After Hours

General discussion


Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's a real conservative, from the US!

By AnsuGisalas ·
Tags: Off Topic
And I'm not talking about the swivel-eyed loons :^0

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I'm not sure I'd call him a conservative...

by jck In reply to Is it a bird? Is it a pla ...

But, I think you at least got the first letter right.

Collapse -

Josh Barro, the writer of that article, is as much of a bigot as he says...

by Keighlar In reply to Is it a bird? Is it a pla ...

... Jackson is. This line toward the end:

"But the Republican Party can’t change because there are so many Republican voters who, though they may be on the losing side of the fight, want candidates that pander to their bigotry."

That statement is painted with such a broad, bigoted brush that it makes me look at the rest of his article through the lens of his own prejudice. I am a staunch conservative as are many of my family and friends. There is not one of us that anyone could truthfully call bigoted, racist or any of the other ugly words liberals like to use to distort the true picture of what conservatism is. He would have had a valid article had he not let his own hatefulness shine through to taint his unbiased "journalism."

Collapse -

To be honest...

by jck In reply to Josh Barro, the writer of ...

a) I've been a Republican since I registered to vote.
b) There are a LOT of bigotted people, both Republican and Democrat and otherwise.
c) Just because he expresses an opinion different from yours doesn't mean he's "distort"ing anything.

Bigotry is not exclusive to racism. And to be honest, you just painted "liberals" with quite a broad stroke too as you accuse him of doing with conservatives.

And, I can vouch for his statement. My parents are staunch, party-line conservatives as are many in my family. Most of them think only of the "me" factor and how government will affect them, and not about the trade-off in gaining greater good for the nation. My sisters and my father are all like that. They don't grasp the bigger picture.

There are Democrats with the same issue. It's the big reason our country is in the shape its in today. Too much partisan, selfish crap.

So in effect, he was right. He just didn't say the Democrats have the same problem. But then again, the article was covering a hateful Republican. Right?

Collapse -

Yes, it was covering a hateful Repulican...

by Keighlar In reply to To be honest...

... and I was right with Barro until he had to step out of objectivity and add to the mud-slinging. Perhaps I did overstep and paint too broadly with my statement. Let me qualify it to pertain specifically to most liberals that are face-front in the media. I do not consider myself Republican anymore. If you sat a Republican and a Democrat politician down next to each other and listened to them talk, you probably couldn't tell the difference between them. Politicians belong in a class all of their own, and Washington D.C. is flush with them.

If one is a journalist, columnist, whatever it is Barro defines himself as, and you want all people to take you seriously, then you should at least attempt some objectivity. If he doesn't care, than that's fine. If that's his thing to be a liberal apologist, than that's his thing. My only point is that when someone is reporting with such an obvious bias, then I cannot take the rest of what he has to say at face value. What else is he skewing? Maybe nothing, but he forces me to question him.

Collapse -


by jck In reply to Yes, it was covering a ha ...

but if you question him for being slanted against Republicans/Conservatives...then the only thing you can do is apply the same objectiveness to those who talk with a bias with whom you fully agree. Skewing is skewing...whether it's in line with your opinion or not.

Besides that, most all of the press is slanted. It is rare you find someone who's willing to call it equally anymore. Especially on any Fox or NBC network. They are the two worst, in my estimation.

But, getting any near-unbiased press dealing with government (you're never going to get one with a *totally* unbiased language) is hard...dare I say near impossible. Getting news on that front means playing within the political system. And that means, doing "favors" and "leaning" commentary are the norm to get some payback and enough to write a story. Even getting documents published by independent investigators/auditors within government can be slanted. So just publishing reports wouldn't mean total immunity from bias.

BTW, I have not considered myself a Republican since about 19** (I'm just registered that way because I didn't feel like changing lol) when a group of extremely right-wing religious folks in my hometown took over the local party and pushed out everyone else because their views weren't in line with theirs. Probably why even tho that part of the country is majority conservative, most people vote Democrat in that city/county. The religious zealots took over the Republican side. Guess that's why it's called the Bible Belt lol.

I just consider myself American. I try to do right by everyone. I try to listen to all sides in an argument and do some analysis before I make a decision.

But, I'll never follow a party it Republican, Democrat, Socialist, or otherwise.

As I've said since high school...I belong to one party...the Continuous Party :)

Collapse -

Then we have more in common than not.

by Keighlar In reply to Yes...

It would be more true to say that I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, if I were forced to try to define myself in commonly known terminology. A couple of my previous jobs had me working out of the country for a few weeks to months at a time. Not long enough to immerse myself in their culture, but long enough to learn how to look at the US from an outside perspective. I try to keep that habit up, checking what's going on through onlinenewspapers * com and other sources. I'm entirely convinced that it is near impossible to get the true story from within our borders any more.

Ansu may have just been baiting, and I usually lurk and let you all verbally sword fight, but I rose to the bait this time for some reason. Maybe because Barro seemed like such an intelligent fellow and his "wrap up" frustrated and disappointed me.

Collapse -


by jck In reply to Then we have more in comm ...

I will never forget my first trip to Ireland. I saw documentaries on BBC that never aired in America about things that Americans would be interested in knowing. And, I watch a lot of documentaries.

Brings a lot of light in knowing what our government was investigating in other countries that you wouldn't have otherwise known at the time from watching television in the USA.

It's really hard to get unbiasedness anywhere. But, what can you do? Just sort through the murk and look for something real.

Collapse -

Barro is disgruntled...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Then we have more in comm ...

He's been trying to save the Republicans from themselves, that's why I suggested he's a real conservative.
Nobody's perfect, of course, but he talks the conservative talk.

Collapse -

The religious zealots took over the Republican side.

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Yes...

Are you sure Republicans haven't taken over religion? Who else is that out of touch with reality? Even Ernest Angley would say DAMN if he heard some of these guys.

Jackson's mental capacity has him saying,

"I believe there is a direct connection” [between being gay and being a pedophile].
“These people are out to transform the culture. And they believe that sexuality is how everybody ought to be defined. And that means sexual freedom, sexual license to do whatever you want to do. And I know their people say, well, ‘It’s unfair to associate homosexuality with pedophilia or some of these other previsions.’ But I believe that there is a direct connection, because what they really want is absolute sexual freedom.”

He is in the limelight, speaking many times about his personal views on sexuality while saying "I believe there is a direct connection. These people are out to transform the culture. And they believe that sexuality is how everybody ought to be defined."

Perhaps not seeing the irony and hypocrisy in making a public statement about gay sexuality (himself defining what they are and what their sexuality leads to) and how gays are transforming the culture by defining people based on their sexuality.

For him to define anyone, including himself, makes him a headcase that belongs locked up.

Collapse -

It's easy.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Yes, it was covering a ha ...

"If you sat a Republican and a Democrat politician down next to each other and listened to them talk, you probably couldn't tell the difference between them."

Sure you can. The Dem wants the government to be more active in a variety of social roles and wants to raise taxes to pay for it. The Rep wants the government to concentrate more on defense and security and will go into debt to pay for it.

Two different flavors of suckiness.

Related Discussions

Related Forums