So the truth is out there but I'll never know what it is.

Swell.

Apparently I can't trust the MSM, I can't trust the internet or blogsphere, judging from the many voices on DU there is no source that I can trust anywhere. So what do you do? How do you get to the truth?

I'm asking you seriously.

As a human being, when presented with 2 sides of an issue, both which are well represented, how do you determine the truth? Do you keep looking for information? Information that will be debunked by someone somewhere eventually? Do you just pull an opinion out of your ass? Judging from the many "progressive" voices on DU all information is tainted in one way or another. Do you go with "your gut"?

I'm tired of running in circles. Today's example, Bush instigates illegal wiretapping, DU goes through the roof. His head on a platter was the cry. Today after Obama's administration continued those policies it was "well he has good reason" and Turley is an asshat. To me that sounds like hypocrisy, but is it? I like Obama and maybe there is some trick he has up his sleeve, but really I doubt it. So what should my conclusion be? That Obama is a good guy and if he does anything as illegal as Bush did he's just looking out for us? Or is it that "power corrupts"? Or is it that the legal issues are so intense that Obama had to continue the policy until they could sort them out?

Tell me, not what you think about this issue but how you came to your conclusions.

Or don't, you could just flame me, I mean why should today be any different.

I like Obama, I voted for him in both the primaries and the GE, but his devout followers need to stop excusing some of the things he's doing and start to join the increasing chorus to hold him to his campaign promises.

As long as we Democrats are divided he wont feel a need to change the direction he's heading.

I wrote to the White House on this exact matter with some questions that I had.
However, I refuse to hang my dirty laundry on the public line for now.
There is no advantage that I would gain in folks seeing my dirty underwear.....

Not to those guessing and speculating without knowing more than what someone told them.

And the way you invalidate other posters doesn't really make for a good discussion.

on this forum, doesn't mean I'll coment in each thread saying the same thing...because that ain't necessarily gonna give me an answer. So I'll state whatever I think in a couple of those threads, write my letters to the sources, including the media and sometimes my congresscritters, and call it a day. If there is a petition, I'll read it, and if I agree with it, I'll sign it. Further, I usually don't get up the very next day and start all over again on the exact same subject saying the exact same thing unless I've learned something brand new. Different people do activism differently. I'm not one to get loud so that the media can pick up the buzz and distort it until the argument has been lost, and now it is being shaped by unhelpful third parties looking to hurt those who can help me the most. But you see, that's just me. And when I responded to that post, I was talking about me. Hope you don't mind.

One would think that could apply to any thread posted to DU and then wonder why you'd post at all if you were so concerned about the effect of your comments.

Rumsfeld wasn't bothered by bad policy (Torture).
He was upset that America saw it (the photos).

If your underwear is dirty, I suggest you wash it, not keep wearing it.

calling a game at the top of the first inning.

Like Obama stated so well when asked what had taken him so long to comment on an issue,
he responded... "I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak".

Perhaps at times it is best to be deliberative, as opposed to having an answer just for the sake of it.

I find it best to watch and listen while keeping one's mind clear, because I have found that at some point, the truth of the matter becomes crystal clear.

It's just like we warned everyone when the wiretapping started, the next president is likely to keep doing it, and the next may be a Dem.

I'm sure our Dem majority in Congress will write a new law that does away with all this BS. They will, won't they? Or has wiretapping proven to be a good way to hold and keep power?

and line them up. Most of the time, none of them has the whole story. But most of the time, I learn something when I line them up together that I didn't know before.

If you simply accept that premise, this is really not very complicated to figure out. He is going to do what all CEO/Emperor's do- he will run this empire in the pursuit of profit and power for the elites of the country.
If you listen to what the administration says, they are openly admitting that they will do what they like, and the media and intellectual class are left of talk about it endlessly as if it were reasonable. And of course the chattering or political classes, like those people here on DU, are going to debate both "sides" of whatever ludicrous issue happens to be discussed.
Clinton had the "vision".
Bush had his "messianiac vision".
Obama will surely have his version as well.

In the end, Obama was clearly a much better choice than McCain. His administration will be much more humane and reasonable that a Republican administration. That said, it still isnt good- it just isnt the worst. To think otherwise is to fly in the face of all available evidence.

Anyone who defends the administration's stance on this wiretapping business is an absolute hypocrite.

:thumbsup:

That's about all anybody can do with the truth. As far as the illegal wiretapping, its absolutely NO surprise to me that Obama did what he did on this. Nor does he have anything awesome up "up his sleeve" to make it go away. Its just how it is. The operative term is "the genie is out of the bottle". It applies to technology for information gathering, and also to the structures that gather intelligence themselves. They are by their nature very very powerful, and their "necessary secrecy" protects them scrutiny. They have intelligent people in them too, just as their opponents do. We can imagine the type of people who could identify a win-win game even with their enemies: they can create situations where they are indispensable. Do I KNOW that's what it is? No. But I'll bet that's as close to the truth behind the scenes as anything else you hear on DU!

Peace

I think this is an astute observation. It goes to where information that forms your opinions come from. So this post is what I try to do when thinking on things. (although sometimes my bias and perspective effects opinion also :) )

The first path is usually direct observation by experiencing events. This is the best way to formulate information since it has the least filters between events and seeing those events, although personal bias and desire to think a certain way still filters those events. And we can only experience what is directly around us.

The second path is to listen to a person in their entirety speak live about an issue, and really watch and listen to see if they are sincere, learn how they think and why they say what they do, from this you can possibly gain some idea of their character, and from that learn of their sincerity, then evaluate the likelihood that their view of events are accurate, and how much of their view comes from there own perspective. And if what they say means anything, since the actual words from an insincere or deceiving character become useless. If someone is deceptive then how they react, there expressions and demeanor, are really the only cues, since there words mean nothing, (unless they follow the pattern in next paragraph).

A third method is the logic in a statement, if a statement contains its own credibility, if it can be said by a low life looser, or the most esteemed person, and be no different. That is the best kind of comment. By containing its own logic, thoughtful discussion on an issue, it removes the need for trust in the source, it becomes an argument for a thought, not asking to be followed or trusted. Many times a few of these in a row can create credibility, but this can be dangerous, each statement should be valued on its own merit, since credibility leads to required trust based on character of a person. And patterns of being correct are not the same thing as character.

But in our world most information now comes from the laughity taughity box. And that information can be out of perspective, making 30 seconds of a person's life completely define them, or only showing some POV about a story or condition of a people.

Your question how do you know what is right, is an indication that you have lost trust with sources of information. This is the breaking point of a system of information distribution. The conspiracy theorist, although they don't always realize it, they usually go that way because of loss of trust of information sources. Once trust is lost, then really you get no information. Since every story can be seen as spin, slant or not accurate. And the conspiracy theorist can put together small bits connect them up and really make some fascinating stories. If done without perspective, or by picking events and matching them up, it becomes silly, if done with real thought it becomes a valid argument.

This phenomenon was addressed many years ago, when people were trying to argue what was right and wrong with society, they realized that both good and evil(or honest and corrupt) were even using the most valued statements of past credible people. So someone said an interesting comment, look at the fruits. What is the end results and past actions of the person over time, how have they effected the environment and people they interact with or influence, how did they treat them over time. And how did they show themselves in times when they were in a conflict or argument.

So for instance, this makes the Bush/Cheney administration pretty clear, and before the election, if you looked at Bush's successes and failures. Military service, or lack there of, failed businesses, being supported by being wealthy not worthy, by being bailed out when he failed. Things like that, you could make an evaluation that would indicate what kind of president he would be. Cheney quickly defines his character when speaking about darkside, in his own argument he would justify lying and being dishonest to American people if it furthers what he would want to see, something that would best support his ideas. Which he states are needs for darkside, and means justify ends, an argument for no moral check on actions. And a person that believes yours and his common enemy should be treated with no morals, what will that person do when faced with choice of helping himself or you. If they steal for you, they will steal from you.

With President Obama, and Joe Biden, looking at their past, and tests of character and challenges they have faced, their actions of character and compassion, then looking at there method and choices while campaigning, you get an idea of character. Add to that reads on them when they are confronted, expressions and demeanor when attacked, like when President Obama was called wrong name at API speech. A drink of water, small pause in thought, then moving on. Or when attacked at ABC debate. Or Biden's strong statements of opinion at debate making his arguments passionately, but still in control without anger, just passion. Things like that give you an idea of character. Same thing with Nancy Pelosi, when you watch her speak, you can see she really tries to get across her ideas in what seems to be honesty and sincerity. She speaks on her thoughts forwardly without an attempting to avoid or obscure her thoughts.

Some may evaluate people different then me, but these are little things that help me form ideas about people.

And once you get ideas of character you make a choice to trust while watching, or to disregard. You don't know for sure if they will be what you think, and actually nobody is 100% exactly what you think, so you keep watching and refining based on actions.

So my evaluation of the wire tapping program is that the current Administration will defend the program, yet allow their argument to fail, doing what is expected by defending that part of check and balance, but knowing and allowing the issue to not pass the examination of a fair overview by courts and congress. This pushes part of the work to be done to fix Bush's damage down the road a bit, giving time to get other things accomplished, then things like that will get fixed, then things like prosecutions can occur.

:shrug:

but its just best guess based on listening to the comments, and believing in character of people making them. A former ACLU lawyer and constitutional scholar, will probably uphold the spirit of the document. But that is just a guess, it is always possible that things end up differently, if so, you move on, fight on, and find new people to carry the banner.

I see it as assembling little pieces of information, trying to decide if they are credible, looking for indications of character behind the information, and supporting those that seem to be best. If someone says they will have a certain value, and you believe they have character, then you let them run with it. If there character falters, or you were wrong, you find someone else to support, without fault or anger, just to advocate for what you think is important, and hopefully advocating with some form of character.

Credibility and trust are so much more imporatant than people know. Once those are lost, everything starts to fall apart and I think that's where many are now - trying to figure out how the pieces fit and put them together in a rational and logical way. I think it helps to be a kind, loving and caring person as well. But yeah - great post, great read - good stuff to think about. :)

There is a common phrase, 'if they steal for you, they will steal from you'. This is one of the reasons less honorable organizations rely so heavily on loyalty. Loyalty is the factor that keeps a thieves stealing directions pointed away from his own group.

In this, groups that ask for loyalty too much, should be double checked in ones own mind, for the only time a group will need loyalty is when a person is asked to do something, or be a way that goes against their own character.

In a world of thieves this protects ones own organization because the thieves own character would be to trash anyone for his own advantage, in this loyalty becomes required very highly.

You will notice people that have character rarely need loyalty, but through respect they actually get a form of consent, even protection, or cooperation amongst there peers because of mutual ideas.

To explain it better, imagine 10 people and 1 leader. If they are all bad, and something is going bad for the leader, the 10 are expected to protect the leader at all cost, many times this leads to loss of many of the 10 followers.

But in same grouping of 10 people and 1 leader where they are honorable, if something bad happens to the leader, only if he does not deserve it do the 10 help him, if he deserves, with perspective and non targeted justice, to be in trouble, then that own leader steps forward and takes responsibility. Good leaders are loyal to the people, and do not require loyalty from them. Then even in the worst case, 1 of the 10 can fill the spot of the leader and step forward, and losses are less, and more importantly the honor further expands the group of people to draw from.

At least that's how I think on it, and is another way to try and evaluate character.

I am loyal because I respect someone - not because I'm expected to be. That's crazy creepy republican stuff (was gonna say logic but logic and republican don't really go together). And by being loyal to someone I mean someone I know well on a personal level - not some politician. People need to remember - these politicians are SUPPOSED to be there to serve us - to safeguard our interests. Somewhere along the way, they became the guardians of the corporations and not the people. I could never be "loyal" to Obama the way most Bush followers were to him. But if Obama does something I agree with, I will support him. If he does something I do not agree with, I will speak out about it. I know this thread started out about how can we really know the truth, but it's been cool to see the responces that have come up which have branched off from that original topic, but still provide insight into why people trust people, what truth really is, and other deeper-than-surface-level responces. An interesting thread to read indeed - thanks for your input. Hope mine made at least some sense and wasn't TOO rambly. Heheh. Still gotta have some fun along the way somehow. ;)

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Everyone is entitled to their own feelings, their own views.

