and it is a GREAt objective. i just would also think actually winning an election so that you can actually INACT some of your ideas would be most desired.
i am not looking for nader to 'hammer things out and compromise' with other candidates......i am looking further down the road with the hypothesis of IF he were elected president, i do not see him as someone willing to hammer things out, compromise, when it comes to policy change and any challenges to his ideas. i do not see him as a president. i simply do not see him as that kind of leader. i think he is an excellent activist, i think he plays a very important role in bringing ideas to light, questioning....would make an excellent advisor, full of ideas.....but not president. i just don't think he has the correct nature of compromise for it. and i will temper with that in NO way do i think bush was ever even remotely president material either. just b/c others may vote in candidates i totally disapporve of does not mean i agree there. now you want to disagree with my assessment of nader, fair enough, your right to do so. it Is just my pov. my opinion in no way should add to your saddness for this election.
personally, i truly thought this tread was NOT about 'this election' and more about what nader, or other outside candidates...can/should do to truly BE electable, and thus truly creating/supporting a viable third party. obviously, it's too late to change his game-plan now, and given his age and now 4? runs for office, i don't see him having steam for running again - although who knows? but he could apply his lessons learned to help OTHER candidates in the future and/or other candidates, or 3 parties, may well learn from it all. there absolutely is positive outcome to some degree of his running, win or no win. i just think many, myself included, would actually like to see *more*...as in more REAL 3rd party choices. some may argue against the party system, so be it....but right now, it's all we've got and i for 1 don't see viable alternatives. someone already said a lot more eloquently, you have to be in the system to change it.
What makes the 3rd party choices already out there not 'REAL' to you? Not real?? They are out there right now for people to get behind and vote for. I'm not following your logic here. If people continue to acknowledge that the 2 major parties are not working out for us the way they should be yet continue to vote for them and say they are 'all we have' when clearly they are NOT all we have then the reason these 3rd parties are not 'viable' is because people chose not to make it so. The voter has the choice and has no one to blame but themselves for the choices they make. You want ineffectual gov't...keep voting for it. You can't blame Ralph Nader for people not voting for him based on him not 'standing a chance'. That's absurd. You have to give someone a chance/take a chance on them for them to be a real option.
You have to be the change you wish to see in the world....can't say it enough. And if you're not willing to take a risk and get behind these guys based on your view of them not standing a chance, then how can you expect anyone else to? Candidates will have a chance once voters drop the fear of 'electability' and decide to give them the chance in the first place.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i am not looking for nader to 'hammer things out and compromise' with other candidates......i am looking further down the road with the hypothesis of IF he were elected president, i do not see him as someone willing to hammer things out, compromise, when it comes to policy change and any challenges to his ideas. i do not see him as a president. i simply do not see him as that kind of leader. i think he is an excellent activist, i think he plays a very important role in bringing ideas to light, questioning....would make an excellent advisor, full of ideas.....but not president. i just don't think he has the correct nature of compromise for it. and i will temper with that in NO way do i think bush was ever even remotely president material either. just b/c others may vote in candidates i totally disapporve of does not mean i agree there. now you want to disagree with my assessment of nader, fair enough, your right to do so. it Is just my pov. my opinion in no way should add to your saddness for this election.
personally, i truly thought this tread was NOT about 'this election' and more about what nader, or other outside candidates...can/should do to truly BE electable, and thus truly creating/supporting a viable third party. obviously, it's too late to change his game-plan now, and given his age and now 4? runs for office, i don't see him having steam for running again - although who knows? but he could apply his lessons learned to help OTHER candidates in the future and/or other candidates, or 3 parties, may well learn from it all. there absolutely is positive outcome to some degree of his running, win or no win. i just think many, myself included, would actually like to see *more*...as in more REAL 3rd party choices. some may argue against the party system, so be it....but right now, it's all we've got and i for 1 don't see viable alternatives. someone already said a lot more eloquently, you have to be in the system to change it.
ok, fair enough. but you're definitely wrong at the end. to say someone has to be inside of a system to change that system is overtly pessimistic and flat out cynical.
other than that, i basically think you're full of it and am ready to let the lemming go ahead and die, unfortunately you're blindness is an all-too-common ailment in America today and my own personal liberty is in jeopardy because the majority of persons feel more comfortable voting only for a candidate that has been presented on a silver-platter garnished with veggie-shards and fruit-trimmings. bon appetit!
