Draft Al Gore

Check out the catchy song on the website, Run Al Run, How can you lose when you already won?

http://www.draftgore.com/

I have come to the conclusion that none of the other candidates have the "right stuff" and it is Al Gore's destiny to run for and get what was stolen from him in 2000, and fix the damage of the big mistake.

What do you think?

What do you think?I think it confirms the opinion I've long held of you

Is that all you can say? Why resort to an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the issue presented, the merit of the idea of Al Gore running for president again.

BTW, I have abandoned my support for Bill Richardson. After watching a one hour interview with him on Meet The Press, it seems clear he is too rough around the edges to really be president.

http://www.slate.com/id/2167195/fr/flyout

Why resort to an ad hominem attack ..."Attack"? You are making an inference there, surely?

Why resort to an ad hominem attack ..."Attack"? You are making an inference there, surely?
For sure, I am indeed, dude.
But, never mind, what do you think about Al Gore?

But, never mind, what do you think about Al Gore?Since like (I'm guessing) 50% of Forum members I am not an American I don't vote in Presidential elections, so why should you care. However, he's a self-promoter, like all politicians, and like most of them given to hyperbole. Who can forget his claim, as Vice President, that he "invented the Internet"?

But, never mind, what do you think about Al Gore?Since like (I'm guessing) 50% of Forum members I am not an American I don't vote in Presidential elections, so why should you care. However, he's a self-promoter, like all politicians, and like most of them given to hyperbole. Who can forget his claim, as Vice President, that he "invented the Internet"?
Obviously, you have no idea what he has been up to lately. The importance of Al Gore goes way beyond US borders. Indeed, the American president is still the most powerful human on the planet. Everyone should care.

But thanks for sharing your stale, dated, impressions. I can now assume your "opinions" about me are most probably just as shallow.

Obviously, you have no idea what he has been up to lately. The importance of Al Gore goes way beyond US borders.I assume you're referring to that rather tendentious film, An Inconvenient Truth. Adolf Hitler was a well-known conservationist, but I wouldn't vote for him on those grounds

Obviously, you have no idea what he has been up to lately. The importance of Al Gore goes way beyond US borders.I assume you're referring to that rather tendentious film, An Inconvenient Truth. Adolf Hitler was a well-known conservationist, but I wouldn't vote for him on those grounds
Oy vey, you are quite silly! Comparing Gore to Hitler. Truly bizarre. I can see comparing Bush to Hitler, but not Gore.

I am sorry, you were correct. You were not qualified to make an intelligent comment on this topic:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 09,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622009,00.html)

http://draftgore.com/mercurynews.htm

Al Gore about his new best seller, Assault on Reason


I've dedicated my book, The Assault on Reason, to my father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., the bravest politician I've ever known. In the 1970 mid-term elections, President Richard Nixon relied on a campaign of fear to consolidate his power. I was in the military at the time, on my way to Vietnam as an army journalist, and I watched as my father was accused of being unpatriotic because he was steadfast in his opposition to the War--and as he was labeled an atheist because he dared to oppose a constitutional amendment to foster government-sponsored prayer in the public schools. The 1970 campaign is now regarded by political historians as a watershed, marking a sharp decline in the tone of our national discourse--a decline that has only worsened in recent years as fear has become a more powerful political tool than trust, public consumption of entertainment has dramatically surpassed that of serious news, and blind faith has proven more potent than truth.

We are at a pivotal moment in American democracy. The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, has reached levels that were previously unimaginable. It's too easy and too partisan to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes.

Reasoned, focused discourse is vital to our democracy to ensure a well-informed citizenry. But this is difficult in an environment in which we are experiencing a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time--from the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials to Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith.

Never has it been more vital for us to face the reality of our long-term challenges, from the climate crisis to the war in Iraq to the deficits and health and social welfare. Today, reason is under assault by forces using sophisticated techniques such as propaganda, psychology, and electronic mass media. Yet, democracy's advocates are beginning to use their own sophisticated techniques: the Internet, online organizing, blogs, and wikis. Although the challenges we face are great, I am more confident than ever before that democracy will prevail and that the American people are rising to the challenge of reinvigorating self-government. It is my great hope that those who read my book will choose to become part of a new movement to rekindle the true spirit of America.

Oh dear, and I thought you were opposed to ad hominem arguments. Life must be full of disappointments for a sentimentalist such as yourself. You could always capitalize on your enthusiasm, however. If you visit http://www.intrade.com you will find many opportunities to back Al Gore as a candidate or even as the winner of the 2008 election with real money - yours. If he wins (and my money's on the opposite result) you'll get a handsome return and some feel-good factor

Al Gore's father, by the way, was one of the more corrupt US senators of his day, and young Al's schooling was paid for by those who courted Big Oil (Armand Hammer, for example) - you should read material produced by others, rather than Al's self-serving hagiography - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n14315114 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000521/ai_n14315114)

I am not even predicting Al Gore will even run. I think he will not.
I do think he should run. There is a groundswell building to persuade him to run. That is because he is so much better than the other alternatives:

Hillary Clinton: cold personality, not trusted, hated by over 40 percent of Americans, just too divisive a figure, America now needs unity.
Barack Obama: too inexperienced, half baked, fails to be clear about his real positons, good choice for Vice President
John Edwards: a good man but given the superficiality of the American voters, his pretty slick rich boy physical appearance makes his chances almost nil
Bill Richardson: the best resume of any person in the race on either side, but recently proven he is just not ready for the really big show, President, and probably never will be

I do think if Al Gore runs he would definitely win. And yes, I do indeed think he is a great and historical figure, whether he runs or not.

Nobody cares about those Hammer stories anymore. In fact, they were not a factor at all when Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Completely irrelevant to today's politics. Passion and sentiment in politics? Why the hell not? Al Gore is now the most beloved American politician alive today.

[Smiles]

deleted

[jimnbkk]

is ahead on the poll u get to participate in when u click the google ad at the bottom of this page. The result of 38,173 votes include:
Hillary 10%
John E 8%
Rudy 7%
Al Gore 11%
Barak 10%
Mit 8%
Richardson 3%

There are a bunch of others too, but these were the most interesting to me. I wonder if Al Gore's showing is a result of his popularity, or the type of people who take part in this kind of poll? (I hate to agree with jinthing, but I voted for Al) I think he and maybe John Edwards are the two that are smart and savvy enough to bring this country back from the dark ages that W has put us into.

[jimnbkk]

is ahead on the poll u get to participate in when u click the google ad at the bottom of this page. The result of 38,173 votes include:
Hillary 10%
John E 8%
Rudy 7%
Al Gore 11%
Barak 10%
Mit 8%
Richardson 3%

There are a bunch of others too, but these were the most interesting to me. I wonder if Al Gore's showing is a result of his popularity, or the type of people who take part in this kind of poll? (I hate to agree with jinthing, but I voted for Al) I think he and maybe John Edwards are the two that are smart and savvy enough to bring this country back from the dark ages that W has put us into.

Oh jeez ... the Jingthing patented capitalizations have started. And this his first political rant on Sawatdee.
First, all caps. Then caps all bolded and increased to font size 26+. If you doubt me take a boo at Hedda's Hopper ( http://www.baht-stop.com/forums/index.php?showforum=13 ), chock-a-block full of Jingthing(X)isms.

Does Sawatdee deserve this?

Cheers ...

On topic: Al Gore will not run because he's stupifyingly boring. And he knows it.
ok, i didn't realize you were such an anal fusspot. i don't want any trouble. so i have changed the emphasis on four words, all caps to bold. i agree all caps can be abused, but disagree that it is not a legitimate way to emphasize certain points. but i don't want to offend your delicate sylistic sensibilities, thus the edit. ok, now fusspot? now normally capitalizing ok, sentence beginnings, and the word i would be correct, but now i know what i am dealing with.

gore boring? yes, the old gore was boring. But everyone says he has changed in remarkably good ways and is now as cool a figure as you could imagine in American politics. this kind of change is just about the opposite of boring. really boring people like michael moore are basically begging gore to run. gore is not boring. your info is dated.

i like john edwards politics alot too. what is the big problem agreeing with me. geezz. i find hillary the most offensive and the biggest mistake to nominate. the right wing wants hillary, they think she is the only one they have any chance of beating. do not give them that gift.

[jimnbkk]

raises a bunch of hackles for sure on some people. I see her as a 'brassy broad' who has little humor. Again, I agree with you. The Democrats have this election to lose. And, they could easily do it by nominating her.

But, as has been proven time and again: The Democrats are their own worst enemy. If Al had had some decent advice about 'letting his hair down' in the 2000 election, we wouldn't be going through all this now.

I cannot watch the news on Iraq any more. I get so upset at the total waste of human life, and the treasure resourses of the USA in that illegal, futile battle. Bush says that leaving now is leaving before 'we win the war'. He's so stupid. We Won the war when Saddam Hussein's army was defeated. Now, we're sitting insanely in the middle of a civil war, getting our young soldiers killed for NOTHING. We need to leave, let the Iraqi's sort themselves out, then declare victory.

gore is not boring. your info is dated.You must be devastated, Smiles dear boy. Dated info :bounce:

Once again the American people (Republicans, Democrats, Independents) are faced with voting for the least objectionable shit-for-brains politican. A country with 250 million people and this is all we can come up with. We need some new blood. We do not need experience, we need fresh blood with new ideas. That's always been the problem. Nothing changes, it just grinds on with no progress on any of the issues. They will be talking about all the same issues they talked about 4, 8, 12 years ago. Sorry they could all get killed tomarrow and it might be possible for a little bit of a fresh start. As it is now, it's the same old crap coming out of the same old hacks. Al Gore was a looser as vice president. He a weak, unimpressive figure who has gotten on the global warming bandwagon. Hillary is a cold fish only interested in Hillary. I could go on buy you get my drift. Sorry but none of those running, republicans or democrats, are any more qualified for the job than I am, probably less so because they carry too much baggage. Anyone want to nominate me? At least we might get a younger good looking cabinet and some new uniforms for the military which show off those young hot bods. Don't say it, I already know I'm too shallow.

Gosh, Smiles, look at this - (worst of all he's pedantic - just the thing Jingthing accuses you of - maybe you could be the next president!?)
"He's very smart," concurred Alan Schwartz, wearing a T-shirt with Mr Bush's image and the words "Worst President Ever". And therein lies a problem for the "Gore 2008" bubble. The publication of Mr Gore's book has fed fervent hopes among environmentalists and others on the left that he will run again for the presidency - an unlikely prospect, but one he does not completely dismiss. Yet reading Mr Gore's book, or listening to his speeches, may remind voters what they liked least about him when he ran unsuccessfully in 2000. Mr Gore is smart and sometimes prophetic - but, all too frequently, pedantic.

"It's the biggest problem he's got," said Mr Schwartz. "People don't want somebody who makes them feel stupid." Imagine the Iowa pig farmer opening The Assault on Reason and meeting Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Johannes Gutenberg, John Stuart Mill and Marshall McLuhan - just in the intro. Or try this: "The architectural breakthrough associated with massive parallelism was to break up the power of the CPU and distribute it throughout the memory field to lots of smaller separate 'microprocessors' - each one co-located with the portion of the memory field it was responsible for processing."

Not that you would doubt Mr Gore on this point, but, just in case, there are 273 endnotes.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/talk-a ... 38660.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/talk-about-bookish-gore-tome-too-highbrow-for-pig-farmers/2007/05/30/1180205338660.html)

[Bob]

Once again the American people (Republicans, Democrats, Independents) are faced with voting for the least objectionable shit-for-brains politican.

Unfortunately, so true. Out of of 300,000,000+ citizens, you'd think we'd be able to come up with an intelligent candidate or two whose souls weren't owned by some interest group. But, alas, no. I'm getting to think that every politician in the world is shit-for-brains (I mean, heck, there's got to be a good one somewhere but at the moment I can't think of one).

As for Al Gore, a boring bag of wind as far as I'm concerned. I might vote for him as the head librarian but I wouldn't be enthusiastic about him being my leader.

As for me, at the moment I'd vote for Obama. Why? He's obviously intelligent, has a lot of charisma, and I don't know enough about him yet to dislike or distrust him.

As for me, at the moment I'd vote for Obama. Why? He's obviously intelligent, has a lot of charisma, and I don't know enough about him yet to dislike or distrust him.Won't someone be taking a shot at him fairly soon? That is, after all, the American way

I completely disagree.
I won't speak to the republicans, as I don't care and they will probably lose this time.
On the democratic side, there is an entire stable of extremely high intelligence candidates. All of them are exceptionally bright. Shit for brains does not apply to any of them, and if you think that it does, this tells me about your brain, not theirs.

