The Last Bass Outpost

Main Forums => The Outpost Cafe => Topic started by: Barklessdog on January 30, 2008, 11:45:57 AM

Title: Change For The better
Post by: Barklessdog on January 30, 2008, 11:45:57 AM
Here's a sneak peek at the our new currency

http://www.blip.tv/file/520347
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: uwe on January 30, 2008, 11:58:53 AM
Why not just introduce the Euro and get it done with?

"Piping Persia for Peace" - I loved that!
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Barklessdog on February 01, 2008, 06:05:15 AM
Without getting into politics both sides are just as bad, but the worst the Clinton coin would feature is a blow job on one side and a cigar on the other.

It's as funny as the Al Gore Penguin YouTube clip

Surprising the Democrats have the most money from lobby groups including health companies last I saw. So is REALLY for the people here?

Actually I like McCain, he has always been more of a level headed person and has more moderate views. I would not be upset if McCain were president.


I care more about the person than the party, although I lean more Democratic.




Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: uwe on February 01, 2008, 07:56:32 AM
It would be kind of artificial to avoid discussing the candidates here given how the election will dominate the media and people's thoughts over the next months. So under the benign, but watchful glance of Herr Westheimer we can perhaps have a sensible discussion in this thread and others if people stick to some rules:

- Don't insult people with political views other than your own. Growing up should have brought you the realization that political views are just one part of a person's set of beliefs and that someone can be a decent guy and still hold views that are not your own.

- Don't start libelling the candidates. You can disagree with Frau Clinton's politics, but don't go Ted Nugent over her and insult her as a "cunt" or worse. Same goes for Republican candidates. 

I like McCain, he is the most credible Rep candidate for me in a long, long time. You can't argue with the patriotism of a guy who did time as a POW in Hanoi and if the same guy steps up and says "we should not be torturing people for whatever reason because I've been through it and know what it's like" then that epitomizes credibility to me. As regards his views on Iraq, I think it was ill-advised idiocy that you went there, but now that you did, you're stuck and just can't hastily pull out and leave a void. So, no, I don't think he would be a bad President. A bit old perhaps, you do wonder about his health, but there are healthy old men and unhealthy young men. Something in me tells me that he would do his best because that is just the type of guy he is. In an old-fashioned, but honorable way he would "serve the country".

As a European, I really know too little about the other Republican candidates to form an opinion.

But I've never hidden that my leanings are Democrat. Between Hillary and Obama I'm kind of torn. I think she is a smart and strong woman though she obviously does not suffer fools gladly. She's (to me) not really likeable (more respectable) though I cannot put my finger on what keeps me from doing so, but you can be a good President and not be likeable (you should be respectable). I don't mind how she is an urban woman, East Coast and establishment and I think she handled Bill's more than momentary lapse of good taste with Fräulein Levinsky very gracefully.

Obama is of course Prince Charming and I don't mean that in a bad way. You kind of feel the world would have proven to be a better place than we all thought if he won, right? He has zero foreign affairs experience, but his upbringing and ethnicity at least brought him into contact with other parts of the world.  He would probably learn quickly and surround himself with good advisors.

I guess my dream team would be Hillary the first term and Obama her Vice with him moving in on the second term. But Hillary is probably too career-minded for that. And a certain Californian governor (with lots of blue-blooded Democrat relatives and a heavy accent) as the Secretary of Environment (if that is the correct title?)?

Uwe

PS: Democrats and health companies close allies? I'm not surprised. Bringing health insurance to all Americans would be a billion buck business for health companies. That doesn't tarnish the aim, it's just an economic fact.

Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Barklessdog on February 01, 2008, 08:23:16 AM
Quote
I don't mind how she is an urban woman, East Coast

Actually She grew up in Chicago (Park Ridge) and moved to the East Coast after her Hubby moved out of the Oval Office. Shes a midwesterner, a Cubs fan.

I like Obama too, but I just dont think he will get elected, I don't know but I just get behind (no jokes) her, although ANY woman can't do any worse screwing up the world as much as men have since the dawn of time.

I think if it were McCain, Hillary or Obama, the country will be taking a step in a better direction. It's going to be a tough choice for me as I always liked McCain.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination I would not be surprised to see an assassination attempt on him. I know a lot of people that would never tolerate a black man as president. I had a neighbor where I used to live make extreme racial comments to the effect. Things have not really changed here in the Deep South with the hanging tree incident, where black students were not allowed by white students to congregate under the tree at school, race divided proms etc.

I don't believe our country would except an African American president. Fanatical factions, would attempt something, I have to believe.



Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: uwe on February 01, 2008, 09:02:58 AM
The race thing ... no getting around it if you discuss Obama I guess. I would just hope that your Secret Service guys are better than they used to be!

