![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 8:52:08
I have never felt the desire to ever watch a president on tv...
Number one.....
let's face it the Prez is always a man.
I might be more interested if the office ever had: a woman, a person of color etc....it's always seems to be a white man.
When I have tried to listen I just get so I really don't know who he is or what is really being said.
It doesn't matter if he is a repb. or dem.
We've never had a progressive or leftist.
I loved listening to Ralph Nadar...it seemed like he (he was still a white man) was talking truth to reality for me. IMHO
But look where my vote got us????
So I probably would have turned the channel anyway.
I'm not apathetic just interested in different politics.
Posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 8:57:04
In reply to watching the Prez....., posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 8:52:08
I totally agree with you. We should all have the choice to either watch the pres's speech or to turn to other programming.
I guess what bugs me the most is that I think we should all have the *opportunity* to hear what the president is saying, to have hearings open to the public, to have a *transparent* political system so we can best make our voting decisions. And I know most of the nation has cable and could have watched him on CNN if they wanted to. But I also know a lot of people, particularly lower-income people, still have rabbit ears on their TV and rely on public TV to get their information.
Posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 9:07:17
In reply to Re: watching the Prez....., posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 8:57:04
Wonderful quick response.
My tv broke....so I begged my partner to go on a tv fast. I hope I never get one again. Cable was costing us so much money every month.
But I hear what you are saying and for that reason I agree.
It's been fun chatting with you. Have a good day.
We almost got a tornado last night. What a storm!!! It knocked out our local radio.
I was news starved. Chatting with you has satisified me for now.
Posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 9:14:25
In reply to Re: watching the Prez....., posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 9:07:17
I wish I could go without a TV. That's a sad, sad commentary on my life that I feel such a need for it. I do smile every time I see that bumper sticker *kill your television.*
I'm very addicted to *instantaneous* notification of current events.
The war is/was particularly difficult for me because stuff happened while I was asleep at night. I used to stay up when we first went to Iraq, just to see what was happening. Just another sign of my addictive personality.
Posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 9:16:10
In reply to watching the Prez....., posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 8:52:08
I also find him extremely interesting to listen to, as well. :-)
Posted by jay on May 25, 2004, at 11:16:29
In reply to Oh, Ralph Nader, posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 9:16:10
> I also find him extremely interesting to listen to, as well. :-)
Ya...Ralph is *great*...and he is all for elections where people's votes count, not ones with an appointed Prez..;-) Kinda cool idea, eh?
:-)Jay
Posted by Emme on May 25, 2004, at 12:15:40
In reply to Re: Oh, Ralph Nader » Susan J, posted by jay on May 25, 2004, at 11:16:29
Check out the web site for the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) for some interesting reading on the handling of scientific information under the current administration. Apparently worse than under the previous several admins, both Dem and Rep.
Posted by tabitha on May 25, 2004, at 12:24:02
In reply to watching the Prez....., posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 8:52:08
yeah, it's very alienating when the leader of the free world totally turns you off. "W" is the worst since Reagan to me. And don't get me started on the Governator. I could tolerate Clinton but I didn't have TV much during those years. Guess that makes me a liberal. No wait, I don't like Michael Myers much either. Haven't seen Nader lately. When I see someone with a strong agenda I'm always thinking 'daddy issues' or 'mommy issues'. That's just how I see it. I don't connect to their zeal.
Posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 12:27:42
In reply to Re: Oh, Ralph Nader » Susan J, posted by jay on May 25, 2004, at 11:16:29
Nader's interesting. I watched him on some news show Sunday morning, and he pointed out that it wasn't his run for the presidency in 2000 that cost Gore the election, people better look at the 45 million or so Democrats who voted for Bush.
I kind of wished we had more than 2 viable parties to choose from. More competition is always good, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 19:38:21
In reply to Re: Oh, Ralph Nader » jay, posted by Susan J on May 25, 2004, at 12:27:42
I have hungered after a Parliament ever since I first got wind of the Green Party.
I would love to have total representation.....a certain percentage of: every religion, creed, color and culture plus the correct % of women to men......no one left unrepresented.
The whole rainbow.
Do it by the percentage of population.
I have hoped and prayed that we might see this as the way to go.
I just feel so unheard, so insignificant sometimes.
I loved the Greens in Germany, when they got elected to their parliament....they streamed in with branches from the Black forest....they wore bright colors and it was two women to every man.
The art was delicious.
Posted by TexasChic on May 26, 2004, at 13:17:36
In reply to yes Susan yes!, posted by Jai Narayan on May 25, 2004, at 19:38:21
Your voice isn't unheard, I'm right there with you! The problem we have is with our voting system. Its set up so that we have no choice but to vote either Dem or Rep. There are other ways to vote that would allow a third party to have a chance. The problem is both parties benefit from keeping it the way it is. The ones with the power make the decisions, and they will never back something that would take away that power. I don't know what it will take to change that.
Posted by Emme on June 1, 2004, at 10:18:12
In reply to Re: Green party ect., posted by TexasChic on May 26, 2004, at 13:17:36
> Your voice isn't unheard, I'm right there with you! The problem we have is with our voting system. Its set up so that we have no choice but to vote either Dem or Rep. There are other ways to vote that would allow a third party to have a chance. The problem is both parties benefit from keeping it the way it is. The ones with the power make the decisions, and they will never back something that would take away that power. I don't know what it will take to change that.
>Yes, we could use a change in the basic voting structure. What would be better is if we could specify more than one candidate and rank-order them. That way, if choice number 1 gets too few votes and is out of the running, then our vote transfers to our second choice. That way Nader votes would have defaulted over to Gore votes. Or something along those lines.
I seem to recall that one state has such a system for state elections, but I can't recall which state and it's been a while, so I'm not sure if I described it exactly correctly. But it was a system that would avoid the kind of problem we had with Nader votes in the previous election.
Posted by TexasChic on June 2, 2004, at 8:40:11
In reply to Re: Green party ect. » TexasChic, posted by Emme on June 1, 2004, at 10:18:12
You described it perfectly! Its called Instant Runoff Voting. Every time *I* try to explain it, people end up confused. I hope that I get to see it used in my lifetime. I think it would be phenomenal!
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.