|
Post by Mike on Sept 20, 2009 10:19:58 GMT -4
Kind of reminds me of these people:
But it was OK for them to do it, right?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 20, 2009 12:52:50 GMT -4
The following is all anecdotal, with no scientific data to support it:
With the nature of my job, I've dealt with all kinds of protesters on differing sides of differing issues. I can tell you that it is rare to find one who is well versed on the "issue of the day" and can give you a decent argument. They can spit out the catch-phrases, buzz-words, and talking points, but when questioned have to either repeat themselves or make a hasty retreat out of the conversation.
Most will be there either out of genuine frustration with the situation, or "pack mentality" because their friends are doing it or they want to belong to something. Some people do the research and come up with an educated opinion, but a larger portion just swallow what they are spoon-fed by whichever pundit or blog they like on their side of the aisle.
I've seen it in pro and anti demos on immigration, war, guns, coal power, healthcare, ect ect ect
The more organized demos will have a spokesperson who will be the well-versed intelligent one able to articulate their argument better than the common schmoe, and the schmoes are told if a camera comes up to them, point it in the direction of the spokesperson....least they say something to embarrass the cause. Obviously not everyone listens.
I think its a poor tactic to pick out the dumbest among the group you are against and use their quote as an argument against the whole. It can be effective, but smarter people should know better than to buy it. Its trashy politics, and does nothing to further the betterment of society.
Edit for more: If you truly believe your side of the argument is better, than it should be able to stand up against the best points of the other. However, it is always easier to win a debate by attacking the least defensible positions your opponent takes.
I think that is why politics in our system is so difficult. Instead of each side recognizing the good points each other is making and working to make the whole thing come together with the most people happy, they chose instead to remain mired in attacking the worst ideas put forth. It doesn't help that the later makes for a more entertaining news story.....and we lap it up like gravy.
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 20, 2009 13:00:43 GMT -4
I think its a poor tactic to pick out the dumbest among the group you are against and use their quote as an argument against the whole. It can be effective, but smarter people should know better than to buy it. Its trashy politics, and does nothing to further the betterment of society. The difference here is that the arguments used by the d-baggers are all the same, tired, debunked arguments, over and over. Obama was born in Kenya, death panels will kill your grandma, the Czars are taking over, and on and on regurgitating the lies, hate and racist views of people like Beck, Hannity, O'Rielly and others of their ilk. It's these people who not only need to be exposed as the liars that they are, but ridiculed as well.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 20, 2009 13:05:37 GMT -4
If you dismiss everything coming out of the mouth of every Fox anchor as racists propaganda, you're missing out on receiving a well-rounded view. You can't get all your info from Keith Olbermann.
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 20, 2009 13:15:29 GMT -4
If you dismiss everything coming out of the mouth of every Fox anchor as racists propaganda, you're missing out on receiving a well-rounded view. You can't get all your info from Keith Olbermann. Since it's been proven over and over and over again the lies and distortion aired by Faux News, why would one want to even use them as a source? Case in point. Fox News producer coaching the crowd (woman in green). Fair and unbiased?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 20, 2009 13:19:17 GMT -4
Give me a new source that you believe unimpeachable in that regard, and I will find a similar youtube video for you to view.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 20, 2009 20:01:00 GMT -4
If you dismiss everything coming out of the mouth of every Fox anchor as racists propaganda, you're missing out on receiving a well-rounded view. You can't get all your info from Keith Olbermann. Since it's been proven over and over and over again the lies and distortion aired by Faux News, why would one want to even use them as a source? Case in point. Fox News producer coaching the crowd (woman in green). Fair and unbiased? Lies? Proven? Hardly. And, that's a pretty weak example; if that's the best you can do.. As far as distortion, the vocal minority on both sides work hard to deserve that label.
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 21, 2009 21:36:54 GMT -4
Lies? Proven? Hardly. And, that's a pretty weak example; if that's the best you can do.. Pick one: mediamatters.org/research/200909080001At some point in time most if not all have been expounded by Fox as the truth.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 21, 2009 23:06:34 GMT -4
That website looks like the left wing version of the Drudge Report.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Sept 22, 2009 5:46:11 GMT -4
I don't think ACRON is a big issue, said the long time ACRON lawyer!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 22, 2009 6:40:50 GMT -4
Lies? Proven? Hardly. And, that's a pretty weak example; if that's the best you can do.. Pick one: mediamatters.org/research/200909080001At some point in time most if not all have been expounded by Fox as the truth. No one wants to read a post answering all of those. How about we make it fair and YOU pick one and I'll respond to it. Hey, maybe I'll even agree. Just two rules: 1. Pick one. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to all of them and a lot of the members just don't care that much about my opinions. 2. We'll use this source to provide the definitions for "proven" and "lie." www.merriam-webster.com/
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 22, 2009 7:01:48 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 22, 2009 7:04:26 GMT -4
No one wants to read a post answering all of those. How about we make it fair and YOU pick one and I'll respond to it. Hey, maybe I'll even agree. Just two rules: 1. Pick one. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to all of them and a lot of the members just don't care that much about my opinions. 2. We'll use this source to provide the definitions for "proven" and "lie." www.merriam-webster.com/Number 7 mediamatters.org/research/200909080001#7Both Hannity and Beck had fun spreading the lies of this one...
