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 am pretty frickin liberal . . . . super democrat . . . . . but im not falling for Barak Obama like so many others my age who seems to be blown away by him. I was/am a big fan of Bill Clinton and at this point Hillary is who i am hopful in being my next president.
But things are looking good for Obama and Hillary equally so its definatly up in the air. On the republicans side you have 3 asshole, Ron Paul, and John McCain. McCain is the only republican that i like, and the only one who i have liked for a couple of years and i think he should get the nomination . . . . . . . which brings me to my biggest problem . . . . . . if come this november and i have to vote between eithe McCain or Obama . . . . . . . . . i might have to vote republican
I have you ask you Mike. Why does Bill Clinton matter? He is not running for president. You're voting for his wife, not him... I like Bill too, I just don't like Hillary at all. I'll keep my scathing opinion of Hillary out of this post.
I am pretty frickin liberal . . . . super democrat . . . . . but im not falling for Barak Obama like so many others my age who seems to be blown away by him. I was/am a big fan of Bill Clinton and at this point Hillary is who i am hopful in being my next president.
But things are looking good for Obama and Hillary equally so its definatly up in the air. On the republicans side you have 3 asshole, Ron Paul, and John McCain. McCain is the only republican that i like, and the only one who i have liked for a couple of years and i think he should get the nomination . . . . . . . which brings me to my biggest problem . . . . . . if come this november and i have to vote between eithe McCain or Obama . . . . . . . . . i might have to vote republican
I think that's my biggest fear of McCain - that he will draw a lot of independents and wavering Dems and then we'll have another Republican in the White House.
As an aside - last night on Letterman, they did a think of cutting together all the times McCain interviews himself. "Did I think this? No, of course not."
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 11:07:55 GMT -5
mikede said:
I dont like how almost liberal he was around 04-05, then the sudden turn in 06 . . . . . . . but i think all that is top layer, he has his beliefs.
This is in reference to McCain, yes ?
There should be NO DOUBT that this man is a wolf in sheep's clothing(or a hawk in doves' clothing). He immediately dropped everything to get behind the surge for his Neocon brethren .
the only thing i like about McCain is his stance on torture, but besides that im not a huge fan, nor have i ever thought he was the "maverick" that everyone painted him to be. hopefully after today we can say goodbye yet another GOP candidate- Rudy 9iu11ani
Clinton as the liberal standard-bearer? You've got to be kidding. He was as successful as he was because he co-opted a lot of Republican stances, not because he fought from the left.
I can't get behind another Clinton. I can't trust another Clinton. I think they'll say/do whatever it takes to get elected, regardless of what they think. Hillary as a candidate is already bought and paid for - you can't build up the kind of war chest & political machine she has without owing plenty of people plenty of favors from the start.
Hillary vs Obama isn't just about their views and policies. In fact, their Senate records aren't terribly distinguishable from one another. For me, I have to take into consideration what they mean for American politics in general. Hillary is more of the same. She's got one of the two family names that have been on the ballot my entire life. She got where she is because she's married to a president that, as time goes on, is continually losing my esteem. She'll get where she's trying to go through more politics as usual - kowtowing to special interest sponsors, partisan bickering and pandering to public desires she probably won't seek to fulfill once elected. I can't get behind this.
Which brings me to Obama. I personally like Obama. I have some strong doubts about his readiness for the job from day one. State legislator to president in five years is quite the rapid ascent, and I think he'll get the bends. I give him more credit than Hillary on judgement, though. I've seen him twice, and he is quite the inspiring speaker. He's bringing out people who normally wouldn't have been involved or interested in politics, and overall I think that's good for the country.
In the end, if McCain is the GOP nominee, I'd have to think long and hard about choosing between him and either Democratic frontrunner.
I cannot vote for any Republican this year. I strongly feel it is tantamount to approval of the Bush policies. Reps have to go.
As for McCain, I did respect him a lot more before he sold out just about everything he believes (with the exception of torture) to appease the Radical right.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 13:03:31 GMT -5
All of these politicians catering to the impression of being centrist is tantamount to the example of political correctness. Everyone knows just what to say to appease, but NOONE finds it in their heart to DO the right thing, because it only matters what you say.
People are too lazy to read between the lines or dig a little deeper for what these candidates are really about. That can be found in their voting records and in who they accept money from or are beholden to. ALL ELSE IS RHETORIC.
For example, I, too, really despise Rudy Gulliani. But it's for how he operates....not because of the makeup he wears.
