I would have thought that with the vigor of opinions, involvement would be greater on the part of our posting population.
well, dont forget that some of the most vocal posts come from people who dont even live in the united states.
aa
by bisous 42 Replies latest social current
I would have thought that with the vigor of opinions, involvement would be greater on the part of our posting population.
well, dont forget that some of the most vocal posts come from people who dont even live in the united states.
aa
Bisous, in answer to your question:
I am not offically involved in my favroite candidate's campaign (as yet) but I am working on helping his candidacy get more attention wherever possible. I am not sure what the specific time amount I have spent on that is. I gave up counting time, a long time ago.
I work for the Govt. Cant exactly post a bunch of "Go-Bush" posters at work........
Last hard core work I did was for Ross Perot.
Now I walk around with my Kerry Sucks shirt. Im more Libertarian than anything.......
Anyone but Kerry.........
Last year was involved in the whole Dump Gay Davis
Go Arnold!!
Arnold for President!
u know Arnold is causing an uproar in california,he called the democrat lawmakers 'girlie Men ". big brew ha ha, and he is not sorry.
They (California Democrats) are girly men. Though I personaly think of them more a pimps for the unions and the trial lawyers.
LABD
He ist gubbernor, and his job ist to pump (clap) you up!
Not heavily involved, but I am working on some Republican causes.
And what is it that YOU do?
I have worked on every campaign since Mondale/Ferraro! That was my very first election in which I was old enough and out of the borg to participate in. I lived in NY and stuffed envelopes at the local offices. What an experience, I remember going to a rally downtown Manhattan and seeing several women activists, even heard Bella Abzug speak!! ha ha, thanks hadn't thought of that in a while. It was very inspiring to me as a young woman, on several fronts. Just opened my eyes as to all women could be and do.
I worked in local get out the vote efforts the last 3 elections, as well as participating in local Clinton/Gore campaign offices. Answering phones, beating the pavement stuff.
In California, I was involved locally in establishing the first neighborhood association where I lived, getting our local councilwoman Jane Brunner to come to our meetings and assist in some local activism. My neighbor and I successfully defeated the erection of a huge cell phone tower addition to our semi-urban neighborhood, organizing neighborhood meetings and working the blocks with fliers, door-to-door discussions and coordinating a letter writing campaign which defeated approval.
I recently moved to Portland, OR about 8-9 months ago....still getting my sea legs as far as political scene. Joined my neighborhood association, and in the last couple of weeks have located the local Kerry offices to begin my volunteering efforts again.
I consider it a privilege and a duty to be able to vote and strive to educate myself on the platform and issues of each election, not just Presidential election year. It is a shame less than 50% of our population votes and that is on the Presidential years. People in other countries suffer greatly for so far smaller freedoms than we possess.
I was listening to talk radio over the week-end and how Democrats typically are less involved at the grass roots level. The host was encouraging people to get involved locally. One caller from Florida was encouraged to run for local board which governs voting.
Lastly, in my old neighborhood I volunteered on every voting day for our local voting location. Kind of fun and a great way to get to know your neighbors, and feel like you are part of history....which in reality is exactly what voting is. Hope to be able to do that in my new neighborhood, I am moving in early August.
S ometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president. Read this:
"If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.
If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.
If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.
If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.
If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.
If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.
Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.
If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.
If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 might run afoul of the law).
If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths ? his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.
If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.
If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.
If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election."
Good for you, Ms Bisous, this is admirable. Many here could learn from your example. Instead of fanatically trying to change other poster's political views, everyone should strive to become educated & well read, & become part of the solution. Sitting around being less than grateful & complaining solves nothing. Instead of being absolutely obsessed by the politics in a different country than where one lives, why not become involved & do something in one's own country! With freedom comes responsability!