Wish I saw your reply sooner... But I think anyone who thinks it's just Fox doing it, has really deceived themselves.
I have to admit about O'Reilly, he does have entertainment value and he also is known to make some strong good points and offer perspectives that some may not consider at times. If someone were to ask me how I would watch O'reilly in the context of understanding issues, I would say watch him, and then go read/listen to what other people have to say as well.
Personally, that's why I like google news. news.google.com you get your headlines, and links to 3 most recent stories about those headlines, from different media sources(including Fox). Plus, if you don't like the 3 that show up, you can hit their "related" links, which will bring up a list, typically of over a hundred other sources for the same story. This allows me to read several different spins on the story. I don't currently know a better way to get past the biases single outlets have.
I'm referring to the very act of violating patents and getting punished for it. If Microsoft is using this contact to avoid being punished for software patent violations, but software patent violations are wrong anyway, then what's wrong with the evasion?
If they provided a reciprocal clause, I'd say nothing. As it is, it is a one way street AFAIK, and that's kind of dirty, don't you think? Especially since it's a software license and not a patent sharing agreement.
That's the key thing I think should be stopped. I'm not rooting for them to be found guilty of patent violations. Though I suppose that alot of people in these parts just want to see the hurt put on microsoft no matter what... I see where you're coming from.
I think you miss something about this particular story, at least from my perspective... This isn't about Microsoft violating patents, it's about microsoft making people agree that they are free to violate the patents of anyone who agrees to that license. I don't like software patents, but if you're going to be a major holder of patents, thereby playing the game of patents, then this is a dirty dealing.
And really, what is the logic of making someone agree to let you violate their patents as part of a licensing agreement with software? Maybe someone in the audience has some insight on the reasoning behind this? I admit I'm not an expert in this type of thing, so I'm open to hearing how wrong I am...
However, the comparison is NOT equal. Losing control of an armed standoff is negligent, but torturing prisoners repeatedly over several months is international war crime.
They aren't equal, but they are similar, and the thing that pisses me off so much about Waco, is Clinton had years to see that justice was done about it. He had years and nothing was done. The guys responsible were fired and hired back later when the heat cooled down. Would you have let that happen if you were president? I would have blacklisted them from being employed in any federal agency.
I just find it hard for the press, to be in some conspiracy to allow fox news misslead the nation with the news.
I have to agree with you on one point, it's absurd to think that only one media outlet is misleading people and the others just magically ignore it. I wouldn't suggest that.
I can't however see some government coverup going on and all the news stations not reporting somethign or reporting it wrong for severaly reasons.
What went on with southeast Asia, went on for years without any media reports. Study up on the Pentagon Papers and you'll see how it works.
i didn't buy into the y2k end of the world syndromn.
I didn't, but I did get nervous towards the end. I hadn't unplugged from the major media yet, so I was still influenced by the deluge.
i don't buy into the fox news misleading their veiwers and no one else can give an reference to when it happened.
If you read that link I gave you previously, there are examples. There are different ways to mislead people. One way, is to get up in front of them and batantly lie. Another way is to simply tell them only part of a story. Another way, is to report a story with a straight no spin news, and immediately follow it up with a huge chunk of commentary that interprets the story a certain way. Take the "homocide bomber" label fox news uses. What is the purpose of calling people who strap bombs on themselves to kill others "homocide" bombers? Most news outlets use the word "suicide" bombers. If I plant a bomb in a building, and it kills people, wouldn't that make me a homocide bomber? How is homocide bomber an accurate term for when people strap bombs to themselves and try to kill people?
You may be tempted to think "what's the big deal". The big deal is, it's one of the many subtle ways to influence peoples thinking on a subject. It's designed to hide an element from your concious and subconcious thought about what is really going on. They do not want people realizing, that things are going on in another part of the world where people are so desperate, that they are willing to strap bombs on themselves and fight in anyway they can against what is going on. This doesn't mean I think suicide bombing is nobel, far from it. But thinking about things as they are really happening, is the only way to have an informed opinion based on reality. In every way they can hide bits of reality, and slightly alter descriptions of what is going on, they can alter your opinion about it, especially if they're your only news source. This is one SMALL example.
