Obama declared white man.

[michaelG]

Question my caucasian friends:

Do any of you ask yourselves where the hell Obama came from ?

Did he just wake up one day and say I wanna be dah president or is he a puppet for someone ?

Change ? Yeah right.

[Tunesmith]

If you want to criticize someone's ideology, then feel free to. That's the whole point of political debate, and without it, things will inevitably become stagnant.

But if you want to insult someone based on their race, how is that any different from racism? It seems to me like there is none.

[skip intro]

what are his policies? i went to his website to find out, and there was no mention of them at all.

isn't it kind of strange how much money he's being given? could it be coming from anti-hillary reps, who want a democratic candidate they can beat easily?

:confused:

[Hyakujo's Fox]

Do any of you ask yourselves where the hell Obama came from ?

Did he just wake up one day and say I wanna be dah president or is he a puppet for someone ?


Still waiting for the answers to these for Bush. Course he was white so you gotta expect that kind of thing.

[Stephi_B]

could it be coming from anti-hillary reps, who want a democratic candidate they can beat easily?

But maybe the Republicans would fear a candidate like Obama more, just because he has no Washington D.C. history? Don't see why he should be a puppet of the other side :confused:

(Dunno, the way you do elections / election campaigns confuses me anyway, the astronomic fundraising the candidates have to do, this delegates thingie, ultra-personal attacks, ... - but then again, we here were without a government for a while after the last elections cos the outcome confused the parties ;))

Obama has some policies, imo, and not all too bad, see here for example: http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

[brightpearl]

I brought brownies.
http://isnani.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/legalbrownies.jpg
Don't get all excited though -- that's just mint.

[Brynn]

Obama's getting all his money from small donors. Clinton's getting it from big donors, who are all pretty much tapped out now. She's theoretically in trouble because Obama's base of financial support from the internet is much wider than hers.

However, thanks to her earlier machinations as a senator and party leader before she even announced her candidacy, the 900-odd, unelected but oh-so-mysterious "super-delegates" will make sure that she will get the nomination regardless of how many popular votes Obama gets. Now that's what I call planning ahead! On one hand it sucks for our illusions of democracy here, but on the other, I can't help but think of her as a smarter, more vicious and better-positioned political animal to take on the Republicans.

At least, that's what I believe in my most cynical moments.
All that being said, I'm really just voting for Hillary because I'm sexist. I'm sick and tired of men running things. She's clear about what she wants to do, I agree with it, and frankly, I don't care if large sections of the country aren't united behind her.

Obama became an instant star at the 2004 Democratic Convention with his keynote speech that electrified depressed Dem's all over the country. Why, the first five minutes, practically, are devoted to where he came from, remember? :rolleyes:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MNCLomrqIN8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MNCLomrqIN8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
All well and good, but guys like that tend to get assassinated in this country, and Michelle would be pissed. Let him get a few more years under his belt.

[craig johnston]

obama = mcgovern
iraq = vietnam
mccain = nixon

discuss

;)

[Stephi_B]

^Tending to a 'yes' concerning point #2 (and I fear that won't change much with any of the 3 candidates left), but I'd extend that Vietnam analogue beyond Iraq: Afghanistan, the indirect involvement in the Israel-Palestina/Lebanon/Syria conflict, maybe Pakistan too soon, hopefully not Iran (Hillary might go for that??),... - that all belongs together.

No, to #1 and #3, imo there's less polarisation in today's Dem/Rep 'couple' (actually both of them, Clinton/McCain just the same, none of the three says "out of Iraq now!", they just differ in the how long still and with what effort) and I think Obama has more chances than McGovern had (OK, I rely on what I just googled myself together for McGovern, before my time, and obviously he did not have a lasting place in the memory of people outside the US, dunno?).

--------

An aside: I really don't like this female-vs.-black-challenge in the inter-Dem race (partially the media here goes for that too), it should be about the person (irrespective of any gender/'race' box) and her/his policies! Not "Is Obama 'black' enough?" or "Is Clinton 'female' enough?", but "Who of them might be best for the USA, for all/most Americans?"
I'm a bit sexist too, but to Brynn I have to say: we have a lady here running the country, but it's not that different, only thing is that she does not so much hollering in public than the male Cancellour we had before, she talks controversial things more behind the scenes and generally acts calmer, but that can be somewhat a thing of personality, not just of gender. And: as long as politics is still more male-dominated, females who wanna be on top have to behave 'male' ('male' according to the 'male'/'female' stereotypes, that's another question, in how far these really exist and to which extend they are a matter of upbringing and social environment).
Generally I think the difference of men and women in power is / will be not so much the "what" they do, but the "how".

[Brynn]

I think there's a huge difference between McCain's "we may be there for a hundred years" and Clinton's sixty (ninety?) days. I have no idea what Obama's going to do about getting the troops out of Iraq, but anyone could handle things with more intelligence than Bush has in terms of world culture and opinion.


To tell you the truth, it's the first time in a very long time that we've had three competent candidates to choose from - compared to Monkey Boy - so my concern is at an all-time low. We could flip a coin and do okay with any of them. But Clinton's the only one who's going to pull the country's economy out of the ditch.

McCain is not Nixon, btw. Not as paranoid, knows what it is to be in battle, less likely to lie, break the law, bomb Cambodia secretly....? But of course Iraq is Vietnam all over again. We've exchanged the "red scare" of communists overrunning the country for Muslim terrorists. It's always going to be Orwell's perpetual war which the military industrial complex needs in order to continue to take the lion's share of our taxes and keep in control.

[michaelG]

what are his policies? i went to his website to find out, and there was no mention of them at all.

isn't it kind of strange how much money he's being given? could it be coming from anti-hillary reps, who want a democratic candidate they can beat easily?

:confused:

It most definitely could be. Hell, if the Democratic old school peeps don't like Hillary. I , However, respect her for her smarts and her pragmatism.

Obama is nothing but a dream weaver-- I can't even listen to his hope and unity bs.

If obama wins the primary McCalin is a shoe in.

[michaelG]

obama = mcgovern
iraq = vietnam
mccain = nixon

discuss

;)

But why is there no equalivalent to the hippie, or the Black Panthers, why have those of us that hate the man so ****ing wimpie. Why are there no protests, blood in the streets ?

And what is the new marijuana ?

[Brynn]

An argument could be made for the same reason not to elect Clinton, though
(government insider, business as usual, voted for the war twice, too divisive, etc.).

Clinton needs Obama on her ticket (or vice versa) to make it a deadly combo. Problem is, the kids keep squabbling amongst themselves. For two smart people, they can be awfully short-sighted. And I could just smack Bill, btw. Could somebody please put a muzzle on the man?

But why is there no equalivalent to the hippie, or the Black Panthers, why have those of us that hate the man so ****ing wimpie. Why are there no protests, blood in the streets ?

And what is the new marijuana ?

That's easy - everybody's busy watching American Idol and Survivor.
And the new marijuana is still marijuana, but with superior potency and cultivation.
As opined by sages far wiser than I:
"People will mobilize when all their neighbors start coming home in body bags."

[auntie aubrey]

If you want to criticize someone's ideology, then feel free to. That's the whole point of political debate, and without it, things will inevitably become stagnant.

But if you want to insult someone based on their race, how is that any different from racism? It seems to me like there is none.

i wonder if michaelG realizes he was outclassed by a 16 year old.

tunesmith, you're a gem.

[auntie aubrey]

Obama's getting all his money from small donors.

like myself. skip intro's logic is..... let's call it flawed.

I can't help but think of her as a smarter, more vicious and better-positioned political animal to take on the Republicans.

i've been saying this since she announced her candidacy. i support obama but i'm afraid hillary is better prepared to do battle with the underhanded, low-class "swift boat" tactics that the republicans can't win an election without.

[Frieda]

what's all this business of the usa ppl buying a president?

[michaelG]

i wonder if michaelG realizes he was outclassed by a 16 year old.

tunesmith, you're a gem.

The 16 year old made a trite silly statement to which a response was unnecessary. And it should go without saying that she could not have been referencing me since the color of my skin precludes me from being racist--although it is possible she is unaware of that part of US history.

"But if you want to insult someone based on their race, how is that any different from racism? It seems to me like there is none." >>> This is comparable to saying, "If you want to describe something as hot, how is that different than talking about its temperature" --hardly profound.

I did not come in here to get involved in personal attacks. I would ask that people please refrain from doing so .

[Avalon]

The 16 year old made a trite silly statement to which a response was unnecessary. And it should go without saying that she could not have been referencing me since the color of my skin precludes me from being racist--although it is possible she is unaware of that part of US history.

"But if you want to insult someone based on their race, how is that any different from racism? It seems to me like there is none." >>> This is comparable to saying, "If you want to describe something as hot, how is that different than talking about its temperature" --hardly profound.

I did not come in here to get involved in personal attacks. I would ask that people please refrain from doing so .

1) Who is the she in this senario?
2) You are saying that if you are black, you can not be racist? What part of history precludes you? Google thinks you are capable.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGIC,GGIC:2006-46,GGIC:en&q=black+racists
3) Tunes, you are a class act. Nice to see you again.

[michaelG]

[QUOTE=Avalon;376013]1) Who is the she in this senario?


"she" was the 16 year old--If it is a he, please substitute the pronoun he for the antecendent "the sixteen year-old"

[Anna]

Question my caucasian friends:
Do any of you ask yourselves where the hell Obama came from ?
Did he just wake up one day and say I wanna be dah president or is he a puppet for someone ?
Change ? Yeah right.

Could I still answer the question if I'm not caucasian and not your friend?
OBAMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)

[michaelG]

Could I still answer the question if I'm not caucasian and not your friend?
OBAMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)

your sarcasm and the other personal attacks in here are quite unfriendly.

Next time instead of being so condescending and surly simply preface your remark with something like this :

"Though I am not Caucasian I would like to offer my response to your queries "

and perhaps you and others in here could do more than supply links to forward the conversation.

[Avalon]

your sarcasm and the other personal attacks in here are quite unfriendly.

Next time instead of being so condescending and surly simply preface your remark with something like this :

"Though I am not Caucasian I would like to offer my response to your queries "


Now you want to be PC?
Sorry, but posts such as these make your 'outrage' a tad sureal and forced. But then, I do not believe for one moment that you are really black.



http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=375602&postcount=1679

http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=374887&postcount=3226

http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=373391&postcount=3196

[brightpearl]

Oooh. I wonder if it has Dolly Madison's macaroons..
http://www.mountvernon.org/images/store/Prescookiesmd2.jpg

[brightpearl]

HEY
These are black AND white!
http://www.lincolnsociety.com/images/graphics/cookies.jpg

[michaelG]

Now you want to be PC?
Sorry, but posts such as these make your 'outrage' a tad sureal and forced. But then, I do not believe for one moment that you are really black.



http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=375602&postcount=1679

http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=374887&postcount=3226

http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=373391&postcount=3196

The above statements were in fact made by me and were about me; They were not attempts to attack one specific individual as I am being attacked in here.

your opinion of my blackness has no merit

[Avalon]

HEY
These are black AND white!
So are these! :)

http://www.jonco48.com/blog/ebony_20and_20ivory.jpg

ETA..I have re-read this entire thread; I fail to see where anyone attacking you.
As for my opinion of your 'blackness'..it is just that. The truth will out.

[Anna]

wisdom dictates that one should never feed the trolls, but sometimes it's just too hard to resist [scrunch nose]

I'm going to go out of my way a little bit and cut Mike here a break, maybe he doesn't know how to express himself as well as say BHO, HRC or GWB, perhaps he's just trying to find himself in this messy world we live in. If that's the case I'd like to offer Mike this little gem (http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Himself-Rollo-May/dp/0385286171/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202863701&sr=1-5)

http://www.beckyphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/pic09040.jpg

[brightpearl]

^HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

Dear Anna,
I adore you and all you stand for.
Please accept this beautiful field greens salad as a token of my esteem.
http://www.getmegregs.com/media/menu_item/photo-227.jpg
I'm even going to sprinkle it with candied violets.
http://www.fancyflours.com/fancyflours/images/items/crystallized-violets.jpg

Funny thing about field greens...
It's hard to farm them unless you can come up with an effective means to keep the bunnies out.
http://sadoldgoth.blogspot.com/bunny.jpg

Sincerely,
brightpearl

[Anna]

:) yum! :)

~thanks

Those bunnies always look so cute too!
but one never knows, you just never know
http://carpefactum.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/30/killer_rabbit.jpg

[Tunesmith]

The 16 year old made a trite silly statement to which a response was unnecessary. And it should go without saying that she could not have been referencing me since the color of my skin precludes me from being racist--although it is possible she is unaware of that part of US history.

In fact, I was asking you directly! I wasn't expecting a response, seeing as most of your posts are sporadic and pointed, but thanks for honoring my question.

I'm very aware of the fact that unfortunately racism and slavery are integral parts of U.S. history, but I don't think that's what you're referring to. If you meant that being black prevents you from being racist, does that by simply being born into a group, you can't hate it? You might want to check out this famous psychology test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/) to see if you're right.

"But if you want to insult someone based on their race, how is that any different from racism? It seems to me like there is none." >>> This is comparable to saying, "If you want to describe something as hot, how is that different than talking about its temperature" --hardly profound.

Merriam-Webster defines racism as "racial prejudice or discrimination". If insulting someone based on their race isn't an early stage of prejudice, I'm not sure what is.

For the record, your comparison is a good example of ambiguity, but semantics has almost nothing to do with racism as a practice.

I did not come in here to get involved in personal attacks. I would ask that people please refrain from doing so .

I hope you haven't interpreted anything I'm saying as a personal attack. I may disagree with you, but I won't insult you. :)

[brightpearl]

i wonder if michaelG realizes he was outclassed by a 16 year old.

tunesmith, you're a gem.

Aw, he outclasses me all the time.
:D

[auntie aubrey]

the color of my skin precludes me from being racist

don't be stupid.

[Frieda]

umm.. i really want to know-- what's all this business of the usa ppl buying a president?

[brightpearl]

Well, the Supreme Court just gave us the last one, and we're hoping if we do our own shopping, it'll turn out better.

[Stephi_B]

That's easy - everybody's busy watching American Idol and Survivor.

Aye, that's one part of why there is no movement against things that go wrong like it was in the 60s/70s, but I think there's more to it (had an interesting discussion with my dad about that issue the other day, though not with respect to Iraq, but to globalisation and social injustice - being his red cloth):
On the one hand both a privatisation and splintering up (political) opinion, also triggered a lot by the internet (but also the diverse other medias of today) - Web 2.0 and that, everybody has got his/her own forum to present or share with others what they think, but it's hard to really focus many people on something particular, or bring them to gather en masse on the streets. It's a bit irritating cos one could think that with internet one could reach out to more people (that's the part that irritated me at least when my dad came up with this).
And then there's still the thing if one really gathered sort of a movement to get people away from their compie and/or out of the "I couldn't change a thing anyway" mode.

But I think, going back to the Iraq and Mid East conflicts, there is a kind of protest movement (though I am not sure about how that could make things better, at least not for the countries stricken in war): There's lots of young folks converting to Islam to make a stance, a private one (not talking of the small minority that goes to Qaida training camps, that's just like a small minority of leftist folks in the 60s/70s went into the militant underground), see above. Of course there are also folks who convert out of pure spiritual motifs (a friend and colleague of mine and his wife & children for example), but who might have been brought upon this particular religion through the public discussion (that is hysteria in places) and who also might have/develop a certain viewpoint on foreign politics. There is/was also a bit of a anti-war movement in the left scene, but somehow the left scene seems splintered (am talking now about Germany/Europe, dunno how that is over there in North America - would be interesting to learn more about that), see above, and those more militant ones that might create this "blood on the streets" scenario Mr G evoked, are going more and more apolitical (the anti-state, anti-police stance seeming more of a ritual, not so much an attitude) or focused on more local issues (like squatters' housing projects endangered by eviction).

Ah, and then there's still the Marmorkuchen for Perla & Anna
http://i.timeinc.net/recipes/i/recipes/ck/01/08/one-pan-cake-ck-226633-l.jpg
:)

[michaelG]

Aye, that's one part of why there is no movement against things that go wrong like it was in the 60s/70s, but I think there's more to it (had an interesting discussion with my dad about that issue the other day, though not with respect to Iraq, but to globalisation and social injustice - being his red cloth):
On the one hand both a privatisation and splintering up (political) opinion, also trigg.....

Your input is now being considered. I appreciate you contribution to civil discourse.

[Stephi_B]

^No prob, discussing things in a civil way is best / most productive, but honestly I don't like the patronising tone of your first sentence in the above.

[auntie aubrey]

umm.. i really want to know-- what's all this business of the usa ppl buying a president?

i don't understand your question. in what way are people buying a president?

[michaelG]

i don't understand your question. in what way are people buying a president?

I can think of one way. By spending huge ( hundreds of millions) amounts of money on advertising, neuro-linguists and campaign strategists candidates are BUYING their way into the presidency. moniker

[Frieda]

I can think of one way. By spending huge ( hundreds of millions) amounts of money on advertising, neuro-linguists and campaign strategists candidates are BUYING their way into the presidency. moniker
yes that, plus that people themselves donate as if it's some sort of after-tsunami fundraiser.. that's at least what it looks like from here. an excessive amount of money is spent during the presidential campaigns and afterwards there's no money to fix healthcare or other problems. it looks pretty odd from the other side of the ocean.

so how do these things happen? has it always been this way? is it part of this preselecting of candidates that's going on right now?

[Veruki]

^ I like your question, only because I think the same thing myself whenever they talk about how much money a candidate has been able to rake in. I feel really uncomfortable with the thought of how much money goes into commercials and rallies when there are just so many causes that are more deserving.

I mean I get it, people support the candidates they like, so the hopefuls can market themselves and gain more supporters, but in my opinion it takes away from the true issues.

[auntie aubrey]

yes that, plus that people themselves donate as if it's some sort of after-tsunami fundraiser.. that's at least what it looks like from here. an excessive amount of money is spent during the presidential campaigns and afterwards there's no money to fix healthcare or other problems. it looks pretty odd from the other side of the ocean.

so how do these things happen? has it always been this way? is it part of this preselecting of candidates that's going on right now?

here's the problem with your logic: you're remarking that it's unusual that money should be donated to candidates so they can campaign, because that money could go towards government funded health care. but you're talking about money that never came from the government. this money that could fund health care is all in your imagination.

the government does fund not campaigns. period. they're not robbing any government programs, because they're not funding campaigns. i can't say it simpler than that. yet you still have a conceptual problem with the matter of funding because you say we're trying to "buy" a presidency. choose one. should the government fund it and rob social programs, or should politicians raise their own money to campaign? you're criticizing two sides of the same coin.

and how do you suggest they fund their campaigns, if not by robbing the government of its health care funding? rather than small donations from individuals, should large corporations fund their campaigns? should lobbyists with special interests? who, exactly, would you like politicians to be beholden to? it costs money to print signs, to air advertisements on TV and radio, to travel the country to meet people. how should they pay for these activities? funded by the government? whoops! there goes our health care again!

you'll have to forgive me if i come off a little snippy, but you waded into the conversation with a fairly offensive accusation that americans try to "buy" politicians. specifically after i remarked in this thread that i, personally, have donated to a candidate's campaign. you'll understand if i find your comment somewhat personally offensive.

[auntie aubrey]

I can think of one way. By spending huge ( hundreds of millions) amounts of money on advertising, neuro-linguists and campaign strategists candidates are BUYING their way into the presidency. moniker

the phraseology of this remark in no way relates to my question.

[Anna]

http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/44972/2004349460020221626_fs.jpg , I don’t know if the American people are buying, they sure are paying. I think perhaps what Asgard’s God of marriage and echtgenote to Odin is getting at is if these gobs of money weren’t given to the candidate it could be used to fund health care, education, et al good things through "taxation" and the capping of profits. Similar to Europe, Canada, Israel and Oz.

If anyone is buying the presidency it is large corporations on the backs of higher prices they are charging you, and if my history is correct that is called a Plutocracy, coined in the 40's by il Duce, which would mean we are well on our way towards a Totalitarian Regime. No one in the US sees that coming or believes it, however, neither did the Italians. As NYC Mayor Bloomberg stated yesterday, these puny rebate checks are ’”like giving a drink to an alcoholic” and “our balance sheets look like a third world country.” The Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar. Canada for Christ Sake! How far are we from the Peso? This is exactly what Benito did. Actually, if Bloomberg wanted he could probably buy the US. In a perfect world that should make him feel ashamed, but I tarry…

Yesterday, Ol Hillary had the opportunity to vote against the Bush weaselly Telcom Bill in the Senate which will give them what George likes to describe as, leave no terrorist phone call behind, a.k.a. Telcom Immunity. Even though Hill was in the neighborhood she didn’t bother to show up and vote to protect your 4th Amendment, but why should she? The Telcoms are giving her gobs and gobs and gobs of our shrinking US dollar and frankly, she really doesn’t mind because back in the day her hubby Bill pretty much gave the Telcoms (AT&T, Cisco, MSM, etc.) the People’s Air Waves and fiber optics super highways galore for pennies on a dollar. Ah yes, the NAFTA years… (points finger). But, don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean Obama is high riding Bart on a white horse wearing a blazing saddle and strolling into a Mel Brooks movie, he’s just shy a couple million of the same dirty corporate money the big guys are giving Hillary, and McKane along with counting strawberries is at heart a history by hereditary war mongering nut job who is better suited to play Lieutenant Dan than be president of these here United States. So regardless of skin color, blah blah blah blah blah did I get enough movie references in there? Vote none of the above! :)

[Frieda]

here's the problem with your logic: you're remarking that it's unusual that money should be donated to candidates so they can campaign, because that money could go towards government funded health care. but you're talking about money that never came from the government. this money that could fund health care is all in your imagination.

the government does fund not campaigns. period. they're not robbing any government programs, because they're not funding campaigns. i can't say it simpler than that. yet you still have a conceptual problem with the matter of funding because you say we're trying to "buy" a presidency. choose one. should the government fund it and rob social programs, or should politicians raise their own money to campaign? you're criticizing two sides of the same coin.

and how do you suggest they fund their campaigns, if not by robbing the government of its health care funding? rather than small donations from individuals, should large corporations fund their campaigns? should lobbyists with special interests? who, exactly, would you like politicians to be beholden to? it costs money to print signs, to air advertisements on TV and radio, to travel the country to meet people. how should they pay for these activities? funded by the government? whoops! there goes our health care again!

you'll have to forgive me if i come off a little snippy, but you waded into the conversation with a fairly offensive accusation that americans try to "buy" politicians. specifically after i remarked in this thread that i, personally, have donated to a candidate's campaign. you'll understand if i find your comment somewhat personally offensive.
i'm sorry you find my comment offensive. i did not make my comment as a personal attack to you and i do not understand why you're attacking me as a response.

anyway-- i'm simply trying to understand how this thing works. from here, another planet called europe, i see on the news both here and on USA channels that people & companies donate money. then i see an item on the news on how companies cut down health care because there's no funding. that's weird to me, and that's why i try to understand why this is happening and how it works. and healthcare is just one example. plus, i'm simply amazed at the amount of cash spent on these campaigns.

here, it doesn't cost any money to advertise. politicians get invited by tv shows and radio shows because all the programs want them in their shows. the commercials for political parties on tv are restricted to once a day, a 6-minute clip with for every party. so it can happen, and it is, in fact, quite easy!

[Hyakujo's Fox]

I think the kicker is that there's no equivalent of the primary system in most countries, and it doesn't really seem to be missed. It's a little surreal frankly. I understand that it gives you a choice you wouldn't have if the presidential candidates were simply selected by the parties themselves, but you have to weigh that against the fact that candidates are now getting filtered by their money raising ability. And that skews candidates away from those more popular with those that can't donate (the poorest) and towards those that can (corporations, the richest).

Australian political parties do actually get paid about $2 of public money per vote they get. But that's less than a third of what they spend in an election year. Yeah it's strange to think you're paying people to lie to you, but at the end of day I'd rather have them competing for votes than competing for cash.

[Coffee]

"it costs money to print signs, to air advertisements on TV and radio, to travel the country to meet people. how should they pay for these activities?"

We have (/had) public airwaves (until corporations lobbied congress to sell them to them and thus eliminate their responsibility to use a % of air time for the public good/PSAs etc.) and we could take them back and require candidates to air their "issues" on public radio and TV for no cost to the candidates, eliminating a lot of the reasons they (theoretically) raise money for their campaigns....however my inner conspiracy theorist believes the actual reason they raise so much campaign money is because they collect that money from the wealthy, and from corporations so that the wealthy and the corporations can have tamed politicians in their back pocket writing laws that provide tax cuts for the rich and/or prevent laws that would require those corporations to operate in an environmentally responsible manner.

And we have a publicly funded rail system called Amtrak that is daily delayed by corporate rail...let them take the ****ing train like they used to...and Amtrak might get actual right of way at least during campaign seasons.

[Veruki]

I definitely think that people are swayed by the candidates ability to raise money as HFox suggested, and I do think that changes the point of campaigning. Like Coffee said, they are alternatives to spending millions upon millions of dollars promoting yourself. Their views should be strong enough to stand on their own. Most, not all, but most of the contributers to these campaigns have agendas other then just supporting a candidate.

This being said, everyone is entitled to do as they wish with their money. If it's something they believe is a good cause, then they shouldn't care about what anyone thinks. However, I feel it's shameful that anyone who want to who aspires to be a political leader (or better said this age more like a world leader) would spend millions on self-promotion and finger pointing.

[auntie aubrey]

eh, you know what? i don't want to contribute to any growing tension in this thread. i get my political debate rocks off elsewhere, and i'd rather not interrupt a predominantly pleasant community with head-butting.

[trisherina]

The more power available, the higher the price is going to be, because if people can use money to obtain power, they will -- it's only money. I think what boggles people sometimes is how easily citizens agree to give this power away, despite plenty of documented evidence that this it can only end in tears. That's what boggles me, anyway.

There's a market for big power with plenty of pressure on it. Send it underground if you will, but that's about all you can do with the stakes so high.

And now, in keeping with correlations drawn elsewhere in this thread, I am going to now make judgments about my economic health borrowing a friend's Tempest Prognosticator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_Prognosticator).

[michaelG]

eh, you know what? i don't want to contribute to any growing tension in this thread. i get my political debate rocks off elsewhere, and i'd rather not interrupt a predominantly pleasant community with head-butting.

I don't think just because people are not throwing fuzzy bunnies at one another there are 'growing tensions" . I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel as though you are being sort of melodramatic and I feel no tension.

[Brynn]

I'd feel better if you took responsibility for starting the racial tension in a fairly friendly forum by calling the "Caucasians" "whitey" and "cracker" - then maybe a lot of us would be more inclined to civility towards you.

Thanks, Tunes, for the interesting test. My test result for a "strong preference for African-American faces" (apparently I'm part of a whopping 2%) actually surprised me a little, but my husband just laughed at me and started naming off some of my favorite performers...

[Brynn]

but it's hard to really focus many people on something particular, or bring them to gather en masse on the streets. It's a bit irritating cos one could think that with internet one could reach out to more people (that's the part that irritated me at least when my dad came up with this).
And then there's still the thing if one really gathered sort of a movement to get people away from their compie and/or out of the "I couldn't change a thing anyway" mode.

There is/was also a bit of a anti-war movement in the left scene, but somehow the left scene seems splintered (am talking now about Germany/Europe, dunno how that is over there in North America - would be interesting to learn more about that), see above, and those more militant ones that might create this "blood on the streets" scenario Mr G evoked, are going more and more apolitical (the anti-state, anti-police stance seeming more of a ritual, not so much an attitude) or focused on more local issues (like squatters' housing projects endangered by eviction).


:)
So many good points - I think the day for marching in the streets is past, and a new paradigm for protest has to emerge. For one thing, it's really discouraging to participate in a march involving 50,000 people in a small city like Portland, and for it to receive only a passing mention on the local evening news, which seems extraordinary given how little anything actually happens here until you begin to realize the scope of control that conservative forces have over media outlets. So yes, it really does feel pointless. So great, we held up traffic for ten minutes. Wow.

I was weaned on violent images coming in unfiltered from Vietnam, and the police violence at Kent State made a huge impression on me as a six-year old. I just don't want to get a concussion from a cop's baton like my sister did - her whole life has been affected by that. So I think protesters learned a hard lesson from their sixties' forbears in terms of picking their battles. I believe fervently that one person can make a difference - I just don't think it's me. But when 50,000 can't make a difference in march after march, that's when somebody's got to come up with something new.

[auntie aubrey]

I don't think just because people are not throwing fuzzy bunnies at one another there are 'growing tensions" . I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel as though you are being sort of melodramatic and I feel no tension.

lollerskates. says the boy who sobbed crocodile tears earlier in the thread for being "attacked."

[Stephi_B]

(...) I think the day for marching in the streets is past, and a new paradigm for protest has to emerge. (...) So I think protesters learned a hard lesson from their sixties' forbears in terms of picking their battles. I believe fervently that one person can make a difference - I just don't think it's me. But when 50,000 can't make a difference in march after march, that's when somebody's got to come up with something new.

Yes, I think that hits the nail in several ways.
Another thing might be that not only the forms of protest (old school demos, sit-ins, petitions --> ?) but also the content has to change, because what provoked/opened eyes/impressed both those in power and the 'broad masses' in past decades might not be it today. But as to what? That still has to develop, I think, and also these techniques have to be adaptive to the accelerated developments of society/media/politics.

And then, in America, with the media control of conservative forces (though Duke always claimed otherwise - that the "left loonies" got that :rolleyes: ), it's different than in Europe (it's not that the media here is truley independent of politics; I noticed that with this subtle though omnipresent - even in reality shows, advertisement - thing we got here in Germany: motherhood, and traditional gender roles are sort of advertised, coming from the Cath church and conservative circles in some parties, even the socialists got them! - but we got a cool Cancellour and family minister in that respect, both working, modern-thinking chicas ;)), and again different to other places on Earth where the state even more influences public opinion.
But the internet may become the tool, Web 3.0 will rock the house! :)

[auntie aubrey]

And then, in America, with the media control of conservative forces (though Duke always claimed otherwise - that the "left loonies" got that :rolleyes: )

tread lightly, stephi.

[michaelG]

lollerskates. says the boy who sobbed crocodile tears earlier in the thread for being "attacked."

In light of the fact that someone has labeled me "monkey" and you refer to me as "boy" my reactions are tempered to say the least. I don't feel tension at all;I understand white people are usually not aware of their disparaging comments as racism is such an integral part of white culture most individuals are not even aware of the possible offensive interperatation of their words ( or are they ? ) .

I saw a very funny cartoon about Obama (http://shutter04.pictures.aol.com:80/data/pictures/13/004/58/D3/58/F8/XmCc9i0o+SWKnISwIPWpNnq64XD8erZ-022C.jpg)

[auntie aubrey]

i, for one, have never seen a troll before. i just found the internet yesterday.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/352144804_e274b1163f.jpg

[brightpearl]

laaaaaaaaa
tee dee ti di di deeeee
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3w01ea87l8M&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3w01ea87l8M&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Anna]

^ despicable

I saw a very funny cartoon about Obama (http://shutter04.pictures.aol.com:80/data/pictures/13/004/58/D3/58/F8/XmCc9i0o+SWKnISwIPWpNnq64XD8erZ-022C.jpg)
ahhhahaha! touché mon ami

for the rest of your pot stirring
I concur (http://bulletin.zefrank.com/showpost.php?p=376417&postcount=58)

it's like going home only you can't!

[brightpearl]

You know, I haven't had mashed potatoes in weeks.
Weeks.
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/PerfectMashedPotatoes.JPG

I need to take better care of myself.

[brightpearl]

When these are done, I'm going to see whether it's possible to eat mashed potatoes with chopsticks.

I'll let you all know.

[Frieda]

^ thank you for your kind assistance in this matter, pearly


i'll email ze about your usergroup, michaelG, maybe he can demote you to "registered user".

and our apologies for the inconvenience, of course.

[12"razormix]

and our apologies for the inconvenience, of course.what inconvenience? and why are the other "monkeys" not being demoted to "registered user"? ( just curious )

[Frieda]

well, Raymond, michaelG has stated being offended by the label "monkey", which is his usergroup/custom user title.

so the solution would be to change that to "registered user", as upgrades are no longer available since the last board brawl and, of course, given the degree of offense that michaelG clearly experiences, changing only the custom user title will not suffice.

i haven't heard any complaints about any other users being offended by the user title "monkey" that comes with the usergroup "monkey" so i think it will do just fine to change this single user.

any other questions? :)

[12"razormix]

i would like to take this opportunity to point out that i feel offended by the orange background! :mad:

please have ze change it.

[brightpearl]

I'm back to report that while it is, in fact, possible to eat mashed potatoes with chopsticks, it is not expedient.

PS While I don't mind the orange background, I hope that if it's changed it gets turned to something else in the citrus family, like lemon yellow.

[Frieda]

i would like to take this opportunity to point out that i feel offended by the orange background! :mad:

please have ze change it.
allright, if i'm emailing ze anyway-- may i ask the reason for you being offended by the orange background? he might want to know. thank you! :)

[12"razormix]

i might have a glass of wine too many with my dinner! ;)

your friend raymond

[brightpearl]

I'm offended by Ze's name. It sounds like he's calling himself "The Frank" and making fun of French people at the same time.

I think we should all start calling him Nigel.

[brightpearl]

Raymond, what kind of wine, in your opinion, goes best with mashed potatoes on a fork?

[12"razormix]

It sounds like he's calling himself "The Frank" and making fun of French people at the same time.. i honestly thought that's exactly what he's doing when i first saw his page!


( merlot )

[12"razormix]

nigel's my 2nd favourite british name!






dammit.

[brightpearl]

^Yeah, I didn't watch the show for the longest because I thought that's what he was doing. :)

Merlot...'kay, brb.

eta: well, if not nigel, howsabout Fergus?

[Anna]

is this thread a fiction project?


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2dWui8RJTEk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2dWui8RJTEk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

confused...

[brightpearl]

just following the rules...
:)

[12"razormix]

is this thread a fiction project?

confused...

dear confused

since the modernizator max is no longer among us :( and this is the monkeyboy raymond's thread, i think he should set the rules for it!

your friend raymond

[Anna]

just following the rules...
:)
I think I need a lawyer!


My Friend Raymond,
got it! ;)

[12"razormix]

well, if not nigel, howsabout Fergus?fergus frank ... dangit i like it! :)

[brightpearl]

I think I need a lawyer!

:confused:
You can't possibly! Surely no one in their right mind would arrest you!

Unless you mean you need someone to interpret the rules.
I don't recommend trying to interpret the rules. It's best to just sort of follow them nonconceptually, like with a Zen koan, or when I try to play Backgammon.

fergus frank ... dangit i like it! :)

I do, too. I wonder if he's going to be all unreasonable about the required paperwork.

[Avalon]

^ despicable


it's like going home only you can't!
I hope you said that with the correct amount of lisp and spit, young lady! :p

[Anna]

I hope you said that with the correct amount of lisp and spit, young lady! :p

of course! I am after all, a red hot royal sportsmen after wild game ;)

[auntie aubrey]

well, Raymond, michaelG has stated being offended by the label "monkey", which is his usergroup/custom user title.

so the solution would be to change that to "registered user", as upgrades are no longer available since the last board brawl and, of course, given the degree of offense that michaelG clearly experiences, changing only the custom user title will not suffice.

i haven't heard any complaints about any other users being offended by the user title "monkey" that comes with the usergroup "monkey" so i think it will do just fine to change this single user.

any other questions? :)

so are we making changes based on fake sources of outrage now?

this smiley face: :eek: is offensive to my race. what now?


please understand that if you make this change, you are doing so based on a TROLL who has taken on a PERSONA. will you really allow a troll to hold this community hostage? are we not all adults?

[Frieda]

well, good thing i haven't emailed ze yet-- i'll add your request to the list :)

i am curious-- are you, by any chance, a smurf? or is it maybe the shape of the eyeballs in the image that is offensive to you?

[auntie aubrey]

as a blobbular creature, i am unable to widen my eyes to that extent. i feel as though that smiley is a cruel reminder of my lack of ocular musculature.

regardless of whether that smiley bears any relevance to my blobbescence, regardless of its preexistence to my arrival, i find it offensive and would like it removed.

i don't like this one either because i don't have teeth: :D

[brightpearl]

oh god I love you people

[michaelG]

so are we making changes based on fake sources of outrage now?

this smiley face: :eek: is offensive to my race. what now?


please understand that if you make this change, you are doing so based on a TROLL who has taken on a PERSONA. will you really allow a troll to hold this community hostage? are we not all adults?

The word Troll is fequently tossed around by 'community' members in an attempt to discredit relatively new visitors to an established site. Usually the accuser sees himself as a very important part of the 'community'. I have no word for this phenomenon but it is analogous to the salem witch labeling process.

I do not wish to be part of this racist board and did not request you change your habits of calling black men 'boys' and labeling them 'monkey". It is your board , you are the moderators, and you enforce the rules.



It was a pleasure visiting and I assure you I am no longer interested in discussing anything in here again.

Now get back to tossing fuzzy bunnies to one another.

[Anna]

http://www.tvguide.com/movies/dbpix/images/25492a.jpg

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,

I put it to you... Is michaelG really michaelG or is he Kent West?
You have heard mentioned in the distant past that Kent is in reality a Troll Bot from Trollbotia, which is in the neighborhood of Spamollia, but my fellow zefrank member board citizens, I ask you nay, implore you to think in this wise, what is the purpose of the spice that hides behind this monkey’s moniker?

I suspect something dark and sinister, something even more diabolical than one can imagine, something so despicable that yea, indeed no fuzzy bunny creature nor fluffy duckling will sleep safely in his nest or lair from this night onward!

l and g of the j, I purpose to you right here, right now, that michaelG is in fact, ROLLOME of MD emerging from the nether world and beyond!

[gasp, silence, women shutter, men roll their eyes]

l g j, [sigh] I rest my case.

[Coffee]

I bet he is a closet cracker.

[topcat]

i am offended by the song watermelon man and also mushy peas

[Avalon]

I like pie
however
pi offends me

[topcat]

nothing says thank you like cheese

[lukkucairi]

l and g of the j, I purpose to you right here, right now, that michaelG is in fact, ROLLOME of MD emerging from the nether world and beyond!

dangit, you've gone and said the name, and it's now a formal summoning. and here I am without my magic chalk circle.

*sigh*

so bunnykins, how've you been?

http://www.justmomandmedolls.com/B%20Bunnykins%20107.jpg

you look cute in pink :)

[lukkucairi]

I like pie
however
pi offends me

Indianan, are you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)

[Avalon]

Indianan, are you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)
Nahhh.
PI just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on .............................................

That offends me...:p

[Anna]

dangit, you've gone and said the name, and it's now a formal summoning. and here I am without my magic chalk circle.
nononono no, it's not official, the rule is 3 times!


*sigh* so bunnykins, how've you been?

pretty peachy, yourself?


http://www.justmomandmedolls.com/B%20Bunnykins%20107.jpg
you look cute in pink :)

that makes me think of Pepto Bismal

[xfox]

rmr for president.

[lukkucairi]

^ seconded :D:D:D:D

[auntie aubrey]

I suspect something dark and sinister

RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[Stephi_B]

tread lightly, stephi.

I was referring to Brynn's
the scope of control that conservative forces have over media outlets.
something I similarily heard from left/liberal Americans - tell me your perception of this aspect if you like! :)
(The :rolleyes: was referring both to the Duke's extreme take and his calling left/liberal/moderates altogether "leftist loonies" - in double " " because I in no way agree with this particular and very generalising alliteration, loonies are a minority, found in the same amount in each political/ideologic/w.e. segment of society)

[12"razormix]

The word Troll is fequently tossed around by 'community' members in an attempt to discredit relatively new visitors to an established site.this is very true and i find it extremely unpleasant.

habits of calling black men 'boys' and labeling them 'monkey"as much as it might have pleased you, dear michael, this has nothing to do with your skin colour, which ( i might add ) is not as interesting to us as it seems to be to you.

[auntie aubrey]

this has nothing to do with your [fictitious] skin colour

[auntie aubrey]

I was referring to Brynn's

something I similarily heard from left/liberal Americans - tell me your perception of this aspect if you like! :)

the truth is, every american is going to brew a different blend of conspiratorial ingredients, with different flavors commingling in different ways according to how their recipe differs from everyone else.

the right believes in the left-leaning conspiracy. the left believes in the right-leaning conspiracy. fox is conservative. NPR/PBS is liberal. my father in law, a classic right-wing texan, calls fox news the most unbaised network he's ever seen. on the other hand he referred to jim lehrer (one of our nations most trusted and respected news figures) the "worst" newscaster in the nation because his left-leaning bias is so apparent that it's foolish to give him air time.

the truth is that both sides have it right. just as there are no unbiased documentaries, there is no unbiased media. media is run by people. people are biased. producers and writers may strive to strike a middle ground, but inevitably thoughts and opinions bleed through, though selection of language and images/footage. and frankly, the right have had a point. typically media jobs have been filled by arts/communications specialists, who statistically lean left. but ask a leftie, and they'll be completely unable to accept that argument. and the left has a point, because in recent years the FCC has been lifting more and more restrictions on single market ownership, which has allowed openly right-wing media moguls like rupert murdoch to come into a market and snatch up every form of information delivery, save the internet. to the right, it's a problem of liberal individuals producing the news. to the left it's a problem of right-heavy corporations buying up everything in their path.

regardless, biased media is problematic the world over, but americans are reeling with the shock of it because this country spent the first decades of broadcasting believing that the men on the talky-box surely wouldn't tell a lie. we have historically practiced a self-deception that allowed us to let our guard down. we forgot that newspapers and TV shows and radio programs ultimately need one thing: an audience. without an audience there is no revenue. they are not beholden to the truth, they are beholden to revenue. once you let your guard down and start trusting in a revenue-driven industry, once you stop policing the sources of information, you set yourself up for the shocking discovery that the media never had unbaised presentation in mind in the first place.

americans spend a lot of time worrying about whether the opposing political party owns the bulk of the information reaching the bulk of the american people. we fear that no one knows what is going on, in spite of the fact that we know what's going on. in a way it's a condescending view of the unwashed masses, that they're not as smart as us and they might not see bias for what it is.

but it's all biased. and both sides have their mouthpieces. and we just choose to believe the side that voices OUR thoughts, that those mouthpieces belong to fair and balanced parties.

[trisherina]

Thank you. Gah. A related issue is that people prefer to get their information from sources that confirm their own biases -- it is uncomfortable to have your bias challenged before that first cup of coffee -- and so it is possible to hear only from people who more or less agree with you at all times, if you wish. It's like the "evolution" of sport -- early to mid century, we used to think that it was necessary to perform sport without external modification, and then it gradually dawned on us that not only was it possible, it was as much as expected -- or else you were a sucker! And now we have people not even bothering to hide it much. The same process has happened with information delivery/retrieval.

But the insight is still missing, I think, as to how always hanging out where there are preachers to your particular choir contributes to a mob mentality that is loathe to deal with dissension in its ranks -- so much so that we resort to framing people who disagree with us as not just people who happen to disagree, but people who are fundamentally evil and stupid. Not that this is new either -- but historically speaking, fundamental intolerance doesn't bode well in terms of making us do things we can look back on with pride.

[auntie aubrey]

^ 100% agreement.

[xfox]

^^Two great communicators here. Hear hear!

Awesome though it is to imagine, the size of the ego it must take to want to be president of anything as large as a county!

Look at the power and the perks. That altruism isn't part of this circus aside, please don't rule out the fact that the campaign we are forced to watch (for, let me see, the last TWO YEARS) doesn't have a machine behind it that affords those turning the gears some form of glory. Yes, crowds of adoring fans, alas.

Could we subscribe to the English version with shorter time frames for elections?

[Anna]

“A house divided against itself cannot stand”

In a microcosm, the most wonderful thing about the name I shall not utter is, he’s a conversation starter and nothing unites a community more than a controversy that threatens their peace and stability. The psychology behind that is more than interesting, but people do not take well to being poked with random needles especially, when they realize they are being poked. This board is old, and isn’t meant for high controversy; best to keep political and religious views to polite and in passing conversation. Personified places on the internet, like this one do have temperaments, even on this old girl extreme high or low opinions are best kept private. Anyway, he is gone now (maybe), but I know he’s reading this thread [waves], and I also know he will return in a new incarnation because he can’t resist, and why that is should be addressed. Still, there are limits, and shame, shame on you for playing the race card against the race card, that's not how you get where you need to go. You are neither black nor white, but always and eventually transparent. There are better ways to stir the pot and oh, the things you could say in a civil discourse would work as well, preacher, in its outcome than what you've achieved here. Ay, if not for your wounded pride and broken heart. There is plenty of easy muck to go around, it's not a perfect world.

[Stephi_B]

^^^^^Thank you for this deep info on the matter, Auntie!!

:)

[Brynn]

heaving a sigh of relief

everything comfy cozy now? I've been without an "ignore" button for a while now and have been missing it. did everyone else's disappear in the fire too?

[auntie aubrey]

you can still put people on ignore by accessing that page through your user CP.

[Brynn]

thanks - oh, and good post btw:)

[michaelG]

SNL proves that Obama is best played by a White Man.

Hillary Rules