Just for balance, I've introduced my son to Right-Wing Sci-Fi...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, October 30, 2008 01:08
VIEWED: 8861
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:17 PM

I just got him season 2 of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, a solid right-wing sci-fi series where the cold war & alien threats were imminent, and there was no time for talk or understanding.
Detente schmatant, just FIRE!!!!
He says he likes Star Trek better, where they come to understand the aliens they meet- but he's fascinated by the Flying Sub & the rubber monsters, so it's not a total loss.

Seaviewisall

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:21 PM

There were seasons? There was a show?

OutofTheLoopIsAll

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
There were seasons? There was a show?

Yeah, it was cool (2nd season, anyway):
http://www.tv.com/voyage-to-the-bottom-of-the-sea/show/592/summary.htm
l

Yeahbabyisall

THESOMNAMBULIST

Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:49 PM

Wow - I remember this show... I don't think I've seen it since I was a kid. I certiainly wouldn't have spotted the politics in it back then but now you mention it.... Yeah.

Always loved that sub that flew out of the water. That was cool. At least it was when I was seven. :D

Cool. Glad your boy likes the rubber monsters - always like to know that old school special effects still work.

MALBADINLATIN

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just got him season 2 of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, a solid right-wing sci-fi series where the cold war & alien threats were imminent, and there was no time for talk or understanding.
Detente schmatant, just FIRE!!!!
He says he likes Star Trek better, where they come to understand the aliens they meet- but he's fascinated by the Flying Sub & the rubber monsters, so it's not a total losss.

And they wore pretty much American Naval uniforms too.

But the really good Right Wing sci fi was lost in space. They had the Republican almost Palin like family and the Democrat traitor Dr Smith, the mamby pamby whiner.

And the monster's were devious and engaged in all manner of sneak attacks.

Trolls against McCain

WHOZIT

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:51 PM

I saw the movie on AMC, they made the UN look like dumb ass's. So yes, it was Right-Wing Sci-Fi.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:54 PM

Any others...?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Always loved that sub that flew out of the water.

always like to know that old school special effects still work.

Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:58 PM

Firefly was clearly Right - Wing

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Any others...?

Right wing SF?
Well, off the top of my head, V seemed a bit non-left...

Reptillian Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Firefly was clearly Right - Wing

Shut up Whozit!!! It was no sucha thing. It was Libertarian, if anything.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:02 PM

When I was a kid I thought David Hendison was hot. But Richard Baseheart was a far better actor.

Man from Uncle? (Not exactly scifi, but...)
Time Tunnel?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WHOZIT

Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:05 PM

Libertarians are right-wing, they broke off from the Republican party in 1972 because Nixon was'nt conservitive enough for them.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:52 PM

My cousin had one of those toys of the funky submarine, about 2-feet long, submersible. Very cool.

He's about 50 years old now. YIKES! He did a lot of drugs, made a lot of money. Coincidence?

www.timewarptoys.com/gallery.htm

THESOMNAMBULIST

Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:04 PM

Cheers Chris - those pictures are nostalgic! That mini-sub is one nifty design. Wouldn't be out of place in a modern sci-fi underwater show these days.

And PIRATENEWS
Great toy pics!

THESOMNAMBULIST

Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:06 PM

Time Tunnel!!! I loved that show. Used to have me on the edge of my seat! Sort of a precursor to Quantumn Leap.

Last one I ever saw was of them landing on the Titanic and I never managed to see the next weeks episode to see how it ended!

Cracking TV!

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

OMG I had those....

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Last one I ever saw was of them landing on the Titanic and I never managed to see the next weeks episode to see how it ended!

I think that's where it got canceled...

Land Of The Chrisisalls

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Libertarians are right-wing

No, Libertarian is the CENTER, any direction from there is either left or right.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Man from Uncle? (Not exactly scifi, but...)

Definitely a bit right, that one...
Wild Wild West as well, James West, government agent, out to protect us all from evil terrorists like Dr. Migulito Loveless...

Chrisisall

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:09 PM

ooh Ilya Kuryakin!

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

ECGORDON

Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:16 PM

Quote:

All together now...

WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE, A YELLOW SUBMARINE, A YELLOW SUBMARINE

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
ooh Ilya Kuryakin!

Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, October 26, 2008 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Libertarians are right-wing, they broke off from the Republican party in 1972 because Nixon was'nt conservitive enough for them.

Only if you insist framing all political debate in one dimension. The popular notion of right and left puts war-mongering authoritarians in the same camp with small-government, individual rights proponents. Those two views are mutually incompatible, the left/right thing fails to describe things adequately.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 5:25 PM

What is Right Wing SF? And how does it differ from Left Wing SF?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What is Right Wing SF? And how does it differ from Left Wing SF?

In right wing SF, the government leads the good fight, and the enemy aliens are evil & must be destroyed, in left wing SF, the government gets in the way, but in the end, the enemy aliens can be understood, reasoned with, and a harmonious equilibrium can be achieved.

Thereisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What is Right Wing SF? And how does it differ from Left Wing SF?

In right wing SF, the government leads the good fight, and the enemy aliens are evil & must be destroyed, in left wing SF, the government gets in the way, but in the end, the enemy aliens can be understood, reasoned with, and a harmonious equilibrium can be achieved.

Ah. Okay. I don’t think I would use those exact definitions, but it explains why you describe V as Right Wing.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it explains why you describe V as Right Wing.

And I don't mind right wing SF at all- hey, sometimes the aliens ARE just out to kill us all...

Question in my mind is...is They Live right or left?
The aliens are evil, but they also ARE our government...this case presents a problem in labeling.

(?)isall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:18 PM

The distinction between Left and Right, generally speaking, has the right-wing defined as pro-something and the Left-wing defined as anti-something. The Right is in favor and Left is against. The terms go back to the French Revolution, when the moderates sat on the Right and the radicals sat on the Left. Which created this conception in modern politics that the Right are moderates seeking for a conservative or less change while the Left are radicals who want more change.

So how do you apply this to SF? V for instance is about a band of Maquis style human guerrillas (the good guys) battling a Nazi-style alien government (the bad guys). So if you take this from the point of view of the good guys, then V is Left-wing because it is about “radicals” wanting change.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:36 PM

The right wants to kill; the left wants to understand, bottom line. Sometimes we need to kill, other times we need to understand, but that basically how I draw the lines of it.

Judge Chrisisall

SWISH

Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:04 PM

The left is about change only when you're starting from a point of dictatorship, or some other misuse of power by govt. Like V - which I would see as lefty sci-fi, since authority is portrayed as evil and the rights of the common individual are fought for.

I guess that to me leftist is about the protection of individual rights. Govt size arguments can be made for/against either side, depending in which actions said govt is taking.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I guess that to me leftist is about the protection of individual rights.

Rightist is about protection of individual rights. So that doesn’t work as a distinction.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SWISH

Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I guess that to me leftist is about the protection of individual rights.
Rightist is about protection of individual rights. So that doesn’t work as a distinction.

You've been smoking again, haven't you? Smokin' kool-aid...

How about the Democrats losing the support of the south because they took up the cause of the civil rights movement? How about a woman's right to choose? How about the rights of gays to marry? How about the right of non-religious people, even those living in big cities, to be considered true Americans? How about the right to call home while I'm abroad and not have the spies of Big Brother W listening in?

Generally speaking, (really, a gross generalization here - I know some lovely Republicans who aren't like this) the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans. If you're not like them, you can go to hell. Or move to Canada. Democrats are about the rights of everyone - Republicans and smelly people included.

And before you start yammering, I do know that Dems are generally into gun limits, and that's an exception. But the argument is generally about placing reasonable limits on the very worst guns, and not stripping us of our rights. I don't think any Dem is gonna take away our right to protect ourselves. They better as hell not - because I'd fight that right alongside the gun-totin' hillbillies and moose-shooting Alaskans and redneck Texans!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Generally speaking, (really, a gross generalization here - I know some lovely Republicans who aren't like this) the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans. If you're not like them, you can go to hell. Or move to Canada. Democrats are about the rights of everyone - Republicans and smelly people included.

That’s bullshit.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:24 PM

Bush was voted in, just like Reagan. They stood for the Republicans, who are on the right. Therefore, the right stands for breaking laws when it suits them (not too different from the left), and getting peeps KILLED when it suits them (markedly different from the left). You wanna dispute that? CAN you dispute that? Well, I mean, you could go "That's bulls**t', but you can't show me a logical fallacy there, I'd conjure. Get your party to back some REAL Conservative thinkers thereby gaining the respect of the country & world again, or please stop defending incompetence, okay?

isall

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Generally speaking, (really, a gross generalization here - I know some lovely Republicans who aren't like this) the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans. If you're not like them, you can go to hell. Or move to Canada. Democrats are about the rights of everyone - Republicans and smelly people included.
That’s bullshit.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Um, t'isn't.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bush was voted in, just like Reagan. They stood for the Republicans, who are on the right. Therefore, the right stands for breaking laws when it suits them (not too different from the left), and getting peeps KILLED when it suits them (markedly different from the left). You wanna dispute that? CAN you dispute that? Well, I mean, you could go "That's bulls**t', but you can't show me a logical fallacy there, I'd conjure. Get your party to back some REAL Conservative thinkers thereby gaining the respect of the country & world again, or please stop defending incompetence, okay?

Sanctions killed 1.5 million Innocent Iraqis (largely women and children). There is no strain under which arguments against the Iraq war could be put to make the casualties even close to that. So since you don’t support the Iraq war you support the wanton killing of innocent women and children. There.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SWISH

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Generally speaking, (really, a gross generalization here - I know some lovely Republicans who aren't like this) the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans. If you're not like them, you can go to hell. Or move to Canada. Democrats are about the rights of everyone - Republicans and smelly people included.
That’s bullshit.

Cites please?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Generally speaking, (really, a gross generalization here - I know some lovely Republicans who aren't like this) the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans. If you're not like them, you can go to hell. Or move to Canada. Democrats are about the rights of everyone - Republicans and smelly people included.
That’s bullshit.
Cites please?

Cite bullshit? Sure:

Quote:
You've been smoking again, haven't you? Smokin' kool-aid...

How about the Democrats losing the support of the south because they took up the cause of the civil rights movement? How about a woman's right to choose? How about the rights of gays to marry? How about the right of non-religious people, even those living in big cities, to be considered true Americans? How about the right to call home while I'm abroad and not have the spies of Big Brother W listening in?

Generally speaking, (really, a gross generalization here - I know some lovely Republicans who aren't like this) the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans. If you're not like them, you can go to hell. Or move to Canada. Democrats are about the rights of everyone - Republicans and smelly people included.

And before you start yammering, I do know that Dems are generally into gun limits, and that's an exception. But the argument is generally about placing reasonable limits on the very worst guns, and not stripping us of our rights. I don't think any Dem is gonna take away our right to protect ourselves. They better as hell not - because I'd fight that right alongside the gun-totin' hillbillies and moose-shooting Alaskans and redneck Texans!

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=35442&m=649453

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SWISH

Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:36 PM

Finn:

Hmm. So it's bullshit because you say it's bullshit? Excellent! Somebody did well in his classes at the Academy of How to Argue with a Five Year Old. You must be very proud!

Anyhow, I presented several examples where Democrats protect individual rights. Care to do the same for Republicans? Maybe expand on the wonderful relationship Repubs have historically had with the ACLU, NOW, NAACP, labor unions, consumer advocates, etc. Oh - and be especially sure to focus on the Republican respect for one of the oldest tenets of basic human rights: habeus corpus.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Finn:

Hmm. So it's bullshit because you say it's bullshit? Excellent! Somebody did well in his classes at the Academy of How to Argue with a Five Year Old. You must be very proud!

Anyhow, I presented several examples where Democrats protect individual rights. Care to do the same for Republicans? Maybe expand on the wonderful relationship Repubs have historically had with the ACLU, NOW, NAACP, labor unions, consumer advocates, etc. Oh - and be especially sure to focus on the Republican respect for one of the oldest tenets of basic human rights: habeus corpus.

Republicans have supported all of those, but why do I have to support some Left-wing activist group to be seen as supporting individual rights? According to you, which is what makes your argument bullshit, Republicans don’t care about individual rights, because they care about “republican rights.” Since when are Republican rights not individual rights as much as anyone else's rights? (“…the Republican Party is all about the rights of Republicans.”, swish) You aren’t willing to apply that same faulty logic to your side, but let’s do it anyway. Democrats don’t care about individual rights; they only care about Democrats' rights.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SWISH

Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Republicans have supported all of those, but why do I have to support some Left-wing activist group to be seen as supporting individual rights?

Exactly my point. You dismiss rights that are extremely important to a broad group of Americans because they are "Left-wing activist groups." Hence not worthy of your support and protection.

Could you prove my point any more blatantly?

Quote:
According to you, which is what makes your argument bullshit, Republicans don’t care about individual rights, because they care about “republican rights.”

No. Republicans don't care about individual rights because they (some of them, anyway) would rob a woman of control over her own body, because they didn't champion the right of blacks and Hispanics until it became politically expedient (and itheir "support" still quite questionable), because they don't want certain people to enjoy the freedom to marry who they choose, because they shat upon the privacy rights of people traveling abroad - including our military, and because they attacked one of the basic tenets of human freedom: habeus corpus.

Quote:
You aren’t willing to apply that same faulty logic to your side, but let’s do it anyway. Democrats don’t care about individual rights; they only care about Democrats' rights.

Show me an example and we'll talk. An example of Dems denying rights to Repubs, or Repubs fighting for minority rights. Please, show me an example. And that's not meant as a dare - I feel like there must be something (I really don't think all Repubs are evil, just the currently outgoing crop) but I can't think of it.

Anyone?

KIRKULES

Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The right wants to kill; the left wants to understand, bottom line. Sometimes we need to kill, other times we need to understand, but that basically how I draw the lines of it.

Judge Chrisisall

I think if you would do a body count for the last 100 years of US history you would find the left much more bloodthirsty. The only reason the body count is higher under Bush than Clinton is that Clinton chose to bomb civilians from 30,000 feet rather than take a chance on hurting his poll numbers.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:19 PM

The Republicans fought for the civil rights movement. The Democrats voted against it.

Just because someone doesn't support your political views doesn't mean they don't support individual rights. But because you don't agree with a certain group of people, you want to demonize them. That's bullshit.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SWISH

Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Republicans fought for the civil rights movement. The Democrats voted against it.

Actually, they both voted for it. But the Republicans did have stronger support, I'll give you that.

ETA: My point was that the white south turned Republican after that civil rights era - the good ole white supremist Republican Bible-thumpin' South! And don't even try saying that that isn't still the case. Just look at who's championing immigration control. And look further into the root of who's writing these laws - white supremist conservatives. ( http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/04/08/immigration-report-being-rele
ased-today-linked-to-white-supremacists/)

Quote:
Just because someone doesn't support your political views doesn't mean they don't support individual rights. But because you don't agree with a certain group of people, you want to demonize them. That's bullshit.

Not demonizing anyone. I said it and I'll say it again: there's some damned fine Republicans out there. I bought my house from one. But to say the Repubs are the party of individual rights is laughable, given their stance on several issues I've already stated, as well as the arguments they're currently using is this election.

Look at something else: W won with 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004, and immediately began talking of the "clear mandate" he'd received. ( http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/elections7.html) For him, the other 49.3% of Americans did not exist and did not matter. Compare that to Obama's message that every one of us is part of America.

I will admit though - I'll be watching close if Obama wins, to see if he follows through. It is my hope and my prayer that the next president represents everyone, those who voted for him and those who didn't. It's been a while since that happened.

