Oops, what a stupid thing to say!

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/26/2006 07:42:47 PM · #26

Originally posted by dudephil:

Sorry but ignorant was the word that fit best in this situation. Read the original post and show me where I am incorrect in labeling it as such. The link was to Rush "blowhard" Limbaugh's comments but his post hardly said such did it? He goes on to say, "if I were an American, blah blah blah". However, if he were an American would he not know that Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality and hardly a policymaker here? Do you not consider that to be ignorant?

Frankly I am not a fan of George Bush or his mistakes, but I am a fan of America. Nothing bothers me more than misinformation on either side of the political spectrum and there's plenty of it spewed in my face on a daily basis. So much hypocrisy exists on both sides that if you think the Democrats are more for you than the Republicans are you are a fool - and vice versa. It's time for a change but until we pull our heads from our asses and realize that until we refuse to make the choice of the lesser of two evils we will never be where we should. Give 3rd 4th and 5th parties a chance. I find it saddening that the most powerful nation on earth can only find two people to choose from every 4 years.

My gripe with your post is that you seem to contend that it is pointless to discuss these things; and that no one will change their mind. I disagree; and know for a fact, that there are many people who just haven't taken the time to ask the questions. When they do, they can change the world.

I find it interesting how some Americans take such offense at criticism by foreigners. I am also intrigued by that fact that many foreign news services broadcast information that we never get here in the US. Where do we get off asserting that we know what's best for other countries, while refusing to entertain outside opinions about how we do things; especially when we can't even trust the information we are given?

How will my photography ever improve if I insist that it is perfect and no one else knows anything? Seems pretty arrogant, to me.

As for the rest of your post, I wholeheartedly agree. I love America and what I was taught to believe it stands for. Sadly, this thing that exists now is very far from that ideal. I wish that multiple parties would make a difference, but I suspect that we are being controlled by one entity now; and that it will take much more than multiple parties to break it down. I believe that it will take a revolution of thought; and threads like this are one of the many ways to enact that change.

Edit: PS, True that Rush Limbaugh may not be a "Policy Maker"; though, I feel he is actually a "Policy Mouthpiece" which is even more dangerous, because he pretends to be a free thinker while leading the masses down a hostile and deadly path. It's foolish to underestimate the cult-like power that he wields over his followers.

Message edited by author 2006-10-26 19:51:33.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/26/2006 08:25:47 PM · #27

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Glad we agree on something!;)

I think we may agree on more things. I really don't disagree with the issues you brought up except to some degree who gets the blame for them. I framed the questions the way I did so as to determine if in fact you are truly non-partisan as you stated. FWIW, I also consider myself to be an independant as I'm sure most people truly are.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/26/2006 08:43:23 PM · #28

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by yanko:
Hypocrisy is on both sides of these issues unfortunately hence why each issue should be addressed separately.

Actually, both sides are completely consistent. Pro-Lifers want to protect innocent life only. They feel that someone on death row deserves to die as per the Old Testament. They also feel that the collateral damage of war is okay because the war is for the greater good. In other words, they feel that God is on our side no matter what war we fight. A borderline-psychotic but perfectly consistent viewpoint.

On the pro-choice side is also the notion that a life is not inherently worth saving. In their case, they don't believe in the soul. They think a life is only worth saving if it has formed enough to survive independently, and it becomes more worth saving as a mind develops. Once this mind is fully developed, the life is "sacred" in some rationalistic sense of the word. They don't believe that a government has the kind of authority to take a human life.

Then there are the rest of us, who fish out a stance between these extremes.

What other possible stances can one fish out between those two while remaining consistent?

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

10/26/2006 08:58:14 PM · #29

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I don't think it's pointless to discuss these things. I just said that political posts in a photography forum have yet to change anyone's mind. Just look at this thread. The only people who are participating are the ones who have their minds made up already.

I find it interesting how some Americans take such offense at criticism by foreigners. I am also intrigued by that fact that many foreign news services broadcast information that we never get here in the US. Where do we get off asserting that we know what's best for other countries, while refusing to entertain outside opinions about how we do things; especially when we can't even trust the information we are given?

Yet you trust that the information that these other countries are given about us is unbiased?

How will my photography ever improve if I insist that it is perfect and no one else knows anything? Seems pretty arrogant, to me.

I find it more arrogant to critique another without applying it to one's own work. America is pretty easy to critique when it comes to her mistakes but you don't see many 10's or three thumbs up from these countries when we give more in foreign aid than any other nation. Let a disaster occur and see who leads the way in monetary donations and assistance. During those times, if you listen carefully, you can hear crickets chirping from the usual critics. If you're not hearing crickets then you're hearing how we should've done more. In other words, it would be a heckuva lot easier to listen to criticism if: 1. You actually work on your own problems and 2. Give a bit of praise when it's deserved.

Edit: PS, True that Rush Limbaugh may not be a "Policy Maker"; though, I feel he is actually a "Policy Mouthpiece" which is even more dangerous, because he pretends to be a free thinker while leading the masses down a hostile and deadly path. It's foolish to underestimate the cult-like power that he wields over his followers.

The same could be said for Al Franken or even Howard Stern for that matter. Mouthpiece? Sure. Policy mouthpiece? Hardly.

I deem it more foolish to start a thread linking to a Rush Limbaugh comment then pawning it off as the feelings of the administration. I would have thought that more people would be concerned about truth rather than partisanship in the case of original post in this thread. I was wrong.

10/26/2006 09:02:14 PM · #30

Elections are in a couple of weeks, folks. Just remember no matter which party you vote for, anything short of voting with a bullet is another vote cast for the status quo. And that's.... ok.

10/26/2006 09:08:04 PM · #31

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Glad we agree on something!;)

I think we may agree on more things. I really don't disagree with the issues you brought up except to some degree who gets the blame for them. I framed the questions the way I did so as to determine if in fact you are truly non-partisan as you stated. FWIW, I also consider myself to be an independant as I'm sure most people truly are.

I am non-partisan. I moved to the center from my conservative days, with the help of Rush Limbaugh; to whom I was a once a dedicated listener. I couldn't reconcile his hatred and venom with the Christian ideals he pretends to espouse. I don't really blame him or Republicans, though. We have no one to blame but ourselves, for being so complacent. Our leaders have been greedy and corrupt for a long, long time and we are in such deep denial that we are unwittingly aiding them in their imperialistic goals.

10/26/2006 09:08:40 PM · #32

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Elections are in a couple of weeks, folks. Just remember no matter which party you vote for, anything short of voting with a bullet is another vote cast for the status quo. And that's.... ok.

What's ok...the bullet or the status quo?

10/26/2006 09:46:58 PM · #33

Originally posted by routerguy666:

How is dismissing the concerns of people who do nothing but bitch and never take alternative (and presumably more enlightened) actions on their own a form of denial?

All I had access to is your quote, which explicitly says that the entire rest of the world is "hypocritical, lazy and unable to act." This is the classic "everyone is crazy except for me" argument which is on the top of the denial charts with a bullet. If that is not what you meant, then go ahead and fix what you said.

And to yanko, do you really think those are the only two consistent stances? How about a complete pro life stance, in which abortion is wrong and capital punishment is wrong? I can think of many consistent stances. I myself am situated a good half-centimeter to the right of the pro-choice stance. :)

10/26/2006 10:11:05 PM · #34

Originally posted by posthumous:

This is the classic "I can not address what's been said, therefore I will pretend something else was said and respond to that" argument.

Come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

10/26/2006 10:29:43 PM · #35

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

My gripe with your post is that you seem to contend that it is pointless to discuss these things; and that no one will change their mind. I disagree; and know for a fact, that there are many people who just haven't taken the time to ask the questions. When they do, they can change the world.

