|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Dec 28, 2010 14:33:01 GMT -8
This hasn't been looked at since well before the 2010 midterms, and maybe for good reason, given the results. Here's the thing we should all admit now: Jard, you were right (not that I disagreed with you, as I stated before) when it came to Sarah Palin being a powerhouse of the party. That belief has been vindicated and will probably continue to be so. This has been a Republican comeback year, though it remains to be seen what will happen when Congress 2011 is sworn in and actually gets to work - there's a lot on the table, and some of the more, let's say, colourful members of both parties will be looking to mix it up. In the meantime, I just want to say that I think it's rather interesting when a noted political commentator like David Gergen seriously floats the idea of JEB BUSH running for the Republican nomination in 2012: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/roundtable-the-gop-victory-the-tea-party-ascendancy-and-obamas-next-steps-20101110And now I step back from this and let the actual Americans tear each oth- I mean, discuss things in a calm and civil manner. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Feb 2, 2011 6:49:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Feb 2, 2011 10:45:40 GMT -8
From over here it's impossible for me to tell, but are there really people who take Glenn Beck seriously? My only exposure to him is through the Daily Show.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Feb 2, 2011 19:33:59 GMT -8
While his ratings are significantly down, and a lot of advertisers have jumped ship, sadly the minority that take him seriously are very vocal and very dedicated
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Mar 29, 2011 13:40:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Mar 29, 2011 13:52:14 GMT -8
And now for American political commentary:
I normally do NOT watch the Colbert Report - something about the act always bothers me; the appearance of simply mocking your ideological opponents in a parody fashion is something that only works in short doses for me.
However, last night, I watched the interview with Michael Moore. Full disclaimer - I've long since realized his partisan tricks and the fact that he bends the facts when it suits him - in that way, he's little different from Rush Limbaugh. However, at the very end of the interview (concerning the WI union protests) he clearly decided to unload - stating the way things were going, Stephen could look forward to simply being a paid tool for Viacom. And then, just for a second, you could see Colbert's facade visibly CRACK under the attack, as he figured out a way to try and make comedy hay out of it. To his credit, he largely succeeded.
I'm not sure what it says - that Moore's agressive tactics can punch through even Colbert's iron-clad act, that Moore was simply passionate and angry at the interviewing going through the usual Colbert interview style (say what you will about Stewart's interviewing being as inconsistent as it is - Colbert's trick of faux-O'Reilly and talk-pointing it tends to make every interview the same mishmash of incoherence), that Moore was making a grandstand play for attention, or what have you. However, give him credit for the fact that he knows where to hit, because making Colbert drop the mask is a fairly impressive trick in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Apr 3, 2011 5:14:04 GMT -8
Ugh, this fucking Arguement. I had it with, of all people, my martial arts grandmaster this last week.
"I don't know how anyone could possibly want to bring kids into the world today. Everything is falling apart."
"Sir, you had kids, correct?"
"Yes."
"And did you have them before or after 1963?"
"After."
"So, then you brought them into a world where at any moment, two countries could annihilate all life on earth over a political science debate?"
"Yes."
"OK, just so we've established that you brought them into a much more dangerous world, overall, for everyone, then what we are in now."
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Apr 4, 2011 19:23:19 GMT -8
Ugh, this fucking Arguement. I had it with, of all people, my martial arts grandmaster this last week. "I don't know how anyone could possibly want to bring kids into the world today. Everything is falling apart." "Sir, you had kids, correct?" "Yes." "And did you have them before or after 1963?" "After." "So, then you brought them into a world where at any moment, two countries could annihilate all life on earth over a political science debate?" "Yes." "OK, just so we've established that you brought them into a much more dangerous world, overall, for everyone, then what we are in now." At least I can say I'm internally consistent in this regard. During the Cold War '80s, I actually asked my parents what they were thinking when they decided to bring a kid - ME - into a world living under the shadow of mutually assured destruction. I was in grade school when I asked them this question. And now, they still wonder why I say I'd rather be dead than have kids of my own. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Apr 4, 2011 23:51:48 GMT -8
At least I can say I'm internally consistent in this regard. During the Cold War '80s, I actually asked my parents what they were thinking when they decided to bring a kid - ME - into a world living under the shadow of mutually assured destruction. I was in grade school when I asked them this question. And now, they still wonder why I say I'd rather be dead than have kids of my own. At least I know that my parents weren't thinking.  I'm consistent too, in that regard. I dislike life too much to want to inflict it on someone who doesn't get a vote in the matter -- mostly because I've resented all my life that I've been put into this situation. So I too never wanted children. In that regard, it was a blessing when I discovered that it wasn't an option anyway. And the current situation at home was reflected when we considered adpotion, and I nixed it because I didn't believe we would be good parents, and I didn't want to inflict us as parents on some helpless child. (Also, because I was afraid we'd be assigned a too-old child, and I didn't want to have to deal with the bad side of parenthood -- rebellious teenagers -- without having had the fun side of parenthood -- young pre-teens.) So yeah, I'm consistent too. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Apr 5, 2011 10:57:59 GMT -8
I'm not striving to have kids mostly because I think childhood consists of a lot of crap for everyone. As adults we tend to forget how much of being kid is frustration, angst and other bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Apr 5, 2011 11:30:27 GMT -8
I'm not striving to have kids mostly because I think childhood consists of a lot of crap for everyone. As adults we tend to forget how much of being kid is frustration, angst and other bullshit. I think as adults, we tend to view childhood through the proverbial rose-tinted glasses because while childhood is frustration, angst and bullshit, adulthood is all of that, exponentially magnified. As in: it sucks when you're a kid, but since things only get worse, the time later looks good in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Apr 5, 2011 12:18:33 GMT -8
During the Cold War '80s, I actually asked my parents what they were thinking when they decided to bring a kid - ME - into a world living under the shadow of mutually assured destruction. Maybe because a world where no one has enough hope to have kids is more likely to blow itself up? |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Apr 29, 2011 19:05:46 GMT -8
So, the McChrystal thing..... Anyone else thinking that the US just dodged a coup? I'm not saying it could have happened, but at the same time, I don't think it is no longer an impossibility. Having read the article, it seemed like McChrystal was everthing McCain wanted to be, but the fallout proved that end of the day, he fucked up big time without any consideration for the fallout and he knew it. But then again, I don't think McChrystal would have been the one to do it - my understanding is he doesn't have the support of a lot of the troops or the brass or the political connections to make it happen, and he didn't want to be the one history books would record as "the man who broke over two centuries of American Democracy." Petreaus, on the other hand.... Michael And now Petreaus is heading to run the CIA. Puts him out of contention for 2012, but not 2016. Nevermind that it gives a lot of power over US foreign policy.... Yeah, I realize I'm treading on conspiracy and paranoia here...but I'm sorry, this guy? Something about him strikes me as creepy as fuck. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on May 3, 2011 0:32:31 GMT -8
Michael, Dwight: what's the verdict on the Canadian election? For those of us who don't know anything about Canadian politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 3, 2011 3:17:34 GMT -8
Jens: The Conservatives have gotten a Majority, and the Liberals (which, despite the name, are centrist) collapsed in their largest election defeat ever.
No shortage of blame on the Liberal side: Bad leadership, a not-visceral enough message.
Short version: CDN equivalent to the 2004 US Presidential election.
|
|
