Only Three years left

[Dameon Angell]

I voted Communist, so don't look over here.

But, I think Bush is just going with the whole "I have 4 years left, and I don't have to be re-elected, so I don't have to do shit for the people" mantality.

[Ephemeral]

And all those things are pale in comparison to Iran Contra and how much we fucked up Latin America, in general, during the 1980s.

As a point of interest though, Clinton's approval ratings were 73 percent during the impeachment ordeal. The American public is more wise than most of us give them credit for - they could sift through the useless bullshit and realize that Clinton was doing an excellent job as being President. Since I'm sure someone will call bullshit on this, here you go. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...eachment.poll/

If the public is that wise and majority rules, then Bush is our man since he got the majority popular vote, something that Clinton didn't.

Frankly, I don't buy into that at all. The majority isn't always right (the lack of civil rights for decades being a perfect example and there are many more) which is why we elect 'representatives'.

I remember the 80's, and I remember it as the fall of the Wall and opening of eastern USSR and East Germany. Just my opinion, but the Reagan admin will go down in history remembered for that and not South America.

What will Clinton be remembered for? Cum stains? My opinion is that the current Bush, having to deal with the two largest domestic diasters in the last 50 years or more, will be remembered by history as a better president than Clinton. (And I am no fan of the current admin, in my book they are about a 2 on a 1-10 scale.)

[Suh]

why cant they have more than 2 terms?

also, why is american chocolate really bad?

[Ephemeral]

...Then you have all this Katrina incident that showed how much Bush had left internal afairs and US's own problems at bay focusing his attention solely on the outside politics... I never though Bush would be able to lead such a great nation as the US you guys have MUCH better persons for president even among the republicans.

I would add that the Katrina disaster is a perfect example of how much the media has spun politics into the fabric of virtually every topic it covers. It was much more than just the government that was not prepared for Katrina. How many of us saw media coverage of how the Red Cross dropped the ball? We have over a thousand people who have now left as volunteers for the Red Cross due to it’s poor performance in the Katrina disaster. This is a private organization with a mission statement to do this kind of work. These are long-term volunteers and even paid workers who have left, disgusted with the Red Cross. So where is the coverage of this story? My opinion is that the key thing to remember is the mentality of the media, how they get paid, who is there audience. The media stands to lose viewers, market-share, and money if they come out and are critical of the general public. No one will watch (and support the sponsors) if a news program comes out and beats them up and places blame in the lap of the very viewers it is trying to court.
We should remember that over the last 25 years, the news industry has gotten more competitive than it ever has before. Just look at the scandals that it has had to deal with (like reporters making up stories), or consider how news is now a 24/7 thing.
Today’s media has had to find ways to be much more competitive, so the ‘if it bleeds it leads’ mentality is in high gear. It jumps on anything that it thinks will get more viewers, it avoids anything that doesn’t. Does it cover the story of some poor, non-white girl missing? No it covers, ad nauseum, some white chick partying in the islands who goes missing.

What bothers me most is that so few people even consider this and form their opinions without even questioning the media’s role in their decision making process.

[genocidal]

If the public is that wise and majority rules, then Bush is our man since he got the majority popular vote, something that Clinton didn't.

Frankly, I don't buy into that at all. The majority isn't always right (the lack of civil rights for decades being a perfect example and there are many more) which is why we elect 'representatives'.

I remember the 80's, and I remember it as the fall of the Wall and opening of eastern USSR and East Germany. Just my opinion, but the Reagan admin will go down in history remembered for that and not South America.

What will Clinton be remembered for? Cum stains? My opinion is that the current Bush, having to deal with the two largest domestic diasters in the last 50 years or more, will be remembered by history as a better president than Clinton. (And I am no fan of the current admin, in my book they are about a 2 on a 1-10 scale.)

First, I wasn't trying to defend the American public in every aspect. Bringing in the segregation issue is pointless and a poor analogy for the public's political wisdom. Yes, it was fucked up, yes a lot of smart people supported it, and yes it ended a hundred years too late. No reason to talk race.

Second, my point was merely to show that America doesn't let small issues, like "cum stains," blind their real opinions of government - be them what they may. I was saying nothing about Bush being better than Kerry or the other way around; that is all a matter of opinion and you're not going to prove to anyone here that you're more right than them. I was merely talking about looking past what the media is shoving down our throats.

Third, if we want to talk Cold War, then I would argue that Reagan was probably the worst perpetuator of the harmful us vs. them mentality since Johnson. Do I blame them solely for their huge military budgets, useless surrogate wars, and embaressing scandals? No, much was a product of the time. Still, there were much better Presidents than fucking Reagan. And despite what history may remember him mostly for, we would be fools to forget about Iran Contra, the removal of the Sandonista government (one of the best governments in Latin America at the time and probably since) for fear of the Red Spread, and the human rights abuses which we denied in front of the UN.

Fourth, as for Clinton, I personally feel he's the best President since Carter and before that Nixon (barring his fuckup). Obviously you don't so no point in arguing, but remembering him for the Monica scandal is ridiculous. I'm sure history will treat him much differently than some stupid tabloid bullshit.

[Saturn V]

Fourth, as for Clinton, I personally feel he's the best President since Carter and before that Nixon (barring his fuckup). Obviously you don't so no point in arguing, but remembering him for the Monica scandal is ridiculous. I'm sure history will treat him much differently than some stupid tabloid bullshit.

Agreed.

[Arikel]

I would add that the Katrina disaster is a perfect example of how much the media has spun politics into the fabric of virtually every topic it covers. It was much more than just the government that was not prepared for Katrina. How many of us saw media coverage of how the Red Cross dropped the ball? We have over a thousand people who have now left as volunteers for the Red Cross due to it’s poor performance in the Katrina disaster. This is a private organization with a mission statement to do this kind of work. These are long-term volunteers and even paid workers who have left, disgusted with the Red Cross. So where is the coverage of this story? My opinion is that the key thing to remember is the mentality of the media, how they get paid, who is there audience. The media stands to lose viewers, market-share, and money if they come out and are critical of the general public. No one will watch (and support the sponsors) if a news program comes out and beats them up and places blame in the lap of the very viewers it is trying to court.
We should remember that over the last 25 years, the news industry has gotten more competitive than it ever has before. Just look at the scandals that it has had to deal with (like reporters making up stories), or consider how news is now a 24/7 thing.
Today’s media has had to find ways to be much more competitive, so the ‘if it bleeds it leads’ mentality is in high gear. It jumps on anything that it thinks will get more viewers, it avoids anything that doesn’t. Does it cover the story of some poor, non-white girl missing? No it covers, ad nauseum, some white chick partying in the islands who goes missing.

What bothers me most is that so few people even consider this and form their opinions without even questioning the media’s role in their decision making process.

Yes that's very nice to say but what you are really forgetting here is that the media is your only window to the rest of the world outside your neighborhood...
I think you are starting to judge people to soon when you say that people do not think about how manipulated the news are when they reach their hears... i speaking about me, am very cautious in wich news and news sources i deem has reliable, anyway i always know that 100% objectivity is not always possible, much less if you take into account that most of the news are "exagerated" in order to bring people closer to the tv, so maybe even some of the reasons you are pointing out might not be 100% true...

[Ephemeral]

Nixon lied, got what he deserved. Clinton lied.
So you guys are arguing that what you lie about is what really matters?

Extending that argument, you steal something small and it's only 'tabloid worthy' and no one should assume that you might steal anything else?

I guess I don't see 'degrees' in moral issues like lying or stealing. My opinion is that a person is either a liar or thief or not.

[Ephemeral]

Yes that's very nice to say but what you are really forgetting here is that the media is your only window to the rest of the world outside your neighborhood...
I think you are starting to judge people to soon when you say that people do not think about how manipulated the news are when they reach their hears... i speaking about me, am very cautious in wich news and news sources i deem has reliable, anyway i always know that 100% objectivity is not always possible, much less if you take into account that most of the news are "exagerated" in order to bring people closer to the tv, so maybe even some of the reasons you are pointing out might not be 100% true...

