CrispE CrispE

Furthering the Politics of Hate

▼

Furthering the Politics of Hate

or: Do You Think Before You Rant?

from JoeUser Forums
The 2004 Election has been the most emotional in my lifetime, perhaps in history besides Lincoln-Douglas in 1860. (Of course, a bit of a war broke out over that one.) However, now that the election is over, the politicians and candidates have called for reconcilliation and healing of the rift between right and left. Before you shout me down telling me to "shut up" (thank you Mr. O'Reilly) consider a few things you are doing by the efforts on both sides to make our country totally contentious and hateful.

First, Democrats: there are efforts under way to get a review of the election results and so writing that the party should are unnecesary. Republicans don't want to hear this, I'm sure, but it would seem that the number of complaints is outweighing the "sour grapes" outcry. Will this lead to an "election reversal"? Who knows? But the point is that the effort is underway.

Second, Republicans: It isn't going to heal the country or the rift by telling people to leave the country if they don't love President Bush. Americans should unite behind our commonality as Americans and our attempts to be the best country we can be. That includes the Democrats and Independents who you might disagree with on the election results. You don't want the opposition to leave as that will only create a most hateful situation because the ones who leave will be the moderates, not the extremists.

Third, Republicans and Democrats: No matter what you might feel right now in terms of the election, the government is not a closed system. You may question, protest, debate, petition and be as active politically as you choose for the next 4 years. This election was not about the end of the future. This election (as in all national elections) will be overturned in 2008 when we elect a new president, regardless of the party he represents.

Until then remember, we are all Americans. We may or may not work together as politically as we could, but we have a right to be whom we are and do what we do. Democrat and Republican.
politics
19,502 views 35 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
dabe:

I posted. It would appear we got the state surrounded, hehehe.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would suggest that the reason that the main links people are giving are not mainstream media is that the mainstream media has too much to lose by angering the White House.


That's one of the funniest things I've heard in awhile. If they didn't long ago anger the White House, they never will. Have you been watching or reading the MSM since the election? Aside from endless funeral dirges for the death of democracy and the end of the world as we know it, they've taken the news of Bush's re-election pretty well. Do you think for a minute that if there was significant and credible evidence of voter fraud that the media so distraught over Bush's election wouldn't jump all over it? How could they possibly fear the stumblebum us retards voted for?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
Do you think for a minute that if there was significant and credible evidence of voter fraud that the media so distraught over Bush's election wouldn't jump all over it?


I saw Juan Williams and Mara Liasson on the Brit Hume show. They gave this "voter fraud" subject about 90 seconds of discussion (apparently they are getting numerous e-mails about it). Both Juan and Mara (of NPR fame, hardly conservative Republican supporters) pretty much discounted it as fringe ranting and stated in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence in any of the e-mail that supports the assertions. So even a couple of the champions of the left, in the media, agree with your statement.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:

News content is "framed" by the networks. So, if you report on Christians supporting Bush then you suggest that any Supreme Court nominee has to be against Rowe-Wade. If you, a conservative, see the report, you think they are bashing the right. If a liberal sees it, they see media bias against a "woman's right to choose."

So, yes, I do believe that rather than talk about voting irregularities that might anger the White House, they will talk about issues that wil cause all of us to watch and thus allow them to sell more car ads and coin sets (made from the soil of "ground zero"!)

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
News content is "framed" by the networks. So, if you report on Christians supporting Bush then you suggest that any Supreme Court nominee has to be against Rowe-Wade. If you, a conservative, see the report, you think they are bashing the right. If a liberal sees it, they see media bias against a "woman's right to choose." So, yes, I do believe that rather than talk about voting irregularities that might anger the White House, they will talk about issues that wil cause all of us to watch and thus allow them to sell more car ads and coin sets (made from the soil of "ground zero"!)


I wish I could understand this, CrispE, but it just makes no sense to me at all. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the NYT or other liberal-minded press organs have thrown in the towel & are trying to "avoid angering the White House." I listened to a press conference by one of the senior military spokesmen just yesterday concerning the operation going on in Falujah and a bunch of the questions were just as prejudicial and idiotic as ever. Many in the press are simply so far gone there's no hope of them ever gaining contact with reality and civility again.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the NYT or other liberal-minded press organs have thrown in the towel & are trying to "avoid angering the White House."


You mean like Dan Rather and the CBS document fiasco? Odd bit of avoidance.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:

Well, let me try to frame this another way. When Clinton was President, even though he was immoral, how often did CNN talk to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson about it? You see, who you interview is just as important as what you ask. So, in the 90's the media played the game as if Clinton's immorality was not so important but a coverup of it was. For Bush, the frame is to look the other way when it comes to how right the Bush administration is moving. Now, on Iraq, all press is good for the White House. I say this because now that the election is over the White House can only gain by how "decisive" our troops are in driving out the insurgents. When you get the news on Fallujah from most international sources they spend a ton of time talking about how the Sunnis are so angry and how most of Iraq is in chaos. But not the U.S. media which seems content to report what percentage of Fallujah we've retaken and how we avoided all the traps the insurgents set for us. Funny thing is, the insurgents were supposedly 8-12,000 but we've only killed a couple of hundred. Wonder where they all went?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
An excellent compilation of news from generally non-mainstream, and some mainstream sources is Common Dreams Link
A lot of it is comprised of very left wing editorials, but there are also news stories from non-American sources that present the events in completely different fashion than our mainstream press. Also, they report stuff, and have links to sources and stories that are flat out not carried by CBS, NBC, NYTimes, etc. Very interesting reading. Even if you don't buy into everything you read there, it's bound to be an education.

Another interesting site is Active Opposition Link but they tend to be very conspiracy theory oriented. I don't buy into alot of the conspiracy stuff, but again, there are some great links and some stories that make you go hmmmmmmmmm............................
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfortunately, both commondreams and activeoppo are very biased sources. I can agree wholeheartedly that they can be interesting, but one needs to take anything there with a grain of salt the size of, say, California.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:

Anymore....everything should be scrutinized as the polarization to the extremes has gotten worse SINCE the election, not better.