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 22, 2009 21:48:14 GMT -4
No one wants to read a post answering all of those. How about we make it fair and YOU pick one and I'll respond to it. Hey, maybe I'll even agree. Just two rules: 1. Pick one. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to all of them and a lot of the members just don't care that much about my opinions. 2. We'll use this source to provide the definitions for "proven" and "lie." www.merriam-webster.com/Number 7 mediamatters.org/research/200909080001#7Both Hannity and Beck had fun spreading the lies of this one... Working on it, but this is going to take a bit. Good one to choose. Hard to get down to the bottom line when the myth points to the health care bill which points to the Medicaire act definitions which point to.....
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Sept 22, 2009 22:48:41 GMT -4
Working on it, but this is going to take a bit. Good one to choose. Hard to get down to the bottom line when the myth points to the health care bill which points to the Medicaire act definitions which point to..... Falgar25 - I can't wait to see where you go with this challenge. I know it will be GOOD. In the meantime, as a health care provider who has the thrill of dealing with Medicare on a daily basis, I will say a prayer for you for any time you may spend trying to struggle through "Medicare Act Definitions." The only word that comes to mind in "GRAY..."
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Sept 23, 2009 10:21:07 GMT -4
I was watching pro football players waving the crowd on to show support, was that coaching and racism? Could have been! Like I said before when ever you have to inform us that the president is black you already lost the argument! I didn't vote for the man and I am proud of it! I swore to an oath to protect and defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic! I plan to uphold my oath will barrack? Settle back and have another glass of cool aid!
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 23, 2009 19:23:11 GMT -4
Working on it, but this is going to take a bit. Good one to choose. Hard to get down to the bottom line when the myth points to the health care bill which points to the Medicaire act definitions which point to..... How's that coming along there? BTW and FWIW Falgar, I do respect your views and opinions more than most that I see here, because more often than not, you at least have verifiable facts to back up your argument. Now we're sometime at odds as to the interpretation of the facts and how they relate to the subject at hand, but.... ;-) For those who question my status as far as a member of this community, I have been on Kent Island for over seven years now, and even dodged the fire trucks on Kimberly Way and Old Love Point Road (because of the chlorine smell call) this afternoon on the way home. I have sent many emails to local and State officials, and while I won't show you my birth certificate, I was born in the US. ;D
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Sept 23, 2009 19:49:08 GMT -4
Settle back and have another glass of cool aid! oh, jeez. at least spell it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Sept 23, 2009 19:51:29 GMT -4
Settle back and have another glass of cool aid! oh, jeez. at least spell it correctly. Moosie - you crack me up!!! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 23, 2009 22:10:43 GMT -4
[quote author=truthhurts board=politics thread=5176 post=71885 time=1253748191For those who question my status as far as a member of this community....[/quote]
I think that arises from the fact that you only post in the political section.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 24, 2009 6:48:38 GMT -4
No one wants to read a post answering all of those. How about we make it fair and YOU pick one and I'll respond to it. Hey, maybe I'll even agree. Just two rules: 1. Pick one. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to all of them and a lot of the members just don't care that much about my opinions. 2. We'll use this source to provide the definitions for "proven" and "lie." www.merriam-webster.com/Number 7 mediamatters.org/research/200909080001#7Both Hannity and Beck had fun spreading the lies of this one... Not as complete as I would like this to be but I don't want to look as though I'm avoiding an answer. Really short answer: The claim that there would be required end-of-life counseling appears to be a lie. I don't like the word "lie" or the the label "liar." Those words should be used when the speaker makes a claim that they know to be false. For example, I don't agree with Wilson's exclamation that Obama lied. Obama's statement might be incorrect but I believe that Obama truly believed his statement was true. This statement is different: I have read that section of the health care bill and the corresponding section of the Medicare act and it simply does not say what McCaughey claimed. She did not qualify her words to allow the possibility that she misunderstood the section, she was very clear about her "facts" and those facts simply are not true. Unless I am very mistaken, that section of the health care bill and the corresponding section of the Medicare act list the services that are available to people under Medicare. They list what Medicare must offer to recipients, not what they must be subjected to. This section of the health care bill establishes end-of-life counseling as a benefit that must be available to Medicare recipients, establishes some guidelines on what that counseling must include, and sets a limit on how frequently it can be requested. The only requirement that I could see that would be levied on a Medicare recipient is they cannot receive this counseling at an interval of less than five years unless their health deteriorates significantly within that time. To me, this looks like a very good benefit to offer, not at all what McCaughey claimed. There might be more to add later, but this is a lot already. I offered the challenge and set the rules. That statement from McCaughey does appear to be a lie.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 25, 2009 7:17:06 GMT -4
Both Hannity and Beck had fun spreading the lies of this one... I sure hope people aren't looking to Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly (or most of Fox "News") or Limbaugh or any of the other talking heads (on both sides) for accurate and reliable information. These guys are good for a laugh most of the time and offer interesting topics for discussion. Fox "News" seems to do a fair job balancing the rhetoric from the other side, but that isn't what I originally believed their motto was supposed to mean.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Sept 25, 2009 11:42:23 GMT -4
The problem, falgar, is that there ARE people who get their opinions on news from people like Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hale80 on Sept 25, 2009 17:22:50 GMT -4
The problem, falgar, is that there ARE people who get their opinions on news from people like Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. As oppossed to .........never mind, I'll just let that one go
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Sept 25, 2009 18:02:21 GMT -4
The problem, falgar, is that there ARE people who get their opinions on news from people like Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. As oppossed to .........never mind, I'll just let that one go People on both sides who only get their opinions from pundits are a problem.
|
|