On Jul 12, 9:29?am, jps wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:

But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...

I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.

Holy **** Chuck, awfully magnanimous of you.

I listen, read, watch from all perspectives. I know our schtick and
theirs.

But that's the key.........it's all schtick. Everybody has an axe to
grind, everybody has an agenda. The largest offenders are usually
those who crow the loudest about being "objective" or "fair and
balanced".

As an amateur student of history I believe that few things are ever
proven to be right or wrong. We can look at past events and observe
(for example), "Eisenhower pledged support for South Viet Nam, Kennedy
deployed military specialists and advisors, Johnson expanded the
American role, and Nixon/Kissinger finally extracted us." Which of the
four presidents involved was right or wrong? None, really...they were
just people with difficult choices to make. Through the lens of
history we can see what choices were made and what the results proved
to be, but even though all four made different decisions it's entrely
plausible that none of the four was deliberately trying to screw up
the country at the time.

It's similar with political ideology. Even though the strident voices
on either side are quick to proclaim that the other side is entirely
wrong, always wrong, and that people on the opposite side are putting
personal
preference or profit above the good of the country as a whole that is
seldom actually the case. Dealing in stereotypes and absolutes is a
poor substitute for critical thinking, regardless which side is being
portrayed by or engaging in the stereotyping.


justafreakin is plugged into the narrow right wing presented by Bill O
and I suspect Rush.-

And what if he is? He's over 21 years of age and free to choose. If he
finds that his personal view of the universe is well defined by Bill
O, Rush L, or somebody else that's his choice to make. If he is
uncertain about his own views but still feels inclined to accept and
endorse the skillfully presented philosophies of various broadcasters,
that's also his choice to make.

People don't have to be adversaries simply because they have opposite
philosophies or opinions. In fact, there's more to learn by listening
carefully to opposing points of view (you don't have to accept or
endorse any of those points) than by engaging in the politics of
personal attack. I have very little respect for anybody who can't
discuss an issue without making a series of personal attacks on folks
who disagree with their perspective.....a valid argument will stand on
it's own without name calling, etc. Demagogues love to include
personal attack and insult with their extremist messages (from any
side of the spectrum) because such remarks create an "emotional"
atmosphere
around the question at hand. As a guy who has made a few bucks in life
in the sales business, I can attest that it is easier and far more
effective to close a deal with a strong emotional hook than foster a
decision based on logic alone. In fact, a good emotional appeal will
get a lot of folks to go along with an idea that they would ultimately
reject
if it had to withstand a strenuous logical examination.