Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to ME!

[fpb]

The morality, responsibility and consistency of those who voted for the winner may be gauged by the statement - which I have already encountered three or four times - that they "hope" that those of us who warned them against him were wrong.

Hope.

They have elected a politician to the most powerful post in the West based on what they hope he will prove.

Such appalling insouciance and irresponsibility is certain to be punished. God may delay His punishment for sin - often to the next world - but He never intermits anything to the punishment for stupidity, which is always paid, and paid strictly and with plenty of interest, here on Earth.

Comments

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Well, arguably, you have the same situation every time you vote for a politician. You always hope that their detractors were wrong. You can never be positive that a candidate will always go with everything they promised.

And really, I wouldn't have voted for Palin even if I did agree with her policies. It's not because of what the media has said about her. It's more her reaction to interviews and media questioning. She's not good at standing up to intense media questioning. You need a president who can deal with the media and who can deal with intense media scrutiny. I think she needs a lot more experience.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Which Obama showed... yeah, right.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

He might not have a huge amount of experience, but he can answer media questions well. *shrug* I think some people make better politicians than others. You kind of need to have the ability to answer the media well and not say embarrassing things that the media can then twist to their own purposes. This is not to say that she's not smart or that she doesn't have good policies. But it's readily apparent that she needs more experience dealing with the media whereas Obama doesn't.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

He can answer media questions well because the media let him look good. All his interviews have been edited - in his favour. But it's too late now to point it out. When even you take what you see on TV for facts, I think that those of us who know better should just shut up and join the crowd of adorers. It's safer.

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

Obvious differences between our beliefs aside, a vote is always an act of hope. There is never complete certainty.

And, let me add, I know at least three registered republicans on my friends list who voted for Obama because in good conscience they could not vote for McCain. The McCain of 2000, even 2004, yes, without a doubt. The McCain of this campaign, no. And they didn't abstain either, because they knew this was a pivotal moment for their country. Although not entirely sure of what Obama would or could do, they felt, after careful consideration, that it was at least a step in the right direction.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Look, because three idiots who thought they were Republicans listened to the trash from the media about nice McCain suddenly turning into a monster, it does not mean that I should be quite so stupid. The characteristic of this election has been the fantastic mendacity and corruption of the mass media; and the only question for the future is whether, having made themselves into tools for Obama, they will continue to collaborate, or whether, when things begin to go wrong, they will turn on their former golden boy and tear him apart. My money is on the first option.

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

Maybe they are biased. Maybe I am biased. Maybe you are biased. We all choose and filter our information, objective information is no longer possible. Complete objectivity and rationality cannot exist in this modern world.

We all have our opinions and beliefs and are glad when our government reflects those, because we naturally believe that when what we believe is right is sanctioned on a greater scale, the world, or at least our country, or at the very least small areas of it will become a better place. Not only for ourselves, but for other people too, who may have to be forced to what we believe is best for them.

And I really really really don't think my friends are stupid. They followed their conscience, and believe me, they were as well informed as a person can be. Their opinions and wishes in this instance just do no coincide with yours.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Exactly. "They were as well informed as [they] could be", given the atrocious behaviour of the media. No sane or sensible choice may be made if the whole background is one of mendacity and illusion.

If you support Zapatero, of course this presidential choice will be to your liking. But even Zapatero will find out, as Clemenceau and Lloyd George did in 1919 to their chagrin and the misfortune of the whole world, that an ill-informed Democratic ideologue is infinitely harder and less sympathetic than the worst Republican scoundrel.

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

Well, we can agree to this, at least: we will find out. And I can only hope (hah) that I will have the courage to look the truth in the face and accept the consequences if my present convictions should be proven wrong.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

We did not vote for Obama based solely on hope. The hope was backed up by the evidence of the extreme competence of his campaign. And, just as you would have voted based on the issues most important to you, so did the rest us. And as for the hope that you ridicule, it is important, even necessary to make things better.

I would be angry that you call us stupid for voting for him, but then, I called everyone that voted for Bush stupid. And I feel pretty vindicated for that.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

"And I feel pretty vindicated for that."

That was just being ugly, sorry.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Well, arguably, you have the same situation every time you vote for a politician. You always hope that their detractors were wrong. You can never be positive that a candidate will always go with everything they promised.

