Adherence to the constitution, and perhaps Natural Law..

[Amskeptic]

i get the feeling he is merely using that topic to get votes..i really dont think he gives a shit.

Have you heard any other candidate even talk about the poor? I think I've seen all the candidates, either their stump speech, an interview, or a debate and he's the only one that's mentioned that 4 letter word.

That makes me think talking about poor folk doesn't get you a lot of votes. I rather think any mention of helping those less fortunate makes all the middle class want to not vote for that candidate.

This was my point further up. Do not judge the messenger for the message. We wouldn't get a damn thing done. I think it is specious to the extreme to discount Al Gore and John Edwards for their messages because their lives do not reflect the DESTINATION of their messages. I don't hear people telling the Pope to go to hell that rich bastard, when he talks about serving the poor. Come on. Stop denigrating people who are clearly on the side of evident truths. We all have to change the infrastructure in order for us to live our rhetoric.
Colin
( I am, and I have said with vehemence, disgusted with Al Gore. Velo remembers last year how pissed I was at his chickenshit collapse in Florida)

[LiveonJG]

I don't hear people telling the Pope to go to hell that rich bastard, when he talks about serving the poor.

That be the case, I ain't yelling loud enough.


-John

[Velokid1]

i get the feeling he is merely using that topic to get votes..i really dont think he gives a shit.

Have you heard any other candidate even talk about the poor? I think I've seen all the candidates, either their stump speech, an interview, or a debate and he's the only one that's mentioned that 4 letter word.

That makes me think talking about poor folk doesn't get you a lot of votes. I rather think any mention of helping those less fortunate makes all the middle class want to not vote for that candidate.

This was my point further up. Do not judge the messenger for the message. We wouldn't get a damn thing done. I think it is specious to the extreme to discount Al Gore and John Edwards for their messages because their lives do not reflect the DESTINATION of their messages. I don't hear people telling the Pope to go to hell that rich bastard, when he talks about serving the poor. Come on. Stop denigrating people who are clearly on the side of evident truths. We all have to change the infrastructure in order for us to live our rhetoric.
Colin
( I am, and I have said with vehemence, disgusted with Al Gore. Velo remembers last year how pissed I was at his chickenshit collapse in Florida)

A history textbook from 2047:

Former Vice President Al Gore presented the people with a nifty, entertaining compilation of the data scientists had been compiling and trying to inset into the public dialog for decades. The science was sound, yet the message was ignored. When asked for an explanation for why climate change was not addressed and corrected, John Q. Public said, "Because truth or not... I ain't listening to nothing Al Gore says because he lives in a huge house and flies in a plane all the damn time."

[steve74baywin]

I wouldn't mind, in fact I would like if a few things mentioned in a couple of other posts got addressed or commented on here...

We see alot of wrongs that we can't get corrected, you all might not agree with all of them,,,IE, that all of them are wrong, but you probably will agree with some.....The IRS, the Federal Reserve Act, the Iraq war, the Drug War, the Patriot Act...... If we currently seem to have no control or ability to change these things,,,as seen by the fact that we haven't yet, then how can we give than more control?
Also, think of all the things they have discussed in the last few years, What good has actually been done? Can you think of any good effective changes?
Is it not just a smoke and mirror show? Asking and attempting to ask alot of these questions is a big reason why I feel we need MAJOR change, and that the downfall occurred by changes to or violations to our constitution...
Please feel free to express your thoughts...


I will be getting ready for my weekend camping trip soon, so at some point today I won't be posting much......... I will miss our discussions...

[Amskeptic]

We see alot of wrongs that we can't get corrected, you all might not agree with all of them,,,IE, that all of them are wrong, but you probably will agree with some.....The IRS, the Federal Reserve Act, the Iraq war, the Drug War, the Patriot Act...... If we currently seem to have no control or ability to change these things,,,as seen by the fact that we haven't yet, then how can we give than more control?
...

The messy business of a democracy means things are often muddled and change slowly. Consensus unfortunately follows herd rules. Slow to change direction and occasional downed fences. Read how the women's suffrage movement took years and years of banging against walls of hostile "indifference." We need to apply sustained effort against what is wrong and not throw our hands up because, cough cough, the 2006 elections have not yielded an instantaneous change of direction, now GO ENJOY YOUR WEEKEND.

[steve74baywin]

We see alot of wrongs that we can't get corrected, you all might not agree with all of them,,,IE, that all of them are wrong, but you probably will agree with some.....The IRS, the Federal Reserve Act, the Iraq war, the Drug War, the Patriot Act...... If we currently seem to have no control or ability to change these things,,,as seen by the fact that we haven't yet, then how can we give than more control?
...

The messy business of a democracy means things are often muddled and change slowly. Consensus unfortunately follows herd rules. Slow to change direction and occasional downed fences. Read how the women's suffrage movement took years and years of banging against walls of hostile "indifference." We need to apply sustained effort against what is wrong and not throw our hands up because, cough cough, the 2006 elections have not yielded an instantaneous change of direction, now GO ENJOY YOUR WEEKEND.

I don't see it as "not throw our hands up because, cough cough, the 2006 elections have not yielded an instantaneous change of direction, ".
What I see is that they refuse to even attempt to do what they should do. They have avoided two of the biggest issues, War crimes for those killing based on lies, and the taking of our rights. These things they decided to just let go, even after all the protest and petitions.
And also, the things they do bring up and occupy the airwaves with is no more than a dog and pony show. Most of these issues they create, they polarize the nation with them, and in the end there is no change....
It is not that they haven't gotten change yet, but that they are not working to change what they need to, and they pretend to be working making changes on less important things just to distract, and in the end even those things don't get changed..

[Amskeptic]

Consensus unfortunately follows herd rules. We need to apply sustained effort against what is wrong

What I see is that they refuse to even attempt to do what they should do. They have avoided two of the biggest issues, War crimes for those killing based on lies, and the taking of our rights. These things they decided to just let go, even after all the protest and petitions.
And also, the things they do bring up and occupy the airwaves with is no more than a dog and pony show. Most of these issues they create, they polarize the nation with them, and in the end there is no change....
It is not that they haven't gotten change yet, but that they are not working to change what they need to, and they pretend to be working making changes on less important things just to distract, and in the end even those things don't get changed..

It is our Democracy to lose. The structure is still in place for us to effect sustained change. Us. You. Me. Sustained effort.
Colin
(I rail against them too, Steve, but we cannot wait for the pigs to look up from the trough, gee, maybe we shouldn't pig out so much. No. We have to wrestle these gresy pigs away from the trough. And we can do it through campaign finance reform and ethics reform, which may require quite a bit of effort for them to GET that WE are serious. . . if we are serious, we might prefer to just bitch about them)

[Velokid1]

Campaign finance reform should be Step One. And it SHOULD be something that is changed nearly overnight. It has no economic implications on a national scale. It steps on the toes of nobody other than palm-greasing semi-criminals.

Yes, let's do it. And do it fast, with no excuses for "oh, these things take time."

But...

Who on the campaign trail has spoken in real terms about campaign finance reform?

That's a straight question, not sarcastic. I just can't think of anyone who has made any noise around the issue. Am I missing something or someone? I've been watching the debates and haven't heard a peep from my man RP or Colin's man Obama or Bill's woman Hillary. LOL

Seriously though... if this is the first thing that should be tackled, why are we voting for anyone who isn't yelling from the soapbox about how they're going to take it on?

[steve74baywin]

Consensus unfortunately follows herd rules. We need to apply sustained effort against what is wrong

What I see is that they refuse to even attempt to do what they should do. They have avoided two of the biggest issues, War crimes for those killing based on lies, and the taking of our rights. These things they decided to just let go, even after all the protest and petitions.
And also, the things they do bring up and occupy the airwaves with is no more than a dog and pony show. Most of these issues they create, they polarize the nation with them, and in the end there is no change....
It is not that they haven't gotten change yet, but that they are not working to change what they need to, and they pretend to be working making changes on less important things just to distract, and in the end even those things don't get changed..

It is our Democracy to lose. The structure is still in place for us to effect sustained change. Us. You. Me. Sustained effort.
Colin
(I rail against them too, Steve, but we cannot wait for the pigs to look up from the trough, gee, maybe we shouldn't pig out so much. No. We have to wrestle these gresy pigs away from the trough. And we can do it through campaign finance reform and ethics reform, which may require quite a bit of effort for them to GET that WE are serious. . . if we are serious, we might prefer to just bitch about them)

It is more like we have our Federal Republic to lose, not a Democracy. But for this discussion that is probably semantics...
Well, I don't want to wait for them to look up from the trough either... But I haven't heard anything on here yet that will get us anywhere...Voting just about any of the ones in the race still and the ones currently in power isn't going to help us any, in fact we can't even trust our votes.....Short of a major revolution I am not sure what we can do at this point......Except something our conversations seem to keep leading me to say, and that is the need to make more and more people aware, and once again aware of the root cause....It's not just Bush, or some of them.....It is the fact that rich banking families HAVE been running the show through our politicians and the media, just to mention a few,.....
Anyway, this guy here seems to have one of the best idea's yet...
Watch the 20 minute introductory video at that top.....Seriously, this guy makes sense. Even though this is not an overnight plan...
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

[Amskeptic]

Campaign finance reform should be Step One. It has no economic implications on a national scale. It steps on the toes of nobody other than palm-greasing semi-criminals.

=D>

But...
Who on the campaign trail has spoken in real terms about campaign finance reform?

Strangely enough, John McCain once spoke sense regarding campaign finance reform. It was he, after all, with Russ Feingold, who came up with the first good reform bill ever. The Republicans shot it down all to hell "Free Speech Is Money!!" and they smeared him something awful in North Carolina (note that the Republicans will eat their own) during the last Presidential election cycle. He has gotten more jaded and cautious and less trustworthy.

I think Obama is actually pretty principled against sleaze money. Unfortunately there are some enthusiastic 527 groups who are raising money to get Obama elected even as he has said, please! don't! ask us what you can do to help. . . (sort of like IAC having chitwnvw going over to theSamba to piss in their cornflakes way back when )

I've been watching the debates and haven't heard a peep from my man RP or Colin's man Obama or Bill's woman Hillary. LOL
Seriously though... if this is the first thing that should be tackled, why are we voting for anyone who isn't yelling from the soapbox about how they're going to take it on?

I guarantee you that real statesmen career politicians HATE the money game. They do! It takes up all of their time, they have to be on almost 24/7 fundraising, but think of the predicament: its like you are flailing away in the ring with Mike Tyson, you don't dare pause. These politicians can't make the first move towards reform without getting buried under the avalanche of sleazy advertising that they would otherwise answer to.
We have to find consensus through the press. Part of the job that the Washington Post and the New York Times do, is to serve as eyes and ears for members of Congress and the White House to float ideas to see if they gain traction in the public sphere. But there is a problem when many lobbyists who love the money game happen to own the press. That is where we need to use the internet and take to the streets (principled like MLK) to get our voices heard. I am watching, by the way, how firmly Ron Paul is being shut up and squeezed out. It damages the dialogue we need in this country terribly. And now John Edwards has finished without even leveraging his delegates. I can't believe it sometimes. . .
Colin

[steve74baywin]

I know I just posted this video in another thread yesterday, but I love it and the timing here I think is good...It is under 3 minutes...
You probably have to believe sorta like I do about the Council on Foreign Relations and things like "two sides of the same coin" in order to like it like I do..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jTpQSLCq_Q

[Velokid1]

I guarantee you that real statesmen career politicians HATE the money game. They do! It takes up all of their time, they have to be on almost 24/7 fundraising, but think of the predicament: its like you are flailing away in the ring with Mike Tyson, you don't dare pause. These politicians can't make the first move towards reform without getting buried under the avalanche of sleazy advertising that they would otherwise answer to.
We have to find consensus through the press. Part of the job that the Washington Post and the New York Times do, is to serve as eyes and ears for members of Congress and the White House to float ideas to see if they gain traction in the public sphere. But there is a problem when many lobbyists who love the money game happen to own the press. That is where we need to use the internet and take to the streets (principled like MLK) to get our voices heard. I am watching, by the way, how firmly Ron Paul is being shut up and squeezed out. It damages the dialogue we need in this country terribly. And now John Edwards has finished without even leveraging his delegates. I can't believe it sometimes. . .
Colin

Well, shit. I can go to bed tonight feeling like I was exposed to a genuinely helpful perspective. Thank you.

I heard Obama speaking about Edwards' withdrawal last night and was impressed. He is a gentleman. I was on the Obama bandwagon long before I ever heard of RP, and I am warming back up to him... but I do need for him to be more feisty than he has been.

I need to see him electrifying people in a fervent, even chaotic way along with the reasoned, measured support he enjoys from his people now. I want to see him reminding people that they are ALIVE and that we have reason, right and obligation to be angry as hell.

I couldn't help but compare Obama's speech about Edwards last night to Giuliani's speech endorsing McCain. Obama spoke of Edwards, the man. Giuliani just spouted some shabbily-articulated neo-con crap about, "We need a man who will go after the TERRORISTS who are coming for us."

[steve74baywin]

I guarantee you that real statesmen career politicians HATE the money game. They do! It takes up all of their time, they have to be on almost 24/7 fundraising, but think of the predicament: its like you are flailing away in the ring with Mike Tyson, you don't dare pause. These politicians can't make the first move towards reform without getting buried under the avalanche of sleazy advertising that they would otherwise answer to.
We have to find consensus through the press. Part of the job that the Washington Post and the New York Times do, is to serve as eyes and ears for members of Congress and the White House to float ideas to see if they gain traction in the public sphere. But there is a problem when many lobbyists who love the money game happen to own the press. That is where we need to use the internet and take to the streets (principled like MLK) to get our voices heard. I am watching, by the way, how firmly Ron Paul is being shut up and squeezed out. It damages the dialogue we need in this country terribly. And now John Edwards has finished without even leveraging his delegates. I can't believe it sometimes. . .
Colin

Well, shit. I can go to bed tonight feeling like I was exposed to a genuinely helpful perspective. Thank you.

I heard Obama speaking about Edwards' withdrawal last night and was impressed. He is a gentleman. I was on the Obama bandwagon long before I ever heard of RP, and I am warming back up to him... but I do need for him to be more feisty than he has been.

I need to see him electrifying people in a fervent, even chaotic way along with the reasoned, measured support he enjoys from his people now. I want to see him reminding people that they are ALIVE and that we have reason, right and obligation to be angry as hell.

I couldn't help but compare Obama's speech about Edwards last night to Giuliani's speech endorsing McCain. Obama spoke of Edwards, the man. Giuliani just spouted some shabbily-articulated neo-con crap about, "We need a man who will go after the TERRORISTS who are coming for us."

Was it not Lyndon B Johnson who came out and spoke alot about change in 1965 or so. I think I heard just the other day a speech he gave where he used the word change alot...The video basically showed how JFK was wanting to get out of Vietnam and minimize casualties. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the assassination of JFK, he basically gave speeches about change but as far as Vietnam went he promoted staying the course, which we did for almost 10 more years..
Nothing wrong with change or someone mentioning change, but remember to not be taken by good speeches. Note what it is that is wrong, and what would be right, then see if the candidate is also for that, and what does his track record show.

[Amskeptic]

Was it not Lyndon B Johnson who came out and spoke alot about change in 1965 or so. I think I heard just the other day a speech he gave where he used the word change alot...The video basically showed how JFK was wanting to get out of Vietnam and minimize casualties. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the assassination of JFK, he basically gave speeches about change but as far as Vietnam went he promoted staying the course, which we did for almost 10 more years..
Nothing wrong with change or someone mentioning change, but remember to not be taken by good speeches. Note what it is that is wrong, and what would be right, then see if the candidate is also for that, and what does his track record show.

Lyndon Johnson immolated himself for civil rights and voting rights right beside Martin Luther King, and he drove our entire society towards the principles that are the bedrock of our Constitution, at great personal cost.
Do not reduce Johnson to speech-giver. He was a giant. Unfortunately there are pinheads who are going to reduce history to idiot agendas.
"ya know? that Sistine Chapel ceiling looks like a bad billboard ad for a Valentines Day candy."

Note, it was just little ol' PEOPLE in the STREET who effected our subsequent conduct against a hostile Nixon administration. The big bad "They" forces lost to the little hippie dippies.

[steve74baywin]

Was it not Lyndon B Johnson who came out and spoke alot about change in 1965 or so. I think I heard just the other day a speech he gave where he used the word change alot...The video basically showed how JFK was wanting to get out of Vietnam and minimize casualties. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the assassination of JFK, he basically gave speeches about change but as far as Vietnam went he promoted staying the course, which we did for almost 10 more years..
Nothing wrong with change or someone mentioning change, but remember to not be taken by good speeches. Note what it is that is wrong, and what would be right, then see if the candidate is also for that, and what does his track record show.

Lyndon Johnson immolated himself for civil rights and voting rights right beside Martin Luther King, and he drove our entire society towards the principles that are the bedrock of our Constitution, at great personal cost.
Do not reduce Johnson to speech-giver. He was a giant. Unfortunately there are pinheads who are going to reduce history to idiot agendas.
"ya know? that Sistine Chapel ceiling looks like a bad billboard ad for a Valentines Day candy."

Note, it was just little ol' PEOPLE in the STREET who effected our subsequent conduct against a hostile Nixon administration. The big bad "They" forces lost to the little hippie dippies.

I can see why we are having troubles agreeing..You hear or read some stuff, and I hear and read some stuff, but not the same stuff, one makesthe man look like he is for the people, the other just wrong, is this two sides of the same coin as I say...Does this maybe support what I say...What I mostly know Lyndon B Johnson for is keeping us in Vietnam.....I heard phone recordings between Robert Macnamara and both Kennedy and Johnson that showed how Kennedy wanted out but when Johnson got in he was all for staying till the end, he might not have been a bad person, just misguided....Also I think he new of the FAKE Gulf of Tonkin incident....Which outways any good democratic stuff he did..