For the record. If it seems like I am trying to engage in a pissing contest, I apologize. That is not my intention at all. I am simply trying to express my views on how I see the world. You must keep in mind that history is my passion and my job. Most if not all of my views are based upon what history has told me and my attempting to understand it to the best of my ability. Do I have biases? Sure. We all do due to our belief structures and our upbringing. I am in no way trying to change anyone's mind or influence them. I am simply participating in one of the exercises that makes our nation great, the free exchange of ideas and the ability to voice our beliefs. I do not think that anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot or less of an American as I, so please do not take anything I have said or will say as an indictment to that end. I fully support the right of everyone, the most radical right or left wing philosophies, to voice their beliefs. It is unAmerican to otherwise do so, imo. Below is a response to VolDad's questions regarding where I disagree with Romney's positions. You may not agree with me, which is fine, but I assure you that the views that I express are my own as a result of looking at the issue and the history of this nation. They are not something that I have pulled out of my ass or baseless rhetoric.
Very fair point. The main difference I see is that the majority of those that would vote for Obama do not typically allow religion to be a deal-breaker in their decisions, or at least the influence is a lesser degree. In all honesty, those that rely on traditional Christian religion to guide their vote are shit out of luck in this election.
A guy attends a church for over a decade but he's a humanist... He attends a muslim religious school growing up, but he's a humanist... Maybe-- just maybe-- some people interpret the teachings of religion differently than the First Baptist Church down on Main Street.
NYT Candidate Obama NYT Candidate Ryan New York Times Puts 'Son of Satan' Ryan on Front Page | The Weekly Standard
Looks like the GOP gives the NYT very shitty seats to me. I know, I know, that's too reasonable. Must be a conspiracy. They intentionally too the picture from the nosebleeds in the back.
You are correct. I am sure there were no better photos available.. oh wait... paul ryan speech - Google Search
I have no idea. Why do pictures from other outlets matter? Do you expect the NYT to pay money for other people's pics after being given nosebleed seats?
Really, nose bleed seats is your excuse. 1) That picture was not taken during the speech 2) even if they did you are telling me they could not get their subject in frame, 3) Doesn't look like they had nose bleed seats since they also took this.
I'm not even sure what your point is. It isn't like he's got a bone through his nose or in tribal gear.
The photo they selected was picked to evoke an image. The image evoked is open to interpretation. Whatever the interpretation it is a negative one.
Yup. Because he "looks like satan." Whatever the interpretation is, it is Negative. <--- I don't think that sentence makes sense.
Fiery background, shadowy figures, sullen expression, head with no body. Which one of those things does not evoke a negative response?
Sorry - did we all agree that the mainstream media (sans Fox) is replete with liberals who have been caught practicing an active and insidious collusion to spin their reporting toward their own political agenda and who have conspired to squelch other stories which do not? I'd like to settle the whole "conspiracy" of a liberalized media who attempt to subversively assert their own beliefs under the auspices of "journalism" and/or "news", if possible. Because it isn't a kooky conspiracy theory as so many of you were deriding earlier, but a proven fact, instead.
