MARK'S WORLD
I'll be blogging about my life, my opinions and the world as I see it.
A blog about News and Politics.
Gender: male Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: November 20, 2008 Profile Views: 8063 Blog Views: 30599 It's MY turn! Oh, Marie Poor Rob's Almanac You can't open a door that is already open Will the REAL will please stand? Reality check Life is for the living I'll relent..Just a little It could be worse! Forward or Back? It's up to us! June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
All quiet on the left front
I really try to stay away from politics in my blogs anymore because I am sick of arguing online. I know what my opinions are and that seems to be good enough for me. I like a good argument face to face because the people in debate are unable to insult me or start shouting(it's much harder to be a loudmouth in person)and I can look them in the eye. However, this deal with Valerie Plame, the CIA agent who turned out not to be THAT kind of agent, who's husband, Joe Wilson, never WAS an agent and wasn't an ambassador till AFTER his supposed ambassadorship in 1990(he became the ambassador to Gabon in the mid 90s) and was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a liar, has me riled up. I doubted the whole mess from the beginning because it seemed the media and the left were just trying to hard to MAKE something happen. It's not so much the original accusations against Karl Rove and the President, all of which have now been proven false, as it is the media's apparent lack of interest in the whole matter. When Rove was being dragged through briars and brambles, the media stalked him. They hung out in his office lobby. They hid behind his garage(in vans with comm discs!)and dug through his trash cans. They molested him if he ventured into public. He was unable to do his job or live any semblance of an orderly life because these muck rakers were intent on ruining him in the name of ratings and sales all before a shred of evidence was offered against him. The media thrives on heresay. Annonymous third person accounts are treated as gospel and the uninformed public jumps on it like a pit bull on a poodle. Nothing needs to be corroborated or researched, and as long as it is selling, nobody seems to care. Enter Richard Armitage. The REAL source of the leak. The media is completely uninterested in him, and so are, apparently, the public. Nobody is following this guy anywhere or asking him anything and they never will. They proved during the media trial of President Bush over his Guard service, that they are unintersted in the truth. Had it not been for family members of the disgraced leaker in THAT case(I don't remember the loser's name), the media would never have admitted their information was flawed and Dan Rather would still be spreading his unabashed hatred and slanted views instead of the news(which nobody else is doing anyway!). Networks and publishers are treating this Armitage thing like a non event, which it most certainly is not. Armitage is a coward for not stepping up before the lives of many othere were threatened by his inability to keep his mouth shut. Another flip flopper on the war who, like John Kerry, was for the war right before he was against it. His view on the war is his "Get out of the headlines free" card, and the media are protecting him, not for his sake, but for theirs. Karl Rove has come out of this looking like a true man, unlike Armitage and the idiots in the media. He stuck to his guns, didn't buckle to pressure, and in the end, came out tossing chunks of crow to the inept media who tried him in the news and found him guilty. The truth will give you that kind of conviction. Now that he hes been exonerated by the truth, do you think the media will make an issue of it? Absolutely not! They have nothing to gain and ratings to lose by doing so.
78 comments from 9 users
posted by
TomW
on Sep 5, 2006 at 08:41 PM
Except that you left out where Novak said and Rove confirmed that he was Novak's second source.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POL... Also, you forgot to mention that Rove was also fired twice by Bush Senior for leaking info. Other than that, the guy smells like roses. posted by
anglo1
on Sep 5, 2006 at 08:47 PM
Don't quit, just don't take them so seriously. I enjoy the difference even though the far left here are more scary than our open borders. Our television media is overwhelmingly liberal as is the print media regardless of what the bloggers spew. I really can get along with them and think it is good for us to have almost equality in our political parties. Balancing things out kinda like mother nature with global warming, or is it a mini-ice age this year? Just don't stop. Laugh and learn. I'm trying.
posted by
motopoet
on Sep 5, 2006 at 10:36 PM
I agree that checks and balances are good. As to Rove..If we want to get into the past..lets get into the other sides past too..I am a here and now and look to the future guy. Even YOU ignore the fact that Armitage has done anything wrong and that the media is all wet where this is concerned. Its like I said. I'm not so upset about the initial allegations...It's the medias treatment of the current facts. I never said Rove was a stand up guy. I said he was a man for sticking to his guns.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 5, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Since this is still an ongoing investigation, it's not really the past. Armitage isn't getting covered because everyone knew it was him. I read his name months ago in connection. There's no shock here. When he gets frogmarched, then the media will react.As for Rove, he did what he was alleged to have done. The question is whether or not it was strictly legal. And a real man in my book doesn't survive by acting like a weasel. Had he not hidden behind Bush's skirts for year or two while it played out, that would have been sticking to his guns. Oh, and anglo, I have yet to meet the far left here. If you'd like me to dig up some links to places where you can see them, I can hunt around. But the far left aren't democrats by any measure. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Valerie Plame was working on tracking down the nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" Cheney told us Iraq had. No wonder they wanted to destroy her career. She was proving them to be liars of the first order.. Joseph Wilson was proven right and the Bush Administration proven wrong on the issue he was sent to investigate. Iraq did not seek uranium from Niger, and the information we had been given by the British came from poorly-forged documents handed through the Italian intelligence service by people who are now among those wanted by the Italian authorities. . I look forward to Dick Cheney's testimony at Scooter Libby's trial. Should be almost as interesting as the Congressional hearings will be. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:37 AM
Before you start crowing about Valerie Wilson, you might just want to read this article. http://www.thenation.com/do... She was that kind of agent. She was working on Iraq. She was in charge of the Joint Task Force on Iraq. She was told to find WMDs in iraq. She didn't find what Cheney was looking for. She no longer has a career because she didn't play ball. I am fully aware that Rove, Armitage, Cheney, etc are very good at covering their tracks. Actually they are very good at making the issue so complex and interwoven that figuring out exactly what happened is harder than finding a needle in a stack of haystacks. I guess that's something to be proud of. Personally, I'd just rather hear the truth. I guess you guys would rather have our non-elected government officials giving away top secret information. anglo1, I'm curious what television media do you watch? The daily show? Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Those are the only overwhelmingly liberal shows I've seen. What exactly are the other overwhelmingly liberal news TV shows you're watching? I'm really curious. Oh, unless you're just trying to get a rise out of the liberals. No, couldn't be that could it? posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:41 AM
Addendum: Armitage apparently went before the grand jury early on and appears to be the only "stand-up" guy in the whole mess beyond Patrick Fitzgerald himself. That he told one reporter something he shouldn't have, does not invalidate the fact that an orchestrated, political campaign from "the highest offices of the land"--the vice-president--was underway to discredit a political opponent by revealing classified information. The Bush Administration has a history of revealing classified information when it suits their political purposes, to the detriment of the country's security.. As Adam pointed out, Kerry didn't object to funding the war. He objected to funding the war on our grandchildrens' credit card. He lost that battle, as did our grandkids. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:45 AM
RF, did you ever get a look at the forged documents? They're so bad I could do a better job with a crayon and a glue stick.http://cryptome.org/niger-d... posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:46 AM
Anglo, I just don't get it. Please help me out. Sincerely. I ask you with all the respect and sincerity that you deserve -- a person who is genuinely interested in honest discussions and tries to understand all sides: . posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:50 AM
H4F, I wouldn't take him that seriously. I mean come on. Liberal media? That's like complaining about not enough commercials on TV.
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:50 AM
And yet nobody has countered Joe Wilson's report. Turns out he was right, despite what you think of the man. Guess you'd better attack him personally instead of his "inconvenient truth".. And Dan Rather lost his job over that incident. What more do you want? A public stoning? You also forget to mention that the person who verified the papers over the phone (and later came forward to say the ones CBS received were false) said that she had seen papers saying exactly what the false ones said. She verified everything that the document accused the president of, but said that it wasn't that specific (original) paper. Somebody went back in later and conveniently removed the original paperwork. The only "flaw" was that it was a forgery saying what was actually true. Does a reprint of an old newspaper headline make the news any less true? . Does it also change the fact that Rove was leaked information that he was about to be indicted, so he called the grand jury and set up four more chances to get his story "right"? Does it change the fact that the man was behind smear campaigns not only of Democrats, but of fellow Republicans? Yes, this is a "true man". John Wayne can't even hold this guy's jockstrap, he's that manly. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:56 AM
Pete, I'm just trying to understand what people think they see. I know for a fact that the powerbrokers behind the claim about media bias are simply trying to drive out every last word of dissent.. I'm just curious what Anglo thinks he sees. I have always found him forthright and open to real discussions. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:18 AM
He probably doesn't even watch the news on TV. I'm telling you, unless I see some real evidence on his part, I can only assume he's trying to get a rise out of us, or is just channeling his dishonest leaders. It's not going to work.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:19 AM
Here's my 2 cents on the liberal media: The media's job is to report the facts. Many conservatives don't like that because their beliefs aren't based on fact. Like the "global warming is a natural cycle and has nothing to do with us" idea. The fact that global warming is real and is caused by human activity is seen as a liberal point of view, even though it is fact. Liberals and conservatives can argue about how we want to deal with those facts, but just clapping hard enough won't make it go away.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:29 AM
As the Daily Show pointed out, the facts themselves are biased against the current administration.. Global warming is real. The Iraqi military is not. The American economy is resting on top of a housing bubble which is in the process of bursting. The American wage-earner is *UNDER* the bubble, not on top of it. John Kerry served honorably in the United States military. George W. Bush did not. posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:32 AM
You know, I'm always curious where people's rants come from. This one is apparently from Bill O'Reilly. http://www.foxnews.com/stor... and John Gibson http://www.foxnews.com/stor..., known members of the liberal media.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:37 AM
Tom and Random, I do think there's truth to that. "Facts are liberal." Likewise, they think science has a "liberal bias" -- science, of course, seeks facts and knowledge. Same with their hatred for institutions of higher education.. Keep in mind that I'm just trying to understand what people think they see in the media. posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Here's the thing: Facts aren't liberal, but there is a group of conservatives who hate them. The Right wages a war on fact and tries to turn everything into opinion (a la Fox News) giving each opinion equal weight. If we're busy defending the truth, we can't even get to the point where we can run an agenda based on the truth.
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Actually Tom, I read a piece in a science journal a few years ago that described their tactics. You find a "theory" (theory in the scientific sense, things like evolution, global warming, whatever. It doesn't matter), and as long as there are scientists (or even "scientists") that are willing to counter it, you give both sides equal weight, ignoring anything like perponderance of evidence, scientific agreement, or backing by major scientific groups. By supposedly giving both sides "equal time", you legitimize the radical (fringe) opinion, and serve to create the illusion of disagreement where there was none before. What was once "junk" science suddenly becomes "mainstream", people who were once dismissed (theorists, moral relativists, "doctors" of religion, or philosophers) become as legit as professional scientists (who have things like peer-reviewed research), and fringe philosophical positions come to be seen as legitimately competitive with actual scientific theories.. What is their end purpose? To throw doubt where before there was none, and to call for "additional studies", slowing the reforms or tightening of controls or regulations. Or even to remove regulations that have become troublesome to the industrial "bottom line". posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Or just to confuse people so much, they don't know what to believe. There are many many people in this country that don't want to think for themselves, but prefer to have the truth handed to them without question. If you blur the line between truth and fiction, it helps to create a fearful confused public. Then all it takes is someone to say "trust me" and look them in the eye and BOOM, you've got them under your spell.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 12:03 PM
What's amazing to me is the abuse of the word "theory". Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. There are theories as to how it works. Global Warming isn't a theory, it's a fact. The theories are to how it works. Gravity is a fact, there are theories as to how it works. You want to argue over the theory, fine. You want to argue about the facts, not fine.
posted by
anglo1
on Sep 6, 2006 at 01:42 PM
I think its all in perception as it pertains to your point of view politically. H4F in my view the networks are left leaning, I think they may be backing off a bit after the success of cable news but they are still left of moderate. The most commonly quoted new paper [my perception] is the NY times. The major cities major newspapers seem to me to be very liberal and anti-Bush. Radio is very conservative because it is profitable, they have an audience, I can't help the liberals get an audience. I believe there is global warming I'm not convinced mankind has anything to do with it. I don't expect any of you to respect my opinion, even though I listen and respect yours. As I get up to speed on this computer I hope to give you a better run for your money. I I'll try to explain better after I'm ripped for not giving specific example for reliable sources like the Daily Show. I do watch some news. H4F I do try to get a rise out of some people, I seem to get a lot a good info that way, but there is always some conviction in what I say. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 01:58 PM
Just to give you a hand, Google is one of if not the best research tools out there. Wikipedia is only so-so because anybody can create an entry and until it's disputed, it's considered fact. Not really accurate, but on things like historical records, it's a very good reference tool. I'm always weary of using partisan sites to base an opinion on, but some that may seem partisan are just not taking a political stand at all but rather reporting the story. I for one do respect your opinion, and I want to hear it. I think a lot of conservatives are afraid to post their opinions because they seem to be outnumbered here. Honestly, I think that's the last thing we want. I'll (try to) be the first one to rip on you if you start slinging insults at liberals, but if you want to honestly discuss things, I'll be as nice as I can. Like you, I feel that the most important thing in our nation's governmental structure is balance. We all have to contribute from the earth first! hippies to the nazi skinhead anarchistic right. It's the only way to be truly equal. The funniest part about that is that the more we discuss things, the more we find common ground.As far as the major US cities having liberal newspapers, if you look at how the voters in large urban areas vote, they're overwhelmingly liberal. It's just what happens when you have a diverse culture that you're forced to deal with. What I don't get is why anyone would think that the Californian is liberal. I can't see it no matter how hard I try. posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 02:09 PM
Anglo, It is funny how every blog space seems to be dominated by liberals. But jump in. So far the only person I won't talk to is Mocus, who seems to be absent recently. As far as the papers being anti-Bush, if we jumped in the wayback machine, we could look at how the liberal media treated Bill Clinton and see how it compares. Keith Olbermann's Countdown show was created specifically to cover the Monica Lewinski story. Being a fairly moderate liberal myself, I see the media as very conservative.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 6, 2006 at 02:21 PM
As for using The Daily Show as a news source, you could do worse. Studies show TDS are more up-to-date on current events than FoxNews regulars.. As much as I enjoy Keith Olbermann's show, I think he's a bit over-the-top sometimes...but then, when you're the *ONLY* liberal voice in cable tv, maybe you've got to shout a bit. posted by
anglo1
on Sep 6, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Changing the subject somewhat but I just saw a discussion about the new 9-11 movie on "ABC" apparently it shows Clinton in a very bad light. I may have eat a very small piece of crow. It is supposed to be the most historically accurate depiction of the events leading up to the attacks. Sun. and Mon. evening I believe.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 6, 2006 at 02:40 PM
Many of the scenes "showing Clinton in a very bad light" are fictionalized. They wouldn't let Clinton preview the film, though it's been shown to right-wing bloggers.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 02:47 PM
I'm sure that's what ABC is saying, but there is a perticular scene that is 100% fabricated where the mocumentary says that Berger and the Clinton adm. refused to take out Bin Laden when they had the chance. I'm expecting lawsuits if it goes on the air. Funny how the only people ABC released the film to were right wingers. The sent it to low level right wing bloggers and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc., but not to Clinton or Sandy Berger who are actually in the film. The odd thing is that the Carlyle Group bailed out Disney not too long ago. Disney owns ABC, and the Bush family is heavily involved in that group. Oh yeah, and the Bin Laden Family as well. Look it up if you don't believe me. Just google Bin Laden and Carlyle. It will freak you out. Could it be paying back a favor a few months before a big election???
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 02:49 PM
I'll be watching whatever football is on Sunday Night (Vikings I think) and The RAIDERS vs the chargers on Monday. It's OK, I don't ususally watch ABC anyway. Boycotting them will be no problem at all.
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 6, 2006 at 03:05 PM
For those who care, the story circulating about how Clinton supposedly had OBL offered to him "on a silver platter" is completely false, as bad of a creation as the receipts from Niger to Iraq for yellowcake uranium. Anyone have links to that? I can't search Smoking Gun or any of the other sites right now. But I know they're out there.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 03:05 PM
Anglo, the mockumentary put out by ABC is what they are calling a docudrama. Many of the events are fiction. ABC even lost a bunch of corporate sponsership over it which is why it's airing without commercials. Basically, the converse of the film would be a docudrama about Bush planning the 9/11 attacks.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 6, 2006 at 03:07 PM
RRRRRAAAIIIIIDDDDEEEERRRSSS!!!
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 03:08 PM
Links to the Niger docs? I posted them on dusty's blog earlier today. I can't find the real Niger seal though. The forged docs are a total joke. I could do better.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 6, 2006 at 03:10 PM
H4F, have you been through the tunnel going into the stadium in Oaktown before a game? It's incredible!
posted by
anglo1
on Sep 6, 2006 at 07:58 PM
Why bury your heads in the sand? Most of you have offered up liberal web sites, left wing books to ones who need to be enlightened. If you haven't seen it how do you know its all fabricated, where did you get this precise info? Good thing your not Pres. you might make a decision based on half truths or wishful thinking. Hmmm. What are you afraid of learning? It will give you plenty of liberal ammo for next week. Watch with an open mind and a shut mouth.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Anglo, you appear to think anything you disagree with must be fabricated. Must make it easier to swallow the Koolade.
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 6, 2006 at 08:28 PM
Sorry PP, perhaps I should have been more clear. I was referring to the urban myth that Clinton was offered bin Laden. Lies, and damned lies. This one will not die. I'm starting to hear it more and more these days.
posted by
anglo1
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:18 PM
RFer, I'm missing something from your comment. Are you refering to my comment about making decisions based on half truths and wishful thinking? By watching or only hearing one side of an issue constantly you might make bad decisions [Bush/Iraq] does that clear anything up.
posted by
NancyII
on Sep 6, 2006 at 09:45 PM
Where do the rest of you get your information? The info that you base your beliefs on? I think I asked that once and no one answered me. Do you read it? Find it on line? Does it come to you in a dream? Why is it that when BOTH sides basically get their information the same way..different sources maybe..but the same way..why do you call the other side delusional and misled. Can't you see that they feel the same way about you? Why is that you are ALWAYS right and the other side is always wrong? Curious...not accusing. posted by
mattloch
on Sep 6, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Nancy, I'm not sure if you're asking a question from another blog, but here's my answer: the source material. Any time you have a chance, go back to the source material. Somebody talks about a study? Go find that study and make sure it really says that. Somebody makes an accusation with no proof? Try to search for the first time that accusation was made, and see if they have a source. I think that my last post above does that. It not only links to a piece outlining the source of the "Clinton vs. bin Laden" myth, but also links to Clinton himself saying that it never happened. If somebody wants to refute me, feel free. I'm always open to new information. Both RF and PP are very good about posting links, Tom and HL4L have been very good about staying "true" to source material, and AdamPayne is good at remembering obscure links or facts. But when people start making baseless claims and paraphrasing, that's when things can very rapidly get out of hand.
posted by
NancyII
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Matt..I wasn't basing that on any particular blog since most have a reference to politics in one form or another. Also..it wasn't directed at a particular party either but I guess it could be slanted toward the left since that's the predominant post here.I'm honestly interested in how people form their opinions and why they feel their side is the only correct side. (notice I didn't say right side for fear of a storm..lol) I'm aware of the usefulness of links to information...my curiosity is how you, or anyone else, determine the lies from the truth when another side see's the opposite and then accuses the other party of being blind. The odd thing is that I see those comments from both sides regardless of party affiliation. Now...this is not an argument..or even a debate. It's an observation. Personally I'm more conservative than I am liberal but I'm not an ostrich. I believe what I believe and am not easily persueded unless it makes sense to me. I rarely get into political debates because it's not worth it to me. I save my arguments for causes that are close to my heart. Howsumever..I enjoy finding out why people think the way they do and what they base their decisions on. Someone once said.."Pick the mountain you want to die on." Politics just ain't that mountain to me. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:34 PM
Kool-Aid posted by
anonymous
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:38 PM
Libs always mock people for making references to the Bible. Yet they always reference their hysterical websites as though they are unquestioned truth. I can cite UFO websites that Art Bell listeners believe as Gospel.
Wait. Pistol Pete boycotting ABC? I am sure he opposed the Southern Baptists when they did the same thing. posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:48 PM
Hey Nancy, I usually get my info from CNN. If something seems funny, I use googe news to second source it. If I'm trying to make a point to someone who is conservative, I always link to video or Fox News. I don't think the traditionally liberal side is always right, but when arguing, I find that that with some conservatives, I can't get them to accept facts because they believe that all media is biased against them. If we could all agree to the basic facts, we could then start talking about policy.I read a great line somewhere that went "Those who don't care about politics are destined to be ruled by people who do." It is the mountian I'd die on. posted by
TomW
on Sep 6, 2006 at 11:55 PM
When do librarians mock people for quoting the Bible?
posted by
NancyII
on Sep 7, 2006 at 06:45 AM
Tom..It's not that I don't care about politics..it's just not something I'm going to get into a rip roaring, I hate Bush, conservatives are idiots, liberals are morons, Clinton is satan, you're wrong-I'm right, argument over. Like you, when I see something that doesn't make sense to me I google it. It's a wonder those letters on my keyboard aren't worn out by now. (actually I have it on my toolbar.) Your quote interests me because whether or not we care about politics, unless we're actively DOING something about them, they (politicians) will rule is anyway. Most people never do anything, they just talk about it a lot. And a lot of the talk is done on blogs where people can use any language they want, where they insult and curse people out with no fear of retaliation like a punch in the nose. Things that would NEVER be said in person will be said on blogs. But I digress from my curious george questions. Aside from the ones asked above..can someone tell me how two people on opposite sides can look at the same incident and have two completely different takes on it? As for the media..hasn't anyone noticed that BOTH sides claim the media is biased against them? And then they moan.."gee..the other side just can't see it." My philosophy is somwhat based on an old fella who used to come into the bar my partner and I owned. He sat on, or as near, the same stool for about 30 years and always ordered Bud in a bottle. He would lay a twenty on the bar and say "take some, leave some." That's pretty much the way I deal with politics. I listen to news on different channels. I read various magazines and the local paper (local news and Eye Street only) and I look stuff up on the internet. I read the blog here and if it interests me I look up the issue and decide whether or not I believe it or go along with it. I have personal ethics and personal beliefs that guide me as much as actual politics do. I'm anti abortion but sort of pro choice. I'm not anti gay but not for it either. I believe God will sort it all out in the end. I'm a lean--to-the-right but believe in some social programs. In short..I'm me..like I said, not an ostrich, not a yes gal, and not easily persuaded. I was, and am, curious as to how and why everyone on this blog is so convinced they are right and theirs is the only truth? posted by
anonymous
on Sep 7, 2006 at 07:18 AM
Why not concentrate on areas where we could all agree? Surely everyone would be against the terrorists. No; Democrats are apparently very interested in stifling the Patriot Act, railing against Guantanamo, demanding US Constitutional rights for terrorists, et cetera. Oh well; it was a thought.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 7, 2006 at 07:37 AM
No, Anny, there was little thought involved in your post. . . posted by
NancyII
on Sep 7, 2006 at 08:08 AM
You lost me on the cancer thing. Was that just an example or are you saying Republicans want to kill suspected cancer patients? Did I miss a mention of that here?I'll have to check on this later since I'm off to work. Darned old right leaners ..they think people should actually work for a living. Who's bright idea was that? ;-) By the way...I'm the ONLY non bilingual person where I work. I'm sure someone can make something out of that. posted by
mattloch
on Sep 7, 2006 at 08:16 AM
You see Nancy, some people make declarative and conclusionary statements without giving any evidence or background to them. Like one of the conservative radio hosts has been declaring all week "rich people are paying more taxes, and poor people are paying less taxes, than at any time in the past 30 years! That means that taxes have become more progressive!" Which is verifiably false. Rich people are paying more money in taxes because they have more money than they've had in the past 30 years. Poor people are paying less taxes because they have less taxable income. But none of the kool-aid drinkers who listen to his show question what he says. Just like people don't question the accusation that Clinton could have captured bin Laden, when the links that I posted above show that to be completely false. Some people simply hear the conclusionary statements being made and don't use critical thinking skills to evaluate if it makes sense. Schools aren't teaching critical thinking skills anymore. In "teaching to the test" they rely on rote memorization and calculation. Free-thinking is no longer valued in the school system anymore.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |
