new thread
Assuming our world survives until January 2009 despite the Bush/Cheney imperative to start Armageddon....
I'm not trying to get political here but I do wonder if there's a candidate that could promote or disservice longhair rights...
Giuliani made the following quote:
"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
I don't know about you guys but I'm not about to "cede" "authority" to any governmental organization. This guy seems to be about the most anti-freedom and therefore anti-longhair candidate out there. Who does he think he is to say what lawful authority is?
This has a direct correlation to longhairs no matter their party affiliation. This has nothing to do with republican/democratic demographics. I think Ron Paul is the most independent pro-liberal thinking candidate despite his being Republican.
I'm not trying to create debate but rather I'm curious who you guys thinks promotes or at least tolerates longhaired men and, after all, that's what it's all about.
Jason
I'm not sure how long this thread will last, to be honest, but...
to simply answer the question: Ron Paul, hands down. =)
Yeah, Ron Paul has my vote! Anti-interventionist and I love it.
Yes, join the Ron Paul RevolUTION! The only candidate who will truly get us out of Iraq and keep us our of Iran and restore the constitution and our rights from it.
Waaaaaay ahead of you on that one. *glances up at his Ron Paul rally sign on the bookshelf* ;)
I think Kucinich is the only guy out there who says what he thinks but what he says is so against the Washington DC system we currently have that the corporate controlled media will continue to marginalize him and denigrate him as unelectable and not a serious candidate. Such is the fate of those who are rational and will not bend their beliefs to appease others.
In this case I think it is fair to assume that the most progressive candidate will be best for us. In no way do I vote as a longhair, I vote as someone concerned with human rights, the rule of law, and respect for the environment and its inhabitants. However I do believe that voting for someone on the above issues would probably be a vote for the most tolerant person (including of longhairs).
Of the big three Dems I would not ob ject to voting Edwards.
Agreed. Thinking about your hair when it comes to politics dosn't really make sense to me, I'm more concerned on more worldly issues.
I like Obama for the Democrats and Ron Paul for the Republicans. Obama isn't afraid to tell people what they don't want to hear and Ron Paul sticks to his ideals.
This argument that Guiliani is amking sounds exactly like the sermons that pro-slavery ministers used to give to slaves in the South before the abolition of slavery. They kept trying to convince the slaves that they were better off in servitude and that they were freer under slavery and better taken care of. However, the slaves never bought into the argument and saw right through it.
Also, the statement, "Freedom is about authority," is an unequivocal oxymoron! Authority over another does not make him free. Authority implies bondage to ideals, leaders, or otherwise. The very implication of the word freedom is "not authority." Now, while personal discipline can make a person free, that is altogether different. Authority in the form of a dictatorship, tyrant, monarchy, or even democracy has never brought true freedom and never can.
But, one must also consider what one wants to be free from That's a whole other discussion though.
OK, Guiliani is out. I think all of the early founders works, especially Thomas Jefferson, should also be a requirement for any congressman or potential president. I wonder how some of them would feel when they read how Thomas Jefferson suggested a revolution every twenty or so years!
I think I'll go with Hilary. Men have bee in charge long enough; look at this world!
Bragi,
I was too tired to read through most of these comments, but found them depressing in the superficiality of the analysis, yet, I did not rust myself to respond in any helpful way at 2:01 AM. I knew you would make a sane comment.
The Democrat congress does not have the margin to take any strong action, since individuals are individuals and not all democrats are puppets aligned in a flanx ready to vote the same way.
For the same reason, regretably, impeachment is out.
If we had a national service requirement, the political debate would shift immediately, and this is the only way to return our country to sanity. No more mercinary army. If the Commander in Chief choses to take action, the public must be willing to march behind her.
For this time, I am supportin our Mr. Edwards, He has beautiful hair, and I am sure he did not realize that requesting a trim would require the cost of tolls, milage, etc. etc., and this was a mistake. I'd like to see Mr Edwards a bit more shaggy, and in fact would find him more attractive as such, but he is a man of integrity.
Poor Hillary. She has entirely too much baggage, little packed by herself, but if she is the candidte I will work for her and vote for her.
My preference would be first, to have 18" grafted on to Kujchinich's legs, and have him grow a moustache. Second I would like to see an Edwards Obama ticket. Third, Clinton + Edwards or Obama.