I understand that the showed on fox is slanted to the republicans but thats not the news itself. oriely factor is basically the same as reno911 as it is an independent entertainment/show with its own values
Ouch, that's funny. O'reilly is a bit more integrated into Fox's presentation of the news than just being an entertainment show though. The coverage of the DNC heavily involved him with commentary. Further more, he isn't offered as a Reno 911, he is offered as a serious political commentator and brands his show as "the no spin zone". I think, going by your post, you are well aware of the spin he puts on. It's very heavy and thick and undeniable to all but the most unobjective person.
Take care.
Let me make something clear, I didn't say there WASN'T a problem, that wasn't my contention AT ALL. I do blame Bush and the republicans who back him for the torture. I also blame Clinton and the democrats who back him for what happened in Waco. Where does the buck stop? When a democrat is president, it doesn't seem to stop with him. When a republican is president, everything is his fault. That's how democrats act. Of course, the reverse is true also regarding how republicans treat a democrat president. I say the buck stops at the president no matter what party he's from.
They're nice if you merely want to back up the view you've formed already, but if you are capable of viewing things in colours other than black and white, not exactly helpful. But, if you'd like a website, try The Guardian - it has quite a lot in its archives on Kosovo
Then by your same reasoning, I must reject the guardian because they are a media outlet of one of the major players in the assault and as such, their impartiality is questionable. Further, I note the article you linked to was dated before we even started bombing and it really doesn't offer any thing in the lines of hard evidence. Next, the things it reports aren't really so hard to swallow, when taken in the context of the fact that that country was engaged in a civil war. How many children have died by allied bombings in Iraq? How man civilians? The Allies can't keep from targeting civilians in a war, who the hell are we to expect others to keep from targeting them?
Ask yourself those questions. Is there something magic about our bullets that make them just? Is there something magical about our targeting techniques that make them humane? Do you even know the history of the civil war there? Are you aware that before NATO started it's sword rattling about all that, that the US had the KLA listed as a terrorist organisation up to just a few months before the war started? The same KLA who we ended up "liberating" and giving Kosovo to?
Perhaps you'll find this less biased, maybe you won't...
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew22.HTM
For a scheme like this to be possible it would have to involve the whole mass media racket from newspapers to radio to television. The conspiracy is just too crazy to actualy be there.
I have to ask you, would you believe me if I told you that both democrats and republicans were giving two different public positions on things, and behind the scenes were working towards the same goals? Would that sound too crazy for you?
Well it actually happend and was well documented back when it did happen, documented by our own government. Google for the Pentagon Papers and read up on it. I think the same thing is going on now.
I'd also recommend researching who owns the major media outlets and then looking for what the interested parties have in common. I could give you the cliff notes version, but if you research it for yourself, it will be alot more believeable than some guy on slashdot telling you stuff.
And for the record, CNN is as useless as FOX in my book, so if you're going to bash/attack me, don't do so through attacks on CNN because you'll likely end up with me agreeing with you, depending on what you say.
by the media that was too busy focusing on the blowjobs Clinton was getting in the oval office
Ah yes, that really pissed me off. Republicans wanting to be for the truth and justice and all that crap, and they focused on the lying under oath and ignored Waco. And still the democrats held Clinton in high regard. Janet Reno remained supported. What exactly did democrats want down about Waco anyway?
That's one of the most amusing statements I've ever read considering how often Bush and other conservatives have suggested they know how people should act and live (gay marriage anyone?), or are you not paying attention?
Yes I am paying attention. Have you followed how this conversation evolved? I know damn good and well what republicans are about, that's why I'm not voting for them. But democrats think they are so much different, but if they sat down and objectively analyzed their attitudes towards people they don't agree with, they'd figure this out about themselves too.
If you can provide links to websites that actually can provide hard evidence of the things that required something drastic to be done, I'd love to read them. I'd also love to read any websites you have that explain how the US was dragged kicking and screaming. Thanks.
