|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
anything and everything that doesn't have to do with BL or with the topic posted . . .
|
Posts:
1,136
Registered:
4/7/06
|
|
(3052 of 4417)
Jun 6, 2008 7:09 AM
|
> JAM,
>
> Yeah, give the choice of course I'd prefer Obama over
> McCain. My reasons for not liking Obama, though,
> have to do with his actual policies, not just
> disappointment about Hillary. I am committed to
> voting for Obama, but I'm not expecting anything to
> come of it.
I do hear ya, my reluctance to get behind him was not just loyalty to Clinton either, (it had to do with his policies) but I guess I'm sort of left with well what do we do. The alternative is far worse. I do know that he is committed when it comes to labor. Speaking from first hand knowledge from the folks who have dealt with him and Hill throughout this campaign. He was always the one to come to whatever we asked, sign letters of support for boycotts, walk picket lines or whatever where Hill unfortunately was the one who generally tried to water down the language in the letters or unfortunately just not get back to us. His background as a community organizer is promising too and the fact that he did grow up having to live on welfare sometimes also gives me comfort, he really isn't the silver spooned asshole we normally get. And part of his endorsement from Edwards came after his agreeing to adopt Edwards poverty policies.
I think alot of his rhetoric concerning poverty deals with responsibility because lets be honest its not totally 100% structural factors that influence who ends up in poverty, there are often many things that we can do to change that (he's spoken directly to the black community on this one in particular in a way I don't think any other politician could get away with-No of course I'm not saying its your fault if your poor but parents who discourage education and reading are setting their kids up for failure plain and simple that's something that needs to end and could uplift an entire community.) And taxes are often the way to help with poverty, and he is committed to getting back to a progressive tax policy again too. We'll see what happens I guess but I do think he could be a great leader if given the opportunity.
> IMO Obama will win, and then proceed to do exactly
> what the Republicans want him to do, just like
> Clinton and Pelosi. Democrats tend to lose even when
> they win, because we bend over backwards to include
> the surly, angry Republicans in the process and give
> them whatever they want, just as you said.
Yeah his reaching over the isle hasn't been all that big of a selling point for me either. (Then the talk of putting Hagel on the ticket just about made me lose it, I WOULD have to seriously reconsider voting for him if he did something that incredibly stupid). (you should read my blog "aint ready to play nice" I did back in Feb. (its on my myspace page you can get to it from the link in my tag line). I talked about that quite a bit.
> That's not balanced, you know? If you have two
> sides, and one tries to be "bipartisan" all the time,
> and the other doesn't, then you get one party
> consistently getting 1/3 of what they want, while the
> other consistently gets its way 2/3 of the time.
> After 30 years you don't have anything remotely
> y resembling balance.
>
> I don't know what to do about it, though.
I hear what you're saying (again my blog talked about it too), so I seriously do understand where you're coming from, its just difficult. Democrats are ok with sharing power Republicans are not. I do think Pelosi was in a difficult spot though, we had to get something done and did get a ton of things passed in the house but we only had a 1 seat majority in the Senate and then Bush up in the WH to veto whatever he didn't like so getting legislation passed meant having to be bipartisan and give up alot of what we wanted. Politics is often a compromise, like it or not. Being idealistic and saying its this way or nothing often leaves you with nothing. I prefer pragmatism over idealism any day. Sometimes small steps will get you there faster than continuing to try to make a huge leap (just look at our labor law history for an example of that).
That could (and from how its sounding likely will) change this fall if we get our filibuster proof 60 seat majority (and an even larger majority in the house). Alot more can be done when you don't have to reach across the isle, it's just for most democratic pol's for the 20 years or so haven't had that option. (ESP Pres. Clinton-he had to deal with a Republican congress (and the rather arrogant Republican revolution Gingrich brigade at that lol) so its either work together or get absolutely nothing done).
Republicans had just the opposite for the last several years, republican controlled WH and a rubberstamp republican congress so hence we've seen exactly what the country would be like with them getting their way on everything (so whatcha think folks, hows the country doing with those republican policies?) Ah, its in the shitter eh? bankrupt country, economy in the tank, mired in an unpopular war with really no good solution for getting out of, huge & growing gaps between the rich and the poor, poverty on the rise, corruption in the corporate world we haven't seen since the early 20th C, water so polluted you can't eat more than two of the fish you catch, gas prices through the roof, and so much anti-American sentiment that the state departments advises that we just stay home. Wow, yeah thanks GOP.
I do think we need to have some more faith that our policies are the right ones instead of almost apologizing for being democrats. (I think Republicans had almost convinced a lot of dems that they really weren't on the right side for a while). Its time for Democrats to start acting like Democrats again and I think this fall will help usher that in. 
I think we just seem to be on the opposite sides of outlooks, I think I tend to be the eternal optimist and you seem alot more cynical. I understand the cynicism, I just don't think it gets us anywhere.
It's the Republicans that are the party that tries to convince everyone that government doesn't work- A joke around my house is that Rep. spend 8 months campaigning on how bad gov't is and then get elected and spend the next 4 years proving it  .
Its Dems who have to convince the people that the government can work for them again, its a big chore but I think we're up for the task, we just need to roll up our sleeves and prove it.
--
"Uppity Women Unite"
The face behind these opinionated posts
--
Edited by JackNAllysMom at 06/06/2008 4:47 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
17,844
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(3051 of 4417)
Jun 6, 2008 12:32 AM
|
JAM,
Yeah, give the choice of course I'd prefer Obama over McCain. My reasons for not liking Obama, though, have to do with his actual policies, not just disappointment about Hillary. I am committed to voting for Obama, but I'm not expecting anything to come of it.
IMO Obama will win, and then proceed to do exactly what the Republicans want him to do, just like Clinton and Pelosi. Democrats tend to lose even when they win, because we bend over backwards to include the surly, angry Republicans in the process and give them whatever they want, just as you said.
That's not balanced, you know? If you have two sides, and one tries to be "bipartisan" all the time, and the other doesn't, then you get one party consistently getting 1/3 of what they want, while the other consistently gets its way 2/3 of the time. After 30 years you don't have anything remotely resembling balance.
I don't know what to do about it, though.
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
|
|
|
Posts:
1,136
Registered:
4/7/06
|
|
(3050 of 4417)
Jun 5, 2008 8:01 PM
|
> I so hope that Barack Obama has some substance behind
> his style. His ability as a speaker is remarkable -
> reminds me of like Bill Clinton when he was running.
> He had one message too - "It's the economy, stupid,"
> " and it worked. I'm afraid that Obama is all sizzle
> and no steak, and I so, so hope I'm wrong. Anybody
> can talk about change - it takes somebody remarkable
> to make it really happen. I hope Obama is that
> person.
I sure hear ya Mar, I have been very reluctant to get behind Obama, (I've love Hill for a long time and really wanted to see the first woman president) but now that the dust has settled a bit, I've went from my "I'm just writing her name in" moment on Tuesday night to ok, there's no way in fuck I'm letting John McCain and the GOP hold the white house for another 4 years. There's just too much at stake, the country's in too bad of shape to allow that to happen.
It took some time (and some major over-riding of my emotional brain just wanting to see him go down b/c of all of his ignorant supporters comments about Hill and turning on of my logic center to realize I can't let that happen ) and if that means campaigning for him or whatever I have to do to make sure Obama wins this fall.
--
"Uppity Women Unite"
The face behind these opinionated posts
|
|
|
Posts:
1,136
Registered:
4/7/06
|
|
(3049 of 4417)
Jun 5, 2008 7:54 PM
|
> That's not true, Fen. "The press" doesn't have that
> kind of money and it would be a complete conflict of
> interest. It wouldn't count--you couldn't trust the
> results. Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik pooled
> their money and paid for a recount, and it turned out
> Gore had won.
Thank you T! I don't want folks to forget that, Florida was stolen (in more ways than one) The Bush years should have never happened. Can you only imagine what might be if they hadn't. We watched recount when it first aired (good one too I must say) but I was really depressed and sad at the end knowing what came after Al Gore's final concession. 
> > i tend to vote for Democrats --- and the only
> > Republican i've ever voted for in the general
> > election for president was John Anderson when he
> ran
> > as an independent --- but i think that a lot of
> > Democrats enjoy feeling morally outraged and
> cheated,
> > have a psycho-pathological need to feel that
> the
> > system is unfair.
>
> Gee, I wonder why?
Exactly- the dems are the party of women and minorities and poor folks, the folks who have historically been kept out and kicked out of the political process for so many years.
> > we see this at work right now with many
> supporters of
> > Hillary working themselves up into a
> self-righteous
> > frenzy and so to reject voting for a liberal and
> the
> > first black nominated by a major party for
> > president.
>
> Forgive me if I'm not excited by "Nancy Pelosi, Part
> II." Obama has promised to be super-original and
> work WITH the Republicans in a true spirit of
> compromise, bla bla.
Ok I gotta kinda go with Fen here, (partially) I do think Hill fans (who I am a member) who are disappointed or even outraged do need to step back for a minute, let the emotions of the primary season settle and think about what is the best thing for the country, Pres. Obama, or Pres. McCain? The primaries are hard on every party, look at the way the right-wing turned on McCain when he first clinched the nomination, but now their remembering oh yeah, we like him more than the democrat lol. It will take time to heal the party but continuing to tear down our nominee is not going to help anyone of us, all it will do is help get us a Pres. McCain.
> Isn't that pretty much what every Democratic
> president since JFK has DONE? Nobody ever stands up
> to the Republicans. When they're in charge, it's all
> "we have a mandate, out of our way!" and when
> Democrats are in charge, it's all, "well, we need to
> be bipartisan and let the Republicans have their
> way."
True, Democrats believe that everyone should have a voice, Republicans think only those in power should. It may be to our detriment at times but I think its better to hear all sides of an issue rather than just stick stubbornly to your own ideologies.
> The only thing Obama's gonna change in office is his
> underwear.
again, don't help get a Pres. McCain elected, you think the gov't doesn't care about the poor now, just wait. At least Huckabee saw poverty as a moral issue.
--
"Uppity Women Unite"
The face behind these opinionated posts
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(3048 of 4417)
Jun 5, 2008 3:28 AM
|
Barack: all frosting and ice cream and no cake?
Hillary: all salad greens and low-cal fat-free dressing.
McCain: liver and onions and canned spinach.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,844
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(3047 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 10:01 PM
|
> I so hope that Barack Obama has some substance behind
> his style.
So do I, since I'm stuck voting for him.
His ability as a speaker is remarkable -
> reminds me of like Bill Clinton when he was running.
> He had one message too - "It's the economy, stupid,"
> " and it worked.
But unlike Obama, Clinton's message actually meant something, and he actually put it into action.
"Change" is just an abstract noun that doesn't really mean anything. How do you measure change? How do you determine if it's happening? Same with hope. How do you know if you have more hope today than you had yesterday?
And you can have hope forever, without anything happening--that's the beauty of it.
Obama's running on jam tomorrow--he's chosen to make campaign promises he can keep without doing a damn thing.
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
|
|
|
Posts:
10,818
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(3046 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 6:13 PM
|
I so hope that Barack Obama has some substance behind his style. His ability as a speaker is remarkable - reminds me of like Bill Clinton when he was running. He had one message too - "It's the economy, stupid," and it worked. I'm afraid that Obama is all sizzle and no steak, and I so, so hope I'm wrong. Anybody can talk about change - it takes somebody remarkable to make it really happen. I hope Obama is that person.
--
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe
|
|
|
Posts:
17,844
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(3045 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 5:49 PM
|
> and the good people of Florida saw fit to elect
> Harris to the US House of Representatives twice after
> the 2000 vote count controversy.
>
> even people with truly minority tastes in make up
> deserve to be represented, it seems.
Apparently they are the only ones who do.
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
|
|
|
Posts:
17,844
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(3044 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 5:43 PM
|
> I pray to God that HBO gets
> > sued by Katherine Harris for portraying her like
> they
> > did, ALL LIES!!
>
> You know, I was in college during the 2000 election,
> and didn't remember the role Katherine Harris had
> played in the whole thing too well, so when I saw
> Recount, I thought they were exaggerating, and that
> Laura Dern had been playing things up a little bit...
> so I went back and read some newspaper articles and
> d watched some news footage from 2000... and was
> absolutely shocked to find that all of the Katherine
> Harris stuff was accurate, up to and including the
> Queen Esther thing and the running for Congress on
> horseback schtick.
Thanks, readerreader.
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
|
|
|
Posts:
17,844
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(3043 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 5:42 PM
|
> T,
>
> Katherine Harris is lucky she's not in
> prison.
>
> i've not seen "Recount." not something i'm
> interested in, and i've only been watching the news
> lately, other than movies with the girls.
>
> but Harris didn't do anything that was illegal . . .
> what would she have gone to prison for?
Voter tampering, keeping black people from voting, I don't know. Maybe that stuff's legal.
I have dropped out of politics completely since 2004.
> the press paid for a full recount in Florida after
> the fact and it turned out that Bush really did win
> Florida,
That's not true, Fen. "The press" doesn't have that kind of money and it would be a complete conflict of interest. It wouldn't count--you couldn't trust the results. Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik pooled their money and paid for a recount, and it turned out Gore had won.
but Democrats continued to act as if the
> election had been stolen and as if whole process had
> been tainted, thus undermining the entire spirit of
> our Constitutional system.
Yes, this is no longer my country. I just live here. I'm not represented and I don't expect to be.
> i tend to vote for Democrats --- and the only
> Republican i've ever voted for in the general
> election for president was John Anderson when he ran
> as an independent --- but i think that a lot of
> Democrats enjoy feeling morally outraged and cheated,
> have a psycho-pathological need to feel that the
> system is unfair.
Gee, I wonder why?
> we see this at work right now with many supporters of
> Hillary working themselves up into a self-righteous
> frenzy and so to reject voting for a liberal and the
> first black nominated by a major party for
> president.
Forgive me if I'm not excited by "Nancy Pelosi, Part II." Obama has promised to be super-original and work WITH the Republicans in a true spirit of compromise, bla bla.
Isn't that pretty much what every Democratic president since JFK has DONE? Nobody ever stands up to the Republicans. When they're in charge, it's all "we have a mandate, out of our way!" and when Democrats are in charge, it's all, "well, we need to be bipartisan and let the Republicans have their way."
The only thing Obama's gonna change in office is his underwear.
> Democrats seem to demand a level of perfection that
> is impossible.
Yeah, it's just such a tall order to ask that people just do their fucking jobs.
> and it such feelings when widespread that threaten
> our democracy. if the system is rotten and unfair
> then a coup or a civil war are justified, and better
> 8 years of an incompetent like Bush than another
> American civil war, this one fought out across the
> whole nation.
What the fuck are you talking about? We've had two coups in recent history--JFK and 9/11. Nobody's going to raise an army to fight the US government. And the system IS rotten.
The whole political arena just exists to give rich assholes something to call a career. You gotta do something after you attend Harvard--why not run for office? After all the world ought to get the benefit of your superior brain.
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
--
Edited by titannia at 06/04/2008 2:47 PM PDT
--
Edited by titannia at 06/04/2008 2:47 PM PDT
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(3042 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 3:32 PM
|
and the good people of Florida saw fit to elect Harris to the US House of Representatives twice after the 2000 vote count controversy.
even people with truly minority tastes in make up deserve to be represented, it seems.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(3041 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 11:53 AM
|
T,
Katherine Harris is lucky she's not in prison.
i've not seen "Recount." not something i'm interested in, and i've only been watching the news lately, other than movies with the girls.
but Harris didn't do anything that was illegal . . . what would she have gone to prison for?
