Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:14 pm

W-where am I? This, uh, this is the random thread, right?

>_>

<_<

I have seen the 14 minute 'trailer' of the film. It's ridicoulously low on quality film-wise; it's content is a whole 'nother ballgame. I can definitly see why there are protests and angry mobs, especially considering other less 'complete' offenses (i.e. cartoon drawing).

I think Feud has a point, though he may be tainted by his close ties to the political system, which is affecting the 'tone' of his responses. (?)

An American offical representing good will to a country the U.S. helped (removing Ghadaffi), was murdered at the Embassy of the U.S. by what appear to be, by all accounts, a coordinated attack. While I agree Obama is utlimately responsible, the Ambassador is directly responsible for determining appropriate security. Perhaps he overestimated the freindlyness of the native population. (many reports of Lybians helping him/his staff have surfaced) Regardless, it's understandable that many in the U.S. are unhappy with the whole situation. I don't think it makes a large difference it's an election year because we have been so divided politcally for so long we will take any opportunity to jab 'the other guy'.

There are conflicting reports as to the reason for this attack: 1. Drone strike that killed a Lybian. 2. Anti-muslim film. The protests in general are definitely related to the latter.

The film is a giant turd that is not supported by the U.S. goverment, except in it's right to be produced. However, the violent protests are also giant turds, with no real justification and those responsible for the murders should be held accountable.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Joker Dan
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:01 am
Location: Here and there...

Postby Joker Dan » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:57 am

Take this as you will, but I believe that the majority of conflicts throughout today's modern world is down to one thing, that is religion.

That may have offended you, but it is simply my opinion. I wrote two separate posts for this, but they ended up rather long. All I would say is from my point of view, looking at the way things are I believe the world would be better off without religion and having everybody pull together as a PLANET, technological advancements would come around faster (Providing apple stop suing everyone for having curved edge phones) and as a race of humans, we could far surpass what we have currently achieved by combining the genius minds of the world.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:45 pm

Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... s-in-libya
User avatar
Forever Young
level5
level5
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:48 pm
Location: Black Forest Germany GMT+1

Postby Forever Young » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:01 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... s-in-libya

Watch Romney's face after slamming Obama over killings in Libya
lol!
my vote would be for Obama!
WeAreDefconBastardsNotTerrorists

Let's dance in style
let's dance for a while
heaven can wait
we're only watching the skies
hoping for the best
but expecting the worst
are you gonna drop the bomb or not?
...
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:06 pm

I thought that's what politicians these days were supposed to do? No?
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:54 pm

Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

Why not ? Romney is fighting for power now, from this point of view his actions are rather rational.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:46 am

Ace Rimmer wrote:I thought that's what politicians these days were supposed to do? No?


Well, these days maybe, but it wouldn't have flown, and in fact, didn't, back in the days of Reagan and H.W. Bush: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/ ... -election/

Again, I have to wonder how far can a party have fallen for it to make me to pine for the halcyon days of Reagan. . . .

Also, Laika, wouldn't call it rational to do something that will make you seem like an asshole on 9/11, especially with a smirk on your face.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:26 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... s-in-libya


That's silly.

Anyone who watched the debates knows that Romney habitually smiles when he finishes speaking on even the tough subjects. Questions about himself, others, issues, etc, when he finishes giving an answer he naturally smiles as a closing "thank you, I'm finished."

Watching the video of the remark, it's no different. He doesn't smirk walking away from the podium, he smiles as he says thank you to the press corp for listening to him, then turns from the podium to walk off stage.

Is it the best habit for a President to have? Maybe not. But pretending that it's the smirk of political exploitation ignores the hundreds of public appearances he's made in which, whether tough question or easy, he's done exactly the same thing.
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:44 pm

Feud wrote:Is it the best habit for a President to have?
Which I think underlines the major problems many people have with Romney.

He is an example of a whole range of habits, attitudes and actions which are hardly best suited to a presidential role.
But, then again, the US electorate haven't always been best at selecting presidents upon how well they suit a serious role; what with radio / film personalities and someone who hears voices telling them what to do having taken the role in the past.

