Obama vs. McCain

[KitsuneFr]

Originally Posted by MMM

I get my news from many sources, including my wallet. My point is that my educated arguments are often dismissed because I obviously have a basis for them, which is the opposite of a logical argument. It's a desperate attempt to kill the messenger when you don't like the message.

Yes, the most sources you should have, the most elements to analyse and help to see you clear you'll have. But maybe my example couldn't be used comparatively to yours, as here in France (and maybe in UK if I analyse Hisuwashi's post) we have a big politically correct syndrom, that means that about 80 to 90% of the papers and medias are saying the same things (the differences are only on the form, not the facts). So as I believe that in US it is a bit different (I don't know how far, maybe not much, but more than us I expect!), I'm certainly sure that you would have more elements than us. In fact if I don't trust medias it only for this reason: they claim to know all, their truth is the only one to be and if you don't want to follow it you're a kind a rogue. I don't want to be a rogue anyway but I can't stand being judged by a staff of coke sniffer late scratching papersmen!
Last thing, I didn't want to dissmiss your points of view, since the few time I know this forum, I consider you as a very good point of reference and knowledge here, and am very glad to read your interventions in each thread where I have some interest in. So glad to have an exchange with you

[MMM]

Originally Posted by KitsuneFr

Yes, the most sources you should have, the most elements to analyse and help to see you clear you'll have. But maybe my example couldn't be used comparatively to yours, as here in France (and maybe in UK if I analyse Hisuwashi's post) we have a big politically correct syndrom, that means that about 80 to 90% of the papers and medias are saying the same things (the differences are only on the form, not the facts). So as I believe that in US it is a bit different (I don't know how far, maybe not much, but more than us I expect!), I'm certainly sure that you would have more elements than us. In fact if I don't trust medias it only for this reason: they claim to know all, their truth is the only one to be and if you don't want to follow it you're a kind a rogue. I don't want to be a rogue anyway but I can't stand being judged by a staff of coke sniffer late scratching papersmen!
Last thing, I didn't want to dissmiss your points of view, since the few time I know this forum, I consider you as a very good point of reference and knowledge here, and am very glad to read your interventions in each thread where I have some interest in. So glad to have an exchange with you

I didn't mean you, specifically, Kitsune.

I think we have a variety of news sources in the US, and none would try and claim they are completely unbiased. It is impossible to do so. What they give is a perspective. The viewer has to be responsible enough to process it appropriately. People here often talk about the liberal media, and indeed, much of the media does lean left, but there are also right-leaning news sources, like the National Review or even Fox News. I am afraid people get the idea that they shouldn't get information from the news. I would ask, then where do you get it? I think you end up with idea's like AmericanOtakuLee's that has been fed some lines, but doesn't seem to have any basis for his beliefs.

[sweetlolitachii]

I personally think that Barack Obama would be the best candidate. =) He definitely knows a lot about what's going on and I trust that he will make great decisions. Also, having the trust and respect of a lot of different Americans and people all over the world is also important for a President, though not the MOST important.

This election coming up is so exciting. =D

[AmericanOtakuLee]

How can you be excited about obama when all he does is promise cange. Wehere is the specific policies he wants to inact how much will those policies cost, where will he get the money to pay for the changes he wants.

By the way MMM i have no hard feelings toward you but obama is talking about hope and change but not laying out specificis. Bush has never stated saddam attacked america on 9/11

[KitsuneFr]

Originally Posted by MMM

I didn't mean you, specifically, Kitsune.

I think we have a variety of news sources in the US, and none would try and claim they are completely unbiased. It is impossible to do so. What they give is a perspective. The viewer has to be responsible enough to process it appropriately. People here often talk about the liberal media, and indeed, much of the media does lean left, but there are also right-leaning news sources, like the National Review or even Fox News. I am afraid people get the idea that they shouldn't get information from the news. I would ask, then where do you get it? I think you end up with idea's like AmericanOtakuLee's that has been fed some lines, but doesn't seem to have any basis for his beliefs.

It is a good thing anyway, as you could have the choice between differents sources (I think) in contents. Here it is not so evident, and we have to seek info in alternative media sources like free papers, extreme from left to right papers, blogs, or even foreign to have more accuracy on the news. The problem is if the government or the social partners (I mean syndicates) or the big trust bosses or so powerful or influent people are saying that THAT IS RIGHT AND ONLY THAT, you're are sure that despite if they are from left to right or right to left, the principal medias would say THAT IS RIGHT (sorry to emphasize caracters, it is not to make more soundly but to show that they were saying). So we have some authors or parallel medias who are wanting to go against that, a kind of anti-disinformation medias (sadly few and not very well represented). It is the only alternative we have. These are few, hard to find (because of the normal media's monopoly, and sometimes not very well seen, due to political attachement of all boards. But they are a bowl of fresh air anyway!).
But if in US you could have more diversified official sources, so I'm glad to know that, and that is going on the way that I believe my friends americans are, republicans or democrats, doesn't matter, still american friends however .

[MMM]

Originally Posted by AmericanOtakuLee

How can you be excited about obama when all he does is promise cange. Wehere is the specific policies he wants to inact how much will those policies cost, where will he get the money to pay for the changes he wants.

By the way MMM i have no hard feelings toward you but obama is talking about hope and change but not laying out specificis. Bush has never stated saddam attacked america on 9/11

I think Obama has been ver specific about many of his plans. At least as specific as McCain has been.

You speak in such generalities it is hard to answer your questions.

"All he does is promise change". Do you know what McCain's campaign slogan is now? "Change for America".

There are very detailed descriptions of the specific policies and how he will pay for them on his website. They are all there.

And you are making my point. Bush never stated Saddam attacked America on 9/11. Exactly. We attacked Iraq in relaliation for something Al Queda did.

And I don't hold anything personal against you, either, AmericanOtakuLee, this is just a political talk.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by KitsuneFr

It is a good thing anyway, as you could have the choice between differents sources (I think) in contents. Here it is not so evident, and we have to seek info in alternative media sources like free papers, extreme from left to right papers, blogs, or even foreign to have more accuracy on the news. The problem is if the government or the social partners (I mean syndicates) or the big trust bosses or so powerful or influent people are saying that THAT IS RIGHT AND ONLY THAT, you're are sure that despite if they are from left to right or right to left, the principal medias would say THAT IS RIGHT (sorry to emphasize caracters, it is not to make more soundly but to show that they were saying). So we have some authors or parallel medias who are wanting to go against that, a kind of anti-disinformation medias (sadly few and not very well represented). It is the only alternative we have. These are few, hard to find (because of the normal media's monopoly, and sometimes not very well seen, due to political attachement of all boards. But they are a bowl of fresh air anyway!).
But if in US you could have more diversified official sources, so I'm glad to know that, and that is going on the way that I believe my friends americans are, republicans or democrats, doesn't matter, still american friends however .

I always imagined French media was more free. That is unfortunate, but thanks to the Internet you can surely fine alternate sources.

[AmericanOtakuLee]

neither of the candidates are as good as i want. Because i was planning to back Fred Thompson cause of his stance on self reliance not gov handouts.
Obama wants Government to be problem solver for everybody. But as we have seen in the past when gov gets Involved things get worst instead of better. check out some of the stuff bill cosby and tomas sowell has to say.

[MMM]

Like I said before, the Democrats like their candidate, and the Republicans like neither candidate. It's very interesting to me.

Yes, Democrats tend to have more government programs than Republicans, but that image of smaller government and state rights went out with Reagan in 1988. Neither Bush president has acted toward shrinking the government. I, too, am a strong supporter of state rights to run themselves how they see fit. The Governator in California wanted to increase the emissions limitations of cars sold in his state higher than the EPA limits because California has such bad air pollution, and this administration tried to tell him he wasn't allowed to do that. That's the thinking that worries me. (As far as I know, they did it anyway in California, and the car lobby wanted to sue...)

[Hisuwashi]

Originally Posted by KitsuneFr

Sometimes I don't really feel french either, I really miss US President Reagan and UK PM Thatcher

Me too.... Gordon Brown is really failing at the moment. Cameron might be able to bring back the might of the Tories in the next general election though. Labour is on the ropes at the moment, after Brown went to Iraq, and then came back to not have an election. Now seems to be the time for the Tories to load salt into Labour's raw wounds.

Anyway I'm derailing because I'm talking about politics in the wrong country. Some of the comments aimed at me earlier seemed to be suggesting that I said things that I may not have meant, I think people are taking things the wrong way a little much and it is causing some argument.

Originally Posted by MMM

Like I said before, the Democrats like their candidate, and the Republicans like neither candidate. It's very interesting to me.

Yes, Democrats tend to have more government programs than Republicans, but that image of smaller government and state rights went out with Reagan in 1988. Neither Bush president has acted toward shrinking the government. I, too, am a strong supporter of state rights to run themselves how they see fit. The Governator in California wanted to increase the emissions limitations of cars sold in his state higher than the EPA limits because California has such bad air pollution, and this administration tried to tell him he wasn't allowed to do that. That's the thinking that worries me. (As far as I know, they did it anyway in California, and the car lobby wanted to sue...)

I am not in any position to justify the Republican's cause, nor is there really any point anyway....like you say, few people are especially enthusiastic about McCain.