A question for American friends - Politics

[scorpio_fish 5]

Americans think of W. as a "huge douche bag idiot" too. Even Texans do. As a long time Austinite, I can tell you that we knew that when he was first running for governor here. Despite winning Texas by a wide margin, W. lost in the urban areas. Austin, home to W. before he got in WAY over his head, voted for Gore. We knew he was an idiot.

 

The US's politics has been dominated recently by the creepy coalition of religious nutjobs and confederate flag-waving, racist hate-mongers. That combination doesn't like Pelosi too much.

 

I also agree with George regarding the cowboy comment. Who is the cowboy in this year's election? Who was the cowboy prior to W.? When was W. really ever a cowboy? Fact is, the real control has been in the hands of scumbags like DeLay, Rove, and Cheney. W. is just a retarded puppet. He wears a cowboy hat because that's the fashion where daddy set him up with his first oil money job. W. isn't sophisticated enough to be a cowboy.

 

 

Gee, a question about Pelosi, followed by a perceptive response about the historical ascension to the Presidency devolves into the "Bush is a douche bag idiot" post, which is why the post should die.

 

Statement, "Americans think of W. as a "huge douche bag idiot" too.

 

Fact: Over 50% of voters chose Bush in his re-election bid.

 

Makes me think....

 

1) The statement incorrectly projects this view on a significant portion of the population.

2) Half the voters pulled the wrong lever/marked the wrong box by mistake.

3) Thought the other guy was a "huge douche bag idiot and a half"

 

 

Austin, home to W. before he got in WAY over his head, voted for Gore.

 

If only we were as enlightened as Austinites. Maybe only Austinites should be allowed to vote in Texas. Perhaps you could stretch it a little and allow for T-sippers who have relocated elsewhere around the state to vote.

Edited September 29, 2008 by scorpio_fish

[diverdon 1]

I posted this here because it's the only forum I subscribe to that has an American public.

 

 

Why don't you elect statesmen like Nancy Pelosi to be President instead of the succession of cowboys you seem to get landed with?

 

Methinks thow art trolling

Methinks thow art trolling

[John Bantin 101]

Methinks thow art trolling

Methinks thow art trolling

 

 

I was genuinely impressed by ms Pelosi's performance yesterday. Sorry to have caused such pain. In future I will keep my observations limited to Moses and Mohammed since their followers seem less fundamental!

[Drew 0]

The real deal was that there was a plan for an exchange of seats of power in 2008 to continue the line of authority as W was going to have to step down and Tony "the pet poodle" Blair fancied new digs at 1600 Penn Ave. The poodle especially likes the lobbying and fundraising with perks and favors, compared to having to sell a Baron title for raising party money. W was going to be PM for the isles and "yo Blair" would run for President of the USA after he left No. 10. It seems they used the same 'intelligence" gatherers who did the WMD research in Iraq. Apparently there were some exaggerations in the report about the US being still part of the empire, and they 'chose' to believe it and the Poodle stepped down as PM in preparations for the GOP race. Apparently Tony is still mad at W for not 'fixing' it and will not fly to the US to collect his congressional medal. He also no longer sends the Gieves & Hawkes cashmere sweaters for ol'W, citing animal cruelty reasons.

[diverdon 1]

In future I will keep my observations limited to Moses and Mohammed since their followers seem less fundamental!

 

Rotflmao

 

I happen to be from the other side of the political spectrum. Ms. Pelosi reminds me of fingernails on a chalkboard. I can think of no constructive thing that she has ever done.

 

Still I must agree with your observation that the nominees of each party are quite the worst of their respective parties.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now in addition to all previous sins, it appears that she is responsible for defeat of this necessary measure.

 

"Immediately after the vote, many House members appeared stunned. Some Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, for a speech before the vote that disdained President Bush’s economic policies, and did so, in the opinion of the speaker’s critics, in too partisan a way."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business...&ei=5087%0A

Edited September 29, 2008 by diverdon

[MikeO 5]

Now in addition to all previous sins, it appears that she is responsible for defeat of this necessary measure.

 

"Immediately after the vote, many House members appeared stunned. Some Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, for a speech before the vote that disdained President Bush’s economic policies, and did so, in the opinion of the speaker’s critics, in too partisan a way."

 

Well, the Republicans would have you think so. Except for McCain -- he's already on record blaming Obama! Here's what killed it: all of the Representative's phones have been ringing off the hook due to their voters telling them the bill is crap. Apparently members on both sides fear getting unelected more than anything else. It would appear that more voters think it is unnecessary than those who think it is. I'm actually quite amazed at how many people I've heard say, "Screw the market, screw my 401(k), we shouldn't bail out a bunch of criminals." Shocking, really. Me? I'm not an economist so I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is that the bill looks long on bailout and short on necessary regulation and that scares the heck out of me. Sure, let's pay 'em off and change NOTHING about how they have to do business in the future. Hurray for the free market!

 

Business as usual on BOTH sides -- do nothing and point fingers.

 

Mike

Edited September 29, 2008 by MikeO

[scorpio_fish 5]

Rotflmao

 

 

Still I must agree with your observation that the nominees of each party are quite the worst of their respective parties.

 

I don't think it's even close. Perhaps 1976 was before your time. Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter. I voted for "change". Oops. More recently....Where were you four years ago?

 

We do have a way of nominating candidates that can be a head scratcher, unlike a Parliamentary system. Nearly a third of voters have no party affiliation. This is why a seemingly popular primary choice can falter during the general election.

[jeremypayne 0]

I don't think it's even close.

I would wholeheartedly agree with that.

 

I think both candidates are decent. I don't like the "new" John McCain, but I remember the old one and respect his work in the senate over the last few of years. He has worked hard to reach across the aisle and govern. (Obama sat it out, but Hillary was active in that same effort).

 

Obama would bring a breath of fresh air, in my opinion, but I can understand those whom he makes nervous. In January 2008, I knew nothing about him and was a Hillary supporter, but have grown to admire and respect his intellect and the masterful way he defeated the Clinton machine.

 

My biggest concern in January was a lack of executive experience, but in my opinion, running a national campaign as well as he did settled my doubts.

 

Obama's gonna win unless "hidden" racism rears its ugly head on election day.

[John Bantin 101]

JB FOR PRIME MINISTER

 

 

I just spotted this. If you put me in power, I promise I would be as good as Robert Mugabe!

[diver dave1 23]

Neither party represents the majority of Americans, in the opinion of most in my area. Each has an agenda that has points most support but not all either way.

The Rep's want to avoid taxing the rich and give Big Business most all they want.

The Dem's seem to be PRO Union and want to offer a chicken in every pot and promise to tax someone else, which turns out to be anyone making much money at all.

Many in the middle just hope the Congress and White house are not the same party. When they have to work with the other party, there is a chance the average person gets hurt less any maybe something positive happens.

 

Most on this website would likely vote for working to solve the ocean dead zone off the Miss. River outfall at La. but that does not seem to make much news.

 

As for the current candidates...

IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN OFFER?

[oneyellowtang 80]

There can be no doubt that W is one of the least intelligent presidents we've had in the last 100 years. Even his father suggested the same when he was quoted as saying "Jeb was the smart one..." (ex-Gov of Florida).

 

When we've elected fairly intelligent presidents we've done fairly well (regardless of party...), unfortunately intelligence seems to be playing less and less of a role in picking our leaders (the fact that we actually have "intelligent design" debates at some school boards around this country is truly frightening, but says a lot about the people that get to vote in this country. This is also why our founding fathers created a Republic, and not a true democracy [some folks aren't smart enough to rule themselves]).

 

One more thing on "W:"

 

As some of my friends in Texas have a habit of saying: Big Hat, No Cattle...

[Paul Kay 46]

Someone said that John (B) should know better - I'm QUITE sure that he does!

 

However, entering into the spirit of things, I did see a BBC report last night during which a snippet of one senator's speech was shown. He apparently thought that the bill as it stood would lead the USA down the road to socialism! The though that George W could possibly do such a thing is so bizarre ......... it made me realise that here in Britain we are not unique in electing some very odd people to 'represent' us.

 

To get back to real 'reality', although its not an underwater shot, I couldn't help stopping and taking some images as I drove home through the Snowdonia National Park on Friday evening. Such stunning scenery does put things in perspective methinks.

 

[John Bantin 101]

Someone said that John (B) should know better - I'm QUITE sure that he does!

 

Blimey Paul! I hit a nerve with this one. I was impressed by Nancy Pelosi although I know nothing of her politics. It reminded me of our last statesman politician, Lord Carrington. It's a pity we now have a home secretary called Jackie Smif !!!

 

It's all gone to ratshit because of the leadership of both our countries by ordinary men (and women).

[MikeO 5]

Neither party represents the majority of Americans, in the opinion of most in my area. Each has an agenda that has points most support but not all either way.

The Rep's want to avoid taxing the rich and give Big Business most all they want.

The Dem's seem to be PRO Union and want to offer a chicken in every pot and promise to tax someone else, which turns out to be anyone making much money at all.

Many in the middle just hope the Congress and White house are not the same party. When they have to work with the other party, there is a chance the average person gets hurt less any maybe something positive happens.

 

Your sterotypical example illuminates a large part of the problem. The parties are so entrenched now that you aren't really voting for a person anymore -- you're expected to vote for a party and that party's platform, which may contain only one thing you're passionate about. The "party" then attempts to get an "agenda" put in place and any party member who tried to buck the trend is singled out, or given permission to vote against party lines if ther is a particular risk in that person's district that the vote might be unpopular and risk the person not geetting re-elected. The rare case of individualism is reserved for getting particular earmarks negotiated! I cringe everytime I hear people say they are a "lifetime republican" or "lifetime democrat" as that smacks of belief in the stereotypes and of a lack of an independent mind. This problem is certainly not new -- how about this quote from Mark Twain:

 

"Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction . . ."

 

This is how we end up with people who hate gay marriage so much that they vote Republican even though they may hate that party's environmental record and people that believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose that they vote Democratic even though they might prefer lower taxes. There is simply precious little room for compromise or a position that represents middle ground. The slightest perceived weakness is set upon with a fervor designed to enforce artificial party boundaries.

 

Going back to the original question, I'd ask this -- what true statesmen could exist under such a forced model of "group-think"? Even if you hate both parties you have to pick one or the other to even get on a ballot (with rare exception)! Face it, nothing is going to get any better until fundamental changes are made in the length of terms, the amount of money people can spend on politics, and the time politicians are allowed for campaigning. I mean, come on, we've been subjected to this freakin' presidential race for two years already! OK. I'm now off the soapbox here for good. Back to taking pictures underwater.

Edited September 30, 2008 by MikeO

[loftus 42]

Your sterotypical example illuminates a large part of the problem. The parties are so entrenched now that you aren't really voting for a person anymore -- you're expected to vote for a party and that party's platform, which may contain only one thing you're passionate about. The "party" then attempts to get an "agenda" put in place and any party member who tried to buck the trend is singled out, or given permission to vote against party lines if ther is a particular risk in that person's district that the vote might be unpopular and risk the person not geetting re-elected. The rare case of individualism is reserved for getting particular earmarks negotiated! I cringe everytime I hear people say they are a "lifetime republican" or "lifetime democrat" as that smacks of belief in the stereotypes and of a lack of an independent mind. This problem is certainly not new -- how about this quote from Mark Twain:

 

"Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction . . ."

 

This is how we end up with people who hate gay marriage so much that they vote Republican even though they may hate that party's environmental record and people that believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose that they vote Democratic even though they might prefer lower taxes. There is simply precious little room for compromise or a position that represents middle ground. The slightest perceived weakness is set upon with a fervor designed to enforce artificial party boundaries.

 

Going back to the original question, I'd ask this -- what true statesmen could exist under such a forced model of "group-think"? Even if you hate both parties you have to pick one or the other to even get on a ballot (with rare exception)! Face it, nothing is going to get any better until fundamental changes are made in the length of terms, the amount of money people can spend on politics, and the time politicians are allowed for campaigning. I mean, come on, we've been subjected to this freakin' presidential race for two years already! OK. I'm now off the soapbox here for good. Back to taking pictures underwater.

Well stated; always seemed absurd to me as an immigrant to this country that there are only two parties that count. Also always amazes me how most Americans are ignorant of the existence of the Libertarian Party, probably the only party whose principles stick to the letter of the constitution and the probable intentions of the founding fathers.

Edited September 30, 2008 by loftus

[craig 0]

This is how we end up with people who hate gay marriage so much that they vote Republican even though they may hate that party's environmental record and people that believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose that they vote Democratic even though they might prefer lower taxes. There is simply precious little room for compromise or a position that represents middle ground. The slightest perceived weakness is set upon with a fervor designed to enforce artificial party boundaries.

I think that's a pretty poor couple of examples and I don't agree that there is such fervor. There are political groups that rule with such an iron fist but that is not universal. I can think of neocons and radical christians as two examples but I have a hard time finding something comparable on the opposing side.

 

This sort of alliance with one side or another is inherent in humanity. You see it in Mac vs. PC and Nikon vs. Canon here. People just can't realize they aren't members of a team; they have to choose sides even when there aren't any sides. People aren't happy unless they identify the enemy and they're easily manipulated for that reason. No one knows that better than the Republicans.

[Paul Kay 46]

This sort of alliance with one side or another is inherent in humanity. You see it in Mac vs. PC and Nikon vs. Canon here. People just can't realize they aren't members of a team; they have to choose sides even when there aren't any sides.

 

Now Craig, I'm perfectly happy to shoot on either Nikon or Canon, but in all honesty I get more pleasure out of shooting Leicas. Where does that leave me I wonder?

 

Politically speaking, I am most certainly voting for the UK's Monster Raving Looney Party (yes it really does exist and actually fields candidates), if that is they field a local candidate. At least they can't be as daft as the alternatives, and if they are, well, they were honest about it.

[jeremypayne 0]

... UK's Monster Raving Looney Party (yes it really does exist and actually fields candidates) ...

 

Along those lines ... did "Jedi" become an "official" religion in the UK? I remember a few years ago there was a survey ... and if enough people (some threshold %) indicated that their religion was "Jedi" it was going to become "official" ... and there was a small campaign to get it through ...

 

Did it happen? Am I getting my facts wrong?

 

EDIT ... found my answer ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

Edited September 30, 2008 by jeremypayne

[MikeO 5]

I think that's a pretty poor couple of examples and I don't agree that there is such fervor. There are political groups that rule with such an iron fist but that is not universal. I can think of neocons and radical christians as two examples but I have a hard time finding something comparable on the opposing side.

 

This sort of alliance with one side or another is inherent in humanity. You see it in Mac vs. PC and Nikon vs. Canon here. People just can't realize they aren't members of a team; they have to choose sides even when there aren't any sides. People aren't happy unless they identify the enemy and they're easily manipulated for that reason. No one knows that better than the Republicans.

 

Well, my poor examples are only from my experience. I didn't make them up; I actually know those people. Perhaps my view of the fervor is artificially enhanced by my geography -- I'm in DC after all. I do miss Austin and it's toned down sensibilities. And Celis, before Miller bought them out .

 

You're right about one thing, though. The most effective of what pass for politicians these days understand human nature and take full advantage of it.

 

Mike

[craig 0]

"here" was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "amongst photographers".

[craig 0]

Well, my poor examples are only from my experience.

I said that because gay marriage and taxes are issues that Republicans use to "fire up the base". There are gay-friendly Republicans, environmental Republicans, pro-choice Republicans, and tax-and-spend Republicans. It's more perception than anything.

[manatee19 5]

The melting North Pole-hugging country north of 45 will have a federal election on October 14... most boring and useless election the country ever had. Only good thing about it: It'll be over on October 15 and we will then be able to concentrate on the really interesting election, i.e. the US Presidential race.

 

Politics are the same everywhere; let's simply hope that whoever wins the next one will be able, with the help of the right people, to fix the mess that has been going on for some time now.

 

I'd hate to be in the shoes of the next President, GOP or democrat, it will be a heck of a job to manage an ailing economy, a monstruous deficit, a useless war (Irak that is) while trying to make life better for a majority of Americans. Fortunately, this country has incredible resiliency.

 

Buckminster Fuller was probably thinking about the fall of 2008 when he wrote: Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.

 

JB for President

 

Michel Gilbert

Living only 35 minutes away from the future Republic of Vermont!

[Damo 4]

Along those lines ... did "Jedi" become an "official" religion in the UK? I remember a few years ago there was a survey ... and if enough people (some threshold %) indicated that their religion was "Jedi" it was going to become "official" ... and there was a small campaign to get it through ...

 

Did it happen? Am I getting my facts wrong?

 

EDIT ... found my answer ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

 

Obi Wan never told you what happened to John Bantin.....

 

.....The jedi are no more my young apprentice- Once more the Sith doth rule the Galaxy.........

 

Soon this forum will experience the full power of the dark side of the force-

 

And you will all pay the price for your lack of vision........

[ce4jesus 1]

I posted this here because it's the only forum I subscribe to that has an American public.

 

 

Why don't you elect statesmen like Nancy Pelosi to be President instead of the succession of cowboys you seem to get landed with?

 

 

When the world is full of outlaws that would rather kill you than negociate with you, a cowboy makes sense. On a side note I found it rather interesting that the Democrats really had a slam dunk going into this election if they would have only put Hillary on the ticket. I found it curious that rolled the dice with Obama. It seemed a rather arrogant attitude that declared "it doesn't matter who we put on the ticket, we'll win". So now they have a race on their hands. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[ce4jesus 1]

Methinks thow art trolling

Methinks thow art trolling

 

oops....after swallowing the hook thoroughly I suppose I could hope for John's conservation side to win out; moreover, to cut the hook and throw me back.