Well I for one have chosen my serious candidate and am going to vote with my head up, and hope in my heart. I have absolutely no fear, regardless of the outcome, that the government is going to tell me whether or not I am sick, or what I can or cannot eat, that the government is going to manage my money, or that the so-called “silent majority” (which never really existed the first time that phrase was popularized) is going to rise up. But that’s just me….

If you have a moment, or 18:42 of them to be precise, check out this video from the TED conference. I’m interested in what people think of these ideas….

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

About this talk
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we’re left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.

About Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt studies how — and why — we evolved to be moral. By understanding more about our moral roots, his hope is that we can learn to be civil and understanding of those whose morals don’t… Full bio and more links »

Bill E
I watched the entire video. I have been lucky enough to be exposed to a similar way of thinking when I was a young man.
If you find this interesting maybe you could read, “Beyond Good and Evil” by Nietzsche, if you ever have the chance.

JGUSTY,
The article by Charlie Reese was a good read….
CARRY ON.
T

Bill E,

Sincerely glad to hear that you found a candidate that reflects your views and what you want out of this country of ours. That’s what it’s all about. It’s GOT to feel good to be represented. Someday… I hope to experience that myself! (it hasn’t happened yet)

Watching your video link now…

Bill E,
I read and posted here today in between my stretches of work/psychological reinforcements to artists.
I have posted a couple of times to you since you posted this:

“Well I for one have chosen my serious candidate and am going to vote with my head up, and hope in my heart. I have absolutely no fear, regardless of the outcome, that the government is going to tell me whether or not I am sick, or what I can or cannot eat, that the government is going to manage my money, or that the so-called “silent majority” (which never really existed the first time that phrase was popularized) is going to rise up. But that’s just me….”

Please excuse me if I am reading this the wrong way … that is a distinct possibility.
It comes off a little passive aggressive and insulting to anyone that correctly sees that the majority IS INDEED silent. Was that your intent or am I just testy from a shit day?

Before you point out that the silent will also, if polled, have varying views .. I understand that. But they ARE the majority!

I could be completely reading this post poorly because I didn’t notice the tone of it when I read it the 1st time in between edits and temper tantrums ….

Just wanted to clarify ….

Tony

You stole my “reply thunder” Tony… and I appreciate it. While Bill is most certainly entitled to his opinion (and Bill… let me be clear… I’m GLAD you have them) I did find it a bit “elitist” to declare that a silent majority does not exist. A simple look at the number of actual past votes cast vs. the number of eligible voters in this country kind of proves that beyond any doubt.

And I got the clever Nixon/1969 speech/Vietnam jab or reference… however it was intended.

Long-haired, scruffy rocker dudes pay attention to history too!

I don’t know JGUSTY …………….. taking your example of actual votes cast vs. # of voters doesn’t prove a silent majority. Those that didn’t vote could probably be broken down to several groups that don’t necessarily combine to form one big group.

Those that absolutely didn’t like either of the major party candidates (I have a feeling there will be plenty of non-voters this year due to that reason).

Those that just don’t really participate in any process that isn’t DIRECTLY effecting their lives (I know several musicians that fall into that category)

Those that are just too lazy to stand in line (I know several musicians that fall into that category)

Those that “forgot” to vote (I know several musicians that fall into that category)

Those that actually went to vote, saw the line and decided not to (I know several musicians that fall into that category)

And those like the ones in our state JGUSTY. They know that their vote really isn’t going to count all that much because of the state that they live in. Tennessee is an EXTREMELY red state. If Gore would’ve won his home state we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now. McCain has about a 14% lead in this state. After catching a number like that. I can imagine that there are more then a few Obama supporters that won’t be going to stand in line.

Is there really a silent majority? Is there a group of people that like minded in this country to actually make a majority on any semi-complex issue?

Tony, JGusty,
As you noted, I was simply speaking historically and referencing the so-called silent majority of the Nixon years. It’s not that there weren’t plenty of people fed up with what they considered to be liberal excesses of the Great Society, or 1968/69 in general, or that some of those people didn’t vote. And you’re right, it would be elitist of me to dismiss their discontent then or your discontent now, but that is not what I meant. As I understand it, that phrase was used to depict people who didn’t protest against Vietnam or participate in Love-ins. But when Nixon appropriated that phrase he connected it to the conservative movement, a connection that Reagan furthered. As you all have pointed out, this majority has differing views and isn’t necessarily conservative. So I’m not speaking literally about the number of people who do or do not vote, and neither was Nixon. I’m speaking more about the meanings that people have to that phrase over the years and its use as a divider, us vs. them, silent majority vs. vocal minority….

Two more thoughts:
1) Silent majority. It also seems to me that this phrase has been used to suggest that conservatives have been victims of the system, and I just can’t think of a time when conservatives–especially conservative, white males–have ever really been victims in this country on a large scale. But maybe I’m reading too much into this.

2) I’m not sure that I can say that my chosen candidate reflects all of my views. I definitely disagreed with him on some significant points during the primary. What I am 100% sure of, though, is that our country is in no danger of the government invading our lives in the ways that people here have described. It is this fear, in fact, that I am most interested in understanding, and that is why I continue to follow the discussions here.

Oh my goodness you all!

Let’s not disect everything to death. It’s exhausting. (fun… but exhausting nonetheless)

“Silent” just means SILENT. For whatever reason. Of course all of the reasons stated could be the reason for the silence. There are likely more than that.

There was ABSOLUTELY NO inference that “Silent” meant ANYTHING political whatsoever. It just meant SILENT. (John G… I sooooooooo admire your “rascaliness” – When are we getting that beer?!?!)

The simple (and I stress SIMPLE) point is that the MAJORITY of eligible voters (people who could vote if they wanted to) DON’T VOTE. That’s a majority of the eligible voting population.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And what the hell is a “RED” state anyway? (that’s your queue John G!)

Bill E,
I am glad that was cleared up. Thanks for being here and participating.

John G,
I clearly stated in my last post:
“Before you point out that the silent will also, if polled, have varying views .. I understand that. But they ARE the majority!” So not all us think it would be one sided.

Bill E,
Perhaps the word “concern” instead of “fear” would separate people into better categories that you can decipher. Maybe I could say that you fear older white men if you don’t vote McCain or that you fear black men if you don’t vote Obama, but I am quite sure that neither statement would be accurate.
Maybe those people (or perhaps even myself if you lump me into the fear category) keep coming back to
use you as a petrie dish of the coy… Still sounding a tad that way to me.

JGusty,
Long haired , yes, scruffy? NEVER!
…and for God’s sake PLEASE stop using smiley faces you, wuss.

CARRY ON.
T

JGusty,
Fair enough, but don’t we need to first understand what people mean by the words they choose before we can have a meaningful dialogue? I still think that “silent majority” has been used (maybe not by you) since Nixon first popularized it to mean something far more political than you suggest. I think I got the impression that you were doing the same when you said, “Is it too much to hope that the sleeping giant of the silent majority raise its mighty head and declare that enough is enough?” in a post centered on the idea that anyone but liberals has no serious candidate to vote for in this election. To me that means that this sleeping giant is going to rise up and challenge the political situation we now face. But, I can see that you didn’t specify which way that giant would vote, or how that giant would interpret the many problems of our country, or even if that giant was a unified body. Anyway, I’ll try to keep my rhetorical analysis in check.

Tony,
You lost me at petrie dish, but it seems like there is a lot of fear being spread during this election, and when I hear people saying that the government will take over our schools, tell us when we’re sick, etc. I hear fear, not concern. But I am willing to accept “concern” as a possible substitution for “fear.” Still, then, I’m left wondering why people are concerned that these things might happen. They haven’t happened in the past (not unless we are talking about things like the founding of the Federal Reserve, the defeat of the free silver movement, etc. which were definitely government interventions that favored some at the expense of others), and our country has faced similar, though obviously not identical, challenges to the ones we face today. Some of the “concerns” I hear people expressing here and elsewhere seem radical and reactionary, and they just don’t sound likely to me given our country’s history of compromise and distaste for radicalism. But again, that’s just me.

Bill E
I agree with you these are unlikely scenarios as I said to MATT in a previous post.
If the scenario did happen … a lot people would THEN react, in his manner.
I cannot understand a 100% resolve that none of these scenarios could happen which you did say.

Is it a belief that the balance of “reactionary conservatives” will never let these happen?
OR..
A belief that there is a greater good than bad at the highest levels, and these intrusions are impossible?

I would like to know your reasoning on this.

Sorry, ‘petrie’ ?… pertri dish …?
It was an attempt at humor … your post read to me as belittling to these people as if you were studying them/us as little “experiments” … humor in posts gets lost sometimes, I am sarcastic and it gets lost here often. My bad.

CARRY ON.
T

Good question. I do believe that there is greater good than bad at the highest levels, or at any other level for that matter, because I believe that humans are innately good, not evil. It’s definitely hard to extend this belief in the basic goodness of humankind to the workings of our government at times, but I try anyway. But I also think there is a more practical reason why I don’t think these extreme scenarios of government intervention could happen in this country. Basically I think that the history of our two-party system shows that radicals on both sides of the political spectrum are ultimately forced to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle when formulating policy. While the center itself has shifted left or right over the years, arriving there still requires compromise and consensus. I guess, though, how one ultimately interprets those policies, again my example of the creation of the Federal Reserve or maybe the Office of Education or even the recent bailout to bring us back to the present, is a personal matter. I don’t see them as extreme actions at the federal level that signal something worse down the road, but some people do.

Bill E,
Well, I guess there is our conundrum. I do not feel your way at all. But at least I have found my answer to our ability to see the world differently, yet both have very real “concerns”.
The word “radical” is your FEAR/CONCERN… in my perception.

If you are in a way insinuating that my views are radical, then you flatter me much. We agree on several topics, just not base human instinct. With that, I close the book on your 100% resolve, and await , history to play out.

Thanks for the answer to a legit question.

CARRY ON.
T

Biil E

Why should anyone compromise their position?

Good God, socialism is un-American and only a friggin’ pussy would agree to compromise their liberty just to appease American haters both here and abroad.

Good Lord, I’m amazed at how wimpy men have become in the US. You pansies deserve every bad thing that happens to you, including your wives regularly kicking your asses.

You should thank God every night that there are plenty of real men who are willing to defend this great nation while you and your brethren of pussies are happily selling your freedom for a bag of ‘compromise’.

JGUSTY I KNOW that YOU KNOW what a red state is.

It’s all of the states smashed together between NY City and California. Making for a delicious American poltical sandwich heavy on the heartburn.

Matt,
Seriously, just how insecure are you?

Wow!
Where to start, well I guess that what I am learning here most, is that I am politically way right and socially way left

One thing I have always hated about the internet is that people talk to each other far differently than if we were all in a room together. Id-ego-super ego? Who needs filters when you are anonymous?

If we were all honest I am betting that:
The majority of the people that post here attend church.
The sensitivity level here screams “musician/artist”.
Married.

CARRY ON.
T

Is this funny … racist or both? FREEDOM of SPEECH! Isn’t it glorious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU

I’d like honest opinions.

Thanks,
CARRY ON.
T

I’m going to go with depressing as my description of that clip. I’d like some more context, I’d like to know how many people they spoke with before they chose those responses, whether or not those were the only questions asked, etc., but even without that information, it’s definitely depressing to me to hear that people can’t answer some very basic questions about what some of us feel is a particularly important election.

Bill E,
I am sure, like all things it was slanted, but to slant it … these responses had to be put out there.
Funny and sad to me, I expect average humans to be this stupid and the smart kids to expose them.

Animals I tell you … we are all just animals … some with more nobility, but backed into a corner …

CARRY ON.
T

Tony –

“If we were all honest I am betting that:
The majority of the people that post here attend church.
The sensitivity level here screams “musician/artist”.
Married.”

I can answer No to all these of these statements… I’d be curious to know who else can as well.

I do agree that if we were all sitting at the Gold Rush with a tasty adult beverage in front of us, this conversation would be going extremely differently…except for JGusty

Jane,
Unfortunately I wasn’t counting you or Mike simply because of the few posts.. sorry for the exclusion… (I still think my MAJORITY theory would play out with YOU involved.It would be more balanced however.)
I have to disagree with you about Gusty , we ALL are prone to posting differently. His silence for 2 days alone is not in his character… but the smiley faces…c’mon!
Allow me to clarify.
Bill E, JohnfreakinG, JGusty , Matt, and myself….
That was my little group ‘o’ posters… but I am glad you have returned.
With a tasty adult beverage or 10 I would no doubt be half naked ….

CARRY ON.
T

Here is an amazing interview with Philip Berg, democrat Pennsylvania lawyer who is suing Obama to release his birth certificate.

Obama is a fraud and ineligible to be POTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs&eurl=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/a_video_that_could_change_the_election/

Matt!

Hey man hows it going?

You sure seem concerned about the integrity of this election.

I thought for sure that I’d get to hear your thoughts on your parties rigging of the ‘04 election by stealing Ohio. You must still be absorbing all of the first hand eyewitness accounts that are given by the peoeple that performed (or tried toperform) the re-count.

Either that or it’s ok for Bush to steal elections because after all he’s a Republican. But a man with the middle name Hussein?! Well that’s a different story!!! Get out the torches and pitchforks!!!!!

Tony,

Yes to all of your questions with and asterisk next to musician/artist thanks for asking. Dabble in both but construction is my trade. Masonry for many years and now re-hab houses. And for the record I agree with you on the animals theory …………also my favorite Pink Floyd album, cd or whatever these kids call them these days. And you? Judging from the picture I immediately thought musician.

JohnFreakinG

Hey John

Do you deny that ACORN is being investigated for ‘registration fraud’?

Why do you think that Obama is using ACORN to defraud this election?????

By the way, Florida is where the recount occured and the leftist media concurred that George Bush clearly won the election, contrary to their wishes.

JohnFreakinG,
Yes … I make my living in music.
Married. NOT buried (except during daylight)…I loves me some fetish/goth girls… (wife is cool with that.)
As for the God squad … no dice… but theology is a hobby … for unscrupulous reasons!
Your asterisk is not necessary, it is in you or not… some of us get lucky and some don’t.

Matt,
Really? As an educated man, you must know that your tactics make your valid points ignorable to those offended.
What men are taught they forget, what they have learned they remember…

CARRY ON.
T

Matt,

You’re missing my point.

I don’t deny that ACORN is being investigated and if they are found to be guilty then people need to go to jail for a long time up to and including Obama if that’s where the trail leads. THAT’s the difference between you and I Matt. As I said before I’m an American not a Democrat. Voting is a sacred key to a true democracy and there hasn’t been a legit vote yet this century.

Florida happened in 2000. And nobody except for the righties on the supreme court and Republicans were really convinced about the outcome of that election.

The much less publicized (even by “the leftist media”) ‘04 election was far worse because it was soooooo tainted that it wasn’t even funny. Did you or anybody else in this forum even know there was a re-count of Ohio in ‘04?

Don’t take my word. Look into it for yourself. I know that it’s old news but it’s really disturbing especially given the fact that they got away with it.

To a large degree that is the fault of the shitty mainstream media. But I also blame the right wing talk show hosts who on one side of their mouth talk about how they speak the truth but don’t say a damn thing about what went on because after all their man won. But NOW they’re having a fit and wrapping themselves in the flag because the other parties man is accused of doing the same thing.

Whatever …………………. look into it for yourself if you really want to know the truth about the party that you stand so strongly behind. I’d suggest that you start here.

http://www.openelections.org/recount/ohio_reports/

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2005/12/walden-odell-diebold-ceo-who-stole.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html

But DON’T lecture me about being American if your just going to pay attention to elections only if the other team is doing something un-American. Because what happened in ‘04 would make the patriots that founded this country sick to their stomachs.

JohnFreakinG

Only pussies and liberals get offended.

The fact is even the liberal media concluded that Bush won the election in ‘04 but it’s fun to watch the whiney libs still pretend otherwise. Hey commies, want some cheese with that whine?

The fact is that Obama has ties with ACORN.

The fact is that ACORN is committing voter fraud.

Barrack Obama’s middle name has nothing to do with the fact that he’s an America-hating marxist who refuses to release his birth certificate because he is ineligible to run for POTUS.

Did you even read the links I posted? If your going to call something a fact then back it up or I’m done with this conversation my man.

Here’s what USA Today reported in 2007.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/2_ohio_vote_off.html

3 years AFTER the election. And it wasn’t anywhere near the front page. So give me a break about the “liberal media”. The mainstream media just sucks. Period. They are a HUGE hole in he dam of democracy.

You have some good points Matt but you’re also just regurgitating every other right wingers sound bites that reads NewMax or listens to Righty Radio. Big deal. Where’s the proof?

But that’s not my point.

MY POINT IS that BOTH parties will steal, lie, cheat, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah …………..

As an American then shouldn’t your enemy be BOTH parties instead of other Americans? (you call them liberals). BOTH Parties have NO PROBLEM trampeling all over the U.S.Constitution or whatever else it takes to gain or keep power.

You’re taking it out against the wrong people bro. I’m assuming that you voted for Bush and he had no problem cheating. If you look into it just a hair you’ll find info all over the place. ACORN may be cheating right now for all we know. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit!

In ANY case it’s the MOST un-American crime of ALL. The granddaddy of un-American in my opinion.

Nixon shouldn’t have been pardoned. He should’ve done time to show that the constitution is worth something. But the party protected their own instead of defending the constitution. Been that way forever and division among US helps ensure that it stays that way.

both parties cheat say it with me both parties cheat

JohnFreakinG

Tony,

If you ever get out this way, a drunken discussion with you, Gusty an myself should be mandatory

JohnFreakinG

JohnG,
Sounds good. I am on business often in Nashville. I am sure that can happen at some point.

Matt,
You posted earlier that you were mid-40’s, why the frat-boy approach to discussions?
Are you not posting to have liberals learn of a different view? If not. what reason is there?
The birth certificate deal IS strange but further research has answers also, then a person must decide who is telling the truth.

JGusty,
Zoinks SCOOB where are you?

Carry On,
T

Matt, dude, sorry but Barry did release his birth certificate, twice. Of course, they were 2 different versions, the last one was official, bearing what appeared to be a raised seal, but you could not read what the seal said. It was posted on-line, on factcheck.org, which is run by the foundation where Barry and Willie Ayers served together.

Now, he has NOT released the 2 dozen other documents he’s been asked about, school records, law clients, small-donor list, medical records, ties to ACORN and Ayers, etc. Being one of the more vocal critics of Bush’s secrets, what is Barry hiding, and if it’s nothing, then why not release the information. And why lie about the $800k he gave to ACORN?

Oh, let me add, I am married, and I attend church every Sunday where I play acoustic guitar, but that is the limit of my musical ability.

Now, back to the subject. I watched the video, I personally think Mr. Berg is grandstanding in order to get his 10 seconds of fame. His point is valid, Barry needs to produce this information, and I also saw that, by law, Barry had 30 days to respond to the lawsuit, but failed to do so. What does that mean? Who knows. If he does get elected, and it turns out some of Mr. Berg’s allegations are true, then what?

At this point, all I can do is pray to my Heavenly Father for guidance and wisdom, thank him for the blessings He provides, and ask that He protect my family and friends from evil.

And let’s face it, Satan has a strong foothold in our government. The lies, greed, and corruption is earth-shattering. And until we elect people with good, Christian morals, we continue to wallow in this turmoil. Please note, I did not say that we elect Christians, but those that posess god, Chrisitan morals. Yes, it seems like a simple solution to something that is now such a fundamental part of our government, but we have to start somewhere.

Here’s a question, since many here seem to dislike both Obama and McCain, but most Americans (I’m assuming this) are going to vote for one of these two, which of these candidates would people here choose and why? Do people think McCain would be better for this country or Obama? Why? I humbly suggest that if people want to talk about Acorn, Ayers, birth certificates, etc. when discussing Obama, then we also need to take into consideration McCain’s age, his campaign tactics (even if others are directing the show, he is the star and ultimately responsible), his choice of Palin and any other topics I may have missed.

And to participate in Tony’s informal poll, if you take off church from your list then I too meet your profile.

Rob,
Thanks for the last post. It keeps me from looking up facts… you nailed that.
I am glad that you said morals and not just Christians. That makes your post less debatable …
I still don’t think that God/Satan, Allah, Yahweh, etc…….should ever enter in to politics, but a standard of integrity and nobility is something that we all can agree to in varying degrees.

CARRY ON.
T

Bill E,
Most “Voting” Americans.. yes… most Americans No. (Not to revisit the silent majority….but….)

Moving on. I respect McCain much more. But his choice of a running mate that thinks the dinosaurs were ridden to the rock quarry by Fred and Barney “CONCERNS” the shit out me.( I thought that was funny…)

I don’t like Obama, but he is a gifted and charismatic icon to the lowest common denominator type of person, (minus racist rednecks). Which will help him lead…

My vote goes to NEITHER…haven’t you been paying attention?

Seriously? With a gun to my head? McCain, and then I would join Rob, JohnG, and JGusty in church to pray for a healthy 4 years… (I would be praying to Alice Cooper…)

CARRY ON.
T

Tony,
Thanks for the response. Yes I meant most people who are voting. It’s precisely because I have been paying attention that I asked my question. From my very first posts here I have been trying to get someone to tell my why a Third Party candidate would be any better or be able to do things any differently. You came the closest to answering that question when you said that you didn’t know since we haven’t ever elected a third party candidate as president. I thought that was a fair response, but I’m still trying to understand how people here feel about Obama and McCain, and I mean getting beyond the obvious dislike for both expressed by many here. As for Obama being a “a gifted and charismatic icon to the lowest common denominator type of person, (minus racist rednecks),” I hope you aren’t insinuating that everyone who votes for Obama is of the “lowest common denominator.” I assume in fact that you aren’t saying that, and my interpretation of your phrase is that you are talking instead about populism, and I think the McCain camp is playing the populist card to an even greater degree, especially in their cynical selection of Palin.

Alice Cooper?! Now there’s a son of Detroit that I can more relate to! (Sorry Ted Nugent and you JGusty by association)

If it were the McCain with some backbone version I probably would’ve leaned his way but now his nose is more brown then Obama’s and he’s black. Up to and including his running mate choice that obviously was to grab the base and nothing more.

And the “I will never surrender in Iraq” thing just scares me into I would vote Obama if there was a loaded and cocked gun to my crying head. I think that he can lead too. Wish it were somewhere other then where he wants to go though.

I’m with you Tony. No God or Satan in American politics. Now THAT would solve some problems!!!!!!

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

JohnG

Bill E,
The “paying attention” was sarcasm… once again lost in no verbal inflection…

I was indeed referencing populism , but to take it further, he reaches across the barrier of religion. For example, much of the southern black vote are Christians, but I am quite sure that the Palin choice will be trumped in that demographic because Obama is a charismatic figure that will receive more votes. By lowest common denominator I simply mean animal instinct to say ‘I like him he is one of us’. No insult intended with the phrase. I work with a young base of people and to a large extent, poor artists are voting for him because of no other reason than he seems cooler …. their words not mine. They identify with him more so than with a 73 y/o man that was held in a prison camp. To them, that is a scenario in a video game with a killer soundtrack and graphics. Not their reality.

CARRY ON.
T

Bill E,

I should have mentioned you in all of my posts/rants about both parties because those weren’t just responses to Matt. Those are the reasons that we need another party.

The two that we currently have are EQUALLY corrupt. They’re just corrupt in different ways.

Here’s another thing that third parties bring to the table. If you heard the recent debates as I heard them, they were basically just extentions of both campaigns.

Remember Ross Perot? He may have been wacky in his own way but at least he MADE the debates have some substance. He spoke aout deficits, and real matters of fiscal policy and dragged Bush 1 and Clinton into those conversations whether they liked it or not.

Right on. I work on a college campus and I have heard more students talking about this election than any other election that I can remember. If nothing else, that alone is a good thing….

John G,
But is the idea then that someone like Perot, or Barr to bring us up to the present, would get elected and change the corruption people keep pointing to? I heard Barr on the news the other evening, and while he seemed to have some good ideas (similarly populist to the Dem. and Rep. messages in my opinion), when asked how he would fix the current financial crisis his response was that he would go after corruption. When pushed further about how exactly going after corruption would fix what’s going on now, he didn’t have a response. He seemed to be saying that keeping the government out of the market would help, and that his plan would have attacked corruption earlier on so that we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. But not being able to address in any fundamental way how he would handle a crisis that he would inherit as president didn’t make me feel any more confident that his ideas were better than the other two. Now this was just a short interview, and I’m sure his website will tell me more about how he would fix things, but generally speaking, I’m simply not convinced that a third party candidate would be able to work in Washington and create the kind of fundamental changes people keep talking about. But maybe I’m wrong….

Tony, JohnG, something you may not know, Alice Cooper is a very devout Christian. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, I just found it very interesting. There’s a cool interview with him on drewmarshall.ca and you can download it.

Bill E,
I don’t think that there’s anyone who can solve the crisis we’re in. It’s going to have to go through the process of solving itself as far as I’m concerned.

My point was more about busting the monopoly that the two parties currently have. They’ve both been TALKING about alot of things for a LONG time. i.e. the environment, alternative energy, social security, etc ………………… But they aren’t motivated to really act because they have at least a 50% chance of staying in or gaining power. They’re motivated by winning (tying into the animal logic of Tony because really we all are motivated by winning to a degree).

I feel that another horse in the race would force more ACTION because the dialouge would expand. I just remember Perot talked about real issues while Clinton and Bush just bashed each other. Then when those two started getting criticized for not talking fiscal shop they started talking about policy instead of what a piece of shit the other one was (the lesser of two evils campaigns).

Let’s say Perot won in the late Eighties instead of Clinton. It’s not that I think that we wouldn’t have any problems now. I just think that some REAL policy changes would’ve happened regarding a lot of fiscal matters such as Social Security and deficit spending.

Clinton did the right thing with the “peace dividend” (paid down the debt) but he didn’t make any fundemental changes to any fiscal policies. He more or less polished a turd.

And Alice’s father was a minister. He’s also one hell of a golfer. Thanks for the interview info Rob. I’ll check it out.

Not that I didn’t like Nugent’s MUSIC. When he started talking instead of entertaining I started finding it hard to like him anymore.

Rob,
I have actually jammed w/ the Coop. He was a very gracious man, and I have a great story about him…it just has nothing to do w/ this site so I won’t bore you w/ details.

CARRY ON.
T

John G,
Interesting. I agree that our system is nothing if not slow (I also think that isn’t always a bad thing.) So it sounds like a third party candidate in your scenario would be more motivated to act because he/she wouldn’t have a 50% chance of staying in office during the next election cycle. That brings me back though to the basic question of actually getting things done in Washington and the challenge of forming coalitions with members of the two entrenched parties. A third party candidate would have to convince others that it was in their interest to support his/her policies. Doing that successfully I think would be a real challenge. Maybe just doing the right thing would win out. Perhaps, though, I am asking an impossible question here since we have no real historical record of a candidate who was able to do that, at least not without the help of some catastrophic event that opened a window for dramatic change.

Bill E,
It seems you seek the answer from us that we can’t give. (I wish that I could.) It can’t happen until there is a heavy weight contender in play … I can tell you this … I for 1 am willing to put this possibility to the test. What do we have to lose? Integrity in high office? Sound financial structure? Clearly justifiable actions? Sound decision making? A wider divide between parties? Foreign policy struggles?
Uhhhh….

Rob, look closely at my shirt in my photo … The Coop!!!

Great points Tony. It just couldn’t be worse then the status quo,

Actually a third party candidate would be more free to force actions. Not because they don’t think that they’ll get re-elected so they can just go-for-it. But because they wouldn’t be a slave to the history or policies of the repub or dems in congress. Both parties are full of faults that aren’t hard to call out.

Teddy Roosevelt used the term “bully pulpit”. The president has the ear of the people. A third party candidate wouldn’t be tied down to either party in congress. So they could freely call members out that make decisions that are strictly self-serving. Repubs or Dems.

For the sake of this discussion lets say something crazy like a political revolution happened and Bob Barr was elected. I’ll let Tony check me on this but I would bet that the first thing that Pres Barr would do is to REALLY address the budget.

Without ties to lobbyists corporate welfare programs would get axed immediately. Why? That’s a HUGE problem as far as the libertarians are concerned. Congressman and senators that opposed such cuts would be easily called out in public LOUDLY. Why? because presidents can speak loudly soley because they are the president. And a president that doesn’t have to protect his parties assanine behavior would be free to do that.

Even if it didn’t change policy it would throw alot of rascals out of office.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, dare to dream

Well, it certainly is a nice dream (and I mean that sincerely)…..

Tony said:

“Matt,
You posted earlier that you were mid-40’s, why the frat-boy approach to discussions?”

I’m just holding up the ‘punk rock’ attitude part of this forum. I mean, somebody’s got to do it!

: )

Matt,
Fair enough. Oi Oi Oi!!!

JohnG,
America is full of dreamers… dream on my man and dream bigger….it could happen….someday!

Barr is quoted as:
We should seek to establish a wall of separation between government and the economy. The legitimate economic functions of government are to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. The government should stop attempting to “manage” the free market.
Capitalism is the only economic system that rewards risk, protects individual liberty, and furthers economic freedom. America will be most prosperous and free when the government stops interfering with private economic decision-making.

Take it as you will,
I am a risk taker…
CARRY ON.
T

Rob,
My bad JGusty cropped the photo … GUSTY!!! I’ve been censored!

T

Tony,
I’m a house re-habber with one on the market right now. Believe me I can relate when it comes to taking a risk!

By the way. I have an absolutely BEAUTIFUL 4 bdrm 2 1/2 bath built in 1920 and TOTALLY re-habbed just minutes away from downtown Nashville in case anybody’s in the market.

Yeah shameless I know but what the hell. When times get tough you’ve got to get creative!

Met Alice a couple of times. Jamming with him would’ve been a dream come true. Saw him at the Ryman with lowered expectations since I saw him 20 some years earlier. Man was I wrong. He absolutely rocked the place!

Gusty where are you?!

Hey Rob

Concerning Obama’s birth certificate, there is a lot he is hiding and hopefully it will be discovered before Obama wins/takes office.

But what if Obama wins the election and then it is proven that he was ineligible to be POTUS? What then? I can only imagine the legal wrangling going on by the dems to keep Obama in office, regardless of the Constitution.

Think of all the questions that will need to be [legally] answered if Obama wins the election then proven to be ineligible:
Does Biden automatically become POTUS?
Does McCain automatically win by default?
Will Bush be forced to stay in office until it’s sorted out?

This could get very interesting!!!!

Hey John G

I’m a general Contractor in Nashville, if you ever need a plumber [not named Joe] or an estimate on anything from repairs to complete rehabbing, I’d be happy to meet with you. Also, I know a couple realtors who handle foreclosures exclusively and they may help you purchase at a good price.

It always pays to network and increase your circle.

email me if you are interested:
Mattocaster@bellsouth.net

[Yes, like nearly everybody in Nashville, I play guitar]

Matt

John G:
I heard you on Phil Valentine today & I think you sounded GREAT! I like Phil alot… but sometimes he’s a bit un-referenced with his “ideological ammo” – But I think you rocked the convo!

Bill E: I owe you my opinion of the video link you shared awhile back.

Matt: Wow… I need some time and several thousand words for responses to your various posts.

Tony: This one’s for you!

Everyone… please excuse my absence. It’s been a rough week on Music Row.

Let me get some sleep and I’ll pay up in full in the a.m.

One thing before the nights out though… awhile back I was chastised for suggesting that the economy wasn’t as bad as the mainstream press was making it out to be. And that comparing it to anything close to “The Great Depression” was a bit of a stretch.

I heard this news today and would like some feedback on why this could be the case in the midst of such economical turmoil.

To be clear…

I’m simply presenting the story and asking for feedback. Not feedback on my suspicion that the news might be just a little slanted towards the doom-and-gloom side of things… just feedback on the news itself.

The topic:
That sales of existing home for September rose at a pace not seen since the housing boom of 2003. Here are a few sources:
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=577993

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsanM66tszKz1zFq0LOG4XvWS7zAD940TSVG0

Just wanting some feedback… that’s all. (Let’s keep Barack, Bush & McCain out of this for now OK?)

To remind you all, the dems and their cohorts in the media have been claiming the economy is bad for 8 years, even when it was booming. When Kerry was running against Bush the claim was: “This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover”.

That, of course, was a lie.

Unemployment is currently at around 6% nationally. That means 94% of the people in the US are employed.

Bill Clinton used to say that 4% unemployment was ‘Full employment’, if that’s the case, we only have 2% unemployment.

The worst thing that the next President can do is to raise taxes….on anyone!

JGusty,
To me that story doesn’t say too much about the overall health of the economy. Yes it’s good that the sale of existing homes went up, but there could be any number of reasons for that–including the purchase of homes by speculators looking for a bargain. For me the issue is credit, and it sound like it’s harder than ever to get a mortgage. I still think there are strong parallels between the global depression of the 1930s in terms of the unwillingness of banks to lend, and what is going on in the global markets today. Thanks for the read.

JGusty,
One more thing, I hope you don’t mind if I continue to mention Obama and McCain on occasion. I’m trying to understand the third-party argument, and referencing those two in my questions really helps. My recent question asking people who would they vote for even though they don’t like either candidate, for example, was an attempt to answer a very basic question that I have had for some time. Namely, if you don’t like the two mainstream candidates, does that mean you simply don’t vote? I’m sure some don’t, but since the people posting here seem to consider themselves to be politically active, I was interested in their take. Or does that mean you vote for someone who has no chance of winning? In either case, does that mean you really think there wouldn’t be profound differences (moving beyond the all Democrats and Republicans are corrupt argument) between an Obama and a McCain Administration? If you do see differences, what are they? Anyway, those are my questions and this is your site. As you can see, though, Rob and Tony have been helping me understand their views on all of this, and raising those two names-that-should-never-be-mentioned helped in that effort. Incidentally, I just finished watching a Frontline special on the connections between big business and the government centered on the issue of global warming. Let me go on the record as saying that this is one of those cases where the slow, moderate approach of our government is a bad thing, and I definitely saw the potential for more rapid change if we could get beyond the gridlock perpetuated by big business interests and entrenched politicians….

Since we’re sharing articles. Any thoughts on this one?

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

Bill,

You wrote:
“To me that story doesn’t say too much about the overall health of the economy. Yes it’s good that the sale of existing homes went up, but there could be any number of reasons for that–including the purchase of homes by speculators looking for a bargain. For me the issue is credit, and it sound like it’s harder than ever to get a mortgage.”

My reply: To be clear, I never insinuated that this one element spoke to the overall health of the economy. But I did find it to be an interesting piece of the overall puzzle. Whatever the reason(s) – which I’d argue would be irrelevant – I think that we can agree that these homes were not all purchased with cash. Likely credit was involved.

And I agree (and always have) that credit is the issue. But I would point out that obtaining credit in general is not an issue across the board. I will agree that the leniency in the lending has tightened up considerably. But that is the entire reason things went sour in the first place. I’m hoping we can both agree far too many individuals were obtaining credit that they financially were not able to handle the payback responsibilities.

You wrote:
“Namely, if you don’t like the two mainstream candidates, does that mean you simply don’t vote? “

My reply: For me… of course not. I personally will always exercise that precious right. I think that it’s one of the core responsibilities we have a citizens.

You wrote:
“Or does that mean you vote for someone who has no chance of winning? “

My reply: For me… I certainly hope that the people who are in that “vote-for-the-less-of-the-two-evils” mindset somehow find a way to vote otherwise somehow, someway, someday. If not… we will all be forced into the same old, same old cycle indefinitely. I’ll vote for someone who I feel represents my views. Period. Regardless of whether they have a chance of winning.

You wrote:
“In either case, does that mean you really think there wouldn’t be profound differences (moving beyond the all Democrats and Republicans are corrupt argument) between an Obama and a McCain Administration?”

My reply: Not many.

You wrote:
“If you do see differences, what are they?”

My reply: Domestically… very little, if any. Foreign policy-wise… this time around it’s hard to tell. In my opinion, in the case of these two, we are dealing with one person we know very little about & someone else who will whatever the tea leaves tell him to do. So honestly… who knows?

You wrote:
“Anyway, those are my questions and this is your site.”

My reply: I’d like to think of it this way… this is OUR site. I may have created it… but it’s hard to have a discussion with myself. Without people like yourself contributing to this small-but-growing community… it would be rather lonely. So please… take as much ownership as you’d like. I said it before, and I mean it sincerely… I’m profoundly gracious towards your contributions.

Reading your New Yourker article now.

Gusty,
“To be clear, I never insinuated that this one element spoke to the overall health of the economy. But I did find it to be an interesting piece of the overall puzzle. Whatever the reason(s) – which I’d argue would be irrelevant – I think that we can agree that these homes were not all purchased with cash.”

I agree, but I think the reasons are more than relevant. I’d be interested to know how many people were first time home buyers for example. This rise could simply be a blip that disappears quickly if the overall health of the economy doesn’t improve. In interesting blip, but a blip nonetheless.

“But I would point out that obtaining credit in general is not an issue across the board. I will agree that the leniency in the lending has tightened up considerably. But that is the entire reason things went sour in the first place. I’m hoping we can both agree far too many individuals were obtaining credit that they financially were not able to handle the payback responsibilities.”

I can agree with that, but I’m also talking about credit on a broader level–the lending between banks. It is my understanding that we need to first get banks lending again and then we can work on the consumer credit industry. Anyway, thanks for reading and responding….

Bill,

Can you elaborate on the lending between banks. I’d like to delve deeper into that part. Specifically the direct relation to the consumer credit industry.

Bill E and JGUSTY,

I have little knowledge in this field so enlighten me, please.
Is there a problem with banks lending or is the problem consumers thinking they have to keep up w/the Joneses , SUV suburbanites , etc,,, and now they are in a hole… banks tightening who they lend to seems smart and fair to me. I understand that some in power positions allowed greed to corrupt their choices … but it seems so simple to me… fire the loser, and loan to those that have good credit or a viable business plan. If you take a chance on a business loan and lose …well… YOU LOSE. This goes for the bank … to the borrower.. my lawn needs mowed and I have allergies.
My credit is great so I am betting I’ll get any loan that I need.

I know this post seems cut and dried but because of my lack of knowledge in this field that is how I see it.
Willing to learn on this subject.

CARRY ON.
T

Gusty and Tony,
While I’m not an economics expert either. The problem I was talking about is connected to the commercial paper sold between banks. Here’s a real quick description of the function of commercial paper:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080928_417591.htm

So, part of the problem as I understand it is as banks slowly realized (or in some cases admitted) the debt they had accrued due to their investments in questionable mortgage holdings that were rated highly (meaning they were considered safe investments) by the rating agencies in charge of those things when they should have been rated as risky investments, other banks stopped lending because they didn’t have faith that the bank borrowing wasn’t similarly exposed to these bad investments so they didn’t know if the bank could pay back the loan. When banks can’t borrow, they can’t pay their salaries and operating expenses. That then hits consumers as banks can no longer take risks on lending to anyone with anything lower than a perfect credit rating. I think that’s part of the story behind Wachovia. It’s not that Wachovia actually failed, instead their board decided to hedge their bets by selling the company before it failed because they realized that their exposure to these toxic debts was really high. A week later or so later, in fact, Wachovia announced a $23.9 billion loss for the third quarter. So, as I said, I’m no expert on these things, but this is the credit squeeze that I was talking about, and it has hit on a global scale.

Bill E,
As I see it your credit should be perfectly in tact. You borrow, you pay back. It is that simple to me. I was not born wealthy or even moderately financially secure, but I have paid my bills and debts. I understand that circumstance happens, injury, lay-off etc… but I have no sympathy for over extenders and ratings agency employees that obviously suck at their jobs … the list goes on.

When banks can’t borrow they can’t pay salaries? You’ve got to be kidding. Fire the people that do not perform well. My father -in- law was vice-pres. for a region of a banks, he was in Human Resources, a nice man that was upset each time he let someone go, but if they didn’t do their job…..
I won’t mention the banks but they are doing fine….

Banks lending to banks, lending to baks ….hmmmm interesting.

Thanks for the info Bill E.
I find it amusing that the article points out last year was worse than now…. and yet no panic, ‘politics/media’ anyone?
CARRY ON.
T

Tony,
While I’ll grant you that the level of panic by some is certainly higher than it was a year ago, and some of this is definitely attributable to the media picking up this story and running with it, I don’t think that alone explains away the seriousness of this situation. And unfortunately, neither will simply firing bank employees that haven’t performed well. This is a systemic problem that reaches from the ratings agencies to the banks, to aggressive mortgage brokers, to consumers (whether gullible, greedy or otherwise) and back to the banks again. My father too was a v.p. at a large bank, and my family is close friends with a former regional Fed. Chairman, and I think both of them would have told you that things are much more complex and fundamentally different now than they were even a few years ago. This doesn’t mean that the entire economy is on the verge of collapse, and any media that suggests that is acting irresponsibly, instead I think it means that we are entering a period of transition where things settle out. What will happen next, and what the economic system will look like in the future, remains to be seen. But to me, the very fact that Alan Greenspan admitted that the current situation has caused him to recognize a fundamental flaw in his entire economic belief system is a big deal. I’m not saying that he is perfect, but that’s a pretty big admission from someone who ran the show for decades….

Bill E.
Yeah the Greenspan thing is huge. Of course they are more complex, that is what I am looking for, a better explanation.
If an expert says “Things are fundamentally different now.” Fundamentally, Pro Tools records bands but I could explain it much better to a novice. I am not seeing an explanation in any of the articles that I read. I guess I’ll keep searching with everyone here helping…thanks guys…and Jane.

You posted:
“This is a systemic problem that reaches from the ratings agencies to the banks, to aggressive mortgage brokers, to consumers (whether gullible, greedy or otherwise) and back to the banks again.”

The line you draw still points to people screwing up all along the way.

CARRY ON.
T

Tony
“The line you draw still points to people screwing up all along the way. ” Agreed, but now we have to fix their screw-ups. And if you can figure out how to stop them from screwing up in the first place, I’m all ears (insert smiley face here)

As for the explanation you seek, and the article I posted, I’m always fascinated when people can read the same article and wind up with opposite reactions. I think the commercial paper problem sounds real, and really serious. To each his/her own I guess….

Bill E,
Can’t help there … (damn smiley faces) Like I said limited knowledge in this forum…(Finance)
I’m not saying it isn’t real … I just don’t find a clear grasp of what should be done to remedy it.

CARRY ON.
T

Tony & Bill,

I’ve enjoyed reading the back-n-forth. I too am trying to wrap my head around this whole thing. And I too have yet been able to get a clear picture as to the actual impending doom.

My wife & I have great credit and have in fact sold two homes and purchased a third within the last year or so with no issues whatsoever. And interestingly (also recently) I’ve witnessed two separate cases of a live radio show where the hosts (different individuals in different states) were actually soliciting small business owners experiencing credit issues to call in and explain their situations in detail.

And in both cases… there were little if any calls other than people who seemed able to find the money they needed.

And Tony… I have to agree with you. You borrow money. You pay back. Whether you’re a bank or an individual. If something goes wrong along the way, heads roll in one fashion or another.

It sure SEEMS simple.

But, like you Tony, I too am no expert. Just a scruffy, long-haired rocker dude who pays his bills and tries to make Dave Ramsey proud.

Seems like there’s an abundance of seemingly intelligent individuals occupying high-level positions in the financial industry who do well by adhering to Dave’s simple, logical and sound advice. Bad money management and dancing too much with the devil-of-credit works against both business and the individual.

JGusty,
I am NOT scruffy!
Money management seems to be at the heart here .. I’ll expound later. Right now I have to score some heroin and get to my bookie’s place before he stops taking bets on the Bengals to win out the football season.

Money management I tell you!
CARRY ON.
T