|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 2, 2008 12:46:45 GMT -8
Watching all of the election coverage lately has been a little bit amusing. CNN, Fox, all these news networks... they bring in a panel of "experts", usually one or two from each side of the aisle. I've begun to wonder how often these people actually say what they think.
So, Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant. Personally, I agree with those who say we shouldn't make a big fuss over that. However, I am a little puzzled by the behavior of conservatives out there. If this had been, say, Obama or Biden's teenage daughter, I have absolutely no doubt that the right would be offering their usual cries of moral outrage: "How can we permit a man who can't take care of his own daughter take care of our country?" Yet because it is Sarah Palin, a conservative, the religious right is changing their tune. "Everybody makes mistakes, we should all support her. What a brave family. Huzzah for the Palins!" Don't get me wrong, I think that a position of support is considerably more admirable than the alternative. However, I sincerely doubt that the reaction would be the same if this thing were taking place on the other side of the aisle.
Even worse are some of these supposedly open-minded liberals, now using this as an excuse to denounce Sarah Palin for her "moral failures" as a parent. Come on, really?
It doesn't just apply to this. Everything in the election has been going this way. When Palin was tapped as McCain's VP, most of the conservatives immediately proclaimed it to be "a brilliant move". Most of the liberals called it a laughable pick that was very poorly planned, "obviously just a lame attempt to steal Obama's thunder." I don't buy it. How many liberals were secretly thinking, "Dammit, that McCain made a good pick"? How many conservatives were cheering while thinking to themselves, "Agh, that's going to hurt him. He should have gone with Romney or Lieberman"?
How much does it take for one side to concede that the other has done something positive, or at least acceptable? I'm getting a little weary of hearing the same hyperbole from both camps, where everything every candidate does is "offensive" or "terrible" or "awful" or "completely wrong in every way". What do you guys think?
Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 2, 2008 13:29:22 GMT -8
I think that we should get 7-8 people who - three from each party, a couple of independents - who want to be President in a room together in front of television cameras, have them all go on TV every day for 15 days and have them all debate with each other about policy and issues and everything that they want to do to make the country - one day for the environment, one day for energy, one day for national security etc etc. Any reference to sexual scandals, familial improprieties, skeletons in the closet, shoud be banned. Then, at the end of the 15 days, everyone in the USA votes for who they want to be President, and the person with the most votes wins. Easier, fairer, and more importantly it concentrate on POLITICS, not scandal.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 2, 2008 13:37:13 GMT -8
I think that we should get 7-8 people who - three from each party, a couple of independents - who want to be President in a room together in front of television cameras, have them all go on TV every day for 15 days and have them all debate with each other about policy and issues and everything that they want to do to make the country - one day for the environment, one day for energy, one day for national security etc etc. Any reference to sexual scandals, familial improprieties, skeletons in the closet, shoud be banned. Then, at the end of the 15 days, everyone in the USA votes for who they want to be President, and the person with the most votes wins. Easier, fairer, and more importantly it concentrate on POLITICS, not scandal. Ah yes... but what about the precious ratings? Foreign policy discussion? People change the channel. Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant! Quick, everyone into the living room! Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 2, 2008 13:47:58 GMT -8
I have the answer (I think): when people say "the right" and "the left", they don't actually mean the 80% of voters who end up voting conservative or liberal. They mean, even though they don't realize it, the small but LOUD group of people who do consistently think on behalf of the other, much larger crowd. For example, this laughable business that Sarah Palin is a brilliant choice for VP. What I refer to as laughable is the discourse itself. Some people consciously know and say that she will draw in X and Y to the voting booth, but do they also vote for her because she will draw X and Y? To me, that's akin to a product's marketing, but I don't understand how that would work either. "Company A made a fabulous choice of using celebrity what's-her-name in their ad campaign, because she will draw in the airhead youth who will only buy this product because they identify with her. I'm an airhead youth who wants to fit in. I will buy this product" or "Wait, I'm not an airhead youth and I barely know who she is. Should I buy this product? But I don't know anything about it other than to whom it will appeal. What do I do?" Really?
