ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

The main problem I see with your argument Elizabeth is that you would be hard pressed to find a significant group of people who agree on what exactly entails "principle", the "progress of civilization" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These ideologies are governed by individual values and, in turn, results in monetary benefit for those politicians who's perceived values match their constituency. The values you propose are nice, but they are philanthropic ideals that depend on a common set of values.

Ariyel | 05/22/08

Sorry, that should have been "The CONCEPTS you propose are nice, but they are philanthropic ideals that depend on a common set of values." My brain is running ahead of my fingers.

Ariyel | 05/22/08

My argument does not answer the two points raised adequately. Money should not be an "incentive" to do what is right. That is backwards. And, right now, our budget priorities are not in priority order. And, the funding is not for prioties and is for destruction without principle. Put the prioriies back into place and you will get a budget doing what is wanted by people. What is amazing is that everyone says they want the same things, but what they do is entirely different. And, the frontrunners are the money grubbers with backwards priorities and cannot see the horror, which makes them horrific and totally unsuited to the presidency. Nader has his priorities in place and taxes put to that end will net protection of environment, elimination not building of nukes, restoration of world order and friendly relations with the Middle East.

Elizabeth | 05/23/08

Liz you should be writing books.

POST | 05/23/08

WOW-Elizabeth didn't use any caps in her comment, and i actually read and understand it, though i completely disagree. everyone does agree that some priorities are important, but rarely do they agree on how to best get those priorities accomplished.

MorgMcA | 05/23/08

Proud of Small Town, I need to comment, from material learned in a book, a biography of Nader by a man who wrote very well, 2/3 through the book by Justin Martin, that, Nader grew up in a small town in Connecticut, at the foothills of the Bershire Mountains, Winsted, where DEMOCRACY (MorgMcA can deal with that one word in caps, I believe) was practiced vigorously, and obviously made a believer out of Nader who witnessed it growing up, first hand, loudly in action in Town Hall, where everyone voiced opinions over issues and debated, and was not afraid to "stand up" for their beliefs and net democracy! My complaint against Justin Martin is that although he appreciated Nader's accomplished track record, after the two thirds of beautiful writing, he then fell down entirely when he clearly could not see the proper application of such huge accomplishment by such prestigeous sincere dedication to democracy, as a proper Presidential Candidate! Justin Martin didn't think he belonged in the political process, I noticed with extreme horror. My current view, as I participate in this debate, is what I suspected but thought it must be my imagination, his priorities were not truly in place, although a great writer. Former book was on the Federal Reserve Chairman, a best selling book. So, money ruling as "its the economy stupid" mentality, with thanks to Nader on the sidelines with Nader actual results for our Federal Government but not as the President, but a conscience-driven activist public interest attorney, not a politician? Money is the issue, with Martin, I suspect, and the image of our political system. So, now, bottom line just may be that people have the subject of money backwards--money is to GET SOMETHING, and that something is not money. Profit without conscience is Nader's accusation against the corruption. But, to put the goal as the priority and back it with money and put the employment and products to back that goal, and THEN we will have our money where our mouths are. Right now, the corruption is out in front using up the money and we are bankrupting EVERYTHING. Priorities in place, will put the money in place, but put the goal at the top. Nader write lots of books. I may write one, meanwhile, I would like Nader as President!

Elizabeth | 05/23/08

In case I didn't say it properly, I believe Martin has his money and politics principles backwards. Politics is not all about money. It should be about results. I believe Nader has his priorities on track, and has always. But, the corruption is what has brought Nader into politics, and truth to tell, certainly this time around, and likely previous campaigns, the people drafted Nader. Nader had not intended politics. My current view is that politics only belongs AFTER (pardon the caps) having achieved serious public interest accomplishments. Politics should be a second career, it was not intended for money making, but government at a principled accomplishment likely means of delivering a networking view and backing for leadership for proven candidates with an agenda seen as a mandate by the voters approval level for the actual candidate. What to expect from the candidate should be known, not expected due strictly to dollars thrown up for hyping and promises not able to be delivered. That career view of politics is something that this country needs to be aware of as a evolutionary reality that is in desperate need of fixing. Politics like money are not ends in themselves. They are invented to deliver a result. We want the result not the means as our end. King Midas knew after his stupidity that you cannot eat gold, when he was granted that everything he touched would turn to gold, and he faced dinner in dismay. The Gods were angry at him for his stupidity, and gave him SANITY back again, but turned his ears into Donkey Ears. Likewise, a candidate who gets money is not expected to seek MONEY as the goal of his presidency. And, the economy's health, also, is only a result of priorities in place to deliver the results that we want from our taxes.

Elizabeth | 05/23/08

Unfortunately Elizabeth, you are still stuck with the relativism of your statements. What is a priority to you, may not be a priority to someone else and, as Morg stated, not everybody agrees on how to accomplish those priorities. I still cannot give you my vote because your statements contain a lot of "should"; they are simply your opinion on what is priority and correct. People vote into office those who represent the values that they hold. A politician is going to represent his/her constituency (most of the time) and make their constituency's priorities, their own priorities; therefore, everybody from Evangelical Christians, to environmentalists, to gay/lesbian rights groups, to tobacco farmers are going to have their priorities represented by somebody in government. Again, your proposals are very philanthropic, but not realistic of the nature of our society.

Ariyel | 05/23/08

Ariyel, that was the debate question, and yes, the relativism of whether or not the agreed priority nationally might be the environment as number one and that the result of the other priorities would be they would be forced (not just fall magically) into place, not a open question for each priority, such as the environment getting bottom rating and military buildup getting top when it is not wanted and the president wants it and the Congress does not represent the people, and acts instead as if the people chose the president and Congress can abrogate its duty to insure public interest for every priority, which it does not at the present, and it is supposed to without any question. The budget also ends up as a deficit for unwanted military buildup entirely against the people's desire to protect the environment and have LIFE, Liberty, and Happiness for THIS COUNTRY! Our current Bush agenda has the environment at the bottom of his priorities. Vote for the frontrunner Republican, and at the present, the Democrat frontrunners also, and you have Bush in power continued, not the people. Bush's offenses against proper policy have entirely derailed all priorities. What about bringing the troops home, and being NICE to Iran and Israel instead of inflaming and threatening. Proper priorities would cause those behaviors, not in view, from the frontrunners. The "world" still believes in the American PEOPLE as a whole and that the horrors threatened cannot be serious. And, the supposed claim of Democracy. But, in the front you have a military industrial corporate corrupt powermongering stranglehold attempting to control what is not the American People's will at all. Why would you elect a person who has no priorities demonstrated in their track record and expect the public will to prevail. Why not a candidate who matches the expected and stated priorites of the people. Environmental protection if wanted should be a required, not question mark, capability of a candidate, and certainly their verbal statements should show some indication of what they will do. A majority should not expect to get "something" (good) from a "nothing" track record and only promises. And, even the promises are not showing a match to the claimed polled priority of the environment and bring the troops home.

Elizabeth | 05/25/08

The priority concern on the average American voter's mind, according to polls, is the economy. That concern often tends to be directly at odds with concern over the environment.

DonkeyDude | 05/25/08

Elizabeth, your sentences are staggering :). Even if the environment were put as first priority, you make a lot of assumptions on the results this would net. Ending war? Ridding the world of nukes? How do you figure this will happen? Realistically, if our government made environment the number one priority, what would likely result would be 1) a string of pollution control regulations, 2) more money invested in alternative energies, 3) more protections for wildlife and habitat. That's it. Everything else in your arguments have nothing to do with the main point. You haven't demonstrated in any way how placing the environment first will net the gains you suggest; instead, wasting most of your space ranting about government corruption.

Ariyel | 05/25/08

I read somewhere, seemed like a credible source, that the only way Hollywood went "green" during the last oscars was by buying land in africa to plant trees to "offset" the carbon emissions put off by the oscars. the same source said that they also had to pay guards to keep the new reserve intact from locals who wanted to use that land for agricultural production. so deductions, 1) hollywood going green was a joke 2) not everyone supported the green effort (locals) and 3) the green movement actually created tension rather than reduce it

MorgMcA | 05/26/08

Morg - 1) You haven't fully supported this determination; why is an offset a "joke?" 2) So? Of course not; and 3) So? This is kinda irrelevant, no?

DonkeyDude | 05/26/08

1) because it wasn't actually doing anything to make hollywood green 2) and 3) see Elizabeth's comments above (on how everyone agrees on the enviroment and how all of the rest of the world's problems would be solved focusing by focusing on the enviro)

MorgMcA | 05/26/08