I'm happy I misunderstood your point Sting. Sorry again for being so harsh then. :) If you want to know what I think. I think most Americans are waiting for a leader ala: MLK or Ghandi or Roosevelt (for left) or Reagan (for right), etc. Right now, I don't see any true leaders. This is why Obama got elected because he could talk like one of those leaders, that we believe will somehow change what is wrong. Well that for sure hasn't happend, whether or not because the President is uncapable or unwilling or what have you.

The problem with getting everyone together to get change, is that in our country (like most I imagine) there is a vast variety of differences in thought. Some people want no taxes, some people want more taxes. Some want more defense spending, some less. Some want more private schools, others none, etc. It would be very hard to get more than a few % of the people together for a signal cause. Now I believe it is possible, and the cause is simple, that I think we can all agree on: The government needs to start getting things done, and stop plotting against eachoter and instead work together on what is broken. I think that should be a, if not THE message, that Americans can all get behind...Just look at the approval ratings for congress...how low can you go, right? Unfortunately, however, I believe most people that get together do so because they all come from the same set of beliefs ie: Liberal/Conservative...Thus these groups start championing other causes that the other half of Americans don't care about, or don't agree with...Hence both sides of the protesters are attacking eachother, instead of the real problem: Congress and how it is not working as it should be. Maybe if things continue to slide, eventually people will drop the "smaller" issues which they have drilled into their minds as right and the most important since youth, and unite for the common cause of making this countries government work better again. I don't think it is something that will happen so easily though, both politcal parties have spent a lot of work in demonizing the other side, and that work is definetly paying off, to the detriment of all.

Like I (sarcastically) told my mother in law a couple years ago, if you want a revolution in your country (a real one, not a flock of people waving signs in front of the White House), just cancel the next SuperBowl. People will take action against that.

Sadly, people won't take action for more important things.

I disagree. If they cancel American Idol or Keeping Up with the Kardashians, then REVOLUTION 2.0 will finally come to America ;P

OOPS, forgot about Dancing with the Stars too and The Bachelor and too many REALITY shows to list.

My gosh, talk about garbage TV. Canceling that show might solve some society problems. :)

You know, there is a very funny joke about this whole thing... People say the US is so advanced... Well, I disagree... The US is 20 years behind us... Why? Well, we've been in a crisis for 20 years now, and it is only just arriving at the US. :D

(yea, it gets kind of lost in translation... just a joke, don't turn on your flamethrowers)

Some of you may or may not that I expressed a certain degree of dissent with the decision to add a woman who's only contribution to society was an amateur porn video to the list of hosts for Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards. The fact that she got her own show because of that video when so many other "established" celebrities are vilified when their own respective private films are leaked is a telling sign of the state of the world.

First of all, Ron Paul is in no way a solution to our situation. The dude may be a libertarian's wet dream but people are suffering precisely because the system has cast them adrift for so long, Ron Paul dismantling what little parts of the government that still do a half assed job of serving them is just going to screw them even more.

But let's just pretend he was the solution you seem to believe he is. He's basically the perfect example of what I was talking about, marginalized by the media, his statements have been misrepresented to the point that it's perfectly fair that the average person doesn't know what he actually said, hell, he doesn't even show up as a candidate in much of the coverage.

And you expect people to care? They don't know any more about him than the Constitutional Party candidate. And even if they wanted to vote for Ron Paul, guess what, they cannot, because they don't decide if he gets the nomination and not running on a major party ticket will end for him just as it did in 2008. Should everyone re-register Republican just to get him on the ballot? Is that really a solution to you?

And even if he was, exactly what would Ron Paul do if Boehner (or however the fuck you spell it) screws him over on a the bipartisan deal by having it voted back to committee this week? What would Ron Paul do when Rep. Fitzpatrick bangs the gavel down after the pledge of allegiance and walks out of the House to avoid even bringing up the Senate bill for ratification? What would he do when essential legislation (even by his rather sparse standards) lands on his desk with 1-4 poison pills that will dramatically screw US citizens?

The American people are the victims and you're blaming them for their essential powerlessness to stop what's going on.

My problem is I don't think I even have a say at the state level, at the city and county levels? Yeah, depending on where I choose to live I'd get a say. At the state level? Nah, I don't think there's a chance in hell.

For better or worse this is a top down democracy and trying to rectify it to the State's rights democracy many people feel is more constitutional is going to be about 10 times harder and likely way less productive than scraping the whole damned thing and starting over.

We had a civil war over State's rights and essentially, State's rights lost. I'm not saying which one I prefer because honestly I see serious problems with both. I mean, with the whole State's rights scenario just what the heck does MO do when their neighbor up the Mississippi poisons the hell out of the water? What do you do when your small State's neighbor starts polluting your air and your citizens start dying of cancer? Obviously, there's some good things, I know you already have some pretty good ideas of what those are, I'm just pointing out the idea is far from roses, even if it was workable (and I'm not convinced it is).

Stopped reading here because I said NOTHING of the sort and I don't like debating with people who don't read my posts. Especially since I often present multiple sides.

Well, if you want, we can both pretend that Ron Paul would be solution. You stated people could elect him if they really wanted, implying this might be a solution, I don't know what you expect people to think you mean when you make such a statement.

As far as "And Orcish's opinion is they secretly do want it but are manipulated into thinking otherwise, which I just addressed above." which I missed previously, yeah, I don't think that either and have made it clear that people are manipulated by fear of losing jobs, death panels, or whatever the fuck, they don't want or not want whatever it is because it's not even presented to them honestly. How the hell are they supposed to judge when they get lied to all the time and called kooks when they bother to start to question any of the lies?

The part of it where you also implied that Americans also could make things "better" for themselves by banding together and somehow making our democracy work. If you didn't think Ron Paul was a good candidate I don't know why you'd pick a candidate that comes with all the baggage Ron Paul does for your example of how they could do so.

Basically what you're saying now is, "Americans could change things, they could elect Ron Paul for example. But I am non-commital about whether Ron Paul (or any candidate that will, or even could, indeed be on the 2012 ballot) would actually be a good change." Or at least I have no other way I can find that's relatively sane to interpret it.

So you don't support Ron Paul (or didn't mean to endorse him, whatever), that's fine. I don't know why you brought it up as an example of how Americans weren't somehow victims because the electoral system is completely screwed.

Here's what's going to happen in 2012, someone will get elected, the primary parties will get the vast majority of the votes. The voter turn out will be laughably low. A significant portion of those who voted for the winner will quietly admit they didn't really like him, they just couldn't let that other guy get into office (usually because X will happen, something insane, like "Obama will ban Christianity and make Islam the state religion."). So a good portion of the voters who voted for the guy in office won't even like him that much, or at all. The new guy, regardless of party affiliation, will continue most of the policies of the old guy, and nothing much will change.

I know this because it happens every presidential election, without fail.

My point was that if a majority wanted to enact X change they could do so. I used Ron Paul as a current and modern example. There is no far-left candidate up for election because Obama will be the nominee, so there was no far-left example to use.

Assuming I endorse Ron Paul because I use him as an example of change people could make if they wanted a Libertarian candidate is kind of silly.

Also you dismissing that idea as wrong further backs up my comments about this whole thing being more about "I want X government because it's common sense the best and since we aren't getting that something is wrong." I don't think the US lacks socilaized medicing solely because people are too scared or manipulated to want it. I think that line of thinking is really smug and condescending... "obviously socialized medicine is better and anyone who doesn't want it is a pawn of the system!" It sounds like something people say after smoking a lot of pot. It sounds like exactly what Republicans point out as smug liberalism.

I think a majority of people have health insurance they are satisfied with and don't want a bigger government and higher taxes. I don't think they give a shit enough about change or helping the poorer folks to actively pursue it.

Of course.

You seem to think this is all due to some horrible manipulation or flaw in our system though, and I don't agree. I think voter apathy is firmly rooted in most people being relatively happy and satisfied and not wanting to put effort into changing anything. Yes, media manipulation exists, I would never deny that. I just think 1) it's not the main driving force, and 2) it would not work if people really gave a shit.

Yeah, nothing is perfect. My feeling is that the higher these things are administrated, the less we can do about it. At least locally, I can attend the regularly-scheduled village and school board meetings, I can run for a seat on the board, I can canvas my neighbors to help them understand at least one viewpoint on a local matter. You're right, state is iffier, unless one happens to live in the capital city, and even then you're fighting an uphill battle against lobbyists and the elected officials themselves. Let's face it, I'm never going to be able to sway the decision of my newly-minted state Senator, let alone our Representative in the US Congress. Our views are opposed and nothing I say will change her and his minds. Fortunately, we're a solid purple here so it can go either way at election time.

Here's where I see it with regard to the important points you mention: the federal gov't should have a regulatory (and enforcement) voice for issues where one state's actions can have a negative effect, without a chance for recourse, on other states. The earlier-mentioned environmental stuff (and especially water issues) are good cases for this. For things that the states can manage themselves, and even amongst themselves in cases where multiple states are working together, butt out.

My latest frustration is the recent award of grants to nine states under the Race to the Top program. $500 million was split between those nine states, while the people of all 50 states funded the grants. Why does the federal gov't assume that it can take money from all and give back to some, when all of the states have their own education departments? This isn't a national issue like border security, safety of the food supply, or international trade. One state, already with above-average test scores, got $45 million, of which $20 million is going toward actual education and the remaining balance is for "administration". And the federal gov't thought this was a grant worthy of taking money from the rest of the states.

I find it absurd, and this is one miniscule example, that we have this sort of federal funding going on. My own state has particularly high property taxes, which is a major source of funding for education within the state. Among other reasons, this is part of why we rank pretty well nationally and internationally. So our state has made it a priority, with positive results, and we pay quite a bit for it. I'm fine with that, and it seems that the rest of the taxpayers generally agree, so long as the money is spent smartly. But on top of that we're also needlessly paying, through federal income tax, for other states to get these block grants when they could instead be coming up with their own balance of taxation versus results. Surely, our state could have used for its own needs its contributed share of that grant program. $10 million, give or take, is a fair chunk of change for trying out some innovations in, say, the Milwaukee public schools, or working on education programs within the Indian reservations. But no, the feds decided our contributed tax money is better spent pushing paper in some other state.

I know no one who's satisfied with their family health insurance, especially dental. Do you? There's bound to be a few, but the fact that I work all the time with high paid professionals that all do have health insurance and none of them like it... I strongly doubt your assertion.

It's not smug to say people respond depending on how you present an argument or product. It's marketing and people who know how to sell ideas make a ton of money. There are people in every campaign for every politician who's jobs it is to simply help him/her market ideas to the voters. You think everyone does this because it doesn't work?

People may not like to think of ourselves as irrational animals that are wired just well enough to keep procreating and out competing the competition but we are. That means we have flaws and act irrationally. The more clever among us have noted this and some use it for selfish and brutal purposes while others do the opposite (or in a few cases do nothing).

It's funny that you mention health insurance because most of the people screaming they don't want health insurance actually do, they all sign up for Medicare as soon as they're eligible. What they say and what they do are different. You can see this same thing in focus groups, people say they like the yellow doohicky better but when you give them all a free doohicky for participating most select the black one for themselves. People who run focus groups watch what people do as much or more than what they say for this reason.

No, I'm afraid what people say they want is often a lie. Sometimes they're lying to themselves because the lie itself says something about them that they find uncomfortable (e.g. I'm selfish).

Well, I can usually live with people fucking up their own lives. What I don't abide is them fucking it for everyone else, especially out of fear, selfishness, or any other base instinct.

Still, health insurance isn't the point of the argument, the point is you're blaming the people with the least power, the least awareness of the manipulation (in aggregate, clearly there are various degrees), the least money, the least voice, etc. for being the source of the problem. Fuck that, it's the manipulators and the deceivers that are to blame. Every American could turn out to the polls to change everything in 2012 and do you know what would happen? Nothing. Nothing would happen, because that's not where anything is decided.

People are not happy, people can't find jobs, people sympathize with people they would have never sympathized with before. Alcohol and other vice sales are way up (a symptom of a poor economy) people who have savings watch them eaten away. Every old person I meet is back out working because their retirement is no longer sufficient and they're doing it in menial jobs, often freezing or baking their asses off in the harsh weather.

Are some employed people happy? Sure, there's pockets of bliss and there's areas where there's still quite a few jobs. Nationwide, however, people who have jobs are working longer hours for less pay and unemployment has gone up and up. Record numbers of people have removed themselves from the job pool and no longer look (they are not counted as unemployed, so they are above and beyond the unemployment figures).

Our system is failing for somewhere between 20 and 40% of our population. Whether there's some happy people or not that both unsustainable and unconscionable. And voting for a single candidate did jack shit when people tried it for Mr. Hope and Change and it'll do jack shit the next time. You may legitimately see apathy in many US citizens but you assume it's the cause, what if it's the symptom instead?