Craig Lamson Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DG Nice one, BUT can you find any VIDEO that confirms the had is not heading to the right place and that this photo is just snapshot of the motion in progress. I asked he same about the Obama photo and was pointed to the video.... As a non-American this example of political correctness is frightening. In the UK we are free to do what we like with our hands when the national anthem is being played. Some of our sportsmen representing their country refuse to sing the national anthem because they are Republicans. When I was a young man I used to refuse to stand when the national anthem was played in the cinema or theatre. I was not the only one and during the 1970s they stopped playing it before and after performances. Don't you allow freedom of thought in the United States? There people are running for the highest office in the land. Thats just a bit different than you in a movie or a footballer before a game. Don't you believe in RESPECT in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 There people are running for the highest office in the land. Thats just a bit different than you in a movie or a footballer before a game.Don't you believe in RESPECT in the UK? Of course I respect some people. However, I refuse to show symbolic respect for people who do not deserve it. That includes a queen who only holds that position because she happens to be the eldest daughter of the previous king. To my mind the monachy is incompatible with democracy. I think some of your politicians used to believe this as well. Maybe Ronald Reagan has got a son who could replace George Bush as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 There people are running for the highest office in the land. Thats just a bit different than you in a movie or a footballer before a game.Don't you believe in RESPECT in the UK? Of course I respect some people. However, I refuse to show symbolic respect for people who do not deserve it. That includes a queen who only holds that position because she happens to be the eldest daughter of the previous king. To my mind the monachy is incompatible with democracy. I think some of your politicians used to believe this as well. Maybe Ronald Reagan has got a son who could replace George Bush as president. This trancends personal respect, it's repect for one's flag and country and all of those who give of themself to nuture, defend and protect it. Perhaps its just an American thing, but if it is I'm dang proud we behave in this manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 There people are running for the highest office in the land. Thats just a bit different than you in a movie or a footballer before a game.Don't you believe in RESPECT in the UK? Of course I respect some people. However, I refuse to show symbolic respect for people who do not deserve it. That includes a queen who only holds that position because she happens to be the eldest daughter of the previous king. To my mind the monachy is incompatible with democracy. I think some of your politicians used to believe this as well. Maybe Ronald Reagan has got a son who could replace George Bush as president. This trancends personal respect, it's repect for one's flag and country and all of those who give of themself to nuture, defend and protect it. Perhaps its just an American thing, but if it is I'm dang proud we behave in this manner. Craig, someone can have great respect for their country (I'm a proud Brit for example) while also being very anti the political class, the elite that control them and the establishment that perpetuate them. The fact is that this nexus of power are very often crooked on the one hand, and almost wholly disrespect the citizenry on the other. And in any number of ways - but mostly by foisting upon them the ritual and performance of a democracy that is actually devoid of meaning and reality. Yes, you can vote (and hope it is counted - but hey, no guarantees it is or will be), you can write to your MP or Senator (and may even get a reply), but when it somes down to it, it is an empty farce and one that is aimed at keeping us all sophorific to where the real power is wielded. The people are de facto powerless to influence the political and elite class. Not so with big business, which dicates what it wants and the political class then scurry off and do it. Then pick up fat cheques or rich pickings when they retire from Parliament/Senate etc. This sort of political-business landscape doesn't deserve an iota of respect or allegiance. It is simply... a con trick. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 There people are running for the highest office in the land. Thats just a bit different than you in a movie or a footballer before a game.Don't you believe in RESPECT in the UK? Of course I respect some people. However, I refuse to show symbolic respect for people who do not deserve it. That includes a queen who only holds that position because she happens to be the eldest daughter of the previous king. To my mind the monachy is incompatible with democracy. I think some of your politicians used to believe this as well. Maybe Ronald Reagan has got a son who could replace George Bush as president. This trancends personal respect, it's repect for one's flag and country and all of those who give of themself to nuture, defend and protect it. Perhaps its just an American thing, but if it is I'm dang proud we behave in this manner. Craig, someone can have great respect for their country (I'm a proud Brit for example) while also being very anti the political class, the elite that control them and the establishment that perpetuate them. The fact is that this nexus of power are very often crooked on the one hand, and almost wholly disrespect the citizenry on the other. And in any number of ways - but mostly by foisting upon them the ritual and performance of a democracy that is actually devoid of meaning and reality. Yes, you can vote (and hope it is counted - but hey, no guarantees it is or will be), you can write to your MP or Senator (and may even get a reply), but when it somes down to it, it is an empty farce and one that is aimed