I am very optimistic about a Democrat recovery. But will our Dems go far enough. We must insist on it.
Ron Paul is the only sane, non Republican, running as a Republican. I hope the nominate Guillani, for it will result in the selfish rich becoming unhinged from the uneducated religious poor. That Republicans are not embarassed by their possibilities only shows how stupid they are.
James Harrison
Asheville, NC
650-0484
I know, everyone's probably sick of seeing Ron Paul's name online, but that's who I'm voting for. (Barring any major shifts in policy) He seems to understand that his personal opinions shouldn't be involved in what's right and wrong, according to our constitution.
Whah? Come on Jason, you immediately got political with your very first sentence of your post.! ;-|
Regarding your query, I don't care which candidate is pro-longhair as long as he runs our country in a way most of the USA can be comfortable with.
--
Splat
Mob rule at its finest, look at what happened when we let our current president "run our country in a way most of the USA can be comfortable with." All he has to do is look for 51% support and hes good, does that mean the other 49%'s voice do not matter at all?
Right now the VP is only looking for 30-40%(publicly stated) support to initiate plans for a strike on Iran. As long as that 30-40% is corporate/gov media and loudmouths they will get away with it, at least thats what they think.
Forgot to add, America is a Republic NOT a Democracy. We are a country with a representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Ron Paul for the win! Listening to Giuliani makes me sick. The guy is a complete crook and would be worse for this country than what we already have.
i have that same quote from rudy saved on my comp just to remind myself what a total piece of crap he is.
"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do" - Rudy Ghouliani 1994
sounds alot like "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
I agree... There could be no worse than Judy... may his bald head die with his fanatics.
He is the absolute worst candidate...
On the other hand . . . .
If the vast majority of automobile drivers did not "submit to authority" and obey the rules of the road, driving on streets and highways would be absolute chaos.
Anarchy is not freedom. But neither is authoritarian government. And regardless of which party is in power, the institutional imperative of government is to grow. And for government to grow, individual power and freedom must diminish.
Unfortunately, our choices generally are between different rates of government growth, or growth within different parts of government.
Anytime such a statement is made it is political, especially when based on a total misrepresentation of truth to make the point.
I think Ron Paul is the most independent pro-liberal thinking candidate despite his being Republican.
The misrepresentation here is that Ron Paul is "pro-liberal thinking". Go to his site; Ron Paul espouses all of the basic Republican values that the core members of the Republican Party strive to get back to. I find it interesting (and welcome) that core Republican values are now being tagged as "pro-liberal" to justify their support from outside the Republican Party.
That being said, I also believe that Ron Paul's ideas are the most sensible and realistic way to get our country back to where it should be. I have said to several others in the past, including Jason, that our core beliefs are really not that far apart. His post reinforces that notion; that even when coming from different directions there is common ground that we can agree on to get our country back to where it should be.
We can spend hours pointing blame and shirking responsibility without making any progress whatsoever. It is now time to start from this point to move forward and work to make our country better.
And (gasp!) does the meeting of the minds between liberal and conservative here about Ron Paul give an inkling of hope for the future? I sure hope so!
George
Ron Paul is the one and only candidate I support. I dislike the Democratic options almost as much as the other Republicans. If somehow Ron Paul gets nominated I would without question (gasp!) vote Republican!
I don't think that Ron Paul or his antiwar counterpart Dennis Kucinich will be "allowed" to win their respective primaries because they would be too disruptive to the corporate interests that control the mass media. The corporations that own most of our media and the moguls like Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailles
have way too much at stake to let someone who wants to kill NAFTA or the WTO as Ron Paul does. I think they will do what it takes to survive and they will not play fair in keeping troublemakers down and disrespected. Corporations are global and ideas like Paul's will not aid their growth.
I hope I am wrong but I don't think Paul or Kucinich will survive the primaries. Why should the infamous military industrial complex commit suicide by allowing a dangerous virus like these guys into itself?
I agree. The military industrial complex runs this country. The only thing that changes is its mascot. Unfortunately the present one in Cheney (the real force behind the machinations of the administration) and his lackey Bush has taken evil corrupting of power to a new level.
