[mag]

Firstly, I would just like to say...We broke 200 posts! w00t! w00t!

That said, let us continue.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, I know what you mean by "scared". I wouldn't define my feelings toward your politics as "scared", but I know what you mean. You are surely not SCARED of me, personally. That's impossible. Why would you be scared of someone on a forum on the internet? If you mean scared of my beliefs, I just don't see that either because I'm just one guy. I'm not trying to change the world. But I know what you mean, I feel the same way about liberal politics, I just don't think "scared" is the correct word for either side to use in describing the other.

Yeah, it was a joke. I'm not scared that you're actually going to physically harm me, even though you are a conservative living in Texas and thus likely own a small arsenal of guns.

Although, the fact that you're allowed to vote is a little scary.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

If you look at the glory days of Hollywood (or Golden Years, as they're often called) when they were actually worth a damn, it was all controlled by a bunch of Republicans. David O'Selznick, Louis B. Mayer, D.W. Griffith...with Republican directors and actors like John Wayne, James Cagney, Jimmy Stewart, John Ford, etc.

John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart are Hollywood's best? Sorry. Not to question you on your area of expertise, but we obviously don't agree on what makes for a good film. With a few notable exceptions, I wouldn't consider the films of that era to be nearly as good as films of today. I'm sure that you and Trep and whatever other film critics we have around here can tell me all the reasons why I'm wrong about that. But it's not going to matter because I'm still not going to like those movies.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I think you are generalizing far too much when you say that conservatives are somehow more unrealistic when it comes to understanding humanity. Understanding people is something anyone who is willing to observe will begin to grasp... You admit it's not written in stone, but I also believe it's not even true in a general sense. I just think most conservatives don't CARE about applying these issues via "the arts"... And I don't SHARE that view, I'm simply defending their choice. In their view, liberals are spending time painting, sculpting, writing, directing films, composing operas, and then praising each other's work and throwing award ceremonies...while the conservatives are worried about raising their children.

First of all, it's just a heuristic. And it's not even a particularly good one. So it's probably wrong almost as often as it's right.

That said, the way liberals look at the world does place more emphasis on trying to understand people than the way conservatives look at the world. Like you said, conservatives are more worried about practical concerns. So-called "common sense" stuff. That means they're not focusing as much on trying to understand where other people are coming from.

You can't hold a conservative opinion like "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" if you're trying to understand who gay people really are and looking at them as human beings. Likewise, if you're writing a poor character, and you're of the opinion that all poor people are lazy and need to get a job, your character probably won't be very realistic because it won't take into account all of the nuances involved in the situations that poor people face.

I think this is at least part of the reason why the arts tend to be made up mostly of liberals.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Just thought I'd quickly mention that Star Wars, the ultimate "black and white with no shades of gray" simplistic view of good and evil...is made by a huge liberal.

Actually, Star Wars does demonstrate a certain level of knowledge about the human psyche. It just happens that each character represents only part of that psyche, and thus, no one character is really a complete person. Still pretty simplistic, but not entirely without merit.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Yeah, it was a joke. I'm not scared that you're actually going to physically harm me, even though you are a conservative living in Texas and thus likely own a small arsenal of guns.

Although, the fact that you're allowed to vote is a little scary.

Ha ha. Well, I WON'T be voting actually. I don't need to. Bush will carry Texas.

And secondly, I don't own a "small arsenal" of guns. I own ONE gun. A Glock 22 .40 caliber. I don't particularly see any need for more than one gun (life isn't a John Woo movie, lol). And for what it's worth, they background checked me and everything before I could own the weapon.

Originally Posted by mag

John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart are Hollywood's best? Sorry. Not to question you on your area of expertise, but we obviously don't agree on what makes for a good film. With a few notable exceptions, I wouldn't consider the films of that era to be nearly as good as films of today. I'm sure that you and Trep and whatever other film critics we have around here can tell me all the reasons why I'm wrong about that. But it's not going to matter because I'm still not going to like those movies.

I didn't say they were Hollywood's best. I said "everyone's favorite" about Jimmy Stewart just to draw attention to the fact that he was (and is) extremely popular. I didn't say that about John Wayne because everyone already knows that. And pre-80's films ARE generally better than the films of today, and yes I could tell you all the reasons why, but as you basically admit...you can't educate people who won't learn. Just so you know, however, almost all movie critics are liberals, and they agree with ME. Anyone who knows anything about movies knows this...but as I've already said, movies aren't everyone's cup of tea.

By the way, what you like doesn't really matter. If you don't, for instance, like The Godfather...it's still a great film. If someone doesn't like Mozart, he's still a great musician. Opinions are like assholes, but facts are facts.

Originally Posted by mag

Like you said, conservatives are more worried about practical concerns. So-called "common sense" stuff. That means they're not focusing as much on trying to understand where other people are coming from.

You can't hold a conservative opinion like "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" if you're trying to understand who gay people really are and looking at them as human beings. Likewise, if you're writing a poor character, and you're of the opinion that all poor people are lazy and need to get a job, your character probably won't be very realistic because it won't take into account all of the nuances involved in the situations that poor people face.

There are poor conservatives too. There is "common sense" among the poor. To think otherwise is EXACTLY what I dislike about left-wing politics. No faith whatsoever in people. Liberals do everything they can to CONVINCE people, particularly minorities and the poor, that they are worthless. Oh and by the way, you can't possibly get any more liberal than John Kerry (according to his Senate voting record), and here is what he has to say about gay marriage: "I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage."

Originally Posted by mag

Actually, Star Wars does demonstrate a certain level of knowledge about the human psyche. It just happens that each character represents only part of that psyche, and thus, no one character is really a complete person. Still pretty simplistic, but not entirely without merit.

Sometimes there are works that are ENTIRELY simplistic that still have some merit, I'm not arguing that. But the fact remains that Star Wars is black and white, good and evil stuff...and it's the work of a liberal.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And pre-80's films ARE generally better than the films of today, and yes I could tell you all the reasons why, but as you basically admit...you can't educate people who won't learn. Just so you know, however, almost all movie critics are liberals, and they agree with ME. Anyone who knows anything about movies knows this...but as I've already said, movies aren't everyone's cup of tea.

By the way, what you like doesn't really matter. If you don't, for instance, like The Godfather...it's still a great film. If someone doesn't like Mozart, he's still a great musician. Opinions are like assholes, but facts are facts.

What facts? This is entirely a matter of opinion. So you happen to have a lot of people who share your opinion. That doesn't make them right.

I happen to like Mozart. But I can't prove that he was a great musician. I can point to things that he did that I think make him great. But if another person doesn't like those things that Mozart did, that person isn't wrong just because my opinion is more popular.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There are poor conservatives too. There is "common sense" among the poor.

um...okay. But I never said there wasn't.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

To think otherwise is EXACTLY what I dislike about left-wing politics. No faith whatsoever in people. Liberals do everything they can to CONVINCE people, particularly minorities and the poor, that they are worthless.

How do you figure? Liberals are the ones saying that minorities and the poor are just as good as anybody else. It's the conservatives who say, "If you're poor it's because you're lazy, and you should get a job."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh and by the way, you can't possibly get any more liberal than John Kerry (according to his Senate voting record), and here is what he has to say about gay marriage: "I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage."

And that's a far more progressive attitude than the Christian right's all-homosexuals-are-going-to-hell stance, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Sometimes there are works that are ENTIRELY simplistic that still have some merit, I'm not arguing that. But the fact remains that Star Wars is black and white, good and evil stuff...and it's the work of a liberal.

My point was just that Star Wars actually does demonstrate a pretty decent understanding of human psychology in spite of the simplistic good/evil stuff. And I'm no Star Wars fan, so that's big praise coming from me.

mag

[ConcreteRancor]

Yeesh. Eight pages ago, I was all set to add a much longer post to this thread, but I decided it wasn't really worth my time when I saw this whole thing turn into a parade of sweeping generalizations, intolerance, and stereotypes. I don't know how much good it will do at this point, but here's the gist of what I intended to write. (Some of these topics are long past, so I'll just touch on them briefly.

1. Liberals think the media is conservative. Conservatives think the media is liberal. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that the media (disregarding FOX) is fully moderate, wouldn't you?

2. Since I go to school in NH, I voted for Clark in the NH primary. Some friends of mine said to me, "Why? He's so moderate!" YEAH! THAT WAS THE ATTRACTION! Wouldn't a REAL moderate president be nice? Think about it. A candidate with no strong ties to a party, who, when confronted with an issue, wouldn't automatically go with the party's opinion but say, "Hmm... I don't really have a full opinion on that right now. Why don't I sit down and do a little research and make a decision based on what I believe to be ethical?"

3. Why did this have to be the first election in which I could legally vote? I've got my pick between incompetent and indecisive. (And yes, I believe Bush is INCOMPETENT, not evil. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft are the unethical ones.) I wouldn't feel at all proud about having either candidate as president. (Like I would have with Dean or Clark.)

4. With all the "anyone but Bush" feelings in the country right now, Bush should be a fairly easy candidate to beat. Yet Kerry is somehow losing. Frankly, if Kerry can't run an effective campaign against the guy who put the country half a trillion dollars in debt and lied to start a war, I have serious doubts as to how well he can run a country.

Edit: By the way, anyone who EVER says anything like "I don't see how anyone could vote right/left," or stupid shit like Jeaneane Garofalo's "Voting for Bush is a character flaw," INSTANTLY loses all credibility and sympathy in my eyes. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. Nothing you say after that will have any effect on my opinion, so you can just shut up right there.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

What facts? This is entirely a matter of opinion. So you happen to have a lot of people who share your opinion. That doesn't make them right.

There are objective measures of the greatness of a film I'm afraid... But ok, let's say that IT IS all just an opinion. You couldn't even defend your opinion. How many Andrei Tarkovsky films have you actually seen, and could therefore say, "That film isn't as good as such and such"? How many Carl Theodor Dreyer films have you seen? How many Mizoguchi films? How many Antonioni films? How many Bunuel? How many Imamura? How many Eisenstein? How many Bresson? How many Satyajit Ray films? How many Ozu? And so on and so forth...

You really don't want to get into this discussion with me. You won't even be able to pretend you can defend your positions... You'll name me a great movie, and I'll name 100 better ones that you've NEVER seen...

Originally Posted by mag

How do you figure? Liberals are the ones saying that minorities and the poor are just as good as anybody else. It's the conservatives who say, "If you're poor it's because you're lazy, and you should get a job."

No, liberals are ruining the potential of capable people. They say if you're a member of a certain group you will be discriminated against. They convince minorities and women that a huge government is the only answer. They CREATE dependents. They think they are "the good guys", but they're racist and sexist.

Ok, I know good and well that you won't read this...but it's a woman, Mary Katharine Ham, who is 24 years old and an editor of The Heritage Foundation. Yes, she's conservative, so you won't want to hear what she says, but here's an excerpt of something she wrote about meeting a liberal guy in a bar:

Brad apologized for his friend, and explained, that as a Democrat, all he wants is to help the middle class move to the upper class. He didn’t mention that it was by government-mandated redistribution of wealth that he wanted to do that, but I gave him a shot at explaining the whole theory.

“All right,” I said, “as a young person working on Capitol Hill, making a modest sum of money, what do you and the Democratic Party have to offer me? What are you gonna do to help me move from one class to another?”

Brad looked at me as if the answer were self-evident. I raised my eyebrows and waited for his answer.

“Well, you know, as a female…”

He must have noticed the wicked smile spread across my face. If I were a better actress, I would have gone for outrage, but I asked:

“As a female… what?”

He mumbled something about women’s and minorities’ rights and “leveling the playing field.” Check mate, DNC Brad. Just to make sure I understood correctly, I ran over his points. I need the Democratic Party to help me move up in life. I can’t be expected to do it all by my little lonesome. And why not? Because I’m a girl.

DNC Brad had a slightly sheepish look on his face. He had just let slip one of the most blatantly sexist things I’d ever heard in person, and before I repeated it, had apparently been secure in the fact that he occupied the moral high ground.

I explained to Brad that I simply don’t believe I need the help of men like him and the government to make it in life, nor am I up for forking over my tax dollars to cheapen my achievements with a special set of girly rules. And so our conversation ended, a polite parting of ways. I picked up my lukewarm beer and moved on.

Later, I wondered where he might have gotten such an idea about women. Could it have been the DNC? I word-searched the 2004 Democratic Platform for references to women and women’s policies. Here are a few.

First, “we support affirmative action to redress discrimination.”

That must have been what DNC Brad was talking about! The DNC is going to force people to give me all kinds of goodies I may not deserve simply because I’m incapable of earning them on my own. And why can’t I do it? Because I’m a girl!

Looks like this DNC thing really is the next train out of Oppressionville. Here’s another way they’re going to help me: “We believe a day's work is worth a day's pay, and at a time when women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, we need stronger equal pay laws and stronger enforcement of them.”

Now, I can understand that because I’m just a girl, the DNC would figure I’d take this statistic from them without question, but it turns out I can Google with the best of them, men or women. This figure comes from a 2002 census survey, which compared the yearly median earnings figure of full-time working women to the median figure for men. So the census folks took two lists that include everything from burger-flippers to CEOs, stuck a pin in the middle of each list, compared them, and that’s supposed to determine equal pay for equal work? If women really do offer equal work for 23 cents less on the dollar, why does anyone bother hiring men?

The point being that there may be sexual discrimination in pay, but there are also plenty of other possible reasons for discrepancies. The DNC would force employers to ignore those other reasons and pay me a certain salary simply based on my gender.

And last, “because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose… regardless of her ability to pay.”

