Galahad
.....an appointment
- Joined
- May 22, 2000
- Messages
- 11,464
Um thanks I think .
I looked at the posts again, and I hope by this that you dont think it was a personal attack. If so it was not intended as such and I apologize.
My point was that, in that case, I was amazed that people believe the Cheney is in charge and Cheney was hidden after the attacks because hes the real President scenarios without any actual evidence. That belief only has basis in a preconceived notion and in the ranting of editorialists. But there isnt actually any real evidence that it is true. A similar one is the insistence by some on the right that the Clintons had something to do with the death of Vince Foster (or apparently countless others). There is no evidence of this and those that believe it do so because of their preconceived notions and in the ranting of editorialists.
So when you so kindly say that I amaze you too, I am curious about what beliefs I have stated that are unsupportable in that fashion.
Now there are countless things I disagree with the opposition about that I dont feel are amazing that they believe. It is perfectly rational to disagree with the administration about what the nature of the war on terrorism is and how we should fight it. It is perfectly rational to be passionate about those beliefs. And even if I disagree with them, they are not unreasonable. The belief that Cheney is the real President is not one of those rational thoughts, IMO.
Look at the assumption that Edwards will fluster Cheney. When have we seen Cheney flustered by anything. And losing his temper at Leahy doesnt bear on whether he would be flustered in a debate. Leahy has spent weeks publicly attacking Cheneys personal honesty and somehow expected Cheney to let that slide. I wouldnt have done what the Vice President did, but Im not sure I blame him. Ive heard Senator Kennedy say much more vile things on the floor of the Senate about the President. He just didnt happen to swear while doing it. In any case, Cheney has a command of the issues that cant be matched by anybody. Senator Edwards, comparatively speaking, seems a wet behind the ears, slick lawyer. I dont think that will come across well in a debate format. A debate is not a stump speech. So the belief that Edwards will fluster him is another one I cant see the basis in.
An example: you probably know ad nauseum
that my DW is an OB/GYN in a teaching hospital. She works very long hours and we dont see her much. At least once a week she is at the hospital for 36 hours straight. A typical day can be 14 to 16 hours long. When she gets home, she is usually exhausted, goes straight to bed or sits in front of the TV for a bit and doesnt talk much. She has an office at the hospital but is rarely in it, so even though I have her office phone number, I could never reach her that way. She spends her day on the labor deck, the ward, the clinic, the OR. There is not a phone number that I could expect to find her at. Cell phones do not function inside the hospital. When I page her, it is sometimes hours before she calls back because she is in surgery or with a patient. I have visited her at work, to meet her for lunch or dinner or a quick visit, but Ive never been there very long and I have to take her word for it on the nature of her typical day.Now, her behavior is completely consistent with the life of a high risk OB in a referral hospital. Her behavior is also completely consistent with the behavior of someone cheating on their spouse. I mean she could be just avoiding us and making half of it up. If I was inclined to a precenceived notion of suspicion or jealousy, I might decide to believe the latter rather than the former. I think these beliefs about President Bush, or President Clinton, etc. and often not based in reality at all but only based in a prejudice.
As for your father, Im sorry hes a bigot and a homophobe, and it seems hes nasty about it too. Thats sad. Not sure I see anything wrong with him being white or rich, though. But simply because he is that way and he votes Republican does not me he is necessarily representative. I know several pretty wacko left wing people and they always vote Democrat. That doesnt mean I believe that they are representative of those that usually vote Democrat. If it is true that all bigots vote Republican (something I thing is not true, BTW) it does not follow that all Republicans are bigots. Just as if it is true that all anti-military radicals vote Democrat that all Democrats are anti-military radicals.
Fair enough. Touche. That was kind of a throw away joke...certainly over generalized, you're right. I do think it is supportable that the some in the media do manipulate the news and reporting for whatever their own agenda is and that when it is done that there are more doing it in support of their pro-Democrat bias than there are, like some at Fox, for example, doing it in support of their pro-Republican bias.
