Election '06

[Oversoul]

I would like to watch the Daily Show but I never seem to be home when it's on.

btw, I recently took this 30 question test at Political Compass. com and my result was:

You are a SOCIALIST!

I don't really know what that means but it sounds like a scary title, this is the title given to 'fair minded' people? I'm definitly more libertarian than authoritarian but I always thought I just left of center.

w-e-i-r-d

I took a test like that one time (not sure if it was the same one) and was an anarchist. I found a whole bunch of things wrong with the test though...

 

[DarthFerret]

Ok, I guess I should explain. Seems like everyone took what I posted the wrong way (or maybe I just wrote it wrong...). What I am trying to say is not that the government should restrict or control the media. It is that they should restrict what the SOURCES say. Not what the media prints. I really do not think it is neccessary that the media know everything that happens on Capitol Hill. I think that more resources should be used to prevent "leaks", especially on sensitive or classified information. Does anyone realize that if the press gets wind of, and prints what our strategy is in any time of war or battle, then it is the same as telling the opposing force exactly what we are doing so that they can counter it. I am not saying that it is always the case, but it sure seems like the media makes a lot of demands on different organizations to gain information. Do you guys really believe it is the press' RIGHT to have a female reporter in the guys locker room after a game? Would it be the same if a male reporter wanted to go into the girls locker room after a game? The press tries to DEMAND that they be allowed to do this.

And on a humorous note: We all know that a lot of reporters are crazy, just look at the one's that report on the hurricanes. The city is evacuated, by the mayor and chief of police's order (I am not kidding, I was ordered to evacuate myself, living in Houston and all) and yet the MEDIA demands to be allowed to go places that no one else can go. I say they should be swept out to sea.

**Ok guys, that last bit was ONLY humor**

Anyway, I never said I wanted a totalitarian state, or a government controlled media. I just want sensitive or classified information to remain that way. I do not think that everyone is entitled to know everything that goes on behind closed doors. Some stuff, yes, however, if you start demanding every bit of knowledge, you compromise the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, and other various organizations that are neccessary (Ok, maybe not all of them, but some are) in our society.

Tag Guard

 

[EricBess]

Mooseman - I believe in family values and I've seen a lot of people excuse themselves because of what "celebrities" do, and when the celeb is in a position of authority, even more so. Would you suggest that my comments are eroneous because people need to be responsible for their own actions? I would completely agree with that, but unfortunately, there are a lot of sheep in the country...

Media sensationalism causes problems, but with the exception of a few matters involving safty and security (Geraldo, anyone?), I'd rather have that any day over government controlled information.

Politics, in general, scares me. Just listening to spin half the time is enough to make me sick. I think what scares me the most, however, is the fact that so much of it works. People should question, but that takes effort and too many people latch onto whatever they feel benefits them the most and believe anything they are told. Rationality tends to go out the window fairly quickly.

 

[Killer Joe]

Ok, I guess I should explain. Seems like everyone took what I posted the wrong way (or maybe I just wrote it wrong...). What I am trying to say is not that the government should restrict or control the media. It is that they should restrict what the SOURCES say. Not what the media prints. I really do not think it is neccessary that the media know everything that happens on Capitol Hill. I think that more resources should be used to prevent "leaks", especially on sensitive or classified information. Does anyone realize that if the press gets wind of, and prints what our strategy is in any time of war or battle, then it is the same as telling the opposing force exactly what we are doing so that they can counter it. I am not saying that it is always the case, but it sure seems like the media makes a lot of demands on different organizations to gain information. Do you guys really believe it is the press' RIGHT to have a female reporter in the guys locker room after a game? Would it be the same if a male reporter wanted to go into the girls locker room after a game? The press tries to DEMAND that they be allowed to do this.

And on a humorous note: We all know that a lot of reporters are crazy, just look at the one's that report on the hurricanes. The city is evacuated, by the mayor and chief of police's order (I am not kidding, I was ordered to evacuate myself, living in Houston and all) and yet the MEDIA demands to be allowed to go places that no one else can go. I say they should be swept out to sea.

**Ok guys, that last bit was ONLY humor**

Anyway, I never said I wanted a totalitarian state, or a government controlled media. I just want sensitive or classified information to remain that way. I do not think that everyone is entitled to know everything that goes on behind closed doors. Some stuff, yes, however, if you start demanding every bit of knowledge, you compromise the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, and other various organizations that are neccessary (Ok, maybe not all of them, but some are) in our society.

Tag Guard

I remember when the Marines landed on the Somlia beaches and the news camera's lights and boom mics were right there giving away thier positions. That was kind of ridiculous and not very responsible. But what is 'responsible' to you or I may not be interpreted the same way by others.

As for Family Values (unrelated to DF's quote) well that's also up for interpretation. Who's writing all of these "attack ads" for both party's? Certainly they don't have family values I mean what kind of Father would approve of viscious behavior like that? Not yours, not mine, but yet someone is approving of it. Or maybe it's one of those "you can switch it on and off at will" kind of things.

And while I'm at it, the party who doesn't make "attack ads" can chalk up an auto-loss at elections. Now THAT's sad.

 

[EricBess]

Killer Joe - I think you are understanding my point, even if I'm not clear in how I'm trying to make it. It is sad about the attack ads, but I think a lot of it comes back to how people react. People tend to latch onto the bad because it doesn't require independent thought. They spin what might be innocent behavior to make it seem as bad as possible.

There are a few candidates that have done well without attack ads, but I agree it is rare and it is also universal accross all political parties.

The other issue with it is that people tend to be fairly opinionated about the issues, so if a candidate takes a fast stand, most people won't look at the big picture, but will just vote against that candidate because they don't feel the same way about that stand. Attacking an opponent is considered a lot safer... And everyone ends up suffering in the long run. Politics

 

[Killer Joe]

I read somewhere that "Bad News" is more provocative to the human psyche than 'good news' but that doesn't make it right. The Germans have a word for that but I can't think of it right now but it's basically that perfectly describes how people are very attracted to bad things happening to people but not them.

I saw "Man of the Year" starring Robin Williams and his character (somewhat likend to John Stewart) ran no political ads and took no money from special interest groups. Of course you could only do that in a movie But, and here it goes: "What If" someone ran a campaign with no attacks or any ads whatsoever, just normal media coverage and being a guest on Face The Nation (a political MUST if you even want to seriously consider winning your position)? What if this could happen? ...and WIN!

Drive-thru fast food places, instant cash at a slice of a card and a press of a button, breaking news from Dublin, Ireland about an explosion, any thing at instant speed (and sometimes at split second speed ). Our lives are filled with "instant" everything and anything so these ads are probably the most anyone will get a chance to see unfortunately. When was the last time any of us wrote to a friend via "Snail Mail"? We don't seem to have the time.

Conclusion: Make an attack ad, run it often, and isolate tantilizing issues that cut out the whole picture and you got yourself a "Typical" campaign ad.

 

[Limited]

The German word you were looking for is Schadenfreude..

The attack ads and stuff will only work as long as the people let it... This means you need smart, media-savvy people who are willing to voice the truth to refute this attack ads.

(Man of the Year? I will have to rent that one.. )

 

[DarthFerret]

It (the movie) is still playing in theaters over here. I saw it a couple of nights ago on a date with my wife. I liked the movie quite a bit, even if it ran in a different direction than I thought it would.

Tag Guard

 

[Mooseman]

The German word you were looking for is Schadenfreude..
The attack ads and stuff will only work as long as the people let it... This means you need smart, media-savvy people who are willing to voice the truth to refute this attack ads.

http://www.factcheck.org/

This site seems to be fairly non-partisian and breaks down a lot of the misleading ads. It was quoted, (wrongly), in the last US presidential election.
What's real interesting is that even after their analysis is posted the attack ads continue and sometime even try to refute this site.

The US should have a run off election in say Sept for all candidates and then put the top two on a ballot for Nov. This way the third, fourth..... parties can be on the national stage, but then people can vote for one of two canidates. I know it's a lot to ask of the american voters, but this way they can support their canidates in the runoff and then make a clear decision for each office. Maybe this should only be for national offices.
But, I really detest having a president who gets less than a majority.

 

[Killer Joe]

What a goof!

John Kerry for his "Poorly worded joke" and the Prez for not realizing publicly that that joke was a RIP on him!

But mostly for any 'dummy' who would let that kind of thing sway them into either changing their minds to vote or vote for only the reason of that botched joke.

I really think that the democrats are going to come close but the republicans will keep majority in congress, why? Because thier ads are WAY scarier than the dems ads. Sad, but true that people will rely on that as their rally call.

 

[Mooseman]

The political ads of today remind me of the ad that Fry and "that guy" created on Futurama..... it said nothing about their company, but portrayed "Mom" as an evil, controlling entity.....
BENDER for President......

 

[Mooseman]

A positive in the sea of negatives.......hmmm

Believe it or not: Vt. candidates refrain from personal attacks
WOODSTOCK, Vermont (AP) -- Perhaps it's Vermont's famous maple syrup or the Ben and Jerry's ice cream, but this year's campaign for the state's only House seat is almost sweet.

In an election season noted for its vitriol, Republican Martha Rainville and Democrat Peter Welch said they wanted to run campaigns free of personal attacks -- and that's what they've done.

The race's detour onto the high road is particularly noteworthy because the contest is for an open seat being vacated by Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent who is running for the Senate. Party leaders and the campaigns of the House candidates say it's the only contested race in the country accentuating the positive.

 

[Killer Joe]

I watched highlights from the Daily Show last night and though he did poke fun at Kerry most of his time was spent ridiculing Republican incumbants. I started to feel 'sorry' for some of those guys, not sorry enough to vote for Santorum, felt a little guilty that Jon ripped them up one side and down the other.

But the 'right' just seems to be providing 'fuel' for the fire like that evangelical guy who just stepped down from his leadership position of the church he founded. C'mon 'right-wingers' just STOP IT! I want the dems to win based on 'real' issues not these distractors.

I just might vote for one teeny tiny republican just to make me feel better. I HATE being a liberal!

 

[DarthFerret]

Believe it or not: Vt. candidates refrain from personal attacks
WOODSTOCK, Vermont (AP) -- Perhaps it's Vermont's famous maple syrup or the Ben and Jerry's ice cream, but this year's campaign for the state's only House seat is almost sweet.

Woo hoo, I was featured on a billboard for Ben and Jerry's Ice cream! Truly! One of my college girlfriends had a friend that was photographing billboard ads. She took us out to a wooded area in a dry creek bed and took pictures of me surrounded by a bunch of pretty girls (including my g/f at the time) eating the ice cream sitting on a fallen tree across the river bed. I think it stayed up for about 2 years in St. Louis. Woot!

And in other news, the Janitors union went on protest in Houston this week, and decided to do thier protesting in a busy intersection near the Galleria area. For the first time in a while, the police took the correct action and started arresting some of them for creating a public disturbance. The moral of the story: Do your protesting where it will be effective (ie. the janitorial companies) instead of making everyone miserable and slowing down traffic of people that have nothing to do whatsoever with your protest.

By the way, not to start an argument, but isn't it funny how John Kerry waited to say it was a joke until the next day? I find it even funnier that he was talking to a bunch of (supposedly) Democratic supporters, and there was dead silence for 10 seconds after his "joke". Now, I do believe it was blown way out of proportion by the GOP, however, this is not the first time he spoke before he thought. And isn't he a decorated member of the military that fought in Vietnam?

Also, I love how he said that Bush never served in the military or wore a uniform. Wasn't Bush flying fighter jets? hmm...last I checked the Air Force had uniforms and were part of the military.

Tag Guard

 

[TomB]

I thought Bush was in the Texas National Guard as a pilot, but wasn't there some question as to whether he actually served? Not that it invalidates ANOTHER Kerry faux pas, but w/e...

Was Kerry considering another run at the presidency? Cause I'd say any chance of that is LONG gone now...lol

 

[Killer Joe]

Kerry's goose is cooked! He definitely would've clobbered Clinton for the dems prez candidate though. A Gore/Edwards ticket is still viable imo.

Here's one: A Chaney/Santorum ticket and then Chaney backs out after getting elected and Santorum backdoors his way into the White House. How's THAT for conspiracy theories!?!

 

[Mooseman]

Kerry's goose is cooked! He definitely would've clobbered Clinton for the dems prez candidate though. A Gore/Edwards ticket is still viable imo.

Gore???? Are you kidding???? hahahahahaha

 

[Killer Joe]

At least you didn't laugh at my Cheny/Santorum conspiracy theory.

 

[Mooseman]

At least you didn't laugh at my Cheny/Santorum conspiracy theory.

More like I haven't stopped laughing......

 

[Spiderman]

I find it even funnier that he was talking to a bunch of (supposedly) Democratic supporters, and there was dead silence for 10 seconds after his "joke".

Hence the "botched" explanation of his joke...