2012 Politics; and Chuck Norris for president?!

[kender]

What do you think of the push to get Chuck Norris onto the next presidential ticket? http://chucknorris2012.com (even a petition to sign)

I signed... I definately believe that anyone should have the chance to make the ticket, and I also didn't want to get a roundhouse kick to the head!

His views aren't completly politically correct (issues page) but I do think his vew on smaller government is spot on

[The Old Sarge]

Why not the Governator?

[Jick]

Why not the Governator?I would totally vote for the terminator! :D

[kender]

Arnold is not elidgible to be president due to birth issues, of course neither is Obama, but that is another story

[The Old Sarge]

Arnold is not elidgible to be president due to birth issues, of course neither is Obama, but that is another story

That's exactly why I brought up Arnold. :D

[kender]

I really wish one of those judges would hear the darned case against Obama.. heck, we got military guys not knowing who is authorized to command them (another pending lawsuit that a judge refuses to hear)

[yamaharuss]

I'm glad Obama got elected. Soon we won't have to work anymore.




See you in the bread line comrades!!!

[kender]

I happen to like my job :P

Just harder to do in a bad economy

[The Old Sarge]

I'm glad Obama got elected. Soon we won't have to work anymore.

See you in the bread line comrades!!!

:( I'll be in the TP line.

Hey! I know! I'll get extra TP, you get extra bread and we'll swap. :)

[Charles]

It's interesting how “Politically Correct” has changed over the years. When I first heard it used I was in a meeting in DC (Da Capital) planning a national demonstration against US support of the government of El Salvador. The first thing that we established, as always, is that the demonstration was seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict and addressing of the rebel's grievances. Someone at the table objected along the lines that we should not be suggesting that we in our comfortable positions were denying the people of El Salvador the right to support the rebels or settle things by revolution. We all gave the guy the “Dude, we're just trying to plan a demonstration here” look and a friend turned to me to say “That guy's politically correct”. It started out as a way people on the left denigrated other people on the left.

But soon I heard the term being used by people on the right, and often on a talk show, to apply to people who were suggesting that one ought to address other people the way they wished to be addressed and that one should not chase ones secretary around the desk. It became a way to denigrate people who were asking that we be polite.

Now days it seems to mean any political position to the left of Ronald Reagan or cultural one to the left of Andrew Dice Clay.

[yamaharuss]

Political correctness has gotten out of hand. Case in point: The recent Miss California incident.

People are expected to say everything in a manner which would offend no one. Well, I would say that's pretty impossible, no? If I ask you what you think of my new shirt and you don't like it, then I must accept your opinion, of which I asked.

When comparing the "right" to the "left" - the left is always crying out "tolerance!", yet they are the ones who are most intolerant to anything which goes against their stance. Again, I cite the Miss California incident.

[The Old Sarge]

'Politically correct', the way I've always understood it, is a way of re-naming something to make it more palatable.

For instance, we used to call people cripples, which became handicapped, which became disabled, which became challenged, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Whenever someone takes offense to a name/label/word, political correctness demands that we find another, more palatable word. One less offensive to whoever was offended.

All fine and good. Except ... there will always be someone that finds/takes offense no matter what others say or do. It's in some people's nature to be offended and they go to great lengths to inform us just how offensive they find us and what we say.

To them I say, "Urinate off!" :D

[Charles]

No doubt you've found that you have trouble not offending people but if you follow a few simple rules everything is more pleasant and people feel more valued. One of the most simple of the rules is to address or refer to people as they would wish--within reason. They're not allowed to change their names too often or insist upon honors not rightly theirs. When addressed incorrectly they're supposed to inform, politely. You're supposed to not mistake being informed for offence.

Does it really cause you discomfort to pay attention to people and regard their simple requests?

[The Old Sarge]

You're supposed to not mistake being informed for offence.

I wasn't talking about being informed of legitimate corrections but rather unreasonable demands that I reform my speech. There's also something to be said about people making up their minds about what they wish to be called and then sticking to it. (See the cripple ... disabled progression ... just as an example.)

Does it really cause you discomfort to pay attention to people and regard their simple requests?

In case that was addressed to me, then no, it doesn't. In fact, misuse or mispronunciation of people's names, whether deliberate or out of ignorance or mistake, is one of my pet peeves. Repeatedly saying a person's name incorrectly is highly disrespectful. Especially after being corrected, politely or otherwise.

OTOH, ... there will always be someone that finds/takes offense no matter what others say or do. It's in some people's nature to be offended and they go to great lengths to inform us just how offensive they find us and what we say.

[The Old Sarge]

And now, back to Obama for a moment.

The issue of his birth certificate is a trial run at the entire issue of citizenship in the US. If he can get away with not being qualified, so can a million or two illegal immigrants.

[Charles]

What's the old joke? "My family has had trouble with immigrants ever since they came to this country. " Or was it a line from Finian's Rainbow? A movie you should see if you haven't.

Let's not forget that one third of the US used to be one half of Mexico--and that the transfer wasn't exacltly legit.

[The Old Sarge]

What part of "illegal" did you miss?

[Charles]

Come to my city and drive the speed limit on our beltway and just try to count the people who pass you. We're all criminals and illegal drivers and the cops are the worst of the lot.

When the US took the land it violated Mexican law and the law of nations. And it's like that with a lot of the land in the US; most all of it was stolen from somebody. I think you might be confused about just who are the illegal immigrants.

[The Old Sarge]

If you insist on portraying land acquisitions in that manner, you should look at almost all the "civilized" nations of the world. What you mention is a very common practice, certainly not limited to the US.

Also, you might explore not only the definition AND the implications of what is "legal", what is "illegal", and what makes them so.

Just a suggestion ...

And when you're done with that, you can get back to the history books. :D

[The Old Sarge]

Come to my city and drive the speed limit on our beltway and just try to count the people who pass you. We're all criminals and illegal drivers and the cops are the worst of the lot.

Is that supposed to be something you're proud of or is it simply rationalization for being another law-breaker? ;)

[NogDog]

For the Obama-is-not-a-citizen members of the Republican "we hate losing and won't support the president even though we claimed anyone who didn't support Bush was unpatriotic" faction, the best source I can find that hopefully won't be considered too biased is: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. If, on the other hand, you prefer to only believe internet blog hype from very biased sources, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind -- and I won't try to.

[The Old Sarge]

What makes you think:

1. That anyone here is a Republican?

2. That any one here equates support, or lack thereof, of the president with patriotism?

3. That the fine folks at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html are any more qualified to make that call than the fine folks they attempt to discredit?

You seem to base a lot on assumption. :rolleyes:

[The Old Sarge]

The main thing I know about Obama's birth certificatre is that it sure took him a long time to fork it over, and that there are lingering questions as to why that was and to why the State of Hawaii will not make a public record public.

[Mayday]

Deftly avoiding the current political debate that has ensued, and getting back to the original theme of this post, I for one am all for Chuck Norris! He would round-house kick any terrorist or world leader who threatens nuclear war! Hell, he'd probably answer any stupid, amibguous question in an election debate with a swift round-house kick to the head, thus ending the debate, and automatically winning as last-man-standing.

That would be soooooo cool! :cool:

Just remember, that since March 10, 1940 (CN's DOB), round-house-kick-to-the-head-related deaths have increased 30,000% in this country. :D

[NogDog]

What makes you think:

1. That anyone here is a Republican?

I am not specifically saying anyone is or is not, but that is where the vast majority of the current allegations about Obama's birth seem to be originating.

2. That any one here equates support, or lack thereof, of the president with patriotism?

That was not aimed at anyone specifically here, but at the many Republican pundits who only a year ago were complaining that anyone who did not support Bush's war policies was (a) unpatriotic and (b) not supporting the troops. And now those same exact pundits are railing against Obama on his foreign policies, Iraq/Afghanistan strategies, etc., and some have actually come out saying they would prefer to see him fail simply to help get the Republicans back in power.

3. That the fine folks at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html are any more qualified to make that call than the fine folks they attempt to discredit?

They are just the first source I could find that was not an "obviously" pro-republican or pro-democratic site. I may be wrong. Please feel free to do further research and locate what you believe to be a truly unbiased source (e.g.: not Fox News) that has differing research results to report.
You seem to base a lot on assumption. :rolleyes:
Yes, I assume that there are a lot of people out there with very biased, close-minded views on many difficult subjects in the world, and that they tend to believe information sources that agree with those views and to ignore and/or attempt to discredit those they they disagree with. Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists will tend to assume that Al Jhezeera's views are correct and that BBC News' are wrong when they do not agree. Right-wing conservatives in the US tend to agree with Fox News when it disagrees with MSNBC. Left-wing liberals tend to agree with The New York Times when it disagrees with The National Review.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people therefore never really do any research for themselves and try to reach impartial, balanced conclusions -- and in reality that's probably an impossible goal for any but the most simplistic of issues, especially since most of us have a complicated enough life of our own to lead and are forced to depend upon others for that research. All I'm asking is to not assume that "news" reported from any source is accurate, unbiased, does not have ulterior motives, is not pure propaganda, etc.

Most importantly, keep asking yourself questions. Why do you believe what you believe? Why do other people have conflicting beliefs? Can you make yourself see their viewpoint at all, or is it so foreign to you that all you can do is apply a simplistic label like "bleeding heart liberal," "commie fascist pig," or "red-neck conservative" to them?

For the record, I am an independent voter, have tended historically to vote more Republican than Democrat (when there was not a truly viable independent choice) and did, in fact, vote for Obama this past election. But he is by no means guaranteed my vote in the next election, assuming he runs again. The one group that I am a member of is my club of one in support of critical thinking and healthy skepticism. (And please, I am not saying that you are not a critical thinker, just that I think there is a dire lack of it in the world today and that is one of the reasons we have so many problems we can't seem to deal with.)

[The Old Sarge]

I am not specifically saying anyone is or is not, but that is where the vast majority of the current allegations about Obama's birth seem to be originating.

You mean like the liberal Democrats and Obama supporters that questioned McCain's birth certificate and qualifications to be president? The same crowd that insists on blaming Bush for 9-11 and continued global warming? People like that tend to confuse tawdry politics and political loyalty with real patriotism.

That was not aimed at anyone specifically here, but at the many Republican pundits who only a year ago were complaining that anyone who did not support Bush's war policies was (a) unpatriotic and (b) not supporting the troops. And now those same exact pundits are railing against Obama on his foreign policies, Iraq/Afghanistan strategies, etc., and some have actually come out saying they would prefer to see him fail simply to help get the Republicans back in power.

If it is not aimed at anyone specifically here, why post it here as though it were?

I assume that there are a lot of people out there with very biased, close-minded views on many difficult subjects in the world, and that they tend to believe information sources that agree with those views and to ignore and/or attempt to discredit those they they disagree with.

Do you include yourself in that sort? If so, to which group would you belong?

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people therefore never really do any research for themselves and try to reach impartial, balanced conclusions -- and in reality that's probably an impossible goal for any but the most simplistic of issues, especially since most of us have a complicated enough life of our own to lead and are forced to depend upon others for that research.

Sounds like a cop out, a rationalization. "I'm too busy to keep myself informed of important issues."

All I'm asking is to not assume that "news" reported from any source is accurate, unbiased, does not have ulterior motives, is not pure propaganda, etc.

Very good advice. Did you consider it when you posted your link?


Most importantly, keep asking yourself questions. Why do you believe what you believe? Why do other people have conflicting beliefs? Can you make yourself see their viewpoint at all, or is it so foreign to you that all you can do is apply a simplistic label like "bleeding heart liberal," "commie fascist pig," or "red-neck conservative" to them?

Seems to me it was you that resorted to labels in this discussion.

For the record, I am an independent voter, have tended historically to vote more Republican than Democrat (when there was not a truly viable independent choice) ... The one group that I am a member of is my club of one in support of critical thinking and healthy skepticism. (And please, I am not saying that you are not a critical thinker, just that I think there is a dire lack of it in the world today and that is one of the reasons we have so many problems we can't seem to deal with.)

We appear to be more alike than first impressions indicate. I would add, however, that the "club of one" should also be a loud voice, booming in the ears to its elected representatives.

[kender]

just a simple point, that is not a "long form birth certificate" but a "certificate of live birth", those are issued to anyone when a valid long form cert is not available and also when birth was out of the country

They are issued on the "Say so" of only a single parent, and not issued by a hospital but by a government agency

[NogDog]

To get back to the original subject (sorry for sort of hijacking things)...

As far as Chuck Norris for president goes, at this point I would not give any consideration to voting for him regardless of his political views due to a lack of experience. If, on the other hand, he gets some real experience in government, foreign relations, and running huge bureaucracies...wait...that hasn't really seemed to be a criteria for a lot of our presidents. Go for it, Walker!

[kender]

That's my point, we have had enough big government, I think it's time to step back and slow down, strip out the unncessary layers and go from there. Norris has already proven he can run a business (and cut from the top), so let's see what he can do with government