Slow days ? ... ?

[pramjockey]

Maybe slow days on the forum are a direct result of the nastiness that pervades here, especially directed at the left by a few on the right. This place becomes less about the exchange of ideas and more about who can get away with the most insults.

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Maybe slow days on the forum are a direct result of the nastiness that pervades here, especially directed at the left by a few on the right. This place becomes less about the exchange of ideas and more about who can get away with the most insults.

Oh lordy

Yes, of course.

None of our resident leftists carry on endlessly about how "hateful," "greedy" and "evil" those on the RIGHT are.

And of course you're right; This place becomes less about the exchange of ideas and more about who can get away with the most insults.

I don't see that changing.

The main goal here is perfecting the art of allowable insults and other nastiness towards the other side. Look at the crap that started immediately in the first two pages of this thread :-)

It DOES get old.

[Captain Trips]

Here's something we can work with.

I know.

Only half of us are interested.

For the rest, go ahead and keep trolling for ways to insult me.

Originally Posted by noahath

We are living in the "age of celebrity", and the media are just as caught up in that as the buyers of People magazine.

Right you are.

Originally Posted by noahath

Reporters are no longer content to report the news, but now want to make the news. This is why we have seen the sudden upsurge in interest in exit polls, as stations feel the need to be the first to break a result - irrespective4 of whether it's factually correct or not. It's now about being first, rather than being accurate.

Sad but true.

Originally Posted by noahath

This (I feel) has removed much the quality from the political debate. It's now less about what you say, and more about how you say it.

We're seeing this here even.

In otherwords, we've all been brainwashed to THINK this way TOO.

Originally Posted by noahath

Prior to the age of celebrification (and I'm not talking about pre-tv; we only need to go back as far as the mid-70s to find this point) it didn't really matter what a candidate looked like, as people were more interested in what was being said, and how it would affect them in their daily life. In modern times, we could have a Nobel Prize winning economist, with an IQ of 200+, but if he looked like he (or she) fell from the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, then there'd be no way that they'd be elected. This is the disappointing modern phenomenon in politics, and I don't think it's going to improve anytime soon; indeed I suspect it's only going to get worse. We are going to see more and more candidates of lesser and lesser quality, whose sole qualification for running for public office will be their ability to be elected.

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Oh lordy [IMG]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/Thane1/rolleyes.gif[/MG]

Yes, of course.

None of our resident leftists carry on endlessly about how "hateful," "greedy" and "evil" those on the RIGHT are.

.

You do understand that when one uses the term "especially," one is not indicating exclusivity, right?

[noahath]

Folks, please stay on topic and don't make veiled insults at one another please.

[Scribbler1]

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

I really can't see any evidence that people were more interested in politics before.

My impression was people back then, in general, thought more about a candidate's qualifications rather than if they'd like to have a beer with them.
Now, we start out with a personality contest, driven by a campaign machine geared to demonize the other guy, and end up voting for a choice of which candidate had the most money to spend on TV ads.
They didn't HAVE 24-hour spin on demand television channels and sound bit regurgitators nearly as much as they do now.


I doubt half the electorate has the faintest idea of a candidate's record when they vote for him. But he sure does SOUND "presidential" doesn't he?

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

My impression was people back then, in general, thought more about a candidate's qualifications rather than if they'd like to have a beer with them.
Now, we start out with a personality contest, driven by a campaign machine geared to demonize the other guy, and end up voting for a choice of which candidate had the most money to spend on TV ads.
They didn't HAVE 24-hour spin on demand television channels and sound bit regurgitators nearly as much as they do now.


I doubt half the electorate has the faintest idea of a candidate's record when they vote for him. But he sure does SOUND "presidential" doesn't he?

I think a lot of women voted for Kennedy because they fancied him in the sack.