parents dying -- in the first episode the parents were arrested by ICE and sent back to Mexico.   The five children were left in the U.S. to raise themselves with the older ones looking out for the younger, while managing the family restaurant.  The oldest child wants to have fun but ends up assuming the responsibility.  The teens go through teen stuff and the older ones explore careers.  The child daughter feels sad without her parents, and there is also a baby.  But the children were able to have periodic phonecalls with their parents in Mexico, which were very emotional.  The children hire an attorney to try to get their parents returned to the U.S.  The dad phones them to check on the management of the restaurant.  The younger children crave talking to the mom on the phone. The viewers also see how the parents are coping with the strain in Mexico:  the mom works as a nanny and the dad gets odd jobs-- they almost divorce, and the mom wants to stay in Mexico.  I think a few of the children got to take the bus to Mexico to visit their parents. The youngest child was a baby and the next-youngest missed the parents very much.  In the season one finale, it was decided that the youngest two would remain Mexico and live with their parents.  The older children remained in the USA and were following their dreams.  Season One finished airing just as the COVID epidemic began and everything shut down. The show was not renewed for Season Two.   That's all I remember.  It was good but very different from the original. Edit to add: Amazing how the world has changed in five years.  The reboot was filmed in 2019 during the first Tr*mp presidency, and aired in 2020.  The immigration situation was tense then, and that was explored in the series.  But it seems carefree in comparison to the real world today in 2025. Edit to add more thoughts.  I have no idea what would have happened in future seasons, since the five siblings were no longer a "party of five" at the end of Season One.   Supposedly the cancellation wasn't even announced until after the Season One finale aired.  But the season one finale was 90 minutes and wrapped up some lose ends, so maybe the producers anticipated a cancellation, and did that just in case? Perhaps if it there had been future seasons, the younger children would age and then return to the USA and the five would reunite? I don't know.
    • Probably not. Then again, if any character defined the final 25 years of GL it was Reva.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      The roles of Martin and Kat will now be played by Andre and Eva
    • Nope, we had taste, even in the 90s, and the richest family in town throwing a wedding at an amusement park was never cool. But, isn't funny that they're all back in Florida, but nobody mentions this is where Reva went nuts and drove off a bridge.  It seems like it might trigger some memories.
    • My rationalization (for whatever its worth) is that I'll give a pass to a character who has both been recast and is now written by a different staff (again, I'm under the assumptive that we all know right from wrong). One doubts the current writers want EJ to be a rapist, Julie to be prejudice, Philip to have one leg, or Xander to be a kidnapper.  But, that's what they inherited.  These are characters that resonate with the demo.  And, by soap justice standards, all evildoers receive justice, but doesn't always mean jail.
    • I’m up to May 16, 1996. Lucy/A-M are getting married and they were holding this big secret for weeks on where the location was… all to find out it’s going to be an ad for Universal Studios haha.  Probably was fun back in the 90s, but a bit cheesy looking back now. Although they were on a boat alone, at night, reminiscing about Brent, and A-M promised a tearful Lucy that “the worst is over, there is nothing to be afraid of anymore”… and right after, freaking JAWS comes out of the water to attack them on the ride. LOL. I’ve actually been on that ride and it was as scary in person as it was watching it, but that scene ended up being very cheesy given how serious it was supposed to be. Rick being there in Florida with everyone makes zero sense considering he doesn’t hang out with any of these people, but he’s clearly there because Phillip has shown up. Very plot-driven, but at least I’m getting old flashbacks of Rick/Phillip during this. But yeah, outside of the nuptials, this wedding and the Universal Studios trip (ad) turned out to be more about Phillip than anything. Skulking around in the Frankenstein costume, listening to everyone’s conversations about him, was… interesting. Rick dancing in the street by himself, while the other couples danced together, was pretty funny though. The nuptials were beautiful and I loved seeing A-M/Lucy finally get married. I loved how they mentioned Nadine a few times throughout, but especially during their nuptials. It was a nice touch. I still can’t believe Nick, Susan, Bridget and David weren’t there. I really love the Amanda/Alex rivalry. The digs they make at each other are so funny to me. Dinah and Roger have gone off the deep end with their hatred for each other. She’s making him think he’s going crazy by dressing up as Hart’s mother, gaslighting him into thinking untrue things. Now, he’s putting a drug in her drinks that should make her hallucinate and be psychotic. They both want each other dead, and I can’t imagine they’ll ever come back from this. Blake is now pregnant with twins, and the fear is that Rick is the father, or Rick and Ross are both fathers by split parentage between the twins. I don’t hate this storyline because it’s unique and also possible, which I didn’t realize until I googled it.  The storyline has been on pause for a bit while Rick is in Florida for the wedding, so I’m curious to see where this goes. Annie/Josh have also been on pause a bit given that Reva/Buzz/Alan are all in Florida. I’m sure when Reva gets back home, Josh will continue to lust after her while Annie grows more uneasy. Holly delivered Meg, their child with down syndrome, and she and Fletcher have had a rollercoaster of emotions about it, but overall pretty ‘slow’ and boring here. If I liked Fletcher more, I might care more. I found it really weird that Ben randomly decided to move away and go to boarding school because he felt like he’d be in the way, and Fletcher didn’t really seem to have a big problem with it. Seems more like the writers just didn’t want to deal with him and Meg together. Viviane just confided in Holly that Griffin is Gilly’s father, just as Griffin and Gilly held hands/locked eyes at the diner. Viviane is now trying to seduce Griffin, in hopes that it will make them stay apart. This whole storyline is gross. They’re really going to let a father/daughter get romantic before they know their true relations? And instead of just telling Gilly the truth, Viviane would rather try to cheat on her husband again with Griffin and ‘compete’ with her? This is awful. I’m also losing interest in Dahlia and Marcus. He just told her the truth about her mother, which upset Frank and got Marcus in deeper trouble. But yeah, I’m not really that invested in their budding relationship, especially since she’s still in high school. Oh and they just introduced cell phones on the show and it’s hilarious.  Blake pulls out her cell phone and answers with “Hi, I’m on my CELL phone”. “Yeah, I have a CELL phone” - it’s so funny. They finally updated the opening on May 2, 1996!  Which only covers half the cast, which tells me they will hopefully/finally have two separate openings. It was always weird to me that they could remove someone from the opening quickly, but never add someone new at the same time. The opening was getting so old that half of it was stock images that replaced people that left the show (Nadine, Eleni, Eve, Nick, Mindy, David, Tangie and then some shirtless guy I never could tell who it was). Reva has been on the show for over a year now and she was never in the opening until just now with the update. I can’t believe they let it go that long! Oh same with Annie and Dinah - both were on the show for like 16-17 months before they finally got in the opening.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy