Marko, I have been thinking about the cynical approach to this and while I am cynical about politics I have to think that there is a difference and that voting makes a difference. If you dont believe that you can make some difference by voting then you should see Jesus Camp and see that there is an Evangelical supported candidate and one that isnt and make a choice.
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
Marko, I have been thinking about the cynical approach to this and while I am cynical about politics I have to think that there is a difference and that voting makes a difference. If you dont believe that you can make some difference by voting then you should see Jesus Camp and see that there is an Evangelical supported candidate and one that isnt and make a choice.
Watch Jesus Camp, but then also read "The Revolution, A Manifesto", "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", any number of books on the state of the economy and the Federal Reserve, and watch "Why We Fight" and "America - Feedom to Facism". And then tell me you feel good about the candidate you picked.
Markos quote was dead on. If you feel you have to vote for one of the candidates the system has placed in front of you, make it known that you're not buying into their bullshit. I may do that this election by registering republican and then voting for Obama. I'll have to watch the debates though and see if I can stomach that.
In the mean time I'm part of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Vote for something that means something. Support local candidates that actually mean it when they say they will, to the best of their ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
On the original subject. I have to say I totally agree with Helio on the impeachment issue. Yes they all deserve to burn in hell for what they are putting this country (and other countries) through and how they are using power for personal gains, but an impeachment will just divide the country futher along party lines and make people defend indefensible conduct on both sides.
A stronger message can be sent by rejecting both sides, starting a revolution and sweeping all of them out of office. What did ousting the republicans from congress get us? Why does anyone think that ousting (either through impeachment or waiting till the election) the republican from the Oval Office will get us anything better?
Those comic quotes posted earlier tell the story. Its not going to be clear cut on whether Bush lied, or if he had faulty inteligence, or if he was just acting like ALL politicians and stetching the truth, or any other way both sides will try to spin it. Clinton on the other hand flat out lied under oath. That's what he got impeached for, not for having sex. Not that I'm saying that circus was what the country needed either. It ranks right up there with Hannah Montanna lesbian sex videos. Kennedy wouldn't be thought of as the leader he is today if he had to operate in today's environment.
I personally think Bush and Chenney used 9/11 and Hussein as an excuse to expand the empire. But I think they had a legitimate reason for an illigitimate course of action. After hearing what Hussein's interogator had to say, I think Hussein duped us and got taken out for his efforts. Evidently he had gotten rid of all the WMD's but couldn't say so publically because he was more afraid that Iran would attack him if he didn't have WMD's. He placed his bet that the US wouldn't attack and he was wrong.
GH,
I don't see my comment or viewpoint as being cynical. To me, I see the game as being totally rigged... And, like Blutzski said, I refuse to buy into their bullshit.
I'm on board with the Campaign for Liberty...
Quote:
In the mean time I'm part of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Vote for something that means something. Support local candidates that actually mean it when they say they will, to the best of their ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Wont, basically opting out, still help their end game?
Yes it will. But so will voting. That's why the game is fixed. We need to change it. But we've been duped into believing that the way to change it is to vote for one candidate or the other every 4 years. Look at Obama's campaign slogan. Gimme a break. That's not change. Ron Paul is talking about change.
Well unless something drastic happens. I am voting for Obama. I understand what you are saying but I have two issues that are important to me and I believe they might actually be better under him so if that means I am playing a pawn in the big game then hopefully I am moving two spaces ahead instead of just one.
"Mongo only pawn in game of life"
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
It seems there's a great deal of agreement about the fact that the public in this democracy shows a habitual lack of seriousness about its government, and about its own role in maintaining a sensible government. If you believe, as I do, that most people either don't care enough to be informed, or are too dumb to be informed properly, then I would think you would support the notion of restricting voting to people with some sort of qualification requirement (mine has always been a requirement to serve the state, either in the military or another public sphere; you could come up with others).
Consumerism is the new "mercantilism" and mercantilism is what led to a strong middle class, which is what led to democracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with this economic system. There is something inherently wrong with people.
Two words:
Term limits (for everything).
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
If you believe, as I do, that most people either don't care enough to be informed, or are too dumb to be informed properly, then I would think you would support the notion of restricting voting to people with some sort of qualification requirement (mine has always been a requirement to serve the state, either in the military or another public sphere; you could come up with others).
I think we already hacked that arguement apart a couple months ago. If there are tools to disenfranchise voters, people will take advantage. Period. (Sorry, no gays in the military... and by the way, you can't vote.)
Americans have been living an ingnorant blissfull life for decades. It will take some serious stress to change our behavior. Perhaps a good ole depression will influence people to watch the news. 9/11 sure didn't seem to do it. The best thing we can do is focus on education- that is the root of all our problems.
Teachers should be the best payed and most revered members of our society. That will draw the best and the brightest to the field. Most teachers don't last 5 years today; they make more working construction or getting a job in a tech company.
How can we expect a decent education when our teachers are required to get a master's degree, require continuing education, and don't pay them enough to purchase a house or even pay off their student loans?
As for Ron Paul, agree with his stance on Iraq, feel we still have some unfinished business in Afganistan, but have some serious questions about everything else.
If he were elected and got rid of, lets use the USDA for one, who would now be responsible for food safety? Not that they are doing a stellar job now (tomatoes), but I think that he would get some tremendous heat after the first major outbreak of E-coli.
-d
__________________
Could it be that intense partisanship unhinges us all, leading us to being with the conclusion we prefer, and then to reason backward to reach it? -William Falk
Linear Mode
