I've had my fill!! Anyone else????

[jhcakilmer]

Well, I can sincerely say, that I've had my fill of politics!! I'm tired of debates, touring, stump speeches, political TV adds, yard signs........yep, I've had my fill.

Sometimes I wish we could pressure our government into having elections, and not just schedule them every 2/4/6 years....kind of like the Parliamentary system.

Anyway, I just wanted to say I have appreciated the conversations that we have had here, Thanks

[TMB]

I am truly sick of it all.

I am very happy that with our Federal election last week, the entire campaign lasted only 35 days.

Now we have civic elections to get through.


I will be very happy when you guys FINALLY get your election finished.

I'm fed up with all of it.

[johnnymossville]

...the entire campaign lasted only 35 days....



Go ahead, rub it in why don't ya? LOL

That would be amazing and fine with me. I'm sick of it too. All my favorite news websites are cluttered with this junk, not to mention the bumper stickers, signs, commercials, blah blah blah.

ENOUGH!!!

[thwart]

Part of it is the primary season starting earlier and earlier... I think the ads actually started last year.

Every state wants to be first... or at least get its time in the spotlight. Commerce (money) drives this as well.



The surprising result: Increased voter "burn-out". :crap:



The solution: No primaries until March (some would vote for June...)

[TMB]

Go ahead, rub it in why don't ya? LOL

That would be amazing and fine with me. I'm sick of it too. All my favorite news websites are cluttered with this junk, not to mention the bumper stickers, signs, commercials, blah blah blah.

ENOUGH!!!

I did a large group ride a couple od weeks ago.

There were buttons pinned on peoples' seatbags!

Baah!

[Joellogicman]

The surprising result: Increased voter "burn-out". :crap:

But this time seems somewhat different. Apparently 65 million people watched the third debate the other day.

Surprised me anyway.

[avalonracing]

Aww, come on guys... we still have get through the claims of fraud which will start the day after the election and the 2012 campaigning that should start in the middle of November.

[Marcusaurelius]

I've never liked politics much and I like it even less now. I don't see how anyone can take any of the absurd claims and pronouncements seriously, it just seems so very juvenile and inane.


I think all election campaigns should last two weeks and even that's pushing it, perhaps 10 days might be better. I dunno.

[Volant]

I think all election campaigns should last two weeks and even that's pushing it, perhaps 10 days might be better. I dunno.

That would at least give the Republican party enough time to swap-in someone with a chance.

[TMB]

...............and the 2012 campaigning that should start in the middle of November.


That is my greatest fear.

[Ray]

That is my greatest fear.
Hell, its already started. Republicans are already positioning themselves on the assumption that McCain's gonna lose. It started in earnest during the bailout debate.

Personally, once the debates are over and there's nothing left except for a couple of weeks of more and more desperate and nasty TV ads, I wish they'd just hold the damn election already. But I think the long primary process is actually pretty useful, if painful as hell to watch. But nothing productive can really happen between now and election day.

-Ray

[jhcakilmer]

I'd have to disagree. I tend to like a 30 day campaign, but I also tend to believe that it's a little to short for a Presidential System. Since the voting public has a greater role in electing their executor, I think we need more than a month. In a parliamentary system, the PM is virtually elected before the elections and the actual elections are just a formality.

I think a lot of people are "straight ticket" voters, so it probably wouldn't make a difference if it was 1 week or 1 year.......but for those that actually consider the issues, it takes more than a month to really listen to all sides, and make a "reasonably" informed decision. Plus, I think it allows us to see how the candidates operate under pressure...it gives us a small glimpse.

It's not exactly accurate to compare canadian elections to american elections.....there different systems.

Here is what I'd like to do away with......
- TV political adds - in my opinion they either distract individuals from the real issues, misinform them, or are outright deceptive.

[mikki]

Well, I can sincerely say, that I've had my fill of politics!! I'm tired of debates, touring, stump speeches, political TV adds, yard signs........yep, I've had my fill.




Me too. Tank is full.

[Ahneida Ride]

It's all smoke and mirrors. You can replace the drunk on the conveyor belt.
But you can't change the direction of the conveyor belt.

[Ray]

I'd have to disagree. I tend to like a 30 day campaign, but I also tend to believe that it's a little to short for a Presidential System. Since the voting public has a greater role in electing their executor, I think we need more than a month. In a parliamentary system, the PM is virtually elected before the elections and the actual elections are just a formality.

