sildenafil

Hmmmm!

Filed Under American Politics 

I’m no fan of the political elites, and I do think that a common sense conservatism borne out of the real life experiences that joe public faces on a daily basis can and should be considered as perfectly reasonable qualifications for the Presidency. And of course I’m a supporter of Sarah Palin, but this is taking things a bit too far:

The frenetic hostility to Sarah Palin, even by many on the Republican side, is unnerving, because her qualifications to be president are objectively better than those of almost anyone who has been on the national ticket over the past decade.

I believe that she has the necessary qualifications and I know many of you don’t. But none of that is important. What does matter, is whether the American voter think she has or not, and emphatically they don’t for now. James DeLong who wrote the linked to article is missing the point:

None of this is winning over the political class.

She isn’t winning over the non-political class either. It’s early days, and that can change (what percentage wouldn’t have viewed Obama qualified to be President three years ago?), and certainly the political classes have had a say in her unpopularity, but burying one’s head in the sand about her perceived qualifications or her unpopularity isn’t going to help. Hopefully she is realistic about those things, certainly her supporters need to be realistic about them, because she is an unquestionably powerful force within American politics. But a realistic interpretation of her popularity and perceived readiness for higher office will shape her role in years to come; whether that lies in higher office, as a kingmaker or as a conservative voice from outside the political hierarchy.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

87 Responses to “Hmmmm!”

  1. simon on November 9th, 2009 8:47 am

    She confuses me what politician speaks to a rally of supporters and bans all cameras and recording devices like she just did in Wisconsin. Why so paranoid?

    The chat was that it didn’t go very well in the faithful are starting to see through her. Her book will be the high water mark

  2. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 8:52 am

    Simon

    She confuses me what politician speaks to a rally of supporters and bans all cameras and recording devices like she just did in Wisconsin.

    She’s a private citizen. she can do what she wants.

    The chat was that it didn’t go very well in the faithful

    And that’ll be the chat where exactly? Andrew Sullivan? Everything I’ve read about says that it was very well received.

  3. simon on November 9th, 2009 9:13 am

    She can of course do what she likes but it’s still weird and yes it was Sully :)

  4. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 9:15 am

    Good tactics. Avoid national coverage, talk to your fans. Don’t give the sneerocracy a chance to misuse a clip out of context, or concentrate on some personal thing like the winking or whatever. Probably the best she could do. But whether it could clear the way for a run and overcome the negatives, I doubt it. She will have to be an influence for the unknown person who can bring some coherence to the party. I liked the idea that she scares the washington establishment, but it could never fly, unless the dems dug themselves into a very deep hole indeed. And even there, surely common sense will emerge at some point, probably next year.

  5. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:20 am

    Simon

    yes it was Sully

    No surprise there. here’s a tip. disregard everything he says about her. The man has a screw loose when it comes to her. He’s still going on about Trig for f**cks sake.

    but it’s still weird

    Do you remember this moment from the campaign?

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html

    No cameras at that event either. Yup, weird!

  6. simon on November 9th, 2009 9:21 am

    Except what politician (for that is what she is) needs to engage with more than just the faithful to get elected.

    She winked live on national TV during a debate if that was used against her she only has herself to blame.

  7. simon on November 9th, 2009 9:24 am

    Yep and he was right those sad losers do cling to their guns and religion & now they cling to Palin, Beck and the Tea Parties as well and yes they are still Sad losers.. Okay Rant over for the day :)

  8. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:25 am

    Rhoda

    When Truman was up for re-election, he was very unpopular with the media and in the country at large. Everyone expected him to lose the election. To circumvent the pervasve narrative, Truman organised a nationwide train journey stopping off at towns across the country and speaking sometimes three or four times a day. It got his voice out to as wide an audience as possible whilst circumventing the spin an already decided media could put on what he had to say. It might be harder to do today with big media markets, but that should be the template.

  9. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:29 am

    Joke time:

    A teacher in New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans. Not really knowing what an Obama fan was, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all of the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny. The teacher asked Little Johnny why he decided to be different… again. Little Johnny said, “Because I am not an Obama fan!” The teacher said, “Why aren’t you an Obama fan?” Johnny said, “Because I am a SARAH PALIN fan.” The teacher asked why he was a Sarah Palin fan and Little Johnny answered, “My dad is a Sarah Palin fan and my mom is a Sarah Palin fan, so I’m a Sarah Palin fan.”
    The teacher asks, “If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?” With a great big smile, Johnny said, “That would make me an Obama fan!”

