Who can/should win the 08 Republican Nomination

[CSpindizzy]

The only reliable way you can get the news is go research it yourself. We live in the 'welfare information' age. People rather have the news come to them. And that means spoon-fed dependency. No one bothers to check the facts or context anymore. They're fed news and then regurgitate it back to their buddies at the water cooler.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

I agree with your sentiments - I feel like I have to access a minimum of three media sources to even get a hint at what the real story is.

One thing that upsets me with both of the big2 is their willingness to let the White House or Congress set the agenda.

Midterms are approaching, so the base activating policy initiatives(gay marriage, immigration) get trotted out to the cameras, and the news cycle's need to feed blindly gobbles them right up. Wouldn't it be nice to see the beltway forced to talk about the truly important issues at election time, instead of the subterfuge issues they choose to put forward...

 

[volinbham]

One thing that upsets me with both of the big2 is their willingness to let the White House or Congress set the agenda.

Midterms are approaching, so the base activating policy initiatives(gay marriage, immigration) get trotted out to the cameras, and the news cycle's need to feed blindly gobbles them right up. Wouldn't it be nice to see the beltway forced to talk about the truly important issues at election time, instead of the subterfuge issues they choose to put forward...

Yep and the other thing that bothers me is that they don't even try when it comes to "experts" for analysis of the news. Fox had some woman on talking about the "bikini killer" at Clemson and she was just spouting psycho-babble that was all just a wild guess.


And to your point, having a RNC and DNC rep to analyze an issue is completely worthless.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I want to see political celebrity boxing......Hillary vs. Coulter....this is getting really heated and nasty.

 

[milohimself]

If you examine Fox News closely, and I watch it a lot, a whole lot, you'll find there are more diverse opinions there than anywhere else your remote can get you.

Sean Hannity is ultra-conservative, but Allen Colmes is ultra-liberal, so there is balance there.

Sean Hannity is ultra-full of himself, and Allan Colmes is an ultra-wuss bag.

Then you have Gretta Van Susteren who is extremely liberal and Brit Hume is a conservative.

Van Susteren has an extremely weird mouth. I don't know much about Britt Hume.

O'Reilly is moderately conservative. Note I didn't say he's a moderate, but he's not extreme right either.

I honestly think he just likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

Note: That site has questionable language. Just a forewarning.

Milo, I really think you see Fox as being more conservative than they really are. The truth of the matter is, they are perceived as more conservative because all of the other outlets are totally, unabashedly liberal. So, when you see an outlet that expresses both points of view equally forceful, it makes you feel they're conservative when all that's happening is 2 points of view are being delivered instead of the single, liberal view you hear on CNN.

That is why Fox is slaying all the others in the ratings. People get tired of a news outlet trying to tell them how they should think. When you have something new, fresh that puts forth 2 points of view in a very forceful way, like Hannity and Colmes, people tune in because they are motivated to think for themselves. When you never have a conflicting point of view, there's no challenge to your intellect.

I see where you're coming from. And yeah, I do agree that other cable news outlets are liberal. But it doesn't mean Fox New isn't conservative. It is. As far as most of their anchors go, the ones who editorialze on the news are definitley more conservative than liberal. Van Susteren is liberal but I don't see her stating her opinion on much, she just presents the facts (usually on meaningless stories). Most of the rest of the anchors (John Gibson, the morning crew) are very conservative from what I've seen. I've flipped past the morning show on their a few times and I usually can't get past more than a minute or so without getting dumb chills and having to change the channel.

And when I called them a mouth of the white house, I meant it. I'm not saying the two are necesarily affiliated, but I very often see Fox News anchors simply reiterating White House press secretary talking points. They even echo eachother at a relatively frequent rate.

Still, this is my top qualm with televised news in general, and this is the point I stress over all: News today isn't news. It's entertainment. Every time I flip past a debate show, Crossfire, Hardball, Hannity & Colmes, I feel like I am watching a cockfight. They put in a hard left-winger and a hard right-winger and pit them against eachother. This kind of crap causes people to take extremist views on issues they don't know anything about and gives them just enough sampling of "facts" (I use quotation marks because they can sometimes be skewed, misleading or even altogether inaccurate). It is making our country dumb, combatitive and divided.

 

[milohimself]

I want to see political celebrity boxing......Hillary vs. Coulter....this is getting really heated and nasty.

Next time you mention Hillary Clinton in the same post as the words "heated" and "nasty" we are going to have some problems.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Next time you mention Hillary Clinton in the same post as the words "heated" and "nasty" we are going to have some problems.

:yuck: uke: :beerf: ukeb:

 

[OldVol]

Sean Hannity is ultra-full of himself, and Allan Colmes is an ultra-wuss bag.
Van Susteren has an extremely weird mouth. I don't know much about Britt Hume.
I honestly think he just likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

Note: That site has questionable language. Just a forewarning.
I see where you're coming from. And yeah, I do agree that other cable news outlets are liberal. But it doesn't mean Fox New isn't conservative. It is. As far as most of their anchors go, the ones who editorialze on the news are definitley more conservative than liberal. Van Susteren is liberal but I don't see her stating her opinion on much, she just presents the facts (usually on meaningless stories). Most of the rest of the anchors (John Gibson, the morning crew) are very conservative from what I've seen. I've flipped past the morning show on their a few times and I usually can't get past more than a minute or so without getting dumb chills and having to change the channel.

And when I called them a mouth of the white house, I meant it. I'm not saying the two are necesarily affiliated, but I very often see Fox News anchors simply reiterating White House press secretary talking points. They even echo eachother at a relatively frequent rate.

Still, this is my top qualm with televised news in general, and this is the point I stress over all: News today isn't news. It's entertainment. Every time I flip past a debate show, Crossfire, Hardball, Hannity & Colmes, I feel like I am watching a cockfight. They put in a hard left-winger and a hard right-winger and pit them against eachother. This kind of crap causes people to take extremist views on issues they don't know anything about and gives them just enough sampling of "facts" (I use quotation marks because they can sometimes be skewed, misleading or even altogether inaccurate). It is making our country dumb, combatitive and divided.

I understand your perspective.

The fact is; we've always been that way Milo.

Since the days of Franklin and Jefferson we've had very combative points of view. When you delve into the history of American Politics you'll find there have always been dirty tricks and outright lies that have swung American elections. However, we're no different there than any other nation on the face of the planet that holds free elections and actively participate in an open society and free political process.

While I agree with your assessment that the news face-offs do have a potential to divide, they can only divide those who are weak.

There is an inherent strength in America that comes from our diversity. That diversity does not end at our opinions. It is diverse opinions and beliefs that keep us strong, keep us balanced.

I am a Republican who occasionally votes for a Democrat. But I'll be the first to admit, as much as I loathed Clinton, that it is good for America for us to have a different party in the White House from time to time. It keeps us all competitive and sharp. It creates a dearth of lethargy and apathy when your opponents win. If one side always prevailed, they would become very complacent. That's why it is good for us to be angry with one another from time to time in the political process. It's good for us to disagree on where we are and where we're going. It makes us think.

That's why I believe it is good for young people like you to become involved in the process.

You seem to have a good take on things for your age. You should consider becoming involved in a life of service at some level.

 

[milohimself]

Yeah, I know things have always been crazy. While things today are no more heated than they've always been, I do notice a new lack of respect that does not happen often. I would like to, as many have said, have a disagreement with somebody if their opinion differs but be able to go out and have a beer with them afterwards. There are those out there who are weak, as you say. I agree, there are people strong-willed enough (I believe you and I are two of this type) to be respectful about things. But I also believe mass media is causing dolts to proliferate.

And I am familiar with what you speak of otherwise. I think it was Jefferson who had the notion of a civilized revolt in this country every four years.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Actually the way things are now are child's play compared to 1785-1810. Even a little after that, it was very nasty and polarized.

 

[OldVol]

Actually the way things are now are child's play compared to 1785-1810. Even a little after that, it was very nasty and polarized.

In the first half century of American politics, if you couldn't prove a thing, just print the lie. With the restriction of media news, by the time you printed it and the lie got spread, you didn't have time to correct it before the ballots were counted. Today, just spin off a sound byte and cross your fingers.

 

[OldVol]

Yeah, I know things have always been crazy. While things today are no more heated than they've always been, I do notice a new lack of respect that does not happen often. I would like to, as many have said, have a disagreement with somebody if their opinion differs but be able to go out and have a beer with them afterwards. There are those out there who are weak, as you say. I agree, there are people strong-willed enough (I believe you and I are two of this type) to be respectful about things. But I also believe mass media is causing dolts to proliferate.

And I am familiar with what you speak of otherwise. I think it was Jefferson who had the notion of a civilized revolt in this country every four years.

I don't think we can point the finger of guilt at the media for the dolts.

I find that there are 2 places where dolts are created:

1. In the home. If parents permit their children to play endless hours of video games, watch equally as much boob tube, and never force them to pick up a book and learn to read, then there's not much that can be done to prevent the dumbing down of America, and it is happening.

2. Public Schools. What can be said? When there's a need for a metal detector in most public schools, where's the opportunity to teach and learn. I know there are a few exceptions to the rule, but they are few. It is no surprise that the spelling bee champions and other awards for academia usually go to home schooled and private schooled children.

It's why I support vouchers. The public schools have become a very poor baby sitter.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Vouchers will only shift things around. The problems of public schools will only shift to private schools. Many private schools have more problems than public schools. If the problem starts at home, shifting schools does nothing. You'll still have those same 'dolts' just in a different building.

 

[volfan2024]

I may write in Orangewhiteblood. :biggrin2:

 

[GAVol]

I may write in Orangewhiteblood. :biggrin2:

I hope you're writing that in under "Dog Catcher".

 

[volfan2024]

I hope you're writing that in under "Dog Catcher".

:biggrin2:

 

[CSpindizzy]

Coroner might be better...

 

[OldVol]

Vouchers will only shift things around. The problems of public schools will only shift to private schools. Many private schools have more problems than public schools. If the problem starts at home, shifting schools does nothing. You'll still have those same 'dolts' just in a different building.

Vouchers will give parents an option between a school with metal detectors and one with real discipline with the restraints of the state removed.

I agree in part with what you say. I've seen private schools accept problem kids, simply because the parents felt that would be the magic bullet to turn their kid's life around, and all it did was drag down the other kids in the private school. But, I've also seen it work the other way and turn the problem child around and change their life forever.

There are 2 schools of thought in the private scetor:
1. Do we accept the kid who has had problems?
2. Do we only accept kids who are free of past problems?

Most parents prefer the 2nd option when choosing a school for their kids.

There's a place for both, I think.

 

[CSpindizzy]

But do you realize that any school accepting vouchers would have to abide by federal standards regarding admissions, etc.? Federal money in ANY case comes with the tied issues of federal compliance with federal standards. Same with state level funding. Many private schools are completely against vouchers for that reason. They don't want their schools turning into public schools. The middle ground is charter schools. This is still considered a public school with parents doing most of the planning and policy and then private schools still keep their autonomy.