That photo is a joke. It's such poor resolution such that the 'smirk' may simply be a result of angle and the lighting. It's the worst kind of spin on a press photo. It's not like the Democrats even NEED more ammunition. Romney's screwing things up pretty well by himself; no need to spin smiles and smirks into it.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:39 am

Speaking of more ammunition. . . .

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... overnment/

Might not be the best idea to accuse almost half the population of the country of being dependent and lazy because they, apparently believe to be “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Man, what horrible people, expecting healthcare from their government, where do they think they are, any First World country apart from the United States? :P
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:55 pm

You must remember this is America, which still remembers it's pioneer days and is still somewhat fond of the (old) 'independent' American spirit (vs 'dependent'). America doesn't have the history of Europe, which was dependent on kings and land owners for centuries (i.e. government).

I'm sure no sane person would want to deny healthcare for the people who need it and can't afford it and are not able to provide the means themselves of affording it.

If anything, he should have said that publicly; he would still be blasted for it for sure, however, he'd be able to say "hey, at least I'm honest with the people about what I really think." :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:08 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:You must remember this is America, which still remembers it's pioneer days and is still somewhat fond of the (old) 'independent' American spirit (vs 'dependent'). America doesn't have the history of Europe, which was dependent on kings and land owners for centuries (i.e. government).

I categorically reject the premise of your assertion. This is not a question of independence vs dependency, and has nothing to do with some unquantifiable American spirit or zeitgeist. Everyone is dependent to some degree or another. Rather, the question is "What are the responsibilities of a society to its members?" Personally, I think that a properly functioning society should ensure that everyone has easy access to base of Maslow's hierarchy: food, water, shelter, health, &c. If an individual cannot provide these things for themselves, then it is the responsibility of society to help. Frankly, I doubt that you disagree with that statement. Rather, I am guessing that the area of disagreement is in what segment of society should do the helping.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:19 pm

You are half right, I don't disagree with your statement (you are correct there), however I think that all society should help, government included, when we're talking about those that can't help themselves. That's an important qualifier.

Medical conditions, mental conditions, age, etc are part of life and as human beings I think we are obligated to help our fellow man. The government should have programs that provide assistance to those who need it in whatever basic area it's needed (e.g. food, housing, healthcare). Citizens should also contribute. You'll get no argument from me there.

All right, there are 47 percent who are with him [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitle to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

That's direct quoting. Clearly, he's not talking about people who can not take care of themselves. He's talking about people who will not take care of themselves and expect the government to do it for them. There is a big difference between someone who is down and out, needs a helping hand, and is doing all they can to improve their life (i.e. become 'independent' as much as their potential will allow) and those who think they have zero personal responsibility and are owed a free lunch as a way of life. He is talking about the latter, not the former. He's speaking to a group of potential (?) donors who most likely understand exactly what he is saying, so context is important.
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:39 pm

The tricky thing is identifying those who need help...this is a big issue over here where many beleive the govt uses the excuse that there are too many lazy cheats on benefits to cut help to a large number who need it.

The good for nothing benefit cheat is a great smokescreen for welfare cuts...even better if they are immigrants.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:53 pm

I'd agree there as well, the governments of the world are not altruistic (:wink:) in their motives and actions. Both sides (citizens/government) suffer from the same terminal illness; their made up of human beings. :p

As a side note, I was disappointed by the statement Romney made regarding ignoring the 47%. To me, that's more troubling than making broad statements about that groups general tendency. If he were seeking power for the proper reason (government for the people), he'd be honest with them in public and still find a way to talk to them about how he is the right leader in spite of everything else. Now, I realize in practice, especially today, that might seem as impossible as peace in the Middle East, so why even try. :P Nevertheless, it would show decent character; honesty, courage, and genuine concern for all Americans. It's harder to argue with that sort of person even when they are wrong.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests