Opinion of blue opebo

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Horrible Person

[MaC]

"Space exploration is important, but should be privately done"

I miss quotes like that and sadly he made the change before my account existed.

[adam]

He had a opposite on here?

[MaC]

haha-well Vlad, before he became a red Missouri-left of Karl Marx he was indeed a Republican with libertarian tendencies, but imperialist and hawkish.  I don't remember the blue opebo.  He gradually changed from one extreme to the other.  Somewhere in October 2004 he changed his avatar and supported Kerry.

[Max]

haha-well Vlad, before he became a red Missouri-left of Karl Marx he was indeed a Republican with libertarian tendencies, but imperialist and hawkish.  I don't remember the blue opebo.  He gradually changed from one extreme to the other.  Somewhere in October 2004 he changed his avatar and supported Kerry.

Are there any old threads with the "old opebo"? I'm interested.

[MasterJedi]

Freedom Fighter

[Keystone Phil]

Zell Miller - Approve
Lincoln Chaffee - Approve
Tom DeLay - Approve
Orrin Hatch - Approve
Norm Coleman - Approve
Patty Murray - Disapprove
Donald Rumsfeld - Approve
Bill Clinton - Disapprove
Al Gore - Disapprove
Pat Toomey - Approve
Evan Bayh - Approve
Michael Moore - Disapprove

Opebo, is there a single democrat that you DO like?

Zell Miller!

Bush/Cheney of course, but then again I'd vote for them even if they joined one another in gay marriage.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom Fighter

You do realize that at the time he was still an atheist who was quite hostile to religion, still screwed loads of Thai whores, and had the exact same views on social issues that he does now? If those are the reasons people hate him so much now, it's quite hypocritical and overtly partisan to support him at the time.

[MasterJedi]

Freedom Fighter

You do realize that at the time he was still an atheist who was quite hostile to religion, still screwed loads of Thai whores, and had the exact same views on social issues that he does now? If those are the reasons people hate him so much now, it's quite hypocritical and overtly partisan to support him at the time.

I was comparing him to what he is today.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He was just as bad then as he is now; most of his views haven't actually changed.

[Keystone Phil]

Freedom Fighter

You do realize that at the time he was still an atheist who was quite hostile to religion, still screwed loads of Thai whores, and had the exact same views on social issues that he does now? If those are the reasons people hate him so much now, it's quite hypocritical and overtly partisan to support him at the time.

While that's true and I'll never call him a Freedom Fighter, he wasn't vocal about his stupidity and at least seemed tolerant towards the smarts.

[MaC]

Freedom Fighter

You do realize that at the time he was still an atheist who was quite hostile to religion, still screwed loads of Thai whores, and had the exact same views on social issues that he does now? If those are the reasons people hate him so much now, it's quite hypocritical and overtly partisan to support him at the time.

I doubt in real life he has changed.  Either he's a Republican and is doing the red thing to make his own party look bad, or he's a Democrat and did the blue thing to make Republicans look bad.  I think the later because the bs of 4,000 posts is shorter than his red period.

[Sam Spade]

He was just as bad then as he is now; most of his views haven't actually changed.

^^^^^^^^^

[WalterMitty]

i remember when blue opebo said that public schools should be abolished and any poor kid that couldnt afford private school should go to the 'school of hard knocks'

he also had quite a high opinion of robber barons too.

[nclib]

Horrible person.

[7,052,770]

I like him better now for whatever reason

[Nym90]

He was just as bad then as he is now; most of his views haven't actually changed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

He just decided that social issues were more important than economics, and thus changed his views on them to help support what he thought was best for him. His views all along make perfect sense if viewed through this prism; he is willing to alter his views on certain topics if he feels that it is in his best interest to do so to promote the issues that he truly cares about.

[adam]

So let me get this straight. That fiscal leftist whack job use to be fighting on our side? What happened? Who touched him in the wrong places and warped his mind?

[Max]

i remember when blue opebo said that public schools should be abolished and any poor kid that couldnt afford private school should go to the 'school of hard knocks'

he also had quite a high opinion of robber barons too.

@Captain Vlad: OK, now I know what "your side" wants!

[adam]

i remember when blue opebo said that public schools should be abolished and any poor kid that couldnt afford private school should go to the 'school of hard knocks'

he also had quite a high opinion of robber barons too.

@Captain Vlad: OK, now I know what "your side" wants!

By "our side" I meant Libertairan leaning Republicans.

[MaC]

So let me get this straight. That fiscal leftist whack job use to be fighting on our side? What happened? Who touched him in the wrong places and warped his mind?

my only conclusion is that one of them is fake and the other's real.  Or maybe neither are and he's just wasting his life on the internet by posting stuff he doesn't belive.  No way in hell a 35 year old man can do such a drastic political shift in a matter of a few months.

[Middle-aged Europe]

US intervention, as in Chile, should be primarily to benefit US interests, not merely to oppose socialism in principle (though it is in principle an evil, imo).  But as far as within the country itself I don't see how you can blame the Right - and more to the point property owners - from trying to defend themselves against 'democratic' expropriation by whatever means necessary.  In this extremity one is lucky to have a Pinochet to turn to.  The thought that the majority of the 'people' voted to rob you of your property is no comfort at all - you will still fight for it if you can, including by a forcible coup, removing the socialist regime if possible.

I was just in Vietnam for a week in December, my second trip.  Whenever I visit that country the first thing that pops into my head is 'the wrong people won'.  The occupation of the South by the North has been just that - an imposed rule by outsiders.  Its a lot like the situation in the US immediately after the civil war.  And there's really no comparison between the old Southern dictatorships and the Communists - socialism is always more disruptive and misery-causing than any rightist dictator could be.

As to whether we could have won the war - of course we could have!  In fact the problem was we hardly fought it, as some have said here.  If the politicians hadn't limited the military, we could have thoroughly destroyed the North.  Equally important would have been raising the stakes with the Russians and Chinese.  I think if we had really scared them into thinking we'd broaden the conflict they would've withdrawn support.

Exciting stuff, but I think Kerry is very unlikely to be able to win in the general election.  In fact he's the worst candidate after Dean of the 'possible' candidates (not counting Braun, Kucinich, Sharpton). 

Nothing is required of the average American in the war against terrorism except to vote to re-elect GWBush.  If we have to give up SUVs and other integral aspects of what it is to be American, then what the devil are we fighting for?

We could easily afford $800 million for NASA...just reduce the size of the tax cuts by $800 million. So the richest 1% of Americans would each only have to give up $300/year to make it happen.

I'd be comfortable with more than 800 million, but I'd like to see it taken out of give-away programs like medicare and the prescription drug boondoggle.  The rich already pay nearly all the taxes anway - its at least conceivable they'd enjoy a cool space program, while I doubt they get any joy out of paying to keep some uneconomic old duffer around for a few more years of nursing home living.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Don't get me wrong, I *liked* Bush senior a lot.  But he was a mere machiavellian according to your description.  His failing was he didn't realize that in America, partisan ideologues have a real advantage over compromisers.

In spite of the fact that he's partly to blame for it because he raised taxes, I find his defeat by that nutball Perot to be one of the larger injustices in American politics.  Had he hung on in '92 the so-called 'Clinton boom' would've been the Bush boom.  We'll see if his son hangs on to claim credit for his own boom, or if some Democrat manages to hijack it.

Yeah, I'm against those programs you mentioned above - medicare, social security, etc.  And no, supply side economics does work in general.  But of course your point about tax reduction is valid - one gains the most benefits in reducing very excessivly high taxes.  This is simply because with taxes above say 50% people genuinely don't bother to make money above a certain level - or they simply flee.  Capital flight is a big issue for socialist economies.  You're probably right that reducing taxes from 39.5% to 35% isn't going to make a huge difference, but this is all part of supply side reasoning - the Laffer curve.  Supply siders recognize that the tax reduction=more tax revenue doesn't work to infinity - obviously a 1% tax rate doesn't necessarily confiscate more than a 10% one.   That's why it takes the form of a bell curve.   I gaurantee that if you put the rates back up to 70% you'ld have an exodus of capital and the most productive individuals from the US.

What's more important recently has been the excellent reduction in Capital Gains taxes - really it is absurd that capital gains are taxed at all since a) they're mostly just inflation and b) its a tax on money that was already earned and taxed once.  Similar to Estate Taxes.

Tax reductions on the poor and middle class are practically impossible because they pay hardly any tax already.  Exempting them entirely tends to create a false impression that government spending is 'free', leading to a downward spiral towards socialism and a destruction of the source of wealth - capitalism.

Dismantling the Great Society and other socialist/welfare state problems in American society is not a 'radical' idea.  I know people seem to think that the Republican party is not for getting rid of all that socialist stuff, and a lot of Republicans at least claim publicly that they support Social Security, etc.  But behind the scenes I think most of us are ideologically opposed to those programs, and would like to get rid of them, as a very long-term goal.  Privatization and all that.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Excellent.  Of all the Dem candidates, I have always been the most hostile to Lieberman.  While I do not object to a good part of his domestic agenda, I am very hostile to his foreign policy views.  The earlier he is out the better.

Hah, he was the only remotely decent Democrat in the contest.

But Bush is right, there wasn't a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. The only link that I can see is that they were both of the same race.

It's way too simplistic to assume that the entire Middle East is one big evil block of hatred against us. They oversimplify us and assume that we are all evil; let's not make the same mistake in reverse.

Whether you think it is simplistic or not, it is a commonly held view among American voters, and will help to get Bush re-elected.  Its also on balance more accurate to say 'the whole middle east is against us' than to say 'the middle east is our friend'.   The half of American on the Bush side of the cultural divide doesn't mind the lack of a 'direct connection' between 9/11 and Saddam - for us it is enough to know that he was our enemy, he rejoiced at our loss, and would have liked to see more of the same.

I guess it shows the inherent good sense of the poor and uneducated - Leiberman is the only tolerable one among the Dem. candidates.

Actually I very much doubt that such schemes would work.   Additionally there's the chance of getting caught.  But the election is very important - with four more years and a bigger Senate majority Bush could remake the country in some ways - at least the Supreme Court.  If Kerry wins, well, it'll be more corrupt muddling like the Clinton years, but the really sad thing will be what will happen to the Court.

I don't know what a practicant is, but Nixon didn't mess with the democratic system, he just burglarized and bugged.  Its not as if he rigged ballots or something.  Democrats do that in practically every inner city/indian reservation.

Edwards' has consistantly been the most economically left wing of the major candidates.

I hadn't actually noticed it until recently.  Truly scary stuff.

A better solution would be to reduce regulations, taxes, and other costs here at home.  Anytime people start appealing to 'Fairness' in economic issues I grab my wallet.  Fairness arguments always precede political theft, and that's exactly what 'fair trade' is - making me pay twice as much for some product just because I have to buy it from an American instead of another source.  I view trade is not so much about national policy as about individual freedom - I think I have a right to buy from whoever I wish.  More economic freedoms should be in the Bill of Rights.

Kerry is frightfully liberal - He would be the most liberal president since Johnson for gosh sakes!  Scary stuff.  Thank goodness there's a Republican House and Senate to hold him back, but I quail at the thought of the Supreme Court after a Kerry presidency.

[Middle-aged Europe]

1.  Your ideal theoretical candidate.   (100%) 
2.  Bush, President George W. - Republican   (82%) 
3.  Libertarian Candidate   (67%)
4.  Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat   (47%) 
5.  Phillips, Howard - Constitution   (44%) 
6.  Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat  (39%) 
7.  Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat   (39%) 
8.  Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat   (34%) 
9.  Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat   (22%) 
10.  Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat   (18%) 
11.  Green Party Candidate   (16%) 
12.  Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat   (14%) 
13.  Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law   (11%) 
14.  Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat   (8%)
15.  Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat   (7%)
16.  Socialist Candidate   (4%)
17.  LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat   (0%)   

France is quite socialist in an economic sense.  A few years of 'right wing' rule by Chirac doesn't wipe away centuries of centralized statist economic institutions, high taxes, welfare state, etc.  The French economy is burdened by state owned companies, high taxes, and highly regulated private industry that is also burdened with very pro-worker state interference.  Not as socialist as the U.S.S.R. was, but it'll do.

Your take on Cheney is interesting.. especially in contrast to my take on Edwards.  I think I just like people that maybe the majority of Americans don't like.  To me Cheney is a guy who tells it like it is - a Realist internationally, and a reliable pro-business/capital right winger.  He's without flair or trickery, he only has airtight arguments.  He's often described as having 'gravitas', but all that really means is he appeals to reason rather than emotion. 

An Edwards on the other hand is obviously peddling total fantasy, but with smarmy down home fakery - now to me thats creepy.  For me he's even creepier than Clinton, and that's saying something - its like with Clinton there was a note of irony to the whole act, and it always seemed he was self-aware.  He had a sort of wink in his manner that said 'I know you know I'm a fake' to the few intelligent viewers in the audience.  I think Edwards actually believes his own performance.

Not so - this is truly my analysis:  that the gay marriage issue helps Bush a lot.  Personally I don't care about the issue itself at all, I'm just happy that it will help Bush win certain swing states.