I'm beginning to be a bit embarrassed about my off-center political beliefs, but

@Lash,

The basic facts aren't difficult to verify.

What is somewhat difficult to determine is the real impact on Iceland - and whether any of the events there have any meaning in any other country.

On a somewhat serious note - if you're interested - go to Iceland. It is freakishly cheap to travel to Iceland. Not so cheap once you get there - but there are pretty much always crazy cheap flights there. A number of friends and colleagues have travelled there in the last 5 - 6 years. One of my podmates will be going in February.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

*you* also fell sway to a bit of bias

As long as I've been at a2k I have Never hidden my political leanings. I'm as liberal a New Yorker as they come.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Quote:

Of course it's a conspiracy that must go all the way up to Count Barack Dracula Obama, Present Resident and Chief of the Zombie White House!

I am content that you have finally received enlightenment.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Quote:

I'm as liberal a New Yorker as they come.

Care to explain?

You see, not all New Yorkers are liberals. By making such a statement as you did, you only further an image and by doing so lessen the value of the citizenry of NYC.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Doesn't it bother you to be controlled by preconceived notions based on your political leanings? Wouldn't you rather be logical and think before making a judgment?

(please say yes)

0 Replies

I don't see anything to object to in your summary.

0 Replies

In reply to Frank:

This is bullshit. Politicians want to appear to do what the people want them to do, because they have to face elections. What they actually do is what the money boys want them to do, because that's where the power is. They are willing, even eager participants in the slant of media stories, and the burying of any stories which have the potential to embarrass them. Certainly politicians are a necessary evil, but their masters are the money boys, not the electorate. You're being very naïve.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In reply to Frank:

This is bullshit. Politicians want to appear to do what the people want them to do, because they have to face elections. What they actually do is what the money boys want them to do, because that's where the power is. They are willing, even eager participants in the slant of media stories, and the burying of any stories which have the potential to embarrass them. Certainly politicians are a necessary evil, but their masters are the money boys, not the electorate. You're being very naïve.

What could I tell ya.

Politicians seem to be acting the same way I see most people acting...first they take care of themselves and their families...and then, if it doesn't conflict with what they want for themselves, they do for the public.

Most of the politicians (small and medium town guys and gals) really seem to want to do what is right...but they get bullshit from all sides.

I've seen people come into public meetings and say something along the lines of,"You guys are all a bunch of stupid crooks and you are robbing us blind. Now...I have this problem on my block and I need your help in resolving it."

Where you going with that?

Being a politician is no easy thing. We have allowed money to become the driving force...and they are going to allow it to rule them.

I don't think things are going to change much until things get so bad...that there is a revolution. Pots and pans are not going to do the job here...or at least that is my opinion.

In my opinion, Occupy Wall Street was a joke.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Why are you embarrassed?

Politicians are, in the main, and to one extent or the other venal opportunists, and the news media, in the main, is failing miserably in it's role as the public watchdog.

The saddest aspect of this is not only do so many Americans fail to see the real picture, they actually worship some of these clowns.

It's tough sometimes not to despair for the nation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

But Frank is also right. We keep letting them not only get away with it, we keep letting them be immune to our laws.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't know where that occupy Wall Street bullshit came from, i didn't mention it. As for what one can do, some of the industrial democracies have mandatory voting. Some of the industrial democracies limit the amount of campaigning time, and the amount of money which can be spent. We have the mess we do because the electorate is lazy and won't actually do anything to reform a system which they created through their own apathy. Thinking is hard!

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Yeah the only US politician who's impressed me in recent times was Sarah Palin because she was a straight-talking no-bullshit gal!
So there was a media and political conspiracy to discredit her and force her out of the frame.

She's also a dimwit, it figures you'd like her.

2 Replies

@jcboy,

Dimwit?

I don't think this word means what you think it does.

For reference, consult a mirror.

1 Reply

We've had one honest POTUS in the last 50 years. A man who lived a Christian life with little fanfare, a man of intelligence who required logical persuasion, a man of piety and honor, a man who was willing to place himself at harms way and a man who recognized that all blame was his.

Unfortunately, he wasn't an effective politician although he has become an effective statesman so he was replaced as soon as the American voter saw the folly of an honest and honorable POTUS.

Don't feel that political disaffection is new--todays 'No Nothings' , err Teapublicans are nothing new.

As for Occupy Wall Street, I'm still holding out hope that Anonymous Hackers will initiate a little anarchy into the carefully plotted plans of the two political parties.

Rap

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Dimwit?

I don't think this word means what you think it does.

For reference, consult a mirror.

