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 a vet and my 5 brothers are too. My wife's brother just got out after he served 5 tours in the Mid East with the Marines. I am 100% pro-soldier and 100% against their misuse and mistreatment. Soldiers CANNOT speak out about their orders and/or mission. It is our responsibility to be their voice.
righteous ! this is the kind of patriotism i can really get behind !
As a proud member of the Libertarian Party, I must say that IMO if you vote for either the Democrat or Republican candidate you are only contributing to the problems this country faces. Neither major party is even discussing the issues most seriously affecting our great country. If you feel that my vote "cost" Al Gore the election I would reply that if Al Gore couldn't beat a complete moron like GWB, then he had no business being president. If you insist on voting for the lesser of two evils then don't be surprised when you elect evil.
couldn't agree more. it's up to us to represent for what we want, not what we don't want.
Post by electraonyx on Apr 11, 2007 11:12:29 GMT -5
For those of you getting depressed... I was just speaking with some friends last night and although the politics and our country are out of control right now; I think we are finally seeing some attempts at checks and balances. I like that congress is not backing down and making the president go through court battles etc. Before November that wouldn't have happened...baby steps, baby steps.
As for the apathy towards the elections, here are some quotes (these are from memory so forgive any misquotes) :
" The problem with democracy is you get the government you deserve." " Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." " A politician will do anything to keep his job---even, as a last resort, the right thing."
Your only obligation is to do what you can. As Gandhi said: "Be the change who wish to see in the world." and "When asked if one man can change the world, I remember that rarely has it been changed in any other way."
Ok so today on the radio I heard something interesting. This lady said that the Dems are in a really good spot to win. Why you ask? Because over the last 8 years Bush has beat the conservative drum so hard that the GOP base is finding out that the current crop of runner aren't conservative enough. She was saying that the base wouldn't show up As well as the dems moving more towards the center taking more of the moderate vote. Giving the dems the edge. I don't know about that. I'm still thinking that the primaries are going to be such a mudslinging bloodbath that the american people aren't going to care come the actual election.
I just wish we had more choices than just two people.
If Obama gets the nomination, without question, I will vote for him!
So why not help him get the nomination and vote for him in the primaries?
oatmealschnappz said:
she is a money-raising machine!
Actually Obama won in the first of the "fund-raising primaries." Clinton made $20 million, and Barack made $23.5 million, and he got in late, not starting fund-raising until January. Also a big portion of Clinton's money has come from very wealthy people making big contributions, where as Obama also has wealthy contributors, he also has more smaller -contributions come in, signifying more overall support.(regardless of what polls say) So, really, Barack is a bigger money-raising machine.
Post by oatmealschnappz on Apr 11, 2007 23:14:14 GMT -5
I said that I was done posting here, since I really don't want to get into a political argument with ny fellow Inforooers.....But......
I thinkt that i'm being (somewhat) misunderstood here. I'm not condoning or defending the two-party system. It is 100% unfair and undemocratic. What I'm trying to say is that, this is what we have to work with. My point is that once the two major parties make their nominations, those are the only two possible winners. As unjust as I believe that it is, third-party candidates have been/are being shut-out of the process. Once you accept that truly ugly fact, you are left with two choices. Voting for third-party candidates, as deserving as they may be, will only end-up helping one of the major two win the election. Since, traditionaly, Republicans tend to pour all of their support (financial and otherwise) into one candidate(after the nomination,that is), they will most-likely be the beneficiary. The Democrats are, by no means, a perfect party but, they are better than the alternative. After the last 7 years, it seems like people would want a change (as miniscule as it may be) of course. These are the realistic "baby steps" that need to be taken in order to start the process. Let's face it, American government is stagnant and corrupt. Planning a well-intentioned but, fool-hearty revoultion is simply not enough to change anytning. I belive that, it does in fact, make it worse in the long run. Like it or not, in current-day politics, you have to vote for the lesser of two evils....if you want your vote to count for anything more than self-congratulatory masturbation. Politics isn't fair. It isn't just. It isn't appealing. And, sadly, it isn't changing anytime soon. I agree that that may sound defeatist but, it's true. You have to pick your battles wisely and you have to know wich battles are winable...and fight those battles ferociously with the weapons you have, on the battlefield that you are on. Wishful thinking and idealism simply won't cut it. Again, I'm not arguing that this is how things should be. I'm just trying to explain that it is, in fact, the way things are.
