Very well, get back to your celebration of someone who just died from brain cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Printable View
Very well, get back to your celebration of someone who just died from brain cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
...not that I need your permission, but as I was saying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPiNIzSM3RQ
:banana::appl::shakin::clap::drunks::highfive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
When I die you can be very happy and celebrate not my lack of mistakes from that point forward; but that I have escaped from a place of having to continually try and work out if I or someone else has or is about to make more.
:smilie_whisper: Let all of your own mistakes go first, only then can you let all of the other peoples mistakes go too.
Its the only real escape out of the turnstile of guilt and blame that keeps us stuck here in between the two many polarity's.
Forgiveness starts at home, be easy on yourself,find that child within and re love it.
If you were brought up as me and had the same situations occur and guide you from year one right through , you could have easily have made the same mistakes as me. If I were taken through your genetic pool and your mental learning path, I could have just as easily made all of your mistakes.
People who cease old patterns and old mistakes can let them lie. They can move on without the old anchor and the rope.
When I read Andre's post I have to light candles, burn incense, listen to Enya and imagine Obi Won's voice otherwise I just don't feel like I get the full effect. ;D
Ahh just shoot me instead,Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
It'll have no real effect ;D.
:spongebob: I am sponge Bob the irrepressible.
That last paragraph was a great rant, but I don't think it applies any more to the left than the right, at least not much more. Lyle, the fact that you would have voted for McCain in 2000 and support guys like Pawlenty or Crist is a good sign. If you can just get away from the cold war mentality that afflicts so many people, you'll have a better chance of getting your good points across. In the past, you didn't sound like a Rush/Fox news robot, and in this thread, you do, right up until a few lucid points buried in this last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleIt means they are all Socialists which is why the populations they govern will always be poor or dumb or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanThat just shows his complete and utter ignorance about the history of Latin American, Sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Let's put my accusation to the test shall we?
What national leader of a Central American country was not or is not a Socialist in the style of Che Guavera? Hugo Chavez, I know that's South America rather than Central America, but still, my point still holds water. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua is a Sandinista. Roberto Michaletti who is trying to retain power in Honduras is no different than any of the other assholes I have mentioned. Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize Winner Oscar Arias is as liberal/socialist as they come. Manuel Esquivel of Belize....liberal. Mauricio Fuenes of El Salvador? He's no different than the rest. And finally Ricardo Martinelli of Panama???? He's another lefty....so where exactly am I wrong in my assertion that basically the entirety of Central America is run by Che Guavera wannabes???? The leaders are no different, and the outcomes they acheive are rarely any different, they rule over poor ignorant people and the leaders see no need to change that because it keeps them in check. What has socialism done for these people? It's driven the rich away and now they are left with farmers and sweat shops....bravo socialism, man where can I get some of that action :rolleyes:.
If you want to run a Central American country you only need a couple things:
1. Bravado...you have to rattle your saber like no other and thumb your nose in America's collective face.
2. Out dated Aviator glasses (I've actually got a pair so when you notice that their National Anthem is officially changed to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NshzYK9y0 then you will know I've succeeded in my coup) ;D
3. A snazzy Military cover (a hat for you civilians out there) to protect your bald head OR curly semi-fro'ed out hair.
4. Various speeches (made in soaring yet bellicose tone) about land reform and agriculture and how you are "of the people" and that you empathize with their "struggle vs the capitalist pigs"
5. The ability to manipulate large groups of people, but of course every politician needs that.
But back on topic, I don't like the nepotism of the Kennedy family, I think America is better than that and there are idiot people out there now, who get swept up in the celebrity of a person instead of what electing them means for the people...for example Sarah Palin(or Obama, but to be fair and balanced PALIN), I am not a fan of hers, her daughter might be hot as hell but I wouldn't vote for her just on account of that. I did vote for McCain, but hell I would have voted for him in 2000 as well but didn't get the chance and there is no way on Earth that I would ever vote for Al Gore. I would have rather McCain had chosen a different VP candidate, maybe Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty or Richard Burr or JC Watt, but oh well hindsight is 20/20.
I think the problem with the good guys is they get overshaddowed by the egomaniacal, glad handing, you scratch my back I'll scratch your back bastards. And that goes for both sides. Sorry I have to vent like this but NEVER does the left get called out unless they really fuck up and even then it's a crap shoot and maybe in a couple years everyone forgets, like when Sandy Berger tried to sneak classified material out of the National Archives in his pants. And then people just laugh about it instead of sending him to jail or something.
Listen, I'm not saying the leftists in Central America are all that great. I know many people who have suffered at their hands and lost family to those revolutions. The problem is that you make blanket statements about leaders being so called Che wannabes, when each country has it's own unique situation, and you don't reallly understand the context. One of the main reasons all theses leftists are in power is a reaction to the oppression of US-backed, right wing regimes.
Because the US supported repressive regimes, people could turn nowhere except Cuba/and/Soviets for aid fund revolution against evil, evil, regimes. So they became a pawn in the Cold War. Now this crap has taken on a life of its own after 50 years of political unrest. Unfortunately, many American leaders don't apply Jeffersonian principles to other nations and people.
If you read or re-read my long post from last week, you will see that I'm offended by many things Kennedy related. Trust me, if Joe Kennedy gets appointed or elected to the Senate, your rage will not be a 10th of mine. It have had plenty of rants of my own against the Kennedy clan.
I only argue with you, Lyle, because I know that we are actually not far apart in our views, but I don't think you help the cause when you come at things like you do from time to time, including this thread. I voted for McCain, but as much as I don't care for Obama, the idea of Palin being president scares me more than anything and I gave McCain a pass on his poor judgement about it. I voted in 2008 for McCain from 2000.
As much as you hate Al Gore, it's amazing in hindsight you would still rather have Bush. I can't quite understand that. Maybe I do. Maybe you, like Rumsfield, Bush, and Cheney, are still stuck in the Cold War mentality and don't recognize it for the folly those policies created. If we could just get you out of that mentality....I'm not a fan of Gore, but seriously, Bush was one of the worst presidents in history. Gore couldn't have been worse. It's impossible.
Four years of Gore followed by a McCain presidency would have been so much better. Obama was a backlash against 8 years of Bush. No Bush, no Obama....things would be so much better. I can't see how you could disagree.
I somehow can't get too torn up about this guy dying.
He was born with the best silver spoon in his mouth that it's possible to have, his early political career was handed to him (to the extent that people just sat in his seat for him), he was a misogynistic drunk ..... therefore he was weak willed and a clear narcissist, which are not qualities that you would want to find in anyone remotely near a position of power.
A person who would swim away from a car accident, ring a lawyer first, then the police - before making any attempt to rescue the person he was with ........ that person is not a complete or good human being. There is something missing there.
As a Brit who fought in Northern Ireland, his pretence to somehow be 'Irish' and his simplistic and jingoistic funding of the IRA through Noraid annoyed me. Looking back at that through the prism of time, I think we are probably right to get indignant at this support of a lawless terrorist outfit.
No doubt, Kennedy then did a lot of good in the Senate for a number of years ..... but so do lots of people and they dont generate worldwide headlines.
Ted Kennedy - a deeply flawed underachiever, who somehow managed to cling to the ears of power through the wreckage of his life. Shame he's dead as i dont wish him any ill will particularly, but he wasn't exactly Lincoln or anything. :confused:
Good post Rozzy, I'll try and keep all that stuff in mind when we have the colorful disagreements. All I want is a Fiscal Conservative leader who isn't beholden to the Religious nuts out there.
X, I agree with you, and although people may think I'm cold and callous when I celebrate the death of Ted Kennedy, but who would want Ted Kennedy's life/lifestyle?? Should I feel sorry for a guy who got away with murder and only served life in Congress???
Now that's representing POYMPQuote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanThat last paragraph was a great rant, but I don't think it applies any more to the left than the right, at least not much more. Lyle, the fact that you would have voted for McCain in 2000 and support guys like Pawlenty or Crist is a good sign. If you can just get away from the cold war mentality that afflicts so many people, you'll have a better chance of getting your good points across. In the past, you didn't sound like a Rush/Fox news robot, and in this thread, you do, right up until a few lucid points buried in this last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleIt means they are all Socialists which is why the populations they govern will always be poor or dumb or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Let's put my accusation to the test shall we?
What national leader of a Central American country was not or is not a Socialist in the style of Che Guavera? Hugo Chavez, I know that's South America rather than Central America, but still, my point still holds water. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua is a Sandinista. Roberto Michaletti who is trying to retain power in Honduras is no different than any of the other assholes I have mentioned. Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize Winner Oscar Arias is as liberal/socialist as they come. Manuel Esquivel of Belize....liberal. Mauricio Fuenes of El Salvador? He's no different than the rest. And finally Ricardo Martinelli of Panama???? He's another lefty....so where exactly am I wrong in my assertion that basically the entirety of Central America is run by Che Guavera wannabes???? The leaders are no different, and the outcomes they acheive are rarely any different, they rule over poor ignorant people and the leaders see no need to change that because it keeps them in check. What has socialism done for these people? It's driven the rich away and now they are left with farmers and sweat shops....bravo socialism, man where can I get some of that action :rolleyes:.
If you want to run a Central American country you only need a couple things:
1. Bravado...you have to rattle your saber like no other and thumb your nose in America's collective face.
2. Out dated Aviator glasses (I've actually got a pair so when you notice that their National Anthem is officially changed to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NshzYK9y0 then you will know I've succeeded in my coup) ;D
3. A snazzy Military cover (a hat for you civilians out there) to protect your bald head OR curly semi-fro'ed out hair.
4. Various speeches (made in soaring yet bellicose tone) about land reform and agriculture and how you are "of the people" and that you empathize with their "struggle vs the capitalist pigs"
5. The ability to manipulate large groups of people, but of course every politician needs that.
But back on topic, I don't like the nepotism of the Kennedy family, I think America is better than that and there are idiot people out there now, who get swept up in the celebrity of a person instead of what electing them means for the people...for example Sarah Palin(or Obama, but to be fair and balanced PALIN), I am not a fan of hers, her daughter might be hot as hell but I wouldn't vote for her just on account of that. I did vote for McCain, but hell I would have voted for him in 2000 as well but didn't get the chance and there is no way on Earth that I would ever vote for Al Gore. I would have rather McCain had chosen a different VP candidate, maybe Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty or Richard Burr or JC Watt, but oh well hindsight is 20/20.
I think the problem with the good guys is they get overshaddowed by the egomaniacal, glad handing, you scratch my back I'll scratch your back bastards. And that goes for both sides. Sorry I have to vent like this but NEVER does the left get called out unless they really fuck up and even then it's a crap shoot and maybe in a couple years everyone forgets, like when Sandy Berger tried to sneak classified material out of the National Archives in his pants. And then people just laugh about it instead of sending him to jail or something.
Listen, I'm not saying the leftists in Central America are all that great. I know many people who have suffered at their hands and lost family to those revolutions. The problem is that you make blanket statements about leaders being so called Che wannabes, when each country has it's own unique situation, and you don't reallly understand the context. One of the main reasons all theses leftists are in power is a reaction to the oppression of US-backed, right wing regimes.
Because the US supported repressive regimes, people could turn nowhere except Cuba/and/Soviets for aid fund revolution against evil, evil, regimes. So they became a pawn in the Cold War. Now this crap has taken on a life of its own after 50 years of political unrest. Unfortunately, many American leaders don't apply Jeffersonian principles to other nations and people.
If you read or re-read my long post from last week, you will see that I'm offended by many things Kennedy related. Trust me, if Joe Kennedy gets appointed or elected to the Senate, your rage will not be a 10th of mine. It have had plenty of rants of my own against the Kennedy clan.
I only argue with you, Lyle, because I know that we are actually not far apart in our views, but I don't think you help the cause when you come at things like you do from time to time, including this thread. I voted for McCain, but as much as I don't care for Obama, the idea of Palin being president scares me more than anything and I gave McCain a pass on his poor judgement about it. I voted in 2008 for McCain from 2000.
As much as you hate Al Gore, it's amazing in hindsight you would still rather have Bush. I can't quite understand that. Maybe I do. Maybe you, like Rumsfield, Bush, and Cheney, are still stuck in the Cold War mentality and don't recognize it for the folly those policies created. If we could just get you out of that mentality....I'm not a fan of Gore, but seriously, Bush was one of the worst presidents in history. Gore couldn't have been worse. It's impossible.
Four years of Gore followed by a McCain presidency would have been so much better. Obama was a backlash against 8 years of Bush. No Bush, no Obama....things would be so much better. I can't see how you could disagree.
Here's a question for you, how would you feel about someone that is all the way pegged left on social issues (gay marriage, seperation of church and state, legalization of marijuana, pro-choice, dissolving NAFTA etc., withindraws troops from entangling foreign powers) BUT had the most responsible Fiscal plan. A plan in which eliminated the national debt, lead to an overall reduction of taxes to all Americans and a smaller government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Well Killersheep, I wouldn't have too much time for them if they were privileged misogysists who left a junior staffer that worked for them to die in a car crash that was their fault - then used their influence to be exonerated.
It's not about the politics for me, at all.
My statement wasn't about Kennedy at all. I'll be the first to admit he was as far away from a Fiscal Conservative as is possible (exception of Kucinich).Quote:
Originally Posted by X
The character represented in my question represents noone living or dead and any resemblence is strictly coincidental.
This was aimed at Lyle's statement " All I want is a Fiscal Conservative leader who isn't beholden to the Religious nuts out there. "
I was interested to see how far left he could tolerate on social issues with extreme right fiscal policy. I would like to add this ficticious character also has a 100% rating from the NRA in regards to 2nd amendment protection.
Killer if we are talking about a dramatic reduction in spending/size of federal government and elimination of federal deficit I could look past almost any social issue mainly b/c it would empower state governments more so at least regionally many of the social issues would be agreeable to the citizens there.
I appreciate your ideas on the healthcare issue, and it's nice to be able to discuss and debate things in a civil manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
I think ultimately noone on here is that far off from each other on actual policy. I go by label of liberal, because in Arizona I lean far to the left compared to the heavy GOP (Mormon version) to Libertarian population that live here. If I was to live in Massachusetts where RozzySean is with all the Greens and Dems, I would be considered a Conservative. Truth be told most voters vote for an ideal that no politician will live up to regardless of party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Meet Charlie Baker, the next governor or Massachusetts.
Charlie Baker 2010 - Home
You can pretty much write his name in now. As liberal as most of MA is, we have a history of electing GOP governors to offset the legislature. Pretty much nobody likes Patrick and almost the entire GOP caucus is backing him, even guys who had good chance themselves.
Give his guy a few years as Governor, and he'll be a great national candidate.