I don't think it's pointless to discuss these things. I just said that political posts in a photography forum have yet to change anyone's mind. Just look at this thread. The only people who are participating are the ones who have their minds made up already.

The reason I disagree with this is that I know how many people read these threads and don't post. It's true that most of those who post in them have made up their minds; but it's not absolute. I have had my eyes opened and found great new ideas to research, as a result of this type of thread; and I suspect that I am not alone.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I find it interesting how some Americans take such offense at criticism by foreigners. I am also intrigued by that fact that many foreign news services broadcast information that we never get here in the US. Where do we get off asserting that we know what's best for other countries, while refusing to entertain outside opinions about how we do things; especially when we can't even trust the information we are given?

Yet you trust that the information that these other countries are given about us is unbiased?

Didn't say that. The foreign media has it's own reasons for slanting the truth. However, I do know of many instances where foreigners have gotten more accurate information than we have. It's a shame that so many Americans have neither knowledge of, nor interest in, the events that shape their lives. Time and time again I have learned that foreigners have a better grasp of what's going on here, than my own friends and family. Until that changes, I contend that they have just as much right to criticize us as we do them.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

How will my photography ever improve if I insist that it is perfect and no one else knows anything? Seems pretty arrogant, to me.

I find it more arrogant to critique another without applying it to one's own work. America is pretty easy to critique when it comes to her mistakes but you don't see many 10's or three thumbs up from these countries when we give more in foreign aid than any other nation. Let a disaster occur and see who leads the way in monetary donations and assistance. During those times, if you listen carefully, you can hear crickets chirping from the usual critics. If you're not hearing crickets then you're hearing how we should've done more. In other words, it would be a heckuva lot easier to listen to criticism if: 1. You actually work on your own problems and 2. Give a bit of praise when it's deserved.

That's a whole can of worms that I'm too tired to get into, tonight. I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that much of disaster relief is funded by private donations (including disasters in our own country). Regardless, we would be foolish to think that we are going to get foreign respect by throwing money at disasters. I was raised to believe in giving for the sake of giving and to expect nothing in return. Otherwise, we are trying to buy their support; and that will never work.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Edit: PS, True that Rush Limbaugh may not be a "Policy Maker"; though, I feel he is actually a "Policy Mouthpiece" which is even more dangerous, because he pretends to be a free thinker while leading the masses down a hostile and deadly path. It's foolish to underestimate the cult-like power that he wields over his followers.

The same could be said for Al Franken or even Howard Stern for that matter. Mouthpiece? Sure. Policy mouthpiece? Hardly.

I deem it more foolish to start a thread linking to a Rush Limbaugh comment then pawning it off as the feelings of the administration. I would have thought that more people would be concerned about truth rather than partisanship in the case of original post in this thread. I was wrong.

I suppose that if we had a Democratic leadership and Al Franken took the place of Rush Limbaugh in the media, he might be considered a "Policy Mouthpiece". And if those policies were leading our country down a path of destruction, I would participate in a thread condemning his actions. As it stands, that's not the case. As for Howard Stern...not even worth the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I still force myself to listen to Rush upon occasion, in a futile attempt to remain balanced in my information gathering. Sadly, his talking points are the same as those made by the BA. Most of it has to do with ridiculing and name calling anyone who doesn't tow the party line, blame shifting, accusing dissenters of being unpatriotic and pretending to espouse moral values that they cannot live up to. I have actually been shouted down by Rush followers because I had the nerve to suggest that rushing into Iraq would be a disaster. I suppose the argument as to whether or not he is a "Policy Mouthpiece" depends upon what you believe the policies are, and who you think is forming them. We can argue that one until the cows come home, Instead I'll consent that there are some opinions that these threads cannot change.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/26/2006 11:15:07 PM · #36

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

Ach! I will never be ready to play with the big kids... they are such grotesque creatures, six feet high with huge heads and sad eyes, and nasty tongues poking at anything they don't understand... all they want to play is Dodgeball, which I am an expert at, but it makes me dizzy.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

10/26/2006 11:22:31 PM · #37

I'm just going to address one point raised early in the thread and that is GW's "reputation" with the rest of the world and how that compared with Clinton's.

