What's Going On Here???

rtwngAvngr said:
"Hi. I'm steve. I'll log back on and pretend I don't understand things. then I'll go away like a little beesnatch."


Dude, go back to my original post. I had things on my mind that I thought would make interesting conversation. Would you care to point to something I wrote that denegrated someone else's point of view?


I truly didn't know the point that was being made above, so I asked for clarification.

As far as logging on and off, so what? I have a freakin' job, and this site is just one point of interest. I thought this looked like a cool place to have an intelligent exchange of thoughts.

"then I'll go away like a little beesnatch..." Give me a break. You can certainly do better than that.
 
Steve757 said:
Dude, go back to my original post. I had things on my mind that I thought would make interesting conversation. Would you care to point to something I wrote that denegrated someone else's point of view?


I truly didn't know the point that was being made above, so I asked for clarification.

As far as logging on and off, so what? I have a freakin' job, and this site is just one point of interest. I thought this looked like a cool place to have an intelligent exchange of thoughts.

"then I'll go away like a little beesnatch..." Give me a break. You can certainly do better than that.

i guess I should welcome you.


Welcome to Fight Club, if this is your first night, you have to fight. :laugh:
 
kgoodwin10 said:
Before we get to the questions, What came first- chicken or the egg, constituents wanting influence on the agenda.

My point EXACTLY. We, the people set the agenda. Except that we the people have allowed special interest groups to usurp our voice.
 
GunnyL said:
My point EXACTLY. We, the people set the agenda. Except that we the people have allowed special interest groups to usurp our voice.

...but we the people are not a homogeneous constituency. Of course your going to have special interest involvement in any agenda. How else could you coalesce a constituency?
 
kgoodwin10 said:
...but we the people are not a homogeneous constituency. Of course your going to have special interest involvement in any agenda. How else could you coalesce a constituency?

You get the media to drum up an agenda for you !
 
kgoodwin10 said:
...but we the people are not a homogeneous constituency. Of course your going to have special interest involvement in any agenda. How else could you coalesce a constituency?

You trying to argue apples and oranges now? We the people ARE the agenda, homogenous or not. If we were a homogenous constituency, one party would suffice.

"The agenda" as defined by however many agendas/values a party represents.

"special interests" as defined by the big $ that buys votes, rather than the common good driving the train.

The Democrats are just plain whacky. They represent anything screwy and wrong with this Nation.

I used to have faith in the Republicans, but they have disappointed me greatly in recent times. They've thrown out traditional conservative values and adpoted some of the policies (big government - big spending) that are what got the Dems booted.

I think NEITHER party truly represent the American people, or even their respective constituencies. They represent perpetuating the bureaucracy.
 
GunnyL said:
You trying to argue apples and oranges now? We the people ARE the agenda, homogenous or not. If we were a homogenous constituency, one party would suffice.

"The agenda" as defined by however many agendas/values a party represents.

"special interests" as defined by the big $ that buys votes, rather than the common good driving the train.

The Democrats are just plain whacky. They represent anything screwy and wrong with this Nation.

I used to have faith in the Republicans, but they have disappointed me greatly in recent times. They've thrown out traditional conservative values and adpoted some of the policies (big government - big spending) that are what got the Dems booted.

I think NEITHER party truly represent the American people, or even their respective constituencies. They represent perpetuating the bureaucracy.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure I understand your definition of agenda or party, but I think I see what your saying.

But what do you mean "we the people ARE the agenda?" After reviewing a number of your recent Posts, it would seem that we agree more often than not, and it would work reasonable well if it were just you and I defining "We the People," but add 250 million people into "We the People" and the theory breaks down quickly . I'm not saying that politics "as is" is a well oiled machine, but to influence policy as supported by agendas, consistent party ticket support is positive and rather splitting it and expecting results. Here in Colorado Bush (R) won and Sen Ken Salazar (D) won. They haven't agreed on one issue since the election. Now apply that to what's occurred across the nation and you get the results we have - An agenda that has stalled and isn't moving anywhere. Why? Not because of special interests, but inconsistent support by "We the people." There shouldn't be any disappointment in our governments results, because "we the people voted for it."
 
kgoodwin10 said:
I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure I understand your definition of agenda or party, but I think I see what your saying.

But what do you mean "we the people Are the agenda?"

We vote the candidates into office on the premise that they are going to represent our needs/desires = agenda. Our votes for them are usually rendered based on specific promises made = agenda.
 
Steve757 said:
Dude, go back to my original post. I had things on my mind that I thought would make interesting conversation. Would you care to point to something I wrote that denegrated someone else's point of view?


I truly didn't know the point that was being made above, so I asked for clarification.

As far as logging on and off, so what? I have a freakin' job, and this site is just one point of interest. I thought this looked like a cool place to have an intelligent exchange of thoughts.

"then I'll go away like a little beesnatch..." Give me a break. You can certainly do better than that.

This is what's going on here. Do you have any comments on it?

http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=4&pid=9
 
I don't buy into these conspiracy theories.

In my humble opinion, I think our government is pretty messed up, but I don't buy into the whole New World order kind of stuff.

Personally, I think our government is out of whack for several reasons.

1. Americans, by and large, are very lazy when it comes to politics. Few Americans will make an effort to research issues and candidates on their own. Which brings us to...

2. The new age of media. It wasn't until the mid 80's that talk radio became mainstream and a force in American politics. Rather than formulate opinions based on their own researched facts, Americans depend on talk show hosts to provide them with "hard hitting news and information." Most of this 'hard hitting news and information" is mere opinions, and can be classified as infomercials for the right wing agenda.

BUT... before you rag on me, and call me a liberal

3. Newspaper editorial writers tend to approach news stories, not from an unbiased standpoint, but rather with a hard slant to the left.

True facts and information are available to everyone, but few make an effort to find them. They'd put their trust blindly into others.
 
Steve757 said:
I don't buy into these conspiracy theories.

In my humble opinion, I think our government is pretty messed up, but I don't buy into the whole New World order kind of stuff.

Personally, I think our government is out of whack for several reasons.

1. Americans, by and large, are very lazy when it comes to politics. Few Americans will make an effort to research issues and candidates on their own. Which brings us to...

2. The new age of media. It wasn't until the mid 80's that talk radio became mainstream and a force in American politics. Rather than formulate opinions based on their own researched facts, Americans depend on talk show hosts to provide them with "hard hitting news and information." Most of this 'hard hitting news and information" is mere opinions, and can be classified as infomercials for the right wing agenda.

BUT... before you rag on me, and call me a liberal

3. Newspaper editorial writers tend to approach news stories, not from an unbiased standpoint, but rather with a hard slant to the left.

True facts and information are available to everyone, but few make an effort to find them. They'd put their trust blindly into others.


I agree with your opening and point #1. As for #2 and #3, they are the opposit heads of the same coin. If we give #3 the tails, there are way more tails than heads, strange coins indeed. You conveniently leave out the liberal video media, oh and Fox news.
 
Ha! I don't depend on video for much information so let's call that a draw.

As far as 2 & 3...I'm just trying to illustrate that this issue has infected members of both parties. Politics has become a sports event. In sports, people tend to route for the uniform--regardless of the players. In politics, people are routing for their party regardless of the issues.

Its late here. Does this make sense?
 
Steve757 said:
Ha! I don't depend on video for much information so let's call that a draw.

As far as 2 & 3...I'm just trying to illustrate that this issue has infected members of both parties. Politics has become a sports event. In sports, people tend to route for the uniform--regardless of the players. In politics, people are routing for their party regardless of the issues.

Its late here. Does this make sense?

What you are trying to say makes sense, everyone being in a 'party' I'm assuming, is your take? Some of us will say that while our thinking predisposes us towards one party, some in that party do things we disagree with and my understanding of our system of government, that gives me not only the right, but the duty to make my pov clear. Now they can listen or not, if there are enough constituents that do, they usually will listen and act. If they choose not to, I will vote for someone else the next time.

I'm certainly more politically inclined than most, but the pattern holds for most citizens at some level. With the port deal, you saw a violent awakening. My guess, as time rolls on, the polling numbers combined with the marches will create the same demand for real action on illegal immigration.
 
Steve757 said:
I don't buy into these conspiracy theories.

In my humble opinion, I think our government is pretty messed up, but I don't buy into the whole New World order kind of stuff.

Personally, I think our government is out of whack for several reasons.

1. Americans, by and large, are very lazy when it comes to politics. Few Americans will make an effort to research issues and candidates on their own. Which brings us to...

2. The new age of media. It wasn't until the mid 80's that talk radio became mainstream and a force in American politics. Rather than formulate opinions based on their own researched facts, Americans depend on talk show hosts to provide them with "hard hitting news and information." Most of this 'hard hitting news and information" is mere opinions, and can be classified as infomercials for the right wing agenda.

BUT... before you rag on me, and call me a liberal

3. Newspaper editorial writers tend to approach news stories, not from an unbiased standpoint, but rather with a hard slant to the left.

True facts and information are available to everyone, but few make an effort to find them. They'd put their trust blindly into others.

What do you not buy into? Do you deny the existence of the The Trilateral Commission? OR the WOrld Bank?

And before you go off on talk show hosts, they DO NOT talk about stuff like this. they would be yanked off the air most likely.
 
Steve757 said:
I don't buy into these conspiracy theories.

In my humble opinion, I think our government is pretty messed up, but I don't buy into the whole New World order kind of stuff.

Personally, I think our government is out of whack for several reasons.

1. Americans, by and large, are very lazy when it comes to politics. Few Americans will make an effort to research issues and candidates on their own. Which brings us to...

2. The new age of media. It wasn't until the mid 80's that talk radio became mainstream and a force in American politics. Rather than formulate opinions based on their own researched facts, Americans depend on talk show hosts to provide them with "hard hitting news and information." Most of this 'hard hitting news and information" is mere opinions, and can be classified as infomercials for the right wing agenda.

BUT... before you rag on me, and call me a liberal

3. Newspaper editorial writers tend to approach news stories, not from an unbiased standpoint, but rather with a hard slant to the left.

True facts and information are available to everyone, but few make an effort to find them. They'd put their trust blindly into others.


Unless you are talking about Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly...they follow the party line for the most part...Now if you want entertainment try Michael Savage...he is all over the board...lotsa facts...humor,sarcasim and lotsa wake-up calls..quite entertaining if you can get past the gruff approach! :cool:
 

Forum List

Back
Top