The problem is not the media. The American people are the problem. The corporate media cares about the bottom line. If people didn't want such nonsense and didn't support the crap, then the media would be more substantive.

It's not the media's fault. It's the fault of the common American voter. I'd excuse the simplistic stuff if this were the pre-internet era, but now there is no excuse. Voters will often use the information superhighway as an echo chamber for their own beliefs.

Much like the ghettoization of interracial lovemaking in the adult film industry, the American media industry is shaped by the masses.

A journalist's twin points of references should be the real and the important.


Apparently Der Spiegel hasn't heard, we had all the journalists rounded up and lobotomized to become 'personalities' years ago.

The author makes many valid points but wantonly applies the same biases that he's decrying when discussing his preferred candidate.

Examples:
"Clinton claimed to recall hearing sniper fire as her plane landed in Bosnia."...
vs
"Even the eccentric pastor from Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, is not worth the fuss."

The author claims that a candidate's lies are no more important than some third-party opinions.

That's ridiculous.

If Ron Paul told me he missed having shrapnel scars by half an inch during his second Viet-Nam tour, I would be damned impressed. If the press learned (and reported!) that he never served in Viet Nam, I would withdraw my support immediately. (Ron Paul does not lie, even when it hurts his campaign. You should remember that for later. There will be a quiz, kinda.)

Suicidal Writer: The problem is not the media. The American people are the problem. The corporate media cares about the bottom line. If people didn't want such nonsense and didn't support the crap, then the media would be more substantive.

It's not the media's fault. It's the fault of the common American voter. I'd excuse the simplistic stuff if this were the pre-internet era, but now there is no excuse. Voters will often use the information superhighway as an echo chamber for their own beliefs.

Much like the ghettoization of interracial lovemaking in the adult film industry, the American media industry is shaped by the masses.

You can't place all of the blame on the people.

The majority of the problem originates with the corporations behind the media. Small-town, and independent, publications don't pull this crap. You still get some misinformation, but it's just because people make mistakes or because an individual contributor is biased (v the whole shebang being biased).

Suicidal Writer: The problem is not the media. The American people are the problem

Is it? I'm not so sure. The media gives people what they think they want, but no one is paying much attention to it.

Lapel pins? Who talks about that outside the media? At work, when we talk politics, it's about health care, the housing market, the economy...

Look at the flack ABC took over the debate they moderated. Everyone I know thought it was a waste of time.

I could be wrong, but that's been my experience.

Giblet:
The majority of the problem originates with the corporations behind the media. Small-town, and independent, publications don't pull this crap. You still get some misinformation, but it's just because people make mistakes or because an individual contributor is biased (v the whole shebang being biased).

I use to think this until I came across this historical study. It still blows my mind that things are actually somewhat improved now. Objectivity, at least complete objectivity, is not possible but the corporations tend to ride the line better than small town presses ever did. The need to appeal to a wider base caused it.

Small town and independent presses can get away with more because they are not seen as relative on a grand scale. Anyone complaining about what the Rural Alabama Herald is saying won't gain much traction because their readership would be far and away unique from the readership of papers who attempt objectivity (The NYtimes pretty much started the whole notion of objectivity.)

I couldn't imagine Fox News Corp. pulling such things as small presses once got away with. They need advertising dollars and corporations tend to shy away from most forms of controversy. It's about money these days, whereas it used to be more about ideology, money too, but more or less ideology.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Look at the flack ABC took over the debate they moderated. Everyone I know thought it was a waste of time.

I could be wrong, but that's been my experience.

A little bit of righteous indignation regarding the media is actually good for ratings, not bad. People like to feel like they have their priorities in order, and sensationalistic reporting plays to that just as easily as it plays to those who aren't really paying attention.

And even if you do stop watching, you aren't the kind of guy who buys the stuff they show on the commercials, anyways.

Suicidal Writer: Much like the ghettoization of interracial lovemaking in the adult film industry, the American media industry is shaped by the masses.

I'm not sure what this means, but it could be the greatest analogy ever.

Suicidal Writer: The problem is not the media. The American people are the problem.

Lollerskates. The problem is the corporatization of our media.

The same guys that sit on the boards of the infotainment corporations sit on the boards of other megacorporations. They have a vested financial interest in distracting attention away from what the corporate and political elite are doing to us.

It's not the fault of the public. Look at the ratings of the Daily Show. People are hungry for real news and they'll go to a comedy channel to feel like they are getting it it.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Is it? I'm not so sure. The media gives people what they think they want, but no one is paying much attention to it.

Kinda...

The mega-corps behind the media actually want the people to ignore them. This is the very heart of the principles that make propaganda -- which is simply a tool to manipulate the masses -- work so well.

The average person is Archie and Edith Bunker... When they hear something within the continuous drone of noise that we endure that appeals to their id (for lack of a better term), it sticks, and very subtly molds their opinions about other things.

This is what Karl Rove mastered; the knack for repeating absolute BS in a way that appeals to Archie and Edith. That's why you STILL have so many Americans spewing crap about how Saddam flew anthrax nukes into the World Trade Center.

Karl learned these tricks from MSM and Madison Ave marketing practices.

Clinton does the same crap, but gets flustered when someone calls her on it. Bush would ignore the facts people shouted at him and keep on spewing the same total BS. It works for Bush because he does it according to the teachings of such advertising geniuses as Hermann Goering and others.

Suicidal Writer: I use to think this until I came across this historical study. It still blows my mind that things are actually somewhat improved now. Objectivity, at least complete objectivity, is not possible but the corporations tend to ride the line better than small town presses ever did. The need to appeal to a wider base caused it.

Interesting! Thx.

It's all changing now, thanks to teh intertubes.

I bet Turner wishes it would go away...

The problem is some of these stories have Merit. Hillary Clinton jazzed up her Resume (Ready on Day 1, tough, and tested) by saying she dodged sniper fire. And she was a liar, liar , pants suit on fire. She pissed off current and former soldiers and sailors involved in the incident and well... she made Sinbad a credible witness. That incident is a snap shot of not only how Hillary will handle a crisis but of her character. Obama with the flag pin matters more now that he is putting it back on again then it did then. Because now it shows obama desperate to get the people he called bitter, clinging to god and guns. The McCain Mistress story had a good element in it (McCain is as in the pocket of special interest as anyone)but some one thought it needed sexing up (it didn't).

So sometimes these stories blow (like the McCain one, and B-Rock flagpin 1.0) but other times they are very good parts of vettng and seeing how a leader would work (Hillary)

/also did not read the article
//do not need to, because these things do really matter

Now reading the article

The German paper doesn't get why Revrend Wright is important.

B-Rock was all about "transcending Race" and "transcending partisanship" and "Not being the same old Democrat" while he had a preacher who said the government invented aids and crack to screw over black people, was buddy buddy with a former 60s terrorist, and has a wife who thinks America has just gotten worse in her lifetime (which by any objective standard is full of it.) And a major campaign contributor in addition to going to jail for corruption issues is also tied in with terrorists (and he has other friends who are as well).In short these things all paint the picture of Obama as the same old same old far left big city democrat.So thats important because it shows B-rock isn't being honest about the central theme of his campaign. That is -yes- Important

Suicidal Writer: The problem is not the media. The American people are the problem. The corporate media cares about the bottom line. If people didn't want such nonsense and didn't support the crap, then the media would be more substantive.

see you're under the assumption that the advertisers give a big hoot about ratings. If I'm the ceo of a huge corporation and the news programs always investigate my competitors instead of me or always take my positions in discussions then my money is well spent.
Look at who sponsors the news. Foreign banks,Wall st.Big Pharma,Big Oil,Insurance companies etc...

peek behind the curtain people. they're in this together. It's all bizness to them.

have you noticed the MSM covering the Pentagon sockpuppet program?
they were involved in illegal activity ,they know it and they've been caught. it's illegal for the DoD to mislead America with propaganda.

karasoth: That is -yes- Important

blah blah Wright blah blah Wright blah blah Wright, so Obama must agree with him and be a total phony and a liar and a communist and Ted Kennedy.

Obama wants to stop influence peddling in Government. THAT is the central theme in his campaign. How does this weigh in on that? It does not.