She's almost at dimwitted as you, almost. Cool

1 Reply

@jcboy,

Do you think that was clever?

0 Replies

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

We've had one honest POTUS in the last 50 years. A man who lived a Christian life with little fanfare, a man of intelligence who required logical persuasion, a man of piety and honor, a man who was willing to place himself at harms way and a man who recognized that all blame was his.

Unfortunately, he wasn't an effective politician although he has become an effective statesman so he was replaced as soon as the American voter saw the folly of an honest and honorable POTUS.

Don't feel that political disaffection is new--todays 'No Nothings' , err Teapublicans are nothing new.

As for Occupy Wall Street, I'm still holding out hope that Anonymous Hackers will initiate a little anarchy into the carefully plotted plans of the two political parties.

Rap

I'm guessing you are referring to Carter, in which case I'm with you until you got to "a man who was willing to place himself at harms way and a man who recognized that all blame was his."

How so? His plucky defense against the killer rabbit? His blaming the results of his incompetence on the character of the American people?

He didn't get a second term because of any honor or honesty he might have had, he lost because he was incredibly incompetent and the country was in a nose dive after his four years in office. Clearly not all of our ills were directly due to him, but none of his responses and remedies were effectual in any way.

I voted for the guy the first time around, because I thought he was an intelligent and decent fellow. In the aftermath of Watergate, Carter was a tonic, but decency is not a substitute for competence, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Granted Carter was an ineffectual POTUS. Probably he was damned to failure because of his inherent humanity and honesty. But his actions as an Ex-POTUS is something that none of the other Exes have come anywhere near.

As for putting himself on the line--how many other ExPOTUS have monitored elections, promoted Human Rights and encouraged democracy in some pretty hostile parts of the world.

The Carter Center has observed 95 elections in 37 countries.

As for the ferocious bunny--I remember that Reagan left 273 Marines up for dry in Beirut.

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

"Granted Carter was an ineffectual POTUS."

Game set and match.

If you are the president of the United States it really doesn't matter how good a guy you are if you are ineffectual.

He wasn't elected to be a national example of morality, he was elected to run the country to security and prosperity, not into the ground: Run-away inflation (mortgage interst rate in excess of 20%), gas lines, unemployment et al.

If you think Carter didn't have a swarm of security agents whenever he went overseas (post-presidency) you're delusional. It wasn't him and Roz with only a toothy grin, a Christian confidence, and a pocket-knife to protect them.

His post-presidency work with Habitat for Humanity speaks very well for him, his bungling of negotiations with North Korea does not.

Ex-presidents may not have made it a usual job to monitor elections worldwide, but to suggest they haven't promoted human rights or encourage democracy (regardless of their party) is just wrong.

What Carter's encounter with a killer rabbit has to do with the 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombing is beyond me. Perhaps you can further explain.

You're point was that Carter put himself "on the line." How is that even remotely connected to Reagan and the Beirut bombing?

As a matter of fact, Reagan was actually shot by a would-be assassin. Now, to this extent, every president puts himself on the line as they can all be the victims of an assassin, but if you insist on bringing up Reagan in a discussion of Carter, remember the former was, in fact, shot, and the latter was ridiculed for fending off a killer rabbit.

And there is the fact that only one president in our country's history has been classless enough to criticize a sitting president - Carter. I wouldn't have minded if he announced he didn't agree with the Bush policies, but, no, he had to make it personal and extreme, and assert that the Bush Aministration was "the worst in history."

This is par for the course for someone, like Carter, who thinks he is, morally, one or two levels above the rest of us.

Yes, he's a decent man but is ego is oversized and he should just shut the hell up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't know where that occupy Wall Street bullshit came from, i didn't mention it. As for what one can do, some of the industrial democracies have mandatory voting. Some of the industrial democracies limit the amount of campaigning time, and the amount of money which can be spent. We have the mess we do because the electorate is lazy and won't actually do anything to reform a system which they created through their own apathy. Thinking is hard!

Sorry...I didn't realize the laws of A2K require that I only mention things you have previously mentioned. The fact is that the Pot and Pans idea is like Occupy Wall Street...and I think that kind of thing is a dead end.

Democracy may very well be its own worst enemy. Perhaps it truly does not work. Perhaps the problem is that we want very much to have it work...but that is simply cannot...that some variation of a dictatorship is the only way to go.

When I used to be on several boards and commissions in town, I got to hate committee work. One person had to take control...or all that ever got done was a lot of talking. The whole of "democracy" seems to be in that same situation.

Thinking indeed is hard. And maybe the masses are not up to the job.

1 Reply

I'm beginning to be a bit embarrassed about my off-center political beliefs, but

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know