W.M.D.s loaded into Syrian bombs.

There it is again, "Obamahate" and the inevitable "Fox News." Jeff, you could easily be one of B.O.'s spin meisters.

As long as you think the only reason we oppose the current regime's agenda is because we hate B.O., i.e. we are racists, you will remain a prisoner of your own prejudices.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
More Faux News filler!

I don't think you hate Obama because he's black. I think you hate Obama because you've had your head filled with a bunch of non-factual nonsense about his policies.
 
I would love to see the regime do some serious cutting. But, as history has shown us, the raised taxation comes and the cutting never materializes. That is a bipartisan statement, condemning all the old school players who consolidate their power at every opportunity.
 

Keith

Moderator
I really don't understand this at all. One person publishes a point of view I presume is an opinion, and then another counters by saying that the former's opinion is quote:

"a rambling mostly incoherent mess"

"Lots of rant, not much substance"

"Irrational"

For the thousands of thread viewers from other countries this style of "counter proposition" is becoming somewhat tiresome in it's arrogant negativity as one tends not to read past the first utterance that trashes the entire post.

Is this really how Americans debate things face to face for example? Or is it just a web thing? Is it limited to certain people? Types? Specific Socio-economic groups? It cannot surely be down to ALL Democrats or ALL Republican groups either as I have read very civilly presented 180 degree opposing views on here.

I know American politics can be a little volatile, but I really don't understand the instant disrespect for another's opinion if it doesn't dovetail neatly with his own, Nothing is Black & White in this world. Nothing.

Bearing in mind the reader may have no real knowledge of the subject but wishes to learn more.....
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Ok,that's a fair post.

But here is a historical fact to consider. From 1945 until 1980s, and again from 1992 until 2000, we reduced both debt as a percentage of GDP and, from 96 to 00, eliminated the deficit entirely.

Both Republicans and Democrats did that. So it IS possible. And in fact the increased taxation and moderation of spending has been done before. And can be done again.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I really don't understand this at all. One person publishes a point of view I presume is an opinion, and then another counters by saying that the former's opinion is quote:

"a rambling mostly incoherent mess"

"Lots of rant, not much substance"

"Irrational"

For the thousands of thread viewers from other countries this style of "counter proposition" is becoming somewhat tiresome in it's arrogant negativity as one tends not to read past the first utterance that trashes the entire post.

Is this really how Americans debate things face to face for example? Or is it just a web thing? Is it limited to certain people? Types? Specific Socio-economic groups? It cannot surely be down to ALL Democrats or ALL Republican groups either as I have read very civilly presented 180 degree opposing views on here.

I know American politics can be a little volatile, but I really don't understand the instant disrespect for another's opinion if it doesn't dovetail neatly with his own, Nothing is Black & White in this world. Nothing.

Bearing in mind the reader may have no real knowledge of the subject but wishes to learn more.....

You're myopic Keith:

(a) you do it too; and

(b) it's both sides here, for some reason you and Morton have a hard on for me.

So it goes.

I do get a kick though about you claiming to be above all this. It doesn't take long to go back and find some of your posts on foreigners in the UK, or Muslims, and the circle jerk that prompted from a few of you, to find similar sentiment and wording in your posts.

High horse => step down off of it. "People" do this, not "Americans."

And really, the tone for political debate was set in this forum long ago by the Al Wohlstroms and Craigs and Lonseome Nutjobs of the world. Oddly enough, you didn't get too worked up about that, because underneath the pissy language, you generally agreed with them. It's when the pissy language is coupled with ideas you don't like that you start to demand some level of politeness.
 
Last edited:

Keith

Moderator
Well, there you see, I just made an inquisitive and not impolite post asking questions which I believe to be valid, and now I am myopic and another whole bunch of other things that are just not true. Perhaps all this is lost in the language somewhere.

