Osprey 199 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. i didn't know that the magic message board was such a hotbed for republicans. You're part of the problem, labeling everyone on here who doesn't worship Obama as a Republican. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcuWill 45 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by Osprey23: quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. i didn't know that the magic message board was such a hotbed for republicans. You're part of the problem, labeling everyone on here who doesn't worship Obama as a Republican. QFT. Also, way lump everyone of a political party as "something nothing good can come from." Bigot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KillingInTheNameOf 63 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? It's amussing to me that leftists attempt to paint Beck as Rush or Hannity when he spent his time at CNN railing against the Bush administration in the exact same fashion. Personally, I find he and Rachel Maddow to be two of the most annoying human beings breathing, but I give them credit as the only two people who seem to be interested in exposing the corruption in politics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EnFuego 1 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn: quote: Originally posted by SmackDaddy:It would be nice if all opinions were based upon information gathered from both sides. It would be even nicer if people formed opinions that aren't based on information from either side. Most issues in politics are incredibly complex and both major parties are guilty of oversimplifying issues to fit their ideology. I think one of the biggest problems with our system is that everyone is kind of expected to fall in line with one side or the other. Even if a person doesn't agree with the same side every time, they're still expected to pick one or the other on each issue. That's what shows like Beck and Olbermann (and countless others on both sides) do. They perpetuate this idea that every issue has only two possible ways of looking at it. I think that's ridiculous, and it's a big reason why I can't stand politics anymore. Way too much pointless bickering, often over things that don't matter anyway (like the topic of this thread), and not nearly enough progress. Dead on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EnFuego 1 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn: quote: Originally posted by Osprey23:I wouldn't be yelling "U-S-A U-S-A!!" if they handed Michael Phelps the Gold Medals before he raced. I think the better analogy would be to replace Phelps with some other well known figure in another sport. Someone you wouldn't even expect to be in the running for a swimming medal. As for the topic at hand, I have only one question: Why is this the first time people have decided to question the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize? Obama is certainly not the first recipient that the general public might consider unworthy, he's just higher-profile. I can't remember the last time it mattered who won. Agree, plus a sports analogy is weak one because the Nobel Peace prize is based on intangibles. There are no scorecards to keep, no competitions to watch, there are very few times when it's evident that someone has done something significant. I think the best analysis I can give you is that it was, apparently, a slow year for achievements in peace. In lieu of anyone else doing something dramatic, they gave it to the guy who proposed to talk about it. So they gave it to Obama. I don't see it as anything worth getting too excited about. Conversely, I think it's childish to get too upset about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EnFuego 1 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? What message? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? It's amussing to me that leftists attempt to paint Beck as Rush or Hannity when he spent his time at CNN railing against the Bush administration in the exact same fashion. Personally, I find he and Rachel Maddow to be two of the most annoying human beings breathing, but I give them credit as the only two people who seem to be interested in exposing the corruption in politics. I'd argue that they pander to their viewers and make outlandish statements to keep people watching. Its not like they're doing hard hitting investigative journalism. Heck, no one is anymore. The News is dumbed down to fit the short attention span of the average american. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KillingInTheNameOf 63 Report post Posted October 15, 2009 quote: Originally posted by EnFuego: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? What message? What subject? It's easier to say Glenn Beck is an anti-Obama hate monger making outlandish statements than actually prove he is a lunatic by discrediting "what he says". It's also convenient when you can't discredit what he's said about various issues, individuals, & organizations. I personally think he comes across as a loon, that doesn't make the corruption he uncovered within ACORN any less factual, ect... Just as it doesn't make the corruption & just all around creepiness Rachel Maddow uncovered with Sen. Ensign any less credible because she's a wack job. quote: Originally posted by Lewis4thewin: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? It's amussing to me that leftists attempt to paint Beck as Rush or Hannity when he spent his time at CNN railing against the Bush administration in the exact same fashion. Personally, I find he and Rachel Maddow to be two of the most annoying human beings breathing, but I give them credit as the only two people who seem to be interested in exposing the corruption in politics. I'd argue that they pander to their viewers and make outlandish statements to keep people watching. Its not like they're doing hard hitting investigative journalism. Heck, no one is anymore. The News is dumbed down to fit the short attention span of the average american. There's no question they pander to their audience. They are entertainers/political commentators. I'm not confusing them with Ted Kopel. But, the fact is they've both uncovered some pretty unbelievable revelations about individuals & organization in both party's. Their personal lunacy doesn't erase that. On the other hand, I agree, railing on about Sarah Palin's ghost writer being the ghost writer of a white supremacist's book or Pres Obama lobbying for the Olympics in Chicago is petty, small mind nonsense. When two clowns like this are breaking stories about the insanity inside the beltway, dedicated "journalists" should be fired. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
