Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I posted that graph in another thread about 6 months ago. I ended up around -7,-7; One of the most Liberatarian Left people here. Most of us Inforoosters are in the Libertarian-Left if I remember right.
As far as voting for principle versus electability, I keep moving more and more toward principle every election. Especially in the primaries where you may not vote for the winner but you can elect delegates to the convention to help put your ideas in the Party platform. (We can argue whether that does any good or not but at least you can have your voice heard and a loud enough voice WILL be heard.)
I've about rejected the idea of incremental change as well. I think changes as dramatic as those that are needed only occur swiftly and dramatically when circumstances get so bad the a near revolution occurs. Not necessarily a violent one but one like the Reagan revolution where prevailing knowledge came to be the idea of less regulation, free(not fair) trade, union are bad and the rich getting richer was a ggod thing for everyone. These ideas were almost heresy a decade previously.
Let me also 2nd wooz in saying it's really nice to have an intelligent political debate with no name calling, etc.
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 15:53:52 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Things sound worse in writing. It is spirited, and no more.
I do like Richardson's positions AND his tenure of accomplishments in NM. He has taken some practical stands on inflammatory issues. The bull by the horns, if you will.
It is easy to forget where you are coming from in standing for such a principled candidate, yet defending the likes of Biden, Edwards, and company as far as being at all worthy of another chance.
Most of all, please don't give up on the likes of those who remain stolid in the representation of their constituents' values. Electability should be secondary to integrity. And all it will take is for us to stand up and be counted. Sacrificing ideals for the sake of electability has been what's got us to this point. A third party president is my only answer to this corruption of democracy. And a viable 3rd party candidate has to come first. And before that-the failure of the so called "two party" stronghold on democracy must permeate.
Until then, elections are a charade, except for the principled hint of what tomorrow could bring. I am only for Kucinich in the primaries. That is my baby step. The party machinery will quash any light he brings or wave he makes. But they must know of a growing base of informed constituents who will no longer buy into broken promises and corporatism passed off as patriotism.
I was the inforooer who remains reigning Lefty/Libby according to that quiz. I just always figured this would be the one place in this world, some folks would know what I was hollerin' about. Turns out, no one likes hollerin' no matter what it's about !!!
And Woozie-i can call someone a fascist if you wanna flex your new mod muscle and lock a thread. Where's Jason when you need him !?!?
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 16:05:28 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top
I can place increased emphasis on electability without sacrificing integrity. I must agree, I can't vote for a candidate without integrity.
I don't defend Edwards. In fact, he's my second-least-favorite Dem behind Hillary. I think either of them being nominated would only continue the polarization we've seen go down in recent years. And I think a polarizing figure is the last thing we need.
Clinton is too calculating and willing to say whatever will get the most votes. Not to mention how her candidacy would only serve to mobilize the opposition.
Edwards' talk of two Americas doesn't help either. That rhetoric will divide us more than unite us.
As right as I think Kucinich is, I feel he would be a similarly polarizing figure.
I don't think that this country needs another polarizing figure, so I have to rule out those three. As for the rest:
Obama talks the talk of hope/unity, but I don't think he's prepared to walk that walk when it comes down to it.
Biden has some good ideas, but I think he's too focused on foreign relations and hasn't fleshed out the domestic side of things. I could see his presidency being similar to Bush I's. I do think he would make a good Secretary of State, though. While I'm positing the next administration - Eliot Spitzer would make one hell of an Attorney General.
Dodd's geographic area contains a lot of banking and defense industry interests. As much as I applaud him for championing privacy rights, his connections to those interests make me wary of considering him.
I'll take polarizing any day, if it ignites the fire that burns down convention. Kucinich speaks truth. And he votes what he speaks.
If it takes him confronting accusations of being pro-gays, anti marriage, blahblahblahblahblah, I'm sure he will have an answer that perks some brows. That's what we need. A wake up call.
I just can't get behind the politically correct centrism that allows people to be denied healthcare cuz they're not like everyone else--EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE NAZIS.
Or makes criminals out of immigrants-EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE RACISTS
Or bedfellows out of terrorists-EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE BUSH FAMILY
Clinton is too calculating and willing to say whatever will get the most votes. Not to mention how her candidacy would only serve to mobilize the opposition.
She is the opposition. One time champion of reforming the healthcare industry-now their darling. (follow the $)
But the pundits make it out like she is the only one who stands a chance. Gee, I wonder if CNN sells many BIGPHARMA commercials(to say the least). Better vote for her. otherwise you are "wasting" your vote...
I know it's not the most intellectual thing but a lot of my political support is based in my gut. I think that I read people pretty well... I would've hated Hillary in high school. She comes across as manipulative and superficial... one of those people who you can't quite believe.
Like if she was a popular girl she'd be real nice to you even if you weren't in her clique but then she'd turn around and make a mean joke about your outfit.
Yeah, I feel the Hillary is about the only Dem that can lose. The Reps do not like any of their candidates immensely and may not come out en masse unless they have Hillary to motivate them.
Please forgive the generalities. I do know the old sayng"Only a fool speaks in generalities."
This deal about having to register as a member of a party is bullshit.
I don't have to do that here in Wisconsin. We have open primaries. I just show up at the polling place, and they ask which party's ballot I like. At no point do I have to register any party affiliation to vote on a partisan ballot. I like it that way.
yeah, I'm currently living in florida, and we all know about this state and major politics...
I'll take polarizing any day, if it ignites the fire that burns down convention. Kucinich speaks truth. And he votes what he speaks.
If it takes him confronting accusations of being pro-gays, anti marriage, blahblahblahblahblah, I'm sure he will have an answer that perks some brows. That's what we need. A wake up call.
I just can't get behind the politically correct centrism that allows people to be denied healthcare cuz they're not like everyone else--EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE NAZIS.
Or makes criminals out of immigrants-EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE RACISTS
Or bedfellows out of terrorists-EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE BUSH FAMILY
I think it's about time we injected Richard Neustadt into this debate. "Presidential power is the power to persuade." Nothing gets done taking such a combative stance. Persuasion doesn't come from political extremes. An ideologue can shout til he's blue in the face, but it will be all for naught unless it opposing actors are convinced it serves their interests as well.
When you're to the extreme right or left, you're going to have difficulties with persuasion when you're preaching your views to more or less the entirety of the political spectrum. When you're coming from a more moderated position, there is room to maneuver on both your left and your right, and a desirable outcome becomes more likely to happen.
The three statements you make in that post seem out of left field from you. It almost seems like a different voice coming from the same name. Those statements actually let me down, so I must address them.
I just can't get behind the politically correct centrism that allows people to be denied healthcare cuz they're not like everyone else--EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE NAZIS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a National Socialist wouldn't one be in favor of universal healthcare? The lack of healthcare in this country has nothing to do with immutable factors like ethnicity - as the Nazis targeted - and everything to do with the profit motive. It doesn't matter if you're white, yellow, red, black of periwinkle - they are driven by a profit motive and the only color they're interested in is green.
Or makes criminals out of immigrants-EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE RACISTS I'm sorry, but there's a crucial difference between legal and illegal immigrants. There are laws against entering the country without consent. If you enter the country without consent, you are breaking those laws. Entering the U.S. illegally is a voluntary choice - those immigrants are making criminals out of themselves. I'm not saying the laws are right, but if you're going to concede that we live in a country based on rule of law I think you can agree with my assessment. Plus, if there's any one candidate who's mobilizing the racists (considering Tancredo's withdrawal from the race yesterday) you would have to admit it's the out-of-control Ron Paul campaign that's attracting so many xenophobes.
Or bedfellows out of terrorists-EVEN IF IT DOES MOBILIZE THE BUSH FAMILY You don't need to MAKE "bedfellows out of terrorists" with the Bush family - they beat Dennis to the punch.
Can we agree that calling those with opposing views "Nazis" and/or "racists" - however valid those claims may be - isn't going help win their support when you need it? This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say Kucinich would be a polarizing figure, and that it's not what we need right now.
I will use italics next time so the extreme sarcasm is more rabidly apparent. None of the what you quoted was intended to be taken in a literal, much less analytical way. In using the term nazi- i was referring to an uber judgemental type who would prefer to deny healthcare to someone because of sexual orientation. The irony of the nationilized healthcare comment is not lost on me, but I hardly find it worth my while to continue a debate where every term is languished upon as if I need a dictionary to defend myself.
Point is-my terminology in the above post was meant to draw on archetypal positions of dread.
Sorry for the simplification(unless you wanna go on to defend nazis by references to nationalized healthcare, thus debunking my argument <sarcasm )
Further, I hold that we are all immigrants and that referring to the notion of legal or illegal, forgoes the human quotient of compassion that we owe to those who suffer. Especially when we capitalize so greedily on the notion of globalization.
Bedfellows and Bush Family simply referred to the connection between the Bin Ladens et al Saudi royalty and the Bushes.
I'm backin' outa here as hastily as I barged in. If we are not looking for SOME common ground, then we're splitting hairs over words.
We can debate issue by issue if you like. But most would find that tiresome being that it's kind of a bonnaroo message board.
I AM about opening eyes, But the LAST thing I am about is winning support from those to whom I am appalled by(not you-but Racists,Nazis, and Bushies). I'm not out to support a candidate per se. I'm out to change a system that is broken. Less personally rewarding. More noble and long term.
I am a product of presidential politics classes, not a mouthpiece for them.
Most importantly-I'm not running for office. So I'm done splitting hairs.
But our politics have gone beyond just a polarizing President. Clinton was a moderate centrist but the Republicans found they could make money and get votes by just demonizing him. (This was well before the Monica stuff). How can any President persuade the other Party when their power comes from demonizing him? (Now the Dems have found it works too but more justifiably,IMHO, with Bush.)
I think whichever Dem gets elected will be demonized again. That's how Fox and talk radio make their $$$. The only way to get back the persuasive power of the President is to show you will not take their Sh*t anymore and if they want a fight, by god, they'll have one.
The Dem got in line behind Bush after 9/11 and followed him down the road to hell. I think if a Rep does get elected, he'll have an opportunity to work with a Dem congress (there is no liberal Fox and very little liberal talk radio) but I'm afraid he will have sold his soul to the extreme right and continue the politics of division so as to get re-elected.
Just my thoughts but as can see, I'm not to optimistic that the tried and true genius of compromise, the art that made America great in the past, can win over politicians who've made their career on the back of division.
A strong, take no sh*t President may be necessary; one that will compromise and listen on policy matters but will not stand for the personal crap. A Dem Prez with a Dem congress could let it be known that he'll work with Reps if they want to work but if they want to continue the same old crap, they'll be left behind. (Same goes for Dems who don't see the light.) I think such a Prez could be popular enough to pull it off. It's at least worth a try.
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 18:12:26 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by spookymonster on Dec 21, 2007 22:32:29 GMT -5
troo said:
Yeah, I feel the Hillary is about the only Dem that can lose. The Reps do not like any of their candidates immensely and may not come out en masse unless they have Hillary to motivate them.
I would so dearly love to find out that the Dems just set up Hillary's candidacy as a stalking horse to draw Republican fire.. here they are, putting all their eggs in one basket, practically drooling over how easy a target she'll be...
...then >WHAM!< in one swift motion, she withdraws, Gore tosses his hat in the ring, and the rest of the field unanimously throws their support behind him.
Ain't gonna happen, but a man can dream, can't he?
Snooch: Whoops. Guess who missed the sarcasm? I spent most of today studying for the final exam in my own presidential politics class (PS408: American Presidency) so I had a book in my lap distracting me from fully paying attention for a while there. My semester ended just shy of an hour ago, so a great weight has been lifted. Anyway. That seemed like too much of a departure from your positions as usual, and I probably should've caught onto that. Such is the risk of using sarcasm online... it's often misinterpreted. You had me going on that for a while there, though. For a moment, I thought I saw an undercurrent of just the kind of rabid ideologue whose dangers I was describing. It's preferable that it's just misinterpreted sarcasm rather than reality, right?
If you want to get the graph up, right click, save, change the format to .bmp or .jpg or something, and then upload to PhotoBucket or whatever image hosting site you use.
My political compass...
Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
Here's the graph with everyone whose taken the test posted on it by avatar. A little hard to read but we all are Libertarian-Left, as studies show are the vast majority of Americans. That's why a right left scale fails to explain what most of us believe.
Last Edit: Dec 23, 2007 23:09:48 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top