Unofficial Tex Murphy

Frank wrote:The core ideals you stand for are beautiful, and the philosophies at the base of your foundation make me extremely envious. It is such a damn shame that your political and economical elite defiled, shamed and spoiled the republic and turned it into an empire. You certainly don't have the leaders you deserve, regardless of party.

Very true... Money has ruined this country... Politicians want those Donations so Badly that they'll let anyone give them money and then they have to repay those Donations by letting things slide when it comes time...

That was beautiful frank :tear:

Money rules it all ... sadly enough. And who would have thought 25 steady years of harshly devaluing the dollar ( Repubs and demos both did this ) would come back and bite us in the butt.

Also, it's extremely, unusual? for Americans, at least in Ohio where I am, to hear other countries talk nicely about us. If you listened to the news, you'd think everyone hates us and we are the scum of the earth constantly stepping on the "little man" (translation everyone else - yay for pompous news nomenclature). Also, I had heard we were terrible to our tourists.

Thanks for telling some truth, Fred!
~Keck

Well, I've been studying American and World Politics since I was about 13. That's nearly 45 years of relentless observation and analysis. And to borrow a phrase from Fred, "I am an informed, intelligent, creative, thinking, positive and caring human being. At least, I try to be as much as I can."

During this time, I've observed many changes and trends in the landscape of politics that would not be possible for you youngsters to see or be able to relate to. But I won't go there, for now.

One aspect of modern U.S. politics which should be clear to even the casual observer is the very strong and unprecedented polarization that has developed in modern politics. Party-politics in which the good of the Party is the first priority is at dangerously hight levels. This polarization is extremely damaging, not only to reasoned political discourse, but to the country and to the world in general. It is, perhaps, a root cause of much of the strife, anger, and outright bad policies that are championed by all sides of the political spectrum. Politics, itself, has become a war.

If this political war between the parties does not subside, we are heading for far worse times than you have yet to see. The parties are using the health of the nation as a weapon to advance the standing of their own party. To some, it is in their best interests for the U.S. to fail under the leadership of the opposing administration. To others, it is in their best interests for the U.S. to fail while under the congressional leadership of the opposition. Both courses are recipes for disaster.

With this in mind, consider the two presidential candidates. We hear a lot of talk about 'healing' the rift and promoting bipartisanism. Talk in one thing, but who walks the walk? How do their actions speak? Let's look at each of their party-line voting records and their efforts to reach across the isle and work with the opposition.

Obama's voting record is 97 percent along the party-line. Of the bills that Obama has sponsored, he has had an average of 13 percent Republican co-sponsors.

McCain's voting record is 80 percent along party-lines. Five times more often than Obama, McCain strayed from the party line. Meanwhile, the bills that McCain has sponsored have had an average of 55 percent Democrat co-sponsors. He has had more Democrat co-sponsors for his bills than Republicans!

By these figures, McCain has a real record of working with the opposition while Obama's record is party-line, business as usual. Anyone can talk the talk, but who walks the walk? Clearly, it is McCain.

For the VP, the situation is pretty much the same.

Biden's 2007 voting record is 100 percent party-line, while his lifetime voting is 88 percent. Biden has become more polarized rather than more bipartisan. I don't have the data handy regarding his bill co-sponsorships.

Palin, being a governor (which is an executive position) instead of a congressman (which is legislative) does not have legislative voting record to compare. So we have to consider her executive interactions within the sphere of party-politics. At least one thing that we know in this regard is that she fought and won against the entrenched Republican establishment in her own state and exposed and eradicated corruption within her own party. This is no small thing to come in and go toe-to-toe against the old-boy network of one's own party.

It looks to me, that if you want more of the same party politics, polarization and heightened anger, Obama and Bidden are your men. If you want someone willing to buck the party line and a chance at some positive change (change for change's sake is idiotic) then McCain and Palin are your man and woman.

So what you are saying is, do you want someone who'll stick to their guns, or somebody who'll want to do anything to get their way?

-Fred

Edit: Okay, that was an oversimplicfication. But you can't just look at ONE aspect of it all, you have to take it all in, look at the big picture, as well as the details.

Do you want a candidate from the party that brought you stolen elections, and thus all the great things you've had to endure since then? I mean, look at the PATRIOT act, and the removal of Habeas Corpus for a few examples. Not to mention all the other heinous and low-down things that've gone on in Washington since then. Sure you could argue that you can't blame the party for what a few have done, but... Still. It always feels worse and more terrifying when there's republicans at the helm. And I don't like creatures who thrive on fear.

I have to agree with Frank as well. We (along with the rest of the world) look up to the Americans in more ways than most Americans think, and definitely in a different way to what the president thinks...

I have a British friend and he always jokes about how if the world were to fall into turmoil, the Brits would be the first to shut their doors and say a big f**k off to the world and only look after their own hides. Kind of like in Children of Men.