Florida law did give her "discretion" to decide such things, it's just that her justifications were so risible . . . like her hair and make-up.
i bet she was a Tammy Fay Bakker fan!
i voted for Gore. but i think that a lot of Democrats simply didn't understand the ideas behind our Constitution. an exact accounting of who voted for whom was much less important to them than that the people view the choice of their leaders as legitimate.
as well, they saw the process as political through and through, that it was perfectly natural that when Congress decided in the case when there was no majority in the Electoral College or when the Supreme Court would decided such a matter or a politician like Harris in a state like Florida that politics would play a big part.
the press paid for a full recount in Florida after the fact and it turned out that Bush really did win Florida, but Democrats continued to act as if the election had been stolen and as if whole process had been tainted, thus undermining the entire spirit of our Constitutional system.
i tend to vote for Democrats --- and the only Republican i've ever voted for in the general election for president was John Anderson when he ran as an independent --- but i think that a lot of Democrats enjoy feeling morally outraged and cheated, have a psycho-pathological need to feel that the system is unfair.
we see this at work right now with many supporters of Hillary working themselves up into a self-righteous frenzy and so to reject voting for a liberal and the first black nominated by a major party for president.
Democrats seem to demand a level of perfection that is impossible. and it's often forgotten that the notorious butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat for use in a mostly Democratic district and that it was mostly Democrats who were too functionally illiterate to figure out how to use it correctly and so ended up voting for Pat Buchanan.
and it such feelings when widespread that threaten our democracy. if the system is rotten and unfair then a coup or a civil war are justified, and better 8 years of an incompetent like Bush than another American civil war, this one fought out across the whole nation.
it was the cycle of coup and civil war or the coming of kings to avoid the whole mess that motivated our the 1789 Founders to invent our system rather than an unreasonable desire for a perfect democracy.
--
Edited by Fenrir at 06/04/2008 9:06 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
24
Registered:
7/18/07
|
|
(3040 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 11:04 AM
|
|
How funny. You called it. All 6 posts are about that same thing.
|
|
|
Posts:
74
Registered:
9/18/07
|
|
(3039 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 10:08 AM
|
I pray to God that HBO gets
> sued by Katherine Harris for portraying her like they
> did, ALL LIES!!
You know, I was in college during the 2000 election, and didn't remember the role Katherine Harris had played in the whole thing too well, so when I saw Recount, I thought they were exaggerating, and that Laura Dern had been playing things up a little bit... so I went back and read some newspaper articles and watched some news footage from 2000... and was absolutely shocked to find that all of the Katherine Harris stuff was accurate, up to and including the Queen Esther thing and the running for Congress on horseback schtick.
Well done, HBO!
--
You know me... I have a naturally cheerful countenance.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,844
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(3038 of 4417)
Jun 4, 2008 3:35 AM
|
> I got HBO free for 3 months from Time Warner because
> they are screw-ups, but I'm cancelling HBO after I
> saw that movie Recount.
The more fool you.
> I pray to God that HBO gets
> sued by Katherine Harris for portraying her like they
> did, ALL LIES!!
LOL! Katherine Harris is lucky she's not in prison. She is not in any position to sue anybody--the facts of her case are a matter of public record.
Anybody who didn't already know that really has no business going on about politics anyway.
> HBO is such a disgrace and they only
> put out garbage. What kind of people are you to think
> Americans would be so stupid to believe the lies you
> told in this movie?
Let me guess. You voted for Bush twice, and would vote for him again if he were running, right?
--
"And, finally, New Rule: If America's richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn't good enough, it's time to bring back the guillotine."
--
Edited by titannia at 06/04/2008 4:53 AM PDT
|
|
|
|
|
