…
You have no idea how much I want to pretend I didn’t read that.
lol
well, you caught me there.
“He said all those people in the Midwest, you’ve got to have compassion for them because they’re clinging to their guns and their Bibles. I found that quite offensive. We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns.”
hahahahaha
Paraphrase: “I found that very offensive, because it’s so true!”
I’m trying to stay out of the political part of this topic, because everything about politics really just doesn’t make sense to me, but I’d like to comment on this bit:
People do care about the news if it’s not violence or problems. At least, my family does. I don’t like watching news about all the latest car crash deaths, robberies, murder cases, etc. What’s the point? It happens all the time. I’m not saying that I want things like “no murders in this neighborhood today”, “didn’t rain during school’s big football game”, or “couple gets married just fine”. That happens all the time, too.
Sure, each individual instance of these things happening may be recent, but the idea is old and uninteresting. I want interesting things in my news. Things like “Pac-Man Movie in Development. No, seriously”, “Giant ‘Telescope’ Links London and New York”, “30 Websites to follow if you’re into Web Development”, etc. (All found on the first few pages of Digg at the time of this post–interesting stuff, although the telectroscope is really just two cameras and I’m more interested in the gonna-fail Castlevania movie than the gonna-fail Pac-Man movie).
Except, news stations and newspapers are actually doing a pretty good job of this. Sure, they still like to include every murder, fight, and car accident, but at least they have plenty of other things, too. Instead, the biggest problem with the news is just that things are inaccurate. Sometimes it’s hard to prevent or isn’t that important, but a lot of times it should be a lot better. That’s why there are articles like “elementary math teacher solves thousand-year-old division-by-zero problem with concept of nullity” or “random unqualified guy tries to explain a scientific phenomenon when asked”.
It’s also bad when there are cases of “that’s the way it was because that’s the way the news portrayed it”, instead of “that’s the way the news portrayed it because that’s the way it was”. Viewers then post in blogs or forums on the internet with their own doubly-skewed views, based on the media coverage and other blog or forum posts by other similarly unqualified people, and that’s how everyone seems to get their opinions. I think this happens way too much with controversial issues.
So, I think there should be much less same-old car accidents, murders, robberies, etc., but I don’t think it’s the biggest problem with the news.
Sorry, I felt like typing. I think I typed too much.
Troid, you say you like interesting news, then throw out three very nerdy examples.
What does this show? You know what you like, but T(v)92 would have a very small amount of people watching it.
i think he was finding it offensive because it was a stereotype, but i found that part stupid too
Yeah, yeah. I know.
But my point was that there’s more out there. If there’s that much nerdy news, there’s bound to be A LOT more normal news that isn’t just the same old random person with lots of drugs in a car crash. But as I said, they do show a lot that isn’t that, so… Yeah.
I do think that a daily dose of nerdy news is healthy for everyone. >_>
Oh yes, me too.
But my point was, any sort of directed news won’t be watched by everyone, which is why you get your news from the internet, where it can be directed exactly at you.
Politics in America is a rough subject; most people don’t like to talk about it, and those who do end up getting into flaming debates about the issues. There’s a lot of passion about liberty and freedom, and then so much specific hate. America was founded on the principle that a person should be free to decide the fate of their government, that it is better for people to decide the fate of that which governs them than for a small group or single individual to.
So, fast-forward to today. The entire nation is still under the crippling power of the media, people don’t like the president or Congress, etc. The common problem people can agree on with Congress is that they’re not getting anything done. The political parties are so unwilling to work with each other on fundamental issues that they simply don’t. when the Republicans took majority in 2004, along with the re-elect of Bush, people thought it would be time to get down to business and get some work done.
This was a failed concept from the start.
When the Democrats have power, the Republicans use tricks and techniques to manipulate it so they have more power and influence. The Democrats cry foul and try to point out this gross injustice to the people of America.
When the Republicans have power, the Democrats use tricks and techniques to manipulate it so they have more power and influence. The Republicans cry foul and try to point out this gross in justice to the people of America.
Foreigners have a negative opinion of America because of continued stereotypes and judging us based on the progress of the President and Congress. Mostly the President. It’s a bit hypocritical and a double standard at least to insult and stereotype us and then simultaneously cry foul when we stereotype. Stereotyping is not some new-age concept, and everyone does it.
The problem with this nation is that we have a generation of people who as a majority simply do not understand the extreme sacrifices that have been made to create a country that is their own. In return, they don’t vote, they criticize, etc. People look to candidates to see what they will do, when they realize that this is backwards.
The people should be looking at themselves to see what they can do. The local initiative and drive to succeed is critical. It is not a disjointed people that send a message, it is a campaign. Elected officials are representatives of the people, and the people have every right to tell those officials what they believe is important. Don’t long for changes at a national level; national changes are against this country’s values. Change things at a local level, a state level. It is the power of the people to decide what is best for their state so long as it does not infringe on the rights of any state or person who has not had their rights revoked.
So, applying this concept to the 2008 presidential race, I see the media candidates of Clinton, Obama, McCain, and throw-in of Nader (perhaps Barr in a Perot '92 throwback), and then the siege of others who will never see the light of day.
Before people start comparing Nixon’s universal healthcare to the modern-day Democrat one, let me note that it is my belief that Nixon was doing it because HMOs would make an extreme amount of money, not because it was better for America.
Anyway, I don’t think this topic is aimed in the right direction. It shouldn’t be about debating issues, because people have their beliefs and those likely won’t change. This should be about debating the candidates and going past the media firestorms, going past the controversies, and finding a candidate whose beliefs line up with yours. What you feel is important is what you should vote. You can be a lifelong Republican who finds Obama’s policies excellent, so you vote for him. That’s what we need.
