Fact filled article on why the current Congress is the worst ever.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Cute trick, but I have enough will power to be able to ignore what I want to ignore without extra aides.

Apparently not.

I find pestering you entertaining. Otherwise, I would not do it.

What is your excuse?

[Kuciwalker]

I find pestering Oerdin entertaining.

[GePap]

He is too thin skinned recently.

[Kuciwalker]

No, he just pwns himself too often.

[Eroberer]

Originally posted by Thue


I am not convinced - just because an article makes allegations against the people in power does not make the article partisan. IMO the article only becomes partisan of the allegations are exaggerated or deliberately omits mitigating facts; it is your job to point out why they are exaggerated before declaring the article partisan. As the article says the Republicans have used their majority to exclude the Democrats from any power, the fact that the article mostly criticizes the Republicans does not necessarily make the article partisan.

If a group of people in power is bad enough, then a balanced article can seem one-sided, without actually being partisan. Imagine for example how one-sided a fairly written article about the ethics of Adolf Hitler would seem.

I sometimes get the feeling that the USians scream "liberal bias" and ignore the facts each time a newspaper reports facts which go against the Republicans. Reporting unpleasant facts are a part of good journalism.

QFT.

I missed this thread, and I thank Oerdin for posting that article. I read the whole thing. I spent a lot of the last few years ignoring politics, and I've come back to it wondering what the hell has happened. I got a gut feeling that there was more partisan rhetoric flying around, and the last few months have just proven me right. It's truly insane. It's making me want to vote Democrat instead of Libertarian, just to remove these trolls from power.

FWIW, the article says Congressmen used to feel more obligation to their office of Congress than either their local district or their political party, and that's the real key.

Also, I agree with term limits. Get these ****ers out of there anyway possible.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, I am sorry for mislabelling your biases.

That's ok, I'm sure he expects nothing more from a Stalinist pederast.

[Darius871]

Am I the only one amused that Pap's devoting so much time and vitriol lecturing other people on how to ignore posts they find annoying?

I mean, ignoring Kuci's incessant unsubstantive whining about Oerdin is so damned hard! I mean, the little "reply with quote" link just drags your helpless mouse over itself, and then, powerless to stop your fingers, you click on it! OH MY GOD! There was nothing you could possibly do, right? I mean, Kuci posts the same exact complaints in ten threads! How could one ignore ten threads! Its just plain too hard....

[Kuciwalker]

Am I the only one amused that Pap's devoting so much time and vitriol lecturing other people on how to ignore posts they find annoying?

I thought I'd expressed my amusement well enough.

[Dinner]

Still no comment on the substance of the article?

[Elok]

Why don't you search ten, or however many, threads ago, when you posted essentially the same stuff and it was new enough to us that we had a comment to make other than "not this again?"

If you want, I'll restate my opinion, and I believe many others' here: "No ****, Sherlock." Now please please PLEASE quit referring to some yellow journalism from a music mag as a credible source. The presence of facts within it does not change its overall tackiness, any more than a few undigested hunks of carrot in a turd make it into a meal. You're making everyone who dislikes and criticizes this administration appear suspect by association.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Still no comment on the substance of the article?

Originally posted by Asher
The problem isn't with the article, it's how Oerdin frames it. As an artsy guy, maybe this isn't obvious to you...but when you post things saying "this is from a far right-wing newspaper", when it's not, or you post an article saying "This isn't filled with partisan hackery", when it is, you set yourself up for being ignored or dismissed outright.

[Eroberer]

I think a more mature audience would put aside any prejudices, against either the poster or source, and comment on the actual article. Like I said, it was a good read for me because I'd been away from politics for so long.

There are far more posts in this thread that add nothing and that seem to criticize the original poster for adding nothing, that I think you guys would make great Congressmen! =)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Eroberer,

Bear in mind many who were critical had to respond to the same littany of issues umpteen times before. While fresh and new to you, not so much for many others.

Your sentiment is appreciated though and I agree that discussionon the content of the article is worth considering. Even I who ignited. this whole ****e storm commented on the article. Also be advised though this is not a new issue here at 'poly, the discussion of the source often is the most used/abused way to avoid discussing content.

[Eroberer]

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." -- good advice.

I saw a lot of people telling Oerdin to shut up, but who agreed with the basic material. I agree about debating the source, but I thought this was a particularly good article from such a magazine. Obviously the Republicans in office have missed off more people than usual.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Elok
Why don't you search ten, or however many, threads ago, when you posted essentially the same stuff and it was new enough to us that we had a comment to make other than "not this again?"

As perviously stated. This is entirely new and not at all related to any other thread I have recently made. You, my friend, are the broken record here.

It does seem that people prefer to say things like "OMG! That's from CBS and everyone knows that place hates Republicans" instead of actual discussion on the merits and content.