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
and it is a GREAt objective. i just would also think actually winning an election so that you can actually INACT some of your ideas would be most desired.
i am not looking for nader to 'hammer things out and compromise' with other candidates......i am looking further down the road with the hypothesis of IF he were elected president, i do not see him as someone willing to hammer things out, compromise, when it comes to policy change and any challenges to his ideas. i do not see him as a president. i simply do not see him as that kind of leader. i think he is an excellent activist, i think he plays a very important role in bringing ideas to light, questioning....would make an excellent advisor, full of ideas.....but not president. i just don't think he has the correct nature of compromise for it. and i will temper with that in NO way do i think bush was ever even remotely president material either. just b/c others may vote in candidates i totally disapporve of does not mean i agree there. now you want to disagree with my assessment of nader, fair enough, your right to do so. it Is just my pov. my opinion in no way should add to your saddness for this election.
personally, i truly thought this tread was NOT about 'this election' and more about what nader, or other outside candidates...can/should do to truly BE electable, and thus truly creating/supporting a viable third party. obviously, it's too late to change his game-plan now, and given his age and now 4? runs for office, i don't see him having steam for running again - although who knows? but he could apply his lessons learned to help OTHER candidates in the future and/or other candidates, or 3 parties, may well learn from it all. there absolutely is positive outcome to some degree of his running, win or no win. i just think many, myself included, would actually like to see *more*...as in more REAL 3rd party choices. some may argue against the party system, so be it....but right now, it's all we've got and i for 1 don't see viable alternatives. someone already said a lot more eloquently, you have to be in the system to change it.
so...you don't think he'd be a good president b/c he won't compromise (and don't you mean give in, flip flop...) his beliefs? if he BELIEVED in something why would he change his pov to a stance he doesn't agree w/? it just seems obvious if you don't agree why would you give in??
the founding fathers disagreed that you must be 'in the system to change it' they clearly stated if the system is failing then revolt, DON'T GIVE IN, in fact they said that was the highest form of patriotism, that it was essential to keeping our liberties
and if they just give in then how are they gonna change things??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
ok, fair enough. but you're definitely wrong at the end. to say someone has to be inside of a system to change that system is overtly pessimistic and flat out cynical.
other than that, i basically think you're full of it and am ready to let the lemming go ahead and die, unfortunately you're blindness is an all-too-common ailment in America today and my own personal liberty is in jeopardy because the majority of persons feel more comfortable voting only for a candidate that has been presented on a silver-platter garnished with veggie-shards and fruit-trimmings. bon appetit!
well thank you so much for your assessment. funny, i don't think i am pessimistic nor cynical, but whateva. you are also reading in quite a LOT, making a lot of assumptions of how and why i go about voting, quite incorrectly i might add. just b/c i am not a nader supporter does not mean i would not truly support a thrid party candidate. i think i have said often enough i would REALLY like to see more 3rd party candidates, and when i refer to them as 'real' or 'viable'....i'd actually LIKE to see some elected and not just run! it's all well and good to get the message out there, it would just be way nicer if you support someone to be able to see some of these ideas put into action. and yes, i do believe you have to somehow get in the system to change it. why else would one RUN for president? to try to get IN...and try and CHANGE it. also what i thought this whole thread was about......HOW can that happen? i don't know.....thus why i am reading......
as to revolts, i don't see ANY candidate 'revolting'....i see them trying to get in the system to change it. also an entirely different subject in my mind. discussing elections, candidates...i see all trying to be a part of the system, sure for MANy different reasons. and hey, if someone knows a better way to affect the kind of change they want to see....excellent! isn't that what it's all about? as to compromise...i think one needs to stand by their ideals, but ALSO be able to compromise when necessary, to take steps towards the change they desire when it is evident that what they want to implement isn't going to happen. to me that is an important factor in a leader. change can and does come in many forms......sweeping change, and sometimes small steps....and everything inbetween.
fascinating. you have never met me. you have absolutely no idea what i do for my community and the work i have done for federal policies as well in an effort to affect change. and you have the nerve to tell me i don't have true inner balance and integrity? who the fuck do you think you are? i can tell you i do a lot more than post psychobabble bullshit on a band's website in an effort to engage in american politics. i'd call you a pompous asshole, but my inner Truth says i can come up with better.
