TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Randi Rhodes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Randi Rhodes - Page 2

post #31 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I guess we are different.
You guess? No doubt about it, we're absolutely different!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I have a lot of friends who have different beliefs, some way the opposite of me but I love them as people.They have a right to believe what they believe which is what I find beautiful about this country. We don't live in a fascist country.
I have friends who I disagree with but I'm proud to say that I don't have any friends who belonged to terrorist organizations or who would stand on the American flag. Nor do I have any friends who would say "G-damn America" etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
This is why we will never get the best qualified people to run for office. We comb through their lives and anything we find we say AHA! that is why I am not voting for them. I think we use those things as an excuse to justify the fact that there is nothing the other candidate could do to every win our vote anyway.
I can see what you are saying about people avoiding running for office, they are definitely put through the wringer (except for Obama who got a free pass from the MSM), but surely you aren't saying that you or the Obama campaign rise above all of the digging for dirt. Or am I misunderstanding you when you said "that is why I am not voting for them"?
post #32 of 39
Remember Lee Atwater? This type of campaigning is just plain demeaning for all sides.The Political Legacy of Baaad Boy Atwater
post #33 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Remember Lee Atwater? This type of campaigning is just plain demeaning for all sides.The Political Legacy of Baaad Boy Atwater
That was interesting but I don't buy into the idea that nasty campaigning just began 20 years ago or the pretext that Republicans invented it.
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecanopener View Post
That was interesting but I don't buy into the idea that nasty campaigning just began 20 years ago or the pretext that Republicans invented it.
I really don't recall campaigning prior to George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis as being as vicious as it is now (I was a first-time voter in 1976, so got really interested in 1975). There simply weren't as many media "channels", like blogs, or independent groups like the Swift Boaters or MoveOn back then. There was nastiness, of course, but things like spammy emails declaring that Obama is a Muslim or McCain a PTSD sufferer weren't even imaginable, nor were sites like townhall.com or huffingtonpost.com.

I love the Internet, cable/satellite TV, etc., but there's so much media competition nowadays that it seems that everything is overblown/sensationalized, and people get hung up on trivialities.
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I really don't recall campaigning prior to George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis as being as vicious as it is now
Go back in history; it's extremely tame these days compared to back in the first 100 years of our country.
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Go back in history; it's extremely tame these days compared to back in the first 100 years of our country.
The problem is that I wasn't around back then - I merely remember the 1960s, 70s, etc.. I imagine that most Americans were pretty ill-informed in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, so most political controversies were centered in the "big" cities.
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecanopener View Post
You guess? No doubt about it, we're absolutely different!

Yes I can see that. I think we may have agreed maybe .43 times.



I have friends who I disagree with but I'm proud to say that I don't have any friends who belonged to terrorist organizations or who would stand on the American flag. Nor do I have any friends who would say "G-damn America" etc.

Well, I have seen protesters burn the flag and tell GW to go____himself. As far as friends. Don't know if they have. I have never asked them.

I can see what you are saying about people avoiding running for office, they are definitely put through the wringer (except for Obama who got a free pass from the MSM), but surely you aren't saying that you or the Obama campaign rise above all of the digging for dirt. Or am I misunderstanding you when you said "that is why I am not voting for them"?
You misunderstood me. I comb through the distracting stuff and decide on their platforms. I know information will be spun by both sides so I try to avoid that in my decision making. Oh no I don't put myself on any holier than thou pedestal. When I said 'them'. I meant a generic"them".
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
The problem is that I wasn't around back then - I merely remember the 1960s, 70s, etc.. I imagine that most Americans were pretty ill-informed in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, so most political controversies were centered in the "big" cities.
Actually, politics at the start of the country were on a much more personal level, something close to what Alaska is today. It was likely you knew your representatives, and if you had a beef with them, it was likely to come out in public.

You know the rule about always referring to your opponents in the Senate as "my good friend" or "the honorable Senator from ... ?" That's because early in its history, it became clear that unfettered speech could lead to violence, the worst example of which was the caning of Senator Sumner by Representave Brooks in 1856.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...les_Sumner.htm

And the 60's were no picnic, either. You may not remember the "Checkers" speech, or the theft of the 1960 election by Daly and Johnson. But it was all there.

Politics often bring out the worst in people. Just look at this forum. At our hot rod forum, we finally had to ban all politics and religion.

The thing is, any two of us, both well-educated, knowledgeable about world events, understanding of economic principles, can support completely different candidates. Does that make either one of us wrong? Someone here said they would never date a Republican. How is that bias fair? I mean, James Carville is married to Mary Matalin; how could you get two more different views on a matter? Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan; again, very different world views.

Read through any of the critical posts here, and substitute "Hillary Clinton" for "Sara Palin." See how different you feel about that. Substitute "Bill Clinton" for "Barack Obama." I'm interested in facts. Don't give me this, "My guy good, your guy bad" routine, because it just doesn't cut it with me. That's why, although I get partisan e-mails from friends on both sides, I delete them all. Except for the ones I send the refuting snopes article to.
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Actually, politics at the start of the country were on a much more personal level, something close to what Alaska is today. It was likely you knew your representatives, and if you had a beef with them, it was likely to come out in public.

You know the rule about always referring to your opponents in the Senate as "my good friend" or "the honorable Senator from ... ?" That's because early in its history, it became clear that unfettered speech could lead to violence, the worst example of which was the caning of Senator Sumner by Representave Brooks in 1856.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...les_Sumner.htm

And the 60's were no picnic, either. You may not remember the "Checkers" speech, or the theft of the 1960 election by Daly and Johnson. But it was all there.

Politics often bring out the worst in people. Just look at this forum. At our hot rod forum, we finally had to ban all politics and religion.

The thing is, any two of us, both well-educated, knowledgeable about world events, understanding of economic principles, can support completely different candidates. Does that make either one of us wrong? Someone here said they would never date a Republican. How is that bias fair? I mean, James Carville is married to Mary Matalin; how could you get two more different views on a matter? Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan; again, very different world views.

Read through any of the critical posts here, and substitute "Hillary Clinton" for "Sara Palin." See how different you feel about that. Substitute "Bill Clinton" for "Barack Obama." I'm interested in facts. Don't give me this, "My guy good, your guy bad" routine, because it just doesn't cut it with me. That's why, although I get partisan e-mails from friends on both sides, I delete them all. Except for the ones I send the refuting snopes article to.
Carville and Matlin have been married for 15 years.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Randi Rhodes