And considering that McCain openly and proudly welcomes all kinds of religious nuts endorsing him (while randomly blasting the ones that cross some sort of arbitrary line) and who flipflops on basic issues like torture and domestic spying. Meanwhile Hillary, well, is a god damned liar, I'll stick with "B-Rock" and his crazy pastor, who, though a cock, is not running in this election.

Suicidal Writer: Much like the ghettoization of interracial lovemaking in the adult film industry, the American media industry is shaped by the masses.

Guh?

ThatGuyGreg:
Guh?

People's biases and preferences shape their habits and the providers are fearful of opposing the masses.

POAC: The same guys that sit on the boards of the infotainment corporations sit on the boards of other megacorporations. They have a vested financial interest in distracting attention away from what the corporate and political elite are doing to us.

Nonsense. How do you make the connection? How does the guy sitting on the board tell the news director or editor to distract the public? They hire a publisher and tell him he has to distract the public and that publishers tells the editor that the board said they have to distract the public or no job?

They don't. Fact is they don't care unless profits go down. That's it. There is no vast corporate conspiracy.

PC LOAD LETTER

No its not.

Listen to the media reports about Obama. its all about how he is just so gosh darned different and so unifying. (Unity and hope.. you know things he talks about in every speech.)

so no your wrong about what Obama's central theme is.

and it was about More then just Wright. We have Obama close friends with folks who are apologists to terrorists and who shill at universities on how suicide bombing is justified.

and my point is that there is one of these stories on McCain about how he isn't what he says he is but the media refuses to do it

karasoth: B-Rock was all about "transcending Race" and "transcending partisanship" and "Not being the same old Democrat" while he had a preacher who said the government invented aids and crack to screw over black people, was buddy buddy with a former 60s terrorist, and has a wife who thinks America has just gotten worse in her lifetime (which by any objective standard is full of it.) And a major campaign contributor in addition to going to jail for corruption issues is also tied in with terrorists (and he has other friends who are as well).In short these things all paint the picture of Obama as the same old same old far left big city democrat.So thats important because it shows B-rock isn't being honest about the central theme of his campaign. That is -yes- Important

Far left? Uh...... He's a Centrist.

And should your character be judged according to your preacher's? Your grocer's? How about that pedophile you had that 'experimental' locker room fling with with in High School?

That's retard-think and total BS on your part.

You don't like him because he's Black. At least have the balls to just say so. There's a degree of honor in that, at least. The only thing worse than a bigoted asswipe is a bigoted asswipe who's too much of a coward to speak his own mind.

Giblet: he does it according to the teachings of such advertising geniuses as Hermann Goering and others.

This is like a half Godwin since Goering was 2IC.

Giblet

You missed the part where I said paint a picture.

He said people who are into god and guns are bitter about their place in the world.
His wife says she's only been proud of her country now that her husband has been running for President.
His wife says America has gotten worse over her life time.
His reverend and spiritual adviser (who he says he joined over his social justice and political ministries) The same Reverend who calls the state of Israel phoney, says the government invented aids and crack to destroy black people, and a host of other nuttiness.
His good buddy who is close to terrorists, a real estate crook, and allegedly tied to drugs.
His other good buddy who introduced him to the political elite in his old Chicago State Senate district who used to be a terrorist
his other two buddies who are terrorist apologist and who have raised money for suspected terrorist fronts.
The fact whenever a far left and politically embarrassing statement comes out of any of his campaigns he blames a staffer even though one of the times it was in his own handwriting.
He was on the board of Directors before he was a state senator of a legal organization thats more to the left then the ACLU for the Chicago area (which means he helped to decide their cases).

These events don't jive with who the man says he is on the Presidential campaign trail.

karasoth: and it was about More then just Wright. We have Obama close friends with folks who are apologists to terrorists and who shill at universities on how suicide bombing is justified.

If you didn't live in a five-star hotel where foreign corporate pawns have never blown up your wife and kids by mistake, your opinions would probably lean toward the suicide bombers too.

Read the 9/11 Commission report and the CIA's own terrorism reports. Are they apologists? Or, are they just telling you what you don't like to hear; that your Glorious Free America has does some seriously nasty things to other people who don't have Lockheed and Grumman on their six.

I know what you'll likely say... "They should just sit back and soak up the sparkling 500 pound rays of freedom we rain down on them from 40,000 feet. And they should have the decency, if they're so angry, to attack us with the 3-billion-dollar aircraft they don't have and can't get."

Purely reactionary thinking like that can never stop terrorism. You can't stop a bee swarm by whacking their hive with a stick. If you want it to stop, you have to eliminate the cause. The cause, according to every expert the US has, is American foreign policies. Don't whine and mewl a bunch of retarded freeper-speak about it because that will just get good people killed; vote for someone who agrees with the experts. The choices are Ron Paul (best) or Obama (yawn).

karasoth: These events don't jive with who the man says he is on the Presidential campaign trail.

Well he's doing a hell of a job fooling all of his college educated supporters as opposed to Hillary's "hard working white American" base.

Personally I'm not looking for the Third Way of the 90's, I would be happy with some genuine liberal politics. I believe we need a decade to reverse the tragic mistakes of the last administration.

liberalish

and whats worse about it for me is Obama has Pro Iraq war advisors, anti war on Iraq advisors, says he is for withdrawl in the war, but when asked further he would keep 60-80K troops in the region...possibly even in Iraq

which of those things will President Obama be (if he wins)? God only knows.

slobarnuts: Giblet: he does it according to the teachings of such advertising geniuses as Hermann Goering and others.

This is like a half Godwin since Goering was 2IC.

Yeah, but Goering managed the Reich's propaganda machinery from the beginning. He was brilliant at this and the ad team he formed ultimately succeeded in getting very good people to do very bad things.

It's Goering's only real claim to fame.

karasoth: liberalish

and whats worse about it for me is Obama has Pro Iraq war advisors, anti war on Iraq advisors, says he is for withdrawl in the war, but when asked further he would keep 60-80K troops in the region...possibly even in Iraq

which of those things will President Obama be (if he wins)? God only knows.

I believe (completely) that the only candidate who will withdraw troops from Iraq is Ron Paul.

As a hobby student of battle strategy, we HAVE to maintain a strong presence in Iraq so that, when oil supplies get interrupted, the US military will still have access to petroleum. Not to steal...but to guarantee the ability to trade for it.

That is why we invaded Iraq.

You can believe whatever you like about why we invaded Iraq, There are many fables to choose from. But the reason above is the true one and the only logical one, and the one that no politician in their right mind would tell you (think panic).

Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Paul ALL know this, but only Paul is pushing for a withdrawal anyway, so that we can focus the funds on independence.

Clinton has voted pro-Iraq-War at every opportunity. So has McCain. Obama (eventually) and Paul always vote against it.

I think Paul's plan is best. Sure, it'll hurt. A lot. But the long-term advantages make it a no-brainer.

karasoth: liberalish

and whats worse about it for me is Obama has Pro Iraq war advisors, anti war on Iraq advisors, says he is for withdrawl in the war, but when asked further he would keep 60-80K troops in the region...possibly even in Iraq

which of those things will President Obama be (if he wins)? God only knows.

Pro and anti? seems like a good way to hear all the arguments and make a decision.

He has repeatedly said he would not build permanent bases, only leaving troops, if necessary, to prevent AQI from establishing bases there. This I can agree with. Being against empire building, yet for a national security policy that prevents establishment of a stronghold by a major enemy is not an irrational position.

Suicidal Writer: The problem is not the media. The American people are the problem.

historically, when the president or presidential candidates hold town hall question and answer sessions with citizens (not the ones where they pre-approve the audience, but real ones), the citizens don't ask about this stupid shiat, they ask about health care, and education, and war, and other real issues.

the media, on the other hand, is always primarily concerned with politics as if it were a sport. they care about politics, not policy.

Giblet:

Ron Paul's ideas on closing military bases overseas and the ending the Iraq war are the only things I agree with. I would not attempt to become isolationist, however, we still need to keep up a heavy worldwide pursuit of terrorist groups. We do not need to attack or occupy a country.

burndtdan: they ask about health care, and education, and war, and other real issues.



This involves selection though. The ones likely to show up are the one's that are most concerned. Plus there is also the heritage factor. I didn't learn until a few years ago that town hall meetings are still pretty common in New England, even amongst non-political junkies. It's not like that here (Cincinnati)

burndtdan: the media, on the other hand, is always primarily concerned with politics as if it were a sport. they care about politics, not policy.

