Switch Theme:

Clint Eastwood off his meds?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Or better yet... the Haka:


This is an awesome tribute... brings salty stuff to my eyes...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/06 20:46:14


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

Speaking generally, I can't get around the level of polarisation between both parties in the US. It makes me think that everyone might have been better off if they just split the US into 2 or more countries? That way people could live with their others and their own uncompromising viewpoint on what should or should not be done with healthcare, abortion, gun laws or whatever. Rather than what we have at the moment, which seems to be supporters of either side positively dreading the ascension of either Republicans or Democrats into government.

I'm half serious..

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 whembly wrote:
Or better yet... the Haka:


This is an awesome tribute... brings salty stuff to my eyes...


We've got a fairly large Polynesian population here and when outsiders see that performed at a sporting event or party it scares the crap out of them.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Pacific wrote:
Speaking generally, I can't get around the level of polarisation between both parties in the US. It makes me think that everyone might have been better off if they just split the US into 2 or more countries? That way people could live with their others and their own uncompromising viewpoint on what should or should not be done with healthcare, abortion, gun laws or whatever. Rather than what we have at the moment, which seems to be supporters of either side positively dreading the ascension of either Republicans or Democrats into government.

I'm half serious..

eh... that's the way its always been. Sure, it's gotten worst lately, but we'll be alright. We're just squabbling brothers and sisters...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html

Eastwood says his convention appearance was 'mission accomplished'

Spoiler:
By PAUL MILLER
Published: September 7, 2012

AFTER A week as topic No. 1 in American politics, former Carmel Mayor Clint Eastwood said the outpouring of criticism from left-wing reporters and liberal politicians after his appearance at the Republican National Convention last Thursday night, followed by an avalanche of support on Twitter and in the blogosphere, is all the proof anybody needs that his 12-minute discourse achieved exactly what he intended it to.
“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.”

Breaking his silence
For five days after he thrilled or horrified the nation by talking to an empty chair representing Obama on the night Mitt Romney accepted the Republican nomination for president, Eastwood remained silent while pundits and critics debated whether his remarks, and the rambling way he made them, had helped or hurt Romney’s chances of winning in November.
But in a wide-ranging interview with The Pine Cone Tuesday, he said he had conveyed the messages he wanted to convey, and that the spontaneous nature of his presentation was intentional, too.
“I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”
Eastwood’s appearance at the convention came after a personal request from Romney in August, soon after Eastwood endorsed the former Massachusetts governor at a fundraiser in Sun Valley, Idaho. But it was finalized only in the last week before the convention, along with an agreement to build suspense by keeping it secret until the last moment.
Meanwhile, Romney’s campaign aides asked for details about what Eastwood would say to the convention.
“They vett most of the people, but I told them, ‘You can’t do that with me, because I don’t know what I’m going to say,’” Eastwood recalled.
And while the Hollywood superstar has plenty of experience being adored by crowds, he said he hasn’t given a lot of speeches and admitted that, “I really don’t know how to.” He also hates using a teleprompter, so it was settled in his mind that when he spoke to the 10,000 people in the convention hall, and the millions more watching on television, he would do it extemporaneously.
“It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen,” Eastwood said. “I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there.”
Eastwood is a liberal on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, but he has strongly conservative opinions about the colossal national debt that has accumulated while Obama has been president, his failure to get unemployment below 6 percent, and a host of other economic issues.
“Even people on the liberal side are starting to worry about going off a fiscal cliff,” Eastwood said.

Last minute decisions
But what — exactly — would he say to the Republican delegates about the $16 trillion national debt and 8.3 percent unemployment rate?
Friends and associates weren’t as much help as he had hoped.
“Everybody had advice for me, except the janitor,” Eastwood said.
Early Thursday morning, when Eastwood left San Jose Airport on a private jet headed for Florida, he was still making up his mind. And even with his appearance just a few hours away, all Eastwood could tell Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades and his aides, was “to reassure them that everything I would say would be nice about Mitt Romney.”
It was only after a quick nap in his hotel room a few blocks from the convention site, Eastwood said, that he mapped out his remarks — starting with his observation about politics in Hollywood, then challenging the president about the failure of his economic policies, and wrapping up by telling the public “they don’t have to worship politicians, like they were royalty or something.”
But even then, with just an hour before he appeared on stage, it still hadn’t occurred to Eastwood to use an empty chair as a stand-in for the president.
“I got to the convention site just 15 or 20 minutes before I was scheduled to go on,” he said. “That was fine, because everything was very well organized.”
After a quick trip through airport-style security, he was taken to a Green Room, where Archbishop Dolan of New York sought him out to say hello. Then he was taken backstage to wait for his cue. And that was when inspiration struck.
“There was a stool there, and some fella kept asking me if I wanted to sit down,” Eastwood said. “When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea. I’ll just put the stool out there and I’ll talk to Mr. Obama and ask him why he didn’t keep all of the promises he made to everybody.”
He asked a stagehand to take it out to the lectern while he was being announced.
“The guy said, ‘You mean you want it at the podium?’ and I said, ‘No, just put it right there next to it.’”
Then, with the theme song from “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” as a musical introduction, and a huge picture of him as Josey Wales as the backdrop, Eastwood walked out to tremendous applause.
“The audience was super enthusiastic, and it’s always great when they’re with you instead of against you,” he said.

‘Enjoying themselves’
Speaking without any notes, Eastwood recalled the good feelings the whole nation had when Obama was elected, but said they had been dashed as the economy stayed in the doldrums despite massive stimulus spending. He decried the “stupid idea” of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and putting terrorists on trial in New York City, joked about Vice President Joe Biden’s intellect and quizzed empty-chair Obama about what he says to people about his failed economic policies. He pretended Obama told Romney to do something “physically impossible” to himself, said it’s time to elect a “stellar businessman” as president instead of a lawyer, and, as a final point, told the people, “You own this country.”
When an elected official doesn’t “do the job, we’ve got to let ‘em go,” he said, and the crowd ate it up.
“They really seemed to be enjoying themselves,” Eastwood said.
Originally, he was told he could speak for six or seven minutes, and right before he went on, he was asked to keep it to five, but he said, “When people are applauding so much, it takes you 10 minutes to say five minutes’ worth.”
Also, there were no signals or cues of any kind, so “when you’re out there, it’s kind of hard to tell how much time is going by.”
He also said he was aware he hesitated and stumbled a bit, but said “that’s what happens when you don’t have a written-out speech.”
As he wrapped up his remarks, he was aware his presentation was “very unorthodox,” but that was his intent from the beginning, even if some people weren’t on board.
“They’ve got this crazy actor who’s 82 years old up there in a suit,” he said. “I was a mayor, and they’re probably thinking I know how to give a speech, but even when I was mayor I never gave speeches. I gave talks.”
Backstage, it was all congratulations and glad-handing, he said. And then he returned to the Green Room, where he listened to speeches by Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney. It wasn’t possible for him to watch the media coverage of his presentation.
But the country was listening as the television reporters and commentators covering his speech reacted to it. And they hated it.
“I have to say, as a fan, a movie fan, this was exceedingly strange. It just seemed like a very strange, unscripted moment,” said a shocked Andrea Mitchell on NBC.
“That was the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen at a political convention in my entire life,” said Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, barely concealing the condescension in her voice.
Bob Schieffer of CBS said it was “a big mistake to put Clint Eastwood on before Mitt Romney.”
On the Washington Post website, reporter Chris Cillizza wrote that “‘awkward’ may be the kindest term we can think of” to describe Eastwood’s speech.
“He hemmed. He hawed. He mumbled. He rambled,” Cillizza wrote.
And on CNN, Piers Morgan said Eastwood was “going bonkers” on the stage and said his presentation “looked like complete chaos.” He pressured his guests with questions like, “Weren’t you in pain while he was up there?”
But Eastwood wasn’t aware of any of it, and after the speeches were over, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, came backstage to thank him.
“They were very enthusiastic, and we were all laughing,” Eastwood said.
When he went outside to his car, a large crowd cheered and chanted lines from his speech.

An overnight rebellion
Back at his hotel, Eastwood had a room service dinner and went to bed. The next morning, he got up early and went straight to the airport, still unaware that his appearance was the No. 1 political topic in the nation.
“I read the Tampa newspaper, and every article said something negative about the convention, but there wasn’t much about me,” Eastwood said.
He had no idea that overnight, a rebellion had erupted online against the media’s condemnation of him, with thousands of bloggers, Twitterers and commentators calling him, “a genius,” “1,000 times more brilliant than the media,” and saying he’s “only gotten better with age.”
They also started posting their own versions of Eastwood’s empty chair in droves (“eastwooding”), and, on YouTube, replays of his remarks at the convention were being viewed millions of times.
Even into his 80s, Eastwood has an unprecedented record of success in Hollywood, and is still making two movies a year. He’s currently starring in “Trouble with the Curve,” and is about to direct a remake of “A Star is Born” — things he obviously couldn’t do if he were a befuddled senior citizen. To locals who know him, the idea that he is uninformed or senile is laughable.
Nevertheless, the bitter criticism has continued.
On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, called Eastwood “the perfect icon of the Republican tea party: an angry old white man spewing incoherent nonsense.”
Eastwood said people, including reporters, who were shocked by his remarks “are obviously on the left,” and he maintained that, while many Americans didn’t like the way he handled his convention appearance, millions more have something else on their minds.
“A lot of people are realizing they had the wool pulled over their eyes by Obama,” Eastwood said.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






I love Clint, but that there is some mainline, uncut crazy. It isn't the disagreement so much as the method.

What I also don't get is why he didn't support McCain in such a visible way, but is supporting Romney, who isn't half the statesman McCain was/is. This whole thing is bizarre.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Nah, it's pretty sensible.

He's gone off his rocker.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I really don;t care what he thinks as long as he can still direct good movies.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

I'm sorry... but, this is funny...


Where's the pict of Romney's elevator in his garage!?!?! I mean, if you have THAT mean cars and that small of a garage, you're doing it wrong!

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Frazzled wrote:
That was reagan's strength. He had two or three main points: get the economy moving; kill the evil empire; eat jelly beans. He focused on it relentlessly and succeeded.


So Reagan invented microcomputers and bankrupted Russia by forcing them to spend exactly zero more dollars on national defence. Uh huh.

fething reality fething matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:
The same people who believe government is the enemy to all that is good in the world (except for bombing Iran and putting black men into prison) are now complaining that the very person they hate who runs the hated institution of government is somehow not governing enough?

I'm not saying you folks are stupid and should be ashamed of yourselves, but I'm not not saying that either.


I'm kind of baffled how some of the same people involved in this "Obama spends some portion of his time not doing president stuff" nonsense suddenly find reasoning skills to figure out why the Romney "spends money on a horse". It's almost as if they're willing to switch their brains off and not consider how ridiculous a claim is when it works for their side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pacific wrote:
Speaking generally, I can't get around the level of polarisation between both parties in the US. It makes me think that everyone might have been better off if they just split the US into 2 or more countries? That way people could live with their others and their own uncompromising viewpoint on what should or should not be done with healthcare, abortion, gun laws or whatever. Rather than what we have at the moment, which seems to be supporters of either side positively dreading the ascension of either Republicans or Democrats into government.

I'm half serious..


Yeah, it worked so well for India and Pakistan. I mean though only ever get into a war and kill each other about once a decade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
I'm sorry... but, this is funny...


Where's the pict of Romney's elevator in his garage!?!?! I mean, if you have THAT mean cars and that small of a garage, you're doing it wrong!


That is awesome.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/10 04:07:27


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:

So Reagan invented microcomputers and bankrupted Russia by forcing them to spend exactly zero more dollars on national defence. Uh huh.

fething reality fething matters.

Nice try, but you will never, ever convince the average American that Reagan did not personally beat the Soviets in a cage match. Even people I would otherwise consider extremely bright do not even question this.

They also tend to forget that Reagan negotiated with terrorists, traded arms for hostages, allowed Islamic militants to kill American servicemen without retribution, and ballooned the debt and the deficit.

So while it's perfectly appropriate that Reagan's the idol of the Republican Party, Republicans don't understand why it's so apt.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
Nice try, but you will never, ever convince the average American that Reagan did not personally beat the Soviets in a cage match. Even people I would otherwise consider extremely bright do not even question this.

They also tend to forget that Reagan negotiated with terrorists, traded arms for hostages, allowed Islamic militants to kill American servicemen without retribution, and ballooned the debt and the deficit.

So while it's perfectly appropriate that Reagan's the idol of the Republican Party, Republicans don't understand why it's so apt.


Yep. I have this theory that people need to pretend their side had a decent president in living memory. It makes sense, it feels pretty weak to have to go back to Eisenhower to talk about the last awesome Republican president, so instead they just pick someone that they can pretend was good.

Bush II is out for obvious reasons, Bush I lost his second term so he can't be used, and if they go past Reagan you're into Ford and Nixon. So instead they just pretend Reagan was someone completely different to the president they actually got.


The same theory explains (in my head anyway ) why the left were suddenly willing to see JFK as the neo-con he actually was and not the patron saint of the left as they'd previously been pretending... because they had Clinton as an actual good president, and no longer needed to make up stuff about JFK.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I think Reagan was the the reason they had Clint Eastwood speak, he reminded them of last year in office "does he have Alzheimer's?" Reagan.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 sebster wrote:

Yep. I have this theory that people need to pretend their side had a decent president in living memory. It makes sense, it feels pretty weak to have to go back to Eisenhower to talk about the last awesome Republican president, so instead they just pick someone that they can pretend was good.

Bush II is out for obvious reasons, Bush I lost his second term so he can't be used, and if they go past Reagan you're into Ford and Nixon. So instead they just pretend Reagan was someone completely different to the president they actually got.


Reagan was a good President, he just wasn't the President that many paint him as; much like JFK wasn't.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 dogma wrote:
Reagan was a good President, he just wasn't the President that many paint him as; much like JFK wasn't.


That's a fair summary.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






Reagans most significant contribution to ending the cold war would be refusing to compromise with Gorbachev on the star wars defense system, and suggested that both sides dismantle all nuclear weapons. This convinced Gorbachev that he could move forward perestroika and start mass dismantlement as he felt that Reagan would not order an alpha strike. It was in the end the result of political infighting that would kill the USSR but reagans and Gorbachev willingness to dismantle nukes played a major part in bring the confilct to an end.

And as for great presidents, I think that Eisenhower was our last truly great president from any party, and the FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was the longest span of good presidents we've ever had

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/11 06:00:13


H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

What about Hoover or Hayes? Were they not great presidents?

Back OT
Recently, I've been reading a lot of political textbooks about America's reaction to 9/11. Aside from the military stuff, the Bush administration pushed through the biggest assault on US liberties since Japanese Americans were locked away in WW2. And yet, throughout this campaign, I've seen/heard Republicans talk about getting government off their backs etc etc. I'm scratching my head at stuff a contridictory viewpoint.

To be fair, neither Democrats or Republicans have tackled this over the last 20 years. The rot seemed to start with Clinton after the Oklahoma bombings, but I can't understand how people can moan about tax, but are happy to wave through more restrictions on their freedoms.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What about Hoover or Hayes? Were they not great presidents?

Back OT
Recently, I've been reading a lot of political textbooks about America's reaction to 9/11. Aside from the military stuff, the Bush administration pushed through the biggest assault on US liberties since Japanese Americans were locked away in WW2. And yet, throughout this campaign, I've seen/heard Republicans talk about getting government off their backs etc etc. I'm scratching my head at stuff a contridictory viewpoint.

To be fair, neither Democrats or Republicans have tackled this over the last 20 years. The rot seemed to start with Clinton after the Oklahoma bombings, but I can't understand how people can moan about tax, but are happy to wave through more restrictions on their freedoms.

Uh... to be fair, most of us didn't like the Patriot Act and the new flying rules (and TSA).

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What about Hoover or Hayes? Were they not great presidents?

Back OT
Recently, I've been reading a lot of political textbooks about America's reaction to 9/11. Aside from the military stuff, the Bush administration pushed through the biggest assault on US liberties since Japanese Americans were locked away in WW2. And yet, throughout this campaign, I've seen/heard Republicans talk about getting government off their backs etc etc. I'm scratching my head at stuff a contridictory viewpoint.

To be fair, neither Democrats or Republicans have tackled this over the last 20 years. The rot seemed to start with Clinton after the Oklahoma bombings, but I can't understand how people can moan about tax, but are happy to wave through more restrictions on their freedoms.

It's important to note that American conservatives are not libertarians. When they speak of wanting government off their backs, they mean strictly in the marketplace. By and large, they're fine with the government nosing around your personal life, and they'll happily sign away half the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

Good point, Seaward, but who are the libertarians in the USA these days? Assuming they exist!

