It's time for a dissenters' caucus - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-04-2008, 02:26 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,562
Local Time: 08:21 PM
I would support a moderate 3rd (non-corporate) party in a heartbeat.
And even if it leaned right or left, as long as it were sane enough.

It's the problem with the whole mess.

It's why change is a pipe dream.
While realists acknowledge this and try to pick the lesser of two evils between the Turd Sandwich and the Giant Douche, there are still some good people in politics out there. It's what the interests that stand behind them, require them to do (support) that prevents any real reform.

I think Obama actually intends to change things but I think he'll get his baptism by fire if and when he gets elected. McCain knows he can't change things, so he regurgitates the same old school bullshit. He's not a bad guy. He's just a realist. Turds vs Douches, Bad Ideas vs No Ideas.

So, politics aside, I think our system manufactures the douches and turds.
Good people corrupted by the inevitable corruption that comes from the thirst to retain power.

How does it stop?
Maybe Obama should have run as an Independent if he really wanted true change.
I would have been his biggest cheerleader. Maybe some of you as well, even if he is too far left for your tastes. Anything to break out of the doldrums of the corporate funded special interest pork infested bullshit festival leviathan that we have.

Instead our 3rd alternatives are something like Jesse "9/11 was our own doing" Ventura, Ron "no government at all" Paul, Ralph "socialism" Nader and on down the line.

Sane 3rd party (choice), please!
I'll bite.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 03:49 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 9,687
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I would support a moderate 3rd (non-corporate) party in a heartbeat.
And even if it leaned right or left, as long as it were sane enough.

It's the problem with the whole mess.

It's why change is a pipe dream.
While realists acknowledge this and try to pick the lesser of two evils between the Turd Sandwich and the Giant Douche, there are still some good people in politics out there. It's what the interests that stand behind them, require them to do (support) that prevents any real reform.

I think Obama actually intends to change things but I think he'll get his baptism by fire if and when he gets elected. McCain knows he can't change things, so he regurgitates the same old school bullshit. He's not a bad guy. He's just a realist. Turds vs Douches, Bad Ideas vs No Ideas.

So, politics aside, I think our system manufactures the douches and turds.
Good people corrupted by the inevitable corruption that comes from the thirst to retain power.

How does it stop?
Maybe Obama should have run as an Independent if he really wanted true change.
I would have been his biggest cheerleader. Maybe some of you as well, even if he is too far left for your tastes. Anything to break out of the doldrums of the corporate funded special interest pork infested bullshit festival leviathan that we have.

Instead our 3rd alternatives are something like Jesse "9/11 was our own doing" Ventura, Ron "no government at all" Paul, Ralph "socialism" Nader and on down the line.

Sane 3rd party (choice), please!
I'll bite.
I can't jump on this train. I'm just not cynical enough, I guess.

I just can't so easily throw the label of 'douche' or 'turd' onto Obama. He doesn't deserve it.

When you call him a turd immediately following a sentence in which you state that he intends to change things but that he won't(in your opinion) be able to, you make it sound as though he is a turd just for daring to try to change things. That's absurd, imo. And then refer to his side with the label of 'bad ideas', and I don't even know what you're referring to with that.

I think you 'I can't make myself believe a word that comes out of either party, we need a third party' crowd are underestimating Obama.

Your position was understandable in 2004 when it was Bush vs Kerry. Nobody who voted for Kerry thought he was going to be a great president. They thought he would be an average leader, a stop-gap who would serve primarily to spare the country four more years of Bush. Although I never disliked Kerry, he never, ever excited me the way Obama does. I can totally understand centrists looking at the 04 candidates and thinking neither should be president.

But not now.

The following was written during the primaries, by a conservative, Frank Schaeffer:

Quote:
As I see it our choice is between a good and heroic old man whose time has past and who will perpetuate failed policy, a jaded woman of the establishment, who will do anything to perpetuate her family's dynastic "claim" to power, and a brilliant, openhearted new founding father the likes of which America has not seen.

Obama comes to us from outside the system that has produced our present multiple crises of wars of choice and a failing economy. He does what all truly great leaders do: he speaks to the soul in plain self-revealing words of hope.
Quote:
Obama is worth fighting for. He is worth losing old friends for. History has thrown America an unlikely lifeline. Do we have the decency, the sense, the last glimmer of sanity needed to open our hearts to change?
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 11:18 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,555
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Okay, I would go to the polls but I would forfeit my vote.

