Peter_Puget Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 CBS you write with such certainty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 In all seriousness, what is this thread about? Really now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Dr_Flash_Amazing said: In all seriousness, what is this thread about? Really now. It's about PP and his issues with authority figures specifically generals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Peter_Puget said: "I love a man in uniform!" PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 Dru said: Peter_Puget said: "I love a man in uniform!" PP Only if they are straight shooters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 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 is this what you consider an in-depth analysis based on issues? how come you did not quote the first answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 to get your goat moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 "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...} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 (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 October 30, 2003 by scrambler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Never forget that the appearance of a man always matters more than his substance to the voters. They will always elect a good-looking villain before an ugly or wooden statesman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 (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 October 30, 2003 by scrambler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 (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 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 October 30, 2003 by scrambler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 and some just can't let go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.