And they freely admit it. I think MSNBC is the worst for this. Chris Matthews, Joe Scarbourgh, Pat Buchannon, all these guys biatch about is politics BS. I never hear real conversations about anything from them anymore.

/Best political team on Fark.

liberalish: Pro and anti? seems like a good way to hear all the arguments and make a decision.

He has repeatedly said he would not build permanent bases, only leaving troops, if necessary, to prevent AQI from establishing bases there. This I can agree with. Being against empire building, yet for a national security policy that prevents establishment of a stronghold by a major enemy is not an irrational position.

Yes, except that it doesn't fix the cause of terrorism (against the US). The cause is our interventionism in countries too poor and "uncivilized" to accept our way of doing things (cheating them and invading them) in exchange for a monetary or military reach-around.

Ron Paul is 100% correct: The only "cure" for anti-US terrorism is to stop smacking the beehive with the stick. No, that doesn't solve terrorism against our allies, but we can't fix that anyway... Why spend our lives and fortunes trying to do what only our allies can do for themselves?

This is not news...... bread and circuses have been used for thousands of years to distract people from reality.

"You can't handle the truth!"

Suicidal Writer: This involves selection though. The ones likely to show up are the one's that are most concerned.

you say that like it's some type of bad thing. the whole point is that the people who are the most concerned are the ones that are paying attention, which are the ones that watch the media, who is telling them that they want to hear something else.

Giblet: Yes, except that it doesn't fix the cause of terrorism (against the US). The cause is our interventionism in countries too poor and "uncivilized" to accept our way of doing things (cheating them and invading them) in exchange for a monetary or military reach-around.

Ron Paul is 100% correct: The only "cure" for anti-US terrorism is to stop smacking the beehive with the stick. No, that doesn't solve terrorism against our allies, but we can't fix that anyway... Why spend our lives and fortunes trying to do what only our allies can do for themselves?

Hey, I couldn't agree more. RP has some very good ideas about foreign policy, but I almost totally disagree with him on domestic issues.

liberalish: Giblet:

Ron Paul's ideas on closing military bases overseas and the ending the Iraq war are the only things I agree with. I would not attempt to become isolationist, however, we still need to keep up a heavy worldwide pursuit of terrorist groups. We do not need to attack or occupy a country.

Ron Paul's plan is the opposite of isolationism.

We're "pursuing" terrorism now. For every "terrorist" we eliminate, fifty more are created as a direct result of our pursuit.

Would you be more likely to exhibit violence toward:

A) The guy who set up a tent in your back yard and then killed your wife and kids while attacking your next-door neighbor?

or

B) The guy that gave you 10%-off on a kick-ass laptop, then offered to build your dream garage for free if you bought the materials from him?

Option A is what we're already doing, and what you propose that we continue doing. Ron Paul is saying that Plan B is our best foreign policy.

Paul's a crazy little freak, huh?

burndtdan:
you say that like it's some type of bad thing. the whole point is that the people who are the most concerned are the ones that are paying attention, which are the ones that watch the media, who is telling them that they want to hear something else.

It's not a bad thing, but those who are militant about information have no reason to depend on the media. If you prefer nuance and research, the internet is going to be the first resource, not the limited version on tv or in the paper. I've seen no evidence to suggest that those that are informed are anything more than a small minority. In this minority, I'm including those that are informed but are quite biased (a famous example would be Christopher Hitchens, now an American citizen).

One of the clear examples, in my opinion, of the corporate media being a lost cause is Noam Chomsky. This man is perhaps the most well-known intellectual in the country, and is still obscure and shut out by the media. Where are all the rational socialist voices? Even the libertarians have a rough time getting heard.

The American public just isn't receptive to non-mainstream political philosophy/analysis. The voting public, overall, sustains the corporate media. The informed minority are powerless now that the Fairness Doctrine is a mere memory. There is simply no way to reform the corporate media. The only path is to retreat to the internet and congregate in great numbers. MoveOn and Kos are examples of what can happen, even though they are simple extensions of the status quo. I wish Zmag and Reason.com were more influential, but I digress...

Giblet: Paul's a crazy little freak, huh?