at keeping us all sophorific to where the real power is wielded. The people are de facto powerless to influence the political and elite class. Not so with big business, which dicates what it wants and the political class then scurry off and do it. Then pick up fat cheques or rich pickings when they retire from Parliament/Senate etc. This sort of political-business landscape doesn't deserve an iota of respect or allegiance. It is simply... a con trick. David My point of course was that the respect being paid had nothing to do with any individual, but rather the to country at large. I'm sorry but I don't share your views on the power of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 According to a report over the weekend, the Drudge Report has been publishing information to help Hiliary Clinton's campaign. It was Matt Drudge who came close to bringing down Clinton and usually works on behalf of the right-wing of the Republican Party. I suspect the main purpose is to prevent Barack Obama from becoming the Democratic candidate. Drudge has probably got enough about Clinton to use it against her when she becomes the presidential candidate. Remember, Nixon's dirty tricks was mainly about getting the right Democrat candidate to stand against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 According to a report over the weekend, the Drudge Report has been publishing information to help Hiliary Clinton's campaign. It was Matt Drudge who came close to bringing down Clinton and usually works on behalf of the right-wing of the Republican Party. I suspect the main purpose is to prevent Barack Obama from becoming the Democratic candidate. Drudge has probably got enough about Clinton to use it against her when she becomes the presidential candidate. Remember, Nixon's dirty tricks was mainly about getting the right Democrat candidate to stand against him. John, you already posted this in post 9 of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 David and John, it sounds like the British people are just as bad off as Americans in terms of being victims of a corrupt political system. But I think you Brits may at least remain a bit more civilized than we erstwhile colonists. You got rid of bear baiting over a century ago, I believe, whereas here in the states we still have dog fighting (in the news lately due to a multimillionaire football player's involvement) and cockfighting. Both are illegal, of course, yet students and athletic teams at the University of South Carolina go by the proud nickname of Gamecocks. (Which shortened makes them the unfazed butt of endless prurient jokes.) I trust that you Brits don't have any football or rugby teams called the Bear Baiters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DG Nice one, BUT can you find any VIDEO that confirms the had is not heading to the right place and that this photo is just snapshot of the motion in progress. I asked he same about the Obama photo and was pointed to the video.... As a non-American this example of political correctness is frightening. In the UK we are free to do what we like with our hands when the national anthem is being played. Some of our sportsmen representing their country refuse to sing the national anthem because they are Republicans. When I was a young man I used to refuse to stand when the national anthem was played in the cinema or theatre. I was not the only one and during the 1970s they stopped playing it before and after performances. Don't you allow freedom of thought in the United States? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Craig, yes, we appear to agree to disagree. And I have to respect that about you. But come on old son, isn’t it obvious that the political influence is as far removed from Joe and Jane Public as can be? Ron, how right you are about corrupt political systems. The sadness, for me anyway, is that Blighty is actively following an American political model so that what happens there, eventually filters through to happening here ten years or so later. But we still have badger baiting and other unpleasant blood sports, albeit illegal. But since you can barely get the police to attend the scene of a crime these days (they’re all too busy filling in paperwork and buying snacks at the local supermarkets) illegality does not mean as much as it used to. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) Craig, yes, we appear to agree to disagree. And I have to respect that about you. But come on old son, isn’t it obvious that the political influence is as far removed from Joe and Jane Public as can be? Ron, how right you are about corrupt political systems. The sadness, for me anyway, is that Blighty is actively following an American political model so that what happens there, eventually filters through to happening here ten years or so later. But we still have badger baiting and other unpleasant blood sports, albeit illegal. But since you can barely get the police to attend the scene of a crime these days (they’re all too busy filling in paperwork and buying snacks at the local supermarkets) illegality does not mean as much as it used to. David, political influence does extend to the little folks as it does to big business, we little folks just band together. Here in the US, you don't think the Unions, AARP, NRA etc carry some weight? And it was just a few months ago that a grass roots phone and letter attack on congress stopped the imigration bill dead in its tracks. All it takes is for people to pay attention and get involved. It is the latter that is most importaant...no matter what the system or country. I belong to two different orginazations that lobby congress, and state government by my direct imput (along with that of many other like minded little folk) We keep score, and we let or elected representives know, and tell them what it is we want. It actually works pretty well. Representitive government sure has its faults and a great swath of America seems to not give a hoot when it comes to voting or getting involved, but the system still works reasonably well. I see nothing else I would trade it for, warts and all. I do think however the greatest potential to less corruption, for the US at least is term limits in congress. Someday...maybe. Edited October 25, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Craig, I agree with you on that to a point and apologise for my lack of clarity in my earlier posts for not making my position clearer. On domestic issues I think policies can be swayed by the electorate. The problem is however, to a large degree, that the main political parties can often barely be seperated on foreign policy. The impression I have is that important foreign policy is made elsewhere (in the US I'm thinking of the CFR amongst others). In the UK the culprit for laying out government foreign policy very often is Chatham House - the Brit sister outfit to the CFR. It is foreign policy where successive governments - no matter what their political flavour or what they may appear to offer the electorate - almost universally reverts to form... using what I can only describe as a sort of covert template. There are also clear echoes of this political bias in regard to business regulation... or in actual fact the almost complete de facto lack of it. I do not know if itis the same in the US (although I very much suspect it is) but here, big business sectors routinely engage in unlawful trading activities (sometimes these extend to illegal activities also). Despite the appearance of regulatory mechanisms being in place these are usually powerless (or avoid baring their teeth for covert reasons of political influence) to inhibit these practises. A case in point in the UK, with which I am familiar and have campaigned, is the terribly excessive bank changes unlawfully charged to a customers account for a routine electronic bounce of a payment. Charges of £30.00 and higher are typical. The costs of automated computer bouncing of payments is mere pence. The law very clearly states that it is unlawful to charge more than it costs the bank to decline these payment. But over the last ten years the UK banking industry has earned an estimated £22 billion from these imposed charges. And the government and its sleeping watchdogs have sat idly by and allowed this to happen. The reasons for this are simply that the successive governments are terrified that the banking community will up stakes and move to another centre in Europe (something I have once seen threatened) -- demolishing in a single stroke the very mainstay of British business interests. Consequently, the banking community do as they please. Balckmail at its very meanest. As boring as this example is it admirably highlights the ineffectiveness and sham of democracy over the narrow pursuits of busess profit. I dare say similar cases exist in the US in the banking and oil sectors, amongst others. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DG Nice one, BUT can you find any VIDEO that confirms the had is not heading to the right place and that this photo is just snapshot of the motion in progress. I asked he same about the Obama photo and was pointed to the video.... As a non-American this example of political correctness is frightening. In the UK we are free to do what we like with our hands when the national anthem is being played. Some of our sportsmen representing their country refuse to sing the national anthem because they are Republicans. When I was a young man I used to refuse to stand when the national anthem was played in the cinema or theatre. I was not the only one and during the 1970s they stopped playing it before and after performances. Don't you allow freedom of thought in the United States? Good question John. And the answer is increasingly becoming "no". Extreme right wing "hate" radio has been brain washing people in the US for so long that this country has become a frightening place. Just last week, after some criticism directed at the methods employed by Rush Limbaugh he said of his critics that he would "find where you work, find where your children go to school". There is no line any more for the far right. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DG Nice one, BUT can you find any VIDEO that confirms the had is not heading to the right place and that this photo is just snapshot of the motion in progress. I asked he same about the Obama photo and was pointed to the video.... As a non-American this example of political correctness is frightening. In the UK we are free to do what we like with our hands when the national anthem is being played. Some of our sportsmen representing their country refuse to sing the national anthem because they are Republicans. When I was a young man I used to refuse to stand when the national anthem was played in the cinema or theatre. I was not the only one and during the 1970s they stopped playing it before and after performances. Don't you allow freedom of thought in the United States? Good question John. And the answer is increasingly becoming "no". Extreme right wing "hate" radio has been brain washing people in the US for so long that this country has become a frightening place. Just last week, after some criticism directed at the methods employed by Rush Limbaugh he said of his critics that he would "find where you work, find where your children go to school". There is no line any more for the far right. Dawn How about a cite for that, complete with a transcript so we can see context. Its quite telling that you consider "right wing" radio as hate speach. Would you like to see it banned? Fairness doctrine applied? And I guess that Harry Reid and his friends in the Senate flat out lying about Rush and the "phoney soilder" comment would not be considered "extreme left wing hate"? Just for the record Rush has the biggest group of listeners in all of talk radio and he reaces ONLY 20 million listeners a week. Is it your contention that 20 million out of a total population of 300 milllion has the POWER to make America a "frightening place?" Freedom of thought implies EVERYONE has a say. Edited October 25, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 How about a cite for that, complete with a transcript so we can see context. Try here, full transcript. It is from his radio show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now