An Inconvenient Book

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by ajohnmeyer

I.E. should waterboarding be legal?
-Yes- Strong interrogation ensures protection against terrorists, which is in the best interest of our country
-No- Torture degrades our moral high-ground against terrorists, which hurts our countries interests.

I'll take that opposing side , for a moment...

For Yes... How can we say that to someone like McCain? His campaign aside and all - he was tortured as a POW - and was useless for information. It is in the best interest to get information, but it doesn't work for the willing (I would imagine especially so for those willing to die for their cause). Sorry if I just brought this thread to a whole new tangent o.0

For no... I can agree to that... Mostly because I can't explain my thought eloquently enough not to sound like an *** or avoid it being misconstrued. In general, what you described is the gist.

Originally Posted by ajohnmeyer

What I really have a problem with is the partisans-in-disguise such as Bill O'Reilley and Glenn Beck who ask us to put aside our partisanship.

Seriously, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with O'Reilley if he didn't attempt to come off as the "Fair and Balanced" Mantra. With Hannity and Colmes - it's known from the beginning. I don't agree with either of those clowns, but there's no political shenanigans in the background.


-----
If anyone wants an inconvenient book... Here's a Page Turner! I guarantee there's no veiled political BS inside too

http://www.amazon.com/Fluid-Dynamics.../dp/0849324076

[cfg83]

bowtieguy -

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

Carlos,

thanks for the links. interesting. wish i could take back MANY of the things i've said and done. however, things in print cannot always be trusted especially if taken out of context. ie could scumbags be the luters?

i'm simply going w/ what i've heard Beck talk about in limited air time. i like his ideas about throwing out political/personal agendas, and putting the interests of country first.

Hitler was(is) loved by many. so, right or wrong, individuals will be loved and hated. my hero was crucified by his own.

show me a perfect man/woman, and i'll show you the anti-Christ.

We all make excuses for people we choose to admire, but there has to be a limit.

I'm trying to think of any talk-show host who's book I would want to read and I can only think of Thom Hartmann :

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

But, I *think* he wrote his books before he became a talk show host. I am not familiar with him before 2001-2002. Feel free to Google him. One thing Thom does *very* well is confront the people that oppose his ideas. In my opinion, the problem with the Beck/Limbaughs is that they operate in a vacuum. If the Fairness Doctrine was still in place, they would have withered on the vine long ago. Thom *could* operate in the same fashion, but instead he invites the loyal opposition onto his show and debates them in a principled manner. This is important because talk show hosts trade in the "Realm of Ideas". If their ideas cannot withstand criticism in an open forum, then I think they are peddling in snake oil. I would call Thom a liberal/progressive in the FDR tradition ().

The other talk-show host that you might enjoy is Ian Masters :

http://www.ianmasters.org/index.php

He operates in what I call a state of Realpolitik. That is to say, he doesn't gloss over world events from a good/evil perspective. He looks at the world in terms of competing national interests. Since he's from Australia, I think it allows him to see our state of affairs from a less-jaundiced eye.

CarloSW2

[cfg83]

bowtieguy -

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

my father is old(wise) enough to be my grandfather. says he's been around the world 3 times and seen everyone twice.

he says, "don't believe ANYTHING ya hear, and only HALF of what ya see!"

I tell people "don't believe me, do your own homework". At least with the net in it's current form, you have ample opportunity to do lots and lots and lots of homework. The rub is separating the wheat from the chaff, .

CarloSW2

[bowtieguy]

Carlos,

as always, good stuff. reminds me that level headed democrats that i know have "walked away" from their party because of the party's present move to the far left.

yes, there still are men/women out there, both conservatives and liberals that set aside politics to seek a better country/world. one such conservative was the late Larry Burkett. i won't waste my time w/ links as this Christian conservative does not deserve to be attacked. he is w/out exception, IMHO, the greatest man of our time in relation to caring for his fellow man, yet giving stern advise in helping one's self. he appropriately passed away on(or about) the Fourth of July a few years back, because he was a true pariot/humanitarian.

he was a pioneer in helping people prepare financially for the future, while showing how to do it w/ integrity. ie w/out cheating, stealing, or gaining thru corruption. also he touched on our broken healthcare and the corruption w/ the lack of urgency for new techs of terminal illnesses and such as he eventually died of one.

as far as the fairness doctorine...i will not debate it, but will say this: when i want sports, i flip to ESPN.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

i won't waste my time w/ links

Links are provided to save everyone else time, though why anyone should trust you to find an unbiased source of info is beyond me, especially since you label this guy as you have where by definition he would not be unbiased?!? You really have to quit with the labels if you want to demonstrate that you are moving away from the extreme position.

[SVOboy]

reminds me that level headed democrats that i know have "walked away" from their party because of the party's present move to the far left. [/QUOTE]

See, here's your biggest problem. You look at "democrats" and decide that the only good ones are the ones who agree with you more than anyone else. You're not really seeking any sort of reconciliation, you're just seeing everyone who disagrees with you as nuts.

Personally, I see the democrats as rather centrist. Same with the republicans. Neither of them really believe in much except a few bastions that they're not likely to give much action to.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by cfg83

bowtieguy -



I tell people "don't believe me, do your own homework". At least with the net in it's current form, you have ample opportunity to do lots and lots and lots of homework. The rub is separating the wheat from the chaff, .

CarloSW2

agreed. i think my father's words could be amended to say "trust nothing/no one and test everything/everyone."

going back to my original point of the thread tho: if bold individuals do not stand in the gap to bridge the political seperation, we may not solve our isues EVER. and this will NOT happen via electing one individual, president or otherwise. ie voting is a way to speak volumes, but can it be done on a large scale to influence positive change? again, i have my doubts.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Personally, I see the democrats as rather centrist. Same with the republicans. Neither of them really believe in much except a few bastions that they're not likely to give much action to.

Ha! Which is exactly why I wait until one or two weeks before the Primaries to make my decision on primaries. At crunch time, what they actually believe in typically comes out... Sometimes good, other times - not so good

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

reminds me that level headed democrats that i know have "walked away" from their party because of the party's present move to the far left.

See, here's your biggest problem. You look at "democrats" and decide that the only good ones are the ones who agree with you more than anyone else. You're not really seeking any sort of reconciliation, you're just seeing everyone who disagrees with you as nuts.

Personally, I see the democrats as rather centrist. Same with the republicans. Neither of them really believe in much except a few bastions that they're not likely to give much action to.[/QUOTE]

you misunderstood my point. carlos brought up individuals that believe in the old FDR-style democracy. so, i added that there are dems that disagree w/ the current agendas of that party. FYI, i know of repubs who feel the same way about their party.

the only people that i think are "nuts"(politically speaking), are the ones that support party only, pro-change, anti-American sentiments, etc.
that said, at times a one party voter is going to be correct; change sometimes is necessary(do not overlook overhaul as an option); and certain American policies do need to be criticized.

ajohnmeyer is correct. there are too many different ideas of what IS best.
i guess I am "nuts" for considering all views and trying to find compromise to benefit all--one small voice. my biggest problem IS trying to convey my point accurately w/out seeming partial.

look no further than the recent election and polls since to see the "fed up" Americans are aplenty. many repubs lost their seats, and now the "new and improved" congress(dem majority) has the lowest approval rating in the history of the US. the voters have spoken

thanks john, edit for spelling.

[ajohnmeyer]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

anti-American sediments, etc.

Is that like Communist Chinese limestone or something? j/k

On a more serious note

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Personally, I see the democrats as rather centrist. Same with the republicans.

I think we actually have the opposite problem, we (and by extension our political parties) are far too polarized. For example look at the current (do-nothing) congress. We (the country) elected a Democratic majority into congress, in the past that would have been seen as a mandate for some type of change, for pushing through new legislation or policies.
In the current congress we have two parties, closely matched in numbers, who so far refuse to compromise with each other on ANYTHING, bringing any new legislation or policy to a grinding halt.

If you want to see why they refuse to compromise, just look at who the powerful voting blocks for each party consist of, the extremes.
On the left you have Sheehan and MoveOn pushing for no war funding without a timetable.
On the right you have Hannity, O'Reiley, Beck, Savage, etc. all pushing for no timetable with war funding.

I think that the extremes of each party play an important role, but the extremes have gotten so powerful in the last decade they've effectively drowned out the voices of the middle.

While it is the extremes of the spectrum that put out the raw ideas that will become the policy of the future, it's the middle that refines and congeals those ideas into usable policy.