From Obama's web site:

"There is no more fundamental American right than the right to vote."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/


Whatever happened to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? I guess those aren't fundamental rights.

Whatever happened to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? I guess those aren't fundamental rights.

Those are privileges, given to you by the state. For the good of the collective, the state must regulate these things. This is the socialist way.

Those are privileges, given to you by the state. For the good of the collective, the state must regulate these things. This is the socialist way.

After the privacy-eroding fascist disaster of the last 7.5 deficit-building years, socialism would be a step back toward true democracy, even if that's what the Democrats were proposing.

However, I would rather that our society view voting as a primary RESPONSIBILITY as much as a right, because the abdication of that responsibility has brought us to a time in which our government is no longer particularly representative of its people, and our people are largely apathetic to the actions, inaction and failings of our government.

Mike756, Why don't you find some actual policy to whine about and then treat us to a real rant?

Obama didn't say that voting was more fundamental than the rights you named. Considering that "the consent of the governed" is an underlying foundational principle of our form of government, then the right to vote, which is the way we express this consent, can certainly be considered equal to any other right you'd care to name.

On a more practical level, the pursuit of happiness is something that happens, naturally, every day... the exercise of the right to vote is something that we encourage and, further, we remind people that, for some classes, this right has been hard won. I'm sure we could locate some older African-Americans... yes, still living... who have vivid memories of being systematically deprived of this right (among others) to discuss the importance of this with you, if you'd like, and the struggle they had to win was was already their right. I doubt they'll be storming Obama's HQ insisting he remove that text from his web site.

And it only took one post for someone to accuse Obama of the cardinal sin of "socialism." I'm more convinced every day that public discourse in america is dead, totally replaced by pre-made talking points. It's no wonder Bush won two elections in a row.

The Republicans have been chipping away at government regulation for the last 40 years and look at all the disasters that have come of that. Yet regulation is still a dirty word in america, as is socialism. We were fighting the Soviets, not our own system of government for christ's sake. Nixon Reagan and the Bushes have done unimaginable damage to the country, all so their corporate friends could expand their wealth and power, and all in the name of fighting "big government" and "socialism."

dagwood,

Martin Luther King was a Republican.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican

So was Lincoln.

The right to not vote is important as well. Voting when ignorant of the issues is one of the most damaging things a citizen could do.

Of course, I take a Heinleinian view in regards to civic duty.

Mike756, I didn't notice that I said anything about the GOP. If you feel the shoe fits, of course, you are welcome to wear it - or to try it on any Republican you like. Obama's quote could as easily have been taken, in sense, if not nearly verbatim, from any number of Republicans who have spoken out in favor of the right to vote and exercising that right.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln belonged to a different GOP; one that was transformed by Nixon's Southern Strategy, which unashamedly encouraged racists into the Republican party. Nixon deliberately wrecked the GOP's stand on rights for political gain.

The right to not vote is important as well. Voting when ignorant of the issues is one of the most damaging things a citizen could do.

Of course, I take a Heinleinian view in regards to civic duty.

Clarke was more realistic in his idealism than Heinlein... it is at least a plausible generalization that anyone with a real desire to wield political power should be disqualified from doing so, and it should be seen as a duty to serve rather than a career from which to profit personally. There are certain aspects of Heinlein's libertarianism that are attractive, but if you think about it too much it wears a bit thin.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln belonged to a different GOP; one that was transformed by Nixon's Southern Strategy, which unashamedly encouraged racists into the Republican party. Nixon deliberately wrecked the GOP's stand on rights for political gain.


Hmmm. Here's another take on that, from the NY Times no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

Hmmm. Here's another take on that, from the NY Times no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

Nitpick all you want, it's absolutely insane to say Martin Luther King Jr was in any way similar to the Republican party today. Get your head out of your ass and look at today's Republican policy and rhetoric and then compare that to what King said and did. And Lincoln? Good god, that was so long ago. The two party system has made people incredibly ignorant. It's far too easy to frame something as Republican or Democrat in nature when it should be clear that things are not so simple.

