Would You Hire This Man?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've been waiting forever to mention the orgy thing, haven't you?

I bet you have family telling stories around the dinner table and at every opportunity say, "You know, this reminds me of the orgy I was at that that time." Then they groan and say, "here he goes again!"

I must confess, I was actually hoping for a thread derail. I think there would be a certain degree of amusement in derailing a silly Kurious thread by turning it into a lighthearted discussion about orgies. Oh, well. Another great plan fails miserably.
 
In KK's mind, if McCain wins, it is Gods will, and plan. But if Obama wins, its because of evil minded left wing atheistic liberals. Or maybe Satan. Or both.
 
Uh because it's not even funny, this election has got to be the worst we have ever faced and no one is laughing about it as our country is a big mess! All I can hope for is that God is turning some hearts around to seek him before it's too late. This world is in such decay our maker needs to come back to fix it, Jesus really is our only HOPE!!

Life expectancy is at an all-time high, residents of the United States have an extremely high standard of living in general, leisure activities are prevalent, there is freedom of religion, and you are unhappy with this.

Oookaaay.
Don't forget that she has easy access to food, clothes, information and she was able to relay to us this horrible state of the world via the greatest advances we have, the internet.
 
In KK's mind, if McCain wins, it is Gods will, and plan. But if Obama wins, its because of evil minded left wing atheistic liberals. Or maybe Satan. Or both.


I have known intelligent Evangelical Christians who can make a intelligent argument for their faith . ( I am not saying I accept it). Kathy is not one of them.
 
I have known intelligent Evangelical Christians who can make a intelligent argument for their faith .

What's particularly maddening is that, having used to be one, I can make better arguments than many of the ones who flame out in public, and I haven't agreed with them in more than 20 years.
 
What I find inherently sad is not that people like KK exists, it is that they are proud of it and flaunt it.
 
So do people seriously believe that there are few ( or a lot) of people who are eligible for political office in the US; interested enough to pursue such office; and intent on actually furthering the interests of some foreign power? I find that beyond odd, if it is true

The short answer is yes.

The more nuanced answer is sort of as some of the vox populi who assert this are suffering from delusion or derrangement - and I don't mean clinically, their thinking is just muddled by all the jingoistic left and right wing propaganda they ingest. On the right you've got people who think Obama will sell us out to The TerroristsTM or pull a Neville Chamberlain and negotiate "peace in our time" thereby undercutting our impending victory in The War on TerrorTM. On the left you have people who think President Bush is in the pockets of multi-national corporations and plutocrats who are more interested in their own enrichment than in the safety and prosperity of America.

Then you've got the true crazies who have been driven mad either by fear or their own echo chamber environment. Most of them who question patriotism or claim someone to be anti-American or an America hater come from the right. Just check out this thread about Representative Michelle Bachman and if you can stomach it, read the Freerepublic link that Dr. A provides.
 
... What? No, no, no, silly billy! Did you miss the "Communist Atheist Muslim Homosexual African armies" part?

See they don't kill you. They give you a little red book making you non American, laugh at your bibles making you pray but, they then replace all of your crosses with crescent moons making Jesus mad at you, put a bunch of skittles in your house to make you taste the rainbow which cause you to let down your guard, and just as you snap back to finish your prayer they teach you the lyrics to some Ladysmith Black Mambazo songs causing you to end the prayer in "Auuummm bop bop" and THAT takes your soul.

Damn it, you weren't supposed to tell her until after the election!
 
Fiona:

Do you really want an answer to your question, or was it rhetorical?

DR
 
Having seen Fiona's posts elsewhere, I think she really wants an answer. I also think US answered it pretty well.
US answered from one angle, and well, but there are other issues about traitors and sell outs he did not cover.

The sell out tag has been well suited to each denizen of the oval office since Reagan left, in re the political fellating each president offered up to the Chinese with an eye toward making money while dismantling the industrial base.

This has raised the nativist strain a bit, about thirty years too late, and has induced a bit of protectionist talk from the Dems in an attempt to attract the blue collar vote, much as Nixon tried to attract the blue collar vote from a moral angle, what with the silent majority.

