All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Paradox]

Arundel Armor Hunter shows how easily my garble is misinterpreted:

The biased are also asking to be abused, heck the polls had shown that the Tea Part folks you you dislike so much are likely to be educated.

I meant educated specifically in politics, but no I did not say that.

If the voters admit their ignorance or get educated on the issues they are not going to be abused.

That's what I'm saying. The thing is, with Fox News pumping their heads full of bullshit, they think they ARE educated, when in fact they're being duped and manipulated.

[Nick Soapdish]

We stated when we took the Philippines that we would be there for a limited time, and we set the date for Independence and started the process decades before WWII. Guam has been offer independence multiple times, the norther Marianas took it but Guam wants to stay where they are, so do a majority of the People in Puerto Rico

We did commit mass murder in the PI, bad enough that Mark W twain wrote quirte a bit about it , It was the subject of his cruelest and most biting work. The American public was never all that comfortable with having it be owned by US and there were repeated congressional attempts for make us leave. All in all it was complicated by racism and business interests conflicting with Founding basic principles , We blew it pretty bad and I think giving that up was a mark of growth and strength not a decline. Empires are frail anfd fragile things, wanting to be one is dumb as hell for a democracy.

I'm agreeing only about the Philippines. They're basically the only argument that we were an empire and if so, it means that our downfall started right after WWII, not now. We did start the process well before WWII, but there was no need to even have a process. We should've just let them go without fighting like Cuba. Letting them go was a mark of growth.

Although about Puerto Rico, a majority of the inhabitants want to remain affiliated with the US, but it's only a plurality that like the current relationship. The last referendum had a majority voting to reject the current relationship and then a majority (assuming a change, I think) voting to become a state. But that'll probably take a while - as will DC.

[Lucette]

When I was a child I thought for sure we'd have a space station, a colony on the moon and be moving further out by now,

Part of the problem is that even living up there for six months one loses a lot of bone mass - the ostreo word I am not even going to try to spell.

that we'd have at least made some progress on clean energy on a wide scale basis, that our leaders were if not honest at least dedicated to the country. Now we have to buy space on a foreign made rocket to get to the station, we're still using gas and will be for another few decades at least and I have trouble believing that the people in congress care about anything other than their bank account. Ever read 'This Town" by Mark Leibovich? If that book is true we're in even worse shape than I thought.

Have not read the book but will look it up.

There are some in the "clean coal" and "ethical oil" business who saw the emergence of green energy as a dystopia and have done everything in their power to delay that reality.

It is their war chest they care about - getting enough money to get reelected and not being the victim of a bombardment of third party attack ads. Without both spending limits and donation limits, those candidates who sell their souls to the highest bidder are more apt to get in than those candidates who actually want to make a difference. It isn't that there are not good people willing to stand for nomination or even running for office - it is just that they have trouble getting in.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

That's what I'm saying. The thing is, with Fox News pumping their heads full of bullshit, they think they ARE educated, when in fact they're being duped and manipulated.

I doubt Chris Matthews, Maher or Ed Schultz are anything to write home about, but they have it slightly worse when it comes to ''opinion leaders'.

[Nick Soapdish]

I doubt Chris Matthews, Maher or Ed Schultz are anything to write home about, but they have it slightly worse when it comes to ''opinion leaders'.

MSNBC isn't quite as popular and its viewers tend to check out other sources, especially if you stretch the definition of news to include The Daily Show (which is about as much of a stretch as Fox News).

[Mark]

It may have "always" been like that, but that doesn't mean nothing's wrong with it. An uneducated, unaware populace is asking to be abused. That's how Fox News has snowed so many people.

Or MSNBC. The networks are mirror images of each other. But really how do we know that Wolf Blitzer is credible and Chris Mathews or Bill Oreily isn't? The political parties are masters at manipulating the media.

[Mark]

The biased are also asking to be abused, heck the polls had shown that the Tea Part folks you you dislike so much are likely to be educated. If the voters admit their ignorance or get educated on the issues they are not going to be abused.



