In the light of a previous highly interesting thread being floundered, I would like to know the opinions of those who post here regarding political pundits who post their opinions here but have been too lazy to ever have registered to vote or taken part in the democratic process. Are they credible advocates of democracy that should be listened to, or lare they ethargic hypocrits?
BroonOpinion
In the fairness of open debate, and living in a world where free speech should be allowed and encouraged then i would have to say in the circumstances you describe, they have a right to be heard, however, maybe the listeners would take a different view of those words bearing in mind the new circumstances.
I like you find it very hard to understand how somebody so vocal has done so little of his expected duty, and that is what it should be, a duty to vote, even if that vote is a spoilt paper so to register a non vote.
9/11, has been a wake up call for many Americans, who until that time had lived in little fear of terrorism, but as with so many, the over reaction of both the USG, certain political pundits and other normal americans only goes to prove the level of paranoia that exists within that society.
And why is that?
The speech is the only thing that matters, not the messenger.
When you cannot attack the message, you wish to attack the messanger… that speaks more about you than it does about him.
And why is that?
The speech is the only thing that matters, not the messenger.
When you cannot attack the message, you wish to attack the messanger… that speaks more about you than it does about him.[/quote]
TM, of course the messenger matters. Do you really believe that if some base level bureaucrat had delivered the same speeches that Bush etc made they would have had the same impact, of course they would not.
Oh really? Tell that to the presidential campaigners. Just wait until the election campaign hots up; it will ONLY be about the messenger. The message(s) on both sides will become secondary. I think it is valid to question the credibility of a political pundit when there is evidence that that pundit has never taken part in the process and expects others to blindly accept their point of view.
Doesn’t the GOP attempt to discredit Kerry as a candidate and try to negate his message by occasionally pointing to his voting record in the senate? This forum concerns itself with political debate; attacking the messenger is a part of political debate everywhere, why should that not be the case here?
It’s much more interesting and much more realistic a debating forum this way. A microcosm of the real political world, perhaps?
I think attacking Fred Smith’s voting record (or lack of it) is fair game in the context of debates that go on here.
However, I would say that there is a line to be drawn regarding comments referring to sexual orientation or ‘outing’ him from his day job. That’s not on and that isn’t fair. There has to be some semblance of personal protection in this forum as fear of exposure will stifle and suppress open debate.
But his voting record and related credibility really is, with respect, fair game.
BroonAgitator
[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]
The speech is the only thing that matters, not the messenger.[/quote]
I’ve little if anything to do with them. I can, however, ask people on this forum to respond to the messages and not the messangers.
And everyone here from both sides will point out the unfairness of it all.
Attacking a candidate’s voting record is legitimate as it is relevant to the substantial issue of how the candidate will vote on or how he will deal with certain issues. This is entirely different from attacking an individual here for not voting in an election. I’m certain that you can distinguish between these two different types of attacks.
Except that nobody in these debates is running for elective office, right?
What relevance does fred’s voting record in elections have to the discussions taking place here. Have you ever voted in an US election? No? Then why must we read anything you have to write re US policy?
Exactly.
[quote=“BroonAle”]But his voting record and related credibility really is, with respect, fair game.
BroonAgitator[/quote]
I respectfully disagree, Mr. Agitator.