the average American isn't a dittohed or freeper

but they care more about Kobe Bryant than they do about voting, they will come out of an action hero like Ventura is running, they get don't get their news from real news sources

I recall a poly sci teacher predicting that if ever a Rock Band (This was late 70's) came out with an awesome song and it was closely tied to a Presidential Candidate, that alone could get someone the Presidency. He was 20 years ahead of his times. The Celebocracy.

I had a great poli sci teacher at Ballard a few years later. He talked about the culture of celebrity with regard to politics a LOT (Reagan was prez then).

But I think ever High School has ONE teacher that things this way...

:evilgrin:

by NOFX: http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html

relies on, it is no longer news, but infotainment

Because the average American, due to a general disinterest in anything other than the sitcom Friends, is most likely to believe Bush's lies and think that everything is going well.

The average Americans are the sheep, the administration and Rethugs in congress are the pigs, the wealthiest Americans are the dogs, and the rest of the FReepers are just pathetic wannabes; they are small yappy dogs that, despite their sharp teeth, wouldn't be much of a threat without the pigs to guide them (all the inbreeding rendered them completely incoherent). More than anything, FReepers wish they were one of the bigger dogs, or one of the pigs.

Watch out for the sheep, because they are scared of the dogs and will believe anything the pigs tell them.

Through quiet reflection and great dedication
Master the Art of Karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make the buggers eyes water.

Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into a dream

An 'awesome song' - 'Sheep' by Pink Floyd. Was you post a reference to that album?

It was a reference to the book Animal Farm.

The album Animals (one of my favorites) was written with that novel in mind.

I take it you haven't read it?
Read it. It was really, really good.

but I've been turning this Floyd line over in my mind:

Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage.

Does this have any relevance to the current discussion? I'm thinking maybe it does - the average American going for the latter.

Most people have a really low opinion of politicians, both democrats and republicans. To most people a theif is a theif, regardless of their methods. Most people believe that politicians are only out to make money for themselves, and politicans have done nothing to make them believe otherwise.

Sure, there are some good politicians out there, but take a rose and throw it in a big bucket of shit, guess what is smells like. Not a rose, that's for sure.

That's why these candidates who present themselves and non-government outsiders do so well. That's what Ventura did. For his campaign he told the voters, "you can vote for one of the two career politicians, or for me". That resonated with the voters. The same with Arnold, he refused to answer questions or address any political issues, which worked well because it kept him from looking like a real politician. It's been said before, but I will say it again, a vote for Arnold was really more of a vote against politics.

This is something that the Democratic Candidates better hurry up and realize. The voters don't want someone to go to Washington who will be able to work within the system, they want someone to go to Washington who will take on, to challenge the system.

People like Clark because he's not a politician, he's a General (some of us who have been in the military know better).

People like Dean because "he's running a movment, not a campaign" (this was a statement I've heard more than a few of his supporters use).

I work with many idiot conservative and not one of them is even remotely interested in Kobe.

nt

no body would notice if kobe fell off the Empire State Building.

just like the rest of us, who gives a damn?


:eyes:

...occurred to some people on the forum that the average American might just not agree with the politics expressed on DU?

If it hasn't, it should. This board is far, far left of the mainstream, and the fact that a majority of Americans don't accept all leftwing ideas doesn't make the rest of the country a bunch of dolts or sheeple.

"don't get their news from real news sources"

No, they don't get their news from outlets you approve of. When the majority of Americans don't agree with you, it is not necessarily because they are not reading or seeing real news. It could be because they just don't relate with most of your agenda.

For God sakes, if I remember correctly a fairly large majority on this forum even opposed going to war in Afghanistan. After an event like 9-11, this anti-Afghan war position was so utterly unpopular and untenable that virtually no congressional Democrat adopted it. And remember, Barbara Lee, the only Democrat voting against the war resolution, was embraced like a hero on DU. Here is a congresswoman so absolutely out of the mainstream that she probably couldn't win in more than a handful of other congressional districts in the entire United States - yet on this forum she is considered something of a cause celeb. Is it really any surprise that the majority opinion here is not reflected in the American public at large?

America is just not that left of center. It's just not. It isn't because the people are stupid or ignorant, it is because America is a young, strongly free market, religious country where the ideals of larger government spreading the wealth and assisting its populace never has been accepted as it has in most Europe at the moment. And by the way, don't think for one moment that Europe will always be more enlightened than the US. If the economies in Europe do not pick up, it is very possible that they will be electing rightwing governments while America votes for more lefting administrations.

Increasingly Americans do value progressive ideas. The left is winning the war of ideology and policy, but these kinds of fundamental changes to a society take a long time - and there will very often be reversals (think of them as hiccups in the grand scheme of things). Progress marches on, all the new and innovative ideas are usually from the left. The best the right can do is fine tune our agenda - and they are forced to do that because the public won't tolerate the GOP cutting or eliminating most of the policy the left has established. Sometimes Democrats and Progressives go overboard. Not all of our ideas work, some should be stopped in favor of newer concepts. Sometimes the right acts as a check on moving the country too quickly and making mistakes that are not easily reversed. But at the end of the day, the left is winning.

We don't need to act as elitists and knock our fellow citizens just because they don't always embrace all of our ideology and candidates. Better to recognize that we still have work to do, and redouble our efforts to craft and spread our message.

Imajika

free republic is to the far right

The mainstream is not DU, nor is it Free Republic.

Activists of both sides are far more driven by ideology than 80%+ of the general population.

Obviously, I'd rather be in a world governed by progressive, left of center ideas. That is why I am here.

Imajika

Maybe if one had a tiny social circle of intellectuals, one would think the average Schmoe had a brain in his head. Perhaps you've heard of the California recall election? I'd really like you to explain how an educated, informed electorate decided that an action movie star with NO experience, NO speaking skills, and NO stated policies other than a tax cut despite a massive deficit got selected. Fill me in! Maybe I'm just blinded by the machinations of the liberal media.
Is it possible that the average American voter is a self-interested idiot? Is it possible that they are easily led around like sheep because of their abject ignorance of the issues? I mean, jeez, I thought supply-side was pretty much discredited, yet when an unelected leader continuously bankrupts the nation's future through such policies, the populace stands by. What about the "death tax"? Is it better to give the wealthy yet another handout and pass on the ensuing debt in the form of a birth tax which all must pay? 70% of Americans think so. If polling numbers are to be believed, then those who defend the intellect of the American populace are the ones who are truly delusional. Or they are using faith based non-facts to color their limited perceptions of reality.
Are you afraid of the truth? Because the truth is clearly something to be feared. I like to think that the impending collapse of our Democracy, clearly accelerated by BushCo policies, will result in a liberal revolution where those who suffer unite to create a more equitable and sustainable nation as they did during the Great Depression. In that hope, I fear that I am the delusional one. What is more likely is that our wonderful, educated nation will turn on itself, finding scapegoats for its failures amongst the few who raged against the dying of the light.

"Perhaps you've heard of the California recall election?"

Yes, it has not escaped my attention.

"I'd really like you to explain how an educated, informed electorate decided that an action movie star with NO experience, NO speaking skills, and NO stated policies other than a tax cut despite a massive deficit got selected. Fill me in!"

That's simple. The majority of Californians HATED Gray Davis more than they worried about Arnolds experience or speaking skills. It really all comes down to that. The majority of CA voters were determined to see a change, and change they will get whether you or me like it or not.

You don't like their decision, so you think they are sheep. Perhaps they wouldn't like you are your policy positions either. Maybe they would consider you an elitest.

"I like to think that the impending collapse of our Democracy"

I'm sorry, I don't buy into the collapse of Democracy thing. Personally, I think that is a bunch of utter nonsense. I heard the same thing during Reagans 80's - yet somehow we survived and elected Bill Clinton and all things improved dramatically.

"will result in a liberal revolution where those who suffer unite to create a more equitable and sustainable nation"

A liberal revolution? You mean with guns and stuff, or something akin to the 60's. I certainly do not see a violent "liberal" revolution. However, the US could definately go through another period of progressive change, infact it may very well be that Bush's endless war on terror could be the spark that ignites it. Or not. I dunno. I've no doubt that the left will have their day and generation again, but I've also no doubt that the right will rise to power periodically too. Politics is cyclic. Get used to it. Democracy is not dying because your not getting your way.

Look, your just not facing the facts that the public may just not agree with you and the entire "liberal revolution" your hoping for. Most everyone thinks their right, and those who don't agree with them must not be getting the right information. Rightwingers think this, leftwingers think this, socialists think this, communists think this, fascists think this, greens think this, etc, etc. But sometimes, the fact of the matter is that your positions are just not popular at the moment. Rather than give up in despair and whine about the ignorance of the people, you'd do your cause much more good if you get out and intelligently explain your issues and assume that most people are every bit as smart as yourself. You'll never persuade anyone of anything if your condescending and act like others positions and concerns are bourne out of ignorance, while everything you think is correct and brilliant.

Imajika

It is alarming that a debate about the intelligence of the electorate is being carried out in the absence of acceptance of facts. The liberal revolution I referred to was the one which happened during the Great Depression as I stated. Perhaps you missed the reference while you were ignoring my direct questions. You state "your positions are just not popular at the moment". What do you perceive my positions to be? That's a question. In civil discourse one replies to questions. You also state that I should "assume that most people are every bit as smart as yourself". Why should I? If ignorance of accepted truth isn't viewed as a flaw, how should it be viewed? Try to absorb these truths.
1. The Bush administration is enlarging the national debt at a greater rate than any President in history.
2. We have gone to war for two major reasons--Saddam/Al Qaeda connection and imminent risk of WMD attacks upon us. No evidence of these declared reasons has yet surfaced.
3. In spite of NO EVIDENCE, 70% of Americans, according to a recent poll, believe that WMDs were found in Iraq. Are they smart voters too?
4. President Bush doesn't read newspapers. He relies on his advisors to keep him informed.
5. Halliburton has received a HUGE no-bid contract for services in Iraq. That used to be called war-profiteering and is generally frowned upon.
Perhaps your affinity for the obviously uninformed electorate has caused you to share their willful ignorance. I hope you take the time to find out that it's not elitism, it's your civic responsibility to be informed. This is, after all, a representative democracy. . . or so I thought.
PS Grammatical and spelling errors don't bolster your case.

I don't think the poll numbers support your comments. I believe it's approaching half the country who wish we hadn't gone to war in Iraq. Sure, we saw the mistake before they did. But they came to think the way we do about it.

I know several Independents and Republicans personally who talk about the same things with me that we do here - they are as disgusted as I am by the Patriot Act, Ashcroft, Leakgate, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bush's disastrous foreign policy, the Iraq war, the deficit, the war on a woman's choice, the religious right, the devastation of the environment, the nutty neocons, etc.

While there are some radicals here, a lot of us here and in the rest of the country are like me, that is, moderate. While sometimes the talk here seems like fluff, and people are missing the important issues, I usually find someone who wants to talk about what I want to talk about.

but look what an apathetic populace allowed to happen there?

I know, everyone's tired of the nazi links, but if the jackboot begins to fit...........

...it worked for the GOP- with all the Liberals in the entertainment biz, it's baffling that they beat us to the punch-

...I blame the DNC as well as the rich/lazy Hollywood Liberals who apparently are not putting up enough cash...

been the result of the Dems recruiting Tim Robbins (for example) as a candidate.

...these Hollywood liberals need to put up some dough, or clam up.

what happened to Tim Robbins. I haven't heard anything from or about him in months. Did he suddenly shut up, or have I been missing news of him?

It's a damned shame we can't have someone with an appealing personality who is also strongly qualified. Last one I saw floating around was Bill Clinton (and he made a fine mess of things with his damned indiscreet zipper.)

I am new to this forum. Could someone please tell me exactly what you mean by freeper. I gather from the title that it is the opposite of a dittohead, and therfore is a strong liberal, but even strong liberals come in different flavors. So what exactly is a freeper?

Thanks.

They are freepers. It's not a compliment. If you've ever read the board, the level of discourse is at about 6th grade mentality. They basically parrot Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and rarely bother to find out the facts before spouting off.