If you listen to FoxNews, you will get a feeling that the Republicans have already chosen McCain as their candidate. Fortunately, FoxNews is not the measure of truth. There is still a chance that the Republicans will not Choose To Lose the election by fielding McCain as the candidate of choice.
If McCain happens to get the nomination, I will at least have one more feather in my hat to prove that this election was handled behind the scenes by power brokers and promised to Hillary years ago. McCain will be the sure sign that the Republicans don't want to win, they just want to field a decent 2nd place finisher.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The race is narrowing . . . Huckabee is our only hope...
The amount of attention being shared by McCain and Romney is scary. From what you see, it would make you think that the Republican Party is going to choose one of those two.
That is a scary thought. We don't need another Bush. His almost-a-democrat politics has left this country without the president we voted for. The leader of our country should be somewhat conservative. Putting a liberal in that position is dangerous business. McCain and Romney are the same brand of Pandering to Democrats as Bush.
Why should we reward the negative aspects of the current president by hiring somebody that is the same old business? Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates with the most promise. They both held the hope of people that we would once again have an Intelligent President that could take care of business.
Thompson is no longer in the picture. This leaves Huckabee. He's the last great hope of the 2008 election process. All others on both sides are useless politicians. They are a continuation of the USAFraud perpetuated on the voting public. With Huckabee, we still have a chance to remove the Fraud, and be left with a USA.
That is a scary thought. We don't need another Bush. His almost-a-democrat politics has left this country without the president we voted for. The leader of our country should be somewhat conservative. Putting a liberal in that position is dangerous business. McCain and Romney are the same brand of Pandering to Democrats as Bush.
Why should we reward the negative aspects of the current president by hiring somebody that is the same old business? Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates with the most promise. They both held the hope of people that we would once again have an Intelligent President that could take care of business.
Thompson is no longer in the picture. This leaves Huckabee. He's the last great hope of the 2008 election process. All others on both sides are useless politicians. They are a continuation of the USAFraud perpetuated on the voting public. With Huckabee, we still have a chance to remove the Fraud, and be left with a USA.
Monday, January 28, 2008
State of the Union (Bush 7th of 7 Speaches)
The State of The Union address was well written, decently delivered, full of hope, but hard to take seriously. This would have been a great speech delivered as the first of his seven. However, that would have required some follow through. In this case, it's pretty words that fade into oblivion because "it's not my fault they didn't do what i said."
If only there were a feeling of sincerity rather than a hope to redeem a doomed legacy. As the song said, "we won't be fooled again". Well, time and time again, Americans have failed to hold true to the promise of that song.
We're happy that our government languishes in mediocrity while holding the same endless arguments that allow us to disparage each other based on party affiliation. We're alright with nothing getting done unless it happens to be done by "our party". Until it directly effects us, we literally don't care.
The politicians know this. The politicians cater to this. We are their enablers. They are the manifestation of our own inability to make decisions and see results. In short, we get what we pay for. We always get what we pay for.
If only there were a feeling of sincerity rather than a hope to redeem a doomed legacy. As the song said, "we won't be fooled again". Well, time and time again, Americans have failed to hold true to the promise of that song.
We're happy that our government languishes in mediocrity while holding the same endless arguments that allow us to disparage each other based on party affiliation. We're alright with nothing getting done unless it happens to be done by "our party". Until it directly effects us, we literally don't care.
The politicians know this. The politicians cater to this. We are their enablers. They are the manifestation of our own inability to make decisions and see results. In short, we get what we pay for. We always get what we pay for.
Obama v. Huckabee, Let the Race Wars Begin
Although the primaries and caucuses don't add up to a specific number of votes which define the party choice, they do give us something fun to play with at this point.
Lets assume from those outcomes so far, that the Democrats pick Obama and the Republicans pick Huckabee (not because of votes, but because his competition are basically Democrats).
Race has been an increasingly noticeable aspect of these campaigns. If these two were to become the final choices of each respective party, Imagine the smackdown we'd be setup for. On one side of the ticket, you have a black man. On the other side of the ticket, you have "the man", the white symbol of the "old boys club", the oppressor. A politician of a southern state, the states that supposedly fought the Civil War with no purpose other than keeping slavery (according to liberals).