My personal experience, admittedly limited, was that Clinton was a laughing stock as well. When I was in Russia after the whole Monica-gate thing, any European we met snickered or sneered when Clinton's name was mentioned. Throughout the market place were Clinton matruska (sp? -- you know those little nesting doll thingys). Open up Clinton, and find the likeness of 5 or 6 women, the last of which was Hillary. Everywhere was "stuff" poking fun at him. It was rather embarrassing, actually.

I'm *not* arguing for one or the other, so please don't accuse me of trying to divert attention to Mr. Bill and away from Mr. George. I'm simply relaying my experiences in this particular instance.

Continue . . .

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/27/2006 12:13:20 AM · #38

Originally posted by posthumous:

And to yanko, do you really think those are the only two consistent stances? How about a complete pro life stance, in which abortion is wrong and capital punishment is wrong? I can think of many consistent stances. I myself am situated a good half-centimeter to the right of the pro-choice stance. :)

What I originally referred to was the actual stances that get traction. These "grays" in between rarely see the light of day, which is to say they are non-existent politically. If you're a pro-choice republican and you have aspirations of getting somewhere in the republican party you're shit out of luck unless you bury your pro-choice views and even then good luck getting far without being tough on capital punishment and the like. Same goes for a democrat pro-life candidate. Perhaps if these candidates were real and managed to keep their views consistent while running for the presidency this country would be in a much better place than it is now.

10/27/2006 12:24:40 AM · #39

Originally posted by karmat:

There's no real point in arguing one or the other. There is an undercurrent in this thread hinting to the suggestion that "one or the other" is actually "one and the same"; one in which the Clintons and the Bushes are on the same team.

What's pathetic is how we've fallen into the trap of arguing Republican vs. Democrat in this real-life soap opera that they have created to control us. It saddens me that we have so willingly been led down this path by hypocrites and hate mongers who use our desires to make the world better as a tool to pit us against each other.

Message edited by author 2006-10-27 00:25:17.

10/27/2006 08:44:56 AM · #40

Say what you will about Clinton's policies - the man was the ultimate politician.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

10/27/2006 08:54:41 AM · #41

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by posthumous:

And to yanko, do you really think those are the only two consistent stances? How about a complete pro life stance, in which abortion is wrong and capital punishment is wrong? I can think of many consistent stances. I myself am situated a good half-centimeter to the right of the pro-choice stance. :)

What I originally referred to was the actual stances that get traction. These "grays" in between rarely see the light of day, which is to say they are non-existent politically. If you're a pro-choice republican and you have aspirations of getting somewhere in the republican party you're shit out of luck unless you bury your pro-choice views and even then good luck getting far without being tough on capital punishment and the like. Same goes for a democrat pro-life candidate. Perhaps if these candidates were real and managed to keep their views consistent while running for the presidency this country would be in a much better place than it is now.

Ah, gotcha. This is a flaw of the Two-Party system, which, btw, is NOT in the Constitution. When Clinton ran for re-election, I voted for Nader. Go, third parties!

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

10/27/2006 01:14:45 PM · #42

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Time and time again I have learned that foreigners have a better grasp of what's going on here, than my own friends and family. Until that changes, I contend that they have just as much right to criticize us as we do them.

I am going to try to be as civil as I can in my reply here so please don't take what I am about to say as an attack or demeaning towards your friends or family. However, if I felt that most foreigners have more knowledge about what's going on in my country than my friends or family then what does that say about the people I associate myself with. To be perfectly honest, I can't say that a single one of my friends has less knowledge of my country than any average foreigner would. Now I do have family members that are politically biased but to say that they know less about the goings on of America than most foreigners is silly.

That's a whole can of worms that I'm too tired to get into, tonight. I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that much of disaster relief is funded by private donations (including disasters in our own country).

