US network faces $1m nudity fine

the68monkey · Post by **the68monkey** » 27 Jan 2008, 14:05

Markgway wrote: Charisma is fine but it's not a replacement for experience or capability

And this is exactly what is at the heart of every single discussion I've had with my fellow Democrats on the issue (and even a few Republicans). I'm rather surprised at how the view of this primary is seen by sensationalists as Who's it going to be? The black man or the woman?

It's embarrassing to even hear that.

From my point of view, and that of most people I've debated the issues with, the choice between Obama and Clinton comes down to a choice between inspiration and experience. Edwards isn't a serious candidate simply because he hasn't got the same charismatic appeal as Obama, or the years of experience as Clinton.

Clinton knows the system and knows how to make the deals to get crucial legislation passed in Congress, whether it be Democrat or Republican controlled. But is the country suffering from Clinton fatigue? That's a major concern. Ask Clinton about her views on any given topic, and the woman easily replies with a well-thought, step-by-step plan. It's amazing. She's mapped out a plan of action for nearly every conceivable issue that is of concern to American citizens. But will Americans even give her a chance, simply because they have far too much history with her husband and her, and suffer from knee-jerk reactions to the Clinton name?

Obama can inspire a crowd with simply a smile and his stride. But what are his real plans for the country? He hasn't been specific at all. Does he even have any concrete plans? An inspiring leader who can join people together for a positive change is a rare and fantastic asset to a country, especially one as politically divisive as America. But will all these wonderful catchphrases of "hope" and "change" prove to be empty when the Washington machine chews up Obama and spits him out? He just doesn't have the experience that shows he knows how to pass legislation and make those wonderful plans a reality. But maybe that's of no consequence, and he will be able to work his charismatic magic on a corrupt system.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 15:34

Yi-Long wrote:But yeah, Obama is great. Personally couldnt give a shit about if he's black or white or yellow or green, tbh, but it seems everybody else thinks it's a big deal what someone's skin color or gender or religion is... (!)

Personally I think this is because of how many different races live in America. The ratio of Black vs. White in the UK is much lower than America.

The population of black people in America will always make it a much bigger topic than we can probably understand. That and black people were treated incredibly badly throughout American history. Yes it happened here too but to lesser a degree.

Yi-Long wrote:as well as those who wanna vote for them...

I think to many Americans it's very important.

Markgway wrote:That should not be a deciding factor on casting a vote for primary or presidency anymore than it should if the candidates were (all) white and male.

Agreed. It is a very important factor to many people though. Personally I think yes it should be a factor but no not a big one.

Markgway wrote:It seems John Edwards is the third wheel precisely because he's a white male and from what my Dad reckons he's actually the most radical (in terms of change and goals) of the three.

He obviously has it hard being white and male but all the talks I've seen him give have been pretty pale compared to the like of Obama. It's just how it is that someone who is a great orator gets listened to more.

Markgway wrote:Charisma is fine but it's not a replacement for experience or capability (see Tony Blair).

Tony Blair lots of experience and capability when he came to power. People forget the Iraq war came in the second half of his tenure. Something I know we won't agree on so won't go there.

the68monkey wrote:From my point of view, and that of most people I've debated the issues with, the choice between Obama and Clinton comes down to a choice between inspiration and experience. Edwards isn't a serious candidate simply because he hasn't got the same charismatic appeal as Obama, or the years of experience as Clinton.

We may not like it but charisma accounts for a hell of a lot. Which is one of the reasons why Bush got in, that other dude had no charisma. Correct me if I'm wrong here?

The same happened in the UK, Michael Howard had no charisma whatsoever and few thought he was capable of running the country.

Interestingly our head of the Conservative party David Cameron has been criticised for the exact same thing. Pretty boy with charisma but still to this day he's shady about his polices. Come election time there is bound to be talk of his experience.

the68monkey wrote:But will Americans even give her a chance, simply because they have far too much history with her husband and her, and suffer from knee-jerk reactions to the Clinton name?

If I were American I'd be concerned who would be running the show. The wife or the husband!

That said many people still love Bill Clinton so I don't think it hurts her too much, no?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 15:41

grim_tales wrote:I didnt know Obama was mixed race

Seriously? Have you actually seen a picture of him?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 27 Jan 2008, 16:06

I know what he looks like

I have seen a picture of him yeah, its just Mark called him "half-black", I didnt realise that part.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 16:16

Look at a picture and you'll see what Mark meant

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 27 Jan 2008, 16:33

I see what he means now

Brad you make a good point about the black/white divide in America, I mean look at the news when Halle Berry won the Oscar for Monsters' Ball, and things like that.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 27 Jan 2008, 16:56

If Osama... I mean Obama gets elected, he will be assasinated, like JFK, trust me. As sad as it might sound, but it's true.

the68monkey · Post by **the68monkey** » 27 Jan 2008, 17:02

bradavon wrote:He obviously has it hard being white and male

WTF?!? Did you seriously just write that?

bradavon wrote:If I were American I'd be concerned who would be running the show. The wife or the husband!

That was a question on most people's minds when Bill was president. I don't think it's a concern if Hilary's in the driver's seat.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 17:07

grim_tales wrote:I mean look at the news when Halle Berry won the Oscar for Monsters' Ball, and things like that.

Well she did deserve it. Have you seen Monster's Ball?

Denzel Washington didn't (for Training Day) though. That should've gone to Will Smith.

the68monkey wrote:WTF?!? Did you seriously just write that?

You knew what I meant

. Clinton and Obama stand out.

the68monkey wrote:That was a question on most people's minds when Bill was president. I don't think it's a concern if Hilary's in the driver's seat.

Touché

Have you guys seen Obama's video? It's quality

-

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

The lovely Obama girl herself:

http://fitsnews.files.wordpress.com/200 ... a-girl.jpg

Or how about Obama as Jesus

-

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/ ... nation.jpg

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 17:34

How many States are left? It seems to be going on forever.

I didn't know up until recently Americans even get to vote who should be the head of each party. That's a level of democracy/freedom we don't get here. I'm not sure it's necessary really, voting for the party should be enough. Maybe it isn't. I've never had it to really say.

I don't even know how many counties the UK has

. Any ideas anyone? Not that the UK is divided by States like America is.

All this election news you'd think it was a general election but it's not even that.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 27 Jan 2008, 17:59

I haven't seen Monster's Ball, I mean its just that a lot was made of a black woman winning the Best Actress Oscar, I'm sure she was very good

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 27 Jan 2008, 18:58

Markgway wrote:Explain please.

Well, it's been a while since i've seen Manufacturing Dissent, but they have an interview with the staff at the Bank shown in Columbine where Moore just walks in and recieves a free gun, and they reveal that unsurprisingly he did his usual trick of bullshit editing.

In actuality he had to apply for the gun, then wait a couple of days while they checked his gun license and owenrshp history, etc (iirc), and ordered the gun for delivery from their secured storeroom miles away from the bank itself.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 19:11

No way really Shingster? I knew he bullshitted but didn't know that. It's still odd to me you can get a gun period in a bank.

grim_tales wrote:I haven't seen Monster's Ball, I mean its just that a lot was made of a black woman winning the Best Actress Oscar, I'm sure she was very good

In the case of Halle Berry she did deserve it. It was a brilliant performance.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 27 Jan 2008, 19:51

It was Halle Berry who made it into a HUGE deal, with her overreaction when she received the award and brought it up.

But yeah, I guess I'm just not tuned into the whole black-white thing. I couldnt care less about the colour of someone's skin.

And Brad, you make a point about the history of Amerika, and how there are more blacks and there has been more wrong done upon them etc... but look at a country like the UK or Holland: Do you see a black man having a chance in hell to become the PM in the coming years? What about Germany or Belgium, or France?
I doubt it. It seems like somehow the smart, hardworking non-white people are either kept out, or are choosing to stay out of politics at the highest level... which is a shame.

Personally, I feel John Edwards doesnt stand a chance, for reasons already mentioned (lack of experience and charisma), and I dont really like him.

I thought Clinton was a terrific president, but I dont like Hillary. She's the kind of 'lets blame the media for our kids' kinda president. She's a bit like Joe Liebermann in that regard. Also, I definately dont like the way she's been behaving during this election towards her opponents, and mainly towards Barack, and Bill seems keen to go even some steps further and is dishing out a smear-campaign.

So yeah, for me Barack seems like a decent, honest guy who can hopefully fix things. Which is going to be a hard thing to do, considering the mess he's going to have to clean up after George steps out of the White House after 8 years of being a warcriminal, and is gonna enjoy a nice vacation.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 27 Jan 2008, 20:20

Yi-Long wrote:I thought Clinton was a terrific president

May I ask why?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 27 Jan 2008, 20:20

If I were an American I'd very likely be a democrat, but I'm not sure who I'd vote for right now. I need to listen to more of the speeches, instead of the soundbites I'm hearing currently. But from what I gather Monkey has broken it down well. Hilary knows her stuff, but isn't well liked. Obama is well liked, but his politics are vague. He keeps using the word "change" without expressing what he wants to change and how he plans to do it. That shows enthusiasm but a lack of experience. I wouldn't trust Hilary as far as I could throw her but I suspect she's the most capable. Edwards is seen as bland in comparison, but according to my Dad who watches a lot of these debates on CNN, his words are the best of the three, but are being lost between the battle of the minorities: black vs female. For the first time in American history being a white male is actually a DISadvantage. Not that it matters... there's going to be such a split in the democratic ranks that come election time John McCain will scrape thru. Lol.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 20:56

Yi-Long wrote:It was Halle Berry who made it into a HUGE deal, with her overreaction when she received the award and brought it up.

That and both the winners were black.

Yi-Long wrote:And Brad, you make a point about the history of Amerika, and how there are more blacks and there has been more wrong done upon them etc... but look at a country like the UK or Holland: Do you see a black man having a chance in hell to become the PM in the coming years? What about Germany or Belgium, or France?

Oh definitely. If the right person came along (as has happened in America) and they had the drive to not give up then yes definitely they'd have a chance. It would probably be much harder for them to get where Obama is, but no doubt he had to fight more than most to get where he is.

the68monkey · Post by **the68monkey** » 27 Jan 2008, 21:10

thelostdragon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:I thought Clinton was a terrific president
May I ask why?

Can't speak for Yi, but I can speak for myself. This is far from any comprehensive list, but in a nutshell:

The GOOD:
Balanced the federal budget; eliminated the national deficit
The U.S. economy was healthy and robust; unemployment was low
Helped bring world adversaries together to negotiate peace agreements

The BAD:
Made bad judgments as Commander in Chief (i.e. Shooting at civilian targets in Afghanistan -- i.e. pharmaceutical company)
Gave up on legislation to allow people to be openly gay in the military
Unsuccessful in obtaining universal health coverage for all citizens
Let his personal desires get in the way of good judgment, leading to impeachment because of an indiscreet encounter with an aide

Great president? Far from it. But in comparison to what we've had for the past 8 years? Superman.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 21:49

I understood it wasn't the fact he slept with that aide that really pissed people off but he lied about it.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 27 Jan 2008, 23:16

He didnt sleep with her, but she sucked his lollypop...

Anyway, I feel he was a good president, who did make mistakes, but pretty much EVERY leader of a huge country will also make some decisions which turn out to be not the best ones. But with Clinton, he does seem to care very much about doing the RIGHT thing for the PEOPLE, and not what might be best for some businessfriends or whatever.

Yeah, he made mistakes, and he came clean and he apologized and he explained what happened and what went wrong and what were the problems he had to deal with and who roadblocked him etc etc etc...

Any leader will make lots of decisions, and some will be wrong. it's pretty much inevitable. When he left office after 8 years, the USA economy was great, they were in a huge comfortable surplus etc... and things were looking up.

His mistakes were that bombing of the medicine factory in Sudan I believe (not sure) and the Chinese embassy, among other things. Also, he wanted to go after Bin Laden but the CIA didnt want to do their job. He at least tried to go after BL and failed. Bush never even tried, untill after it was too late.

At the moment, Clinton is sadly ruining his own image, by his smearing-campaign against Obama on behalf of his wife...
But my image of the man (BEFORE his current behaviour) has always been pretty much very positive.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2008, 23:32

Yi-Long wrote:At the moment, Clinton is sadly ruining his own image, by his smearing-campaign against Obama on behalf of his wife...

I'm not sure I'd go that far. It's politics and just how it works.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 27 Jan 2008, 23:38

bradavon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:At the moment, Clinton is sadly ruining his own image, by his smearing-campaign against Obama on behalf of his wife...
I'm not sure I'd go that far. It's politics and just how it works.

It's how it works when you're attacking the opposite party. It's a lot less likable when you're doing it to a talented young popular guy in your OWN party.
And yeah, it's 'politics', but it's still pretty low, and it shows the Clinton's will try anything to get that nomination. It also shows what kind of people they are.

Anyway, I certainly never like that kind of behaviour, purposely throwing untrue stories around, purposely twisting the other guy's words, etc etc. To me it always shows that A; you're too stupid to understand what the other guys is saying, and what he means with it, or B: you're intentionally misunderstanding the words so you can avoid a valid discussion in order to attack him while lying to the listeners about the other guy. Either way, I dont like it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Jan 2008, 00:43

Yi-Long wrote:It's how it works when you're attacking the opposite party. It's a lot less likable when you're doing it to a talented young popular guy in your OWN party.

That's very much an American thing, we don't have that concept here (at least I presume Holland is similar to the UK). There's no need to bitch about each other in UK politics as the public don't get a say anyway.