I think a lot of people are "straight ticket" voters, so it probably wouldn't make a difference if it was 1 week or 1 year.......but for those that actually consider the issues, it takes more than a month to really listen to all sides, and make a "reasonably" informed decision. Plus, I think it allows us to see how the candidates operate under pressure...it gives us a small glimpse.

It's not exactly accurate to compare canadian elections to american elections.....there different systems.

Here is what I'd like to do away with......
- TV political adds - in my opinion they either distract individuals from the real issues, misinform them, or are outright deceptive.
I could not possibly agree more. I think the long primary season, with some small states at the beginning, allows candidates to emerge that never could with a shorter process, where early money would be the whole game and only highly established candidates would get early money. Small states like Iowa and New Hampshire give people like Obama and Huckabee a chance to get in the game where they probably couldn't otherwise. And then, if they do, they can raise the money but they also have to have some serious organizational chops to keep it going into the bigger states. Which Obama did and Huck didn't this year. I think the system works pretty well.

And I fully agree that TV advertising is the worst part of it. All heat, no light. Smears and distortions from both sides. It becomes an art in itself and has NOTHING to do with a candidates ability to govern. Speeches, debates, and position papers, as canned as they may be, are much better indicators of what they're actually made of. If there was a constitutional way to kill political TV ads, I'd be all for it.

-Ray

[1centaur]

If there was a constitutional way to kill political TV ads, I'd be all for it.

It's called TIVO.

The Net will change this game, probably for the better (and the worse). Long-form explanations of reasons for positions just do not fit in 30-second spots. In fact, the whole TV ethos of sound bites and brief segments between commercials has undermined thoughtful debate. The Net allows those Ross Perot charts and accompanying explanations - that's good

The bad will come from the equivalent of forum spam - people who are paid to insert political opinions in OT places for the sake of creating a lemming effect among those who are not independent thinkers (>50%?). BTW, this is one more reason why I like the 1 out of 25 posts here that are on political topics - if we already know each other as cyclists, we won't suspect spam. Where the community is more open, the opportunity for mischief is greater. Where the forums are already political, the noise will be (and is) deafening.

Might be interesting to have a debate forum where each post must be no longer than 100 words and nobody can run consecutive posts. Have to be moderated of course, but might help reduce the differences to the basics - sometimes the argument is swallowed by the volume of information offered.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . about six months ago.

BBD

[Louis]

If everyone has had enough why is the American election cycle so long?

If we really didn't like it, then I assume we would change it. This is a democracy, isn't it?

[Ray]

It's called TIVO.
Yeah, I know I know. I have tivo and fast forward through most of it. But I'm enough of a junkie to want to know who's running what so I watch them the first time or two or catch them on the web. Just because I'm interested in strategy and how people are likely to react. Not that I'm any damn good at predicting it, mind you, but I'm interested in it. But my assessment is that its just so much noise and harms the process. Knowing that other people will be watching whether I am or not.

I agree with you about the web. The sharpest double edged sword in memory in just about any respect you can think of.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

If everyone has had enough why is the American election cycle so long?

If we really didn't like it, then I assume we would change it. This is a democracy, isn't it?

. . . that when this election system was devised it took three days on rutted dirt tracks to get news from New York to Boston. Voters in the larger settlements might get to see the candidates once if they were lucky. Mass communication today makes it a never-ending saturation bombing of exposure to candidates day in and day out for months. The world has changed but the election time cycle hasn't. The result is that we're all totally buried by information about it for months on end.

BBD

[jhcakilmer]

If everyone has had enough why is the American election cycle so long?

If we really didn't like it, then I assume we would change it. This is a democracy, isn't it?


The cynical answer......money......the dollar controls all. Even the primaries were pushed to earlier dates......why, because they want exposure, and campaign revenues in there states.......

capitalism pervades, and corrupts all.......it's the way we're programed!

[mbrtool]

It's called TIVO.

