USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Forostar said:
There was HUGE controversy in my quaint little town of Tucson, Az not to long ago over the election results. My University's news paper mistankly ran a comic by a Mr. Knight, a black cartoonist from L.A. The comic was poking fun at AN ACTUAL EVENT. In a southern state... North Carolina I think, people from the Obama Campaign were going door to door asking people if they were going to vote and if so who for. They get to one household and a woman answers, they ask her said questions and she turns back to her husband and says, "Who we voting for again?" To which the husband says, "We're voting for the nigger."
People formed an angry mob outside of the MLK building demanding an apology. Honestly I think this is moronic. The whole point of the comic was to demonstrate just how deep Obama's impact was, where even a racist bigot is willing to vote for him. The man probably wasn't even racist, he just uses the term because it is locally acceptable.. who knows. But I believe, in the name of freedom of speach, no apology was warranted. Indeed the paper apologized for running the wrong comic, but not for its content.
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
That didn't show what Wasted was talking about. He said:Natalie said:
However, I haven't seen the actual interview or transcript of her saying that.
and
I'm not denying her saying this, tho I do have a hard time believing that she actually said that.
And by "this" and "that" he means her saying that she thought Africa was a country - not a continent.
Spot on Albie! (didn't have a chance to hear the clip til just now)
I still won't deny that she made some serious mistakes at the beginning of her stint as VP candidate-- some very well documented mistakes. I'm not a Palin supporter, either; however, I don't think she was prepared for anything-- and I think she did a pretty good job at the debate.
I still won't deny that she made some serious mistakes at the beginning of her stint as VP candidate-- some very well documented mistakes. I'm not a Palin supporter, either; however, I don't think she was prepared for anything-- and I think she did a pretty good job at the debate.
Wasted155 said:
So did I - the first time I thought about it.
The more and more I pondered it, I realized she didn't really talk about anything. At all. She ignored the questions as asked and just recited the same lines over and over and over.
____no5 said:
No, the point remains the same-- I have seen no proof that she actually said those things. All I hear are McCain aides that are pissed that they lost the election, and are lashing out at Palin because she is an easy target.
LooseCannon said:
Oh, you are correct on that part. She didn't add any depth to the debate at all. She had her buzzwords (M averick anyone?), but I guess what I meant there was that she wasn't the 'gaff machine' that was expected or the one we saw Katie Couric interview.
None of this changes my feelings about her, I don't think she has enough experience, I wouldn't vote for her 4 years from now. I don't follow her views. I just don't know if I agree with all the statements about her.
Wasted155 said:
She did. HOWEVER:
She made an honest mistake. Earlier in the campaign, Obama made a mistake and said there were 57 states. Sometimes, people say something wildly wrong because their mouth is working faster than their brain. And this doesn't mean they're stupid - everyone says dumb things sooner or later.
And it was one of those moments for Palin. She said the wrong word by mistake. It doesn't mean she really thinks Africa is a country. HOWEVER:
This is probably the only moment, of all her errors, that can be attributed to a simple mistake.
She demonstrated on many other occasions that she is an idiot. Quick Sarah, name one newspaper you read! Quick Sarah, name one Supreme Court decision besides Roe v Wade!
SinisterMinisterX said:
Charlie Brown vs. Board of Education?
SinisterMinisterX said:
Ok, cool enough for me. Mainly I was defending the fact that tho we do elect some pretty ignorant people, they do have a basic grasp of geography.
I think that the most disappointed people out there will be Saturday Night Live.
I often watch 60 Minutes on Sundays, and did so again tonight. And I usually react to Andy Rooney's end-of-show segment with something like: "who let this ancient, behind-the-times 'tard on TV?".
But tonight, he did something great.
Every TV network has been trying to emphasize how revolutionary it is for the US to have a black president. Most of them have done too much talking, which only detracts from the facts in this case.
Rooney, saying far less than usual, simply showed two pieces of footage:
White high schoolers in Arkansas, just before that state was forcibly integrated, declaring they would fight to keep "niggers" out of their school.
51 years later, Obama's victory speech.
No commentary was needed, and Rooney was one of the few talking heads smart enough to just shut up.
But tonight, he did something great.
Every TV network has been trying to emphasize how revolutionary it is for the US to have a black president. Most of them have done too much talking, which only detracts from the facts in this case.
Rooney, saying far less than usual, simply showed two pieces of footage:
White high schoolers in Arkansas, just before that state was forcibly integrated, declaring they would fight to keep "niggers" out of their school.
51 years later, Obama's victory speech.
No commentary was needed, and Rooney was one of the few talking heads smart enough to just shut up.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
SinisterMinisterX said:
According to the story I read, she really did. She supposedly expressed confusion over whether South Africa was a separate country, or just a region of the larger "country," Africa.
That said, Palin has denied these accusations, and I am not aware of anyone coming forward and confirming publicly that they heard her say this stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if she did, but for now it appears to be an anonymous accuser, which to me has little or no credibility.
On another note, I'm curious about folks' reaction to today's revelation that the U.S. had a standing order to have Special Ops soldiers raid countries like Pakistan and Syria, with whom the U.S. is not at war, to go after suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. This is being reported as a "big deal" but I, for one, am unmoved and unsurprised, and on balance I think I approve.
