oops, wrong thread. Meant that for the gas price one... 
Election Madness
- Thread starter whirlcool
- Start date
Help Support :
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" "I would obl
The constant drone of the battle for the Democratic party nomination between Hillary and Barack has drowned out any real discussion of where this country is now, what damage has been done in the last 7 1/2 years by the "Neo-Cons" with Bush at the helm and most importantly, what needs to be done to get back to the country we want to have again. There has been no discussion of the expansion of Executive Branch unitary power and no solution for reigning it in again. Without fear of being locked away in an institution, both Clinton and McCain have kept up the drumbeat of a now seemingly inevitable war with Iran. Two failed wars and one to go? Where is the outrage from the American people - from the rest of the world? Why are our streets still quiet? Why is nobody screaming for change - not in November, not on January 20, 2009 but right now? How about five years ago before this Iraq mess was even allowed to happen? Have we resigned ourselves to the notion that we are now a more warlike society and that diplomacy has no place in the equation of foreign relations and policy making anymore? This may likely be the everlasting Bush Legacy that should keep everyone awake at night fearing for their children's lives. There has been no talk of how to deal with the holocaust we have wrought upon the Iraqi people and a solution for their reconstruction and repatriation back to their homes - those that are still alive, of course. There has been no discussion of how to bring our country back into the 21st Century as a world leader that is looked upon with respect and dignity and ensure that we are able to not only care for our aging citizens, but also provide viable and reasonable living standards for our children. No discussion about the pathetic and sub-standard state of our education system - from pre-school through college, our young people are less prepared than ever to compete in the world economy let alone the consumer-driven, fast food economy that is developing at a frightening rate right before our eyes. We seem to be stuck on flag pins and loudmouth preacher's opinions that have no bearing on any real issues.
Short of rioting in the streets, burning cars and smashing store windows, we do have the power to effect a real revolution in this country. I believe that Americans, not all of them, but enough, got a taste of that power in November of '06 when they resoundingly said "enough" to the Bush administration and took away the Republican majority in congress that he unashamedly wallowed in for six years. That congress has done little or nothing to stop the madness so now baton is being handed back to the people again. With our votes, not just for president, but with every vote for every city, county, state and federal position on the ballot in November, we can and must stage a revolution. Send no incumbent back into any position who has supported or voted in favor of anything pertaining to the current president and his policies. We can make the history unfold in front of us, instead of being condemned to repeat it, yet again.
The constant drone of the battle for the Democratic party nomination between Hillary and Barack has drowned out any real discussion of where this country is now, what damage has been done in the last 7 1/2 years by the "Neo-Cons" with Bush at the helm and most importantly, what needs to be done to get back to the country we want to have again. There has been no discussion of the expansion of Executive Branch unitary power and no solution for reigning it in again. Without fear of being locked away in an institution, both Clinton and McCain have kept up the drumbeat of a now seemingly inevitable war with Iran. Two failed wars and one to go? Where is the outrage from the American people - from the rest of the world? Why are our streets still quiet? Why is nobody screaming for change - not in November, not on January 20, 2009 but right now? How about five years ago before this Iraq mess was even allowed to happen? Have we resigned ourselves to the notion that we are now a more warlike society and that diplomacy has no place in the equation of foreign relations and policy making anymore? This may likely be the everlasting Bush Legacy that should keep everyone awake at night fearing for their children's lives. There has been no talk of how to deal with the holocaust we have wrought upon the Iraqi people and a solution for their reconstruction and repatriation back to their homes - those that are still alive, of course. There has been no discussion of how to bring our country back into the 21st Century as a world leader that is looked upon with respect and dignity and ensure that we are able to not only care for our aging citizens, but also provide viable and reasonable living standards for our children. No discussion about the pathetic and sub-standard state of our education system - from pre-school through college, our young people are less prepared than ever to compete in the world economy let alone the consumer-driven, fast food economy that is developing at a frightening rate right before our eyes. We seem to be stuck on flag pins and loudmouth preacher's opinions that have no bearing on any real issues.
Short of rioting in the streets, burning cars and smashing store windows, we do have the power to effect a real revolution in this country. I believe that Americans, not all of them, but enough, got a taste of that power in November of '06 when they resoundingly said "enough" to the Bush administration and took away the Republican majority in congress that he unashamedly wallowed in for six years. That congress has done little or nothing to stop the madness so now baton is being handed back to the people again. With our votes, not just for president, but with every vote for every city, county, state and federal position on the ballot in November, we can and must stage a revolution. Send no incumbent back into any position who has supported or voted in favor of anything pertaining to the current president and his policies. We can make the history unfold in front of us, instead of being condemned to repeat it, yet again.
Wow Greg, that's the best post ever.
twinniefan
Well-known member
Monarchy vs Republic
Interesting reading here,
Most of you folk probably don't know that is a very concerted push here in Australia for us to replace the constitutional monarchy we have,(being the above mentioned Queen ElizabethII,represented by the Governor-General and State Governors for the States),with a Republican type of government,there was a referendum 9 years ago, which was defeated because basically the public would not were having a politically appointed President instead of an elected one.
The main drivers for change seem to be a bunch of embittered Laborites who still will never forgive or get over Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacking Prime Minister Whitlam and forcing an election to end the constitutional crisis of 1975.
Danemodsandy, you make a good point in having a seperate Head of State and political head of government, however you may not be aware that the Queen while true she can advise,consult and warn her Prime Minister, at the end of the day she is obliged to accept her P.M.'S advice on matters as does the G.G. here so in many ways they are still just a rubber stamp for the executive government,however personally as you mentioned I like having a person who represents Australia who is away from all the political bunfights of the day.
I am not too familiar with your system,whereas the Governor-General can dismiss a wayward Prime Minister here and same with the State Governor and Premier, can your Presidents be sacked? or are they in office for a fixed term?.
Interesting reading here,
Most of you folk probably don't know that is a very concerted push here in Australia for us to replace the constitutional monarchy we have,(being the above mentioned Queen ElizabethII,represented by the Governor-General and State Governors for the States),with a Republican type of government,there was a referendum 9 years ago, which was defeated because basically the public would not were having a politically appointed President instead of an elected one.
The main drivers for change seem to be a bunch of embittered Laborites who still will never forgive or get over Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacking Prime Minister Whitlam and forcing an election to end the constitutional crisis of 1975.
Danemodsandy, you make a good point in having a seperate Head of State and political head of government, however you may not be aware that the Queen while true she can advise,consult and warn her Prime Minister, at the end of the day she is obliged to accept her P.M.'S advice on matters as does the G.G. here so in many ways they are still just a rubber stamp for the executive government,however personally as you mentioned I like having a person who represents Australia who is away from all the political bunfights of the day.
I am not too familiar with your system,whereas the Governor-General can dismiss a wayward Prime Minister here and same with the State Governor and Premier, can your Presidents be sacked? or are they in office for a fixed term?.
Republican or Democrat? Cavaliers or Round-heads?
I'd personally like to see a candidate I can FOR rather than voting by default AGAINST the other ones.
I'd personally like to see a candidate I can FOR rather than voting by default AGAINST the other ones.
Voting tickets:
RE having a "none of the above" on voting papers - That is what we do in the Australian Greens. I am a member of the Australian Greens and all our internal elections have a position on the ballot marked "seek further candidate." If "seek further candidate" wins the election, then the election is held again with new candidates. It is a very fair and democratic system.
We have compulsory voting in Australia, which I fully support.
There is no "seek further candidate" in Australian government elections, but I believe there should be. The main objection to compulsory voting I hear is people object to having to choose from a list of candidates whom are all unacceptable. Having "seek further candidate" on all ballot papers would eliminate this objection.
I support Australia becoming a republic, not because of some grudge over sacking the Whitlam gov't in 1975, but because I think it is appropriate for the head of state of the Australian nation to live in Australia. I think it is an embarrassment to this nation that its head of state is an unelected person who lives on the other side of the world, who has little real interest in this country other than some fondness for a former colony. Nothing personal against the old gal, but she is irrelevant to this country.
Politics - don't get me started!
Chris.
RE having a "none of the above" on voting papers - That is what we do in the Australian Greens. I am a member of the Australian Greens and all our internal elections have a position on the ballot marked "seek further candidate." If "seek further candidate" wins the election, then the election is held again with new candidates. It is a very fair and democratic system.
We have compulsory voting in Australia, which I fully support.
There is no "seek further candidate" in Australian government elections, but I believe there should be. The main objection to compulsory voting I hear is people object to having to choose from a list of candidates whom are all unacceptable. Having "seek further candidate" on all ballot papers would eliminate this objection.
I support Australia becoming a republic, not because of some grudge over sacking the Whitlam gov't in 1975, but because I think it is appropriate for the head of state of the Australian nation to live in Australia. I think it is an embarrassment to this nation that its head of state is an unelected person who lives on the other side of the world, who has little real interest in this country other than some fondness for a former colony. Nothing personal against the old gal, but she is irrelevant to this country.
Politics - don't get me started!
Chris.
I think that there are benefits to the parliamentary form of government where the country is not stuck with a government that is not performing to the expectations of the nation, BUT, the nation has to know what's going on. Obama was right, even if he articulated it a bit awkwardly when he talked about "bitter" people and guns and religion. Think of Ohio in 2004. The state was suffering huge job losses, but the Republicans emphasized same sex marriage and the poor jobless, but very religious and possibly bigoted voters voted against their best economic interests to protect the sanctity of marriage. It's because of such stupidity that we find ourselves in a mess. Because of the perverting of science, lying to make it fit one group's agenda, our students are behind those of other countries in academic rankings and all you have to do is look in the foreign press to see how that is lorded over us. Because we have let business take over the elected officials, we have manufacturing moved out of our country which has benefited corporations, but not laborers and not the government which gave the corporations tax breaks not only for moving manufacturing out of the country, but also allowed corporations to set up off-shore headquarters to avoid paying US taxes, yet they are still protected by the US Government as far as laws, trademarks, patents and protection by the Coast Guard and Navy while transporting foreign-made goods to market. We allow pharmaceuticals to be made in China, an armed enemy of our nation, but the FDA said it could not allow the reimportation from Canada of drugs made here because they could not be sure of their purity. The FDA is now saying that it cannot and should not have to inspect foreign manufacturers of pharmaceuticals every two years because that would be a hardship. So a Chinese manufacturer deliberately (it has been determined)dumps a toxic compound into Heparin and it sickens and kills Americans, but we can't protect our citizens because the government cares about corporations more than citizens.
This is going to continue as long as the Republicans can attract voters by appealing to religious issues and bigotry thereby causing citizens to vote against their own welfare. They frighten people about taxes, but where does the money come from for nice things like farm subsidies and defense appropriations like the ones that keep the shipyards in Pascagoula, Mississippi in business? The politicians say it's our money and it is, but the bills are ours, too. Sure there is a lot of abuse. Look at the subsides for sugar. The artificially high prices have forced candy manufacturers to move to foreign countries where sugar is cheaper. Now, NAFTA has mandated that Mexico be allowed to sell sugar to the US, but the sugar lobby had legislation crafted directing all of the Mexican sugar sold at lower prices in this country to be bought by the government at the set prices in this country and used for methanol production; no savings for the citizens from this trade agreement. This is what happens when citizens do not take a role in watching the actions of their elected representatives and do not their representatives know their opinions. Of course, in cases where the whole nation is lied to, makes decisions based on false information, and has dissenters labeled as traitors by the party in charge, we have to accept the consequences and realize that other nations that made war on us and the rest of the world had citizens that disagreed with the government's policies but were not able to stop them. Irreparable harm has been done to our country, both internally and internationally. Whether we stand up for change or let petty issues and bigotry stand in the way of reform will determine if our nation is a noble one or as bad as our damaged reputation. Of course, nations that excoriate us should not expect money with the imprint of the Great Satan. If we are to take responsibility for our actions, other nations will have to also.
I believe that a great responsibility for our problems rests with the 24 hour news media. We did not even have complete results from the 2006 elections than they were talking about the 2008 contest. They have forced non-issues to the front and kept real issues buried. They have pundits giving their opinions instead of letting us hear the actual words of the candidates. Because of media ownership rules, many citizens of this country do not even hear about important issues because the owners of the media outlets do not want that information known, or they find ways to distort the truth about it. We have media accepting propaganda from government agencies and broadcasting it without investigating the origins or veracity of it, all because the 24 hour news networks have to fill time.
This is going to continue as long as the Republicans can attract voters by appealing to religious issues and bigotry thereby causing citizens to vote against their own welfare. They frighten people about taxes, but where does the money come from for nice things like farm subsidies and defense appropriations like the ones that keep the shipyards in Pascagoula, Mississippi in business? The politicians say it's our money and it is, but the bills are ours, too. Sure there is a lot of abuse. Look at the subsides for sugar. The artificially high prices have forced candy manufacturers to move to foreign countries where sugar is cheaper. Now, NAFTA has mandated that Mexico be allowed to sell sugar to the US, but the sugar lobby had legislation crafted directing all of the Mexican sugar sold at lower prices in this country to be bought by the government at the set prices in this country and used for methanol production; no savings for the citizens from this trade agreement. This is what happens when citizens do not take a role in watching the actions of their elected representatives and do not their representatives know their opinions. Of course, in cases where the whole nation is lied to, makes decisions based on false information, and has dissenters labeled as traitors by the party in charge, we have to accept the consequences and realize that other nations that made war on us and the rest of the world had citizens that disagreed with the government's policies but were not able to stop them. Irreparable harm has been done to our country, both internally and internationally. Whether we stand up for change or let petty issues and bigotry stand in the way of reform will determine if our nation is a noble one or as bad as our damaged reputation. Of course, nations that excoriate us should not expect money with the imprint of the Great Satan. If we are to take responsibility for our actions, other nations will have to also.
I believe that a great responsibility for our problems rests with the 24 hour news media. We did not even have complete results from the 2006 elections than they were talking about the 2008 contest. They have forced non-issues to the front and kept real issues buried. They have pundits giving their opinions instead of letting us hear the actual words of the candidates. Because of media ownership rules, many citizens of this country do not even hear about important issues because the owners of the media outlets do not want that information known, or they find ways to distort the truth about it. We have media accepting propaganda from government agencies and broadcasting it without investigating the origins or veracity of it, all because the 24 hour news networks have to fill time.
"Obama was right, even if he articulated it a bit awkwardly when he talked about "bitter" people and guns and religion."
He said that true to his Marxist roots: Religion is the opium of the masses.
The Republicans are not just attracting the religious right. They are also attracting a lot of people who value more freedom, less governemt, more personal responsibility and fight against the creeping socialism in this country. And, like Toggle said, it is more about voiting against someone rather than for someone.
He said that true to his Marxist roots: Religion is the opium of the masses.
The Republicans are not just attracting the religious right. They are also attracting a lot of people who value more freedom, less governemt, more personal responsibility and fight against the creeping socialism in this country. And, like Toggle said, it is more about voiting against someone rather than for someone.
I often hear lately that you need a Clinton to clear up the mess a Bush makes.
"...more freedom, less governemt, more personal responsibility and fight against the creeping socialism"
Yes, the Patriot act, The Department of Homeland Security, the bailout of Bear Stearns, the pardon of Scooter Libbey, (I could go on and on, but you get the point) all show how effective the GOP is at doing their job of keeping us all free of government intervention.
As far as "creeping socialism" goes, too bad it's just a GOP cliche - and an old one at that. Personally, I'd like a lot more of it. What's government for, if not to help the citizens?
The old GOP, the party of Eisenhower and Goldwater, of small government and small business, is dead. Now it's just a parody of itself, all wrapped up in its flag pins and secret sex lives. It's main function is keeping the rich rich.
Yes, the Patriot act, The Department of Homeland Security, the bailout of Bear Stearns, the pardon of Scooter Libbey, (I could go on and on, but you get the point) all show how effective the GOP is at doing their job of keeping us all free of government intervention.
As far as "creeping socialism" goes, too bad it's just a GOP cliche - and an old one at that. Personally, I'd like a lot more of it. What's government for, if not to help the citizens?
The old GOP, the party of Eisenhower and Goldwater, of small government and small business, is dead. Now it's just a parody of itself, all wrapped up in its flag pins and secret sex lives. It's main function is keeping the rich rich.
Bye Bye Bush!
~I often hear lately that you need a Clinton to clear up the mess a Bush makes.
I know that one of the Clintons can clear up a Bush mess. The other one can too?
~I often hear lately that you need a Clinton to clear up the mess a Bush makes.
I know that one of the Clintons can clear up a Bush mess. The other one can too?
ROFL!!!
If every voter had a sense of humor and every candidate too I think things would look totally different!
If every voter had a sense of humor and every candidate too I think things would look totally different!
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Stephen:
"Danemodsandy, you make a good point in having a seperate Head of State and political head of government, however you may not be aware that the Queen while true she can advise,consult and warn her Prime Minister, at the end of the day she is obliged to accept her P.M.'S advice on matters as does the G.G. here so in many ways they are still just a rubber stamp for the executive government,however personally as you mentioned I like having a person who represents Australia who is away from all the political bunfights of the day."
You're quite right about the limits on a monarch's authority. However, Britain's monarch brings one thing to the table that is very difficult for a PM to ignore- the weight of British history and tradition, that indefinable "something" that binds Britain together as a nation. It would be a brave PM indeed who wholly disregarded a monarch's counsel (I mean altogether, not in particulars), because he or she would be breaking with rather a lot of custom. It would be the thin end of the wedge so far as ending the monarchy and turning Britain into a republic, which simply isn't on.
It should also be noted that a determined PM and Parliament can topple a British monarch from the throne itself, as happened with Edward VIII, better known as the Duke of Windsor. Damn fool wanted to marry someone unsuited to be Queen, and lo! the system kicked in. Worked very well, too.
So, I admire what the British have created. I don't say it would work everywhere, and my calls for a royal family here are strictly a joke (and who would we have in it, anyway? Paris Hilton?). But we could definitely use someone with the ability to sit a rotten Prez down and tell him, "Look here, you're being a damned idiot."
"Danemodsandy, you make a good point in having a seperate Head of State and political head of government, however you may not be aware that the Queen while true she can advise,consult and warn her Prime Minister, at the end of the day she is obliged to accept her P.M.'S advice on matters as does the G.G. here so in many ways they are still just a rubber stamp for the executive government,however personally as you mentioned I like having a person who represents Australia who is away from all the political bunfights of the day."
You're quite right about the limits on a monarch's authority. However, Britain's monarch brings one thing to the table that is very difficult for a PM to ignore- the weight of British history and tradition, that indefinable "something" that binds Britain together as a nation. It would be a brave PM indeed who wholly disregarded a monarch's counsel (I mean altogether, not in particulars), because he or she would be breaking with rather a lot of custom. It would be the thin end of the wedge so far as ending the monarchy and turning Britain into a republic, which simply isn't on.
It should also be noted that a determined PM and Parliament can topple a British monarch from the throne itself, as happened with Edward VIII, better known as the Duke of Windsor. Damn fool wanted to marry someone unsuited to be Queen, and lo! the system kicked in. Worked very well, too.
So, I admire what the British have created. I don't say it would work everywhere, and my calls for a royal family here are strictly a joke (and who would we have in it, anyway? Paris Hilton?). But we could definitely use someone with the ability to sit a rotten Prez down and tell him, "Look here, you're being a damned idiot."
"What's government for, if not to help the citizens?"
To protect citizens and their freedom to allow them all the room they need to utilize the resourses available to them. Don't want to do that? Then rely on charity, not the government. Any charitable organization can do a better job at collecting donations and distributing to those in need than the government. I could to more good for society with my donations than the government can by taking it from me.
It is not an old GOP cliche, it is the truth. No one here is saying that the GOP is even good, but when dealing with hardcore socialism and socialism-lite... Back to Toggle's statement...
To protect citizens and their freedom to allow them all the room they need to utilize the resourses available to them. Don't want to do that? Then rely on charity, not the government. Any charitable organization can do a better job at collecting donations and distributing to those in need than the government. I could to more good for society with my donations than the government can by taking it from me.
It is not an old GOP cliche, it is the truth. No one here is saying that the GOP is even good, but when dealing with hardcore socialism and socialism-lite... Back to Toggle's statement...
"Any charitable organization can do a better job at collecting donations and distributing to those in need than the government."
Peter, most, if not all, of the legitimate charities would strongly disagree with you.
Katrina was made even worse than it already was because FEMA was ran by a Bush political appointee who had absolutely no experience in emergency management, and no interest in running an effective organization. That, in turn, made many charities efforts ineffective, because they rely on a cabinet-level agency to coordinate their efforts. In other years, when FEMA was a well-run agency, it has played a vital role in recovering from natural disasters.
And there is no shortage of illegitimate charities, or major scandals with well-respected charities: Look at the scandals engulfing the American Red Cross and United Way in recent years. And the bogus scam agencies that popped up after 911 and Katrina. If it weren't for government oversight of private charities, it would be even worse.
Precious little of what "the government is taking from you" goes to fund any kind of social service anyway. Most of it goes to the ridiculously over-inflated "defense" budget (while our soldiers live in substandard housing and have to collect food stamps) and to pay interest on the debt - which, since 1980, has skyrocketed.
Government is not the answer to everything - but it's not the cause of every problem, either. The issues we face are serious, and require nuanced, thoughtful consideration. I don't know if we, as a nation, are capable of that anymore.
Peter, most, if not all, of the legitimate charities would strongly disagree with you.
Katrina was made even worse than it already was because FEMA was ran by a Bush political appointee who had absolutely no experience in emergency management, and no interest in running an effective organization. That, in turn, made many charities efforts ineffective, because they rely on a cabinet-level agency to coordinate their efforts. In other years, when FEMA was a well-run agency, it has played a vital role in recovering from natural disasters.
And there is no shortage of illegitimate charities, or major scandals with well-respected charities: Look at the scandals engulfing the American Red Cross and United Way in recent years. And the bogus scam agencies that popped up after 911 and Katrina. If it weren't for government oversight of private charities, it would be even worse.
Precious little of what "the government is taking from you" goes to fund any kind of social service anyway. Most of it goes to the ridiculously over-inflated "defense" budget (while our soldiers live in substandard housing and have to collect food stamps) and to pay interest on the debt - which, since 1980, has skyrocketed.
Government is not the answer to everything - but it's not the cause of every problem, either. The issues we face are serious, and require nuanced, thoughtful consideration. I don't know if we, as a nation, are capable of that anymore.
Socialism in it's many forms . . .
Some degree of socialism is a good thing, in that private charities can't always be counted on, and they can be very, very capricious in giving to others who may not meet their own standards of conduct - anyone remember when research funding for GRID ("Gay Related Immune Disorder" - what AIDs was before it was renamed) was almost nonexistant 25 years ago because nobody wanted to be seen helping sick gay people? It took Elizabeth Taylor's big mouth and Rock Hudson's death to make it even possible for most private charities to admit there was a need.
My problem with our degree of socialism at the moment has nothing to do with goverment helping people, but rather with the goverment helping large corporations and such. Why are oil companies and corporate farmers getting tax breaks and subsidies worth billions of dollars as we watch prices increase at an unprecedented rate, as well as their profits. I understand that world events have caused much of the price increases, but don't understand why our tax money should be given to those who are benefitting from the price increases.
Some degree of socialism is a good thing, in that private charities can't always be counted on, and they can be very, very capricious in giving to others who may not meet their own standards of conduct - anyone remember when research funding for GRID ("Gay Related Immune Disorder" - what AIDs was before it was renamed) was almost nonexistant 25 years ago because nobody wanted to be seen helping sick gay people? It took Elizabeth Taylor's big mouth and Rock Hudson's death to make it even possible for most private charities to admit there was a need.
My problem with our degree of socialism at the moment has nothing to do with goverment helping people, but rather with the goverment helping large corporations and such. Why are oil companies and corporate farmers getting tax breaks and subsidies worth billions of dollars as we watch prices increase at an unprecedented rate, as well as their profits. I understand that world events have caused much of the price increases, but don't understand why our tax money should be given to those who are benefitting from the price increases.
socialism doesn't say help the people...
Socialism says "What is more important, the individual or the state?"
In a socialist state, if you aren't worth saving (medical costs, say) you don't get what you need. Period.
What it really comes down to is what is more important? Freedom to do what you can, or being forced to 'eat what is set before you'?
Having said this, The Ds are not the socialists and the Rs bastions of individual choice. Both seem to say 'do as I say, not what you choose.'
Nate
Socialism says "What is more important, the individual or the state?"
In a socialist state, if you aren't worth saving (medical costs, say) you don't get what you need. Period.
What it really comes down to is what is more important? Freedom to do what you can, or being forced to 'eat what is set before you'?
Having said this, The Ds are not the socialists and the Rs bastions of individual choice. Both seem to say 'do as I say, not what you choose.'
Nate
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
I'm glad to see this being discussed here. A lot of what I've been reading here fascinates me.
What's amazing, a year later, and with me not really ranting about politics the way I once did, I'm taken with how different it seems now, just KNOWING there's a good chance Bush will leave office quietly.
In the interests of full disclosure, I just want to go on record as saying I cannot imagine voting for Obama...this year. I don't see this as a time of "hope", or "change", not unless I understand what I'm supposed to be hoping for this week, or what I'm directed to change in order to "make it happen".
I still have major issues with Hillary, but I'm over it and, barring any further bizarre happenings, will most likely vote for her (thank you, panthera, for encouraging me to participate, the courts issue has validity to it).
"Obama was right, even if he articulated it a bit awkwardly when he talked about "bitter" people and guns and religion."
Tom, I am DEFINITELY not trying to start an argument, but it's important for me to pinpoint the exact moment I realized I needed to walk away from the progressive movement.
I've always been a Obama skeptic, seeing him as the emperor with no clothes, a particularly devious sort of snake-oil salesman, peddling wares he can't possibly deliver, a cynical opportunist. But it was THAT line, delivered in private to rich elitist supporters, that rendered him dead to me, politically (although I still pray he will not be assassinated). In the absence of experience, knowledge, and wisdom, will serve as only an instrument of further divisiveness to the nation. Hillary may be a "monster", but we need such a monster to annihilate those forces that oppress us, not "reach across the aisle" to them.
And it was my encounters with a certain brand of hardcore Obama supporter that has changed my entire outlook toward progressive politics. We have changed too much as a people, and not for the better.
I won't deny residual racist tendencies and fears that do affect the way I feel toward Obama himself. What I was shocked by, was how Obama used his supporters to do his dirty work for him, socially, on the Internet, and in some segments of the media, to intimidate and stifle debate. There is an intolerance toward centrist thought on ANY issue, ANY point of dissention. There is intolerance toward even the existence of another Democratic candidate in the primary race itself! I am here to tell you these hardcore Obama supporters not only hate religion and spirituality, they demand any person of faith, whether demonstrably or not, renounce any loyalty to any higher power. In these types of social settings that I am privy to, where frustrations and rhetoric, I unwittingly "pass" as straight because of my demeanor and presence. There is tremendous anger and hatred toward gay and lesbian supporters that is expressed, even by openly gay Obama supporters! Why? Because Hillary is considered by them to be the big gay favorite, and they resent being "deserted". I am by no means a supporter of Israel's policies or the lobby, but there IS blatant, unapologetic antisemitism in that campaign, that I cannot support. I can deal with lashing out in a prejudiced way on individual issues where someone's self-identification with said issue correlates directly to the issue itself...but not to use these kinds of bigotries as all-purpose catch-alls, or in tit-for-tat retaliation for racial divisions and real racism towards blacks, that also undermines whatever unity as Americans we could ever hope to achieve.
For me, Wright was not a deciding factor (I'm not comfortable with his particular brand of ideology being such an influence on Obama, for such a long period of time, but he DOES bring up valid points of debate, and I think he's more honest than any of the candidates themselves), but Obama's manner of handling it, particularly the way he threw his own grandmother under the bus, does not inspire confidence. The Republicans will tear him to shreds.
But it was Obama's image, not as a dangerous black nationalist but as a catalyst of national class warfare, that brought it all together for me. The adulation, the lofty speeches, the robotic militarism....I just can't get past it, and it tempers the image of Hillary as a right-wing tool that I had in the past.
It's irrevocably changed a few business relationships, editors, pundits, and such, who were such a part of my life, such influences in my thinking. There are two progressive controversial radio hosts, one of which I'd met and practically idolized. Because of the changes I've seen in their work since the beginning of the year, I no longer even listen to their programs. To me, they are virtual campaign tools for Barack Obama, rather than DEMANDING the best candidate they could get from him, by taking his weaknesses to task before the Republicans do.
I'm even questioning who I am on the political spectrum.
The extremists make me wonder if I even have a place at the Democratic table, whether I even have the right to self-identify as liberal or progressive.
I'm against many of the apparent prevalent left-leaning positions Obama has brought stark definition to. I don't believe in quotas, I support the right to bear arms, I question the global-warming industrial complex that is developing, I think every zip code should have its own nuclear reactor.
I watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed the back-and-forth between the ever-vile Bill O'Reilly and Hillary on Fox...it was better and more substantive, IMHO, then any of the debates.
Does this mean I'm to register with my local Log Cabin Republican office? And how do I get past that whole annoying redistribution of wealth thing?
Thanks, guys. Always food for thought.
I apologize in advance for any offense my comments may inadvertently have caused.
What's amazing, a year later, and with me not really ranting about politics the way I once did, I'm taken with how different it seems now, just KNOWING there's a good chance Bush will leave office quietly.
In the interests of full disclosure, I just want to go on record as saying I cannot imagine voting for Obama...this year. I don't see this as a time of "hope", or "change", not unless I understand what I'm supposed to be hoping for this week, or what I'm directed to change in order to "make it happen".
I still have major issues with Hillary, but I'm over it and, barring any further bizarre happenings, will most likely vote for her (thank you, panthera, for encouraging me to participate, the courts issue has validity to it).
"Obama was right, even if he articulated it a bit awkwardly when he talked about "bitter" people and guns and religion."
Tom, I am DEFINITELY not trying to start an argument, but it's important for me to pinpoint the exact moment I realized I needed to walk away from the progressive movement.
I've always been a Obama skeptic, seeing him as the emperor with no clothes, a particularly devious sort of snake-oil salesman, peddling wares he can't possibly deliver, a cynical opportunist. But it was THAT line, delivered in private to rich elitist supporters, that rendered him dead to me, politically (although I still pray he will not be assassinated). In the absence of experience, knowledge, and wisdom, will serve as only an instrument of further divisiveness to the nation. Hillary may be a "monster", but we need such a monster to annihilate those forces that oppress us, not "reach across the aisle" to them.
And it was my encounters with a certain brand of hardcore Obama supporter that has changed my entire outlook toward progressive politics. We have changed too much as a people, and not for the better.
I won't deny residual racist tendencies and fears that do affect the way I feel toward Obama himself. What I was shocked by, was how Obama used his supporters to do his dirty work for him, socially, on the Internet, and in some segments of the media, to intimidate and stifle debate. There is an intolerance toward centrist thought on ANY issue, ANY point of dissention. There is intolerance toward even the existence of another Democratic candidate in the primary race itself! I am here to tell you these hardcore Obama supporters not only hate religion and spirituality, they demand any person of faith, whether demonstrably or not, renounce any loyalty to any higher power. In these types of social settings that I am privy to, where frustrations and rhetoric, I unwittingly "pass" as straight because of my demeanor and presence. There is tremendous anger and hatred toward gay and lesbian supporters that is expressed, even by openly gay Obama supporters! Why? Because Hillary is considered by them to be the big gay favorite, and they resent being "deserted". I am by no means a supporter of Israel's policies or the lobby, but there IS blatant, unapologetic antisemitism in that campaign, that I cannot support. I can deal with lashing out in a prejudiced way on individual issues where someone's self-identification with said issue correlates directly to the issue itself...but not to use these kinds of bigotries as all-purpose catch-alls, or in tit-for-tat retaliation for racial divisions and real racism towards blacks, that also undermines whatever unity as Americans we could ever hope to achieve.
For me, Wright was not a deciding factor (I'm not comfortable with his particular brand of ideology being such an influence on Obama, for such a long period of time, but he DOES bring up valid points of debate, and I think he's more honest than any of the candidates themselves), but Obama's manner of handling it, particularly the way he threw his own grandmother under the bus, does not inspire confidence. The Republicans will tear him to shreds.
But it was Obama's image, not as a dangerous black nationalist but as a catalyst of national class warfare, that brought it all together for me. The adulation, the lofty speeches, the robotic militarism....I just can't get past it, and it tempers the image of Hillary as a right-wing tool that I had in the past.
It's irrevocably changed a few business relationships, editors, pundits, and such, who were such a part of my life, such influences in my thinking. There are two progressive controversial radio hosts, one of which I'd met and practically idolized. Because of the changes I've seen in their work since the beginning of the year, I no longer even listen to their programs. To me, they are virtual campaign tools for Barack Obama, rather than DEMANDING the best candidate they could get from him, by taking his weaknesses to task before the Republicans do.
I'm even questioning who I am on the political spectrum.
The extremists make me wonder if I even have a place at the Democratic table, whether I even have the right to self-identify as liberal or progressive.
I'm against many of the apparent prevalent left-leaning positions Obama has brought stark definition to. I don't believe in quotas, I support the right to bear arms, I question the global-warming industrial complex that is developing, I think every zip code should have its own nuclear reactor.
I watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed the back-and-forth between the ever-vile Bill O'Reilly and Hillary on Fox...it was better and more substantive, IMHO, then any of the debates.
Does this mean I'm to register with my local Log Cabin Republican office? And how do I get past that whole annoying redistribution of wealth thing?
Thanks, guys. Always food for thought.
I apologize in advance for any offense my comments may inadvertently have caused.
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
One more question.
Who do you think is portrayed more unfairly in the mainstream media? Obama, Hillary, or McCain?
Has the media's way of covering this primary cycle affected your choices for how you GET news and opinion regarding the candidates?
Are media pundits and political commentators TOO transparent in their preferences for particular candidates, during the primary phase?
Do you believe they are exerting too much political influence on American society as a whole?
Who do you think is portrayed more unfairly in the mainstream media? Obama, Hillary, or McCain?
Has the media's way of covering this primary cycle affected your choices for how you GET news and opinion regarding the candidates?
Are media pundits and political commentators TOO transparent in their preferences for particular candidates, during the primary phase?
Do you believe they are exerting too much political influence on American society as a whole?
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
Oh, and, in my negative impressions of certain, very hardcore Obama extremists, in no way did I mean to convey that all Obama supporters, or even most of them, are like the extremists are.
I speak of these new extremists in such harsh terms because, indeed, I wonder if they are more of a threat to America and democracy then even the neocons are.
I speak of these new extremists in such harsh terms because, indeed, I wonder if they are more of a threat to America and democracy then even the neocons are.
