Someone Please Explain This To Me

[Nimue1995 1]

Neither of them should be embracing falwell or blogging on the daily kos.....

Though you were for our constitutional right of free speech and association. You damned evil anti-constitutionalist you!

[irishguy 14]

Irish guys states:These left wing blog forums that were filled with hate and slander was the hate and slader done by democratic elected officials? Was it praised by elected democratic officials?And I answered,,, yes praised by Obama... case closedIronically, I come to find out the Daily Kos was started by the former editor of my college newspaper... I got read his stuff during colelge too!

Where did you prove that Obama praised the hateful and slanderous comments made on the site? If he posts on the site it means he praises what the whacko's say? So the hateful racist and degrading crap that's been posted on this site (As is posted on every forum) means that I'm praising it because I also post here? Yep case closed! The only thing proven is that you will jump over any meaningful discussion and find a place to bash the left.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

lol shocking that you'd chime in hear. I won't get in to it at all with you so you are right the far right nut jobs who are full of intolerence and hate are better then the far left nut jobs who are full of intolerence and hate.

Actually, He did a good job of illustrating what I was talking about. I am not denying there are vile nutjobs on both sides. I was basically saying that if the media was truely interested in finding "agents of hate and intollerence" they don't have to go any further than the Daily Kos, who pumped shitloads of money into several democratic candadates campaigns. You were basically saying that Palin deserved to be put in a negative light. I disagree. I think the media narrative on Palin was dishonest and unfair.

[irishguy 14]

Actually, He did a good job of illustrating what I was talking about. I am not denying there are vile nutjobs on both sides. I was basically saying that if the media was truely interested in finding "agents of hate and intollerence" they don't have to go any further than the Daily Kos, who pumped shitloads of money into several democratic candadates campaigns. You were basically saying that Palin deserved to be put in a negative light. I disagree. I think the media narrative on Palin was dishonest and unfair.

You think that an "agent of hate and intollerence" is someone who posts dumb crap on a blog? Not everyone on the Daily Kos spews that crap and people posting it on there is vastly different then someone spouting it at a rally, at a sermon or at a politcal convention. I never said anything anywhere about Palin deserving to be put in a negative light and as a whole what I've said was the media almost had no choice but to paint her in a negative light given the design of her speeches etc.I'm likely the only liberal who has said nice stuff about her on here and in my first post in this thread. I haven't attacked her and branded her a whack job all I've done is point out a truth that many people on both sides of the aisle seem to see in that she was brought in to speak to the far right of the republican party, her speeches by design were divisive in nature and this is something that the voting public may refuse to forget come 2012.Now you can argue all you want that the media could have portrayed her as less divisive but the fact of the matter is her comments weren't one time slip of the tongue comments they were part of every speech she gave at every rally she attended (varrying in degrees depending on location).

[Zealous Donkey 0]

You think that an "agent of hate and intolerance" is someone who posts dumb crap on a blog? Not everyone on the Daily Kos spews that crap and people posting it on there is vastly different then someone spouting it at a rally, at a sermon or at a politcal convention.

No, nor do I think Christians are agents of hate and intolerance because they won't accept homosexuality as natural. I would call people that support the beating up or mistreatment of gays as agents of hate and intollerence, but I wouldn't call them Christians or Far Right. (Though in some cases they may call themselves Christians--isn't there some group that holds up signs at funerals or something like that?). Again I was talking about the bias in the media.

I never said anything anywhere about Palin deserving to be put in a negative light and as a whole what I've said was the media almost had no choice but to paint her in a negative light given the design of her speeches etc.

and this is where I disagree with you the most.

I'm likely the only liberal who has said nice stuff about her on here and in my first post in this thread. I haven't attacked her and branded her a whack job all I've done is point out a truth that many people on both sides of the aisle seem to see in that she was brought in to speak to the far right of the republican party, her speeches by design were divisive in nature and this is something that the voting public may refuse to forget come 2012.

She was brought in to speak to the base of the party. The base of the republican party are not a bunch of nut jobs though they are portrayed that way by the media. She was standing up against the misrepresentation of Christians and other redstaters that have been demonized unfairly over and over in the media.The reason I don't like her rhetoric(though you would find much worse rhetoric coming from the left) was that she made it easier on the media to portray her how they wanted to anyway. If she would have toned down her message the media still would have portrayed her in the same way.

Now you can argue all you want that the media could have portrayed her as less divisive but the fact of the matter is her comments weren't one time slip of the tongue comments they were part of every speech she gave at every rally she attended (varrying in degrees depending on location).

Ok, now I think I understand you a little more clearly. Ok, maybe she was "divisive" by design to give a clear alternative choice and to stand up against the misrepresentation of republicans. I don't see this as the same thing as gay bashing or abortion clinic bombing. I don't think you do either, but the media certainly wants that perception out there and that was what I was talking about. Actually, I can make sense out of what you are saying now. You were using the word "divisive" in a more appropriate way than democratic candidates and the media which use it as code for everything evil in the world.

[irishguy 14]

No, nor do I think Christians are agents of hate and intolerance because they won't accept homosexuality as natural. I would call people that support the beating up or mistreatment of gays as agents of hate and intollerence, but I wouldn't call them Christians or Far Right. (Though in some cases they may call themselves Christians--isn't there some group that holds up signs at funerals or something like that?). Again I was talking about the bias in the media.

I agree with your stance that these whacko's aren't Christian but that is often how they identify themselves.

and this is where I disagree with you the most.

Certainly I can see that the media could've treated her better and not put such a bright light on the negatives however it would've been harder given the tone of her speeches etc. The republican party b/c of the Bush era was already seen in such a negative light that showcasing the negatives in what Palin was saying had a far broader appeal to the masses then simply focusing on the positives. I'm not saying this is how news stations should function only that like any media they are looking at ratings first and foremost. Also accentuating the negatives of a small town, little known white women is far less damaging as a whole then had they chosen to take the McCain robocall negative route in their coverage of Obama.

She was brought in to speak to the base of the party. The base of the republican party are not a bunch of nut jobs though they are portrayed that way by the media. She was standing up against the misrepresentation of Christians and other redstaters that have been demonized unfairly over and over in the media.The reason I don't like her rhetoric(though you would find much worse rhetoric coming from the left) was that she made it easier on the media to portray her how they wanted to anyway. If she would have toned down her message the media still would have portrayed her in the same way.

The base of republican party may not be the nut jobs however the nut jobs were also part of the group she was brought in to speak to. As I said every vote counts and she/her handlers knew full well that the "real American" speak would light a fire under the base as well as the far right crazy's. I'm in no way knocking her for that or knocking the Republican party for it, they wanted and needed all the votes they could get and the dems do the same thing for their whacko's. It's not like repubs were saying "hey if you hold up kill fag signs at rallies" we don't want your vote".The bolded part is what makes me laugh in that you can't make an honest assessment of some in your party with out throwing in the "but your sides worse...". As a whole I don't believe the media paints Christian's in a bad light as both sides try to point out and sell themselves as Christians. However I can see the media pointing out things like not believing in evolution, birth control, sex ed etc that many in the republican base believe in a negative light.

Ok, now I think I understand you a little more clearly. Ok, maybe she was "divisive" by design to give a clear alternative choice and to stand up against the misrepresentation of republicans. I don't see this as the same thing as gay bashing or abortion clinic bombing. I don't think you do either, but the media certainly wants that perception out there and that was what I was talking about.

It wasn't the whole to stand up against a misrepresentation of republicans it was to target the base and the farthest of the right who many felt might not even bother to show up and vote because of a distaste for McCain. Again it is not the same thing as gay bashing or abortion clinic bombing but these folks were certainly part of the equation and that's not just because of media driven perception that's because every vote counts.

Actually, I can make sense out of what you are saying now. You were using the word "divisive" in a more appropriate way than democratic candidates and the media which use it as code for everything evil in the world.

I don't know how the democrats and the media used the word divisive as code for everything evil. I think many of them just pointed out the ridiculousness in pointing to small town, mostly white Christian folks as the "real Americans" in todays age and completely alienating what in actuality is the majority.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The base of republican party may not be the nut jobs however the nut jobs were also part of the group she was brought in to speak to. As I said every vote counts and she/her handlers knew full well that the "real American" speak would light a fire under the base as well as the far right crazy's. I'm in no way knocking her for that or knocking the Republican party for it, they wanted and needed all the votes they could get and the dems do the same thing for their whacko's. It's not like repubs were saying "hey if you hold up kill fag signs at rallies" we don't want your vote".

See this is where there is a difference between you and the media. You know there is a difference, but the media wants the public to think that the republican base and rightwing nut jobs are the same and they use language interchagably to portray them as all the same. This is why I had a problem with you using the word divisive.

The bolded part is what makes me laugh in that you can't make an honest assessment of some in your party with out throwing in the "but your sides worse...".

That's not what I am saying, though I believe it is true in the following respect only. As you and others have said, there are nut jobs on both sides and they are equally as bad as far as I am concerned. I have a problem with the media trying to frame republicans (i am talking mainstream republicans) as dangerous, uneducated wackos, while ignoring a much more vocal and numerous bunch closely associated with the democratic party. I am not saying all or most of Obama supporters are this way, I am talking about the way the media operates.

As a whole I don't believe the media paints Christian's in a bad light as both sides try to point out and sell themselves as Christians. However I can see the media pointing out things like not believing in evolution, birth control, sex ed etc that many in the republican base believe in a negative light.

Their coverage in the very least is irresponsible, I believe it is dishonest. Christianity covers too wide a spectrum in the US to try and portray all Christians the same way which is what they end up doing. A lot of Christians believe in some form of evolution, most believe birth control is OK, and I still don't understand the sex ed argument, because like I have said before, I had it in about 20 different classes. What most Christians have a problem with is someone teaching their third grader about fisting and butt****ing. Yes, there are abstinence only groups out there and that is another argument but for now I am just talking about media coverage.

It wasn't the whole to stand up against a misrepresentation of republicans it was to target the base and the farthest of the right who many felt might not even bother to show up and vote because of a distaste for McCain. Again it is not the same thing as gay bashing or abortion clinic bombing but these folks were certainly part of the equation and that's not just because of media driven perception that's because every vote counts.

I don't know how the democrats and the media used the word divisive as code for everything evil. I think many of them just pointed out the ridiculousness in pointing to small town, mostly white Christian folks as the "real Americans" in today's age and completely alienating what in actuality is the majority.

That is in response to being told they are backward, inbred, uneducated, and are flyover country. Which is exactly how they have been portrayed in the news media and Hollywood for years. I don't have a problem with you criticizing Palin's speeches or the way she campaigned, I actually agree with a lot of what you stated in your original post. My problem is with a dishonest, unbalanced media.

[irishguy 14]

See this is where there is a difference between you and the media. You know there is a difference, but the media wants the public to think that the republican base and rightwing nut jobs are the same and they use language interchagably to portray them as all the same. This is why I had a problem with you using the word divisive.

I'm sure it happens but I can't honestly think of many if any examples of when I saw the base being portrayed as the same caliber as the nut jobs. Obviously I'm not including those who don't believe in evolution, birth control etc to be the nut jobs.

That's not what I am saying, though I believe it is true in the following respect only. As you and others have said, there are nut jobs on both sides and they are equally as bad as far as I am concerned. I have a problem with the media trying to frame republicans (i am talking mainstream republicans) as dangerous, uneducated wackos, while ignoring a much more vocal and numerous bunch closely associated with the democratic party. I am not saying all or most of Obama supporters are this way, I am talking about the way the media operates.

Same as above I can't think of a time where the media portrayed the republicans as dangerous, uneducated wacko's etc.

Their coverage in the very least is irresponsible, I believe it is dishonest. Christianity covers too wide a spectrum in the US to try and portray all Christians the same way which is what they end up doing. A lot of Christians believe in some form of evolution, most believe birth control is OK, and I still don't understand the sex ed argument, because like I have said before, I had it in about 20 different classes. What most Christians have a problem with is someone teaching their third grader about fisting and butt****ing. Yes, there are abstinence only groups out there and that is another argument but for now I am just talking about media coverage.

Maybe it's not right that the sections of republicans that think these things are the ones most often talked about in the media but by and large they seem to be the most vocal. I mean you don't hear a lot of republican Christians come out and say that the believe in evolution etc.

That is in response to being told they are backward, inbred, uneducated, and are flyover country. Which is exactly how they have been portrayed in the news media and Hollywood for years. I don't have a problem with you criticizing Palin's speeches or the way she campaigned, I actually agree with a lot of what you stated in your original post. My problem is with a dishonest, unbalanced media.

But this just doesn't make sense. You've argued that Palin set out to counter the "misrepresentation of republicans" how exactly is she countering these misconceptions by speaking to the farthest of the right (as well as the base) about how the white, Christian, small town folk are the "real Americans". What she did was accentuate this stereotype that you say the unbalanced media created.If she wanted to counter this misrepsentation she should have been out there speaking about how core values that are found in white, Christian, small town folks are the same values that can be seen in city folks of differing cultures and beliefs. Republicans can make the argument all they want that the media was unfair to her but at the end of the day she had a large platform to change the perception of the right and a head start with the fact that she was the first republican woman nominated for V.P and all she did was echo a stereotpye that was already out there.Now to get back to my point from my original post if she is seriously going to be in the running for 2012 she needs to be polished by her handlers and to come out in the media speaking about common values that all people share from small towns to city's, from white folks to hispanics etc. She needs to find away to draw common lines between people of all walks of life and her base instead of alienating them.