i HATE Rich DeVos 1 Report post Posted October 19, 2009 quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: quote: Originally posted by EnFuego: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? What message? What subject? It's easier to say Glenn Beck is an anti-Obama hate monger making outlandish statements than actually prove he is a lunatic by discrediting "what he says". It's also convenient when you can't discredit what he's said about various issues, individuals, & organizations. I personally think he comes across as a loon, that doesn't make the corruption he uncovered within ACORN any less factual, ect... Just as it doesn't make the corruption & just all around creepiness Rachel Maddow uncovered with Sen. Ensign any less credible because she's a wack job. quote: Originally posted by Lewis4thewin: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? It's amussing to me that leftists attempt to paint Beck as Rush or Hannity when he spent his time at CNN railing against the Bush administration in the exact same fashion. Personally, I find he and Rachel Maddow to be two of the most annoying human beings breathing, but I give them credit as the only two people who seem to be interested in exposing the corruption in politics. I'd argue that they pander to their viewers and make outlandish statements to keep people watching. Its not like they're doing hard hitting investigative journalism. Heck, no one is anymore. The News is dumbed down to fit the short attention span of the average american. There's no question they pander to their audience. They are entertainers/political commentators. I'm not confusing them with Ted Kopel. But, the fact is they've both uncovered some pretty unbelievable revelations about individuals & organization in both party's. Their personal lunacy doesn't erase that. On the other hand, I agree, railing on about Sarah Palin's ghost writer being the ghost writer of a white supremacist's book or Pres Obama lobbying for the Olympics in Chicago is petty, small mind nonsense. When two clowns like this are breaking stories about the insanity inside the beltway, dedicated "journalists" should be fired. you wouldnt listen to a crackhead talking about conspiracies on the street but if you put the same crackhead on tv its now a "message". that would be a great street performance idea: get a transcript of glen beck stand on street corner yell like a mad man film it and put on you tube. ive got an autographed glen beck "book" if anyone wants to buy it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted October 19, 2009 quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: quote: Originally posted by EnFuego: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? What message? What subject? It's easier to say Glenn Beck is an anti-Obama hate monger making outlandish statements than actually prove he is a lunatic by discrediting "what he says". It's also convenient when you can't discredit what he's said about various issues, individuals, & organizations. I personally think he comes across as a loon, that doesn't make the corruption he uncovered within ACORN any less factual, ect... Just as it doesn't make the corruption & just all around creepiness Rachel Maddow uncovered with Sen. Ensign any less credible because she's a wack job. quote: Originally posted by Lewis4thewin: quote: Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf: quote: Originally posted by i HATE Rich DeVos:this thread is like listening to glen beck, nothing good will come from it. Discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message? It's amussing to me that leftists attempt to paint Beck as Rush or Hannity when he spent his time at CNN railing against the Bush administration in the exact same fashion. Personally, I find he and Rachel Maddow to be two of the most annoying human beings breathing, but I give them credit as the only two people who seem to be interested in exposing the corruption in politics. I'd argue that they pander to their viewers and make outlandish statements to keep people watching. Its not like they're doing hard hitting investigative journalism. Heck, no one is anymore. The News is dumbed down to fit the short attention span of the average american. There's no question they pander to their audience. They are entertainers/political commentators. I'm not confusing them with Ted Kopel. But, the fact is they've both uncovered some pretty unbelievable revelations about individuals & organization in both party's. Their personal lunacy doesn't erase that. On the other hand, I agree, railing on about Sarah Palin's ghost writer being the ghost writer of a white supremacist's book or Pres Obama lobbying for the Olympics in Chicago is petty, small mind nonsense. When two clowns like this are breaking stories about the insanity inside the beltway, dedicated "journalists" should be fired. you wouldnt listen to a crackhead talking about conspiracies on the street but if you put the same crackhead on tv its now a "message". that would be a great street performance idea: get a transcript of glen beck stand on street corner yell like a mad man film it and put on you tube. ive got an autographed glen beck "book" if anyone wants to buy it? That would be a phenomenal idea Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted October 19, 2009 Sort of off topic but our society is really in the decline. The party system as a whole is more about gaining/keeping power than actually creating prosperity for the country long term. Not that there aren't specific people in government that are striving for these goals, but the entity as a whole kinda sucks right now. Was it always like this? or did the post nixon controversy politics just leave us all cynical? Maybe the people of the 50's and 60's (and before) were all ignorant to the actual facts. I dont know. With lobbyists pushing the opinion of those who can afford them and our bi partisan system refusing to compromise on anything can we really regain our status as the number one country in the world? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TreyTime 3 Report post Posted October 19, 2009 quote: Originally posted by Lewis4thewin:Sort of off topic but our society is really in the decline. The party system as a whole is more about gaining/keeping power than actually creating prosperity for the country long term. Not that there aren't specific people in government that are striving for these goals, but the entity as a whole kinda sucks right now. Was it always like this? or did the post nixon controversy politics just leave us all cynical? Maybe the people of the 50's and 60's (and before) were all ignorant to the actual facts. I dont know. With lobbyists pushing the opinion of those who can afford them and our bi partisan system refusing to compromise on anything can we really regain our status as the number one country in the world? I think the best thing to be is moderate. People who are all the way conservative or liberal tend to be morons. There are going to be things your conservative on and other things you're going to be liberal on. If not, you're like Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh (both morons). Also, "regain our status"? If we're not number one, who is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
