stanleylieber said:

Thanks for the lesson... Anyway, I was referring the choices we have for any office. It's the basically the difference between Coke and Pepsi. We all either like one or the other but they're essentially the same thing with very little difference. Democrats and Republicans don't really offer differing views except on 'false' issues, i.e. abortion rights or gun rights. Issues that fire us up, but don't have any real effect on our daily lives.

MrsGoodnight said:

All I meant was we have false choices with very little difference between parties. The Democratic and Republican parties are largely funded by very wealthy donors(very often the same donors on both sides of the isle) and political action committees. Without wealthy backers they wouldn't have the money to run thousands of expensive ads and therefore get elected and more importantly, really don't get real reform passed in Congress that would help the average voter(because the average voter didn't get them elected the ads did).
Instead, most legislation that goes undetected or undebated helps Big Oil, Big Pharma, Large Farms, Insurance Co's, etc and makes it easier to merge large corporations and networks, essentially trumping anti-trust laws, and more importantly, eroding the bedrock of our democracy. Unforunately, Corporate America has become even stronger and more powerful in the last 20 years with both parties in office, while corporatists like Bill Clinton and George W have only made them richer.
While I feel like it's my personal duty to vote, we are really given false choices between Republican and Republican Lite, and I don't fault him or anyone else for not voting. Until we see real election reform we will continue to have no real choice between candidates.

XNY said:

So vote for other candidates. How do you think we got a two-party system?

XNY said:

All you have to do is vote for a different candidate. That's how they get chosen. Vote in the primaries -- for someone else.

Use the write-in box on your ballot.

I stopped watching Prince's interviews YEARS AGO He's a musical genuis but he says alot of strange/weird/confusing things in his interviews.I'd rather just enjoy the music.His political/religious views aren't important to me.

And I agree...he was much more interesting when he didn't do interviews.

stanleylieber said:

(sorry i've been busy planning an engagement and wedding...)
Be honest, 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance in winning. Only the Reform Party in the 1990's ever came close to winning an election, but it was, again, funded by billionaire Ross Perot. Some US Senators, like Jim Jeffords(sp?), became independent candidates while in office, but few have won seats as independents-because they don't have the political machine behind them. Jesse Ventura was elected Gov of MN as an independent, but he also had name recognition, while most 3rd party candidates do not.

Lovesymbol2 said:[quote]

strawberrydreams said:

Because you will be busy jacking it to the mental image of Tavis & P?

XNY said:

The reason 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance is because people don't vote for them.

SoulAlive said:

I don't watch them either because they usually make me cringe. In the past, he would irritate me for being so spineless and timid, now he's so far away from reality in his brain that I don't want to listen to his Gemini bullshit double talk.

(Being a Gemini myself, I know he's full of shit).

I just wish they would ask more questions about the music. It's always recorddeals, jehova stuff or what the lyrics mean. Why no questions about his guitar playing, touringplans etc...???

He is quite an intelligent man, dispite the fact that I don't share most of his beliefs. Also is really quite an intellectual, only from a different planet.

stanleylieber said:

That's the obvious answer. The main reason is that no one knows anything about them or even who they are. The two main parties have multiple ads in print, tv, radio and just as important, 3rd party candidates aren't included in the debates. Again, we need real election reform to level the playing field.

XNY said:

We don't need any of that. It's not the government's fault that people are so stupid they need the TV to tell them who to vote for. If people could spare ten seconds out of an election cycle to research candidates and then vote their conscience no amount of TV commercials would cement a victory for these bland characters nobody really likes or agrees with.

The problem is that almost no one is willing to spend time researching issues or candidates. Most people are completely unaware of even their own local politics. Nobody wants to vote for someone nobody's ever heard of. Consequently, even those who are aware that the two given choices don't really fit their beliefs feel pressured to vote for one of them because they're considered to be the only "real" choices.

I agree the system is corrupt. I'm just saying, if people took responsibility for their own votes and educated themselves and then voted their consciences, the imbalances in campaign budgets and TV coverage would be irrelevant. Especially with the Internet in play as a source of information and a resource for communication. Our system is designed to deliver unto us the government we deserve. So long as they're still letting us vote, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
[Edited 5/12/09 15:56pm]

strawberrydreams said:

NOT ME.

Great innerview loved it alot Prince is the man.

strawberrydreams said:

can i interview you?... let's see how you do.... cool?

stanleylieber said:

No offense, but you're reading out of a textbook. The system is designed to keep the status quo and keep the wealthy in power. The "playing field" is not level and wealthy donors, corporations, and PAC's have far more voice in who gets nominated and elected than you or I. I do my homework on candidates, locally and nationally, and vote every two years and in primaries. Even with that in mind, the candidates with the best organization and the most airtime(whatever the media) get elected 99.9 % of the time. That's now how I want it to be, but that is reality.

XNY said:

No candidate has to get nominated for anything to win an election. We make it a requirement by insisting upon voting for a Democrat or a Republican and by only voting for "legitimate" candidates who earn a nomination from one of these two parties. It's custom, not law.

Obviously, I understand you're talking about practicalities. In the real world, Americans are going to keep voting for Democrats and Republicans. But I'm talking about how we got here and what keeps us here. People can vote however they want to vote. They choose to vote for the candidates they see on TV. What prevents them from choosing otherwise?

We have only ourselves to blame.

All of the excuses about money making a difference in which candidates get a leg up only proves the point that people can vote for whomever they choose. The point we're both making and seem to agree with is that on the whole people are too lazy and too stupid to choose anyone besides the candidates they are presented with on television.

All the advertisements and corporations and interest groups and PACs in the world can't do squat about the stubborn old woman who pushes whichever button her hand falls on first. That's why campaigns are always aimed at swing voters. They only bother with the voters they think they can influence.

It's our own fault if we surrender our free will to advertising. Face it, most elections are about raw physical appeal -- whichever guy looks coolest and "talks like us" while he's standing behind the podium. Vote your conscience.

Nobody knows who their Congressman is but everybody knows who won American Idol. Then we want to complain that the government is acting against our wishes.

Oh definetely, his previous demeanour. I like the idea of Prince being this mysterious, weird and wonderful, little genious popstar, hovelled away in Paisley Park trying to conjure up the perfect sound. Usually doing so. Nobody knows what he was thinking. Probably bright, blue skys, white, fluffy clouds, lollipops and pretty girls.

I have little interest in what Prince has to say these days. He's pretty borish and his music reflects that.

I like the sounds of P's voice so love it when he talks and especially when he laughs. Yes he can be a bit obtuse sometimes but hey no one is perfect. He is an intelligent man very intelligent but maybe sometimes does not come across so well - i think he has mastered his shyness to a degree but he probably still finds it difficult to speak on camera. I am just happy that he is still around, still positive and still making great music - long may it reign purple.

strawberrydreams :... where are you?,... i'm ready to interview you

c'mon

sexyeyeliner said:

If you're refering to the Sunday Show interview from 1995, then I think I prefer it when he talks a little

although i don't agree with many of his opinions, i think he is very intelligent! he says whatever he wants whenever he wants and doesn't give a damn about anything! the man is a genious he knows how to manage with his fame!
[Edited 5/27/09 6:34am]