Clearly, I cannot be expected to protect myself from an unwanted pregnancy, and should I decide to have an abortion, I can’t be expected to take responsibility for even paying for it. Why not? You guessed it—Because I’m a girl.

No wonder all the liberal women I’ve ever known felt like someone was keeping them down. I never imagined there were so many things I can’t do because I’m a woman until I read the DNC platform. But isn’t this the party for women? I hear time and time again that I can’t be a self-respecting woman without being a Democrat.

I beg to differ. It is precisely because I’m a self-respecting woman that I don’t need Brad’s condescension cloaked in kindness. I want to earn what I get, deserve what I earn, and decide exactly what I do with my earnings instead of handing that responsibility off to a political party. I am capable of that and much more, because I’m a girl.

Originally Posted by mag

And that's a far more progressive attitude than the Christian right's all-homosexuals-are-going-to-hell stance, isn't it?

It's George Bush's stance. Kerry and Bush SHARE that "civil union" position. I never thought you would say Bush had a "progressive" attitude. How insulting... What a stupid word for politics. "Progressive". Whenever I hear that I imagine a Ted Kennedy "money shot" all over some poor sap's face.

Originally Posted by mag

My point was just that Star Wars actually does demonstrate a pretty decent understanding of human psychology in spite of the simplistic good/evil stuff. And I'm no Star Wars fan, so that's big praise coming from me.

"Decent"? Maybe. On the lower end of decent.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

Edit: By the way, anyone who EVER says anything like "I don't see how anyone could vote right/left," INSTANTLY loses all credibility and sympathy in my eyes.

Thanks, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :eek:

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

1. Liberals think the media is conservative. Conservatives think the media is liberal. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that the media (disregarding FOX) is fully moderate, wouldn't you?

Heh. To me it seems your media is alot more conservative than liberal, I mean, I thought Lewinski and 9/11 have proved atleast this so far?

2. [...] Think about it. A candidate with no strong ties to a party, who, when confronted with an issue, wouldn't automatically go with the party's opinion but say, "Hmm... I don't really have a full opinion on that right now. Why don't I sit down and do a little research and make a decision based on what I believe to be ethical?"

Sadly that will never happen in the U.S.

3. Why did this have to be the first election in which I could legally vote? I've got my pick between incompetent and indecisive. (And yes, I believe Bush is INCOMPETENT, not evil. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft are the unethical ones.) I wouldn't feel at all proud about having either candidate as president. (Like I would have with Dean or Clark.)

What does this tell you about your country's voting system?
(France doesn't have it any better either, it always boils down to a mere two candidates, what was the last election again, either LePen of Chirac? LOL). I guess you guys will be choosing 'the lesser of two evils' for the rest of your lives.

4. With all the "anyone but Bush" feelings in the country right now, Bush should be a fairly easy candidate to beat. Yet Kerry is somehow losing. Frankly, if Kerry can't run an effective campaign against the guy who put the country half a trillion dollars in debt and lied to start a war, I have serious doubts as to how well he can run a country.

Would that 'justify' voting for Bush for you? I can tell you, it's pretty damn obvious that the "president" is just a face for a campaign and a party. Didn't Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and all those other bastards prove to you that they are the ones who should not be in power? Heck, republicans supplied the very weapons that the U.S. is fighting against right now, they alone supplied the Taliban, Al Qaeda and we probably don't even know the entire list of terrorist cells they backed with weapons and supplies. Wouldn't you rather have a democratic party to run your country? Would they do some crazy shit like handing out weapons to terrorists? Did Clinton's term do that much damage, huh? HUH!!?!?!

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by jjacob

France doesn't have it any better either, it always boils down to a mere two candidates, what was the last election again, either LePen of Chirac? LOL

Hu There are two turns in the elections in France, and only two candidates are selected to run for the seond turn, true, but for the first one, there are a lot a them.
For example, last election, we had twenty or so candidates, and the results were something like 22% for Chirac (right), 20% for Le Pen (extreme right), 19% for Jospin (moderate left), and maybe 12% for one party (moderate right), 10% for another, etc... So it's hardly the same as in the US, espcecially in your example, because it was the first time in a very long time the there was no candidate from a left wing party in the second turn.
Now for the "lesser of two evils" part, you were right, this election was a true nightmare.

[mag]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

1. Liberals think the media is conservative. Conservatives think the media is liberal. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that the media (disregarding FOX) is fully moderate, wouldn't you?

Overall, the media does stay pretty much in the center. But it usually leans one way or the other at any given point in time. Right now, the media leans conservative. During the Clinton administration it leaned liberal. Disregarding certain organizations like FOX News that have the same political agenda all the time, for most this has a lot to do with who is in office. The president controls the amount of access that the media has. So a more centrist organization like CNN now leans conservative because there is a conservative president.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

2. Since I go to school in NH, I voted for Clark in the NH primary. Some friends of mine said to me, "Why? He's so moderate!" YEAH! THAT WAS THE ATTRACTION! Wouldn't a REAL moderate president be nice?

No, it wouldn't be nice. Democrats and Republicans both want the government to run people's lives. They simply disagree on where to start. Democrats want the government to stay out of people's personal lives and run the economy. Republicans want the government to stay out of the economy and run people's personal lives. But it's always the freedom part that they're willing to compromise on. So when the people in office really are moderate, the government leans authoritarian. The only way to maintain people's freedoms is to have two polarized factions that keep each other in check.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

4. With all the "anyone but Bush" feelings in the country right now, Bush should be a fairly easy candidate to beat. Yet Kerry is somehow losing. Frankly, if Kerry can't run an effective campaign against the guy who put the country half a trillion dollars in debt and lied to start a war, I have serious doubts as to how well he can run a country.

To be fair, I'm not sure how reliable the polls are. Many of the "anyone but Bush" people are people who have never voted before in their lives. So they don't necessarily fall in the category of "likely voters." We'll see on Election Day just how accurate the polls are.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

By the way, anyone who EVER says anything like "I don't see how anyone could vote right/left," or stupid shit like Jeaneane Garofalo's "Voting for Bush is a character flaw," INSTANTLY loses all credibility and sympathy in my eyes. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. Nothing you say after that will have any effect on my opinion, so you can just shut up right there.

Voting for Bush is a character flaw. I'm sorry, but there's just no way around it. This isn't the usual situation in which either candidate is just as good as the other, and it basically boils down to preference. This is the most black and white situation America has faced since World War II. If you support Bush then you are either just as bad as he is, or you are too ignorant to know any better.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There are objective measures of the greatness of a film I'm afraid... But ok, let's say that IT IS all just an opinion. You couldn't even defend your opinion. How many Andrei Tarkovsky films have you actually seen, and could therefore say, "That film isn't as good as such and such"? How many Carl Theodor Dreyer films have you seen? How many Mizoguchi films? How many Antonioni films? How many Bunuel? How many Imamura? How many Eisenstein? How many Bresson? How many Satyajit Ray films? How many Ozu? And so on and so forth...

You really don't want to get into this discussion with me. You won't even be able to pretend you can defend your positions... You'll name me a great movie, and I'll name 100 better ones that you've NEVER seen...

I'm perfectly willing to admit that you've probably seen many, many more movies than I have. But I have seen enough to be perfectly able to defend my opinion. The only facts you can offer to support your argument are the techniques or style that is used. But you still need something else to get you from that to the conclusion that a particular piece of art is "great." And that is the value that is given to the technique in question. Often this is something that most people agree on. But if somebody feels that that technique isn't so great, he or she isn't going to come to the conclusion that the work as a whole is great.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

He mumbled something about women’s and minorities’ rights and “leveling the playing field.” Check mate, DNC Brad. Just to make sure I understood correctly, I ran over his points. I need the Democratic Party to help me move up in life. I can’t be expected to do it all by my little lonesome. And why not? Because I’m a girl.

Sure, it's easy to make the Democrats look racist when you misrepresent their ideas like that. The sad fact is that there are things women and minorities can't do because they're starting from a disadvantage. Regardless of what conservatives think, you can't make your way to the top just on hard work in our society. What the Democrats are trying to do is give minorities the same opportunities that white guys like me have.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It's George Bush's stance. Kerry and Bush SHARE that "civil union" position.

Kerry's position is that it should be decided by the states. That was the position that Bush had four years ago. But now he wants to pass an amendment that would ban it altogether.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

But if somebody feels that that technique isn't so great, he or she isn't going to come to the conclusion that the work as a whole is great.

Ok so what do you know of technique then? Are you inferring that the "technique" in older films isn't up to par with newer films? That's what it sounds like. I would like to hear some of your evidence of this via examples. It's certainly not true, in any case. The technique of a filmmaker has little to do with advancing technology...I can name silent films that are more cinematic and brilliant than most films made today. Now, again, I'm not saying modern films aren't capable of being terrific. I'm saying that it's not as often that a masterpiece appears as it was pre-80s.

Originally Posted by mag

Sure, it's easy to make the Democrats look racist when you misrepresent their ideas like that. The sad fact is that there are things women and minorities can't do because they're starting from a disadvantage. Regardless of what conservatives think, you can't make your way to the top just on hard work in our society. What the Democrats are trying to do is give minorities the same opportunities that white guys like me have.