What I know is that in your post, you talk about someone staying true to their beliefs as "playing it safe". Painting integral (integrity) beliefs in a negative light. (!???)
I also know that I referred to your post, wherein you quoted someone else who considered holding on to their beliefs ( ie: not compromising them) as being selfish.
The actual meaning of integrity is having an inner wholeness and being aligned with one's self. Any time anyone suggests, condones or advocates compromising their beliefs, it shows a lack of integrity in the area one refers to.
Integrity does not refer to picking and choosing when one stands by their own beliefs...rather, as people like Abook advocate in terms of voting, it refers to maintaining steadfast adherence to one's beliefs. As long as you continue to paint doing so in a negative light, I'm seeing that lack of integrity, balance and soundness. And when you advocate detaching from one's beliefs in order to win...it shows a literal lack of integrity.
When people sell out their own beliefs, they are oblivious to the ways they are tripping themselves up in imbalance.
integrity: in·teg·ri·ty
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
and that right there is why i think that is also the safe way to play it. while some may think they're so honorable, they're able to sit on the throne of self-righteousness, especially once the acknowledgment is made that they're not going to win. in the end they won't really have to be accountable in a way. they can say that they stayed 100% true to their beliefs and blogged and posted about it. and once that election happens, they're in the clear. they can continue hating on president obama.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I know is that in your post, you talk about someone staying true to their beliefs as "playing it safe". Painting integral (integrity) beliefs in a negative light. (!???)
I also know that I referred to your post, wherein you quoted someone else who considered holding on to their beliefs ( ie: not compromising them) as being selfish.
The actual meaning of integrity is having an inner wholeness and being aligned with one's self. Any time anyone suggests, condones or advocates compromising their beliefs, it shows a lack of integrity in the area one refers to.
Integrity does not refer to picking and choosing when one stands by their own beliefs...rather, as people like Abook advocate in terms of voting, it refers to maintaining steadfast adherence to one's beliefs. As long as you continue to paint doing so in a negative light, I'm seeing that lack of integrity, balance and soundness. And when you advocate detaching from one's beliefs in order to win...it shows a literal lack of integrity.
When people sell out their own beliefs, they are oblivious to the ways they are tripping themselves up in imbalance.
integrity: in·teg·ri·ty
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
Nice to see you back!
Our echo chamber has just not been the same without you, angelica.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Wait! Are you even allowed to agree with her? Or me with you? The rules are all so fuzzy these days. Who can have agreement privileges on this board again? I don't think we made that list.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Wait! Are you even allowed to agree with her? Or me with you? The rules are all so fuzzy these days. Who can have agreement privileges on this board again? I don't think we made that list.
If only we were agreeing that Obama was Super Dude 47... then we'd fit in... :(
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Let's not forget, tho, that it's only a valid list if you guys draw it up.
:rolleyes:
Oh yeah? Well if that were the case, I don't think I'd be hearing these silly replies of 'tag team' and what not whenever someone agrees with me. In fact, I would put everyone on the list because it doesn't get more more petty and childish to whine about people agreeing with each other when those same people have others who agree with them on a regular basis, as well.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Let's not forget, tho, that it's only a valid list if the board mafia draws it up.
what the Obama mob? Last I checked there were a lot more of you guys. And I can tell you from having history in replying to these threads, you guys don't hesitate to pile on. But that's fine by me...I can take you all on, no sweat.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
what the Obama mob? Last I checked there were a lot more of you guys. And I can tell you from having history in replying to these threads, you guys don't hesitate to pile on. But that's fine by me...I can take you all on, no sweat.
I agree.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Comments
What makes the 3rd party choices already out there not 'REAL' to you? Not real??
You have to be the change you wish to see in the world....can't say it enough. And if you're not willing to take a risk and get behind these guys based on your view of them not standing a chance, then how can you expect anyone else to? Candidates will have a chance once voters drop the fear of 'electability' and decide to give them the chance in the first place.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
ok, fair enough. but you're definitely wrong at the end. to say someone has to be inside of a system to change that system is overtly pessimistic and flat out cynical.
other than that, i basically think you're full of it and am ready to let the lemming go ahead and die, unfortunately you're blindness is an all-too-common ailment in America today and my own personal liberty is in jeopardy because the majority of persons feel more comfortable voting only for a candidate that has been presented on a silver-platter garnished with veggie-shards and fruit-trimmings. bon appetit!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
so...you don't think he'd be a good president b/c he won't compromise (and don't you mean give in, flip flop...) his beliefs? if he BELIEVED in something why would he change his pov to a stance he doesn't agree w/? it just seems obvious if you don't agree why would you give in??
the founding fathers disagreed that you must be 'in the system to change it' they clearly stated if the system is failing then revolt, DON'T GIVE IN, in fact they said that was the highest form of patriotism, that it was essential to keeping our liberties
and if they just give in then how are they gonna change things??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well thank you so much for your assessment.
as to revolts, i don't see ANY candidate 'revolting'....i see them trying to get in the system to change it. also an entirely different subject in my mind. discussing elections, candidates...i see all trying to be a part of the system, sure for MANy different reasons. and hey, if someone knows a better way to affect the kind of change they want to see....excellent! isn't that what it's all about? as to compromise...i think one needs to stand by their ideals, but ALSO be able to compromise when necessary, to take steps towards the change they desire when it is evident that what they want to implement isn't going to happen. to me that is an important factor in a leader. change can and does come in many forms......sweeping change, and sometimes small steps....and everything inbetween.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I also know that I referred to your post, wherein you quoted someone else who considered holding on to their beliefs ( ie: not compromising them) as being selfish.
The actual meaning of integrity is having an inner wholeness and being aligned with one's self. Any time anyone suggests, condones or advocates compromising their beliefs, it shows a lack of integrity in the area one refers to.
Integrity does not refer to picking and choosing when one stands by their own beliefs...rather, as people like Abook advocate in terms of voting, it refers to maintaining steadfast adherence to one's beliefs. As long as you continue to paint doing so in a negative light, I'm seeing that lack of integrity, balance and soundness. And when you advocate detaching from one's beliefs in order to win...it shows a literal lack of integrity.
When people sell out their own beliefs, they are oblivious to the ways they are tripping themselves up in imbalance.
integrity: in·teg·ri·ty
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nice to see you back!
Our echo chamber has just not been the same without you, angelica.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Exactly.
Well said!
Wait! Are you even allowed to agree with her? Or me with you? The rules are all so fuzzy these days. Who can have agreement privileges on this board again? I don't think we made that list.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If only we were agreeing that Obama was Super Dude 47... then we'd fit in... :(
Ooooooh, so that's how you make the list!!
Well jeez, no wonder they kept getting pissed! I mean, we clearly are breaking the rules and do not fall into that category.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Curse you, integrity! Always stopping us from being the social butterflies we so aspire to be.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Oh yeah? Well if that were the case, I don't think I'd be hearing these silly replies of 'tag team' and what not whenever someone agrees with me. In fact, I would put everyone on the list because it doesn't get more more petty and childish to whine about people agreeing with each other when those same people have others who agree with them on a regular basis, as well.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
what the Obama mob? Last I checked there were a lot more of you guys. And I can tell you from having history in replying to these threads, you guys don't hesitate to pile on. But that's fine by me...I can take you all on, no sweat.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree.
You're a straight up gangsta.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And apparently, you're my Don.
Sweet!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh, mine sucks too. Don't feel bad about it though... that's just...
*prepares for bad pun*
Who You Are. :eek:
*seething jealousy re-sparked*
I hope Columbia gets it, too and am thrilled they brought it back out after soooo long!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Consider it added to our long list of campaigns.
ever fighting against the odds.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Mob
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Ooooh - factual stuff about the Irish. You never cease to amaze me.
it's what i live for.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7