The Net will change this game, probably for the better (and the worse). Long-form explanations of reasons for positions just do not fit in 30-second spots. In fact, the whole TV ethos of sound bites and brief segments between commercials has undermined thoughtful debate. The Net allows those Ross Perot charts and accompanying explanations - that's good

The bad will come from the equivalent of forum spam - people who are paid to insert political opinions in OT places for the sake of creating a lemming effect among those who are not independent thinkers (>50%?). BTW, this is one more reason why I like the 1 out of 25 posts here that are on political topics - if we already know each other as cyclists, we won't suspect spam. Where the community is more open, the opportunity for mischief is greater. Where the forums are already political, the noise will be (and is) deafening.

Might be interesting to have a debate forum where each post must be no longer than 100 words and nobody can run consecutive posts. Have to be moderated of course, but might help reduce the differences to the basics - sometimes the argument is swallowed by the volume of information offered.
I don't post too much but I read a lot, and your posts are always knowledgeable and respectful.

[Blue Jays]

It's certainly soporific.

[Viper]

The cynical answer......money......the dollar controls all. Even the primaries were pushed to earlier dates......why, because they want exposure, and campaign revenues in there states.......

capitalism pervades, and corrupts all.......it's the way we're programed!

Crockett and Tubbs figured out FRN's and dirty Wall Street back in 1985:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=miami+vice+prodigal+son&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=5&ct=title#

:cool:

Full episode:

http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/miami-vice-the-prodigal-son-part-1/Gvr8Y31JwFeVch54bhQGcGILcA79Z0yi

http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/miami-vice-the-prodigal-son-part-2/iJr94qmcxXzaBKhP7PvfuJurngVdhyQU

[rwsaunders]

It has nothing to do with Washington anymore....it's all about Hollywood now. :cool:

[bzbvh5]

I guess I don't live in a Battle Ground state. There is news but not much presidential advertising. I noticed the original poster is from PA. I guess PA is a Battle Ground state. Candidates haven't been to Texas since the primaries. I guess the candidates already know who is going to take Texas in the winner take all system.

I would like to see a winner take all per Congressional District format for our elections rather than winner take all per State. I think it would reflect more the mindset of the voters. The candidates would have to schmooze in more places and the election wouldn't be decided by disputing hanging chads in Dade County Florida.

[Ray]

I guess I don't live in a Battle Ground state. There is news but not much presidential advertising. I noticed the original poster is from PA. I guess PA is a Battle Ground state.
I don't know if PA is a battleground state or not, but the candidates sure seem to THINK it is. Non-stop advertising 24/7 for quite a while. Now all of the smaller congressional races and stuff like AG and Dog Catcher are getting all of their ads up too. If not for Tivo, I'd move to Canada BEFORE the election. I like politics and am fascinated by it. But I hate political TV ads more than I hate late '70s / early '80s "rock" bands. And that's a lot of hate.

-Ray

[bigbill]

I have already voted absentee. I mostly watch sportscenter and the history channel now.

[RPS]

I would like to see a winner take all per Congressional District format for our elections rather than winner take all per State. I think it would reflect more the mindset of the voters. The candidates would have to schmooze in more places and the election wouldn't be decided by disputing hanging chads in Dade County Florida.Wouldn't that make it much closer to popular vote?

BTW, I'm in Texas also and get plenty of ads. Mostly from one side since the other can't afford them. ;)

[rounder]

I think the problem with a 30 day window, although there is a lot to like , is that things happen along the way. GWB has been criticized daily for many events beyond his control...not that i believe he is a good president. When the primaries began, Hillary seemed like a no brainer. Somehow or other she blew it and Obama won the primary. Mc Cain won his primary in the end. Then with the real campaign, Obama took an early lead, partly because of his speech in Germany, but who knows how that would have gone if more people had accused him of grandstanding. Then, McCain edged out front when the surge was shown to be successful and also picked up points when he selected S. Palin. Then Obama edged out front when the media decided that she was Barbie rather than a women's libber. Then his edge took off when the bottom fell out of the economy. Then Joe the Plumber. Anyway, there are two weeks before the election and there is no reason to believe that more things that could affect the election will not happen. Meanwhile, the candidates both seem to be trying to run out the clock.

This election is different. I don't have a problem that it has gone on so long. The parts i don't like are that: 1. it costs so much money. people grouse about how much sarah has spent on clothes, but that is nothing compared to what Obama has paid on advertising. 2. the candidates spend so much time campaigning for election and re-election. i thought they were voted in to do their jobs but if you watch cspan, they rarely attend sessions and rarely vote on issues. 3. the media is too prejudiced in reporting the news. i know that everyone is biased, but i don't buy the journalists reply that...sure i have an opinion but i report everything fairly. To me that is sort of like the supreme court judges making decisions on crucial issues and claiming justice, when there votes are always predictable. What the journalists report is not without bias and influences the puplic's opinion of the candidates.

anyway, that is my opinion.

[RPS]

2. the candidates spend so much time campaigning for election and re-election. i thought they were voted in to do their jobs but if you watch cspan, they rarely attend sessions and rarely vote on issues.Many would argue that can be a very good thing -- the less they do the better off we are.

Historically that's why we do better when neither party has total control -- I think. Not sure, I'm not into history; other than to avoid it repeating.

[bironi]

BBD,
The campaigns have become even longer in recent election cycles. It has nothing to do with the speed of communication.

Ray,
You live in PA, and don't know that it is a battleground state?

I'm ready to send in my vote via mail this weekend. I don't watch the tv election ads, but do enjoy some of the incredible campaign antics even in the final weeks. I rely more on Comedy Central to mine these stories. The job of panning cable news for the nuggets must be hell.

[Big Dan]

Voted yesterday in Florida. Lots of people voting early.

:)

[cadence90]

I think the problem with a 30 day window, although there is a lot to like , is that things happen along the way. GWB has been criticized daily for many events beyond his control...not that i believe he is a good president. When the primaries began, Hillary seemed like a no brainer. Somehow or other she blew it and Obama won the primary. Mc Cain won his primary in the end. Then with the real campaign, Obama took an early lead, partly because of his speech in Germany, but who knows how that would have gone if more people had accused him of grandstanding. Then, McCain edged out front when the surge was shown to be successful and also picked up points when he selected S. Palin. Then Obama edged out front when the media decided that she was Barbie rather than a women's libber. Then his edge took off when the bottom fell out of the economy. Then Joe the Plumber. Anyway, there are two weeks before the election and there is no reason to believe that more things that could affect the election will not happen. Meanwhile, the candidates both seem to be trying to run out the clock.

This election is different. I don't have a problem that it has gone on so long. The parts i don't like are that: 1. it costs so much money. people grouse about how much sarah has spent on clothes, but that is nothing compared to what Obama has paid on advertising. 2. the candidates spend so much time campaigning for election and re-election. i thought they were voted in to do their jobs but if you watch cspan, they rarely attend sessions and rarely vote on issues. 3. the media is too prejudiced in reporting the news. i know that everyone is biased, but i don't buy the journalists reply that...sure i have an opinion but i report everything fairly. To me that is sort of like the supreme court judges making decisions on crucial issues and claiming justice, when there votes are always predictable. What the journalists report is not without bias and influences the puplic's opinion of the candidates.

anyway, that is my opinion.

Agree:
1) 30 days is too short. 60-90 days would be more than adequate, in my opinion.
2) Media coverage, saturation and bias: It's far too polarizing, many of the programs are dominated by strident and wacko talking heads on both sides, and basing one's opinions on journalists' "analysis" is sort of like thinking the guy on the late-night infomercial really has your best interests at heart and is in fact going to make you a trillionaire in 30 days.
3) W has been a horrendous President regardess of events. It's action relative events that counts. 9/11 and the kindgergarten chat; "Mission Accomplished"; Katrina and "Brownie"; the economy is "just fine"; etc.
4) Candidates spend too much time campaigning.

Disagree:
1) Candidates spend too much time campaigning precisely because they have all that time. 18 months is ridiculous. This just leads to completely trivial episodes (lipstick, clothing, Joe the Plumber, even (as good as she is) Tina Fey) dominating the headlines and increasingly deceitful and negative advertising.
2) Unexpected events happen all the time; if the campaign were to last 3 years there would be even more. I don't want a candidate without any real power "addressing" those issues for 18 months; I want a sitting President and Congress to address those issues/events.
3) I wrote here elsewhere the ratio between voting age citizens and the money the campaigns have raised so I won't post it again; suffice it to say that it is far less, per capita, than the RNC giving Palin $150K on clothes/hair to dress her...but that's their money to spend so I really don't care how they choose to do so.
4) The Executive and Legislative branches are not at all like, nor do they have the same relationship or individual roles, the Judicial branch, even with predictable (but not always) votes.

