An objective view by PhoenixRose

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

An objective view

POSTED BY: PHOENIXROSE
UPDATED: Saturday, October 18, 2008 03:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1240
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:47 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

At least it seems that way to me, a lot more than most. I'm sure there are those here who will rip it apart, but the fact is here is an article that compares strengths and weaknesses, compares policies, and makes an -actually reluctant- choice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/17/ST200810
1701051.html

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm afraid very few ppl are interested in objectivity. They have their agendas, and if they don't then what they REALLY want to see is a schoolyard fight between the cadidates!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:42 AM

KIRKULES

Washington Post objective?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:46 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Really? This is suppossed to be objective?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:57 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

If you don't consider "This is an issue, this is a strength, this is another issue, this is another strength" to be more objective than "This is why so-and-so sucks and his opponent is awesome, end of story" then I wonder what your definition is.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:10 AM

KIRKULES

It is the Washington Post's objective to get Barack Obama elected, because of this they have lost their objectivity.

I think a good example of true objectivity that occurred here recently is when Whozit said somthing about Obama having big ears and Kwicko a known Obama supporter agreed his ears are on the large size. Admitting something is true even when it doesn't support your position is a sign of objectivity. I tend to think Obama's ears are on the large side but I could be convinced differently if someone could show me data on how his ear measurements compare to the norm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:20 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Obama has rather large ears. I can admit this. However, the size of his ears has nothing to do with his qualifications, so I can't say that it doesn't really 'support my position.'

I'm wondering if you actually read the article, since there is more than one 'we don't agree with this position, on the sole basis of this we would not back him, then there's these other things that lend him support' type of thing in there, hence my feeling that it's more objective than most.

I will be the first to admit that Barack Obama is not perfect. He isn't. However, there are a ridiculous number of ways I believe he'll make a great leader. Do I agree with 100% of his policies? No, I do not. I'd call it about 75% give or take five. Can I say that about any other leader or potential leader around? No, I cannot. Most of the time it's under 40% so I will damn well take what I can get.

Is that objective enough for you, or do I need to agree with your opinion before I'm allowed to speak?

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:20 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It is the Washington Post's objective to get Barack Obama elected, because of this they have lost their objectivity.

I think a good example of true objectivity that occurred here recently is when Whozit said somthing about Obama having big ears and Kwicko a known Obama supporter agreed his ears are on the large size. Admitting something is true even when it doesn't support your position is a sign of objectivity. I tend to think Obama's ears are on the large side but I could be convinced differently if someone could show me data on how his ear measurements compare to the norm.

And honestly, if you just look at his ears, they're not that BIG, really - but they DO stick out quite far. He's what I call a "wingnut" (look it up), or a Volkswagen Beetle with the doors open.

EC

If the prefix "pro-" means "for" or "in favor of", and "con" is its opposite, and if "progress" means "pushing forward" or "improving"... then what the hell does "Congress" mean?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:44 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Obama has rather large ears. I can admit this. However, the size of his ears has nothing to do with his qualifications, so I can't say that it doesn't really 'support my position.'

It's good that we all seem to be able to agree on the fact that Obama has freakishly large ears.
Quote:

I'm wondering if you actually read the article, since there is more than one 'we don't agree with this position, on the sole basis of this we would not back him, then there's these other things that lend him support' type of thing in there, hence my feeling that it's more objective than most.

I'd call it the pretense of objectivity. You throw in a few insignificant points that seem to support the side your trashing so people like you who agree with the bulk can feel objective.

Quote:
Is that objective enough for you, or do I need to agree with your opinion before I'm allowed to speak?

You seem to have an open mind, speak all you want. Other than the recent ban Whozit movement, nobody here has ever tried to stop anyone from speaking their mind as far as I know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:50 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Other than the recent ban Whozit movement, nobody here has ever tried to stop anyone from speaking their mind as far as I know.

*raises hand* I just told him to shut up again.....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:50 AM

STORYMARK

Basically, for some, and we all know who, anything that doesn't fully back McCain is non-objective.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:51 AM

STORYMARK

Wait... there was a ban whozit movement, and I missed it? Damn. Gotta start coming by here more often.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:55 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'd call it the pretense of objectivity. You throw in a few insignificant points that seem to support the side your trashing...

I also didn't see any trashing. Actually, what I saw was "We think John McCain would be a good leader. However we think Barack Obama would be a great leader."
I freely admit I don't like John McCain. I think most Obama supporters don't like McCain, that's part of what makes them Obama supporters. What impressed me about this, what made me think it might be discussion-worthy, was the fact that it didn't attack McCain any more than it attacked Obama. Really I would call it criticism more than attack. I personally would have attacked him much more, were I writing an editorial. As I said, I don't like the man. So call it whatever you want, but I think it's one of the more fair looks at the candidates I've seen, that's all.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 12:39 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Wait... there was a ban whozit movement, and I missed it? Damn. Gotta start coming by here more often.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Do'nt worry, when Obamas elected there'll be movements to ban alot of people, lucky you!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:17 PM

STORYMARK

I was kiddin' anyway. No real desire to see you gone.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Admitting Obama is a better deal than McCain ?

I'd say that's a fairly objective assessment, especially given that even I admit that, and I HATE both these sumbitches.

In fact, I find myself in the same position as I did with that wrinked old fart Kerry...
http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com/

In fact, I would take the Post to task for their suggestion that McCain would be a good leader, given that his parties agenda and policies, which he personally holds as the next best thing to true gospel - have put us at the bottom a damn deep hole and all he wants to do is keep diggin ?

Oh hell no.

Oh, and not really related but... it's been buggin the fuck outta me, so imma say it.

PUT THOSE FUCKING TOWERS BACK UP!
It's a damn disgrace that even so much later all we have is a big clusterfuck, we shoulda had them back up ASAP, bigger and better with a damn flagpole on top of each one capped by a screamin eagle flipping the bird to anyone who thinks that would scare us, but noooo...

They leave a big damn gaping wound in our country and it's spirit to play the fear and misery card for political gain - I find that fucking offensive to all that is America.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Do'nt worry, when Obamas elected there'll be movements to ban alot of people, lucky you!

Good! I hope you're on the first plane to Gitmo where you can be waterboarded, you unpatriotic neo-Nazi!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

PUT THOSE FUCKING TOWERS BACK UP!
It's a damn disgrace that even so much later all we have is a big clusterfuck, we shoulda had them back up ASAP, bigger and better with a damn flagpole on top of each one capped by a screamin eagle flipping the bird to anyone who thinks that would scare us, but noooo...

They leave a big damn gaping wound in our country and it's spirit to play the fear and misery card for political gain - I find that fucking offensive to all that is America.

Seconded.

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:09 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
PUT THOSE FUCKING TOWERS BACK UP!
It's a damn disgrace that even so much later all we have is a big clusterfuck, we shoulda had them back up ASAP, bigger and better with a damn flagpole on top of each one capped by a screamin eagle flipping the bird to anyone who thinks that would scare us, but noooo...

They leave a big damn gaping wound in our country and it's spirit to play the fear and misery card for political gain - I find that fucking offensive to all that is America.

Thirded.

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:49 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Do'nt worry, when Obamas elected there'll be movements to ban alot of people, lucky you!
Good! I hope you're on the first plane to Gitmo where you can be waterboarded, you unpatriotic neo-Nazi!

Whoa .

Hating much ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:22 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct
19,0,5198206.story

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE