Posts from Paula in thread „Politics“

    I'm moving this over from the Books thread.

    Re: Duke's Books- Discussion
    Originally Posted by Paula
    It is one thing to support the enemy (a la Jane Fonda) but it is another thing entirely to exercise one's Constitutional freedom of expression to openly oppose a war even while it's being waged. Are we all just supposed to shut up and go along with what the government is doing even if one is adamantly against it? What about veterans who have fought in various wars and then come back and oppose them publicly even while they're still going on? Anyway, this probably belongs in the Politics thread by now so if anyone wants to continue this conversation, let's move it over there. ;)


    Changed my mind about getting into this conversation. I answered your question in a civil manner as to why Scorses could be considered anti-American and you want to take it all the way out there. Ringo's statement is also protected free speech.

    Oh, this is getting silly. I never said that anyone's speech (including Ringo's) wasn't protected -- although let's be clear, our Constitution protects our speech from government interference; the moderators of this board have every right to forbid certain topics, or delete posts, or require us to keep politics to the Politics thread, which is why I am posting here in the Politics thread rather than the Books one.

    I fail to see why addressing charges that Martin Scorsese is "anti-American" is so awful or taking it out there or whatever. I did not say anything uncivil at all. But I DO disagree with the statement that Martin Scorsese is anti-American, because he *gasp* protested the Vietnam War (like millions of other Americans who knew AT THE TIME, not just in hindsight, that it was a bad war) or associated with people like the Dixie Chicks -- who exercised their Constitutional freedom of speech too, the same way other people exercised their freedom of speech by disagreeing with them and boycotting their concerts and records. Nor does the fact that Scorsese's films sometimes explore/critique the darker sides of American society mean he is anti-American.

    So far I remain unconvinced that Martin Scorsese has ever done or said anything that would make him anti-American. Critiquing America and protesting a war does not make you anti-American. To be honest, I don't even like this term "anti-American" which is very either/or and doesn't allow for complexity. There are a lot of things I don't like about America, but that doesn't change the fact that I love America.

    I assume that Rick Mathes story is making the rounds of all the right-wing websites and e-mail lists.

    Not too surprisingly, the truth about it is somewhat different than what is posted here, starting with that the person giving the presentation about Islam was an inmate at the prison, not an imam.

    Here's what really happened, at


    My, my, Paula -whatever gave you the idea that I was referring to you as one of our resident liberals? :laugh:

    Could be all the times I said I was a liberal democrat!


    Something I've never been able to understand though, is how did a liberal become a Duke fan.

    John Wayne was a political conservative, but his movies transcend any such silly labels. His movies are about the human condition, and speak to something far deeper than whatever political category we put ourselves in. He plays specific characters who find themselves in certain situations, and we -- that is, all of us --are moved by what those characters experience, enjoy and suffer, emotionally and physically, in part by what the director, screenwriter, etc., created, and in part because of what John Wayne, human being and great actor, brought to those roles.

    A lot of my favorite actors were or are conservatives, including Ward Bond (who was arch-conservative) and Ben Johnson. Who they voted for is irrelevant, IMHO, when I am watching them on the screen.


    If their erstwhile CIC doesn't uphold the Constitution, why should the military, Paula.

    Please tell me exactly how Obama has violated the Constitution. If you mean by the way he has continued and even increased the programs begun by Bush that are turning us into national security and police state and by killing American citizens overseas with drones -- well, there are a LOT of lefties that would agree with you. If you mean Obamacare, that's already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. By the way, the military has total healthcare for soldiers and their immediate families, so if a coup got us the same healthcare program... maybe there is something to be said for a coup. :)

    Anyway, even if Obama is violating the Constitution, two wrongs don't make a right, apart from the fact that a military coup -- I can't even believe I'm talking about this -- would be a monumental disaster that would lay waste to this country. What, you want to start a second Civil War? That will REALLY help everyone out there who is in a bad way because they don't have a job or health insurance or a home due to a catastrophic weather event.

    If Obama HAS violated the Constitution, then the recourse to that is to file a lawsuit. I'm sure there are plenty of conservative legal think tanks out there that will be happy to file a lawsuit and take the issue, whatever it is, to the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want (as I assume happened with Obamacare)... well, then you initiate an amendment to the Constitution.

    We used to amend the Constitution a lot in this country but now it seems to be frozen in amber or something.

    Latin American coups? So much for upholding the Constitution of the United States! I thought all those conservatives GIs were fighting for the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, or was I daydreaming?

    Ironically, coups are going the way of the dodo in Latin America. The continent for the most part now consists of democratic countries with elections, presidents, etc. Even wannabe dictator Hugo Chavez has to submit himself to elections.

    Cheer up. These things run in cycles. Dems are on top now but the Republicans will reconstitute themselves with young blood and they will eventually put forth a fresh face that will be a lot more appealing to what is now a very diverse electorate than corporate raider Mitt Romney. (And I don't mean Paul Ryan, whose hometown of Janesville and home county Rock County voted for Obama.)


    So Paula, it seems that you're saying that Dems have no family values and consider sanctity of the traditional family to be a political liability.

    Nope, I'm saying that the Democrats (in general) don't hold as narrow a view of what constitutes a family as Republicans (or perhaps I should say social conservatives) do. The "traditional" family exists only as a minority family structure now. I know families where the only grandkids are the children of the *gay* sibling. :) This country will not be going back to working dad, stay at home mom, and 2.5 kids as the norm, all the data says it's going in other ways. So when Republican politicians harp on about the sanctity of the traditional family and all that -- a losing battle -- and then so many of them violate said traditional family norms... well, it's sad but I'd be lying if I didn't say it was also amusing.

    Dems like family values too but the construction of a family has a far wider wider definition. And there's a lot less emphasis on the dictates of religion. God is NOT mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, after all.

    Dems tend not to get as bent out of shape over sexual indiscretions, at least OTHER people's indiscretions. The moral outrage comes not so much from something like Weiner's sexting (although it's bad enough), but that he LIED ABOUT IT for over a week! Personally, I'm much more concerned about politicians lying about their affairs, when caught, or even breaking laws to cover it up, than the actual sexual mishap itself. (Unless you're talking about fooling around with minors which IS a crime.) C.F. John Ensign, currently under investigation by the Justice Department and who resigned to prevent being *thrown out* of the Senate. Or John Edwards, one of the few Dems who really did go on and on about family values and built his "brand" around it. Whether he broke a law is still in question (despite the indictment -- this is definitely not going to be a cut and dried case). Edwards and Newt Gringrich now have something in common to talk about, i.e., their faithlessness to cancer-stricken wives. At least Edwards wasn't pointing his finger at anyone else while doing his bad thing; Gingrich was trying to take down Clinton while doing the same thing Clinton was doing!

    But politicians have been fooling around since -- forever. The thing that's destroying families -- "traditional" or otherwise -- isn't politicians breaking the bonds of wedlock or whatever, and it's not gay marriage (which some Republicans, like former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, think is a *good* thing). It's the millions of jobs going overseas, the loss of our manufacturing base, Wall Street's legal thievery and the now-huge inequality of wealth, and the screws the insurance middlemen have put to the healthcare system. Now those are the issues I really get my dander up about, not about which married politicians is indulging himself with how many fans or what you might call "professionals."

    As for my husband -- who I should mention is an Army veteran and also worked for the Army as a civilian for three years after he resigned his commission -- he is a wonderful, wonderful man who is the epitome of ethical behavior. Everyone who knows him admires him as a friend, colleague, mentor, role model and teacher. He's made me the happiest woman in the world for literally decades. Don't say anything against him or we will be dealing in lead! (Well, verbal lead.) :) He has his flaws as do we all (especially me) but not when it comes to upholding standards.

    It's easy to make jokes about lawyers but if you ever need one, you'll be REALLY happy when he or she is there to advocate for you. Shakespeare's line about "First, let's kill all the lawyers" has turned into a kind of joke, but if you read it in context, it's said by a character who is helping to foment a rebellion, and one step towards achieving the rebellion is to kill the lawyers, and thus eliminate the rule of law and the legal process and the defense of individual rights. From what I know of you folks around here, you like individual rights. I do too. :) You have them, in good part, because of lawyers. :) It's not just soldiers out there defending your rights.

    And just because I subscribe to the New York Times (for its arts coverage mostly, which includes very nice pieces like that Dave Kehr one about John Wayne) doesn't mean that's the ONLY magazine or newspaper or website I read.

    Besides, I have you guys to keep me informed. :) I am actually very sympathetic with a lot of conservative viewpoints, I think on about 85 percent of issues we have the same goals although we usually don't want to get there the same way.

    Oh, I'm not defending Weiner, at least not with what he was doing with his Twitter account! I think what he did is mega-icky. I do think it's amusing when Republicans get caught with their, er, let's say, hand in the till since they all run on family values and the sanctity of the traditional family platform. Though Dems occasionally get hoist on the same petard, with John Edwards being the main case in point. My husband the lawyer says he thinks the U.S. Attorney's case against Edwards is bogus, but we will see. ;)

    But to be honest I get a lot more upset over politicians who sell their integrity out to corporations and Wall Street -- which is virtually every politician IMHO, Democrat or Republican.

    David Vitter didn't resign. He even got re-elected! And he had actual SEX with hookers instead of merely texting photos of body parts to various ladies.

    I don't know ANYBODY -- of any political stripe -- who isn't in favor of a "strong national defense." As a former Army wife and Army civilian employee myself, married to a vet who spent 4 years in ROTC and 8 years as an Army officer, I'm all for support of our military men and women. We still have friends who are military or work for the military and from what I hear, these two never ending wars have been a disaster for our armed forces, who are overburdened and overworked and overwhelmed, and IMHO sucked dry by contractors.

    I am NOT a fan of any kind of out-sourcing and contracting, which seems to be so popular these days. I think it is incredibly destructive to our civil ethos, and also a money pit that fosters corruption.

    Anyway, just what exactly constitutes a "strong national defense"? It's not just a properly manned and equipped military. Nations fall from within. The destruction of the unions and our insane tax policy which favors the rich and the corporations, as well as deregulation (especially of the banks), is eroding this country from within.

    The middle class -- the bulwark of this country -- is being destroyed. This crazy financial mess started with Reagan, continued with Clinton, and roared on with Bush, and Obama continues it to this day. I'm lucky, I've mostly escaped the effects of this destruction of our economy, but I know plenty of people who haven't -- like my hair stylist, who is self-employed and lost her house and literally is now living in her sister's garage. She's still cutting hair, though. "Hey, she should have gotten a better education and a fancy job!" Well SOMEBODY has to cut hair. Don't the barbers and hair stylists deserve a living wage? They're on their feet all day and it's an honest living, a job that needs to be done.

    My father-in-law, who was a truck driver and a mover, was a union man. He never was rich or even upper middle class, but he was able to provide a decent living for his family, and he had health care. I don't think he'd be able to provide the same level of support nowadays.

    I definitely support a strong national defense, and that includes a well-run, efficient military as well as a populace who can find jobs, making a living wage, and not get ripped off by the top one percent of this country.

    I meant to include this link:…came-cnnm-2876148381.html

    P.S. Just because I support unions doesn't mean I don't know they need reform too. Just about everything these days needs reform.


    I would start with the premise that national defense is the PRIMARY, in fact we could say ONLY, constitutionally-authorized duty of the federal government.

    Well, there is all this other stuff mentioned in the U.S. Constitution...

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    Etc. (The rest does have to do with defense and war powers)


    Has anyone noticed that when Obama gives a public speech , whether it be news conference or any select group, he puts a positive spin on anything that happens, just to make himself look good to his constituents.
    These past few weeks, with congress trying to pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, anything halfway decent that happens, Obama is taking credit; if there is any negativity to events, he strives to make sure everyone knows he wasn't responsible, that he tried superhumanly to make things go in the positive column, but no one would follow his lead (if he even remotely qualifies for the description of leader)!

    This is different from any politician how? ;)

    I agree, totally wrongheaded! Though I loved Brokeback Mountain. ;) Ernest Borgnine is a living national treasure. Speaking of living national treasures who have been in westerns, the very first person I laid eyes upon after stepping out of the airport shuttle at my hotel for the TCM fest was Eli Wallach! He was standing right there on the sidewalk at the hotel entrance! It took a moment to recognize him -- his appearance is more altered than Borgnine's and he looked quite physically frail although 100 percent alert mentally -- but it was indeed he. I nearly fainted from excitement. A "minder" came along a few moments later and ushered Mr. Wallach into a limo. The TCM fest sure got off to a great start... and then it got better and better. P.S. Woo hoo! I've graduated from "tenderfoot" to "pilgrim." I was watching McLintock on the Western channel tonight and had to smile when John Wayne called someone "pilgrim." ;)

    Hi, Mrs. C... I hear ya! ;) And so far nothing I've seen on has rankled me. ;) I suspect that people with so-called opposing views who love John Wayne and westerns have way more in common than differences! ;) My hubby and I have lots of conservative friends and we love them dearly, they're all wonderful people. And the people on all seem to be pretty terrific too. :)

    Back to Ernest Borgnine (who this thread is really about)... one story I remember him telling at the TCM fest was that he spent 10 years in the Navy (I think it was 10 years) and he finally got out of the service, and he went home, and said to his mother, "Now what am I going to do?" and she said, "Be an actor!" So he became an actor and another 10 years later won an Oscar.

    Does that include me? I'm a (in tiny voice) a liberal. (Am I the only one on this board?)

    I love Ernest Borgnine. I was so thrilled to sit in the row right in front of him during the screening of Jubal (great movie!) at the TCM classic film festival in Hollywood last April. He spoke afterwards and he was great!

    I couldn't care less about the politics of my favorite actors. Or my friends -- both online or in the flesh.