What was this thread about? Damn, I got off topic. Sorry!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Republicans fought for the civil rights movement. The Democrats voted against it.
Actually, they both voted for it. But the Republicans did have stronger support, I'll give you that.

ETA: My point was that the white south turned Republican after that civil rights era - the good ole white supremist Republican Bible-thumpin' South! And don't even try saying that that isn't still the case. Just look at who's championing immigration control. And look further into the root of who's writing these laws - white supremist conservatives.

So not only are you wrong about the Republicans not supporting individual rights, you’re now throwing around bigoted statements, condemning an entire region of people based on the actions of a few. Which also makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it? You’re really not worth my time. Have a nice day.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SWISH

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So not only are you wrong about the Republicans not supporting individual rights, you’re now throwing around bigoted statements, condemning an entire region of people based on the actions of a few. Which also makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it? You’re really not worth my time. Have a nice day.

LOL! Way to avoid replying re woman's rights, minority rights, LBGT issues, etc... yeah, not worth your time, because you have nothing good to say!

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
condemning an entire region of people based on the actions of a few.

We're all doing that here, Finn.

Quote:
This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

As usual Finn, you have a major point. Sanctions killed, and war killed...our country only does one thing well, it seems.

We shoulda capped Saddam back in the nineties.

Disgusted Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
LOL! Way to avoid replying re woman's rights, minority rights, LBGT issues, etc...

Yeah, but upon examination, I find that Finn is just reacting as strongly right as some of us do left...common sense & human decency is never on the edge IMO.

Anyone here remember The 27TH Day?

GRRRRisall

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:18 PM

If we followed the Constitution...there wouldn't be issues with their "rights"....

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If we followed the Constitution...there wouldn't be issues with their "rights"....

What- that goddamned piece of paper that keeps getting waved in the President's face???

Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:27 PM

Yeah......

SWISH

Monday, October 27, 2008 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, but upon examination, I find that Finn is just reacting as strongly right as some of us do left...common sense & human decency is never on the edge IMO.

Yeah-yeah. But he's wrong! /self-depracting irony.

I will point out that I was speaking of the direction of the Republican Party as a whole, and not any individual Republican. Well, except for W and Cheney. And Rove. And McCain and Palin. And losers like Bill Orally and Ann whoeversheis. Basically, those who've been guiding the Party - setting a direction they believe will appeal to the most Republican voters, right? Hmm....

Anyhow, I did point out from the beginning that I know lovely Republicans. It's true, I do! But I don't find the general aims of the party involve the protection of individual rights, and I stated the reasons why. Not hearing any factual arguments here to make me change my mind...

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
condemning an entire region of people based on the actions of a few.
We're all doing that here, Finn.

We all have our particular sides in the matter, but not all of us are willing to make gross negative generalizations of an entire group of people. Now if you want to accuse me of taking a side in this matter – that’s true, I am, but the side I’m taking is one which condemns bigotry. For swish to condemn the South as white supremacist is a bigoted remark, and that swish’s side in the matter, but it’s not a point of view that I want to entertain with discussion.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
And McCain and Palin.

Honestly, I don't have that big of a problem with McCain- I disagree with some of his stuff, but the guy means well, it wasn't until Palin hopped on board that I had my serious doubts about him...but he did just pick her 'cause of the beauty queen/religious right factor, still, it's troubling that she's such a nimrod...

If McPalin wins, I'm sure we'll muddle through, though, *sigh*

Chrisisall

SWISH

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We all have our particular sides in the matter, but not all of us are willing to make gross negative generalizations of an entire group of people.

Hmm... kinda like the message that liberals aren't real Americans, which no one on this board has ever even remotely suggested, right?

Whatever. I'm not going to spell out my meaning for you again. Clearly, you're bent on being offended so you can avoid the real discussion. Which was: the Republican Party's battle to defend rights like a woman's ownership of her own body, the right to marry whoever you happen to love, privacy in personal communications, worker's rights, and the little bitty one - habeus corpus. And yes - race relations. (Scary scary Muslims shouldn't ever hold office in the US cause they're all terrists! Evil welfare black people are taking all my money! Commie Chinese are gonna take over the world! Mexicans are destroying the fabric of the US!)

Do you have anything to say about that? At all?

SWISH

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Honestly, I don't have that big of a problem with McCain- I disagree with some of his stuff, but the guy means well, it wasn't until Palin hopped on board that I had my serious doubts about him...but he did just pick her 'cause of the beauty queen/religious right factor, still, it's troubling that she's such a nimrod...

Yeah, I didn't mind him at all. Once. I recall at one time (sooo long ago it seems!) telling friends I felt pretty good about the election to come, that McCain, Clinton, and Obama would each be all right.

But then I saw McCain in action, running this campaign. I think he's a bit broken in the brain. Seriously.

KHYRON

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I recall at one time (sooo long ago it seems!) telling friends I felt pretty good about the election to come, that McCain, Clinton, and Obama would each be all right.

But then I saw McCain in action, running this campaign. I think he's a bit broken in the brain. Seriously.

Same here. And I could say the same thing about Clinton, too. I was an Obama supporter from the start, but I didn't have anything against Clinton initially - until I saw what a disgrace her campaign was and I thought "If the wheels come off already just because there's some unexpected competition in the primaries, she'd make a horrible president".

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

SWISH

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:49 PM

Kind of makes me wonder about all this experience chatter. How long someone's been doing something matters less than how they good they are at it.

McCain sucks at running a campaign - whatever he's been doing the past thirty years doesn't change that fact. Palin sucks at thinking. A year and a half as a governor did her no good in that department. That's the bottom line for me. I'm sick of having an idiot in charge.

ODESSA762

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We all have our particular sides in the matter, but not all of us are willing to make gross negative generalizations of an entire group of people.
Hmm... kinda like the message that liberals aren't real Americans, which no one on this board has ever even remotely suggested, right?

Whatever. I'm not going to spell out my meaning for you again. Clearly, you're bent on being offended so you can avoid the real discussion. Which was: the Republican Party's battle to defend rights like a woman's ownership of her own body, the right to marry whoever you happen to love, privacy in personal communications, worker's rights, and the little bitty one - habeus corpus. And yes - race relations. (Scary scary Muslims shouldn't ever hold office in the US cause they're all terrists! Evil welfare black people are taking all my money! Commie Chinese are gonna take over the world! Mexicans are destroying the fabric of the US!)

Do you have anything to say about that? At all?

I'm not sure I want to get into this with you, after all, you can't even spell "Habeas Corpus" correctly...but since I am a Conservative, I was able to figure out what you were talking about

hehehe.

You have implied that habeas corpus has been violated by the current administration in some way. Can you cite one example?

Can you cite one example where an individuals' right to privacy with regard to telephone calls has been violated?

I am a 'Blue Collar' worker. My rights have not been violated. Can you give me an example where 'workers rights' have been violated by the current Republican administration?

Also, you say Republicans are somehow wrong for being pro-life. How is being pro-life NOT in support of individual rights? By being pro-life, the Republicans are defending the life of the most innocent among us - children.

When it comes to civil rights, Republicans led the way. MLK was a Republican, you know

When many southern Democratic political leaders (Gov. Faubus...Dem, Arkansas) were resisting education desegregation, President Eisenhower (R) fought to make the southern Dems comply with the 'Brown' decision.

Governor Wallace was a Democrat. Barnett ( Governor of Mississippi) was as well. The fact of the matter is that the ranks of the anti-integration, anti-civil rights 'counter movement', if you will, is filled with Big Shot Democrats. Republicans ... not many.

As for marriage, like it or not, this is a Christian nation. The religion is the basis for our society and it customs & laws. So that explains the overwhelming public support for the 'One Man + One Woman = Marriage' thing. Since we basically have a 'majority rules' system that is how marriage is defined in America(with a few exceptions). Personally, if two dudes wanna get hitched, be my guest...more chicks for us straight guys! Win!

As for the original topic ... pretty decent show, but I was partial to...

THUNDERBIRDS!

I'm done.

SWISH

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
You have implied that habeas corpus has been violated by the current administration in some way. Can you cite one example?

Military Commissions Act of 2006 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act)

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act."

Quote:
Can you cite one example where an individuals' right to privacy with regard to telephone calls has been violated?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1

"Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia."

Quote:
I am a 'Blue Collar' worker. My rights have not been violated. Can you give me an example where 'workers rights' have been violated by the current Republican administration?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/republicans-admit-labor-
_b_42366.html

"But, the passage in the story, which is stuck near the end (which, I guess argues that you should always read from the back to the front) that is truly revealing is this:

"A problem that especially worries Republicans and the administration is how to ensure new labor commitments don't unintentionally rebound at home, where American businesses already have high workplace standards under U.S. law. Some officials fret about the limits imposed by U.S. law on the ability of government workers to organize and worry that putting ILO principles in a bilateral trade deal might lead to legal actions over whether the U.S. itself fully complies with the basic international rights.

"Right. Republicans and Administration officials worry that forcing our country to abide by rules set forth by the International Labor Organization would expose what is obvious: workers in this country do not have basic rights.

"And, yet, Republicans fear that adhering to those basic ILO standards would put employers in the U.S. at risk of running afoul of those very provisions."

Quote:
Also, you say Republicans are somehow wrong for being pro-life. How is being pro-life NOT in support of individual rights? By being pro-life, the Republicans are defending the life of the most innocent among us - children.

Ah yes - the world view where the woman has committed the worst sin - had sex with no plan for bearing children. Didn't the Virgin Mary tell her? She's supposed to NOT have sex but just wait in her pure state until, miraculously, she gets preggers! Not a whore, but still a loving mother. Now that'a a real American woman! Those others aren't worth respect and protection. Lock 'em up, force em to carry to term, wreck their lives and bodies. Then snatch the fetus - it can be indoctrinated, There's a chance it can be less evil than it's mama, so it's rights must come first...

Quote:
When it comes to civil rights, Republicans led the way. MLK was a Republican, you know

True but different era. Not applicable to today

Honestly, I don't know the full political history of the south, I just know that the modern crop or Repubs does plenty to demonize those with dark skin and different ways. McCain and Palin seem to see a Replublican base that they'll win over with all this talk.

Quote:
As for marriage, like it or not, this is a Christian nation.

No, like it or not this nation is founded on religious freedom. We have religion in our culture, but none of it should go anywhere government power or law-making. It's called separation of church and state. You may have heard of it....

Quote:
the overwhelming public support for the 'One Man + One Woman = Marriage' thing.

Huh. Really

ODESSA762

Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
You have implied that habeas corpus has been violated by the current administration in some way. Can you cite one example?
Military Commissions Act of 2006 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act)

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act."

The Boumediene v. Bush case allows for detainees to challenge their detention under habeas corpus. It has yet to be determined as to wether or not their habeas corpus rights were actually violated. In other words, the decision does not free them. Boumediene is still down at Gitmo. His case is pending. It is likely that all of the folks being held there will be released or moved to other facilities before the habeas corpus question is finalized. I sure hope none of them slip & fall while being relocated.

Try again?

With reference to the privacy issue, I was not able to open that ABC News link you provided, but if memory serves me correctly, that story went like this:

Two US Soldiers assigned to the NSA ALLEGE that they listened in on conversations. The key word being "ALLEGE". In other words, they offered no proof. Your argument is based on innuendo and heresay and is thus faulty. Maybe you can find a court case as evidence?

Strike Two.

In order to avoid taking this thread further off topic, I'll respond to the rest of your previous comments in another thread - if you'd care to crank one up.

...circular error probability zero. Impact with high order detonation. Thank You, have a nice day.

THUNDERBIRDS!

Hope you are feeling better