Why is there a correlation. Laws are written by a small number of people and a small number of people pay close attention to it. That's how ot always had been. Voting does not really equal influence.

Given those two points how do you expect a nation based on the idea of a representative republic to survive continue to survive indefinitely?

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Or MSNBC. The networks are mirror images of each other. But really how do we know that Wolf Blitzer is credible and Chris Mathews or Bill Oreily isn't? The political parties are masters at manipulating the media.

More like the media is too cowardly to hold their feet to the fire.

Given those two points how do you expect a nation based on the idea of a representative republic to survive continue to survive indefinitely?

If there are no barriers to participation besides learning about the issues i don't see what the big deal is.

[Mark]

More like the media is too cowardly to hold their feet to the fire.


If there are no barriers to participation besides learning about the issues i don't see what the big deal is.

How can you learn the issues if the media -really the only source in a lot of ways on the issues- gives conflicting information? I have on my cable system 6 news networks, they recently added Al Jazira America and News One America (the last is blocked out because it isn't in my package) and I can look through the web and find many, many more. I can watch them all and see far different views on any one story and many sets of facts to go along with those views. Are they all lying, spinning or just fitting the facts to fit their personal ideologies? I have no way of knowing and therefor no reason to trust any of them, so how can I be up on the issues?

[Paradox]

Arundel Armor Hunter should clarify:

I doubt Chris Matthews, Maher or Ed Schultz are anything to write home about, but they have it slightly worse when it comes to ''opinion leaders'.

I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to say here.

[Paradox]

Mark wants "equal time":

Or MSNBC. The networks are mirror images of each other. But really how do we know that Wolf Blitzer is credible and Chris Mathews or Bill Oreily isn't? The political parties are masters at manipulating the media.

The difference is no one takes MSNBC the slightest bit seriously. Nobody runs around saying MSNBC's weak ass coverage is gospel. MILLIONS of people take Fox News as gospel, despite the fact that they've been caught at their little games time and time again.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

How can you learn the issues if the media -really the only source in a lot of ways on the issues- gives conflicting information? I have on my cable system 6 news networks, they recently added Al Jazira America and News One America (the last is blocked out because it isn't in my package) and I can look through the web and find many, many more. I can watch them all and see far different views on any one story and many sets of facts to go along with those views. Are they all lying, spinning or just fitting the facts to fit their personal ideologies? I have no way of knowing and therefor no reason to trust any of them, so how can I be up on the issues?

You compare them and you try to come up with a conclusion. Most people don't do that, they only tune in during election season.

[Paradox]

For once, I agree with you entirely on that, Arundel. Cross reference, extract information and try to ignore sources with obvious bias.

[Mark]

The difference is no one takes MSNBC the slightest bit seriously. Nobody runs around saying MSNBC's weak ass coverage is gospel. MILLIONS of people take Fox News as gospel, despite the fact that they've been caught at their little games time and time again.

I'm sure many take MSNBC seriously.

When I do watch the news I skim through all of the channels, something made easier but the fact that they are bunched together on my cable system. As much as I do that however I can see that a lot of people don't have the time to go through all the sources and compare them, also I've noticed that once a networked is branded -as Fox and MSNBC are- to even refer to them in conversation is to invite eye-rolling and head shaking at your perceived stupidity. I'm sure however if you ask anyone at either of those networks if they are biased they will say no and have statistics to back up their statements. So while cross referencing is a good idea it's not always practical. At a certain point in any conversation you'll be asked where you heard a bit of information and if you answer wrong the result is either tolerated amusement that you could be so dumb or outright hostility. So how does a society survive over the long haul when vital information is filtered through an ideological lens and people gravitate to the outlet that agrees with their point of view?

[Carabas]

Or MSNBC. The networks are mirror images of each other. But really how do we know that Wolf Blitzer is credible and Chris Mathews or Bill Oreily isn't? The political parties are masters at manipulating the media.

When comparing FOX and MSNBC it's important to realise that only the first one ever deemed it necessary to go to court to defend their 1st ammendment righst to blatantly lie and make stuff up in news broadcasts.