Obama indeed is a brilliant man and has lots of potential. His recent health care announcement proves one of his major flaws. No details about how he can actually accomplish it in the real world. He is still a baby politico. For those who really do want a fresh face, he is it. I personally want a seasoned champion. A man who has already proven he can win the presidency, whether you think he is boring or not, and if you think he is too boring and he does run you will be shown you are wrong: Al Gore. If not, frankly, any one of the remaining democrats is vastly superior to any of the republicans. Yes, on ideology alone.

... a well-argued and wholly rational response from Jingthing

... a well-argued and wholly rational response from Jingthing
Homi, you would attack me if I said the sky is up, water is good to drink, and your shit stinks. Admit it.

[Dboy]

What do you think?

I've more-or-less decided to stop voting in presidential elections due to lack of confidence in the
system. I do agree with you that Gore would be the best candidate if he were to run.

Disagree with you on Obama, and would never consider voting for him due to his statements
concerning gun control, AIPAC, ME issues, and the fact that he's a candidate created by marketing consultants.


Dboy

Obama is probably my least favorite, but there is no doubt he is a very smart cookie. Just look at his resume. Any democrat can beat any republican this time, even Chris Dodd. Hillary is the biggest risk, and in my view, not worth it, though I would love to see more of Bill.

Okay, I will try to be serious for a moment regarding the candidates. Sure all of them are above average intelligence. No doubt about that. The problem Jingthing is that all of them are political hacks spouting the same old garbage we hear every election. Not one has yet has expressed any concrete programs for any of the problems we now face. None of them will do that during the course of the election campaigns, they never do. Hillary states that if elected she will have the troops out of Iraq. Well, I would hate to point out that it is not as easy as that. As much as the majority of the American people feel in hindsight we made a mistake there has to be a systematic method for withdrawal and neither she nor anyone else can just pull the plug and bring the troops home. So what is her god damn plan. She does not have one and she is just making political rhetoric. I knew before we went into Iraq it was a mistake. I served in Vietnam and I have been to the Vietnam War Memorial, 50,000 names one after the other of young men who died for NOTHING. It seems that not one lesson was learned from our effort in Vietnam by any of those that voted for this war including Hillary. It makes me want to shoot every damn politician that still supports this war. Young men and women are getting killed everyday not to mention the thousands of Iraqis. She is against it now but she voted with Bush on this one. That alone condemns her in my mind. The whole election campaign will be regarding the following issues: Gun Control, Abortion, Iraq, Stem cell research, illegal immigration, health care and social security. So what is new? With the exception of Iraq and stem cell research, these have been the same issues for the last 4 presidential elections. Please show me where the executive or legislative branch has resolved one of these issues. These candidates haven't and they won't because they are of the same mindset we have had for 30 years.

So what we need is people with common sense not extreme intelligence. That's been the problem for a long time. The politicians see the world as a chess board. It is not, it is a place made up of millions of people just trying to survive, raise their children and live their lives. It is time the United States and other countries stopped meddling in the internal politics of every country on earth. Even now the US is giving money to organizations working against the Iranian government and our political leadership can't understand why the Iranians might just want to prove a point by working on nuclear capabilities. This is not rocket science here it is the fact that each of us probably has more knowledge of the little people making up this planet than our leaders. It comes back to common sense in my opinion. Surely the US can look out for its interests around the world without alienating everyone. The candidates are from the same ilk as previous administrations. Nothing new at all. So please spare me on how brilliant these candidates might be. Lots of people are book smart but can't get matching socks on. It amazes me anyone can be enthused about the line up of the same old reruns. The choice is appalling. The crap certainly raised to the top in this case.

... a well-argued and wholly rational response from Jingthing
Homi, you would attack me if I said the sky is up, water is good to drink, and your shit stinks. Admit it.You disagree with my assessment? You don't believe your responses are always well-argued and wholly rational?

Bob,
They are politicians.
Politicians do politicking. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.
You are required to read between the lines when making your selection. There are certain things you cannot say and hope to get elected. If a good person can't get elected, he can't get anything done, so getting elected has to be job number one. Again, the real world, too much for adult children to accept.
Surveys are showing democrats are mostly enthused by the wealth of the choices this time. They are all pretty much all better than John Kerry.
I have always been a political junkie. The choice this time is as good as it has ever been in my lifetime. If you think it will get much better than this, maybe in your dreams.
If you think it doesn't matter who gets elected, even if they aren't perfect, and no president is perfect, look at bush. It matters who wins. It matters very much.

