![]() |
Quote:
I can answer for me. I try to see past the spin on both sides because I have become completely jaded. I'm just tired of being lied to, even though I know whomever I support is going to do just that. I just try to find the kernel of truth in the political world of spin. In the end, it is who I believe will not lie about the things that matter most, or at least will most likely move things in the right direction. |
Quote:
I am not trying to act holier than thou although I ask back why would my desire to have honesty and all the other things Ive stomped about about, mean I am acting holier than anyone else? Doesnt everyone want honesty? Perhaps if the answer is "no" that might be enlightening for me because that is an issue for me. I feel like Im standing in a circle that everyone would agree should be there, uphold honesty, but no one wants to be in the circle and instead wants to tout their own side to the diminishment of said honesty. And Im not falling back on 'believe', you asked. In my head it's a position but could I be wrong? sure, who the fuck knows but in my life, the only 1 i live, my thoughts are as accurate as yours are to you. |
Quote:
Ideally most wants honesty in campaigns. Ideally (there are a good deal of people, I'd argue that just want their side to win... to Hell with honesty). However, slamming the dishonesty of on side while seemingly ignoring the dishonesty of another is quite common, even amongst those that want honesty. Like I said before, there are different versions of the truth. People advance what they consider to be the truth, but that may and will vary due to the person. |
Like this horseshit, whatever the outcome of the investigation, the truth should be allowed to be found out:
Quote:
GOP lawmakers sue to stop Palin investigation - Yahoo! News and ISid, I'd love to post lies from Obama, but like I said before theyre hard to find. Media bias? Im sure the right would like us to think so but there just isnt as much to grab in regards to spin and lying. |
Plenty on Factcheck. Someone went there to post some lies and misstatements on his convention speech when someone said Obama doesn't have the lies.
|
can Factcheck be trusted? Im kidding. Would you like me to count the lies that are on there and which side theyre attributed too, to prove my point? Perhaps theyre just bias.
|
A couple things on the probe:
I agree that French should step down. The "October Surprise" comment was incredibly fucking stupid and stuff like that jeopardizes the investigation. However, I'm also wondering how this can be a partisan investigation when the GOP has control of the state house? The article above states that it is a bipartisan investigation. |
Quote:
I disagree quite a bit on the last point. I think there are a large number of people who don't care what "the other side" think, whoever "the other side" is, and don't even strive for fair. If you are completely shut off and don't think "the other side" has any good ideas, then there's no use even letting those people participate in the discourse. Even better is that these types typically pick a side for no rational reason before there is a real reason to do so and then just start collecting facts that only support one side (there is a term for this in poly sci, but I forget what it is). However, if you have chosen "your side" as opposed to "the other side" because you line up better with "your side"- there will frequently be times when "your side" has it wrong and "the other side" has it right because in a binary system with incongruous sides, there are bound to be times when things don't always match up. You might even change sides if the sides or your beliefs move enough. That's why I draw a huge line between intentionally misleading and one-sided when compared with the idea of a person who thinks they are right but comes to the table open to look at "the other side". SI |
ty :)
|
Quote:
You really honestly believe most people don't "believe" they are fair? You're more jaded than I am. |
Maybe there is a disconect between "large number" in Sterlings post and the "most" in mine. In a world of a billions of people, there are a large number of anything. But I think if you took a survey of people and asked "Do you think you are fair" the majority would say yes.
|
Quote:
I think a lot of people believe they are infallible or close to it. Not on every topic but when you ask people on a micro level about a lot of things, in their mind, they know they are right. And I'm not excusing myself. That doesn't necessarily mean they think they are unfair- but that they don't think there is room for debate so something, a fact, an idea, a person that suggests they are wrong- they don't know what to do with it. And maybe that doesn't fit into my above paradigm of people. They fall into the cracks between the zealots and the open minded. And I really should have accounted for that. That said, there's still that bad side of the coin, especially in this thread, and I know we have seen the posts. There is a lot of dismissing of bad actions under the guise of "means to an end". Not only that but a lot of attacking the messenger solely rather than trying to assimilate the message or debate the merits of said message in the context of the messenger and that's a pretty clean symptom of pure spin. But, yeah, in the end, I think a lot of people in this thread believe they are 100% right and even if you showed them complete contradictory and damning evidence, their first response would not be to consider the message but rather to attack the messenger. It's as I've said for years now- if we had another Watergate now, no one would know or give it the ample attention it deserved. One half would defend the perpetrators to their dying breath as having been set up, spun, and impugned upon. While the other would be 100% right but the message so blunted that it would not be seen as the black and white issue that it should be. It could even be argued that we've had much worse but the message and impact have been so muddled. And, in the end, another problem that has arisen is that there is a belief that every story has two fair and equal sides and that simply isn't true. When arguing what color the daytime, cloudless sky is, the blue side should get about 90% of the press and argument time while red, purple, green, etc- should get token time and strength, AT MOST. SI |
Quote:
I kindof accounted for this in the next post. I think a fairly substantial majority think they are fair. I do, however, think there are a decent percentage (far less than 50%, but can't put a number on) who will say or do anything to prove themselves right *even when they know they are wrong*, which I think is a very important distinction. In something like politics, particularly in an election cycle, those numbers skew a lot higher than among the general populace as politics is self-selecting. SI |
Quote:
Actually, you seem to be saying exactly what I said. I'm still wondering where the disagreement is. |
Quote:
I suppose you're correct in that I really didn't disagree with your statement at all. Tho, again, as previously stated- I think the percentage of it happening in a political thread or political actions is much higher than among the average collection of people so you can't just say "the average person is like this" when we aren't dealing with the average person with average motivations. I suppose the better phrasing would not be "I disagree quite a bit on the last point" but rather "I think there needs to be an addendum or expansion on that last point" SI |
Quote:
Oh, no doubt about it. In a political thread there is a lot of down-right intentional or at the very least intellectual dishonesty. That is politics. |
Quote:
If you are so for honesty and anti-lying, counting all the lies and coming up with a final number is pretty silly. You should be angry at both sides and not trying to see which one has more or try to score points that way (after all, which lies are more severe are usually in the eye of the beholder). |
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.
New York Poll, Obama 55 McCain 42. Previous Rasmussen poll (8/04) was Obama 52 McCain 32. |
Quote:
Yeah, it's narrowed, but it looks like the effect of conventions in solidifying base voters than any real shift, since both candidate's totals went up. This certainly looks alot better than that Siena poll, which showed only a 5 pt lead in NY. |
Quote:
:+1: |
Quote:
You're mixing two different issues. He's never opposed troop reductions. He has spoken out against signing a Status of Forces Agreement. If, and it's a big if, what is being reported is accurate the discussion was over the Status of Forces Agreement. President Bush could withdraw troops tomorrow without the Iraq government involved. |
Quote:
Sure he's not the only economic advisor, but especially during the primaries he was easily the closest and most influential. McCain and Gramm have a strong friendship that dates to the Clinton years. If you look at any economic policy that McCain has advocated this campaign you'll find it's remarkably similar to things Gramm advocates. |
Quote:
have you read any of my posts? or do you just discount them at the first word/sentence. Ive said I hate ALL 527 and ALL Lying. Yes, there are some lies that are more egregious than others IMO and each person can decide that on their own. IMO, IMFO, there have been worse and quantifiably more on one side of this race than the other but that doesnt mean 1, not 1, lie is ok. Whats the matter with you? |
Quote:
Seems to fly in the face of your "count the lies" rhetoric, doesn't it (ie, what does that prove exactly when you even say some lies are more egregious than others)? Perhaps I can ask you what's the matter with you? Or does the criteria change based on trying to score a point? Besides, I think the number of lies for each side on Factcheck may be very much closer than you believe. |
wow, for example. Palin's slip as to what % AK provides is not as eggregious as the misleading ad about Obama teaching Kindergarten kids sex ed. And I said, if your reading comprehension is sharp that that value will be different to each person.
|
Quote:
Of course. And Obama saying he could pay for every dime of spending isn't as egregious as continuing the incredibly misleading McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq or trying to insinuate McCain is going to have special tax breaks for just oil companies. But the counting of total lies on Factcheck (which you did say) seems absolutely ridiculous in trying to prove a point. |
your sarcasm detector needs work.
|
If that was sarcasm, it was piss poor.
Was the 'It's hard to find lies from Obama' thing also sarcasm? |
whatever man, its pointless.
Please, expose the lies from both camps when they come up and rail on the wrongness of them. It'll be good for your soul. |
To that, I can only say: likewise
|
I look forward to you railing on some lies from the right or agreeing that the left did something good or right or that you disagree with something from your camp. Wanna see my latest time i disagreed with something on the left and agreed with people on the right?....scroll up.
|
Electoral college counts from the sites we've been quoting...
Real Clear Politics Obama 273-265 Electoral-Vote McCain 257-247 538 McCain 288-250 I wouldn't worry about that last one Obama fans. After all, Vegas Vic says that 538 is biased and we should trust RCP. |
OK.
Its been 2 weeks and Palin has done one interview and taken 0 questions from anybody not named Charles Gibson. Nobody. Not even questions from citizens at rallies. Palin supporters, doesn't this make you wonder? Maybe just a little? Go ahead, Issiddqui. Its ok to vent. Tell McCain you want to hear what she stands for. |
Quote:
You do realize I was a BIG TIME Senator Clinton supporter right? And no, I'm not backing Senator McCain because Senator Obama won... I'm a Republican who liked Senator Clinton. I also voted for Senator Kerry in 2004. Hell, why don't you ask JIMG what kind of Republican / right winger I am? I think you can find plenty that I think the Democrats have done right. |
Quote:
Do you really not know what she stands for? Seriously? What exactly are you curious about? |
terrific I look forward to you being disappointed in ALL lying going on no matter the side.
|
Quote:
Seriously. The woman, excuse me, "reformer" couldn't tell Gibson three things she would change about the Bush administration. Three things? Seriously? |
Quote:
So Flash, could you do me a favor and point out some instance in the 80+ pages of this thread where you were this hyperbolic and freaked out by an Obama lie? Especially given the fact (and yes, it's a truthy truthful fact) that Palin never tried to or did fire a librarian over any sort of proposed book banning? |
I havnt been because, AFAIK, he hasnt attempted to subvert an investigation into finding out something. So far this is the pinnacle of what is ticking me off.
I was wrong when I said she fired the Librarian or tried to, only tried to figure out how to ban books she didnt like, AFAIK. Which Im against. Although still today some papers are saying she did try to fire her so Im not sure if she did or didnt but regardless, its all bad in this dept. Banning of books, enquiring about banning books, etc. all bad. Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm under no illusions about what politics is. |
Hi Arles.
|
Was that intended to be an insult?
|
Quote:
And now you're trying to say that the only thing that'll outrage you is an attempted subversion of an investigation? God Flasch, when will you try for the truth in things?? Are you telling me I can't spend five minutes searching through this thread for a post when you were just outraged over something McCain/Palin did that didn't involve the investigation in Alaska? |
Quote:
I agree with this article. Backs up what JoninGA said about North Carolina. |
I wonder how we'd all do if we had to argue for the other side. What arguments would we make? How would we spin the various stories coming out? That might be a fun separate thread.
|
Quote:
I'm the last guy to ever support Bush, but he's the President and can negotiate whatever he wants. |
Quote:
Great idea. Wouldn't last long though. I think Flasch and Molson would be confused about which side they were on. Issidiqui and me....we'd probably break character. |
Quote:
Im allowed to get mad at more than one thing and banning books is/was pretty high up there. Subverting an investigation that at one time was supported by the person being investigated is pretty high up there too. arguing for the either side would be easy: Palin is a Maverick and will fight for Change. McCain is a war hero and is so strong and patriotic in his love for this country that it can never be doubted that he will always stand up strong for America. These 2 are for securing our country against the evil that is islamic terrorism. They will make permanent the tax cuts that W put in place thus spurring the economy on. They will slash earmarks and spending. They will make for smaller government and fight to make health care affordable for everyone. They will defend the unborn's right to life and work with Congress to enact legislation for the betterment of our country. They want to drill more and then try to expand into alternative energy sources. how am i doing? |
Quote:
When RCP puts up their final electoral college map on Monday, November 3, you can take it to the bank. |
Quote:
If the bank hasnt filed chapter 11. ba da bump. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.