|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 12, 2006 10:07:57 GMT -5
While some people on this board will not be voting for the next "leader of the free world" (a term I think is a bit arrogant).
History has shown that no matter where you live you life will be impacted by whoever gets the office (even if it is just the tabloids).
so my question is who likes whom and why for the 2008 Presidential race?
(I'm hoping to not promote too much mud slinging, but would really like a good open discussion about the various issues that will determine who runs the US for at least another 4 years)
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 12, 2006 17:46:25 GMT -5
i agree, that is a very arrogant phrase to use - not that i hold it against you, just the american media or whoever it is that's publicising that phrase (i'm used to similar things coming from england, though they usually aren't so blatantly patriotic propaganda)
|
|
|
|
Post by cenk on May 13, 2006 9:22:03 GMT -5
I agree with teancum when he says that everyone will be affected by the US president. But I dont agree with the claim that the president of the USA is the leader of the free world. What kind of free world nation wants to listen to every phone call you make? Theres nothing free about that and it reminds me of a police state.
I want Hilary Clinton to win. Its about time the land of the "free" elected a president who is not rich, white and a male.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 13, 2006 12:41:27 GMT -5
it reminds me of a police state. same here, like all those ridiculously propagandic names they throw around (such as "the coalition of the willing", "freedom fries", "the leader of the free world" etc.) and even the tv show cops - ever seen that? it looks like it's staged, and the way it's presented is utterly dispicable. it all makes me sick. |
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 13, 2006 12:53:24 GMT -5
Littlepea, why do you say they look staged? Is it that you don't believe things are really like that over here?
And, by the way, "freedom fries" was not a serious propaganda thing... it was a humorous way of responding to the serious comments coming out of France at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 13, 2006 13:44:44 GMT -5
it's not that, it's just the way it's produced that's outrageous. blatant propaganda. even "the war on terrorism" is a term that reeks of propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tara on May 17, 2006 10:46:24 GMT -5
I agree with littlepea about the propaganda names. You can't miss 'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by shaktidevi on May 17, 2006 13:13:46 GMT -5
p
|
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 17, 2006 13:24:35 GMT -5
How about operation "stop the invasion of people who don't respect the law"
I'm fine with all the legal immigration in the world, but there should be no looking the other way while people come over illegally. It promotes a police hating criminal loving sub culture and does not help those who come to feel as though they are part of this nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 18, 2006 7:28:26 GMT -5
Amen, teancum.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 18, 2006 16:41:42 GMT -5
still, some of the propaganda is obscene. how long until the army is renamed "the ministry of peace"?
|
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 18, 2006 16:55:04 GMT -5
That will be a few years still, but the process is not just a US thing. I've seen some of it else where too.
The "department of defense" used to be the "war department" there job is more or less the same, but we can't offend so we rename.
My political views used to be considered middle of the row (for the most part) now they are ultra right-wing neo-conservative nut job wacko.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 18, 2006 18:38:48 GMT -5
Same here, teancum. In fact, my father thinks of me as downright liberal compared to him and his buddies.
I don't see Americans referring to anything in government as a ministry anytime soon. Though I would be surprised if before too long we don't have groups with ironic names such as First Strike Peace Corps or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 19, 2006 16:23:25 GMT -5
i'm sure it isn't just a US thing but that doesn't make it acceptable. if you really are the leaders of the free world then you should be showing the rest of us how it's done. as an outside observer i think the USA is well on its way towards the society depicted in 1984 (hence the "ministry of peace"), which just makes your self-proclaimed title all the worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 19, 2006 17:53:27 GMT -5
I hear you the problem is we are so busy suing over whither or not Intelligent design can get a 30 sec honorable mention in a science class and that gas price's are to high that we ignore the bigger problems. Like some very selective history being taught or law suits trying to for bid offending minority groups which could quickly turn into limiting religions and other freedom of speech issues.
America should be the leader of the free world, but we need leaders who can keep their paints on and be 100% honest with the people who elected them.
Over all I like Bush, but it is starting to look like he tap danced around the truth with the NSA phone stuff. I don't like people playing dirty.
|
|
