Cant make a presidential vote decision

[jonn]

try this site pointofview.net
No i am not promoting either guy, or against either one. Just posting a link as to where to find more information. At point of view dot net you can listen to audio of radio broadcasts concerning life, times, and political careers of candidates.
I do suggest a book read though, its called "The many faces of John Kerry" the book links are also on that site.
this post is just ment to serve the idea that every bit of information you can digest should be seen and taken into account before a decision is made.

 

[conjur]

Uhh...yeah...a Christian Ministry talk radio show is going to be an unbiased source?


puh-leeze

 

[kage69]

No i am not promoting either guy, or against either one.

I do suggest a book read though, its called "The many faces of John Kerry"

LMAO, suuuuuuure....



Here's another recommendation, read 'Against All Enemies' by Richard Clarke.

 

[dannybin1742]

i second that book.


that site is retarded, its just right wing propaganda, you want a real site to read, how about moveon.org or misleader.com,, that way you can read about whats really going on.

 

[Todd33]

Mr. Subliminal: I'm not promoting either guy *Kerry is a dirt bag*, I suggest you do some reading *Bush rocks* . Be sure to get out and vote *unless you are black*, remember Democrats, election day is Nov 3!

 

[dmcowen674]

Ah excellent, The Religious Radical Brainwashed Right start making thread appearances.

What took you so long???

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
that site is retarded, its just right wing propaganda, you want a real site to read, how about moveon.org or misleader.com,, that way you can read about whats really going on.

Truly "fair and balanced" websites... :roll:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ah excellent, The Religious Radical Brainwashed Right start making thread appearances.

What took you so long???

The black chopper broke down, but it has since been repaired. Better put your tin-foil hat back on!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
that site is retarded, its just right wing propaganda, you want a real site to read, how about moveon.org or misleader.com,, that way you can read about whats really going on.

Truly "fair and balanced" websites... :roll:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ah excellent, The Religious Radical Brainwashed Right start making thread appearances.

What took you so long???

The black chopper broke down, but it has since been repaired. Better put your tin-foil hat back on!

3" Trouser Snakes, Masterbating, Black Helicopyers and Tin Foil Hats? I think your posting style is more suited for OT.

 

[Todd33]

" tin-foil hat" should be follow by sentences with "you can't touch this", "what you talking about willis", "where's the beef", etc. It's getting old and it's not funny.

 

[kage69]

Truly "fair and balanced" websites...

Your sarcasm is correct. They are no where near the "quality" of FAUX News...

The black chopper broke down, but it has since been repaired. Better put your tin-foil hat back on!

You tell'em KoolAid boy!

 

[jdbolick]

Actually I do think improving the avenues of communication is a real issue, I just don't think this suggestion addresses it. I'm conflicted, though. Would it be better to better inform the mass public about what each candidate actually has done and proposes to do, along with the specifics of what that might mean, or do nothing? My concern is even more people voting who really don't have a clue what the issues are, but might think they do because they've read something. On the other hand, it's rather disgraceful that the biggest source of public information cited in most studies are political ads. Newspapers tend to be horribly biased, so that's not much better, but surely there could be some kind of group that at least attempts to be non-partisan providing this kind of information. In the short term I suppose many more debates would help, although even then you're just hearing what they want to say.


And I realize it's asking a lot, but could some of the "right wing nutjob" comments be avoided? If you have problems with individual people, that's fine, but I'm a Republican and I'm not particularly fond of being categorically dismissed, especially when I'm not even religious.


Edit:
Oh, and I forgot the reason I posted in the first place. I wanted to remind everyone to seek out whatever information they can find about their local and state political races. For the most part those contests have a more significant effect on our lives than the federal elections, but few people pay much attention to them.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The OP may or may not be a jackass, but this is the jackass-iest thread I've seen started in some time that didn't have Rip's name attached to it. The idea of promoting this site, or an anti-Kerry propaganda book as helpful info for undecided voters might be the most disingenuous nonsense I've heard all day.

I can't imagine any undecided voters are reading this board anyway. The battle lines are so starkly drawn in this particular election that, IMO, only the politically ignorant or chronically indecisive could be undecided at this point.

Do you really want to take advice on voting from this guy, anyway?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I can't imagine any undecided voters are reading this board anyway. The battle lines are so starkly drawn in this particular election that, IMO, only the politically ignorant or chronically indecisive could be undecided at this point.

Actually, I have a question: what are most polls showing for the "undecided" category, and how does this compare to past presidential elections at this time of the election cycle?

 

[jdbolick]

Smaller section of undecided voters at this point than any other in history, if I remember correctly, although part of that could be that the election cycle (ads et al) started earlier this year than it ever had.

 

[dardin211]

This is like recommending FoxNews Channel as a unbiased news source.......

 

[jdbolick]

Fox is clearly biased, but I just wish liberals would admit that the rest of the media is liberal in nature. How could they not be when over 80% of credentialed journalists have voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections and only 12% of credentialed journalists are registered Republicans (according to various Pew Research Studies). Furthermore word usage analyses by Stanford, UCLA, and others have all concluded that the mainstream media does have a bias toward the left.

 

[Todd33]

So jdbolick, are you Rip with a new name? Which right wing nut were you before your new identity?

 

[jdbolick]

Nice dude. When you can't actually argue intelligently with someone you resort to crass generalizations and attacks.


For the record I'm brand new. Don't you think that anyone hiding under a new identity wouldn't use their own actual name? Geez. How about actually attempting to address any of my points instead of trying to get out of the effort by constructing some conspiracy theory?

 

[dardin211]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
Fox is clearly biased, but I just wish liberals would admit that the rest of the media is liberal in nature. How could they not be when over 80% of credentialed journalists have voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections and only 12% of credentialed journalists are registered Republicans (according to various Pew Research Studies). Furthermore word usage analyses by Stanford, UCLA, and others have all concluded that the mainstream media does have a bias toward the left.

While I'm not certain your figures are correct or not (probably made up like most figures are). The other news sources are not much better then FNC when it comes to leaning towards the right. So if you think I'm going to argue in favor of the other 3 news channels, you are wrong.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Todd33
" tin-foil hat" should be follow by sentences with "you can't touch this", "what you talking about willis", "where's the beef", etc. It's getting old and it's not funny.

not intended to be funny, just an observation that you people are so whacked out with your liberal propaganda that we can't eve begin to take you seriously.

JD: T33 is just a troll, ignore him, he feeds off of upsetting people.

Furthermore word usage analyses by Stanford, UCLA, and others have all concluded that the mainstream media does have a bias toward the left.

this sad fact is what confuses the tin-foil-hatters, they've gone mad with air-America lies and don't understand why, if the media is liberal, it won't just out-right lie like their own primary-information-sources.

I hope that if you see the starting sight of this thread as bias then you understand how bias similar sights on the left are.

 

[jdbolick]

dardin211:
So not only do you question numbers widely available on the internet, but you seem to be claiming that the other major media outlets are right-wing also? I don't even know how to respond to that. Please tell me that I misunderstood you and that you were actually saying that you know the other three are biased to the left.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
Fox is clearly biased, but I just wish liberals would admit that the rest of the media is liberal in nature. How could they not be when over 80% of credentialed journalists have voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections and only 12% of credentialed journalists are registered Republicans (according to various Pew Research Studies). Furthermore word usage analyses by Stanford, UCLA, and others have all concluded that the mainstream media does have a bias toward the left.

That doesn't make the media liberally biased.

Sheesh.

For whom do they work? Editors? Managing Editors? And who owns the media conglomerates? Hmmm??

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jdbolick
Fox is clearly biased, but I just wish liberals would admit that the rest of the media is liberal in nature. How could they not be when over 80% of credentialed journalists have voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections and only 12% of credentialed journalists are registered Republicans (according to various Pew Research Studies). Furthermore word usage analyses by Stanford, UCLA, and others have all concluded that the mainstream media does have a bias toward the left.

That doesn't make the media liberally biased.

Sheesh.

For whom do they work? Editors? Managing Editors? And who owns the media conglomerates? Hmmm??

in other words, jdbolick, despite what the correspondents say themselves, not only is their liberal bias balanced, but completely squashed in favor of a conservative bias, because a corporation is the owner of the outfit they work for.

This is why they are the mindless, un important, and totally worthless in a digestion tin-foil-hat crowd.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
Actually I do think improving the avenues of communication is a real issue, I just don't think this suggestion addresses it. I'm conflicted, though. Would it be better to better inform the mass public about what each candidate actually has done and proposes to do, along with the specifics of what that might mean, or do nothing? My concern is even more people voting who really don't have a clue what the issues are, but might think they do because they've read something. On the other hand, it's rather disgraceful that the biggest source of public information cited in most studies are political ads. Newspapers tend to be horribly biased, so that's not much better, but surely there could be some kind of group that at least attempts to be non-partisan providing this kind of information. In the short term I suppose many more debates would help, although even then you're just hearing what they want to say.


And I realize it's asking a lot, but could some of the "right wing nutjob" comments be avoided? If you have problems with individual people, that's fine, but I'm a Republican and I'm not particularly fond of being categorically dismissed, especially when I'm not even religious.


Edit:
Oh, and I forgot the reason I posted in the first place. I wanted to remind everyone to seek out whatever information they can find about their local and state political races. For the most part those contests have a more significant effect on our lives than the federal elections, but few people pay much attention to them.

The real issues should be the main topics in the media. I don't understand why there isn't a real debate going on about important topics like health care reform instead of talking about gay marriage or what's the best way to improve the economy for all people of this country instead of talking about the canidates vietnam miltary records or the Presidents sex life instead of a disscusion of how NAFTA will affect the average American.

I would have to say the bottom line is that such discussions are boring to the majority of the voters and it doesn't sell newspapers. They sell more news with sensationalism then they do with talking about real issues and the real issues get left behind. They call it capitalism.

 

[jdbolick]

You might want to check the numbers. In every survey I've ever seen a very strong majority don't want federalized health insurance. That's probably why there's little coverage of it in the media, because most people don't want it and no politician since Hillary back in '94 has offered anything resembling a real plan and we all remember how that turned out. Even Democrats are split on that issue, and the people who don't have health insurance (myself among them) don't trust the Dems since they talk about it every four years and then do absolutely nothing. Hell, I don't want federal health insurance. I don't want hand-outs now and I don't want to be forced to support someone else's hand-outs once I do start making some serious money.

NAFTA's a similar thing since it was almost universally supported by both Republicans and Democrats. John Edwards was lying when he said he opposed it because newspapers have uncovered quotes of him supporting it back when the economy was churning along.