[Ray]

Ray,
You live in PA, and don't know that it is a battleground state?

Only in the sense that I haven't seen a poll closer than 8-10 points here in quite a while. They're definitely advertising like crazy, at least the side that's ahead is. I know its been historically close and will be closer than 8-10 this year, but it doesn't seem like the Ohios and Floridas of the world which even this year are either close in the polls or at least sporadic enough to make you figure they're very much up for grabs.

-Ray

[ti_boi]

We need a wholesale gutting of Washington including many of the incumbent Democrats. I am so completely disgusted with the way tax dollars are used and the power structure that in some ways I won't mind watching the fallout which will continue into the next 4 year term of whoever 'wins' -- if it means meaningful change for the country. The banks just played their last card and got a massive bailout which they are hoarding.....

*see NY Times: In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.

(He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”

But once they become unable to contribute to the system in the form of big contributions, their power will fade. Wall Street ate itself and that failure will affect us for years to come. The country is truly a mess right now. I don't mind the politics. You can always turn off the TV/Computer and go outside for a nice long ride.

[Pete Serotta]

this is staying pretty civil :) :) Folks are voicing opinions and acknowledging others for theirs, even if they are not in agreement.....>THANKS>....PETE

[OtayBW]

What gets me is that you have a lot of folks out there who, after 18+ months of this mayhem, STILL have not made up their minds about who they're going to vote for. I mean, *** are they waiting for?

[saab2000]

I don't care about the campaign anymore. I already voted. :beer:

Cool. Now I don't need to come home from out east for the election. I must say that my little village of Ada, MI did make it pretty easy to get it done.

But why, oh why, do civic employees (everywhere in the whole world) have to be such mean, cold, humorless people. Seriously. I go in and there are three women behind the counter. Sitting at their desks kinda talking to each other and then one looks up and snarls, "Can I help you?" as though my presence were a huge obstacle to their carrying on their conversation and day of doing very, very little. :no:

I have rarely met a civil servant who truly knows how good they have it.

Commentary over. Wait, no, there's more.... :D

Back to the original topic - Yes, I am sick of it. We have been hearing the same stuff over and over and over and if people need reminding they can turn on their TVs. Candidates spend tens of millions travelling everywhere to say the same thing over and over.

Can't wait 'til it's all done. But then the blame game will start and we'll all start seeing, "Don't blame me, I voted for ***!" bumper stickers everywhere... :crap:

[zap]

snipped

But why, oh why, do civic employees (everywhere in the whole world) have to be such mean, cold, humorless people. Seriously. I go in and there are three women behind the counter. Sitting at their desks kinda talking to each other and then one looks up and snarls, "Can I help you?" as though my presence were a huge obstacle to their carrying on their conversation and day of doing very, very little. :no:

I have rarely met a civil servant who truly knows how good they have it.



Don't know about your area, but here in the Marryland 'burbs, we still have volunteers that work at polling places, not civil servants.

I'm surprised that people are surprised that many voters are still undecided. But that's a conversation best left at some gathering where the wine flows... :banana:

[RPS]

I mean, *** are they waiting for?For me it’s simple. I’m waiting until I’m certain who is going to win so I can vote for the other guy.

That way as things continue to slide south over the next four years I can feel good about not contributing to the mess. And others won’t be able to rub my nose in it. :rolleyes:

[saab2000]

snipped



Don't know about your area, but here in the Marryland 'burbs, we still have volunteers that work at polling places, not civil servants.

I'm surprised that people are surprised that many voters are still undecided. But that's a conversation best left at some gathering where the wine flows... :banana:

The Town Hall is not my normal polling place. But for absentee voters it is a place to do it.

Normally my polling place would have been a church near my house, and I am sure that would be staffed with volunteers.

Anyway, I am at peace with my choice and especially with the fact that I voted. People who don't vote have no right to bitch about the people who then get elected.

[gdw]

"People who don't vote have no right to bitch about the people who then get elected."

I've never understood that logic. I'm not impressed with either candidate. What am I supposed to do?

[saab2000]

"People who don't vote have no right to bitch about the people who then get elected."

I've never understood that logic. I'm not impressed with either candidate. What am I supposed to do?