Where was it? Where were the calls for justice? The protests? Anything?
Had Bush been president, I can see the headlines now. You can call that OT if you want, but it's no more OT than blaming Bush and the Republicans for the iraqi prisoner torture. I mean yeah, the republicans don't exactly support it, but they do by proxy when they support Bush. He is the president and it's a scandal of his administration. At least with Bush, the perps are being prosecuted. Well, the henchmen are. Whether someone up the chain needs punishing, we may never know for sure, though I suspect someone up the chain knew damn good and well what was going on.
In either event, Waco was a marvelous piece of democrat work. Fire the guys responsible, then hire them back later. Must be nice having a nice fat government job. You can make blunders that cost the lives of your fellow citizen, and count on having a job to come back to when things cool down. You can call me seeing things that way OT if you want, but that's how it worked.
When some Americans say that their media sucks and that they need to turn to sources such as the BBC for a real idea of what's going on in the world it sounds like any person bitching about their crappy media, but if OutFoxed is even to be belived on half the things it claims then America's democratic process is in serious trouble.
Seriously, if you have a book on critical thinking, or you've retained enough knowledge from a previous course, just tape a Fox news broadcast(if you can, I'm all US centric here so I don't know what other peoples are exposed to), and analyze how they present the news. It's very enlightening. It'll probably work with their text news, but I haven't tried it. That said, I'm going to order a copy of OutFoxed as you've got me interested.
I personally use google news: http://news.google.com/
for 100 percent of my news. It's the best source we have going for us in the states right now, IMO.
I believe he has specifically mentioned putting a sunset provision on it, so a few years down the road it will expire unless it's reinstated by congress.
Why not just get rid of it altogether if he thinks it's bad? That's just it, that promise is smoke. It allows him to give the illusion of having one stance, without having to do anything meaningful to back that stance up. That's the political game of the republicans and democrats. Image over substance. People vote for the image, and ignore the substance, THE SAME SUBSTANCE, behind the image. Read the pentagon papers.
I'm an American and yes I'm voting third party. I tend to disagree with people who vote for one of the two parties, failing to learn from history. But that's my beef.
And Kerry isn't going to undo the patriot act. And yes he will invade other countries, mark my words. It's just you'll be offered reasons that are more palatable to you to get you to support it. That's how it will go down.
Ask Serbia if they felt Clinton practiced direct intervention or not. Then ask them how they feel having had their country shot up with depleted Uranium.
And I'll never forget Waco, ever. Democrats seem to think it's a crime worthy of a paramilitary assault to be part of a cult. Democrats seem to think they know how people should act, should live, and should believe and they aren't above force in seeing people comply. Yeah, I remember that spell of political correctness. There's a certain justice that the new political correctness makes the democrats the target. I'd laugh at it, except that people like me get hit with the PC of both sides. Forget it man. Read the pentagon papers. Learn from history.
There's nothing more intelligent than voting for the person you think is best for the job. You won't support a third party candidate in 4 years, you'll be just as afraid then of whoever the republicans are offering as you are now. It will NEVER change, until you've decided you've had enough. I've had enough. NO MORE DEMOCRAT, NO MORE REPUBLICAN. Lying sacks of piss by any other name...
do you think kerry has an unrevealed plan pre-election to invade another country and will do so at the drop of a hat? (ala neo-con hawks)
Yes I do actually. Ala, clinton hawks(think yugoslavia).
Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?
I have more important things to worry about than taxes and welfare. My and everyone elses freedom and rights are on the line. If you're concerned about welfare, you ought to study what happened to it under Clinton.
And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.
What are you talking about? You don't think democrats have lobbiests or that they succumb to lobbiests? Do you know who was president when the DMCA passed? To name but one of the more well known examples. Do you think that was done as pure good policy, with no influence by lobbiests?
You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like
Please explain your logic here. If I don't vote at all, kerry doesn't get my vote. If I vote for my candidate(not nader), kerry doesn't get my vote. How is one any different than the other?
You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.