Hardly correct. When George Bush promises millions or billions of dollars in disaster relief to foreign victims of tsunamis or other disasters do you seriously think that he is making promises based on future donations of private individuals?

Regardless, we would be foolish to think that we are going to get foreign respect by throwing money at disasters. I was raised to believe in giving for the sake of giving and to expect nothing in return. Otherwise, we are trying to buy their support; and that will never work.

Why should we not get respect and appreciation by doing more to help than any other nation on earth? Were you not also raised to appreciate the giver in situations like this? Just exactly what does deserve praise? You make posts saying that other nations have the right to criticize yet by your way of thinking we deserve to be criticized no matter what we do. Please don't think that I'm saying that everything we do is right and just, I'm just trying to understand how, by your way of thinking, that if everything we did do was right and just we should still accept criticism because "we did it for the sake of giving and expect nothing in return".

I suppose that if we had a Democratic leadership and Al Franken took the place of Rush Limbaugh in the media, he might be considered a "Policy Mouthpiece". And if those policies were leading our country down a path of destruction, I would participate in a thread condemning his actions. As it stands, that's not the case. As for Howard Stern...not even worth the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

What does the party who holds office matter when it comes to radio talk show hosts? If they're all full of crap and are promoting their own agenda then why is Limbaugh worse than Franken simply because a Republican is President? As for Howard Stern, he has a following greater than Limbaugh and Franken combined so don't dismiss his minions when it comes to who he says to vote for.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/27/2006 02:28:26 PM · #43

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by posthumous:

And to yanko, do you really think those are the only two consistent stances? How about a complete pro life stance, in which abortion is wrong and capital punishment is wrong? I can think of many consistent stances. I myself am situated a good half-centimeter to the right of the pro-choice stance. :)

What I originally referred to was the actual stances that get traction. These "grays" in between rarely see the light of day, which is to say they are non-existent politically. If you're a pro-choice republican and you have aspirations of getting somewhere in the republican party you're shit out of luck unless you bury your pro-choice views and even then good luck getting far without being tough on capital punishment and the like. Same goes for a democrat pro-life candidate. Perhaps if these candidates were real and managed to keep their views consistent while running for the presidency this country would be in a much better place than it is now.

Ah, gotcha. This is a flaw of the Two-Party system, which, btw, is NOT in the Constitution. When Clinton ran for re-election, I voted for Nader. Go, third parties!

Massachusetts is currently trying to pass a voting reform law that will allow candidates to be listed more than once on the ballot. This is an attempt to give "third parties" more of a voice. The thinking goes like this:

As things stand now, parties like the Libertarians and the Green Party have to sun their "own" candidate for each office, and it is commonly acknowledged that these candidates don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting elected. So for supporters of these parties, the choice is to "throw away your vote" to make a statement, or support what is in your mind the best viable candidate and become a part of a faceless majority.

Under the proposed new system, it would be allowed for a candidate to appear more than once on the ballot, and all votes cast for the candidate would appear in his/her total votes received. So, for example, if the Green Party and any other "fringe" parties felt that the Democratic candidate for president was a far better choice than the Republican candidate, they could list his name in their section of the ballot.

In theory, when/if the Democrat gets elected, if s/he sees that, say, 10% of his/her votes came from the Green Party, then this would provide some impetus to accommodate that party, to listen to their POV as a significant portion of the power base that elected the president.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties are fighting this one tooth and nail :-)

R.

10/27/2006 02:32:59 PM · #44

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Massachusetts is currently trying to pass a voting reform law that will allow candidates to be listed more than once on the ballot.

New York seems to have this law already. I wonder if New Jersey does? In my district, Democrats often don't even bother running. :(

10/27/2006 08:07:03 PM · #45

Originally posted by dudephil:

OK, now that Iâ��ve questioned what this says about the nature of my associations; what might you suggest I do next? Perhaps I can get them shipped off to a desert island where their poor decision making skills arenâ��t harmful to our nation? Because as it stands, they are making critical decisions based on disinformation and ignorance. Iâ��m happy for your friends and family; because they must all be in the 25% who didnâ��t bomb this poll.. But itâ��s unrealistic to think that by disassociating ourselves from the ignorant and ill-informed that we are better off. Ignorance is an epidemic, that untended, will deliver us all into slavery.

Originally posted by dudephil:

To be perfectly honest, I can't say that a single one of my friends has less knowledge of my country than any average foreigner would. Now I do have family members that are politically biased but to say that they know less about the goings on of America than most foreigners is silly.

Thatâ��s understandable. I didnâ��t ask you to say that. Heck, I wouldnâ��t even say that. Hereâ��s what I said:
"I am also intrigued by that fact that many foreign news services broadcast information that we never get here in the US. Where do we get off asserting that we know what's best for other countries, while refusing to entertain outside opinions about how we do things; especially when we can't even trust the information we are given?" and "Time and time again I have learned that foreigners have a better grasp of what's going on here, than my own friends and family."

Let me put this another way: As long as we are so arrogant to believe that we are always right, and that our news sources are always honest and accurate we are doomed to exist in a vacuum of ignorance. America hasnâ��t proven to me that it has the exclusive right to judge other countries. The foreigners that I speak of are people that I have met; and by no means did I mean to represent them as any sort of average or majority. I am simply stating an opinion based on personal experience with many foreigners who are extremely educated about America and interested in our policies.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

That's a whole can of worms that I'm too tired to get into, tonight. I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that much of disaster relief is funded by private donations (including disasters in our own country).

Hardly correct. When George Bush promises millions or billions of dollars in disaster relief to foreign victims of tsunamis or other disasters do you seriously think that he is making promises based on future donations of private individuals?

Nope; and Iâ��m not sure how you got that from what I said.

According to US Department of State Website
â��On February 9, President Bush asked Congress to increase the U.S. commitment to a total of $950 million.â��

According to US Department of State Website
â��U.S. private-sector contributions to tsunami relief already have topped $360 million and are expected to reach nearly $700 million when planned fundraising is complete, according to figures released January 11 by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.â��

Granted "much" is a vague word; but based on this information I stand by my statement.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Regardless, we would be foolish to think that we are going to get foreign respect by throwing money at disasters. I was raised to believe in giving for the sake of giving and to expect nothing in return. Otherwise, we are trying to buy their support; and that will never work.

Why should we not get respect and appreciation by doing more to help than any other nation on earth?

How would you define â��doing more to help than any other nation on earthâ��?

When adjusted per capita, US donations pale in comparison to that of many other countries when it comes to the tsunami aid.

According to these statistics Norway rates #1 in generosity at $30.263 per 1 population, with the US in 19th place at $2.678 per 1 population.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Were you not also raised to appreciate the giver in situations like this?

Appreciate, yes...submit to extortion, no. It hardly seems fair to give foreign aid with the stipulation that the receiver forfeits their rights to criticize or question the actions of the giver.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Just exactly what does deserve praise?

Actions based on integrity

Originally posted by dudephil:

You make posts saying that other nations have the right to criticize yet by your way of thinking we deserve to be criticized no matter what we do. Please don't think that I'm saying that everything we do is right and just, I'm just trying to understand how, by your way of thinking, that if everything we did do was right and just we should still accept criticism because "we did it for the sake of giving and expect nothing in return".

Because, if you give for any other reason, you will certainly be disappointed.

I also think itâ��s a foolâ��s errand to expect the same reaction from people who have been raised in cultures of poverty and corruption that you would expect from someone like me.