In Obama's case, we can be positive that he won't, since most of his promises have contradicted other promises he made.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Competence in campaigning does not prove competence in governing. Nor does it even imply such comptence, especially when one's campaign involves making numerous contradictory promises. One cannot govern in such a fashion.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

"All his interviews have been edited - in his favour."

Apart, i'm sure you will agree, from his appearance on Bill O'Reilly. The only interview which I saw all the way through, where the opposite was the case.

Likewise the only detailed coverage of Gov Palin which I saw was on Fox News and i'm afraid to say it consisted of little more than propaganda or softball interviewing. I would not have voted for Mrs Palin, she had views I disagreed with on some issues (mainly around financial regulation and the environment - and for my money she did a worse job of actually answering questions than Obama did with O'Reilly.

That being said, Politics these days appear to have little or no content, being more to do with presentation. My impression is that the leading players in both parties avoided, or were prevented from, saying anything very much of substance in the past few weeks for fear they would lose voters.

So not having seen the rest of the American media it is difficult to judge how biased they were, I did see some figures that demonstrated the bias. A monitoring agency, the name of which escapes for the moment, run by a Mr Brent Brazel (again, I'm working from memory here) showed that one network had stories which were negative towards Sarah Palin 75% of the time, as opposed to a figure in the twenties for Obana.

But then the same group also said that the percentage of negative stories for these two players on Fox News was 40% to 40%. I'm afraid that the evidence of my own eyes and ears was that this was simply not true. It shows that the figures, in the case of Fox News at least, were very subjective and it makes me doubt somewhat some of the more extreme reports of media bias.

What pleases me most about the result is nothing to do with Obama or his policies, the fact that a country which, in my lifetime, had segregation of the races in certain states has come so far as to elect a black President is something I would not have thought possible.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It will not take you four years to realize that a well-run publicity campaign with nothing underneath it is not what you should have asked for.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No, that was what you meant. And four years of Obama will soon cure you of it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And since when did Obama manage it anyway? It was a Chicago operation ran by the seasoned likes of David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. This is the most successful and enduring party machine in the world; you think one measly presidential campaign is beyond their resources?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Yeah, right. Try and reason with these people. On another LJ, there was one British idiot who even evoked the hideous disappointment of 1997 and Tony Blair, only to conclude that Obama sounds so much better and therefore will not do the same!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That is what everyone is saying. But you would not want a Jew to become Chancellor of Germany if said Jew were an incompetent or worse.

[8bitbard.livejournal.com]

I often wonder if the media does more governing that the actual government does.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

No. But as I said that comment is nothing to do with Obama himself or his policies.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Really? My dear friend, I know you mean it, but I want you to make the experiment of listening to ANY comment on the election. If you find that they support your viewpoint, I will write a story to your specifications or pay you fifty pounds, whichever you prefer.

We all have our opinions and beliefs. Some are not rational beliefs, however

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"Complete objectivity and rationality cannot exist in this modern world. "

If this is a biased an unobjective statement, we should disregard it as false.

If this is an objective and rational statement, it disproves itself.

In any case, no one ever trots out this tired argument except and unless he is attempting to excuse or explain away open dishonesty. The media in this election was opening, arrogantly, insolently dishonest.

To excuse open dishonest on the ground that perfect honesty is not available to sons of Adam is a strawman argument. The absence of perfection does not excuse vice. One does not excuse murder and rape on the grounds that no human being is perfectly free from anger and lust.

Forgive me for being blunt, but: Study logic. Learn to think. Your comments are embarrassing.

Re: We all have our opinions and beliefs. Some are not rational beliefs, however

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

This was and is not a contest in logic. I didn't excuse anything. I conceded that the media and my friends may have been biased, and then proceeded to state an opinion. fpb accepted my comment for what it is and we concluded our conversation amiably. No need to barge in and flog a dead horse.

And why do murder and rape immediately show up as accusations in these type of discussions. "If you think like that, you might as well be condoning murder and rape." Well, I am not, and you know I am not, so who embarrassing themselves?

Re: We all have our opinions and beliefs. Some are not rational beliefs, however

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Actually, my attitude was more along the lines of "quitting the field in despair". I knew already that you would be rejoicing, since you also regard Zapatero as a good thing, and I said nothing more because I regarded it as a waste of time. But if John is willing to point out that your arguments are unreasonable, I certainly see no reason to stop him.