What happened to the politics of conviction?

[Tonio]

One reason I gave up on TV news is because the bias (left, right, whatever) seemed much more obvious than in print. I think it has to do with how the brain processes visual images versus the written word. The visual image can distract from the facts or even contradict them. The medium relies so much on emotion that reason is often sacrificed. When I read news articles, even if the bias is there, I can absorb the information at my own pace.

 

[vraiblonde]

I typically rely on my own sense of what sounds reasonable and logical to determine "truth". When the screamers say that Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand or even plotted it, that sounds neither logical nor reasonable to me, so I don't believe it. When they say that Bush is embracing illegal aliens in order to provide corporations with a steady supply of cheap labor, I think, "Yeah, that sounds about right."

Then I refer to history and how similar actions have turned out in the past to make a judgement and determine my position. If it's something I don't know much about, I post it here and within a few days I get an education and come up with a pretty comprehensive picture.

To answer Nancy's question:

So is it better to lose with your principles intact than to win at all costs?

it depends on the issue. Sometimes I believe in something so strongly that the end justifies the means. And other times I'm more interested in principle.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I typically rely on my own sense of what sounds reasonable and logical to determine "truth". When the screamers say that Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand or even plotted it, that sounds neither logical nor reasonable to me, so I don't believe it. When they say that Bush is embracing illegal aliens in order to provide corporations with a steady supply of cheap labor, I think, "Yeah, that sounds about right."

Then I refer to history and how similar actions have turned out in the past to make a judgement and determine my position. If it's something I don't know much about, I post it here and within a few days I get an education and come up with a pretty comprehensive picture.

To answer Nancy's question:
it depends on the issue. Sometimes I believe in something so strongly that the end justifies the means. And other times I'm more interested in principle.

That's the best way to do it. Everything said is so honey coated that there's no way you could take it at face value. Normally I vote Repub. because being in the military it's in my best interest. Historically, republicans spend more of defence which means higher pay raises for me. Had to vote against Bush this time because there were to many things I didn't agree with him on and they outweighed the monetary value.

 

[Larry Gude]

For the most part...

So is it better to lose with your principles intact than to win at all costs?

...it is MUCH better to lose with your principles intact, otherwise, you start to lose them and before long, you have none and therefore 'winning' or 'losing'
means no more than buying a lottery ticket; you take what you get.

Now, 'principles' come in various degrees.

How imporant is the principle in question? Vote accordingly.

Case in point: The last election showed a great deal of passion on the left. The march in NYC. The entre' of moveon into the political landscape, Goerge Soros and so on. These people were adamantly anti war. It was THE issue.

So, what do they do? They vote Kerry who does, does not support the war.

The result is that their principle is wasted voting for a person who not only does not represent their views BUT would have done nothing different had he won. That was clear.

The really bad part is that there is no change in politics to their view. Look at Dennis Kucinich. He stated flatly that the war was illegal and therefore he would pull us out in 90 days. THAT was their position, their principle. They wasted their principle, a principle they claimed to hold dear.

Had they voted Kucinich, A. if he wins, great. B. if he loses their principle is intact and the parties must take notice. Their voice is known and heard.

As it is, they are nothing, less than nothing. All their emotion and action was wasted because one party knows it will get their support anyway and the other knows it won't matter because their view will be lost in voting for a compromise candidate.

 

[2ndAmendment]

One reason I gave up on TV news is because the bias (left, right, whatever) seemed much more obvious than in print. I think it has to do with how the brain processes visual images versus the written word. The visual image can distract from the facts or even contradict them. The medium relies so much on emotion that reason is often sacrificed. When I read news articles, even if the bias is there, I can absorb the information at my own pace.

TV and radio also "Sound bite" the stories where if you take the time to read the whole story, and, if really interested in the facts, read from multiple sources, not the AP in multiple papers, then you may actually get the truth. As they said in the X Files, the truth is out there. Usually it is in a somewhere or on a board.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I voted Republican, but in the future, I will follow John Quincy Adams' advice. http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?p=884426&posted=1#post884426

 

[SamSpade]

TV and radio also "Sound bite" the stories where if you take the time to read the whole story, and, if really interested in the facts, read from multiple sources, not the AP in multiple papers, then you may actually get the truth. As they said in the X Files, the truth is out there. Usually it is in a somewhere or on a board.

Gingrich wrote a book called "Lessons Learned the Hard Way" about such things - learning to carefully parse your words so that a nine second sound bite DOESN'T make you look like a jackazz. Because prior to that, he really believed that journalists were trying to represent the actual story, but succinctly.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Gingrich wrote a book called "Lessons Learned the Hard Way" about such things - learning to carefully parse your words so that a nine second sound bite DOESN'T make you look like a jackazz. Because prior to that, he really believed that journalists were trying to represent the actual story, but succinctly.

I was interviewed for TV when I went to the Md. Senate hearing a a few gun bills. The interview lasted about 20 minutes. It was going to be cut to 60 seconds including time for the announcer and the opposition. I asked the producer how bad they were going to "sound bite" me. I did not see the clip. Don't know how it turned out.