Support NeoGAF

[Sirpopopop]

You are wrong, actually. The fact is, I know of people that will vote for Bush for different reasons. Many people that will vote for Bush are doing so not because they support him, but because there isn't really any good choice. For example, Kerry was found to be the most liberal senator in 2003 with his running mate coming in at #4. Once he ushers in more of his people, we could start to see a bunch of bullshit laws getting passed.

I don't even know if I should vote this year because I don't want either side to win. That's the problem, many people don't want either side to win...but end up voting for one of them simply because they they might prefer one of them. The difference between voting for Bush or Kerry is like deciding whether to eat dog shit or cat shit. Don't ever believe that voting for Bush means that those people blindly support him.

John Kerry... a liberal - HAH. OH NOE! NUMBER 1 LIBERAL SENATOR! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! This is the same guy that actively campaigned for some of the measures within the Patriot Act. This is the same guy which doesn't seem to be advocating any form of universal health care coverage. This is the same guy whose proven time and again that the only issue in the Senate on which he really seems to vote with his heart = Veteran's Rights.

I say the problem is that there is no such thing as a liberal senator anymore. It's not that John Kerry won't pass as you say, "bullshit laws". I don't see the status quo changing, but if Kerry is elected I will expect to see more fiscal responsiblity and hopefully no proposals for crazy amendments that won't pass or appeals to the fundamentalist Christian Right.

 

[Hitokage]

Well, the media portrayal of Al Gore and John Kerry, for starters.

 

[Incognito]

You are wrong, actually. The fact is, I know of people that will vote for Bush for different reasons. Many people that will vote for Bush are doing so not because they support him, but because there isn't really any good choice. For example, Kerry was found to be the most liberal senator in 2003 with his running mate coming in at #4. Once he ushers in more of his people, we could start to see a bunch of bullshit laws getting passed.

That's a good parrot...

 

[dark10x]

Well what else would they listen to dark?

The fact of the matter is, listening to something does not necessarily mean the fully believe it. People do place trust in the media, but not nearly as many people as you think. Typically, most people here believe that the media is somewhat corrupt. Taking it with a grain of salt is more common than you think. Sadly, in many cases, that doesn't mean they are going out of their way to find other sources for news...it just means they don't fully trust what they are hearing. Listening to something does not necessarily mean full belief.

What I was getting at was the origin of those ideas. All of these "facts" that people keep bringing up typically originate in some form of media. Most everyone here is speaking based on information they may have discovered through some media outlet. I fear that many folks here talking down on American people are also basing their ideas on something pulled from THEIR media. Whether a news report or a poll, you can't trust them anywhere.

The media wants trouble and they will do anything to achieve it. The media is what often turns mankind against mankind...and based on this small thread, they have at least been somewhat successful.

Sadly, I can do nothing. I believe in no government and I believe in no god. I'm simply trying to find some logic in this madness. My statement above (regarding voting) isn't how I FEEL...but that IS the logic that others might use.

ohn Kerry... a liberal - HAH. OH NOE! NUMBER 1 LIBERAL SENATOR! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM!

I won't be living in the US during the next term, so I could care less. However, I am not wrong. People do feel that way and will use that as a reason to vote Bush even if they hate him.

 

[Sirpopopop]

The media is the devil!

 

[dark10x]

The media is the devil!

Not necessarily, but there are a LOT of greedy people around the world in charge of media related functions. When they rock the boat, money falls out...into their pockets.

 

[ourumov]

Well, I arrive late but I will give you the vision that people on my country have of you:

They see you as people with a lack of culture and with no interest for other things outside the US. They think americans have the idea of the world being theirs. They also see you as extremelly patriotic people and with no reasoning-abilities when it comes about terms such as war. People has the idea all american are fat and that they only eat hamburgers.

It's not that this is my opinion of you so don't jump on me...It's just my impressions about other's peoples thoughts about the US.

 

[dark10x]

Well, I arrive late but I will give you the vision that people on my country have of you:

They see you as people with a lack of culture and with no interest for other things outside the US. They think americans have the idea of the world being theirs. They also see you as extremelly patriotic people and with no reasoning-abilities when it comes about terms such as war. People has the idea all american are fat and that they only eat hamburgers.

It's not that this is my opinion of you so don't jump on me...It's just my impressions about other's peoples thoughts about the US.

Yep, I can see that. It is not true, however, and demonstrates ignorance. They are basing their opinions on stereotypes that have some basis in reality, but by and large are not the norm.

The sad thing is, many people over here feel the same way about other countries. I just wish people would start to learn the truth...

 

[Hitokage]

They see you as people with a lack of culture and with no interest for other things outside the US. They think americans have the idea of the world being theirs. They also see you as extremelly patriotic people and with no reasoning-abilities when it comes about terms such as war. People has the idea all american are fat and that they only eat hamburgers.

If this statement is taken from a relative viewpoint, then yes, this applies to many many Americans, but not all.

 

[kaching]

...That has been the great hoax America has perpetrated on its own people - we are mostly ignorant but we honestly don't realize it. A thoughtful citizen can read the newspaper everyday and tune in to any tv news station of his or her choice multiple times a day and still be completely ignorant of the actual events occuring both inside and outside of our country. This is not to say that real reporting is not available; it just requires work to find.

...

You mean American foreign policy really is screwed up? You mean America isn't truly concerned with setting up democracies in other nations? You mean America really did provide much of the weaponry Saddam used on his own people in Iraq back in the 80's? Christ, a cursory glance at the situation in Nicaragua with the Sandinistas back in the late 70's/early 80's seems to me to be enough to completely destroy any illusions one may foster about the US and its motivations in the world at large.

As an American, I don't think I've ever had much trouble finding discussion/coverage of any of the issues you mention above. I don't even follow the news religiously on a daily basis - I mostly skim when I do. And yet, I'm still somehow aware of the basic arguments around the topics you raised above. So how does an American like me manage to sidestep the "great hoax" so easily all this time?

I will agree that John Stewart rocks, but I've only started watching the Daily Show recently so he doesn't account for my awareness of world events and issues during my 30 yr lifetime that you claim are being actively hidden from Americans like myself.

To wrap this all up, I really think that there should be riots in American streets due to the giant clusterfuck that has become our middle eastern foreign policy.

Yeah, because rioting in the streets would show the rest of the world how intelligent we Americans really are...

 

[Che]

The media is the devil!

hmmmmm...

 

[Che]

Yeah, because rioting in the streets would show the rest of the world how intelligent we Americans really are...

Rioting no. Demonstrating yes. The funny (yet enfuriating) thing is that Americans were PROHIBITED from demonstrating in some US cities during the Iraqi war due to "security reasons". If that doesn't prove the lack of democracy some people are trying to enforce, what does?

 

[Lathentar]

They see you as people with a lack of culture...

Personally, I like the "lack" of culture. Even though America doesn't have a thousand plus year history like many parts of the world... we do have pride in the 250 years of history we do have.

 

[Sirpopopop]

For example, Kerry was found to be the most liberal senator in 2003 with his running mate coming in at #4. Once he ushers in more of his people, we could start to see a bunch of bullshit laws getting passed.

This does not jive with:

I won't be living in the US during the next term, so I could care less. However, I am not wrong. People do feel that way and will use that as a reason to vote Bush even if they hate him.

You are saying with the first quote that because Kerry is the #1 liberal Senator that we will see a bunch of bullshit laws passed. I posted a response which, said that maybe you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Then you post a response that says you are not "wrong". How are you not "wrong"? You were not talking about people not voting for Kerry on the basis of him being a liberal senator. You were talking about what might happen when Kerry, "brings in more of his people", and your fears of what a liberal president could bring about. I merely rebutted you, by stating that his record is not that of a staunch liberal, so you don't have to worry about the "evil" liberal threat.

If you were talking about reasons why people might not vote for Kerry then you should have clarified the following statement, "we could start to see a bunch of bullshit laws getting passed." Rather, you should have said, "people are scared that because Kerry was found to be the #1 liberal senator in 2003 that we might see a bunch of bullshit laws passed." At the very least if this was what you were saying you should have clarified it, rather than say, "hey! I'm not wrong.", when your words in the first passage don't correlate with your words in the second passage.

 

[Wolfy]

The fact that him and Edwards are rated first and fourth most liberal in the senate isn't something that will make disenfranchised voters from the republican party want to vote Kerry. It's as simple as that.

 

[Che]

What do you guys mean by "he's a liberal he's gonna pass stupid laws". Give me an example. Afterall what could be worse than the Patriot Act?

 

[Wolfy]

I don't think the Patriot Act is that bad.

 

[dark10x]

Sorry for the mis-understanding. I'll lay it out. I hate both candidates and I don't care what happens. My original post was poorly worded, but was simply created to demonstrate the way someone could feel using my own perspective. I was not clear enough in stating that I do not actually believe it. I was actually repeating something specific which I heard today.

If I must vote, I probably WOULD vote Kerry as he is simply DIFFERENT from Bush and has SOME potential to start setting things right. I am f*cking sick of this political bullshit.

Even if I liked Bush (for some unknown reason), I would want him the fuck out of the Whitehouse forever.

I just want the whole world to get along, but it will never happen.

 

[Xenon]

Afterall what could be worse than the Patriot Act?

Gay marriage!

 

[Che]

I don't think the Patriot Act is that bad.

I've read a lot about it and trust me, I even felt disgust, and I don't live in USA. You OBVIOUSLY haven't read much about it, have you?

 

[Wolfy]

I have, actually. I've also read that the act has never received a complaint by an innocent citizen, not once. It enables communication between law enforecement and has helped capture criminals and terrorists. It's not stripped you are I away from any of our rights.

 

[FnordChan]

A quick note on the whole "first and fourth most liberal senators" bit, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"I'm growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal's ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I'll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform)."

FnordChan

 

[Che]

Gay marriage!

The one is a series of laws which abolishes many many of the rights the American people gained and their respected leaders made during the years (before the war mongers started to destroy the real America) and the other is giving the right to EVERYONE to get married. You're an asshole, sorry.

 

[dark10x]

I've read a lot about it and trust me, I even felt disgust, and I don't live in USA. You OBVIOUSLY haven't read much about it, have you?

Well, I totally disagree with the Patriot Act...but thankfully, it has had little effect on innocent people. The problem, however, is that it has the potential to be used in a negative manner. I shudder to think what COULD be done with it...

Hopefully, there will be people present to keep this in line.

The one is a series of laws which abolishes many many of the rights the American people gained and their respected leaders made during the years (before the war mongers started to destroy the real America) and the other is giving the right to EVERYONE to get married. You're an asshole, sorry.

Yeah, those "anti-Gay marriage" issues that people keep bringing up REALLY piss me off as well (simply because it removes rights which people should have). I blame religion as much as the government, though...

Hell, I blame religion as much as I blame the government for a lot of these things. The more religion connects with anything political, the worse everything gets. It's hard to believe that a bunch of fairy tales can cause so much trouble (oops). :O

 

[Che]

I have, actually. I've also read that the act has never received a complaint by an innocent citizen, not once. It enables communication between law enforecement and has helped capture criminals and terrorists. It's not stripped you are I away from any of our rights.

No you haven't. The authorities have the right to "name" anyone a terrorist and monitor his every move without a court or even illegally arrest him. Does this seems to you "not that bad"? A small preview of the Act is the fact that the FBI has illegally arrested people and keep them without their basic rights. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Wolfy]

When has it been abused, Che? Show me. It hasn't. And until it does, it's only doing good.

 

[Che]

Hell, I blame religion as much as I blame the government for a lot of these things. The more religion connects with anything political, the worse everything gets. It's hard to believe that a bunch of fairy tales can cause so much trouble (oops). :O

*huge thumbs up*

 

[Che]

When has it been abused, Che? Show me. It hasn't. And until it does, it's only doing good.

ummm read the preview.

 

[Wolfy]

I think your preview is a lie, show me an example of the Patriot Act being abused.

 

[spangler]

I'm glad so many of you are informed about the realities of American foreign policy and how it impacts the way the rest of the world views us. In my experience, though, many Americans are ignorant of the actual motivations behind such issues. I think this has been illustrated through a few posts in this thread, such as the idea that America "coddles" third-world nations. The US doesn't care what any leader does to his own people as long as his regime is willing to funnel natural resources into the US and provide a climate friendly to US corporations and interests. It's when this changes, not the number of human rights violations, that the US chooses to intervene. Look at Nicaragua. Look at Panama. Look at Iraq. Look at Colombia. Look at the inaction in Saudi Arabi. I never said that the truth isn't out there. I stated that it takes more effort to find the truth and a willingness to reframe one's view of the United States. I'm pleased some of you have realized these things on your own with no real effort put forth, but I think you are in the minority. Don't your discoveries bother you? Do you feel the need to let others see the bigger picture? The first work I recall reading that was critical of the US and actually documented these criticisms was Chomsky's What Uncle Sam Really Wants. I was a freshman in college and found the book on my own. I honestly felt like crying after reading through the rather short treatise. I wondered why none of the issues raised in the book had ever been discussed in my high school courses and why I never saw similar issues raised on tv or in the newspapers. I felt betrayed then and continue to feel betrayed now.

Rioting in the streets may have been a bit harsh. Demonstrating, as several of you pointed out, would have been a more appropriate term. Violence is certainly not an appropriate response to dissatisfacton and is most definitely counter-productive in an effort to effect change. I do think there is more resistance to the Neo-con vision of the US than the mainstream media reports and may not be obvious to interested observers from other countries.

 

[gofreak]

When has it been abused, Che? Show me. It hasn't. And until it does, it's only doing good.

Seen Farenheit 9/11? You might be rolling your eyes right now, but I'm sure the incidents it details are a matter of public record.

 

[FnordChan]

When has it been abused, Che? Show me.

It's kinda difficult to point out specific abuses of an act that throws the Fourth Amendment out the door in favor of secret searches. It's even more difficult when the Patriot Act cripples judicial oversight. If you're having difficulty seeing the potential for abuse here, the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center will be happy to elaborate.

FnordChan

 

[Particle Physicist]

Rioting no. Demonstrating yes. The funny (yet enfuriating) thing is that Americans were PROHIBITED from demonstrating in some US cities during the Iraqi war due to "security reasons". If that doesn't prove the lack of democracy some people are trying to enforce, what does?

i think some of that was because they were scared of a possible terrorist attack in major cities... there were plenty of protests in the US.. and there still are.. (mostly on college campuses) .. there just isnt much media coverage..

 

[Wolfy]

Yes, I've seen f 9/11, he reads it to the guy on the ice cream truck.

 

[kaching]

Rioting no. Demonstrating yes.

Had spangler said the latter, there wouldn't have been reason to comment in the first place.

The funny (yet enfuriating) thing is that Americans were PROHIBITED from demonstrating in some US cities during the Iraqi war due to "security reasons". If that doesn't prove the lack of democracy some people are trying to enforce, what does?

Surely you wouldn't want me to take your statement at face value, without requesting fuller disclosure to make sure I have a fully objective understanding of the issue at hand, right? After all, taking your statement above at face value would be no better than the what we Americans are being accused of in this thread, in relation to our own media outlets.

 

[Xenon]

I'm pretty sure that dude was joking. Calm down.

Well it was half joke and half serious. The sad part is the majority of Americans feel that the Patriot Act will not be used against them and thus have no real effect on them. But, some how enabling gay marriage will =\ Yes, that is pretty bad.