Your Choice For President of the U.S. - 2004

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=Longhornjok link=board=99;num=1051303715;start=100#119 date=08/31/03 at 19:59:22]I am just not a fan of the mean-spirited methods many radio talk show hosts use, even though I understand why they do it. Yes, some of the shows do bring guests on who offer a different perspective, but only to barely let the person get a complete sentence out before they interrupt them. It frequently ends up being more an ambush than a discussion, because the host controls things. Again, I understand it; I think ranting and raving tends to draw equally impassioned listeners, thus ratings. I just find it neither informative nor entertaining, and it has nothing to do with the conservative slant.[/quote]
Honestly depends on who you listen to. Bortz and Limbaugh are more in line with this interupting technique, Rush mostly. But have you ever listened to Liddy, Hannidy, Ken Hamblin (Black Republican)? They are very civil, and usually let their opponent and caller's every words out. I think you're drawing conclusions and generalizations about talk radio due to it's most famous headliner, Rush Limbaugh. I'll just disagree with you, cuz I've gotten alot of thought provoking opinions and good facts from talk radio minus the ranting and raving.

I will have to check out this "Left, Right, and Center" show, sounds interesting.

Oh, and funny you mention Chris Matthews. I think he is one of the most obnoxious television personalities. He never lets anyone talk without interupting them. I guess because he is liberal, that's ok... :-/

 

[13788]

Longhornjok: Yes, Chris Matthews steps on other people a lot, too, and that's annoying (as does Bill O'Reilly, as does Sean Hannity). I just like Matthews, even in his obnoxiousness, because I have actually heard him listen to a guest and say, "hmmm, interesting point, I never thought of it that way" and that's refreshing. I know who Liddy is but I haven't heard his radio show. I don't know Hamblin, but I think Larry Elder was given the black conservative talk-show host slot in LA, so maybe we don't get him here. I'll see if I can find those guys on LA radio.

And Gig, you are the only person I have ever heard refer to Chris Matthews as a liberal. I assume you must think I am a liberal, since you goaded me with that "it must be ok" line. Is any one who's not conservative a liberal? What happened to moderates? What happened to maybe-all-my-political-beliefs-don't-fit-neatly-into-one-box? I have opinions all over the political spectrum, depending on whether we're talking foreign policy, domestic issues, or social issues. That's why I like hearing a diverse group of opinions. Point me to THAT show and I'll listen to it!

 

[MisterMark]

I'm not really crazy about Chris Matthews, but I think he does a great job. One of the reasons I think that he's good is that he is often accused of being "a liberal" by the right-wing, and a "conservative" by the left-wing. That tells me that he's perfect for the job of political talk-show host. I really believe that he can relate to both sides almost equally.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Sorry, just made the assumption you're pretty left since I've never heard you express a right-wing opinion on here.  Whenever there was a political debate on here, you just seemed to always fall to the left.  

Alot of people claim to be moderate as a safety net.  That way they can't be judged and unfairly generalized in two categorys.  I'm pretty right wing.  I have liberal opinions, but by no means does that make me moderate.  I can accept I am closer to Republican, but whenever asked (in person not online) I always say moderate.  As a young person, it is always unfair and not fun to be characterized as some sort of tight-ass, rich, white-boy, preppy Republican.  Someone even said to me "You don't look Republican".  By appearence and personality, if anything (being a theatre person and as quirky as I am) I would fit into the neat lil Liberal stereotype.  I guess there is a lesson here...  LOOKS CAN BE DECIEVING, and not everyone can be thrown into a social stereotype due to their political beliefs.

Sorry, i really have no clue where i am going with this.  Guess I struck my own chord.  Sorry for jumping to conclusions about your political beliefs, LHJ.

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: I'm pretty liberal, always have been, but I've also always subscribed to the quaint belief that people of good will can (and should) have honest differences of opinion in matters of public policy. That's what democracy is founded on. Supposedly the give and take between conservative and progressive forces provides an equilibrium. Whether or not that actually works, I don't know. We all know Churchill's famous bon mot that democracy is the worst government system in the world, except for all the others. (Although I know he said it much more pithily than that)

So, I'm all for dissenting voices, and for opinions that challenge my own, often instinctive, knee-jerk reactions. What I object to is stridency and dogma, whether the people doing the screeching are Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken; Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore; Ann Coulter or James Carville. These people are liars. They have an agenda: lining their own pockets, mostly. The dehumanizing of 'the other side' and the characterization of someone with opposing political beliefs as 'stupid' 'ignorant' or 'evil' is not a good thing. I think G. Gordon Liddy is an intelligent, interesting person who would probably be a great dinner companion, although I doubt that (except for, perhaps, the 2nd amendment) he and I would agree on anything. I think William Safire is a master of the English language--again, I don't think I ever agreed with him on anything (except the draconian Total Information Agency: Safire was the first mainstream commentator to write a serious denouncing of that agency. You didn't see a liberal columnist doing that.) For that liberal perspective Maureen Dowd is one of my current favorites, because even though she's really catty, she's able to write critiques of politicians (left and right) with some wit and style.

Well, I'm rambling. Just a few thoughts.

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=mkeycrash link=board=99;num=1051303715;start=100#116 date=08/31/03 at 17:34:26]I don't think you are giving enough of those talk show hosts credit, though.  Alot of times many of them do correct mislead listeners by using factual information that can be backed up.  Problem is many people form opinions without actually checking to see if any of their opinions truly are fact based.  

Propoganda is only information forced down your throat by everyday sources, if you don't like talk radio or dont agree with their opinions, you don't have to listen.[/quote]

For some, talk radio is their source of information and synthesis on the happenings of the day. Is it too much to ask that the basic facts are correct? or that other facts may be in dispute? Failure to identify what is known with certainty and that which is surmised or extrapolated is one indication of intellectual laziness.

I am sure tht you are right about the talk hosts being well prepared....a friend was an intern one summer and helped craft positions/answers for one of the talk jocks....which one? I do not know...I am sure that at one time I did, but since I have never listened to talk radio the name did not stick. I am really turned off by the anger (and hate?) and the desire to get somebody. The point is that some (maybe all) talk jocks are backed up by a staff of vituperative writers and researchers.

It is my understanding (again from sleeping with a communications major in college) that effective propaganda appeals to a bias, to patriotism, to a love of the fatherland and its culture, to a cultural uniqueness, to a desire to right a wrong (reparations after WW I), and/or to emasculate an enemy. So anyone who justifies an action as a defense of _____ is in fact introducing a bit of propaganda into the discussion. In short, propaganda is spin.

The only time forced-down-the-throat propaganda works is through terror. Stalin and Saddam used terror to achieve ends.....but with the deaths of many millions.

I will take your word that there are responsible talk jocks.....but Liddy? Last spring I was stuck in a trailer on a construction site as buckets of water poured down with 3 talk radio junkies. Liddy was ridiculing the left wing that was protesting the march to war in Iraq.....my buddies of course wanted me to hear this since I was one of the low-lifes that did not see WMDs and the threat to America. Liddy did....there was no doubt there were WMDs and delivery systems. How did he know? Friends in the intelligence field told him. Yeah, he CONFIRMED their existence by asking people with the same beliefs that he shared. To date, we have found no WMDs. Liddy responsible? On this issue, I think not.

jay

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well just my thoughts...i think we missed the boat when ross perot wasnt elected...well...maybe not him...but someone that maybe doesnt have the political 'detante'
but maybe the common sense business savy that wouldnt always do the PC thing...but the thing that maybe made the best business sense...the last thing we need is another 'politician' to be president...need someone that has been a successful business person and cut out all the crap spending [line item veto] and do whats best for ALL AMERICANS...how nice would it be to have a national sales tax...instead of income tax...dont pay tax on what you make...just what you spend...that would draw out all kinds of 'black market economy' money...*steps down off soapbox*

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Ok, i saw that speech Bush gave last night, and is it just me, or is 87 billion dollars really really really a lotta money? Is anything of the Federal Expenditure directed to other destinations anymore?

Bush should stay on, clean up the mess he made.

 

[B_RoysToy]

If Bush stays on, the mess will get messier! There's no limit to the amount of money he would like to get his cronies. Over 80% of the Iraqi oil revenue is lining their pockets now, and the reconstruction process pays well, also. Of all the big business Republicans this country has had, Bush takes the top spot.

Keep in mind, this has all been done by hoodwinking the people of the United States and diverting their attention from internal affairs to the great scare of 'these foreign people gonna get us'!

Our schrub in the White House used the horrific 9/11 to attempt to finish what dear ole Dad should have done and to capitalize on the situation at the expense of our nation.

Sorry, this subject just hits a nerve that demands some outlet.

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: Javierdude-

Yes, 87,000,000,000 dollars is a really really really lot of money.

The only thing that really irks me about the whole Iraq thing...why wasn't an exit strategy formed BEFOREHAND...even a rudimentary one? Our domestic problems are not going away.....and Iraq is looking more and more like a quagmire every day.

I still see Bush going the way of his father if he doesn't start doing a little more domestic care...the American people are very much "what have you done for me lately?"

7x6&C

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Exactly Paul....and see, what I don't quite understand is where he expects Congress to pull the money from.

I'll explain. In Holland, every third tuesday of September we have our 'State of the Union', we call it Princesday, which is in a few weeks. The queen holds a speech, indeed about the state of our country in economic and social aspects. But government also presents the budget for each Ministry. Something that can be tampered with a little bit, but in general the numbers are pretty much fixed. E.g. Education and interestpayments is the biggest budgetconsumer, at app. 14 billion Euro's each (we're a small country  ;D) so you can imagine how 87 billion sounds here.

So how does that work in Congress? He held his State of the Union speech, aren't budgets made up already roughly? Does this mean that education and healthcare are getting less than they would without the request for 87 billion? How does that work?

