<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: In their own words
    
      by Mick Dumke</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=975381&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: In their own words
    
      by Mick Dumke</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:45:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#1202287]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#1202287]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[clady]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Iwould like to find a group that is working to restructure the aldermen power on the south and westside of chicago. I think most of our aldermen are tired. we need new blood with new ideas to revitalize our communities.They don't even have the power or business since to draw a decent store in our areas. If there is a group please post so I can join in
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by <a href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Profile?oid=1202263">clady</a>]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:53 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#953798]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#953798]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Candidate Detective!]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Sure, what Illinois gov needs is 
    another crooked politician....
    Capparelli's business "Omni Communique"
    doesn't even pay taxes !
    He knows he doesn't have a prayer but
    will get to pocket all those donations
    anyway ...just like his old man just 
    did !
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Candidate Detective!]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:59:20 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#963391]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#963391]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re tick tock]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[VOTE INCUMBENTS IN
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re tick tock]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:10:24 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#958060]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#958060]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[tick tock]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Did you really think that the 'you' referred only to you?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by tick tock]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:07:25 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#951720]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#951720]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re re re oreo]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Ah ha, you can't talk, because you took the bait!
    It's not about outliving me, instead it's about outliving stupid voting.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re re re oreo]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:52:20 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#966314]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#966314]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re re re oreo]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I don't have to live for 930 years to outlive you.
    
    I don't even have to live 930 days.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re re re oreo]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:47:45 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#960330]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#960330]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re re oreo 11:42 p.m.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[When you become Adam of the Bible and live to be 930 years old, maybe then you will have more time. LOL
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re re oreo 11:42 p.m.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:43:58 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#955029]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#955029]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re re oreo 11:29pm]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Time will tell.
    
    And I guarantee I have more time than you do.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re re oreo 11:29pm]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:42:17 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#972863]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#972863]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re oreo 10:49 p.m.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Thanks for your failed political/sociological experiment. :P
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re oreo 10:49 p.m.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:29:42 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#963967]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#963967]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re oreo 10:30pm]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Thanks for taking the bait.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re oreo 10:30pm]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:49:00 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#967266]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#967266]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re oreo]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Your efforts don't require thinking, because those voters don't think to begin with.
    *wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re oreo]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:30:03 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#966588]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#966588]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re oreo]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Repetition is the key to learning.
    
    It's also the key to brain-washing.
    
    
    My efforts constitute the former.
    
    Your efforts constitute the latter.
    
    
    The success of my efforts depend upon the thinking abilities of the electorate.
    
    The success of your efforts depend upon the lack of thinking abilities of the electorate.
    
    
    Big difference.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re oreo]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:17:39 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#971063]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#971063]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re re more of (the same)]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I'm the mental masturbationist, because I same the same things over and over again. I must realize vote incumbents out will never work in Chicago. *wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re re more of (the same)]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:17:20 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#947513]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#947513]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re re more of (the same)]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[1st there was the following post:
    
    "More Of The Same
    January 9th - 12:34 a.m.
    
    Replacing tweedle dee with tweedle dum of the same party produces more of the same. Why aren't you advocating new political parties? Why aren't you advocating split party voting? Why aren't you advocating term limits? You spent the last few years saying "vote incumbents out", only to have it fall on deaf ears."
    
    
    I responded by posting a comment addressing the essential flaws assumed by the questions you chose to pose.
    
    Perhaps a more direct response was closer to what you were capable of understanding.
    
    
    First, you're false assumption:
    
    "Replacing tweedle dee with tweedle dum of the same party produces more of the same."
    
    
    You presume that my suggested strategy to oust incumbents, of whichever of the two 'major' parties the incumbent happens to belong to, will, in every instance, be it in a Party Primary or a General Election, result in 'more of the same'.
    
    Now why would you make that presumption?
    
    Why would you not, instead, understand that not every member of either the democratic party, or the republican party, is an entrenched political hack?
    
    And that, within each of these two dominant political parties, there are individuals, admittedly likely to be few, who are not necessarily 'more of the same'?
    
