w00t w00t booyah

Voting for a candidate based upon the candidate's skin color is the act of a moron.

And people wonder why I'm a monarchist.

From:

I think being reminded that there was history to the proceedings of this election had more to do with it - (sees

bitpig has weighed in as well) - just an armchair cuff?

The guy was voting a party ticket until he got confronted with a Real Person. No, I don't think he had thought one iota about the issues prior. That's my two cents, and your mileage can definitely vary.

From:

Maybe you should take a gander at the whole article, neh?

From:

djdig.livejournal.com

Thanks for sharing. It was a nice blog!

From:

Voting for a candidate based upon one's desire to "be a part of history" — or for any reason other than that candidate's political positions — is also the act of a moron.

Every politician has his or he share of True Believers. With the candidacy of Sen. Barack Muad'dib Obama (D-Arrakis), however, we have transcended mere politics and seen the birth of a true cult of personality in the United States. From my own experiences with Obama supporters, and from the things I've seen in the media from his supporters (the children singing songs of praise to the Dear Leader, etc.), I feel comfortable in asserting that the majority of his backers would vote for him no matter what political positions he might take. This is no longer about a man who would be president. This is about the Man.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no supporter of Juan McAmnesty, either. A more colorless and uninspiring candidate you will never meet. But I'd rather have an addled old buffoon in the Big Chair than a cult leader any day.

Anyhow, I'm not here to change anybody's mind, just to voice my own (admittedly irrelevant) response to the story you posted. This being done, I retire.

From:

galewolf.livejournal.com

Having just re-watched the Dune movie a couple of days ago, I found the Muad`dib comparison amusing. Does that make Biden Stilgar or Gurney Hallack?

From:

Stilgar, I think...

From:

wow! i didn't think the herd mentality voter was a real entity. kind of undoes the bradley effect voter.
very exciting, all this early voting.

From:

read the article.

From:

this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/15070;_ylt=Ao3uAwyZEZu5KwaJWxESKfqs0NUE

it's a discussion of the herd mentality. i agree, it's a messed up way to vote.
but the fact that a few people vote based on who they think is going to win (herd mentality) does not say anything about either candidate. it says something about the little bloc of voters.

before you write someone off as a cult of personality- ask yourself why he's a "cult of personality." and whether a cult of personality might actually heal our rifts with the entire globe. just consider it.

From:

If I wanted to live in a country ruled by a cult of personality, I'd move to North Korea.

And I'm not interested in a president who gives a damn about "our rifts with the entire globe". I want a president whose number one concern is with the interests of the United States, and who is willing to do whatever it takes to protect those interests, whether doing so causes "rifts with the entire globe" or not.

From:

well that's frightening.
unfortunately our interests cannot be served or protected with considering foreign relations. that's life in this century.

From:

Bu-buh-but - you're claiming to be a monarchist. For that to work, the whole assumption that the cult of personality is a given is required for that to work, neh?

I mean - how do you justify handing over EVERYTHING to one person without it?

(And for my two cents, Palin would have been DOA without it.)

From:

Toss a coin.

From:

I've never seen anything like it. And I've been voting since Carter.

From:

A monarch is anointed by the Church, and swears an oath to God to obey God's law and to fulfil his/her duties as ruler, judge, and protector of the nation. His/her role is to protect the borders, culture, and traditions of the nation. If he/she fails in these duties or breaks this oath, the Church withdraws its blessing, and the monarch ceases to be the monarch. His/her power arises organically from within the nation, and is based upon ties of fealty, backed up by solemnly-sworn oaths to God.

A cult leader is self-appointed, and is bound only by his or her own desires and strength of will. He or she swears no oath, and is a law onto himself/herself. His/her role is to remake the world — to create a "new order — and his/her power is imposed upon the nation based upon the ability to manipulate people emotionally, with loyalty insured by coercion.

From:

unclejimbo.livejournal.com

Actually, the 'divine right' argument went by the wayside about the time of the Magna Carta.

As for Obama being a cult leader, well he does have to swear an oath, and has: "To Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic..."

I don't see his effort at remaking the 'new order', the founding fathers did that 230+ years ago. What he is wanting to do is get things back to where they were working for the people.

We don't need no stinking Kings to protect us or the realm, we'll do it ourselves, thank you very much.

(also, I think Biden should be Gurney, he kicked ass but could still do the diplomacy thing...)

From:

dracowayfarer.livejournal.com

I feel comfortable in asserting that the majority of his backers would vote for him no matter what political positions he might take.

If Obama had McCain's political positions, I would most certainly NOT vote for him. I would admire his charisma, and then pick someone else.

From:

Well, it could be argued that both of your definitions can be applied to the same guy - it then becomes a matter of who you decide to believe as a legitimate authority. I might also add that way lies madness - history is littered with wasted lives spent trying to define the differences above with imperfect information. (God has spoken to all of us. We, the imperfect vessels, don't always get it all down - and then try to figure it all out by what we got vs. what they got. Stupid. And pretty damn dangerous.)

In any case, it only defines WHAT you consider a legitimate cult of personality to be, versus the ones you don't.

And the last time I checked, every person is self-appointed the moment they decide to give any leadership role a spin - that's where it all begins. The oaths, the duties, everything else - comes after that.

(Hillary would be the Bene Gesserit, I think. Palin is Princess Irulan who did all the documentation. ^^)

From:

It's not just me:

"It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, “I love you.” Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It’s only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.

When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, 'anything is better than the Shah.'

"They found their error when it was too late."

-- Ali Sina

And so will we.

From: