political discussions?

I`d just like to know how US citizens with a similar interest of my self (audio, video, technology) rate their current president. Do you think he is doing a good job or not? What do you think about the war in Iraq? Was if founded on the right reasons, and how good has it accomplished those reasons? What (and who) would make the world a safer place in the years to come? Are good relations to allies important to the US?


How much can we trust media to serve us the truth? Or are they just serving the truth that powerful people want us to see? Or are they serving the truth that we ourselves want to see? It is kind of scary to see that media and newspapers in countries that are supposed to be "free and democratic" can serve news in a way that heavily emphasize one view on things. To the extent that it seems both can`t be "true" at the same time.


An example of this would be european media that cover every Bush set-back with great enthusiasm, and Kerry progress with equall enthusiasm. It is no secret that most people over here are scared by Mr Bush in both his actions, views and (perhaps especially) the way he argue. But very few have the time or competense to investigate the case/sources and rather build their opinion on media and popular consensus.


If you have ever had the chance to read news coverage on the israel/palestina conflict, you will see that it is similarly "tilted" in favor of the views of the intended audience. Typically (?) european media "favour" the palestinians, while I imagine that US media are more Israeli friendly? I have been to Cuba and Malaysia, needless to say, they had again different coverage =)


This all scares me when we are talking about relatively open and "free" countries. One can only imagine what people are thinking in countries like north corea...



Is it important to base desitions on arguements that are a)rational, b)debatable and c)public (unless this contradicts with a)? Are desitions based on faith/religious experiences better or worse, and are all religions equal in this aspect, or should we decide what religions are suitable to rule nations and shape politics?


What is worse, being firm and wrong or debating good and bad sides?


Are the intentions and faith more or less important than actions? Ie a classical protestant ("it is more important that you believe than what you do") vs classical catholic ("do 10 Ave Marias and your sinns are foregiven")


Is it reasonable that politicians and rulers that have made grave errors be accountable for that? Either through reprimande or loosing their jobs? And that those responsible take actions that try to repair the damage and try to explain their errors as based on wrong assumptions or other factors that show that the decitions were made in good faith, and show that the error won`t be repeated?



I hope that I do not offend any subscribers to any opinion. I am simply trying to understand through questioning and reasoning, just as I simply cannot accept audio products to be better just by word or practice ;-) I accept the US citizens its right to legally elect any candidate they see most fit to rule their country (just as any other country have the right to).


with regards

Knut Inge

Quote:
Nope, they are not allowed. I have seen folks banned from this forum for bringing up politics. Here is a paste from the AVS Forum rules: (Excerpt)


"You agree to not use the Service to:


a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable. AVS Forum is not the place for debate on religion, sex, politics, or other such controversial posts; and this is not the place to talk about illegal downloads or how to obtain them. There are several forums on the Internet dedicated for discussing this type of material."