    And, further, that these few are the very individuals whom the party's hacks don't want to see gain any significant influence over the activities of their respective party's, since these few individuals don't share the same, corrupted perspectives on politics, economics, societal issues, personal freedoms, fairness, justice and our Rights and Responsibilities enumerated within our Federal and State Constitutions, as those 'more of the same' hacks you have chosen to assume are all that either the democrats or the republicans have amongst their memberships.
    
    Furthermore, your quoted comment, having not been proceeded by any comment referencing my previously posted strategies for denying incumbents their own party's nomination, via ousting said incumbents in their respective party's primaries, puts the lie to you subsequent comment's assertion that you have not been following my posts here.
    
    In addition, you conveniently, in this introductory sentence, presume that the same political party's challenger candidate will, should the incumbent of that party fail to win their primary, win the office up for election in the General Election.
    
    Now to address your posted questions.
    
    
    Q: Why aren't you advocating new political parties?
    
    A: Are you? And, if so, what political party or parties are you advocating?
    
    Also, what do you think has been the cause of the electorate's generational decline in political consciousness and political intelligence, if not the domination of political party style slavish compliance? Comrade?
    
    If anything, the politics of political parties has promoted and enabled the electorate's effective abandonment of the principles of individual accountability and individual qualifications, of those seeking to be our elected officials, with the result being that most of the electorate has been conditioned to accept the default condition of substituting their individual assessments of each candidate's qualifications and character with their political party's declared opinions. 
    
    And you want to tout the creation of even more political parties? 
    
    For what purpose?
    
    And to what end?
    
    
    
    Q: Why aren't you advocating split party voting?
    
    A: Why does your question presume that I'm not?
    
    Could it be because you are still stuck in that political party candidates only rut?
    
    And that you, in your desire to promote your own chosen political party, will avoid addressing, in any way, the flaws inherent in political party based politics?
    
    With the one glaring flaw being that political party politics provide the attractive possibility to the electorate to avoid actually thinking before casting their votes, to avoid the, apparently, mentally painful activity of having to seek out information about those seeking to be elected/reelected to public office, and to actually make an informed and thoughtful decision prior to determining who to cast their votes for?
    
    Hell, split party voting, in the Party Primaries, would be a helpful step towards providing the voters with the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, but, the voters already have that opportunity in the General Election.
    
    It's the problem of entrenched and well financed incumbent party hacks, of either 'major' party, being the only choices on that General Election ballot, that requires the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT strategies to be implemented in a given political party's primary.
    
    Which brings us back to the source of this problem, namely, political party politics.
    
    Shit, we've been so conditioned to think in terms of political party affiliation that even those candidates who don't 'belong' to a political party are labeled on the ballot as 'Independent', as if 'Independent' is yet another party affiliation.
    
    If you think about my suggestions, contained within those many posted comments you say you haven't followed, yet you've formed an opinion on, were they to be implemented, they would split the political party system of thinking into a thousand, impotent particles.
    
    
    
    Q: Why aren't you advocating term limits?
    
    A: The only, long term and lasting term limits are the ones that can be imposed upon the incumbents, by the electorate, using the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT strategies, whenever, and to whomever, the electorate chooses.
    
    As I addressed in a subsequent comment, even term limits would, under our electorate's presently flawed conceptions of their responsibilities relevant to their own governments, only compel the two, dominant political parties to engage in an electoral version of 'musical chairs'. 
    
    In fact, term limits alone will result in your "Replacing tweedle dee with tweedle dum of the same party produces more of the same." initial complaint.
    
    
    
    Your final statement:
    
    "You spent the last few years saying 'vote incumbents out', only to have it fall on deaf ears."
    
    
    So far.
    
    
    Time will tell if the electorate continues to embrace their individual refusal to listen.
    
    
    
    
    As to your 2 'follow up' comments:
    
    
    "re more of
    January 9th - 2:55 a.m.
    You still haven't said anything, nor am I following your posts. I understand your posts, but don't believe you believe them. Instead, I laugh at your posts! We are a republic, not a democracy!"
    
    and
    
    "re re more of (the same)
    January 9th - 4:21 p.m.
    Take a civics' course. We are a republic, not a democracy! Back to the drawing board, comrade!"
    
    
    
    Well, thanks for revealing yourself to be just another political hack blogger.
    
    It's too bad that the only value you place on this blog is to indulge your propensity for mental masturbation.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re re more of (the same)]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:53:11 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#971837]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#971837]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re more of (the same)]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Take a civics' course. We are a republic, not a democracy! Back to the drawing board, comrade!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re more of (the same)]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:21:43 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#953526]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#953526]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Joe Lake]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[In their own words 
    
    Anyone have some comments about the special election in Illinois's 5th Congressional District? 
    
    See IL5thCD at: 
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IL5thCD 
    
    Joe Lake, Bucktown
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Joe Lake]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:59:09 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#953828]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#953828]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re Hobbes]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Are you sure you're not really Calvin pretending to be Hobbes?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re Hobbes]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:00:20 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#958916]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#958916]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re re more of (the same)]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["We are a republic, not a democracy!"
    
    
    Main Entry: re&Acirc;&middot;pub&Acirc;&middot;lic
    
    Pronunciation: \ri-&Euml;&#136;p&Eacute;&#153;-blik\ 
    
    Function: noun 
    
    Etymology: French r&Atilde;&copy;publique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public &acirc;&#128;&#148; more at real, public
    
    Date: 1604
    
    
    1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president 
    
    (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government 
    
    b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law 
    
    (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government 
    
    c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
    
    
    2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
    
    
    3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia
    
    
    
    and
    
    
    
    
    
    Main Entry: de&Acirc;&middot;moc&Acirc;&middot;ra&Acirc;&middot;cy 
    
    Pronunciation: \di-&Euml;&#136;m&Atilde;&curren;-kr&Eacute;&#153;-s&Auml;&#147;\ 
    
    Function: noun 
    
    Inflected Form(s): plural de&Acirc;&middot;moc&Acirc;&middot;ra&Acirc;&middot;cies
    
    Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek d&Auml;&#147;mokratia, from d&Auml;&#147;mos + -kratia -cracy
    
    Date: 1576
    
    
    1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority 
    
    b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
    
    2: a political unit that has a democratic government
    
    3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy &acirc;&#128;&#148; C. M. Roberts>
    
    4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
    
    5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
    
    
    
    
    So, since you don't even understand the difference between a republic and a democracy and, since you don't consider our country to be a democracy and, since this opinion of yours demonstrates that you either haven't read our Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, or, if you have read them, you have failed to understand their meaning, it comes as no surprise that, even if you have read my posts, you have failed to understand them just as you have failed to understand our Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    
    
    Our country is, in fact a Democracy.
    
    
    Might the source of your confusion lie in your memories of the country of your origin, ie., "a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia"?
    
    
    Comrade?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re re more of (the same)]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:46:43 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#971493]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#971493]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re more of]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[You still haven't said anything, nor am I following your posts. I understand your posts, but don't believe you believe them. Instead, I laugh at your posts! We are a republic, not a democracy!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re more of]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:55:42 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#973892]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#973892]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Hobbes]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Congratulations "re more of" on your optimistic assessment of human nature.  However, HAVE NO DOUBT incumbents have nothing to be wooried about.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Hobbes]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:17:41 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#966382]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#966382]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re more of]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[On the one hand, you seem to claim that you've been following my posts, ie., "You spent the last few years saying....", yet you don't appear to have understood much of what you claim to have read.
    
    If you truly are interested in thinking about how to solve the problems caused by what is essentially a one political party dictatorship, that one political party being what has been often referred to as the 'combine', ie., the incestuously cooperative relationship between democrats and republicans, thus resulting in an effectively single political party better referred to as the party of payola, then I suggest that you review those of my posting which you claim to have been reading.
    
    
    The fact that you are still stuck in thinking of elections as being solely owned and operated by political parties is an example of why I choose to emphasis a few basic strategies designed to disrupt the domination factors that the combine has enjoyed for decades.
    
    The HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT slogan is meant to remind people that the incumbents are the primary source of dysfunctional governing.
    
    The candidate ballot order system of casting one's votes is designed to either deny the party nomination to the incumbent, in that party's Primary Election or, failing that, deny the incumbent reelection in the General Election.
    
    In fact, the only reason for a voter to vote in a party Primary Election is to deny that party's incumbent nomination in the General Election.
    
    
    In the General Election, if there are only two candidates to choose from, one a republican and one a democrat, the best one can do, to disrupt the combine, is to vote for the candidate who is not the incumbent.
    
    If there are three candidates, a republican, a democrat and anyone else, with the incumbent being either the republican or the democrat, vote for the candidate who is neither the incumbent nor the democrat or republican.
    
    Before there can be any real chance of breaking the stranglehold that the professional politicians of both the democratic and republican parties have established, the citizens have to alter their mindset of slavishly adhering to those concepts that the combine manipulates so effectively.
    
    This means changing one's thinking that challenger candidates have to prove their worth before getting one's vote, to consistently thinking that the incumbents must prove their worth to be reelected.
    
    And the incumbents have a track record for the voters to judge that worthiness by.
    
    Yes, there are several factors that complicate things a bit, not the least of which are the 'shill challengers' factor, the 'election board challenges to nominating petition signatures' factor, the 'patently fabricated advertising mudslinging' factor, the 'financial incentives of deep pockets' factor and several more.
    
    If you have been reading my posts, keep alive in this blog's archives, (thank you Reader), you'll have already seen that my suggestions attempt to address and neuter as many of these factors, that heavily favor the established political combine's interests, as possible.
    
    
    Authentic and effective Term Limits require legislators who will support them. And even term limits won't prevent those in politics from finding ways to continue their effective dictatorships. They'll just adapt to having to play their political version of 'musical chairs'.
    
    And, if you think about it, term limits is just a way of further enabling the citizens to think that their active, aggressive, enthusiastic, thoughtful and consistent participation in their own governance is not necessary to ensuring the nature of that governance.
    
    Term Limits, in effect, continues to treat the voters as if they are ignorant, stupid and gullible little children, as it gives the impression that a system, any system, can replace the citizen's responsibilities within an elected democracy.
    
    We are responsible for the shit we elect, or allow to be elected.
    
    We are responsible for the shit we reelect, or allow to be reelected.
    
    We are responsible for the results of our actions or inactions.
    
    
    Once you, and others, rethink the assumptions that are common amongst  the electorate, and accept the fact that we are, indeed, responsible for the mess that our governments have become, then there will be a chance of restoring the democracy we have, in our continuing generational neglect, so negligently ignored.
    
    
    Every election we have the opportunity to return to the basics of democracy, and, so far, every election we fail to do what is needed, namely:
    
    
    HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
    
    
    Before you talk about 'deaf ears', ask yourself why it seems that few are interested in listening.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re more of]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:53:45 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#959671]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#959671]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[More Of The Same]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Replacing tweedle dee with tweedle dum of the same party produces more of the same. Why aren't you advocating new political parties? Why aren't you advocating split party voting? Why aren't you advocating term limits? You spent the last few years saying "vote incumbents out", only to have it fall on deaf ears.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by More Of The Same]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:34:35 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#952026]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#952026]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[RE JOE]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[My catchy slogan never works. 
    *wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by RE JOE]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:30:41 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#955857]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#955857]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[RE JOE]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[So raise the banner high:
    
    
    HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by RE JOE]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:23:11 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: In their own words]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#969446]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/01/06/their-own-words/#969446]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Joe Lake]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["We Don't Want Nobody Nobody Sent"
    
    ...I guess the above can't figure it out. 
    
    I don't want nobody sent, period.
    
    The power of 121 votes at32ndNLA: 
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/32ndNLA 
    
    Joe Lake, Bucktown
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Joe Lake]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:03:57 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




