| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
john maclean
|
|
 |
extraspecialbitter
|
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
To say that Fox News is a Right-Wing propaganda machine is an insult to totalitarian regimes all over the world. Besides, this woman's "joke" goes far beyond ideology, suggesting a political landscape in which one's opponents are killed instead of engaged in a collaborative process. There are plenty of those around - we should take up a collection to purchase her a one-way ticket.
|
|
|
|
hansencomputers
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We are in need of a revolution
|
|
|
|
saddletramp
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
although it is not the least bit funny, i can see it happening!
just to many freaks out there!!
We are in need of a revolution is quite right hansoncomputer!!
|
|
|
|
hansencomputers
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just watched the clip. Nothing too surprising.
Fox, so called News, is a propaganda outlet. They offer little in the way of "news". However, I think it is important to monitor what is on Fox News, as it indicates what a fair portion of the US population thinks. I check the FoxNews WEB site regularly, not for the news, but for their choice in headlines.
As far as Obama is concerned, he is the best choice we have today. That doesn't mean he is ideal. Often, we have to pick from the least bad, not the best. That being said, Obama impresses me, and I feel somewhat hopeful.
FoxNews isn't going to go away. I can say with confidence that Fox News is popular, because large portions of the US population are like minded with Fox propaganda and spin. This will be a long term issue for us, because the widespread problem with poor judgment is not going away. Need proof, simple. GWB was re-elected.
It will be a long and painful road to fix America, if it can be fixed. Drastic re-alignment of our priorities around the world, especially in the Middle East will have to happen. Perhaps a rival is needed to bring some balance.
|
|
|
|
Blarney
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Who'd be a politician these days... |
|
|
Too many nuts out there. Do a google search of 'Obama anti-christ' and you'll be amazed at how many fruitcakes see him as satan personified. They're even looking in the Bible for proof! lol...
Blarney
|
|
|
|
Sizemore101
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: Hmm... |
|
|
1) Essentially all the media in the U.S. is propaganda, most of which is probably much more affective on a world-wide scale than Fox News... like The New York Times for instance. Fox News just takes it to an extreme which verges on self-parody.
2) I find the idea of such a joke much less disturbing than Obama's definition of "rogue nations" as those countries that don't have "American interests at heart."
|
|
|
|
hansencomputers
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 2) I find the idea of such a joke much less disturbing than Obama's definition of "rogue nations" as those countries that don't have "American interests at heart." |
Obama was never going to make it to the short list that we are allowed to vote for unless he makes certain pledges/commitments. He has made them, and he has shifted away from some of his early positions in the past few months (at least what I perceived as his positions).
We hope that some form of reason will still make it to the White House with him. I know it's not much, but it is the best we can do here.
I think many of our elected officials don't really believe in what they say publicly. Unfortunately our defective system is not likely to change, since the necessary change is at present not allowed. Again, while we get to "choose", but the short list is controlled. Anyone too far out of line will be shredded in the media, which seems to be quite capable of steering Americans to the proper candidates.
|
|
|
|
Sizemore101
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: Vote Nader! |
|
|
| hansencomputers wrote: |
Obama was never going to make it to the short list that we are allowed to vote for unless he makes certain pledges/commitments. He has made them, and he has shifted away from some of his early positions in the past few months (at least what I perceived as his positions). |
I think this idea that Obama is only pretending to hold the positions he advocates is false. He's the democratic nominee now; he could advocate universal healthcare (single-payer), he could promote the idea of two-state solution in Palestine, he could support a living wage, he could lower funding to the military. I mean these are things that the public support...
I think the truth of the matter is that he never did believe them, or he has seen the profit factor in not believing them.
| hansencomputers wrote: |
We hope that some form of reason will still make it to the White House with him. I know it's not much, but it is the best we can do here. |
I disagree I think the best we can do would be to vote for Nader - at least for free software sensibilities... he has after all advocated for free software... you know, since the 90s!
| hansencomputers wrote: |
I think many of our elected officials don't really believe in what they say publicly. Unfortunately our defective system is not likely to change, since the necessary change is at present not allowed. Again, while we get to "choose", but the short list is controlled. Anyone too far out of line will be shredded in the media, which seems to be quite capable of steering Americans to the proper candidates. |
This seems to be the best of two evils ideology. Okay, let us say their is a difference between the parties. At most it's that big government corporately controlled democrats are less extreme than the big government corporately controlled republicans... I guess because they believe we should have surges in Afghanistan instead of Iraq... but let us say that is true.
Isn't a less extreme government more likely to maintain it's existence? I mean a government needs to be absurdly extreme, kind of like a fox news of government, just to get people to say...yeah we need to change this government or we need to end this government. If this is the case then it seems it would be better in the long run to vote for republicans (as they are more likely to provoke a revolution) and better in the short run to vote for the democrats (because they will cause less destruction). Thus it seems to me that it is very hard to say which is actually the better party.
But okay, let us say one believes one party is slightly better than another... considering that voting, at least for the president, is superfluous unless you live in a swing state – and even then it has to be an important one like Ohio or Florida. So if this is the case, and like the majority of Americans your vote doesn't count, why not vote for Nader, or the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party, or the Socialist Party? At least then it's a symbolic vote of protest instead of a symbolic vote of consent. Furthermore Obama had already won this election a few months ago, so one might as well vote for the person they most like anyways. 8-]
|
|
|
|
hansencomputers
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good morning, here's my further opinion, not that anyone is asking.
First, let me say I'm not an Anarchist, mainly because I think at this stage of Human evolution, we are not far enough along to exist without gov't. Don't get me wrong, I think many people are ready, but realistically, what I see day-to-day, the majority could not handle it.
| Quote: |
Isn't a less extreme government more likely to maintain it's existence? I mean a government needs to be absurdly extreme, kind of like a fox news of government, just to get people to say...yeah we need to change this government or we need to end this government. If this is the case then it seems it would be better in the long run to vote for republicans (as they are more likely to provoke a revolution) and better in the short run to vote for the democrats (because they will cause less destruction). Thus it seems to me that it is very hard to say which is actually the better party. |
In my opinion, we need the less destructive gov't. right now. The world will not remain unipolar forever. One day, probably sooner than many think, the US of A will have competition. The days of us being in control are numbered. At that point we might see justice in places like Palestine, etc.
Writing this, one runs the chance of being misunderstood. I am not against the USA, I simply see us as self-destructive. Anarchism wont come overnight with a revolution, it will be stages of change (I admit I have not studied Anarchism in depth). I think we are so far from it now, it isn't reasonable to talk about a single leap.
| Quote: |
it seems it would be better in the long run to vote for republicans (as they are more likely to provoke a revolution) |
I see the Republican party as America's 1st religious party. This course may well lead to a viable 3rd party. This is good news, as the root of our problems is the 2 party system.
| Quote: | | I disagree I think the best we can do would be to vote for Nader - at least for free software sensibilities... he has after all advocated for free software... you know, since the 90s! |
Voting based on a single issue is ridiculous, even if it is as important as free software. The fact is we are stuck here, it isn't going to change overnight, and the bulk of the population isn't inclined towards revolution.
The sad reality is that most Americans are oblivious to the state we are in. I live in the Mid-West. I can tell you that a large portion of the population here cares about very insignificant things, like how much hunting is allowed. They don't know where the Middle East is, and they don't care (except that it is where god put our oil).
It is urgent that we prevent another religious fundamentalist from living in the White House. The stakes are quite high. McCain as President, coming from the religious party, would be a serious threat to world peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
