Know what's sad?

[hazliya]

When you can directly tell what political ads a person has watched by the way they express their opinions on the candidates.

What happened to a grain of salt in politics? Sometimes I think that people who base their opinions on ad campaigns shouldn't be allowed to vote. As in, make it a weeding out process.

"This is Candidate A's team. Candidate B is a spineless worm, and here's why!"
"Oh, man. They're so right! Candidate B is such a spineless worm. I'm glad they opened my eyes."

What? What?

-Haz

Comments

[hntrpyanfar.livejournal.com]

Are the gay communists hawt? That totally changes things. >:)

Seriously, you also have to remember that people are likely to have witty catchphrases they agree with stick in their brains. So you may be hearing the same thing over and over because Candidate A has a good speechwriter... or is one.

I will agree, however, that people who do not give caveats as to their sources tend to bug me a lot. In the age of blogs, we seem to specialize in opinion ... and layers of opinion... rather than fact. It does seem a bit egomaniacal to do so at times, but I'd rather know where you got that opinion from so I can assign it some weight vs woo-woo. (For what it's worth, my news sources are left leaning typically... CNN and the New York Times. I know this and try to 'adjust' my opinion of what I read... but I'm a left leaning independent myself. ;)

As elenuial was hinting at too... it's very hard to get data on anything without some sort of spin on it. Take the current temperature as given by a weather person. Undoubtably, a below-freezing temperature will be more welcome in a skiing area than in a metropolitan area prone to icy roads. ;)