Media and politicians.

[JadussD]

The media seems, to my eyes, to be more willing than ever to take any statement by a politician and blow it out of proportion into a huge controversy. Couple this with the "social war" we have on certain issues (religion, homosexuality, race, and abortion to name a few of these issues), with millions of reactionary one-issue voters voting solely on the basis of the candidates' positions on these issue, is it any wonder that no one wants to take a hard, honest line on key issues?

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>http://members.aol.com/jadussvii/Alcahest-Sociopathic_Engineering.oggThis music wants you dead.</a></center></P>

[Turtle]

1.) Take a look at the personal views of the few individuals who own a majority of American media.

2.) Take into consideration the profits made by controversy. If a network were to switch to a more level-headed style of reporting, they'd lose a lot of money because they'd bore the sheep who flock to controversy, as those same sheep are the ones heavily influenced by commercials.

As for the candidates being afraid to take a hardline stance on key issues, all that says to me is that the candidate isn't interested in serving the people, only in getting elected. If any of the candidates were truly interested in serving the majority, they'd simply state their case and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, they compromise their own beliefs in order to to achieve the power and money they so desperately need.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[SpaceTiger]

And a hardcore <img src=smilies/werd.gif> to all of that.

OMG, Bush mispronounced a word. OMG, Dean screamed at a convention. OMG, Gore said he invented the internet. If you're so lazy that you vote based on these things, you need to be shot. I think it would qualify as homeland security.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>