So, I guess after that wall of text, I can throw my two cents in. Before I do let me note that I’ve not really researched hard any of the candidates.
Clinton - Using a specific set of rules for counting delegates she is ahead, but that’s a bit unfair as Obama didn’t even campaign in Michigan. Anyway, it’s all overblown in the media.
Obama - His inexperience is a virtue and a vice. He simultaneously does not have people he trusts from a long and decorated political career to discuss political decisions with. There are too many issues for the US to deal with to expect he himself to do it, so it would be an interesting time. On the other hand, he probably doesn’t have the hand of Washington bearing down on him too much, so he would be a candidate more for the people.
McCain - The presumptive Republican nominee is kind of a toss-up. On the one hand, he’s shown that he will work with Democrats to get important things done, but the generational gap may mean he doesn’t know what’s best for the upcoming people. However, he is a proponent of state rights, which goes back to the thing earlier about people controlling the people’s view.
Nader - Heh.
Barr - Seems like a '92 Perot. For those who aren’t aware, in the 1992 race George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were the Republican and Democrat nominees, respectively. An independent, Ross Perot, ran an unusually successful campaign (Wikipedia has a decent article on it). Though Perot took from both party sides decently equally (a notable 7% but with general error of +/- 4), but the moderates were what killed, and that definitely led to the loss of Bush. Anyway, Barr’s still kind of out there for me but I’ll be watching.
As for people who say, “voting doesn’t matter because the electoral college can just change the way they vote and not listen to the people!”. This is true, but it’s relatively rare in practice. All but Maine and Nebraska have designated setups where the popular vote decides the electoral outcome, so don’t get too worked up about it. You wouldn’t want an all-out popular vote anyway, it would be hyper-manipulated more than conspiracy theorists say this current one is (which is probably is in some instances).
Anyway, long ramble, I apologize, but it seems like people get so worked up about how bad this nation is and how people in it are so dumb and etc. It angers me. I have no problems with another person, but hating America because of stereotypes is like judging us based on Hollywood, really. It seems like a risky prejudice. Plus, it’s annoying when you see, let me think of one I’ve seen…
“lol americans are stupid anyway you can have bush two terms of that idiot”
Just remember the media is a damning powerhouse. Consider that nationally, we don’t even hear a lot of the stuff that goes on in our own country. The filtering that goes on through everything else. How much are you really hearing about America, and how much is really trustworthy? I had a post on SCU talking about why I think America is hated, which is because fundamentally we are the celebrities of the world. That isn’t meant as a negative or a self-righteous thing, it’s just that there were two Superpowers, then the USSR died, leaving the US. I no longer feel this title is relevant, but at the same time, based on my time in America, I notice that there are normal people, then there are the celebrities/rich/political folk who get most of the airtime. Those people may not be a direct representation of the people, but if that was the stuff that is shown to us, we may begin to hate ourselves. Now, export that to the rest of the world. They see a little bit of this national news we have, so they see the bad from us and then we’re delegated to the celeb/other-world stuff in other nations. So, they see the worst of the worst.
If this is inaccurate, then I apologize, it’s just my opinion.
o_o
QFT
Also, I agree.
Vote Ron Paul he a write in candidate
Remember 
Ron Paul Hope For America
Bravo, Goof. Beautiful rant.
y?
I’m not sure what you mean by normal, but I can try to respond.
In the light of the internet age, where cell phones and all sorts of other videos are so widespread, we see more things than ever before. Hussein’s hanging was caught on a Youtube video, that was caught on a video, and all sorts of other things that we would otherwise miss.
That is by no means a representation of our soldiers fighting abroad. Please do not confuse the extraordinary and abnormal for standard order. Do you think our troops in Vietnam were all the kinds who would cause My Lai?. Do you think that the Armenian Genocide during and after WW1 was representative of the Ottoman forces? War crimes are not the definition of war, they are the exception. And while individual incidents like that aren’t war crimes by themselves, the morality behind them, compounded together with major travesties like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, create the sense of failure that exists in every war. Will people need to be held accountable? Yes. Will it be the entire military force? No.
It’s hard to justify the Iraq War, and videos like that only make it harder. However, please don’t believe for one minute that the video you see there, or the negative videos that may otherwise exist, are representations of the military as a whole.
EDIT: I feel like I’m derailing the topic again, it should be about the candidates.
Dang Goofy, I couldn’t put it better myself if I had a thousand years to think about it. I like you, simply because you can work with words better than I could ever hope to! Oh, and welcome to the forum, seeing as how I can’t seem to find any of your other posts besides the two in this topic.
About that video, the voice sounds suspiciously like a voiceover. Which pretty much kills all of the shock value… because yes, people with guns beating people without guns is normal.
Not to mention that they’re British anyway. >_>
…it appears that anyone who stated that John Mccain was running for Bush’s third term was correct. He openly says it in a speech <_<
Here’s a video comparing parts of Obama and Mccain’s recent speeches.
You don’t hear it in this video, but he also gets booed for saying it.
…why would he shoot himself in the foot like that?
P.S. watch the video now, the Mccain campaign is doing it’s best to clear Youtube of videos of his speeches for some ridiculous reason, particularly of his latest speech. I don’t know why, but it appears they are trying to cover Mccain’s ass after a horrible speech.
And wow, less important, but Bush had more dynamic speeches than this guy.
I don’t mind McCain’s policies. I really don’t.
What I do mind is how stupid the guy looks. He’s a bumbling fool, and he isn’t taking the world seriously. I’d rather have someone with a level head in the White House. Hillary is a jealous cunt, McCain’s a bumbling old fart, and Obama’s young, intelligent, sexy, and eloquent. I don’t really see any option for a different choice based on personality.