Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

"What a phony! What a bunch of crap this Clark boom is. Clark reminds me of Keir Dullea in "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- a blank, vacant expression, detached and affectless. There's something sexually neutered about Dullea in that film -- a physical passivity necessitated by cramped space travel -- that I also find in Clark. And the astronaut Dullea plays is sometimes indistinguishable from the crazed computer, HAL -- which I find in Clark's smug, computerized vocal delivery... Doesn't anyone know how to "read" TV? The guy's an android! He gives me the creeps. And don't they realize how short he is? He's a slick, boudoir, salon military type who rubbed plenty of colleagues the wrong way. Clark is not a natural man's man. And he's no Eisenhower, who was a genial, charismatic leader with a genius for collaboration and organization."

 

Salon Link

 

PP bigdrink.gif

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Peter_Puget said:

"What a phony! What a bunch of crap this Clark boom is. Clark reminds me of Keir Dullea in "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- a blank, vacant expression, detached and affectless. There's something sexually neutered about Dullea in that film -- a physical passivity necessitated by cramped space travel -- that I also find in Clark. And the astronaut Dullea plays is sometimes indistinguishable from the crazed computer, HAL -- which I find in Clark's smug, computerized vocal delivery... Doesn't anyone know how to "read" TV? The guy's an android! He gives me the creeps. And don't they realize how short he is? He's a slick, boudoir, salon military type who rubbed plenty of colleagues the wrong way. Clark is not a natural man's man. And he's no Eisenhower, who was a genial, charismatic leader with a genius for collaboration and organization."

 

Salon Link

 

PP bigdrink.gif

 

is this what you consider an in-depth analysis based on issues?

 

how come you did not quote the first answer?

Posted

"And the astronaut Dullea plays is sometimes indistinguishable from the crazed computer, HAL -- which I find in Clark's smug, computerized vocal delivery..."

This characteristic of Clark's sort of describes Al Gore--especially when compared to the obviously more outgoing GWB. This was one of the factors that led to Gore not attaining the Presidency. Mainstream America simply identified more with easy-natured Bush than with stiff-robot-necked Gore. Gore was/is the more polished politician, but this came at a time when the American citizenry was having a hard time connecting with those politicians above the so-called D.C. glass ceiling {heck, aren't they STILL?}. In Presidential debates, the vast differences between Gore and Bush shone through. And people identified with someone like themselves--someone who was a D.C. outsider (Bush as opposed to insider Gore).

 

{The foregoing is paraphrased from an article I read not too long ago. Sorry, can't remember the source. There was more than the above in the article in which I speak, but since I was trying to correlate Clark with Gore...}

Posted
klenke said:

Mainstream America simply identified more with easy-natured Bush than with stiff-robot-necked Gore.

 

I didn't vote for either of the jokers (I voted for Nader), but get your facts straight man...mainstream America didn't vote for Gore? Seeing how MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE THAN VOTED FOR BUSH, how do you back up that statement?

 

I may be wrong, but hadn't that only happened once before in US Presidential elections?

 

As for Clark...only time will tell. I don't think any of the dems have a snowball chance in hell with the possible exception of Dean (but I don't think he can pull it off either).

Posted (edited)

I'd say there were a lot of factors that played into Gore's loss of the contest in general.

 

Apparently enough voters were turned off by Gore's gun control stance that, in this round, the Dems are downplaying this issue.

 

 

Edited by scrambler
Posted
scrambler said:

I'd say there were a lot of factors that played into Gore's loss of the contest in general.

 

Apparently enough voters were turned off by Gore's gun control stance that, in this round, the Dems are downplaying this issue.

 

gore did not lose the contest. he won by over 500,000 votes.

 

at ~60% people support gun control laws

 

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Posted (edited)

Duh j_b. Who's sittin' in the White House?

 

As far as the gun control issue, j_b, your mind is a steel trap. Once you latch onto a political idea, the notion of flexibility in your thought process withers.

Edited by scrambler
Posted
scrambler said:

Duh j_b. Who's sittin' in the White House?

 

As far as the gun control issue, j_b, you're mind is a steel trap. Once you latch onto a political idea, the notion of flexibility in your thought process withers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the Article on Bush Hatin'

 

 

 

Like any emotion, hatred (in others) must be inferred from (their) behavior (including linguistic behavior). There are four signs of hatred:

 

 

 

* Obsession. The hater returns again and again to the hated. Nothing looms larger in the hater's mind. The hated becomes a brooding omnipresence, a focus of suspicion, fear, and loathing.

 

 

 

* Inability to see ‑- much less to acknowledge ‑- good in the hated. The hated becomes the very personification of evil, incapable of being, intending, or doing good. Nobody is perfectly bad, of course, but this is how the hated appears.

 

 

 

* Cynicism. Nothing the hated says is taken at face value, however plausible it may be on its face and however sincerely it is expressed. Indeed, the hated's claim of good motivation is often taken as further evidence of his or her viciousness, duplicity, or perversity.

 

 

 

* Malevolence. The hater is not merely indifferent to the welfare of the hated, as might be the case with a stranger, but wishes things to go poorly for him or her. The hater delights in the hated's misery or misfortune. The Germans have a special word for this: "schadenfreude."

 

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102103A.html

Posted
scrambler said:

Duh j_b. Who's sittin' in the White House?

 

perhaps you could explain the difference between losing a contest and being declared a winner?

 

As far as the gun control issue, j_b, your mind is a steel trap. Once you latch onto a political idea, the notion of flexibility in your thought process withers.

 

disappointing. you have accustomed us to better discussion of the issues and now you attack the messenger. as you know, you won't be alone around here ooo.gif

Posted (edited)
j_b said:

scrambler said:

Duh j_b. Who's sittin' in the White House?

 

perhaps you could explain the difference between losing a contest and being declared a winner?

 

As far as the gun control issue, j_b, your mind is a steel trap. Once you latch onto a political idea, the notion of flexibility in your thought process withers.

 

disappointing. you have accustomed us to better discussion of the issues and now you attack the messenger. as you know, you won't be alone around here ooo.gif

 

No need to. It's a done deal, i.e., the transfer of power.

 

I assume you support the Democratic platform. That platform is made up of established positions concerning policy issues. You must also be familiar with the saying, "Choose your battles." Democrats have realized that this particular issue may be a losing battle and have consequently modified their emphasis on gun control.

 

I personally don't see the issue of gun violence as having a simple solution. I put guns in italics because it's arguable that maybe this is more of a moral issue concerning, e.g., sanctity of life. If this issue is crouched in these terms then maybe you can hammer away at inconsistencies, which is preferable in a logical debate. However, the deciding factor often becomes an emotional one so one has to look at how we develop emotional beliefs.

 

Perhaps there is no ideal solution even if the answer that is proposed is multipronged and complex. For instance, what good would an army be if the people were too pacific to kill?

Edited by scrambler
Posted

Oh, BTW j_b, did you know that testosterone elicits two bodily responses: (to put it bluntly) Fuck it or kill it.

 

Of course, most of us don't go overboard with the killing end. Most of that impulse is sublimated into competitive activities.

Posted
Of course, most of us don't go overboard with the killing end. Most of that impulse is sublimated into competitive activities.

 

I have made more posts than any of you fruit.gifthe_finger.gifhahaha.gif

 

Posted

gore did not lose the contest. he won by over 500,000 votes.

 

two kinds of people in this world. winners, losers. some just don't understand the difference! yellaf.gif

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...