Thanx

 

[13788]

aj2181: Javierdude,

I just took a class about the U.S. Congress last semester so I figure I can answer some of those questions.

Not too long ago Congress finnally got around to passing the budget for the fiscal year we are in and have started the budget for the next fiscal year which if it hasn't started yet it will shortly. By law Congress has to aprove the budget by a certain date, They're usually late. If they are late they pass extentions of the budget for the last fiscal year.
Once they have a budget Congress decides just how much is going to be spent in which catagory by the apropriations Commitee in both the house and senate.

In the case of this 80 billion and the current budget. This 80 billion is just an add on to the current budget. The amounts spent for education, health care, social security, etc. can be tampered with, but it is unlikely because those are entitlements of the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens tend not to like it when their entitlements are tampered with.

Something that may not last is the tax cut. The democrats have the tax cut in range of their heavy artillery They will use this as an excuse to pick the tax cut apart. What success they will have who knows.

Mr. Bush and most of his predecessors before him send a budget request to Congress for every fiscal year. The Congress always looks it over carefully then usually completly changes it.

As far as where the money will come from...they will borrow it from banks, rich people, and from other sources over seas. This will just compound the debt of trillions we already have. It may also have an adverse effect on the economy. Making it harder for banks to loan money by raising interest rates.

Now if we were spending this kind of money to revitalize the economy it could have had an energizing effect. History has shown that the best way to get a nation out of an economic down turn has been deficit spending. We did it during the great depression while fighting World War Two. Unfortunately this money will all go to pay for the rebuilding and stablization of Iraq and will not have any benefit for the U.S. economy. Realistically we could remain in a weak and unstable Iraq for years and years and drain the treasury on it....which doesn't bode well for us.

Then there is Afganistan. It is stable but only around Kabul. The rest is ruled by war lords. That is another place draining us of money and man power.

It all adds up to not a pretty picture.

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: I think...or I tend to think...that we were depending on Iraq to be a little easier - primarily as far as oil revenues are concerned...because that would then pay somewhat for its own rebuilding...

Not happening, sadly. As a percentage of the national budget, 87 billion is not ALL that much money...but if we did that EVERY YEAR...we'd be in a heap of trouble in no time flat.

7x6&C

 

[13788]

aj2181: [quote author=7by6etC link=board=99;num=1051303715;start=120#132 date=09/09/03 at 16:23:24]I think...or I tend to think...that we were depending on Iraq to be a little easier -
Not happening, sadly.  As a percentage of the national budget, 87 billion is not ALL that much money...but if we did that EVERY YEAR...we'd be in a heap of trouble in no time flat.

7x6&C[/quote]

Your right. Mr. bush did think that Iraq would be a sinch. It's not and they were deluded to think it would be.

By the way congrats on being named a moderator

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Hmm... if Iraq is costing $87b, how much is Afghanistan costing??? I think I read somewhere that the Afghan government is pushing for peacekeeping forces to help stabilise the rest of the country as well (esp. after that incident with the Danish relief charity).

It's not in America's interest to stay in Iraq too long, but then again, it's also not in it's interest to leave too early, leaving a country full of potential martyrs looking to punish those that bombed them into submission then deserted them.

What really needs to happen is this UN-peacekeeping force, pref. with a strong Muslim/Arab contingent, but that's not going to happen with the current 'You can help clean up our mess, but we're in charge' attitude.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Thanx for that AJ, it's a lot clearer now.

Paul, indeed, 87 billion is not thát much on the US national budget percentagewise. It's just that I read once that we could lift Africa from poverty with a financial injection of 50 billion dollars. Foreign Direct Investment in Africa is a mere 0,05 percent of total world FDI or 1 billion dollars approximately for Africa. I know it would be a bit unrealistic that that could be done with a snap of the finger by either economic power, but still, it puts things in perspective.

You guys hit the spot I think with Mr. Bush thinking Iraq would be an easy task. The thing is though, that the 'war on terrorism' in itsself is almost impossible. Terrorism has no national boundaries and no economic system to sanction. It is a war that simply can not be won, in my view, by blazing guns. The next generation will rise and take up arms just as easily. Maybe it is time for a different persepctive on the solution to this problem.

 

[13788]

aj2181: [quote author=longtimelurker link=board=99;num=1051303715;start=120#134 date=09/11/03 at 11:26:01]Hmm... if Iraq is costing $87b, how much is Afghanistan costing???

What really needs to happen is this UN-peacekeeping force, pref. with a strong Muslim/Arab contingent, but that's not going to happen with the current 'You can help clean up our mess, but we're in charge' attitude.[/quote]

longtimelurker,

I'm not sure how much the Afgan mission is costing. The broght spot there is we are not alone. We have coalition support for the afgan operation, notably France and Germany. They are also helping to foot the bill in afganistan which helps a lot.

In regard to your comments about a U-N force I think your right on the mark