I do understand. I just don't think you understand that the democrats and republicans have been in on moving us in this direction for years. Google for the pentagon papers for an interesting read on relatively recent American history. Two different parties, two different goals presented to the American people in public, but behind the scenes the same goals being worked towards. Nothing has changed, except the names and dates.
He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur.
Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why is darfur Americas fault? What do you want us to do there, invade? How do you know there's genocide going on there? We were told there was genocide going on in Yugoslavia, 100,000 dead we were told. The largest mass grave they found was a few hundred people. We shot that country up with depleted uranium, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and killed thousands, over a few hundred people. I don't want be the world police anymore. Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things? Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I think enough American lives have been lost in other countries, only to have us hated and ridiculed by other countries. Forget it. World police is a thankless job and I don't think my country should have to do it anymore.
Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.
The Bush club seems to think in Black and White. Please don't do the same thing and keep saying "we got to pull out of Iraq NOW!". People like you, voting for a 3rd party, have voted Bush in last time. We have troops in Iraq because people like you voted for a 3rd party, and now you don't like it? That is not too much at stake? Just a trap? Please, learn from the mistakes of the past and try to fix them, not repeat them.
Yeah, people like ME are to blame for having the audacity to vote for who I think is the best person for the job? Why don't you blame your party(assuming you're a democrat) for nominating a candidate I didn't want to vote for? Did ya think about that? Why is it my fault that your party gives me such an unappealing option? Clean up your own political house before you going pointing fingers at me and blaming me for not wanting to vote for a candidate who I do not believe will do a good job. I have to live with myself.
Slashdot Mirror
I screwed up the google link...
http://news.google.com/
I say God bless them.
They've been nothing but good for my consulting business. Buhahaha.
I think fox isn't the only organization doing it.
Wish I saw your reply sooner... But I think anyone who thinks it's just Fox doing it, has really deceived themselves.
I have to admit about O'Reilly, he does have entertainment value and he also is known to make some strong good points and offer perspectives that some may not consider at times. If someone were to ask me how I would watch O'reilly in the context of understanding issues, I would say watch him, and then go read/listen to what other people have to say as well.
Personally, that's why I like google news. news.google.com you get your headlines, and links to 3 most recent stories about those headlines, from different media sources(including Fox). Plus, if you don't like the 3 that show up, you can hit their "related" links, which will bring up a list, typically of over a hundred other sources for the same story. This allows me to read several different spins on the story. I don't currently know a better way to get past the biases single outlets have.
I think his keynote address at the SCO forum is his best piece of shi, I mean work...t e_SCO-Forum2004.html 1 015739829
2 206&mode=thread
http://www.sco.com/2004forum/agenda/Enderle_keyno
not complete without a logical analysis done of it...
http://fallinggrace.com/article.php?story=2004081
And I think Bruce at Technocrat said it best http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/174
When I read that "six figures", I figured two of them were to the right of the decimal point.
It's my vote, I'm going to choose a candidate I want to be president, and I don't give a shit about what others think about my choice.
DAMN STRAIGHT!
I'm referring to the very act of violating patents and getting punished for it. If Microsoft is using this contact to avoid being punished for software patent violations, but software patent violations are wrong anyway, then what's wrong with the evasion?
If they provided a reciprocal clause, I'd say nothing. As it is, it is a one way street AFAIK, and that's kind of dirty, don't you think? Especially since it's a software license and not a patent sharing agreement.
That's the key thing I think should be stopped. I'm not rooting for them to be found guilty of patent violations. Though I suppose that alot of people in these parts just want to see the hurt put on microsoft no matter what... I see where you're coming from.
I think you miss something about this particular story, at least from my perspective... This isn't about Microsoft violating patents, it's about microsoft making people agree that they are free to violate the patents of anyone who agrees to that license. I don't like software patents, but if you're going to be a major holder of patents, thereby playing the game of patents, then this is a dirty dealing.
And really, what is the logic of making someone agree to let you violate their patents as part of a licensing agreement with software? Maybe someone in the audience has some insight on the reasoning behind this? I admit I'm not an expert in this type of thing, so I'm open to hearing how wrong I am...
However, the comparison is NOT equal. Losing control of an armed standoff is negligent, but torturing prisoners repeatedly over several months is international war crime.
They aren't equal, but they are similar, and the thing that pisses me off so much about Waco, is Clinton had years to see that justice was done about it. He had years and nothing was done. The guys responsible were fired and hired back later when the heat cooled down. Would you have let that happen if you were president? I would have blacklisted them from being employed in any federal agency.
I just find it hard for the press, to be in some conspiracy to allow fox news misslead the nation with the news.
I have to agree with you on one point, it's absurd to think that only one media outlet is misleading people and the others just magically ignore it. I wouldn't suggest that.
I can't however see some government coverup going on and all the news stations not reporting somethign or reporting it wrong for severaly reasons.
What went on with southeast Asia, went on for years without any media reports. Study up on the Pentagon Papers and you'll see how it works.
i didn't buy into the y2k end of the world syndromn.
I didn't, but I did get nervous towards the end. I hadn't unplugged from the major media yet, so I was still influenced by the deluge.
i don't buy into the fox news misleading their veiwers and no one else can give an reference to when it happened.
If you read that link I gave you previously, there are examples. There are different ways to mislead people. One way, is to get up in front of them and batantly lie. Another way is to simply tell them only part of a story. Another way, is to report a story with a straight no spin news, and immediately follow it up with a huge chunk of commentary that interprets the story a certain way. Take the "homocide bomber" label fox news uses. What is the purpose of calling people who strap bombs on themselves to kill others "homocide" bombers? Most news outlets use the word "suicide" bombers. If I plant a bomb in a building, and it kills people, wouldn't that make me a homocide bomber? How is homocide bomber an accurate term for when people strap bombs to themselves and try to kill people?
You may be tempted to think "what's the big deal". The big deal is, it's one of the many subtle ways to influence peoples thinking on a subject. It's designed to hide an element from your concious and subconcious thought about what is really going on. They do not want people realizing, that things are going on in another part of the world where people are so desperate, that they are willing to strap bombs on themselves and fight in anyway they can against what is going on. This doesn't mean I think suicide bombing is nobel, far from it. But thinking about things as they are really happening, is the only way to have an informed opinion based on reality. In every way they can hide bits of reality, and slightly alter descriptions of what is going on, they can alter your opinion about it, especially if they're your only news source. This is one SMALL example.
I understand that the showed on fox is slanted to the republicans but thats not the news itself. oriely factor is basically the same as reno911 as it is an independent entertainment/show with its own values
Ouch, that's funny. O'reilly is a bit more integrated into Fox's presentation of the news than just being an entertainment show though. The coverage of the DNC heavily involved him with commentary. Further more, he isn't offered as a Reno 911, he is offered as a serious political commentator and brands his show as "the no spin zone". I think, going by your post, you are well aware of the spin he puts on. It's very heavy and thick and undeniable to all but the most unobjective person. Take care.
Let me make something clear, I didn't say there WASN'T a problem, that wasn't my contention AT ALL. I do blame Bush and the republicans who back him for the torture. I also blame Clinton and the democrats who back him for what happened in Waco. Where does the buck stop? When a democrat is president, it doesn't seem to stop with him. When a republican is president, everything is his fault. That's how democrats act. Of course, the reverse is true also regarding how republicans treat a democrat president. I say the buck stops at the president no matter what party he's from.
They're nice if you merely want to back up the view you've formed already, but if you are capable of viewing things in colours other than black and white, not exactly helpful. But, if you'd like a website, try The Guardian - it has quite a lot in its archives on Kosovo
Then by your same reasoning, I must reject the guardian because they are a media outlet of one of the major players in the assault and as such, their impartiality is questionable. Further, I note the article you linked to was dated before we even started bombing and it really doesn't offer any thing in the lines of hard evidence. Next, the things it reports aren't really so hard to swallow, when taken in the context of the fact that that country was engaged in a civil war. How many children have died by allied bombings in Iraq? How man civilians? The Allies can't keep from targeting civilians in a war, who the hell are we to expect others to keep from targeting them?
Ask yourself those questions. Is there something magic about our bullets that make them just? Is there something magical about our targeting techniques that make them humane? Do you even know the history of the civil war there? Are you aware that before NATO started it's sword rattling about all that, that the US had the KLA listed as a terrorist organisation up to just a few months before the war started? The same KLA who we ended up "liberating" and giving Kosovo to?
Perhaps you'll find this less biased, maybe you won't...
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew22.HTM
For a scheme like this to be possible it would have to involve the whole mass media racket from newspapers to radio to television. The conspiracy is just too crazy to actualy be there.
I have to ask you, would you believe me if I told you that both democrats and republicans were giving two different public positions on things, and behind the scenes were working towards the same goals? Would that sound too crazy for you?
Well it actually happend and was well documented back when it did happen, documented by our own government. Google for the Pentagon Papers and read up on it. I think the same thing is going on now.
I'd also recommend researching who owns the major media outlets and then looking for what the interested parties have in common. I could give you the cliff notes version, but if you research it for yourself, it will be alot more believeable than some guy on slashdot telling you stuff.
Take care.
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but if you really want to read how FOX is setup and some of the ways they spin things, read through this site:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html
And for the record, CNN is as useless as FOX in my book, so if you're going to bash/attack me, don't do so through attacks on CNN because you'll likely end up with me agreeing with you, depending on what you say.
Could you cite a source for that information?
by the media that was too busy focusing on the blowjobs Clinton was getting in the oval office
Ah yes, that really pissed me off. Republicans wanting to be for the truth and justice and all that crap, and they focused on the lying under oath and ignored Waco. And still the democrats held Clinton in high regard. Janet Reno remained supported. What exactly did democrats want down about Waco anyway?
That's one of the most amusing statements I've ever read considering how often Bush and other conservatives have suggested they know how people should act and live (gay marriage anyone?), or are you not paying attention?
Yes I am paying attention. Have you followed how this conversation evolved? I know damn good and well what republicans are about, that's why I'm not voting for them. But democrats think they are so much different, but if they sat down and objectively analyzed their attitudes towards people they don't agree with, they'd figure this out about themselves too.
http://www.unknownnews.net/fis020603.htmln ag/ 1 41.html 7 99a.html l . htm
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/rape/na
http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2001/12/21/24
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/51
http://www.michaelparenti.org/MediaAtrocities.htm
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/mandel_canada.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/sinclair/why
If you can provide links to websites that actually can provide hard evidence of the things that required something drastic to be done, I'd love to read them. I'd also love to read any websites you have that explain how the US was dragged kicking and screaming. Thanks.
Where was it? Where were the calls for justice? The protests? Anything?
Had Bush been president, I can see the headlines now. You can call that OT if you want, but it's no more OT than blaming Bush and the Republicans for the iraqi prisoner torture. I mean yeah, the republicans don't exactly support it, but they do by proxy when they support Bush. He is the president and it's a scandal of his administration. At least with Bush, the perps are being prosecuted. Well, the henchmen are. Whether someone up the chain needs punishing, we may never know for sure, though I suspect someone up the chain knew damn good and well what was going on.
In either event, Waco was a marvelous piece of democrat work. Fire the guys responsible, then hire them back later. Must be nice having a nice fat government job. You can make blunders that cost the lives of your fellow citizen, and count on having a job to come back to when things cool down. You can call me seeing things that way OT if you want, but that's how it worked.
When some Americans say that their media sucks and that they need to turn to sources such as the BBC for a real idea of what's going on in the world it sounds like any person bitching about their crappy media, but if OutFoxed is even to be belived on half the things it claims then America's democratic process is in serious trouble.
Seriously, if you have a book on critical thinking, or you've retained enough knowledge from a previous course, just tape a Fox news broadcast(if you can, I'm all US centric here so I don't know what other peoples are exposed to), and analyze how they present the news. It's very enlightening. It'll probably work with their text news, but I haven't tried it. That said, I'm going to order a copy of OutFoxed as you've got me interested.
I personally use google news:
http://news.google.com/
for 100 percent of my news. It's the best source we have going for us in the states right now, IMO.
