Propoganda, War on Evil, etc etc

[allhailIndia]

I have a feeling this thread, at least the latter parts of it belongs to the World history forum, the WTC thread.

Anyway I feel that Dubya must be lauded for the way he handled Afghanistan, but from there it has been downhill. There has been a lot of cheap "patriotic " gimmicks on the part of the US administration, especially the flag of the US, from the WTC in Salt Lake City. That really made a lot of people lose sympathy for the US, at least in India. Secondly, what the hell was he thinking when he made that Axis of evil statement. Does he think a few victories in the Afgan hills give the US divine right to pick wars with every country.
Iran is just about getting a bit of a moderate govt. when Bush makes his statement. N.Korea is being engaged in fruitful diplomatic measures, when this comes up.

Is Dubya desperate to try and deviate attention from Enron and his failings in the Domestic Front a.l.a Clinton??
Not a safe game to play with Iran or North Korea

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I don't get why the left makes these statements accusing President Bush of being some kind of incompetent fool.

The man got a black eye from a pretzel and can't string together a sentance that isn't written for him. I think that qualifies as incompetent.
A simple example of being foolish: lumping Iran into his 'axis of evil', which did tremendous harm to moderate reformers in the country.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
We never called Clinton an idiot, we never called Carter an idiot, and we never called Johnson an idiot.

Ya should have called Johnson an idiot, he deserved it. But really, you can speak for the whole right when you say you never called Clinton an idiot? He was attacked in every other manner imaginable, why did you leave that one out?

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Is Dubya desperate to try and deviate attention from Enron and his failings in the Domestic Front a.l.a Clinton??

You had me until that failings on the domestic front... exactly what failures on Clinton's part are you talking about? Republicans had to fabricate a scandal because he was so popular on the issues.
And I really doubt Enron had anything to do with Dubya... perhaps some people in his administration did some unethical dealings, but I don't like the fact that the political connections are drawing away from the real criminals: the individuals that talked up the company while selling their shares because they knew the ship was sinking.

 

[jkharvey]

There has been a lot of cheap "patriotic " gimmicks on the part of the US administration, especially the flag of the US, from the WTC in Salt Lake City. That really made a lot of people lose sympathy for the US, at least in India.

C'mon the gov't had nothing to do with that!! The olympic team as a whole wanted to do that. All of the patriotic "gimmics" that I've seen have been done entirely by private citizens and organizations.

 

[jkharvey]

The man got a black eye from a pretzel and can't string together a sentance that isn't written for him. I think that qualifies as incompetent.

Now Gradeous which president looks more competent.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by jkharvey
Now Greadius which president looks more competent.

One of them has the covers on, and the other one needs someone to point out which way the evil doers are. I've just lost all faith in my country's ability to elect leaders.
Well, one of them is elected.

 

[knowltok2]

Is it just me, or does the picture look doctored? Bush's binoculars are point straight at the camera, even though he is not.

A few thoughts:

Bush is not an "idiot." You may disagree with his policies, you may not like him as a person, and he may make misteps (Potato chips!), but to dismissively classify him as an idiot is nonsense. It may make you feel better and more power to you if that is the case, but try to realize that public speaking and snack food consumption are not the sole arbiters of presidental wisdom. If every idea that comes out of his mouth is not the most appealing to the greatest number of people, does that automatically classify him as an idiot? How many of us would pass that test? (You Bush haters would say that I just failed). If you want to criticize Bush, use his policies and decisions, not what the joke you heard Leno or Letterman make about a pretzel. Otherwise you are just going along with the sheep in your particular camp, and not backing up your views with rational, well thought out arguements.

N.Korea is being engaged in fruitful diplomatic measures, when this comes up.

Given the estimates of 2 million people having starved to death, I hardly think "fruitful" is the most appropriate word to use. Considering the various agreements N Korea has made and failed to follow through with recently (USA Today yesterday if memory serves), I'm not even sure that productive would be a good substitute.

Bush has enormisly increased the defense budget some time ago ,from 3% to 5% i think ,that's a lot of money that could be used to give the people some sort of social benifit's.I don't have the slightest idea how increasing the millitary budget can be positive for the U.S these day's ,as they already outnumber every country in the world greatly on conventional and non convential weaponry.

Increasing the military budget can be positive because as the military is called upon to do more than it was a yaer ago, it will need more money. Just because the US military did an excellent job of destroying the Taliban, don't think it isn't an enormous effort to ship that much in the way of men and material all the way around the globe to a landlocked, mountainous country and prosecute a war there. The smart bombs that everyone blasts because they occasionally miss or are misdirected cost more than regular free fall bombs. Increased fuel and maintainence are also required along with a general need for more supplies as troops live in the field and not in the barracks. Add to this the fact the teh US would like to be ready for any future conflict that may, and probably will arise, and I don't question at all the need for increased military expenditure.

At least you know how things work. Still, I think it is sad that people are just accepting the media's putting ratings and profits over objectivity and diverse content. Something needs to be done about this.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm just not sure what it is. I'd love to see what would happen if someone actually put out a news program that didn't focus on human interest stories, and stories that are basically local. Would a news program really fail if it focused on presenting a balanced view of important issues and used the time spent on mother's who kill their children to dig deeper and inform me more about the world's politics, economy, etc.? Probably so, we do seem to have a morbid fascination with news that doesn't really affect us.

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Why don't you go down to Ground Zero in New York and tell those people you're sorry, and that you think it was their own fault that they were killed by terrorists.

If you've got the balls to do that, then you truly have no heart.

I didn't say that it was the fault of the people who died in the WTC that they got killed. I was saying that it is the fault of the US government's foreign policy. I have full sympathy for those who died and their families, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the US government.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by jkharvey


Now Gradeous which president looks more competent.

Hhhhmmm....

Let's see.

Both dodged Viet Nam. No problem with that.

Only dif is one claims or would have us believe he's a 'military type guy'.

Therefore one IS more of a hypocrite.

Let's not forget that when Bubba made an appearance like this, wearing the olive drab, bdu's, etc..., Republicans blasted him mercilessly for playing army man.

It was always such a big deal to them that Bubba dodged Viet Nam, but now that it's their guy that pussied out, it doesn't matter.

I'd say they both look foolish, though.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by knowltok2
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm just not sure what it is. I'd love to see what would happen if someone actually put out a news program that didn't focus on human interest stories, and stories that are basically local. Would a news program really fail if it focused on presenting a balanced view of important issues and used the time spent on mother's who kill their children to dig deeper and inform me more about the world's politics, economy, etc.? Probably so, we do seem to have a morbid fascination with news that doesn't really affect us.

Fully agree. I don't think a news program would fail if it focused on presenting the important issues at the expense of showing us the 'Hockey Dad' trial, or the 'Dog Attack' trials. Sheesh, that's what we've got freakin' Court TV for, lol.

At least I like to hope it wouldn't fail.

Personally I think the big networks' marketing sucks. They're far too focused on overall demagraphics and trying to please everyone , which really means they're all OUT of focus.

Also, it seems to me like they're all so afraid of each other, and what the other network is doing. They copy each other blatantly. They all really look the same. Cookie-cutter news networks.

 

[knowltok2]

Perhaps we could have two different news shows: one for 'important' stuff, and another for human interest stuff. Obviously there is huge room for debate on what falls into each category, but I have to believe that you could find a spot on cable someplace for a news program that advertises that it is going to present only news that is relevent, and not waste time with human interest crap. It would also be good if somehow we could have a news program that no one thought was biased, or at least presented each bias equally, but now I know I am dreaming.

Why are we fascinated with a psycho women who drowned her five kids? I think it is terrible. I could even see including it as an example in a debate on proper penalties, and the usefulness of the insanity defense. But as news that is going to take up a minute and a half of my time each night for a week and a half, it is garbage. I don't care, it doesn't affect me, and I'd rather have a summary on what is going on in Madagascar. Imagine if the news would do a minute and a half on a different country each night focusing on some of the geographic, political, and social facts that pertain to each. One of the news shows has an "Eye on America", why not an "Eye on the World"?

Another thing that I think is lacking from most news sources (and if anyone knows where I can find this, let me know) is a summary report on a topic. What I mean by this is a look at what happened from a couple of weeks after the fact. We get daily news on breaking events, but we get differing amounts of info based on what we see each day, and today's rumors are tomorrows truths or fictions. I'd like to see a summary of what has happened and is happening on a particular topic done from a bit of a retrospective. I don't want to have to read an article from each day of a month long event to get a perspective on what happened. Take the refugee thing in Australia. I know what I've caught in scattered news bits, and what I've seen here. The story isn't in the news these days that I've seen. Give me a list of facts on the topic giving key events by day. Then give me analysis on it (perhaps from multiple sides if it is deemed neccessary).

I know I am asking for a lot, and all knowledge shouldn't be spoonfed, but I think it is impossible to keep up with all the issues that confront us on a global, national, and local level with any degree of competance. Besides, I'm an American, and I'm a customer, and I believe that the customer is always right, damnit!

Rant over

 

[Magnus]

How do those who own the media make their money? By advertising. How do you make advertisers happy? By making programs that attract viewers. How do you make programs that attract viewers? Show the news in such a way as to get people interested by severely editing content. Thus you are not seeing all of the news, you are seeing the news they wish you to see, or to put it another way, you are seeing the news they THINK you want to see. The media decides what is newsworthy and not you. God bless the internet, for at least here you can scour a thousand places for information and draw your own conclusions rather than be force fed what the networks think is appropriate.

The information revolution is just beginning. Aint it grand?

 

[Greadius]

I always attack Bush's ideas an policies. I was just defending the namecalling

I haven't watched news on TV in a good 3 months and don't miss it at all. I don't understand why people try to get their news from the TV; has there ever been anytime where you could get balanced information with depth and thoughtfulness on the TV? I don't think the medium is capable of it. You want balance, use the internet. You want depth, read a book. Want summaries and background, read news magazines. Time, for example, always gives both sides of the story, even if they give more creedence to one (usually the newsworthy one).
Or better yet, start your own TV network. Didn't think of THAT did ya?
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing if you use it.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Greadius
Or better yet, start your own TV network. Didn't think of THAT did ya?
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing if you use it.

Sweet idea.

Now, if you could just loan me a few $$?

Nah, never mind.

I'll just use my credit card.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
Or better yet, start your own TV network. Didn't think of THAT did ya?
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing if you use it.

Actually I did think of that, thank you very much. I will borrow from the movie quotes thread in saying that, "A man's got to know his limitations."

I know, you'll tell me anything is possible if I put my mind to it. In theory you are correct. However my lack of background in any type of journalism, my lack of capital, and my commitments to family all stand in the way. I also have an appreciation for my own psychological makeup, and know that I do not have the drive and energy to overcome these barriers in any way that will leave me happy with the result. Given these considerations, I judiciously decided not to start my own TV network. Perhaps it is the world's loss, but it is a decision I can live with. It is very similar to the decisions I have made regarding starting my own airline, my own operating software company, or my own computer strategy game company. I may someday start my own business, but I realize that for me, at this point in my life, my options are limitted to what I am familier with.

That said, I appreciate your suggestions. I disagree that it impossible for TV to have a show like what I describe. The medium may not lend itself to it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


I don't get why the left makes these statements accusing President Bush of being some kind of incompetent fool.

And yes, this is specifically towards the left, because everyone on the right, has at least the respect enough not to make unjustified and ignorant judgements about people. We never called Clinton an idiot, we never called Carter an idiot, and we never called Johnson an idiot.

Am I calling all leftists rude and inconsiderate? Hardly. As much as I respect those on the left, despite their misguided political ideology, I will not resort to name-calling. But, I do not have respect for those that use childish name-calling games.

Sorry, Kurtz, but your offensive view has been invalidated by your own lack of informed judgement.

I still think he's an idiot, and just about everyone I've talked to, no matter left or right, agrees with me. If you don't think he is an idiot, thats fine. We can disagree.

And not eveyone I criticize is a conservative / republican. The word I would use to most accurately describe former Democratic VP Al Gore is "stiff." He's a stiff. I think that has a lot to do with why he lost the 2000 election. Beyond the Florida controversy, Nader, and the Clinton scandal lies Gore's own horribly executed 2000 campaign. Bush wasn't much better, but I think he certainly ran a more effective campaign than Gore. Gore seemed aloof and fake to middle-aged white males, which compromises a huge portion of the US. When asked which Presidential Candidate you would rather sit down with and drink a beer, I think the obvious answer here is Bush. I know I would; I think he would be alot more fun to talk to. An idiot can still be fun. This shouldn't be how people vote, but I truly believe it is how alot of people voted - on the basis of which candidate is more real, frank, and fun.

As far as Clinton being an idiot, I am sort of split. He has been the only Democratic President since I was born in 1982, and so I agreed with most of his domestic agenda. I thought he did a good job with the economy. Overall although he wasn't perfect, he gets good marks in my opinion. But the Lewinsky scandal was a terrible mistake that cost him, and the Democrats, dearly. It had an effect on Gore's failure in '00. On top of the scandal itself was the fact that he lied about it, which cost him even more.

 

[VoodooAce]

Bush IS an idiot.

Gore IS stiff. His biggest mistake was distancing himself from his biggest advantage.....Bubba.

Bubba demonstrated poor judgement so often that a guy from the Ozarks couldn't coun't the number of times on all of his didgets.

That and a decided lack of balls, imho. Saying, "I did not have sex with that women" will probably replace Nixon's "I am not a crook" statement as the biggest presidential joke.

He had a mandate and governed from the center.

Bush on the other hand, has no mandate and governs from the relatively far right.

 

[Richelieu]

The 9/11 attack was the biggest story in decades, all else pales in comparison

The U.S.S.R. crumbling is bigger in my view. I also think that the fact that 9/11 is still fresh in our memories tends to warp our perception of the importance of this event, historicaly speaking.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
He had a mandate and governed from the center.

Bush on the other hand, has no mandate and governs from the relatively far right.

"There you go again..."

For some reason, the left has this far-out idea that Bill Clinton was the embodiment of mainstream American views.

Yes, Bush governs from the right. Clinton governed from the left.

 

[GeneralHotRod]

I was just wondering if anyone can give me specific examples of what Clinton did in his masterful handling of the economy???

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by GeneralHotRod
I was just wondering if anyone can give me specific examples of what Clinton did in his masterful handling of the economy???

Reappointed Greenspan despite the objections of the trade protectionists in his party. He made major headway in opening up free trade with NAFTA & GATT which played a major role in the sustained expansion. His budgets were the first in a generation to return a surplus.
Perhaps most importantly is the tax increase/budget reconciliation act (I forget the name) that passed in 1993 without a single Republican vote. The act restructured the way government borrowed money and payed debt allowing for a greater reduction in the amount of money investors lent to the government. The significant pool of investors who no longer lent to the government began lending to private firms... I'm sure I don't need to explain the rest.
And of course to crown the achievement, he knew when he had a good thing going and didn't attempt to mess with it...
And, of course, he inspired confidence in investors.