Now we have the makings of a good old fashioned race war. You know, the kind that Farrakhan and X and Sharpton have been looking forward to since the dawn of their peoples freedom in this country. If these were the names on the ticket, and Obama were not elected, imagine how "jilted" and hard done by blacks would be. Imagine the outrage among activists. Of course the average person would probably say "i shoulda known better", but the activists would be outraged and screaming for TV time to complain about yet another injustice imparted up on their people, the victims, by a white racist machine.
If a politically unexperienced person such as Obama were to receive the nomination and subsequent presidency, imagine the turmoil that would follow. Eventualy the office of presiden would come to a stop, similar to placing a 2nd grader in junior high and forcing the rest of the class to follow his learning curve. Either way, America looses with that particular ticket.
Lets assume from those outcomes so far, that the Democrats pick Obama and the Republicans pick Huckabee (not because of votes, but because his competition are basically Democrats).
Race has been an increasingly noticeable aspect of these campaigns. If these two were to become the final choices of each respective party, Imagine the smackdown we'd be setup for. On one side of the ticket, you have a black man. On the other side of the ticket, you have "the man", the white symbol of the "old boys club", the oppressor. A politician of a southern state, the states that supposedly fought the Civil War with no purpose other than keeping slavery (according to liberals).
Now we have the makings of a good old fashioned race war. You know, the kind that Farrakhan and X and Sharpton have been looking forward to since the dawn of their peoples freedom in this country. If these were the names on the ticket, and Obama were not elected, imagine how "jilted" and hard done by blacks would be. Imagine the outrage among activists. Of course the average person would probably say "i shoulda known better", but the activists would be outraged and screaming for TV time to complain about yet another injustice imparted up on their people, the victims, by a white racist machine.
If a politically unexperienced person such as Obama were to receive the nomination and subsequent presidency, imagine the turmoil that would follow. Eventualy the office of presiden would come to a stop, similar to placing a 2nd grader in junior high and forcing the rest of the class to follow his learning curve. Either way, America looses with that particular ticket.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Fearing The Woman President
So, I've heard a number of arguments against having a woman president. The most common one is related to sanity. Well, not directly sanity, but mood swings. "what if the russians make a bad move on the wrong day and she decides to nuke the world???".
Personally, I'd think that's some kind of exaggeration. I doubt a woman would let a bit of impatience allow her to forgo all reason and responsibility and initiate Armageddon.
Of course, I often expect the best from people, and find that a bad day goes much further than one would reasonably imagine. Then there are the people that bring up the woman that went crazy and killed her children or the woman that (supposedly) got mad and ran her husband over in the driveway with a steam roller.
I guess nuking the world would be possible if a person had gone crazy enough to kill their kids or flatten their husband. However, there are people constantly surrounding the president. If she started getting sketchy, I'm sure somebody would notice long before she started picking up the big red phone and telling people to bomb something.
I'm not myth busters, but it would seem that we're reasonably safe from a mood swing induced nuclear war. However, if Hillary in particular were to be President, I wouldn't be surprised if cheating husbands were given some pretty harsh treatment. Federal prisons for cheaters?
Personally, I'd think that's some kind of exaggeration. I doubt a woman would let a bit of impatience allow her to forgo all reason and responsibility and initiate Armageddon.
Of course, I often expect the best from people, and find that a bad day goes much further than one would reasonably imagine. Then there are the people that bring up the woman that went crazy and killed her children or the woman that (supposedly) got mad and ran her husband over in the driveway with a steam roller.
I guess nuking the world would be possible if a person had gone crazy enough to kill their kids or flatten their husband. However, there are people constantly surrounding the president. If she started getting sketchy, I'm sure somebody would notice long before she started picking up the big red phone and telling people to bomb something.
I'm not myth busters, but it would seem that we're reasonably safe from a mood swing induced nuclear war. However, if Hillary in particular were to be President, I wouldn't be surprised if cheating husbands were given some pretty harsh treatment. Federal prisons for cheaters?
Abortion 2008 and the Price of Tea in China
One of my personal pet-peeves in any.. well EVERY election is the topic of abortion.
The most significant fact of the matter is that it's used by both sides of the argument when neither side is honestly approaching the subject matter. In the end, this simply means that nothing but discourse will follow. The voters find a wedge driven between themselves and every other issue in play.
The politicians have to be doing this on purpose. Why else would they continue the historical argument when both sides know they are not talking about the same thing? It would seem it's a valuable tool in obfuscating the real issues. Is immigration, war, oil prices, or the housing market getting to uncomfortable? Well, let's get Americans fired up about an emotional argument that has no end and we won't have to talk about anything uncomfortable!
Wait, did I just insinuate that abortion is a comfortable topic for politicians? Compared to the other topics, it is comfortable in that it requires no answer. It just requires rhetoric. The other issues require "something" of substance that will later be held as a test of pass or fail.
The pro-life side of the argument is arguing when life begins. The pro-Choice side is arguing that women have a right to choose. Can anybody see why this argument goes nowhere?
The pro-life crowd for some reason thinks they will convince the pro-choice crowd that live begins at a specific point in time. They don't understand that the pro-choice side isn't listening, will not listen, and probably wouldn't care if they did. Yet the pro-life crowd still engages in an argument knowing this.
The pro-choice crowd for some reason thinks the pro-life crowd will cease to think that the life of a baby is important just because they have started talking about rights rather than talk about the baby that the pro-life people are referring to. Yet, they still engage in the argument.
The crux of the abortion argument should be out of Election politics until a couple bits of information can be determined.
1. When does life begin. - without this defined, nobody is going to be talking about the same subject.
2. What rights do people have and when is the appropriate time to exercise those rights. - When does the "womans right to choose" (as per bumper stickers littering berkeley, ca) interfere with the life of another? pro-life would say her right to choose happens when she chooses to engage in pregnancy causing activities w/o taking responsibility for the results of that particular biological process. pro-choice would say it happens at any point convenient. I'm not sure if this includes up to 18yrs or possibly after.
In short, the issue is a diversionary tactic used by both partys to polarize voters over an issue that has no political solution. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned today, the American people (even if it were a minority) would not allow Abortion to become illegal and revert to back alley practices.
I'm not suggesting that Abortion is right or wrong. I'm simply suggesting that it's a diversionary tactic used by politicians to get us antsy about something other than what we're hiring them for.
The most significant fact of the matter is that it's used by both sides of the argument when neither side is honestly approaching the subject matter. In the end, this simply means that nothing but discourse will follow. The voters find a wedge driven between themselves and every other issue in play.
The politicians have to be doing this on purpose. Why else would they continue the historical argument when both sides know they are not talking about the same thing? It would seem it's a valuable tool in obfuscating the real issues. Is immigration, war, oil prices, or the housing market getting to uncomfortable? Well, let's get Americans fired up about an emotional argument that has no end and we won't have to talk about anything uncomfortable!
Wait, did I just insinuate that abortion is a comfortable topic for politicians? Compared to the other topics, it is comfortable in that it requires no answer. It just requires rhetoric. The other issues require "something" of substance that will later be held as a test of pass or fail.
The pro-life side of the argument is arguing when life begins. The pro-Choice side is arguing that women have a right to choose. Can anybody see why this argument goes nowhere?
The pro-life crowd for some reason thinks they will convince the pro-choice crowd that live begins at a specific point in time. They don't understand that the pro-choice side isn't listening, will not listen, and probably wouldn't care if they did. Yet the pro-life crowd still engages in an argument knowing this.
The pro-choice crowd for some reason thinks the pro-life crowd will cease to think that the life of a baby is important just because they have started talking about rights rather than talk about the baby that the pro-life people are referring to. Yet, they still engage in the argument.
The crux of the abortion argument should be out of Election politics until a couple bits of information can be determined.
1. When does life begin. - without this defined, nobody is going to be talking about the same subject.
2. What rights do people have and when is the appropriate time to exercise those rights. - When does the "womans right to choose" (as per bumper stickers littering berkeley, ca) interfere with the life of another? pro-life would say her right to choose happens when she chooses to engage in pregnancy causing activities w/o taking responsibility for the results of that particular biological process. pro-choice would say it happens at any point convenient. I'm not sure if this includes up to 18yrs or possibly after.
In short, the issue is a diversionary tactic used by both partys to polarize voters over an issue that has no political solution. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned today, the American people (even if it were a minority) would not allow Abortion to become illegal and revert to back alley practices.
I'm not suggesting that Abortion is right or wrong. I'm simply suggesting that it's a diversionary tactic used by politicians to get us antsy about something other than what we're hiring them for.
You're a Racist if you don't support Obama
Why is it that many people treat you as if you are a racist if you don't support Obama for President?
The fact that I don't have a vested interest in the skin color of the president shouldn't make me a racist. Do I hate Arkansas if I'm not supporting Huckabee? Do I have something against actors if i didn't support Thompson? Do I hate women if I don't support Hillary?
I understand that many people of color have a vested interest in a black president being elected. I also understand that's skin color is going to be significantly more important to them. However, I take issue with being treated as a racist because my vote requires something a little deeper than skin.
Do I think Obama is the right man for the job? No, not just no, but **** no. His skin color has nothing to do with his socialist anti-American opinions. Regardless of his skin color, I don't want a man with his opinions as president.
White guilt won't buy my vote and it's racist for people to assume that skin color makes him a worthwhile candidate.
The fact that I don't have a vested interest in the skin color of the president shouldn't make me a racist. Do I hate Arkansas if I'm not supporting Huckabee? Do I have something against actors if i didn't support Thompson? Do I hate women if I don't support Hillary?
I understand that many people of color have a vested interest in a black president being elected. I also understand that's skin color is going to be significantly more important to them. However, I take issue with being treated as a racist because my vote requires something a little deeper than skin.
Do I think Obama is the right man for the job? No, not just no, but **** no. His skin color has nothing to do with his socialist anti-American opinions. Regardless of his skin color, I don't want a man with his opinions as president.
White guilt won't buy my vote and it's racist for people to assume that skin color makes him a worthwhile candidate.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Democratic Mud Machine
Well, things are getting messy in the Democratic side of things.
Usually, the mud machine is pointed all the way across the isle and at the Republicans.
But, with the Democrats running two minorities, it's beginning to be a battle for who is most hard done by. Is it the black man, or is it the woman? Watching them go at each other is great entertainment. Watching the Democratic Mud Machine throw a mess all over itself is even more humorous.
Gotta love it!
c'mon Hillary and Hussain, take the gloves off!!!
Usually, the mud machine is pointed all the way across the isle and at the Republicans.
But, with the Democrats running two minorities, it's beginning to be a battle for who is most hard done by. Is it the black man, or is it the woman? Watching them go at each other is great entertainment. Watching the Democratic Mud Machine throw a mess all over itself is even more humorous.
Gotta love it!
c'mon Hillary and Hussain, take the gloves off!!!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Hillary Hates Black People!!!
Well, that title is about as accurate as the obama campaigns characterization of her statement regarding MLK the other day.
To hear it on the street, Hillary said that MLK didn't do anything, it was all President Johnson.
The only way that could be gleaned from her comment would be if the listener had a smaller brain than a regular human, or maybe coarser brain matter that was only good for building strong muscles and enduring tedious manual labor. Oh, did I just say that?
The Obamatards are twisting her words of fact, that MLK's work was officialy put into play by a US President, and making it sound as if she said "MLK didn't do shit, it was all President Johnson!"
Obamatards, looking for "change", need to "change" their diapers, grow up, grow a pair, and stop twisting words around that are obvious to anybody with an IQ above 80. Maybe the damage is done. It's possible that a bunch of hack thugs in suits can use the race card to trash people becuase their entire campaign has no substance.
To hear it on the street, Hillary said that MLK didn't do anything, it was all President Johnson.
