ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: Presidential Election 2004

8/5/2003 4:35 AM
Flash Water	Re: Presidential Election 2004 Who do I favor? Here's who I think will win: GWB will win. The only chance the democratic party has is to trot Hillary out. But I don't think she's quite ready yet. Plus, I still think that the administration is sitting on a WMD score of sorts, and is meting out time until the political value is greatest to announce it. I thought GWB would be OK, I voted for him. And, damn! anything is better than Al Gore. But, I have been disappointed with his continued spending. I won't vote for him again. I really want a libertarian to get a noticeable % of the next vote - enough to warrant some media coverage, enough to be included in a debate. I have not come across a libertarian candidate that really stands out. This party really needs a charismatic, TV-friendly guy to step up and knock America's socks off. Fat Matt's is cool, but for the shiznit in Atl BBQ you gotta go to the Rib Ranch. There is none better. http://atlanta.diningguide.net/data/d100315.htm (ps - the one in marietta is better)

8/5/2003 4:35 AM

Flash Water

Re: Presidential Election 2004

Who do I favor?
Here's who I think will win:
GWB will win. The only chance the democratic party has is to trot Hillary out. But I don't think she's quite ready yet. Plus, I still think that the administration is sitting on a WMD score of sorts, and is meting out time until the political value is greatest to announce it. I thought GWB would be OK, I voted for him. And, damn! anything is better than Al Gore. But, I have been disappointed with his continued spending. I won't vote for him again.

I really want a libertarian to get a noticeable % of the next vote - enough to warrant some media coverage, enough to be included in a debate. I have not come across a libertarian candidate that really stands out. This party really needs a charismatic, TV-friendly guy to step up and knock America's socks off.

Fat Matt's is cool, but for the shiznit in Atl BBQ you gotta go to the Rib Ranch. There is none better.

http://atlanta.diningguide.net/data/d100315.htm
(ps - the one in marietta is better)

8/5/2003 3:25 PM
steve conner	No politician _ever_ tells the truth in their election manifesto! They just feed you all the crap they "think" you'll want to hear, then once they get elected, they and their buddies have 4 years to loot the place before anyone can get them out. You don't need a 100% average in Engineering Calculus to work that one out Personally I believe that the people who would run the country best are the very last people who would want to. Hence, I think administrations should be chosen at random from the public every 4 years, like they do with juries. Oh no, where did my copy of Grand Theft Auto 27 go?

8/5/2003 3:25 PM

steve conner

No politician _ever_ tells the truth in their election manifesto! They just feed you all the crap they "think" you'll want to hear, then once they get elected, they and their buddies have 4 years to loot the place before anyone can get them out. You don't need a 100% average in Engineering Calculus to work that one out

Personally I believe that the people who would run the country best are the very last people who would want to. Hence, I think administrations should be chosen at random from the public every 4 years, like they do with juries.

Oh no, where did my copy of Grand Theft Auto 27 go?

8/5/2003 7:54 PM
Brian	"No politician _ever_ tells the truth in their election manifesto! They just feed you all the crap they "think" you'll want to hear, then once they get elected, they and their buddies have 4 years to loot the place before anyone can get them out." Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that statement. I guess the things that I like about Kucinich are based on things he's already done in Congress. He claims he doesn't take PAC money, so I don't know who his partners in pilfering might be but I do have to agree with your general sentiment. I'm starting to think maybe I would be better off high on dope vicariously living through video game characters!

8/5/2003 7:54 PM

Brian

"No politician _ever_ tells the truth in their election manifesto! They just feed you all the crap they "think" you'll want to hear, then once they get elected, they and their buddies have 4 years to loot the place before anyone can get them out."

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that statement. I guess the things that I like about Kucinich are based on things he's already done in Congress. He claims he doesn't take PAC money, so I don't know who his partners in pilfering might be but I do have to agree with your general sentiment. I'm starting to think maybe I would be better off high on dope vicariously living through video game characters!

8/5/2003 8:53 PM
nic	Election lottery I like the lottery system idea. I have heard it before. Does a few things. Gets money out of politics. Gets "special interest" agendas out of office. Keeps politicians from being a career. I have thought about this before but not too in depth. I wonder what some real drawbacks would be? Suppose terms were 2 years. Not enough time to really screw things up from the administration before. nic

8/5/2003 8:53 PM

nic

Election lottery

I like the lottery system idea. I have heard it before. Does a few things. Gets money out of politics. Gets "special interest" agendas out of office. Keeps politicians from being a career. I have thought about this before but not too in depth. I wonder what some real drawbacks would be? Suppose terms were 2 years. Not enough time to really screw things up from the administration before.

nic

8/6/2003 5:35 PM
Mark Hammer	For a fair election and solid candidates... Ban any and ALL appearances by candidates in electronic or mass print media of any kind for 4 months prior to the election date. No TV, no radio, no web, no newspaper, no People magazine, no ads. No pictures or soundbites. Just Lincoln-like trainstops and debates. That's right. You won't see or hear them unless they are in your neighbourhood and you GO to see and hear them. You won't know a thing about them unless you talk to them or their campaign staff or read their literature. Imagine, an election founded on thoughtful consideration and debate of issues and platforms. Who'd-a thunk it?

8/6/2003 5:35 PM

Mark Hammer

For a fair election and solid candidates...

Ban any and ALL appearances by candidates in electronic or mass print media of any kind for 4 months prior to the election date. No TV, no radio, no web, no newspaper, no People magazine, no ads. No pictures or soundbites. Just Lincoln-like trainstops and debates.

That's right. You won't see or hear them unless they are in your neighbourhood and you GO to see and hear them. You won't know a thing about them unless you talk to them or their campaign staff or read their literature.

