Ummm... what the hell is up with the doll?

You actually believe there's a difference between Dems and Repubs beyond which constituency they intend their gov't welfare to go to?

It will be the disgusted independents that upset the applecart.

BTW, zombies are cool. :)

Little blackface doll....

Indeed... clearly they were thinking that large multinational corporations are the best providers of these services.


Sorry, couldn't resist..

I don't understand your first sentence.


I don't believe Independents have the passion or organization to do anything.


I believe Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are two examples of modern-day revolutionaries.

I believe successful revolution can happen within either party. the barrier to entry is actually higher from the outside than from within. Witness Dr. Paul's recent success in fundraising; failure of a 3rd party candidate to even exist seals the deal.

I do think a Paul/Gravel ticket would be enticing as a third party, but they'd have to dial down the nutball factory a little.

People vote to gain comfort. You have to make them VERY uncomfortable to change how they vote.

Yeah, I can see that my point wasn't clear, or even tied that closely to your statement:

What I was trying to say is that the Dems are locked into the apathy and corruption steps in your post above. The Dems are in love with gov't largess to the people, like the Repubs are in love with gov't largess for the corporations. All we'll see from them is jockying for the most largess. Only the independents (and moderate Dems/Repubs), after becoming so disenchanted by the corruption at both ends of the gov't feeding trough, may be capable of revolting against the status quo. A strong leader with a vision that benefits America could crystalize this disgust into a force for change. Or maybe not. I remain hopeful.

I agree with you. You have an interesting take on the steps (I just made them up) and who is at what level. there's ebb and flow of these steps throughout American history. Certainly the Civil War, Women's Movement and Vietnam War era are all examples of getting to step 7. The key, and hardest part, is labeling the traitor, and that group can change from the time of revolution, to the time it is written about.

Republicans have done an excellent job at labeling anyone anti-Iraq War as a traitor. Where this can go, and who can take it there given our current circumstances, is open, but one thing is clear, it would require a great leader. I see a few out there testing the waters, but don't see anyone mainstream who is willing or able to take this country in the right direction.

Paul and Gravel have the fire in their bellies, but don't have the natural leadership abilities of Obama or the pragmatism of Huckabee.

Mash 'em all together and you'd have a great leader.

Yes, it is funny the perceptions the two sides have of one another. Both accuse the other of being the enemy of freedom and proudly tout themselves as the defenders of same. I think it boils down to drastically differing definitions of "freedom" as much as any other reason.

One side (the conservative side) defines freedom, as an individual citizen, at least partly as being free from government meddling in their lives. Free of government regulation. They see freedom as something that is not inherent in man's existance, but rather as something that must be earned through hard work and self reliance. They do not turn to their government expecting to be given their "fair share" of it. They go and get it for themselves, thank you very much. With the difficulty involved in gaining it, they very much savor it and protect it when they achieve it. They see people all around them that are too lazy and afraid to be deserving of true freedom. These people are known as "liberals", or at least they vote for the ones that promise to take the greatest measure of freedom and give it to them free gratis.

The other side (the liberal side) seeks freedom through government intervention. They believe freedom can be forced upon the unwilling or, more importantly, the underserving. They believe a very large, intrusive, regulatory government is the best means available to ensure freedom for all, especially for those who cannot obtain it for themselves. They feel freedom is every man's right, that it should be the "default setting" of human existance. That belief is quite unrealistic, but they cling to it none the less. They believe one man's freedom (or assets or whatever else he my have earned for himself) can be given to another, and will use their government in an attempt to forcibly bring this about. They believe they can dole out the fruits of the hard work and risk of obtaining freedom (or said assets) to those who have never worked for it and have risked nothing.

Liberals believe freedom = equality. They cannot understand that freedom includes the freedom to fail; they want a government mandated, supplied, and funded safety net that removes this freedom from the listless and lazy. And they want the truly free to hold that net up for them. They want the population that has earned their freedoms to give up a substantial measure of them in the effort to prop up those that have not. They want a "level playing field"; to "peanut butter spread" the freedoms earned by a finite segment of the population accross the entire population. And they will gleefully use the hammer of big government regulation to achieve their utopian goals of zero failure and equality for all. If they ever achieve this, they will surely sit back and pat each other on their collective backs, proud of the "freedom" they have achieved for one and all. And our Founding Fathers would never recognize it...

Livi, in a nutshell..
we f8cked,
everyone is arguing over the carcass.
Rika

I think what you are describing here is much close to Libertarianism. You make no mention of faith, the legislation of morality, strong military, and aggressive foreign policy. Some aspects of conservatism observed rather than in theory.


Basically both sides are trying to take your money and give it to someone else. The liberals will tell you to think of the children, the civil servant, the teacher, fireman, oppressed factory worker, the single mother, all the while treating you like the ATM you are. The conservatives will tell you to think of the terrorist, the criminals, the gays, the atheists, the foreigners, the elitists, all the while treating you like the ATM you are.

Libertarianism simply rose out of the ashes of conservatism. The modern, mainstream conservative movement is such a bastard child it is no longer recognized by true conservatives. It is as meddling and intrusive as the modern liberal movement, which is also unrecognizable to true liberals. It's just that they have not yet found a suitable substitute.

Kudos for concision!

Hmmm... I tend to agree. I think what we see are liberalism and conservatism as practiced by politicians, constrained and warped by our political system. Depressing...

But what does this have to do with the billboard? Other than the black baby doll and the obvious racist overtones, I just am not getting why the billboard is funny or ironic.

both...

they each have there own way of taking away freedoms for individuals.

see if you can connect the dots:



wire tapping


smoking bans at home



donkey




elephant

Zombies are cool. :)

Yes, they did. And most of us are independent of those dependencies. They also wrote a constitution that promised to provide for the common welfare. Freedoms and liberties were, it appears, their number one priority. I wonder how you think they would view wiretapping. I wonder how they would view the government databases that track your Internet usage. I wonder how they would view the government's use of your library records. I wonder whether they would permit the government to throw someone in a prison with no charges and no evidence, indefinitely.

How do you think they would view those decisions?

Jeff, it would be an understatement to say I have great respect for your views. But your characterizations of the two camps is one of the least accurate and least insightful of all your input here. In my humble view. What you have offered above is not the actual distinction between those groups. What you have offered is the caricaturization of both groups.......from the perspective of conservatives. You might as well have said that conservatives are for freedom, liberty, prosperity, apple pie, racing, puppies, moms, children and sex.............liberals are for tyranny, bankruptcy, dependency, laziness, irresponsibility and cockroaches. You virtually did say that. I thought you understood better. I know you understand better.

This was way more fun when I could still fool you. I don't seem to be able to pull off the nasty conservative painting the liberal stereotype like I used to. I'm losing my edge. I'll have to try another angle. This is a dark day...