Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pianodude123, Nov 16, 2005.
Who likes Karl Rove...
I wish the whole lot of them would just go away.
I think he is scum.
He destroyed the democratic voting process by pandering to religious nutheads.
Apparently the "democratic process" doesn't include those you seem to disagree with...VERY DEMOCRATIC.
move to political forum?
and i dont dislike him anymore than any of the spin doctors that the dems use.
i think he's an offspring of the political atmosphere of today. until we as people speak out against all of the talking heads/Bull$t artists, they're here to stay.
Bush's Brain is a good docu about Rove....he has done some really dirty things.
I think the move will happen soon.....
Maybe by my own hand....
I disagree. Rove is a master in the art of using people. Something that the DNC has lost sight of IMO.
To have the Bush "faithful" and "pioneers" thrown in the face of the voters is disgraceful. Even more disgraceful is that lack of voter action till these "off-year" elections.
No, Rove, Bush, and many within the RNC are modern day equals to Joseph McCarthy. Pandering on either political fear, or religious fear. And depending on how you feel, both.
We have only ourselves to blame. Voting on 15-30 second sound bites. Case in point was former Gov. Gilmore's pledge of the elimination of the Virginia personal property tax on cars.
All the voters heard was the "elimination" of the "car tax". They did not hear that Virginia would have to have positive tax income over the 5 year phase in. Notice the 5 year phase in period. In Virginia governors are elected to a four year term with no succession. And that there was no cuts in spending top counter the reduced revenue.
But Gilmore won. And now he is the darling of the RNC, even though he failed. And today we are still trying to find away to eliminate the "car tax" in Virginia.
I don't care if you are liberal or conservative. What I care about is the ability for all to look past the negative campaign ads. To take the time and do research on your candidate of choice - with hard facts. Not what the news media spoon feeds you. Not with what the campaigns feed you. But with what the cold hard fact shows you. And what is best for your city, county, state, and the nation as a whole.
Add to that it matters only where the money goes. In our recent election for governor, it was the PAC's that controlled the message and the possible outcome. Not the people, as our founding fathers felt (though their definition of the "people" differs from ours today).
For as long as we have people uninterested in the true makeup of their governing bodies, then we will have the likes of Rove controlling us as puppets.
As a point of reference in the "car tax" vote for Gilmore. After he was elected, many counties got something like 30%+ of people calling about why there was still a "car tax". To this day we are still waiting for the "no car tax" relief that Gilmore promised.
Very well put Chip NoVaMac. I too wish that people would do some research and come up with their own opinion(s)...and the negative campaign adds can go away, they will not be missed.
For I am one that would have voted for McCain in either of the two past presidential elections. Though I consider myself to be a Democrat, and labeled by some to be a "liberal".
Do I vote for single issues at times? Yes, but I do try to put even the most dear to my heart aside, and try to decide on what is best for my city, county, and country. And only then, since sometimes both political machines make a single issue the focus of an election.
I may be pushing this further towards the PF's here; but just look at the recent hearings in Congress for oil executives to "testify". They were not sworn in. And they were praised by member of Congress from both the RNC and DNC that received the most money in their pockets. The most vocal against the "treatment" of these execs; those that received the least.
So in either case, who was representing the people, not the "people" that make up the contributions to furthering the politicians stay in Washington?
I am rethinking my stance on campaign finance reform. I am now thinking that one needs to be a registered voter before contributing. That each registered voter would be allowed to contribute a TOTAL of $500 a year to any local, city, county, state, or national group or politician each year. No longer will lobbyist groups/companies be allowed. You have a thought or grievance, you do it as an individual.
You want to belong to the NRA or AARP, then you do it on your dime. They can tell you what to believe; but they would be prohibited from giving your ready made emails to send it off.
Regardless of the party you belong to, if a plitician sends you a response of "that is not what I believe in"; should be voted against regardless of the "good" for your area. Remember they are there to represent you, not their own beliefs. Sometimes, these will meet yours. That does not matter. If they fail to even consider your beliefs as valid; they should be gone.
Then, and only then will we be a country and government "Of The People, For The People...".....
Simple question...simple answer: As a "religious nuthead," I have no trouble with Rove "pandering" to meI kinda like it!
I agree with you there.
I see a real problem with the RNC or the DNC pumping money into a local election. What happens is that the person is not interested in the local folk, but rather spends the time making the party happy. My law would be simple: NO outside money can go into local elections.
Case in point: Jerry Weller, my elected official, doesn't even LIVE here. He recently sold his one bedroom "show" house here... the one over a garage on the west side of town, that was always empty. He has a house in Washington, a condo in Chicago, land in Belize and a house in Guatemala. He spends his time outside the district, only stopping by to hand a grant out, then its off to his villa in Guatemala where he spends his days with his wife, the daughter of a mass murderer. And Jerry is well-like in the GOP. Why? He toes the line. And he rakes in money from special interest groups like the 150,000 bucks he got from the pharmacutical industry for pushing their agenda. Does he work for me? Nope. Can he be defeated? Sure, if the outside money stopped. Because without that, the layers of slime will start to show themselves. All show, no substance.
And how did he GET this money? He was a damn pig farmer years ago. Now, if he leaves or is finally defeated, he'll for sure move right into K Street, and MILLIONS will be his reward.
We let it happen to ourselves folks.
Also, we can't REALLY eliminate soft money... there are always ways around the law. But I propose THIS (without spending TOO much time on the logistics):
Right now we are a two-party system. (sorry to the others!) ALL money from corporations goes into a large fund that all presidential contenders share equally. Keep the matching dollars that the government gives to all candidates now... equally. If a third party member reaches a % threshhold in an election... like 5%, then money is funnelled to them to.
As for Rove. There is no doubt in my mind that he will rot in hell.
PS: I saw Weller at a restaurant having dinner with his mother. He left a $2.00 tip. What a guy.
Why has garnering support from those of faith become so looked down upon. And don't give me that "don't cram religion down my throat" argument. As a person of faith, I have to deal everyday with images of sex, drinking, foul language and the like. I can't even take my kids to see a childrens movie without hearing words like "dork", "idiot", "jerk" and others. I have to expain billboards, magazine ads, commercials and on and on it goes. And yet, people of faith are "nutheads". It seems the more decadent one is, the more normal they are. I don't buy it.
Thanks Carl for making a stand.
Because he panders to them, exploits them and gives them little to nothing in return for their unswerving loyalty.
Do you feel that "sex, drinking, foul language and the like" are establishments of a religion that's being crammed down your throat?
Do you REALLY think Rove is going to help you out with your dislike of 21st Century consumerist America?
Do you not think it is more likely that he is tugging a few strings to attract in a certain demographic vote, with the intention of doing very little, if anything, about the issues which clearly trouble you ?
BTW, he may soon be facing prosecution for lying. Some hero!
chip, rove isn't the only one who creates negative campaign ads. there are spin doctors on both sides.
i agree that he's a scummy, but saying that negative campaign tactics is stractly a republican flaw is silly
Rove has been in near absolute power, "taking a stand," for 5 whole years. I wonder how it's possible, in Rove's righteous new America, that brogers is still being exposed to all this horrible degenerate filth?
oh, that's easy
the liberal media
you never hear such awful words on. just picking a random fair and balanced program on random... the o'reilly factor!
oh and just so you know, only religious people would want to be able to shield their kids from images and words that aren't appropriate for them!
though i respect your right to raise your children as you see fit, i must wonder:
1. what exactly do you hope would be legislated to cure "society's ills"?
2. what exactly has rove done to satisfy you? anything actionable, or just words?
This continues to be the crux of the matter. If faith based, local organizations were doing their job, engaging society at the grass roots level, getting dirty with identification while being "salt and light", rather than hiding out in their fish tanks, perhaps the influence you're looking for in the moral fiber of society would materialize. Over time, one of the popular mantras of the neocons has been, "the Democrats want the Government in everything". And you don't see any duplicity in the present, co-mingled mindset? I don't believe morality can be legislated. History has born this out. Instead of hoisting the American flag over the church or vice versa, and congratulating Carl and his Committee of self-congratulatory good ole boys, it would seem to fare better if people of faith continued to go over everyone's head, like they've effectively done in the past. The likes of a recent Pat Robertson's remarks should be ample illustration that faith groups seeking political platforms deserve condolences rather than congratulations.
I personally do not consider people who wish to use their religion to control others to be democratic.
How apt for a Piscean religion!
I don't believe I said that. I believe all campaigns are guilty of it. Though you have to admit that Kilgore in Virginia elevated it to a new level.
What I did say about Rove, was that he has taken and used fear to mobilize a portion of the voter block that IMO skews the actual desires of the people. The DNC has no real block of voters that it can count on to fear just a few particular things.
I too consider myself a person of Faith. But I do not try and force my Faith on those that are not open to it either. I also believe that our nation was founded on the principle of freedom "from" religion.
The problem is that we have those of Faith trying to force their beliefs on others. Some of which is based on a strict interpretation of the Bible as the sole Word of God. But that is only one part of a world of people guided by Faith. There are also that believe the Bible is the Word of God, but there are passages that we as Believers must oppose - because they run counter to a caring and loving God. And then you have those that believe the Bible was written by man with their own agenda at the time. But still believe in God and His son, Jesus.
As an example, I disagree about the right of same sex marriages as opposed by some of Faith. Marriage as a public institution should be open to any two people, as long as there are legal benefits offered by the government for two people to marry. Marriage as a religious institution should be guided by each churches own beliefs and desires.
Another example would be the subject of abortion. As a person of Faith, I can not say for certain when life is created. For myself, I consider it to be the point of birth. But as a male, and a Gay male at that, I find it hard to pass judgement on one that might want an abortion. For I, with my views as to when life begins, and the woman that seeks an abortion will have to answer to St. Peter and God on our final day. But we of Faith are taught that it is not us to judge the righteousness of anyone person, and their ability to enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven. For we may end up being judged by our actions just as hard.
If there those of Faith that wish to see the US become a religious State, like that of Israel, there is a process for that. A Constitutional Convention.
But like you, I am also bothered by what the media provides as entertainment. I am also bothered by billboards, movies, and the such that some of Faith try to force the view that Jesus is the only way to salvation, to find peace with God. For as a person of Faith, I hope that others may find comfort in their own vision of "God"; by what ever name they use for Him. But I accept that I can not force someone to believe in any "God". And even those that believe in "God", I can not and will not force them to believe in His son as a Savior.
I will not, and can not as a person of Faith - belittle, disparage, or otherwise dismiss anyone else's beliefs or non-beliefs. Whether they are Jewish, Islamic, or what have you. I can only hope that for the way I have lead my life religiously and civilly will pass muster on my Judgement Day.