mardi gras skin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Krauthammer makes a point that I hadn't considered before. Violent imagery in politics is so pervasive in politics that it can't be rooted out. What's more, its beneficial in that politics actually serves as a surrogate for warfare. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Krauthammer makes a point that I hadn't considered before. Violent imagery in politics is so pervasive in politics that it can't be rooted out. What's more, its beneficial in that politics actually serves as a surrogate for warfare.http://www.washingtonpos.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html See, Krauthammer is one of the ones who's very, very partisan but couches his words and ideas repsonsibly. You always know what he'll say and whose position he'll back on a given topic and he will strenuously defend his guy to the point of ridiculousness, but he does it civilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 See, Krauthammer is one of the ones who's very, very partisan but couches his words and ideas repsonsibly. You always know what he'll say and whose position he'll back on a given topic and he will strenuously defend his guy to the point of ridiculousness, but he does it civilly. once upon a time, I held him in very high esteem. I wish he could break out of his establishment, neo-con mold and think more critically about the similarities between the ideas that he holds true to and the ideas he rails against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 once upon a time, I held him in very high esteem. I wish he could break out of his establishment, neo-con mold and think more critically about the similarities between the ideas that he holds true to and the ideas he rails against. I feel the same way about Chris Matthews who I also once had very high hopes for, but has betrayed that belief. He could have been so much better. He's still better than many because he is smart, but his one-sidedness and inability to really wrestle with that limits him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I feel the same way about Chris Matthews who I also once had very high hopes for, but has betrayed that belief. He could have been so much better. He's still better than many because he is smart, but his one-sidedness and inability to really wrestle with that limits him. I agree on both counts. Chris Matthew and Charles Krauthammer both have the potential to be much better than they allow themselves to be. They are both smart and direct. If they could be less biased, I would feel more comfortable trusting them. In the Krauthammer piece I just posted, he just had to throw in multiple useless jabs that I think take away from some good points. I wonder how many people never get to the good stuff because they've already tuned out after the snippy little comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I wasnt sure if this was the best thread for this comment, but I didnt want to start a new one. I saw something from the right leaning news sources today that irked me. The crowing and laughter towards Hillary Clinton taking a stumble was simply rude and dumb. I hate the infantile nature of our yankees vs redsox style of 2 party system. sorry. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I wasnt sure if this was the best thread for this comment, but I didnt want to start a new one.I saw something from the right leaning news sources today that irked me. The crowing and laughter towards Hillary Clinton taking a stumble was simply rude and dumb. I hate the infantile nature of our yankees vs redsox style of 2 party system. sorry. /rant I have to admit...I chuckled with the Dems when Bush Sr. puked on the Japanese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I agree on both counts. Chris Matthew and Charles Krauthammer both have the potential to be much better than they allow themselves to be. They are both smart and direct. If they could be less biased, I would feel more comfortable trusting them. . I don't understand. Why would you want a conservative/neo-conservative (Krauthammer) or a Liberal (Matthews) to not support the positions derived from their philosophical positions (ie be less biased?). As commentators they are supposed to be biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't understand. Why would you want a conservative/neo-conservative (Krauthammer) or a Liberal (Matthews) to not support the positions derived from their philosophical positions (ie be less biased?). As commentators they are supposed to be biased. Because I would want them to studiously examine each issue or event and come up with an independent conclusion that outlines causality or solution based upon best evidence or best theory and not just dogmatically stick to a side because it is their side. If their findings support their side which it probably often would since they are philosophically predisposed to looking at issues from a certain angle that's fine, but if your starting point is "my side is right" a lot of the times your not going to get your car out of the ditch. For instance, I like Obama generally. When he proposed closing Guantanamo I thought it was stupid and said so. It seemed a move done out of PR rather than a decision that was in the best long and short term interests of the United States. It was a bad way of dealing with the black eye given Gitmo by the Bush Administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I have to admit...I chuckled with the Dems when Bush Sr. puked on the Japanese. I did, too. But more from it being an embarrassing human moment than anything political. I agree with what SS is saying. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Uncommon men are the only ones to find issues in common. It seems uncommon men are few and far between these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't understand. Why would you want a conservative/neo-conservative (Krauthammer) or a Liberal (Matthews) to not support the positions derived from their philosophical positions (ie be less biased?). As commentators they are supposed to be biased. Everyone is biased. But if they are more interested in promoting their agenda than it communicating the truth as they see it, they've moved from commentators to spin artists. If they would just comment on what's going on instead of playing games of gotcha, they'd be legitimate sources for me to learn from. As it is, I have to assume they're trying to sneak one over on me. Bottom line, if they want to influence me they're going about it the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Because I would want them to studiously examine each issue or event and come up with an independent conclusion that outlines causality or solution based upon best evidence or best theory and not just dogmatically stick to a side because it is their side. If their findings support their side which it probably often would since they are philosophically predisposed to looking at issues from a certain angle that's fine, but if your starting point is "my side is right" a lot of the times your not going to get your car out of the ditch.For instance, I like Obama generally. When he proposed closing Guantanamo I thought it was stupid and said so. It seemed a move done out of PR rather than a decision that was in the best long and short term interests of the United States. It was a bad way of dealing with the black eye given Gitmo by the Bush Administration. Krauthammer does do that, so I'm not sure what the beef is with him. He has never been lock step, he ripped the talking heads such as Hannity, Limbaugh and the Tea Party over several of their political moves during the primary season. He's done this for a few policy positions in the past as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Any language which portrays the opposition as evil and/or devoid of basic logic/common sense, crosses the line. It's dishonest, both sides do it, Fox News makes a living off of it. Basically every single Beck segment has at least a few examples, his entire schtick crosses the line, IMO, because he is dishonest in his portrayal of the opposition and their motivations and attempts to villianize them while victimizing his side, instead of showing two sides with differing yet rational perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Krauthammer does do that, so I'm not sure what the beef is with him. He has never been lock step, he ripped the talking heads such as Hannity, Limbaugh and the Tea Party over several of their political moves during the primary season. He's done this for a few policy positions in the past as well. I'm mostly familiar with him on the Sunday morning political shows. There, I'd say 90% of the time he's a partisan shill though not nearly as bad as a Bill Kristol who revels in his one-sidedness and snarkiness. I could be wrong or it may be one of those perspective things in which what we see depends on the angle from which we are looking. I will agree he's better than many. Even as biased as he is there is usually thought and research behind his statements/opinions. I also think that his physical condition may be making him grumpier. I just get the sense that he's in pain a fair amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I think I have figured out my dividing line. When you say your opponent is "wrong on an issue," you can do it in very strong, even angry terms. Then you are still debating policy. When you say your opponent is an "other," or a danger, or a traitor, or anything else that delegitimizes them as a person, or rallies your side to stop listening at all to the merits of the issues - then you have gone over the line. The first one leads to robust policy debates. The second one leads to ... today, I guess. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.