Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
I already was one of you. When I was 18!
Genius wanes as the years wear on
That's why Lux is such a beautiful anomaly!
No way man...I'm just hitting my prime! You think you hate me now? Stick around these boards for another 10 years. The band might not be kicking but I'll sure be!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
I already was one of you. When I was 18!
Genius wanes as the years wear on
That's why Lux is such a beautiful anomaly!
You are too kind, Gambs! The older I get the more I know I don't know and can't remember. And it's good to learn from those who are younger and still have that spark and vitality. I learn much here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
I already was one of you. When I was 18!
Genius wanes as the years wear on
That's why Lux is such a beautiful anomaly!
No way man...I'm just hitting my prime! You think you hate me now? Stick around these boards for another 10 years. The band might not be kicking but I'll sure be!
In another 10 years I'll be more radical than ever! Lol Lord willing*, I will be introducing my tweenager to activism and getting deeper into the wilderness than ever before (with him).
*I am mostly an atheist, but there just isn't much good language out there for expressing some of the old God phrases. Universe, luck, life, none of those have the same ring.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
I already was one of you. When I was 18!
Genius wanes as the years wear on
That's why Lux is such a beautiful anomaly!
No way man...I'm just hitting my prime! You think you hate me now? Stick around these boards for another 10 years. The band might not be kicking but I'll sure be!
In another 10 years I'll be more radical than ever! Lol Lord willing*, I will be introducing my tweenager to activism and getting deeper into the wilderness than ever before (with him).
*I am mostly an atheist, but there just isn't much good language out there for expressing some of the old God phrases. Universe, luck, life, none of those have the same ring.
I tend to just lift from Terminator 2 and tell my kids "There is no fate but what we make"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
Yes, it's refreshing.
And thank you for clarification on that point, Asterisk. Always happy when we do the right thing here in CA.
Badbrains and Brian,
Thank you for the kind welcome. Much appreciated. I'm not new to the forum, but I am newish to AMT.
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
I've noted the same as you. That's why I can't ever vote for any of them.
The other point of my post was that it makes no difference to me if it's a man or woman as long as they are aligned with my beliefs and demonstrate that alignment with their actions.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
That is a good question. I think it is by choice. I think the motivation to make that choice can vary from pragmatism (knowing they need to modify their opinions to be more broadly accepted), to consciously doing whatever they need to do to get ahead, amass more power, integrate more tightly with the machine that drives the party.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
That is a good question. I think it is by choice. I think the motivation to make that choice can vary from pragmatism (knowing they need to modify their opinions to be more broadly accepted), to consciously doing whatever they need to do to get ahead, amass more power, integrate more tightly with the machine that drives the party.
I actually hope you are right but I doubt they really have much choice in anything they do. Just a hunch- who knows.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
That is a good question. I think it is by choice. I think the motivation to make that choice can vary from pragmatism (knowing they need to modify their opinions to be more broadly accepted), to consciously doing whatever they need to do to get ahead, amass more power, integrate more tightly with the machine that drives the party.
I actually hope you are right but I doubt they really have much choice in anything they do. Just a hunch- who knows.
At what point do you think they don't have a choice? Maybe I'm missing what you're implying. I think it is their choice to compromise principles in order to advance. I don't know what kind of choices they have once they commit, though. Once they're part of the machine, they're along for the ride. Speech writers, political advisors, spokespeople, fundraisers all keep that machine rolling.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
That is a good question. I think it is by choice. I think the motivation to make that choice can vary from pragmatism (knowing they need to modify their opinions to be more broadly accepted), to consciously doing whatever they need to do to get ahead, amass more power, integrate more tightly with the machine that drives the party.
I actually hope you are right but I doubt they really have much choice in anything they do. Just a hunch- who knows.
At what point do you think they don't have a choice? Maybe I'm missing what you're implying. I think it is their choice to compromise principles in order to advance. I don't know what kind of choices they have once they commit, though. Once they're part of the machine, they're along for the ride.Speech writers, political advisors, spokespeople, fundraisers all keep that machine rolling.
Who tells who what to do? The POTUSS or the Machine?
Or is it whom? English...
Post edited by brianlux on
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
That is a good question. I think it is by choice. I think the motivation to make that choice can vary from pragmatism (knowing they need to modify their opinions to be more broadly accepted), to consciously doing whatever they need to do to get ahead, amass more power, integrate more tightly with the machine that drives the party.
I actually hope you are right but I doubt they really have much choice in anything they do. Just a hunch- who knows.
At what point do you think they don't have a choice? Maybe I'm missing what you're implying. I think it is their choice to compromise principles in order to advance. I don't know what kind of choices they have once they commit, though. Once they're part of the machine, they're along for the ride.Speech writers, political advisors, spokespeople, fundraisers all keep that machine rolling.
Who tells who what to do? The POTUSS or the Machine?
Or is it whom? English...
That's another great question!! I'd really like to think that ultimately the President still calls his own shots to some extent. I believe Obama does. I don't necessarily believe GBW always did. He had very strong, seasoned political players running that show (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Baker, etc...).
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,295
Whichever one believes and acts exactly the way I believe is good enough for me.
Is there one? In my 30 years of voting for Pres it is hard enough to find a candidate that even approximates my beliefs, let alone believes and acts exactly the way I believe. I can't imagine a candidate making it to the national stage with integrity and convictions in tact. They've all had to compromise and sells bits and pieces of their souls to get to the national spotlight.
Question is, was that by choice?
That is a good question. I think it is by choice. I think the motivation to make that choice can vary from pragmatism (knowing they need to modify their opinions to be more broadly accepted), to consciously doing whatever they need to do to get ahead, amass more power, integrate more tightly with the machine that drives the party.
I actually hope you are right but I doubt they really have much choice in anything they do. Just a hunch- who knows.
At what point do you think they don't have a choice? Maybe I'm missing what you're implying. I think it is their choice to compromise principles in order to advance. I don't know what kind of choices they have once they commit, though. Once they're part of the machine, they're along for the ride.Speech writers, political advisors, spokespeople, fundraisers all keep that machine rolling.
Who tells who what to do? The POTUSS or the Machine?
Or is it whom? English...
That's another great question!! I'd really like to think that ultimately the President still calls his own shots to some extent. I believe Obama does. I don't necessarily believe GBW always did. He had very strong, seasoned political players running that show (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Baker, etc...).
I'd really like to think so do, Jeff. Otherwise, it's very easy to fall into thinking the idea that voting is a waste of time so why do it. And in some ways, it does seem like a waste of time to me but it's very little time spend so I keep hoping something good comes from it.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
There is this guy up here in the cold north with an absurdly long last name who conducts interviews really well. Not quite sure how many muricans know of him but anyway here is an interview with Hillary from 2010.
The excerpt from 13:20 - 14:30 is a reason why I would vote for her if I was American. I am all for advancing the rights and care of women.
Life has been dealing me some crap hands lately. I figure that discussing politics isn't good for the soul until my ship is uprighted. But I still have all my fingers and toes so all shall soon be good and I can become a political curmudgeon once again in the near future.
Comments
vote for ldent42!
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
That's why Lux is such a beautiful anomaly!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Lord willing*, I will be introducing my tweenager to activism and getting deeper into the wilderness than ever before (with him).
*I am mostly an atheist, but there just isn't much good language out there for expressing some of the old God phrases.
Universe, luck, life, none of those have the same ring.
I want an "Ident42 in 2016" bumper sticker!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Thank you for the kind welcome. Much appreciated. I'm not new to the forum, but I am newish to AMT.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The other point of my post was that it makes no difference to me if it's a man or woman as long as they are aligned with my beliefs and demonstrate that alignment with their actions.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Or is it whom? English...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Thought this was rather fun.
Not quite sure how many muricans
The excerpt from 13:20 - 14:30 is a reason why I would vote for her if I was American. I am all for advancing the rights and care of women.
edit - anyone who is against abortion for religious reasons should've been aborted.