Edwards is Out

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, February 4, 2008 19:33
VIEWED: 5179
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:45 PM

Too bad. Except for Kucinich, he was (I think) the best of the Dem bunch. If he'd stayed in he could have picked up more delegates and brokered the convention. He's one of the few candidates that brought up what few dared to speak of: The elite who run the show. The press totally ignored him. I think that saw Edwards' populist focus as a real threat.

When Obama said "It's not about the rich versus the poor" he totally lost my vote because that's exactly what it's about. It's all about money. It's always been about money. The OJ trial showed us that. Since we have an open primary, I'll vote for Ron Paul.

The Man! (Even if she's a woman. Or black.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:46 PM

Damn.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:51 PM

thirded

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:42 PM

And with Edwards and Kucinich out
Nader may be in...

Quote:
Nader said he finds Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both unacceptable candidates, and he said whichever wins the party's presidential nomination will not have an impact on his decision to run.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," Nader said of the two leading Democrats. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:14 PM

All true...

so when he runs and we get another republican in office, things are going to be much better...

what I don't understand is why he doesn't try to get his name on the democratic ticket for a primary. He could offer a choice where it would actually be a choice...that's a thought...I think he just likes playing spoiler.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:36 PM

Well, he endorsed Edwards.

Quite frankly, I'm so fed up with the Dems (and with most Americans, who're apparently content voting for an empty bag) that if the Dems lose and we get another four years of Repugs.... WE DESERVE IT AND SO DO THE DEMS!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:57 PM

I don't feel like I deserve it.

The repubicans are the ones generating, triangulating, flogging the agenda. And nearly ALL of the repubicans are behind it. That gets an accounting in my book. Sure some spineless business-as-usual democrats are going along - but a significant fraction are not. That gets an accounting in my book as well.

On the whole, there IS a difference. If you don't think so - imagine the next 4 years under another Bush.

***************************************************************
Thoroughly planted, I might add.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:13 PM

Yeah, but... The DNC and the party leadership need to be bitch-slapped from here to next Xmas. Remember Conyers? The guy who got stuck in the basement trying to hold hearings on Iraq? Well, now HE'S head of the Judiciary Committee and what's he doing? He's holding down Wexler! I don't know ANY way of getting the Party to discover its spine except an ignominious defeat.

Now, I know that me and the Republicans will never see eye to eye. So my options are: (1) working at the Primary stage to get the candidate I want (2) reforming the Democratic party leadership (3) creating a viable third party or (4) working thru Congress. They're not mutually exclusive.

This is the second time the Dems have flubbed a really decent candidate The first was Howard Dean, and he was the first candidate to speak out against Iraq. Edwards was their second chance, and if he hand't brought up health care and a living wage nobody else would have either.

I "threw away" my vote on a third-party candidate when it didn't matter. But if Nader runs, I'm thinking of throwing away my vote on a third-Party candidate even if it DOES matter. I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of the Dems.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:00 AM

Then you will probably be even more sick and tired of the repugs.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:27 AM

Worst is that they actually helped sabotage Dean, a fellow Dem, for not being on-board with the current "party line" in spite of most of america agreeing with HIM, not THEM...

And I wanted to puke when Dean caved to them rolled over like a good little doggy - that was the defining moment where I considered the whole party gutless and unworthy of any support whatsoever.

Irony of that, it was a Dean rally here in Detroit where I met Conyers, and we had a very short discussion about how treating your customers as enemies will make them so.
(He's deep in the RIAA/MPAA's pocket)

Guy looks like a roach with the lights turned on about now, scurrying here, there, everywhere - he ran to his office in D.C. to get away from us and his wife reaming him nonstop, only to get cornered by Cindy Sheehan, and now he's practically hiding under the Judiciary committee table, grrrr.

The Dem "Strategy" as I mockingly call it, seems at this point to just hide behind the sofa and let the Repugs own actions horrify the public into voting for them by default, and in my eyes, that just ain't good enough.... they want all this front-loaded supreme unitary executive power to fall into THEIR hands - and you know, I don't care a whit for that idea.

They should be trying to CUT that leash, not just swap the hand holding it, but a lot of them are holding back because they feel that the more power the Rethugs concentrate now, the more will be handed off to THEM to do with as they please, without even the stigma of the actions used to get it clinging to them since they can blame those Rethugs and show "clean hands".

Do NOT, for even a minute, think they are not fully willing and capable of the same sort of abuses of that power, just in different directions, and not for a second think they aren't already planning them.

Factor that in from the guy who told you they'd balk when they got a stronger foothold in Congress.

Be very, very careful what you wish for here.
You might just get it, in ways you never, EVER, wanted.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:33 AM

But keeping the repugs in office will surely make it even worse. The repug party apparatus isn't going to go away with Bush out of office. It'll be more corrupt and more powerful and feel even more vindicated. Or maybe you want that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:58 AM

While I agree with you Rue, Repubs are worse for what they do, I'm finding a hard time telling whether or not their agenda is significantly different from the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer..etc. They're going about it differently, the dems have a base that cares about these issues so the dems have to cloak all their dirty work in capitulation or appeasement,or clever parsing,

but they aren't voting that wrong that often just because they are being bullied...the mood in the country did not demand that they kept their seats by appeasing Bush...

Powerful interests have to be at work, or else Sygm is onto something when he suggests that Repubs have dirt on them.

Yes, I'd rather have the people that have to try to hide this shit in office, because they will have no support on either side of the aisle if they start pulling this kind of crap, in theory anyway(I'm pissed at the dems and I'm still going to vote for them over republicans),

but the party is run by DINO's, any supposed liberal agenda is fairly infiltrated by big money. I'm going to vote dem and hope that they get the bump they've been saying they need to make change, but whether any change comes will be the last litmus test for me as to whether or not there are two parties.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:58 AM

Oh hell no, just sayin that putting the Dems in isn't gonna magically solve the problem without one holy hell of a lot of asswhup being delivered by the american public - and more forcefully than most folk have the stomach for, cause you can desire a peaceful protest march, but that doesn't mean that the powers that be will play ball.

Just warning that getting Dems in office and then resting on one's laurels is a bad, BAD idea.

I'm votin for Ron, cause I can't hold back the gag reflex enough to vote for anyone else, but I'd rather have a Dem with enough spine left to put the arm on (instead of a jellyfish like Conyers) than another freakin Rethug, that's for sure....

Oh, and good riddance to Ghouliani, too, from what I hear, if he doesn't drop today, it'll be this week for sure, word on the wire is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:03 AM

"putting the Dems in isn't gonna magically solve the problem"

I agree !!! Frem - WE AGREE on something !!

I see it as a minor first step. First you get them in office - then you beat the crap out of them - politically speaking - in the mid-terms, if they don't behave.

BTW - Congress is a GREAT place for third parties. There, even in small numbers, they really can swing the vote.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:43 AM

Well, I'd say there's a place for tar and feathers in there - at least in a symbolic fashion.

I mean, many a candidate has been pie-eyed, why not have two folks, one with say... pancake syrup and one with fake feathers ?

Sure, Dept HomeSec would shit bricks, but think of the media pull from such a stunt.

"(insert candidate) Tarred and Feathered by irate homeowners!"

Hell of a headline, and agendas aside, most papers wouldn't be able to resist that one.

-F

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:48 AM

So maybe the best thing to do is support a Dem for Prez, and third-party for Congress. Easy to do when you've got someone like Feinstein in office!

BTW, I NEVER give money to the Dem Party. Only to individual cadidates.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:48 AM

Was never that impressed with Edwards, it seems truly sad that he's the best the "left" has to offer.

As stated many times before there are only two real differences between the Dems and the Reps, what businesses pay the bills and which group of activists they use to do the legwork.

I'm reminded of the monkey planet from one of Douglas Adam's Hitchhikers books. There's a planet of monkeys ruled over by lizards and the lizards abuse the monkey's terribly, using them as slave labour and even eating them and yet every few years the monkeys hold an election and vote the lizards into power. When asked why they don't vote for a monkey they said they can't take the risk the "wrong lizard" might get in.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Too bad. Except for Kucinich, he was (I think) the best of the Dem bunch. If he'd stayed in he could have picked up more delegates and brokered the convention. He's one of the few candidates that brought up what few dared to speak of: The elite who run the show. The press totally ignored him. I think that saw Edwards' populist focus as a real threat.

When Obama said "It's not about the rich versus the poor" he totally lost my vote because that's exactly what it's about. It's all about money. It's always been about money. The OJ trial showed us that. Since we have an open primary, I'll vote for Ron Paul.

The Man! (Even if she's a woman. Or black.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Yeah... the only two Dems I liked (at least a little) are out of of the race.

I wasn't a fan of Edwards "The Government should pay for your college" rhetoric though. Why should it? More taxes for me and I never got a free ride with my straight A's, being a white male and all. And believe me, I tried. Even though I was on my own without parental support at 18 years old and claiming myself as a dependent on my taxes, I couldn't even get any help from the FAFSA for college without going to members of my community such as the local Minister, Police, Teachers and the like slamming both of my parents in written notes from them, or waiting until I was 24 to get assistance, and by that time I didn't care about college at all. (I did get a letter from my social worker, but decided that I never wanted to go through with that. I still have that letter to this day.) Big Bro said that my parents made too much money for me to get any assistance. My Dad was the one I was worried about more, tarnishing their reputation and all, and a few years back when I told him about all that he said to me "Hell, you should have done it. I don't mind." But I'd never have gone and done that to either of my parents, no matter how much one of them might have deserved it.

Good for me not going to college though.... 4-10 less years of indoctrination, I figure.

Besides, these dummies that would be getting free college today would just paying for it the rest of their lives with increased taxes going to pay for future generations college funds. Sounds a lot like the bankrupt Social Security system to me. Do we really need Big Bro handling another LARGE chunk of our finances for us like that? I don't reckon so....

But on the up-side.... ONE MORE VOTE FOR RP! Glad to have you on board Signy. I take back some of the nasty stuff I said in the smoking thread, or that one time I hijacked that thread and made it a smoking thread, or that other time I turned a thread about about kittens into a rant against the racist smoke Nazis.

Oh... double up-side. Looks like Ghouliani might drop out too! Yay! Now we just gotta make sure that McCain or the pair of Religious nutjobs don't get the nod and we're gold. Well.... assuming also that neither Obama or Clinton are fit for office anymore by the time the election draws near after they've physically and psychically ripped each other to shreads and ruined their own reps in the process.

I swear, that Hillary is twice the man Obama is.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:11 PM

It honestly seems a though the dynamic of the system is to put forward the worst candidate from each party.

I think that it has to do with the voters who are paying attention at each successive step in the process. Early on, it's only the very motivated and relatively knowledgeable people who are even interested. So, early on, you get at least a few candidates that aren't total Madison Avenue cocksuckers.

But as the campaigns expand, and draw the attention of the mouth-breathers, things go downhill in hurry. That's why McCain wasn't worried that his numbers sucked last summer. Ultimately, the voting is dominated by the morons who spend their time sitting on the couch waiting for the TV to tell them what to do.

Maybe we should start with the moron vote. Then things would at least get better as they go instead of worse. It's just depressing as hell to see the best candidates disregarded and knocked off until only the most vapid, soulless candidates prevail.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HERO

Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since we have an open primary, I'll vote for Ron Paul.

Good for you. (One less vote to count...er...I mean one less vote that counts...no...one less vote).

H

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:53 PM

Seems like some folks are finally getting a taste of reality....that reality being that their far-left, fringe looniness only appeals to less than 5% of voting Americans. Must be tought to deal with that sort of harsh blow to one's set of ideals. If it's any solace, we Conservatives are none-too-thrilled about John McCain being the likely Republican nominee for President, but if he's gonna be our horse, I'll vote for him....just like you all will eventually vote for your nominee, Hillary.

BADKARMA00

Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:40 PM

My main concern with McCain is his stance on immigration. I think he's honest enough, at least in as far as the word 'honest' can be applied to any politician from any party.

Otherwise, I don't think he'd make a bad president. His choice of a running mate, should he get the nomination, is of some concern, considering his health.

I think he'd certainly be better for the country than Billary or Obamasama, though.

Bad_karma
Cup holder of the Disillusioned

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergantX:
So, early on, you get at least a few candidates that aren't total Madison Avenue cocksuckers.

Being a fan of both reality as many choose not to regard, and as of recent, a fan of the prematurely ended "Deadwood", that quote holds a special place for me on these boards...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
....just like you all will eventually vote for your nominee, Hillary.

And I know you wouldn't be referring to me here, wouldja?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergantX:
So, early on, you get at least a few candidates that aren't total Madison Avenue cocksuckers.

Being a fan of both reality as many choose not to regard, and as of recent, a fan of the prematurely ended "Deadwood", that quote holds a special place for me on these boards...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
....just like you all will eventually vote for your nominee, Hillary.

And I know you wouldn't be referring to me here, wouldja?

Just making a general statement here buddy.
Would you vote for Nader if he decides to run?
You know that folks like me would love for him to run, and you know why.
If not Nader for you, who would you support?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
My main concern with McCain is his stance on immigration. I think he's honest enough, at least in as far as the word 'honest' can be applied to any politician from any party.

Otherwise, I don't think he'd make a bad president. His choice of a running mate, should he get the nomination, is of some concern, considering his health.

I think he'd certainly be better for the country than Billary or Obamasama, though.

Bad_karma
Cup holder of the Disillusioned

I think the Primaries and polls are clearly showing that Moderates are winning the day. Extremism on either side is a losing formula. McCain has positions I like, and some I detest. No one is gonna get everything they want or hope for from either party's candidate.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:09 PM

Quote:
Just making a general statement here buddy.
Would you vote for Nader if he decides to run?
You know that folks like me would love for him to run, and you know why.
If not Nader for you, who would you support?

Not looking for a quarrel with you here, just saying that since I'm happier than a pig in shit that Mr 911 is going down and I'm not a fan of McCain anyday, I'd never be caught dead voting for a Demoncrat unless they were as Democratic as Dr. Paul is Republican.

I'd have voted for Nader the last two times if my head hadn't been so far up my ass in my youth. As it were, I'm glad I didn't vote Demon like my "American Government" junior college teacher preached to us to do all semester and I didn't vote Rethug like my ex-boss used to tell me to do. I didn't vote, and although I realize that gives me less ground to stand on in a debate about which one of those assholes would have done better, I don't feel anyone who voted either "way" last time did their American duty either, so there...

I'm proud as hell of Nader's 6% showing as an third party and my dream would be to vote Paul in under a third party dubbed something along the lines of the "Constitutionalist's" party... minus all the rhetoric and double speak we'd get from any of the swine we have left to choose from on either side, Dr. Paul withstanding.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Just making a general statement here buddy.
Would you vote for Nader if he decides to run?
You know that folks like me would love for him to run, and you know why.
If not Nader for you, who would you support?

Not looking for a quarrel with you here, just saying that since I'm happier than a pig in shit that Mr 911 is going down and I'm not a fan of McCain anyday, I'd never be caught dead voting for a Demoncrat unless they were as Democratic as Dr. Paul is Republican.

I'd have voted for Nader the last two times if my head hadn't been so far up my ass in my youth. As it were, I'm glad I didn't vote Demon like my "American Government" junior college teacher preached to us to do all semester and I didn't vote Rethug like my ex-boss used to tell me to do. I didn't vote, and although I realize that gives me less ground to stand on in a debate about which one of those assholes would have done better, I don't feel anyone who voted either "way" last time did their American duty either, so there...

I'm proud as hell of Nader's 6% showing as an third party and my dream would be to vote Paul in under a third party dubbed something along the lines of the "Constitutionalist's" party... minus all the rhetoric and double speak we'd get from any of the swine we have left to choose from on either side, Dr. Paul withstanding.

Ralph Nader is a smart man, and I respect him. Unfortunately, when he runs he has the same effect on a Presidential Election as when Ross Perot ran...they both cause their kindred major Party candidate to lose. I really don't know what happened to third parties over the last century or so, but ultimately if the country is so polarized on so many issues, it at least seems reasonable to me to vote for the lesser of two evils....I know that's a hackneyed cop-out, but what else ya got? Open insurrection in the streets? Violence?

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Seems like some folks are finally getting a taste of reality....that reality being that their far-left, fringe looniness only appeals to less than 5% of voting Americans. Must be tought to deal with that sort of harsh blow to one's set of ideals. If it's any solace, we Conservatives are none-too-thrilled about John McCain being the likely Republican nominee for President, but if he's gonna be our horse, I'll vote for him....just like you all will eventually vote for your nominee, Hillary.

Edwards was not a far-left anything, which is part of the problem. Both parties need the center to win, which means that both parties will eventually field canidates who's public image has been carefully crafted by Madison Avenue to appeal to middle class swing voters. That's not necessarily a bad thing because you at least have to outline your platform to a swing voter rather than take that vote for granted. However that demographic has a very tiny set of concerns compared to the American people as a whole, so entire areas will go largely untouched.

In a healthy system you need Ron Paul's and Denis Kucinich's to give more than one viewpoint, having two parties doing all they can to appeal to the same viewpoint is a bad thing.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:39 PM

Edwards, Kucinich, Ron Paul, and the other alternate candidates were getting NO press. Big media has absolutely no interest in change. And saying that Edwards is to the far left of anything just shows how narrow your outlook is.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Seems like some folks are finally getting a taste of reality....that reality being that their far-left, fringe looniness only appeals to less than 5% of voting Americans. Must be tought to deal with that sort of harsh blow to one's set of ideals. If it's any solace, we Conservatives are none-too-thrilled about John McCain being the likely Republican nominee for President, but if he's gonna be our horse, I'll vote for him....just like you all will eventually vote for your nominee, Hillary.

Edwards was not a far-left anything, which is part of the problem. Both parties need the center to win, which means that both parties will eventually field canidates who's public image has been carefully crafted by Madison Avenue to appeal to middle class swing voters. That's not necessarily a bad thing because you at least have to outline your platform to a swing voter rather than take that vote for granted. However that demographic has a very tiny set of concerns compared to the American people as a whole, so entire areas will go largely untouched.

In a healthy system you need Ron Paul's and Denis Kucinich's to give more than one viewpoint, having two parties doing all they can to appeal to the same viewpoint is a bad thing.

I didn't mean to imply that Edwards was far-left...I believe he appealed to approx. 15-20% of Dems & was a former VP candidate, so he's definitely considered somewhat mainstream. I was refering to Paul & Kucinich primarily. Their voices appeal to a very narrow, but quite vocal fringe...but in the end, it's the party moderates that get nominated. Maybe America needs many more "3rd parties"...not just Independent & Greens...but way more, with some mass appeal like those guys have. Maybe 6-8 viable candidates from 3rd parties, each getting 2-5% would put and end to the dominance of the 2 party system we have now.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Edwards, Kucinich, Ron Paul, and the other alternate candidates were getting NO press. Big media has absolutely no interest in change. And saying that Edwards is to the far left of anything just shows how narrow your outlook is.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well once again you feel compelled to burst into a civilized converstion I was having with some fellow Browncoats and hurl personal insults at me...and I've been sooooo good lately. I guess I'll have to say it again..piss off a-hole!

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:08 PM

Awww, pobrecito!

Anyway, you WERE being good. My bad.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Awww, pobrecito!

Anyway, you WERE being good. My bad.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I re-read your post, and I need to apologize to you. You did not really hurl any insult at me; was just a little poke...really no big deal considering some of the other spats I've seen or been involved with here.