WHy were the repeated criticisms of Kucinich ALWAYS based on his appearance ? Because what he stood for was too dangerous and convicting for major media outlets to utter.
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2008 13:06:43 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
All of these politicians catering to the impression of being centrist is tantamount to the example of political correctness. Everyone knows just what to say to appease, but NOONE finds it in their heart to DO the right thing, because it only matters what you say.
People are too lazy to read between the lines or dig a little deeper for what these candidates are really about. That can be found in their voting records and in who they accept money from or are beholden to. ALL ELSE IS RHETORIC.
I disagree. I think that most people - voters and politicians - are centrist at their core.
And part of the reason things don't get done is because of the Constitution and checks and balances and all that good stuff. We're a democracy, not a dictatorship.
The REAL problem is that ALL the candidates are beholden to their own special interest groups. The amount of money required mandates that you sell your soul. And the consolidation of the mass media guarantees that anyone opposing the corporate interests will get no air time or be ridiculed. (ie Kucinich, Gravel, Paul)
The only solution I see is public financing of elections. This allows anyone to run and removes the corrupting influence of BIG $$$.
Until then we have to deal with what we have or take to the streets. (I'm all in for the "streets" idea but most people would believe the media and see street protests as crazy liberals and dangerous anarchists.)
The future does not look very bright. But I'll keep fightin' anyway (unless the lock me up in Gitmo.)
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2008 13:15:59 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 13:17:55 GMT -5
giving gay people the same access to covered healthcare as straight people-not very centrist. But most of us would be in favor.
decriminalization of druqs-also not very centrist.
It's like the same old dogma about nationalized healthcare..."Do you want THE GOVERNMENT to control it(says the insurance industry). When, in effect, our libraries, firemen, police, roads, etc. are all socialist premises, that work a hell of a lot better than our healthcare.
The spin is put in place to keep us believing that the status quo is the only acceptable place to be. In the center.
When really, the status quo only has served to benefit said corporations and those who gather the crumbs that fall, while we all agree that healthcare could be more about HEALTH CARE and less about profit management.
Now let us hear from the spinsters on the subject of spin !
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2008 13:20:50 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
Look at the poll that was taken by most members of this board. The results aren't very centrist at all.
Well, the people on this board are not average Americans either - we're an elite bunch
But when I do surveys like this, I tend to end up way over in Socialist land. But I also realize that in the real world, Socialism doesn't work so I find my own happy medium. And I'm not being paid to do so by anyone.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 13:25:19 GMT -5
Several of the social democracies of Europe as well as Canada just rated exponentially higher than the U.S. on extending life via healthcare. We were DEAD LAST amongst developed nations.
Who says socialism can't work.
If it weren't for deficit spending, capitalism wouldn't work either.
But with all of the subsidies in place for corporations, I'd argue that we are corporate socialists !
Several of the social democracies of Europe as well as Canada just rated exponentially higher than the U.S. on extending life via healthcare. We were DEAD LAST amongst developed nations.
Who says socialism can't work.
If it weren't for deficit spending, capitalism wouldn't work either.
But with all of the subsidies in place for corporations, I'd argue that we are corporate socialists !
I think you're blurring the line between Socialism proper and Social Democracy here. A social democracy uses the economic market as an engine to fuel the health/education/etc benefits it bestows upon its citizens. A pure socialist state takes over the means of production and the state takes over economic decisions - reducing innovation and efficiency that would be in place with a market system.
You can't make a case for a Soviet-style system being successful by pointing to the success of European and Canadian countries. Apples and oranges.
There's way too much Us vs. Them going on in Washington. Politicians (and party members who strictly follow the party lines) are way too stubburn to even listen to ideas from the other party.
We need politicians who realize they're in office to better the country, not boost their own popularity or do their friends favors by giving them tax breaks.
Hillary Clinton represents everything that is wrong with politics. The ONLY reason she was even elected to begin with is because of her last name. And if democrats want to win in the fall, they won't let Hillary get the nomination. There's no way she'll get very many independents or republicans to vote for her.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 15:28:30 GMT -5
kdogg said:
I think you're blurring the line between Socialism proper and Social Democracy here. A social democracy uses the economic market as an engine to fuel the health/education/etc benefits it bestows upon its citizens. A pure socialist state takes over the means of production and the state takes over economic decisions - reducing innovation and efficiency that would be in place with a market system.
You can't make a case for a Soviet-style system being successful by pointing to the success of European and Canadian countries. Apples and oranges.
I intentionally blur those lines because I believe pure capitalism and pure communism exist today merely as models.
And that's a good thing.
If both socialism and capitalism weren't so allergic to each other, I believe we could have arrived at where many European social democracies are today. But our blind patriotism(for lack of better terminology) has gotten us into quite a predicament. We accept the government listening to phone calls of private citizenry while subsidizing corporations to monopolize our health benefits and fuel sources.
But with all of the subsidies put in place in our system of government by lobbyists through lawmakers, on behalf of corporations, we are capitalist in name and not practice.
A true free market would have put an end to our extreme dependence on fossil fuels more than 2 decades ago, for example.
And Social Security would be capital security ?
Textbooks aside, we are capitalist only where it benefits those who have already seized capital. There is very little free market opportunity now that most capital is owned by less than 1% of the world.
The textbook would suggest that decentralization of utilities over the past 20 years was actually a step away from monopolism for example. But in practice, it allowed companies to split, and do business with themselves without regulation, thereby strengthening the monopolies in terms of net bottom line, and only weakening them in terms of our perception of the ability to "choose".
It's a big friggin' manipulation of perception is all.
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2008 15:54:22 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 15:42:23 GMT -5
albarton said:
A couple random thoughts.
There's way too much Us vs. Them going on in Washington. Politicians (and party members who strictly follow the party lines) are way too stubburn to even listen to ideas from the other party.
I believe that there is only the impression that there is way too much us v. them going on. If there were ACTUALLY checks and balances, you would rarely see both parties agreeing on legislation in committee, that basically only appeals to special interests. For instance, does anyone think the new medicare(d) plan actually benefits seniors ? But that was a great "coming together" victory, right ? As was NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and the authorization of the use of force in the invasion of Iraq.
All this is law put into place by bipartisan committee deals made to keep the lobbyists happy while acting as if checks and balances mean something other than to corporations who dupe the public into thinking any of the above pieces of legislation were good for the populace.
So let it stand that I believe that we need more people to truly stand up for what their constituents are behind REGARDLESS of how deadlocked it appears to make the government look. The major media outlets are the only ones hammering that into our heads.
But follow the $. Have the above pieces of legislation been good for anyone other than the brass of the greediest companies ? And the crumbs that seldom trickle down to appease us.
Funny how they wind us up and convince us that the status quo is working. And the only opportunity to change it comes in the form of politicians that they tell us are "electable", spouting off about change.
I wish a big sinkhole would have swallowed up all of the "checks and balances" last night, thereby allowing us to have true discussions amongst ourselves, instead of fighting one another with the buzzwords the media puts in our mouths.
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2008 15:48:53 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
How can you say that there isn't any Us vs. Them going on? Both parties seize every opportunity to blame the other party for all of the problems facing the country today.
What media created buzzwords were used in this thread?
And I definitely agree that our politics are definitely driven by Corporate America.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 29, 2008 16:42:46 GMT -5
albarton said:
How can you say that there isn't any Us vs. Them going on? Both parties seize every opportunity to blame the other party for all of the problems facing the country today.
...and then pen bipartisan deals that benefit NOONE but said corporate interests. It's a rouse.
Hillary is a darling of big pharma, but the dems benefit from the impression of being for the little guy. They scream it, point their fingers at the Repubs, and then dine together on lobbyist $.
The suspension of Habeus Corpus was a bipartisan deal. You'd think it would be a Republican item, or at least one that the dems would fight to the death against. But they all stood in line for the sake of re-election potential because of the notion of appearing centrist.
I"M SORRY BUT IT"S NOT CENTRIST TO DENY DUE PROCESS. But it sure is bipartisan.
We are so brainwashed about meeting in the middle that even some of our most liberal politicians are running scared about the impression in the media given by "not coming together in order to be effective". Feingold, Wellstone, Mckinney are the precious few examples of integrity left. and only the first is still "electable" !
I don't know. I think the repubs are on to something here and I think, once again that the dems are way too stubborn (and probably stupid) for their own good. I look at it this way.....Romney vs. any Democratic candidate = A Democratic win. McCain Vs. Obama = A most likely Democratic win. McCain vs. Hillary = A most likely Republican win. There's no way independents, when faced with a choice between McCain and Clinton, will vote for Clinton. I'm one of em', and I will not vote for her. It scares me. Super Tuesday could wind up being not so very super for this country. I sure f*cking hope not.