My normally strict belief in not violating national borders sways lightly here. I think the US government should do what they can to get permission from the government of the territory in question...but go in and get Al Qaeda if it's not possible.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
I was catching up on my reading this afternoon, and I read in the Wall Street Journal that Obama is now backpedaling from (the actual term was "re-examining") his plan to raise taxes on people with incomes greater than $250K. Obviously his advisers told him that would be a bad idea, particularly in a recession, as it is fairly universally understood that this would hurt economic growth. (He probably knew this all along, but ran a populist campaign and said whatever it took to get elected.) At the same time, however, he pledged to boost the U.S. auto industry. Not sure how to do that, other than by either slapping up protective trade barriers on auto imports, which is an equally bad idea, or simply giving the auto companies cash, which the U.S. can't really afford to do. I know everyone loves Obama and everything, but I can't convince myself he's not going to make things worse. (How's that for a double negative.)
In any event, I'm skeptical that the U.S. auto industry is worth saving, though it obviously employs a lot of people. A friend who went to work at Ford as a patent lawyer a few years ago told me an alarming, but true, story: For several weeks after he started work, he could not get a phone in his office. Apparently, the workers who were supposed to install his phone were United Auto Workers union members, who basically can't be fired for doing a bad job. Consequently, neither he nor his superiors could get the workers to show up and install his phone. He finally got an appointment for phone installation, but they blew off the appointment and refused to schedule another appointment until a couple of weeks later. Note, a lawyer cannot do his or her job effectively without a phone. Seeing the writing on the wall, he began sending out his CV for a new job immediately. Needless to say, I am never buying a Ford. And GM appears to be in even worse shape.
In any event, I'm skeptical that the U.S. auto industry is worth saving, though it obviously employs a lot of people. A friend who went to work at Ford as a patent lawyer a few years ago told me an alarming, but true, story: For several weeks after he started work, he could not get a phone in his office. Apparently, the workers who were supposed to install his phone were United Auto Workers union members, who basically can't be fired for doing a bad job. Consequently, neither he nor his superiors could get the workers to show up and install his phone. He finally got an appointment for phone installation, but they blew off the appointment and refused to schedule another appointment until a couple of weeks later. Note, a lawyer cannot do his or her job effectively without a phone. Seeing the writing on the wall, he began sending out his CV for a new job immediately. Needless to say, I am never buying a Ford. And GM appears to be in even worse shape.
I agree on the 'not worth saving' part. Though, that was my argument in whatever thread we were talking about bail out. If they can't figure out how to run a 'profitable yet competitive' business, then, maybe it is time to close the doors. I remember reading in a class of some sort, years back, that what was killing the 'big three' was all of their pension plans. They didn't ever expect the life spans when they were building the plans back in the 60's (I can't remember for sure the time frame), and those pensions are killing the profitability of those companies.
I know this isn't politics, per se, but I am really curious to see what will become of these GM/Chrysler merger talks.
I know this isn't politics, per se, but I am really curious to see what will become of these GM/Chrysler merger talks.
MisterAJ
Trooper
60 minutes did a piece years ago about how the American auto industries was doing poorly.
The CEO's (or more accurately, their spokesmen) said that the decline in US auto sales
meant that they couldn't implement all the safety features, because the production cost wouldn't justify it.
The 60min.-report however, said that the best thing for them to do would to do just that, because then the product would be more viable on the market.
(Other auto-companies around the world has done just that, and they were doing good at the time.)
It's just another example of the old credo:
You gotta spend money in order to make money...
The CEO's (or more accurately, their spokesmen) said that the decline in US auto sales
meant that they couldn't implement all the safety features, because the production cost wouldn't justify it.
The 60min.-report however, said that the best thing for them to do would to do just that, because then the product would be more viable on the market.
(Other auto-companies around the world has done just that, and they were doing good at the time.)
It's just another example of the old credo:
You gotta spend money in order to make money...
cornfedhick said:
Well, I have sat on the fence with this for awhile. I am generally a pro-union guy. I think unions have done a heck of a lot for our society over the last 80 years. But I have also seen the effect of unions on employees. It makes them terribly complacent, and it is the inability of the union (in this area, UAW) to accept that jobs must be modernized and thus, some people have to be removed or replaced by machinery, etc. I know what you mean by saying that the car companies might be beyond saving, but I also think that it would deny the USA a serious strategic resource - car plants were retooled in 1941-42 to make tanks, airplanes, and munitions and could be again in the case of war. The thought of the largest plants going out of business to do that is a strategic nightmare. Getting a plant back open is much harder than retooling.
I read that if the Obama government signs off on a bailout plan for the Big 3, it will include regulations that they move ahead with greener, more efficient automobiles. Not sure if that will set hard targets (good) or just a general push in the direction (bad). In that way, he could make the bailout part of his green jobs plan, and that is money worth spending - jobs + more environmental friendliness = good. But if the companies can just make more Chevy Tahoes (hybrid that gets a super-great 18 mpg), then it's cash wasted.
If Obama actually wanted to make major change, he'd sit down with the Union and say that their previous behaviour isn't acceptable. Fact is, some people deserve to be fired and you absolutely need to give management the power to do that. Unions should exist to fight for things like raises, health care, day care for kids, pensions, not to protect jobs that should no longer exist and employees that drag down the company. I agree that there is probably some high-level issues with the way the Big 3 are run that have contributed to the problems with the auto industry, but there's no coincidence that the plants in Detroit work almost EXACTLY THE SAME as they did in 1955, whereas Japanese and German plants are constantly upgraded and modernized, and they give a better quality car...cheaper.
It should be noted that Ford Europe has none of the problems (corporate, union, or even car quality) that Ford USA has. Both corporate AND union controls are much tighter in Europe than they are in the US, and I think that if an administration is going to reign in on corporate, they should reign in on unions.