Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GravityBoy
"Change you can believe in" = horse poo.

"Same poo but from a black guy you must believe in" more like.

Honestly, is his race that much of a distraction for you?

If you could put forth an idea that didn't focus on his race, I think you would have far more credibility in any observation you might have.

The whole idea of his election was his race.

"Oh.. look it's different... it's change"... except it wasn't.

I wasn't the one distracted.

You say you weren't the one distracted, but instead of putting forth your concerns, or even a single concern, all you do is maintain that the reason why he was elected was his race.

If you can't articulate an actual idea, beyond his race, into a sentence, how can you be taken seriously? You're just ranting.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Aren't the nuclear agreement with Russia and the health reforms changes - why are republicans complaining so much if the latter isn't a profound change?

There all argue about windows dressing.

It's part of the game.

It makes voters think they have a choice.

There is no ideological difference bewteen the two parties.

Where is the socialist option for voters?

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Aren't the nuclear agreement with Russia and the health reforms changes - why are republicans complaining so much if the latter isn't a profound change?

There all argue about windows dressing.

It's part of the game.

It makes voters think they have a choice.

There is no ideological difference bewteen the two parties.

Where is the socialist option for voters?

Yeah, but isn't this more due to the political system than the parties or candidates being too similar?

Quote
treaclefingers
You say you weren't the one distracted, but instead of putting forth your concerns, or even a single concern, all you do is maintain that the reason why he was elected was his race.

You can not seriously argue that the "cool" idea of electing the first black guy as President was not part of the election.

Anyway.. that trick won't work again.

"Change we can believe in".

What change?

Oh yeah... enforced medical insurance... tell me someone is not making a lot of money out of that.

Obama serves his money masters the same as every other President did since JFK.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
treaclefingers
You say you weren't the one distracted, but instead of putting forth your concerns, or even a single concern, all you do is maintain that the reason why he was elected was his race.

You can not seriously argue that the "cool" idea of electing the first black guy as President was not part of the election.

Anyway.. that trick won't work again.

"Change we can believe in".

What change?

Oh yeah... enforced medical insurance... tell me someone is not making a lot of money out of that.

Obama serves his money masters the same as every other President did since JFK.

Obama has been trying to dig the US out of the hole that the previous president blasted you into. I'm sympathetic to both him, and everyone else in your country, dealing with the aftermath.

It's easier to blame the new guy because he presumably has more at stake than the guy that made the mess, and is gone, and I even can empathize with that.

I think the problem in initiating real change really emanates from the near impossibility in passing anything through your congress, than Obama not 'trying' hard enough.

I feel badly for your country, because even though you need change desperately, your system virtually institutionalizes the current circumstance.

It's not my country.

However the rest if the world has to deal the fallout.

"Obama has been trying to dig the US out of the hole that the previous president blasted you into. "

Really?

List me the times Obama has singled Bush out for criticism.

Quote
GravityBoy
It's not my country.

However the rest if the world has to deal the fallout.

"Obama has been trying to dig the US out of the hole that the previous president blasted you into. "

Really?

List me the times Obama has singled Bush out for criticism.

That is a fact, not an opinion, I presume.

Quote
GravityBoy
It's not my country.

However the rest if the world has to deal the fallout.

"Obama has been trying to dig the US out of the hole that the previous president blasted you into. "

Really?

List me the times Obama has singled Bush out for criticism.

For the first bolded point, my answer is, "then why are your knickers in such a twist?"

For the second bolded point, "are you kidding?" Get your own list. I've heard him bash Bush many times, but you can't just keep saying it over and over and be the president. Just because he doesn't wake up every morning and hold a press conference saying "Bush got us into this mess" doesn't mean that isn't what happened.

Under Obama, I would maintain that whatever country your from, (save perhaps Afghanistan) you have been less affected by the US, than under the previous administration.

Vidal believed that the two American political parties were really one and the same. They might pretend to have significant differences, but in reality they were both quite similar and it really didn't matter which party was in control.

Obviously that's changed now that the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religous/politcal fundamentalists. Our current situation is similar to that of many muslim nations, where a minority radical religous party attempts to impose their will on the majority of the population. The more radicalized they become, the more likely they will remain a minority party, so their only strategy is to try to thwart the majority party's effort to pass any legislation that might improve things. Success for them is having the country fail in almost evey way possible. They look at that as their best chance of getting elected. For them, it's party first and country second. They criticize Obama for the poor economy, yet they were the ones who caused the economy to collapse in the first place and they have done everything possible to keep it down.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Vidal believed that the two American political parties were really one and the same. They might pretend to have significant differences, but in reality they were both quite similar and it really didn't matter which party was in control.

Obviously that's changed now that the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religous/politcal fundamentalists. Our current situation is similar to that of many muslim nations, where a minority radical religous party attempts to impose their will on the majority of the population. The more radicalized they become, the more likely they will remain a minority party, so their only strategy is to try to thwart the majority party's effort to pass any legislation that might improve things. Success for them is having the country fail in almost evey way possible. They look at that as their best chance of getting elected. For them, it's party first and country second. They criticize Obama for the poor economy, yet they were the ones who caused the economy to collapse in the first place and they have done everything possible to keep it down.

I think Vidal saw very well that the leaders and representatives of both parties do belong to the same class and have the same interests.

In fact it's the big money that rules the country: they owe (finance) the political parties, they owe the media, they owe the entertainment industry, they control public opinion, they possess the economy. In fact we see the same in the whole western world, but also in capitalist China and Russia. A plutocratic oligarchy is really in power in almost every field of society.

Interesting SLATE article titled: "Stop Eulogizing Gore Vidal: He was a racist and an elitist, forever mourning the decline of his era of aristocratic privilege" >>>[www.slate.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-03 18:03 by Title5Take1.

Quote
kleermaker
In fact it's the big money that rules the country: they owe (finance) the political parties, they owe the media, they owe the entertainment industry, they control public opinion, they possess the economy. In fact we see the same in the whole western world, but also in capitalist China and Russia. A plutocratic oligarchy is really in power in almost every field of society.

This.

Black man or not.

It's still this.

I miss Christopher Hitchens much more than Gore Vidal. Both were left-wingers but Hitchens wasn't as full of hate as Gore Vidal was.


Still here is one good one from GV:

When Richard Adams called Vidal's work "meretricious", Vidal shot back: "Really? Well, meretricious to you and a happy new year."



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-03 19:01 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Vidal believed that the two American political parties were really one and the same. They might pretend to have significant differences, but in reality they were both quite similar and it really didn't matter which party was in control.

Obviously that's changed now that the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religous/politcal fundamentalists. Our current situation is similar to that of many muslim nations, where a minority radical religous party attempts to impose their will on the majority of the population. The more radicalized they become, the more likely they will remain a minority party, so their only strategy is to try to thwart the majority party's effort to pass any legislation that might improve things. Success for them is having the country fail in almost evey way possible. They look at that as their best chance of getting elected. For them, it's party first and country second. They criticize Obama for the poor economy, yet they were the ones who caused the economy to collapse in the first place and they have done everything possible to keep it down.

That is excellent commentary, thank you.

"the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religious/politcal fundamentalists"

Imho they're far less dangerous than the banksters who are destroying the US (and Europe too...)

Quote
dcba
"the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religious/politcal fundamentalists"

Imho they're far less dangerous than the banksters who are destroying the US (and Europe too...)

Correct. Remember that in the beginning of Obama's presidency the Democrats had the majority in both the House and the Senate. His own 'comrades' didn't support him, Obama didn't act convincingly and they didn't took advantage of that unique situation. Main reason: because many Democrats aren't even to discern from Conservatives in any way and because of the fact that Obama wanted a pact with moderate conservatives. Wishful thinking of course.

But as said, capital is ruling every country in the world.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba
"the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religious/politcal fundamentalists"

Imho they're far less dangerous than the banksters who are destroying the US (and Europe too...)

Correct. Remember that in the beginning of Obama's presidency the Democrats had the majority in both the House and the Senate. His own 'comrades' didn't support him, Obama didn't act convincingly and they didn't took advantage of that unique situation. Main reason: because many Democrats aren't even to discern from Conservatives in any way and because of the fact that Obama wanted a pact with moderate conservatives. Wishful thinking of course.