And thanks for recognizing that I'm trying, really trying, not to flame these days. If I make a little poke at something, I'll balance it as much as possible. Again, sorry for jumping when there was no reason to.

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

I didn't mean to imply that Edwards was far-left...I believe he appealed to approx. 15-20% of Dems & was a former VP candidate, so he's definitely considered somewhat mainstream. I was refering to Paul & Kucinich primarily. Their voices appeal to a very narrow, but quite vocal fringe...but in the end, it's the party moderates that get nominated. Maybe America needs many more "3rd parties"...not just Independent & Greens...but way more, with some mass appeal like those guys have. Maybe 6-8 viable candidates from 3rd parties, each getting 2-5% would put and end to the dominance of the 2 party system we have now.

Well there are smaller parties, lots of them but they get zero attention. I saw an "alternative debate" on CSPAN during the 2004 election with representatives of the Libertarians, Socialists and Green parties. I didn't even know there was a Socialist party in America and the only reason I knew the Libertarians were organized was because I happened upon their conference on CSPAN.

So they are out there but they get probably less that 2% of the vote which is part of the reason they get no airplay. One thing I think Howard Dean and Ron Paul prove is that people want there to be new ideas in the debate. Both parties are part of the "establishment" and anyone outside that mainstream get's support because I think most people are sick of it. Now translating that into a meaningful third party without the resources of a Ross Perot, now that's the challenge.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:54 PM

"I know that's a hackneyed cop-out, but what else ya got? Open insurrection in the streets? Violence?"

Why not ?
Seeing as how the batting avg on that is .500
Surely better than grin, bear it and hope for a reach-around, innit ?

One thing history will teach you about situations like this, is that the lid WILL come off with a bang eventually, and the longer it takes for that to happen, the worse the damage is gonna be.

A pretty good book I read recently, based on Keith Laumers BOLO series.

"The Road to Damascus" by John Ringo.

It paints a pretty clear picture of where and how these things go, and the antagonists embody the worst elements of BOTH of our current political mainstreams, rather than singling out the flaws of one or the other.

It's available in the Baen Free Library, if anyone's interested - I review it at 6.5/10, so it's not as good in storytelling aspect as the stuff I usually suggest, but it does do a fair enough job of it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, February 1, 2008 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I know that's a hackneyed cop-out, but what else ya got? Open insurrection in the streets? Violence?"

Why not ?
Seeing as how the batting avg on that is .500
Surely better than grin, bear it and hope for a reach-around, innit ?

When I was 18 in 1971 I was headed off to college in Ohio...but first I had to get through the dreaded draft lottery. I grew up with that war, for almost half my life up to that point. I was a suburban middle-class "radical"...I made "speeches" in my high school, I had long hair and smoked pot, and I hated Nixon like I couldn't even tell you now. You think I was gonna go into that meatgrinder? F no! I was lucky and didn't get drafted...I went off to college, got a job, got married, had kids, and now I'm an old fart who just wants to have a comfortable and peaceful retirement. It would be hypocritical for me to not understand what many like you feel today. As they said in my day, "We are forces of chaos and anarchy, everything they say we are, we are...and we are very proud of ourselves...Up against the wall motherfu**er!"....J.A.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 1, 2008 2:06 AM

I'm very impressed with this debate and the general overall tone of the thread. Could the Big 2 be screwing things up so royally as to unite those they've been so good about keeping at each other's throats for so long?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, February 1, 2008 2:23 AM

As they said in my day, "We are forces of chaos and anarchy, everything they say we are, we are...and we are very proud of ourselves...Up against the wall motherfu**er!"

Yes, but our day comes and goes, and our mortality catches up with us, or our health does... as my capacity for physical action rapidly diminishes, it comes clear to me that much of what I do must be placed in other hands if it is to continue at all.

At least I have the benefit of knowing it's placed in good hands, although it pains me greatly to watch someone else do what I feel I should be doing.

"There are those who say I have no more mercy than a surgeon treating cancer.

There are those who say that even such as I must retire, as a blade is retired when grinding use wears it to a sliver—be that sliver ever so sharp.

They say, they say . . .

And they are all of them correct."

-Paraphrase from David Drake's "Redliners"

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 2:23 AM

Jongsstraw- If you can belvei it, I'm you're age.

---------------------------------
Not a cranky old fart, just a Buddahisall.

RUE

Friday, February 1, 2008 2:25 AM

S'wenyways, I'm thinking of writing in Edwards on super Tuesday. Just because neither remaining candidate should feel comfortable.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:25 AM

Like I said I don't feel sorry for Edwards, he was positioning himself to be VP rather than actively going for President like Howard Dean did. Like I said, seems a shame he was considered the best the "left" had.

Well it's y'all's country, I pay taxes but they don't let me vote so if you want to change it do something, I'll make the tea.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well it's y'all's country, I pay taxes but they don't let me vote so if you want to change it do something, I'll make the tea.

What do you mean?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FLETCH2

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:38 AM

I'm a European, I just live here.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:52 AM

Thank you for paying your taxes Fletch and supporting the welfare and healthcare of illegal immigrants and for funding our continuing efforts in the war on terror

So.... Europe isn't something that was made up for our history books and great comedy's like Eurotrip and National Lampoon's European Vacation?

Who'da thunk it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FLETCH2

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:59 AM

No it's the single largest economic block in the world. has some of the world's fastest and nicest trains, has lots and lots of people and great food and chocolate (in Belgium.)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 1, 2008 7:03 AM

Ain't never been on a train before either, but I'd reckon I'd want to be on a fast one. Nice doesn't "do" anything for me though. I prefer the dark seedy places myself, with a little dirt and that lived in feel, rather than a sterilized smoke-free enviornment. Can say the same for people as well.

I have had fudge and cheese from Holland and all I can say is Kraft don't know shit about cheese.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, February 1, 2008 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Could the Big 2 be screwing things up so royally as to unite those they've been so good about keeping at each other's throats for so long?

Interesting, could be...but more likely the Primary posturing & pandering is making it only seem that way. When the real race begins after the Conventions this summer I think we're gonna see blood & guts on the campaign trail and in the media & blogs at an unprecedented level. I think that by the time we've all been bombarded with endless commercials of their bullshit, we're all gonna be sick to death of it.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, February 1, 2008 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw- If you can believe it, I'm you're age.

I think I knew that from previous posts, but it is quite fascinating. I was a suburban hippie-radical, then I evolved over time into part of the Establishment. I'm gonna be a grandfather in a few weeks, and it's a bit overwhelming for me to deal with that reality. I guess you still have that fire in your belly for causes and change, and you're not gonna give up the fight. I wish us all good luck and happiness.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 1, 2008 1:17 PM

Yeah.... you're probably right Jongs.... one can only hope though, right?

I think my own problem is that I wasn't rebellious at all as a youth. Being the oldest brother carted between 3 different houses for years during school and a latchkey kid when I was old enough, I was pretty much the model kid growing up. Hardest part of that now is how little I've actually made of myself when the expectations around me growing up were so great. The person you talk to on this board isn't the same person that I was only 4 years or so ago when I was 23 or 24... mind I had a good run getting into some trouble once I was out on my own, but save a knife literally buried several inches in my back one night at a party, it was just your normal kid stuff then. I even invited the police into my apartment after I recieved several noise complaints one night and they tore my bedroom apart looking for whatever they decided they wanted to look for. I ended up knowing them by name after the months went by, and noise complaints started to pile on and in the end they really weren't bad guys and I never had do "come in" for anything. It was just a hassle and I've really grown to resent the way that I was treated that first night when I invited them in to look around. I don't remember saying "Please, tear my apartment apart while you're here".

It's completely weird for me to be on the other side and to be honest this duplicity has not been very good on my nerves. That's why I thank ya'all for being here. I'd like to think that the brawls we sometimes get into are theraputic for othersin here as well, including you too. I don't like being an ass or being considered an ass by other people, and I know it's not fair how I treat people here sometimes. Really, most people I know in life I get along with pretty well. One could hardly believe that I really am the introvert I've become if they were watching me at work or on the ever lessening occasion I do go out when I'm not required by life's duties to go out.

I wish I could go back a lot of the time. I know it's cliche now, but I want to take the blue pill and taste the steak again. But once you've opened your eyes I fear it's impossible to close them again. Here's hoping we all find whatever it is we're looking for and we can make the best of this brave new world staring us in the face.

Even Citizen.... You've been quiet lately, if ya been around. Love ya bro

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, February 1, 2008 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yeah.... you're probably right Jongs.... one can only hope though, right?

I think my own problem is that I wasn't rebellious at all as a youth. Being the oldest brother carted between 3 different houses for years during school and a latchkey kid when I was old enough, I was pretty much the model kid growing up. Hardest part of that now is how little I've actually made of myself when the expectations around me growing up were so great. The person you talk to on this board isn't the same person that I was only 4 years or so ago when I was 23 or 24... mind I had a good run getting into some trouble once I was out on my own, but save a knife literally buried several inches in my back one night at a party, it was just your normal kid stuff then. I even invited the police into my apartment after I recieved several noise complaints one night and they tore my bedroom apart looking for whatever they decided they wanted to look for. I ended up knowing them by name after the months went by, and noise complaints started to pile on and in the end they really weren't bad guys and I never had do "come in" for anything. It was just a hassle and I've really grown to resent the way that I was treated that first night when I invited them in to look around. I don't remember saying "Please, tear my apartment apart while you're here".

It's completely weird for me to be on the other side and to be honest this duplicity has not been very good on my nerves. That's why I thank ya'all for being here. I'd like to think that the brawls we sometimes get into are theraputic for othersin here as well, including you too. I don't like being an ass or being considered an ass by other people, and I know it's not fair how I treat people here sometimes. Really, most people I know in life I get along with pretty well. One could hardly believe that I really am the introvert I've become if they were watching me at work or on the ever lessening occasion I do go out when I'm not required by life's duties to go out.

I wish I could go back a lot of the time. I know it's cliche now, but I want to take the blue pill and taste the steak again. But once you've opened your eyes I fear it's impossible to close them again. Here's hoping we all find whatever it is we're looking for and we can make the best of this brave new world staring us in the face.

Even Citizen.... You've been quiet lately, if ya been around. Love ya bro

6ix...never sell yourself short. You are an important voice always in all these thread debates, and I always read and value your writings. I disgaree with just about everyone here on something at some time, and I've hammered and been hammered back pretty good. I set a mental goal this year not to let my emotions eat at me during this election year. Just within my own family, I've learned to be more tolerant lately of their ideas, as much as it used to pain me, it does not anymore. So keep your postings going strong, and most importantly be honest to your feelings.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 6:03 PM

Very few of us live our opinions. Yeah, I believe in the government being able to make life better for everyone, so I work for the government doing what I think is important. (Environmental cleanup.) But when I boss tells me to JUMP!!! on some stupid politically-motivated backscratching, my response (aside from invisibly rolling my eyes) is SIR, YES SIR! HOW HIGH, SIR?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 1, 2008 7:05 PM

My professor once told me this...(its been a little while so I can't quote it exactly)

"Us baby-boomers and hippies all believed we could change the world. It was drilled into us. By each other, music, and the media, that we were going to change things. We would run around doing what we did, all the while telling each other to "Change the World". And we did. In a lot of ways, the stupid, idiotic things we did, changed how stuff was done and looked at. But we never stopped to ask if what we were doing was right. It was all a bra burning, weed, LSD, anti-Vietnam roller-coaster. So now here I am, and I see what my generation has REALLY done. How we all turned out, and what really changed because of what we did.

So.... I'm here going to tell you what we should have told ourselves. I'm going to give you a mantra that we SHOULD have had. Change the World....but FOR THE BETTER!"

All the hippies and baby-boomers out there, what did you leave us GenXers? Now that we start to shoulder the responsibility of running things, did you make things better for anyone? Really?

How many of you ended up doing, being, and acting like the people you were supposidly "protesting" against?

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 7:42 PM

Quote:
Us baby-boomers and hippies all believed we could change the world. It was drilled into us. By each other, music, and the media, that we were going to change things. We would run around doing what we did, all the while telling each other to "Change the World". And we did. In a lot of ways, the stupid, idiotic things we did, changed how stuff was done and looked at. But we never stopped to ask if what we were doing was right. It was all a bra burning, weed, LSD, anti-Vietnam roller-coaster. So now here I am, and I see what my generation has REALLY done. How we all turned out, and what really changed because of what we did.

So.... I'm here going to tell you what we should have told ourselves. I'm going to give you a mantra that we SHOULD have had. Change the World....but FOR THE BETTER!"

All the hippies and baby-boomers out there, what did you leave us GenXers? Now that we start to shoulder the responsibility of running things, did you make things better for anyone? Really? How many of you ended up doing, being, and acting like the people you were supposidly "protesting" against?

I find a lot of baby-boomers still more socially responsible than the generation that came after. I could see it while I was at university: Hey, no man, I can't get involved in the protest. I gotta study for my Chem finals and get an A so I can get into med school and make a lot of money.

What came out of the baby boomers were successful movements: The environmental, women's, and antiwar movements. They ALL changed things for the better. They built on the success of the previous civil rights movement, which I gratefully acknowledge. A lot of people put their lives on the line- and some were killed- for a better world.

Are you looking for a "permanent" fix? One that you don't have to personally work on? Sorry to disappoint you, but you also have to put your *ss into making this a better place 'cause mommy and daddy can't solve all of your problems. My humble opinion is that it's time to take down the multinationals, and chop some power structures down to size, and get control of our population growth. Are you ready to work with me on that?

As for me, when I was in High School I belonged to an evironmental club and we ran a weekend recycling center. At 53 I'm lucky to still be doing what I believe in. How about you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, February 1, 2008 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My professor once told me this...(its been a little while so I can't quote it exactly)

"Us baby-boomers and hippies all believed we could change the world. It was drilled into us. By each other, music, and the media, that we were going to change things. We would run around doing what we did, all the while telling each other to "Change the World". And we did. In a lot of ways, the stupid, idiotic things we did, changed how stuff was done and looked at. But we never stopped to ask if what we were doing was right. It was all a bra burning, weed, LSD, anti-Vietnam roller-coaster. So now here I am, and I see what my generation has REALLY done. How we all turned out, and what really changed because of what we did.

So.... I'm here going to tell you what we should have told ourselves. I'm going to give you a mantra that we SHOULD have had. Change the World....but FOR THE BETTER!"

All the hippies and baby-boomers out there, what did you leave us GenXers? Now that we start to shoulder the responsibility of running things, did you make things better for anyone? Really?

How many of you ended up doing, being, and acting like the people you were supposidly "protesting" against?

You and your professor are 100% correct.
The Age of Aquarius came to a screeching halt sometime between Altamount & Kent State....also the drug deaths of Jim Morrisson, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis. Later, in the 70's...a time of gas lines, 14% interest rate economic adjustments, disco & polyester, leading into the Reagan 80's money grubfest. The youth today have inherited all that has been cast aside, like the molted layer of snake skin, and are living thru the absolute worst overall situations in 60 years....except for Firefly!

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 1, 2008 8:26 PM

Ok, Sig, Ill respond to your specific "accomplishments"

Environmental: Yes, progress was made. However, it is folks of your generation who are still leading the charge to cut down the rainforests, cut down the local forests (for strip malls or condos), dumping oil in Alaska, drilling for oil in Alaska, killing off the re-introduced wolves in Yellowstone, dumping garbage and medical waste in the ocean (and everywhere else), creating hazardous chemicals, improperly disposing those chemicals, ect ect. The lsit can go on.

And Ill bet my drained social security that many of those doing it were ex-hippies.

The Womens Movement: Ok..... what exactly are we talking about? Yes, women can now make the same as men and do the same jobs. But at what cost? Children grow up without mothers now more than ever. Divorce is the highest its ever been. The stability of almost any family is in doubt. ALL thanks to this "progress".

No, I am not for the whole "woman in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant" schtick. But COME ON! A woman used to be the anchor that held a family together. Now, its considered a good thing if she dumps her kids at day care and lets the government/schools raise them.

Forget love and support (not to mention honoring) your family. Now its all about doing for yourself. Why stay married, why even bother GETTING married?

Keep in mind, I do have a lot of respect for single mothers. They do the best they can. But the question that ALWAYS pops in my head when I see them is "What the F*** did you do wrong? Where is your husband, or at the very least THEIR father?"

If the guy was an abusive bastard, then I can understand it. In fact I encourage women to leave physically abusive relationships. Or if he was a cheater. Or a thief. Or someone who abused the children.

But too many of todays women leave because they just can't handle a man. They can't stand a man having his own opinion, strengths ect.

Todays women are a hell of a lot more greedy, selfish, spoiled, stuck up, and shallow then they were years ago. Its ruined families time and again and I lay that directly at the Hippies dirty feet.

Anti-War: The hippies/baby-boomers were the ones who spit on the soldiers coming home from Vietnam. They were the ones calling them "baby-killers" ect ect. I have no respect for any group that would do that. Ever. Anti-war? Give me a break.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, we WON Vietnam.

Because noone is going to look at that fraked up place and EVER doubt that we will bleed ourselves dry for something we want.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 1, 2008 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My professor once told me this...(its been a little while so I can't quote it exactly)

"Us baby-boomers and hippies all believed we could change the world. It was drilled into us. By each other, music, and the media, that we were going to change things. We would run around doing what we did, all the while telling each other to "Change the World". And we did. In a lot of ways, the stupid, idiotic things we did, changed how stuff was done and looked at. But we never stopped to ask if what we were doing was right. It was all a bra burning, weed, LSD, anti-Vietnam roller-coaster. So now here I am, and I see what my generation has REALLY done. How we all turned out, and what really changed because of what we did.

So.... I'm here going to tell you what we should have told ourselves. I'm going to give you a mantra that we SHOULD have had. Change the World....but FOR THE BETTER!"

All the hippies and baby-boomers out there, what did you leave us GenXers? Now that we start to shoulder the responsibility of running things, did you make things better for anyone? Really?

How many of you ended up doing, being, and acting like the people you were supposidly "protesting" against?

You and your professor are 100% correct.
The Age of Aquarius came to a screeching halt sometime between Altamount & Kent State....also the drug deaths of Jim Morrission, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis. Later, in the 70's...a time of gas lines, 14% interest rate economic adjustments, disco & polyester, leading into the Reagan 80's money grubfest. The youth today have inherited all that has been cast aside, like the molted layer of snake skin, and are living thru the absolute worst overall situations in 60 years....except for Firefly!

Wow Jong, who would ever have thought WE would agree on something?

RUE

Friday, February 1, 2008 8:39 PM

"many of those doing it were ex-hippies"

I just did a quick check of George W Bush, Richard 'Dick' Cheney, Sam Walton, Lee Raymond, Bill Gates, Louis Gerstner Jr and Paul Wolfowitz and determined that they were never hippies. I'll continue my search as time permits. However, I suspect that most of the rest of us - including ex-hippies - aren't running the show.

As for the women's movement - wow, who would have thought woment might actually want something for themselves, and some personal freedom too. Aren't they supposed to be just one big teat to suck on ? You know, feed the kids and keep the man hypnotized with one handy-dandy tool, and sacrifice all for the family in a way men aren't even asked to.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, February 1, 2008 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Wow Jong, who would ever have thought WE would agree on something?

I must have short-term memory loss, because I can't remember us not agreeing on anything.

I must have short-term memory loss, because I can't remember us not agreeing on anything.

I must have short-term memory loss, because I can't remember us not agreeing on anything.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 1, 2008 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"many of those doing it were ex-hippies"

I just did a quick check of George W Bush, Richard 'Dick' Cheney, Sam Walton, Lee Raymond, Bill Gates, Louis Gerstner Jr and Paul Wolfowitz and determined that they were never hippies. I'll continue my search as time permits. However, I suspect that most of the rest of us - including ex-hippies - aren't running the show.

As for the women's movement - wow, who would have thought woment might actually want something for themselves, and some personal freedom too. Aren't they supposed to be just one big teat to suck on ? You know, feed the kids and keep the man hypnotized with one handy-dandy tool, and sacrifice all for the family in a way men aren't even asked to.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

*sigh Rue, you've totally missed the point.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 9:23 PM

Wulf, are you bitching about my whole generation, the "ex-hippies" of my generation, or the rat-turds of my generation? (Every generation's got some.)

So- what IS your point?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 1, 2008 9:28 PM

How about all of the above?

STORYMARK

Friday, February 1, 2008 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But too many of todays women leave because they just can't handle a man. They can't stand a man having his own opinion, strengths ect.

Todays women are a hell of a lot more greedy, selfish, spoiled, stuck up, and shallow then they were years ago.

So, how long since she left you?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

KIRKULES

Friday, February 1, 2008 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[quote, and get control of our population growth. Are you ready to work with me on that?

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Environmental: Yes, progress was made. However, it is folks of your generation who are still leading the charge to cut down the rainforests, cut down the local forests (for strip malls or condos), dumping oil in Alaska, drilling for oil in Alaska, killing off the re-introduced wolves in Yellowstone, dumping garbage and medical waste in the ocean (and everywhere else), creating hazardous chemicals, improperly disposing those chemicals, ect ect. The lsit can go on.

And Ill bet my drained social security that many of those doing it were ex-hippies.

Many of the problems Wulf sites are a direct result of excessive population growth. Americans could actually archive negative population growth if we reduced immigration. If we could just slow down the immigration rate to the point that we had a slightly negative population growth rate many of our problems would take care of themselves. The increased productivity we have achieved through technological advancement could increase the standard of living in the US if we could maintain productivity increases while reducing population. The problem is that we've put ourselves in a position that we need a lot of immigrants to pay for social security for the baby boomers. Once the boomers start to die there might be some hope of reducing population. Wulf is definitely right that the hippies are stealing his social security.

I'm pleased to hear that a few here are slightly older than me. I was beginning to think I was the oldest here.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 2, 2008 1:39 AM

Quote:
Wulf is definitely right that the hippies are stealing his social security.

Oh, he blames the boomers for everything. He's just a big whiner!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 2, 2008 3:03 AM

Thanks for the kind words Jongs. Just getting tired of fighting and looking for fights everywhere I turn. It's getting hard for me to get up and go to work every day because I work for the very beast I despise and after the buyout every day here seems worse. I know that even though I'm great at what I do I'm just a c-hair away from seeing the can-man. I haven't exactly made many new friends around here with upper management with my strong beliefs. One false move and I'm toast. For all I know, they'll be reading this post sometime tomorrow and my badge won't work to get in the building.

As for everything else that's been said on this thread afterwards I really can't say much about it. The one or two generations before me did a real good job fucking everything up. The American family is in shambles and I do agree that a lot of that has to do with women working along side of men, but at the same time I do see the flip side to that as well. Before all the haters come at me wielding their stilletto heels, I do not belive women to be inferior. I just think it rather unfortunate that the women who decide they want to do right and raise a family without their careers getting in the way (and I know plenty of women with this mindset, and it's not primative) have little choice but to go to work because it's so fucking hard to raise a family on one income. My personal opinion is that one of the two parents must stay at home with the kids. If both people in a relationship want to have careers, they must give up the desire to have children until they can put off the career.

But then I look at my own generation and I realize that most of them are too stupid or wrapped up in their own selfishness that they don't even realize how fucked up everything is. You can't even get them to stand for anything.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, February 2, 2008 11:34 AM

I don't think you can lump all working women together as a group and point fingers that their presence in the workplace instead of being home for the kids is always a negative situation.

Like many things, I believe it still boils down to individual responsiblity. I work with many moms, both married and single. I'd say the single moms I know are the most diligent, most selfless and sacrificial souls I've ever known. I am continuously amazed at their endless energy and focus of purpose for their kids...the daily schedules of picking up and dropping off, making dinner, dressing them, helping with homework, taking them to Girl Scouts, Little League, and doctors...it goes on and on...AND they do all this before and after working 9 hours and 1 1/2 hours of commuting!...Jeeesh...me, I work the same hours, then all I want to do is a have a couple of beers and fall alseep in front of the tube. These women are the real heroes of America and I salute them. Their children have grown up to be great kids and young adults. Now...the moms that I read about in the media committing crimes and being negligent or abusive, that's a different story.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 2, 2008 1:16 PM

Yeah... but no wonder they need to take pills after having the kids though with all those problems. My mom raised three boys, part time mind you, but she work almost 80 hours a week. If my grandparents weren't around to help out half the time and if my dad was a deadbeat that wanted nothing to do with us then we would have been left at daycare most of the time growing up. I don't want any kid of mine being raised by strangers that half of one of our disposable incomes are going to. My mom did a decent job and none of her kids are criminals (although I'm sure I could be considered a "thought" criminal at this point), but it ruined her. She's cold and mean and that's what being a career woman did to her. There were times that her caring showed through and just the fact that she never turned to drugs or gave up and we always had a place to stay would be proof of that, but the two don't mix.

I don't blame her. Circumstances put her in that position. If you've got a choice though, I belive that one of the parents should be at home with the kids and tending to the house. If the woman wears the pants in the family, and the man isn't threatened by a woman who does so, then so be it. Daddy daycare is better than sending your kids off to strangers.

America's average family today sucks. And both parents going to work is where it began.

Of course there is always exceptions to the rule and I don't believe anything is black and white. There were a lot of abusive relationships before women made their own and that ain't right either. I'm sure there are women who can balance all of those plates without turning to prozak or 4 packs of smokes a day too, but that isn't the norm by any stretch.

I really do feel bad for the women today who are forced to work that would rather care for their kids and the house than get a full time (and often shitty) job. The worst thing I think men did was make women feel like what they did was beneath them and not a job. Being a stay at home mom is one hell of a job and I know that I certainly don't have what it takes to do it. I really don't think I'd ever have kids myself. The only way I would consider it is if I was with a woman like this who could soften me up a bit too and tend to the family and do what I believe is the tougher of the two jobs.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 2, 2008 4:03 PM

My mom worked for as long as I can remember. She was a pediatric nurse, and I don't think I turned out that badly. Meanwhile, my MIL was a stay-at-home to an abusive husband.

