Obama the war monger; Left still silent...

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

There is far too much information available, unfiltered nor controlled by the media.

And you know that people are too lazy or disinterested to actually find that information. They prefer to watch their talking head of choice and form their opinion based on that. Or their favorite entertainer.

You know this is true. If it weren't true, Madonna wouldn't get so much coverage when she pontificates on her political and social views. The press wouldn't even bother with it. Instead, they highlight the Leftist celebrity du jour and say, "See? Leonardo DiCaprio likes Barack Obama and thinks he has the right plan for America. Don't you want to be like Leo? Rich, good-looking, popular?"

Contrast that to how conservative celebrities are portrayed in the media, and there's your answer.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

OK, but I do see just ONE problem; people NOT voting for whom they actually support.

And I am telling you that most people do not know who they "actually" support. They support who they're told to support, not who they "actually" support because they don't know anything about the issues or the candidates.

I can find you tons of video that demonstrates this.

[twinoaks207 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

OK, but I do see just ONE problem; people NOT voting for whom they actually support. Can you put an actual percentage on the amount of time that this happens?The counter argument is that we must vote for our team or their team will win because, no matter what, our team will always be a little better. That is a textbook recipe for the status quo. You are assuming that it must stay the same with only 2 teams to choose from. What if, by using Internet resources or other means, a third or fourth or fifth option comes into play.

The ONLY way the GOP will change from the status quo is if it is forced to by enough people rejecting what they do. Well, yeah, this is how any change is evidenced -- too many people refuse to accept the status quo. Whether they do it from within the GOP or without, it would still have the same effect.

The Dems changed. They got a full blown flaming liberal who wants to socialize everything. They get that by accepting the status quo?

Stop thinking Dems/GOP! We used to be Whigs & Tories, too! What happened to them? Just because it is Now, does not mean that it is etched in stone and cannot change. You are limiting yourself! Think outside the box!!! This is an ideal time to come up with something new! Seems kind of obvious that if we keep relying on Dems/GOP we'll keep having the same kinds of issues in elections. Don't know about you, but I've decide that it isn't working and I'm ready to dump 'em both & try for something else!

See above -- too lazy to copy & paste -- just look at red...

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

The Dems changed. They got a full blown flaming liberal who wants to socialize everything. They get that by accepting the status quo?

I don't think ideology played all that much a part. I think people voted for the image.

I realize that Howard Stern's bits with Obama voters isn't "proof", but it validates to some degree what we already know - a lot of people wanted to vote for Obama, and it didn't matter one bit to them that the issues that were mentioned to them were MCCAIN'S positions or that the ones they opposed were OBAMA'S. They were gonna vote for him. They wanted his message of "change" even if they had no intention whatsoever of reading any of the fine print.

Here's where I do agree with Vrai on this - get a really smart, charismatic conservative out there - and the mainstream press will rip him to pieces. The media convinces the public "you've never heard of him? we have. he's a loon". The only way you get a populist Republican is if he's in the public eye for a long time without being a Presidential candidate. Because then, people form an opinion of him without FIRST being tainted by what the press has to say.

This is how you get a Ronald Reagan, although I admit, I bought into the press image of him as being colossally stupid. That's when I wrote in Nixon instead.

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

And you know that people are too lazy or disinterested to actually find that information. They prefer to watch their talking head of choice and form their opinion based on that. Or their favorite entertainer.

I get all my Political Info from Beaver Cleaver on SOMD.com

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

If we want to break the way things are done, SOMEONE has to come up with a third way. A third option that will get people energized.

Politicians are always talking about "change". Even before Obama made "Change" is official slogan, the change thing is what people rally behind.



I'd like to get up there and tell people that we don't need change. What we need is to continue to be the greatest ass-kickin country on earth because dammit, God is on our side! I'd tell people that we are the best and I would have huge parties where the theme is Americans patting each other on the back for being the most awesome nation in the history of earth!

I'd win in a landslide.




Of course, on January 21st, I'd do a 180 after I finished unpacking my bags, and I would go berserk on the entire establishment with a meat-axe.

[twinoaks207 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

This is how you get a Ronald Reagan, although I admit, I bought into the press image of him as being colossally stupid. That's when I wrote in Nixon instead.

Experiential learning can be a real ##### sometimes, huh?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Toxick

Politicians are always talking about "change". Even before Obama made "Change" is official slogan, the change thing is what people rally behind..

Don't I know it.

Do you remember Jimmy Carter's big slogan?
"A Leader ... For a Change". Not really on the 'change' aspect, but mainly on being a *leader*. What America needed was a LEADER, and he was going to be it. Funny, but of ALL the things I remember about Carter, being a strong leader would definitely come dead last in my recollection. With the exception of maybe the Camp David accords, I can't think of a single moment where I didn't feel embarassed by him as a leader.

Mondale gave us "America Needs a Change".

John Edwards was the "Campaign to Change America".

Hillary's was "Ready for Change"

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.