More subversive stuff
- Thread starter jlabsher
- Start date
ylexot
Super Genius
Not sure about the the M1 upgrades, but the rest seem like good ideas:
B-2s - do we really need 132?
F-14 - it lost out to the F/A-18E/F
F-15 - why get more F-15s AND the F-22?
I have no idea what Kerry voted against. Maybe the votes made sense, maybe they didn't. I just don't know why he doesn't defend his voting record.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
What's the point of Kerry or Bush defending their records on anything? The partisans on each side will just rip and spin those records to death. In this political climate, Jesus Christ himself wouldn't be safe from the political attack squads. "Now, Mr. Christ, do you realistically expect the voters to believe that you were born in a manager and your father is God?"
Tonio, I have this mental picture of you standing in the voting booth for hours, trying to decide who to vote for since you don't like any of them and don't want to hear about their accomplishments or their opponents weaknesses.
Do you intend to vote this year? If so, how do you intend to make your decision?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Of course I want to hear about their accomplishments. Just not from anyone who has a vested interest in seeing them elected or defeated.
You're right that it's easy enough to find out the facts on candidates and to cut through the political spin. I do that all the time. It's like e-mail spam--just delete anything that has an obvious agenda.
Spin only bothers me from a moral and ethical standpoint. It's obvious that the Big Two Parties don't practice ideological consistency, and they value party loyalty above ideology. It's like the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry, except the two sides are supposed to be serving the citizens, not worrying about who wins. Everyone from the elected officials to the unelected pundits has a damned agenda, and no one seems to be focusing on public service.
And who might that be?
Or the Hollywood celebrities...or the people on this website...or the news media...or just about anyone else in the world.
I'm just curious how you make your mind up since you dislike both parties and don't want to hear them talk about theirselves OR their opponents.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I'll clarify--it's mostly that I dislike self-righteousness of any kind, political or religious. Even when someone has an obvious bias, I'll give them a chance when they stick to the facts and aren't self-righteous about their beliefs. They ought to be humble enough to acknowledge that an intelligent, rational person can hold different beliefs.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Besides, when a Democrat goes on and on about how bad Bush is, don't you think, "Oh, he's just saying that because he's on the other team"? And doesn't someone like Sparx or Dems think, "Oh, O'Reilly is going after Kerry so much because he's a Republican"? Why should we trust one side to be the best judge of the other side?
No. I either think they have a point or they're an idiot - depends on what they're criticizing.
I have no idea what Sparx and Dems think. Judging from their posts, I'd guess that they think ANYONE who doesn't shower Kerry with roses and kisses is an evil Republican warlord hate-monger. The folks at the DU think CNN, the Washington Post and the NYT are conservative media whores - they say it all the time. If a reporter mentions one single word that isn't complete devotion to John Kerry - if they so much as question him - they get branded a whore.
I know Dems thinks that any website ending in .org is someone's weblog where they post their opinions. Does that help?
Not everyone's an idiot, Tonio. Some people do tell the truth.
I'll tell you who IS a moron, though - John Kerry's campaign manager. They had her on Hannity and Colmes last night (?) and Hannity just totally took her apart. He asked her a legitimate queston about one of Kerry's flip-flops and she came unglued. All she'd say is "I'm not going to play that game, Sean! *humpf*"
After seeing her, now I understand better why Kerry has such a poor public image.
After seeing her, now I understand better why Kerry has such a poor public image.
Okay, but you've labeled it partisan "extremism" when a Republican points out obvious discrepancies in statements Kerry has made.
You also don't like it that Republicans are keeping Kerry's hippie shenanigans front and center. How are people supposed to know about this stuff if no one points it out?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
And the Democrats do the same thing when it comes to Bush's National Guard record and the WMD in Iraq. There is some value in both parties doing that. But certainly the parties aren't doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, to act as selfless defenders of the truth.
Also, isn't that a failure of the media to do its job, which is to keep its opinions out of its reporting and to act as a truth patrol?
Also, isn't that a failure of the media to do its job, which is to keep its opinions out of its reporting and to act as a truth patrol?
Yes, but it's been that way for so long I don't remember a time when "reporters" simply reported.
News people are humans too. Katie Couric, for example: she is an ardent Democrat and a very serious liberal. Doesn't it stand to reason she's going to gush over Hillary Clinton and make snide remarks about Bush?
The people that decide what's "news" and what's not - they're humans. So doesn't it make sense that a liberal journalist (which most of them are) would think Bush's National Guard record was a very grave and important topic, whereas Kerry's voting record isn't?
Newsrooms get a zillion story possibilities every day. They then sift through them and decide what's news and what's not, based on what they think will appeal to their audience and based on the biases of their editors and journalists.
Don't tell me you didn't know any of this.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
That's not new information to me. And, for me, Fox News and the NY Post are just as biased as CNN and the DC Post. Just because reporters and editors are human doesn't mean they're not capable of acting in an objective manner. Too many just choose not to. I feel that's grossly unprofessional. I don't necessarily expect professional journalistic conduct of someone like Couric, because shows like Today are really entertainment with a thin veneer of journalism. But I would expect it of someone like, say, Tim Russert or Shepherd Smith.
And you know, of course, that Fox has a pretty equal number of libs vs. conservatives giving commentary, right? On weekend mornings, the libs outnumber the conservatives, even.
So what might make them "unbiased"? How could FoxNews change so that they were completely unbiased, in your opinion?
O'Reilly's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian. The only reason the Leftists call him a conservative is because he occasionally agrees with the conservative viewpoint, when he's not screaming about how barbaric the death penalty is and other liberal causes.
While we're exposing the lies of the Left, go to http://drudgereport.com and show me something that tells you he's a Republican conservative.