|
|
Post by PC on Jul 21, 2004 19:42:09 GMT -5
Whether or not Bush wins, it's going to be a very interesting race this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 21, 2004 20:01:33 GMT -5
this election is completely focused on bush, one way or another. most people either hate or love him. he's quite a conservative republican, no arguing about it. he's running against time, against a changing culture. he's used 9/11 to his advantage, to try to run a conservative agenda. he's done a brilliant job with ads, speeches (perhaps his bumbling aids him more than hurts him), spokesmen, and the like. but his routine has run thin for many, and a lot of people who used to like him now are against him, due to the weapons of mass destruction lies and his general arrogance and refusals to admit he's wrong on anything.
november 2nd, 2004. this date will go down as the turning point of our current nation. or perhaps second to september 11th, 2001.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 22, 2004 6:10:28 GMT -5
Call me crazy, call me cynical, but I'm really starting to believe that this whole Linda Ronstadt / Aladin thing was planned between them to drum up publicity for both. You've got a singer who has been out of the limelight for quite some time, on a concert tour trying to drum up publicity and take back some of her glory days. And you've got a casino that is somewhat struggling both for marketshare and an identity as its competitors merge together, and it just can't get the level of respect on the strip that they're hoping for. All of the sudden, because of this dispute, they're both top of mind news stories ... and talking about having her return for another show. Sounds like a gold old Vegas plant to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 22, 2004 6:26:16 GMT -5
for all i know, there might be some truth to that. what i could see being true is that the casino was looking for any reason to make a splash, saw that, and took advantage of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 22, 2004 6:34:16 GMT -5
I kind of doubt it – didn’t the article mention that Ronstadt made a similar dedications at other concerts recently?
Anyway, in a similar vein...
Bonnie Raitt's Bush remark cheered
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Winding up her summer tour across Europe, Bonnie Raitt drew thunderous applause at the Stockholm Jazz Festival for dedicating a classic to U.S. President George W. Bush.
"We're gonna sing this for George Bush because he's out of here, people!" Raitt crowed Tuesday night before she launched into the opening licks of Your Good Thing (Is About to End), a cover that was featured on her 1979 album, The Glow.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 22, 2004 6:38:29 GMT -5
I kind of doubt it – didn’t the article mention that Ronstadt made a similar dedications at other concerts recently? Yes. She's been making similair dedications, and also made various comments in interviews, all without getting any attention. It's not until she partners up that she suceeds in reminding people that she exsists. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 22, 2004 6:48:57 GMT -5
i'm in love with the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 22, 2004 7:24:43 GMT -5
Go Bonnie, go Bonnie...
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 22, 2004 7:38:52 GMT -5
Note that Raitt is mainly voicing her preference of candidates and is also speaking at a jazz festival in Sweden (though I think such a comment could fly just about anywhere).
I wonder if the Dixie Chicks have any regrets. They sure let the air out their careers.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 22, 2004 8:59:29 GMT -5
I thought this was interesting in light of the "hypocrisy of political ideology" discussion we had the other day.
____
Inside a Republican Brain
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: July 21, 2004
What holds the five Republican factions together? To find out, I depth-polled my own brain.
The economic conservative (I'm in the supply-side division) opposes the enforced redistribution of wealth, advocating lower taxes for all to stimulate growth with productivity, thereby to cut the deficit. Government should downhold nondefense spending, stop the litigation drain and reduce regulation but protect consumers from media and other monopolies.
My social conservative instinct wants to denounce the movie-and-TV treatment of violence and porno-sadism as entertainment; repeal state-sponsored gambling; slow the rush to same-sex marriage; oppose partial-birth abortion; resist genetic manipulation that goes beyond therapy. However, this conflicts with -
My libertarian impulse, which is pro-choice and anti-compulsion, wants to protect the right to counsel of all suspects and the right to privacy of the rest of us, likes quiet cars in trains and vouchers for education, and wants snoops out of bedrooms and fundamentalists out of schoolrooms.
The idealistic calling grabs me when it comes to America's historic mission of extending freedom in the world. This brand of thinking is often called neoconservative. In defense against terror, I'm pre-emptive and unilateral rather than belated and musclebound, and would rather be ad hoc in forming alliances than permanently in hock to global bureaucrats.
Also rattling around my Republican mind is the cultural conservative. In today's ever-fiercer kulturkampf, I identify with art forms more traditional than avant-garde, and language usage more standard than common. I prefer the canon to the fireworks and a speech that appeals to the brain's reasoning facilities to a demidocumentary film arousing the amygdala.
Do these different streams of conservatism flow gently together to form a grand Republican river inside the head? "Do I contradict myself?" asked Walt Whitman, singing of himself and answering, "Very well then I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
If these different strains of thought were held by discrete groups of single-minded people, we would have a Republican Party of five warring bands. Social conservatives would fight libertarians over sex, who in turn would savage neocons over pre-emption, who in turn would hoot at the objections of economic conservatives (traditional division) to huge deficits.
But think of these internecine battles not as tugs of war among single-minded groups; instead, think of them as often-conflicting ideas held within the brain of an individual Republican. What goes on is "cognitive dissonance," the jangling of competing inclinations, with the owner of the brain having to work out trade-offs, suppressions and compromises until he or she achieves a kind of puzzled tranquillity within.
What helps me work out that continual internal skirmishing is a mind-set. That brings us to those "values" that every candidate talks about. My values include self-reliance over community dependence, intervention over isolation, self-discipline over society's regulation, finding pleasure in work rather than working to find pleasure. Principles like those help me gel a mind-set that reduces the loudest dissonances among my fistful of clanging conservatisms.
Another aid to resolve the dissonance is every partisan's need for a political home. Independence is fine for the occasionally involved, but if influence as a participant or commentator is desired, one political side or the other must be taken.
The political brain doesn't have to go all the way to conform to either side because each side - Republican and its loyal opposition - contains this conglomeration of nonconformity. I'm a right-winger who is hot for gun control, dismaying all but the wishy-washies called "moderates," but that specific dissent is made inside my Republican home. And home has been defined as the place where - when you have to go there - they have to take you in.
Finally, the dissonance inside my head will be forced into harmony by the need to choose one leader who reflects the preponderance of my views and my judgment of his character.
I will take my teeming noggin to both conventions, watch all the debates and cast my vote - careful, in the tradition of Times columnists, not to endorse anyone. But now you know how one Republican mind will be made up. I presume the liberal brain works the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 22, 2004 9:20:09 GMT -5
beh. have a jellybean.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 22, 2004 11:05:59 GMT -5
Whether or not Bush wins, it's going to be a very interesting race this year. I agree, and my fatalistic side - which likes nothing more than to observe with a detached air - says that as long as we're entertained we can't complain. Unfortunately, Bush (and his cronies) form such a dangerous, pathetic administration that 'entertainment' - for the first time in living memory - is not my primary desire ahead of a US Presidential election. I'd be far happier with the most dull election in history, provided Bush was kicked out of office in disgrace. I believe it's imperative that America judges this President in the harshest possible terms, irrespective of his domestic agenda, and the impact he's had on US society. I'll level 3 charges at this guy that I think are irrefutable:- 1. He's an ecological vandal. He's an enemy of biodiversity, an enemy of unspoilt wilderness, and an enemy of efforts to save the planet from the now accepted consequences of global warming. The most irresponsible President imaginable, in fact, when it comes to the environment. Were he to live to 250 years of age, he'd probably find himself prosecuted for crimes against humanity on the basis of his record in this area. (I'm assuming humanity becomes more enlightened with the passage of time, of course). 2. The world is a more dangerous place as a result of his actions. This is the most contentious of the three 'crimes' I charge Dubya with, simply because a possible (though wholly inadequate) response is "would anyone else have done better?" -Al Qaeda recruitment is up, fuelled by the propaganda disaster that is post-invasion Iraq. -We're no nearer a solution in Palestine. -Interventionist efforts to combat terrorism in future will be harder to sell to a public made wary and sceptical by American/British misuse of tentative intelligence, and by Bush constantly peddling the implicit lie about Saddam and 9/11. 3. Bush has a terrible reputation across the world, West and East and everywhere in the middle. He's lowered America's standing in the eyes of other nations, destroying relationships with much of Europe, invoking hostility towards the USA even in 'friendly' countries like my own. Tony Blair may love the USA, but English people no longer do. Why? The 'reckless cowboy' at the helm... one of the most despised men in Britain. In short, the USA has never been so despised abroad, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are the three reasons why. Edit: I put the environment at the top here, because the rest of us have to suffer on account of what you lot do. Pollution does not respect national boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 22, 2004 11:26:17 GMT -5
JLLM, there are so many areas where I disagree with you here that I"m only going to challenge you on a few. 1. He's an ecological vandal. He's an enemy of biodiversity, an enemy of unspoilt wilderness, and an enemy of efforts to save the planet from the now accepted consequences of global warming. . "Now accepted" by who? Given that there are still reputable scientists who disagee with the notion of global warming ... including a report last week saying that the sun getting hotter may be the cause of global warming and not us ... how do you define it as accepted? Accepted by you, and the rest of us have to fall in line? I've always known science to have irrefutable facts. Given the debate on this subject, I lean towards believing it is in the theory stage, not the scientific fact ... or accepted ... stage. The most irresponsible President imaginable, in fact, when it comes to the environment. Were he to live to 250 years of age, he'd probably find himself prosecuted for crimes against humanity on the basis of his record in this area. (I'm assuming humanity becomes more enlightened with the passage of time, of course).. Please don't lose sight of the fact that Bush and the EPA's reasoning for easing up on many of the standards they have (not easing up really, but giving companies incentives to comply rather than prosecuting those who don't) is because the expense of prosecuting under the previous system was so costly and time consuming that the laws were not effectively being followed. What good are laws if you can't ensure people can follow them? -Al Qaeda recruitment is up, fuelled by the propaganda disaster that is post-invasion Iraq.. What is the source of this claim? And since apparently there are published numbers on al Qaeda's membership that i"m not aware of, how is there overall membership when you add this huge number of recruits, but subtract those that we've killed or captured? Up or down overall? -We're no nearer a solution in Palestine. . ... a conflict that has exsisted since before the US exsisted. And we're holding BUSH responbile for this? |
|
|
|
Post by PC on Jul 22, 2004 11:38:02 GMT -5
Wow, JLLM. You're really scared about Bush winning, and you don't even live in America!
I'm kind of scared too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 22, 2004 12:01:15 GMT -5
*smiles* looks like you've got the right idea, miss chick.
i actually kind of like john mccain. here's hoping cheney stays on the ticket...
|
|
