Obama the war monger; Left still silent...

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We don't have major political disagreements. On the vast majority of issues, we agree. Where we fight is in what the problem is; she thinks it's the media, they control everyone and we can't do anything about them. I think it's the people and we can very much control who we vote for.

Larry, the media controls the people via public opinion. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

What's the problem?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Larry, the media controls the people via public opinion. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

And what can we do about that?

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

And what can we do about that?

THAT is the question.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

THAT is the question.

OK. I say people maybe oughta vote for who they support. There is far too much information available, unfiltered nor controlled by the media. You say the media is in charge and we can do nothing about it.

Right?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I am pleased that someone else gets it.

I am strongly for restricting the length of the election cycle. Right now, candidates campaign for a year just to get the nomination. Then they go to the convention, usually, already with the nomination in hand, making the convention pointless. By that time, they've campaigned for two or three months. Then two to three MORE months of campaigns. For some of these guys, they're Senators and they spend most of their time running for President.

I'd like to see a party in Congress whose job is to sit on their ass and force the other two to make a better bill. If you had 40 such members in the House and 15 in the Senate, they could just abstain on everything that needed a majority vote.

(It's pie in the sky, of course. No one would want to be represented by a person whose job was to do nothing and not provide for or represent his constituents).

[twinoaks207 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We don't have major political disagreements. On the vast majority of issues, we agree. Where we fight is in what the problem is; she thinks it's the media, they control everyone and we can't do anything about them. I think it's the people and we can very much control who we vote for.

Well, actually, it's both. Why do we all persist in looking for just "one" problem or "one" answer. In almost all things in life, it is never just "one". There are almost always several, interconnected reasons. As long as we persist in just looking for one causal factor, all we will do is argue over which one it is. When we can agree that it is several factors contributing to the problem and put together strategies to solve and negate each of those, why, then, we'll be getting somewhere. Right now, all we're accomplishing is to succumb to the "divide and conquer" method.

Imagine what would happen if several people who wanted to control things differently took charge of "the media"?

By the way, I think that you were very right in one of your earlier posts in another thread -- the Internet is the key. Generate enough Internet interest and guess who comes knocking on your door?

[Baja28]

Originally Posted by twinoaks207

You both care as evidenced by your posts. You just disagree on the method needed to solve the problem.

(Okay, fire on me now -- I was hoping for a distraction element here as I hate to see major political disagreements between married people )

I know, they should like, be married or something. They bicker like husband & wife.


Wait.....

[twinoaks207 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Baja28

I know, they should like, be married or something. They bicker like husband & wife.


Wait.....

btw, love the new siggy -- makes me laugh every time!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by twinoaks207

Well, actually, it's both. Why do we all persist in looking for just "one" problem or "one" answer. In almost all things in life, it is never just "one". There are almost always several, interconnected reasons. As long as we persist in just looking for one causal factor, all we will do is argue over which one it is. When we can agree that it is several factors contributing to the problem and put together strategies to solve an negate each of those, why, then, we'll be getting somewhere. Right now, all we're accomplishing is to succomb to the "divide and conquer" method.

Imagine what would happen if several people who wanted to control things differently took charge of "the media"?

By the way, I think that you were very right in onoe of your earlier posts in another thread -- the Internet is the key. Generate enough Internet interest and guess who comes knocking on your door?

OK, but I do see just ONE problem; people NOT voting for whom they actually support. The counter argument is that we must vote for our team or their team will win because, no matter what, our team will always be a little better. That is a textbook recipe for the status quo.

The ONLY way the GOP will change from the status quo is if it is forced to by enough people rejecting what they do.

The Dems changed. They got a full blown flaming liberal who wants to socialize everything. They get that by accepting the status quo?