I would hope that times have changed in the US? Of course, racial stereotypes linger (and not just in the US), but not everyone who has them will pull a gun on a black man becoming President. I would think that the faces of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice have gone a long way in making even people with a race bias think twice and at least give the benefit of doubt. Being black doesn't make you lazy (Ms Rice certainly isn't) nor does it automatically make you a better Mideast foreign affairs politician (as Ms Rice again shows), is that so hard to grasp?

Of course that doesn't mean that some frothing nutcase would not want to go after Obama because of the color of his skin. That is where I hope the improved Secret Service guys come in.

An assassination of Obama would be a national catastrophy, but unless you are stark raving mad racist you should be able to see that Obama is not Malcolm X. I put my hopes in that. As regards racial issues, the US today may well not be where Martin Luther King would have liked it to be had he lived on, but what happened in Dallas, the Ambassador Hotel in LA, a balcony in Memphis and the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem are demons of your past I believe. I think you could be ready for a black President and Obama whose good looks fail to match any "menacing black" stereotypes could be it.

Uwe
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Dave W on February 01, 2008, 09:35:52 AM
If you can appreciate some gentle political humor, try the fake blogs at http://www.newsgroper.com/
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: PhilT on February 01, 2008, 03:28:33 PM
In the interests of balance, we should of course have equally in depth analysis of candidates in the British, German and Dutch general elections, as those come around.  Will it be Gordon "Fuggin' Tony left me in the shit" Broon, or Dave "I was Lord Snooty's fag at Eton" Cameron in 2010? I'm sure you're all agog.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: uwe on February 02, 2008, 02:20:05 AM
Not quite compareable as I read in a Newsweek article just a few weeks ago:

"US elections must rank as the most undemocratic ones: Only Americans get to vote, but the effect is subsequently felt by the whole world!"

 ;D

But of course your Queen is still important too.  ::)
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: TBird1958 on February 02, 2008, 02:24:53 AM

 Queens are good!............... ;)

Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: rockinrayduke on February 02, 2008, 04:46:12 PM
After listening to the candidates of both parties so far I have not been swayed to either side as of yet. Having said that I like McCain and I like Obama. I'd vote for Obama if he got the nod.

Quote
Queens are good!............... Wink

Some of my favorite people are Queens!  ;D
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: SKATE RAT on February 02, 2008, 06:45:31 PM
SMASH THE STATE!!!!
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: the mojo hobo on February 02, 2008, 06:48:46 PM

... I cannot put my finger on what keeps me from doing so, but you can be a good President and not be likeable (you should be respectable). I don't mind how she is an urban woman, East Coast and establishment and I think she handled Bill's more than momentary lapse of good taste with Fräulein Levinsky very gracefully.



I think she is very intellegent, calculating, maybe even cunning, and even while she was First Lady had plans on returning to The White House.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: the mojo hobo on February 02, 2008, 06:57:26 PM


I don't believe our country would except an African American president. Fanatical factions, would attempt something, I have to believe.



I do think America could accept an African American president, more easily a respected and accomplished person like Colin Powell for instance. Obama is just a bit young and inexperienced. But then, so is a lot of the electorate.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Dave W on February 02, 2008, 10:46:34 PM
My candidate has declared himself in the race: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002291

Granted, he wrote this article for Harper's in 1879, but I still support his candidacy.  :)
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Darrol on February 03, 2008, 03:12:28 AM
I am still not a fan of Hillary because of her attempts to limit video games even more when they fall under freedom of speech.

Other than that I am one of those guys that does not care much about politics as I don't see how my single vote would make much of a difference. and when it comes down to it, the only thing that really matters to me is our freedom. With that said, I still don't like where they are going with RFID.

 I am going to kind of have to agree though with what my mom said to me, I don't think America is quite ready for a female or African American president.

Plus, in the end I can't vote yet because I still haven't gotten the form I needed to sign in order to finish my registration.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: TBird1958 on February 03, 2008, 03:51:20 AM
Some of my favorite people are Queens!   

 See America needs more Queens!.........

Ummmm Sorry......I just  can't be too serious.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: SKATE RAT on February 03, 2008, 07:07:58 AM
one of the biggest concerns is that we have a seperation of church and state,but all the canidates on both sides of the fence are some kind of "christian".as an atheist this bothers me.we need people of reason to make decisions,not someone who belives in fairy tails.this will be my last post on "politics" 'cause my ideas will most likely offend people.and i like talkin' music and basses here.and i don't wanna mess that up. but i do kinda like obama.  -peace.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Barklessdog on February 03, 2008, 11:15:49 AM
Quote
one of the biggest concerns is that we have a separation of church and state,but all the candidates on both sides of the fence are some kind of "christian".as an atheist this bothers me.we need people of reason to make decisions,not someone who believes in fairy tails.this will be my last post on "politics" 'cause my ideas will most likely offend people.


I know Uwe's hope is that we can discuss this as adults without offending people. I'm not offended by anyone's views as I am an open minded person.


I have seen a car forum ripped in two from the discussion of politics, just as the country was. The problem becomes when people really take it personal. I am accepting of others, we will see how others fare.





Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: drbassman on February 03, 2008, 11:57:28 AM
Well, I was a liberal for 30 years and I've grown into a conservative with age and experience.  For me, the Constitution trumps all of the discussions and distintictions between the parties.  I firmly believe the people get the government they deserve.  Previsouly and in the the future.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Lightyear on February 03, 2008, 11:58:14 AM
Politics and Religion are two topics that can turn any conversation nasty in very short order. :(  In business situations I avoid these two topics at all costs - and discuss them cautiously with the best of friends.  

I point out the obvious when I say that this is the most well behaved forum I have seen or participated in.

Given my druthers I would stick to the no politics or religion guideline. :)  JMO
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: felig on February 03, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
Quote
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination I would not be surprised to see an assassination attempt on him. I know a lot of people that would never tolerate a black man as president.
That's why I've advocated for Obama to recruit Dick Cheney as his VP choice.  That way more people would be trying to protect Obama than would be otherwise the case...I mean who would want Cheney in power with his finger on the button?  And, with Cheney being the marksman that he is would, Cheney  never could successfully take Barack out in a attempted coup d'etat.

On another, slightly more serious note--by the time of this year's general election I will be 60 years old.  I'm a white male of German & English ancestory & was raised a Methodist until I proclaimed myself to be an atheist at age 12.  The demographics of where I grew up were such that there were no African-American families, so I did not ever go to school with same.  However, in the 9th grade a Jewish kid started going to my school--he was the one & only. 
Having aired my WASP background & age, I want you to know that I am an Obama supporter & he is the person I hope to see in the White House for the next 2 presidential terms.  I registered as a Democrat in Dec. '07 for the sole purpose of being able to vote in our state's primaries.

I'm not saying anything negative about anyone else's candidate or party or political leanings--just the fact that here's one old, white who feels very positive about an African-American presidential candidate.  I don't support Clinton, but her sex has nothing to do with it--and I don't think her sex should make her a more appealing or less appealing candidate--it should be irrelevant.  It blows me away that with everything else happening in our country & our world that we should let race, sex, religion, etc. etc. even remotely enter the process.

But that's just me.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Darrol on February 03, 2008, 02:15:12 PM
If someone believes in something, I am not going to go and try and change their views. I accept everyone's opinion as their own and respect that.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: PhilT on February 03, 2008, 02:31:54 PM
Some of my favorite people are Queens!   

 See America needs more Queens!.........

Ummmm Sorry......I just  can't be too serious.

Queens rule!

(http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/Karl%20Meersman%20Casino%20Royale%20Queen%20as%20Bond%20Girl.jpg)
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: TBird1958 on February 03, 2008, 03:02:49 PM

 Did she used to be a dude?.....Opp sorry! She's your Queen.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: SKATE RAT on February 03, 2008, 05:53:24 PM
this is why you guys/gals/other rule.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: eb2 on February 03, 2008, 06:19:24 PM
I fear the worst in all situations.  The US dollar is faltering on the world currency market because it is an unsafe bet for investment.  Combine that with many financial forces actually betting against the dollar, trying to make it collapse, and the world is in for a fun ride.  This actually benefits nobody, outside of China, as many analysts have noted a euro exceding $1.50 US puts many European countries in danger of financial collapse as well.  The dollar's decline, contrary to many left-leaning beliefs, has virtually nothing to do with any of Bush's policies, but almost all to do with the fact that over 60% of the US budget is locked into uncapped entitlement spending and the US Govt has been deficit spending every year (that's right - there never were any surpluses under Clinton) for over 50 years.  The US Govt - financially - is a nut house and no one wants to deal with it.  That is maybe unfair as politicians from opposite ends of the spectrum (Forbes, Ron Paul, Jerry Brown) do point out the lunacy and get labeled as "fringe" or "unelectable."  I guess it is true.  So to deal with this financially unstable environment, our major candidates plan to fix things by nationalizing the health care system?  Cause, that is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind?  Foolishness. 
The war in Iraq, in my belief, was necessary, and would have happened no matter what.  I think the world is better off with the SOB dead, and a few European socialists losing out on their UN paychecks.  His behavior did pose a threat to the US.  After 9/11 and a review of universal belief in Iraq's military and weapons program, if Bush had not gone in, the Dems would have used it as an example of how he should not lead the country (and were gearing up to do that) .  The platform would not be one of pacifism, but of being ready and better militarily. Kerry did not pop out of a vaccuum. That is why they voted for it.  Bad idea?  Hindsight is a wonderful gift.  I remember 40 years of deficit spending and a war on poverty, and a Gulf of Tonkin.
   
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: SKATE RAT on February 03, 2008, 06:49:54 PM
what does Iraq have to do with 9/11 ?
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: eb2 on February 03, 2008, 07:28:07 PM
In short, everything.  The basic premise of a hostile government in the area that had waged war several times on its neighbors, that did have WMD programs in place, and as far as the intelligence organizations of friend and foe alike were willing to state publicly, were working underground in that country, and had continually harassed and engaged allied military flights in the no-fly zone made the tenuous contacts between that govt and Al Qaeda unacceptable.  The Iraqi govt had attempted to assasinate a president, and made no secret of its intentions to continue to to not cooperate with weapons inspection or to curtail violating the no-fly zone.  It did not have anything to do with the planning of 9/11 as far as most can tell, but in the wake of that, the regime change program created by Clinton had to procede.  Again, if Bush hadn't, the next president - a Dem - would have.   
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: Dave W on February 03, 2008, 08:29:30 PM
This has been civil so far, but we're starting to veer off into foreign policy areas where people have extreme disagreements. Let's end this now while we're ahead. I don't want people leaving because of hard feelings about political or religious differences.
Title: Re: Change For The better
Post by: uwe on February 04, 2008, 04:42:43 AM
People are dying in Iraq every day - Americans and Iraqis. If that is not a valid subject to have extreme disagreements on what is? eb2 has strong views on Iraq (and not just on Gibson bar bridges  ;)), he's allowed to have them, but I don't see his post as uncivil and he has argued his case, not just screamed insults and allegations at everyone. No reason to pounce upon him
for what is meanwhile a bravely unpopular opinion and let's not forget that both Ms Clinton and Herr McCain essentially share his view, neither of them a radical devoid of sensibilities.

I agree that Democrats are not automatically foreign policy saints (neither Kennedy nor Johnson were, Carte's reaction to Russia's Afghanistan invasion was naive - and in a cruel twist of fate a contributory factor to 9/11 - as was his treatment of Iran in the hostage crisis) and Republicans warmongers (neither Nixon nor Ford would have made Carter's mistakes when Russia invaded Afghanistan, they were too much "Realpolitik" for that and missed his evangelist zeal).

Iraq was a rogue state, yes. A vile dictatorship, yes. An enemy of the US, yes (but as long as it went against Iran you had little issue supporting and arming it). And Saddam many times over a murderer. But if that is supposed to automatically trigger a US intervention, the US still has quite of an agenda before it on the world map ... Do you really want to conquer them all?

What I missed in the descision of "invading" or "liberating" Iraq was any kind of weighing of the cons and the "what if ..." scenarios. No one seems to have given a thought about how Iraq held Iran in check and vice versa, no one seemed to realize that Iran is a product of arbitrary colonial borders with three large ethnicities and how a sepearate Kurdish state (with oil control) would have huge implications for close US ally and soon to be EU member Turkey with its huge kurdish territories and minorities. No one saw (or seemed to admit to seeing) that the evil in Iraq was inherently different to the evil of Osama, that Iraq was basically the military rule of a clan, but of a non-fundamentalist, even atheist clan. Iraq wanted to be a culturally largely westernized modern (police) state with enough military might to bully everyone in the region around, but they did not want to return to a muslim stone age nor was ever their support of the mujadin in Afghanistan reported - a civilized western democracy did that. Saddam and Osama couldn't have been farther apart, the only unifying aspect was fear and loathing of the US and Israel, a sentiment shared by many in the region but never quite enough to unify the Arab states as Nasser found out long ago.

But it is what it is now. Though it pains me to see the daily mounting US casualites and Iraqi terrorist bombing victims, a sudden withdrawal would be an even worse option - just look at what happened to Afghanistan after the Russians left as a stabilizing force and where it got us.

Uwe

PS: May I add a cynical thought? For all the money and resources spent in the Iraq war you could have easily bribed Saddam out of the country and gotten him a nice, well-guarded Swiss castle with golden bathrooms and a fleet of Ferraris for his two sons. You could have basically bought the country and bribed every inhabitant into voting to be the 51st State of the US. 

PPS: I didn't see until after my posting that this thread was locked (but that I could still actually add a post). Otherwise I would have stuck to that decision.