how will you remain a contributing, proud American...

[MikeD]

when your candidate loses? or, how will your winning candidate heal up the ever growing separation between the red states and the blue states, the democrats and the republicans, us and them? at what point do we begin to work together again?

I've never seen such a divisive time, a time of us vs them, in my 50 years.

[Greg_Cornish]

when your candidate loses? or, how will your winning candidate heal up the ever growing separation between the red states and the blue states, the democrats and the republicans, us and them? at what point do we begin to work together again?

I've never seen such a divisive time, a time of us vs them, in my 50 years.

When Marty and getalife stop making me sob myself to sleep at night.

[Marty]

Mike,

I believe it has been this way from day one – the only difference is that we can now send our views to each other a lot fast these days. Everyone can now say something (be it true or false) where as they could not in the olden days and the reason is the Internet. There is no control on what goes on the Internet and I don’t believe there should be (freedom and all that). We as reasonable people have to interpret what is said and who said what. Even each party (democrats and the republicans) put out disinformation – the win is more important then the country. One has to have his or her values set and know what is best for our country and are willing to meet in the middle to accomplish what need to be done.

There is one other problem and that is our media is taking sides and when they should tell both sides. It is so important to get the news out (before it is on the Internet) that our media is not checking out the story before releasing the information. In today society one has to have a reliable sources of information.

I also think that it was a lot more divisive during the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln was our President.

Greg,

You will not sob yourself to sleep at night if you just come on over to the other side!

[MikeD]

Marty - so is this a good thing? or just a faster means to an negative end?

re: the media, I have a different view (surprise, eh?) - I think the issue with the media isn't one of taking sides, I think a fair amount of info goes out on both sides, but the depth of the info and the reporting is too shallow. The press laid down during the startup of the iraq war, I believe to avoid having the label of of being unamerican hung on them, and the tough questions that should have been asked never were and the american public were fed the koolaid from that point fwd.

but none of this addresses/answers the original question which was geared towards the idea that we are further segmenting and splitting as a nation with each election. while it is the "democratic process at work" what good can come of continual splitting amongst us?

[ash]

Mike,

- "United we stand , divided we fall" - Aesop's Fabels
Suppose for a moment the goal wasnt to unite people it was to to divide them into reds and blues seperate them, get them to bicker with each other - cause as long as we are bickering with each other we arent bickering about what is really going down.

Then when nationalism appears in the conversation we all agree with it because you dont want to be ANTI-American right? So hey here is my second amendment and my fourth cause I am no terrorist or we need to find those bad guys at ANY Cost.


"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[getalife]

This is actually a pretty good question. If Obomb wins in November, I dont see myself accepting that too well. I will not compromise on my beliefs and values, just as Greg, Fishahalic, Jeff C, etc. will not change their values for me. So we get more and more divided, and approximately 50% of the population is disgruntled at any given moment.

Where does it all take us? I dont know. If there is civil unrest in our future, I will be glad I am on the side that is well armed.

[Greg_Cornish]

....I will be glad I am on the side that is well armed.

Just agree with the side that wants the biggest war machine and do what they tell you - you'll always be on the side that is well armed. Plus you'll alway be able to control the unarmed by force.

[MikeD]

- "United we stand , divided we fall" - Aesop's Fabels
Suppose for a moment the goal wasnt to unite people it was to to divide them into reds and blues seperate them, get them to bicker with each other - cause as long as we are bickering with each other we arent bickering about what is really going down.

Then when nationalism appears in the conversation we all agree with it because you dont want to be ANTI-American right? So hey here is my second amendment and my fourth cause I am no terrorist or we need to find those bad guys at ANY Cost.


"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

interesting angle, can't say I disagree

[Rod Martin]

At my age I may join which ever side has the best cheapest big goverment plan to take care of us. I can shut down. Lay off everybody. [ I'm sure they can get better jobs]. Reduce my income, everything I have but my house in Calif. is paid for. Sell it reduce my taxes, and hope big goverment will take care of me.
Let the young rich people pay for my retirement.

[allbelac]

This is actually a pretty good question. If Obomb wins in November, I dont see myself accepting that too well. I will not compromise on my beliefs and values, just as Greg, Fishahalic, Jeff C, etc. will not change their values for me. So we get more and more divided, and approximately 50% of the population is disgruntled at any given moment.

Where does it all take us? I dont know. If there is civil unrest in our future, I will be glad I am on the side that is well armed.

Correction...I think the current disapproval rating of Congress is 91% give or take a few percent??? Hello even the Bush has a 27% approval rating. It is a good thing the House is naming the two new post offices this week. That is some important stuff.

Caleb

[Greg_Cornish]

Correction...I think the current disapproval rating of Congress is 91% give or take a few percent???

I think that's FOX news, on PBS its probably 9%

[sTony]

at what point do we begin to work together again?

The last time I can remember the reds and blues working together on something was when the decision was made to go to war in Iraq. Course, pretty much everyone was force fed a big line of BS about why we needed to go there. Our 'intelligence' wasn't so intelligent.

Just exactly how many 'weapons of mass destruction' did we find over there?

My hopes is that at some point we'll bring Americans back home, stop spending a bazillion dollars that we don't have on this overseas oil war and start focusing on rebuilding the US economy. Seems the only guy that gets it in the USA is T. Boone Pickens. The debate does miss the target as do most debates in Congress.

sTony

[getalife]

Seems the only guy that gets it in the USA is T. Boone Pickens

You are right about that. I have seen his commercials and heard him speak a few times and he really does understand the predicament we are in. I am somewhat suspicious about the whole natural gas vehicle thing, since Pickens will profit greatly from that, but I think his ideas are pretty good. I hope whoever gets into the white house appoints Pickens to head the Department of Energy.

[sTony]

Being an 'oil' guy he has a vested interest either way. At least he's out there putting his own money on the line to get a message out that needs to be heard and one you won't hear from any senator, congressman or presidential candidate. Therein lies a big problem.

I guess what irks me most about the current campaigns is that I don't really hear any of these folks talking about issues that I 'think' is most important to Americans. We are facing huge inflation and growing unemployment. We are spending trillions of dollars supporting efforts overseas when it would seem that at least some of that money would help here.

I also get deeply bent when I hear the debates over issued settled decades ago. Roe V. Wade is the best example. I thought that issue was settled thirty five years ago.

And let's be honest, no one wants to do anything that will reform a health system that surely takes much better care of the folks facilitating it as opposed to those in need of it. Hillary had her chance to make an indelible mark on our society. She dropped the ball horribly. And people were still considering her for the presidency? As a Senator what has this woman accomplished? For that matter, what has either of these dolts we get to vote for come November done in their terms in the Senate? The junior Senator from Illinois hasn't been there long enough to accomplish much of anything but surely McCain has. So what's this guy done for his country? Or are they more concerned about what they're doing for their party?

To me what's most wrong about this entire process is that viable candidates were eliminated from your list of consideration long before you ever got a chance to vote in a primary. So maybe what really needs to change is that all states primary elections occur on the same day. Last thing I need is for the residents of New Hampshire or Ohio or any one state or small group of states to determine who I get to cast my vote for in this state. Think of all the candidates that were literally out of the running prior to the California Primary.

I can't stand the two party system, don't like the way we pick our presidential candidates and would really like to get rid of every elected official in the state of California, starting with Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi and any other career politician. These folks have never represented me to be sure. And it's not surprising how financially well off each and every single one of them has become.

There's the sTony political rant of the millennium. I vow, never again.

sTony

[CharlieS.]

Cmon..dont beat around the bush!! Nope....what scares me ....is I agree....that means you are as messed up as I am ?

[Guy Kelley]

[quote="sTony"]Being an 'oil' guy he has a vested interest either way. At least he's out there putting his own money on the line to get a message out that needs to be heard and one you won't hear from any senator, congressman or presidential candidate. Therein lies a big problem.

I guess what irks me most about the current campaigns is that I don't really hear any of these folks talking about issues that I 'think' is most important to Americans. We are facing huge inflation and growing unemployment. We are spending trillions of dollars supporting efforts overseas when it would seem that at least some of that money would help here.

I also get deeply bent when I hear the debates over issued settled decades ago. Roe V. Wade is the best example. I thought that issue was settled thirty five years ago.

And let's be honest, no one wants to do anything that will reform a health system that surely takes much better care of the folks facilitating it as opposed to those in need of it. Hillary had her chance to make an indelible mark on our society. She dropped the ball horribly. And people were still considering her for the presidency? As a Senator what has this woman accomplished? For that matter, what has either of these dolts we get to vote for come November done in their terms in the Senate? The junior Senator from Illinois hasn't been there long enough to accomplish much of anything but surely McCain has. So what's this guy done for his country? Or are they more concerned about what they're doing for their party?

To me what's most wrong about this entire process is that viable candidates were eliminated from your list of consideration long before you ever got a chance to vote in a primary. So maybe what really needs to change is that all states primary elections occur on the same day. Last thing I need is for the residents of New Hampshire or Ohio or any one state or small group of states to determine who I get to cast my vote for in this state. Think of all the candidates that were literally out of the running prior to the California Primary.

I can't stand the two party system, don't like the way we pick our presidential candidates and would really like to get rid of every elected official in the state of California, starting with Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi and any other career politician. These folks have never represented me to be sure. And it's not surprising how financially well off each and every single one of them has become.

There's the sTony political rant of the millennium. I vow, never again.

sTony[/quote]

I totally agree with you sTony, Talk about a career politician, just look a Jerry Brown , from Moon Beam Governor to Mayor of Oakland to now !!!

To me its about greed, money and power and getting reelected, some think big government should help the average joe and some thing the government should police the world, and some think they are owed a paycheck with out lifting there hand to earn it/ but all what somthing for nothing.

Most run to the opposit side when the crap rains down ! except for the few, prowd and brave !!

As long as we the voters keep electing these jerks, with our attitude of what will the government do for me !!! we will have the system as it is !!

I just read a interesting article in the paper this morning about Hospital emergency rooms. 47% of all patients seen by emergency staff are medi-cal recepents who could have been seen by making a regular appointment.

What dose that say about people who just want a hand out

[Greg_Cornish]

I gotta say, I like old Moonbeam. When he was mayor of Oakland they'd interview him on KGO radio every Thursday morning. He was quite up front about what politicians would do or say to get elected and rarely pulled a punch or dodged a question. Even within his own party he'd say things like, "Well, I have no idea if he's telling the truth or not but he's have to stick with that story if he wants to stay elected."

I found myself chuckling at him quite often. I think he is eligible to run for governor again.