Ok, well that WOMAN didn't WANT your help "white guy." Respectable people don't want to be artificially propped up by a bunch of white men who think they are helping. What does this do for minorities and women? Show them they NEED white men? That's why I said liberals create dependents. However, I'm just a white man too. I gave you the opinion of a woman already, so how about the opinion of a minority then? An African American perhaps? Here we go, this is from author of Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study...yes, he's a black man in his early 70s, and again I don't expect you to read this, but you surprised me last time so I admit I judged you incorrectly:

Reactions to Bill Cosby's recent criticisms of some counterproductive ghetto behavior patterns have ranged from applause from some in the black audience that heard him to a cheap attack from white liberal Barbara Ehrenreich in the New York Times. "Billionaire bashes poor blacks" is the way Ms. Ehrenreich puts it.

Over the years, Bill Cosby has poured enough of his efforts and money into advancing blacks that he does not need any lessons from Barbara Ehrenreich on how to help his own people. But her attempts to pose as a friend and defender of blacks has implications that reach far beyond this one silly woman.

According to Ms. Ehrenreich, "it's so 1985 to beat up on the black poor." Among her other radical chic comments is, "it must be fun to beat up on people too young and too poor to fight back or the elderly rich wouldn't do it."

This is just one of innumerable ways that the political left evades criticisms -- whether of young thugs or schoolteachers or anyone else -- by simply calling the criticism "bashing" and shifting the focus to the supposedly bad motives of those who criticize.

"Friends don't let friends drive drunk," a slogan says. You don't let anybody you care about destroy himself without warning him. Those who want to exempt blacks from criticism are not friends.

Criticism is part of the price of progress. Economics professor Walter Williams has said that a turning point in his education -- and his life -- came when a schoolteacher in the Philadelphia ghetto chewed him out for wasting his abilities on adolescent nonsense.

The criticism hurt -- and there was no Barbara Ehrenreich there to defend him. So he turned his life around.

My own moment of truth came when a roommate at Harvard said to me one day: "Tom, when are you going to stop goofing off and get some work done?"

Goofing off! I didn't know what he was talking about. I thought I was working hard. But, when the midterm grades came out -- two D's and two F's in my four courses -- it became painfully clear that I was not working hard enough. I was going to have to shape up or ship out -- and I didn't have anywhere to ship out to.

I had been on my own for years and had gone into debt in order to go to Harvard. Moreover, there was no Barbara Ehrenreich to defend me. So I got my act together and graduated with honors.

Today, how many white schoolteachers are going to chew out some ghetto youth? How many white college students are going to tell a black roommate to stop goofing off?

In today's climate, too many teachers think they are doing black students a favor by feeding them grievances from the past and telling them how they are oppressed in the present -- and how their future is blocked by white racism. These are the kinds of friends who do more damage than enemies.

Why endure all the hard work, self-discipline and self-denial that a first-rate education requires if The Man is going to stop you from getting anywhere anyway? People who have been pushing this line for years are now suddenly surprised and dismayed to discover that many black students across the country regard academic striving as "acting white."

Many young blacks likewise regard speaking correct English, or even observing the rules of polite society, as "acting white." White liberals often cheer them on in their self-destructive behavior or at least "understand" them and defend them.

Blacks have, in effect, been adopted as mascots by many white liberals. Mascots serve to symbolize something for others but the actual well-being of the mascot himself is seldom a major concern. Blacks have long been used by the left to indict American society.

People like Barbara Ehrenreich get their jollies saying clever things to needle American society, whether on race or other issues. The actual consequences of their liberal vision for blacks themselves get remarkably little attention.

So what if the social pathologies in the black community grew far worse after liberal doctrines became government policies in the 1960s? The vision is what matters to the left -- and the opportunities it presents for them to be clever with words.

Originally Posted by mag

Kerry's position is that it should be decided by the states. That was the position that Bush had four years ago. But now he wants to pass an amendment that would ban it altogether.

Banning gay marriage and banning civil unions is different.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by mag

The difference between this election and previous elections is that usually the two candidates are operating at about the same level. Sure, neither one may be somebody you can get excited about, but they're both just your typical politicians. So it basically comes down to a matter of preference. That's what we thought we had in 2000. But in this election Bush is just so overwhelmingly evil that he makes even a petty politician like Kerry look like a saint in comparison...which is sad.

The ironic thing is that in 2000 there was so much talk about Bush and Gore being exactly the same. And this time around Bush and Kerry are even more similar than Bush and Gore, but where they do differ is what makes all the difference.

If only Dean had won the primaries.

mag

When I say Howard you say Dean, Howard Dean Howard Dean...

That screem really hurt him

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! That's hilarious.

It's weird how Bush is so "overwhelmingly evil" but he's leading Kerry consistently now in every...single...recognized...poll... The majority of "adventure gamers" prefer Kerry, but as of today, the majority of Americans prefer Bush.

majority of *white americans*. Bush has 35% approval among hispanics, 15% among african americans.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

majority of *white americans*. Bush has 35% approval among hispanics, 15% among african americans.

Whoa whoa! SoccerDude...I understand you want to respond to each comment...but this has come a LONG way since then. When did I post that? Weeks ago? I'm afraid we've moved on. Your point is still VALID, it's just that if you try to respond to everything you are going to have 50 posts in a row. I'm trying to save you the time. But your point is correct.

[SoccerDude28]

Dude I love politics:

Bush is the worst president on this planet. Here is what he's all about:

1- Dodged vietnam and went partying while kerry actually fought in it regardless if he agreed with it or not. He was at least serving his country. Then he talks about patriotism and bashes kerry for being in vietnam. Yeah that makes sense.

2- Goes into Iraq for "freedom". Then calls the actual citizens of Iraq who are resisting him insurgents. Everyone knows his motivation was the black gold. From when did bush care about human democracy.

3- Has double standards. North Korea states they are working on nuclear weapons and he turns his head the other way. There are "intelligence" records that Iraq has WMDs. He wages war on them without letting the UN do their job.

4- He alienated every country on the planet. Europeans don't regard Americans as highly and the whole world doesn't.

5- Pro-Abortion / anti stem research. He is a right wing fanatic. He even mentioned the word crusade.

6- There are books about how much he can't speak in public.

Not to mention economy crisis, tax breaks for the rich, etc...

You want more...

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Whoa whoa! SoccerDude...I understand you want to respond to each comment...but this has come a LONG way since then. When did I post that? Weeks ago? I'm afraid we've moved on. Your point is still VALID, it's just that if you try to respond to everything you are going to have 50 posts in a row. I'm trying to save you the time. But your point is correct.

I jumped into the argument late I love politics didn't know that you guys were into that.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Hu There are two turns in the elections in France, and only two candidates are selected to run for the seond turn, true, but for the first one, there are a lot a them.
For example, last election, we had twenty or so candidates, and the results were something like 22% for Chirac (right), 20% for Le Pen (extreme right), 19% for Jospin (moderate left), and maybe 12% for one party (moderate right), 10% for another, etc... So it's hardly the same as in the US, espcecially in your example, because it was the first time in a very long time the there was no candidate from a left wing party in the second turn.
Now for the "lesser of two evils" part, you were right, this election was a true nightmare.

I'm sorry, I was just making an example. I knew there was more to the system than I said but since it was between Chirac and Le Pen in the last round I made the analogy of also having to choose a lesser of two evils. I don't think Kerry is evil in any way lol, but he's way to conservative (YES!) for my mind, I mean the democrats should really have a far more progressive candidate, but I guess such a thing could never work in the states.
Gimme my voting/electoral system anyday!

edit: SoccerDude before you contintue keep in mind that Sanjuro has strict rules about who gets to reply to him and who he deems irrelevant

Also, we don't think lowly of Americans, but the American politcal system and most presidential terms (except Clinton ), although I do admit I can hardly understand anyone voting for Bush, so the last election "proved" (to me atleast) that the vast majority of white America is retarded (after all like 80% of bush voters is white ). I had a very bad day when Bush got elected, when I heard the news I got a very bad headache. I mean, I was hating Bush before it became fashionable!

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

1- Dodged vietnam and went partying while kerry actually fought in it regardless if he agreed with it or not. He was at least serving his country. Then he talks about patriotism and bashes kerry for being in vietnam. Yeah that makes sense.

2- Goes into Iraq for "freedom". Then calls the actual citizens of Iraq who are resisting him insurgents. Everyone knows his motivation was the black gold. From when did bush care about human democracy.

3- Has double standards. North Korea states they are working on nuclear weapons and he turns his head the other way. There are "intelligence" records that Iraq has WMDs. He wages war on them without letting the UN do their job.

4- He alienated every country on the planet. Europeans don't regard Americans as highly and the whole world doesn't.

5- Pro-Abortion / anti stem research. He is a right wing fanatic. He even mentioned the word crusade.

6- There are books about how much he can't speak in public.

Not to mention economy crisis, tax breaks for the rich, etc...

You want more...

Most of this has been dealt with already here... But since you are admittedly late, I'll summarize my side.

1. Bush didn't dodge Vietnam. He was on active duty for over a year and a half, was by all accounts a good pilot, and would have gone to the actual war had he been called upon to do so. As for Kerry, yes he served too, but it's mysterious to me why he went and met secretly with the enemy twice. If he was trying to free POWs, why couldn't he tell anyone what he was doing?

2. His motive wasn't "black gold". And the insurgents are dumb, impressionable young people, not nearly the whole country.

3. When has the UN ever done their job? The UN is great at one thing only: being a joke. And Bush hasn't turned his head on North Korea or Iran. He said he will try to solve the matter with diplomacy.

4. Fine. I can live with that. We don't need the support of countries who don't even back us up when they DO claim to support us.

5. Not going to go there. These issues are too touchy. By the way, Bush isn't Pro-Abortion.

6. Yep. And I could write ten more books on the subject.

As for the tax breaks for the rich bit...that's a classic "line" used by liberals. The fact is that 80% of federal income taxes are payed by the top 20% of wage earners (the rich). That leaves the burden of only 20% of our NATION's income taxes on the other 80% of people. I say...enough complaining... Everyone who pays taxes deserves tax relief.

So now SoccerDude, you know where I stand. And this post can serve as a quick little explanation of my beliefs. Now we can move on. As I said, most of this has ALREADY been dealt with previously in this very thread. If there's anything new and SPECIFIC you'd like to discuss, give us a suggestion.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Most of this has been dealt with already here... But since you are admittedly late, I'll summarize my side.

1. Bush didn't dodge Vietnam. He was on active duty for over a year and a half, was by all accounts a good pilot, and would have gone to the actual war had he been called upon to do so. As for Kerry, yes he served too, but it's mysterious to me why he went and met secretly with the enemy twice. If he was trying to free POWs, why couldn't he tell anyone what he was doing?

2. His motive wasn't "black gold". And the insurgents are dumb, impressionable young people, not nearly the whole country.

3. When has the UN ever done their job? The UN is great at one thing only: being a joke. And Bush hasn't turned his head on North Korea or Iran. He said he will try to solve the matter with diplomacy.

4. Fine. I can live with that. We don't need the support of countries who don't even back us up when they DO claim to support us.

5. Not going to go there. These issues are too touchy. By the way, Bush isn't Pro-Abortion.

6. Yep. And I could write ten more books on the subject.

As for the tax breaks for the rich bit...that's a classic "line" used by liberals. The fact is that 80% of federal income taxes are payed by the top 20% of wage earners (the rich). That leaves the burden of only 20% of our NATION's income taxes on the other 80% of people. I say...enough complaining... Everyone who pays taxes deserves tax relief.

So now SoccerDude, you know where I stand. And this post can serve as a quick little explanation of my beliefs. Now we can move on. As I said, most of this has ALREADY been dealt with previously in this very thread. If there's anything new and SPECIFIC you'd like to discuss, give us a suggestion.

You addressed the issues????

1- Bush was dodging going to the service. He didn't show up for the physical examination. He was getting himself drunk while kerry was in the war.

2- The insurgents are dumb? Would you sit around if someone invades your country? They are being patriotic. There are tons of links between the bush family and black gold. If you want to turn your head the other way just like all bush supporters and not believe all the links that tie the 2 than you are just living in denial.

3- US founded the UN for god's sake. Now they don't do a good job, just cause they were trying to solve the problem peacefully. Nooooo UN is useless. Let's bomb 'em all.

4- Yes we do. This is a global world we live in. We need all the support.

5- Let me ask you this. If bush's daughters or maybe your daughter/son (when you get married) suffer from cancer, wouldn't you want stem cell research. I bet you he'd bend the law the next day.

6- So at least we agree on one point. He is an idiot. If you want an idiot to run our country, than you really have a strong argument

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I'm sorry, I was just making an example. I knew there was more to the system than I said but since it was between Chirac and Le Pen in the last round I made the analogy of also having to choose a lesser of two evils. I don't think Kerry is evil in any way lol, but he's way to conservative (YES!) for my mind, I mean the democrats should really have a far more progressive candidate, but I guess such a thing could never work in the states.
Gimme my voting/electoral system anyday!

edit: SoccerDude before you contintue keep in mind that Sanjuro has strict rules about who gets to reply to him and who he deems irrelevant

Also, we don't think lowly of Americans, but the American politcal system and most presidential terms (except Clinton ), although I do admit I can hardly understand anyone voting for Bush, so the last election "proved" (to me atleast) that the vast majority of America is retarded, I had a very bad day when Bush got elected, I mean, I was hating Bush before it became fashionable!

I am American and I don't approve of Bush one bit. There is another 40 something percent registered to vote that agree with me, and a lot more not registered that agree with me too. America is a very diverse country and you can find all types here.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

"When choosing between
two evils I always like
to take the one I've never
tried before."

- Mae West

Very well said. If Kerry is evil, let him prove it. 8-)