There are other choices. Or get involved at a local level. But not voting is not right IMHO, at least if you have the chance. Many people all over the world would love to be able to vote for their leaders. The US policy has long been to try to bring democracy to other parts of the world (or force it down their throats - depends on one's point of view).

I am also not really impressed with either major candidate. But I chose the one that mostly closely reflects my views.

But as I said, there are other choices on the ballot. I think there were at least five choices: Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law and maybe one or two others.

[RPS]

I've never understood that logic. I'm not impressed with either candidate. What am I supposed to do?On a serious note -- when I don’t like either enough, or think that neither is superior to the other by a wide enough margin that it makes a difference (and yes, this can happen even after 18 months), then there is always the option to write someone in.

Some will argue that is throwing your vote away (same as not voting at all) since that person doesn’t have a chance of winning, but I look at it as sending a message to both parties that there are some people who are truly in the middle and won’t support the idiotic policies coming from both sides of the aisle. Maybe next time they will try harder to be reasonable.

Besides, IMHO we will never solve the major problems we face as long as we have only two viable parties.

[gdw]

Having the right to vote is great but we also have the right not to vote and frankly, in my opinion, should exercise that privilege when there are no candidates we support.

Add me to the list of folks ready for this fiasco to end. I'm going to let the dogs loose on the next doe-eyed Obama supporter who knocks on my door. McCain's people would get the same treatment but they aren't wasting their time in the People's Republic of Boulder. :banana:

[Tobias]

Those who don’t get why so many remain undecided must view the decision as simple as having to choose between Rocky Road ice cream and steamed broccoli. If that were the case, then of course it would be simple.

However, if one flavor was so overwhelmingly desirable, wouldn’t we expect at least 99 out of every 100 to choose the same way? When the population splits relatively down the middle, it only confirms that the choice is not so simple as to be easy – it’s not black and white (no pun intended).

It’s either that or roughly half of Americans are clueless. ;)

[Flat Out]

It’s either that or roughly half of Americans are clueless. ;)

Actually, I believe that may be true.

[Viper]

It’s either that or roughly half of Americans are clueless. ;)

Americans are some of the brightest folks in the world. We truly are and it's not that Americans are clueless, it's that most human beings are mouth-breathing sheep.

Did anyone truly think invading Iraq would take 6-8 weeks? Who would think a War would be so clean, antiseptic? Who wouldn't get that killing Saddam would take a few days or weeks, accomplishing the goal for of the vast majority for the War, yet not understand that winning the peace would take another decade?

Shame on human beings, mouth-breathing American citizens for not getting how War works. Shame on mouth-breathers for signing on dotted lines to buy houses, property they could never afford, yet the loan officer worked out a deal whereby they could afford the first year or two! Shame on those same mouth-breathers for puchasing automobiles with the same, sinister deal! Shame on mouth-breathing humans for maxing out their credit cards time and time again! Shame on all the mouth-breathers who wait for government to solve their problems.

Corrupt? I love Italian bike parts, but the Italian government is a joke, a farce. American government doesn't rule my mind, plays such a small role in my life and in fact the only time I rely on it is to help keep me safe from bad cats.

I laugh every time anyone makes fun of the Iraq war. Duh, some frame builders have a three to five year wait, do ya really think a War could be in-and-out in a few years time? Shame on mouth-breathing human beings for needing the President of America to have to place a paragraph in his State of the Union regarding steroid abuse in sports, in order to get that Barry Bonds was drinking special juice. OMG, like, wow, Barry Bonds is on steroids? Duh.

cliffnotes = just about every pro cyclist is on some form of EPO, fans need to close their mouths, breathe through the nose.

[Tobias]

Americans are some of the brightest folks in the world.As far as I know, there is no scientific data supporting that we Americans are smarter as a group than others.

I think the idea that we are inherently special is promoted for other reasons I don't want to get into here.

[Louis]

As far as I know, there is no scientific data supporting that we Americans are smarter as a group than others.

SP warned me about people like you. Why do you hate America? ;)

[Tobias]

SP warned me about people like you. Why do you hate America? ;)I don't hate Americans, just love the rest of the world. :beer:

[Viper]

As far as I know, there is no scientific data supporting that we Americans are smarter as a group than others.

I think the idea that we are inherently special is promoted for other reasons I don't want to get into here.

America is the land of the big idea. We went to the moon, next stop is Mars. We built the International Space Station, we just let a few other countries build parts for it. Americans should believe their country is the best, no matter who's renting The White House. One of the problems today isn't an overt, outward sense of ethnocentrism, in fact, the lack of it is an issue.

America educates the world, they come here for their degrees. The average Chinese person won't have access to the internet, a sea of new ideas and knowledge. The notion that Americas are fat and lazy ain't something I'm signing up for, no, America is what we make of it and I'm neither fat, nor lazy. America is # 1, a slogan for certain, America is # 3 isn't a sticker I'd place on my car. We ain't perfect, no country is, but it seems that days after the famous words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" were spoken, most of the world forgot what America gave to them.

America # 1. I like the sound of that. Why do so many Democrats love America only or mostly, when a Democrat wins the Presidential Election? My love for my country has nothing to do with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, nothing.

[Pete Serotta]

:argue: no food fights..........THANKS


WE can like other parts of the world, it does not have to mean we hate other parts....It is a big place and few of us personally know thousands of folks....

There are good and caring, as well as smart and intelligent folks of all nationalities. Oh and YES THERE ARE ASSes of all NATIONALITY. No nationality has a "locK" on that or the greed characteristics we have seen too much of.

thanks

[Ray]

America # 1. I like the sound of that. Why do so many Democrats love America only or mostly, when a Democrat wins the Presidential Election? My love for my country has nothing to do with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, nothing.
I can only speak for myself, but I know my sentiments are true of many Democrats and Independents and assorted other misfits. I too love my country regardless of who holds political power. I fear for my country and am more critical of some of my country's actions when I don't approve of the leadership than when I do. That's almost a matter of definition. Republicans do the same thing. I'm not sure where the whole thing about who's patriotic and who's not came to be, but I resent the crap out of it when people accuse me or others of lacking patriotism when we're pissed about some of our country's policies and actions. Were Republicans un-patriotic when they were critical of nearly everything Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter did? I never heard that suggested. But for a Democrat to be critical of Ronald Reagan or one of the Bushs was an open invitation to be called un-patriotic and accused of not loving our country. Being anti-American, if you will. Bull-excrement!

As for America #1 and Americans having grown fat, dumb, and/or lazy. I think we have been and are number one. In that position, we got used to a standard of living that I seriously doubt we, or anyone else, will ever see again. It was partially based on domination of an incredible percentage of the world's resources and our amazing efficiency in exploiting that position. As effective a model as we've been to much of the rest of the world and as much as they want what we've had, we're necessarily gonna have to get by with less, relatively speaking. Being in debt up to our eyeballs to many foreign nations is just one of the mechanisms for assuring a more level playing field in the future. We can still be a leader in technology and ideas and that will be good for us in all sorts of ways. I hope, assuming he's elected, that Obama is serious about an "Apollo" type effort on alternative energy over the next ten years. I think that's the kind of thing that will keep us in a leadership position. If we don't do something like that, we'll see ourselves in more and more wars over energy resources, with diminishing returns. To me, that's a sure fire way NOT to stay number 1.

None of which has ANYthing to do with love of country or lack thereof. I think our country is the greatest ongoing experiment in self-government in the history of nations. I think that's what makes us great - not some inherant superiority of Americans (or, to open another Pandora's box, Christians). I give our founding fathers an incredible amount of credit. I think they were true geniuses. I fear that sometimes we're too willing to give up much of what they gave us in the name of comfort, perceived safety, and convenience. But we haven't blown it yet. Not by a long shot. And I'm willing to keep fighting for it. I think how we handle the challenges of the next few decades is the key to the future of this nation for a good long time to come.

-Ray

[Tobias]

America is the land of the big idea. We went to the moon, next stop is Mars. We built the International Space Station, we just let a few other countries build parts for it. Americans should believe their country is the best, no matter who's renting The White House. One of the problems today isn't an overt, outward sense of ethnocentrism, in fact, the lack of it is an issue.You missed my implied point – so let me be more direct.

I agree we are indeed a great nation currently, but IMHO our national superiority is due to having a superior system and not due to superior individuals as citizens. The reason I brought this up is I feel certain that if the system is broken (accidentally or intentionally) we could suddenly find ourselves in a completely different nation with no way back. Many take America and American superiority for granted; but I don’t.

If I believed the people of America are inherently unique and gifted in some exceptional way that causes our national superiority, then I would rest better at night knowing that if incompetent leaders in Washington screw things up the problem will be short lived because the “unique and gifted” people would return it to greatness overnight.

However, I don’t sleep so great -- I believe that American citizens are fundamentally just like most citizens of the world when viewed as individuals. And if our system of government goes bankrupt (for lack of a better word -- not limited to financial matters) we too will be SOL.

[ti_boi]

Love of country? Most of us have never lived in other places...but there is no doubt that America, and many parts of the world are wonderful places to be.

What this country needs is some honesty and well thought out programs that work. It needs to help those who need it, especially kids and moms without insurance. It needs to quit screwing the little guy in business and catering to the big corporate interests...it needs real choices and legitimate laws that work for everyone. fairness...intelligence.

Tough Love I guess. But I love being alive and living here. Let's just make sure our children's children can say the same thing.

[cadence90]

My vote is for Earth #1.

(And that includes Italy.)



I think that "love of country" and "patriotism" are becoming, unfortunately, increasingly divergent terms.
To me, love of country is a wonderful, deep and true belief in the spirit, history and ethos of one's entire country and has very little, if nothing, to do with politics.
Patriotism, on the other hand, seems to be becoming more and more an anti-historic concept; an increasingly divisive, judgmental and exclusionary term; and in many cases a veiled reference really meaning isolationism. Not really the best basis for global unity in the 21st century, in my opinion.

[Viper]

Love of country?

What this country needs is some honesty and well thought out programs. It needs to quit screwing the little guy...it needs real choices and legitimate laws that work for everyone. fairness...intelligence.

Tough Love.

Interestingly, the 2000 Election was all about the poor. If I received a nickel every time Gore or Bush mentioned them (especially Gore) I could retire. This election? Neither campaign really mentions them as it's all about the middle class.

Me? The poor will be poor until they're not and it's up to them to get educated, work harder, make money and tie their own shoes. I don't feel sorry for the poor any more than I resent the rich, they both get what they deserve/earn.

Life is not fair, we make it fair. Anyone who relys on government resembles a kid, staring into the clouds, waiting for the balloon which was pulled from his fingers by the wind, to come back to him. When you say, "Laws that work for everyone" what do you mean, specifically? I mean, recently we had a law in CA regarding gay marriage and the Mayor of SF said, "Who cares" and did what he wanted. It seems to me, the left like laws that they like, which suit their clothes and the ones they don't like, well, those are bad laws.

Moral relativism is an approach I can't get jazzed about. I believe in rights and wrongs, not simply different situations. I am not knocking your post above, but it's what we hear every four years at the Democratic National Conventions and I sit there and think, okay, that's a boatload of paint, on a really big brush, where's their fine point pens or pencils? If the Knicks go 0-40 this season (possible) and they hire a new coach for game 41 and he says at his first press conference, "We just need to win more games" I'm guessing he's a Democrat. :D

:beer:

[Pete Serotta]

VIPER....... :no:

Interestingly, the 2000 Election was all about the poor. If I received a nickel every time Gore or Bush mentioned them (especially Gore) I could retire. This election? Neither campaign really mentions them as it's all about the middle class.

Me? The poor will be poor until they're not and it's up to them to get educated, work harder, make money and tie their own shoes. I don't feel sorry for the poor any more than I resent the rich, they both get what they deserve/earn.

Life is not fair, we make it fair. Anyone who relys on government resembles a kid, staring into the clouds, waiting for the balloon which was pulled from his fingers by the wind, to come back to him. When you say, "Laws that work for everyone" what do you mean, specifically? I mean, recently we had a law in CA regarding gay marriage and the Mayor of SF said, "Who cares" and did what he wanted. It seems to me, the left like laws that they like, which suit their clothes and the ones they don't like, well, those are bad laws.

Moral relativism is an approach I can't get jazzed about. I believe in rights and wrongs, not simply different situations. I am not knocking your post above, but it's what we hear every four years at the Democratic National Conventions and I sit there and think, okay, that's a boatload of paint, on a really big brush, where's their fine point pens or pencils? If the Knicks go 0-40 this season (possible) and they hire a new coach for game 41 and he says at his first press conference, "We just need to win more games" I'm guessing he's a Democrat. :D

:beer: