American Politics: Who has your vote and why?

[brittanimae]

I love American presidential politics, especially since I found out that my current country, Canada, doesn't elect their leaders directly. :(

I love that these presidential politicians have to put everything out there and woo the voters directly. This has been an exciting season--there's lots to say. So if you want, stop in and tell us who you're voting for and why. Or if you haven't decided yet, what's holding you back?

[CDarklock]

I am voting for Barack Obama. I'm just absolutely in love with the man. He's stood up and said what he really thinks when it was unpopular, championed bills that hold government spending up to public scrutiny, admitted his former drug use without qualm or apology, and said in so many words that he can't say what he'll do about certain issues until he's spoken with the appopriate experts.

We need that sort of thing in government. It's called "integrity". I appreciate it. So even though I'm a conservative Republican and he's a liberal Democrat, he has my vote.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Unfortunately for your thesis, we lower 48 folks don't directly elect our president. And this is a good thing. As for your question, the Presidential Candidates for the general election haven't been determined yet, so it is too soon to make a decision.

[brittanimae]

Aw, come on. :) It's more fun than electing a party anyway, and I only wish I'd started the thread before the Republican race was all sealed up. The more the merrier!

And for the record, I'm in Obama's camp. Yes, ideals, change, and all that. But as a writer, I appreciate the respect he has for words and their power as well. For all the flak his eloquence has taken from his detractors, I remain convinced that a leader who uses words well and wisely will take us far.

[InfinityGoddess]

Obama. Why? Because he's got good ground game and any Democrat down the ticket can stand to benefit from his wave, much moreso than Hillary. I want the winner, damnit. :tongue

[bluntforcetrauma]

*shakes head and wanders off*

[Don Allen]

The thread is a bit early, but what the hell... Obama, and here's why: I don't have anything at all against Hillary, but I think for all practical purpose's she's probably done. John McCain for me is really hard to pass on, because though I tease about his age, I have the utmost respect for the man and as a registered republican myself would have voted for him any other time. I choose Obama for 3 reasons, first he's a breath of fresh air. As a country we need some youth and a different view of the world. We've been terribly wounded by 911 and the poorly thought out reaction which led us to the occupation of another country. Too many of the folks from both parties seem so bitter and so wrongheaded that they have lost the meaning that the United States was founded upon, which when boiled down to it's simplest meaning is a nation where everyone has a chance to succeed and find peace and well being. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that lofty ideas can be realized if we have the courage to pursue them, Obama has that courage, and God knows he's paid for it.
Second, I think this guy is very smart, and I like smart, not just book smart, but street smart, he's not a hood, or a playa by any means but the guy has a feeling for what is going on around him and I trust that. I think it will serve him well as President.
...and lastly, he showed me something that I posted about a few weeks back that showed me the charactor of a man that we haven't seen in a President since perhaps Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, He refused to throw Rev. Wright under the bus for his own political gain, he could have done it, he was encouraged to do it, he probably should have done it, BUT HE DIDN'T... For me, my humble opinion, that showed me that he wasn't a sell out, and that he would stand and take a punch. That's a guy I want to be President, again no slight to the others but that's what swayed me toward Barack.

[William Haskins]

lee l. mercer, jr.

why?

because he "was ordered to create and or invent by the united states army that is now intact regulating the united states government protecting it through military intelligence computerization management a new discipline he invented and the administration of criminal law laws across the board."

that's important to me.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1381078559_8f3f1a0b40_o.jpg

[Don Allen]

Haskins, if I'd of thought for one second you were still up and lurking about I'd have been flouncing on the other thread??/ Damn the luck.....

[Takvah]

http://www.cinematrix.hu/fajlok/galeriak/muveszek/Walken_Ch/walken_56.jpg

Walken 08 BABY! (http://www.walken2008.com/politics.html)

"I've got a fever... and the only prescription is more cowbell!"
-Christopher Walken on health care.

This is a man with a plan!

[Cranky]

"I've got a fever... and the only prescription is more cowbell!"
-Christopher Walken

If only. *sigh*

[Bartholomew]

The complete fall of the two-party system has my vote.

[billythrilly7th]

The complete fall of the two-party system has my vote.

Why?

I'll bet my rep point cache that the third or fourth party candidate is just as much of a schmuck or schmuckette.

[Bartholomew]

Why?

I'll bet my rep point cache that the third or fourth party candidate is just as much of a schmuck or schmuckette.

My theory is that if there was some real competition about which party might get elected, then the quality of the candidates would be forced to improve.

[Bravo]

i hear that john mccain's a maverick, so that's why i'll vote for him.

[johnnysannie]

Obama.

I believe that he can deliver a measure of change, that he will work tirelessly for the American people, that he will be able to work within the two party system, and that he, more than any other candidate today, has experienced "real life". He is wealthy now but he did not grow up wealthy, not in his earliest years with his mother and grandparents. We need a President who can relate to the everyday struggles of life.

Those are just a few of the reasons why I voted for Obama in my state's primary election and why I hope to be able to vote for him in November.

[Bird of Prey]

Nader because Bart's right on.

[Jenan Mac]

I'm not terribly impressed by any of them. We have a guy with an anger management problem, a woman with a sense of entitlement, and another guy who for whom I just don't feel the love.
I'm tempted to write somebody in. I've been registered with a particular party since 1977, and I am so disgusted that they haven't taken this opportunity to offer a better slate of candidates that I've reregistered. I mean-- what the hell, the primaries are the only time registration is important, and my primary vote didn't count this year, anyway.

[MattW]

I'll vote for whoever Jesus tells me to vote for.

[Takvah]

McCain, because I find it insulting that in a country of nearly 300 million, we couldn't find a chicken shit, socialist, appeaser named Joe Smith, or Kenny Jones to run for the presidency. With a candidate named Barack Obama, it seems like we're even outsourcing the presidency. Frankly, it's a travesty. *snickers*

What I want to know is how people are going to pay for their gas, electricity and food with less money than they have now. I want to know how on earth people think that being taxed more is going to put anything into their pocket, or fix these very real financial burdens we are all facing.

[brokenfingers]

McCain, because I find it insulting that in a country of nearly 300 million, we couldn't find a chicken shit, socialist, appeaser named Joe Smith, or Kenny Jones to run for the presidency. With a candidate named Barack Obama, it seems like we're even outsourcing the presidency. Frankly, it's a travesty. *snickers*You're kidding, right? I can't really tell, so please tell me you're kidding.

Please tell me that you don't really believe that being American or serving this country or making it a better place has anything to do with the spelling or heritage of your first or last name.

[NikeeGoddess]

:roll: broken - i don't know which is funnier: that you can't tell or that you care what he thinks to the point that you're crushed.

sorry

[onlyhere]

I'm voting for McCain. I'd rather vote democratic, but I just can't bring myself to vote for either Hillary or Obama. Then again, if McCain takes Rice as a running mate I may not vote at all.

[whistlelock]

I would like to put forth my own candidate for Presidency at this time: Lord Humongous!

He will campaign on a platform of Free Passage Through the Wastes, and...well, that's pretty much it. Free Passage through the Wastes.

http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/rwhumungus2.jpg

[RumpleTumbler]

lee l. mercer, jr.

why?

because he "was ordered to create and or invent by the united states army that is now intact regulating the united states government protecting it through military intelligence computerization management a new discipline he invented and the administration of criminal law laws across the board."

that's important to me.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1381078559_8f3f1a0b40_o.jpg


lol...that looks like Michael Duncan.

[whistlelock]

What I want to know is how people are going to pay for their gas, electricity and food with less money than they have now. I want to know how on earth people think that being taxed more is going to put anything into their pocket, or fix these very real financial burdens we are all facing.

I'm curious, have you ever bothered to read the Democratic candidates platforms?

Based on that quote, I'm going to guess that you haven't.

Stop listening to what Rush tells you the Democrats are going to do- and go read for yourself.

[Perks]

I honestly don't know. It'll help once the nominees are declared.

I swing between enthusiasm and cynicism. The field as it stands now is more interesting to me than it's ever been before. It seems that there are some unique skill-sets on the table. I'll need to see the Big Two stand up against each other, and then do some reading up on Nader.

Then I'll probably take and aspirin and put a cold cloth on my forehead until it's all over.

Big help to the thread, huh?

[Takvah]

I'm curious, have you ever bothered to read the Democratic candidates platforms?

Based on that quote, I'm going to guess that you haven't.

Stop listening to what Rush tells you the Democrats are going to do- and go read for yourself.

I have read the platforms. Looking at healthcare Obama says that his plan will save employers $140 billion a year, and cost $50-60 billion per year. Is this plan audited? If it is I haven't seen it on his site (could have missed it), if you have a link, by all means please post it. How will it be paid for? Oh yeah we're going to get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Of course Obama shovels the bullshit about how people making over $250K/yr will be the people getting socked for this thing, but that's not true. The Dems have recently revealed that their wishlist tax increases would hit individuals making $30K a year and couples making around $60K a year. That doesn't sound like socking it to the rich to me. Will Mr. Obama as president, prevent the Dems from savaging the little people? I doubt it.

On top of it all, when you read the .pdf "plans" of Mr. Obama, you get a very real sinking in your stomach as you look at the long littany of populist nonsense he lists. I mean just the healthcare portion reads like every wish and desire ever expressed, was loaded into a cannon and then fired onto a wall... what sticks might get done... what doesn't won't. It doesn't strike me as a plan... the same goes for all the rest.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, but if you say he's talking about this I have to wonder if you do... and if so, why? I don't support people I have issues with.

[johnnysannie]

You're kidding, right? I can't really tell, so please tell me you're kidding.

Please tell me that you don't really believe that being American or serving this country or making it a better place has anything to do with the spelling or heritage of your first or last name.

I certainly hope he was kidding. If he was, I don't find it amusing in the least. The idea that anyone is more American based on their white bread given or last name than someone with an ethnic name is ridiculous - and unAmerican.

[Takvah]

I certainly hope he was kidding. If he was, I don't find it amusing in the least. The idea that anyone is more American based on their white bread given or last name than someone with an ethnic name is ridiculous - and unAmerican.

By God, it's ... unAmerican! Forget the healthcare and the free cheese, get this woman a sense of humor.

[DWSTXS]

None of the above.

They're all serving the same mashed potato's, the only difference is one serves it with cream gravy and one serves it with brown gravy.

[whistlelock]

I have read the platforms. Looking at healthcare Obama says that his plan will save employers $140 billion a year, and cost $50-60 billion per year. Is this plan audited? If it is I haven't seen it on his site (could have missed it), if you have a link, by all means please post it. How will it be paid for? Oh yeah we're going to get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Of course Obama shovels the bullshit about how people making over $250K/yr will be the people getting socked for this thing, but that's not true. The Dems have recently revealed that their wishlist tax increases would hit individuals making $30K a year and couples making around $60K a year. That doesn't sound like socking it to the rich to me. Will Mr. Obama as president, prevent the Dems from savaging the little people? I doubt it.

On top of it all, when you read the .pdf "plans" of Mr. Obama, you get a very real sinking in your stomach as you look at the long littany of populist nonsense he lists. I mean just the healthcare portion reads like every wish and desire ever expressed, was loaded into a cannon and then fired onto a wall... what sticks might get done... what doesn't won't. It doesn't strike me as a plan... the same goes for all the rest.



alright, let's highjack the thread with healthcare.

Interesting- you're not willing to spread the burden of healthcare out amoungst all the various tax payers. gotcha. And have you investigated what the taxes will be for those who make more than $250,000 a year? Surely the tax structure will be different for them than it is now.

so, if you don't support a Dem approach- do you support McCain's bullet points? Do you believe that a free and unfettered market could drive down costs and make more healthcare available?

[Perks]

Isn't the 'free unfettered market' what's making us slave to the pharmaceutical cartel? I still have a long way to go in understanding all the healthcare platforms that are out there, but the 'free market' owns the FDA - and it's killing us. Literally.

[Jenan Mac]

I want to know how access to insurance equals access to healthcare.
We have insurance. It's not even particularly dreadful insurance. But I still don't dare go to the emergency room for an asthma attack, because it'll cost me around a thousand bucks I can't afford.
Even with insurance, I spend more for my ten year old daughter's meds than my eighty-four year old mother does for hers. We can scrimp a bit, and afford them, but if I were living on a nurses' aide's paycheck, that insurance would do me no good. Assuming I could afford the insurance in the first place on that wage (big "if"), I still wouldn't have the nearly $200 a month out of pocket for her meds, or the copay for the doc who does her med management.

[Joe Unidos]

I'll be voting for whomever the Democrats end up nominating, unless the party somehow manages to completely self-destruct between now and November (which is a distinct possibility.)

[CDarklock]

What I want to know is how people are going to pay for their gas, electricity and food with less money than they have now.

That's rather a flawed premise. I'll make more money next year. If the new regime raises taxes, they won't go up even nearly as much as my income does.

Obama is a trade-off. Am I willing to risk higher taxes to have a proven agent of change in the Oval Office? Yes. Yes, I am.

My decision tree goes like this:

- Is Obama running? Vote Obama.
- Is Romney running? Vote Romney.
- Is Lieberman running? Vote Lieberman.
- Vote for the candidate next to the (R).

In any race, I list out the most compelling candidates in the order I prefer them, and as they drop out of the race they fall off the tree. Currently, if Obama doesn't run, I vote McCain. Romney and Lieberman are only on the tree for illustrative purposes.

[CDarklock]

so, if you don't support a Dem approach- do you support McCain's bullet points? Do you believe that a free and unfettered market could drive down costs and make more healthcare available?

I entirely agree with McCain's bullet points on health care. It's called "passing ECON 101". Trying to make one plan for everyone is really just "one plan to bring them all and in the darkness bind them". Talk to anyone in the UK about government-provided medical care; it sucks. And the UK is much smaller than the US. You think it would be BETTER on a grand scale? That's not reality.

[Takvah]

That's rather a flawed premise. I'll make more money next year. If the new regime raises taxes, they won't go up even nearly as much as my income does.


Will your income keep up with inflation, especially on the energy side?


In any race, I list out the most compelling candidates in the order I prefer them, and as they drop out of the race they fall off the tree. Currently, if Obama doesn't run, I vote McCain. Romney and Lieberman are only on the tree for illustrative purposes.

I would love to have tiered voting where we all pick from many candidates, listing them in our order of preference and working our way (after several rounds) to somebody all of us seem to be able to deal with. It would open the process up a bit more. Currently the two major parties have more to say about who runs this country than we as citizens do. We get to select from their predetermined lot... oh joy.

[Takvah]

alright, let's highjack the thread with healthcare.

:rolleyes: Funny, you say that I haven't read the platform. I offer evidence that I have and you call it a thread hijack. Uhmmm hmmmm.... in the interests of keeping it on topic, I'll refrain from discussing my thoughts on the free market vs. socialized, debate. I guess you just wanted to get in your "witty" Limbaugh comment and weren't expecting to be engaged in an actual give and take. I'll try to make a note of your name so that in the future I won't be so stupid as to repeat the mistake.

[CDarklock]

Will your income keep up with inflation, especially on the energy side?

I don't like this question, because the underlying point - and a very valid one - is that an awful lot of people can't answer it in the affirmative. The reason I don't like that is twofold: not only can I confidently answer it in the affirmative, but I believe the people who can't have only themselves to blame. And that's a big, heated conversation I'd rather not have. At its heart, it's a belief that each and every person on the planet could walk out of his door today and make more money somehow, but culturally, we just don't like the idea that we're in control of our own destinies - and that's natural and normal, but it's not a recipe for success.

I would love to have tiered voting where we all pick from many candidates

You cannot seriously expect the average American citizen to care enough about politics that he's willing to construct a merit-weighted list of all the candidates. If you don't immediately have that list in your head when you hear the goal, you've got better things to do than build one.

"I'm for X" is about as much as most people have time to figure out; sixty percent of voters don't figure anything out at all, and far too many of the other forty percent figure it out in really, really stupid ways. Making it more complicated isn't going to improve matters.

[Takvah]

I don't like this question, because the underlying point - and a very valid one - is that an awful lot of people can't answer it in the affirmative. The reason I don't like that is twofold: not only can I confidently answer it in the affirmative, but I believe the people who can't have only themselves to blame.

I actually agree with you.



You cannot seriously expect the average American citizen to care enough about politics that he's willing to construct a merit-weighted list of all the candidates. If you don't immediately have that list in your head when you hear the goal, you've got better things to do than build one.

"I'm for X" is about as much as most people have time to figure out; sixty percent of voters don't figure anything out at all, and far too many of the other forty percent figure it out in really, really stupid ways. Making it more complicated isn't going to improve matters.

I will continue to expect more from a free people rather than less. That people are so disinterested is a crime. I cannot be so cynical as to relent but you're likely right. People are "free" to be ignorant. It's the cross we bear.

[Don Allen]

You guys need to join the real world if you think the average working stiff can make more money anytime they want if they would just go out and work for it. First of all without a decent education, which is out of reach for many millions of Americans your chance of landing a job that pays a living wage is not real good. Secondly, there are only so many hours in a day, so even if a guy or girl is an ass kicking workaholic who puts in 16 at 2 different jobs averaging say $10 per hour that's 160 per day or $800 per week ..add a sat, and make it 960 per week if he or she kills themselves and forgets about having a life, 50 grand a year for a 96 hour work week.. damn where can you sign up for that... You assume that all people have the same opportunities, Well,,, that's just wrong, they don't, and no matter how you spin it, you can't catagorically define all people as lazy bastards who only have themselves to blame for their position in life.

[johnnysannie]

I don't like this question, because the underlying point - and a very valid one - is that an awful lot of people can't answer it in the affirmative. The reason I don't like that is twofold: not only can I confidently answer it in the affirmative, but I believe the people who can't have only themselves to blame
.

There are many extenuating factors that can affect anyone's ability to keep up with inflation and it is short-sighted to think that there are not factors that reduce income that are out of anyone's personal control.

The company where my husband has worked for 23 years and where he makes - for now - very good money - has systematically been reducing wages so that new hires can only hope to make about 1/3 of what he makes. Every department but the one he now works in has seen wages slashed. If his wages are slashed, how would that be his or any of the employees fault?

My aunt works at a large chain store (no, it's not Wal-mart) but the location where she works is closing in a few months. Can anyone put the blame on her when her income is suddenly gone and she has to struggle to keep up with inflation?

Get real. There are many people out there who work hard but may not be able to keep up with the rising tide of inflation through no fault of their own.

In other threads, I've discussed how I keep a well-stocked larder, save money, and keep other non-perishable supplies on hand to help my family weather any unexpected event. Some have saluted that effort; others have mocked it as a doomsday mindset which it is not.

With the current inflation and ailing economy I just hope all the overconfident folks who think that trouble can never come their way never have to live like real folks.

[johnnysannie]

By God, it's ... unAmerican! Forget the healthcare and the free cheese, get this woman a sense of humor.

I have a sense of humor in the right time and place but when talking about important and serious life issues, I'm seldom amused.

I grew up with a long, ethnic surname (and still use it with my husband's name as well). Unless you have one, you have no idea how it is to have your name misprounced, mangled, made into a joke, or to order pizza and go to pick it up only to be told that they didn't bake it - they thought it was a joke because of the "funny" name. And, yes, that really happened.

[czjaba]

My mom, after over 25 years on the same job, was laid off a few months ago, due to factory shut down because all the jobs were sent to China. What is out there for a 55-year-old woman to do? Log before the lay-offs, she has her husband add her onto his health insurance and started working part-time at a daycare. So, for over 3 years, she worked a full time job and a part time job, just to make sure she would qualify for the daycare job when/if her company shut down. She is now working at the daycare, that offers no benefits and slightly less than half the pay she was making before.

[CDarklock]

I actually agree with you.

Good Lord, and you said it out loud? On the INTERNET? You're nuts.

I will continue to expect more from a free people rather than less.

Well, that's doomed to failure. Think of life as being divided between "work" and "leisure". Everything you do is either "work" or "leisure". A free person may choose, at every point in time, which he pursues - and most people prefer leisure.

One's chance at success might be productively defined as the intersection of the two groups. If your work is your leisure, you effectively get paid to enjoy yourself.

[CDarklock]

it is short-sighted to think that there are not factors that reduce income that are out of anyone's personal control.

You're right, it is. If something can reduce your income that is out of your personal control, failure to recognise, assess, and respond to that risk is short-sighted.

If his wages are slashed, how would that be his or any of the employees fault?

What do you mean if? "Why, that train just hit all those cars down there, and it's hitting every single car it passes, and ours is the next in line. I sure hope it doesn't hit us." Reduce your expenses NOW. Run toward the train.

My aunt works at a large chain store (no, it's not Wal-mart) but the location where she works is closing in a few months.

Then why does she still work there? She should take what money she has, figure out how long that gives her to get another job, and QUIT. Do it NOW. In "a few months", EVERYONE from that store is looking for a job. Supply, demand, ECON 101.

Get real. There are many people out there who work hard but may not be able to keep up with the rising tide of inflation through no fault of their own.

If you work someplace where you can't keep up with the rising tide of inflation, you are working in the wrong place. Whose fault is that?

In other threads, I've discussed how I keep a well-stocked larder

That is called "risk management". You see a risk, you prepare a plan, and you execute it. That is what your husband and aunt should be doing. Both of them KNOW that Bad Things are about to happen. They need to do something. The best thing you can do is the right thing; the second-best thing you can do is the wrong thing; and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

Whose fault is it if you do nothing? Rhetorical question. You know the answer.

Do you know what happens when you do nothing? You become poor. Inevitably, if you continue to do nothing, you will become poor. You will gradually lose everything you have and end up on the street. The only thing you have to do is nothing. The only way to stop it is - you guessed it - do something.

I just hope all the overconfident folks who think that trouble can never come their way never have to live like real folks.

I spent two years homeless in DC. That's as real as you get.

Fast forward twenty years, my tax return shows a six-figure adjusted gross income.

Nobody gave me squat. I earned every last damn dime I make. And when I say "you can do it too", I mean it. We are today, we have always been, and we will always be the land of opportunity. Like no place else.

And to drag this back on topic - it is simply not possible for a President to change that. It would take decades, potentially centuries, of concerted single-minded effort to sufficiently damage the foundations and underpinnings of this country that opportunity becomes available only to the select few... or even worse, parceled out in equal portions to everyone. It just plain can't be done. No single President, no single party, no single generation can do that much damage. And in the long run, across all political foci, things work out better than they do anywhere else.

Radical new ideas are just that, ideas, until they garner sufficient popular support to get the attention of Congress - and Obama has demonstrated his willingness to strike when that iron is hot, and strike in the best interest of the American people. I don't see that from McCain, and I honestly think Hillary doesn't give a rat's ass about what's good for the American people - as long as they keep cheering.

[brittanimae]

I gotta say, the most surprising thing to me about this thread (which I suppose it shouldn't surprise me at all given the voter turnout in the last several elections) is the lack of PASSION. I've always been passionate about looking for leaders. I have my job in society and I strive to do it well. In order to continue to do so, I need wise political leaders as well. I always wonder how so many tawdry, uninspiring leaders get elected--I don't vote for them! But it seems many people are so disenchanted with -- something -- that this process just doesn't sweep them up as it does me. I'm all about the desire for improvement, for being a force for good in the world. And talking politics, talking candidates, positions, values--well, I just can't get enough of it. Read! Talk! Write! Change the world!!!

*I'm blabbing, aren't I?*

[Jenan Mac]

I would love to have tiered voting where we all pick from many candidates, listing them in our order of preference and working our way (after several rounds) to somebody all of us seem to be able to deal with. It would open the process up a bit more. Currently the two major parties have more to say about who runs this country than we as citizens do. We get to select from their predetermined lot... oh joy.


I haven't found myself in a greement with many of the things you've posted, but I could absolutely get behind this. It's incredibly disheartening finding oneself held hostage to either political party-- even if you've mostly agreed with one or the other in past.

[Jenan Mac]

I gotta say, the most surprising thing to me about this thread (which I suppose it shouldn't surprise me at all given the voter turnout in the last several elections) is the lack of PASSION.


Sadly, the biggest contributor to my current disgust with the electoral system in the US has been the time I've spent in the last year working at the polls.
It really IS as screwed up as we think it is.

[CDarklock]

I gotta say, the most surprising thing to me about this thread (which I suppose it shouldn't surprise me at all given the voter turnout in the last several elections) is the lack of PASSION.

If you don't see passion in what I'm saying, something is wrong with you. I am a dyed-in-the-wool true believer; combat veteran, former defense contractor, and I was in Boston at the bicentennial for God's sake. Just because I'm not afraid to criticise the government doesn't mean I don't love the hell out of this country.

I guess it's easier to see when you're sitting next to me at the bar and I've had a few. ;)

[William Haskins]

I gotta say, the most surprising thing to me about this thread (which I suppose it shouldn't surprise me at all given the voter turnout in the last several elections) is the lack of PASSION. I've always been passionate about looking for leaders. I have my job in society and I strive to do it well. In order to continue to do so, I need wise political leaders as well. I always wonder how so many tawdry, uninspiring leaders get elected--I don't vote for them! But it seems many people are so disenchanted with -- something -- that this process just doesn't sweep them up as it does me. I'm all about the desire for improvement, for being a force for good in the world. And talking politics, talking candidates, positions, values--well, I just can't get enough of it. Read! Talk! Write! Change the world!!!

*I'm blabbing, aren't I?*

well ain't you precious...

voter turnout for national elections in the US is in a 15 year upswing, approaching levels not seen since the 1960s.

http://elections.gmu.edu/turnou2.gif

as for "looking for leaders", most americans just want someone in there who'll stay out of their pockets, keep the economy going, keep america safe and not fuck things up.

granted, george bush's mismanagement of just about everything has primed the public for a new direction, but americans by and large don't like politicians.

the world will never be changed for the better by elected officials.

[Takvah]

I think anybody reading this subforum at AW sees a real passion in what people are discussing and the views they are expressing. I think that there is an element of our society that lacks passion. Unfortunately, these people are the breeders as well... and so you see how this becomes a problem of exponential proportion! :D

[CDarklock]

You guys need to join the real world if you think the average working stiff can make more money anytime they want

He can! It's just that he generally doesn't know how, can't tell which choice is better, and even if he could - he wouldn't do it.

You assume that all people have the same opportunities

No, I know that all people have some kind of opportunities. When you're some dirty homeless bum, your opportunities are miniscule; when you're Donald Trump or Bill Gates, they're massive. But there are opportunities. You just have to see them for what they are and take the best ones.

There was a Will Smith movie about this recently - "The Pursuit of Happyness" (sic). Not really repeatable, but the principle's there.

[Cranky]

I think anybody reading this subforum at AW sees a real passion in what people are discussing and the views they are expressing. I think that there is an element of our society that lacks passion. Unfortunately, these people are the breeders as well... and so you see how this becomes a problem of exponential proportion! :D


Why do you hate the children?

[CDarklock]

george bush's mismanagement

I'm always torn when I look at GW. On the one hand, he's trying to accomplish some stunningly incorrect things... but on the other, I kind of admire his willingness to take a stand! There's something special about a President who basically stands up and goes "I know this is going to be unpopular, but well, fuck you." And since I'm generally of the opinion that one President - no matter how bad - can't really do much damage in the long run, I sort of lean in the direction of applauding.

[Cranky]

He can! It's just that he generally doesn't know how, can't tell which choice is better, and even if he could - he wouldn't do it.



No, I know that all people have some kind of opportunities. When you're some dirty homeless bum, your opportunities are miniscule; when you're Donald Trump or Bill Gates, they're massive. But there are opportunities. You just have to see them for what they are and take the best ones.

There was a Will Smith movie about this recently - "The Pursuit of Happyness" (sic). Not really repeatable, but the principle's there.

And it's not usually an opportunity in the sense of stuff falling into your lap, either.

It's seeing your options, choosing the best that you've got. Which leads to more, and better, choices.

And on and on and on. It's usually a long, hard slog, but it can be done. My husband busts his butt (sorry, I know I'm bragging again, but I think the world of this man) working full-time and going to school full-time to CREATE better opportunities for himself and our family.

He could stay at home, and only go to school, and we could collect scads of welfare and sit on our bums and wail about how hard our life is. But we don't. He works hard, and we work hard, and we keep trying even when life kicks the crap out of us.

Because if you don't, life never gets any better.

[brittanimae]

And see, that's the beauty of America: :Lecture:

People who work hard and live hard and love hard. Oddly, I love it more now that I don't live there. Although not even distance could make my heart grow fonder of GW. :guns:

[mscelina]

I think anybody reading this subforum at AW sees a real passion in what people are discussing and the views they are expressing. I think that there is an element of our society that lacks passion. Unfortunately, these people are the breeders as well... and so you see how this becomes a problem of exponential proportion! :D

the BREEDERS?

Wow. What a bastion of moderation. Many of the BREEDERS take care of what they've BRED, and I seriously doubt they need your input on that.

Back on topic, I haven't made up my mind who I'm going to vote for yet. First off, because it isn't time. Second off, because I haven't heard what the final candidates have to say. I'll make up my mind when it's time to. Until then, I'll keep an open mind and hope to remain objective enough to make the right decision when it counts.

[CDarklock]

And it's not usually an opportunity in the sense of stuff falling into your lap, either.

An opportunity is usually a chance to work. If you're looking for a way to avoid work, opportunities aren't generally presenting themselves.

I have lately been thinking I should go back to college. I have a crap degree that I actually conceal from employers, because it worries them. I feel like I spend too much time around economists, and I am really not qualified to have opinions in that company, so I should get a degree in economics. And then... well, I also spend a lot of time around lawyers. So I should go to law school, just so I don't feel inadequate and insecure among them, either. And once you've been to law school - well, you just have to pass the bar, right? And geez. In today's political climate, just imagine what an economist with a law degree and seventeen years in the software industry could command as a salary.

Hey, are you just using CrankyPants as your emblem because they're cool, or did you have something to do with creating them? Because if you did, you know my wife.

[CDarklock]

the BREEDERS?

I keep wondering something about that comment.

Isn't breeding normally the product of passion?

I mean, it is for me. My youngest son was born roughly nine months after Valentine's day, and my eldest was born roughly nine months after my anniversary. Coincidence? I think not.

[johnnysannie]

You're right, it is. If something can reduce your income that is out of your personal control, failure to recognise, assess, and respond to that risk is short-sighted.



What do you mean if? "Why, that train just hit all those cars down there, and it's hitting every single car it passes, and ours is the next in line. I sure hope it doesn't hit us." Reduce your expenses NOW. Run toward the train.

Your response is both insulting as well as ridiculous. I keep our expenses as low as possible and always have; my Depression era grandparents taught me that. You obviously don't dwell in a real world.

Then why does she still work there? She should take what money she has, figure out how long that gives her to get another job, and QUIT. Do it NOW. In "a few months", EVERYONE from that store is looking for a job. Supply, demand, ECON 101.

She works there because 1. the store just told - off the record - the employees that this is coming within weeks 2. There are not a lot of jobs for an older woman (note czjaba's post about a similar situation) and 3. her economic situation is already far from rosy

If you work someplace where you can't keep up with the rising tide of inflation, you are working in the wrong place. Whose fault is that?



That is called "risk management". You see a risk, you prepare a plan, and you execute it. That is what your husband and aunt should be doing. Both of them KNOW that Bad Things are about to happen. They need to do something. The best thing you can do is the right thing; the second-best thing you can do is the wrong thing; and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

Whose fault is it if you do nothing? Rhetorical question. You know the answer.

Do you know what happens when you do nothing? You become poor. Inevitably, if you continue to do nothing, you will become poor. You will gradually lose everything you have and end up on the street. The only thing you have to do is nothing. The only way to stop it is - you guessed it - do something.



I spent two years homeless in DC. That's as real as you get.

Fast forward twenty years, my tax return shows a six-figure adjusted gross income.

Nobody gave me squat. I earned every last damn dime I make. And when I say "you can do it too", I mean it. We are today, we have always been, and we will always be the land of opportunity. Like no place else.

And to drag this back on topic - it is simply not possible for a President to change that. It would take decades, potentially centuries, of concerted single-minded effort to sufficiently damage the foundations and underpinnings of this country that opportunity becomes available only to the select few... or even worse, parceled out in equal portions to everyone. It just plain can't be done. No single President, no single party, no single generation can do that much damage. And in the long run, across all political foci, things work out better than they do anywhere else.

Radical new ideas are just that, ideas, until they garner sufficient popular support to get the attention of Congress - and Obama has demonstrated his willingness to strike when that iron is hot, and strike in the best interest of the American people. I don't see that from McCain, and I honestly think Hillary doesn't give a rat's ass about what's good for the American people - as long as they keep cheering.

In short, I'll be both brief and blunt - you're full of shit and you have no idea what you are blethering on about.

[DWSTXS]

well ain't you precious...

voter turnout for national elections in the US is in a 15 year upswing, approaching levels not seen since the 1960s.

http://elections.gmu.edu/turnou2.gif

as for "looking for leaders", most americans just want someone in there who'll stay out of their pockets, keep the economy going, keep america safe and not fuck things up.

granted, george bush's mismanagement of just about everything has primed the public for a new direction, but americans by and large don't like politicians.

the world will never be changed for the better by elected officials.



*********************

I agree with Haskins, - -but americans by and large don't like politicians.

the world will never be changed for the better by elected officials - -

I try to distill it down even further.

ELEPHANTS and ASSES, CONNING the MASSES !

[brittanimae]

*********************

I agree with Haskins, - -but americans by and large don't like politicians.

the world will never be changed for the better by elected officials - -

I try to distill it down even further.

ELEPHANTS and ASSES, CONNING the MASSES !

Hahaha. I stand corrected. :D

[Mom'sWrite]

I'm voting for Nader-again. He gets my vote because I know his chances of being elected are nil and yet I'll still be able to sleep well at night.

If McCain were younger and in better health, I would vote for him. I met him once when he was a freshman Congressman from Arizona. We talked for almost an hour. He was sharp, self-confident without being pompous, funny and sexy as hell. He left me with the impression that he wasn't his party's puppet. I liked that. And did I mention that he was sexy as hell? I've met 6-8 congressmen/senators in my travels and he was the only one I found to be genuine.

ETA: I forgot to add that the smart, sexy, genuine McCain encounter happened better than 20 years ago. In Washingtoon years that's like 3 or 4 centuries.

[dgiharris]

I'm always torn when I look at GW. On the one hand, he's trying to accomplish some stunningly incorrect things... but on the other, I kind of admire his willingness to take a stand! There's something special about a President who basically stands up and goes "I know this is going to be unpopular, but well, fuck you." And since I'm generally of the opinion that one President - no matter how bad - can't really do much damage in the long run, I sort of lean in the direction of applauding.

You know, had GW just been competent, he could have went down in history as one of the best presidents ever.

These are historic times. The UN is the biggest joke to World Security, we are passing from the Industrial Age to the Information Age and the Space Age is just on the horizon, world dynamics has left a super power vacuum and the US will be unchallenged for probably another 10- 15 yrs (China and India are up and comers)...

Basically, the stage was set for greatness. And the one thing I've wanted in a leader was someone to just follow their heart and do what they believed was right. And that is GW. Just unfortunately, dear god, how he so mucked things up. I think his biggest mistake was Cronniesm, the Good Ol boys club.

But, the stage is still set for the next President. My spidey sense tells me that the Dems are going fuck it all up and McCain will be the next president.
*sigh*
Only time will tell.

Mel...

[Siddow]

In short, I'll be both brief and blunt - you're full of shit and you have no idea what you are blethering on about.

I thought he was dead-on. But you knew that, didn't you?

I'm sick to freaking death hearing folks complain about their place in life when they ain't willing to do anything about it. If you're dumb, it ain't the government's fault.

[InfinityGoddess]

I'm sick to freaking death hearing folks complain about their place in life when they ain't willing to do anything about it. If you're dumb, it ain't the government's fault.

Sometimes people can't do anything about their circumstances, though, no matter how hard they try. They could work two or three jobs and still can't pay the bills. College costs and low quality schools don't help much either if you're looking to get out of the low end of the socioeconomic ladder.

And since public schools are run by the government, in many ways, yes, people "being dumb" can be the government's fault if they don't give them adequate monies to be able to properly educate the kids in the system. And financial aid needs to be fixed so that people can go to college, regardless of income. The requirements to get on the aid here in NJ alone is ridiculous because you have to be pretty penniless to get the most of it.

[Siddow]

Sometimes people can't do anything about their circumstances, though, no matter how hard they try. They could work two or three jobs and still can't pay the bills. College costs and low quality schools don't help much either if you're looking to get out of the low end of the socioeconomic ladder.

And since public schools are run by the government, in many ways, yes, people "being dumb" can be the government's fault if they don't give them adequate monies to be able to properly educate the kids in the system. And financial aid needs to be fixed so that people can go to college, regardless of income. The requirements to get on the aid here in NJ alone is ridiculous because you have to be pretty penniless to get the most of it.

Yes, it's the gubbermint skool's fault for not gibbing me adequate monies!!11!!

(nods and laughs to the fooblish gal who gabe me the terminology)

[InfinityGoddess]

Yes, it's the gubbermint skool's fault for not gibbing me adequate monies!!11!!

(nods and laughs to the fooblish gal who gabe me the terminology)

Uh....yeah.

I can see where this is headed...

[Bird of Prey]

I'm voting for Nader-again. He gets my vote because I know his chances of being elected are nil and yet I'll still be able to sleep well at night.



Exactly. I commend you for following your heart and your head, and at least attempting to turn the tide instead of making the claim but doing nothing but perpetuating the status quo, namely corruption.

[donroc]

My vote for President and everyone and everything else down to "dog catcher" on the typical U.S. ballot, which includes Senators, Congress, state and Local politicans, assorted propositions, and the most stealthy of all, Judges, will be based as it always has been for me solely upon enlightened self-interest.

I do support the best possible person to deliver for me in the primaries. After that, it is the party of preference. A 3rd party vote may make one feel good, but currently it has no practical use other than to guarantee perhaps the greater of one's perceived two evils to win, as the dems learned in Florida. Not the chads, it was the Nader voters who gave us Dubya. And for the Reps, it was Perot who gave us the Clintons.

[RumpleTumbler]

Exactly. I commend you for following your heart and your head, and at least attempting to turn the tide instead of making the claim but doing nothing but perpetuating the status quo, namely corruption.

Ralph Nader has about as much chance of being the next President of the United States as I do.

I'm all for voting your conscience and sticking with your convictions, however, I also think it's important to not throw your vote away.

In my opinion the Nader supporters should weigh the situation come election time and cast their vote for the candidate who can actually win and most closely resembles their candidate. Then you have the chance to change the tide in your direction at least partially rather than throw your vote away and have the situation perhaps less to your favor than it could have been but be able to say "I stood my ground."

[Bird of Prey]

My vote for President and everyone and everything else down to "dog catcher" on the typical U.S. ballot, which includes Senators, Congress, state and Local politicans, assorted propositions, and the most stealthy of all, Judges, will be based as it always has been for me solely upon enlightened self-interest.

I do support the best possible person to deliver for me in the primaries. After that, it is the party of preference. A 3rd party vote may make one feel good, but currently it has no practical use other than to guarantee perhaps the greater of one's perceived two evils to win, as the dems learned in Florida. Not the chads, it was the Nader voters who gave us Dubya. And for the Reps, it was Perot who gave us the Clintons.

No, Donroc, it's people just like you - and me - that gave us Dubya and Clinton. It's people who perpetuate the two party system that give us what we get. People can try to blame Nader or any other third party candidate that honestly tries to take the country in a new direction, but it's ultimately stagnant thought aka concession to corrupt, career politicians that give us the status quo.

Anybody voting his/her conscience is not throwing a vote away. Quite the contrary. These people are the only people that aren't throwing their vote away.

And George W. Bush is in office because of the complacency and timidity of the American people, who give change a lot of lipservice but don't mean a word of it. They'd rather complain and feign shock when it's corruption and cronyism as usual.

[donroc]

And what is your conscience based upon? You actually vote against your own interests?
Astounding.

[Cranky]

No, Donroc, it's people just like you - and me - that gave us Dubya and Clinton. It's people who perpetuate the two party system that give us what we get. People can try to blame Nader or any other third party candidate that honestly tries to take the country in a new direction, but it's ultimately stagnant thought aka concession to corrupt, career politicians that give us the status quo.

Anybody voting his/her conscience is not throwing a vote away. Quite the contrary. These people are the only people that aren't throwing their vote away.

And George W. Bush is in office because of the complacency and timidity of the American people, who give change a lot of lipservice but don't mean a word of it. They'd rather complain and feign shock when it's corruption and cronyism as usual.

I get what you're saying, Bird, and I partially agree, actually. My problem is that I couldn't vote for Nader, since he's not up my alley. :) Too bad Ron Paul is (probably) a racist, and definitely seems to have a bit of xenophobia that I don't care for. Plus a few other troublesome things.

*sigh* So, I'm left with McCain, anyway. :)

[Bird of Prey]

And what is your conscience based upon? You actually vote against your own interests?
Astounding.


I'm not voting against my own interests. I'm voting my interests.

My interests are not with some bullshit artist making deals with an armtwisting thug to secure property in an exclusive neighborhood of Chicago. Does that sound like "one of the people" to you? Sound like change to you? How about a twenty year relationship with a racist reverend who's building his own exclusive mansion in a posh neighborhood, while the bulk of his "congregation" can sit their working class asses outside his gated community, excluding Obama of course? Sound like change to you?

Or how bout a guy that at least had the decency to serve in the military but now believes that we should keep a war going to its bitter end even as the economy falls apart? His answer to squalor? More tax cuts and corporate dominion and of course, oil. Who cares what health care costs? And who cares what the dollar's worth or who ultimately owns IBM? As long as CEO's are making record salaries and taking record bonuses, the economy's O.K., huh? After all, that's democracy, RIGHT? Bullshit.

Or how bout all of them including Clinton, who at least had the decency to go to China and address the human rights violations, but still doesn't have any problem selling American manufacturing jobs overseas, and selling the whole country to the highest fucking bidder? Sound like change to you?

You want to compare those people to Nader? You want to even dare to compare his public service record to theirs and tell me I'M the voter throwing my vote away?

[Bird of Prey]

I get what you're saying, Bird, and I partially agree, actually. My problem is that I couldn't vote for Nader, since he's not up my alley. :) Too bad Ron Paul is (probably) a racist, and definitely seems to have a bit of xenophobia that I don't care for. Plus a few other troublesome things.

*sigh* So, I'm left with McCain, anyway. :)

Ron Paul is no more a racist than Barack Obama and his "typical white grandmother."

[Cranky]

Ron Paul is no more a racist than Barack Obama and his "typical white grandmother."

Perhaps. Both that remark and Ron Paul's newsletter debacle both bothered me, so there you go. :)

[Bird of Prey]

Perhaps. Both that remark and Ron Paul's newsletter debacle both bothered me, so there you go. :)

Perhaps you should take another look at Nader if you truly believe in freedom:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm

[Cranky]

Perhaps you should take another look at Nader if you truly believe in freedom:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm

Thanks, but I checked him out last time around. I appreciate the link, though.

[robeiae]

That's quite a kick up he's calling for in the minimum wage...

[donroc]

How dare I? Poor BoP. Such hostility, so emotional. So unable to focus. Such sweeping generalities. So many straw men.

Politics is not all corruption. It requires compromise, which can offend those who demand 100% purity.

The worst corruption is not financial. It's the breaking of promises: "No new taxes; He kept us out of War and will keep us out of war and such.

Beware of the incorruptables. They can be uncompromising. History shows the Robespierres and Savanarolas create worse societies than politicians. Besides, people are people, and you cannot guarantee that those an incorruptable leader selects to help run the government will not be corrupt. Nepotism, greed, power, sex all play a part in real life governments of all types. At least our system has checks and balances for the excesses.

"Those who wait for someone to save them will not be saved and will not deserved to be saved." Forgot who said that, but it is a cogent reminder for those who get fixated too much on any candidate.

[Bird of Prey]

How dare I? Poor BoP. Such hostility, so emotional. So unable to focus. Such sweeping generalities. So many straw men.

Politics is not all corruption. It requires compromise, which can offend those who demand 100% purity.

The worst corruption is not financial. It's the breaking of promises: "No new taxes; He kept us out of War and will keep us out of war and such.

Beware of the incorruptables. They can be uncompromising. History shows the Robespierres and Savanarolas create worse societies than politicians. Besides, people are people, and you cannot guarantee that those an incorruptable leader selects to help run the government will not be corrupt. Nepotism, greed, power, sex all play a part in real life governments of all types. At least our system has checks and balances for the excesses.

"Those who wait for someone to save them will not be saved and will not deserved to be saved." Forgot who said that, but it is a cogent reminder for those who get fixated too much on any candidate.

Straw men? Unable to focus? How transparent of you, donroc. How disappointing.

But by all means, you stick to your criteria for adequate government. If you don't mind, I'll do my part to make a real difference.

[Jenan Mac]

A 3rd party vote may make one feel good, but currently it has no practical use other than to guarantee perhaps the greater of one's perceived two evils to win, as the dems learned in Florida. Not the chads, it was the Nader voters who gave us Dubya. And for the Reps, it was Perot who gave us the Clintons.

That assumes, though, that those Nader voters in FL would have otherwise voted for Gore in 2000.
I may be registered to a certain party, but they don't own my vote unless I choose to bestow it. If a candidate from my party doesn't get my vote, it's not because of another candidate. It's because he didn't sufficiently do his job in making me want to vote for him. My vote is mine, until I walk into the polling place.

I did vote for Nader in 2000, but I was in SC at the time. Voting for Gore would have been throwing away my vote, because no way in hell would he have won my state. OTOH, there are relatively few voters in a small state, and it's not as difficult to amass the number of votes needed for a third party to qualify for government funding. In my area, we barely made our 5%-- so my vote counted more, in that sense, than it would have had I "wasted" it voting either Democratic (where it would have been just part of a losing battle) or Republican (because they didn't need it).

[donroc]

Again, poor, BoP. So big an appetite for rational discourse, such poor teeth.

By the way, I have made a real difference and contributed positively to society as attested to by the large number of former students of all political persuasions who have kept in touch since I left teaching in 1987 and who continue to thank me for all I did for them, aside from more than a few who have become lifelong friends.

You should stop judging people with the certitude of absolute ignorance.

[Bird of Prey]

Again, poor, BoP. So big an appetite for rational discourse, such poor teeth.

By the way, I have made a real difference and contributed positively to society as attested to by the large number of former students of all political persuasions who have kept in touch since I left teaching in 1987 and who continue to thank me for all I did for them, aside from more than a few who have become lifelong friends.

You should stop judging people with the certitude of absolute ignorance.


Poor Bop and all that nonsense. Your condescension has never persuaded me, rather it serves to expose the weakness in your position. You're the person who's trying to rationalize your position as the only viable one. . . .

[donroc]

Sorry to confuse you with reality.

1. I have not tried to persuade you or anyone. You seem to be the one trying to do the persuading. I merely state my POV. Anyone may disagree of course, but once it gets personal I will defend my right to my opinion and dish it out, usually to those like you who get personal and who cannot take it.
2. Weakness of my position? Merely your opinion not fact.
3. And where did I rationalize my position as the only one? True it is mine, but all, even you, are allowed in my tolerant world view to have opposing POVs. It makes for stimulating discourse when reasoned and not emotional.

If you cannot read accurately, Lord only knows what you think you hear.

I'll stop being sarcastic/snide/condescending when you display some maturity. And now I'll end this farce with a paraphrase of Ben Frankin's admonition: Before you try to improve society or anyone else, first improve yourself.

You may continue to rant and reveal yourself.

[InfinityGoddess]

Straw men? Unable to focus? How transparent of you, donroc. How disappointing.

But by all means, you stick to your criteria for adequate government. If you don't mind, I'll do my part to make a real difference.

Voting for Nader will not make any difference. Either the Republican or the Democrat will end up winning. We're still stuck with the two-party system, regardless. It's a fallacy to think otherwise.

What would change is if we could build up some viable third-party from the grassroots up, and if we finally rid ourselves of the Electoral college. I know some people have objected to it, but seriously, what good is it? All it does is keep the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats in power, and all I've heard is people whining about voting who they feel is the lesser of two evils and wanting someone better on the other corner of their mouths while objecting to getting rid of the EC. Another solution is instant runoff voting, that some states already have.

As far as Nader, do I see him actively do anything besides running for President every four years to change the system? No, and that's why I see him as nothing more than an attention-grabber who loves his spotlight. He's a lot like Bill Clinton is being now that I think of it.

[donroc]

Imagine a Naderized country -- how much freedom of choice will be left? The Nadermobile, the Nader toy, the Nader diet ...

[Cranky]

Imagine a Naderized country -- how much freedom of choice will be left? The Nadermobile, the Nader toy, the Nader diet ...

Hmmm. Dystopian fiction come to life, yes? The Nader Co runs all...for your protection. LOL!

OK, a bit extreme, but still funny, darn it.

[InfinityGoddess]

Imagine a Naderized country -- how much freedom of choice will be left? The Nadermobile, the Nader toy, the Nader diet ...

:eek: That would be a nightmare.

[Bird of Prey]

Sorry to confuse you with reality.

1. I have not tried to persuade you or anyone. You seem to be the one trying to do the persuading. I merely state my POV. Anyone may disagree of course, but once it gets personal I will defend my right to my opinion and dish it out, usually to those like you who get personal and who cannot take it.
2. Weakness of my position? Merely your opinion not fact.
3. And where did I rationalize my position as the only one? True it is mine, but all, even you, are allowed in my tolerant world view to have opposing POVs. It makes for stimulating discourse when reasoned and not emotional.

If you cannot read accurately, Lord only knows what you think you hear.

I'll stop being sarcastic/snide/condescending when you display some maturity. And now I'll end this farce with a paraphrase of Ben Frankin's admonition: Before you try to improve society or anyone else, first improve yourself.

You may continue to rant and reveal yourself.


OMG. LOL!! Okee dokee, Ben.

[Bravo]

Hmmm. Dystopian fiction come to life, yes? The Nader Co runs all...for your protection. LOL!

OK, a bit extreme, but still funny, darn it.

that's brilliant!

[Cranky]

that's brilliant!

Shhhhh! I was tryin' to throw people off with humor! :D

[Takvah]

the BREEDERS?

Wow. What a bastion of moderation. Many of the BREEDERS take care of what they've BRED, and I seriously doubt they need your input on that.



I think any parent here knows what I meant and would likely agree with me that there are a hell of a lot of "breeders" out there. That you seem to have equated yourself with that lot to the point of taking offense is a matter for you to resolve with yourself. Do me a favor and keep me out of it.

[johnnysannie]

I thought he was dead-on. But you knew that, didn't you?

I'm sick to freaking death hearing folks complain about their place in life when they ain't willing to do anything about it. If you're dumb, it ain't the government's fault.


Dumb has never been one of my problems in life.