Arikel,
Firstly, I made no assumption(s) towards you, why do you always do this?

Secondly, I always try to make sure I make sure my posts are marked as my opinion. You, and anyone else, is free to think that the media is not capitalistically biased and is not run as a company. It is your choice and perhaps your experience makes you believe otherwise.
I often hope that there are people in these forums who might have different experiences than I do. But more times than not, I feel I often get replies that aren’t based upon any experience (like having spent a summer working for a media company) but rather based upon two things, a young person's political perspective based upon their parents beliefs (aka Spinsanity) or a perspective based upon a flag of piracy flying from a young idealistic mind (nothing wrong with that, everyone goes through it).

As far as judging people, look at the rest of these forums. I would say that I judge people far, far, less than 95% of the other posters. I am 50 years old and simply feel that I might have something to offer. I care not if people chose not to listen to me. I am not here to be arrogant or aloof, I truly enjoy helping people (ask anyone who has ever been on a squad with me).

[genocidal]

Nixon lied, got what he deserved. Clinton lied.
So you guys are arguing that what you lie about is what really matters?

Extending that argument, you steal something small and it's only 'tabloid worthy' and no one should assume that you might steal anything else?

I guess I don't see 'degrees' in moral issues like lying or stealing. My opinion is that a person is either a liar or thief or not.

NEWSBREAK: Every politician lies. And of course it does matter what they lie about. Perhaps you should think less in black and white and look more into what matters.

[Arikel]

Arikel,
Firstly, I made no assumption(s) towards you, why do you always do this?

Secondly, I always try to make sure I make sure my posts are marked as my opinion. You, and anyone else, is free to think that the media is not capitalistically biased and is not run as a company. It is your choice and perhaps your experience makes you believe otherwise.
I often hope that there are people in these forums who might have different experiences than I do. But more times than not, I feel I often get replies that aren’t based upon any experience (like having spent a summer working for a media company) but rather based upon two things, a young person's political perspective based upon their parents beliefs (aka Spinsanity) or a perspective based upon a flag of piracy flying from a young idealistic mind (nothing wrong with that, everyone goes through it).

As far as judging people, look at the rest of these forums. I would say that I judge people far, far, less than 95% of the other posters. I am 50 years old and simply feel that I might have something to offer. I care not if people chose not to listen to me. I am not here to be arrogant or aloof, I truly enjoy helping people (ask anyone who has ever been on a squad with me).

I will offer this one piece of advice for you, something that took me a long time to learn in life. Making assumptions is one of the quickest ways to get into trouble.

Please consider this human behavior ‘cycle’. There are 4 elements in any situation, 2 of them can be seen (external), 2 of them can not be seen (internal). The 4 elements are;
Situation -> Response -> Thoughts -> Motivation

Now think about any kind of scene with yourself and another person. You see their response to the scene or situation. You assume what the other person’s thoughts and motivations are. Depending on how well you know them, you might guess correctly and everything works out ok.
But consider how often we are all wrong at this guessing game (especially with internet relationships). It is not an exaggeration to say that wars have been started over when countries make assumptions about other countries. Think how many times friendships, marriages, business relationships have been broken up due to making theses kinds of assumptions.

Rather than make assumptions, it is always better to simply communicate and ask direct questions like, ‘what are your thinking’ and ‘why do you feel this way’.

Yes i remeber your above post seriously, believe me ^-^
Anyway i think everyone is allowed to have bad habits once in a while
Just please dont mistake me for some crazy pirate flag revolutionary "no assumptions here" or that i like to criticise just for the sake of it.
Anyways it's always good to listen to diferent opinions and i try to respect other persons and their points of view and above all i value yours as if they were made by someone with a good share of knowledge and experience. :flowers:

[404 Not Found]

And just to set the record on the last election numbers...

George W. Bush became the first candidate since his father, GW Bush, to receive a majority of the popular vote. It also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach the majority of the popular vote. (Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%).

