The Political Debate Thread (As Continued from the Shoutbox)

[Spaceworlder]

If you believe that China's economy is Communism, that's a laugh. It may be a top-directed command economy, but is sure as hell isn't communism. A revitalization of American industry would require prcatically the same amount of govenrment intervention, too, as companies have found that things are much more profitable overseas  than in their home country. Capitalism knows no loyalty or moral obligation. As for Unions, I suppose you want a return to the Gilded Age, too?

If you want to lay the groundwork for a totalitarian regime, then government intervention would be a great way to 'fix' the economy. On the other hand, you could also try to figure out why it's more profitable for companies to work overseas than over here. Part of that equation are labor Unions, who want to place all sorts of restrictions on businesses. I'll admit that there was once a time when Unions were useful, but that time has long passed. Now, whenever I hear about them, it's always something negative.

In other words, reduce the amount of education?

No.

Destruction is not all I advocate, but it's fair to say that peaceful "solutions" haven't done much, now have they? Offer someone peace and happiness to give up thier corporation and they'll laugh at you. Shove a gun in thier face and they'll give it a second thought.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that breeds Stalinist regimes.

Ah, the Space Program, I'm glad it came up, if we spent half the money we spend on National "Defense" on the Space Program, we'd have something great up there by now. Theres so much to space, but at the same time, how much of our own planet have we actually explored? When you consider how much of the planet is actually "WATER", how deep have we looked? Imagine what amazing secrets could lie beneath the waves. So I think equally, research into our own Oceans should be prioritised just as much as Space Exploration. And the thing is, we arn't even exploring space, we just send some guys on vacation up in a Space Station for a while.

Well, despite the jab at the national defense, I agree with you on space exploration. I think it would help a great deal if the government made it easier for private organizations to get into it. There are probably lots of people who'd like to build their own rocket and fly to Mars, but they can't due to some law or requirement.

China is not Communist, and in my opinion, during Stalin - The Soviet Union was not Communist, it was Communist while Lenin was in power, and while Lenin was in power, there many great things happening, and a lot of people were very happy. True communism, is not what we've all been told it is. "Godless, Moral-less, Dictatorships". China is about as Communist as Nazi Germany was.

The Soviet Union was communist. Like all communist regimes, Stalinist Russia started off with 'good intentions', but, also like all communist regimes, it went down the shitter real quick. This is a reality that the majority of people on the face of the Earth accept: that communism doesn't often work in practice.

Also, stop with that "the troops might not want to be sent back" crap, it's not thier decision, they follow orders, when you become a soldier, you lose the right to make your own life decisions on a battlefield, your enemies are whoever you're told they are, and that's that. I've had family and friends in the military, and this is exactly what I was told. And it makes PERFECT sense. The USSR helped us in WW2, they won the war, yet years down the line they were our worst enemy. And the demon known as McCarthy-ism overtook America, it's scars still bear on us today.

You're missing one crucial point about the War in Iraq: it's being fought by a volunteer army. Everyone who's fighting out there in the Middle East is there because they decided they wanted to enlist in the military, not because someone forced them to. Maybe you know a few cynical servicemen, but I've also heard of plenty of soldiers who feel very strongly about what they're doing in the Middle East.

Yes, the USSR became our worst enemy, just like how Osama bin Laden became our worst enemy. Sometimes, you need to side with the greater of two evils to win a war. A lot of people can't seem to grasp that concept; it's like they've never been forced to work with someone they don't like.

However, I doubt most of the people over there really want to be there.

The last thing anyone would want would be to get caught up in a war; but if you're shipped overseas and devote years of your life to fighting for a place, there's also a chance you might develop a desire to see the situation through. I'm not saying that's how all soldiers feel about the situation they're in, but I think that there's more to withdrawing our troops than a lot of people think.

Either that, or they don't have the opportunity to do anything but join the army.

That's just a whiney, bullshit mentality that some reluctant soldiers have developed, because they can't bitch about having a draft.

"I don't want to go to war!"

"Then why'd you join the military?"

"Draft."

"Um... there is no draft."

"Oh.. uh.. well.. I didn't have any other choice! There's no opportunities for poor people in America."

"Sure."

[Regdren]

This is a little off topic, but I think that the Democrats need so stand up to people more. They are seen as spineless because they mostly are. What they need is an example to follow; someone who will call people on their bullshit and not back down when challenged.

Someone like, I don't know, maybe this guy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/

By the way, I'm a journalist major and I think that "reporter" needs to have that smug grin punched off of his face. He pretty much did, though.

[Spaceworlder]

Bill Clinton is a nut bar. That reporter's smug grin was a reaction to seeing an egotistical douchebag lose his composure.

[Regdren]

I know that emotion is a weakness in the political world. But if an Ex-Pres isn't allowed to say what he really thinks, our system for judging the character of our leaders needs work.

Also, the smug grin was there quite a while before Clinton got angry.

I don't know, maybe you'd stay calm if someone said you were responsible for quite a number of deaths that happened on someone else's watch. The question of "Why didn't you do more to stop terrorism" has the same intellectual honesty as "Have your stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a loaded question that assumes an awful lot, and I think Clinton was right to call him on it.

Lastly, the reporter repeatedly tried to interrupt Clinton during his response to the questions, and when it looked like Clinton might have the upper hand he tried to change the subject. This guy was a Fox reporter, and a decent one at that. If he really thought Clinton was going off the deep end he'd encourage him to go on and make a bigger fool of himself; that was pretty much his goal. In my opinion, that's not what happened.

[tetsaru arigashi]

This is a little off topic, but I think that the Democrats need so stand up to people more. They are seen as spineless because they mostly are. What they need is an example to follow; someone who will call people on their bullshit and not back down when challenged.

Someone like, I don't know, maybe this guy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/

By the way, I'm a journalist major and I think that "reporter" needs to have that smug grin punched off of his face. He pretty much did, though.

Very interesting story.  Although I don't side with either Democrats or Republicans (I'm not big on politics), I agree that more politicians should be more firm when challenged and not let the media manipulate the minds of the people.  Any good leader should be able to stand up for himself and support the needs of those he/she leads.  On the other hand, I also feel that people need to be better informed of current events.  Don't let the opinions of the media fool you - find out what ACTUALLY happened, and then form your own opinion.  Then you can decide whether or not your leader is doing what he/she should about the situation at hand.

[Spaceworlder]

I don't know, maybe you'd stay calm if someone said you were responsible for quite a number of deaths that happened on someone else's watch. The question of "Why didn't you do more to stop terrorism" has the same intellectual honesty as "Have your stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a loaded question that assumes an awful lot, and I think Clinton was right to call him on it.

It's about as intellectually dishonest as Katie Couric giving President Bush Sr. an impromptu interview on live television, a moment that didn't see the President blowing up and kicking Ms. Couric out of the White House.

Lastly, the reporter repeatedly tried to interrupt Clinton during his response to the questions, and when it looked like Clinton might have the upper hand he tried to change the subject. This guy was a Fox reporter, and a decent one at that. If he really thought Clinton was going off the deep end he'd encourage him to go on and make a bigger fool of himself; that was pretty much his goal. In my opinion, that's not what happened.

The reporter was conducting an interview, and thus probably wanted to move on to other questions. Also, it seemed Fox was confident enough that Clinton made full of himself, because they aired the entire interview un-edited.

Very interesting story.  Although I don't side with either Democrats or Republicans (I'm not big on politics), I agree that more politicians should be more firm when challenged and not let the media manipulate the minds of the people.  Any good leader should be able to stand up for himself and support the needs of those he/she leads.  On the other hand, I also feel that people need to be better informed of current events.  Don't let the opinions of the media fool you - find out what ACTUALLY happened, and then form your own opinion.  Then you can decide whether or not your leader is doing what he/she should about the situation at hand.

You're right; if anyone should be manipulating the minds of The People, it should be politicians and not the media!

[Regdren]

It's about as intellectually dishonest as Katie Couric giving President Bush Sr. an impromptu interview on live television, a moment that didn't see the President blowing up and kicking Ms. Couric out of the White House.

If someone asked me the question "Why have you done such a horrible job?" on national television and then immediately started interrupting me when I tried to defend myself, I might get a little bit angry too. I don't know where you get the idea that politicians (and even ex-politicians!) are supposed to have no passion for what they believe in, always reading from their scripts in a perpetual, well-rehearsed statesman voice. It reminds me of the T.V. reporting trend where they were supposed to be cheerful and smiley no matter what horrible news they were reporting, and I think it's refreshing to see something different here.

The reporter was conducting an interview, and thus probably wanted to move on to other questions. Also, it seemed Fox was confident enough that Clinton made full of himself, because they aired the entire interview un-edited.

If you're a believer in Fox News journalistic integrity, I don't think there's much more I can say to you. You'd probably say something about how it's a least more honest with its views than those other liberal media that pretend to be impartial. I mean, they're the #1 American News Channel because they tell THE TRUTH about things.

On a completely unrelated note, take a look at this Fox News feature!

Now, spaceworlder, you know that the Netherlands is no longer a God-fearing Christian nation. Oh noes! It's not the same as it was a hundred years ago! But Fox wouldn't disguise an opinion piece as actual news, right? And they wouldn't even consider making any of it up just because no one checks the facts. For example, saying that Netherlands law has allowances for polygamy when it actually doesn't would be completely against Fox's high standards of journalism.

But I digress. We were talking about how Clinton, completely unprovoked, started screaming things at this poor reporter, his face a deep, ragey red, possibly throwing things around as well. Because that's what happens when you blow up at people, right? That's what a complete nut bar would do.

No, wait. I'm misrepresenting your arguements. From what I understand, you were actually saying that because Clinton got angry about someone who, through loaded questions, said that his presidency weakened America, he did very badly in this interview. And that he's a nut bar.

You know what? I think I'm going to ask you to back up what you've been saying. I want you to explain to me why an ex-president needs to take such accusations with a smile. And I want you to explain how Clinton should have responded to these questions. Once you do that, we can continue. Otherwise, it's just a clash of raw, unsubstantiated opinion that demeans both of us, and I won't have anything more to do with it.

[Spaceworlder]

If someone asked me the question "Why have you done such a horrible job?" on national television and then immediately started interrupting me when I tried to defend myself, I might get a little bit angry too. I don't know where you get the idea that politicians (and even ex-politicians!) are supposed to have no passion for what they believe in, always reading from their scripts in a perpetual, well-rehearsed statesman voice. It reminds me of the T.V. reporting trend where they were supposed to be cheerful and smiley no matter what horrible news they were reporting, and I think it's refreshing to see something different here.

I'm not saying politicians shouldn't have passion for what they do. I'm saying that it's not smart to fly off the handle during an interview like that. Would you be defending President Bush if he blew up at a reporter for questioning his foreign policy? I doubt it.

If you're a believer in Fox News journalistic integrity, I don't think there's much more I can say to you. You'd probably say something about how it's a least more honest with its views than those other liberal media that pretend to be impartial. I mean, they're the #1 American News Channel because they tell THE TRUTH about things.

I don't think Fox is exactly perfect at what it does, but I think it's refreshing compared to the likes of CNN. You have it all wrong; the reason Fox is #1 in the country is because 1) it's very open to a moderate/conservative audience, and 2) it isn't afraid to show off its American heritage.

Fox doesn't really tell the truth any more than CNN or MSNBC does. As a matter of fact, all news channels report the same crap. What makes Fox special is how they report their stories.

On a completely unrelated note, take a look at this Fox News feature!

Now, spaceworlder, you know that the Netherlands is no longer a God-fearing Christian nation. Oh noes! It's not the same as it was a hundred years ago! But Fox wouldn't disguise an opinion piece as actual news, right? And they wouldn't even consider making any of it up just because no one checks the facts. For example, saying that Netherlands law has allowances for polygamy when it actually doesn't would be completely against Fox's high standards of journalism.

I don't know much about the Netherlands or any statistics pertaining to it, so I can't touch much on that issue. I don't see anything in the link you provided that disproves Fox's observations about the Netherlands. Either way, your point is moot. I'm sure some conservative could take a clip from a station like CNN and argue that it's a thinly veiled opinion piece as well.

More importantly, I never argued that Fox reports the honest-to-God truth. They're a news station like any other; and like any other news station, they'll do stories that they think will get them high ratings.

But I digress. We were talking about how Clinton, completely unprovoked, started screaming things at this poor reporter, his face a deep, ragey red, possibly throwing things around as well. Because that's what happens when you blow up at people, right? That's what a complete nut bar would do.

No, wait. I'm misrepresenting your arguements. From what I understand, you were actually saying that because Clinton got angry about someone who, through loaded questions, said that his presidency weakened America, he did very badly in this interview, And that he's a nut bar.

You know what? I think I'm going to ask you to back up what you've been saying. I want you to explain to me why an ex-president needs to take such accusations with a smile. And I want you to explain how Clinton should have responded to these questions. Once you do that, we can continue. Otherwise, it's just a clash of raw, unsubstantiated opinion that demeans both of us, and I won't have anything more to do with it.

Scroll up to my first response in this post.

Clinton was too much on the offensive, attacking so-called 'neo-cons' and perceived conspirators and everyone in between. The one thing I remembered the most was when he called "The Path to 9/11" a work of some Right-Wing organization. All you need to do is surf to IMDB, check some credits for Path, and see that one of the writers also worked on an Oliver Stone-produced miniseries about the Reagan administration to know this is bullshit. The writer even mentioned that when defending himself in an interview.

Funny that Clinton should talk about the American Right trying to influence the public through the media, when he himself waged a successful campaign to censor "The Path to 9/11"! If it was all lies, why did he go as far as to demand the censorship of what he clearly thought of as sensationalistic dreck?

Anyway, Clinton could have told his story without having to get into all this rambling about neo-cons and manipulating the media and other bullshit you can tell he isn't being completely honest about.

[Regdren]

I'm not saying politicians shouldn't have passion for what they do. I'm saying that it's not smart to fly off the handle during an interview like that. Would you be defending President Bush if he blew up at a reporter for questioning his foreign policy? I doubt it.

You're assuming too much. Let's go over both major implications here:

1. I wouldn't defend Bush if he did such a thing.

Yeah I would. It would prove that he has some real emotion in him, and that he isn't confined to a script when he wants to talk convincingly about what he believes. If he got angry in an interview about some reporter who doesn't know what he was talking about before this video came up, I might have put up a Bush vid instead. The reason I mentioned the Democrats was that I think they need that sort of thing more. Heck, show me something like that and I'll applaud you for it.

2. Since I like Clinton, I must hate Bush.

Well, no. First of all, any President of the United States (and ex-President) deserves quite a lot of respect, even if there are political disagreements. Getting elected is no easy thing, and people who say Bush is stupid don't really understand Bush, politics or the presidency. Bush may not be great at non-scripted speech, and I think that's a rather serious problem, but in order to obtain, hold office and not be run out of it halfway through, you have to be pretty smart and keep some good advisors. I may not agree with all of his decisions, but I will give credit where it's due. I would not call George W. Bush a nutbar, a moron, or anything of the sort.

I don't think Fox is exactly perfect at what it does, but I think it's refreshing compared to the likes of CNN. You have it all wrong; the reason Fox is #1 in the country is because 1) it's very open to a moderate/conservative audience, and 2) it isn't afraid to show off its American heritage.

Fox doesn't really tell the truth any more than CNN or MSNBC does. As a matter of fact, all news channels report the same crap. What makes Fox special is how they report their stories.

I'll agree that aiming towards a conservative audience in a field where such an aim is rather rare is a very good business move. And it was dishonest of me not to try and explain the real reasons why it's popular. Fox News is run by smart people who know their audience and how to deliver what they want. But they're not journalists.

I don't know much about the Netherlands or any statistics pertaining to it, so I can't touch much on that issue. I don't see anything in the link you provided that disproves Fox's observations about the Netherlands. Either way, your point is moot. I'm sure some conservative could take a clip from a station like CNN and argue that it's a thinly veiled opinion piece as well.

More importantly, I never argued that Fox reports the honest-to-God truth. They're a news station like any other; and like any other news station, they'll do stories that they think will get them high ratings.

I'm glad that you agree Fox doesn't report the truth. And though the point may be moot, I would like to elaborate just a little bit more on why that piece was bad journalism. Feel free to skip it if you want.

Since that one specific instance didn't really work for you, I'll try and generalize a bit more. When you say "Some sources" and "people are talking about..." you need to cite your sources, like high school teachers will tell you. "Some observers" could be the Fox News camera crew. They don't even bother to say whether these people, or indeed the people they interview, are even from Holland. "people are talking about" is self-fulfilling. Now, I never said that other news media don't do this sort of thing either. They will stretch the truth, entertain, and sometimes report stories that people want instead of what they need. That does not, however, help me to take Fox reporters any more seriously.

Scroll up to my first response in this post.

Clinton was too much on the offensive, attacking so-called 'neo-cons' and perceived conspirators and everyone in between. The one thing I remembered the most was when he called "The Path to 9/11" a work of some Right-Wing organization. All you need to do is surf to IMDB, check some credits for Path, and see that one of the writers also worked on an Oliver Stone-produced miniseries about the Reagan administration to know this is bullshit. The writer even mentioned that when defending himself in an interview.

Funny that Clinton should talk about the American Right trying to influence the public through the media, when he himself waged a successful campaign to censor "The Path to 9/11"! If it was all lies, why did he go as far as to demand the censorship of what he clearly thought of as sensationalistic dreck?

Anyway, Clinton could have told his story without having to get into all this rambling about neo-cons and manipulating the media and other bullshit you can tell he isn't being completely honest about.

Wait a minute, I thought that the objection was about Clinton losing his temper, rather than his political views. Also, I did happen to watch T.V. during the Clinton presidency. And when Clinton sent out troops and launched missles to try to combat terrorism during the Lewinski scandal, he was indeed accused of trying to distract the American people by the same people who now said he didn't do enough.  I'm fairly sure he was honest about that.

And regarding "The Path to 9/11", I admit I haven't seen it, nor have I been informed of Clinton's attempt to censor it...though I hardly think it would be considered successful if we have so much access to information on it. This is an area that I have to do more research on; if the facts agree with what you said, I will conceed the point on that particular issue.

However, there is a question of mine that you haven't answered. Why isn't an Ex-president allowed to get angry like that? You can't say it's unprofessional because he isn't in the profession anymore! So...why?