Deception

[kvnchrist]

Which one? I'd point them out but there is no point, you don't actually answer any or seem to want to make any attempt to clarify what the hell you are on about.

 

 

For the last time you are a troll who just wants to continue an argument that has never had an upside. I've made myself quite clear and you have become more boring than disruptive. Welcome to my ignore list. bye now!

[Ghogiel]

I can't continue the debate because you have ignored me when I reluctantly wrote an opinion on the confusingly worded OPs subject matter... twice. Shot down any attempt I made of getting clarifications via questions, accused me of being logical to 'cover my tracks', Have been belligerent to me since the first post I made, accused me of being a troll, twice, one instance of which was deleted by a moderator, and now ignored me as a user.

 

I guess that is that then.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Amorous_Dead_Guy]

It is in a politicians best interest to be deceitful to an extent. Personally I think that this is a direct fault of the media. We can see this all over the world: In the UK, the holiday destination of a Member of parliament is splashed around by the media and becomes another important part of propaganda and how they appear publicly. Similarly in the USA people are victimized by the media simply for their beliefs and actions: for example CBS character assassinated Palin for her outspoken socially conservative attitudes, and Bill Clinton was almost impeached because of an affair. I personally am morally opposed to infidelity, but do not think it is the position of the media to meddle in it. Similarly, simply because Palin speaks out about what she personally believes (whither anybody personally agrees with her or not) should be commendable, but instead it becomes a tool used against her. This means that politicians are forced to lie simply to protect themselves from the over scrutiny of the media.

[HeyYou]

It is in a politicians best interest to be deceitful to an extent. Personally I think that this is a direct fault of the media. We can see this all over the world: In the UK, the holiday destination of a Member of parliament is splashed around by the media and becomes another important part of propaganda and how they appear publicly. Similarly in the USA people are victimized by the media simply for their beliefs and actions: for example CBS character assassinated Palin for her outspoken socially conservative attitudes, and Bill Clinton was almost impeached because of an affair. I personally am morally opposed to infidelity, but do not think it is the position of the media to meddle in it. Similarly, simply because Palin speaks out about what she personally believes (whither anybody personally agrees with her or not) should be commendable, but instead it becomes a tool used against her. This means that politicians are forced to lie simply to protect themselves from the over scrutiny of the media.

 

The media is supposed to simply report the news, and not lend any bias to it. Supposed to...... In reality, the media is used to control/persuade people toward a particular viewpoint. The days of unbiased media are long gone, and never to be seen again. Relying on just one source, or even a selection of sources with the same bias..... pretty much assures you are only getting half the picture. Trouble is, because the media IS so biased, neither side tells the unvarnished truth, and you can't really believe any of them.

 

I would probably drop dead if a politician ever actually said what he/she REALLY thinks. Not that it would matter overmuch, after the media got ahold of them, and applied their biased interpretation to print what they feel the politician in question was REALLY saying.... it would be unrecognizable from what was actually said. There is no truth in politics, aside from the statement that there is no truth.

[Aurielius]

HeyYou excerpt:

"I would probably drop dead if a politician ever actually said what he/she REALLY thinks. Not that it would matter overmuch, after the media got ahold of them, and applied their biased interpretation to print what they feel the politician in question was REALLY saying.... it would be unrecognizable from what was actually said. There is no truth in politics, aside from the statement that there is no truth."

 

If you remember, Goldwater tried it in the 64 presidential election, relating to the cold war..and we know how that turned out. All people remembered was the little girl TV advert with the nuke exploding in the background. Deception works why else would it be the favorite tactic of attack advertisements?

Edited July 11, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

'I would probably drop dead if a politician ever actually said what he/she REALLY thinks. Not that it would matter overmuch, after the media got ahold of them, and applied their biased interpretation to print what they feel the politician in question was REALLY saying.... it would be unrecognizable from what was actually said. There is no truth in politics, aside from the statement that there is no truth."

 

If you remember, Goldwater did in the 64 presidential election..and we know how that turned out. All people remembered was the little girl TV advert with the nuke exploding in the background. Deception works why else would it be the favorite tactic of attack advertisements?

 

I was all of 3 years old in 64. :D I wasn't overly concerned with such esoteric things as leader of the free world. :D

 

The lack of truthfulness in politics today is one of the primary reasons I would not stand a chance of getting elected. I tend to actually answer questions, rather than dance around the topic, speak for twenty minutes, saying absolutely nothing of value.....

[marharth]

HeyYou excerpt:

"I would probably drop dead if a politician ever actually said what he/she REALLY thinks. Not that it would matter overmuch, after the media got ahold of them, and applied their biased interpretation to print what they feel the politician in question was REALLY saying.... it would be unrecognizable from what was actually said. There is no truth in politics, aside from the statement that there is no truth."

 

If you remember, Goldwater tried it in the 64 presidential election, relating to the cold war..and we know how that turned out. All people remembered was the little girl TV advert with the nuke exploding in the background. Deception works why else would it be the favorite tactic of attack advertisements?

I seriously hope you wouldn't of voted or even supported Goldwater...

 

If you remember correctly, he was opposed to civil rights and labor unions. Speaking what you truly beleive is fine but its not a bad thing he did not get elected. While the political ad used was by Johnson terrible and probably caused a lot of issues with campaign advertising today, electing Goldwater would have slowed down the civil rights movement and taken away more workers rights at the very least. He also had the same stance on gay rights, using the classic "well its the states choice!" argument. He didn't just care about the cold war, that was only a part of his political ideology.

 

You shouldn't be elected for just telling the truth, and sometimes if better to vote for the person who is deceptive. Policy is more important then politics.

 

I will admit however cutting funds to the U.N would have been good, but that only would not of been worth it.

[Aurielius]

@Marharth

Political lectures from you? Do me a favor, find a hobby that doesn't include me, even when I ignore you, you won't give it a rest.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

@Marharth

Political lectures from you? Do me a favor, find a hobby that doesn't include me, even when I ignore you, you won't give it a rest.

The reason I reply to you a lot is because you post things like the above where I strongly disagree with you.

 

This is the debate section, if you don't want to debate leave.

 

I don't expect a counter argument and I only expect a bunch of insults honestly, but you need to quit thinking I care about you and am replying simply because you post.

 

I reply to the posts I either strongly agree or disagree with, you tend to post a lot of stuff I strongly disagree with.

[Aurielius]

@Little M

OK, you post out of a narcissist impulse to see yourself in print. Skip the electoral advice, that isn't debating it's expressing your opinion which is of no consequence to me. Debating? Is that what you call your posting style?

Edited July 12, 2011 by Aurielius