... a well-argued and wholly rational response from Jingthing
Homi, you would attack me if I said the sky is up, water is good to drink, and your shit stinks. Admit it.You disagree with my assessment? You don't believe your responses are always well-argued and wholly rational?
Do you think you are clever?

You don't believe your responses are always well-argued and wholly rational?
Do you think you are clever?Think? No

You don't believe your responses are always well-argued and wholly rational?
Do you think you are clever?Think? No
OK, that was cute.

[Dboy]

If you think it doesn't matter who gets elected, even if they aren't perfect, and no president is perfect, look at bush. It matters who wins. It matters very much.

I think it definitely matters who gets elected, but since we are presented with false choices, voting is futile. The "choices" we are presented with are all owned by the establishment/corporations, therefore real change that could threaten that establishment will never make it past the filtering process. If you can control the choices, then you can control the outcome. If can control the outcome, then the entire exercise is merely a fantasy created to appear democratic.

Dboy

If you think it doesn't matter who gets elected, even if they aren't perfect, and no president is perfect, look at bush. It matters who wins. It matters very much.

I think it definitely matters who gets elected, but since we are presented with false choices, voting is futile. The "choices" we are presented with are all owned by the establishment/corporations, therefore real change that could threaten that establishment will never make it past the filtering process. If you can control the choices, then you can control the outcome. If can control the outcome, then the entire exercise is merely a fantasy created to appear democratic.

Dboy
You just contradicted yourself.
Kerry would not have invaded Iraq. Kerry would not have made the Supreme Court a right wing stronghold. Like you said, it makes a big difference.
I understand your points about limited choices, but I do think the USA democratic to a large degree. The radical change you wish for would simply not be voted in by anywhere near the majority of voters.

"Politicians do politicking. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities."

Yes it does offend me. What happened to serving the country. People can't run for office and state what they think, what they believe in, what they would do because they might offend this group or that group? I have to read between the lines and sort it all out for myself and hope I voted for the right person who would not/could not give a straight answer. You are damn right it offends me. You maybe a political junkie and enjoy this game but this is the exact reason the voter turnout tends to be so low. Voters are being alienated from the process because it really doesn't matter to them that much when the process just grinds on.

I think it might be good to remember that Republican Bush is not the only bad guy who got us involved in a war. Everyones role model JFK involved us in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and started ramping up in Vietnam, LBJ carried on with the war in Vietnam until over 100 young men were dying each week. Seems to me Clinton involved us in Somalia, Yugoslavia. Right or wrong seems like we just can's stay out of foreign conflicts. I do not defend Bush for a minute with regard to Iraq but this whole things started out with 9/11 and the "terrorists" who had been growing in power for 8 years under the Clinton Administration. Our foreign policy has been flawed under recent administrations both Republican and Democrat. Instead of being respected for the good that we do, we constantly find ourselves the lone ranger.

My point is simply as dboy pointed out, we are indeed faced election after election not with honest campaigning but people who's primary interest is in position and power beholden to others. Sorry, that's the way I see it. If Reagan did nothing else, he pretty much said what he believed in, NOT what others wanted to hear. Good or bad when Reagan spoke I think he believed in what he was saying and I respect him for that if nothing else. I can't say that for the current crop of candidates. Sorry but I don't want candidates who say one thing this week to one group and something else next week to another group to get elected and then do something else altogether once they are in office. That maybe politics but in my mind it sucks and leaves me with little respect for those involved.

Now to really give you my take on what I think about politic ans I leave you with this. Why Osama bin Laden chose the World Trade Center to attack is beyond me. Killing a bunch of innocent people was too easy. If he had a gripe with the American government then attack the people directly responsible, the politicians. He could have done the same thing on the night of the State of the Union message at the Capitol and done the American people a favor in the process. See where I am coming from? Why is it the innocent always die and the leaders causing the problems go merrily on there way?

Don't forget that Osama targeted the Pentagon and White House simultaneously (unfortunately, with less success than at the WTC).

Not forgetten, BG.

:notworthy:

Americans: don't vote and you have no right to complain.
Yes, democrats have started wrong wars in the past.
There is every evidence that they would not have started this current wrong was in Iraq.
The damage caused to the world and the US by this biggest of mistakes will take decades to repair.
I am sorry you don't like your choices. No system is perfect. But again, there is a huge difference between the parties. You are correct, neither party represents revolutionary change. And again, Americans don't want revolutionary change. They want some major tweaks is all.

I think the American political system while not a pure democracy is indeed brilliant. What other country could have gone through Bush/Gore and not have a civil war? People knew there would be an election in four years and they could fix the mistake. It is irresponsible, childish people like some here who didn't turn out in great enough numbers to kick out a bad leader. It is not the sytem's fault, it is the laziness and lame excuses of people like we have posting here's fault. There was a clear choice, a huge difference, there is no good excuse.

[Dboy]

Americans: don't vote and you have no right to complain.

Incorrect. As long as you are paying taxes to the empire you have the right to complain about how that empire conducts itself. Votes are a measure of strength of the system...if you think the system is broken, don't vote.

Dboy

Americans: don't vote and you have no right to complain.

Incorrect. As long as you are paying taxes to the empire you have the right to complain about how that empire conducts itself. Votes are a measure of strength of the system...if you think the system is broken, don't vote.

Dboy
Democracy is a participatory system. Use it or lose it. I support the Australian system of required voting.

Americans: don't vote and you have no right to complain.

Incorrect. As long as you are paying taxes to the empire you have the right to complain about how that empire conducts itself. Votes are a measure of strength of the system...if you think the system is broken, don't vote.

Dboy
Democracy is a participatory system. Use it or lose it. I support the Australian system of required voting. The world understood that the 2000 election was stolen by the right wing. They didn't blame Americans for that. The election in 2004 was much more clear. The Americans actually reelected a right wing cowboy warmonger. Now most of the world blames Americans for that. I blame Americans too, especially those using lame excuses about how voting doesn't matter. Why don't you just burn your passport?

Obviously there is disagreement on what Jingting sees as a clear choice of candidates and what I see as the same old "stuff". We all are entitled to our opinion and no one in this matter is all right or all wrong. Bush and his advisers made a terrible mistake in getting involved in Iraq. They used personal animosities over good judgement. I do not defend Bush, in fact I would be quite happy if he got what he deserved, a bullet in the head from some "terrorist". As was stated by another, I pay my taxes and I pay a lot of them, I have every right to complain whether I do or do not vote. Give the American people some good candidates and you will see increased voter turnout.

As to Australia's method of mandatory voting. I would not find that so objectionable IF the United States could manage to let it's citizens vote for all the candidates. Seems like people in many of the states holding elections early get the chance to vote for their choice while those citizens in states holding elections later on find themselves only getting to vote for those who have not dropped out. Let's see how many drop out in the first 2 or 3 primaries. It is my opinion that the polls mostly reflect who the voters think have the best chance of winning rather than who they think would make the best president. Also it should be noted in primary elections we do not vote for a candidate in a general sense but for delegates committed to the first vote at a political party convention. States have different rules guiding their primary elections and how those delegates vote at the convention thus making the whole election process less that equal across the nation. If a primary were held on the same day across the nation we might have something worthwhile, but this convoluted process disenfranchises many voters. Then there is the lack of campaign spending limits to level the playing field. I say if you want "democratic" elections then hold the primaries the same day in all states, have spending limits, then let the top two top contenders go on to the presidential election. I have oversimplified this but you get my drift, but then those in power never want to change the rules that got them there, do they? I envy you, Jingting, thinking that what the little people like us are a factor in anything other than who is leading the parade. The political system in this country is now to the point that the parade continues on without regard as to who is grand marshall.

All this does not mean that the USA doesn't have a worthwhile political system, it does. My point is that no one in politics takes a stand on ANYTHING without some qualification. They waffle on everything they say and I, for one, am tired of it. This is just my take on American politics and I would bet that is pretty much the same everywhere. There maybe a monachy, at prime minister, president, or dictator but they all do the same things, throw enough crumbs out to keep the masses complacent and then enjoy their power, position, money, and let their egos run wild.

Reduce the pay, retirement, health care benefits, etc. set term limits, take away all the perks and put tight controls on financial transactions while in office and lets see if we can get some people in Congress who want to "serve" the public for the common good.

You will not ever convince me that the line up of presidential hopefuls will change anything. Just my "opinion". I guess we will see how it has gone in 2012 and have another go at it. I do think this nation needs a good deal more than a tweak to deal with the domestic and international problems facing us. We have some serious domestic issues and they are not getting fixed and will not get fixed with the current line up of candidates. Just my two cents.

You are a political nihilist.

Yes, you have every right to your opinion. You are correct, in the current system, no radical change will occur. It is also doubtful major problems will really be fixed, such as social security and health care access. However, at least all of the democrats are on the right side of all the issues that matter to me and will at the very least stem the tide of the enemies of these issues: gay rights, women's rights, abortion choice rights, racial civil and voting rights, preserving social security, medical care access for all, negotiations before invasion, global warming, and the list goes on. Yes, it does matter! How can you look at the damage done by Bush and deny this?

NIHILISM
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

[Smiles]

Thank you so much JingThing, for including the definition of 'nihilism'.

Cheers ...

Thank you so much JingThing, for including the definition of 'nihilism'.

Cheers ...
You are most welcome, kind sir.
I don't think most people realize that the definition extends to politics. The more common usage is purely philosophical.

Jingthing: You are probably correct in me being a political nihilist. I do believe the system is broken and in bad need of serious repair. I think we have seen throughout history that there is somewhat of a tendency that at some point things get so bad they end up torn apart before they change. I do not think the USA has reached that point but probably will at some point in time. That could be 50 years from now or 200 years from now. When the manufacturing and industry that made this country what it is have left our shores along with the wealth and the uneducated masses want more and more then you will probably see a change. I am not so sure that will be for the good. When and if that occurs is probably of little concern to us as we will not be there to see or participate in it. That's what history show me.

As to the fact that the Democratic candidates more closely mirror your views on the issues you set forth, I believe that is exactly why people are either Democrats or Republicans. I think that most people tend to vote for the party that they think will most closely give them what they want. Just remember that not all people have the same agenda as you. My problem is that I don't fit into either extreme. While I certainly cannot call myself at "independent" as one would probably define it in the USA, I am a middle of the road type of guy. While I would like to see certain social issues addressed I don't believe in taxing the hell out of one group of people to pay for the needs of another. I did not invite the 12 million plus illegal aliens into this country but I am expected to pay for their health care, educate their children, etc. I own them nothing. Just because we have establish geopolitical boundaries in the world does not mean I should be stuck with caring for every person that comes here for a better life any more than I am responsible for the poor in Bangladesh. The government in effect just puts a gun to my head and robs me of my income to pay for all the programs for these people. Let me give you a specific example of what legislation was passed in California a few years back. Their was a ballot initiative "to provide for funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors". Proposition 63 was passed by a very small majority of California voters. This measure placed a 1% tax on the adjusted gross income of persons making over a certain amount of income. The measure affected 30,000 individual taxpayers in California to fund these service and was anticipated to raise 1.8 billion dollars over the first three years. There is no doubt that funding for these services, etc. is a worthwhile thing. However shifting the responsibility of the populace in general to the few, whether or not they can "afford" it is wrong. If we want health care for all then all have to pay a share not just "those that can afford it". The bus riders here in Los Angeles protest because the cost of fares must go up to pay for increased costs. They want the taxpayers to increase the subsidy for their ridership when the rest of us face constantly increasing costs for our own transportation. So while I may side with you on many social issues, I also say that it is not the responsibility of the few to take on all the financial burden that the liberals would like to place on them. And please spare me the argument that (1) the rich can afford it and (2) they do not pay their share. That argument has been so overused and is blatantly untrue if you look at the statistics. In fact a study done in 2001 showed that 5% of all wage earners paid 53% of all taxes, 10% paid 64%, and 50% paid 96%. So that leaves the other 50% of wage earners at 4%. That 50% is also the largest beneficiary of the social programs. So to put this long winded crap into some perspective, I wish the Democrats who seem to like to throw money at everything could be a little less free with other peoples money and the Republicans could be a little more charitable where it is really needed. I don't think that is asking for too much. I can't even begin to address how our f__king president has squandered trillions on his war. Sorry just my take on things. When we get politicians who will do something then maybe I will change my tune. Until then Hillary and the rest deserve a kick in the ass. Bush as I said deserves something far worse.

Lastly Jingthing, I give you credit for still having some faith in the system. I have lost mine. You still see light while I see darkness. I am almost out of it now and if all goes right I will retire to live the rest of my life in peace without caring much about what becomes of the human race as long as I have my piece of the pie and finish out my life. Sorry to say that I think whether it is Hillary, or another Bush (heaven forbid) I believe 50 years from now the result will be the same. I do want you to know that I respect your views. Keep up the faith!