Have you ever heard of telecommunicatoin devices? Go look in your kitchen; you'll probably find one. No, no, not the microwave. I meant the t-e-l-e-p-h-o-n-e. It works and has worked for years. I understand they can now do videoconferencing now too. Wow! .... back at you. All you want to do is mock the president without regard to reason or fairness. That's what Lowry's article is about. Thank you for personalizing it for us.
This is just patently untrue. All it takes is a group of people intent on ridiculing you constantly. A large sample of those kind of people can be found in the Mainstream Media and on the ClutchFans.net BBS. It doesn't take a lot. It takes a few to continually exert their influence.
Agree entirely. The same low standard is applied to Clinton, Kerry et al. Partisanship over objectivity. It's killing debate. Sad really. (though i found the article pretty funny ).
so you explain the country's changing public opinion of the prez to be the result of a small group of people consumed with hate? Because something must be changing the minds of those who were once indifferent or on the fence, hell, I supported Bush in the beginning, then I was on the fence, and gradually became disappointed with his actions. sure there will always be a group that will constantly ridicule, but if they are convincing so many people, who were once impartial, to share their views, there must be some reasoning involved. Your point only makes sense if you assume that the population, specifically those that are discontent, are ignorant and and easily swayed by the louder voices. I don't think that gives a significant portion of the American people much credit. I mean, couldn't your point also ring true for those who supported the president on iraq and other issues? that a small group of people exerted their influence in convincing the masses to follow their lead? is this anti-bush fervor just a trend? or will it swing back when the administration puts in a solid marketing campaign? I agree with bnb that excessive partisan support dulls one's thoughts and creates "subjective reasoning," and if you knew me you would know how much I am against partisanship and group association. But given the starking amount of promises and claims that the administration has made which have been proven to be manipulated, false and untrue, resulting in large sacrifices on the country and negative impacts on our founding ideas and credibility in the world, I find it unlikely that the reasonable person displays discontent now based purely on the cries of the people against the president since the beginning. I stick with my assertion that growing discontent is a result of his continuing policies, not from those who are considered 'extremists'. the average person tends to listen to people like themself, not those that they don't usually associate with.
Originally posted by nyquil82 so you explain the country's changing public opinion of the prez to be the result of a small group of people consumed with hate? <b>1. Confucious says that the longest journey begins with the first step. 2. My opinion hasn't changed.</b> Because something must be changing the minds of those who were once indifferent or on the fence, hell, I supported Bush in the beginning, then I was on the fence, and gradually became disappointed with his actions. <b>Yes, as Lowry say, criticism no matter what he does is helping to achieve that. It's unfair, dishonest, and wrong.</b> sure there will always be a group that will constantly ridicule, but if they are convincing so many people, who were once impartial, to share their views, there must be some reasoning involved. <b>Reasoning? I don't know. Who knows exactly how or why they arrived at their conclusion. I see too many man-on-the-street interviews and thing to myself, "What a dumbass..."</b> Your point only makes sense if you assume that the population, specifically those that are discontent, are ignorant and and easily swayed by the louder voices. I don't think that gives a significant portion of the American people much credit. I mean, couldn't your point also ring true for those who supported the president on iraq and other issues? <b>I was not swayed by any of the arguments. I was ready to devastate Saddam with no argumente. He was owed it from back in 1991 when he snubbed his nose at the coalition and then the UN.</b> that a small group of people exerted their influence in convincing the masses to follow their lead? is this anti-bush fervor just a trend? or will it swing back when the administration puts in a solid marketing campaign? <b>I don't think it's a trend. I say it is more of a conspiracy.</b> I agree with bnb that excessive partisan support dulls one's thoughts and creates "subjective reasoning," and if you knew me you would know how much I am against partisanship and group association. But given the starking amount of promises and claims that the administration has made which have been proven to be manipulated, false and untrue, resulting in large sacrifices on the country and negative impacts on our founding ideas and credibility in the world, I find it unlikely that the reasonable person displays discontent now based purely on the cries of the people against the president since the beginning. <b>I don't feel like the Patriot Act has gutted our constitution. If our credibility rests on what they would or wouldn't do, I'm out. The America I know is the greates nation on the face of the earth and has proven it time and time again. We do everything for everyone that they won't or can't do for themselves-- excuse the slight hyperbole!</b> I stick with my assertion that growing discontent is a result of his continuing policies, not from those who are considered 'extremists'. the average person tends to listen to people like themself, not those that they don't usually associate with. <b>I knew that I was above average. I'm in here everyday, aren't I?</b>
so we seem to have come to some sort of understanding, many on issues that I know we will likely never agree on, specifically on foreign policy, elitism, and public opinion, which is fine, diversity of opinion makes this country great even if it can slow certain things down. but your previous statements seem to imply that the hatred during Clinton's era (sidestepping the argument on whether or not it was justified) was also started by a group of people intent on ridiculing him constantly. If you can agree that that discontent was similar in nature to our current anti-president sentiment (also being unfair, dishonest and wrong), and that that arose out of 'wackos' trying to sway the public, then I won't label you as having "partisanship over objectivity". and even though we do have a 'trend' culture, public opinion is still important for a country that claims to be the bastion of democracy. now as an elitist (not meant as an insult but using your own definition of yourself), you probably thought that the people were intelligent and fine when most of them did support the war, and now think the majority are easily swayed idiots for now being against the war and the president. But with that reasoning, you have to accept that it could also be the other way, right? I don't really approve that type of subjugation of the american people, i have a little more faith in their reasoning. Before the war, although I opposed it, I completely understood why so many supported it, because the facts and claims given to us showed that we could be doing the right thing. However, is it any wonder that the majority now oppose it, given the facts and results that we have now? I'm not going to believe that this is the result of a conspiracy, but more on the sense that people do have a better sense of the truth now. I think you should know, but probably don't care much, that your specific views on the war are shared by a minority, thus you can't expect others to interpret information the same as you do. Some people listen with a mind more open to new beliefs, others listen with their own beliefs as a filter, you are clearly in the latter side , judging from your last post (again, nothing wrong or inhuman with this type of thinking). Because you are so dismissive of what what other people think, i'm not surprised about your stance on foreign countries and your reasoning on the war. I can at least understand now why you will never believe that any of the 'middle people', the 'fence sitters' and those that change their mind about issues, can do so objectively. If you have no respect for other people's ability to make a reasoned judgement on issues, yeah, your only other option is that there is a 'conspiracy' and that they were fooled. That's something that i'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree on. Still, I don't look down on you and respect that you see things differently, again, that's what America is about, I just want to understand how others think.
You do understand that Bush has a credibility problem, right? He's not trusted. Kinda worrisome considering he's our "leader."
He doesn't have a credibility problem with me. I trust him. I do understand that he has a problem with some people, but he had that problem the moment he entered the office. Others he has lost along the way. Just about every position of leadership suffers from such vagaries.
That's your problem. You trust politicians. And you would be easily fooled by many. As long as they told you want you wanted to hear.
Nope. The criticism is NOT unfair, dishonest, or wrong. It's comes w/the job. And part of the citizens responsibility to call them on it.
Originally posted by nyquil82 so we seem to have come to some sort of understanding, many on issues that I know we will likely never agree on, specifically on foreign policy, elitism, and public opinion, which is fine, diversity of opinion makes this country great even if it can slow certain things down. <b>Don't be too expansive here. We may disagree on Iraq but you may not need to extrapolate it throughout "Foreign Policy." I'm not sure what you mean about elitism; I think you are slamming me for my remark about "dumbass" Americans. Sorry but many are and they seem to appear on TV a lot. You get much smarter perspectives in print and on the internet. I'm not an elitist; I'm just a realist describing what I see. Do you see something vastly different? A diversity of public opinion is great, but there's no reason it can't be civil and not disruptive. Childish people who want to wear "Hate Bush" T-shirts to a Bush event deserve a roundhouse clocking... oh, for the days of the Wild West.</b> but your previous statements seem to imply that the hatred during Clinton's era (sidestepping the argument on whether or not it was justified) was also started by a group of people intent on ridiculing him constantly. If you can agree that that discontent was similar in nature to our current anti-president sentiment (also being unfair, dishonest and wrong), and that that arose out of 'wackos' trying to sway the public, then I won't label you as having "partisanship over objectivity". <b>I don't believe I even mentioned Clinton. I didn't hate Clinton. I don't even think he was a horrible president. He was, however, a weak man. That's too bad. He was overly loved by a gullible populace. When I watch the movie "Primary Colors" I actually can warm up to the character. That movie does seem to portray him in the fashio that his supporters follow him. I didn't harp on Clinton until he was a proven liar. He lied before the nation and the Grand Jury. I did criticize him for some of his wag the dog moves, however.</b> and even though we do have a 'trend' culture, public opinion is still important for a country that claims to be the bastion of democracy. now as an elitist (not meant as an insult but using your own definition of yourself), you probably thought that the people were intelligent and fine when most of them did support the war, and now think the majority are easily swayed idiots for now being against the war and the president. But with that reasoning, you have to accept that it could also be the other way, right? <b>What is more subject to manipulation than "Public Opinion?" How did I define myself as an elitist? People here were happy to mock the public when the 2002 polls showed that they believed such "mistaken" notions as the idea that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. It is the same public making a different conclusion. You find them now wise when they were then dumb? That's your flip-flop not mine. I knew that that poll was wrong then and I think that the conclusions indicated by current polling is mistaken.</b> I don't really approve that type of subjugation of the american people, i have a little more faith in their reasoning. Before the war, although I opposed it, I completely understood why so many supported it, because the facts and claims given to us showed that we could be doing the right thing. However, is it any wonder that the majority now oppose it, given the facts and results that we have now? I'm not going to believe that this is the result of a conspiracy, but more on the sense that people do have a better sense of the truth now. <b>I support the war for more Big Picture reasons. I don't need the "If A, then B" rationale. The conspiracy does not sorround the War. The conspiracy revolves around the Democratic press which tends toward the liberal wing. The distorted reporting about the war is the result of the prejudice. They know it and they make no bones about it. What do you think all the squawking about FoxNews is about. Wasn't there some interview with the editor of Newsweek who admitted that his outlook was biased and he concluded that his magazine abetted Kerry about 15 points.</b> I think you should know, but probably don't care much, that your specific views on the war are shared by a minority, thus you can't expect others to interpret information the same as you do. Some people listen with a mind more open to new beliefs, others listen with their own beliefs as a filter, you are clearly in the latter side , judging from your last post (again, nothing wrong or inhuman with this type of thinking). Because you are so dismissive of what what other people think, i'm not surprised about your stance on foreign countries and your reasoning on the war. <b>How minor is that minority? Everybody listens with their own beliefs as a filter. Anything else is virtually impossible-- except over a very long period of time. It is only natural that as a whole support for the war will lag because the costs mount. That's no surprise. Everything in life is that way. I'm not dismissive of how other people think. I only indicated that I am not swayed by the winds as they are. Weren't France, Russia and Germany in business with Saddam. Is it any surprise that they weren't geared up to topple him? You can have the UN; I'll stick with US autonomy... thank you!</b> I can at least understand now why you will never believe that any of the 'middle people', the 'fence sitters' and those that change their mind about issues, can do so objectively. If you have no respect for other people's ability to make a reasoned judgement on issues, yeah, your only other option is that there is a 'conspiracy' and that they were fooled. That's something that i'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree on. Still, I don't look down on you and respect that you see things differently, again, that's what America is about, I just want to understand how others think. <b>Objectivity only comes with first-hand, certain knowledge. No one in the American Public gets that. They learn what their "teacher" wants them to know, be it The Administration, FoxNews, CNN, The NY Times or the New Orleans Times-Picayune.</b>
A double-bind is by definition completely unfair. Everyone is subjected to criticism. Lowry is pointing up the conspiracy.