I share no political affiliations with anyone else on this board as I have a very broadband and hopefully non dogmatic perspective of politics. I do not profess to understand some of it but I like to learn all the time. I suspect that there are others here also from the UK who's "leanings" do not fit into any traditional political party scenario as we are sick and tired of the "party line" and demand more flexibility in political thinking which hopefully will negate the obsolete "Left Right" rhetoric and evolve into a worldview which is not at odds with major contemporary political events such as the Middle East and other flash points.

I grew up amongst Empire Loyalists along with many of my generation, and as a result of that experience and the rabid racism often encountered, we felt that we had made good progress, or at least I did, until i visitied this board.

Jeff is a clever intelligent person well trained and practised at delivering precise relevant bullet points on a given subject and sometimes it is hard to deny his logic or his comprehensive understanding of American politics and people, it's just a shame he has to chuck in some denigrating and insulting remarks to bolster the delivery is what I am trying to get across.

The reason I have never commented on others he mentions is that they have never (to use his terminology) "called me out" or made any personal remarks about me, my religion, my race or my beliefs perceived or otherwise. That does NOT mean I agree with everything they say at all and I have told them so and guess what, they thanked me for my candour.

So, after all that, I still didn't get an answer (not unusual) and clearly, I was, am and always will be wrong because of my age, race and colour.

I seem to have heard that stuff somewhere before...
 
Ok,that's a fair post.

But here is a historical fact to consider. From 1945 until 1980s, and again from 1992 until 2000, we reduced both debt as a percentage of GDP and, from 96 to 00, eliminated the deficit entirely.

Both Republicans and Democrats did that. So it IS possible. And in fact the increased taxation and moderation of spending has been done before. And can be done again.

Jumping right in,

The example above is what really confuses me about the current, general trend in debates. All these facts and figures quoted, suggest that the world and its geo-political landscape remains a constant throughout the periods compared and quoted.

I always did mistrust those kids that knew and frequently quoted sporting fact-oids and statistics and suspect many political commentators and their like, were those very same kids at school. Nothing really to say, other than to make a success out of quoting the successes and failures of others. Most scary, is that I am unlikely to be bothered to even check all this drivelised statistical rubbish. What's the source? Wiki? or Google?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Jumping right in,

The example above is what really confuses me about the current, general trend in debates. All these facts and figures quoted, suggest that the world and its geo-political landscape remains a constant throughout the periods compared and quoted.

I always did mistrust those kids that knew and frequently quoted sporting fact-oids and statistics and suspect many political commentators and their like, were those very same kids at school. Nothing really to say, other than to make a success out of quoting the successes and failures of others. Most scary, is that I am unlikely to be bothered to even check all this drivelised statistical rubbish. What's the source? Wiki? or Google?

Watch how this works:

I really don't understand this at all. One person publishes a point of view with actual facts to back it up, rather than some gut feeling like "I just think global warming is a fraud" and and then another counters by saying that all those facts and data is quote:

"drivelised statistical rubbish"

"nothing really to say, other than to make a success out of quoting the successes and failures of others"

"I always did mistrust those kids who [actually read and knew stuff]"

For the thousands of thread viewers from other countries this style of "counter proposition" by gut instinct and lack of factual support is becoming somewhat tiresome in its arrogant negativity as one tends not to read past the first utterance that trashes the entire post.

Is this really how folks from Merry Olde England debate things face to face for example? Or is it just a web thing? Is it limited to certain people? Types? Specific Socio-economic groups? It cannot surely be down to ALL Tories or ALL Labor groups either as I have read very civilly presented 180 degree opposing views on here.

I know English politics can be a little volatile, but I really don't understand the instant disrespect and distrust of facts and numbers that don't dovetail neatly with his own. Certainly, nothing is black and white in this world, but the only way forward is through factual investigation of the world around us. The alternative is the priesthood of the flat earth society.

Bearing in mind the reader may have no real knowledge of the subject but wishes to learn more.....
 

Keith

Moderator
That's funny.....

:laugh:

But it was never meant to be a US/UK piece but of course as I understand UK rhetoric and not necessarily US style, it may appear to be so at face value.

I have many interesting conversations with 90% Americans on this board especially with Jack and jimbo. There are others but these two are standouts and even if we disagree about anything, we are always polite to each other.

I have no idea why you decided to answer Mark's post with mine with just a few words changed, but I believe it is because you are playing to a gallery either real or imagined. I also cannot imagine one should justify one example of bad manners by citing another.

Funny yes, clever, possibly but relevant? No.

If I said you were a smartarse, you would call me a hypocrite and you would be correct, so, you are NOT a smartarse by any means... :blank:
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I thought the point was pretty clear. I've got plenty of friends from the UK and enjoy their company tremendously. Most, in fact none, seem as preoccupied with slagging American discourse and contending it lacks some level of politeness inherent in Brits as some of the posters here.

My take on Mark's post was simply to show that "you guys" (I hate that, we are all in this together) do the same as "us guys" just in different ways.

And that last comment? Really? So it goes like this:

"I'll point out that I think you are a smart ass, and do everything but say it, and then say it would be rude to say it some I'm not saying you are."

Uh, right. Your other post was much better. On that one in a second. Maybe we can learn something there.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Well, there you see, I just made an inquisitive and not impolite post asking questions which I believe to be valid, and now I am myopic and another whole bunch of other things that are just not true. Perhaps all this is lost in the language somewhere.

I share no political affiliations with anyone else on this board as I have a very broadband and hopefully non dogmatic perspective of politics. I do not profess to understand some of it but I like to learn all the time. I suspect that there are others here also from the UK who's "leanings" do not fit into any traditional political party scenario as we are sick and tired of the "party line" and demand more flexibility in political thinking which hopefully will negate the obsolete "Left Right" rhetoric and evolve into a worldview which is not at odds with major contemporary political events such as the Middle East and other flash points.

I grew up amongst Empire Loyalists along with many of my generation, and as a result of that experience and the rabid racism often encountered, we felt that we had made good progress, or at least I did, until i visitied this board.

Jeff is a clever intelligent person well trained and practised at delivering precise relevant bullet points on a given subject and sometimes it is hard to deny his logic or his comprehensive understanding of American politics and people, it's just a shame he has to chuck in some denigrating and insulting remarks to bolster the delivery is what I am trying to get across.

The reason I have never commented on others he mentions is that they have never (to use his terminology) "called me out" or made any personal remarks about me, my religion, my race or my beliefs perceived or otherwise. That does NOT mean I agree with everything they say at all and I have told them so and guess what, they thanked me for my candour.

So, after all that, I still didn't get an answer (not unusual) and clearly, I was, am and always will be wrong because of my age, race and colour.

I seem to have heard that stuff somewhere before...

Here's the deal. When I first showed up here, Al Wohlstrom and others were spouting a brand of right wing nonsense that about (as of Nov. 6) 53% of Americans find pretty offensive. It then got taken to a new level by Lonesome Bob.

Now, I know you gentlemen don't agree with everything those guys say, and I appreciate that. But I (and others) found it interesting that most of the older white gentlemen from the UK and Australia simply sat back and ignored it but when others here responded in kind, immediately jumped in to decry the "lack of civility" in the "debate."

I fully admit I've not been very civil with Lonesome Nutjob. He says rude and offensive things with impunity. And, frankly, I found some of the "joking" here about foreigners in teh UK and Muslims in particular to be completely out of line. Still do -- Morton's got another post up today on this stuff.

What cracks me up the most though is how overly sensitive you get to what you call "denigrating" remarks made in the course of the discussion when you do precisely the same thing. Pot, kettle, mirror mirror and all that.

In any event, you and Pete and others seem like genuninely nice fellows. Smart guys, car guys. I've always though car boards would be far better off without political crap and, despite appearances to the country, try (and fail) to stay out of it. But things that Al and Lonesome Nutjob and others say/have said often trigger a reaction in me and then its off to the races.

So, anyway, point taken on denigrating statements detracting from the substance of what one says. Very true. At the same time, fully understand that you do very much of the same, in your own way.

Maybe we both learn from that and improve the quality of teh debate in this place.
 

Keith

Moderator
I'll go with that.....

I'll let you into a secret. I may express an opinion and I also may enter a debate or exchange of views, but I will never tell people they are wrong for one simple reason.

I do not have the confidence. Oh I used to all right, but then shit happens.

Another things that prevents me is the wealth of knowledge and education I encounter here - sometimes it's breathtaking and makes me wish I'd paid more attention when it was right to do so.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter

Say Pat,

The news services may have jumped the "gun" on this John Lennon thing, apparently the guy who made this statement has some problems with the truth. Additionally, I can see why you would hope that Mr Lennon was a Republican, but I think it unlikely, first off, was he even a US citizen?

Second, in my experiance, peace loving, humanitarians seldom become Republicans.

Third, He moved to New York City in 1971, where his criticism of the Vietnam War resulted in a lengthy attempt by Richard Nixon's administration to deport him, while some of his songs were adopted as anthems by the anti-war movement.

I think on this, the anniversary of his death, we should not try and make him something he was not.

We should just be thankful for his contributuions, I know I am, and I miss him very much:(


****************************


John Lennon: NOT a Closet Republican | The Nation

John Lennon: NOT a Closet Republican

Jon Wiener on June 29, 2011 - 3:24 PM ET
A guy named Fred Seaman is all over the conservative blogs today for a new documentary in which he claims that John Lennon was “a closet Republican” at the time he was shot. This seems unlikely.
First of all, who is Fred Seaman? He’d been a personal assistant to John and Yoko at the Dakota in the late seventies, but he’s also a convicted criminal. He was found guilty of stealing John Lennon’s personal belongings, including his diaries, after Lennon had been killed. He was sentenced to five years probation.
You might say that weakens his credibility.
What exactly were Lennon’s political views at the end of 1980? Late that November, Lennon spoke out on behalf of striking workers in Los Angeles and San Francisco. (The story is told in my book Come Together: John Lennon in His Time.) The strike was against Japan Foods Corporation, a subsidiary of the Japanese multinational Kikkoman, best known for its soy sauce. The US workers, primarily Japanese, were members of the Teamsters. In LA and San Francisco, they went on strike for higher wages. The shop steward of the LA local, Shinya Ono, persuaded John and Yoko to make a public statement addressed to the striking workers:
“We are with you in spirit.… In this beautiful country where democracy is the very foundation of its constitution, it is sad that we have to still fight for equal rights and equal pay for the citizens. Boycott it must be, if it is the only way to bring justice and restore the dignity of the constitution for the sake of all citizens of the US and their children.
“Peace and love, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York City, December, 1980.”
That was Lennon’s last written political statement. It doesn’t seem to be the work of a “closet Republican.”

Seaman says Lennon told him he was disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980. Lots of people on the left were disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980, and for good reasons. That didn't make you a Republican, closeted or otherwise.
In what turned out to be Lennon’s last interview, with RKO radio the afternoon of the day he was shot, he talked about “the opening up of the sixties.” He said “Maybe in the sixties we were naïve and like children and later everyone when back to their rooms and said, ‘we didn’t get a wonderful world of flowers and peace.… the world is a nasty horrible place because it didn’t give us everything we cried for.’ Right? Crying for it wasn’t enough.
“The thing the sixties did was show us the possibility and the responsibility that we all had. It wasn’t the answer. It just gave us a glimpse of the possibility.”
That interview was his last. Six hours later he was killed.
Fred Seaman tried to cash in on his Lennon connection with an earlier book, published twenty years ago. That one has been forgotten. This story will be too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top