One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
How liberals h**e free speech..How they try and stifle it.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 12 next> last>>
Jan 8, 2015 12:49:02   #
LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
straightUp wrote:
When people say "it's simple" - it's usually because they aren't looking at the whole picture.

I have a different perspective on this Tasine (I'm sure you aren't surprised).

Actually, McCain was a more popular politician... Palin was a more popular celebrity, so it depends on what kind of v**ers are involved as to which stands a better chance at winning an e******n.

McCain had the respect of old-school Republicans and many moderate progressives based on his long standing record, from his military service to his role as the governor of Arizona. He stood a far better chance of bridging the partisan divide too, which at the time may still have been doable. Palin, basically had no political respect from anyone. Her only advantage was her popularity as a celebrity. Of course I know she was a politician but what I'm saying is that her support was earned not by her very short record as a politician but from the spectacle of being a governor with a pretty face. The spectacle of being a conservative woman, with a pretty face, in politics was basically all she had and as small as that was, it's what the McCain campaign was missing... an appeal to youth and the female, two v**er blocs that they obviously underestimated.

By the time Katie Couric interviewed Palin and exposed her for the twit she is, it was all over. Women who aren't preoccupied with lipstick and pop-songs were insulted that McCain would expect them to fall all over Palin simply because she's a woman.

Good thing too because if they did win, the nation that elected them would have been the laughing stock of the world.
When people say "it's simple" - it's usu... (show quote)
You know, you pretty much had me until that last sentence.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 12:58:28   #
Jeffhunter
 
straightUp wrote:
When people say "it's simple" - it's usually because they aren't looking at the whole picture.

I have a different perspective on this Tasine (I'm sure you aren't surprised).

Actually, McCain was a more popular politician... Palin was a more popular celebrity, so it depends on what kind of v**ers are involved as to which stands a better chance at winning an e******n.

McCain had the respect of old-school Republicans and many moderate progressives based on his long standing record, from his military service to his role as the governor of Arizona. He stood a far better chance of bridging the partisan divide too, which at the time may still have been doable. Palin, basically had no political respect from anyone. Her only advantage was her popularity as a celebrity. Of course I know she was a politician but what I'm saying is that her support was earned not by her very short record as a politician but from the spectacle of being a governor with a pretty face. The spectacle of being a conservative woman, with a pretty face, in politics was basically all she had and as small as that was, it's what the McCain campaign was missing... an appeal to youth and the female, two v**er blocs that they obviously underestimated.

By the time Katie Couric interviewed Palin and exposed her for the twit she is, it was all over. Women who aren't preoccupied with lipstick and pop-songs were insulted that McCain would expect them to fall all over Palin simply because she's a woman.

Good thing too because if they did win, the nation that elected them would have been the laughing stock of the world.
When people say "it's simple" - it's usu... (show quote)


:thumbup:

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:15:18   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
WhosetheBoss wrote:
Convinced me, so is there a real source of t***h or do we need to view several different news sources to know the t***h. The real problem is most people are too lazy to do the due diligence and search out different sources before forming opinions.

Unfortunately, you're right. Pursuing the t***h can be hard work... and it's not just laziness that obstructs the task, it's time too... research is very time consuming. Who has time for it in this busy world?

I think you're asking the single most important question any citizen can ask themselves. I do think there are a lot of sources of t***h, even Fox. The key is knowing if you are getting the whole t***h or if the t***h is not tainted with untrue additives to the story. There is a reason why the witness oath says, "...the t***h, the whole t***h and nothing but the t***h."

So, my answer, as I'm sure you are expecting, is that you HAVE to compile your own conclusion - from as many sources as possible. And include sources from opposing sides of argument and don't hesitate to draw from your own experiences and partial understanding of the world.

Also, keep in mind that we are all humans. My mention of ego-rubbing conservatives was due to Fox being the subject and their audience being conservative, but liberals are susceptible to the same trap. Wanting to be "in the right" is a human trait, not just a conservative one. Fox is just the most successful at doing it so far.

So in other words, don't subscribe to a right-wing or a left-wing diet. Pull from all sides, apply your own knowledge and analysis and find your own conclusion.

One more thing, since most of what I've told you so far is pretty obvious... Keep in mind that the t***h can get lost in complexity, especially in politics and sometimes it's intentionally hidden, so you have to be willing to accept that the t***h will often elude you. When that happens pull back to what you know and make your decisions knowing that it's only based on available data. It's the best anyone can do.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2015 13:15:51   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
LAPhil wrote:
You know, you pretty much had me until that last sentence.

Because...?

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:28:51   #
Comment Loc: California
 
keithhowell58 wrote:
Fox news is a joke! Always complaining about main stream media being bias,well if Fox was so concerned about mainstream media bias start a mainstream media news network! Oh wait they can't the FCC wont allow all the lies! Some of you guys that rely solo on Fox news for your news source need to break out of the bubble and see what really is happening in politics and the world!


You are filled with so mush disdain for Republicans that you couldn't recognize the t***h if it smacked you in the head like a 2x4. I expect every word you post to be propaganda from a hard nosed C*******t. I expect you to deny, deny and deny some more. Just lie like Billy Boy Clinton when he said, "I didn't have sex with that woman." I suppose his inserting a cigar into her vagina was the cigar having sex with her.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:28:51   #
Comment Loc: California
 
keithhowell58 wrote:
Fox news is a joke! Always complaining about main stream media being bias,well if Fox was so concerned about mainstream media bias start a mainstream media news network! Oh wait they can't the FCC wont allow all the lies! Some of you guys that rely solo on Fox news for your news source need to break out of the bubble and see what really is happening in politics and the world!


You are filled with so mush disdain for Republicans that you couldn't recognize the t***h if it smacked you in the head like a 2x4. I expect every word you post to be propaganda from a hard nosed C*******t. I expect you to deny, deny and deny some more. Just lie like Billy Boy Clinton when he said, "I didn't have sex with that woman." I suppose his inserting a cigar into her vagina was the cigar having sex with her.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:29:11   #
Comment Loc: California
 
keithhowell58 wrote:
Fox news is a joke! Always complaining about main stream media being bias,well if Fox was so concerned about mainstream media bias start a mainstream media news network! Oh wait they can't the FCC wont allow all the lies! Some of you guys that rely solo on Fox news for your news source need to break out of the bubble and see what really is happening in politics and the world!


You are filled with so mush disdain for Republicans that you couldn't recognize the t***h if it smacked you in the head like a 2x4. I expect every word you post to be propaganda from a hard nosed C*******t. I expect you to deny, deny and deny some more. Just lie like Billy Boy Clinton when he said, "I didn't have sex with that woman." I suppose his inserting a cigar into her vagina was the cigar having sex with her. Haha.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2015 13:31:19   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
straightUp wrote:
When people say "it's simple" - it's usually because they aren't looking at the whole picture.

I have a different perspective on this Tasine (I'm sure you aren't surprised).

Actually, McCain was a more popular politician... Palin was a more popular celebrity, so it depends on what kind of v**ers are involved as to which stands a better chance at winning an e******n.

McCain had the respect of old-school Republicans and many moderate progressives based on his long standing record, from his military service to his role as the governor of Arizona. He stood a far better chance of bridging the partisan divide too, which at the time may still have been doable. Palin, basically had no political respect from anyone. Her only advantage was her popularity as a celebrity. Of course I know she was a politician but what I'm saying is that her support was earned not by her very short record as a politician but from the spectacle of being a governor with a pretty face. The spectacle of being a conservative woman, with a pretty face, in politics was basically all she had and as small as that was, it's what the McCain campaign was missing... an appeal to youth and the female, two v**er blocs that they obviously underestimated.

By the time Katie Couric interviewed Palin and exposed her for the twit she is, it was all over. Women who aren't preoccupied with lipstick and pop-songs were insulted that McCain would expect them to fall all over Palin simply because she's a woman.

Good thing too because if they did win, the nation that elected them would have been the laughing stock of the world.
When people say "it's simple" - it's usu... (show quote)


Should we assume the rest of what you said here is as accurate as your claim that McCain was Governor of Arizona?

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:32:14   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
LAPhil wrote:
You know, you pretty much had me until that last sentence.


Really? You missed the part about being Gov?

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:32:17   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Billhuggins wrote:
You are filled with so mush disdain for Republicans that you couldn't recognize the t***h if it smacked you in the head like a 2x4. I expect every word you post to be propaganda from a hard nosed C*******t. I expect you to deny, deny and deny some more. Just lie like Billy Boy Clinton when he said, "I didn't have sex with that woman." I suppose his inserting a cigar into her vagina was the cigar having sex with her. Haha.


Bill, can you repeat that? I didn't quite get it.
;)

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:34:34   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
Should we assume the rest of what you said here is as accurate as your claim that McCain was Governor of Arizona?


Ha, ha... where the hell is my editor!

My bad... the esteemed SENATOR from Arizona...

Thanks for pointing that out.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2015 13:39:54   #
LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
Really? You missed the part about being Gov?
Where was that mentioned in the sentence?

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:40:21   #
LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
straightUp wrote:
Because...?
BECAUSE even though I'm a big McCain fan (not conservative enough for me), he would have been lightyears better than we got. The laughing stock of the world? That's what we are now, Jack.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:51:54   #
adkguy
 
You mean we aren't the laughing stock of the world now??! Stop drinking the Kool-Aid mate.

straightUp wrote:
When people say "it's simple" - it's usually because they aren't looking at the whole picture.

I have a different perspective on this Tasine (I'm sure you aren't surprised).

Actually, McCain was a more popular politician... Palin was a more popular celebrity, so it depends on what kind of v**ers are involved as to which stands a better chance at winning an e******n.

McCain had the respect of old-school Republicans and many moderate progressives based on his long standing record, from his military service to his role as the governor of Arizona. He stood a far better chance of bridging the partisan divide too, which at the time may still have been doable. Palin, basically had no political respect from anyone. Her only advantage was her popularity as a celebrity. Of course I know she was a politician but what I'm saying is that her support was earned not by her very short record as a politician but from the spectacle of being a governor with a pretty face. The spectacle of being a conservative woman, with a pretty face, in politics was basically all she had and as small as that was, it's what the McCain campaign was missing... an appeal to youth and the female, two v**er blocs that they obviously underestimated.

By the time Katie Couric interviewed Palin and exposed her for the twit she is, it was all over. Women who aren't preoccupied with lipstick and pop-songs were insulted that McCain would expect them to fall all over Palin simply because she's a woman.

Good thing too because if they did win, the nation that elected them would have been the laughing stock of the world.
When people say "it's simple" - it's usu... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 13:55:37   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
straightUp wrote:
Unfortunately, you're right. Pursuing the t***h can be hard work... and it's not just laziness that obstructs the task, it's time too... research is very time consuming. Who has time for it in this busy world?

I think you're asking the single most important question any citizen can ask themselves. I do think there are a lot of sources of t***h, even Fox. The key is knowing if you are getting the whole t***h or if the t***h is not tainted with untrue additives to the story. There is a reason why the witness oath says, "...the t***h, the whole t***h and nothing but the t***h."

So, my answer, as I'm sure you are expecting, is that you HAVE to compile your own conclusion - from as many sources as possible. And include sources from opposing sides of argument and don't hesitate to draw from your own experiences and partial understanding of the world.

Also, keep in mind that we are all humans. My mention of ego-rubbing conservatives was due to Fox being the subject and their audience being conservative, but liberals are susceptible to the same trap. Wanting to be "in the right" is a human trait, not just a conservative one. Fox is just the most successful at doing it so far.

So in other words, don't subscribe to a right-wing or a left-wing diet. Pull from all sides, apply your own knowledge and analysis and find your own conclusion.

One more thing, since most of what I've told you so far is pretty obvious... Keep in mind that the t***h can get lost in complexity, especially in politics and sometimes it's intentionally hidden, so you have to be willing to accept that the t***h will often elude you. When that happens pull back to what you know and make your decisions knowing that it's only based on available data. It's the best anyone can do.
Unfortunately, you're right. Pursuing the t***h ca... (show quote)


While I agree with most of what you said, I think you forgot an important aspect...the ability to listen (or read) carefully, understand what is being said, and filter accordingly.

Example. Many advertisements have words to this effect: "Recent studies suggest there may be a link between the antioxidants in our product and better functioning i****e s****ms." That is designed to make you think using the product will boost your i****e s****m, but does it really say that? No.

Recently one of the less sentient progressive liberals on this forum sent me a link from some cancer advocacy group using the exact same phrasing to 'prove' to me that SHS is deadly. I went through the entire statement, almost word-for-word, expaining that it really says "We have absolutely no proof nor any evidence to support this claim." Unfortunately he didn't understand.

Phrasing like that is used all the time to convey a falsehood without actually lying. A person does not need multiple sources to determine the t***h in these instances, they just need to understand what is being said.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.