We are being criticized because we have abandoned our integrity as a nation. In the words of Dr. Phil â��You donâ��t demand respect, you command it.â�� Besides, if we are above criticism it should not affect us. If we are not, then there is an opportunity to learn.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I suppose that if we had a Democratic leadership and Al Franken took the place of Rush Limbaugh in the media, he might be considered a "Policy Mouthpiece". And if those policies were leading our country down a path of destruction, I would participate in a thread condemning his actions. As it stands, that's not the case. As for Howard Stern...not even worth the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

What does the party who holds office matter when it comes to radio talk show hosts? If they're all full of crap and are promoting their own agenda then why is Limbaugh worse than Franken simply because a Republican is President?

The party who holds office matters in the sense that this thread is about something inappropriate that Rush Limbaugh said; which was clearly designed to affect or reinforce the opinions of people considering the stem-cell research debate. Thereâ��s no doubt that he is a Republican supporter and Iâ��m pretty sure Republicans are making most of the policy decisions, right now. If you are saying that you donâ��t think the 20 million people who listen to him every week are not influenced by his rantings; Iâ��d have to question your judgment.

Originally posted by dudephil:

As for Howard Stern, he has a following greater than Limbaugh and Franken combined so don't dismiss his minions when it comes to who he says to vote for.

Iâ��m not sure where this particular argument is going. I really donâ��t care who Franken or Stern support until that person proves to be dangerous to the nation. By my assessment a great number of Americans supported the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration because of the disinformation they were fed through the media; even after these policies turned out to be based on lies. Iâ��m more interested in what is happening now, than a hypothetical situation.

Just for kicks, though; I would be interested to see statistics on the voting habits of Howard Stern listeners in comparison to Limbaugh and Franken. If you find this, please share it with me.

Message edited by author 2006-10-27 20:18:05.

10/27/2006 09:02:02 PM · #46

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

As long as we are so arrogant to believe that we are always right, and that our news sources are always honest and accurate we are doomed to exist in a vacuum of ignorance.

It is impossible to exist in a vacuum of ignorance. Anyone at any time has access to thousands of media sources from anywhere on the globe. This does not address the point, already raised by me somewhere back in this rant, that you are unable to verify the accuracy of any 'news' which you did not witness firsthand. Thus you assume one source or another is honest and accurate and, suprise suprise, those sources typically just happen to be pushing out the ideas you find agreeable to begin with.

You are saying that people who support or supported Bush's 'disastrous' policies did so because they were fed disinformation. In one stroke you discount the motivations, beliefs, reasoned thinking, awareness of history and myriad other factors which many people drew on to decide wether or not they supported whatever policy (presumably Iraq) it is you find disastrous.

Because you don't agree with the policies, you have already decided that anyone else who does is simply more ignorant about 'what is really going on' then people who don't even live in this country. Your family is constitued of fools. Your friends are just sentient enough to be able to lift fork to mouth. They all stumble about in a fog of naievity from which you have somehow freed yourself.

Sadly, you see your own country in the same light. A giant blundering idiot smashing about the world without plan or purpose. No awareness of what is really going on, no sense of the impending doom that is so obvious to enlightened folks such as yourself.

This is an interesting frame of mind to be carrying around. You trust in news you can't verify (like your family and friends), but only because it comes from sources other than your own country. Sources in far off places that are economic, ideological, cultural and sometimes millitary competitors with your own country. Sources that absolutely have a vested interest in seeing their own interests move forward at the expense of those of their rivals.

What delivers people to slavery is not ignorance. There will always be ignorant people, people to look down on, people to piss on for not carrying around as mighty a thinking engine as your own. Ignorance just makes the rest of us look that much better.

What delivers people into slavery is complacency. If you are content to do nothing more than gripe about things and wish for change, then you are being led down the same road as everyone else. Not wanting to admit it does not mean it isn't happening. Bitching about the president of the US when every dollar you spend supports a system of global exploitation makes you every bit as guilty as him and every other political elite perpetuating this system of greed and injustice. If you are content to live a comfortable life wherein you can rant and rave at whatever crisis dujour is in the news, those in power are more than happy to let you do so. They do not fear you, and things will not change, because you are content to let them remain the same.