Pages: 1 … 7 8 9

 

2006-06-30 08:29:32
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
Reagan was an established political figure long before that slogan came out was my point, and "win one for the gipper" is not the same as that crap that Clooney and Alec Baldwin spew.....


and I was hoping you would go for the "you started it" argument, in that Ronnie was a democrat when he played in "all american" and got his start in politics

in a press conference at the beginning of his first term, concerning the recovery from "Carternomics"
"are you saying you're in now way responsible for the current state of the nation"-Sam Donaldson (i may be paraphrasing, but it's close)
"no, for many years I too was a Democrat"- Reagan

Arnold is most famous for his movie roles, that's unavoidable, but in the business/financial world he is best know for starting his own business as a bricklayer without a penny to his name when he came to the US and becoming so successful at it he could afford to live in the Beverly Hills neighborhoods he was hired to work in before his body-building and movie careers took off, history shows that the best governors are businessmen, while lawyers make better state reps....

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-30 08:30:33)

2006-06-30 08:49:26
Volatile
Member
+252|6933|Sextupling in Empire

Hey look, another "ZOMG BUSH IS A CRIMINAEL, HEEZ USING L33T WIRES TAPOIN HAXXXX!!@!@21"

God I hope our next president is extremely lax on defense/intelligence. I'm going to reflect upon all of the liberal ignorance and have a nice laugh when the bodies hit the floor.   

Hey, maybe Bush can be impeached if he LIES IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY.

LOL!
2006-06-30 09:42:06
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver

kr@cker wrote:

Reagan was an established political figure long before that slogan came out was my point, and "win one for the gipper" is not the same as that crap that Clooney and Alec Baldwin spew.....
Like I care what they say, but is it not the same because it doesn't just reference some role they played in a movie?  Seriously, find me a quote of one of those guys doing that and you'll be on your way to clawing back some credibility on this.

kr@cker wrote:

and I was hoping you would go for the "you started it" argument, in that Ronnie was a democrat when he played in "all american" and got his start in politics

in a press conference at the beginning of his first term, concerning the recovery from "Carternomics"
"are you saying you're in now way responsible for the current state of the nation"-Sam Donaldson (i may be paraphrasing, but it's close)
"no, for many years I too was a Democrat"- Reagan
If he "was an established political figure long before that slogan ["win one for the Gipper"] came out", I think that actually proves my point.  When did he go Republican exactly?  And when did he start using that slogan?  What was your point again?

kr@cker wrote:

Arnold is most famous for his movie roles, that's unavoidable, but in the business/financial world he is best know for starting his own business as a bricklayer without a penny to his name when he came to the US and becoming so successful at it he could afford to live in the Beverly Hills neighborhoods he was hired to work in before his body-building and movie careers took off, history shows that the best governors are businessmen, while lawyers make better state reps....
That's all very interesting.  You should add it to his already ridiculously long and detailed wikipedia bio.  You could quote the Wall Street Journal or something.  No?

kr@cker wrote:

the voting public has a short memory, and unfortunately are prone to be easily swayed by popular media and entertainment figures that tell them "you think this because I do and I was in a movie once"
That's the comment of yours we're still discussing.  Not because I disagree but because you decided in retrospect it doesn't apply to Ronald Reagan or the Governator, apparently because they're Republicans.  Or, in Reagan's case, was a Republican when he started using slogans from his movies in campaigns.

I know it's a cherished mantra -- "celebrity activists" -- but is it not obvious that the Republicans' use of it is entirely dependent on the "short memory" of the "voting public", to coin your phrase?
2006-06-30 09:56:25
Toonces7
Member
+11|6803|Iowa
I love how celebrities think they know better than John Q taxpayer.  Don't they realize they're just a form of entertainment for the public?!!  I certainly could care less if Matt Damon is against clubbing baby seals for coats or against the war in Iraq.  No way in hell they could sway my views on politics, fashion maybe, but not stuff that matters. 

Bush is getting away with illegal wiretaps because the majority of the public is ok with it.  Most Americans think, "well...if it stops another terrorist attack why not listent to a few calls?".  I'm a republican and i think it's troubling to think of the civil liberties they're slowing eating away.

I'd vote Democrat if they weren't so Liberal.
2006-06-30 09:59:28
Shmizmar
Member
+6|6911|Los Angeles
Okay, what is wrong with wire taps if it helps us catch people that are trying to harm us?  Are you afraid of being wiretapped?  If you are, think of why the US government and some other 3 letter acrynyms (SP?) would be listening to your calls.  What reasons would they have?  Do you have anything to hide?  Are you a terrorist?  Are you selling weapons to terrorists?  Me, I agree with the wiretapping.  I have nothing to hide even if they did tap my calls, which they wouldn't anyway becuase they have no reason to believe that I would hide anything.

So, the big question is, What is actually bad about wiretaps?  You say that wiretapping is taking away the privacy of Americans, well, the people they tap are here illegally (SP?) anyway, so they aren't Americans.

Last edited by Shmizmar (2006-06-30 10:02:46)

2006-06-30 10:06:47
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver
Feel the love.
2006-06-30 10:31:16
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|6797|Oxford
Surely wire tapping everyone shows you haven't got a clue where to start looking?

Oh and Kr@cker, in the business world Arnie is not known for anything other than his films, let alone his 'business skills'.
2006-06-30 10:37:29
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6923|San Francisco
Shmizmar, I strongly suggest you get yourself familiar with George Orwell's "1984."  Due to the credibility of this current administration, I wouldn't trust any privacy invading procedures they claim they can carry out "in the interests of national security."  Plus, you should also look into Benjamin Franklin's quote on the issue of privacy/freedom vs. national security, which has been posted ad nauseum throughout this thread.

Some people just aren't as wanton as you are to give up the freedom of being able to talk to people without the worry of others listening in.
2006-06-30 11:01:56
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7035|Orlando, FL - Age 43

Marconius wrote:

Some people just aren't as wanton as you are to give up the freedom of being able to talk to people without the worry of others listening in.
Marconius, can you provide any specific examples of people who have had their rights to privacy violated due to the wiretaps?
2006-06-30 11:08:43
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
just read george clooney's academy acceptance speech if you want proof of "we're great because we play dress up for a living", I'm on dial up at work and can't link it.....

wiki is a sorry excuse for a reference source, where as National Geographic and such get paid for telling all of a persons bio, wiki relies on what random assortments of people who have no incentive to report the whole story, just what applies to them, submit on a topic, with mixed results

how many times have you heard serious political discussion on the west wing, OMG geena davis is an amazing first female president!! these people, like martin sheen and donald sutherland, create hypotheticals on their own shows or movies in which they control all variables, and then turn around and point to it as relevant political theory, they are who I am referring to, Arnie has never made a movie called "how I would governate if I could be president" (he simply provided a viable alternative to Gray Davis and the policies which were running California into the ground), which is exactly what they do with shows like "the west wing", or saturday night live, or that ridiculous "day after tomorrow" movie, these are the people I'm referring to...

I'm not saying that celebs can't be political, I'm just saying that the ones that get the most attention, like al franken, haven't done anything to garner status as an expert witness...

for that matter, the former mayor of Carmel Cali, would be a kickass president, only difference between him and any of the celebs mentioned on either side of this discussion is that most of his portrayed characters reflect what he's like in real life, and no, I don't know if he's Dem or Rep or Lib or Green or what, I just know what I've heard him say the few times he makes political comments, and the very fact that he avoids the limelight when he's not in front of a movie camera is reason alone that he's better than the F.ilm A.ctors G.uild (F.A.G.) attention whores out there.

Eastwood '08!!
2006-06-30 11:10:32
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6923|San Francisco
I cannot provide that info, no.  Yet the idea that Bush just went ahead and approved eavesdropping without warrants (something that was brought up a long time ago) just drops his credibility with me.  He might not have done it, and he might already have, but he has given himself the ability to do it against Congressional Authority, and I am not comfortable with that.
2006-06-30 11:15:39
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066
I stopped worrying about  Orwell's " 1984 " in 1985
2006-06-30 11:28:07
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7035|Orlando, FL - Age 43

Marconius wrote:

I cannot provide that info, no.  Yet the idea that Bush just went ahead and approved eavesdropping without warrants (something that was brought up a long time ago) just drops his credibility with me.  He might not have done it, and he might already have, but he has given himself the ability to do it against Congressional Authority, and I am not comfortable with that.
I know where you come from philosophically on this argument and I generally tend to share your suspicion of increased governmental powers. However, under the circumstances, I have to give tentative approval to this program on a temporary basis based upon the fact that there are terrorist groups acting both within and without this country who I am sure we agree, must be stopped. The unfortunate consequence of the nature of terror is and the war on it is that it will be hard to definitively say when it is 'over'. As for Congressional Authority, I have yet to see the Congress rebuke the president on this issue other than his political opponents in the press, who are in the minority.

Kr@cker, Mr Eastwood is a libertarian, although a while back he was a republican.

Horseman, there are very valid themes in Orwell's book. I don't think that the passing the the title date makes them irrelevant.

Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-30 11:43:42)

2006-06-30 11:56:46
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
I would love to support the libertarian party more, if they would provide some viable candidates relevant to my districts


that reminds me, go find fairtax.org, read it, love it, write a congressman or become one yourself (my past would be too....interesting for me to run)
2006-06-30 12:02:50
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6911|Canada
Supreme court:  the president is not above the law
Horseman, you quoted me and called me a name, so I returned the favor in kind.  Relax.  If you'd like a battle of words I'll oblige.

Today the primarily republican supreme court denied Bush the further ability to unilaterally perform 'tribunal' executions without backing in congress.  I remember posting something about Guantanamo bay not long ago.  Also something about how American citizens are next in line for inquisition, but luckily the supreme court has thrown a wrench temporarily into the works.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-06-30 12:42:43)

2006-06-30 13:33:27
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066
Actually I didn't use your name and you are apparently unarmed

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard