Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 2008 Elections (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: 2008 Elections
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry if this has already been done to death, but I didn't get any hits when I did a search so....

Everyone seems to think Hilary will run for the dems in 2008, but who will run for the republicans and do they have any chance of winning anyway?

My opinion is that unless they can talk McCain into running, the republicans won't have any chance. It'll be a knee jerk reaction from the poor job Bush has done even though I don't think Kerry would have done one bit better.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EvanWeeks
Member
Member # 883

 - posted      Profile for EvanWeeks   Email EvanWeeks       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Several people in my office have suggested the GOP put Condi in the spotlight for 2008 to counter Hillary.
Posts: 198 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aerto
Member
Member # 2625

 - posted      Profile for Aerto   Email Aerto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rudy Giuliani is another GOP possibility. He is incredibly popular for little reason at all.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guiliani will not get the GOP nomination for President 2008, period. Just because he happened to be the mayor of New York during 9/11 doesn't make him the best Presidential candidate, because he wouldn't be. The person I would like to see nominated probably won't get it (Sam Brownback). I keep hearing a lot of buzz around George Allen.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just hope I have someone I can vote for, running on ANY ticket, without feeling TOO sick to my stomach.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aerto
Member
Member # 2625

 - posted      Profile for Aerto   Email Aerto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never said he was the best candidate, I think he is far from it, but he has been mentioned as a possibility.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the articles I've seen, Guiliani wouldn't have a chance of getting thru the primaries -- he's far too moderate.
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Giuliani has plenty of reason to be popular. It has a lot to do with visibility from 9/11, but he managed to do a great job as mayor of New York the rest of the time as well. Cleaning up crime, as a major effort, including getting rid of mob influence in city government (well, reducing it). He solved huge budget deficits, something we could well hope for in the White House.

Politically, he's proven he can win in an overwhelmingly "Blue" area as a Republican. This could have tremendous value in reducing partisan election tensions - possibly winning by more than 100,000 votes. He can also win without leaning as heavily on, or oweing as much to, extreme right interests.

It is unclear if Rudy even wants to run. But I'd support him before warmed-over McCain or Rice. Rice is a poor choice because of those "Bin Laden Determined..." quotes as well as her closeness to the unpopular Mr. Bush.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
adding: Yep, I agree. Giuliani would have a difficult time in primaries. But he might be able to ride his 9/11 demigod status through that part of the population.

[ November 18, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: The Drake ]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
I just hope I have someone I can vote for, running on ANY ticket, without feeling TOO sick to my stomach.

Keep dreaming. [Big Grin]
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"He can also win without leaning as heavily on, or oweing as much to, extreme right interests."
I disagree. Guiliani will not be able to win the GOP nomination or a national Presidential election without the blessing of religious conservatives and/or grassroots conservative organizations, such as the ACU. Heck, he wouldn't even win the South Carolina primary, and would be eaten alive during the Republican primary process.

[ November 18, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Schmoe:
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
I just hope I have someone I can vote for, running on ANY ticket, without feeling TOO sick to my stomach.

Keep dreaming. [Big Grin]
I know [Frown]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney is going to run. I don't thikn he can get the nomination, though.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FIJC:
Guiliani will not be able to win the GOP nomination or a national Presidential election without the blessing of religious conservatives and/or grassroots conservative organizations, such as the ACU.

Well, stick to the nomination discussion, since that is obviously the mean hurdle.

I don't mean to suggest he can spurn these groups, or energize them to actively oppose.

But crazy Pat Robertson thinks he's okay.

article

quote:
In response to a question about whether religious conservatives would split off from the Republican Party if a moderate like Mayor Giuliani were nominated for president, Rev. Robertson quickly said, "I don't think so. Rudy is a very good friend of mine, and he did a super job running the City of New York. And I think he'd make a good president. I like him a lot. Although he doesn't share all of my particular points of view on social issues, he's a very dedicated Catholic. And he's a great guy."
edited to remove a rogue apostrophe

[ November 18, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: The Drake ]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" he's a very dedicated Catholic"

Hrm. I wonder if any catholic priests will say they'd deny guilliani communion... :-/

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
heh
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They would deny him communion because, like Kerry, while he's personally pro-life, he's politically pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My opinion is that unless they can talk McCain into running, the republicans won't have any chance."

It's sooo early, and the field is soooo wide open on both sides that it's hard to even speculate at this point without just drifting off into dreamy stargazing.

The old saying that you can't beat somebody with nobody will play a big factor. Each side has ample opportunity to shine or stumble. That said, I think the national mood will depend a lot on the status of Iraq. After 6 years, the public will be expecting Bush to have finished work there, or at least be so close as to make any conclusion inevitable and timely. The farther Iraq is in the rearview mirror, the more even the playing field will be during the contest.

If Iraq is still very much an issue come '08, I'd expect the Democrats to have a significant advantage. The nation may decide to give a Democratic President a chance to clean up the last of the unfinished work.

I fully expect the Democrats to take the office in '08, not because of any specific candidate, but more because I think that's the way the wind will be blowing at the time. The '06 midterms I think will be a non-indicator of the '08 Presidential race. Whatever their outcome, neither party should try to read the tea leaves too heavily.

Finally, and this is a warning I've sounded before: If the Democrats don't have a national 'win' by '08 (either the Presidency or taking back at least one branch of the Congress), they will be hard pressed to maintain even a credible opposition status. At that point the Republicans will have dominated the federal government for a decade. I don't find that prospect heartwarming, as I think uncontested political power is not good for the nation, whichever party is holding the cards.

[ November 18, 2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well as to Rudy, he really did a great job finishing what his mayoral predecessor started. New York was a fiscal mess, and swamped with both petty and organized crime. He left the city far better than he found it, and really is the person responsible for making the results of the turn around nationally known. 9/11 put him on the American short attention span stage, so the 25% of us who still watch news have at least a passing knowledge of him.

Short of a miracle, he'd never survive the primaries. He is a complex mix of liberal and conservative which would leave him open to massive attack by the unknowns that will be running. Also if McCain runs, Rudy would have only name recognition status to fall back on. McCain could allow the little candidates to snipe Rudy until the name recognition advantage wears thin, and then present himself as the candidate with both name recognition and a track record palatable to mainstream republicans.

I think its McCain's campaign if he wants it, I havent seen him say strongly that he would run yet. But if Hillary winds up being the Democratic front runner, McCain will face a veritible media vacume of attention to his own campaign. Having a woman run for president is still a novelty. Having a woman with political clout in the North East, and national name recognition, and also national party leadership influence would be a first in American politics and make media attention nearly rabid. If she is a candidate, any old grey haired liberal republican political candiate put against her is going to pale significantly.

The possible political clout availible to Hillary, along with the built in media fascination that already exists concerning her, would mushroom faster than a hydrogen bomb and likely consume any Republican candidate no matter how qualified he or she might be.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As long as a Republican wins the '08 election I'm happy.

This sets the stage for Obama 2012.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Condi Prez, Mitt Romney for VP
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney?
Oye vey. The man is despicable as a politician. And I believe you were one of those saying that kerry's flip flops made him a bad choice for president? So what about Romneys? (and if you weren't one of those criticizing kerry for flip flopping, then this portion of the post doesn't apply).

Quite honestly, though, knowing your political positions, the only reason I can think of for you supporting him is his religion. He holds almost the opposite view as you on every issue other then gay marriage, and there are a HOST of people who will be running you hold the same views as you on gay marriage, and are closer on other issues.

[ November 19, 2005, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev

Gotta go with your judgement of Romney. He'd be terrible as a candidate, and is realy not someone who is prepared to take on the Presidency.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Romney is going to run. I don't thikn he can get the nomination, though.

Mitt Romney the only one with the balls to ride the ssm issue to its potential, if the Republicans fail to get it through this term. I will never forgive McCain for blocking FMA unless he reverses. And if Senator Clinton pushes ssm, then she's got my vote.

The reason that so many "moderates" support McCain is that this is what the press tells them that "moderates" are supposed to do. [Big Grin]

SSM drove the last election, and will continue to drive the elections until the FMA goes through, unless they put it off so many terms that everyone's forgotten what real marriage meant. And at that point it wouldn't matter anymore.

The anti-ssm petition had over 200,000 signatures on December 7 in Massachussetts. You don't hear about it much in the press, but the snowball is rollin'.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Romney?
Oye vey. The man is despicable as a politician. And I believe you were one of those saying that kerry's flip flops made him a bad choice for president? So what about Romneys? (and if you weren't one of those criticizing kerry for flip flopping, then this portion of the post doesn't apply).

Quite honestly, though, knowing your political positions, the only reason I can think of for you supporting him is his religion. He holds almost the opposite view as you on every issue other then gay marriage, and there are a HOST of people who will be running you hold the same views as you on gay marriage, and are closer on other issues.

See me say something for Romney and you pretend that it's because he's Mormon? You're a bigot, Everard. Report that to the monitor for all I care, you pathetic lout.

Only an idiot could be on this board as long as you have and not know that ssm is a big enough issue to turn my vote.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The anti-ssm petition had over 200,000 signatures on December 7 in Massachussetts. You don't hear about it much in the press, but the snowball is rollin'."

Erm, well, you DO hear about it, because there are several court cases ongoing against it, mostly having to do with fraud.The people pushing the petition told people they were signing a petition for a variety of social liberal issues, and tried to prevent people from reading most of the petition, so they'd sign it. So...yeah, I hear about it here in MA, and mostly what I hear are people angry that they were misled into signing it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm so sick of bigots that dismiss anything I say because of my religion. You don't like Romney? Dandy. Want to persuade me? Be my guest. But start telling me that I only like him because of his religion, and that is Master baiting even for Everard standards.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Only an idiot could be on this board as long as you have and not know that ssm is a big enough issue to turn my vote"

Did you read the REST of my post, or just the bit you highlighted?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know what, Pete, I'm NOT trying to bait you. I honestly do not understand why someone with your views would consider Romney a good candidate. I KNOW that SSM is an issue your vote hinges on. But, and I said this in the first post, there are going to be people coming out of the wood work in DROVES who have the same position on SSM as Romney does... and fit your other political views better. Leaving aside how bad a politician is, and only putting this on issues, there are probably going to be a half dozen candidates in the next election who are anti-ssm, and align more closely with your other political views then Romney. So I can't figure out why you'd think Romney is a good choice, even for VP.The only thing I could think of (because I also know that your religion is an important part of your cultural identity) is that you would prefer an LDS as a candidate over other candidates.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Name one single other presidential candidate as high profile as Romney who's put as much into the fight for marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"Only an idiot could be on this board as long as you have and not know that ssm is a big enough issue to turn my vote"

Did you read the REST of my post, or just the bit you highlighted?

When you start making speculations about my motives based on what you think you know about my religion, there's really nothing else to read. If you want to know my motives, ask me. There's no bleeding excuse for what you said, and if you had a decent bone in your body you'd apologize.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Woah hold your horse Pete....I think you just flew off the handle because Paul and I were talking real time, and even I couldnt come up with a reason to support Romney in your case except for the religion angle. It would be like me supporting Kerry. the only possible reason an outside observer on Ornery could ascribe such support to would have to be that Kerry is catholic.

I need to read what was posted before I had to go talk on the phone,

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really pete, I think you have made a huge mistake as to Paul's comment. It was not intende to hurt you or provoke a response. All we had to go on concerning Romney was your Condi for Pres Romney for VP oneliner. And frankly I think most people, like myself, and Paul, saw your proposal for Romney as a candidate troubling. On the merits of Romney's political flipping, and going where the money is, someone with as high political principles as you proposing Romney for any office didnt make sense. Especially if you consider Romeny's posisitons track whichever way the cash flows. If you think SSM is that important a single issue, why would you consider a canditate who has flipped or steped back from multiple political promises.

Why would he not change his mind on this issue as well? Having seen him interviewed multiple times on Fox over the years, I can agree he's telegenic, and seems nice, but his gadfly style of political advocacy would seem to totally disqualify him from your consideration as someone worthy of national office regardless of party.

It wasn't bigotry which cause Paul and I to wonder why you would propose him as a candidate. Rather it was the seeming abandonment of your normally idealistic and strident advocacy of political solutions that would permit you to propose such a bad candidate.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not bigotry to wonder why, no. It's not bigotry to find it troubling, either. What I find bigotedis for Ev and a couple others here to consistently accuse me of theocracy, even though they don't use that specific term. That's the same old pissy attack that gets leveled by anti-mormons everywhere, and it grates to always have that flung in my face. Always pretending that my motives for opposing ssm are purely religious, and that the rather than the cultural and secular concerns that I've described are pretexts. Every other week at least he calls me a liar about my own motives, and he knows very well that it grates me to infer religious motives for everything I say. You have no idea what that's like.

I said already I'd vote for Hillary if she supported the FMA. Sincerity would be nifty, but let's be realistic; I just want the result. I see neutered marriage and cultural nihilism within our country as a greater threat than Islamist terrorism. It has nothing to do with gays -- we're talking about the lynchpin of civilization. The concept that a child needs a father and mother. If you don't understand that as an ideal, then talk to me, like you're doing. I answer questions.

Can you seriously say this isn't a bait?

"Quite honestly, though, knowing your political positions, the only reason I can think of for you supporting him is his religion."

Gee -- Ev doesn't realize my position on ssm? The ONLY reason he can think of? Please.

I don't know much about Romney other than his fight on the ssm front. And given who owns the press in MA, I think it takes guts to stand where he does. I understand that you don't see the threat as I do on the ssm issue, Red, and I suspect that's because your specialty is anthro while mine is language, story, and metadiscourse. I really don't think our civilization can survive 3-4 generations of the word marriage being neutered in the public sphere. Just like I don't see France or the Netherlands surviving 4 generations (unless you count dhimmihood as survival). I think you can see that, neh?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And this is why wedge issues have succeeded in destroying American democracy: because some people only have room in their heads for one issue at a time.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete

You have really inferred something that was neither intended nor does it exist, on this thread, as you have portrayed it. You have over reacted to something that was not here. You have also effectively derailed the thread.

Being Catholic is less a cake walk than being Mormon. However I tend to overlook the oft repeated Pope must be stopped and Catholics are all child molester threads. Most people are intelligent enough to recognize that often the hype is reflective of the source.

And since I dont think I have ever really stated a position about SSM in regard to my personal views, I'll stop your guessing. Marriage is, and has always historically been, a union between a man and woman. Barring some experimental ratios between the number of male and female so bonded, marriage has had a central function of providing resources specificly aimed at the raising of children, even if a marriage did not result in a child to benefit from the marriage bond. So on anthropological basis I full support that marriage must have at least 1 male and one female and that the bond is ideally focused on benefiting any potential child brought into the marriage bond. On a theological basis, as a Catholic, marriage is pretty straight forward. 1 male 1 female, and all the kids you can make. Society has existed largely as an extention of the groupings of married people. Most of the developments of higher social orders has depended on marriage as its ultimate basis, even if not all members of the society are married or choose to be married.

Seeing that government is a reflection of society, and since government primarilly owes its origination to the need for security and protective covenents that uniquely arise out of marriage, any act by the government to replace or redifine marriage as being not fundamentally a union of at least one male and one female would not only be wrong in terms of the reality marriage as the core social unit, but also a betrayal of the extention of covenents embodied in governmental functions as they exist now.

That simple. From an anthropological basis, SSM has zero precedent nor any compelling social merit to risk the fundamental human needs of social cohesion and security that marriage assures. Nor does it provide any basis for a valid need to redefine marriage that would compensate the inherent loss of social survivability such a move would cause. If there is no compulsion socially for males to marry females and create children, and the government of the society removes exclusive benefits designed to reward males and females who formally marry by permitting any combination of sexes to marry, then the fundamental construct of the society will be compromised and its long term survival will be doubtful.

So for me SSM is contraindicated by my Catholic belief that it is a shared sacrament, and that is further bolstered by the scientific study of the human social condition in the field of anthropology.

Frankly you have gone off the deep end, somehow derailed a thread into another SSM rant, taken personal insult where none was intended, and frankly insulted the intelligence of the board at large with this display. You owe Paul an appology.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All hail Pete at Home for derailing yet another thread into an SSM rant.
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And this is why wedge issues have succeeded in destroying American democracy: because some people only have room in their heads for one issue at a time.

Sure Tom. As if you or Ev would vote for a candidate who supported FMA, regardless of the sincerity or competeince of the candidate on the other side.

Red, I wasn't speculating about your position on SSM. You have not talked about it much here, while it's been my primary topic of discussion since day 1. And since day 1, Ev and Tom have together dismissed every secular argument I've made against ssm by pretending that my reasons were wholly religious. It's their standard way of erasing anything I have to say. You ask Scott if I'm making a big deal out of nothing.

I respect your opinion, Red, but you're wrong on this one. What he said was bigoted, and I'm willing to bet that is PRECISELY the sort of remark that Scott had in mind when he wrote the rule against "MOTIVE SPECULATING." Because that's exactly the sort of crap that Scott gets hit with every time he opens his political mouth, and it's what one of his recent essays complained about. It's a very big grievance to us, and even if you don't understand it, or agree with it, you need to recognize that this is sincerely how we see it.

As for the supposed "derailing," Tom's right that this is a wedge issue. If the FMA doesn't pass in 2006 or 2007, then it will certainly dominate the elections in 2008, and this will be the fight in the Republican primary.

[ November 20, 2005, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
All hail Pete at Home for derailing yet another thread into an SSM rant.

Well I'll be darned. Look who dropped onto a thread that doesn't have the name "Bush" or "Neocon" on it! [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, while I am admittedly a hothead, you also know that I do frequently recognize that I'm wrong, and apologize, even if the other party is also in the wrong and too vain to apologize themselves. If I'm wrong here, I can't see it. Maybe I'll see it later when I'm no longer angry.

Alternately, maybe this is just one more thing that boils down to point of view. I don't think you'd have said what Ev said, and if you had, you don't have a history of dismissing my arguments and my positions based on my religion.

Whether someone intends to be offensive when he dismisses my position or argument based on my religion, does not in fact make it any less offensive or bigoted. If anything, the second-nature "no offense intended" dismissals are more offensive and bigoted.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1