The only way that could be gleaned from her comment would be if the listener had a smaller brain than a regular human, or maybe coarser brain matter that was only good for building strong muscles and enduring tedious manual labor. Oh, did I just say that?
The Obamatards are twisting her words of fact, that MLK's work was officialy put into play by a US President, and making it sound as if she said "MLK didn't do shit, it was all President Johnson!"
Obamatards, looking for "change", need to "change" their diapers, grow up, grow a pair, and stop twisting words around that are obvious to anybody with an IQ above 80. Maybe the damage is done. It's possible that a bunch of hack thugs in suits can use the race card to trash people becuase their entire campaign has no substance.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Ron Paul, who is this guy
Ron Paul is very entertaining to watch in the debates.
But, from what I've heard, he's got some ideas that are contrary to popular opinion.
Legalize Prostition: Although this might help with some of the problems associated with the rampant illegal sex trade that occurs in our country (and globally), It's not going to fly with the average american.
Legalized Drugs: For years people have touted the amount of money the government could make in taxes and save on the "war on drugs". However, this will also not fly with the average American that envisions a nation of potheads.
But, from what I've heard, he's got some ideas that are contrary to popular opinion.
Legalize Prostition: Although this might help with some of the problems associated with the rampant illegal sex trade that occurs in our country (and globally), It's not going to fly with the average american.
Legalized Drugs: For years people have touted the amount of money the government could make in taxes and save on the "war on drugs". However, this will also not fly with the average American that envisions a nation of potheads.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The Obama Advantage (as posted on DailyKos)
The elections are always directed behind the scenes. The largest proof of that in recent years would be the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections. That being said there is an advantage to Obama being in the race even though he will not win the Democratic nomination or the subsequent presidency.
Money. The amount of money spent during his campaign will help the various regional economies it touches. That is never bad for a city.
Marketing. The Democrats are currently highlighting TWO minority candidates, both from demographics we've all been taught have never and will never "on our lifetimes" become president of the United States. This gives the whole party a great marketing opportunity and gets people talking about more than the issues which have plagued an will continue to plague the party.
It's always better to keep people from being focused on things like rampant illegal immigration, government programs that help everybody but the citizens, and random social policies which are designed to weaken any sort of national pride that was groomed back in "old days".
Instead, we're looking at a "bright future" and "change" w/o any substantive basis.
The fun part, is that we've known Hillary was going to get the Presidency since 2000, so this particular "show" is just great entertainment. My only question is if Obama knows this, and is just playing along. If so, it's easy not to feel bad for him knowing he's not going to be the next President. If he's not aware of the decisions of te Power Brokers, then you do have to feel kinda bad cause that means he's actualy trying to win a losing race.
- usafraud
http://usafraud.blogspot.com
Money. The amount of money spent during his campaign will help the various regional economies it touches. That is never bad for a city.
Marketing. The Democrats are currently highlighting TWO minority candidates, both from demographics we've all been taught have never and will never "on our lifetimes" become president of the United States. This gives the whole party a great marketing opportunity and gets people talking about more than the issues which have plagued an will continue to plague the party.
It's always better to keep people from being focused on things like rampant illegal immigration, government programs that help everybody but the citizens, and random social policies which are designed to weaken any sort of national pride that was groomed back in "old days".
Instead, we're looking at a "bright future" and "change" w/o any substantive basis.
The fun part, is that we've known Hillary was going to get the Presidency since 2000, so this particular "show" is just great entertainment. My only question is if Obama knows this, and is just playing along. If so, it's easy not to feel bad for him knowing he's not going to be the next President. If he's not aware of the decisions of te Power Brokers, then you do have to feel kinda bad cause that means he's actualy trying to win a losing race.
- usafraud
http://usafraud.blogspot.com
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Presidential Election 2008 - The race will start soon
So going into Iowa and New Hampshire, everybody wonder which of the dozen plus candidates will make the cut for the Two coveted spots.
Only one Democrat in the group will get their name on the ticket. Only one Republican in the group will get their name on the ticket. It's the time when all of the players put on their best game face and smile for the camera.
But, everybody wonders who will win. Not just who will win the party nomination, but who will ultimately win the election and become the next president. So, who are the big names? Obviously Clinton and Obama get first billing because they are minorities representing demographics that we've all been taught cannot be president. That's worth some TV time right there. So in short, those two are most likely going to be the only ones that count when the decision is made to pick a candidate.
However, on the Republican side of the table, it's a little bit murky. Some people love Guilliani and think he could go all the way. Some love McCain and think the same thing. Personally, I love Thompson, but i'm under the impression that he's not going to make it to the final stretch.
So, who will be the final two? Will it be McCain and Obama? That's my tenative guess. As far as story goes, I'd kinda like to see Clinton v. Huckabee and have a good old Arkansas Smarm-Off!
Only one Democrat in the group will get their name on the ticket. Only one Republican in the group will get their name on the ticket. It's the time when all of the players put on their best game face and smile for the camera.
But, everybody wonders who will win. Not just who will win the party nomination, but who will ultimately win the election and become the next president. So, who are the big names? Obviously Clinton and Obama get first billing because they are minorities representing demographics that we've all been taught cannot be president. That's worth some TV time right there. So in short, those two are most likely going to be the only ones that count when the decision is made to pick a candidate.
However, on the Republican side of the table, it's a little bit murky. Some people love Guilliani and think he could go all the way. Some love McCain and think the same thing. Personally, I love Thompson, but i'm under the impression that he's not going to make it to the final stretch.
So, who will be the final two? Will it be McCain and Obama? That's my tenative guess. As far as story goes, I'd kinda like to see Clinton v. Huckabee and have a good old Arkansas Smarm-Off!
CHANGE (yeah, just a little more)
Yes, this word happens to be a pet-peeve of mine when it comes to election politics.
CHANGE is a word emphasized by the candidate with the least to say. They have nothing else to offer so they hide behind a generic word that means nothing. They do this because they know that the average American assumes they mean some sort of directed "change for the better".
The candidates know that and use this word simply as a marketing tool. Something like a rich uncle offering you a job at his investment banking company. You assume you're going to be sitting in a big office in the 50th floor overlooking times square. However, you soon find that your promise was actually for a spot riding a 10speed around town delivering papers.
Change means nothing unless there is a specific attainable change that has some likelihood of becoming a reality rather than am empty campaign promise.
CHANGE is a word emphasized by the candidate with the least to say. They have nothing else to offer so they hide behind a generic word that means nothing. They do this because they know that the average American assumes they mean some sort of directed "change for the better".
The candidates know that and use this word simply as a marketing tool. Something like a rich uncle offering you a job at his investment banking company. You assume you're going to be sitting in a big office in the 50th floor overlooking times square. However, you soon find that your promise was actually for a spot riding a 10speed around town delivering papers.
Change means nothing unless there is a specific attainable change that has some likelihood of becoming a reality rather than am empty campaign promise.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Obama, the great ... hope!
CHANGE!
Obama is certainly entertaining to watch. However, If I had to pick a candidate with no political experience and base the choice only on race, i'd probably pick Will Smith. He's a good actor, he's a good musician, and much like Obama, he knows nothing about the presidency.
It's scary when people get all hyped up about "change". The word itself means little more than something different. The "change" that everybody is talking about could just as easily be accomplished by placing Don Imus or Madonna in the White House. Change for the sake of Change is usually an act of desperation which will ultimately result in failure.
Lets worry less about "change" and maybe come up with some sort of PLAN in facilitate "change".
Hopefully the American people won't be fooled again by cute speaches and rehashed political rhetoric...
Obama is certainly entertaining to watch. However, If I had to pick a candidate with no political experience and base the choice only on race, i'd probably pick Will Smith. He's a good actor, he's a good musician, and much like Obama, he knows nothing about the presidency.
It's scary when people get all hyped up about "change". The word itself means little more than something different. The "change" that everybody is talking about could just as easily be accomplished by placing Don Imus or Madonna in the White House. Change for the sake of Change is usually an act of desperation which will ultimately result in failure.
Lets worry less about "change" and maybe come up with some sort of PLAN in facilitate "change".
Hopefully the American people won't be fooled again by cute speaches and rehashed political rhetoric...
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Everyone has the right to vote!
Back in school, we were taught about voting. It was a right for all citizens. Men could vote, Women could vote. All races could vote. You just had to be a citizen.
Fast forward to adulthood.
We're all able to vote. We're just not necessarily assure that our vote will be counted. We never could be sure that our ballot wasn't thrown in the trash by some election official that needed to come up with a specific result. We never can be sure that our electronic votes are being counted any more securely than our paper votes were.
We're also never sure that citizens are the ones voting. There are supposedly millions of illegal aliens voting in every election.
Then again, they are supposedly counting our votes in the first place. Who is to say every vote has ever been counted. Elections are a "black box" for most people. The average voter has little exposure beyond dropping in the ballot or clicking on a choice. We have no way of knowing anything beyond the moment we make our selection and hope for the best.
On a brighter note, it's at least a little comforting that important decisions arn't being made by 200 million apathetic neighbors that have no idea what they are really choosing. At least we can assume that in a fixed election, the people with the power actually know something about the issues on the ballot and their long term societal ramifications.
Isn't our best interest ultimately their best interest? maybe? hopefully? please? *lol*
Fast forward to adulthood.
We're all able to vote. We're just not necessarily assure that our vote will be counted. We never could be sure that our ballot wasn't thrown in the trash by some election official that needed to come up with a specific result. We never can be sure that our electronic votes are being counted any more securely than our paper votes were.
We're also never sure that citizens are the ones voting. There are supposedly millions of illegal aliens voting in every election.
Then again, they are supposedly counting our votes in the first place. Who is to say every vote has ever been counted. Elections are a "black box" for most people. The average voter has little exposure beyond dropping in the ballot or clicking on a choice. We have no way of knowing anything beyond the moment we make our selection and hope for the best.
On a brighter note, it's at least a little comforting that important decisions arn't being made by 200 million apathetic neighbors that have no idea what they are really choosing. At least we can assume that in a fixed election, the people with the power actually know something about the issues on the ballot and their long term societal ramifications.
Isn't our best interest ultimately their best interest? maybe? hopefully? please? *lol*
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Should Don Imus run for president?
Well, he's go the cover of NewsMax. Not sure that's the same thing as People or not, but hey, it's a cover. In any case, it would be an interesting race. Independent? Republican? Democrat?
Most likely the green party, but hey, that could just be his hat talking. Why not, he's famous. He's controversial even if it's just becuase Al Sharpton can't take a joke. Alright, that wasn't fair. Al Sharpton can take a joke. Al has to love Imus. W/o Imus, Al would have been unable to get more TV time!
Isn't it fun how the different characters intertwine to make each others popularity spike and fade and then start all over again?
Most likely the green party, but hey, that could just be his hat talking. Why not, he's famous. He's controversial even if it's just becuase Al Sharpton can't take a joke. Alright, that wasn't fair. Al Sharpton can take a joke. Al has to love Imus. W/o Imus, Al would have been unable to get more TV time!
Isn't it fun how the different characters intertwine to make each others popularity spike and fade and then start all over again?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Welcome to 2008 - Happy New Year
As we wake up to our new year I have no idea what is going on with the political media machine and the current state of pre-election hype. It's kind of nice. There will be plenty of time to play catch up before November.
I'm sure the writers understand that some of us are going to be sleeping in. As such, they probably don't want a whole lot to happen today. At least in the public eye. It would be a great day to send couriers around to the different players and unveil the next plot change behind closed doors.
Maybe that means we'll get some really interesting entertainment from the candidates over the next week or so. In any case, I'm leaving the TV and Internet in the "news free zone" today...
I'm sure the writers understand that some of us are going to be sleeping in. As such, they probably don't want a whole lot to happen today. At least in the public eye. It would be a great day to send couriers around to the different players and unveil the next plot change behind closed doors.
Maybe that means we'll get some really interesting entertainment from the candidates over the next week or so. In any case, I'm leaving the TV and Internet in the "news free zone" today...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