I am still happy that Obama is our President, even tho I strongly disagree with him on this.

:eyes:

There's a reason impeachment is in the Constitution.

I supported impeachment for the arguement of not giving up ground on constitutional protection. And a charge of the light horse might have worked, many do not know the strength that joins a battle well fought. however some argue it best to give some ground and build a overwheling line of force then retake the lost terrain. The giving of ground, to allow for forming your units is an interesting topic of tactics.

it's not illegal).

I am an issue oriented person, not a worshiper of a person, no matter their station in life. I've read the Constitution and keep a copy w/me at all times. In that document, it says, quite clearly:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported of Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That says to me, that wiretapping w/o a warrant and probable cause goes against the rights afforded to our citizens by our Constitution.

It matters not one whit whether the person backing it is a repubic, a Democrat, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. If our Constitution says it's illegal, it's illegal!.

It matters not one whit whether the person backing it is a repubican, a Democrat, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. If our Constitution says it's illegal, it's illegal!.

I agree with that. Many people defend bad actions of their own group, just because it is their group, or they want to use illegal actions against some other group, just because it is the other group.

The conflict between groups can make people forget why they are in their own group to begin with.

It reminds me of the argument 'if you fight evil with evil, you don't fight it, you join it.'

However an argument could be made to change constitution if a group felt it important, for some reason it seems that instead of ignoring it, if it was important it should be argued and voted on by the citizens as prescribed in the document.

(Somehow the idea of being in any 'group' seems wrong, it almost seems like its just a simple way to identify basic ideas, but many people have different views, breaking down the lines and divisions between groups. And knowing people in other groups can still be correct sometimes is a big step, almost as big as knowing that those in the other group that can't think that way, don't really think much :) )

Well, not all, but alot. It's what propaganda and what arguments about a certain issue do you agree with or disagree with and you align yourself with the side you agree with the most often about the part of their agenda that appeals to you most strongly. Pretty much we make it up as we go. It's like the Matrix only weirder. There's no such thing as 7 days in a week - we made that up. No such thing as "a week" either, we made that up too. You do not live in any state - made up lines. A year is not even really a year - it's relative to earth based on the time it takes this planet to make one revolution around the sun.

But there is hope - science - physics - logic - math all have verifiable, repeatable answers. We can figure out the gravity on the moon through science. As far as politics though - it's all hidden behind huge power players like Cheney and Bush Sr (not jr he's an obvious idiot) and the corporate elite. They cover up the important stuff like who killed Kennedy and what really happened on 9/11 - but you can do your best research and come to your own pretty reasonable conclusions - almost always based on money and who benifits. (For some answers on these questions see sites like http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ or http://whatreallyhappened.com/ There are other good sites as well but like always, weigh their proganda for what you see as the truth. Some truths can not be denied - like when we see the bodies of the dead in Iraq - despite our media censoring that truth and never ever showing any of them.

Truth is relative - if I say it's raining it's true for where I am at that moment in time, but may not be true for where you are at a moment in time. It's all very complicated and more than a bit crazy and overwelming. I read a very well written article awhile back that came to the conclusion that there is a significant posibility that this "reality" is in actuality a virtual one that we come out of when we "die".

So rambling answer short - yes the "relative" truth is out there - and no, there is no way for the human brain to know it all - we can only focus on certain things at a time - there is just too much info. It's your life - figure out your truth and go with it. Even shorter answer - one day we will all die - no way around it. That is a truth you can beleive in. So does it matter what we do here at all? Are we here to learn and grow both mentally and spiritually or to accumulate wealth and comfort. It's all up to you. Last thought - one version of "the truth" I heard was that "the fool" is the happiest and smartest person on the planet cause unlike everyone else, he accepts that he has but a short time upon life's stage so why not laugh and joke at all the "real" fools who take the whole damn thing way too seriously.

Hope that helped guide ya kinda if that's what you're looking for. But really you have to find it yourself. It's like that saying "The way that can be told or spoken is not the way." Taoists say it slightly different and along with buddhists have a very interesting outlook on life and the world we live in.

Peace,
slay

PS - To anyone other than the OP - don't bother replying to me saying I'm crazy or whatever - cause I just don't care about you validating or condemning my outlook on life. :)

*on edit - Obviously these are just my views and opinions on things. I'm not claiming to know it all or anything. :P

I'm open to hearing purported justifications but have have yet to see or hear anything remotely sufficient.

but I do two things when I'm confused or unsure.

First, I research the messenger. What's his/her track record, bias, intent, etc.

Second, I try to follow the money. Who else is involved, what groups, who's lobbying for or against, who benefits, who's throwing money around?

It's really difficult and time consuming, but in the end, it's about all I can do in order to make an informed decision about the veracity of the information.

For example, just today, I received an e-mail from a friend who's convinced that Obama sold us out at the G-20. She's read the article that was posted on a website she trusts; however, the article, itself, was written by Dick Morris. Needless to say, Morris is not the best source of info about Obama! I sent her his bio in hope that it will provide her enough info to make an informed decision about the content of the article. If she still believes what he said, that's her right, but at least she'll be better informed.

It's still wrong. So that's an easy one.

Certainly, a lot more goes into it in most situations. I read/listen to the 2 or more sides but my own core of what's wrong and what's right gets the biggest vote. I've stood up for the person who wasn't my friend just as I've stood up for my friends - based on what's right and what's fair - and not on the ties of friendship. I may want to believe someone because I like them but that in way means I'm going to believe them.


I like getting as many sides as possible - because truth is a funny thing...as facts are added, the truth can change. And everyone has their own little truths within the truth. But that speaks to motive more than anything...and I think motive matters, though not always to the good. I don't assume anyone has a good motive just because I like them or want them to have a good motive. I won't make excuses for people either. If something smells, it smells - and I'm not going to try and convince my nose that it doesn't.

Applied to politics - I don't think anyone in government is my friend. So any bias that comes along with hoping your friends are nicer to you than the non-friends doesn't play a part in my thinking.

I'm also not vested in the thinking that somehow I'm also in power just because a candidate I voted for is in office. The candidate is in power because they hold the office - I'm still the same as I've always been - still subject to the whims of lawmakers who all too often react to the fly on the wall by using a cannon to kill it, and then use band-aids to stop the gush of blood when they hit everyone else - all the while telling me they didn't know using a cannon would cause so much damage.


Trust is earned - but it can be used against you...so it can't exactly be trusted. :)

and we touch it anyway and we get burned, then we have experienced the truth. As John Locke said, we can only know truth by experience. We have "experienced" a lot in the last few years. We know what the truth is in regards to a lot of things. We know torture did not work under Bush. It will not work under Obama either. If wiretapping under Bush was unconstitutional, then it is also under Obama.

There are rarely only two sides to an issue. Don't allow yourself to be put into a position where you believe that "truth" is one of two things that others identify.

"Be ye lamps unto yourselves.
Be your own reliance.
Hold to the truth within yourselves
as to the only lamp."
-- Buddha

Ah philosophy - how I've missed you since Christians and blind faith in an invisible man in the sky took over. :eyes:

It isn't what a microwave culture wants to hear, but you can't always get the answer now. Additionally, sometimes, trying to provide a answer changes the problem. I tend to try and keep an open mind and hope for the best (and when appropriate, prepare for the worst). In your specific example, I think the answers are of the second kind (I hope). Sometimes it is appropriate to bull through and sometimes it's better to play it closer to the vest. Bush instigated illegal wiretapping basically on his imagined authority--Obama could use the same authority to "outlaw" it again. However, that just legitimizes the authority of the president in these matters and the next asshat in office would actually have a precedent to follow when starting the bullshit up again.

I don't know, of course, that Obama is forcing this to the courts where it belongs so that it can be killed for real, but that is my hope. The real question, and one you seem to have assumed the answer to, is very important to this discussion. We know Bush used this "authority". We know Obama refused to use presidential authority to kill the policy, but is he allowing the intelligence agencies to use illegal wiretapping, or simply waiting for the courts to take it away?

Quite simply, the answers aren't in yet, and of course IF he is following the "make the courts decide" route, saying so explicity would endanger the whole game. If he isn't and is wiretapping, that answer isn't currently available to us either.