So, I stopped reading half way through the tax plan. O well, I have no horse in that race, but I think each man has something to offer to my overall hope that democracy will improve

This isn't about my decision making process, which is pretty easy, since in Canada we have 1 ridiculous party, and a handful of utterly insane parties. This is about how the average person looks at politics and politicians. Politics doesn't depend on the opinions of the interested - it's the opinions of the uninterested, which is why governments consistently suck.

I believe we are making progress in Iraq in many forms -- generally reduced violence and continuing rebuilding, etc -- that no one reasonable would deny. I do not believe we are making significant process in political reconciliation among the various factions there, and that should be the ultimate goal.

Can you not see that criticizing the strategic and tactical errors of both the decision to go to war, the execution of the war, the (lack of) diplomacy surrounding this war, and the benefit vs. cost analysis of this war does not exclude also believing that our troops are performing admirably in the task they have been given?

Do you see no shades of gray here? Do you really think it is unreasonable for someone to say "This war has or will ultimately result in a better Iraq thanks to the performance of our troops, but it was not worth the cost in American lives" ?

Really?

And do you really want to equate this with the anti-war behavior surrounding Vietnam, which had some absolutely disgusting anti-troop sentiment?

Yes, that is what I am saying. Why is this such a repugnant notion to you?

Dustin

I've been ignoring that, but once we start talking who killed JFK, we'll soon be in the realm of uselessness

If you have some evidence to support your claims, it's no longer a conspiracy theory, it's just a theory, and the claims can be rationally discussed. If your theory is based on conjecture and/or lack of a certain piece of evidence, it's one side saying "but, that makes no sense" and the other side saying "you're a blind tool of the establishment". No good discussion comes from it.

Might as well ask if democrats or republicans eat more puppies.

One more thing Zurvan,

I'm assuming that you've seen the two videos I've posted?

The US can't fix this. Iraqi's have to. In order for that to work, the US is going to have to allow a democratic election, and not restrict who can run (they prevent the people from Hussein's former group from having positions of power, last I heard)

Nope. Summarize the evidence they present for me?

ok, I'm trying to understand here

theories with evidence are just theories, but theories w/o evidence are conspiracy theories?

interesting. I was under a different interpretation of what those terms meant.

Also, Its way way way too premature to think that we've started down the road of puppy eating

Please fairly define failure and victory in Iraq. Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.

Your second paragraph juxtaposed with your first paragraph confuses me.

EDIT: Oh hey, conspiracy theories, my old friends. Please wait a second, I need to find my Rage Against the Machine CD.

(i can't help it aaaaaaaaa)

just watch the 2nd one on JFK Junior. Its quite good and well researched I assure you. Its also quite humorous imo. I don't think it will be a waste of your time even if you ultimately decide to dismiss everything out of hand.

You can have a theory, with supporting evidence, but not enough to call it a fact.

You can have a theory pulled out of the ether which depends on shadowy people with evil thoughts, with no evidence, which is a conspiracy theory.

Why? I'm not overly interested int he details of the platforms of the US presidential candidates. They're interesting candidates, in that Obama is an incredible speaker and has inspired a lot of traditionally uninterested people to follow politics. McCain is someone who (by many accounts) isn't a typical politician and has a solid moral base that he won't compromise.

If either man wins and lives up to the above reputation, they could change politicians for the better, which improves democracy, because people start to care more and actually think about who to vote for.

30 minutes in, very interesting so far. thanks

QFT. I really cannot understand how people blame TV networks for the ignorance of the population. There's such an unbelievable depth of information out there, at little or no cost, that there's no one to blame but the viewer. Complaining about the quality of TV news is like complaining that your toaster is bad at performing multiplication: it's true, but you're missing the point. TV news is what people watch when they want to look at a news-themed shiny thing.

hitler spotted within the first two minutes, stopped watching

There was a time when the media thought they had a responsibility to tell people what was happening, because the media happens to have far more influence on government elections and policy than they have any right to be, and there were some people with ethics that thought the populace had the right to make an informed decision.

Media has always been this way. Bias also responds to economies of scale.

You don't think it's gotten worse with the excess of opinion driven 24 hour news?

Obviously I don't believe the McCain of reputation exists any more; thus, IMO, his election will signify that people aren't thinking about who to vote for.

If this was the McCain of 2000, I'd agree with you.

The media you're referring to are known as newspapers. They lost mountains of cash doing what you describe, until they got bought out by people who changed their focus to limit the hemorraghing.

People just do not want balanced, informative news, and they can't be made to watch it. The modern 24-hr cable news network is not some old bastion of ethical journalism that has been perverted by profit-seekers and propagandists. It's a new phenomenon, and it's always been like it is. Old-style journalism and CNN/MSNBC/FNC fought it out and old-style journalism lost. It's a sad thing, but the blame belongs with the people who support crap over quality.

Yes, the media's goals have changed from the idealistic ones they used to be (at least in part) ... but not entirely because of the 24-hour cycle.

The media is big business. Its goal is to make profits. Period, end of story.

There are INDIVIDUALS who work in the media who still have the right ideals and who do their best to inform readers of the facts and let them make whatever decisions they choose. But the media as a business entity? Pffffft. And no matter what particular media outlet you look at, whoever is at the top of the chain of command has nearly everything to do with that outlet's slant on political issues. I do think, as a whole, the media is somewhat balanced ... you have your left-leaning outlets and your right-leaning ones ... but each individual outlet almost always has some built-in bias stemming from the person(s) in charge.

i think the media was never truly objective - papers in the uk, at least, have always had political 'leanings.' I think what has changed is that the media used to be much more paternalistic - 'we know what's good for you,' and the consumers used to accept spoon-feeding news much more readily. But the growth of mass media, increased transparency and immediacy as well as people more aware what half-arsed lying drunks journalists often were has led to what can be called either a dumbing down, or a democratisation of news reporting, depending on how good you feel about knowing about britney's pubic hair. I don't think it's worse, really, just different.

The relationship between the news media and the politicians is an ugly one, too. Both are equally guilty, imo, for the current situation in which reporting of politics is image driven, content free and largely empty of any point at all. Journalists start with the assumption that politicians are going to lie and warp the truth and take a ridiculously confrontational approach, and the politicians then prove them right. It's no better than in times gone by, where there was too close and respectful a relationship which failed for equal reasons.

My theory regarding political power has always been the same as that regarding firearms: a strong desire to possess either should be sufficient grounds for being banned from having them.

So basically your way of thinking is "well all sucks, what can you do"...inspirational.

This is a disgusting statement. It makes me want to puke.
Let me get this straight once WW2 broke out as good German citizens everyone should have gone right ahead and massacred some Jews?
This idiotic follow the leader type of thinking under the claim of false patriotism is absolutely disgusting.
Your duty as a patriot of any kind is to question what your government is doing at all times and try to change what is wrong to the better. Waving flags on the 4th of July and singing an anthem before a football game isn't patriotic, making life better for your fellow citizen is.
I don't even want to think about what I'd want to do with the next politician I'd happen to meet if I was an American who served in Iraq, came home and the Patriot Act had been passed.

you guys are so damn pitiful


play a friggin game or something