The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Erik: well said. In the end, I'll likely do exactly that. But history (recent history in particular) has given me no reason to believe that lipstickery stops or even slows once a candidate is elected, and my vote is an endorsement of that. Neither of the major candidate's campaign behaviors is commendable (whether that's the fault of player or game or both), and by electing one of them, we imply that the winner's conduct has represented the will of the people (or at least his supporters).

jimtyrrell wrote:Erik: well said. In the end, I'll likely do exactly that. But history (recent history in particular) has given me no reason to believe that lipstickery stops or even slows once a candidate is elected, and my vote is an endorsement of that. Neither of the major candidate's campaign behaviors is commendable (whether that's the fault of player or game or both), and by electing one of them, we imply that the winner's conduct has represented the will of the people (or at least his supporters).

Dude, if the "lipstickery" (whatever that means) continues, KEEP IGNORING IT AND FOCUS ON THE ISSUES.

It's so much more simple when seen in upper case!

I just don't think I can let myself ignore the full ramifications of my vote. But that's just me. I don't have anything more to add to that.

jimtyrrell wrote:It's so much more simple when seen in upper case!

I just don't think I can let myself ignore the full ramifications of my vote. But that's just me. I don't have anything more to add to that.

I know what you mean. It almost seems as if there is no hope at all. Our concern for the issues leads us to stay interested in who gets elected in order to carry out work on those exact issues. However, we're supposed to ignore the candidates campaign at the same time? Its nearly impossible and its very discouraging that we'd even have to.

But we can't exactly grab our rifles and flank the capital can we?

I fully expect a "I don't have to explain myself, I'm entitled to believe what I want to believe" answer here, but could either of you give me:

1) two examples, one from Obama's campaign (not just his supporters) and one from McCain's campaign (not just his supporters) that exemplifies how terrible this campaign is being run
2) an example of an Utopian ideal of how you'd like to see presidential campaigns be run in the US.

I'm not trying to "gotcha" you, it's just that I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from, and I like to learn different viewpoints.

erik wrote:I fully expect a "I don't have to explain myself, I'm entitled to believe what I want to believe" answer here, but could either of you give me:

1) two examples, one from Obama's campaign (not just his supporters) and one from McCain's campaign (not just his supporters) that exemplifies how terrible this campaign is being run
2) an example of an Utopian ideal of how you'd like to see presidential campaigns be run in the US.

I'm not trying to "gotcha" you, it's just that I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from, and I like to learn different viewpoints.

From the hip:
----
1)

OBAMA:
1. His speeches actually scare me. It's almost as if he'll 'say anything' and everything that Obama is can be reduced back down to Charisma.
2. I don't like his vice president pick.

McCAIN:
1. I don't like his vice president pick.
----
2) Utopian idealistic campaign would only work with a utopian idealistic society of voters. BUT, I will say that I would dump all of this talk about Health Care and start worrying more about the financial crisis and the war. Lets TALK about unraveling the current mess. STOP promising to address every single micro managed issue and DISPLAY your (the candidate) plans to resolve them.

I answered more here than I would like to because its all hypothetical and I think that makes it useless information. I also did not state the one very obvious thing I think we'd all like to see less of and that is:

STOP THE SMEARING CAMPAIGN(S) - just stop it.

Information that promotes greater understanding of how people think is the most useful information there is.

erik wrote:Information that promotes greater understanding of how people think is the most useful information there is.

OK, not exactly what's being discussed, but related and a curious book I'm reading: Thinking in Pictures. Even if you have nothing to do with the effects of autism, it's an amazing study of how people think and process information.

As I've said before, the campaign on both sides is being run as expected, which is building strength in numbers. But everything you see on TV, the newspaper, talk radio, etc, focuses on every little tidbit that can be skewed to throw a negative spin on it. Just like my post where I started it by saying, Obama called Palin a pig, which of course grabbed a lot of attention. I was just doing what the media does to see how it would play out.

Here's my problem as of right now. I'm aware of "most" of the issues, mainly the ones that directly effect me personally. But here we are almost the middle of September and they are still involved in lipstickery! This is really starting to bug me. I want to hear, from their mouths, not the media, more detailed discussion of the issues that concern me, AND the issues I have no clue about yet. Sure, they mention them, sure their air time is limited, but if they would just answer the questions asked and stop wasting time with their long winded fortune cookie stories, I'd know who the hell I want running our country.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I want to hear, from their mouths, not the media, more detailed discussion of the issues that concern me, AND the issues I have no clue about yet. Sure, they mention them, sure their air time is limited, but if they would just answer the questions asked and stop wasting time with their long winded fortune cookie stories, I'd know who the hell I want running our country.

Dude. Use google.

roymond wrote:

erik wrote:Information that promotes greater understanding of how people think is the most useful information there is.

OK, not exactly what's being discussed, but related and a curious book I'm reading: Thinking in Pictures. Even if you have nothing to do with the effects of autism, it's an amazing study of how people think and process information.

That is interesting, Roy. I just read an excerpt from the book, and she talks about how she translates words into images in her head. Doesn't everyone? I always do that. Maybe I'm autistic and just didn't know it. One of my specialties in my business is trouble shooting and solving problems on complicated systems because I can visualize and design entire systems in my head and think of every possible scenario of what can go wrong. I also write my music from mental images and movie clips. Kind of a reverse approach. This should be in the book section to continue this conversation. Interesting indeed.

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I want to hear, from their mouths, not the media, more detailed discussion of the issues that concern me, AND the issues I have no clue about yet. Sure, they mention them, sure their air time is limited, but if they would just answer the questions asked and stop wasting time with their long winded fortune cookie stories, I'd know who the hell I want running our country.

Dude. Use google.

Why should we have to? What did we do before Google? Why shouldn't they give strait answers instead of long winded fortune cookie answers? Besides that if you Google you get (wait for it , wait for it ) "more of the same" from the internet anyways. You still have to weed through all of the double talk and media spin to get an idea of what they really stand for. You CAN go to their websites and read the outline and hope that its accurate and hasn't changed since the candidate's party learned that their stance on that particular subject is unpopular with their following.

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I want to hear, from their mouths, not the media, more detailed discussion of the issues that concern me, AND the issues I have no clue about yet. Sure, they mention them, sure their air time is limited, but if they would just answer the questions asked and stop wasting time with their long winded fortune cookie stories, I'd know who the hell I want running our country.

Dude. Use google.

Oh, believe me, if I had to pay a nickle for every issue that I've googled, I'd be broke. But some are so vague and I want to hear it from their mouth.

Obama, on Letterman wrote:“Keep in mind that technically had I meant it this way — she would be the lipstick” and McCain’s policies would be the pig, he said.

You got to admit, he's right.

Spud wrote:

Obama, on Letterman wrote:“Keep in mind that technically had I meant it this way — she would be the lipstick” and McCain’s policies would be the pig, he said.

You got to admit, he's right.

Nice comeback, lol. I wonder how much the guy gets paid that spun that for him?

Personally, I would have taken it further. As I said before, if Obama names three guys, Bush, Cheney and Rove, then makes the analogy about lipstick on a pig, the republicans have an image problem if that causes them to think of Sarah Palin. Talk about disrespecting their own candidate!

IF he was talking about her (which he wasn't), then she would have to be the lipstick on those three little pigs. It's a much better fit.

Hoblit wrote:

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I want to hear, from their mouths, not the media, more detailed discussion of the issues that concern me, AND the issues I have no clue about yet. Sure, they mention them, sure their air time is limited, but if they would just answer the questions asked and stop wasting time with their long winded fortune cookie stories, I'd know who the hell I want running our country.

Dude. Use google.

Why should we have to? What did we do before Google? Why shouldn't they give strait answers instead of long winded fortune cookie answers? Besides that if you Google you get (wait for it , wait for it ) "more of the same" from the internet anyways. You still have to weed through all of the double talk and media spin to get an idea of what they really stand for. You CAN go to their websites and read the outline and hope that its accurate and hasn't changed since the candidate's party learned that their stance on that particular subject is unpopular with their following.

Why should we have to? You shouldn't HAVE to, but my point is the information is out there, and it's not at all hard to access.
What did we do before Google? We got fed a bunch of bullshit and had no way to verify it.

You CAN and you SHOULD go to their websites. I didn't mean google up bullshit. Use google to find accurate information.

If you can find all this on their websites, but you're all "But they can change their mind", then that's true of candidates who answer questions succinctly, too. People can change their mind about things they post to the internet as easily as they change their minds about things they say out loud.

Once again, if you ever want a spartan, plain-and-simple breakdown of every position on every issue for any candidate, www.ontheissues.org should be your first stop. They have simple , no bullshit answers on issues, vote records, quotes from the candidates, and very helpful 3rd party ratings of candidates on issues (e.g. Ralph Nader is "Rated A+ by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)").

Look up your local congressmen. You'll get pissed. I know I did.

I think BLT's and my point is that they should be advertising that with strait forward accuracy instead of the double talk and spin.

Perhaps the candidates themselves should reference that website Sober!

and for my track record, check out...

Hoblit wrote:I think BLT's and my point is that they should be advertising that with strait forward accuracy instead of the double talk and spin.

Perhaps the candidates themselves should reference that website Sober!

and for my track record, check out...

Any my point is the just because politicians should be more straightforward, that doesn't let us voters off the hook from accessing outside information which will clarify and verify what they are saying.

Learning is good. Knowledge is good. If someone doesn't want you to get it in the easiest way possible, don't take your ball and go home. Learn up.

erik wrote:People can change their mind about things they post to the internet as easily as they change their minds about things they say out loud.

They can, true. But if a President goes back on his solid word, it will destroy the reputation of his party until it is fixed. Let history speak for itself. If Clinton's lie wasn't sexual in nature, and he was caught in an outright lie tricking his voters by "changing his mind" on his promises, the American people would become outraged, his party would have to do something to save face for the future of the party, and he would have been impeached for that just as easily. No one trusted him after that, even if most people forgave him for being a red blooded American man with no willpower over his wiener. He just has a sexual addiction...it's a real disease...look it up. Chazz Michael Michaels

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

erik wrote:People can change their mind about things they post to the internet as easily as they change their minds about things they say out loud.

They can, true. But if a President goes back on his solid word, it will destroy the reputation of his party until it is fixed. Let history speak for itself. If Clinton's lie wasn't sexual in nature, and he was caught in an outright lie tricking his voters by "changing his mind" on his promises, the American people would become outraged, his party would have to do something to save face for the future of the party, and he would have been impeached for that just as easily. No one trusted him after that, even if most people forgave him for being a red blooded American man with no willpower over his wiener. He just has a sexual addiction...it's a real disease...look it up. Chazz Michael Michaels

and I mean, who DOESN'T want a blow job at work? I would totally take one right now! (I did get blow job at work once a really really long time ago at a job long since forgotten. TMI?)