I will, most likely, vote for Obama in the primaries. I will, most definitely, vote for wichever viable Democratic candidate eventually gets the nomination. Whatever it takes to actually change the dismal state of our nation, even a little bit. That's all you can realisticly ask for in this political environment.
Again, no offense to anyone here. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I respect the many opinions stated in this thread and I agree with many of you. I just disagree with strategy/methodology that some of you advocate. All due respect and peace to my many Inforoo friends.
For real, that's my last post.
Last Edit: Apr 12, 2007 1:45:30 GMT -5 by oatmealschnappz - Back to Top
I thinkt that i'm being (somewhat) misunderstood here. I'm not condoning or defending the two-party system. It is 100% unfair and undemocratic. What I'm trying to say is that, this is what we have to work with. My point is that once the two major parties make their nominations, those are the only two possible winners. As unjust as I believe that it is, third-party candidates have been/are being shut-out of the process. Once you accept that truly ugly fact, you are left with two choices. Voting for third-party candidates, as deserving as they may be, will only end-up helping one of the major two win the election. All due respect and peace to my many Inforoo friends.
For real, that's my last post.
Well I believe that if you know something is broken, you do your best to fix it-not throw your hands up and say" if you can't beat'em join'em". The oversimplification above would have you jump ONTO a sinking ship to save yourself from drowning. The major parties count on sentiments like yours, knowing that you are a freebie. You will vote for them on their ancient history and reputation alone. If you are against this war, how could you ever get behind Hillary(if she were to get the nomination?).
Take this possibility as a potential example of the baby steps that can be taken. In 2000, the people in Gore's camp tried to offer Nader a deal. Drop out of the race with one month to go. In turn, several of the green parties' platform planks would be given precedence in the Democrat's campaign. would have been a good way to get the democrats to become much more progressive. would have won Gore the election. Nader denied the deal, saying that a brokerage like that would have sold out all of the progressive volunteers that donated their time to get Nader elected-not Gore.
Anyhow, it didn't go down. And I can't say that I blame Nader for his decision. It was integrity based. However, the situation demonstrates that the powers that be ARE wise to the grumblings, and Will offer concessions to third parties if their strength merits it.
So, even though nobody really finds Kucinich "electable", if a large and vocal enough group of supporters get their voices heard, perhaps a deal would be made to incorporate his proposed "Department of Peace" into the Democratic platform.
Unfortunately, in this climate, that is the best we might get for now. A baby step. But at least we speak up and are heard. Status quo and the current power structure count too much on people like OatmealSchnapps lying down.
And oatey-i'm not taunting you in a baaad way, I'm just welcoming you back into the conversation. It has been hella civil, and equally enlightening. Plus, I'd hate to see someone as passionate as you get duped into automatically thinking a Hillary Clinton would do ANYTHING different than a Rudy Giuliani. They are both beholden to the lobbyists that got them where they are and are counting on you thinking that there is nothing you can do.
Post by oatmealschnappz on Apr 12, 2007 14:28:08 GMT -5
If you're not trying to taunt me, then why are you calling me out by name and claiming that i'm "lying down"?
I'm just trying to play the game (a game that will be played with or without my help)according to the existing rules, in hopes of achieving (at least) some ammount of change. Standing on the side-lines, stubbornly refusing to participate in any constuctive way until the rules of the game are changed to your liking is much closer to "lying down" if you ask me. Don't you think that the Bush's and Rove's and Guiliani's of the country just about pop in their pants when they see someone like Nader dividing the left-wing vote? That's a political wet-dream for them. Feel free to give them that inevitable "happy-ending", if you want. I refuse to play into their hands like that.
Yes, I do believe that Clinton is a better choice than Giuliani. I also believe that Obama is a better choice than Guiliani... or any other GOP candidate, for that matter. I will vote for ANY Democratic candidate that gets the nomination. The fact still remains that I will, indeed, be voting for the "lesser of two evils" next November. That's just the ugly nature of politics. The thought that any politician is totally pure of heart and selflessly sacrificing his service for the betterment of the "little people" is ridiculously naive. They are politicians pandering to their respective bases in an effort to win the closest thing that we have to "absolute power". And you know what they say about absolute power.
That IS all I have to say.
Last Edit: Apr 12, 2007 15:02:06 GMT -5 by oatmealschnappz - Back to Top
don't be so defensive and salty. it was friendly encouragement. trying to say-don't bail out so soon on the discussion. forget it. obviously you've got the definitive answer already in your head. never thought calling someone passionate was such a drag.
if you think you'll turn the tide by keeping with the status quo, then that's your perogative.
Post by roolacksreality on Apr 14, 2007 0:26:26 GMT -5
The US two-party system was a terrible idea from the start. George Washington new it was a stupid idea that wouldn't work out. Just look at his farewell speech.
As for this election's candidates, I don't know who I will be voting for. This will be my first vote since I will be turning 18 next month. I'm going to see Obama speak at GA Tech tomorrow to hear his promises in an effort to learn more about him.
Post by suspendedzen on Apr 16, 2007 13:21:13 GMT -5
Speaking of politics and music...I went to 2004 Kerry/Edwards rally in Madison & Bruce Springsteen and the Foo Fighters performed. Not a bad afternoon for free!
I'm heading out to go see Edwards and Del (along with Rodney Crowell) right NOW! I like Edwards because he's been more consistent in what he's said that the others (implying that he probably believes in what he says)and he's for universal health care and worker's rights. I'm going to the Ryman for the free music.
Do you all think the groups like Move on will play as big a role as last election? Due to the loop hole the smaller groups did most the mudslinging. I'm wondering if that will impact the way people see the frontrunners.
Post by oatmealschnappz on Apr 16, 2007 14:22:06 GMT -5
I think that websites like YouTube will become the new battleground in this election. With the near limitless audience and annonymity that sights like these provide, they are the perfect forum for both information and mud-slinging. With no sense of accountability guiding people, we are in for some of the nastiest, most misleading, slanderous smear "campaigns" ever. I still think the Move-ons and the SwiftBoat type groups will be a factor but, not to as great of an extent. IMO
Not to call you out man, but I think you have your sig wrong. I believe it's something like "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
And is generally regarded as a Ben Franklin quote, from a book he published. And if I recall my American History correctly, whether or not he actually wrote that is debatable.
Not trying to be smart, I'd want someone to correct me if I was wrong
Not to call you out man, but I think you have your sig wrong. I believe it's something like "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
And is generally regarded as a Ben Franklin quote, from a book he published. And if I recall my American History correctly, whether or not he actually wrote that is debatable.
Not trying to be smart, I'd want someone to correct me if I was wrong
I've seen it listed as both Franklin and Jefferson. I've also seen it worded in several different ways. In all honesty I don't know witch is correct.
Post by suspendedzen on Apr 16, 2007 17:32:11 GMT -5
I still can't believe some people can be duped by stuff like the Swift Boat ads. Sadly, that kind of American gullibility is not new.
1964: Voters fear that Barry Goldwater will blow up the earth after the airing of the 'Daisy Ad'
1972: Voters think that George McGovern is some kind of wimpy hippie...despite being one of the greatest combat aviators of World War Two
1988: Americans are almost led to believe (fortunately, politics aside, poor labels didn't seal the election) that George HW Bush is a 'wimp'. He almost died in World War Two
2002/2004: Some people actually think that the Democratic Party is in cahoots with the terrorists. And, to top it off, voters are led to believe that John Kerry didn't actually serve in Vietnam by people supporting Richard Cheney (5 draft deferrments) and George Bush Jr (strings pulled to avoid deployment to SE Asia)
