Politics
The line has been drawn in the sand; you are on one side or the other side. If you are in the middle then watch out; the political war machines are out there trying to figure out how to manipulate your mind to vote for them. They desire power and will do almost anything to get it. Helping the people of this country is the farthest thing from their mind; the vote is top priority. You don’t believe me, then why did they start the push for the 2008 elections the day after the 2006 elections?
Personally, I am sick of hearing it and have shut out all of their trite little comments and childish babble. Someone please tell me that I am wrong and this is all a bad dream! Bush bad, Clinton good; Clinton bad, Bush good; I don’t want to hear it.
This letter has not been edited.
Jeff, join the Revolution. I'm talking about the Ron Paul Revolution, where I am 'no longer voting for the lesser of 2 evils'. 2008 will probably be our last chance to change the 2 party 'straglehold' on this nation. Unless you want more of the same, you had better vote for someone who is hated by both sides of the aisle, because he follows the Constitution, and does not agree witht he status quo.
Posted by Jay on August 8, 2007 02:14 PMJay - While I may not agree with your pick (it's too early to tell for me) I agree, I'm tired of voting the lesser of eveils into office. Be it congress or the white house.
Even If I don't think my best candidate can muster the votes, it's time to vote for them regardless. Hopefully if enough people do this we can bring about some much needed change.
Posted by KW on August 8, 2007 03:06 PMWould anybody else be in favor of perhaps having 2 or 3 presidents? So that more than one side is represented?
Posted by Larry on August 8, 2007 03:14 PMDOnt worry, the status Quo will continue, there is NOTHING any of us can unless we revolt.
Posted by Fresh on August 8, 2007 03:58 PMAnd has anyone else noticed something else the media is doing to further marginalize the candidates who might actually stand for real change? They are now referring to almost exclusively to what they have labeled "the top tier" candidates. Kind of a half-ass way of saying "Let's not bother talking about the candidates we've deemed the public think is too out there to consider."
It's a lot easier for the media to craft their entertainment-style news when they have only two sides to tell.
Posted by mytwosense on August 8, 2007 04:33 PM...because they have divided this country to the left and to the right....
Actually, they divided the country into the far right and the center. The Left hasn't had a viable influence in America since the New Deal and a couple of early years of LBJ during Civil Rights era.
Posted by on August 8, 2007 06:19 PMThis is one of the best letters I've seen here in a while. I'm also sick of candidates talking about their political experience as though this somehow means they're more deserving of my vote. All members of established political parties are sellouts, and they're all sleazebags who only care about advancing their own careers. Every once in a while you get saddled with a real idiot in charge (you know I couldn't leave Bush out of this), but by and large the alternatives aren't that great. It is our system, and not our politicians, we need to change. I say give us 30 political parties. There are more than 2 issues in politics, so there should be more than 2 choices.
I can't believe I actually agree with KW on something. Now THAT's weird.
Posted by Grog on August 8, 2007 06:26 PMGrog: Re your agreeing with KW --
Goes to prove that "politics makes for strange bedfellows"...
Posted by Trinity on August 8, 2007 07:06 PM"We make no decisions on are own;"
Speak for yourself. Many of us do, but are tired of voting for the lessor of two evils. Amen to that.
Sad to say, but a revolution may be coming as many of us are so tired by politics as usual that doesn't reflect on the will of the people.
The immigration issue was the major wake-up call to citizens of this country that many of our elected pols are not paying attention to the mood of the folks they are supposed to represent but rather to the big money lobbyists and the potential big bucks jobs they are lining up for themselves once they are voted out. I have a feeling that many more people are going to be watching what happens in D.C. a lot more closely now. The internet will force them to be more accountable. Lying to us just got tougher.
We may well sweep a bunch of these phoneys out of office but we will still be left with the two party system, which appears to be two sides of the same coin.
It may not happen in 2008, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious third party challenger in 2012.
Ron Paul isn't the guy, though. He's a master politician, a chameleon of sorts.
To anon 6:19 - you can't be serious? The left hasn't had an influence? What are you looking at?
"Actually, they divided the country into the far right and the center. The Left hasn't had a viable influence in America since the New Deal and a couple of early years of LBJ during Civil Rights era."
If you mean Democrat, then I might tend to agree. The Democrats of the 1960's wouldn't recognize that party today.
Maybe to you today's left appears to be the center but that says more about your viewpoint than it does about what I and many others observe on the political spectrum. If that is your viewpoint, then to you the DNC appears to be on the right. That seems pretty extreme to me. The DNC is a bit left of center. The Daily KOS crowd is way left of center. Is that where you are sitting?
Anyway, I agree with Jeff. It's all just a big game to them and we're the suckers.
Posted by RU Serious on August 8, 2007 07:15 PMGee, and here I thought this country was always divided to the left and right. I don’t want any liberal values forced on me just for the sake of getting alone. Why should I support unlimited abortions, legalizing drugs, confiscating guns, union controlled businesses, hiking taxes, gay marriages, eliminating the military, unchecked-unlimited immigration from third world countries, government financed health care and pharmaceuticals? Just because liberals said so? Hell no!
Posted by Uno on August 8, 2007 07:45 PMUno,I'm on your wagon.
Posted by bart on August 8, 2007 07:50 PMHey Uno, you would rather support invading countries, unending war, out of control spending, Billions of our treasury missing, the end of Habeus Corpus, wire taps, being told what to do with your body, the government in your bedroom, Insurance companies making record profits by refusing claims, unchecked immigration (bush won't stop it) Fascist government etc. etc. etc.
Posted by Mike D. on August 8, 2007 08:19 PMYes, Mike I do support invading out of control terrorist countries. And if they don’t chill out, we should nuke them.
The end of Habeas Corpus, no, limits on it yes, that’s one of the few things I’ve agreed with what Clinton signed into law. Another was limiting welfare.
Billions are missing out of the treasury, it’s not anything new, you should inquire the appropriate agencies about that.
No, I don’t support out of control spending, or bigger government. Most Republicans don’t.
I do support wire taps on suspected terrorists, or for that matter wire taps on pedophiles, rapists and most other felons, and if time don’t allow, even without a warrant, as long as it is justified with a follow-up.
You are told what to do with your body, who are you kidding? If you referring to legalizing drugs, no, I don’t support it, I think we have enough whacked out people as it is, why have more.
I do not support insurance companies refusing claims, if the claims are truthful. Unfortunately people abused insurance with fraudulent claims to no end, so I’m not surprised that insurance companies get vigilant.
To my knowlege no politician expect for Tancredo want’s to do anything to stop illegal immigration.
Mike D. & Uno rally to prove the letter writer's point.
Posted by skeptical on August 8, 2007 09:03 PMUno asked:
"Why should I support unlimited abortions?"
Don't be silly, you shouldn't, nobody advocates that.
"legalizing drugs?"
Because it's a victim-less crime.
"confiscating guns?"
Because criminals shouldn't have them.
"union controlled businesses?"
Because they're good for workers.
"hiking taxes?"
So we don't run deficits.
"gay marriages?"
Because consenting adults should be free to love each other without your interference.
"eliminating the military?"
Don't be silly, nobody is calling for that.
"unchecked-unlimited immigration from third world countries?"
See previous answer.
"government financed health care and pharmaceuticals?"
So people can get proper medical care at a reasonable price and without third-party interference.
There ya go! All your questions answered. You don't have to thank me.
Posted by Charles B on August 8, 2007 09:13 PMCharles B, you know better than that!
"Why should I support unlimited abortions?"
Don't be silly, you shouldn't, nobody advocates that.
Yes, most liberals do, and you know that.
"legalizing drugs?"
Because it's a victim-less crime.
That’s BS. May be you should attend the funerals of those who died from OD, spend all their money on it because they got hooked and can’t stop thus resorting to crime to get more, spread AIDS from sharing needles, domestic violence, do you want to be a junkie, Charles? Victimless crime, yeah, right!
"confiscating guns?"
Because criminals shouldn't have them.
So, get them away from convicted felons, it’s the law.
"gay marriages?"
Because consenting adults should be free to love each other without your interference.
You are free to love Charles who ever you want. But marriage is between one man and one woman. Even bigamy is illegal, so you and your partner shouldn’t take it too personally.
