priceless ...

[Fatman608]

I have seen politicians of both parties dance around the issues and not answer questions directly. If they were to answer the question directly, people would start expecting something of them. I personally like this definition of politics.
Poly-many, Ticks- blood sucking parasites.
I know it is just a play on the actual word, so do not get your panties in a bunch, It is just how I see things. It is my POV, if you will.

Amen, Brother Outcast

That is why I think we need a third and maybe a fourth party. I have never voted a straight ticket in my life and as it looks now I never will.

Love the Fatman

 

[Outcast]

Amen, Brother Outcast

That is why I think we need a third and maybe a fourth party. I have never voted a straight ticket in my life and as it looks now I never will.

Love the Fatman

You know, I think I foresee an end to the "Republican" party. The people who seem fed up with everything both democrat and republican are slowly becoming the Tea Party from what I can tell. Even though they have some crazy people in it I see it becoming one of the next "Big Two".

 

[jpccusa]

and it just happens that USUALLY (not always) people with a different POV than Chris or Michael or I have a hard time presenting facts to backup their logic.

JP do you really believe that? That's a pretty broad statement. I think with very little digging I could quote some discussion where facts were documented and the ignored by some of the elite you have mentioned.

Why is is our responsibility to prove you wrong. How about you proving yourself correct?

It is not your responsibility to prove me wrong. It is your responsibility to back yourself up with facts. That will, in turn, prove me wrong. We then would be able to agree to disagree based on different POVs.

So basically, if my facts don't add up with your facts, mine have to be wrong? You do know that statistics can be bent to back up anyone in an argument.

No... If your propaganda or scare tactics don't add up with my facts, then you have to be wrong. I agree statistics can be bent, but many facts are not based solely in statistics. Some facts simply can't be changed and yet, some people refuse to accept them as being true.

Also, I love how it is always the Republicans who are always dancing around the issues. I have seen politicians of both parties dance around the issues and not answer questions directly. If they were to answer the question directly, people would start expecting something of them. I personally like this definition of politics.
Poly-many, Ticks- blood sucking parasites.
I know it is just a play on the actual word, so do not get your panties in a bunch, It is just how I see things. It is my POV, if you will.

I got to agree with you... Republicans are not the only dancers out there. I used them on my example because 1- I was watching MSNBC. 2- They were the ones doing the dance right now.

 

[Outcast]

I agree people need to back up their POV, but sometimes they just feel a certain way. I knew that I did not like Obama back before he became president. I just had a bad feeling about him, and so far he has not done anything to alleviate that feeling. In fact, over the past couple of years it has only gotten worse.

I will be the first to admit, I do not watch the news, I read some news papers every once in a while, so I am not very politically versed. I do not like the media because it is impossible to find someone who is neutral and will give both sides of the story without trying to muck it up with their own opinion on how things should go. I know there are some news people out there who are neutral, but their stations are not and they are made to say things they would not normally say. I just wish I could find a station that would report the facts and not some Left or Right agenda dripping refuse.

 

[jpccusa]

That's part of the problem Aaron - many people follow their irrational gut feelings (not saying this is your case) instead of doing what is RIGHT. See gay marriage, for example. The arguments for the proposition 8 proponents are simply ludicrous, and inevitably, they were grilled by judge Walker. Now they are getting ready to present their arguments again, this time to the appeals court. Unless they can back their case with FACTS, to deny same-sex couples to marry will continue to be unconstitutional in CA. To feel a certain way will not be enough to overturn judge's Walker ruling.

Also, it is important to think why you have that gut feeling in the first place. Many times, the issue lies much lower than it appears.

The trick with the media is to use common sense and critical thinking in order to use the information presented. I don't accept everything I hear as being true. I often cross examine facts using different sources, doing a little bit of self investigation, etc. For example, illegal immigration reports put out by FAIR are garbage, in my opinion, based on FAIR's history and board members' history.

Of course, I can't cross examine every single issue in politics, but I have to do with issues that I feel strong about.

Even though most of the media is leaning either left or right, some facts are still facts and propaganda is still propaganda. It is up to each individual to use their brains to discern between the two.

 

[SnakeAround]

I almost missed a great political thread where Chris is eloquently, and unfortunately futilely, trying to elucidate people on scare tactics. Too bad the same people who find the picture funny tomorrow will turn this country in a much scarier place.

Can you back up the logic in italic font with facts jpcussa?

I'm waiting for both Chris and jpcussa to back up their logic with facts that the photo is part of a scare tactic. Or isn't that what you are saying?

 

[SnakeAround]

Sorry, italics should have started from the word 'too'.

 

[jpccusa]

I am unsure if you want me to use facts to backup the OP or if you want me to backup my point, starting at "too."

Just to be safe, I'll address both.

As for the OP, let's start by defining what scare tactics are: "manipulative words or actions which create a sense of fear or shock in the recipients. These fears, rational or irrational as they may be, are often enough to force people into making uninformed decisions or taking rash actions."
How does that apply to the picture? By adding the "joke line" (#3), the "joker" is practically claiming that the government uses tax payer money (ours) to give "stuff" to anyone who wants it (uncontrolled abusers of the system), even to those who could afford the "stuff" they are being given.
In the US, many people are against government helping people in need. Obama and the Democrats tend to not share that point of view. By using that picture with the first lady in it, the joker was trying to sway people into thinking that their money would be given to people who abuse the system. "VOTE NON-DEMOCRAT, so we can stop the abuse"... Yeah, right!

Unless you challenge any of the ideas above (many were common knowledge to people who experience American politics, TV ads, etc.), I won't necessarily back them up with facts and references (too time consuming).
Those making the claim are the ones who need to back their claim up with facts, not those challenging it.

BTW, I am not even going to ask anyone to use facts to backup that the person in the picture was indeed homeless, that the cell phone is his, that he doesn't work at the soup kitchen, that he wasn't outside and decided to go in due to the commotion, etc.

Now for the second part, the people who find the picture funny (mostly people who are against government help) will vote for candidates like Rand Paul from Kentucky, or Sharron Angle from Nevada (whew!). I hope these 2 names are good enough examples of why this country would be a much scarier place. Rand Paul wants to change constitutional civil rights, while Sharron Angle ran from the media the entire time while promising to answer constituents questions after she was elected (no joke!).

 

[SnakeAround]

I am unsure if you want me to use facts to backup the OP or if you want me to backup my point, starting at "too."

Just to be safe, I'll address both.

As for the OP, let's start by defining what scare tactics are: "manipulative words or actions which create a sense of fear or shock in the recipients. These fears, rational or irrational as they may be, are often enough to force people into making uninformed decisions or taking rash actions."
How does that apply to the picture? By adding the "joke line" (#3), the "joker" is practically claiming that the government uses tax payer money (ours) to give "stuff" to anyone who wants it (uncontrolled abusers of the system), even to those who could afford the "stuff" they are being given.

Still it is possible that the joker just thought how it looked like the person was abusing the system, even though he might not be homeless but just tryting to get close to MO to get her picture. Further, even if he really thought abuse was going on, he might just feel like taking a picture of someons caught in the act would be funny. You still have no fact to prove that the joker was trying to scare people, that is your conclusion, not mine or of some others

In the US, many people are against government helping people in need. Obama and the Democrats tend to not share that point of view. By using that picture with the first lady in it, the joker was trying to sway people into thinking that their money would be given to people who abuse the system. "VOTE NON-DEMOCRAT, so we can stop the abuse"... Yeah, right!

Unless you challenge any of the ideas above (many were common knowledge to people who experience American politics, TV ads, etc.), I won't necessarily back them up with facts and references (too time consuming).
Those making the claim are the ones who need to back their claim up with facts, not those challenging it.

BTW, I am not even going to ask anyone to use facts to backup that the person in the picture was indeed homeless, that the cell phone is his, that he doesn't work at the soup kitchen, that he wasn't outside and decided to go in due to the commotion, etc.

Now for the second part, the people who find the picture funny (mostly people who are against government help) Do you have facts to proof that?

will vote for candidates like Rand Paul from Kentucky, or Sharron Angle from Nevada (whew!). I hope these 2 names are good enough examples of why this country would be a much scarier place. I don't know them but what you find scary, might seem a good idea to others, so it not a fact that they would make the country a scarier place. Got my point?.

Rand Paul wants to change constitutional civil rights, while Sharron Angle ran from the media the entire time while promising to answer constituents questions after she was elected (no joke!).

You don't seem to get that what you present as a fact, is nothing but your personal logic, narrowing your view on what might be going on. Your logic refrains you from seeing/accepting something else might be going on then what you think is going on.

 

[SnakeAround]

By the way, I am asking you specifically to back your PO up with facts because you accuse people not agreeing with you or 2 other members of not being able to back up theirs most of the time.

 

[jpccusa]

If it was not scare tactics, if the intention was just to be funny, the government part of #3 could be left out and still the picture would make sense... Do you see that?

No, I don't have facts to backup my sentence "Now for the second part, the people who find the picture funny (mostly people who are against government help)." I'm using logic alone for this one... Find a person who is for government help that finds that picture funny and "you win"

if you don't know Rand Paul and other "scary politicians" (no need to back this one up... this is my personal opinion), perhaps you should look into what they stand for. There is no way this country would be a better place (or less scary) if we decide to change the constitution to allow private establishments to deny service to African-Americans or any other minority race, for example.

And again, I don't have facts to back this last one up. I am just using logic!

As for post #130, I addressed my POV on post #128. I addressed your comments on that post on this reply (above). What facts are you looking for that were not addressed above?

 

[Leew]

Now for the second part, the people who find the picture funny (mostly people who are against government help) will vote for candidates like Rand Paul from Kentucky, or Sharron Angle from Nevada (whew!).

So you know who is going to laugh at the joke and who those people will vote for. You sir are amazing. Could you document that grand statement. Please remember what you are call logic is in fact your version of logic spiced with your opinions.

No, I don't have facts to backup my sentence "Now for the second part, the people who find the picture funny (mostly people who are against government help)." I'm using logic alone for this one... Find a person who is for government help that finds that picture funny and "you win"

I found the picture and the caption to be funny. I chuckled at it and went on with my life, not realizing the Armageddon that was caused by the picture.

I am very much in favor of government help and assistance. I have worked in "Care and Share" facilities for the homeless and often hire people for those facilities when I can. I have worked a lot with alcoholics and substance abusers and understand very well how a person could become homeless and in need of help from the government.

I win!!!

 

[SnakeAround]

So you know who is going to laugh at the joke and who those people will vote for. You sir are amazing. Could you document that grand statement. Please remember what you are call logic is in fact your version of logic spiced with your opinions.



I found the picture and the caption to be funny. I chuckled at it and went on with my life, not realizing the Armageddon that was caused by the picture.

I am very much in favor of government help and assistance. I have worked in "Care and Share" facilities for the homeless and often hire people for those facilities when I can. I have worked a lot with alcoholics and substance abusers and understand very well how a person could become homeless and in need of help from the government.

I win!!!

Leew, that is exactly what I mean, now he says he just uses logic... no need for facts if he does not have them available? But he wants others to back up their logic with facts?

I'm sorry jpcusa, but I think you are not going or not willing to understand what we are saying, I give in and go to bed now.

 

[Outcast]

Honestly I think that the government part would have been in there no matter who was president.

 

[SnakeAround]

I think actually that the joker just thought it was funny that he caught an abuser in the act. He probably is ok with the government helping people but not with people abusing the system. That is what I thought when I saw the picture with the captions. I don't know exactly why I think so, but I know I might be wrong because my POV is based on my frame of reference and my (internal) logic, how my brain works and probably also by the different levels of all hormones in my body But I'm pretty sure I will never be convinced that this is propaganda, using scare tactics

 

[ghosthousecorns]

Well for one thing Blutengel, you are not in the United States experiencing the current political atmosphere in this country. Your take on the photo is going to differ a lot from someone here - wherever you are in the US for the past week all the buzz has been about the Nov 2 elections and my take on the timing and message of the photo and caption do indeed strike me as political propaganda.

 

[Michael823]

Mike, you and I have crossed swords for years. We have weather you know it or not. Reading your rebuttal above, you are still making your judgment based on weather they are rich or not. "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen." But to say that a rich man can't understand your plight does not speak well for Bro Obama. Michell is practically flaunting her wealth, but hers and her husbands new financier. Does Michell understand where you are coming from, while she is serving soup?

I'm not saying that a rich man can't understand my plight. But I can say for certain that a financially well off person running for office, spending millions on campaigning, has no real credibility when talking about real injustices or helping people with no options. You don't see politicians risking their own livelihoods on bills that they pass, they just use statistics gathered from the broader public. To me, that's why I can say that they have no real perspective on those who are least fortunate in our society. It's just the way it is. There's no sacrifice. To me, that's why there's no real leaders. Real leaders would be in the front lines of any injustice that there people face, so in this case, we should all be considered fully equal and deserving of being represented properly.

So as it pertains to this article, which I find to be political propaganda, it comes off as racist, preudice and offensive. Regardless of how subtle the racism or prejudice is to me, I feel responsible to share my thoughts. The political tone of the image and captions clearly represent one political point of view, so to use a man who has an anonymous background to represent what's bad about the other side, I look at the photo and see what gives it political validation. So I ask myself... Is it the clothes he's wearing that makes him a great mascot for governmental abuse? The way he keeps himself? The color of his skin? The phone he's using? or a combination of them all? Well, to me, I answer yes to all of those questions. Why else would this picture be so publicly used to portray this man in a bad light, if not for the fact that for "some reason" he fits the image of what someone who would abuse governmental programs would look like. And considering that black men in this country are still the most targeted by racism and inequality above any other group, I see no coincidence in the fact that a black man
is used for this piece of political propaganda.

You are a smart young guy and you often say really good things. But honestly, you are very prejudiced toward white people and people who are successful financially. Now I am sure you will object to that assessment but I think many people looking in from the outside will agree with me.

Tyflyer has said repeatedly that rich people or CEOs are dishonest and got their money by cheating you and I. I am only trying to point out the inequities in your statements.

If we are going to be fair and honest and treat everyone the same, then the rich and successful need to be included in that statement.

This is nothing to do with me having a prejudice towards white people, especially seeing I am a white man myself. I'm not even speaking for myself, or trying to speak for myself when defending this issue. I think the mistake people make with my arguments is that I'm speaking from my point of view, or that I'm trying to draw attention to my own lack of opportunity as a pity trip. I'm just one person, and I could care less whether I have every opportunity in this world or none at all. Life will go on with or without me. But when I see groups of people, or individuals who are used to represent a group of people, being the focus of prejudice or ridicule, I get offended.

 

[wstphal]

I'm not saying that a rich man can't understand my plight. But I can say for certain that a financially well off person running for office, spending millions on campaigning, has no real credibility when talking about real injustices or helping people with no options.

Does a politician who grew up in a poor family & put themselves thru college and still has friends back in in the neighborhood s/he grew up in count? Because I think we COULD find some people like those.

 

[Leew]

Mike, I feel like casting my vote for a political office is pretty important. I wish everyone thought it was important. There are many things that go into a great leader and I believe all of those things need to be considered. To support a candidate simply because of the color of his skin, his financial status, his success in business, or the neighborhood he grew up in, without considering many other really important issues would be wrong. It would be discriminatory.

The fact that you are a white man, does not exempt you from discriminating against white men.

That is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. I think we have both stated our positions well. I don't think we need to beat this horse any longer.

 

[whoty]

I sit back and watch as a lot of "Obama Haters" ridicule him. Really,for real. Are you that naive? What exactly do you know? Do you visit the white house daily and attend meetings? Do you know anything? No,you feed off the internet or the news like everything in the news or on the net is believable. I think a lot of you out there really just expected too much. Give the man a break. It's not like the former president was any better president. Or,the one before. I'm pretty sure there will never be a perfect president.