[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: I said you were irritating me, I never said I didn't love you (I do). Your true feelings were never in doubt. Also, I never said i was right, I just said you were wrong. At least we partially agree. You weren't right. If I assigned meaning to your statements that is my right to do so--so long as there is logic behind my assignment (which there was/is). You have no such right and are kidding yourself if you think you can make up something and then hide that fabrication behind the pretense of logic. Your assumptions weren't based on logic. In regard to your two-fold irritation(AKA illogical assumptions), I said nothing to indicate that I was (a)disagreeing with you just to disagree(what an egocentric notion). I was disagreeing because I thought you were wrong. I also said nothing to indicate that (b) Fox was justified in it's very right leaning stance. What logic should have told you about my post was that 'leaning' in news reporting is wrong. It is wrong when it is done a little for 100 million viewers a day AND when it is done allot for 2 million viewers a day. An additional point would be whose leaning is having more of an impact? The leaning that is constantly commented on and criticized which reaches the few, or the leaning that is accepted as inevitable by the many? Further, you call my statements arrogant and imply that I do not respect other peoples opinions---where have I stated someone to be wrong without proof? More to the point, where in my post did I make a statement that you can disprove? I may have firm opinions, but they are firm because they are opinions based on fact. In the text that I've quoted you said I was wrong and you did it without proof. Disprove your idea? Why bother when you can't prove it? Firm opinions are great, but just because you base them on something doesn't mean that something is fact. See you've talked allot about facts, but you haven't show any. As for the whole rich person/stupid person thing---while stated as an intentionally antagonizing generality I would yet challange you to name one person who is Intelligent(about politics), consitantly votes republican, and whose family middle class or 'lower'. I can't think of a single person...and if you can, please remember that its the exceptions that prove the rule. An 'intentionally antagonizing generality' would be against the TOS, so you'll want to avoid those in the future. Regarding your question, I don't actually know anyone who is politically intelligent and votes a straight ticket... Republican or Democrat. The people in my circle vote for candidates based on the issues at hand and the candidate's position. The lack of an exception disproves your rule. The real problem with your statement is that you seek to judge people you don't know. It's quite arrogant. Sorry about your experience with the JR college government council's Republican branch but to extrapolate that experience onto the real world's Republican party and/or all Republicans is completely illogical, not based on fact, wrong-headed, and cannot be proved no matter how firm your opinion on the subject.

[ 11-21-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]