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!!
ltravestyl - As far as Ron Paul goes, I like hearing someone speak the truth (or at least his truth). I love his position on personal privacy and civil rights but the I'm with Edwards on needing a well regulated capitalist system to control corporate power.
Most of us here our part of the Libertarian-Left. Your new so you may not have seen the test we all took earlier. It separates economic and political scales to give a more reasonable view of where you fit in our system. Give it a try.
Which way do y'all think Thompson's voters are gonna swing with him out of the picture?
I see Thompson throwing it at McCain I used to work at a store he frequented he likes to read the rag mags about himself he was dating Lori Morgan at the time ;D
Post by ltravestyl on Jan 23, 2008 17:34:33 GMT -5
Interesting test. I ended up being one square to the left and one square down toward libertarian. I don't know really know too much about Edwards other than he ran with Kerry. Unfortunately it doesn't really look like Paul or Edwards is making much headway. However, it's still early and we shall see.
I think Thompsons votes will be split. The social conservatives will go to Huckabee. The mainstream conservatives will go Romney. And I expect Thompson to endorse McCain since he worked on his campaign in 2000 so some may go there.
I think Huckabee will get the most.
About the test, if I remember right most of us were clumped around -4,-4. I was an extremist at -7,-7. I made a chart with everyone's avatar that's on a thread somewhere. I I can find it I'll post a link.
Edit: It's actually on page 7 of this thread. The best view is about 3/4 of the way down.
Last Edit: Jan 23, 2008 18:15:23 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Appearently someone doesn't like Ron Paul too much, they took my only karma point.
Don't think of it as a rebuke against the man, but rather the method. I'm usually alright with Paul people face to face, when they actually engage me, but the ones I run across online have more of a spam approach I'm not terribly appreciative of.
ltravestyl - As far as Ron Paul goes, I like hearing someone speak the truth (or at least his truth). I love his position on personal privacy and civil rights but the I'm with Edwards on needing a well regulated capitalist system to control corporate power.
Most of us here our part of the Libertarian-Left. Your new so you may not have seen the test we all took earlier. It separates economic and political scales to give a more reasonable view of where you fit in our system. Give it a try.
Interesting poll. Did you find some of the questions to seem biased? I mean, when they use always or never in a question its begging for you to disagree...
I went and did selectsmart.com, that's always seemed to give legit results for me.
Post by ltravestyl on Jan 23, 2008 18:55:33 GMT -5
Thanks for all the karma folks.
I must say that this is the first forum I've actually pumped Ron Paul. But since it was an election thread I thought I'd give my two cents. Ron Paul is an internet supported candidate. I'd rather have people typing a candidates name at me than calling me on the phone or knocking on my door.
As for who is going to get Thompson's votes he was a proponent of small government, and you guys know who else is a proponent of small government. . . .
Despite what any of the other candidates have said I haven't really seen anything I like in hardly any of them. I'm half tempted to vote for Hillary just because Bill is the man, but she keeps saying he's not going to be taking part in anything important, which either means she's lying or she's stupid, so no vote for her.
Huckabee is way to conservative and he looks like President Logan off of "24", so any fan of the show knows I can't vote for him.
I live in Arizona and have seen that McCain talks big but doesn't really do anything.
Obama wants to keep Social Security going and I think that government shouldn't be responsible for managing people's money. We can take care of ourselves thanks.
Romney looks like a child molester. I think he's trying to be like Bill Clinton's "Slick Willy" personality, but he just comes off as greasy.
Despite what any of the other candidates have said I haven't really seen anything I like in hardly any of them. I'm half tempted to vote for Hillary just because Bill is the man, but she keeps saying he's not going to be taking part in anything important, which either means she's lying or she's stupid, so no vote for her.
I don't think shes stupid.. she in fact is pretty smart. She is also extremely ambitious, and she LIES constantly.
Despite what any of the other candidates have said I haven't really seen anything I like in hardly any of them. I'm half tempted to vote for Hillary just because Bill is the man, but she keeps saying he's not going to be taking part in anything important, which either means she's lying or she's stupid, so no vote for her.
I don't think shes stupid.. she in fact is pretty smart. She is also extremely ambitious, and she LIES constantly.
My problem with Hillary is that her experience has taught her to always do the safe thing. She has learned that to get elected you must get along with the "powers that be."
Exactly! In an election where the buzzword is "change," I think the first step towards that is making sure both family names that have been on a ticket my entire lifetime go away.
Exactly! In an election where the buzzword is "change," I think the first step towards that is making sure both family names that have been on a ticket my entire lifetime go away.
Post by bamadancer on Jan 24, 2008 11:09:36 GMT -5
kdogg said:
Exactly! In an election where the buzzword is "change," I think the first step towards that is making sure both family names that have been on a ticket my entire lifetime go away.
Hey kdogg - Your man Feingold is once again supporting Dodd in threatening to filibuster the FISA revisions giving retroactive immunity for companies that broke the law by aiding in warrantless wiretapping. Feingold (and Dodd) has been a stalwart in protecting our privacy. Thank him for me.
It's a shame the Harry Reid is threatening to make the Dems actually stand up and read the phone book for 10 days if they want to fiflibuster. Why has he never threatened the Reps filibusters in this way? What a sellout! Trading our privacy for corporate cronies.
That's exactly why I'm for Edwards.
Let's hope Clinton and Obama take the time to go back and support the filibuster (or at least vote.) Bet they won't.
Last Edit: Jan 24, 2008 13:44:52 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Hey kdogg - Your man Feingold is once again supporting Dodd in threatening to filibuster the FISA revisions giving retroactive immunity for companies that broke the law by aiding in warrantless wiretapping. Feingold (and Dodd) has been a stalwart in protecting our privacy. Thank him for me.
It's a shame the Harry Reid is threatening to make the Dems actually stand up and read the phone book for 10 days if they want to fiflibuster. Why has he never threatened the Reps filibusters in this way? What a sellout! Trading our privacy for corporate cronies.
That's exactly why I'm for Edwards.
Let's hope Clinton and Obama take the time to go back and support the filibuster (or at least vote.) Bet they won't.
Is Reid giving any reasoning for being such a douche?
I've been watching the clips of the speeches on YouTube and Reid's reasons are ridiculous. (ie a bill this important deserves a vote, etc.) Dodd's speech is great though.
The only logical rationale for Reid's stance is to secure campaign funds from the telecom companies.
Feingold for Majority Leader!
Last Edit: Jan 24, 2008 21:51:35 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I'm voting for Ron Paul but if he doesn't get the nomination and Obama does then I'm Ba-Rockin' my way to the polls in november. Ron Paul has promised to put an end to the war on kindness, fun, and puppies that the GOP has been waging the last 8 years so he's my man.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 10:12:42 GMT -5
FEINGOLD ON EDWARDS:
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2008 10:13:51 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
OMG - I told my mom that I might vote for Obama and she had a fit - called my brothers and told on me like I was a bad child.
See - ya'll are having a negative effect on my home life - damn liberal hippies
bte - I blame Troo and Chris for me getting in trouble. I also used the Rethuglican word and my mom freaked (she is way way into Mississippi Women Republicans - LOL)
I agree with Feingold. Edwards has voted differently than how he's running. But it's a matter of if I believe he's changed or been forced to change.
I think he has been forced to the left by Hillary's consolidation of the corporate and Party establishment. Otherwise he would be running a mainstream campaign. By being forced left, he rightfully believes he can only get elected with strong support of traditional Democratic groups which the establishment has left behind (ie Unions, middle class and working poor, grass roots organizations, netroots, etc.)
I believe that by being forced to rely on these groups, if he is elected he will know where his support came from and from where his political power will flow. This will demonstrate that the PEOPLE actually have power and are wiling to wield it. Therefore the opportunity for true change away from corporate control will exist. And whether he does it for philosophical reasons or for political expedience, it can get done.
The other candidates are relying too heavily on corporate support and so I believe there is no real chance to break corporate hold on power. Edwards is the only chance for this type of change, IMHO. And if he doesn't win, as long as he's in the race, the other candidates are still forced to address the issue. (Notice Hilary, Obama and even Romney have added the undue influence of special inetests/corporations to there stump speeches and commercials.) That's truly what primaries are all about.
Just my thoughts.
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2008 10:38:22 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
OMG - I told my mom that I might vote for Obama and she had a fit - called my brothers and told on me like I was a bad child.
See - ya'll are having a negative effect on my home life - damn liberal hippies
bte - I blame Troo and Chris for me getting in trouble. I also used the Rethuglican word and my mom freaked (she is way way into Mississippi Women Republicans - LOL)
Yes! We've got our hooks in you now.
They told you these "hippie festivals" would be a bad influence on you, didn't they?
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind? At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information. Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
Opinions are made based on the information a person has at the time, be it about Iraq, No Child, China or even something as seemingly simple as whether to pave a road or not. When new information is given and new arguments are heard, I would hope that my politician would be open minded enough to consider them.
But then I believe that sometimes you just have to say what people want to hear in order to be elected. You could be an awesome person with a ridiculously good and clear way to implement change, but if no one votes for you, it's not going to do a lot of good.
So troo, you're right - a politician often gets forced into a "belief" just to tow the line. And then you have to go back to prior voting records and see what he said when no one was watching and then try to judge if the current statement is based on force or choice.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 10:44:40 GMT -5
I can appreciate that. I have been reading here awhile and wanted some thoughts from the people who support Edwards AND Feingold, who , according to the same piece I quoted, is undecided whether to endorse Clinton or Obama in time for Wisconsin's primary.
It is my belief that the answer to fixing what's broken will not come from within the system that takes advantage of it being broken.
I wish some of these heroes who have their hearts in the right place would give up on using the Dumbocrats as the vehicle and consolidate to form a strong 3rd party threat. I think Amerika is just about ripe for that type of "change". But I believe that it will not happen within the democratic party because they stand to lose much power and wealth if a third party became reality.
It's a shame that progressives have to rely on such cowardice to effect true change.
And the change that eventually will come, will come in the form of trickled down crumbs, too small to matter, if we continue relying on the engrained "powers that be" to bring it.