What I'm saying is, is there any substance to political discourse if most of it consists of analyzing the repercussions of a political campaign's decisions, which mostly comprise of superficial efforts to make nice with the voters? What's worse, many people attribute this dilution of ideas as the candidates' own, but can you really blame them? Their advisers make it clear that the most important thing is to stay on message. In a country of about 300 million people, with who knows how many news outlets and political commentators, their job is to keep things as simple as possible to avoid any kind of misrepresentation later on. People have this annoying habit of oversimplifying complex situations, and it is the same with complex statements and, dare I say, even complex sentences.
And what's even worse is when "news" becomes "news". Remember a while back when Obama wasn't black enough? Who the hell said that? I saw it all over the news and everyone chipped in with their two cents, but not once have I seen why it was an issue to begin with. It's a vicious cycle where the propaganda networks (I say that to include shitty blogs like dailykos and huffingtonpost as well as their right-wing counterparts), by their actions, become part of the news and alter people's perceptions of a candidate. That's the same reason, I believe, everyone is convinced they are out to get their candidate. Everyone was against Hillary because she was a woman and her questions were harder and she was painted in a negative light. Everyone has it for Ron Paul, he didn't get any coverage from major news networks (except he did, specially his landmark fundraising campaign) because they don't want you to know the truth. And, Brendan, you'll be shocked to find out that while, yes, people in other countries are genuinely excited for Barack Obama, they are also convinced America is too Christian and white to vote for a black guy they perceive as a muslim terrorist. But back to the trend, now that Obama has cemented his status as a likable guy, it is a known "truth" that McCain gets little news coverage and Obama gets a free pass by the press. How is that known truth any different that the known truth of Hillary supporters who believe there was major fraud involved in getting Obama elected? And how are people forgetting the "Obama is a muslim named Hussein who isn't black enough and doesn't love America's lapel pins"? That's not the kind of coverage any candidate wants.
And that's what vicious about it. Obama is the news networks' sweetheart because he survived the news networks' constant attacks on his character. That's crazy! It's like high school. First they make fun of him and test his resilience, then he's in. And don't even get me started on O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity and the like. They live in a world of their own, which only goes to prove people need far more validation than they need information.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 2, 2008 13:52:43 GMT -8
I know it's sort of cliched, but I strongly recommend The Candidate. Before you go all "Robert Redford, that handsome liberal scum" in here, trust me, it's a brilliant film about politics. You should see if you have the time.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 2, 2008 13:55:04 GMT -8
Nicely put, Hook.
I'll have to check out "The Candidate". I've seen a good chunk of Redford's filmography, but I've never seen that one.
Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Sept 2, 2008 14:14:54 GMT -8
I'll have to check out "The Candidate". I've seen a good chunk of Redford's filmography, but I've never seen that one. Blasphemy! And you call yourself a movie buff? Tsk tsk.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 2, 2008 16:51:13 GMT -8
I'll have to check out "The Candidate". I've seen a good chunk of Redford's filmography, but I've never seen that one. Blasphemy! And you call yourself a movie buff? Tsk tsk. To make matters even worse, I actually have seen "Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds 3-D!" I'm not sure that I'll ever recover completely. Back at ya later
|
|
sdtom
Conductor
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by sdtom on Sept 2, 2008 18:13:18 GMT -8
Jon what you say is logical. Our country doesn't operate that way. Sarah is just a female Cheney.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 2, 2008 18:37:56 GMT -8
So, Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant. Personally, I agree with those who say we shouldn't make a big fuss over that. My boss brought this up today. He kind of went on a small anti-Parlin rant, about the religious hyprocrisy due to the teenage pregnancy thing and the patriotic hypocrisy due to her membership in a group that wanted Alaska to cede from the Union (I'm not sure where he read that at). Myself, I don't think it's a big deal. The children will make their own decisions. Some smoke pot (see Mr. Gore), some get pregnant, some get drunk (see Mr or Ms. Bush)... The worrisome thing about the Palin situation is that the two teenagers will be married. I hope it's not a forced marriage. She can't teach absistence to her own daugther, so how can she teach it to the nation? ;D Since when did liberals advocate morality... Secretely, I was thinking that he picked her because she was a woman, a conservative women. Honestly, I think he wanted to pick someone else, but he realized that his choice needed to please the right-wing of his party. I actually would have liked to have seem him pick Lieberman. When has a candidate ever picked someone from the opposite ailse? Yeah, I got bored with Joe-mentum's constant doxolgies back in the 2000 election, but if he would have ran with Mc Cain... that would have shown an ability to unite the two parties in a way that Obama could only dream of. It would have been experience that is experience... In a way, I think Mc Cain's pick was better than Obama's. Biden, I like him but I think it was too safe of a pick. I think Obama should have picked Hillary. Mc Cain, it's hard to gauge him. He seems to be rearing towards the right. I still have to research his philosophy on tax-cuts. Obama, he seems to making some big mistakes/proposals, like his new "stimulus" proposal. He's veering to far to the left. Anyway, with all the promises being made (see the Energy debate), it's clear that we aren't going to be able to afford additional tax-cuts, along with the continued military spending in Iraq and elsewhere, not to mention the health-care promises, and Social-Security reform. For once, I would like to hear Democrats say and make proposals, which say they are all for reigning-in spending and balancing budgets (Balancing budgets use to be a Democratic hallmark). Conversely, I would like to hear Republican's say that we can't afford more tax cuts, and that the government should play a role in securing Social Security, Healthcare, and enviromental reforms.... Just some random thoughts, CG
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Sept 2, 2008 22:20:42 GMT -8
Sarah is just a female Cheney. Now that sounds like an Obama supporter's bumper-sticker if I ever heard one. Care to explain that one instead of just throwing out odd statements with no context? That's as bad as me just randomly posting, 'Obama is just a black Jimmy Carter' and leaving it at that. Why is it worrisome that the couple is taking responsibility for their actions and are seeking to create a stable home for their child? When you make dumb decisions in life, it often forces you to grow up faster than you'd like, but the key is to dig in and grow up. Running away from it would only make it worse. As for VP, Lieberman would have been a disaster...that move wouldn't have gained McCain enough democrats to counter-balance the exodus of conservatives. I'm guessing Lieberman could still land himself a seat in McCain's cabinet if he's elected though. And Carlton, explain to me in a nutshell why Social Security is a problem. I'm interested to hear your take on it (and was it really such a good idea in the first place? ) -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 3, 2008 14:39:59 GMT -8
Huh:
Regardless of its politics, that's what I love about the opening and closing scenes of Fahrenheit 9/11. Everything you see on TV is a performance. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 3, 2008 16:43:47 GMT -8
Why is it worrisome that the couple is taking responsibility for their actions and are seeking to create a stable home for their child? When you make dumb decisions in life, it often forces you to grow up faster than you'd like, but the key is to dig in and grow up. Running away from it would only make it worse. It's worrisome because the marriage seems to be a little forced. "Hey, you got a kid. Get married, now!" Anyway, I just don't think marriage is something that should be rushed into to atone for a (sexual) mistake. Personally, I view marriage as a big step, and while divorces aren't illegal, I'd hate to see one moral mistake followed by another one. Well, I hope things aren't as they seem in Alaska.... It appears to be a problem because everyone says that, for our generation, the system will not be able to fund itself, unless some changes are made. I'm going to give President Bush (the younger one ) some credit here because Social Security reform was part of his legislative agenda; however, I think it failed because of the "privatization" thing. Dubya came a long way from his 2000 campaign ramblings (attacking Democrats because they thought "Social Security was some kind of federal program"). From this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ch-uNdxPVY (it's the only version I could find.) To that: www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/Wow, I learned a few more things. "For one-third of Americans over 65, Social Security benefits constitute 90% of their total income." So, do I think it was a good idea. Sure, I do. I must say, it's been awhile since I've read up on FDR and his New Deal legislation. Awhile ago, I was looking for a good FDR book to read, but, since there were so many books out there, I just skipped FDR and I just read about the Truman administration. I really have to read more about the history of Social Security. If I find a good book, I'll pass it along. Even without knowing the history, I really don't see how I would be able to view the Social Security program as a bad or unnecessary program. They didn't have IRA's back then (The government still plays a vital role with IRA's.) Even with IRA's, what if one doesn't have $4,000 (or $5,000) per year, or any disposable income, to put into an IRA account? Also, the interest accrued in Ira's are not FDIC insured. So, what about pensions? Company pensions aren't really guaranteed. Then, state pension plans, like they one in New Jersey, are in a total mess. Are pension burdens financially realistic for a company or for a state? I don't have an answer for that. However, Social Security seems like a good retirement plan. Folks, and their employers both pay SS taxes, and they reap the benefits when they get older. Without Social Security, how are the elderly going to live once they are unable to work? How will disabled people acquire a sustenance? If someone has Down's syndrome, how will there providers be able to provide for them? Social Security enables a lot of folks who are unable to provide for themselves with a way to live. So, Brendan, my take is that Social Security is a successful government program. I have no qualms with paying taxes to help the elderly, the disabled, and even myself forty years from now. Oh, and here's a recent article about the candidates positions on Social Security. www.baltimoresun.com/business/investing/bal-bz.ml.ambrose31aug31,0,2027303.column?page=1 Any thoughts? -CG
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 3, 2008 17:42:58 GMT -8
Interesting article. The social security situation is indeed concerning. I like the idea of raising the age to 70, if that would help things as considerably as the article suggests. Obama's "donut hole" idea is interesting, too.
The problem that everyone seems to be ignoring that really concerns me is the national debt. That's a hole that we really need to start digging ourselves out of pretty quickly, or there's going to be a great big mess for our children/grandchildren to clean up. Heck, it's a big mess now.
I'm hardly an expert on our national budget, and I suppose I could be wrong... but I get the sense that we're simply not going to be able to cut taxes if we want to preserve our country's future. It seems that we're nervously skipping over our country's most obvious and challenging problems; perhaps in the hope that we will never actually be forced to deal with them.
Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Sept 3, 2008 23:42:32 GMT -8
I'm hardly an expert on our national budget, and I suppose I could be wrong... but I get the sense that we're simply not going to be able to cut taxes if we want to preserve our country's future. Raising taxes to supposedly pay off this country's debt is a sure-fire way to send this country straight down the economic toilet. Yeah, that's exactly what we the people need to help fuel our economy... more regulation, more taxation, more financial burdening. Besides, when has our government ever taxed us more and actually spent our money precisely the way we were promised? This is where budgeting responsibility comes into play and is something that Washington desperately needs to get a grip on. We use them as average citizens and as families... at the very least, our own government can start learning some responsibility too by doing the same. This is where leaders like our current president have dropped the ball and where men like Obama would only aggrivate things. One very critical issue that needs to be addressed by Washington are the voluminous, unnecessary programs they have created. It's about time they slashed the unnecessary ones... all ten billion of them. Just as new, extraneous laws are pointless and counterproductive, so too are all these idiotically extraneous government programs. Cutting taxes to get money back in the hands of the people and into our economy as well as Washington curbing its spending via proper budgeting, paying back the national debt in the process, are the surest ways to get this country back track for being closer and closer to becoming debt free. In the end, what do I know? Every word of what I just said is probably in some way ignorant of basic political and governmental facts. Meh... regardless of what idiot politicians do to screw me, I prefer to just live my life. It is what it is and I've got far too much to be thankful for (especially now-a-days) to be bent out of shape over politics.
|
|