I believe he has specifically mentioned putting a sunset provision on it, so a few years down the road it will expire unless it's reinstated by congress.
Why not just get rid of it altogether if he thinks it's bad? That's just it, that promise is smoke. It allows him to give the illusion of having one stance, without having to do anything meaningful to back that stance up. That's the political game of the republicans and democrats. Image over substance. People vote for the image, and ignore the substance, THE SAME SUBSTANCE, behind the image. Read the pentagon papers.
I'm an American and yes I'm voting third party. I tend to disagree with people who vote for one of the two parties, failing to learn from history. But that's my beef.
And Kerry isn't going to undo the patriot act. And yes he will invade other countries, mark my words. It's just you'll be offered reasons that are more palatable to you to get you to support it. That's how it will go down.
Ask Serbia if they felt Clinton practiced direct intervention or not. Then ask them how they feel having had their country shot up with depleted Uranium.
And I'll never forget Waco, ever. Democrats seem to think it's a crime worthy of a paramilitary assault to be part of a cult. Democrats seem to think they know how people should act, should live, and should believe and they aren't above force in seeing people comply. Yeah, I remember that spell of political correctness. There's a certain justice that the new political correctness makes the democrats the target. I'd laugh at it, except that people like me get hit with the PC of both sides. Forget it man. Read the pentagon papers. Learn from history.
There's nothing more intelligent than voting for the person you think is best for the job. You won't support a third party candidate in 4 years, you'll be just as afraid then of whoever the republicans are offering as you are now. It will NEVER change, until you've decided you've had enough. I've had enough. NO MORE DEMOCRAT, NO MORE REPUBLICAN. Lying sacks of piss by any other name...
do you think kerry has an unrevealed plan pre-election to invade another country and will do so at the drop of a hat? (ala neo-con hawks)
Yes I do actually. Ala, clinton hawks(think yugoslavia).
Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?
I have more important things to worry about than taxes and welfare. My and everyone elses freedom and rights are on the line. If you're concerned about welfare, you ought to study what happened to it under Clinton.
And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.
What are you talking about? You don't think democrats have lobbiests or that they succumb to lobbiests? Do you know who was president when the DMCA passed? To name but one of the more well known examples. Do you think that was done as pure good policy, with no influence by lobbiests?
You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like
Please explain your logic here. If I don't vote at all, kerry doesn't get my vote. If I vote for my candidate(not nader), kerry doesn't get my vote. How is one any different than the other?
You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.
I do understand. I just don't think you understand that the democrats and republicans have been in on moving us in this direction for years. Google for the pentagon papers for an interesting read on relatively recent American history. Two different parties, two different goals presented to the American people in public, but behind the scenes the same goals being worked towards. Nothing has changed, except the names and dates.
He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur.
Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why is darfur Americas fault? What do you want us to do there, invade? How do you know there's genocide going on there? We were told there was genocide going on in Yugoslavia, 100,000 dead we were told. The largest mass grave they found was a few hundred people. We shot that country up with depleted uranium, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and killed thousands, over a few hundred people. I don't want be the world police anymore. Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things? Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I think enough American lives have been lost in other countries, only to have us hated and ridiculed by other countries. Forget it. World police is a thankless job and I don't think my country should have to do it anymore.
Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.
The Bush club seems to think in Black and White. Please don't do the same thing and keep saying "we got to pull out of Iraq NOW!". People like you, voting for a 3rd party, have voted Bush in last time. We have troops in Iraq because people like you voted for a 3rd party, and now you don't like it? That is not too much at stake? Just a trap? Please, learn from the mistakes of the past and try to fix them, not repeat them.
Yeah, people like ME are to blame for having the audacity to vote for who I think is the best person for the job? Why don't you blame your party(assuming you're a democrat) for nominating a candidate I didn't want to vote for? Did ya think about that? Why is it my fault that your party gives me such an unappealing option? Clean up your own political house before you going pointing fingers at me and blaming me for not wanting to vote for a candidate who I do not believe will do a good job. I have to live with myself.