I am not sure who I support but I know one thing for sure: I put more of the blame in the hands of the media than the hands of the president for the damage done to the president's reputation and his future place in the history books. Much of the current president's actions are normal presidential stuff that in a time years ago would have just been left behind doors like they should be. Bush was elected, we as a nation trust him to be the president. The problem exists now that information flow can travel quickly and without filters. If the president, for example, said "I hate longhairs" all it takes is a quick jaunt at a computer or even the use of the connectivity of a modern phone for this comment to somehow spread around the world in 24 hours and from the mouths of some guy to some guy. And of course, the news media has to pick up this issue or they look bad and so, they resort again to the unfiltered datastream. Furthermore, thousands of people sound off on the issues without much knowledge on them in the first place. In an earlier day, news went to newspapers, radios, television stations and the responsible professionals filtered the raw datastream and brought the important news to the people. Anyone who has experience in a newspaper, a radio station, or a television station knows the importance of deciding what news is published and what should not be. Bottom line: the over-itchy trigger finger of the amateur internet news mob has disrupted a presidency and made it hard to travel forward and have furthermore tarnished the reputation of a man who is honestly just an average president floating about the middle of the rankings.
But back to the issue here. I do not know who I will vote for but I know I will vote against Hillary--in my opinion, she makes Bush look like a glowing pillar of presidential material and if elected, she will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the USA but that is just my semi-informed opinion.
Who has the right to decide what should be kept behind locked doors? A government of free people cannot function (for the people) without transparency of information to the people. If doors are kept locked why should powerful men ever feel they have to check their behavior. This administration has had many of its ugly secrets spilled all over the floor for all the world to see and yet many of our citizens still fail to become enraged at what is lying there before them. I can become enraged, are you seriously wishing that I had never even come to know the things I do know now about the current administration. Are you saying my ignorance would make me happier or you happier? There is a hell of a big difference!!
As a nation we elected him by a small margin (and there are those like myself who are aware of some voter intimidation and voting machine failures to say nothing of the fact that no voting machine gives countable voter receipts). Aside from this a significant number of people who voted for him seem to have buyer's remorse. His approval rating is at an all time low. Some of his side NO LONGER trust him as a president. Look I did not vote for George H W Bush but he was elected. I didn't like him but it was a done deal. But his father has not enraged as many people worldwide and hear as the son has.
What information that a news media gets should not be published. I cannot think of many areas outside of specific military operations and schedules and covert operations where such secrecy is vital. And that information would not normally get into the hands of the media anyway without help from the government (Valerie Plame issue). I cannot believe you want censorship of the media, this is still supposed to be the land of the free last I heard. It is sinking fast enough without help from the common people in abetting our would be rulers!
If the media were the problemm than why did they hype the war unquestioned with Bush a "popular president" until Katrina brought the criminal ineptitude and ugly reality of the administrations apathy for the common people of New Orleans. You cannot blame that on the media, that happened despite the media's attempts to bolster Bush, but you can only spit and polish shit so much...
Somehow despite the words popular being switched to unpopular before President Bush he has not stopped his actions because he is beyond caring about anything now but being right. If history vindicates this asshole I am not sure I want to live in that future!
Well said Chris! I couldn't agree more. In 2000 he really wasn't elected in the true democratic sense of the word. He lost the popular vote by a good margin. It's only the archaic and bizarre electoral college that allowed him to steal the election. Well, that and corrupt Florida officials.
The man, woman or dog that could make Dubbya look like a "glowing pillar of presidential material" hasn't been born.
A lot of the things that are supposed to be kept behind doors are many of daily operations of an executive and a commander-in-chief. Things that the average person might not be equipped to make a judgment on. Think for example if the operating room at a hospital had a camera which broadcast surgeries onto cable television. This is perhaps a bad comparison but only because the average person understands surgery much more than politics or foreign affairs. Still, looking in and seeing a person bloody and open and a masked man with a scalpel cutting and pulling things out in a stark white room? So why do our doctors, who we have placed a trust in, have closed doors in the OR while the government, who we have also placed a trust in, has the minutia broadcast for everyone to interpret and judge?
1. Yes, I admit he is in there by the narrowest of margins.
2. Yes, I realize his approval rating is down.
3. However, his approval rating is down because of him doing things a president has to do like run the country. He made decisions, he made choices, he weighed the options, he was elected to do this. Perhaps a person may disagree with those choices. This is fair and this is that person's choice. The status of the approval rating is in part a result of the media and the mob. Which person yells loudest? With each additional supporter to one side, there is a greater tendency for the next person to go to that side. Not to necessarily say one side is right but the mob is getting a chance to make mob decisions...which is the policy of Athens, not Washington.
Free speech is important and paramount. Newspapers and people have the right to say what they want. But they should practice responsibility. I support free speech. But let me explain from a few angles here. First of all, let's take a news station; they have 30 minutes to an hour to express the news of the day. In this scenario, the station needs to prioritize and decide what takes priority...a local fire that destroyed a dozen homes, a human interest piece about a kid who raises money for the blind, a celebrity being drunk in public, or a piece of gossip trickled from Washington about what The Prez might be doing. The problem is that news now has an infinite canvas of sorts which means anything can become news...and it does. Another angle is what effect would the news have. Would it cause more damage than good? Do people need to know this? Say something needs to be done by the president and he will have to do whether or not people know about it. Will releasing the knowledge cause a panic and a problem and not change the course of actions that need to be taken? Is it just a stab at someone who has been labeled as a Public Enemy? Unfortunately, the news companies like ratings and so they publish anything that will get them more money. Oh, and I learned these concepts from journalists...so how can you say I favor censorship? And even if you can say anything you want, are there not a few things you feel you should not say...or do you just say everything that pops into your head?
I still take a moment to entertain the thought that he is making decisions unswayed by opinions of the masses (which is not a synonym for democracy). We elect a person to act as president on our behalf, who understands politics and foreign policy (or has people who advise him), who will make the little decisions day-in and day-out on our behalf. We elect him (or her) for four years being a compromise between too long and switching people out like people switch clothes.
What America is founded on is not the mob rule and common voting system of Athenian democracy. It was founded on electing those among us to minister to politics and affairs of the nation so we do not have to and because we are not quite educated enough to be able to vote on the little things (and we are too big). Rights are guaranteed but rights given require responsibility as well.
I wish to close with the quote "A house divided against itself cannot stand" to make a statement that we all will be stronger if we stop trying to tear the country into red and blue, Bush and anti-Bush. A great thing happened when John Adams became president: a peaceful willing transfer of power...something more or less unseen at that point. Soon, a person who is the opposite of Bush will be in power; I predict an approval rating plummeting for him as well because of the effect of the media and because detractors will be louder than supporters. In order to make a stronger nation we need to be united in support of the government we elect whether we were in the 49 or the 51 percent group. And the media, including the amateurs, need to be more responsible.
I predict an approval rating plummeting for him as well because of the effect of the media and because detractors will be louder than supporters. In order to make a stronger nation we need to be united in support of the government we elect whether we were in the 49 or the 51 percent group. And the media, including the amateurs, need to be more responsible.
There has never in the history of this country been a president more absolutely loathed than Dubya. Even Nixon didn't manage to generate such total repudiation. I doubt the next president will find his approval rates anywhere near as low as Bush's are.
I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you saying that once a president gets elected we should stand behind him no matter what he says or does? That would make for an extremely alarming situation IMO. There is a reason presidents can be impeached. I know it's almost impossible to do but it is an option.
The person with lower approval ratings will probably surface in the next 20 years.
No, not stand behind exactly. Impeachment is a tool for correcting wrongs. But impeachment is not a method to get someone out of office because of low approval. If we had a system where we could freely move people in and out of office, it would be a nightmare and would be a mess. What I am saying is that approval or not, he is in the Oval Office now. Actions to disrupt the actions of a functional government (even a low approval government) are harmful to the nation. The kind of revolutionary action taken by our forefathers and given to us in times of need are for when things simply are not working and their is no easier fix. The system can be fixed by voting in new people and getting the vote out there. Of course, no vote means no room to complain.
