Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein <noeinstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 05:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
On May 29, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WARNING: THE USA IS POISED TO FAIL, UNLESS WE DEPART FROM OUR ERRANT
WAYS.
In this country, far too many people place more importance on
“winning” than on doing what is best. The sporting events that
command our attention appeal to our primal instincts to fight for
survival. But such mock fights—whether the players are collegiate or
professional—always have 50% losers. Yet, the ‘rush’ of winning
continues to maintain our addictions to sports of all kinds… even to
‘Ballot Bowl’.
The Republicans and Democrats are, consistently, 50% losers. Yet the
“love of the fight” has allowed those ‘quasi governments’ to squelch
the principles of democracy that our founding fathers hoped would
guide us on our journey as a nation.
When important national decisions need to be made, too often we trust
and defer to our group leaders. Those leaders tend to be highly
verbal people who enjoy participating in meetings of all kinds. They
flourish in group settings—often getting their ‘rush’ in faction
against faction victories without ever accomplishing the objectives of
the members as a whole. And they tend to be staid, older people, who
are less caring about the members’ fundamental objectives than they
are about maintaining their images of invincibility in group settings.
The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee members exemplify the above
personality model. For their whole lives, most of those people have
been go-to-meeting types. They revel in formalities, while being
morally BANKRUPT to do what is best for the members of the larger
group. Yesterday’s decision by such committee—to punish the voters of
FL and MI for ‘violation’ of its unconstitutional rules—amounts to the
continuing RAPE of democracy. Covering our eyes to such happenings
will surely bring down this nation of ours… However, IF we will
start holding our leaders accountable for any of their actions which
aren’t in the best interest of the group—and not in the best interest
of the membership of us all in the human race—then, there might still
be HOPE for the survival of the USA!
Hillary Rodham Clinton is THE most qualified candidate for President.
She’s got a gregarious personality not too different from that of
Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a domineering,
egotistical man. He’s a detail oriented loner who doesn’t work well
in, or with, groups. Yet, that less-than-qualified man is being swept
along on the-team-must-win wave. And BE DAMNED with the consequences
to the USA, as a whole, and to the human race.
In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court picked George Bush to be
President. They did so because they placed more importance on the
traditions of ‘scheduling’ than they placed on democracy itself.
Eight years later, the DNC is placing more importance on its own
unconstitutional rules regarding the ‘scheduling’ of primaries than it
places on basic principles of democracy. Can anyone not see how such
repeated corruption is placing the USA in peril?
A sad fact of political life in America is that office seekers must
try to appeal to a majority, while trying not to alienate the rest.
Clinton continues to give lip service to having a unified democratic
party. For months, even though the race with Obama has been neck and
neck, the unprincipled supporters of Obama have kept insisting that it
is Clinton’s responsibility to “unify” the party. Why hasn’t that
Manchurian Candidate, Barack Obama, dropped out—to unify the party
behind the most qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton?
Those who value “winning” above playing fair, cling to the delegate
count numbers as the “standard” for victory. In the Electoral
College, those electors were conceived by the founding fathers as a
best-at-the-time APPROXIMATION of fair democracy. But when modern
technology can allow holding political contests in a single day, and
counting the votes nearly that quickly, the rationale for continuing
to have the Electoral College just isn’t there any more. Similarly,
the rationale for having… delegates for going to conventions to
‘represent’ the will of Democrats, just isn’t there anymore, if the
POPULAR VOTE of all of the Democrats in the USA can select the
candidate, directly—without even necessitating a convention! Is this
country so steeped in tradition, that it favors… PROCESS above fair
democracy?
Any Democrat who doesn’t value the supremacy of the POPULAR vote above
the clearly outmoded delegate count is valuing “winning” above playing
fair—and above doing what is best for the USA, and for the human
race. Many Democrats are reveling in the stampede-to-unity ‘numbers
victory’ that has been pending for so long for that featherweight,
Obama. One of my own quotes: “Those who lust for POWER favor
wrongdoing, because the glory of doing the right things must be shared
with the moral imperative.”
It’s time that America starts doing the right things. In the most
positive light, please vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for President
of the United States of America!
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
On May 26, 4:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
THOSE WHO BURY HEADS IN SAND WILL GET THEIR ASSES KICKED!
The corrupt news media looks at what its cohorts in crime are doing,
and says: I’m OK; you’re OK. But the media is sick—really sick! It
has no “corporate” moral judgment nor conscience. Its motives: Fill
time or column space; get viewers or readers; make lots of advertising
money; and if anyone will listen, screw up democracy and any hope for
the long-term survival of the USA.
All of this will come to a head, soon, when the corrupt DNC ‘resolves’
the FL and MI primary issues by, it is hinted, giving the voters in
those states only half of the delegates that they deserve. It seems—
from the Democratic Rules Committee’s perspective—that what it says
trumps democracy itself. Where is it written in any document that
innocent voters can be ‘punished’ for decisions made by legislatures
controlled by the opposition party?
Another sick bit of rationale by some Democrats (mostly Obama
supporters) is that the “the UNITY of the Democratic Party” justifies
prodding super delegates to commit before the August convention. Ever
since that Super Tuesday when Obama jumped into the lead, he and his
tribe of con artists have been bragging victory. And they have been
promising everything—including the kitchen sink—to get “influential”
backers to perhaps swing delegates his way.
Nancy Peloci has endorsed Obama. Her ‘high position’ demands that she
not… peddle influence. But she is pretending objectivity by saying
that “the will of the people” counts, while she calls super delegates
to get the last (and the likely best) of those to commit for Obama.
Experience has shown that the corrupt people in Washington like being
on the winning side. Those super delegates who haven’t committed
surely feel those same motives. But Hillary Clinton is winning the
popular vote, And she’s on the moral (good girl) side. Clinton
hasn’t had the luxury to stampede delegates her way. And she hasn’t
been the candidate spending the most money on advertising. What’s her
‘reward’ for being the most qualified candidate by far? She’s fair
game for all of those irresponsible types, like Jay Leno, who get to
poke fun for pay. Stiff shirts like Wolf Blitzer do that more slyly
by “paraphrasing” every negative assessment about the numbers for
Hillary. The “machine” at CNN, and the rest of those networks, is
corrupt from top to bottom. A few good guys like Lu Dobbs… are
probably afraid to make any real protests, lest they be fired. He is
just the “fair and balanced” that isn’t.
The “poll” that is most telling about Obama is the weight that he has
lost in the last week or so. Apparently his heart is healthy, but his
motives for becoming President aren’t. Barack is looking more like
the featherweight that he is. How well would he fare on prison food,
I wonder? Obama is at the top of the list of those who are more than
willing to kick dust in the face of democracy, if that dastardliness
can get him nominated.
Imagine, if you will, that my New Constitution now has the following
stipulation—subject of course, to being ratified by the people on,
say, the first Tuesday in November of 2010: “The will of the people is
the foundation of government. So, Citizens’ votes shall have parity
without compromise. Because principles of democracy shall reign
supreme in the USA, any civil or private person(s) who uses the
“authority” or influence of their job to actively or tacitly argue
against democracy shall be guilty of a crime. Any person so acting,
beginning with the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, shall be held
culpable, retroactively. Those found guilty can be punished up to and
including the death penalty.”
The citizens of Puerto Rico ‘get’ delegates, but not electors. Why is
that? For decades those people have desired to be made a state. But
the corrupt powers-that-be in Washington don’t want a new “practical
thinking” state to, perhaps, interfere with the failed power
structures already in place. My New Constitution leaves
‘controversial’ issues up to the direct vote of the People. That way,
there are no clandestine influences to deny Puerto Rico their own
star. The American Flag can be designed with the extra star. I’m in
favor of it!
So, as Obama supporters (in the media or otherwise) keep taking pot
shots at Clinton, people like Nancy Peloci and Howard Dean should try
to imagine how well they will fare on prison food. Unless they, and a
thousand more of their ilk, start distancing themselves from the
sinful ways of the status quo, they could well find themselves as
defendants in trials that can only be good for America. Stay tuned!
In the most positive light, please vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for
President of the United States of America!
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
On May 21, 11:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SENATORIAL CANDIDATES, SAVE YOUR MONEY!
Comedians can make fortunes by poking-fun at politicians. And many
politicians get themselves elected by making the opposition look like
the laughing stock. Quite often, the voters will choose those who are
the most interesting characters as their representatives and
senators. How else can you explain the long tenure of Senator Robert
Byrd of West Virginia? Is having ‘fiddling talent’ a justifiable
reason for electing someone to be a senator? Probably not. But
having the “appeal” to get one’s mug in the national media as often as
possible, “reassures” the voting public that ‘their’ representative or
senator has more power than the rest. That very assumption—constantly
reinforced by the irresponsible media—slaps at the face of democracy.
The senatorial race in Minnesota is drawing attention, there, for the
first time since former MN governor, Jesse Ventura, hammed-it-up in
the wrestling ring. Al Franken—that genius at twisting words—can’t
decide whether he would rather have us laugh or cry… regarding the
decline in our government and in our lives. Because very smart people
tend to be more moral than those less blessed, if all of our elected
officials for the past century had been as smart as Franken, we would
probably be in fine shape, now. Instead, as many as 85% of those
polled say they are dissatisfied with the direction this country is
headed. So, Al Franken will have his work cut out for him, if he’s
elected.
CNN’s Larry King values the celebrity of Jesse Ventura, sufficiently,
to regularly invite Ventura to be a guest on his ‘Larry King Live’.
Ventura is one of those unpredictable characters whom the viewing
public will watch, expecting to be entertained. ‘Maury Povich’ draws
a particular segment of the viewing public to watch those marital-un-
bliss, cat fights. It seems that wrestling and Povich’s show have a
common thread: For-pay, put-on fights. We’re a nation that is longing
for a fight… But most are contented to let our various sports and
recreational pursuits substitute for actually coming to blows,
ourselves.
Jesse Ventura surprised Larry King by saying that he, Ventura, will
likely be registering, soon, to vie for that open senate seat in MN.
Ventura says he will be running as an independent. To his credit,
Jesse promised his father that he won’t ‘bet his bank account’ to seek
public office. Folks, imagine how much better off this country would
be if no candidate spent more money than the average working American
makes in a single year. Wow! Is their any logic—other than to feed
candidates’ egos—to spend more money getting elected than the jobs
being sought will pay? Of course not!
Barack Obama has raised hundreds of millions of dollars trying to
“win”—by hook-or-by-crook—the Democratic Party’s nomination for
President. Jobs and the economy are major issues. Tell me, how can
people who are in need, be “served” by routing ANY of that money into
the hands of the media—whose only ‘need’ is greed? Is it any wonder
that the TV network bosses choose to support the candidate(s) who will
be spending the most money on advertising? Ask yourselves: Is it
right that the amount of money available—rather than the worthiness of
the candidates—gets to decide who can win public office?
Democracy would best be served by putting all contributions into a
common pot and allocating equal funding for each candidate’s ads.
“Winning” by fund-raising is like winning by having a tug-of-war.
Democracy must never pit the strong against the weak. My New
Constitution will GUARANTEE that every registered voter gets a fair
and equal say-so in government. And such will be irrespective of how
persuasive they speak, or how much money they can spare to BUY the
candidate of their choice.
Some of you readers have heard me explain that I’m an expert
graphologist. Last May, TIME Magazine showed a sample of the, then,
six top candidates for President. I commented that ‘John Edwards
can’t be bought’. Right after the West Virginia landslide for
Clinton, Edwards combed his hair and endorsed Obama… I wondered if I
had been wrong last May. Soon, I realized that Edwards wasn’t
‘bought’. He just sold-out for selfish reasons alone. Edwards would
love to get the number two spot on the Democratic ticket. What better
way would there be for him to do so than by, possibly, causing the
decisive rush of the super delegates to Obama? If Edwards had caused
such a rush (but he didn‘t), ‘fate’ might, subsequently, have made him
President. Or, perhaps, he would have an inside track for the
nomination in
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein
- Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Prev by Date: The Zeeman Effect. /My opinion/.
- Next by Date: Re: The Jews are desparate to derail Obama
- Previous by thread: The Zeeman Effect. /My opinion/.
- Next by thread: Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