I genuinely feel that my views are not represented, on the single issues that I do care about the candidatesare generally indistinguishable and the simple fact is that one vote doesn't count in most places. I have a some sympathy towards the individual that votes (or not votes) out of principle, it's an important right that gets them beaten from both partisan side.
Then just write someone in. If you can't pick between the choices given, surely you would have someone else in mind who does represent your views....
__________________
Liesje is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 12:14 PM   #19
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Presidents make a difference?
Do you think the US would be in Iraq right now if Kerry had won ?
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 07:02 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,562
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
I can't jump on this train. I'm just not cynical enough, I guess.
Underestimating Obama?
Try, some people underestimating the power structure in DC.

We're just gonna disagree on this.

If you reject the idea that the system can't be changed, at least not from within, then we can't ever see eye to eye. Keep your ideals for as along as you can, it's not fun when they run out on you, although it may be more enlightening.

As I said, there are good people in politics, I believe Obama wants to make real changes but unless it can be shown to me how he does it without becoming a turd or douche like all the rest, then I'll continue in my "cynical" way. I'm not railing on him for wanting to change things, I'm trying to talk about the inconsistency between what he promises and what he can actually deliver.

Hell, I support the guy. And I supported Kerry in 2004. If the Dems had a clear plan on Iraq in 2004, then Bush would have been gone long ago. Saying it's the party of "no ideas" is not unique to me. That's a common perception about the party that generally loves to talk about problems and offer no real solutions. It's a generalization and it's probably not fair anyways. I should have thrown quotes around it. Simply said, I support the Dems these days because I don't want religious nuts telling Americans how to behave in their personal lives and turn a blind eye to real problems that can largely only be dealt with by the State.

I saw Obama as being soft by not dignifying the 'real' dynamic at play, with his platitudes of change and hope but I have seen him take a turn. He's decided to get tough and fight fire with fire. GOOD FOR HIM AND US! You have to do what it takes to win to effectuate ANY change at all. You've got to be become the giant douche or the turd sandwich.

It's hard to see it as cyncial anymore when you feel like an armchair Nostradomus watching this unfold. I am not an expert. I am a realist. I'm looking at the reality of the politics. This is part of why Republicans win elections. Dems can't fathom the reaction to Palin's debate performance. That's the idea right there. Politics. Cynical ass politics. I wish it weren't so.
The first step to change is breaking up the 2 party stranglehold.

By all means, I hope I have understimated Obama but he can't do it by himself.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 07:08 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 15,612
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
As I said, there are good people in politics, I believe Obama wants to make real changes but unless it can be shown to me how he does it without becoming a turd or douche like all the rest, then I'll continue in my "cynical" way.
Honestly I find this type of cynicism to be silly in a way because it can be applied to pretty much every profession out there. Politicians are in the public eye, so they catch all the flak. But this is really a bottom up production, the corporate society we live in and a lot contributes to it. So I guess your view would have to be that all public officials and pretty much all managers/directors in the corporate world are turds, anyone in any kind of supervisory/managerial role is a turd cog in the system...

We blame them, but what we have is an incredibly inert, lazy, intellectually uncurious and undemanding middle class which doesn't care about anything except themselves most of the time. So long as they have a McMansion out in the burbs and a couple of cars in the driveway and can buy cheap toilet paper at Walmart, everything is hunkey dorey regardless of the fact it's all built on a house of cards.

So no, I don't think Obama and McCain are turds, I think they are just a reflection of most of the rest of us. Maybe we should take a long look in the mirror before railing on the political world.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 07:53 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
Do you think the US would be in Iraq right now if Kerry had won ?
Yes, the Democrats would not let themselves be the party that lost Iraq.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 08:16 PM   #23
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Yes, the Democrats would not let themselves be the party that lost Iraq.

My bad - Allow me to rephrase the question: Do you think if the Dems had won in 2000 that Iraq would have been invaded in the first place ?
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 08:28 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
A decade of brutal sanctions and bombings was justified on the basis of Saddam's WMD stockpiles, so assuming that it wasn't some sort of a frame-up orchestrated from the end of the Gulf War it isn't beyond the realms of possibility. Going by the campaigning in 2000 I would think Gore more likely. Of course it might have been done differently.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com