But as said, capital is ruling every country in the world.

You're both right I think. While the Republicans make this about Obama, whether or not he is 'really' American, and garbage like that, the country is continually being fleeced. Europe is in bed with that.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba
"the country is in the midst of being held hostage by religious/politcal fundamentalists"

Imho they're far less dangerous than the banksters who are destroying the US (and Europe too...)

Correct. Remember that in the beginning of Obama's presidency the Democrats had the majority in both the House and the Senate. His own 'comrades' didn't support him, Obama didn't act convincingly and they didn't took advantage of that unique situation. Main reason: because many Democrats aren't even to discern from Conservatives in any way and because of the fact that Obama wanted a pact with moderate conservatives. Wishful thinking of course.

But as said, capital is ruling every country in the world.

You're both right I think. While the Republicans make this about Obama, whether or not he is 'really' American, and garbage like that, the country is continually being fleeced. Europe is in bed with that.

Well said, treacle. Here we have similar things. It's painful and shameful at the same time.

who the hell cares about whether obama is american? If he were from mars and could get the unemployment rate down is all I care about.

I hate that nasty little smile of obama, to be honest

I wanted to read this topic because I'm interested in the late Gore Vidal.

Perhaps Treacle and Kleermaker can team up and start their own POLITICAL website.

Quote
stonesrule
I wanted to read this topic because I'm interested in the late Gore Vidal.

Perhaps Treacle and Kleermaker can team up and start their own POLITICAL website.

You could consider creating your own Gore Vidal website if that is your thang.

If this bothers you, get off your computer and go outside for a walk.

Treacle, anyone who has posted here...like you...more than 7600 times in two years..probably needs a walk more than I do.

Quote
stonesrule
Treacle, anyone who has posted here...like you...more than 7600 times in two years..probably needs a walk more than I do.

So you stalk as well as offer useless advice. You're a real catch.

.... always practise deep breathing when posting....



ROCKMAN

Quote
mitchflorida1
Your definition of "great" and mine are quite a bit different.

Gore Vidal tried to take credit for writing the screenplay for Ben-Hur but was actually thrown out on his ass when he tried to portray Ben-Hur as being gay.

anyway you look at it...he wore a dress throughout the whole movie anyway....and what's gayer than that?

Quote
Rip This

Quote
mitchflorida1
Your definition of "great" and mine are quite a bit different.

Gore Vidal tried to take credit for writing the screenplay for Ben-Hur but was actually thrown out on his ass when he tried to portray Ben-Hur as being gay.

anyway you look at it...he wore a dress throughout the whole movie anyway....and what's gayer than that?

Careful Rip This, you wouldn't want Mel Gibson to go all, well, Mel Gibson on you:

Any relation to Al Gore?

Quote
1cdog
Any relation to Al Gore?

Yes. They're cousins. Gore Vidal was born "Eugene Vidal." His grandfather was Senator Thomas Gore. Vidal took his grandfather's last name and made it his first. Probably because Vidal had political aspirations. Vidal ran unsuccessfully for public office.

When Al Gore was running for president, Gore Vidal was asked what he thought about a "President Al Gore." Gore Vidal said, "It's the wrong Gore."

That's why Vidal hated America so much. He wanted to be its president, and it didn't even elect him to the lesser offices he ran for. In his book SCREENING HISTORY he said, "All I've ever really liked to do is watch movies." Well, he wanted to be a movie star growing up. And America didn't make him one. Thus his wounded ego is why he hated America.

One of his novels has a character named "Eugene" (Vidal's real name) who is described as the one and only savior who could save the world.

He was a wounded narcissist.

Norman Mailer (who had dubious aspects, certainly, but I think is on the mark here) said Gore Vidal's main flaw as a writer was narcissism. MAILER: "The difficulty of writing in a narcissistic vein is that one's heroes are hermetically sealed in upon themselves. They may rant, rage and roar or stand aside burnishing their wit, but either way nothing dramatic passes between them and other persons in the novel. The result is inevitably a study of lonely decomposition. One may attempt to struggle against this. Hemingway, who was a terribly narcissistic writer, was forever violating the hermetic logic of his characters and so dropping them into love affairs which were unbelievable and all too often seriously maudlin. Certainly this is true of all the romances written after TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. Gore in his turn avoids this trap and remains true to the logic of his characters which is that they have a tendency to find less and less happening to them as their adventures continue. It is a truthful way of writing and one could say that Vidal was reflecting his time except that I've always found him disproportionately fond of the way in which his characters are isolated. If a man stops to pick a rose in his garden every morning, this is probably as respectable an action as taking a brisk ten-minute walk, but when the man who picks the roses says, `I am the only gardener in this part of the world who knows a good rose when he sees one,' then the beginning of a small distaste may be legitimate."
From the Letters of Norman Mailer article in the 55th Anniversary issue of PLAYBOY (Jan, 2009).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-04 20:03 by Title5Take1.

Quote
Title5Take1

Quote
1cdog
Any relation to Al Gore?

Yes. They're cousins. Gore Vidal was born "Eugene Vidal." His grandfather was Senator Thomas Gore. Vidal took his grandfather's last name and made it his first. Probably because Vidal had political aspirations. Vidal ran unsuccessfully for public office.

When Al Gore was running for president, Gore Vidal was asked what he thought about a "President Al Gore." Gore Vidal said, "It's the wrong Gore."

That's why Vidal hated America so much. He wanted to be its president, and it didn't even elect him to the lesser offices he ran for. In his book SCREENING HISTORY he said, "All I've ever really liked to do is watch movies." Well, he wanted to be a movie star growing up. And America didn't make him one. Thus his wounded ego is why he hated America.

One of his novels has a character named "Eugene" (Vidal's real name) who is described as the one and only savior who could save the world.

He was a wounded narcissist.

Norman Mailer (who had dubious aspects, certainly, but I think is on the mark here) said Gore Vidal's main flaw as a writer was narcissism. MAILER: "The difficulty of writing in a narcissistic vein is that one's heroes are hermetically sealed in upon themselves. They may rant, rage and roar or stand aside burnishing their wit, but either way nothing dramatic passes between them and other persons in the novel. The result is inevitably a study of lonely decomposition. One may attempt to struggle against this. Hemingway, who was a terribly narcissistic writer, was forever violating the hermetic logic of his characters and so dropping them into love affairs which were unbelievable and all too often seriously maudlin. Certainly this is true of all the romances written after TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. Gore in his turn avoids this trap and remains true to the logic of his characters which is that they have a tendency to find less and less happening to them as their adventures continue. It is a truthful way of writing and one could say that Vidal was reflecting his time except that I've always found him disproportionately fond of the way in which his characters are isolated. If a man stops to pick a rose in his garden every morning, this is probably as respectable an action as taking a brisk ten-minute walk, but when the man who picks the roses says, `I am the only gardener in this part of the world who knows a good rose when he sees one,' then the beginning of a small distaste may be legitimate."
From the Letters of Norman Mailer article in the 55th Anniversary issue of PLAYBOY (Jan, 2009).

It seems you actually suggest: everything Vidal has said and written is worthless because he was "a wounded narcissist". That's an archetypical fallacy (and psychology of the cold ground, as we say here). Even if he was the biggest psychopath or America-hater (whatever that is: please explain) you can imagine, even then his arguments, analyses and observations have to be considered on their own merits. In other words: it's totally irrelevant how the psyche of Vidal was like in relation to his work.

They say Van Gogh was insane. But that doesn't automatically mean that his paintings are good or bad.

Or more relevant on this site: most members of the Rolling Stones are selfish jerks, but that doesn't say anything of the music they've made.

Quote
Rip This

Quote
mitchflorida1
Your definition of "great" and mine are quite a bit different.

Gore Vidal tried to take credit for writing the screenplay for Ben-Hur but was actually thrown out on his ass when he tried to portray Ben-Hur as being gay.

anyway you look at it...he wore a dress throughout the whole movie anyway....and what's gayer than that?

That's so funny I forgot to laugh. A toga is not a dress. duh