Our government does not have any "right" to hide information from its citizens any more than the makers of food products had the right to hide what they put into them without our knowledge. I am sure that the average person didn't need to "know" the conditions of slaughterhouses at the dawn of the last century because after all they weren't meat industry officials so how can they possibly understand the problems? But it turned out that when the methods and conditions were exposed to the "mob" as you might term them, these poor non- meat packing industry idiots turned out to indeed have an opinion on the topic. Their outcry changed the industry for the better, it did not destroy it! Was this opinion by non experts wrong in your opinion? Should the original conditions of the slaughterhouses have been maintained with the "what people don't know won't hurt them"?
When consumer advocates fought for standard food labeling of ingredients and nutrition information in processed foods, despite that never being done before and the fact that the average joe (AT THE TIME) probably didn't know a carbohydrate from a hydrocarbon!, the labelling began and as a result was that the average joe DID INDEED LEARN what these mysterious words were. How can you expect the average person to learn to be able to make judgements without exposure to the subject?
Information must flow out of government (and corporations) so that we can:
a) learn about the terms and processes of the whole topic
b) learn to make judgements about how well the elected officials made judgements in our names
I do not believe that the closed doors of an OR are about security or secrets, but about privacy of the patient. Certainly some surgeries are broadcast and some politics is shown on C-SPAN. In this case I believe they both should continue to be scrutinized by the public. I for one do not trust all doctors any more than I trust all politicians and I want to know what they are giving me when they give me a prescription. I have been severely damaged by doctors so you bet your ass I learn everything I can about a medicine or a test before I submit to it and politicians will be given the same scrutiny. I do not treat them differently as your argument implies.
"Has to do", like the Iraq War, with many many protests here in the states and the UN urging him not to go to war. In exactly whose eyes did he "have to go". I have never believed we had to go there and many people including Republicans I have known have come to realize he didn't "have to do" the war at all. If you still support the Iraq War can you tell me exactly how I am benefitting from it? I think a few of us here can probably tell you who just might possibly be benefitting from it.
So to you I am just a mob member, a mindless follower of whom? Whose voice did I fall under and lose my obviously limited mind and rationality? It doesn't matter whether this is a Democracy or a Republic from my point of view. If you consider that the many people polled are having a problem with the current administration, calling us a mob rather than acknowledging us as a independent thinkers is not going to make us one. Nor will it deter us from continuing to document the administrations crimes. You sound like a Royalist with such terms as mob! I had hoped we were beyond those days.
Responsibility in who's eyes. Is there such a person who can say what "responsibility" is. Responsibility means being trusted by someone. To whom are these media responsible? Media is a business and all business have owners, it is possible that an owner just might publish a story that was in the people's interests but put the owner or a cause he favors in a bad light, but I wouldn't count on it. Most likely the owner will publish a story if it doesn't harm him in any way personally or economically. This is an easy call for some news like forest fires and accidents, but what will the owner do when the stories are political? The evidence STRONGLY points to the fact that the media will bow to the owners' wishes in a conflict of interest. I do not believe in some nebulous objective thing called "responsibility" without a person or thing being responsible to being attached.
You have a problem with the internet as a source of news that is accessible to everyone, unfiltered? Again you sound like a Royalist decrying the invention of the God damned printing press! When the rabble get their hands on real information they just may not need us anymore. Honestly I cannot see any difference between the printing press and the internet. Both helped commoners like myself in seeing the world unfiltered. Damn anyone who attempts to filter my eyes :)
I addressed this with my "had to" comments and my flow of information comments above.
The media will not publish "anything" to get more money. So many stories of Bush's history were glossed over during his campaign and not really hung on to. His AWOL from the Texas Guard for example. If the reporters had grilled Bush as mercilessly as they do most harmless celebrities and their pasts Bush would not have gotten close to the Republican primaries. The press gave Bush a free pass from his earliest campaign to 2005 with Katrina. They were afraid to make him look bad during press conferences because anybody who questioned Bush had their press pass and perhaps their newspaper's White House Correspondent privileges revoked. There is no way in hell that the media made Bush look bad. I hold them accountable as well for the nightmare we are in now. If the press had done their job and dug for the truth we would have a different president today.
You said above unfiltered internet news is bad. That some things are too "complicated" for people like me. What else can I say about these two ideas but that that is censorship. If we enacted the above 2 things what would you call it?
I am not beholden to others, I represent no one but me. A politician is obligated and has sworn on an oath to protect us. His time on the clock is ours! It is simple, we are his or her bosses while they are on the job. Part of that job is t tell us their status and what they are planning, much as you tell your boss what you are doing. These politicians are our workers not our lords, seems a simple thing to me!
I agree with the sentiment, but there is no power on this earth that will make me stop fighting Bush and all his kind. I will not make nice with crocodiles :)
I suppose I am making a few key points here.
1. The image of Bush that the modern world has is heavily due to the power of new technology for good or for bad. One must take this into account when comparing him to presidents like Washington and Adams who the common people most likely had only heard about. The modern media consumer can both see almost infinite information and has the ability to say what he wants to an almost infinite (well in the millions if not billions) audience. Surely this changes things in some way. Bush may not have been any more of a villain than any other president. My history is a little rusty but there are quite a few scandals throughout history and so perhaps Harding would have received a lower approval rating if exposed to new technology.
2. The news media has the power to self-censor. Just as each of us do. I can choose to not say something and so can CNN. This action has certain consequences for good and bad. Just as we should have an internal filter, perhaps the news media need to work on their internal filters and the viewers their internal filters in terms of news absorption. New technology means more information than ever before and we as humanity need to figure out ways to process the datastream.
3. The new technology provides a new opportunity for mob action. Much bigger soapbox and much bigger megaphone. Just as the right passionate speaker can drive an indifferent crowd to take an action, the right person can drive an indifferent internet and broadcast audience to take an action.
4. The new technology can work for either sides of an issue. When the new president comes in January 2009, you can guarantee he (or she) will be vulnerable to the power of the new technology. The internet will be discussing it, the 24-hr news networks will discuss it, the blogosphere will be active, and decisions and analyses will come from people who may or may not be qualified to make analyses.
Basically, new technology makes this world a new world with a new set of rules that govern it. It will most likely result in a cleaner government and one with a window for people to look in. It may also result in a less effective government as politicians and executives may not be able to do what is needed of them out of fear of misunderstanding from the internet mob. It may also result in opposite sides seeing the same picture and fighting against each other--what if a moderate makes a moderate choice and both sides fight for an extreme choice. Is the leader representing the people still? The new president may take a position of watchfulness and economic sanctions on the world's next danger country. The warhawks call for domination and destruction. The peaceniks call for leaving them alone. Approval drops at both extremes. And perhaps no one truly is happy. And perhaps division is imminent. And if it happens, it will not be geographic this time.
Bottom line, new technology is a potential danger and a potential blessing. We need to learn it and understand it.
I can only speak about presidents whom I have known about, not historical ones. President Clinton was subjected to the same media that George Bush II has endured, both the traditional and the new media. I agree that all of the information that any of us who don't work in the field of politics is going to get is from the media. That is unavoidable. I do not remember many attacks on Clinton's policies, mostly I remember attacks of him personally or for supposed transgressions previous to his role as President. I have and do hear continual attacks of Bush's policies much more than attacks on his family. In Clinton's case it was Republicans trying to discredit and disgrace him for the crime of being a Democrat. In Bush's case the attacks are trying to stop Bush from continuing his policies that many feel are exceedingly dangerous. If Bush had been a run of the mill president as you say he is I doubt I would have ever been tempted to get interested in politics in the first place. His father was an average president in my opinion. I found him annoying somewhat but not once can I ever say he enraged me. I do not believe you will find many people who would say Bush II is an average president.
I agree that the media can self censor, and I believe they did just that to make George Bush look less bad than he was (I don't think they could make him look good). I stated why earlier in my post about responsibility and to whom it is given. My question is always who does the censorship benefit? I stand by my assertion that the media propped up Bush and banged the war drum and the media is just as guilty of killing our young men and women and the Iraqis as if they pulled the triggers themselves. They do not get off the hook because they parrotted the Republican points WITHOUT verifying them themselves.
I agree that not everyone who gets the information pouring from a government press office might will be the an expert in the field, but that does not mean I want to prevent such material from getting into their hands by keeping it out of everyone's hands, which is what I am sensing you want to do. Let the media tell us everything, we will make the choices of what is important and what is not. I would rather have too much information and decide for myself what to look at then have that decision made for me.
If the two possibilities coming from more open distribution of government information to the new media are those above, this is more reason than ever to be for transparency in government. At best we get a cleaner government (which would be a great thing) and at worst an inefficient government (which I would still much rather have than this secretive monstrous juggernaut that is all to efficient at death and terror).
Bottom line for me is that spin is not responsible for why people hate the Bush administration so. The death and horror he has created here and in the Middle East is all to real. You will not convince me that the outrages against human decency are fabrications of the media. The war was "optional" for us and everyday we stay there we throw the lives of our bravest young people away for absolutely nothing more than one old man's monstrous ego.
Yes it is, but the democratic run congress has an approval rating much lower than his.
Exactly right Sacrament and I think that congress rating is well deserved. For this reason:
Bush was up front about wanting to continue the Iraq War and his bizarre notion of fighting terrorism. People got what they paid for.
With the new Democratic congress, they promised change on the Republican onslaught of our rights and the course of the war. They have not delivered on ONE THING. Bush gets everything he wants from them. We now have a majority Democratic Congress still crying and whining about how they can do nothing to stop the big bad Republicans. I don't buy their shit and to me that makes them worse than the Republicans. Some of them are worse than the Republicans and that sickens me.
This is proof that the approval system is in good working order in my opinion!
That's why I could never identify myself as a Democrat or Republican. I am fiercely independent. I am so disillusioned with politics.
All the candidates are pro-war, pro-interventionist, pro-imperialism, pro-America as the world's policeman except for Ron Paul. Like you said though, he'll never survive.
I think we need a whole new government.
I SO agree with the above. I am all for putting NOTA (None Of The above) on the ballot. I have no party affiliation whatsoever, as none truly represent ME. I am beyond being disillusioned, I have nearly become indifferent. I almost don't care. But I see so many voters have become complacent, and that is scary to me.
We do need a whole new government, but complacent voters like the current system the way it is, even though it is falling apart at the seams. Voter apathy continues to grow, and our government infrastructure gets worse. Our Founding Fathers fougght for the very freedoms that our current goverment slowly takes away. The continued erosion of our Constitutional rights and the complacency of the voters spells disaster for our future.
I will not vote for a candidate that I personally cannot support, it is NOTA or nothing. So I exercise my right and duty to vote, but I have been known to write in a candidate that I feel comfortable about, though the are unlikely to win. Some say I waste my vote, but at least I can sleep at night, knowing I did not support the latest White House buffoon by my vote. I did not vote for Bill, I did not vote for George, and something tells me I will not be voting for the party candidate of either party in the next election either.
UGH!
Carol
Jason...
I have to agree. As a former right wing Republican myself; (former that is); I now proudly claim to be an independent thinker..
Politics just plain out sucks... There are issues I agree and disagree with on both sides of the Democratic/Republican ticket.
So ... here we go again.... just choose the lesser of the evils...
Tristan
*And Jason, you are not the only. It just keeps getting worse and worse no matter who is in.
* I have stayed out of all and any political discussions in the past, but I do agree with you. We are in a mess. If only we had stayed on the Gold Standard taken away from us in 1933 I feel that the problems of today would never be what they are. We have been lied to far too much. I dare say no more for fear of being hung. But this I will say: The founding fathers of this country would have never dreamed that their dream would have ended up as it has. They had their act together and it was sound.
Justin~
Justin~
To be fair, there is only one thing they could do that would make any difference, and that would be to cut off the money ... and they are scared to do it. Me, I would just do it, but that's just me.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He only runs on the Republican ticket so he can be electable. Please become an educated voter :-)
The President has nothing to do with long hair rights. You should look to the legislative branch and judicial branch for that.
Giuliani is way too liberal for me.
I refuse to be a one issue voter.
Is which candidate would be best supportive of long haired rights. Obviously anyone who has taken a basic American government class knows that the President can't make such legislative decisions himself. However, in light of the upcoming primary season, it is an interesting discussion.
And as for Ron Paul being a Libertarian, of course he has to run as a Republican to gain any attention. The GOP went off the deep end a long time ago, so he's just trying to bring the party back to its Goldwater-esque roots. Nothing wrong with that. =)
-James
Dear Fuzzy headed friends, and may your fuzz get longer.
I did not start this off topic thread, but I will continue it.
Frankly, I intended to back channel Bragi,who I think is more politically aware than most, but I see that I went public. So more public I go.
And I take this rare opportunity to totally agree with Big George, that the young man has no right to complain about what he wants unless he is showing responsibility in his own life -- none of these issues were addressed in his complaint against his parents.
But first I must address the silly response that this is a Republic and not a Democracy. This is one of those right wing slogans which confuse people. It is like saying this is a transmission and not a motor. There are multiple slogans like this which neither illuninate nor clarify. Republican, or representative, government is the way that we realize a Democracy, which is government by the will of the people. Not all 300 million of us can be in the same place and vote on every issue, so we trust persons to represent us. Though we have a Republican transmission, I hope we continue to have a Democratic motor. This is an obfuscating attempt to prevent clarity in communication, whether intended or not.
Unfortunately, the Republicans betray us, and do not represent the will of the people, but the will of those who raise money for them, most often the military industrial complex, which over the last 40 years has claimed that the USSR is industrially suyperior to us, so that we must raise more defense funds for shields which are not likely to work.
This has overlooked the reality that the USSR has not been able to make ball point pens which work, though they have been able to pull off some spectacular fireworks like spuknik, which have distorted our own vision and motivated us to put more funds into the military.
They have succeeded in reducing us to policies based on fear, and responses based on deception and violence.
The fact of the matter is that most of the world Admires the US, inspite of the stupid mistakes we have made, but we have become more and more fearful and belligerant and have driven away our friends.
If we dedicated ourself to being the best possible Republic, with the healthiest population, and the best educated population, we would win the race, and maintain the highest technological innovative standard in the world, but as long as we borrow money from China, Japan, Korea, to try to force people to do what they do not want to do we are going to be the losers.
China is gaining dominance over the US by importing 50 of their citizens into every small city in the US to get us to buy flied lice.
If we wished to compete with China, we would establish a chain of fast food restaurants in China designed to sell fried food and to raise their cholesteral level.
When will we ever realize that we cannot make anyone do anything. If you have ever been owned by a cat, surely you know that. The only way we can maintain our inernational power and dominance is to be the best example and to show the best way, not by force.
Think about it. Human psychology is the same all over the world. How do you respond to force. If Canadians occupied us for our own good, would you not join a malitia to tell them go go back north and enjoy their ski slopes?
The bumbling Democrats at least have a clue about that, and as we say in North Carolina, I would vote for a yeller dog than for the current lousy excuse that the Republicans put forth. I do hope they nominate the phony former mayor of N Y, because the Phony family values so called psychologist from Colorado Springs will split the party. That may result in an actual recovery of some integrity to the Republican Party in the next quarter century.
Once they were the progressives. They have sold their soul for oil.
More, I could say.
This old man's hair gets longer and longer and I get nothing but compliments and support, to get back on topic.
Caledonian
I agree with many of your points and your discussion of transmissions and motors is spot on. There are problems with the Republican party but also with the Democratic party (and how I wish they had different names than those names since both parties clearly believe in a democratic republic).
I do wish to bring up the point that the Democrats have problems too. Sure, the oil industry may have friends in King Cheney I. Sure, Bush may not be able to read good or talk good. Sure, the "party-of-God" and the party expounding on the importance of morality has had a few members exposed for scandals regarding things they preach against. But the Dems have problems too. It is hard to miss that the candidate who wishes to be Queen of the Free World has this exact goal in mind. Following neck-in-neck is a deer-in-the-headlights wet-behind-the-ears party favorite who speaks eloquently but may not have the guts or the experience to lead a nation. Without trying to go through the long list, I wish to simply say that neither party is without problems.
I am not sure if there is a president I would like to vote for. I'd almost rather write "Caledonian" on the write-in section and hope they understand. Realistically I do need to support someone in the long list.
I guess my earlier comments lower in the thread go with this sentiment of whoever we pick, he (or she) will not be the answer to all of the nation's problems. Nor will he (or she) be the one who has universal support. It may take that quarter century to get both parties on track. It may be a dream of mine that instead, we will just get the right person for the job without having to sift through a sea of "lesser evils" in two opposite and antagonistic parties. This nation used to see great men come into the presidency who could unite a nation instead of divide it. I'd like to see someone like that rise from the rubble.
Who's Ron Paul!
John.B