It's hard for me to believe that the so- called mainstream media have a bias. I know for some in our fair city, that if it doesn't have a conservative view, then it's liberal. Recently, the Republican Party gave up on their efforts to privatize Medicare and repealing the Healthcare Law; that’s huge but I haven't seen any coverage of this. Congressman Paul Ryan got all the accolades for being a genuine, upcoming republican star, but when his party abandoned him; nada, zilch.
I know that if President Bush would have captured Osama bin Laden, Karl Rowe, and others would have staged a ticker tape parade in New York City with President Bush all decked out in his flight suit. Both houses of Congress would have submitted bills to have President Bush's likeness to be carved on Mt. Rushmore and a holiday to boot. Republicans know how to brag but the democrats think that "ah shucks" will be remembered on Election Day. Republicans know how to milk the situation for all it's worth. The media eats that up. You don't have to believe me but remember the “Mission Accomplished” celebration, yet there were several years of war to follow. I liked the fact that president Obama low keyed the situation, but I'm a democrat. I'm hardwired that way, but I also know that this will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks and the media will be out to cover the most flamboyant politician. A man I used to work with used to say jokingly “if you're going to be blamed for it; you might as well do it." ..I thought of that when a poster named reeder accused president Obama of milking the situation to use in his presidential run. He used all the talking points like "a bump in the polls" but I just know if the mission would have failed; he and others would've been criticizing nonstop. They are criticizing now, when the mission by all standards was a success.
I think that I have finally found a remedy for those that like to sabotage my blog and insert their message. Since it's only a couple of people, I am going to delete all incoming comments from them. I know it seems like I'm being petty for not allowing a contradiction from a couple of posters but this has been going on for several years.Don't feel sorry for them because it seems like vet43 is an adequate replacement.Right now he is standing toe-to toe with them and winning.. It may seem like I'm censoring all unfavorable comments but be patient, and I will prove otherwise. The contradictions will continue, as they should, just not from those posters. I have a goal of having a VA blog where controversial subjects can be discussed without being obnoxious. I know it's unrealistic but I'm working on the number one bottleneck, me. I also know it's hard because we have so many different personalities on the public forum. It's not like I don't have experience in doing something like this, because I argued, and discussed politics for over 30 years without incident. At my retirement Roast -Toast party, one of my regular opponents; lifted his bottle of beer to me and said" this is to the only man with whom I could argue politics with, and I hope he has learned as much from me, as I have from him."He used to laugh when I told him " I'm not here to agree, I'm here to prove you wrong."
14 comments:
Congrats on the 10,000+ page loads!!! Cool, isn't it?
BTW--good strategy with the numbnuts.
At least people read your posts. I have to go to the comment section to get MY butt kicked. =D
Thank you very much Edith Ann And thanks for all your help and advice.
Looks like Roy Mark is gone again.
Happy Mother's Day
Rebecca
You did great but You can't win when your opponent is using unrealistic hypotheticals and hyperbole as the basis for their argument....I suspect EA picked up on that and quit......you were very reasonable and you made a lot of great points but they answered with " something about hazel eyes,slavery,and trying to make you choose between children at various stages."
Happy Mother's Day
I realized they were never going to be able to look at the issue--government intrusion--and not see a chance to preach 'anti-abortion'. I thought I was doing pretty good with the shoe analogy, but that flipped, then flopped. [Sorry, just trying to get a bit more mileage out of the flip-flop thing...]
I was sort of surprised that Wm. Paul Tasin didn't weigh in. Until abortion is made illegal again, I just don't think you can always use it as the 'wild card' in morality discussions, and that is what this thread became.
But, yeah, I commended Rebecca elsewhere for taking one for the team so to speak!
Hello maryann!
Glad to see topsarge go, perhaps my unsubtle references on the forum tipped hastened his departure?
I enjoy hashing out ideas, but I have nothing to guide me. I'm learning as I go. I learned that nothing should be personal because I made the mistake of saying that if I had to choose - which I wouldn't - I would choose a child over a fetus. Then I was accused of being able to murder my child at any stage. D= Very very low. Almost cruel to imply that. I see a difference because I know that I would grieve the loss of a child over a miscarriage. It doesn't mean that I would cause the loss.
I've been very very sad over that, for some reason. Our worst fear is that we would lose a child. I don't know why it bothers me that a stranger would draw such an unrealistic conclusion about me - that I could take my child's life.
That proves to me that argument proves nothing and can even make a lie look like truth.
That means that any argument can lead to a lie.
I knew that, just that I know it is especially true when arguing religion or politics. Isn't it pointless?
I had a rule that I wouldn't take anything personally, but I guess I brought that on myself by saying that *I* could see a difference.
I think you learn a lot about a person when they argue. You can see if they have control issues or if they are manipulators or if they would believe lies just to prove their point...
Rebecca
I disagree....It's not pointless and personal views are very important.....I do agree that people have control issues and would like to always play the game on their home court...Example: Jared keeps going back to "human life exists at the moment of conception" because he feels that's his strong suite and he really can't defend the "Sonogram bill" as not being intrusive....I bet if you stick to the issue of the "Texas Legislature passes sonogram requirement." you will win....He and maryann try to always play on their home turf...Does that make sense?...The same way for rollingstone on politcs...It's always about their sources and beliefs.
Edith Ann
I agree,Jared and maryann use the same talking points like "natural law" etc....Natural law by its very nature is subjective...We had to go to war to end slavery but Civil Rights didn't come until a little over 100 years later.
I can't believe that social conservatives like Jared and maryann want government intrusion.
Kyle
You say more with your unsubtle references than some with pages of pages of references...:-)
Yes, I understand. I don't have a "home turf" so the only way to win is not to play the game. =D
There's no "home turf" for those who just want to converse with other adults.
Post a Comment