A view from a different perspective.
Jay and I have been playing this game for well over three years. We have met and had very good dinner conversation for nearly six hours last October. We also exchange email at times on off OT subjects.
While I do tend to disagree with much of what Jay posts since he so firmly supports the failed Bush policies at EVERY possible turn, I don't know that I believe that he intentionally plays agent provocateur ALL the time [like Rush]. I think that just comes as a result of years of support for Bush and Republican politics and a distillation of thought that has polarized to a very Black and White reality. The personification of "You are either with us or against us".
To the deeper question of the debate, and the amount of discourse that is churned, I think it is very healthy. The debates here, and on some other forums have started elevating thought back to levels they were in the early part of this country. Fundamental conversations of core beliefs. We have people on all sides that are able to contribute well developed thought on their position. Unfortunately we also have a few who simply like to criticize the thoughts of others and not really contribute original thought or opinion. These snipers pollute the debate but, in an open forum are part of the mix.
I have copied some of the better conversations on to doc files from this forum to share with others. Some are brilliant. They cover such a vast spectrum of information and diverse opinion and, while everyone gives everyone else's opinion grief in the process, any honest opinion that is backed by fact or belief is tended to be treated with respect. Only those regurgitations of political dogma bereft of personal thought tend to not garner respect.
Back to Jay, really, I think some of his posting is just a reaction to the additional freedom he has gotten now that his handler in the Witless Protection Program has given him Internet Access.
Well said, and I'll offer a couple pennies more:
Q, Q, Q . . . dude . . . chill . . .
Jay is partisan, no doubt, severe GOP spin. I have misread or misunderstood Jay on occasion, and understood him better than others on a couple more. Bush is president, until a couple years ago, the congress was GOP, things were good. He wanted and wants things to be good so badly, that's what he sees. The glass is half full. Real Estate values down? Great opportunity to buy a house. Stocks go down, great opportunity to find bargains.
However, one thing that partisans can see is the partisanship of the other side. Of course, they see partisanship where it isn't as well, but the whole system is built on an us vs them foundation these days. Things are never as good or as bad as the way things are spun by partisans, and our governmental representatives are eat up in it.
Q, you're not a partisan, as I know you're a conservative, traditional GOP, yet you see some clear defects in your party. Many cannot see defects in their party, or give them a pass on the defects. It is refreshing that many on here rail against their party's failures, they see them, some folks I'd call Democrats by their usual positions have said they'd even vote for Ron Paul. But, case in point: If Iraq is your issue, and you're voting against McBush because of it, are you voting for the re-election of anyone in your state who voted "yea" to the resolution for war? If so, why? Do you buy into the rhetoric that they only voted for it because of Bush? Given that the constitution makes declaring war a legislative branch thing so that one moron can't take us to war, don't you expect them to discharge that duty with the due diligence they're supposed to? So, are you voting for anyone who supported the war? Or, are you happy that things, maybe the war, maybe the economy, maybe other things, have gone badly because you believe it will further your party? Is the improvement in Iraq a good thing? If we things got even better, and Bush began a steady withdrawal of troops, would you be happy? I'm not asking if you'd like him or want to do it all over again, but would you be happy? Have the Dems delivered on what they promised? Have they tried? Giving them a pass for not taking a stand since they don't have a veto proof majority?
Just an example or three, but it leads to the point that we see with our own filters and sometimes it takes a partisan to expose one. Jay's approach isn't likely to influence anyone here, but I do believe he knows exactly what he's doing when pushing buttons on here. In short (too late for that):
1. If things are always good when you're team is in and always bad when the other team is in, you might be a partisan.
2. If you think Obama being president would be the end of the world, you might be a partisan.
3. If you think McCain being president would be the end of the world, you might be a partisan.
4. If you think that either McCain or Obama is "genuine" and Ron Paul is a flake, you might be a partisan
5. If you can look at the evidence today and still believe that going to war in Iraq was correct, you might be a partisan
6. If you have rejoiced at news of additional terrorist/insurgent acts in Iraq, you might be a partisan
7. If you believe that Fox News is fair and balanced, you might be a partisan
8. If you believe the others are fair and balanced, you might be a partisan.
Feel free to follow my lead and add to the list.
And, Q, like Z always says, it's just the interweb, it ain't real.