The national black republican association is full of absolute lunatics. I'm embarrassed that you linked to their page.

Clarke was more realistic in his idealism than Heinlein... it is at least a plausible generalization that anyone with a real desire to wield political power should be disqualified from doing so, and it should be seen as a duty to serve rather than a career from which to profit personally. There are certain aspects of Heinlein's libertarianism that are attractive, but if you think about it too much it wears a bit thin.

It's not a "duty" so much as a voluntary responsibility. A responsibility not directly to the people but to the system. This gov't exists to carry out the Constitution. The people are just tangential to the whole thing. They exercise their freedom and the gov't ensures that their rights, as enumerated, aren't infringed.

We started down the road long ago to turn the gov't into a force. Now people want to quibble about it's use. But when you have a body politic consisting of people who think civic responsibility does not entail responsibility...that's what you get.

Edit: The duty is really the adult individual. And only in as far as there exists a civic duty. You could very well have a monarch or dictator and still have full respect to rights. The crafting of the US Constitution was the Founders laying claim to the best system to preserve what they felt were unalienable rights. But it's contingent upon each successive generation also sharing those values and making it their duty to translate the respect for those rights to each other and the offspring.

Vader

Yes, I wish you would; and lets agree to follow Dr King's vision.

Oh, the NYT reviewed a book? Well, then, you "win."

The book may be correct in that the GOP might have gotten new votes from the South as time went by but Nixon, never one to wait for demographics, redefined the politics of the GOP to his electoral advantage.

Vader

Yes, I wish you would; and lets agree to follow Dr King's vision.

Dr King's vision certainly did not include the outright lies put forward by the modern GOP. Claiming that the GOP is the party of equality and the Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation is literally insane when you take even a quick glance at the last 40 years of American history. My harsh language is due to the rage I feel when I see such complete bull**** spread around by the likes of the National Black Republican Association and you.

Back when Dr King was still alive and for a long time after, the Republican party had him branded as a socialist. He was considered the enemy of the GOP, some even went so far to say he was a soviet plant. That's why our good friend John McCain voted against making Martin Luther King Jr. Day an official holiday in Arizona. But now enough time has passed that the GOP has tried to re-write history to steal a few votes from woefully uneducated black people who don't remember what happened. Claiming that King was one of their own is a horrible lie by the GOP that I won't stand for. You can take your historical revisionism and shove it up your ass.

Not pointing any fingers at a particular political party here, but I don't see how the creation of an entitlement mentality has helped poor black folk. I don't think that was part of Dr. King's "dream", do you?

An entitlement mentality wasn't part of Dr. King's dream. However, I find an equal sense of entitlement to a wide variety of social benefits occurs among people of all colors, and extends even to those sporting Rightard bumper stickers. Hang around a public school long enough and you'll find enlightenment in this regard.

I'm not saying Dr King would have been a proud bumper sticker sporting Democrat if he was alive today. I'm just pointing out how comically evil the GOP is in pretending he's one of their own. What a wonderful publication that national black republican association magazine is. They have such great poster children, like Condoleeza Rice, and.... who else? Alan Keyes? Oh yeah, of course, Martin Luther King Jr! He was right wing all along! Why, if he was alive today I'm sure he would be calling for war, offshore drilling, and huge tax cuts for the richest 1% and oil companies. Keep fighting the good fight Dr King!

The democrat's idea of equality is equality of results, instead of equality of opportunity and equality before the law. (I should say leftists instead of democrats; there are probably a lot democrats who haven't really thought about what they are supporting)

Since equality means equality of results, they go through endless machinations in efforts to achieve it. They don't really care about the plight of individiuals, they only care about equality of averages; the black average equal to the white average, the male average equal to the female average...etc. The perpetuate identity politics, that one derives one's idenitity from which groups they are a part of; the groups that they have no control over, that is.

They propose to moderately increase the status of the middle class by handicapping business. They go on and on about the gap between the rich and the poor and still think they can bring people out of poverty by taxing the rich. The more people and businesses are taxed, the more the are deprived of the freedom to help people they way that they see fit.

