MmeGigs
Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
- that when there's a scandal the liberal media beats up on Republicans more than it beats up on Democrats.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Incorrect.
Then you've done a pretty poor job of making your point. In the post of yours that I first responded to in this thread, you said:
quote:
You see any mention of his political party in that? Or in the title?
The majority of such stories concerning Republicans would have started out:
Republican Illinois Governor Arrested for Corruption!
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Douchebag (R) was arrested on Tuesday ...
Elected in the wake of the previous Republican Governors removal ...
See related story: Why are Illinois Republicans so corrupt?
You followed up with:
quote:
Good journalism should be that each party is treated equally in identification of their respective "bad boys", but if you look, each time you see a politician in trouble being reported in the media you may notice a trend that it seems to be the (D) side where the party affiliation is minimized.
If your point isn't that scandalous Republicans get beat up more by the media than scandalous Democrats do, what is your point?
When I read your post that I quote first above, my thought was, "What a whiner." I'm sick of hearing this "It's not fair!!" crap from partisans on both sides. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went out there and took a look. The majority of such news stories concerning Republicans were not like your example, in fact I didn't find a single article that was like your example. I didn't find any that mentioned party affiliaton in the title or that followed up with a "culture of Republican corruption" reference or story. Not one, even in news outlets I know to be left-leaning. Your claim in that post was wrong. It is absolutely and observably untrue that the majority of corruption stories about Republicans are as you describe. I figured that your example was intended to be hyperbole, which is why I responded the way I did.
quote:
I looked up Ted Stevens stories. They don't make a point of him being a Republican.
I didn't want to put you on the defensive. I assumed that you had some point to make about this that was not reflected in your whiney, over-the top post. I wanted to give you a chance to step back and make a more rational argument. You didn't. You stuck to your claim that "each time you see a politician in trouble being reported in the media you may notice a trend that it seems to be the (D) side where the party affiliation is minimized," without offering any evidence that this is the case. When folks pointed out that this is observably not the case, you declared that the fact that it's not there is proof of its existence. Is that an argument you'd be willing to accept? I found it a bit surreal.
From a previous post -
quote:
Since you don't seem to be able to understand my point in this thread, that's proof enough to me that your critical thinking and analytic skills aren't sufficient for me to trust your analysis on any other issue.
That was an unneccessarily nasty thing to say. You never did address what I actually said in my response to you. You diverted attention by claiming I was taking your post as a personal attack, then attacked me personally. That's pretty shitty, don't you think? You say you've been straightforward and to the point - that's really not the case. You've challenged folks to provide cites but have been evasive when folks have challenged you to back up your claims. You dismiss any evidence folks present and insist that folks should take your word for it that you're right about this. Surely you can understand that your personal certainty just isn't a persuasive argument.
I was (and am) open to changing my point of view on this if you can show me some evidence that what you're claiming is true. You don't appear to have any evidence. You have remembrances of an article that may have been in Newsweek and a firm belief based on your personal observations. You seem to think that this should be sufficient to convince folks that you're right about this despite their personal observations to the contrary. Try looking at this from another perspective. If some lefty posted about some institutional unfairness and was unwilling/unable to provide any evidence for it and responded to challenges by saying, "If you were paying attention you'd know that I'm right," how would you respond? This is just a guess, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't just take their word for it and hop on board.
My inclination when I see something that I disagree with is to challenge my assumptions. There are at least two and usually more sides to any issue, and I work hard at being open to differing points of view. I told you where I found my information. You didn't tell me where you found yours. Had you said "some" rather than "the majority" and "most" and provided a link to an article that was as you claim they are, I would have agreed with you that some articles are like that. I don't see anything out there that supports your point of view, and I looked because I thought that there may be a nugget of truth in there somewhere that I'd missed. There wasn't. As it is, I don't think that it's a stretch to assume that since you've offered nothing but your say-so, you have nothing else to offer. I think that you'd assume the same if I made some claim with which you disagreed and backed it up with remembered references and an insistence that if you pay attention you'll see things my way.
My suggestion that you find other sources of news was not intended to be condescending. The impression I get from you is that you see only two sides to issues - your side and the wrong side. You don't appear to challenge your own assumptions. I think that you would benefit from trying to understand different perspectives.
|
RE: Yea Illinois wins the GOV in jail race - 
Profile
? 
Here we go again!
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread