Laexile wrote:Does Joe Biden really think he knows what's best for women? Set aside that women have different views and that there are valid reasons for women to vote for McCain or Obama, what women, on either side, wants Joe Biden telling women what a step forward is for them. I know the question was phrased in about "a step forward" but he doesn't have to say "a backward step for women." Barack, don't let Biden talk about what's best for women. Get Hillary to do it. You don't need to alienate them more.

Meghan: No one knows what war is like other than my family.

Oops. I hope she meant, "My family understands what war is like as well as anyone and we don't take it lightly."

ptk, surely you see the arrogance in the idea that you know people's interests better than they do and that half of America would agree with you if they were just educated properly. Do you really believe that you know what's best for everyone else better than they do? Really?

I would frame it differently. I think people are operating off of poor information. They haven't come to their views and conclusions with a full set of accurate information. They are being controlled alrgely with propoganda and other manipulations. Idon't think I know it all either.

I also appeal to common sense, and have a value system that says, its not ok for some peoplel to suffer and starve and be denied basic education and devekopment and health care, when others live like royalty. And you can say, that's just my opinion blah balh... but I can't really respect anyone who thinks its ok for some people to be impoverished so that others can live like kings.

Laexile wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Laexile wrote:Does Joe Biden really think he knows what's best for women?

I think all the candidates do. It's why they run for office

And they think women are going to find that sexist?

Do you think Palin speaks for the majority of women? What percentage does she represent? Her views on woman-hood seem secondary to her views on Religion. Does she even have any secular views on being a woman and woman's rights?

Do you ask all the men who organize and fund anti-abortion activities to step back because abortion is something that involves a woman and her body, and no man could ever get it?

gr wrote:I long for a day when the media can finally separate the two, inspiring figure and policy, although i'm not holding my breath.

But then we'd have President Bloomberg, and dajafi would die of orgasm.

Bakestar wrote:

gr wrote:I long for a day when the media can finally separate the two, inspiring figure and policy, although i'm not holding my breath.

But then we'd have President Bloomberg, and dajafi would die of orgasm.

And who'd want that. (Oh, right: me.)

Actually, our little digression on Perot in the last thread got me thinking about Bloomberg again, and sort of lamenting that the media loved a short, weird, raging centrist billionaire from Texas, to the point that he was probably the favorite at one point in '92 (before the weirdness fully manifested). Why was he viable and my guy--a short, glib (but not weird) Jewish raging centrist billionaire from NYC--not? The accent? The surrounding candidates?

He at least might have focused on the real problems of the country, rather than primarily trying to determine how to strike the balance between seeming "change" enough to win and not wanting to truly change much of anything.

Philly the Kid wrote:I would frame it differently. I think people are operating off of poor information. They haven't come to their views and conclusions with a full set of accurate information. They are being controlled alrgely with propoganda and other manipulations. Idon't think I know it all either.

Frame it any way you want, but you believe that you know more than they do and that if they just knew only as much as you they'd think like you. Don't you see the arrogance in that? You do know that this is the attitude of the Bush administration? I'm amazed that you think you know what people who you have never met and know nothing about need.

Philly the Kid wrote:I also appeal to common sense, and have a value system that says, its not ok for some peoplel to suffer and starve and be denied basic education and devekopment and health care, when others live like royalty. And you can say, that's just my opinion blah balh... but I can't really respect anyone who thinks its ok for some people to be impoverished so that others can live like kings.

There are two different concepts here. Few people think it's okay for people to suffer and starve and be denied basic education. Even the evil Republicans. Are you aware that no President has ever done what President Bush has to wipe out disease and starvation in Africa? It's one of his great successes.

Say we provide everyone with basic education and health care, which I thought public schools and Medicaid were already doing, what then? Is it government's responsibility to make sure everyone has a job making a certain amount of money and has everything they need? Do people have any personal responsibility?

Your second concept is people living like kings. Many Americans may resent people wealthier than themselves, but if they were told they could live like a king while others didn't most would seize it in a second. You live in a country where people strive to live like kings. Only a small percentage would deny Steven Speilberg or Bill Gates their wealth. America believes in work ethic. Work hard and get rewards. That doesn't always happen, but people don't have a problem if it happens for the other guy. In fact, it motivates many to work harder.

I've asked this before and I ask again. You believe if people knew what you know they'd agree with you. Have you convinced anyone on this board that your socialist utopia is better than their previous beliefs?

Bakestar wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Lipstick on a pig? Seriously? That was directed at Palin? You're kidding right? Right?

My god this campaign makes me nauseous. I think I'm starting to hate both of these guys.

Yeah I mean, it's not like there's anything really important going on like financial institutions verging on collapse and bailout that we might want to hear the candidates address in some substantive way. Instead we get Lipstickgate and Meghan McCain's honest misstatements (but truly a poor choice of words) about her family's military experiences.

We get what we deserve.

What should we expect? Intellectual discourse? An electorate that bases its descisions on well thought out rational deductions? We're a country where more than 70% of adults over 25 don't have a college degree of any kind (not to imply that college is required for intelligence). A country where most people have little if any interest in politics. People that don't watch debates because they're boring, or only watch because they hope for some fireworks. So lowest common denominator and tabloid tripe and salaciousness works because it gets peoples' attention and leaves an impression.

A whole lot of people in this country vote for someone just because they "like" him/her... does GWB win without the "have a beer with" factor? I remember '92, Clinton (a relatively unknown nationally) hit the talk show and media circuit. Not only for the "face time", he actually went into detail explaining what he hoped to accomplish and why. He laid out his case in a way "average American" can easily comprehend. He made the "feel your pain" thing real. That's when I had a feeling Clinton would win. When he played the sax on Arsenio... that's when I knew he would win, because it humanized him as an "average guy".

Maybe camp McCain should play the Budweiser distributor wife thing more... one thing that trumps the "have a beer with" factor is "the guy that brings the beer".

Bakestar wrote:

gr wrote:I long for a day when the media can finally separate the two, inspiring figure and policy, although i'm not holding my breath.

But then we'd have President Bloomberg, and dajafi would die of orgasm.

if you gotta go, go with a smile!

Philly the Kid wrote:Do you think Palin speaks for the majority of women? What percentage does she represent? Her views on woman-hood seem secondary to her views on Religion. Does she even have any secular views on being a woman and woman's rights?

I don't think anyone speaks for the majority of women. I think women speak for themselves. Palin represents herself. As a woman, she has her beliefs. What beliefs are private and what beliefs are part of governing are up to her. She has an opinion on women's issues. Some may agree and some may disagree, but I think most women would recognize she's coming from a standpoint of living these issues. It's up to women, not Joe Biden, to decide whether she's good for women.

Philly the Kid wrote:Do you ask all the men who organize and fund anti-abortion activities to step back because abortion is something that involves a woman and her body, and no man could ever get it?

Of course they can't. How can a man know what it's like to carry a baby? Men can have opinions like, "women have a right to choose" or that "abortion is wrong and should be prohibited" or on equal pay. It's a leap from having an opinion on this and a man deciding what is and isn't an advancement for women.

I am absolutely convinced that 24 hour news networks makes people dumber and less well informed than they would be without 24 hours news networks.

I think the internet exacerbates, and talk radio feeds on, the dumbness.

gr wrote:

Bakestar wrote:

gr wrote:I long for a day when the media can finally separate the two, inspiring figure and policy, although i'm not holding my breath.

But then we'd have President Bloomberg, and dajafi would die of orgasm.

if you gotta go, go with a smile!

As Krusty the Klown once declared: The survivors would envy the dead.

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:

Bakestar wrote:

gr wrote:I long for a day when the media can finally separate the two, inspiring figure and policy, although i'm not holding my breath.

But then we'd have President Bloomberg, and dajafi would die of orgasm.

if you gotta go, go with a smile!

As Krusty the Klown once declared: The survivors would envy the dead.

hey, i found a shot of Krusty appearing with Bloomberg

[/img]

Ron Paul won't play nice with McCain; Bob Barr won't play nice with Ron Paul.

Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Wednesday urged voters to support third-party candidates and said he had turned down a request to endorse John McCain, his party's nominee.

At a press conference with Ralph Nader and other third-party candidates spanning the political spectrum, Paul said voters in the November 4 election should look beyond "the lesser of two evils" -- McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

But Paul's effort to sound a note of unity among candidates outside the mainstream was undermined by Libertarian hopeful Bob Barr, who refused to appear at the event.

"I'm not interested in third parties getting the most possible votes. I'm interested in Bob Barr as the nominee for the Libertarian Party getting the most possible votes," Barr said at a separate press conference in the same building less than an hour after Paul's event.
...
Paul has declined to endorse any presidential candidate, although he has spoken favorably of Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, who appeared at the press conference along with Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.

The hell of it is that between Barr, Nader and McKinney, I'd vote for Barr in a nanosecond.

He did offer Paul the Libertarian VP slot (which I thought was given to that self-promoting moron from Las Vegas at their convention...), but "did not expect him to accept." Presumably this was supposed to sweeten him in the eyes of the Paulites.

TenuredVulture wrote:I am absolutely convinced that 24 hour news networks makes people dumber and less well informed than they would be without 24 hours news networks.

I think the internet exacerbates, and talk radio feeds on, the dumbness.

I think that's a bit too cynical (no, not anywhere near PTK cynical).

I think the massive news dump is 50/50 helpful and useful versus unhelpful if not harmful.

Mountainphan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I am absolutely convinced that 24 hour news networks makes people dumber and less well informed than they would be without 24 hours news networks.

I think the internet exacerbates, and talk radio feeds on, the dumbness.

I think that's a bit too cynical (no, not anywhere near PTK cynical).

I think the massive news dump is 50/50 helpful and useful versus unhelpful if not harmful.

I suppose you might be able to glean some useful information from the news pile, but in general, I think Gresham's law holds here. Shit information crowds out good information.

Mountainphan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I am absolutely convinced that 24 hour news networks makes people dumber and less well informed than they would be without 24 hours news networks.

I think the internet exacerbates, and talk radio feeds on, the dumbness.

I think that's a bit too cynical (no, not anywhere near PTK cynical).

I think the massive news dump is 50/50 helpful and useful versus unhelpful if not harmful.

It's more information--but I'm guessing Paul's judgment (and mine FWIW) is that it obscures more than it reveals.

To put it another way, using the examples of the moment, every minute spent dissecting the fact and "significance" of the obvious nonsense about "lipstick on a pig" and Meghan McCain's comments is a minute we don't hear what the candidates think about the Fannie/Freddie bailout.

Pretty much at any time, we could find examples of something totally banal and insignificant but marginally more powerful in terms of not getting people to change the channel, crowding out something probably less dramatic but vastly more important in terms of informing a voting decision.

The trick is how to make issues-based coverage interesting. One could argue that maybe what we need is a 24-hour Daily Show--by which I mean the entertainment/informational value, not the leftward tilt.

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

You guys absolutely suck at this.

Beautiful, spot-on blog post by Andrew Sullivan on "McCain's Integrity"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... tegri.html

BuddyGroom wrote:Beautiful, spot-on blog post by Andrew Sullivan on "McCain's Integrity"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... tegri.html

Well, considering he refers to Obama as "the most talented politician of the next generation", and later states "it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president", we can probably assume it didn't come from an unbiased perspective.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:Beautiful, spot-on blog post by Andrew Sullivan on "McCain's Integrity"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... tegri.html

Well, considering he refers to Obama as "the most talented politician of the next generation", and later states "it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president", we can probably assume it didn't come from an unbiased perspective.

who exactly has this?

me