The democrats lay claim to Jefferson's heritage, but Jefferson would be apalled at today's party. He understood that equality was not equality of results, but being equal in the inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Read what Jefferson wrote; read what all the founders wrote. Here's a start: http://www.founding.com/issues/pageID.2470/default.asp

I'm not a big fan of the current Republican party either, and I am disgusted whenever any politician talks about the "two party system". We need to start electing people who adhere to the constitution, the rule of law and the ideals that our founders stood for.

I don't need anybody to inform me on the plight of black people; my wife does a much better job.

Mike756 ranted on about the Democratic platform for a while and posted a link that he thinks is indicative of some failure of Dems to adhere to Jeffersonian ideals of Democracy... yadda yadda yadda...

Then you should have started your original post with a discussion of one of Obama's policies that involves ensuring equality of result, rather than equality of opportunity and before the law.

Instead, you chose to focus on some of the most inoffensive and mild campaign rhetoric there could be... almost boilerplate from every campaign run since 1800. Clearly, you object to it simply because it's on OBAMA's web site, rather than because the message is, in truth a problem. Which reveals to us the simple truth that, rather than examine Obama's policies to see if they are useful, helpful, Constitutional, whatever... you simply hate Obama, sight unseen, for whatever you think he might represent.

And, in spite of the fact that you've proved otherwise, you still probably expect me to think you have an open mind.

Guess again.

dagwood

I linked to Obama's website. People can see for themselves what his policies are. I have no expectations about you, but if you would like to have a more open mind, you might start here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/

LINCOLN ON THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The Declaration of Independence (said Mr. L.) was formed by the representatives of American liberty from thirteen States of the confederacy---twelve of which were slaveholding communities. We need not discuss the way or the reason of their becoming slaveholding communities. It is sufficient for our purpose that all of them greatly deplored the evil and that they placed a provision in the Constitution which they supposed would gradually remove the disease by cutting off its source. This was the abolition of the slave trade. So general was conviction---the public determination---to abolish the African slave trade, that the provision which I have referred to as being placed in the Constitution, declared that it should not be abolished prior to the year 1808. A constitutional provision was necessary to prevent the people, through Congress, from putting a stop to the traffic immediately at the close of the war. Now, if slavery had been a good thing, would the Fathers of the Republic have taken a step calculated to diminish its beneficent influences among themselves, and snatch the boon wholly from their posterity? These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: ``We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began---so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built. [Loud cheers.]
Now, my countrymen (Mr. Lincoln continued with great earnestness,) if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me---take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever---but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity---the Declaration of American Independence.



http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=f ountain;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;s ort=occur;idno=lincoln2;node=lincoln2%3A567

Mike756, "People can see for themselves what his policies are."

Yes and many have. And, as I said, we learn much about you by your choice of what to pick from it and criticize.

dagwood

I'm sorry your having such a hard time with this.

This may help you:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI1MTQ4MTQ5MjA3ZDc4ODI4YTdjNjliOWMzZmY1NzI=

Golly. The National Review published something critical of Obama. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Does any of that mean your original post DID pick something meaningful to criticize?

That would be a "no."

We get it. You hate Obama. Anything he says or does is evil. Thanks for letting us know.

We get it. You hate Obama. Anything he says or does is evil. Thanks for letting us know.

No, his position is more nuanced than that. In his twisted world the great leaders of times past are buddy buddy with the corrupt sleazebags in power in washington today. And yet Obama, who is the political opposite of MLK(?!?), is socialist scum. Wait, what? Yeah, don't worry yourself too much about his crazy beliefs. Worry that they are quite widespread and accepted!

As one can see, some people will actually defend this absurd statement, that the right to vote is equal to or more fundamental than our natural rights, claiming it is just campaign rhetoric, but here a few examples that show people actually believe this stuff.

“The right to vote is the fundamental citizenship right that protects all other rights. Maybe that explains the shape we're in.”

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_fundamental_right_you_dont_have.php



“We also all understand that voting is a fundamental right. It’s the right from which all other rights derive. Again, there is no disagreement among us on this point.”

Ted Kennedy
http://www.tedkennedy.com/journal/915/voting-is-a-fundamental-right



"It is seen as an American right. In a democracy there is nothing more fundamental than having the right to vote."


Advancement Project
http://www.advancementproject.org/news/news-display-article.php?content_news_id=179


It is all part of the same doctrine, that it is government who gives us our rights.

Here what Alexander Hamilton had to say about Natural Rights:

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

“The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice. Civil liberty, is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society. It is not a thing, in its own nature, precarious and dependent on human will and caprice; but is conformable to the constitution of man, as well as necessary to the well-being of society.”

“I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.”

Just found this:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060524-senator_obamas_4/

I was actually open to the possibility that it was just campaign rhetoric, but his speech eliminates that idea.

What the hell are you even talking about? You're actually criticizing Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama for saying that the right to vote is of fundamental importance? Your poorly thought out ideology is clouding your perception my friend!

Every adult citizen should have the right to vote, but I'd surely like to see some kind of weighting based on an associated test showing that the voter understands the candidates' platforms or issues.

Why should a vote from someone who is only voting because some dumb-ass movie star supports a particular candidate count as much as a vote from someone who deeply understands the candidate and what he will do for (or to) the electorate?

Every adult citizen should have the right to vote, but I'd surely like to see some kind of weighting based on an associated test showing that the voter understands the candidates' platforms or issues.

Why should a vote from someone who is only voting because some dumb-ass movie star supports a particular candidate count as much as a vote from someone who deeply understands the candidate and what he will do for (or to) the electorate?

Well we do have a system that applies some weight depending on where you live, and I'm not in complete agreement with that. But to discriminate in any way with legal voters sounds seriously unconstitutional to me.

Every adult citizen should have the right to vote, but I'd surely like to see some kind of weighting based on an associated test showing that the voter understands the candidates' platforms or issues.

Why should a vote from someone who is only voting because some dumb-ass movie star supports a particular candidate count as much as a vote from someone who deeply understands the candidate and what he will do for (or to) the electorate?

Who writes the test? How do you decide what constitutes a well reasoned argument and understanding on an issue?

And it's not movie stars I'm worried about. All political discourse in this country is bogged down in utter bull****, I'm talking about the cable news outlets and most newspapers. How about we get some real journalism going again.

This guy gets it:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/06/i_dont_necesari.html

Who writes the test? How do you decide what constitutes a well reasoned argument and understanding on an issue?

And it's not movie stars I'm worried about. All political discourse in this country is bogged down in utter bull****, I'm talking about the cable news outlets and most newspapers. How about we get some real journalism going again.

Journalism is dead. They used to teach objectivity in our journalism schools now they teach 'social justice'.

Once you go into journalism with an agenda, any agenda, the battle is already lost.

dagwood

You might find this helpful concerning your claim that the parties suddenly swiched sides:

http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/

Oh! A link to blogspot! Well, you must be entirely correct!

Yes, that's sarcasm and I'm laughing at you. Partly because you keep the thread alive... a thread which started because you have difficulty reading and understanding simple English. The phrase "no more fundamental right than..." does not imply that other rights do not exist. Yet, that's they way those who are blinded by hatred of Obama choose to respond. I am amused.

dagwood

It appears I shall have to explicitly lay it out for you. This is from his speech to the senate, which I posted, but apparently you did not read.

"There is no more fundamental right accorded to United States citizens by the Constitution than the right to vote."

The fact that he said it in his speech as well as having on his website leaves no other conclusion than that he believes it to be true.

Now we shall examine what is wrong with this statement.

The constitution does not give people rights. It lists some of them, due to the efforts of Jefferson and others, who wisely foresaw that others would try to limit them. You can call voting a "right" but it is not the same kind of right as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to assemble, freedom of speech and others retained by the people among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are more fundamental than the right to vote.

The United States is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic, with government given enumerated powers by the people, and a system of checks and balances specifically to protect the rights of the minority. If you read the constitution, you will see that it does not even afford the right of citizens to vote directly for president. The president is elected by the state electors. Each state makes it own rules as how the electors shall vote. The only thing fundamental about the right to vote is that individuals shall not be discrminated against. That is the fundamental right, to be equal before the law.

If our rights derive from the right to vote, as Kennedy says, if government gives us our rights, then government can take them away.

[QUOTE]I'd surely like to see some kind of weighting based on an associated test showing that the voter understands the candidates' platforms or issues./QUOTE]

They tried that in Florida in 2000. It's called a ballot. You have to select the right little spot to push with your scribe. Some Democrats are still upset about it. :eek:

They tried that in Florida in 2000. It's called a ballot. You have to select the right little spot to push with your scribe. Some Democrats are still upset about it. :eek:

There was a lot more to it than that, but lets not go there today :).


Mike, this seems to be a pet issue for you. I'm not going to argue over interpretation of the constitution with you, but I will say that Obama was a professor/senior lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. So while you might disagree with him on the value of voting rights over other better-defined universal rights in the constitution, you should be very happy that a man so well educated in the constitution is running for president. In the last 8 years we've seen the constitution completely ignored by the Bush administration, and I see plenty of evidence that McCain follows the same views. What do you think of Bush/McCain?

"Mike, this seems to be a pet issue for you. I'm not going to argue over interpretation of the constitution with you, but I will say that Obama was a professor/senior lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. So while you might disagree with him on the value of voting rights over other better-defined universal rights in the constitution, you should be very happy that a man so well educated in the constitution is running for president. In the last 8 years we've seen the constitution completely ignored by the Bush administration, and I see plenty of evidence that McCain follows the same views. What do you think of Bush/McCain?"

I do have some concerns about the Patriot Act and the GWOT, but I don't have enough information to make an accurate judgement, nor does most of America. I would need access to the intelligence reports, not that any one person could make sense of them all. So to a large extent we have to rely on congress and the senate. The fact that they haven't seen fit to take any action makes me take all the media hype with a grain of salt. Much of the blame falls on all of us, for not paying more attention. However it is not simply a matter of following the law or not; the law is not well defined. Each branch has its own responsibilities. All the people who screamed about the Patriot Act would be the first ones to scream if we were attacked again. Additionally, attempts to define the law to high levels of detail could be counterproductive if it is too cumbersome.

The fact that Obama was a constitutional scholar makes his statements all the more disturbing.

Mike, the neocons have no respect at all for the constitution. Since you seem to know something about the constitution, it would do you well to look into the many abuses they have committed against it. You would actually be able to have a conversation about the constitution with Obama, but if you asked Bush or McCain they would stare at you blankly and then bleat out "POW" and "9/11"

If you really care about upholding the costitution, please please please don't vote Republican this fall. If Obama talking about voting rights bugs you that much, then write-in Ron Paul on your ballot. He's a little crazy but he sure loves that constitution. I think you'd like him.

And about those intelligence reports... Bush and his friends ignored all intelligence reports that they didn't like and actively pushed flaky intelligence from untrustworthy sources that backed them up. The CIA tried to tell them that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but they thought they knew better. Dick Cheney went so far as to break CIA operative Valery Plame's cover and ruin her career because she, along with her journalist husband, were challenging the lies put forward by the White House.

I find it funny that you talk about media outcry when the media has been printing White House press releases as if they were facts. The only actual outcry I've heard is from that douchebag Keith Olberman. Blowhard or not, he happens to be pretty much right RE: the last 8 years. Much more people watch Bill O'Reilly than Keith Olberman so I don't think he has much impact.

Darth, I just want to point out something in the interests of historical accuracy. It was the UN and Hans Blix (?) who said they were unable to inspect due to Iraqi interference. They said as they packed up and left that they thought that there were WMD. That's what I recall reading in 2000 or 2001.

That has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else. That was the word of the UN.

No one else would stand up to Sadaam. No one. Typical chicken shiatt UN resolutions. Just like in Bosnia and on and on. And people were slaughtered as straw soldiers from the Netherlands stood by and were spineless. That was how it was then. It looked like Iraq was next. Mass slaughter. People forget real quick.

No, many of the most trusted sources inside the CIA said there were no WMDs, but the administration ignored them in favor of the word of known scam artists. This is all very well documented. Unfortunately, what you vaguely remember seeing on the news a few years ago isn't really reliable information, since the news media were happy to get all their information straight from the white house back then.

Is the US supposed to send in their army every time there's a humanitarian crisis? I can think of LOTS of places where massacres are happening and the UN is sitting by twiddling their thumbs. Like Darfur, but oh wait, those guys are funded by China, our number one trading partner and global sweatshop. Iraq seemed like it was "next on the list" because it WAS next on the list. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were interested in invading Iraq even before the 2000 election. After 9/11 they were dropping hints like crazy that Saddam was somehow to blame (?!?). They even lied about the 2001 anthrax scare, claiming the anthrax came from Iraq, which was an outright lie.


Oh boy. I see this thread going great places now

Anyone who starts to do any serious investigation into issues quickly realizes that the issues are much more complex that what you get from listening to the standard media. People will complain that we are not doing enough in the world and then as soon as anyone tries to do something meaningful, other people, or often the same people, cry foul if it's not their guy who is doing it. Some argue that we should not be involved in the world. I tend to think that everyone in the world deserves freedom and good government. I think that the vast majority of people in any country are pretty much alike; they just want to live their lives. But there are always those who want to control. Should we be involved in the world? Where would we be were it not for France? Not that they wanted to help us so much as they wanted to hurt the British. There are not many universals in this world, but one of them, I believe, is this:

“...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

No, Vader, this thread isn't going that way. I am not here to argue this, and have way more respect for you than that. More in common than not. :)

"No one should corrupt the most precious right we have, and that is the right to vote"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102008/news/politics/1_voter__72_registrations_132965.htm

OK, McCain is an idiot as well. I give up.

For the first time in this country a forum(the internet) is available to the masses where they can state their opinions and maybe form a coalition to affect change. The question is how and who will be able to pull the coalition together. Even now most people are better informed than ever and divorced from the self serving media. Next is gaining enough voice to affect a change in the political establishment.

I wrote my first letter (email) to my state senators a few weeks ago. Surprisingly both answered. I know that they most likely never personally saw the emails but maybe the emails made it to a list of voter concerns that are tabulated for the senator to review.

Here is hoping.

John Locke had it right by defining everything through the lens of property rights -

Tenet #1 - No person can be the property of another person. No person has the right to control, harm or kill any other.

Tenet #2 - Since no person belongs to any other, no person has claim to the fruits of another person's labor.

From these basic tenets, we prevent the collective from consuming the wealth that others create, preventing widespread poverty and misery.

For the first time in this country a forum(the internet) is available to the masses where they can state their opinions and maybe form a coalition to affect change. The question is how and who will be able to pull the coalition together.

Good luck with that. The anonymous nature of the internet allows people the comfort to be rude, name call and otherwise stubbornly defend their own beliefs, in a much worse fashion than if they were face to face. Coming to a consensus on the internet is probably near impossible. We see this almost everyday on this forum.


Even now most people are better informed than ever and divorced from the self serving media.

By going to sites that reinforce their own beliefs. There is so much content out there, we can just go to that we agree with, just like people have done with newspapers, television and radio for years. Because we want to believe that the internet is somehow above the old media for information, we tend to give more weight to whatever is found there. In reality the internet is filled with lies, misleading information and bias. Remember, just as anyone can access information, anyone can also upload information too. That information is only as good as the person that put it there.

In the end it still comes down to sifting through the crap and doing the best you can to inform yourself based on the beliefs you hold core to your values.

^^^ You said it perfectly. And even two people like us who see it that way can't agree on lots of things! The internet is a great resource in that it has almost limitless information, but you have to filter it very carefully.

Watch it all don't just watch what you want to hear, the so called main media (or self serving media) wont tell you the truth ,they are more interested in their own agenda


NO PLUG NO SALE =D----$00.00