  10. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:35 am

    simon

    Yep and he was right those sad losers do cling to their guns and religion

    And you wonder why we have no time for the elites.

  11. simon on November 9th, 2009 9:39 am

    Yep that’s easy because they are sad jealous losers :)

  12. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:42 am

    Who’d want to be jealous of snobbery and prejudice?

    And BTW, you missed my original point. It’s not ok for Palin to speak to an audience without cameras and media when she is a private citizen, but it is ok for a Presidential candidate to speak to an audience without press and cameras. That’s only ok in a biased and elitist world. Which says all we need to know about the elites.

  13. simon on November 9th, 2009 9:48 am

    And who want to have a shit boring life in some dump town in fly over country. Not me, I’m not swapping.

  14. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:55 am

    Simon

    And who want to have a shit boring life in some dump town in fly over country.

    As my original post title says; “Hmmmm!”

    A happiness poll for you. The three happiest states? Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, all smack bang in the middle of flyover country. Doh!

    http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/happiness-index-nebraska-nabs-top-spot

    California btw? Third last.

  15. simon on November 9th, 2009 10:00 am

    Say what you like – They don’t any better and I’m not swapping. Iv’e been to Kansas and it’s a dump.

    Considering hardly anyone lives in those states it means sod all.

  16. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 10:12 am

    Iv’e been to Kansas and it’s a dump.

    I’ve been to London and I can’t think of any place that I’ve visited that is more dump-like (apart from Liverpool). Crime, horrendous traffic, graffiti everywhere, rude people, boarded up shops, concrete jungles etc.

    I’ve often thought about where in America I would choose to live given a free choice. Kansas is on my shortlist.

  17. simon on November 9th, 2009 10:25 am

    One visit to Kansas would put you off flat and boring everybody with anything about them left for the coasts. LDN, LA & NYC are the most exciting cities in the world Kansas arguably the most boring

    Remember what go old Islington resident Boris say about your home town:

    “Here we are, in one of the most depressed towns in Southern England, a place that is arguably too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs.”

  18. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 10:33 am

    Simon

    Changing the subject.

    I’m just writing a comment at your place on Clive’s comment about the speccie. Sorry mate but he really got it wrong there, not so much for his original post, but one of his follow up comments. Still, your blog has just exploded into life :-)

    BTW – Dissing Rhoda as clive does – that’s not on. Weird? I feel protective (not that she’d want it).

  19. simon on November 9th, 2009 10:35 am

    CC

    You do know I’m just having a laugh don’t you :)

  20. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 11:35 am

    CC, I’m just having fun over there, trying to make people confront their prejudices. But I have recently decided not to let the ad homs go by unchallenged. As I mention on Massie’s EU thread, it is a sad tactic of the left to categorise their critics as mad, since the psych wards replaced the gulag. It’s a lazy, dishonest tactic, and I won’t let it go any more.

    That Nicholas is an articulate participant, isn’t he? I wonder if we could get him to come over here?

  21. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 12:54 pm

    Rhoda

    I’m just having fun over there, trying to make people confront their prejudices

    It is interesting just how prejudiced the left are, but they can’t see it in those terms. There is no sense of self-awareness.

    I don’t know if you’ve been over there in the last hour or two, but I did draw to Clive’s attention that saying “bugger off back to where you came from” as he did to you (in effect) was an unfortunate phrasing when thinking about the nature of the debate.

    As for Nicholas, yes I was impressed. I don’t want to go paching commentators but am happy for someone else to invite them over.

  22. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 12:54 pm

    Rhoda, with all due respect..

    Michelle Bachmann is bat**it crazy. It just is what it is :)

  23. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 1:06 pm

    Morgan

    Michelle Bachmann is bat**it crazy. It just is what it is :)

    It’s a little harsh to call someone who takes in 23 foster children as batshit crazy. You may disagree with her politics, but can we at least acknowledge that contribution. I think she’s admirable in that context.

  24. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 1:45 pm

    Well, what you need to do is say this that or the other thing Bachmann says or does is wrong because…

    I don’t actually know her. But if I class Beck as irritating, Rush as a blowhard and Coulter as a gadfly troublemaker, that doesn’t mean they do not each have something to say which I might agree with. I can’t see Malkin as a nutter either, I bet the left wish they had a Malkin. But to just paint them all as wingnuts is still lazy and/or dishonest. It is part of a pattern of left-wing speech (I really hope we on the right don’t do it without me noticing) which stands in the way of reaching any sort of truth. It’s wrong (and if we do it, that’s wrong too).

