Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
I thought it was interesting when he was going off about how there is no White America and no Black America and no Asian America, just America. While I agree, I can't help but remark on the fact that despite this, blacks insist on the devisive label African American. I don't call myself a white american. I call myself an American. Blacks should cut this nonsense out and listen to Barack.

Wait, I thought you called yourself an African-American? I am confused.

Look, we all know you're actually the Grand Kleagle of the Imperial Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, sitting in a stained wife-beater in your ramshackle farmhouse outside of Sanford, North Carolina at a government-issue desk bought from the Salvation Army typing away on your TRS-80 with a dial up modem. You have a rich fantasy life, but don't think you're fooling anyone.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

I think that the hyphens are predominately perpetuated by the white, pc crowd.

efs

There is nothing lower in the universe than a well-off self loathing suburban white do-gooder. Except maybe one who wnet back to grad school to get a degree in social work after her kids were raised.

They ought to put these people to work in 7-11s or something. I almost missed my train the other night because there weren't enough clerks in the 7-11 to get me through the line quickly enough.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


Look, we all know you're actually the Grand Kleagle of the Imperial Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, sitting in a stained wife-beater in your ramshackle farmhouse outside of Sanford, North Carolina at a government-issue desk bought from the Salvation Army typing away on your TRS-80 with a dial up modem. You have a rich fantasy life, but don't think you're fooling anyone.

S_A_M

Indeed.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Best line of the night, by David Frum:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Reagan’s appearance tonight just underscores one more resemblance between Ronald Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt: They both had worthless children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, did you have a problem with his actual speech, or are you merely annoyed that he made the speech at the "other" party's convention?

I thought his speech was actually pretty good. He was positive, kept the issue relatively neutral politically, and respected the views of those who disagreed with him.

I was no great fan of his dad, but he did seem to inherit both his likeability as a person and his ability to communicate.

I would agree with respect to THK's speech. Very difficult to listen to and watch. Then again, that's not her forte. Knowing this, however, she shouldn't have gotten as much time as she did.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There is nothing lower in the universe than a well-off self loathing suburban white do-gooder. Except maybe one who wnet back to grad school to get a degree in social work after her kids were raised.

They ought to put these people to work in 7-11s or something. I almost missed my train the other night because there weren't enough clerks in the 7-11 to get me through the line quickly enough.

The 2 wars have hurt the labor market.

[Dave]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

3. When I left the room, I immediately realized that he sounds a lot like The Rock.

If he needed votes (and running against the ghost of Mr. My Wife Don't Like Strip Clubs, he shouldn't), he'd probably pick up a few by asking the youth vote if they smell what the Barack is cookin'.

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually watches the conventions, but I suppose that people do.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The 2 wars have hurt the labor market.

What does this mean? That the economy is suffering because of the war or that we don't have enough people to fill low wage jobs because they are over in Iraq and Afghanistan? If its the latter, do you have statistics to support this?

aV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
What does this mean? That the economy is suffering because of the war or that we don't have enough people to fill low wage jobs because they are over in Iraq and Afghanistan? If its the latter, do you have statistics to support this?

aV

It was an off-color joke.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Dave


I find it hard to believe that anyone actually watches the conventions, but I suppose that people do.

Yes. How the fuck do you people watch this shit? I really like Obama, and he seems like a very good speaker and an honest guy, but I got through about 3 minutes of his speech before my eyes glazed over. I'm happy to say that I can see through political rhetoric on both sides. Empty and completely fucking tautological uselessness.

[SlaveNoMore]

spookyfish
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Reagan’s appearance tonight just underscores one more resemblance between Ronald Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt: They both had worthless children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, did you have a problem with his actual speech, or are you merely annoyed that he made the speech at the "other" party's convention?

I thought his speech was actually pretty good. He was positive, kept the issue relatively neutral politically, and respected the views of those who disagreed with him.

I was no great fan of his dad, but he did seem to inherit both his likeability as a person and his ability to communicate.

I would agree with respect to THK's speech. Very difficult to listen to and watch. Then again, that's not her forte. Knowing this, however, she shouldn't have gotten as much time as she did.

1) His actual speech was scientific bunk. It was disingenuous to a fault and perhaps gave false hope to thousands of families across the country with its suggestion that a cure was imminent, when the truth is that there is nothing of the sort.

2) The speech completely ignored the heart of the issue - namely, should the federal government be funding the harvesting of stem cells by destroying embryos? No one has a problem with funding research on existing cell lines. He never articulated the actual issue at hand.

3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Teresa sure is impressed with herself now isn't she. Remind me again, is she running for president or is her husband?

Do you say this because of her speech, or because of her overheard conversation with a reporter?

Given your lolling about on the ground in a subsequent post, I'm assuming that it's the former, and that you decided to tune in to the No Agitation Zone late last night for that update.

So if it's the speech, what bothered you about it?

If it's because you just don't like her, I suppose that's OK so far as it goes. You can contact Penske, whom I suspect has already purchased the THK inflatable hate-fuck doll, as his HRC copy is getting worn at the seams, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Gattigap

(conf. to Slave: I'm guessing that you didn't like it because you found the personal bio boring. Fair point, though I'm not sure what we would expect political spouses to say anyway. Personally, I was surprised she didn't do something outlandish. Maybe they gave her the same drugs that someone apparently gave Dean. WTF happened to him?)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fair point, though I'm not sure what we would expect political spouses to say anyway.

Is the belief that the spouse of politicians are of particular poltical relevance a post-Hillary phenomenon, or does it go back further?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) His actual speech was scientific bunk. It was disingenuous to a fault and perhaps gave false hope to thousands of families across the country with its suggestion that a cure was imminent, when the truth is that there is nothing of the sort.

I didn't hear the whole speech. Did he really frame it that way? I thought I heard part of it as alleging that cures to some diseases could be achieved within a decade (which scientists feel is an ambitious assessment but not an incredulous one).

2) The speech completely ignored the heart of the issue - namely, should the federal government be funding the harvesting of stem cells by destroying embryos? No one has a problem with funding research on existing cell lines. He never articulated the actual issue at hand.

I thought the issue was that by refusing federal funding, it effectively shuts down scientific research in the area, because basic research is systemically dependent upon the presence of such funding, at least in part. My understanding was that if there's no federal involvement, it just doesn't happen. This ain't NPR, where you can easily cover the problem by selling more bookbags and coffee cups.

3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.

Concur.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) His actual speech was scientific bunk. It was disingenuous to a fault and perhaps gave false hope to thousands of families across the country with its suggestion that a cure was imminent, when the truth is that there is nothing of the sort.

Agreed. It was overly simplistic and it suggested that a cure for a variety of ailments was at best theoretical. That said, there is a lot of evidence that embryonic stem cells are different from existing line stem cells (usually taken from bone marrow).

3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.

I think he would have been happy to give the speech at the GOP convention next month. Will you have him? Also, this may not be as partisan as you think. A lot of people in their 50s and 60s, Republicans included, care a hell of a lot more about Parkinson's and Alzheimer's than they do abortion. And this is an area of scientific research where the US falls behind the rest of the world. It'd suck if everyone else owned the patents.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap

I thought the issue was that by refusing federal funding, it effectively shuts down scientific research in the area, because basic research is systemically dependent upon the presence of such funding, at least in part.

Bush has agreed to fund research on existing stem lines. The crux of the issue is on new embryos created, but not needed, in the in vitro process. Bush says no to that (I believe). Do the dems say otherwise?

FWIW, the objection to such "harvesting" seems solely an extension of the "all life is precious and life begins at conception" principle. It's better to throw out those unused embryos that put them to use, because putting them to use means further creation of more embryos, and thus destruction of life. Or so I think the argument goes. sine I didn't see the speech, did Reagan take a position on this? Will Kerry, and if he does, be able to take Communion?