Everything doesn't have to be entirely black and white. We are fully capable of promoting humanitarian and economic development while using our military know how to take out isolated targets when necessary.

liberalish

here is the problem with "hearing all ideas" talk. If you come into the Presidency like GWB, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy (of the -modern- era Presidents) who are essentially Washington Outsiders their first two years as President are going to be very keenly formed around whom the inner circle of advisers will be when they get elected President. Unlike the rest of the folks on this list I can see arguments for both of the conflicting groups being moved to the inside track. So in truth I have no way to know what kind of President Obama will be from 2009-2011 (if elected). Thats concerning to me which makes issues about who he really is before he got national politics (a product of far left Chicago politics) an important factor in judging which of these people he will have on his A team of advisors.

Likewise his keeping troops in Iraq but not building bases is essentially just a draw down which is about what I expect US troops to be drawn down to in iraq whomever wins the Presidency. But he says it in a way to try and get the Anti-War people on board as his ending the war... and thats slick oily politics which the B-Rock says he isn't about.

liberalish: Hey, I couldn't agree more. RP has some very good ideas about foreign policy, but I almost totally disagree with him on domestic issues.

What?! You think I agree with him on everything??? Heck no!

I just agree with him on the issues that he will likely manage to actually address, and I ignore those policies that he'll never ever get past Congress.

Foreign policy: he can and will fix that.

The economy: he can't screw it up any worse, and if his current plan were already in place, gasoline would be about 40 cents a gallon.

Abortion: he can't possibly get this past Congress, but his plan of letting the states decide the issue really IS in the spirit of a free society, so even though I'm pro-choice I see merit in his platform position. What do you expect from an Ob-Gyn???

Government: He wants to restructure (or eliminate) anything that is not performing its charter function. Our expensive BOE does jack squat for the money it costs. What it currently does can be done by five good people with desks at some other building for .01% of the cost.

He never lies. Even if it will hurt his campaign and never be found out, he never lies.

Suicidal Writer: It's not a bad thing, but those who are militant about information have no reason to depend on the media.

they have plenty of reason, they just don't get to. if the media answered those questions, they wouldn't have to go out of their way to ask it personally.

think of it this way. there are what, a dozen questions that get asked at those events? now think of the hundreds of serious policy questions that don't get to be asked there, but people want to know about it? there would be plenty for the media to cover, and only the media could get to asking and analyzing them all.

the media, in this case, is failing us in a huge way.

liberalish: Giblet: Paul's a crazy little freak, huh?

Everything doesn't have to be entirely black and white. We are fully capable of promoting humanitarian and economic development while using our military know how to take out isolated targets when necessary.

The evidence of recent experience conflicts rather violently with your assessment of the world.

Insanity is the repetition of a behavior while expecting different results.

Giblet: The majority of the problem originates with the corporations behind the media. Small-town, and independent, publications don't pull this crap. You still get some misinformation, but it's just because people make mistakes or because an individual contributor is biased (v the whole shebang being biased).

The hell they don't. I remember when my dad was a member of the town light commission (an elected board that managed the town utility department and set electricity rates, our town had about 3,000 people). There was one reporter for the town paper that would misquote the board members or outright misreport the outcome of each open session. (This was over getting the town wired for cable TV in the late 80's, which would have cost the town millions of dollars. My dad and most of the town were opposed, but there was a hardcore minority that just kept demanding it.) It was so bad my dad was sending letters to the editor after just about every story she wrote correcting their reporting (and sending along the official minutes, and sometimes even audiotapes of the sessions). And this was a small-town weekly paper that had no corporate ties to anything, not like the Boston Globe or Worcester Telegram or anything like that.

Yes, small-town and independent publications pull this kind of petty crap too.

Giblet: liberalish: Giblet: Paul's a crazy little freak, huh?

Everything doesn't have to be entirely black and white. We are fully capable of promoting humanitarian and economic development while using our military know how to take out isolated targets when necessary.

The evidence of recent experience conflicts rather violently with your assessment of the world.

Insanity is the repetition of a behavior while expecting different results.

so you are saying we literally stop any military intervention against AQ?

karasoth: liberalish

here is the problem with "hearing all ideas" talk. If you come into the Presidency like GWB, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy (of the -modern- era Presidents) who are essentially Washington Outsiders their first two years as President are going to be very keenly formed around whom the inner circle of advisers will be when they get elected President. Unlike the rest of the folks on this list I can see arguments for both of the conflicting groups being moved to the inside track. So in truth I have no way to know what kind of President Obama will be from 2009-2011 (if elected). Thats concerning to me which makes issues about who he really is before he got national politics (a product of far left Chicago politics) an important factor in judging which of these people he will have on his A team of advisors.

Likewise his keeping troops in Iraq but not building bases is essentially just a draw down which is about what I expect US troops to be drawn down to in iraq whomever wins the Presidency. But he says it in a way to try and get the Anti-War people on board as his ending the war... and thats slick oily politics which the B-Rock says he isn't about.

It's all true and looks kinda cool italicized.

And another unrelated thing: It's perfectly acceptable to want to help others. This is a defining characteristic and the very nature of an intelligent species.

The following scenarios, while exaggerated, are not unrealistic for Americans, and are not part of what makes our species civilized:

"Oh look, Buffy... A starving child. How sad! Let's make Pete buy him some food, report the kid's mom to social services, and then we can go to the mall!"

"Look at this, Margaret! Some nut strapped dynamite to his chest and blew up a bus in Kerflofflestan! Call your uncle, the senator, and order an airstrike on those evil-doers."

Yes, we sure like to vote for OTHER people to set things right for us, don't we. It's easy and makes you feel like you accomplished something truly good. Except....you didn't accomplish anything good. Others tried, and almost certainly failed.

Do you want to help starving kids or terrorized citizens of a foreign country? Go ahead and help. No one will interfere. Ask others to come along by all means!

Just stop demanding that others provide that help so that you don't have to.

K? Thx.

Giblet: What?! You think I agree with him on everything??? Heck no!

I just agree with him on the issues that he will likely manage to actually address, and I ignore those policies that he'll never ever get past Congress.

Foreign policy: he can and will fix that.

The economy: he can't screw it up any worse, and if his current plan were already in place, gasoline would be about 40 cents a gallon.

$.40/gal? um, no. No plan can do this today.

Abortion: he can't possibly get this past Congress, but his plan of letting the states decide the issue really IS in the spirit of a free society, so even though I'm pro-choice I see merit in his platform position. What do you expect from an Ob-Gyn???

I think we're pretty free right now, this would only allow for restrictions.

Government: He wants to restructure (or eliminate) anything that is not performing its charter function. Our expensive BOE does jack squat for the money it costs. What it currently does can be done by five good people with desks at some other building for .01% of the cost.

He never lies. Even if it will hurt his campaign and never be found out, he never lies.

For someone who seems to believe they are a realist your Ron Paul support seems somewhat out of place.

/sorry, what does BOE stand for? it's probably obvious.

liberalish: Giblet: liberalish: Giblet: Paul's a crazy little freak, huh?

Everything doesn't have to be entirely black and white. We are fully capable of promoting humanitarian and economic development while using our military know how to take out isolated targets when necessary.

The evidence of recent experience conflicts rather violently with your assessment of the world.

Insanity is the repetition of a behavior while expecting different results.

so you are saying we literally stop any military intervention against AQ?

Every expert the US employs agree that this will work, and it makes perfect sense to me, so.... Yeah.

You keep smacking that previously peaceful beehive with a stick though. Who knows, you might "win" their hearts and minds.

liberalish: $.40/gal? um, no. No plan can do this today.

Boy, are you brainwashed or what?

Take four 1960 dimes, cash 'em in for the silver, go buy a gallon of gas AND a stick of gum, you poor deluded slob.

It's true that a backed currency will not support our current economy which is based (if you can call quicksand a 'base') on increasing debt, ever-increasing quantities of cheap energy, and even rising inflation.

You're about to find out why a fiat currency doesn't work, either. Just see if I'm right, come the end of Q3...

Giblet: Every expert the US employs agree that this will work, and it makes perfect sense to me, so.... Yeah.

I am by no means hawkish on foreign policy, and "every expert" agree that anything will do anything.

You keep smacking that previously peaceful beehive with a stick though. Who knows, you might "win" their hearts and minds.

Peaceful?

I think you are exaggerating my position and simplifying the actual situation to make your point.