Rebellin positive at olympics
Comments
-
johnfinch wrote:DaveyL wrote:This thread has certianly confirmed my long-held suspicion that aurelio's main reason for disliking Armstrong is not doping (after all plenty of others were at it and people like Ullrich and Indurain also made pots of cash out of their success) but Armstrong's perceived (by aurelio) political hue (and that of his supporters).
LA is self-described "left of centre", from an interview he did with the Grauniad. Sorry, I can't supply you with a link.
I know he is. That's why I put "perceived (by aurelio)" - his perceived use of success and wealth to trample down the weak little guy fits very nicely with aurelio's political leanings and I suspect it is that, more than any alleged doping, that is the problem...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Well I for one have found it an illuminating and educational discussion. Keep up the good work boys.
PS. To those who don't want to read about doping scandals, the thread title is, by and large, a fair indicator of content. Just don't click when the little arrow is pointing at it. Easy. :roll:Dan0 -
flattythehurdler wrote:Well I for one have found it an illuminating and educational discussion. Keep up the good work boys.
PS. To those who don't want to read about doping scandals, the thread title is, by and large, a fair indicator of content. Just don't click when the little arrow is pointing at it. Easy. :roll:
Couldn't agree more. While "illuminating and educational" I also found it "compelling" to read.
Even though I complain about the complainers most of the time(someone has to do it)
this has been a good one.
Dennis Noward0 -
If this were true, don't forget that Armstrong's 'left of centre' would be from the perspective of an American, and a Texan to boot, which probably puts him somewhere to the right of the Tories in the UK. After all, in the US there is no such thing as 'the left' just the right (Democrats) and the far right (Republicans)johnfinch wrote:LA is self-described "left of centre", from an interview he did with the Grauniad. Sorry, I can't supply you with a link.
On the other hand his comment could just be more PR spin, aimed at the readership of The Guardian. Apparently Armstrong's split with Cheryl Crow had it's roots in Armstrong's close friendship with G.W. Bush. Crow found this hard to stomach whilst:
According to a friend of Crow, Armstrong was a Bush backer to the max.
"Sheryl said Lance didn't just support Bush, - he'd go off and fight if the president asked him to," the friend said."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1581595/posts0 -
I have never made a secret of the fact that I don't particularly like the sort of selfish, 'dog eat dog' individualism that Armstrong personifies, nor do I like the way he constantly exploits and feeds anti-French xenophobia, nor do I like the fact that he is an egotist and a bully. However, many others also dislike him for his bullying and egotism, so I am hardly alone in disliking him for reasons above and beyond his use of Epo and "800 ml of packed cells" blood doping in order to 'win' the Tour.DaveyL wrote:[Armstrong's] perceived use of success and wealth to trample down the weak little guy fits very nicely with aurelio's political leanings and I suspect it is that, more than any alleged doping, that is the problem...
I also feel that this particular coin has two sides, and it is clear than many who admire and defend Armstrong do so because, almost irrespective of what Armstrong might believe personally, they feel that he personifies the sort of political values that they themselves hold dear, including a belief in the myth of the meritocratic society and a politically motivated hostility to 'The French'.0 -
Is that a point of view that you find 'compelling'?dennisn wrote:"The poor aren't capable......." First, this is not a quote from the book. It's my impression of what she is saying pretty much throughout the novel.
I have never read it.dennisn wrote:...by the way, you owe me answer about Rushdie's "Satanic Verses"0 -
aurelio wrote:
Is that a point of view that you find 'compelling'?dennisn wrote:"The poor aren't capable......." First, this is not a quote from the book. It's my impression of what she is saying pretty much throughout the novel.
I have never read it.dennisn wrote:...by the way, you owe me answer about Rushdie's "Satanic Verses"
You're really going to dig into this "compelling" thing aren't you? I think, maybe, your compelling and my compelling are two different things. Let's just call it a most interesting theory and leave it at that. Or at the very least start another post and get off the Rebellin
thing so everyone can get back to that post. Anyone what to debate Ayn Rand?
Dennis Noward0 -
Yes, I think that your views are clear enough already, even if you don't have the courage to stand by your convictions when pressed to justify them.dennisn wrote:You're really going to dig into this "compelling" thing aren't you? I think, maybe, your compelling and my compelling are two different things. Let's just call it a most interesting theory and leave it at that.
By the way my definition of 'compelling' is the one found in a dictionary...0 -
aurelio wrote:
Yes, I think that your views are clear enough already, even if you don't have the courage to stand by your convictions when pressed to justify them.dennisn wrote:You're really going to dig into this "compelling" thing aren't you? I think, maybe, your compelling and my compelling are two different things. Let's just call it a most interesting theory and leave it at that.
Well alright then. I guess that's settled.
Not sure what was setttled but it sure sounded like you settled it.
In any case we are way off track from the OP.
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote:
If this were true, don't forget that Armstrong's 'left of centre' would be from the perspective of an American, and a Texan to boot, which probably puts him somewhere to the right of the Tories in the UK.johnfinch wrote:LA is self-described "left of centre", from an interview he did with the Grauniad. Sorry, I can't supply you with a link.
It all could just be more Armstrong PR spin though. Apparently Armstrong's split with Cheryl Crow had it's roots in Armstrong's close friendship with G.W. Bush. Crow found this hard to stomach whilst:
According to a friend of Crow, Armstrong was a Bush backer to the max.
"Sheryl said Lance didn't just support Bush, - he'd go off and fight if the president asked him to," the friend said."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1581595/posts
But he is also a resident/almost native of Austin, which anyone who knows Texas will point out is a largely anomalous and distinct part of Texas being a liberal town of longstanding.
Seriously, is the best you can manage on this one, a smear site with a fictionalised quote from the sort of righwing nut job sites you happily portray the pro-Armstrong camp as being frequenters of?
There's two citable sources online for it and neither is reliable, especially given the Times interview they refer back to is Alastair Campbell's one in which Armstrong does state himself not being a republican:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 032129.ece
which they've mangled to fit their meaning, misattributing views and making omissions to suit:
"Once we settle down to talk at a long wooden table, we are swapping stories about George W. Bush, his fellow Texan. We agree that our politics are different to Bush’s, but that the President is smarter, funnier and more likeable than the caricature. Even Sheryl, whose politics Armstrong describes as “way out Left”, says that it’s hard to meet Bush and not like him. I had assumed, because he and Bush were Texans and I’d seen pictures of them laughing and joking in the Oval Office, that Armstrong was a Republican. But he says his politics are “middle to Left”. He is “against mixing up State and Church, not keen on guns, pro women’s right to choose”. And very anti war in Iraq."
Hardly the epitome of Republican party values is he now?0 -
Thanks for sourcing that. I feel that my suggestion that Armstrong's perception of what constitutes 'middle to Left' very probably relates to a position significantly to the right of what, for example, someone in France or Denmark might mean by the phrase, is still valid. After all, even card carrying American Democrats are still essentially 'right wing' in their politics.leguape wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 032129.ece
"Once we settle down to talk at a long wooden table, we are swapping stories about George W. Bush, his fellow Texan. We agree that our politics are different to Bush’s, but that the President is smarter, funnier and more likeable than the caricature. Even Sheryl, whose politics Armstrong describes as “way out Left”, says that it’s hard to meet Bush and not like him. I had assumed, because he and Bush were Texans and I’d seen pictures of them laughing and joking in the Oval Office, that Armstrong was a Republican. But he says his politics are “middle to Left”. He is “against mixing up State and Church, not keen on guns, pro women’s right to choose”. And very anti war in Iraq."
Hardly the epitome of Republican party values is he now?
It is also interesting that he perceived Cheryl Crow to be "way out Left". I hardly thinks that this means she is a Marxist, or even a hard-line socialist!
We also need to remember that Armstrong has hardly made an issue out of his supposed opposition to the invasion of Iraq, anything but in fact...
Lance Armstrong Cozies Up to Bush
Pedaling Away from Principle
By DAVE ZIRIN
"...you could, like me, be unfortunate enough to stumble on a silent war. The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There's no innocence."
Arundhati Roy
"The Tour de Crawford." The words blared from a red, white, and blue piece of spandex that George W. Bush presented to Lance Armstrong at his Crawford, Texas ranch. The gifting followed a 17-mile bike ride where they gazed at the landscape that Bush calls "my slice of heaven." Armstrong gushed about Bush's riding prowess afterward, saying to ABC News, "That old boy can go ... I didn't think he would punish himself that much, but he did." By the way, the war and occupation of Iraq "never came up."
http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin08232005.html
Anyhow, I would refer you to what I said earlier, highlighted in bold for your benefit:
I also feel that this particular coin has two sides, and it is clear than many who admire and defend Armstrong do so because, almost irrespective of what Armstrong might believe personally, they feel that he personifies the sort of political values that they themselves hold dear, including a belief in the myth of the meritocratic society and a politically motivated hostility to 'The French'.0 -
I know this is stirring but right at the height of the recent Israel-Palestine conflict Armstrong twittered "Listening to Matisyahu".leguape wrote:Hardly the epitome of Republican party values is he now?
...Was it taking sides? Or just co-incidence? For Matisyahu is a zionist reggae artist. You can watch/listen to the music here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C80 -
aurelio wrote:Thanks for sourcing that. I feel that my suggestion that Armstrong's perception of what constitutes 'middle to Left' very probably relates to a position significantly to the right of what, for example, someone in France or Denmark might mean by the phrase, is still valid. After all, even card carrying American Democrats are still essentially 'right wing' in their politics.
It is also interesting that he perceived Cheryl Crow to be "way out Left". I hardly thinks that this means she is a Marxist, or even a hard-line socialist!
We also need to remember that Armstrong has hardly made an issue out of his supposed opposition to the invasion of Iraq, anything but in fact...
Lance Armstrong Cozies Up to Bush
Pedaling Away from Principle
By DAVE ZIRIN
"...you could, like me, be unfortunate enough to stumble on a silent war. The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There's no innocence."
Arundhati Roy
"The Tour de Crawford." The words blared from a red, white, and blue piece of spandex that George W. Bush presented to Lance Armstrong at his Crawford, Texas ranch. The gifting followed a 17-mile bike ride where they gazed at the landscape that Bush calls "my slice of heaven." Armstrong gushed about Bush's riding prowess afterward, saying to ABC News, "That old boy can go ... I didn't think he would punish himself that much, but he did." By the way, the war and occupation of Iraq "never came up."
http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin08232005.html
Anyhow, I would refer you to what I said earlier, highlighted in bold for your benefit:
I also feel that this particular coin has two sides, and it is clear than many who admire and defend Armstrong do so because, almost irrespective of what Armstrong might believe personally, they feel that he personifies the sort of political values that they themselves hold dear, including a belief in the myth of the meritocratic society and a politically motivated hostility to 'The French'.
You're good with your selective quoting given the next line of the article which makes a huge juxtaposition between his position when meeting Bush:
"This is bitterly disappointing. Armstrong took a strong stand against the war right after his amazing 7th consecutive Tour de France victory."
As for being left of european, I'm pretty sure that the secular state and pro choice are both issues primarily of the left, or at the least of progressive liberalism in most countries. There's large swathes of France where an abortion would still be considered a bad thing.0 -
leguape wrote:aurelio wrote:Thanks for sourcing that. I feel that my suggestion that Armstrong's perception of what constitutes 'middle to Left' very probably relates to a position significantly to the right of what, for example, someone in France or Denmark might mean by the phrase, is still valid. After all, even card carrying American Democrats are still essentially 'right wing' in their politics.
It is also interesting that he perceived Cheryl Crow to be "way out Left". I hardly thinks that this means she is a Marxist, or even a hard-line socialist!
We also need to remember that Armstrong has hardly made an issue out of his supposed opposition to the invasion of Iraq, anything but in fact...
Lance Armstrong Cozies Up to Bush
Pedaling Away from Principle
By DAVE ZIRIN
"...you could, like me, be unfortunate enough to stumble on a silent war. The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There's no innocence."
Arundhati Roy
"The Tour de Crawford." The words blared from a red, white, and blue piece of spandex that George W. Bush presented to Lance Armstrong at his Crawford, Texas ranch. The gifting followed a 17-mile bike ride where they gazed at the landscape that Bush calls "my slice of heaven." Armstrong gushed about Bush's riding prowess afterward, saying to ABC News, "That old boy can go ... I didn't think he would punish himself that much, but he did." By the way, the war and occupation of Iraq "never came up."
http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin08232005.html
Anyhow, I would refer you to what I said earlier, highlighted in bold for your benefit:
I also feel that this particular coin has two sides, and it is clear than many who admire and defend Armstrong do so because, almost irrespective of what Armstrong might believe personally, they feel that he personifies the sort of political values that they themselves hold dear, including a belief in the myth of the meritocratic society and a politically motivated hostility to 'The French'.
"This is bitterly disappointing. Armstrong took a strong stand against the war right after his amazing 7th consecutive Tour de France victory."
Can't imagine to many people taking a strong stand for war. People may support the
troops but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks war is "a great idea". I sure don't.
It's nothing but an excercise in man's inhumanity to man.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:Can't imagine to many people taking a strong stand for war. People may support the
troops but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks war is "a great idea". I sure don't.
It's nothing but an excercise in man's inhumanity to man.
Dennis Noward
You've never met anyone who thinks that war is a great idea? Oh, how I envy you.0 -
That 'strong stance' seems to amount to Armstrong saying how the money spent on America's invasion of Iraq could have done a lot of good if spent elsewhere, such as on cancer research, and the whole point of the article was how subsequently Armstrong seemed much more intent on cosying up to Bush than using his position to make a stand. So, was Armstrong really opposed to the war, or just scoring PR points in order to shore up his 'Patron saint of cancer sufferers' image? The latter seems to be the case. Just look at what Armstrong's 'stand' against the invasion amounted to:leguape wrote:You're good with your selective quoting given the next line of the article which makes a huge juxtaposition between his position when meeting Bush:
"This is bitterly disappointing. Armstrong took a strong stand against the war right after his amazing 7th consecutive Tour de France victory."
"The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism."
"The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money". I would say that the biggest downside to the war in Iraq was /is the slaughter of over a hundred thousand civilian men, women and children, followed by all the deaths of the combatants on each side, not to mention the physical maiming and psychological scarring of hundreds of thousands more human beings. But that's just me.0 -
But such issues hardly define what constitutes 'leftist' thinking. Perhaps you can show me where Armstrong has showed a commitment to egalitarian values of any kind. For example, I don't recall ever reading of him calling for a universal health care system to be set up in the US. (Something that would help those 40 odd million Americans who can't afford or can't get health insurance, especially when they get cancer). Has he ever called for a higher level of welfare benefits? A greater level of taxation on the wealthy in order to benefit the less well-off? Has he ever been critical of the huge inequalities in American society or the fact that the USA has one of the highest levels of poverty in the developed world, at around 22% of the population?leguape wrote:I'm pretty sure that the secular state and pro choice are both issues primarily of the left, or at the least of progressive liberalism in most countries.0 -
aurelio wrote:
But such issues hardly define what constitutes 'leftist' thinking. Perhaps you can show me where Armstrong has showed a commitment to egalitarian values of any kind. For example, I don't recall ever reading of him calling for a universal health care system to be set up in the US. (Something that would help those 40 odd million Americans who can't afford or can't get health insurance, especially when they get cancer). Has he ever called for a higher level of welfare benefits? A greater level of taxation on the wealthy in order to benefit the less well-off? Has he ever been critical of the fact that the USA has one of the highest levels of poverty in the developed world, at around 22% of the population?leguape wrote:I'm pretty sure that the secular state and pro choice are both issues primarily of the left, or at the least of progressive liberalism in most countries.
Not that im aware of. Instead i understand that the amount of money his foundation raises has a "cost of sale" associated with it sufficiently high to warrant questions. But then again if the foundation didnt have armstrong as a patron it might not make as much money so Armstrong desrves that money. NOT0 -
Did a thread about Rebelin doping at the Olympics turn into a debate about Lance Armstrong's political stance, or am I going crazy!
Mañana0 -
Poor old Davide, he's probably feeling a little neglected at the moment. Back on topic pls gents.0
