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!!
wow is that seriously his wife?? id vote for him if so ;D i have no idea how that happened. if i saw them together at a fest i would write it off as pretty girls and ugly drugs for her to be with him.
but in the end hes another perot to me. its nice to have him around to bring up issues that might not otherwise get brought up. and he has some good ideas. but in the end hes just a crazy little man with zero chance of getting elected.
Actually have a friend who worked on his campaign last go round... He's a dreamer in my book. Some great ideas, some not so great, but would never get elected, so it's moot. I appreciate that he brings some issues up that are ignored by the majority of the press because they should be talked about, but I just never see it happening for the lil' guy.
Saying repeatedly that someone will never get elected helps his chances how ? I think referring to his proposed Department of Peace or the fact that he is the only candidate running who voted against giving Bush a blank check in Iraq, would be much more positive.
And his run for the roses is not moot. If enough people worried more about voting for someone who would truly represent them, rather than voting for someone who might win, we would have elections that resembled something other than a popularity contest like a run for student council. Anyone who reserves their vote for someone who can win, is voting for more of the same.
Just think, if an overwhelming majority came out and supported Kucinich in the primaries, the Democratic party would HAVE TO wake up and discover where their true base is instead of pandering to centrists(lobbyists best friends). Voting for someone who "can win" according to the corporate media who tells you so, will get THEM THEIR candidate elected, and get you more of the same to bitch about. Their is nothing wrong with voting for someone who lost. THEIR IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING.
p.s. I love you Mariposa and do not mean this as a personal attack. Your statements are characteristic of many DEMS who are being used as tools to support the status quo. I only wrote this cuz I know you and others must understand it in some way. Plus I just can't let the Bandwagon ride by without noting it's purpose.
"For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own $hit"---Funkadelic
He's sculpted such a strong presidency that he doesn't need to be -OR ALREADY IS. NO HABEUS CORPUS, UNWARRANTED DOMESTIC TAPPING, COST-PLUS FEDERAL CONTRACTS(NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING), MARTIAL LAW CAMPS READY AND WAITING, NO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, NO COOPERATION WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF GOV"T
GIT YER ORANGE T_SHIRTS READY PEEPS-IT"S GOIN" DOWN !!!!!!!!
snore from the masses.....Idol is on. Better vote for someone who can win. where's my twinkies ?
Yeah it's funny how he actually sounds like a rational thoughtful human being. This, to me, is just more evidence that proves that they knew exactly what they were getting into going into Iraq. It should make everyone want to vomit on this administration's gold tipped shoes.
Actually have a friend who worked on his campaign last go round... He's a dreamer in my book. Some great ideas, some not so great, but would never get elected, so it's moot. I appreciate that he brings some issues up that are ignored by the majority of the press because they should be talked about, but I just never see it happening for the lil' guy.
Saying repeatedly that someone will never get elected helps his chances how ? I think referring to his proposed Department of Peace or the fact that he is the only candidate running who voted against giving Bush a blank check in Iraq, would be much more positive.
And his run for the roses is not moot. If enough people worried more about voting for someone who would truly represent them, rather than voting for someone who might win, we would have elections that resembled something other than a popularity contest like a run for student council. Anyone who reserves their vote for someone who can win, is voting for more of the same.
Just think, if an overwhelming majority came out and supported Kucinich in the primaries, the Democratic party would HAVE TO wake up and discover where their true base is instead of pandering to centrists(lobbyists best friends). Voting for someone who "can win" according to the corporate media who tells you so, will get THEM THEIR candidate elected, and get you more of the same to bitch about. Their is nothing wrong with voting for someone who lost. THEIR IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING.
p.s. I love you Mariposa and do not mean this as a personal attack. Your statements are characteristic of many DEMS who are being used as tools to support the status quo. I only wrote this cuz I know you and others must understand it in some way. Plus I just can't let the Bandwagon ride by without noting it's purpose.
"For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own $hit"---Funkadelic
Not taking offense sweetie, no worries. I must say that I don't feel like a tool to support the status quo though. I like him a lot, but in the end he's not the candidate that I feel most closely shares my views. And to be perfectly honest, I feel that his views are too liberal to ever gain enough votes to run, let alone win. I agree that dems have a bad case of huddle-in-the-middle-itis. It's sad that a lot of us don't realize that this time we really don't have to try - look at how fvcked we've been for the entire Bush reign... And I'm not hedging my bets and trying to go with whoever the media stamps as 'the front runner' either. In the end I'll go with who I believe in the most. I must admit that it's tempting (living in a red state) to go with the highest polling dem - just seeing a blue TN would make me so happy. But I also believe that the two party system has too many fatal flaws... and we'll never get a strong third (fourth, fifth) party if we're doing an either-or thing with candidates. I agree that you should go with who's right for you - predicitions, polls and media be damned!
Not taking offense sweetie, no worries. I must say that I don't feel like a tool to support the status quo though. I like him a lot, but in the end he's not the candidate that I feel most closely shares my views. And to be perfectly honest, I feel that his views are too liberal to ever gain enough votes to run, let alone win. I agree that dems have a bad case of huddle-in-the-middle-itis. It's sad that a lot of us don't realize that this time we really don't have to try - look at how fvcked we've been for the entire Bush reign... And I'm not hedging my bets and trying to go with whoever the media stamps as 'the front runner' either. In the end I'll go with who I believe in the most. I must admit that it's tempting (living in a red state) to go with the highest polling dem - just seeing a blue TN would make me so happy. But I also believe that the two party system has too many fatal flaws... and we'll never get a strong third (fourth, fifth) party if we're doing an either-or thing with candidates. I agree that you should go with who's right for you - predicitions, polls and media be damned!
Thanks for not taking it personally. I get charged up about a point sometimes, and I don't want you to think I was calling you a tool by any means.
I think there is a LOT to be gained by sending a message to the Democratic Party about their platform. I believe the "strongest" candidate that can be chosen by this primary system can only be a media darling. The $ needed to combat negative press, true or fabricated, is astronomical. Kucinich may have to drop out for that alone.
But I stand by him , as long as he IS in it, and the more people who do so, the more hope we have that someone who looks like an elf, is married to a hottie, who makes peace and not war, and who actually stands for something no matter what the bottom line, can be elected someday. Someone more like us, with our interests in mind.
I must say that I don't feel like a tool to support the status quo though. I like him a lot, but in the end he's not the candidate that I feel most closely shares my views. And to be perfectly honest, I feel that his views are too liberal to ever gain enough votes to run, let alone win. I agree that dems have a bad case of huddle-in-the-middle-itis. It's sad that a lot of us don't realize that this time we really don't have to try - look at how fvcked we've been for the entire Bush reign... And I'm not hedging my bets and trying to go with whoever the media stamps as 'the front runner' either. In the end I'll go with who I believe in the most. I must admit that it's tempting (living in a red state) to go with the highest polling dem - just seeing a blue TN would make me so happy. But I also believe that the two party system has too many fatal flaws... and we'll never get a strong third (fourth, fifth) party if we're doing an either-or thing with candidates. I agree that you should go with who's right for you - predicitions, polls and media be damned! 