Good Old Neon Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't want to speak for ikol, but maybe his point was that what you're talking about sounds more like hypocrisy than irony Point taken - though I still find it ironic. In other news, it looks as though the apple fell from a nut tree - from Salon: John Voight asks, "Is President Obama creating a civil war?" Actor Jon Voight is on his way to Cincinnati, and Atlanta, in order to participate in Fox News host Sean Hannity's latest "Freedom Concerts." But first, he paused long enough to share some extra nuttiness with the Washington Times: "There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Voight said in an interview with the paper.He continued: We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true .... Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book "Rules for Radicals," by Saul Alinsky. Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods. The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them. So I ask again: Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country? The thing I love about this is that conservatives like Hannity normally hate the idea of celebrities getting involved in politics -- at least, when those celebrities are liberal. Take Laura Ingraham, who actually wrote a book with the title, "Shut Up & Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the U.N. are Subverting America." As for Hannity, back in 2006, he said, "You know something? I don't really care what Sean Penn says. In the sense that you say he's an actor, no one pays attention to him or Rosie O'Donnell or Alec Baldwin or any of these guys. But now he's got Voight coming to his concert. And hey, the desire to keep politics and entertainment separate is fine. It's not like most actors are geniuses when it comes to politics or policy. But as soon as someone like Voight or Craig T. Nelson comes along, Fox News personalities -- like Hannity and Ingraham -- rush to embrace them. Ironic -- don't you think? Link - http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Point taken - though I still find it ironic. In other news, it looks as though the apple fell from a nut tree - from Salon: John Voight asks, "Is President Obama creating a civil war?" Actor Jon Voight is on his way to Cincinnati, and Atlanta, in order to participate in Fox News host Sean Hannity's latest "Freedom Concerts." But first, he paused long enough to share some extra nuttiness with the Washington Times: "There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Voight said in an interview with the paper.He continued: We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true .... Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book "Rules for Radicals," by Saul Alinsky. Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods. The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them. So I ask again: Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country? The thing I love about this is that conservatives like Hannity normally hate the idea of celebrities getting involved in politics -- at least, when those celebrities are liberal. Take Laura Ingraham, who actually wrote a book with the title, "Shut Up & Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the U.N. are Subverting America." As for Hannity, back in 2006, he said, "You know something? I don't really care what Sean Penn says. In the sense that you say he's an actor, no one pays attention to him or Rosie O'Donnell or Alec Baldwin or any of these guys. But now he's got Voight coming to his concert. And hey, the desire to keep politics and entertainment separate is fine. It's not like most actors are geniuses when it comes to politics or policy. But as soon as someone like Voight or Craig T. Nelson comes along, Fox News personalities -- like Hannity and Ingraham -- rush to embrace them. Ironic -- don't you think? Link - http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ Oddly enough, I saw him on one of those Fox shows once. He was talking just like the character he played on 24 last season. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yeah, I just meant that it didn't really fit the definition of irony. As for Obama’s choice to continue many of Bush’s policies, both foreign and domestic, I agree – it’s bullshit. Not to mention using tax dollars to bail out corporations, buy and destroy old cars, and pay for healthcare. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 The saving of the American economic system from collapse is not bullshit. Averting the Great Depression II - and the huge amount of human suffering it would bring with it - is not bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 well I for one am selling my 1983 LeBaron in protest Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 The saving of the American economic system from collapse is not bullshit. Averting the Great Depression II - and the huge amount of human suffering it would bring with it - is not bullshit. And just where has the stimulus money gone? Other than buying a stake in the automotive industry, what has the government actually done to alleviate the economic collapse? Is credit flowing to the average citizen? Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't know, but I do know the small business I work for got a loan we needed to survive, so my big white ass can stay employed. And I will not apologize for that. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Have I mentioned that I'm driving John Voight's old car? Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Have I mentioned that I'm driving John Voight's old car?I've never even seen him in a car. I mean, look at his movies. No cars. Deliverance - canoe. Midnight Cowboy - boots. Runaway Train...runaway train. Link to post Share on other sites
plasticeyeball Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Coming Home - wheelchair sorry Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Explained on napkins And it's a big shit sandwich, which we have to take a bite of in order to avoid having to eat a whole shit sandwich! God bless America! Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Anyone who thinks that what the fed/treasury dept and the federal government did in the last months of 2008 up to now didn't help avert an economic collapse the size of which would have buried the depression of the 30s has his/her head in the sand. Are we out of the woods? No. But it would have been way worse and lasted way longer. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Anyone who thinks that what the fed/treasury dept and the federal government did in the last months of 2008 up to now didn't help avert an economic collapse the size of which would have buried the depression of the 30s has his/her head in the sand. Are we out of the woods? No. But it would have been way worse and lasted way longer.If we are going to have long term stability after the crisis, we need to pay down all the debt we've accrued in the past year (past gazillion years, for that matter). It's going to have to be a very strategic combination of cuts in spending and increases in revenue that DO NOT substantially jeopardize growth. That's going to be tough, because taxes jeopardize growth. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 The saving of the American economic system from collapse is not bullshit. Averting the Great Depression II - and the huge amount of human suffering it would bring with it - is not bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Well, I guess my head is in the sand. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Well, I guess my head is in the sand. What would you have suggested in September/October of last year? Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Anyone who thinks that what the fed/treasury dept and the federal government did in the last months of 2008 up to now didn't help avert an economic collapse the size of which would have buried the depression of the 30s has his/her head in the sand. Well, I guess my head is in the sand. ikol, all Edie said is that the fed govt helped avert an economic collapse. It frankly doesn't even matter what you would have proposed they do (which is pretty doggone easy from the comfort of your own couch). Things could have been done better, and things could have been done differently, but Edie didn't set the bar very high, and she is exactly right. Your head is in the sand if you think that Bush's actions, Obama's actions, and the Fed's actions didn't help to avert economic collapse. Or, maybe your head isn't in the sand, but then, it's in the clouds. Link to post Share on other sites
myboyblue Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 One thing is for sure, that Michelle Obama and her shorts are the talk of the town. If she wears a tank top, it will shut down the media all together. I would like to get Jon Voight's inputs on this topic. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 There could be an argument made that bailing out the financial sector was necessary and helped avert the crisis (I'm not entirely convinced of this, but at least there's some rational basis to it), but bailing out GM was ridiculous. There are plenty of cars companies that were not failing because they made decent cars. If GM had been allowed to fail, there might have been some temporary problems, but eventually the other companies would have filled to hole left by GM. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I think you can make the argument that it was allowed to fail. Bankruptcy is failure. Certainly it was helped through that phase by the government, but the effect of its complete failure would have meant tumbleweeds to 6000 dealerships, cities and towns all over the US, not to mention the rest of the world. By splitting the company into two and dividing it into good/bad parts, the "good GM" will now have a fighting chance (and will save 4800 dealers + factories + parts manufacturers -- in other words a nice chunk of the GDP). Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 This being the current political thread and all, for what its worth here is a Palin rumor out of Rhode Island http://www.projo.com/news/content/PALIN_RHODE_ISLAND_08-20-09_E5FF0HR_v23.3c1d727.html Being a Rhode Islander I hope this stays a rumor. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 There could be an argument made that bailing out the financial sector was necessary and helped avert the crisis (I'm not entirely convinced of this, but at least there's some rational basis to it), but bailing out GM was ridiculous. FWIW, I was referring to the financial sector, not GM. And frankly, this is what is so difficult about "true" liberals or conservatives. They only exist in academia (and on message boards). I am confident that no one would rush to place the "fiscal conservative" label on Bush, but certainly between Bush and Paulson, I think it's safe to assume that neither of them were thrilled with the idea of using govt funds to bail out the financial sector. The problem was: they didn't have a choice. And they did the right thing. Of course, the job is only half done. And inflation could ruin all of it. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 This being the current political thread and all, for what its worth here is a Palin rumor out of Rhode Island http://www.projo.com/news/content/PALIN_RHODE_ISLAND_08-20-09_E5FF0HR_v23.3c1d727.html Being a Rhode Islander I hope this stays a rumor.Moving from the largest state to the smallest? Sounds like a rumor. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 And just where has the stimulus money gone? Other than buying a stake in the automotive industry, what has the government actually done to alleviate the economic collapse? Is credit flowing to the average citizen?Lots of roads getting re-done that don't really need it. Have I mentioned that I'm driving John Voight's old car? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts