Kucinich and Paul in comparison

angelica

chopitdown wrote:

add to that ontheissues.org it's got some good information as well.

This is what I'm wondering about, because some of the links posted in the original article are from ontheissues.org and if the sources are reputable, and there is in fact fallacy, then it looks like it's the authors of the complilation, themselves, who have slanted the information erroneously, whether accidentally and deliberately.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

What it's looking like to me is that if there has been any slanting of information--and I don't know this yet--it's been by the people from myspace who have compiled the information culled from the linked resources into this article, for their purposes.

It looks completely unconnected to the candidates themselves.

Well that is why I said if Kucinich has approved this message. I have always respected Dennis Kucinich and do doubt that this was endorsed by him or his campaign. Who ever did create this message should have spent 20 minutes checking the facts and they would realize that there is a good amount of misinformation there.

mammasan

polaris wrote:

these kinds of posts are misleading anyways ... unless a candidate were to give a synopsis on why they voted each time - you can't tell their motivation ...

many times they will slide provisions and riders on bills ... so, although the main crux of the bill is to provide cheap drugs to africa, it will also contain a provision to drill for oil in alaska or something ...

Exactly. Just posting that Ron Paul voted against the expansion of the AMBER alert program without providing the why is omitting important information.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

Well that is why I said if Kucinich has approved this message. I have always respected Dennis Kucinich and do doubt that this was endorsed by him or his campaign. Who ever did create this message should have spent 20 minutes checking the facts and they would realize that there is a good amount of misinformation there.

I have heard Kucinich make certain claims, himself, regarding being the only candidate to do such and such, but that was in reference to other democrats. So what may be accurate in one context may be accidentally or deliberately false in another.

When average people post things on the internet, there is a far lower standard of fact checking than in "real" publishing, for good reason. However, it pays to be watchful and careful.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

Exactly. Just posting that Ron Paul voted against the expansion of the AMBER alert program without providing the why is omitting important information.

Yes, and people are often so focussed on padding their agenda when they use facts to back up writing an article for their own purposes, that misinformation is common, even when the details are accurate.

angelica

polaris wrote:

many times they will slide provisions and riders on bills ... so, although the main crux of the bill is to provide cheap drugs to africa, it will also contain a provision to drill for oil in alaska or something ...

Interesting. Thanks polaris.

chopitdown

angelica wrote:

This is what I'm wondering about, because some of the links posted in the original article are from ontheissues.org and if the sources are reputable, and there is in fact fallacy, then it looks like it's the authors of the complilation, themselves, who have slanted the information erroneously, whether accidentally and deliberately.

the majority of the discrepencies came from the uncited Kucinich claims. The link for project vote smart seems to be the best b/c it has a checklist of what the views are and is very good, and more thorough.

farfromglorified

Umm...this list isn't even close to correct, right from the start. Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

He also voted repeatedly against the Iraq War.

If people here hate war but love socialism, Ron Paul is certainly not the candidate for them, however. Kucinich would be much more appropriate.

angelica

chopitdown wrote:

the majority of the discrepencies came from the uncited Kucinich claims. The link for project vote smart seems to be the best b/c it has a checklist of what the views are and is very good, and more thorough.

Thanks.

Like I said, I have heard Kucinich make some such claims in public debates/interviews, but not in the context of comparing himself to Ron Paul--so while Kucinch was being honest in the contexts I am familiar with, it seems as though such information was erroneously construed to say something else here.

edit: the debates/interviews I refer to with the Kucinich claims are all contained in the Kucinich thread, in case anyone wants to see first-hand, for the sake of judging his authenticity for themselves.

farfromglorified

Hehe...I just finished this and had a good laugh:

"Only one candidate has been endorsed by Willie Nelson"

Ron Paul could have helped Willie out with his tax problems...

...but nevermind.

Eliot Rosewater

gue_barium wrote:

So, a fringe candidate, in this upcoming election, in your opinion, may have a shot...

I agree.

Yes, a shot...a long shot at 100-1 for Paul and 200-1 for Kucinich.... http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=244700

farfromglorified

don't gimme no wrote:

Yes, a shot...a long shot at 100-1 for Paul and 200-1 for Kucinich.... http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=244700

Any idea how they arrive at those odds? I'd be taking either at 1,000,000 - 1, if anyone wanted to put up some dollars.

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

Ron Paul has voted NO against the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul has voted NO for authorizing the War in Iraq
Ron Paul voted NO to authorize additional spending for the war.
Ron Paul voted YES on the non binding resolution disavowing the War in Iraq
Ron Paul voted NO to authorize drilling in ANWAR
Ron Paul has voted against NAFTA.
Ron Paul does only want to do away with Bush tax cuts, he wants to completely scrap the IRS and our current tax system.
Ron Paul voted NO on the expansion of the AMBER alert system hich included the creation of a federal agency to handle it. Ron Paul is not against the AMBER alert system but is smart enough to see that there is no need for more levels of government bueracracy to implement it.
Ron Paul is in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade because he feels that abortion, as well as same sex marriage, is an issue that should be handled on a state by state basis.

Many of the items listed there that state that Kucinich is the only candidate to support are an out right lie and if Kucinich in any way approved of this message than he is no better than the other politicians who would spread lies and half truths.

The girl that bulletined this is not from the Kucinich site and since she left a link to ontheissues I figured that's where she got it from and it was accurate so I didn't check it. My fault. I'll double check next time. She's always been very honest and a nice person...I wasn't expecting her to lie.

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

Exactly. Just posting that Ron Paul voted against the expansion of the AMBER alert program without providing the why is omitting important information.

Well sites like Project Vote Smart and OnThe Issues do exactly that...they just show the voting records. And both of those have received good receptions when I posted them here.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The girl that bulletined this is not from the Kucinich site and since she left a link to ontheissues I figured that's where she got it from and it was accurate so I didn't check it. My fault. I'll double check next time. She's always been very honest and a nice person...I wasn't expecting her to lie.

I'm not blaming you in anyway. I know you where just passing on what was sent to you.

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

I'm not blaming you in anyway. I know you where just passing on what was sent to you.

Well thank you. But I feel pretty shitty for being too trusting.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well sites like Project Vote Smart and OnThe Issues do exactly that...they just show the voting records. And both of those have received good receptions when I posted them here.

i agree that those sites are a great source of information. I just think that stating that someone voted for this or didn't vote for that without providing at least a reason behind their decision is leaving out a lot of information and is not presenting a clear picture of what the candidate stands for.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

i agree that those sites are a great source of information. I just think that stating that someone voted for this or didn't vote for that without providing at least a reason behind their decision is leaving out a lot of information and is not presenting a clear picture of what the candidate stands for.

And at the same time, it is legitimate to cite bare facts without motivations. Any context is legitimate. What isn't legitimate is if one deliberately uses facts to paint a false picture. I'm not sure the myspace "friend" deliberately lied. She may not have been seeing the whole picture. We all have blindspots.


Even though the internet is responsible, inadvertently, for tons of false information, one positive thing is that the average person, like us posters, for example, come to learn how strenuous thorough accuracy can be. And by recognizing our own flaws, and of our peers, we become more savvy looking at the mainstream media and their own slants/biases and flaws. This is a beginning step of taking away the double tier of one being in power, and another following along blindly, now that average folks realize how much is slanted, and erroneous. Some is deliberate, some is human error.

Abookamongstthemany

I edited the first post.

PaperPlates

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well thank you. But I feel pretty shitty for being too trusting.

You mean copy/pastes of articles/"facts" can backfire?? Who would have thought there'd be misinformation on the internet??? <----insert shit eating grin emoticon here.






Its okay abook, when you copy paste thousands of articles without any real knowledge of its source and with heartfelt agenda driven concern, its bound to backfire once or twice.