Imagine, an election founded on thoughtful consideration and debate of issues and platforms.

Who'd-a thunk it?

8/7/2003 11:45 AM
Dave Rich	Mark, It might work except for this little thing called "free speech".

8/7/2003 4:26 PM
Mark Hammer	Yeah, I was kind of hoping to be able to facilitate more of that. I'm all for "free" speech. It's this blasted "paid-for speech" that is gumming up the works in most western industrialized democracies. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his intention to run for California Governor yesterday. Where? On the Tonight Show with several hundred hooting baboons dressed as humans. There was absolutely nothing "free" about that speech since every single moment of it was engineered to make someone money. I suspect the deciding factor in the degree of support someone like Schwarzenegger has for pursuing political ambitions IS his capacity to attract money and ride on the coattails of the many favours he can call on in media, and NOT his genius as political visionary. My guess is that at no point in his career has anyone ever said to Schwarzenegger "This body-building action-hero stuff has been a complete waste of your time. Your true calling is policy-making, since you are so much better at it. You should run for office." Rather, I suspect someone at some point said "You could run for office". Big difference. Indeed, a great deal of the peurile the us-vs-them rhetoric that shames most political legislatures, and an equal amount of the insanity at political leadership conventions that nets us some of these dorks (something I like to call "folie à milles" in reference to the psychiatric syndrome of secluded couples sharing a delusional system) has the goal of attracting campaign funds for the next go-around. The need to have campaign funds to pay for all the media presence that assures political victory has seriously compromised the process and seriously undermined the public's confidence in the process. The latter of those affects the former since decreasing voter turnouts result in poor choices and resistance to the policy initiatives of people whom one "didn't vote for". Downward spiral and the antithesis of what democracy is supposed to be. I'm not so naive that I believe legislatures were the zenith of civilized debate before television stepped in. In fact I know for a fact they weren't. The problem is that the saturated role of electronic and mass media in contemporary politics and political debate has simply stunted our political growth such that we can't benefit from the disdain we have for poisoned political process of the past and move forward. Omitting media presence from the political process is no more of an impingement on free speech than deciding to cut back on excessive drinking in order to improve one's health is an impingement of freedom. Sometimes you have to exercise a little self-restraint to move ahead and become what you ought to be. I have to omit one of my favourites from my diet (ice cream) because I run the risk of going blind, footless, and impotent if I don't. BUT, if I restrain myself, and exercise, I get to have it back once in while in a manner that won't penalize me for engaging in a little pleasure. Same goes with "free speech". Claiming one is entitled to it doesn't make it any healthier when used to excess and the point of penalty. You need to earn it back once in a while by living without it in a self-disciplined way. It'd be nice if political parties tried once in a while to just do without and try and make it on the strengths of their platform, not the colour of their tie or whiteness of their teeth or jibe with a talkshow host (or sunglassed sax-playing). It'd be nice if the lines between showbiz and politics were a little clearer and visible.

8/7/2003 4:26 PM

Mark Hammer

Yeah, I was kind of hoping to be able to facilitate more of that. I'm all for "free" speech. It's this blasted "paid-for speech" that is gumming up the works in most western industrialized democracies.

Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his intention to run for California Governor yesterday. Where? On the Tonight Show with several hundred hooting baboons dressed as humans. There was absolutely nothing "free" about that speech since every single moment of it was engineered to make someone money. I suspect the deciding factor in the degree of support someone like Schwarzenegger has for pursuing political ambitions IS his capacity to attract money and ride on the coattails of the many favours he can call on in media, and NOT his genius as political visionary. My guess is that at no point in his career has anyone ever said to Schwarzenegger "This body-building action-hero stuff has been a complete waste of your time. Your true calling is policy-making, since you are so much better at it. You *should* run for office." Rather, I suspect someone at some point said "You *could* run for office". Big difference.

Indeed, a great deal of the peurile the us-vs-them rhetoric that shames most political legislatures, and an equal amount of the insanity at political leadership conventions that nets us some of these dorks (something I like to call "folie à milles" in reference to the psychiatric syndrome of secluded couples sharing a delusional system) has the goal of attracting campaign funds for the next go-around.

The need to have campaign funds to pay for all the media presence that assures political victory has seriously compromised the process and seriously undermined the public's confidence in the process. The latter of those affects the former since decreasing voter turnouts result in poor choices and resistance to the policy initiatives of people whom one "didn't vote for". Downward spiral and the antithesis of what democracy is supposed to be.

I'm not so naive that I believe legislatures were the zenith of civilized debate before television stepped in. In fact I know for a fact they weren't. The problem is that the saturated role of electronic and mass media in contemporary politics and political debate has simply stunted our political growth such that we can't benefit from the disdain we have for poisoned political process of the past and move forward.

Omitting media presence from the political process is no more of an impingement on free speech than deciding to cut back on excessive drinking in order to improve one's health is an impingement of freedom. Sometimes you have to exercise a little self-restraint to move ahead and become what you ought to be. I have to omit one of my favourites from my diet (ice cream) because I run the risk of going blind, footless, and impotent if I don't. BUT, if I restrain myself, and exercise, I get to have it back once in while in a manner that won't penalize me for engaging in a little pleasure. Same goes with "free speech". Claiming one is entitled to it doesn't make it any healthier when used to excess and the point of penalty. You need to earn it back once in a while by living without it in a self-disciplined way. It'd be nice if political parties tried once in a while to just do without and try and make it on the strengths of their platform, not the colour of their tie or whiteness of their teeth or jibe with a talkshow host (or sunglassed sax-playing). It'd be nice if the lines between showbiz and politics were a little clearer and visible.

Page 2 of 7