  25. simon on November 9th, 2009 1:56 pm

    Well, what you need to do is say this that or the other thing Bachmann says or does is wrong because…

    I’ll give you one.. She says God told her to run for congress. To quote Morgan that’s bat**it crazy.

  26. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 2:05 pm

    Simon

    She says God told her to run for congress.

    “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” – Barack Obama

    Yup. Bats**t crazy!

  27. simon on November 9th, 2009 2:08 pm

    Running for Congress Isn’t a matter of life and death

    This is bat**it crazy.

    “And then in the midst of that calling, God then called me to run for the United States Congress. And I thought, ‘what in the world would that be for?’ And my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure. And we took three days and we fasted and we prayed, and we said, ‘Lord is this what You want? Is this Your will?’ And after the — along about the afternoon of day two, He made that calling sure. And it’s been now 22 months that I’ve been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spent two years to run for a job that lasts for two years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ.”

  28. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 2:17 pm

    Simon

    I get it. It’s only nutty when a right winger expresses their faith but fine when a revered leftie does it. Obama has invoked God more often than Bush did. And yet you are quiet on the subject. Interesting.

  29. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 2:21 pm

    Well, the point is, we know Obama isn’t serious.

    Simon, your quote does tend to prove your point, this time!

  30. simon on November 9th, 2009 2:37 pm

    Frankly I believe Ombama is really an atheist but as America is such religiously reactionary country he possibly come out and say that.

    Bachmann on the other hand is a religious fanatic and we’ve had enough of them to last a life time.

  31. shockwaver on November 9th, 2009 3:17 pm

    rhoda
    i strongly disagree with simon’s point. i am not a religious person myself but see nothing unusual about a person seeking guidance from God using prayer.

    would bachmann’s comments be considered nutty if they were uttered by one of the founders? numerous quotes from george washington show he was a very spiritual man.

    “In prayer, we share the universal desire to speak and listen to our Maker and to seek the plans He has for our lives.”

    i could put up a hundred (thousand???)other quotes from American leaders past and present, about their asking for spiritual guidance in the conduct of their personal and public lives.

    on kennedy from newsweek 1961:
    Where once he had relied confidently on Kennedy wit, wealth, charm, and pluck, he now publicly asked the guidance of God

    what happened to tolerance?

    is the lib agenda to destroy faith in God because it is an impediment to creating their Utopia?

  32. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 3:22 pm

    The controversy arises because many of these people so many of these people ‘hide’ their ambition behind God, very noisily.

    Often they are discovered to be hypocrites but they use God to win votes.

    Hence the cynicism.

    Did God tell this woman what good she could do once elected or did he just tell her to run because she is innately good?

  33. simon on November 9th, 2009 3:35 pm

    shockwaver I’m an atheist so what do I know. But I would say this, I think there is big difference from asking gods guidance on something to saying god spoke directly to you telling you to run for Congress and thereby infering that god is on your side and not on the side of your political opponents.

    The arrogance of the religious always astounds me.

  34. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 3:39 pm

    Simon, this lady is not religious. She is profane.

  35. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 3:48 pm

    While I cannot deny that some people act under God’s guidance, I am bemused that he wants me to eat so many Mars Bars.

    (Joke, no offence meant, oh I hate people who say that, but now I am one, what to do…)

  36. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 3:56 pm

    Simon

    The arrogance of the religious always astounds me.

    From someone who worships Richard Dawkins, that in itself is an astounding statement.

  37. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 4:02 pm

    shockwaver

    is the lib agenda to destroy faith in God because it is an impediment to creating their Utopia?

    That’s exactly it. The same goes for nationhood, divorce laws and abortion, the attack on property etc. Anything that ties us to our lives. We need to be unattached from those things so that we can look forward without any chance of reluctant glances backwards.

  38. shockwaver on November 9th, 2009 4:04 pm

    ronnie

    Often they are discovered to be hypocrites but they use God to win votes.

    my assessment is that the libs are the ones to do this. for instance, simon believes obama to be an atheist but he professes to be a Christian. does simon think this is to get votes?

    my guess is that those on the right are much more genuine about their spirituality.

    rhoda
    God probably wants me to go to the gym right now!

  39. simon on November 9th, 2009 4:19 pm

    CC

    “From someone who worships Richard Dawkins” No I don’t I just happen to agree with him on lots of stuff.

    Look at religion put to the debate and it’s not a pretty site

    At a Recent Intelligence Squared debate.

    It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe

    The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. A rout!

    The YouTubes are here: http://is.gd/4Qfjg

  40. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 4:24 pm

    Simon

    A rout!

    Or just evidence of two quick witted speakers against two more cumbersome ones. Proves nothing.

  41. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 4:27 pm

    shockwaver.

    ‘my guess is that those on the right are much more genuine about their spirituality.’

    So, that’s your guess is it?

  42. simon on November 9th, 2009 4:29 pm

    I prefer that those opposing the motion had the better arguments.

    It proves everything, you just don’t like the result.

    Watch the video it was a massacre.

  43. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 4:34 pm

    Rhoda.

    Mars Bars are instruments of God. Rejoice in God’s grace that he could provide for us thus.

  44. simon on November 9th, 2009 4:36 pm
  45. shockwaver on November 9th, 2009 4:42 pm

    ronnie
    ronnie

    shockwaver.
    ‘my guess is that those on the right are much more genuine about their spirituality.’
    So, that’s your guess is it?

    yes, it’s my guess. i am not so arrogant that i believe i know what is in people’s hearts. my guess is based on empirical evidence and is likely pretty accurate.

  46. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 4:46 pm

    Simon

    Congratulations. that’ll improve your pagerank.

  47. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 4:48 pm

    Ronnie

    Mars Bars are instruments of God.

    Does that mean that deep-frying them is sacrilege?

  48. simon on November 9th, 2009 4:48 pm

    CC

    The site meter has gone nuts it’s very exciting in a nerdy kind of way but I’m sure you understand :)

  49. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 4:51 pm

    Simon

    Clive needs to start writing. I had a similar thing when The Corner linked to me early. Unfortunately I did nothing to try and keep them here and they all left. Clive should right a post along similar lines asap.

    Just my ten cents.

  50. Original Tony on November 9th, 2009 4:52 pm

    Simon…”The arrogance of the religious always astounds me”.

    In my opinion the ignorance of atheist always astounds me.

    What gives you, a person who does not believe in God, the authority to discern how this woman speaks with God? Waiting and fasting for an answer from God is quite normal in Christian circles. The fact that she even mentions fasting means her sincerity is not fake because only fakes would not talk about fasting. Ever heard the O talk about fasting? No! which means he’s the fake.

  51. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 5:12 pm

    Ok. Since I am apparently one of the fringe in question, will someone tell me where I was racist? Or if not me, who? Where was the n-word used, or cross-burning recommended, or ‘go home’ imprecated? Clive won’t tell me, he can’t be bothered to talk to the likes of me. Massie never engages. It is cheap and cowardly to throw around accusations as serious as that without being willing to back them up. And now Sullivan is throwing the same thing around vicariously. Does nobody in the left-wing blogosphere stand behind their remarks? Poltroons all.

  52. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 5:14 pm

    Oh, and the problem is not Bachmann seeking help from wherever she believes it comes. The problem (to me at least) is talking about it.

  53. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 5:29 pm

    Rhoda

    I like alex and am fortunate enough to have had him engage with me a couple of times (by e-mail and in the comments – a link wouldn’t kill you alex), but along with Sullivan he forms part of the “we’re smarter than they are club”. I’ll reserve judgement on Clive, I don’t know enough of his writing.

    Clive’s initial statement wasn’t that bad, although I disagree with it in part. But his direct address to you was appaling. Nothing I have seen you write suggests that you are of the fringe, or that you think controversially. I was amazed at his hissy-fit.

    I don’t want to blow our own trumpet, but we prove that diametrically opposing views, sometimes controversial and heated does not make for “the worst in people”. I am really proud of the mutual respect we show each other on this blog. Perhaps the likes of Massie, Sullivan and Davis need to see that insulting people with whom they disagree is what causes the danger they’re so scared of, whilst engaging with each other despite our differences is what helps bridge the gaps that divide us.

    Sorry if that was over-sentimental.

  54. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 5:35 pm

    Rhoda, I believe I agree with you regarding your last comment.

    I understand that individuals lead their lives influenced by their faith, or lack thereof. As a person with quite strong beliefs I have no problem with that.

    Stating that actions you make as a Representative are dependent upon your faith is a bit problematic.

    Though my belief that Bachmann is a nutzoid has nothing to do with her faith :)

  55. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 5:39 pm

    Rhoda..I’m not sure what to make of Mr. Davis’ blog.

    I pop over looking for something interesting out of respect for Simon. Having no history regarding the blogosphere here in the U.K. I’m rather liberated from preconceptions having to do with reputation, etc..

    My impression so far is that I’m being talked “at” rather than “with”.

    Perhaps he’s more interesting than I’m aware of and patience will show me more to hold my interest.

  56. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 5:47 pm

    CC, I agree, this place is an exemplar of good behaviour. Some I can’t even read. Guido’s comments, for example. It’s a matter of serious concern that those people are of the right, when they are so abusive and unthinking. If we can’t discuss the actual ideas, no purpose is served by abusing each other. And if a blogger only wants to be me-too’d and never challenged to defend his position, what good is that?

    I think you are probably right, there’s an arrogant tone about some soft-left bloggers (and non-bloggers, oh yes) which implies that they are right, and to talk to the opposition would be to lend some of their DEEP credibility to obnoxious views. The problem is that the liberal wet tendency* are pretty much where they want to be, and they don’t want to listen to anyone saying there are still problems, or that their solutions don’t work, or worst of all that we do not want the things they have decided for us.

    *When I say the liberal wet tendency, I mean what others refer to as the centre.

  57. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 5:56 pm

    Shockwaver. A guess is a guess.

    You made a pretty bald, dare I say arrogant, statement based on what exactly?

  58. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 5:58 pm

    Rhoda.

    The problem with Bachmann is that she was willing to talk loudly about something that didn’t actually happen. Maybe she’s one of shockwaver’s more spiritual people on the Right.

  59. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 5:59 pm

    Cabbie.

    It is more authentically spiritual to fry mars bars quietly, at home, and not go on about it to win votes.

  60. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 6:12 pm

    Ronnie

    I would suggest that how one fries one’s mars bar is a personal matter and it is not our place to dissect how one does it. If frying mars bars causes someone to feel the duty to foster 23 children from abusive and dysfunctional homes, I say Hallelujah! Praise be to the amalgam of chocolate and batter! That is more significant than how she articulates her personal relationship to God chocolate.

  61. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 6:17 pm

    Ronnie, did I read that in Leviticus?

  62. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 6:18 pm

    Cabbie.

    I’m pretty sure that if I read your last comment enough times, I’ll know what you are on about. I think you could be doing with a little chocolate yourself.

  63. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 6:20 pm

    No Morgan.

    You read it at Conservative Cabbie, the blogoshere’s liveliest and most civilised blog.

  64. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 6:21 pm

    “That is more significant than how she articulates her personal relationship to God chocolate.”

    Not when she reinforces that HER view of chocolate will determine how she voters for the individuals she represents in Congress.

    Besides, everyone in the U.K. knows that the States have crappy chocolate.

  65. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 6:26 pm

    And if there is a god, why did he hide chocolate in South America for the use of human-sacrificing heathens? I think I’ve got you there. I think that might be the final clinching argument. Eat your heart out, Dawkins.

  66. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 6:28 pm

    Ronnie..lol..well said.

    Cabbie is certainly developing a rather lively place for discussion.

  67. Alf Tupper on November 9th, 2009 6:30 pm

    Rhoda

    That arrogant tone of the leftist blogger is a controlled but seething resentment that technology has enabled ordinary voices to challenge their monopoly on thought and attitude regarding important issues.

    Or rather ‘The Issue’.

  68. Alf Tupper on November 9th, 2009 6:32 pm

    They don’t like it up ‘em.

  69. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 6:36 pm

    Morgan

    Not when she reinforces that HER view of chocolate will determine how she voters for the individuals she represents in Congress.

    How does the fact that she spoke to God say anything about how she votes in Congress beyond being a person of faith anyway.

  70. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 6:37 pm

    Morgan

    I think you’ll find that comment by Ronnie was sarcasm directed at my earlier comment.

  71. Rhoda Klapp on November 9th, 2009 6:41 pm

    Hi Alf, aren’t you a racist green-inker too? I’m thinking of making a badge.

  72. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 6:42 pm

    Sarcasm! Moi?

  73. shockwaver on November 9th, 2009 7:29 pm

    ronnie

    You made a pretty bald, dare I say arrogant, statement based on what exactly?

    me? arrogant?
    a classic case of projection.

