Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCosby
Well I don't want to beat the point but I see the same type of sheeppl speak on both sides... Both sides given marching orders & talking points/counter points etc... W/ no one really listening merely countering.........
I can't really name names of those giving out those orders as I don't watch their shows or listen to the "expert advice"..... But I do see & hear how it is manifested in daily interaction....... (Maybe carvelle, limbaugh ect...)
As I said ppl on the left can see it in ppl or the right but not themselves............
As can ppl on the right see it in ppl on the left & not in themselves...
This is quite common self deception: one set of rules for them & another for us while consciously taking the mental steps necessary in order to maintain the duplicity & avoid obvious contradictions........
Example: A proud democrat takes a stand against Wright sighting clips as evidence. He openly & proudly refuses to acknowledge the full statements or any validity they may have. He adamantly refuses to acknowledge any evidence that would refute what he clings to.
IMO willful ignorance like this from a democrat is no different than that of a republican.  If your position necessitates you to be in denial & are you are afraid to address evidence exposing your position you are probably a sheeppl......
 |
Well, enough jocularity
Your points deserve discussion, I just find it opening more avenues, I guess.
This morning I heard on the radio( I didn't research it, but it must be out there) that a new study shows that as a group, conservatives are happier than liberals.
The study shows that on subjects like poverty, and race relations, liberals tend to feel more anxiety. That's because(according to the study) liberals give more thought to these issues. Conservatives, avoid deliberation of the problems, by only considering them in comforting 'buzz-words' or phrases, designed to provide easy answers.
If that seems inflammatory, or partisan, I can only tell you, that I heard it on a news segment on an AOR station. Not NPR or Air America or anything like that.
The Wright issue
?
I can't speak for the left as a group (more about the left, as a group later) I can only give you my thoughts. Which, damn you, you've made me elucidate to myself better.
I don't really follow any news gurus either. I've always been a fan of actual journalism, so I have tended to study it more as a process, than a news source. I feel like I've got a pretty decent handle on what's news and what's spin. Anything I hear or read, I look at with a jaundiced eye.
When the Wright story first came out, I saw it as spin. I imagine most people on the left did too. I really have no respect for it as a news story, and I'll give you my reasons.
I distrust all organized religion, and find man's surety of the knowledge of spirituality either laughable or frightening, depending on how it's being presented. So right off the bat, I find Wright's calling and his faith questionable. That's the filter I start hearing his words through. I not only agreed with much of what he had to say about social issues, I took much of it as pretty clear headed interpretation of historical fact. Some of his more esoteric beliefs (AIDS, etc.) I didn't agree with, but as i had already dismissed his entire raison de Etre(sp?), I didn't find it especially hard to reconcile my disinterest.
As the 'issue' was kept in the spotlight, the things that you could possibly say about it, were all said. You can't really fault the left for that. There were stock slogans and fake outrage about Wright, which were repeated over and over again. After you've said everything that can possibly be said, and your opposition keeps filling space with it, your only option is repetition. If the defense sounds like sloganeering, it's because of how many times you heard it.
But like I said, you made me think about it, and it kind of helped me think past the usual point-counterpoint of it all, so....
First of all, I didn't care when Obama supported him, and i didn't care when he denounced him. I'm pretty sure i understand (in a general way) how it all went down. Obama wouldn't have had to say anything more, had Wright not got caught up in the spotlight, not uncommon for men of his vocation.
And like I said, I find the whole notion of my country's future being decided by who's shaman shares the prevailing view of invisible friends in the sky, a little disheartening.
The other thing I came up with, and it's not exactly an epiphany, but sometimes basic things get lost in the process, is so what/
So what if Obama knows somebody, even spends time with somebody whose ideas i don't wholly support? Do we expect our leaders to avoid life-long contact with anyone who has any other world views?
Knowing, dealing, or listening to someone outside the accepted political fashions, is a good thing, isn't it? A diversity of experience, is an attribute, not a detriment. Are we looking for someone who runs screaming every time, someone says something politically unpopular?
This is how we know things, isn't it? If strict adherence, to the point of ignoring outside views, is the ideal couldn't we just elect whoever happens to have read the most editions of Readers Digest?
This is getting too long.
I'm not rejecting your idea that people on the left can be victims to sloganeering. I am saying the left is a less organized group with more diverse and less clearly defined linear goals, so it doesn't lend itself to definitive declaration accepted as group think.