Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:
There's also the big question of whether the US is actually helping, or if its presence continues to inflame tensions.

Sounds like someone's violating the Prime Directive again. Episode ratings must
be low this season.

wight_widow wrote:They'd be American Ghandis. Well, bad example, given the Ghandis were all eventually killed off with the exception of Sonia, who married into the family,

Who's their Obama? I don't understand this dynastic parallel.

malfred wrote:Sounds like someone's violating the Prime Directive again. Episode ratings must be low this season.

I recognise each of those words, I'm pretty sure they're all English. I can even see how they might string together to form a couple of sentences.

I just have no idea what it has to do with anything else going on here.

The American Ghandis?

sebster wrote:

malfred wrote:Sounds like someone's violating the Prime Directive again. Episode ratings must be low this season.

I recognise each of those words, I'm pretty sure they're all English. I can even see how they might string together to form a couple of sentences.

I just have no idea what it has to do with anything else going on here.

It’s a Star Trek joke. Malfred usually likes to help keep the mood light.

Mannahnin wrote:It’s a Star Trek joke. Malfred usually likes to help keep the mood light.

Oh okay. I watched enough Trek to know what the Prime Directive was, but I still don't get the joke. Could someone explain, please?

Prime Directive = non-interference in other cultures.

US = lots of interference in other cultures.

Only if there is something to gain monetarily.

Hence why many African nations in seemingly perpetual states of Civil War are left to rot. And it's not just the US. It's Europe too. And besides, if we achieved World Peace, who exactly would prop our booming Arms Trade?

Sarah Palin interviewed by Charlie Gibson = laffo.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

Also McCain interview for the price of one!
http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralObject=850878100

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Only if there is something to gain monetarily.

Hence why many African nations in seemingly perpetual states of Civil War are left to rot. And it's not just the US. It's Europe too. And besides, if we achieved World Peace, who exactly would prop our booming Arms Trade?

Hey now. I'm carrying my X-com UFO Defense budget deficit on the backs of illicit
arms sales of "high" technology (ie, Laser Cannons) and the alien wares black market.

CorporateLogo wrote:Sarah Palin interviewed by Charlie Gibson = laffo.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

Also McCain interview for the price of one!
http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralObject=850878100

Be wary of excerpts. The order the questions were asked in can be altered, and context subtley changed. This is primarily where my lack of trust in the media stems from.

malfred wrote:Hey now. I'm carrying my X-com UFO Defense budget deficit on the backs of illicit
arms sales of "high" technology (ie, Laser Cannons) and the alien wares black market.

So tell me then, as an experienced trader in XCom weapons and gear, who's buying all those alien bodies for $20k a piece?

I don't ask who buys them. I just provide the bodies.

You'll wish you asked questions when the giant sectoid flesh golem takes over the Mediteranean.

From the Charlie Gibson interview:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side. That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

Also:
http://www.philebrity.com/2008/09/09/phashionista-special-red-alert-homegrown-sarah-palin-shirts-now-available/

More lines from the interview:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

SHE'S JUST PROVING SHE'S NOT A TYPICAL WASHINGTON INSIDER GUYS HONEST

lord_sutekh wrote:
And how about, instead of projecting all this ill-wishing and malevolent intent upon Obama, you discuss him as a person or a candidate, not a future assassination victim/martyr or exploiter of emotion? You know, for a lark.

"When you jump in the cesspool you become a turd" - David Suzuki

edit - that aside, I admit that post was a bit much. As for the view from Canada, I mean only that my views are a product of my environment and the differential in distortion between the American and Canadian media, not that all or even most Canadians would neccessarily subscribe to them. Actually IIRC poll results indicate precisely the opposite: Osama's got something like an 80% approval rating here, just like everyplace else besides where he needs it. I've been following the news from a too-young age and I suppose I've developed a sort of instinctive cynicisim towards certain brands of ...uh... public personages. Frankly I personally don't give a ....hoot and holler about who wins. I don't have to live in America. If the softwood lobby wants to go ape**** on us again, or if ethanol for some reason stops working and subsidies start flowing to American farmers again, that could be a problem but it's say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss for the rest of the world.

As far as Obama the person goes...that's where the pure speculation begins. A political campaign is like a little war fought with words instead of bombs, guns, and knives; and the first casualty in any war is always the truth. Who knows? He could be a great guy or he might not be so great. No one besides his wife, kids, and shrink can know that. However, if we're talking about Barrack Hussein Osama the POLITICIAN, then how else to describe one but as an "exploiter of emotion"? What the devil else does ANYBODY - McCain, Bush, any other ****ed example, contemporary, fictional or historical - else do on the campaign trail? A master politician plays his or her country like a fiddle. Any refusal to use all tools at ones disposal indicates either an absence of will to win, or a more sinister motive. People will vote the way they buy stock, mostly on emotion; except that in politics, rage, hatred, and utopic self-delusion join greed and fear as motivators. Secret ballot or no secret ballot, we're all just one more head in the herd, slowly wandering down the corridor to the...well, the idea of this post was to backpedal, not wind myself up again.

My apologies to any Americans who consider an anonymous internet post from a random waco to somehow constitute meddling in the affairs of their country. Personally I wanted to garotte Micheal Moore with his own intestines when he stuck his nose north of the 49th two elections ago, so I can appreciate how foreign opinions are typically unwelcome in domestic disputes. I'll stand by my commentary on the nature of political contests in general, but am willing to retract any specific notes on the character, persona, policy, attitude - or anything at all - about any candidate the current race. I can accept that the internal affairs of a foreign country are none of my ****ed business. However, I'll say it again, politics suck, plain and simple, humans will have to evolve into asexual photosynthesizing something or others before it stops sucking, and a politician is at best someone who has shook hands with the devil, and at worst a kind of devil in and of themselves.

wight_widow wrote:(snip)

Osama's

(snip)

Barrack Hussein Osama

(snip)

Ah, you might want check up on the name of the presidential candidate mentioned. It will tend to hurt your credibility if you can't get something like that right.

Also, you've drawn a false equivalence in asserting the lies and compromises of all politicians are equal. There's a difference between exagerating a point or failing to point out the other side's counter argument, and saying something that directly contradicts well established facts. Most politicians do the former. Only the crappiest try the latter. Only McCain/Palin are willing to lie, admit they lied and then tell the same lies again. It's quite an historical moment, in that sense.

It's late here and I don't type well. Now, can you READ the post?

wight_widow wrote:It's late here and I don't type well. Now, can you READ the post?

Quite the contrary, other than those two typos the whole thing seemed bang on, a lot better than my typing. It's just that there's a bit of history behind that specific error, giving that Osama has been quite a famous name for around a seven years now, and that various members of the right have been using it to refer to Obama for a while now.

Also, I did comment on your post, suggesting that your attempt to draw equivalence was incorrect. That not every campaign is run with the the same cynicism. I even gave a clear point of disctinction. We can talk about that if you want.

I guess I personally really am still learning. This is the last time I'm going to say anything about a public political figure "seeming to be a nice guy."

And as far as the Ghandhi (Gandhi? I can't spell) analogy goes, oSama = Mahatma. (there is that deliberate enough?)

Reread it and PM me sometime later. I covered that in the edit. If the cynicism is not overt it is either covert and ergo deeper or it indicates a naivetee about the functioning of the system and/or a lack of will to win, paraphrasing roughly. Personally that arouses my suspicion in the strongest fashion. I believe I've posted roughly the same thing two to four times.

lPM me later because:

a) I'm going to degenerate into personal attacks, probably involving references to the status of visual minorities in certain commonwealths and the nether regions of kangaroos, and I can tell it; and

b) frankly I've gone far enough to the limits of forum tolerance in this particular thread so if you want to get a good discharge of bile out of me we'll have to do so elsewhere. In spite of my adrenaline-fuelled outbursts, I do honestly prefer to keep a civil environment, and I've been getting used to the idea of never receiving credit for it as I'm pretty clearly quite far from perfect in maintaining it.

And out of curiosity, what right? Or did you just select "Australia" as the country for this forum because you liked the flag?

wight_widow wrote:And as far as the Ghandhi (Gandhi? I can't spell) analogy goes, oSama = Mahatma. (there is that deliberate enough?)

What?

wight_widow wrote:If the cynicism is not overt it is either covert and ergo deeper or it indicates a naivetee about the functioning of the system and/or a lack of will to win, paraphrasing roughly.

Huh?

I don't trust the whitewash on ANY sepulchre. EVERY campaign is run with the same cynicism - not every campaign is as successful in getting the public to lay aside THEIR cynicism. An idealistic public is like an unarmed, unescorted, and unskilled woman walking through a bad neighbourhood at three in the morning: might as well be holding a sign that says "prey".

wight_widow wrote:And out of curiosity, what right? Or did you just select "Australia" as the country for this forum because you liked the flag?

Right as in right wing. Since Obama became a national figure various right wing figures have been deliberately or 'accidentally' confusing his name for that of the world's most notorious terrorist. You'll also see the same crowd using Obama's middle name.

I didn't pick the Australian flag, the internet somehow figured out that's where I was posting from, clever thing that it is.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461

puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

even better

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

she does one hell of a good job

http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html I love america

I was going to start my comment with "Since when does a politician have to have "true" experience?", but then I realised that this wouldn't work when commentating on the US political system. Over here we have the Civil Service, who basically run government over here. They are the people who stay in office no matter the election result, allowing the real business of government to continue. These are the people who have to ultimately tell the politicians that the promise that they've just made can't be kept

From what I've picked up over the years, when you have a new party in power, it's a complete swop over, so everyone is "new" to the job. Hmmm, you might want to think about changing that part. I would imagine that you could be losing out on a potentially good President or government official, due to this notion of "experience". If you have a support structure behind you, then perhaps it would allow someone with "ideas", but no experience to move into the Oval Office. Further more "real government experience" is no more different to most white collar jobs. What made any of your previous Presidents any more experienced for the job than the last one? Bushes stance on Iraq, not experience, opinion, same with McCanns & Obamas stances, they are opinions.

The US media say that Obama & Palin don't have world stage experience, so what? They have opinions, which they then espress to their staff, who then speak to informed people, who then say if this is possible and how to do it. Don't think Bush had much experience of fighting a war, but he had an opinion on it. I'd be more concerned about intelligence and common sense then experience. Another example, Eisenhower, he pretty much had it in the bag when it came to dealing with national leaders and securing your borders. However, I can't imagine his farming skills, accounting knowledge, understanding of teaching methods, etc, were as strong when he started the job. He managed 2 terms though, so he must of learnt something.

Coming from a secular country that kicked out religious involvment in government a fair few hundreds of years ago, I have to say the idea of Palin in power scares me. Her religious beliefs would scare me, not her lack of experience. Believe in what you want, but leave it at home when making decisions that affect millions of people.

Wolfstan wrote:
Coming from a secular country that kicked out religious involvment in government a fair few hundreds of years ago, I have to say the idea of Palin in power scares me. Her religious beliefs would scare me, not her lack of experience. Believe in what you want, but leave it at home when making decisions that affect millions of people.

.... Assuming you mean the UK.... when did we do that ? The church has a fair old whack of political power, not least with regards to it's seats in the House of Lords. And the monarch, even if only only a technicality, holds a fair old amount of clout and she/he is the head of the CoE.

If you didn't mean the Uk then sorry !

Yes we still have the CoE and we have religious members in government, but they are there to offer an opinion, another view point. However our land is governed by rules based on fact (hmmm questionable at times), not religious doctrine.

Slightly OT, but could you see Palin at a Timeteam dig? She goes over to Phil and asks him about an object he's found, he starts chatting away about it. All ok until he says that it's about 4 - 4,500 years old...

Palin makes me wonder if she was a last minute choice after they found something out about the candidate they really wanted... she just doesn't seem up to the task as all.

I would say that purely by actually being involved in Governmental decisions religion plays a significant part in the ruling of the land. We still have outdated concepts like blasphemy laws for example, hell we've even got people trying to extend them, which is an unholy mix of far right Islamic and Christian extremism I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.