The question "who is more likely to sell out America" (which is one form of anti Americanism, akin to treason but probably not so discretely defined) is a far more intelligent question to ask than the one Fiona asked. A less evocative way to express that is "who will subordinate American interests to that of others" since not all issues involve trade and labor, economy, and such.

Fiona's framing it as a an oxymoron, an American president as anti American, is the initial obstacle to understanding any answer given, as the questioner has already confused him or herself by falling for idiotspeak in the first place.

But maybe I mistake Fiona's question: is anti American by default pro Globalist?

DR
 
Last edited:
US answered from one angle, and well, but there are other issues about traitors and sell outs he did not cover.

The sell out tag has been well suited to each denizen of the oval office since Reagan left, in re the political fellating each president offered up to the Chinese with an eye toward making money while dismantling the industrial base.

This has raised the nativist strain a bit, about thirty years too late, and has induced a bit of protectionist talk from the Dems in an attempt to attract the blue collar vote, much as Nixon tried to attract the blue collar vote from a moral angle, what with the silent majority.

The question "who is more likely to sell out America" (which is one form of anti Americanism, akin to treason but probably not so discretely defined) is a far more intelligent question to ask than the one Fiona asked. A less evocative way to express that is "who will subordinate American interests to that of others" since not all issues involve trade and labor, economy, and such.

Fiona's framing it as a an oxymoron, an American president as anti American, is the initial obstacle to understanding any answer given, as the questioner has already confused him or herself by falling for idiotspeak in the first place.

But maybe I mistake Fiona's question: is anti American by default pro Globalist?

DR


Although I understand, and in some ways sympathize, with your answer, I saw Fiona's question as more political in nature than fiscal. She specifically referred to "foreign power". Globalism, pretty much by definition, does not respect nationalism, but political entities must. The way I read the original question, she seemed to be asking if any sector of the American people truly believed that American politicians are working for the interests of an outside political entity, rather than a multi-national corporate entity.

For example, there are people who believe that certain American politicians are "owned" by Israel and pro-Israeli factions. There are fewer people who believe that certain American politicians are "owned" by Microsoft.

Please note, I am not making any argument regarding the truth of falsehood of these beliefs, merely their existence.

ETA: Upon re-reading your post, I think you are slightly more than half-way to answering Fiona's question with your China example.
 
Last edited:
The question was not rhetorical, Darth Rotor. I am grateful to US for his answer. I had seen the Michelle Bachman video before I asked it and it added to a growing amazement, frankly. I know little of America and I have learned a great deal here (though I realise that this may not be a representative place, it is the best I have at present: at least the people here are not hollywood and they are not celebrity/media/politician types)

I do not know if your question was occasioned by some sense that I could not be so struck by this phenomenon: perhaps that is the water all Americans swim in and it is difficult to see how it might look from the outside. But I assure you that, at least for me, this is truly bizarre

We have probably a wider political spectrum in the uk because I do not see very much that I would consider left wing opinion reported by americans here (there is some but it is muted, I think). And I also believe that the uk spectrum has narrowed with increasing adoption of american views and values in this country (though that applies much more to the media and politicians than it does to the folk I associate with: and it is my impression that those people are not peculiar in this sense).

We also have those who sincerely believe that the left wing will kill our prosperity and make very bad decisions in relation to terrorism or criminal justice etc): and people who believe that the right wing are little better than thieves who work solely for their own and their pals interest. What we do not seem to have is this idea that those who disagree with us are consciously and actively opposed to the uk as an entity.

This approach has been tried by the right wing tabloids from time to time and it has some resonance within and for their readership - so for example they have tried to portray some left wing people as bug eyed monsters with terrorist affiliations. This does not really take here: people laugh at it actually. And I have not seen any such attempt since they tried it on George Galloway.

Now it is true that what I see as the left here is muted because many of the institutions which gave them power and therefore a platform have been undermined or dismantled: it will come as no surprise to hear that I regret this. But although I genuinely dislike the direction this country has taken since about 1980: and although I do believe that there is not sufficient balance between interest groups compared to the post war consensus period: I could not ever imagine thinking that those who disagree with my stance are deliberately ruining or selling out this country. They are wrong and they are damaging the kind of society I want to see (in my own view, of course): but anti-british? The idea is not even thinkable in my circle. And amongst groups with very different views it is a charge which can only be expressed as "talking britain down": which is hardly the same kind of thought.

