errr..liberals (not a cut and paste honest)

i think it's misdirected anger. people have experienced a lot of hurt and loss and betrayal. betrayal is a tough thing to face, i think that a lot of the bush supporters simply don't want to accept that they've been lied to, and that people have died for it. i'm angry at bush too, but most people feel powerless. i know i feel powerless a lot. people are taking out this anger on a target they can reach - their friends, relatives and strangers of different views.

i think that this is how it is for a lot of people. family and friends you have to live with (unless they disown you.) but strangers are "safe" targets, because they don't know you and often you'll never see each other again. anger, grief, rage, shame, and betrayal are seen as "negative" emotions in this culture, nobody is taught how to experience them peacefully and constructively. i know i sure as hell wasn't.

btw, i'm not a democrat, either. i'm registered green. and i'm not telling who i'm voting for, nyah, nyah.

 

Re: Pressed Rat

Perhaps, but I see the republicans as having more influence on the media. Republicans claim the media is liberal, but I know that's not true. What is true is that when people hear what they don't want to hear, they assume "It's biased!". But when they hear something that sits well with them, they assume "Unbiased truth". It becomes more and more difficult to know whether or not you are hearing something that's been the victim of spin.
I agree that there is a bigger picture, but I think electing Bush will steer us further away from that reality. That's debatable, but that's how I feel. I also dislike the idea of the wealthy continuing to prosper under Bush, while the middle class disappears and poverty increases. I know Kerry won't eliminate that situation completely, but he will make it better.

I think you are in error to think (by my interpretation of your post) that it is the Dems vs. the Repubs. I think it is more like everyone vs. Bush and his supporters. I'm vehemently against Bush and am not a Democrat. I've convinced dozens of new voters to vote against Bush (not necessarily for Kerry). These are people who don't place themselves in a particular party. Bush has angered many different people, not just the left, although most definitely the left has been angered the most.
Maybe if Kerry is elected it will be easier to expose the inner workings of the gov. This administration certainly has been secretive.

 

I do actually think that, "man, that could be my mom!". She is a good person too, as is my dad. I know that they are just listening to biased news sources and basing their opinions on that. My anger is not directed at Bush supporters even a fraction as much as it is directed at the administration and those that are of high influence of it. I mostly keep my anger to myself, it has surfaced on these forums at times, but in real life, I debate in a controlled manner.

It's Kerry, right.....right????:H
I don't assume that people who hate Bush are for Kerry. But I just hope that whatever happens, America lets Bush know that he can't get away with the things he's done.

 

ok, i'm going to possibly piss off several people who are close to me by agreeing with this satement. but i think it's important to distinguish between fueling the tension and causing it. one of my friends who's a big fan of moore agrees that he's a media whore and is sensational and manipulative in the way he conveys his message, but says that "we need that". in a sense i'm going to agree with him somewhat, but for different reasons. i think we need people like moore, and even although i hate to admit it, people like limbaugh. in more peaceful times, a little bit of that tension is good. it keeps people on both sides from becoming complacent and going to sleep entirely. but i think that now, with so many people angry and grieving and hurt, and the nation becoming polarized because of it, i think that tension becomes fuel for an already burning rage, and just further divides us.

erm, well...*ahem*...i'll agree as far as to say that the limiting two-party system is blinding us to the very problems we face, and that the powerful in both parties have a tendency to act like assholes in a big way, and that both are pretty much useless, and the answer(s) if there is any is most certainly to be found elsewhere, by thinking outside the box.

actually, matt, i'd love to believe this. but i don't think a revolution is going to happen that way. i think most people would just stick their heads back in the sand and pretend it's not happening, or continue to blame it on friends, relatives and strangers with differing views - you know, those nutty consoiracy theorists. the book i just finished, webs of power, by spiritual activist starhawk, had some interesting things to say about revolution, but i had to return the book to my friend so i can't quote her. it had a lot to do with "revolution" not as a sudden violent overthrow but as something that you do, something you are. well, i don't expect you to agree with her, at any rate, but i don't think bringing about change is going to be as simple as having toto reveal what's behind the wizard's curtain.

 

i think that some people, like my brother, would continue to seek out the biased news sources, even if more accurate information were right in their laps. because this polarized hatred is a lot easier, when people are stressed out and grieving, than thinking out the complexities of the real problems. and it's easy for the cynics among us to say, oh, that figures, people are sheep, but really, who wants to take the time to stop, drop the emotion, and think rationally when their filled with anger and grief? i know i don't. there's days when i'd really like to punch my brother in the nose, if he wasn't on the opposite coast.

i said i ain't telling. so there.

how much of this polarized hatred could be avoided if people just minded their own business? besides, i think there's other, constructive things we could be doing for change than getting dragged into the election hooplah. i realize some people are going to think i'm nuts for saying that, but i know that the rage-fueled polarization can't be doing us much good as a nation. if we could find a way to heal our hatred and experience our rage in more constructive ways than fighting our neighbors, it would be easier to address the real problems and work for change, no matter who "won" the "election". it does not mean everyone agreeing. it means accepting that the "enemy" is not your neighbor who's voting for "the other guy", it is not "terrorists" or even bush (as much as i despise the vile bastard.) it is the system of fear and anger that fosters the desperation of "terrorists" and fuels their hatred and violence, and that puts nutjobs like bush into power, sending the whole nasty cycle spinning out of control.

 

I really don't see the mainstream media as conservative or liberal. I simply see it as a big smoke screen which presents only a very small portion of the story, while often distorting or twisting that small portion we do see. CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC are indeed more to the left, as they are owned by the megacorporations that are dedicated to globalism and socialism. FOX News and the "Murdoch Media" promote more of a right-wing slant, though they are ultimately not a whole heck of a lot different from the other media outlets. Ruppert Murdoch has financial ties to the Bushes, so it comes as no surprise that FOX News is nothing more than a propaganda rag and mouthpiece for the Bush Administration.

Something that most people don't know is that six firms dominate all American mass media. Each is a subsidiary of a larger parent firm, some of them basically operating in other industries. The six parent firms are General Electric, Viacom, Disney, Bertelsmann, Time Warner, and Murdoch's News Corp... These six firms have more annual media revenues than the next twenty firms combined.

All six of these firms are owned by the military-industrial complex, so it comes as no surprise that the media is the way it is in this country.

Don't expect Kerry to expose the corruption within the government if he is elected. Kerry is probably after the same thing that all presidents are after. And after being elected, their greatest concern is often being re-elected. Kerry and Bush are owned by the same globalist system and share a similar globalist agenda, so I do not exactly expect Kerry to be the harbinger of truth, either.

 

I never said Kerry would expose the truth, only that it could possibly be easier for others to do so if he gets in the Shitehouse.

 

It's polotics they are all the same...you think that George is actually making any decisions? People are so quick to jump on the President for all the troubles in the U.S. but do you really think one person has that power?

The president is a"front man" a puppet on a string...if you are really concerned about the state of our country, than lets talk about the role of the Federal Reserve(a foriegn conglomerate that owns the U.S.) or the big buisnesses that buys the votes of Senators and Legislatures, to get the bills passed or squashed.
If the president had the power to do all this on their own, than he is a "King" or "Dictator"
If you are going to be mad at the way things are, and want change than please focus your aggressions and actons to where they will really count.

 

Yes, one person has that power.


Does he have advisors? Does he ask Cheney's permision before he wipes his ass? Probably. But when it comes down to it only one man has the ability to veto laws and send our troops into war. Like it or not, right now that's Bush.

 

The power to send troops to war is not the President's, regardless of what our co-opted Congress chooses to avoid in practice. The Constitution is quite clear on those powers.

 

in addition the same goes for vetoed bills congress can overrturn the veto

 

Yes with a super majority... which is more than a little rare. It was designed that way on purpose to give power to the presidents veto.

Yes, our representative government must approve sending troops. But he alone sends them. He is the top leader of the military. Commander in Cheif. Din't you have to take Government? Who do you think has launch capabilities for our nuclear arsenal? ... that's right someone who can't pronounce the word.

 

maybe you need to brush up on your government studies, congressional overturn of a veto is not to give power to the president, but to take the "Ultimate" power away from him.