  74. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 7:32 pm

    Rhoda..Well done..A “eat your heart out” reference in a post referring to the Mayans.

    Gave me a chuckle.

  75. Alf Tupper on November 9th, 2009 8:22 pm

    Am I a racist?

    I’m presumed to be, by those who like the convenience of that one-stop term.

    I’m reminded of the old cartoon in which the grandchild asks the old lady how she is feeling.

    “I don’t know dear, the Doctor hasn’t called yet”

  76. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 8:56 pm

    Alf:

    Racism is hardly “The Issue”.

    Give it a rest.

    Are you a racist? Well, you tell me. Do you believe that one race is superior over others? More capable of contributing to society as a whole.

    My personal belief is that economic and political systems will trump race.

    Its the delivery issue that cuts many off at the knees.

    Soooo…where are you in this? Can you bluntly deliver your beliefs or are you going to do that dance around the base that so many do?

  77. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 8:59 pm

    ‘Projection’ seems to be a favourite word at the moment.

    Being sarcastic about Cabbie’s love for she who may not be named, because I think she is a nit wit, somehow becomes projection.

    shockwaver calls Left-leaning religious people arrogant while arrogantly telling us, sans evidence, how much more spiritual Right-leaning religious people are but somehow I’m projecting for pointing it out.

    I thought that projecting was what happened in cinemas.

    Unless one no longer expresses opinions or responds to the opinions of others, rather one projects.

    Thus, I suppose, I may project that Chelsea will most likely win the Premiership this season.

  78. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 9:02 pm

    Cabbie.

    ‘I think you’ll find that comment by Ronnie was sarcasm directed at my earlier comment.’

    I think you’ll find that I was expressing a genuine opinion, or should that be ‘projecting’ an opinion. Particularly when compared to the vile drivel that now populates many of the Spectator’s threads.

  79. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:12 pm

    Ronnie

    Being sarcastic about Cabbie’s love for she who may not be named, because I think she is a nit wit, somehow becomes projection.

    No Ronnie, you misrepresented my position and expressed it as part of your prejudice against Palin. So yes, that qualifies as projecting your prejudices.

  80. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 9:16 pm

    No Cabbie it’s called making a political point while trying to weaken yours. In the good old days before the religion of political correctness reared its ugly head, this was a normal debating tactic; sometimes referred to as cut and thrust.

  81. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:29 pm

    Ronnie

    You may want to cut and thrust this up wherever. If I had to choose one conservative/Republican for President right now, it would be Mitch Daniels who is a Syrian-american, educated at Georgetown and Princeton and not at all fanciable. Sorry to disappoint your pre-conceived ideas. What’s another word for pre-conceived?

    How’s about that for making a point and weakening yours?

  82. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 9:32 pm

    Finally :-)

    A point made without whinging.

  83. Conservative Cabbie on November 9th, 2009 9:41 pm

    Ronnie

    A point made without whinging.

    Or as other people call it. Defending one’s position from slanderous attacks. :-)

  84. Ronnie on November 9th, 2009 9:43 pm

    Ooooh! Thlanderuth attakths!

    Yeth thenturian, thwow him to the gwound.

  85. shockwaver on November 9th, 2009 11:00 pm

    ronnie
    when i used the term projection it was the definition from psychology.
    the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself

  86. Alf Tupper on November 9th, 2009 11:09 pm

    Morgan.

    Give what a rest? Sticking to my point of view? Not until I’m supplied with something better thanks.

    (My ‘The Issue’ BTW is NOT race but immigration and its gross mismanagement in the recent UK)

    But as you ask about ‘race’. Your direct question: No I do not believe in any superiority of the white or any other race. No dancing.

    Not sure what you mean about delivery and cutting off at the knees?

    As far as political systems and economies ‘trumping’ race, to me it’s not set up that way. We manage economies and we elect to live under political set-ups. Race we are born with and does not have to be a site of conflict. But we attempt to bury racial difference and identity at our peril. That’s my gripe and I think it merits saying so.

    The reason I sing the one song only round here is because I don’t know anything about US politics but I do know a lot about this issue. Not even a good song admittedly, but I like it and it’s so easily scrolled past.

  87. Morgan on November 9th, 2009 11:15 pm

    Alf:

    Thank you for the post, but my statement was directed at Cabbie and a post he had submitted.

Leave a Reply