"eliminating the military?"
Don't be silly, nobody is calling for that.
Pacifists ring a bell?
"government financed health care and pharmaceuticals?"
So people can get proper medical care at a reasonable price and without third-party interference.
Yeah, right! And proper housing and food and transportation and we’ll just all work for the government like one big gay (happy) family.
There, my rebuttal.
Uno:
Are you alright?
Posted by Charles B on August 8, 2007 09:50 PMYes, Charles, why?
Posted by Uno on August 8, 2007 09:51 PMLarry - I have a better suggestion than 2 or 3 presidents: the winner of the election is president & the loser is VP. The clear upside to this is an automatic check/balance: the winning party knows that if the president is out of control & is impeached, the other party is in charge.
The folks who have pointed out that it appears that the ads at least are aimed at the far-left & far-right are correct. Most of us are closer to the center.
I will update Charles' responses to Uno - who is clearly farther right than I am:
"Why should I support unlimited abortions?"
Don't be silly, you shouldn't, nobody advocates that.
Yes, most liberals do, and you know that.
No, we don't - most of us want, as Bill Clinton said, abortions to be "safe, legal & rare" - and an issue between the woman (hopefully the father) and her doctor - or do you think that most politicians are also MDs who can determine when a pregnancy is a health threat?
"legalizing drugs?"
Because it's a victim-less crime.
That’s BS. May be you should attend the funerals of those who died from OD, spend all their money on it because they got hooked and can’t stop thus resorting to crime to get more, spread AIDS from sharing needles, domestic violence, do you want to be a junkie, Charles? Victimless crime, yeah, right!
Too simplistic on both sides - although if for instance pot were legal & sold as cigarettes & alcohol are sold & taxed...
"confiscating guns?"
Because criminals shouldn't have them.
So, get them away from convicted felons, it’s the law.
Point for Uno - but we also need to lock up anybody who knowing provides guns for felons (and violent mental patients, like the shooter at Va Tech).
"gay marriages?"
Because consenting adults should be free to love each other without your interference.
You are free to love Charles who ever you want. But marriage is between one man and one woman. Even bigamy is illegal, so you and your partner shouldn’t take it too personally.
Perhaps if all were encouraged/allowed to have long-term permanent relationships, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't have occured. Besides, the "one man/one woman" thing is a relatively new thing in the history of mankind: most societies had one man, several women (read the Old Testament or the Koran) - and some had one woman, many men - and if that is really what you believe in (instead of "one man, one woman - at a time - AKA serial polygamy), does that mean all divorces followed by remarriage should be banned?
"eliminating the military?"
Don't be silly, nobody is calling for that.
Pacifists ring a bell?
Pacifists want all military organizations eliminated - and, while many of us devoutly wish that day would come, we do understand that is at least currently impossible. We just don't want to go to war based on lies, misinformation & personal vendettas.
"government financed health care and pharmaceuticals?"
So people can get proper medical care at a reasonable price and without third-party interference.
Yeah, right! And proper housing and food and transportation and we’ll just all work for the government like one big gay (happy) family.
A single payer system, would probably save us all money (of course, if you are heavily invested in one medical insurance company or another - and their mission, as with other insurance companies, is to collect premiums & not pay anything out - then you would disagree) - I suggest you look at information on how Japan manages to cover everyone, and have the highest life expectancy & lowest infant mortality rates of the countries which have universal health care. Higher priced isn't necessarily better - and please don't go to the specious arguement for 'long waits' - the wealthy Canadians may come here for high priced but no life threatening procedures rather than waiting for them, but US citizens are heading north for basic healthcare & affordable prescriptions.
this guy has a bad last name, feel sorry for him. School must have been tough
Posted by roscoe on August 9, 2007 07:16 AMGood one.
Posted by Tbone on August 9, 2007 08:31 AMIt seems like the only politicians telling the truth these daysare George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Posted by bart on August 9, 2007 08:51 AMCharles B:
"confiscating guns?"
Because criminals shouldn't have them.
Can you explain how confiscating guns will remove them from the hands of criminals?
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 08:55 AMI'd like to thank Mary and Uno for perfectly illustrating Jeff Legay's point. The nation is divided, and thus conquered. While thet are championing causes they feel are threatened by the 'left', they are robbed of their liberties guaranteed t them by our forefathers. The left has had no influence in this country since the Franklin Roosevelt administration, but they wouldnt know that because they are brainwashed by a right-wing propaganda machine that never ceases to churn out lies and half-thruths, all the while blaming a faux enemy for all their problems. When you are convinced that an enemy will destroy your country, you willingly give up your freedoms, and think it patriotic. Politics has killed this nation, and for what? A totalitarian oligarchy.
Posted by Travis Schriner on August 9, 2007 08:59 AM"It seems like the only politicians telling the truth these daysare George Bush and Dick Cheney."
Bart—something tells me you actually believe this.
Posted by GK on August 9, 2007 11:35 AMALL of you are f'n idiots!
F'N IDIOTS
Posted by Fresh on August 9, 2007 11:52 AMKW you might want to consider re-phrasing the following question:
"Can you explain how confiscating guns will remove them from the hands of criminals?"
...otherwise, you should be able to look at it very carefully and find the answer to the question in the question itself.
Posted by Charles B on August 9, 2007 01:21 PMTravis, I agree wih you, we are divided and conquered. When you see someone stating that the only people telling the truth are Bush and Cheney we are certainly doomed!! Cheney has been wrong on every statement and I'm not sure has ever told the truth
Posted by Mike D. on August 9, 2007 01:28 PMSince I have time to waste this afternoon...
Uno "rebutted" me:
"...most liberals do (support unlimited abortions), and you know that."
Could you reference the statistical analysis that shows this?
Regarding drug possession being a victim-less crime:
"May be you should attend the funerals of those who died from OD, spend all their money on it because they got hooked and can’t stop thus resorting to crime to get more, spread AIDS from sharing needles, domestic violence..."
Who is the victim in an OD? The crimes you mention are crimes independent of the drug possession/ingestion status of the accused. You must favor a prohibition on alcohol by this logic.
Who is the victim if an adult is sitting in his/her home doing drugs (or drinking for that matter)?
Re: guns:
I think you'll agree that your "confiscating guns" question was ill-lettered to the extent of being useless. Thus my pithy answer. What kind of confiscation are you talking about? Who is going be subject to this confiscation and by what mechanism?
Re: Gay marriage:
You are free to love Charles who ever you want. But marriage is between one man and one woman. Even bigamy is illegal, so you and your partner shouldn’t take it too personally.
Me and my "partner" do take it personally when friends of ours have been in loving, committed relationships for years but cannot access the same benefits we do. Until the government gets out of the marriage business altogether (which I advocate), it should allow any consenting adult in any relationship of their choosing to access the same benefits accorded married people.
As to your belief that marriage has always been between "one man and one woman", it speaks to your ignorance on the subject and of history
Re:eliminating the military:
A few fringe Utopians does not justify your broad-brushing of "liberals" as wanting to eliminate the military.
Starting with all the Democratic contenders whom you presumably consider "liberals"- which ones have advocated totally eliminating the military?
Glad you're feeling ok!
Posted by Charles B on August 9, 2007 02:01 PMSomehow I knew Charles wouldn't answer the question so I'll have to do it for him. Again.
Confiscating weapons will only remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens which is something that completely escapes gunphobes like Charles and drew.
These guys like to pretend that criminals will voluntarily give up their guns since the law says they have to.
No thanks necessary Charles, I'm used to having to answer questions brought about by your inane comments. I usually get to the truth faster this way as well.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 02:26 PMCharles B, I said: “You are free to love Charles who ever you want. But marriage is between one man and one woman.” – from this how on earth did you get to “As to your belief that marriage has always been between "one man and one woman", it speaks to your ignorance on the subject and of history” – looks like it’s your ignorance of what others saying, by conveniently adding your own descriptions and modifying the meaning. Nice try. I never said always! In either case I still do not support gay marriages, and think that man on man sex is sick and shouldn’t be rewarded with state approval. They enjoy the same rights as any other single person, and that’s that.
Posted by Uno on August 9, 2007 06:12 PMMary, most liberals do support unlimited (may be better described as unrestricted) abortions. Every time the issue of late term / partial birth abortions or parental notification comes up, you people start foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog.
Here is a fact (Charles likes them) “In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place, down from 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred.”
Over 1 million is not rare of anything Mary.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Posted by Uno on August 9, 2007 06:27 PMMary and Charles, here is what some (not all) liberals view is about war: “Many socialist groups and movements were antimilitarist, arguing that war by its nature was a type of governmental coercion of the working class for the benefit of capitalist elites.” –get it?
Posted by Uno on August 9, 2007 06:32 PMCharles if you think that I’m on the far right on the gay marriage issue, may be you should read this:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/08/ap4000462.html
Just how far to the left are you on this?
Now I get it,to murder a kid that is from you is OK.,but to kill a terrorist that is trying to kill you,your parentsand other Americans is wrong.
Posted by bart on August 9, 2007 08:07 PMUno:
You're a bigot. You think something is "sick", so everyone should follow your dictate?
The thing that gives me hope is that your ignorant ideas are on the way out, just like the bigots who apposed the civil rights act, or interracial marriage.
I remember your little story that explained why you find gays "sick", it's a pity you haven't translated that self-awareness into some positive action to become a better person.
Do you agree that the State should get out of the marriage business?
Posted by Charles B on August 10, 2007 07:07 AM"Somehow I knew Charles wouldn't answer the question"
K-Tel, could you repeat the question for me?
I thought it was "Why should I support ... confiscating guns...?"
In which case my answer is spot on. Do you not think criminals should have their guns confiscated?
Perhaps you and Uno could get together and write a question that makes sense... though I doubt it..
Posted by Charles B on August 10, 2007 07:10 AM"Charles if you think that I’m on the far right on the gay marriage issue, may be you should read this..."
I could give a sh*t who thinks what about the gay marriage issue.
If you're against it you're a bigot.
That's all you need to know.
Posted by Charles B on August 10, 2007 07:14 AMCharles B - The original assertion was that dems are for confiscating guns. Your justification for confiscation was "because criminals shouldn't have them."
My question is, how are you going to confiscate guns from criminals?
That's a pretty straight forward, easy to understand question. Please answer without feeling the need to redefine it or change the subject again.
Thanks!
Posted by KW on August 10, 2007 08:20 AMgk,unlike you a research to see what is fact or fiction.That why I know Bush,Cheney are telling the truth and reid,pelosi,kerry,kennedy and both clintons are never telling the truth.
Posted by bart on August 10, 2007 09:01 AMCareful Uno, your real desires are slipping through just like Haggard and all his gay-bashing secret desires surfaced. The more a Republican protests...the more he is in favor of what he doth protest! Or are you a closet snuggler along with Foley and Haggard? I think Bart is single... and available!
Posted by Uno loves Bart on August 10, 2007 01:26 PMKW has a hard-on for me to answer the following question:
"...how are you going to confiscate guns from criminals?"
By taking them away when they are discovered to have them. Am I gonna have to explain this to you using hand-puppets?
Posted by Charles B on August 10, 2007 06:29 PMCharles B, funny how hard you stand up for your gay friends…
I guess if that makes me a bigot, than be it, I’m still not gonna support it.
And for above post, no, I don’t support Haggard and Foley getting married either. They probably the new heroes of the left.
Charles, what are you doing with hand-puppets? You are weird, are they covered with Vaseline?
Posted by Uno on August 10, 2007 06:40 PMUno:
"Charles B, funny how hard you stand up for your gay friends…"
I guess loyalty and compassion are funny things when they run contrary to you own (lack of) ethics.
You give no other reason for your bigotry besides your own psychological reaction to "gayness".
You're apparently self-aware of the reason(s) for your feeling of "sickness", yet choose not to deal with it.
You'll be on the losing side in the end, both on a societal and a personal level...
Posted by Charles B on August 11, 2007 09:03 AMCharles, what’s with the socio babble, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? I’m not the one with the identity crisis. And when is this “end” coming? Doesn’t look like any time soon, even your Democrat presidential candidate front runners don’t support your views on this.
Posted by Uno on August 11, 2007 09:32 AM