Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil
What? How does it attibute "EVERYTHING"? It doesn't. It just mentions stuff like quality standards or socialy orientated actions taken by the Dems. There are a lot of issues it doesn't address.
|
What I meant is that everything mentioned in the article is attributed to the democrats EXCLUSIVELY. Which is bollocks. Republicans contributed towards the same social issues. It's not like the republicans never considered bringing electricity to some god forsaken villages. And it's plenty of republicans who for example defend the all the protectionist acts who keep the sugar industry running. And there's plenty of other examples. Once again, the issues discusses by your stories are achievements which should NOT be exclusively attributed to the democrats. Am I clear enough now?
Quote:
|
Well of course it's sided. It was written by a democrat, what did you expect? It's like Michael Moore's work being slagged off because it's partisan when that is the main point of his work. You shouldn't judge something for what it was never meant to be.
|
Then why do you even argue with me? That's what I said from the beginning. Praising this one but blaming a republican who doesn't do anything different is hypocritical. That's all I stated. Read again.
Quote:
I see it more like an answer to the question "When's the last time the Dems did something for me?".
Again it doesn't attribute ALL to the democrats, or deny EVERYTHING the republicans have achieved. It just recalls to the Joe-republicans of the US that SOME important things are to be attributed to the dems.
|
And this is wrong. Read my first paragraph because it addresses the same issue.
Quote:
|
I'd call it just another article too, because there have been so many like this throughout this campaign, even during the primaries. But I also make a difference between an invented story, that will be obviously be different to reality, and an article that presents itself as serious and backed-up.
|
An invented story? It's not an invented story. Most of the things in it are "harder facts" than proportion to which the facts in your nice story are to be attributed to the democrats only. It's the implications to which the author alludes what makes that text to be ...disgusting really.
Quote:
My reading is that the story is manipulative in a pro-dem way, not anti-rep way. I have much less issues with biased stuff when it's pro than when it's anti. And the Obama article is pretty much just that.
Ponrauil
|
Partially agree with this. Just imagine we wrote a great book together. I wrote 40 percent of it and you wrote 60 percent of it. And then some critic would tell my fans: "Stupid fans of DevilsSon, they keep on preaching him while in fact Ponrauil has written the parts which they like best" The story is pro-dems but at the same time it is heavily discrediting the republicans and to me it's equally bad. And as i said before, the two articles are obviously addressing different social strata. While I find your satire really witty and amusing, I find the Obama article disgusting, still there is no difference in purpose.