Customer Discussions > Songs From The Silver Screen forum

The Political Thread! --for Jackie fans who want to share their political views with other Jackie fans

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 16, 2012 9:08:51 PM PDT
Ehkzu says:
Because of Jackie's music and presentation (and family), many of her fans are older people. And older people tend to be more political than younger people.

This shows up in the zingers such people add to various threads about Jackie. But I think it would be better if we built a mosh pit for such discussions--here, I hope.

Most political comments I've seen on Jackie's forums are conservative. Some are liberal. Fewer are centrist. And of course many of Jackie's fans are apolitical.

So this thread should have been started by a conservative, but it wasn't, so I'll fire the first shot:

Republicans say they want less government and more personal freedom. They don't want their taxes sent to support freeloaders and bums. They believe America is a uniquely wonderful country, and no American president should run around apologizing for it. They see America as a country where anyone can get ahead if he's willing to work hard and play by the rules. And they see America as a predominantly Christian nation whose people come from all over but whee a majority are of Anglo-Saxon background. They oppose discrimination based on race or ethnicity--not to favor whites, not to favor blacks, not to favor Hispanics. They believe we shouldn't hand out American citizenship to anyone who asks. They should be someone we want. They believe in our right to privacy, to gun ownership, to freedom of speech.

They also believe abortion should be outlawed, though they do not agree on how total the ban should be. They don't believe homosexuality should be outlawed but homosexual marriage should be (except for younger Republicans, for whom it tends to be far less important).

They regard Democrats as espousing values alien to America's traditions. They regard "Democrat" as more or less equating with "European Socialist" dependent on the State for everything, to be paid for by Republicans. They regard president Obama as possibly the worst president in American history. Most would stoutly deny that they have a racist bone in their body--that the Democratic Party is the home of those who look for racial preferences, not them.

When my wife and I married 30 years ago I was a liberal Republican. Today's Republicans conveniently forget that such a creature ever existed, but in fact they represented a large percentage of Republicans once upon a time. Today's Libertarian Republicans bear some resemblance to the old Liberal Republicans, except for their standard-bearer Ron Paul favoring outlawing abortion, when Liberal Republicans actually suipported abortion because they could tell an embryo from a baby and because they were worried about people in the lower classes and nonwhite immigrant groups outbreeding Anglos--much as today's Israelis are worried about Arab birthrates eventually making Isrrael an Arab country through demographic conquest.

To me the tragedy is that today's Republican leadership has very little in common with today'd Republican rank and file. They aren't religious for the most part (with some fervent exceptions). Their fortunes and their lives have become utterly decoupled from the fortunes and lives or ordinary Americans. They live in separated, gated communities, If the country does badly they make money or get bailed out by taxpayers if they don't. If they country does well they appropriate all the increase in national wealth for themselves, such that middle class American income has stagnated for the last 40 years even as our GNP has soared.

Remember the telephone conversation tapes of Enron employees bragging to each other how they'd shafted widows and orphans with their manipulations of power rates? I imagine the GOP's leadership makes similar jokes among themselves, before they go out to campaign and pretend they're exactly like the GOP rank and file, only richer.

Meanwhile they're brainwashed the GOP rank and file.
"Brainwash" is a harsh term. By using I mean that now, for the first time in history, one party can provide its followers with its party line on a major TV cable channel, across nearly all AM talk radio stations, with a number of national newspapers (WSJ, Washington Times, Daily Post), and with a vast horde of Internet websites, some real, some Astroturf--all backed up by a number of fake think tanks (fake because their thinkers know what conclusions they are expected to draw, unlike what happens in a real thinktank), and all backed by a bubbling fountain of money paying for it all.

In this way a Republican can get all his news--especially political news--from a wide variety of media and sources that all say the same things--things which neutral factchecking websites say are often outright factual lies. Not things reflecting a conservative viewpoint. Lies. But lies that all dovetail and pander to people's fears and prejudices, and which explain away in clear, simple, terms, everything anyone says that contradicts them.

So they dwell in an alternate reality I call the Republiverse.

And that's why I say they're brainwashed.

Islamist jihadi get brainwashed by Islamist websites that work the same way on the process level, firing up Muslims's sense of grievance with totally one-sided propaganda videos and harangues, then seeking to isolate prospective jihadis from moderate Muslim influences, telling them such people are MINO.

And in this way Republican rank and file are the most betrayed by the GOP leadership. Not Democrats. Not independents. Republicans. Because the GOP leadership doesn't pretend to share the values Democrats espouse, but they do pretend to be working for and believing like GOP rank and file--only they don't.

I tell Republican friends at church that President Obama is a moderate pragmatist and they snort in derision. For them I might as well have said the Earth is flat, or babies are brought by storks. If they ever ventured outside their Republibubble they'd know that Americans who actually are "European Socialists" are deeply disappointed in Obama for continually trying to compromise with the Republicans, who see compromise as immoral. If anything the American Left sees Obama as a closeted Republican.

They see the Affordable Care Act as something radical, when it's just a very modest tweak of the current system, which 90% of Democrats want to see replaced by a single payer system.

They see Obama as a failure abroad, when he has been one of our most successful president in foreign affairs.

They seem as being responsible for their stagnant wages and job insecurity, when in fact the President is their best friend in Washington, while the ones they think are their best friends are the foxes drooling at the chance of getting back in charge of the henhouse.

Mitt Romney tells huge whopping factual lies every day he campaigns, as verified by and The economic plan he will get if he wins will make him personally hundreds of thousands of dollars--probably many millions, and lower his tax rate from half what middle class Americans normally pay to a quarter of that or less.

The tax plan Obama is stumping for would lose him money personally.

So you should demand that Mitt Romney sign a binding contract to not profit personally from any changes in the tax code if he wins the Presidency--that he'll donate all the increase back to the Treasury, so that, in the exact words of his faith, he "avoids not just sin but the appearance of sin."

And if he doesn't reveal more than his last tax return, we should assume he paid no taxes at all in some years. He demands that we take him at his word. I don't take any politician at his word. And since he has been caught lying repeatedly, why not about this?

One example: President Obama quoted a Republican in a campaign speech a year or so ago. Romney used the quote as if Obama said it himself, when it was absolutely clear that he was quoting a Republican. When called out for doing this by reporters he laughed at them--and to this day his official website still retains the lie.

Mitt Romney obviously believes he is above the rules all the Republicans I know live by.

Obama lies and spins frequently himself. I'm not portraying him as a saint. But Romney is in no position to complain about the other side lying. They're tweedledee and tweedledum that way.

So Republicans should vote for Obama if they're true to their own values, actually. Republicans know that when Republicans control both Congress and the Presidency they spend wildly--as do Democrats. The only check we'll have on GOP spending during the next term is a Democratic President.

I voted for a Republican governor for California for exactly the same reason--our Democratic legislature couldn't control itself. Now it's time for Republicans to do the same.

Posted on Aug 20, 2012 11:04:24 AM PDT
Ehkzu says:
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 10:09:20 AM PDT on the general discussion thread,

J. Korns says:
T Rickars says "Is funny politics a oxymoron"

No, an oxymoron is "Good government".

My reply:

No, the oxymoron is "conservative."

At least since its meaning morphed into being the same thing as "anarchist."

Sure didn't mean that when I was a kid in the Eisenhower era and he build the national highway system--and the highest marginal tax rate was 90%.

Posted on Aug 20, 2012 11:08:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 20, 2012 11:57:54 AM PDT
Ehkzu says:
A week ago this zinger got tossed into the general discussion thread:

Posted on Aug 13, 2012 9:53:31 PM PDT
DoctorMusic says:
I don't know about that Ehkzu. I think for the most part fans are happy that Jackie has an influential friend. Not sure it goes much beyond that. You can like what someone does for you or another person and still feel indifferent about them. For example if president Obama resigned tomorrow he wouldn't gain a place in my heart but I would be very happy about what he did. I'd still think his character, leadership and politics stunk....

I responded with this (again on the main discussion thread):

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:08:48 PM PDT
Last edited by you on Aug 16, 2012 8:09:34 PM PDT
Ehkzu says:
re: political zingers

Folks, political commentators are saying this is the most brutally partisan presidential election season they've ever witnessed--on both sides.

For people who are not especially political, the back-and-forth argy-bargy between partisan Democrats and Republicans has already become painful for them--especially since it's been seeping into unrelated areas. Go to a forum about growing cucumbers and I'm sure you'll find political zingers here and there.

For people who are political but are not of your persuasion, zingers from the other side in a nonpolitical forum are highly unwelcome, since they can't be responded to without dragging the forum sideways, to the detriment of the real topic--in this case the music of Jackie Evancho, who, with her family, has studiously avoided anything smacking of partisanship.

For people who are political and of your persuasion, zingers here should still be inappropriate. A publisher of mine once had an Arabian horse breeders magazine that ran an article about children dying of cancer getting a chance to ride horses. It spawned a bunch of subscription cancellations. Not because it wasn't true or wasn't heartwrenching--it was and it was. But because when they picked up a copy of this magazine that wasn't what they'd signed up for.

I've seen discussions of Jackie on a variety of political websites (both sides), and there I'm sure zingers of that side's persuation would fit right in.

But here it's like someone shaking hands with you on a dry day just after they walked across a carpet--they mean to express friendship but instead they zap you with a little jolt of static electricity.

And nobody I know likes to get zapped.

I believe it helps Jackie the most if we bite our tongues about politics on forums devoted to Jackie. That's been the great thing about the Redford thread becoming a safe place to talk about politics. Maybe we should start one here just so no one feels frustrated at not feeling free to get their partisan points out there. I have a political blog I use for this purpose. Might be worth considering for those who have a lot to say about politics.

Otherwise isn't it reasonable to assume that we'll garner the most fans for Jackie if we make sure Republicans, Democrats, and I-don't-cares all feel welcome here?

To which Doc responded thusly:

In reply to your post on Aug 16, 2012 10:31:35 PM PDT
DoctorMusic says:

At the risk of sounding obsequious, I love reading all your posts Ehkzu but why are you (and others) still bringing up the political topic discussion again? I think we all agree that politics should not be discussed in here. It would seem to me that just an occasional reminder to that effect (and perhaps posting the Redford link thread again) should quickly squelch any future attempts to bring politics up again. If not, ignoring the post altogether should result in little, if any, further discussions of the political nature starting up and/or continuing very far. 

By the way, it says you are replying one of my earlier posts. That post has nothing to do with political zingers. It was my "Sumi Jo having a place in our hearts" post. 


You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
8 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?  Yes No
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 10:34:20 PM PDT
Ehkzu says:
Posted on Aug 13, 2012 9:53:31 PM PDT
DoctorMusic says:
..."For example if president Obama resigned tomorrow he wouldn't gain a place in my heart but I would be very happy about what he did. I'd still think his character, leadership and politics stunk. "
Edit this post | Permalink
4 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion.
In reply to your post on Aug 16, 2012 10:35:52 PM PDT
DoctorMusic says:
Did you think that was a political zinger? LOL It was not!


re: "much ado about nothing" comment on the general discussion thread

Suppose most of Jackie's fans were leftists who frequently expressed their contempt for Governor Romney and Chairman Ryan and their political party in the midst of discussions about Jackie, and expressed that contempt not even as something that could be debated, but was simply taken as fact. Are you seriously trying to tell me that this wouldn't bother you? That it wouldn't make you start thinking about looking elsewhere for discussions about Jackie?

Posted on Aug 20, 2012 11:35:17 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Sep 5, 2012 9:32:16 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 4:21:27 PM PDT
J. Korns says:

"Government Efficiency"
"Central Intelligence"

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 5:17:46 PM PDT
@J. Korns:

Don't forget "Military Intelligence" or "Military Justice".

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 5:43:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 20, 2012 5:48:50 PM PDT

As a former conservative Democrat who campaigned in '72 for McGovern and more recently a liberal Republican leaning toward the so-called Tea Party, I mostly heartily agree with your assessment of today's Republican leadership; I have NO interest in the Millionare Mormon. But as a born Southerner and Texan I can't stomach what now passes for "leadership" in the White House. I could scarcely vote for it without thinking of how my illiterate Alabama G-G-G-Grandfather who spent 4 years ( 1862 - 65 ) in Lowery's Brigade of Cleburne's Division of the Army of Tennessee would think.

My own personal awakening dates from how "your" great leader, Landslide Lyndon, betrayed his fellow Democrats in his headlong attempt to channel his own Hero, FDR, in creating the Socialist Great Society. Of course, to truly emulate FDR he needed to also be a Great War President, which meant he needed a war! And so he tried to kill me ( unsuccessfully, thank God! ) and the rest of our generation, succeeding eventually to the tune of 50,000+, along with countless Vietnamese.

As far as I'm concerned, right as you may be, a vote for the "bleeding hearts" is a vote for everything Lyndon and the illegitimate, self-styled "mutt" Obama stand for. And when you think about it, just what kind of name is "Barack Hussien Obama" for an American President? Washington - Adams - Jefferson - Madison - Jackson - Tyler - Polk - Lincoln - Grant - McKinley -Roosevelt - Taft - Wilson - and OBAMA????

Posted on Aug 21, 2012 2:22:45 AM PDT
Trick1 says:
Money power and wall street, Frontline, all 4 parts available.

Posted on Sep 5, 2012 9:33:19 PM PDT
Trick1 says:
USA 16.? trillion in debt, here is a way to wrap your mind around 1 trillion.
Andromeda Galaxy also known as M31, observations by the Spitzer Space Telescope revealed that M31 contains one trillion stars at least twice the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, which is estimated to be 200-400 billion.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2012 9:51:13 AM PDT
Rickky says:

Posted on Sep 16, 2012 6:36:46 PM PDT
The only thought I wish to add to this forum is that this is a horrible idea for a forum:-)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2012 7:10:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 16, 2012 7:14:51 PM PDT
Rickky says:
I think it is a great ideal as everyone that comes here knows that people are stating their political views and other agenda such as science, movies, and many other subjects. Many of of us have posted on the same sites for years under different names. But be warned if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. I have seen on some of Jackie's amazon sites people get upset if someone doesn't agree with them or make any little remark they don't like. One of the reasons I like "Reader" is no matter how many people are arguing against him he doesn't get upset and swears he will never post again. Ehkzu and Reader may have almost exact oppisite political positions as myself but we do share the same interest in science, and other subjects, the same with many that will post here. Just depends on the subject that comes up.

Posted on Sep 16, 2012 7:41:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 16, 2012 8:43:39 PM PDT
Rickky says:
Has anyone been keeping an eye on the middle east, Israel, Iran making new threats. We now have three carrier groups there (almost unheard of) with each having more jets than Iran. Britain has it's most powerful ships there now. I am even wondering if Obama is trying to look like he is distancing himself from Netanyahu because he knows something big is in the works. While we are watching the middle east things are heating up between Japan and China (no love lost between those two nations). Well the good news is the stock market is going up we just had to promise to print 40 billion a month to buy mortgage-backed securities until ?.

Posted on Sep 17, 2012 10:41:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 17, 2012 10:42:54 AM PDT
Rickky says:
Why is Obama's administration insisting that the uproar in the middle east is the fault of a video and not planed as many leaders in countries of origin say, even common sense says this was well organized, it Even happened on 9-11 (is this just a coincidence) . Do I hear an assault on our 1st amendment in the making.

Posted on Sep 17, 2012 10:34:10 PM PDT
Rickky says:
'Warp drive' may be more feasible than thought, scientists say

Read more:

Only trouble is you have to be able to get the exotic mater from space to be able to make the engine which could be light years away to begin with. If their theory is correct then why haven't we been visited by other beings if they exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 5:12:52 AM PDT
DFWTexan42 says:
@Ricky- Re: Space Aliens

Them visiting us assumes-

1)They are close enough, even with Warp Drive.
2)We are considered interesting enough to visit or contact.

Compared to most Galactic Civilizations, we probably have not even reached the grunting savage stage, yet.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 8:57:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 18, 2012 9:08:21 AM PDT
Rickky says:
3) They existed in our time frame (earth 4.6 billion years old, universe 16.4 billion years old).
4) They have not picked up a radio single from us that would point them in our direction. (travel between stars would take so long that they would probably look for some type of single for intelligent life. This theory I like as we been sending out radio waves for over 100 years so this is how far we have reached in our own galaxy.

Edit: That would also be the area that you could have covered if you had a ships that could reach the speed of light in 100 years of travel.
The most current estimates guess that there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars. A recent German supercomputer simulation put that number even higher: 500 billion. In other words, there could be a galaxy out there for every star in the Milky Way.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 9:35:41 AM PDT
Rickky, A person on a spaceship travelling at the speed of light would be able to travel around the universe in a few minutes,because time stops at the speed of light,but the home planet would cease to exist!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 11:44:35 AM PDT
Rickky says:
Aurora Borealis
Also you would weigh as much as the universe also if you got to light speed.
But that is what make this new theory so great as they would not be traveling in spaces as we know it but bending the space fabric. So all bets are off about the effects to real time.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 11:52:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 18, 2012 12:02:11 PM PDT
Rickky says:
Also you would have infinite weight at the speed of light. But that is what makes this new theory so great, as you are not traveling in space as we know it, but through the fabric of space so all normal laws of physics need not apply.

We have no ideal what is in the universe as they now discovered that only 4.6% of the universe is made of mater as we know it, gas, solids, liquids, and plasma.

Posted on Sep 18, 2012 1:40:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 18, 2012 3:07:07 PM PDT
Haydon says:
I didn't like the way George Lucas updated the original Stars Wars from 1977 using so much CGI (extra aliens, beasts and even scene extensions). IMO it detracts from the effectiveness of the movie as it is obvious these aliens are not real.
Why is there no level playing field here? Why can't we have a choice of the 1977 version restored using the latest color/sound restoration technology that has now become the norm when re-releasing classic movies? It's ok if you liked the "updated" versions. This is available as part of the whole Star Wars saga. So why isn't the original (non CGI) available also? We should have choice.
The Battle of the River Plate is dated but still effective because it used real war ships. If it was remade today it would be all obvious CGI. I doubt it would be remade as there's not so much interest in WW2 sea battles as there was in the fifties, the era of many good black and white movies.
Many young people won't even watch a black and white movie now. So we have movie classics "colorized". How long before they colorize Citizen Kane? Why not give the Mona Lisa a more modern hair style, something that would appeal to a younger audience? Art should be left as it was when the painter put his brush down, apart from maybe choice of a good frame. But how many art thefts have also involved the frame?
If art has to be updated, it should be the original artist doing it (impossible in da Vinci's case obviously) and some may say George Lucas, as the original artist, has every right to do with his art what he pleases. I say the Stars Wars movies and their audiences are a partnership. For a long partnership both parties have to be happy with the terms. In this case I say listen to the many Star Wars fans who want a fully restored version of the original movie.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 4:20:23 PM PDT
Rickky says:
I am going to wait and see what they do with the remake of Godzilla,

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 4:50:31 PM PDT
Haydon says:
Nothing beats a good old paper mache monster or a "50ft dinosaur" running amok in a model village. It's time for a comeback of the man in a gorilla suit.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2012 5:20:10 PM PDT
scitech says:
re: Godzilla
I don't know what looks more phoney; the toy tanks of the 50's version or the computer generated junk that we see today. The only difference is the amount of money wasted on today's version.
Did you see Pearl Harbor? The planes , computer generated, were totally phoney looking while in Tora,Tora,Tora they actually used real planes. (A couple of guys almost got killed when a plane went out of control on the ground. They kept that scene in the movie.)
This is one reason I really dislike the action films today that use all this computer generated nonsense. Even the original Star Wars used actual models. Where is Ray Harryhausen when you need him?

Posted on Sep 18, 2012 8:58:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 18, 2012 9:09:00 PM PDT
Trick1 says:
You know times are tough when dogs are panhandling.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 144 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  55
Total posts:  3597
Initial post:  Aug 16, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 21, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Songs From The Silver Screen
Songs From The Silver Screen by Jackie Evancho (Audio CD - 2012)
4.7 out of 5 stars   (562)