If you look at the animal kingdom, you'll see that ALL moms (the vertebrate ones, anyway) are "working" moms. They don't stop finding food, defending their territory, or interacting with others of their species at the same time that they're raising the next generation. The problem isn't that we have "working moms", the problem is that this culture is a brutal dog-eat-dog one, where everyone is fighting for their job and no quarter is given for being a mom. OR a dad. It doesn't have to be that way. We have more than enough productivity to produce what we need without flogging the worker. The only reason why is for maximum profit.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 2, 2008 4:49 PM

So join the IWW and fight back.

Just a suggestion.

-F

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 2, 2008 5:00 PM

I'll look into it.

Wobblies UNITE!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Saturday, February 2, 2008 6:01 PM

In Sweden both moms and dads get maternity leave. Just after the baby is born they usually both take time off but since you can bank the time it's not unusual for the man to head back to work but take the remainder of his time off 6 months later to give his wife chance to re-establish her career.

In my office my manager had two small children, her husband collected them from school 3 days a week and my manager Tuesdays and Wednesdays. On the days she was to collect them she left the office at 3PM, was available by cell phone and then returned after 7PM to finish her work. It was known not to schedule important meetings in the afternoons those two days. With home broadband more common now than it was I'm sure these days she would just telecomute from home in the evenings.

There is no magic to it, people have far more things they have to do than just work, coming up with ways to make the two more compatable isn't rocket science.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 3, 2008 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In my office my manager had two small children, her husband collected them from school 3 days a week and my manager Tuesdays and Wednesdays. On the days she was to collect them she left the office at 3PM, was available by cell phone and then returned after 7PM to finish her work. It was known not to schedule important meetings in the afternoons those two days. With home broadband more common now than it was I'm sure these days she would just telecomute from home in the evenings.

There is no magic to it, people have far more things they have to do than just work, coming up with ways to make the two more compatable isn't rocket science.

How convenient for your manager. Most people I know have to jump when their told. Currently at my company, we're all doing mandatory overtime because we're shortstaffed with our new responsibilites and they haven't figured out what to pay new hires. People here are putting in mandatory 5 and 6 day weeks, and that's 12 hour a day shifts.

Hey, but what can we complain about? At least they didn't lay us off right?

So is my mom stupid then, that she was forced to work 70 and 80 hour weeks all the time... that when she came home at night she'd be working on that damn laptop for hours?

Nice little cookie cutter world you live in there fletch.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FLETCH2

Sunday, February 3, 2008 2:33 AM

You really should work on anger management.

The point that seems to be lost on you is that a lot of the problems that life throws at you can be resolved if all parties behave in good faith. My manager was one of the most experienced in the company, competency that would have been lost and would have had to be replaced (at some cost) had she been forced to leave to start a family. By giving her options the company actually saves money and disruption and because the society as a whole accepts this kind of working there were no temper tantrums about her odd hours.

Your employer is working you harder but is he working smarter? Things are likely to be far more efficient (and make more $) if the work you do is properly staffed. What's happening is that in the short term you and your co-workers are filling the gap and right now some middle manager's figures look very good so he has no incentive to change things. His hope is that he'll be promoted before people burn out and it will be his successor that has to fix the mess he's made. It's bad practice.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 3, 2008 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Your employer is working you harder but is he working smarter? Things are likely to be far more efficient (and make more $) if the work you do is properly staffed. What's happening is that in the short term you and your co-workers are filling the gap and right now some middle manager's figures look very good so he has no incentive to change things. His hope is that he'll be promoted before people burn out and it will be his successor that has to fix the mess he's made. It's bad practice.

My mom was a project manager for a large telecommunications company which primarily did their work for Chicago firms. Her competency was such that she was invaluable to the company, but she had an even shorter temper than I do which is why they loved her right where she was and she didn't get any higher than she did. She couldn't even get them to stop making her work more than 40 hours per week, unpaid I might add, so there was no way they were going to let her leave early to drive an hour home and pick up her kids from school.

As for my employer, it's not as if my manager is doing this to me, or his manager. It's the pin dick pencil pushers 2,000 miles away that bought us out, and quite frankly I know they don't give two shits about me and would happy to see me go. Especially after making noise about the loss of the smoking room here and the fact that we have to go outside in -20 below weather while their employees have to cope with 50 degree weather when they're forced outside. It sure as shit is bad practice, but that shit is coming from somebody who didn't work as a fellow employee until just a few months ago that none of us has ever even met. As for my anger management, I never had a problem with my anger when I could smoke in my office back in 2,000. That problem only started when the smoke Nazi's ruined every day of my life afterwards.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FLETCH2

Sunday, February 3, 2008 4:15 AM

Any chance on a moratorium on the "victim smoker" rebuttals? We get it, you're a misunderstood and put upon drug addict. It doesn't have to form part of every thread we have here.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 3, 2008 5:24 AM

Don't talk to me about anger manangement dick and it won't come up. Why don't you get back on topic then?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 3, 2008 7:16 AM

For what it's worth Fletch, I would like to apologize for that last post and retract that statement.

My apologies.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Sunday, February 3, 2008 2:11 PM

America has spoken. MORE OF THE SAME!!!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Monday, February 4, 2008 4:27 PM

Polls indicate that Obama and Clinton are tied at about the 40-44% level. But this leaves a SIGNIFICANT number of undecideds- 12-20%. I believe those were committed Edwards voters, who're now left choosing between an empty bag and a weasel.

I wish he'd have stayed in. He wouldn't have won, both BOTH candidates would be looking to extract the winning balance from him, and in turn he could have extracted lots of commitments. A Vice Presidency perhaps, or a significant choice in Cabinet posts.

*kicks wall*

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, February 4, 2008 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I wish he'd have stayed in. He wouldn't have won, both BOTH candidates would be looking to extract the winning balance from him, and in turn he could have extracted lots of commitments. A Vice Presidency perhaps, or a significant choice in Cabinet posts.

.

I think that was the original plan, like I said he's been campaigning to be VP. However, I think he's realized that he won't be carrying any states or have any delegates at the convention. My thoughts are that he's bailing now while he still has some campaign funds and is hoping to parlay that money and his endorsement into a seat at the table (maybe VP maybe a cabinet job.) In any case his bargaining power is reduced, I can't see him managing any concessions in exchange for his support.