Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
We are gonna be sorry
Good thing it isn't 2008 yet. If I had to call it now, I think most people would agree the GOP doesn't stand a chance of taking the White House. And why should they? George Bush inarguably has committed grave offenses against America, all in the name of winning one lousy war. Is it important? Should we all just stop bickering and support our President, because the Middle East is and will become even more a grave threat to our security, and that outweighs all other concerns? Of course not. I don't care if this war is preventing World War 3. It's not worth compromising our freedoms, the foundation of what makes us Americans.
That being said, Bush is on the way out anyway. No matter who replaces him, no matter which party, his policies will expire with his office. Any conservative will have to tread carefully in that place. Bush has stained the concepts of "conservative" and "Republican" with his own tyrannical policies, which really resemble neither political wing--they are his ideas alone.
So who's going to pick up the slack? If the vote were tomorrow, it would be a dead heat, but the smart money's on Obama. We Americans have far more guilt about black people than women, so he gets a bigger sympathy vote. Plus, he has ineffable charisma, and he has eloquently avoided shooting himself in the foot, as so many presidential hopefuls have managed to do in just the last 4 months alone. He's got what it takes.
And that's all we know about him. He's a politican, like any other. Bush said things in 2000 and 2008 before the elections, and then he did something else. My god, people, that's what they always do. They make promises, and break them. They say they're for this, but they're really for that. Now, we've got Boston republicans pretending to be hunters, and two front-running Democrats who are so full of pomp and pageantry that we hardly know where they stand on *anything*.
It's a good bet they stand on Democratic ideas. Historically, Democrats have favored big government, which means less rights for Americans. They'll latch on to a few things that everybody agrees with, like industrial regulation to reduce the causes of global warming. Then, they'll tack on some gun control, some tougher laws to restrict the freedom of students, and maybe (especially if we get Hillary) some video game control too. After all, they're just as evil, ask anybody.
What will we get with the GOP? God, who knows. They can't field a halfway decent candidate, because they've all fallen under so much corruption in the last 10 years that they've hardly got anyone left with a soul. They don't know what platform to stand on to win it. They're making John Kerry look like an icon of stability with their indecision. They're making fools of themselves.
No matter what, Bush politics will end, and that's a good thing. However, the political world is so polarized, so charged with strong, negative emotions, that anyone we get is going to piss a lot of people off. Rooting for so-and-so for 2008 is short-sighted, since things could easily turn around again in 2012. It's a vicious cycle, this polarization, and it is perpetuated by ignorance and irrational argument.
The media feeds off of this energy, and augments it. They can't wait to politicize everything that happens, especially if it's negative. They sit behind their desks and say inflammatory things, hidden behind the glass wall of the camera. They bring people into their outdated "networks" by hosting the most popular shows on television. Pure news outlets like newspapers and news channels tend toward a political leaning and become a breeding ground for that viewpoint, regardless of facts.
It's the media, and they've always been this way. Well, at least for the last century or so, since the modern, sensationalist newspaper was invented by Pulitzer and Hearst.
But do we need them anymore? Do we not have a new, entirely superior method of mass communication?
The media claims to be objective, and accountable. But in fact, one is not allowed to question their objectivity, because they use tricky words, and it's easy to pretend to be accountable when you are isolated from the world by cameras and closed doors.
Internet communication is supposed to be subjective and anonymous. But completely slanted viewpoints are quickly reduced to tatters, and the facts tend to prevail in group discussion. An internet user's reputation is easily and instantly discoverable using various tools, and particularly egregious offenders of logic and internet etiquette will be swiftly called out by a vast army of internet watchdogs.
While all individuals are subjective, the masses tend to be objective. The media doesn't have masses, it has monolithic personalities who consume their own marketing feces and become caricatures of themselves. It is impossible for individuals, especially those with massively inflated egos, to be subjective. It becomes equally difficult to hold them accountable, since they can always hide behind their popularity and their lawyers.
So why the hell do we listen to them at all?
While I don't have a ready solution to abolish the traditional media, I can say this: no matter how politics changes in the coming years, we're all going to be pissed off about something, and the fires of our frustration will be fanned by the traditional media.
Just a bit of crushing pessimism for an otherwise boring Wednesday.
That being said, Bush is on the way out anyway. No matter who replaces him, no matter which party, his policies will expire with his office. Any conservative will have to tread carefully in that place. Bush has stained the concepts of "conservative" and "Republican" with his own tyrannical policies, which really resemble neither political wing--they are his ideas alone.
So who's going to pick up the slack? If the vote were tomorrow, it would be a dead heat, but the smart money's on Obama. We Americans have far more guilt about black people than women, so he gets a bigger sympathy vote. Plus, he has ineffable charisma, and he has eloquently avoided shooting himself in the foot, as so many presidential hopefuls have managed to do in just the last 4 months alone. He's got what it takes.
And that's all we know about him. He's a politican, like any other. Bush said things in 2000 and 2008 before the elections, and then he did something else. My god, people, that's what they always do. They make promises, and break them. They say they're for this, but they're really for that. Now, we've got Boston republicans pretending to be hunters, and two front-running Democrats who are so full of pomp and pageantry that we hardly know where they stand on *anything*.
It's a good bet they stand on Democratic ideas. Historically, Democrats have favored big government, which means less rights for Americans. They'll latch on to a few things that everybody agrees with, like industrial regulation to reduce the causes of global warming. Then, they'll tack on some gun control, some tougher laws to restrict the freedom of students, and maybe (especially if we get Hillary) some video game control too. After all, they're just as evil, ask anybody.
What will we get with the GOP? God, who knows. They can't field a halfway decent candidate, because they've all fallen under so much corruption in the last 10 years that they've hardly got anyone left with a soul. They don't know what platform to stand on to win it. They're making John Kerry look like an icon of stability with their indecision. They're making fools of themselves.
No matter what, Bush politics will end, and that's a good thing. However, the political world is so polarized, so charged with strong, negative emotions, that anyone we get is going to piss a lot of people off. Rooting for so-and-so for 2008 is short-sighted, since things could easily turn around again in 2012. It's a vicious cycle, this polarization, and it is perpetuated by ignorance and irrational argument.
The media feeds off of this energy, and augments it. They can't wait to politicize everything that happens, especially if it's negative. They sit behind their desks and say inflammatory things, hidden behind the glass wall of the camera. They bring people into their outdated "networks" by hosting the most popular shows on television. Pure news outlets like newspapers and news channels tend toward a political leaning and become a breeding ground for that viewpoint, regardless of facts.
It's the media, and they've always been this way. Well, at least for the last century or so, since the modern, sensationalist newspaper was invented by Pulitzer and Hearst.
But do we need them anymore? Do we not have a new, entirely superior method of mass communication?
The media claims to be objective, and accountable. But in fact, one is not allowed to question their objectivity, because they use tricky words, and it's easy to pretend to be accountable when you are isolated from the world by cameras and closed doors.
Internet communication is supposed to be subjective and anonymous. But completely slanted viewpoints are quickly reduced to tatters, and the facts tend to prevail in group discussion. An internet user's reputation is easily and instantly discoverable using various tools, and particularly egregious offenders of logic and internet etiquette will be swiftly called out by a vast army of internet watchdogs.
While all individuals are subjective, the masses tend to be objective. The media doesn't have masses, it has monolithic personalities who consume their own marketing feces and become caricatures of themselves. It is impossible for individuals, especially those with massively inflated egos, to be subjective. It becomes equally difficult to hold them accountable, since they can always hide behind their popularity and their lawyers.
So why the hell do we listen to them at all?
While I don't have a ready solution to abolish the traditional media, I can say this: no matter how politics changes in the coming years, we're all going to be pissed off about something, and the fires of our frustration will be fanned by the traditional media.
Just a bit of crushing pessimism for an otherwise boring Wednesday.
Comments
Oh, Nancy, my love for ch00 knows no bounds. I have wrote for ch00 dis poeme:
Roses are #FF0000
Violets are #0000FF
All my base
Are belong to you
What the internet offers is the ability to discuss the topic with people no matter where they are located in the world. So instead of just talking to your friends, coworkers and family and perhaps the occasional radio/tv program, you now you have a larger group of people to speak to. And instead of watching TV or reading the paper, people get the news from the TV channel's and newspaper's websites and form their opinions from that. What has changed in that department? Most people will gravitate to news outlets and discussion forums that match their previously existing views. Most people, unfortunately, do not have open minds and hardly care about facts. Most people are sheep. So as for slanted viewpoints, it is all in the eye of the forum that you are in. It's relative to what neck of the internet you are in. To give an extreme example, if you are a racist, your views will most likely be accepted on a KKK forum while someone who is not racist will be the one with the bad reputation and whose viewpoints are quickly reduced to tatters. The logic is whatever those who are on that forum decide it to be regardless of if it is legitimate. Politics are all about running the country properly, whatever the bias, and that means dealing with whatever issue the country has. Major issues cannot not be politicized. Schools are being shot up all over the country. Something is wrong. What causes these things to happen? How can this problem be solved? Simply isolating something like this shooting as just the shooter's own craziness is ridiculous. Self-caused and self-inflicted. It's like saying "that tree chose to die," when the tree didn't get any sun, water, carbon dioxide, the soil was dead and termites are eating away at it. But the tree should have grown and flourished right? Oh my god no, had enough of him when he was the mayor of NYC.
I thought that I would NEVER vote for Hillary. But you know... I came to a conclusion a couple of weeks ago. When Bill Clinton was in office, things were pretty damn good. Bill Clinton was a fairly conservative Democrat. Other than a huge tax increase, he supported a lot of right-wing ideas. (Free trade, welfare reform, etc). If only our worst worries were DNA stains on a dress. I'd go back to those days in a heartbeat. Assuming that Hillary is politically aligned with Bill... I think I may actually vote for her.
And that's the rub. Hillary is a known commodity. Obama is not.I don't think the average voter has much guilt for either. What will help Obama is that blacks will support him in greater numbers than women will support Hillary. Many black women will vote for Obama. Many conservative women will vote Republican. This all hurts Hillary. Bingo. Let me put it in plain english: THERE IS HARDLY A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES ANYMORE. People just don't get this. Both parties are spending our money like it's going out of style. Both parties LOVE pork. The Democrats couldn't pass a bill to get us out if Iraq despite receiving a mandate to do so. There really hasn't been much corruption. What little there has been is pretty petty. The president fired 8 US Attorneys. Yeah... that's his right. Plain and simple. (Which is why I can't understand why he's so defensive about it.) Haliburton? Hey... the Democrats have control over budget bills. Can't blame the Republicans entirely for Haliburton getting rich.
Keep in mind, Bill Clinton became president because no serious contender wanted to go up against George Bush Sr.So are the Democrats by keeping us in Iraq. It's the one issue they were elected to deal with - and they couldn't even get that done. I don't think it's nearly as polarized as it has been. Keep in mind, we got through a civil war, segregation, etc. The states (and people) are more closely aligned now than perhaps they've ever been.The media has always been powerful - and has never been afraid to push an agenda. What's changed now is the amount of space that needs to be filled. CNN and FOX News have to fill 24 hours of programing every day.Ever hear of the First Amendment? You should read it.
There is a chicken-and-egg issue here. The media is out to sell advertisements. Therefore, they put out what people want. So who is to blame, the people or the media?
Jesus Christ, dude, there's a mountain of evidence. He's using the O.J. defense, and has been for a long time. "Prove it!" "Okay, we did." "Nah, you didn't, cuz I said so."
I'm not saying I'm against conservative policy, or even necessarily against the war. Even if it's true that Middle East security concerns and anti-terrorism outweigh all other concerns, it's not worth compromising the principles that make us American. That's not the conservative way, that's not the liberal way, it's just the Bush way.
What do you have to gain by backing this guy? What on Earth would possess you to defend him? The violations of our freedoms and our human rights, not to mention those of other nations, are unnecessary and illegal, period. It is simply what happens when you have huge amounts of power consolidated in one man protected by walls of isolation.
Politics is politics. I expect corruption. Tyranny takes it one step further. One man deciding he knows what's best for everyone, and ignoring everything his own people say, not to mention violating the laws they wrote to put him in office in the first place, is tyranny, period. For God's sake, get it through your fucking head. He's no good. He wasn't good on 9/12, he's no good today. This is way beyond politics.
George Bush Sr. was all about politics. He was thoroughly Republican and New Right, and pursued a conservative agenda. That's fine. People voted for that. He didn't "finish the job" in Iraq because of the political pressure, and the difficulties he knew would ensue. He was right. Sometimes, those stupid, pesky 300,000,000 Americans are actually RIGHT.
However, arguments are significantly diluted when you use words such as "tyranical." Here is the simple truth: We live in a democracy. We aren't ruled by a tyrant. We are ruled by a president who has made some pretty shitty decisions. If you want to talk politics, that's fine. If you want to throw around inflammatory words, that's a weak way to make your point.
To address a couple of your points:
1) The courts have ruled on the Guantanamo detainees. Why are you so angry? The process is working. The detainees have representation (if they want it), and the courts are stepping in when needed.
2) How has Gonzales made a mockery of our justice system? He's got the right, through the president, to fire people. He's got the right to claim executive privilege. He may not be terribly competent, but once again you're resorting to inflammatory language.
3) Bush has not violated basic human rights. Your argument is vague at best. If you're referring to things like the Patriot Act - it was passed by the Congress, and reviewed by the Courts. Sounds pretty democratic to me. Why are you so hell bent on pinning it exclusively on Bush?
Like I said, I'm no defender of Bush. They guy makes me cringe every time he opens his mouth. Nonetheless, I'm not quite the Chicken Little that you are.
Frankly, it sounds like emotion has gotten the better of you.
It drives me nuts when I hear Democrats complaining about Bush as if they don't shoulder some of the blame. I can't say it more clearly: Pelosi was given a mandate and completely sold the electorate out. She has been absolutely worthless. Billions of dollars in pork given away just to get a non-binding resolution passed? That's greater incompetence than Bush has ever shown. She gave away billions of dollars to get.... nothing.
The problem is our two-party system where neither party is that different from the other.
Any biological system has a natural end to its lifecycle (the one or two "immortal" organisms in nature notwithstanding), and a thing that has grown to a point of bloat will, invariably, die off. Forest fires are often necessary in order to continue to allow the forest to grow; otherwise, the old-growth trees choke out all the life under them.
Working for the government has only made me more anti-government as time goes on. Funny, eh?
Now, don't mistake this for an anti-America rant. I still think that the United States has the best government in the world. However, this isn't an endorsement -- just an aknowledgement that all other governments are even more corrupt and impotent.
Technically, I'm not really advocating anarchy in the notion of a lack of a system. I'm advocating overhaul/reform/starting all over again. Whatever has happened to the great experiment of America, I think it's failing and can't be saved.
You might have guessed, by the way, that I'm a huge fan of the writings of Hunter S. Thompson. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is perhaps on of the best commentaries on the decline of the American ideal I've ever read.
A long back-and-forth stalemate (once again) between two candidates essentially chosen by the media or some other arbitrary force, with the winner being the one who gets in the last little jab at the other before election day and pushes that little wave of voters over to their side.
Fuck cautious optimism, I choose cautious pessimism.
Point - He's Served two terms.
Point - Despite Moorewellian Conspiracy theories, he has been voted in for both those terms.
Question - If He's such a shithouse President, Why did he get a second term?
Give us your mountain, so we may climb it.
I am fully aware these questions were not directed at me, but I suppose that they could easily be pointed at me, so I will answer them to save a little time- I Can't back him, really - I'm an Australian Citizen, and have no say in American Political Process. But as for Defending him - Give him a fair go. Yeah, The Guy's a Dick, But Give him a fair go, and if you're going to hang him, Hang him on real, concrete evidence, with no room for interpretation.
A majority of them voted for him. Twice.
What stands true behind a rifle also stands true on a soapbox - Its easier to have one big target than many smaller ones.
And When a Soapbox is your weapon, what bigger, easier target is there than the Big man at the top?
1) In 2000 Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral college vote.
2) In neither election did a majority of the "American people" vote him in. It was a majority of those who voted that voted him in in 2004.
Unlike Australia, voting is not mandatory.
Ah yes - I know this, though in my defence, It was an error of phrasing than an error of facts.
Probably a better way to put it is "A majority of the Voting public put him in office. Twice."
You say give him a fair go, we did. We honestly did. Look what happened, he took a fragile nation and basically destabilized it. The unfortunate reality is that if we pull out now, the shiites will slaughter the suni's in a massive genocide. That is one thing Bush does not want on his record, which I have a feeling is why he is so reluctant to pull out of Iraq. It's interesting that we choose which genocide's we want to prevent or stop. Darfur is going through a major genocide right now, but why don't we stop it? There is no economic gain in stabilizing the region. I'm not some fringe liberal crackpot, but oil certainly has a role with our involvement within the middle east. If we were to be foreign oil independent, I suspect that we would not be nearly as involved in the middle east as we are now.
Admittedly, though, I made my point clumsily, and in such a convoluted way that it was barely made at all - for this I apologise. It is an unfortunately common reaction, not only in Americans, but many others. Ignoring history is a sure way to repeat it, but unfortunately, we're all to busy watching TV to crack the spine on our textbooks. No argument from me there - even Ray Charles could see it.
Why do you think That Australia's claim to Antarctica is Facing a Challenge? It sure as hell ain't the wonderful Climate for skiing. Another point I admittedly wasn't totally clear on - Hindsight being 20/20 - I do not Mean a Fair go as the leader of the American Nation - I simply mean that if we're going to metaphorically hang him with his own ropes, we should be damn sure to find the Receipt from when He bought it.
Opposition parties can't run on an "I'm not the other guy ticket", they actually need a platform of their own otherwise they just won't get in.
I do doubt, however, that he would have invaded and occupied two foreign nations, at least one of which with no demonstrable cause for doing so.
Perhaps with the advent of the Internet that policy is beginning to change. Perhaps. None the less...the options we are given are not what a sane man would choose. The options we are given are chosen by people who see advantages for themselves, or rather, for their business and their pocket book. THAT is where the real problem lies.
Howard Dean almost became an Internet wonder last time around but they got him with the "scream". The same thing could be said for Ron Paul except the public is warming up to him. This is in part due to the fact that he is presenting the terrorism problem not in the simple "blame America first" format but is instead saying, "Look at the history. How would you feel if a foreign country did this to us?"