ETA: I see both Darth and Hokulele have replied while I was writing this. Both have made points I need to think about more and it may be the whole of this post is superfluous now. I need to go to work soon but I will come back to this issue later tonight if I may.
 
Last edited:
...They are wrong and they are damaging the kind of society I want to see (in my own view, of course): but anti-british? The idea is not even thinkable in my circle...

Just a quick comment on this bit and I'll get back to others above when I have time for more than just a blurb (I actually am at work :)).

You've been seeing the ugly side of what is considered acceptable political discourse in America these days. Extreme polarization and divisiveness. You don't merely disagree with someone. They are evil. You don't find yourself on the opposite side of an issue. They are the enemy. The politics of personal destruction aren't merely about suggesting someone secretly has a drinking problem these days... it's about suggesting someone secretly wants to destroy, if not America itself, the very fabric* it's comprised of.

Personally I'm disgusted by it all and am embarassed for countrymen behaving this way. Doubtless someone will ask why I hate America now for saying that.

*Which, oddly enough, was made in China. :D
 
Last edited:
On the left you have people who think President Bush is in the pockets of multi-national corporations and plutocrats who are more interested in their own enrichment than in the safety and prosperity of America.

The partisan left yes, but those of us on the non-partisan left feel that way about most politicians because its true. Look at the campaign donations to both dems and republicans. Corporate America is an equal opportunity master.

I would say that despite this yoke around both parties that there's a space for values though, and that to say this money is sufficient for someone to completely ignore "safety and prosperity" is a caricature. IF they end up ignoring those things through their actions its because they really think that what they're doing is serving those ends.
 
Fiona: You may be interested in Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew. His specialty is going through the pamphlets, think tank effluence and rhetoric of the business class and conservatives generally. One Market Under God was an amazingly humorous look at business thought in the 90s, as spoken by business and the media during the dizzying days of the 90s (and of course he links this to earlier periods, apparently there's a book from 1931 or so called Oh yeah? which takes all the pie-in-the-sky talk of the 1920s business talk and then contrasts that with what was happening in the depression.

Seems to me we've come full circle.

In any event, I've just got past the part in The Wrecking Crew where he's spent a good amount of time analyzing the "fifth column" myth of the American movement conservatives, peddled through campus youth organizations run by starry-eyed dreamers like Norquist and Abramoff, and through the flagship publications of the movement and repeated by their ideologically compatible politicians. In any event, its an interesting line of thought in America and nothing altogether new, it has morphed to fit the times. After all, there were "red scares" at the beginning of the 20th century as well.

Its definitely a notable tradition in America and we can see how easily it went from believing that the Kremlin was controlling the American mind through liberal professors and liberal media and liberal hollywood, to believing that these same facets of America are now "sympathetic" to terrorists. Even if not consciously sympathetic, they may still serve the same ends, playing the role of "useful idiots" for the Kremlin... er.. Osama...;)

Well worth a read anyway, Frank has a knack for humour!

EDIT: another writer that has some useful commentary on the "fifth column" and "stabbed in the back" myths is Michael Lind, "up from conservatism" would be a good companion book to Frank.
 
Last edited:
Hey Fiona, one more question: what about the Euro debates over there in britain? Was the idea of giving up the pound presented as "anti-british"? I know it took you guys a hundred years or so to even decimalize your currency after a 19th century commission recommended it! ;)
 
Last edited:
As I understand it. there is no final refusal to join the single currency, but they have insisted on a number of economic tests which must be passed before that is done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_economic_tests

For most people here my impression is that there is a low level reluctance which is usually based on a sentimental attachment to the pound: laziness: and in some cases an appreciation that europe is to britain as london is to scotland - that is very different and likely to make decisions based on interests which do not reflect those of this county (hence the tests).

I have never heard anyone who wishes to adopt it (as I do) being described as anti british though I have noticed that UKIP did come quite close to such charges at their height. That party has just about vanished I think, and this is because they are really a lunatic fringe.
 
What I want to know with his record how the heck did he even get into congress? You mean us dumb taxpayers have already been paying a guy like this a salary?
Why not? We've been paying W a salary for eight years! Which I resent because, as my bumper sticker says, "He's STILL not my president".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom