What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

CPAC Conference (1 Viewer)

I feel it’s important to note that the keynote speaker at a major political conference was once the recipient of a wrestling finishing move on TV.

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
Sea Duck said:
CPAC straw poll winners by year:

2005: Rudy Giuliani
2006: George Allen
2007: Mitt Romney
2008: Mitt Romney
2009: Mitt Romney
2010: Ron Paul
2011: Ron Paul
2012: Mitt Romney
2013: Rand Paul
2014: Rand Paul
2015: Rand Paul
2016: Ted Cruz
Expand  
Click to expand...
Do you have their numbers?
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Political_Action_Conference

CPAC straw poll winners by year:

2005: Rudy Giuliani 19% (Condi Rice: 18%)
2006: George Allen 22% (John McCain: 20%)
2007: Mitt Romney 21% (Rudy Giuliani: 17%)
2008: Mitt Romney 35% (John McCain: 34%)
2009: Mitt Romney 20% (Bobby Jindal: 14%)
2010: Ron Paul 31% (Mitt Romney: 22%)
2011: Ron Paul 30% (Mitt Romney: 23%)
2012: Mitt Romney 38% (Rick Santorum: 31%)
2013: Rand Paul 25% (Marco Rubio: 23%)
2014: Rand Paul 31% (Ted Cruz: 11%)
2015: Rand Paul 26% (Scott Walker: 21%)
2016: Ted Cruz 40% (Marco Rubio: 30%; Trump finished 3rd with 15%)

Also notable: in 1992, the winner was Pat Buchanan (foreshadowing HW Bush's loss).

 
Sea Duck said:
She does not appear to be a "trained" singer. Just a teenage girl who likes to sing songs and upload them, not unlike millions of other girls.

This situation is exactly why it's often a bad idea to thrust amateurs into the spotlight. It's really not fair to that girl to expose her to the type of criticism that she's been getting.
Click to expand...
Well, she’s apparently in college and posts herself singing on YouTube (with a fair amount of self-congratulation) so it’s not like she was an unwilling participant. But yeah, people should exercise a bit more discretion when choosing someone to sing the National Anthem given the high degree of difficulty. That said, after getting curious and watching a few of her videos, I’ll say that she has an amazing vibrato. One of the better ones I’ve heard. But she has major trouble staying on pitch. 

P.S.  I’ve performed the National Anthem publicly at events before, both as a teen and as an adult. And if I had #### the bed, I’d expect to get criticized/ridiculed. As a singer, that is the deal you make when you decide to take that tune on. Still, I guess people have been doing remixes and memes and stuff. I agree that’s overboard and mean. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kal El said:
I feel it’s important to note that the keynote speaker at a major political conference was once the recipient of a wrestling finishing move on TV.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we know. We saw him put it on Hillary Clinton in 2016.  So not only was he recipient he was also a giver.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing but sympathy for that girl. 

Also have sympathy for the person at CPAC charged with finding talent. They cannot be easy. 

 
I was at a Knicks game like  25 years ago where the singer totally forgot the words and stopped in the middle.  She was Jamaican or something and had just learned the song like the day before.

ETA: couldn’t find it on YouTube but there are a bunch of other examples there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I was at a Knicks game like  25 years ago where the singer totally forgot the words and stopped in the middle.  She was Jamaican or something and had just learned the song like the day before.

ETA: couldn’t find it on YouTube but there are a bunch of other examples there.
Click to expand...
Yep, many a singer has been defeated by the good ole Star Spangled Banner. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Nothing but sympathy for that girl. 

Also have sympathy for the person at CPAC charged with finding talent. They cannot be easy. 
Click to expand...
It should have been super easy. Plenty of great singers would have lined up for that opportunity. But a word to the wise - when you are organizing an event such as this, you can’t delegate the task of finding a singer for the national anthem to just anyone. It needs to be someone who knows what they are doing. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I was at a Knicks game like  25 years ago where the singer totally forgot the words and stopped in the middle.  She was Jamaican or something and had just learned the song like the day before.

ETA: couldn’t find it on YouTube but there are a bunch of other examples there.
Click to expand...
Maurice Cheeks comes to mind.  Only good thing he ever did as a coach was bail out a girl who forgot the words and froze. 

 
bigbottom said:
I know nothing about her and am not suggesting she’s special needs. I was speculating that she may have been selected for a reason other than her voice, for example she is special needs or perhaps because she performed some heroic act by saving someone’s life. Both would be reasons for which I would feel bad about criticizing her singing. She also may have been selected because she is related to one of the organizers. I wouldn’t feel bad about that. One thing I’m pretty certain of though is that she wasn’t chosen because she is amazing at performing the national anthem. That’s why I’m expecting to hear some other reason that she was chosen. Maybe she won a lottery contest or they just picked a random person out of the crowd. 

p.s. I’m guessing you didn’t need the above explanation, but just in case. 
Click to expand...
Ya , I was mostly jerking your chain after you swooped in to rescue Tim yesterday.

But I’m guessing you knew that already 

Cheers 🍻

 
Sea Duck said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Political_Action_Conference

CPAC straw poll winners by year:

2005: Rudy Giuliani 19% (Condi Rice: 18%)
2006: George Allen 22% (John McCain: 20%)
2007: Mitt Romney 21% (Rudy Giuliani: 17%)
2008: Mitt Romney 35% (John McCain: 34%)
2009: Mitt Romney 20% (Bobby Jindal: 14%)
2010: Ron Paul 31% (Mitt Romney: 22%)
2011: Ron Paul 30% (Mitt Romney: 23%)
2012: Mitt Romney 38% (Rick Santorum: 31%)
2013: Rand Paul 25% (Marco Rubio: 23%)
2014: Rand Paul 31% (Ted Cruz: 11%)
2015: Rand Paul 26% (Scott Walker: 21%)
2016: Ted Cruz 40% (Marco Rubio: 30%; Trump finished 3rd with 15%)

Also notable: in 1992, the winner was Pat Buchanan (foreshadowing HW Bush's loss).
Click to expand...
The winners are actually a bit higher than I expected, but still nobody near 50%

 
I can't take Roger Waters even remotely seriously, I guess. Never have. Never got The Wall or any of that rot.
 
Okay, maybe it's just me but I have a different definition of what "evil" and "sinister" mean.

What Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot did was "evil" and "sinister". Simply taking another position than one I disagree with, to me, is not "evil" or "sinister". I mean, c'mon. We get on the left for redefining the definition of words like "woman", this seems to be the same case here.

Unless I'm missing something where Waters advocated for mass genocide somewhere?
 
BladeRunner said:
Okay, maybe it's just me but I have a different definition of what "evil" and "sinister" mean.

What Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot did was "evil" and "sinister". Simply taking another position than one I disagree with, to me, is not "evil" or "sinister". I mean, c'mon. We get on the left for redefining the definition of words like "woman", this seems to be the same case here.

Unless I'm missing something where Waters advocated for mass genocide somewhere?
Click to expand...
He is advocating support for Putin...with phrases like Ukrainian Occupied Territories.
You don't have to shift to the extremes of evil and sinister to downplay stuff like that.
 
BladeRunner said:
What Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot did was "evil" and "sinister".
Click to expand...

I'd say that the invasion of a peaceful country that is no threat to your borders while killing them in the name of making them your citizens is mass murder and is evil. It's not really that hard to call it evil when one thinks about the steps Putin has taken, the disinformation he's tried to spread, and what he has done it in the name of.

It's almost textbook definition evil and sinister, or those words don't mean anything and can't be applied to anything.
 
rockaction said:
BladeRunner said:
What Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot did was "evil" and "sinister".
Click to expand...

I'd say that the invasion of a peaceful country that is no threat to your borders while killing them in the name of making them your citizens is mass murder and is evil. It's not really that hard to call it evil when one thinks about the steps Putin has taken, the disinformation he's tried to spread, and what he has done it in the name of.

It's almost textbook definition evil and sinister, or those words don't mean anything and can't be applied to anything.
Click to expand...
I think I made this point in one of the Ukraine threads: Putin may not be equivalent to Hitler '44, when he was actively implementing the Final Solution, but there are a lot of scary parallels to Hitler '39, when he launched the invasion of Poland. It's the first time in my life where the Hitler comparisons don't feel hyperbolic.
 
rockaction said:
BladeRunner said:
What Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot did was "evil" and "sinister".
Click to expand...

I'd say that the invasion of a peaceful country that is no threat to your borders while killing them in the name of making them your citizens is mass murder and is evil. It's not really that hard to call it evil when one thinks about the steps Putin has taken, the disinformation he's tried to spread, and what he has done it in the name of.

It's almost textbook definition evil and sinister, or those words don't mean anything and can't be applied to anything.
Click to expand...

Hang on a second - I think you and @ignatiusjreilly might be confusing what I was talking about. I was talking about Waters, not Putin.

Or maybe I'm confused? I thought you were calling Waters "evil" and "sinister".
 
BladeRunner said:
Or maybe I'm confused? I thought you were calling Waters "evil" and "sinister".
Click to expand...

I think that's the sticking point here. No, not Waters. Putin is evil and sinister and there's no need for CPAC or anybody affiliated to be sending out tweets that acquiesce to his demands. That's also evil and sinister because they know what he's doing. They're trying to write an alternative history (or alternative current events) for what he's doing, and that is also evil and sinister because it aids and abets the action and deliberately spreads disinformation about what is amounting to a slaughter of innocents.

It's like having knowledge of The Final Solution and justifying it on some weak isolationist or foreign policy grounds. We have to acknowledge what's being done, even if we don't get involved.
 
And yes, I hold CPAC to a higher standard than Waters. massraider points out the weirdly obvious -- Waters is allowed to become an old, hateful person. But CPAC is a definitive arm of the conservative wing of the American right, and represents an outward political position that will indeed likely get codified into policy because they know that they're bellwethers for the Republican Party. Those members should be a lot more discerning in how they handle and label public policy positions. They're soon to be approved by members of our government.
 
Whoever thought I would writing about CPAC being evil. I always just thought they were stupidly extreme or young cranks that just needed a little line to toe. Or cow to tow. Something like that. Just that they needed to be reeled in.

They need to be straight-up made to stand in the back of the class with their face to the wall until they prove they can sit at their desk. Or banished from the political spectrum by braver conservatives, if the metaphor is lost on anybody.
 
The Z Machine said:
Yeah, where are those folks? I don't see them.
Click to expand...

They seem to have died with William F. Buckley, Jr., which is something I feared would happen. Everybody knew who he was and the unifying power he tended to wield among the intellectual right. Now it's all about grants and money, and it seems like Peter Thiel and others actively support these intellectual ****mongers.

People like LIz Cheney and a few others are the last gasp, and they're getting beaten and swallowed up by the unwashed.
 
rockaction said:
And yes, I hold CPAC to a higher standard than Waters. massraider points out the weirdly obvious -- Waters is allowed to become an old, hateful person. But CPAC is a definitive arm of the conservative wing of the American right, and represents an outward political position that will indeed likely get codified into policy because they know that they're bellwethers for the Republican Party. Those members should be a lot more discerning in how they handle and label public policy positions. They're soon to be approved by members of our government.
Click to expand...
David Gilmour, for one, would have no problem with you referring to Roger Waters as evil and sinister.
 
rockaction said:
And yes, I hold CPAC to a higher standard than Waters. massraider points out the weirdly obvious -- Waters is allowed to become an old, hateful person. But CPAC is a definitive arm of the conservative wing of the American right, and represents an outward political position that will indeed likely get codified into policy because they know that they're bellwethers for the Republican Party. Those members should be a lot more discerning in how they handle and label public policy positions. They're soon to be approved by members of our governmentth.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. I think the CPAC folks are so used to being the guys yelling insults from the peanut gallery, they haven't realized they're now on the main stage. Hell, the head of CPAC is married to Trump's former comms director. And so, while it would always be offensive to be pro-Putin, the consequences of doing so when they have this level of influence are much more serious.
 
cockroach said:
IDK, the motto around here has been to take people at their word and not assume some implied meaning.
Click to expand...

Not defending CPAC, but words mean things only in context. I didn't get the memo to take people at their word minus the context of the situation.

To be clear, it's quite clear what they're saying and within what context. It's about Jan. 6th and the subsequent prosecution of the actors involved. It's a solidarity thing. It's also completely wrong-headed, stupid, and shows a complete lack of understanding about free elections and voters choosing one candidate resoundingly over another. It's an olive branch to the hustlers trying to sell you that Trump won the election, and it implicitly condones political violence.

But it doesn't urge anybody to be a domestic terrorist on their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top