42.45% of the U.S. population voted in the 2004 election, this was a record turnout, the highest since 1968 election.

Hey...it was all hinged on Ohio in the end, the State with the highest unemployment and job loss index at that time. Imagine what may have been if Nader didn't screw things up by running when he knew damn well he had no chance. I like the Libertarians and Green Party points of view, but realistically....what a waste.

Not that I think Kerry would have done anything better or even got anything done with a majority Rep. Congress/Senate.

The Democrats should not have chosen Kerry until the actual Democratic Convention, yet they did so weeks prior? why? They also should never have allowed Theresea Heinz to speak...that was like a bullet in your foot! I personally cannot stand Bush, yet Kerry was a bad choice to IMHO.

I would have rather had Dean as the Democratic Canidate. yet when the guy got excited about running in this campaign, he gets screwed by his own party & the press for being enthusiastic. I found nothing wrong with the infamous scream he did.

It's nothing like how Muskee was treated when they made him cry and was captured on TV and pictures. This back in the day of Nixon was enough to screw up any chance in politics. Man I am showing my age on that note.

The Howard Dean debacle was nothing like that and yet they tried to compare the two.

The Democrats still have nobody decent to run in the next election & my bet is, if McCain runs, the Dem's lose again. Yet the Rep's are not all that fond of him either. So who are the Dem.'s going to run? Kerry? Hillary? Lieberman? They do not have any decent canidates to start the run at this point and what's scary is the Rep.'s have a few.

Ephemeral, as I mentioned earlier, I do not think this will have any impact on anything or anyone, yet I always enjoy a good heated discussion. That's what a forum holds and being this is a general Discussion forum...I am bored at work....what the hell.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I guess I don't see 'degrees' in moral issues like lying or stealing. My opinion is that a person is either a liar or thief or not.

The individual act of lying isn't so much the issue here for most people--as it's been stated, everyone knows that politicians lie. No one's happy with it, but at this point, no one seems really willing to do anything about it.

The problem with not having any "degrees" in these moral issues is that there certainly are varying shades of grey within each problem. For instance, yes, Clinton was a liar. But his lies hurt (at most) his family and close relations. Was I affected directly by Bill Clinton's cigar antics with a fat chick? No. Not even remotely.

Bush is a liar. His lies have cost the lives of more than 2000 Americans and a much larger number of Iraqi citizens (not to mention other coalition/innocents). War isn't pretty, you're kidding yourself if you think it's totally surgical and clean. However, lying to an entire nation in order to start a war is pretty much inexcusable. Was I affected directly by George W. Bush's lies? Yes. I have family friends who have died because of it. I am not alone.

Both men are liars. There's no doubt in that. But 99 times out of 100 I'd pick the guy who hurt the least amount of people over the guy who hurt the most (I can safely say no one died because of Clinton's mistake). I'd wait for a time where I could afford to look at things in such stark contrast as you do, but I'd be waiting an awfully long time.

[T3l Ca7]

The immediate damage done by Bush might not be that great, but have you looked at the long run?

To me, George W. Bush is increasing the pressure in a gas house, a full fledged war is only one spark away. Neither is that a bad thing: as a consequnce of the war in this sceptic age, religion might be banned as radical solution and it will lead to longer harmony.

Have you ever wondered why terrorist chose to attack right after George W. Bush step into the White House (hint: the agreesive policies persued by his dad).

What? you don't think war would ever break out? Think again, last world war was only 2/3 century away.

[Theif of Time]

Hey...it was all hinged on Ohio in the end, the State with the highest unemployment and job loss index at that time. Imagine what may have been if Nader didn't screw things up by running when he knew damn well he had no chance. I like the Libertarians and Green Party points of view, but realistically....what a waste.

Thats what I like about our system (MMP, Multi-member proportional)
Small parties actually have some semblance of a chance of being represented in government, and aren't just a vote-sink (Unless they get under 5% of the vote)
But it seems to me that in America, if you vote for someone who doesn't win, your vote is wasted, and you have virtually no influence over the way the government is set up.