| vee_ess |
01-12-2005 05:02 PM |
I agree with gnogtr about how Jason425s conceptions are innacurrate. In truth, you have to look at the degrees of idealism/realism in various groups... Kerry is an idealist; he never needed a plan, just the belief that it will all work out if he is in office. Young people, especially those in high school or early years of college, are very strongly idealists. Bush is more of a realist, who has a plan, but can't admit when he's wrong (making reference to the debates mostly). Conservatives and older generations and cultures often show little hope, or at least count on it, and often fail to recognize problems (because they choose not to because they don't think anything can be done about it anyways).
I can understand why Jason425 would think something like he does, however. Liberal articles and online documentation is just as much yellow-journalism as their conservative counterparts, just as misleading. That leads me to all those liberal groups claiming that there are "mountains" of evidence piling proving that the election was rigged. These different sites show somewhat surprising data, but it's often contradicted by the data on other sites, proving that most of them are not being purely honest in their reporting (or their sources aren't). Also, claims of ESS and Diebold rigging the election show a lack of knowledge about how electronic voting works. ESS and Diebold do not have access to the closed network, and they couldn't have rigged the machines beforehand because states and precincts set up the voting layouts.
I'm beginning to see that the only one in Kerry's camp who isn't a sore loser is John Kerry.
|
