“Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.”
~~ Oscar Ameringar
Recent Comments
“Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.”
~~ Oscar Ameringar
Filed under The Public Square
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
The Palin Reality-TV Show Drinking Game
1. Sip when Palin stands atop an Alaskan mountain like Simba in The Lion King.
2. Chug when Palin equates U.S.-Mexico border security with the 14-foot fence she built to block journalist Joe McGinniss’ view.
3. Sip when Palin’s children refer to her “Sarah.”
4. Chug when you find yourself thinking of The Osbournes. Or Into the Wild.
5. Sip when daughter Piper complains about her mom being addicted to her BlackBerry.
6. Chug when you catch yourself thinking about the Palins’ carbon footprint.
7. Sip when a plane lands in Palin’s backyard.
8. Sip when said plane takes the Palins to mingle with grizzly bears.
9. Sip when Palin says of (actual) Mama Grizzlies, “They’ve got a nature that humankind can learn from.”
10. Chug if you find yourself rooting for the bears.
11. Take a shot when Palin takes a shot (with a large rifle).
12. Sip when she asks husband Todd for advice on tax policy.
13. Chug when Palin impersonates Marlin Perkins.
14. Sip when Palin closely monitors daughter Willow’s morals by installing a gate at the bottom of the stairs.
15. Sip when the Palins stop being polite and start getting real.
16. Finish your drink, and restore your sanity, when Palin climbs Mount McKinley.
I don’t think anyone questioned whether or not President Obama would run for reelection, but I guess this morning’s talk shows were the first time it’s been said out loud publicly.
“Top White House staffer David Axelrod indicated Sunday that President Obama will indeed run for re-election in 2012 and early campaign work will begin with the next few months.
Mr. Axelrod said on “Fox News Sunday” that he will soon leave Washington and his work in the administration to return to Mr. Obama’s hometown of Chicago to start on the campaign.
I’ll leave in “early spring to work on the project,” Mr. Axelrod, a White House senior adviser, told Fox host Chris Wallace.”
I am so disenchanted right now that my vote is definitely up for grabs. I will never ever vote for a person who makes social issues part of their campaign. I will never ever vote for any person who thinks women don’t have the right to make their own health decisions. I will never ever vote for any person who thinks the Constitution should be rewritten to more closely resemble the Bible or even hints at naming any single religion as a national religion or comes anyplace close to thinking a theocracy would be good. Other than that, I’m ready to listen.
One last never ever — the person who lets me know businesses are more important than people will never ever get my vote. This is a tricky one because I haven’t seen anyone who isn’t bought and paid for by businesses. In fact, I’m not sure it’s possible since running for office is so expensive. I would like to see serious campaign finance reform which includes a law negating the SCOTUS decision that made the secret ‘groups’ so much more viable in campaigns. I want to know who gives what to whom, and who pays for the ads that support or warn against candidates.
I consider mega churches and the enormous amounts of money they direct to be businesses since they behave as such.
. I will never ever vote for a person who makes social issues part of their campaign. I will never ever vote for any person who thinks women don’t have the right to make their own health decisions
So you will not vote for someone who Advocates, and states he or she will propose, vote for gay marriage? So you will note vote for anyone who states that women should have the right to abortion?
Both of those are social issues, are they not?
What you are saying, I think, is that you will never vote for someone who has a traditional conservative mindset, and states so, in their campaign. Perfectly fine, a bit myopic in my view, but certainly your priviledge. ThenI guess youdon;t mind those on the other side who will not vote for a candidate unless they possess such views.
I may have to stop voting for any of the candidates and do what Zippy suggested — writing in a person, character — Soupy Sales, Mickey Mouse… If they held an election and no one showed up (so to speak) what would they decide that said? We’re always told what the elections said… Although even if an election did speak it seems easy to ignore whatever was said. If millions of voters wrote in someone / something not on the ballot, I suppose the person put into office would just be there as the result of an even smaller number of votes FOR them to hold that office.
I did not vote for a major political party two years ago. I voted for all the independent candidates I possibly could, for just such a statement. Some I just could not….too far out
I knew they wouldn;t win, but I didn’t want to give any encouragment to a few
You’re right. Abortion is something I don’t even think belongs in ‘law.’ To me it’s a decision between a woman, her doctor and her god.
I feel pretty much the same way about gays being allowed to enter into unions we call marriage. They are being denied rights just as blacks once were, and I don’t know why that should happen.
I would like politics to pertain to what keeps America strong in infrastructure, in our standing with and interaction with other countries, that advances the economic stability of our nation and her citizens, that respects and encourages expertise, that helps citizens attain their potentials.
Here’s a piece written for the Opinion Section of the Boston Sunday Globe, that points out an area where politics has gotten in the way, created a situation where some of our brightest and best and their achievements are driven out of our country.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/11/14/uncertain_futures/
Here is another serious situation our government is involved with and should not be —
“…a group of powerful Senators — Republicans and Democrats alike — have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government’s power to censor the Internet.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html
Why should we worry about government controlling the internet after we allowed GWB to change the wiretapping law all in the name of his war on terror.
Just asking…..
It was brought back to the forefront yesterday when watching a show about the largest find of dark ages gold hoard in Great Britain.
By law the founder and the land owner where the gold was found could not keep it. That it had to be sold to the Government for a price set by the Government.
I first thought about the subject when I learned that in the town I live in there is a city ordinance.
Any found property has to be turned into the Public safety department, to not do so is a crime.
At first I thought it made sense because if stolen or just lost then there would be a central location to contact to see if it had been recovered.
You find a bike and turn it in, but here is what seems to be just as much theft as if they were the ones who stole it.
After a period say two months if no one claims the bike then you do not get to have it.
Rather the city puts it into storage and once a year they sell the found property and puts the profit in the city account.
You were the one who put in the effort, yet the government is the one who gets the profit or gain?
To me that is as much a criminal act as if they had broken in and just took the items.
On principle I am not for it, though will admit that control over context on the net is not much.
It is not as bad as when I first started getting on line, use to be that you never really know just what you would get from a link?
When I got onto the P2P (point to point file sharing) the name of a file did not mean that is what you would get.
An example would be, Disney movies you search for Sleeping beauty and you might get the cartoon or you might get child porn!
Another example and it happened to me! I worked third shift so even on my days off I would be up late.
We had gotten WebTV and I am interested in Bigfoot, so I put in the key search word “Bigfoot” and got page after page of links.
I would just hit the links from top to bottom and had hit one named “Mystic creatures” I looked away to get a cigarette and take a drink of coffee.
Suddenly from the top of the stairs I heard my wife “you dirty SOB!”.
I was confused until I looked back at the TV and there was the image of a girl about ten wearing nothing but a straw hat!
I shut it down and tried to explain what happened, finally decided to just show her how it happened.
Now if you have not discovered about searches, you do them more then once you do not get the same line up or results.
I was shocked too and it took several days and showing her before she finally accepted it was not what I had been searching for. And when the same type of thing happened to her she then admitted she believed me.
But the other side and one that might be the real intent, he who controls access also control the information.
It has been a thorn in the side of Government that they do not have control over the net.
It was set up to allow for the free flow of information and material for that very reason.
The central server that allows for the internet to be possible (bet you did not know that everything that is on the net all goes through one server?)
The Government can not get to or control it.
If you’re going to vote for someone who you know is not going to win – then isn’t that just letting the other two parties do what they want anyway?
How is voting for someone without a snowball’s chance in hell making a statement?
The only way I see that it could be effective would be an organized effort with enough people behind it. Do you think it’s possible to get Mickey Mouse elected? We elect clowns, why not a cartoon character?
“If you’re going to vote for someone who you know is not going to win – then isn’t that just letting the other two parties do what they want anyway?”
Yes it is. However, it was a matter of personal integrity.
“How is voting for someone without a snowball’s chance in hell making a statement?”
Either one, should they have wished, taken a look at the vote for independent parties….and went hmmmm. That they choose not to, is not within my control.