Dealing with dumbasses, though, that has always been one.:D

[SHBueche]

My vote is going to Obama (or Hillary, if she is the Democratic nominee), my issue? Healthcare.

[MichaelDeVere]

All of the choices are pretty abysmal at this point. A left-leaning RINO on one side, and your choice of communists on the other.

Duncan Hunter was the only one that I cared about. Ron Paul was secretly my choice, but he would have certainly polarized the nation, and his isolationism would revert us back to mercantile economics of the 19th century.

[Joe Unidos]

All of the choices are pretty abysmal at this point. A left-leaning RINO on one side, and your choice of communists on the other.

The Fifties called, the want their pejorative back.

[Cranky]

The Fifties called, the want their pejorative back.


Naw. I thought that was pinko commie. Or was it the other way round? I dunno.

Capitalist/Imperialist pigs still has some cache, though, I think.

[MichaelDeVere]

The Fifties called, the want their pejorative back.

Karl Marx called and wants his despotism back.

[mscelina]

I think any parent here knows what I meant and would likely agree with me that there are a hell of a lot of "breeders" out there. That you seem to have equated yourself with that lot to the point of taking offense is a matter for you to resolve with yourself. Do me a favor and keep me out of it.

Really? Do me a favor and keep your hyperbolized idiocy to yourself. As a parent, I take a great deal of offense to the term 'breeder' and all of the narrow-minded bigotry such a word implies. That term was one of the reasons that I stopped activist work for a couple of gay rights organizations.

You see, oh bastion of moderation, such terminology implies a certain condescension on your part, a feeling of superiority because of whatever platform of comparable success you consider yourself a part of. It's the same kind of rhetorical moronity that people have used for ages--the kind where a group of supposedly oppressed people feel the burden of carrying the weight for a segment of the population that is 'beneath' them.

The same type of mentality that assumed women were too 'pure' to vote, that African-Americans were too 'helpless' to care for themselves, that only the college-educated (in their opinion) were capable of governing a country that is comprised, for the most part, of inferiors who require the guidance of those who know what is best for them.

In short, it's a blantant display of the same sort of self-righteousness that has fueled 'the powers that be' since the dawn of time.

My voice is important--as is everyone's on this board and others--especially when used to counter the prejudical and self-serving attitudes of people such as yourself, who think it is their right to dismiss a portion of the population because they don't use the voice that our Constitution gives them. For someone who seems so determined to analyze and criticize the rhetorical ramifications of what the candidates say, you seem to have only a rudimentary concept of how to govern yourself. *shrug* Not that I'm surprised. Most people of your ilk seem to have the same problem.

My comment stands. Consider that my resolution.

[Andrew]

To procreate/adopt is to love.

[johnnysannie]

The use of the term "breeder" used as Takvah did is insulting to any parent. Parenting is much more than procreation or to be a "breeder".

From Webster's online dictionary:

Noun. Source: Breed(verb)-- bear, generate offspring; propagate or cause to propagate. Definition: A heterosexual; one who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. (someone whose sexual orintation allows for procreation). Context: Utilized in either a playful situation refering to a friend who is heterosexual (ususlly when in a large group of homosexuals)or used as a deragatory term for a person (either male or female)who is heterosexual. Social Source: Male, homosexuals,ages 17-20. Source: Compiled by The University of Oregon. (additional references)
Noun. Source: Possibly from the notion that hetrosexuals breed and create children. Definition: A hetrosexual man or woman. Context: Used as a taunting between homosexuals to describe a hetrosexual person. Social Source: White Homosexual College Students . Source: Compiled by The University of Oregon. (additional references)

[johnnysannie]

Karl Marx called and wants his despotism back.

No, no, no. You're all wrong:

the village called and they want their idiots back;)

[Cranky]

Well, for what it's worth (damned little, I know), I understood what Takvah was driving at.

Still, not a term I care for either. It rubbed me wrong on the first reading, too.

[POPASMOKE]

"...who think it is their right to dismiss a portion of the population because they don't use the voice that our Constitution gives them".

I too knew what Takvah was talking about.

A news release today concerned a man who went to his girlfriends place of employment and subsequently engaged in an argument with her. He became very angry and threw office furniture around. He was subsequently arrested on various charges. She was a member of the "Crips" gang and he was a member of a Hispanic gang called the "Bollers". The argument? They were fighting over which gang affiliation their four year old son would take when he was older!

A classic example of the term "breeders".

[donroc]

If Romeo and Juliet had lived and bred???? :D Sorry Mr. S.

[mscelina]

No, no, no. You're all wrong:

the village called and they want their idiots back;)

They can't have me, dangit. I'm on vacation.

[Takvah]

Really? Do me a favor and keep your hyperbolized idiocy to yourself. As a parent, I take a great deal of offense to the term 'breeder' and all of the narrow-minded bigotry such a word implies. That term was one of the reasons that I stopped activist work for a couple of gay rights organizations.

You see, oh bastion of moderation, such terminology implies a certain condescension on your part, a feeling of superiority because of whatever platform of comparable success you consider yourself a part of. It's the same kind of rhetorical moronity that people have used for ages--the kind where a group of supposedly oppressed people feel the burden of carrying the weight for a segment of the population that is 'beneath' them.

The same type of mentality that assumed women were too 'pure' to vote, that African-Americans were too 'helpless' to care for themselves, that only the college-educated (in their opinion) were capable of governing a country that is comprised, for the most part, of inferiors who require the guidance of those who know what is best for them.

In short, it's a blantant display of the same sort of self-righteousness that has fueled 'the powers that be' since the dawn of time.

My voice is important--as is everyone's on this board and others--especially when used to counter the prejudical and self-serving attitudes of people such as yourself, who think it is their right to dismiss a portion of the population because they don't use the voice that our Constitution gives them. For someone who seems so determined to analyze and criticize the rhetorical ramifications of what the candidates say, you seem to have only a rudimentary concept of how to govern yourself. *shrug* Not that I'm surprised. Most people of your ilk seem to have the same problem.

My comment stands. Consider that my resolution.

You're an angry one aren't you. I guess you're shooting for a record on closed threads today.

Why don't you try to take a deep breath and compose yourself? This is all so over the top, so dramatic. I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't happen to think a lot of people currently "breeding" know the first thing about parenting. I have two wonderful step children (I consider them my own), their "father", has nothing to do with them by his choice. They're excellent human beings, but it didn't simply... "happen" and that was the point.

Grow up, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Takvah]

The use of the term "breeder" used as Takvah did is insulting to any parent. Parenting is much more than procreation or to be a "breeder".

From Webster's online dictionary:

Noun. Source: Breed(verb)-- bear, generate offspring; propagate or cause to propagate. Definition: A heterosexual; one who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. (someone whose sexual orintation allows for procreation). Context: Utilized in either a playful situation refering to a friend who is heterosexual (ususlly when in a large group of homosexuals)or used as a deragatory term for a person (either male or female)who is heterosexual. Social Source: Male, homosexuals,ages 17-20. Source: Compiled by The University of Oregon. (additional references)
Noun. Source: Possibly from the notion that hetrosexuals breed and create children. Definition: A hetrosexual man or woman. Context: Used as a taunting between homosexuals to describe a hetrosexual person. Social Source: White Homosexual College Students . Source: Compiled by The University of Oregon. (additional references)

I think people were clear on the meaning of the word. We're not dealing with illiterates here, now are we? Parenting IS more than breeding, that was the point. You're a terrible shot, Dearest.