Gun control seems to be another issue. I've mentioned before that historically, it was the right wing in the USA that tried to stop African Americans from getting guns, but these days the right wingers are the champions of guns for all, and the left seem to want to clamp down on them!

I'll say this for US politics: it's never dull

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






Its also important to remember that there has never been a wartime administration that didn't heavily restrict rights

H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

At the moment, there are almost no libertarians actually running these days.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 youbedead wrote:
Reagans most significant contribution to ending the cold war would be refusing to compromise with Gorbachev on the star wars defense system, and suggested that both sides dismantle all nuclear weapons. This convinced Gorbachev that he could move forward perestroika and start mass dismantlement as he felt that Reagan would not order an alpha strike. It was in the end the result of political infighting that would kill the USSR but reagans and Gorbachev willingness to dismantle nukes played a major part in bring the confilct to an end.


I think ultimately the collapse of the USSR began and ended with the inherent failings of the state planned economy. Perestroika was the last in a long line of reforms that attempted to introduce market mechanisms to the Soviet state, each a tacit acceptance that the state planned economy didn't really work. And while the unrest stirred up by Perestroika ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR, that unrest existed because the state planned economy had simply failed to deliver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Melissia wrote:
At the moment, there are almost no libertarians actually running these days.


In 2012 Ron Paul got his first actual, plausible chance of victory, having spent three decades on the outer. As soon as he realised he was a real chance he dumped his ideologically pure positions, among other things reversing his position on abortion. I think that was the point it became clear that no matter how strange the circumstances (and it's hard to imagine them getting stranger than the 2012 Republican primary), no-one holding a genuine libertarian platform would ever compete for major power in the US.

It will continue to exist on the fringe, having some say over general GOP strategy, but too many parts of it are too distasteful to too many potential GOP voters.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/12 03:14:35


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 sebster wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
At the moment, there are almost no libertarians actually running these days.
Ron Paul
I said Libertarians, not Ron Paul. The two aren't the same thing.

I don't think he was one even before 2012.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/12 03:23:36


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Melissia wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
At the moment, there are almost no libertarians actually running these days.
Ron Paul
I said Libertarians, not Ron Paul. The two aren't the same thing.

I don't think he was one even before 2012.

Isn't he the most libertarian-ish that had a snowball chance of winning? Not everyone fits in a perfect mold of a "liberal" vs "conservative" vs "libertarin" vs "any-ism"...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Melissia wrote:
I said Libertarians, not Ron Paul. The two aren't the same thing.

I don't think he was one even before 2012.


He's been the poster boy for libertarians for nearly three decades. He ran for President as the Libertarian in 1988, and has maintained the highest profile of anyone associated with libertarian policies since then.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/12 03:47:38


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User



Gulf Coast, TX

Just curious concerning the comments about Reagan: How many of you actually lived in the US during the time period of his presidency (1981-1989) as an adult? I did, he was also my Commander in Chief. Let's just say I have a more favorable memories of the man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Good point, Seaward, but who are the libertarians in the USA these days? Assuming they exist!

Gun control seems to be another issue. I've mentioned before that historically, it was the right wing in the USA that tried to stop African Americans from getting guns, but these days the right wingers are the champions of guns for all, and the left seem to want to clamp down on them!

I'll say this for US politics: it's never dull



It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/24 13:05:59


Enimo Et Fide 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




Chaplain Levitcius wrote:

It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.

Well, both parties have undergone some serious demographic shifts since those statements were true.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Seaward wrote:
Chaplain Levitcius wrote:

It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.

Well, both parties have undergone some serious demographic shifts since those statements were true.


They also have undergone serious ideological shifts. The republicans of those days would likely be democrats now, and vice versa.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

Chaplain Levitcius wrote:
Just curious concerning the comments about Reagan: How many of you actually lived in the US during the time period of his presidency (1981-1989) as an adult? I did, he was also my Commander in Chief. Let's just say I have a more favorable memories of the man.

I remember him trading weapons to terrorists.

Chaplain Levitcius wrote:

It was also the Republicans that abolished slavery in the US and fought for minority rights while the Democrats historically opposed both. But today they try to portray this as the exact opposite.

You seem to have missed the last 45 years of the Republican political relationship with minorities. Let me help you catch up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070#Background_and_passage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#Voter_identification_laws

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: