Change of any sort requires an undermining of current thinking. It is not made sweepingly but in small increments. I am still hopeful that once Obama is elected, once the proving grounds have been run, and the political posturing fades from necessity, there will be a real opportunity to begin down that road. -- universe42

What is it you mean precisely by "small increments?" And how are those small increments accomplished? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but what I hear you saying is "let's just do more of the same and hope that this time it will turn out better." In fact, I am pretty sure that that is exactly what you are saying.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people can continue with this line of thinking. You think you are being optimistic but in reality you have given up and you don't even realize it. You claim to hope but how could you possibly when the basis for your hope is completely unfounded and not based in any sort of objective reality?

It has been demonstrated time and again (especially in the past few years) that politicians are not "keeping their powder dry" with the intention of fighting the good fight when the gain the reins of power. Can you name one politician that has done that? One that has said one thing to placate the anti-progress segments of the electorate only to then turn on a dime and bring about significant positive change once they are elected? I realize they do it all of the time in the negative. That is to say they promise all kinds of things and then do not deliver. Every politician is a "person of change that you can believe in" while they are trying to get elected. Politicians are like anyone else, they are what they do. Nothing more.

So I ask again what does "small increments" mean to you? Because I think you are fundamentally wrong. While I grant that there is a continuous process occuring that acts to adjust the "current thinking," fundamental progress/change is "made sweepingly." We can argue about time frames...how one perceives "sweepingly" if you like, but fundamental change does not come in small increments as I am guessing you mean that. Fundamental change comes in fits and starts and sometimes violently. For instance....You may see the civil rights movement as incremental. You could say that there has always been an agenda to bring about racial equality and you would be correct to a certain extent but what were the incidents that spurred the larger shifts in the thinking of the time (whatever time on that continuum you choose)? What forced the fundamental changes? Nothing? It just happened.. slowly over time?

Voting and hoping is not a plan for change. It is an act of prostrating oneself before the feet of the establishment.

I've asked you once to please stop throwing up on the comment threads. Post something someone else has to say. It may be worth reading. -- L.W.M

You may not have noticed LWM but this comments thread is not yours to tell people what they can and cannot do within. You are not the decider. You may want to take your own advice and start your own blog. Then you can be as authoritarian as you like and rule the roost. That is, after all, what self important cocks do.

I can't speak for Adnoto, but I don't know where you got the idea that I want to destroy the police, democracy, or otherwise smash the state. -- djmagaro

He knows full well that is not what we are advocating. He is attacking straw-men because a) he knows we are correct, b) he knows people are listening to us and seriously considering what we have said and c) he is afraid.

@Tempus

Well Tempus, you say you won't vote for Obama, and you'll vote 3rd party libertarian, green, etc. Well that's pretty much the same as voting for McCain. If you don't vote for Obama, you are voting for McCain regardless if you do it directly or indirectly. Like those dumb asses in 2000 that voted for Nader and cost Gore the election, saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. -- conservativeslayer

Oh, jeebus...go screw will ya? Just because you are too dense to see what Tempus now sees.. I am so sick and tired of you establishment enabling ninnies crying about Nader and constantly whining due to your abject fear. You didn't get your boy Gore. SO? How in the hell do you know what he would or would not have done? You are seeing the next great "hope" and what is he doing? That's right - playing the game.

Forget about Gore and Nader! Instead of focusing your anger at Tempus, why don't you look at yourself? You haven't done shit to stop any of this. None of us have done enough. Stop crying and vote for who you want to vote for and let the man alone already.

Go ahead. Vote for McCain with my blessing. -- L.W.M.

Yeah.. your "blessing" is what matters.

What an ass.

Why will you vote for someone who voted present 130 time's as a state Rep in Illinois? what can you expect of a loser with a record like that? -- kilroy was here

Yeah out of how many total votes? Answer that. I am guessing you won't though because isn't that 130 out of over a thousand of votes he could have participated in? Doesn't that 130 number represent something like 10% of the total votes? IIRC that is exactly the case. You Clinton trolls are exposed by your talking points.