SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsModerate Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: epicure who wrote (20728)1/16/2008 3:02:51 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
Expectations are high and voters are enthusiastic. I hope some of us old bashers and blamers can bite our lips long enough for things to start happening. We will see when/if the attack campaigns get into high gear, whether the excitement remains or not.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: one_less who wrote (20729)1/16/2008 4:53:13 PM
From: epicure
   of 20773
 
I must say I'm enthusiastic about Obama. I like what he symbolizes, and his speeches are a pleasure to listen to. I don't know if he'd make a good president, but it's hard to know if any of them would.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: epicure who wrote (20730)1/16/2008 4:59:26 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
I've always liked him. I worry about the maturity of experience factor but his strengh is in his freshness. Oddly, I also like Thompson ... talk about opposites, lol.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: one_less who wrote (20731)1/16/2008 5:02:44 PM
From: epicure
   of 20773
 
I don't think maturity is all it's cracked up to be. Frequently old people just end up getting more confirmed in their prejudices, and I can't say that I see that as a great thing in a leader. A man of middle years, with an enquiring and intelligent mind open to new information, is going to be the candidate I will want- and Obama is the only person I can see like that in this race. Romney has certainly been willing to flop around a lot, and deny his religion, but that seems more like insincere pandering than it does like an open mind, but then I'm annoyed with him for his "We ALL believe in Jesus" speech- since I'm an agnostic, and I don't, and the president really should be the president for everyone, not just for the folks who think they're going to heaven.

JMO of course

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: epicure who wrote (20732)1/16/2008 5:12:22 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
Good leadership requires many qualities. I like what I've seen in Obama so far. We wont know about any of the candidates until or unless they are put to the oval office test. I don't care about the dogma of a candidate's cultural group or heritage, I realize how those loyalties can be tight, as much as I care about their personal stand on principles. But I am not impressed by Romney's tendency to pander. As far as religious guys go, I like Huckabee better, he seems more genuine.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: epicure who wrote (20732)1/17/2008 12:14:07 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
There was something about Obama's decision to reject Kerry's endorsement that resonated. I'm not clear on the details but it felt ethical.

I am ready, actually it is long over due that we make a clean break from the corruption that has become status quo in our government. It is time to start holding politicians accountable and to the highest degree of accountability we hold any citizen. Politicians who are receiving vast sums to support legislation promoting the interests of some special interest group, may be directly liable for the costs and the harms done to the American economy and the American people. They should not get a pass on corruption simply because they received votes or millions in campaign contributions.

Gore defended a failed NAFTA, why doesn’t Hillary remember it, are there profiteers exploiting our government's operations in Iraq and have politicians colluded with them? I don’t care if its some special interest lobbyist or Bush himself. Why has our border become a hotbed of illegal activity. Was it in the best financial interests of some politicians to leave the problem to fester, it certainly isn't because it is in the best interests of the American people. A poorly judged or executed policy can be overlooked when corrections are made but allowing influences that are not in the best interests of our nation and it’s people to seep into our government decision making is no less than criminal corruption.

When politicians are held responsible for corrupt decisions the people begin to take back the power and politicians who enter politics for profit are history.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: epicure who wrote (20732)1/17/2008 1:01:59 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
It should be especially unsettling to young voters that in America, rule by the people has been replaced by rule according to Special Interests and Lobbys. These groups, in turn, have become so intrenched that their leadership is subject to a stratifying layer of corrupt influences. When each special interest group begins scratching the backs of the others for the sake of political alliance we completely lose accountability to the people. The people become dependant on the group, rather than the group leadership simply being representative of the people.

To address corruption of government representation, we would also be requiring a major overhaul of these special interest machinations. If you understand the challenges and risks associated with such an endeavor, you may begin to understand why any pressure to return to civil nobility in government representation is largely ignored.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: one_less who wrote (20735)1/18/2008 4:25:16 PM
From: epicure
   of 20773
 
I don't think young voters care as much as we could wish they did.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: one_less who wrote (20727)3/30/2008 4:14:42 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
It wasn't so unreasonable to call the MX the Peacekeeper.

Deterrence can keep peace, and indeed nuclear weapons where one of the reasons we never had open full scale warfare against the USSR.

I agree with you that "change" isn't a very meaningful platform.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20737)3/30/2008 6:46:52 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
It is not that it was an unreasonable application of the term on its own merit; it is that when you juxtapose the term Peace across the political venues of the day, there is a lack of consistency. The term appears to have been weather beaten by political exploitation stemming from the VietNam war era ... Much like we see today with terms like, terror, torture, and change.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10