Post by konfucius1911 on Mar 5, 2008 17:08:07 GMT -5
damieque said:
This is an example of a non-response. Pseudo-Democracy and Capitalism are related to Candidates personal asthetics and image how? The discussion was about non-issues being issues was it not... and now you wanna move the goal post?NO. The "Goal Post" has not moved. Maybe you're too near-sighted to SEE it. By the way, CAPITALISM and [pseudo]Democracies are related to the THOUGHT of the system. "Image" is malleable; and can be distorted to APPEAR to be almost anything if the rhetoric is convincing.
damieque said:
What country are you living in where you think that the fact that Hillary is a woman is a legitimate political issue? If it is a legitimate political issue it is one on which her opponents can confront her. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to campaign against Hillary and make one of the plancks of their platform that you ought not to vote for Hillary because she is a woman? Race is a factor, not an issue. Gender is a factor NOT an issue. Do you NOT understand that there is a difference? Maybe you're just confused and/or can't comprehend. You're trying to cross-pollinate my statements to create an inaccurate perception of MY statement.
At no point did I even SUGGEST that HILLARY's gender was/is "is a legitimate political issue". But the FACT is that many in this country ARE making it an issue. Which is why I included the following statement
REALITY: The "informed voter" is definitely the MINORITY in this election-process. Furthermore, the discussion is not about the desired utopian system. We're addressing the Capitalist pseudo-Democracy of the USA.
damieque said:
An easier response for you might be to just say, that you can't refute the analogy and you can't come up with a counter point. Because if we need to consider the fact that Hillary is a woman and that some Heads of State of OTHER countries won't respect her before we vote for her, then I guess the Republicans were likewise justified in the last election cycle in saying that we shouldn't have voted for Kerry, because, "the terrorists want you to vote for Kerry". So we should think about what people in OTHER countries think and their cultural perceptions before we elect OUR president. Not only does the logic NOT hold, but it is incongruent with reality. You have not YET presented a valid analogy to even formulate a "counter-point". At this point, your statements have been little more than [... as the Arabs say:...] "Kalaam faarigh"; which literally translates as "empty words", but whose cultural connotation and understanding is "BULL$H1T".
And YES, you should consider the potential inabilities for a candidate to garner the respect of international Heads of State. Should a statement [as yours] suggests that you have an acutely myopic-view and LACK a comprehensive understanding about the dual-role of the office of a USA President; a domestic Head of State AND Commander-in-Chief.
Again, whether you are cognizant of the fact [or not], the domestic & international perception of elected officials IS a political consideration; especially as it relates to HOW international policy is developed and enacted. If it wasn't, then how do your rationalize HILLARY's campaign ad about "Its 2am and a phone in the WHITE HOUSE rings ..." I could care LESS about who the fluck ANSWERS the phone. I'm more concerned about about WHAT decision the call recipient makes AFTER the call. Case-in-Point: George "son of a _____" Bush.
Furthermore, mentally-conscious political-thinkers DO consider GENDER in int'l diplomacy. Hence the reason Musharraf enacted a military coup of Benazir Bhutto; because when the USA promoted the initial election of her, they did it with the intention of creating instability in the nation. So, they could then later enter the country as the "saviour of a White Horse bringing the colored-people liberation" [from the quagmire that was created BY the USA]. This is the same thing UK did in INDIA in the 1940s to divide the people of the sub-continent; and polarize the aspect of religious difference (even though the people had lived together for more than 1300 years). The UK realized that the inhabitants were unifying to RID themselves of British-Rule. So, they had to re-design their plans. But, we'll save that for a later discussion.
damieque said:
Please show me an example, just 1 example, of where we vote for OUR president based on how well or poorly we think they'll be received by OTHER countries based on their race, gender, religion, etc in recent history. Just 1. If you can find one, it will help me identify the alternate universe in which you currently reside. I'll do you one better: You show me ONE political-campaign - even worldwide - wherein these factors have NOT been an issue throughout the history of the WORLD; including Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Catherine the Great, Ayatollah Khomeni, Ayatollah Khaameni, Islam Karimov (Kazachistan), Benazir Bhutto, Saddam Hussein. The list is inexhaustible. Likewise, American legislators are ACTIVELY concerned about these issues; especially in the international arena.
PRIME EXAMPLE:
Madeline Albritght & Margaret Thatcher were interviewed on 20/20 after the the removal of Saddam; [wherein Brits & Americans had the delusional idea that IRAQIs would be thankful to them for the removal of a tyrant-ruler ( that the UK put in power; and the USA maintained his dictatorship until he (Saddam) grew some nuts, and began rejecting being a puppet of western democracies ).
Nonetheless, in the interview, both Thatcher and Albright insisted that they [the UK & USA] were ensuring a free & democratic election of the new Head of State; and the political system he/she would implement. When they were asked, "What if the people choose to restore the Khilafah (Islamic State) ?". After an inordinate long pause, they replied: "it is NOT in the interest of western democracies to permit the re-establishment of the CALIPHATE. So, we We will allow them to choose any form of governemt. even communism, except ISLAM."
So, the interest of the WEST was/is not to bring "freedom" to Iraq (or any other annexed land), but rather to rape the country of its economic & natural resources; and promote concepts that may cause a Machavellian-instability in the country [divide & conquer].
MY POINT:
The decision made in this US Presidential election will have an almost immeasureable
"ripple" effect in the Middle East. IF HILLARY becomes President, I can guarantee that the international resistance of non-democracies will double; and the insurgencies will likewise increase.
As for the "alternate universe" comment: Again, your thoughts are un-original; and your grasping for straws to convince YOURSELF that it was an intellectual thought.
KALAAM FAARIGH !!
In what country are YOU living, because its obviously NOT the USA
Pastor Wright tell MCee Common to rap the Celebration Speech for Sen Obama He grabs the mic and tells Kirk Framklin to start the music. And then it happens The Mothership lands amd Mr George Clinton steps out with Sen Obama and His wife They step out to ...you guessed it Atomic Dog..They tried to get Stevie Wonder but he was scarred that he might trip off the Mothership. 