My response it that is, on the flipside, the first country that would step up to help would be the USA. Why? Because despite the modern controversy, the values which uphold the country are still there, rarely realised by modern leaders, but still there. But by that same token if the world were to fall into turmoil the USA would probably be the first to fall, because it is often the one which takes on the most responsibility that eventually breaks down. Hence why my friend jokes that the Brits will be around forever! lol (so you're safe Demonlawyer).

But as Frank said, somewhere along the way the connection between the voice of the country and the values in which it stands for have become skewed and you guys deserve someone who can reunite everyone with the values that made you the most respected country in the world... and not the most feared. And that's what your new president shouldhopefully realise: that the USA should lead the world by example because of the values it upholds, and not through intimidation.

That's just my thoughts...

-Cub. =o)

I'm not always a huge fan of Clinton (although he did provide my teenage years with relative peace and prosperity, whether they were his or contextual is something I don't care to debate), a part of his speech at the Dems convention echoed exactly this Cub.

"People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power"

So please, whoever wins, listen to this sometimes wise man, at least on this issue.

Doc, interesting approach, and about two years ago I would've agreed. Trouble I see now is McCain changing his attitude to appeal to the powers that be. Will he go back to his old ways once in or will he bend further more to the all-powerful influences of the party? Sometimes I wish there was a money back guarantee when it comes to elections!

Dr. Paul,

I find it absurd to judge Obama's "partisanship," based on his limited voting experiences in the US Senate. What were his numbers like in Illinois? The important thing isn't some absurd averages but WHAT they voted on and WHAT they voted against their party for. That is far more important than "how often."

It's more important imho to vote for the right thing than the wrong thing.

I'm not saying either did that. I'd have to look at each Bill and make a decision.

Frank,

I advise reading the book "Just How Stupid Are We?" by Rick Shenkman.

McCain is obviously playing the game of "get elected by taking advantage of the stupidity of the voters." This is used all the time, but at some points they really do go all out. Palin as his running mate is just another example of taking advantage of Americans and their stupidity. My father who is a lifelong Republican voted for Obama in the Primaries. He was sure he was going to vote for Obama in November. Now with Palin on for some reason he's swaying. I make fun of him for it. He fell for a "popularity," move.

McCain is not likely to "follow," the Party line after becoming President. He's a Maverick and will remain that way. He is playing the game of "get elected."

The problem is he's also too Pro-War for my tastes.

Either way whomever is elected can't be worse than the past President right?

What people should be doing is EDUCATING the American Voter. This might cause revolution in a political landscape with Libertarian and others winning seats they never would have won before.

I will quote Warren Ellis' creation Spider Jerusalem (the main character in the graphic novel Transmetropolitan, who was loosely based on Hunter S. Thompson)

"You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pitbulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you vote on what you're going to do tonight. YOU like to put your feet up and watch tv. THEY like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand new sexual organs that you did not know existed.
So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to f*ck you with switchblades.

That's voting. You're welcome."

Which is a dark way of looking at it, yeah. But the analogy is somewhat correct

-Fred

So what you are saying is, do you want someone who'll stick to their guns, or somebody who'll want to do anything to get their way?

Edit: Okay, that was an oversimplification. But you can't just look at ONE aspect of it all, you have to take it all in, look at the big picture, as well as the details.

I limited myself to this one aspect because I didn't want to write a book in one post. My "big picture" is larger and deeper than you can imagine. - No disrespect intended. It's a matter of many more years of real world experience and direct experience in aspects and levels of the U.S. political, industrial and military affairs.
------------------
------------------
Anyway, another feature that plagues modern political debate is the adaption of powerful, modern propaganda methods, essentially borrowed from Madison Avenue (the advertising community.)

One common aspect of this is the 'sound bite.' In sound bites, complicated issues are summed up in simple phrases and often repeated adnauseum. This is not a new idea, but because of the power, centralization and pervasiveness of the media, it is unprecedented.

This propaganda technique allows people to think that they understand a complicated issue in sound bite terms. As a result, rather than explore the greater depths of an issue (which would generally reveal contradictions proving the sound bite false,) debaters simply use other sound bite arguments to support their position.

Your comment,

look at the PATRIOT act, and the removal of Habeas Corpus for a few examples. Not to mention all the other heinous and low-down things that've gone on in Washington since then.

is almost an example of this kind of discourse.

Your comment,

Do you want someone who'll stick to their guns, or somebody who'll do anything to get their way?

is sort of a tautology. Someone who'll stick to their guns and someone who'll do what it takes to get their way are essentiall the same person. I'm not sure which of these two 'choices' you think applies to Obama and which to McCain. Are you saying that someone who votes however his party says he should vote is sticking his guns? Are you saying that someone who votes how he thinks instead of how his party thinks is not sticking to his guns?

I suppose, who I prefer, all depends on what sort of guns the fellow is sticking to (or not sticking to.)

If you are someone who prefers larger more centralized and more expensive government. A government that has more control over your life, and will take care of you from cradle to grave, then Go Bama!

If you don't want more of that, then Go McCain!

It's all a matter of what you think government's role should be.

Right now, it's not working for anybody and to a large extent, the reasons outlined in my previous post are the root.

We always joke about democracy and its logical flaws. Around the campfire someone would go "Simon, walk across the fire", which he would of course refuse. Then I'd put it to a vote, "all in favor of Simon walking across the fire say aye", usually followed by "Well, democracy has spoken"

Outside of its absurdity I feel democracy as a system poses a threat to liberty and individual identity when it reigns unopposed, and I could go on and on about how civil disobedience subtly shifted to court actions, a democratic institution, and how democracy as an institution has developed an existence and a will of its own, spreading across the world and merging/conquering countries, or how democracy achieves a domination that many tyrants and hundreds of years of wars tried to accomplish without ever succeeding, or how medias and our economy became agents of democracy, or how wars and conflicts seem to be justified by nothing else than democracy, but I don't think anyone wants to hear my somewhat delusional, although entertaining, theory on the dangers of democracy and where it is taking us.

I'll just say this, I maintain the claim we are heading, or have already embarked, on the first institutional dictatorship I see it as the political equivalent of Skynet!

lotus wrote:

I find it absurd to judge Obama's "partisanship," based on his limited voting experiences in the US Senate.

I didn't. Did you not read my post? The voting record was only one piece of it. Another was a measure on how often each candidate 'reached across the isle' so to speak to team with members of the opposition party in forming legislation and sponsoring bills. In that aspect, McCain actually worked with Democrats more than with Republicans.

It is absurd not to recognize that and you cannot pass it off as just doing it to get elected. McCain has been in the senate a long time, and has had a bipartisan reputation long before he was a candidate for president.

On the brighter side, I would love to see more Libertarians in office and I wish they had an honest shot at the presidency.

Fred Buer wrote:I will quote Warren Ellis' creation Spider Jerusalem (the main character in the graphic novel Transmetropolitan, who was loosely based on Hunter S. Thompson)

"You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pitbulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you vote on what you're going to do tonight. YOU like to put your feet up and watch tv. THEY like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand new sexual organs that you did not know existed.
So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to f*ck you with switchblades.

That's voting. You're welcome."

Which is a dark way of looking at it, yeah. But the analogy is somewhat correct

-Fred

That's just awful hahah!

Go Reds! ( The baseball team, not communism. )

~Keck

Although, Go "Reds," as in communism, would have at least been topical. Why do I do these things?

DrPaul wrote:lotus wrote:

I find it absurd to judge Obama's "partisanship," based on his limited voting experiences in the US Senate.

I didn't. Did you not read my post? The voting record was only one piece of it. Another was a measure on how often each candidate 'reached across the isle' so to speak to team with members of the opposition party in forming legislation and sponsoring bills. In that aspect, McCain actually worked with Democrats more than with Republicans.

It is absurd not to recognize that and you cannot pass it off as just doing it to get elected. McCain has been in the senate a long time, and has had a bipartisan reputation long before he was a candidate for president.

On the brighter side, I would love to see more Libertarians in office and I wish they had an honest shot at the presidency.

Actually, you did. You just added more depth to your deciding factor. Obama hasn't been in the Senate long enough to compare with McCain accurately. I read somewhere that in Illinois Obama had a Republican co-sponsor over 80% of his bills. That looks a lot different.

Still I don't think those numbers are accurate in making a judgement. It really depends on what the bill is. If McCain got 55% of his "lets name a post office," bills co-sponsored by a Democrat and Obama got 13% of his "government reform," bills co-sponsored by a Republican which is a better number?

You're not providing me with enough data to make a decision. Are these bills you're speaking of from the same time frame, or are they career US Senate experience numbers?

If the system is corrupt (and I think most of us believe it is) wouldn't more experience in a corrupt system be worse than less? Especially when both are talking about change?

You want signs that there are serious problems with how our bills are made and how our elected officials vote:

At BOTH conventions an area was set up for people to "speak freely," and be heard by their elected officials. They were given mics, speakers, etc. Because the laws/rules about the conventions state that it's a place for the PUBLIC to get a chance to express their opinions. In both cases this area was set up in a parking lot far from the action. This is despite the fact that it states that the area must be within range for them to be heard. In BOTH cases these areas were dead without even having the media report on them.

At BOTH conventions parties were held for congressmen to attend. These parties all cost millions of dollars and were sponsored by people like Exxon, State Farm, etc. Media weren't allowed in these parties. At these parties votes are bought. Pure and simple.

Companies run this country. They pay for the bills. Americans vote our officials in and they do it based on sound bites and misinformation. Companies then get their bills run through the system.

It's screwed up. This is not what Democracy was supposed to be like when our founding fathers created this country.

It's depressing. We badly need to educate the public. Do you have any idea how hard that would be? It would take hundreds of millions of dollars in reprogramming.