I must say that you are a very trusting individual. I salute you for that, most people nowadays are very sceptical of internet stories.
If I was trying to develop an internet following, I would do what Rivero has done, and set up a very low cost video production where I would question every event. After all he has no resources on the ground across the world, and he relies on what is at best heresay evidence to support his contrary view.
I'm all for contrary views, but should they be subject to the same rigid scrutiny that mainstream views are subject to?
Could you tell me why you believe this man? As it turned out Romney only just scraped in ahead of a well respected local boy with strong religious values. (Well almost local)
The religious aspect appeals to voters in Iowa.
I couldn't see any evidence of voter fraud whatsoever, and the outcome was within predictable parameters.
I should also say that Rivero relies on the support of the general populace, who have lost faith in politicians and the media, simply because he offers an alternate view.
I question whether that is enough. Is every single politician and media personality a liar, and if so do they lie on every single occasion. I think not, that becomes too stressful. Most liars do so to get themselves out of trouble, or to help them in their commercial endeavours. To lie on every occasion would in the end be suicide for them, as it increases the opportunity to be caught out, and in any case much genuine information supports their cause.
In any set of circumstances, some information will always be supportive of your views, so an intelligent person would only lie or "bend the truth" on occasions where the information didn't support their cause.
Rivero and others like him seem to "cry foul" on every issue, so what is their objective. Would a truthful commentator not occasionally admit that an enemy had got it right occasionally, even if that admission was a begrudging admission.
If we put this into a life or death scenario such as - during WW2 the allies knew that Rommel was a very intelligent and tactically clever commander, and they certainly admitted that, even if only amongst themselves. To not admit it would be to thus underestimate him, and that would have caused them to make more errors, which could have changed the outcome of WW2. If we had an ear in Rommels camp, we would also have heard him give credit to the allies for their moves at times. Real professional do that, they know when their enemy has made a clever move, just as they know when their enemy has made a blunder.
So in a real life desperate situation, sworn mortal enemies accept that each other "gets it right" on many occasions. Why then do you not hear any admission from Rivero that something credible and good actually happened occasionally? Just as no one is right on every occasion, in my experience no one is wrong on every occasion. Even chance evens up eventually.
I must say that you are a very trusting individual. I salute you for that, most people nowadays are very sceptical of internet stories.
ReplyDeleteIf I was trying to develop an internet following, I would do what Rivero has done, and set up a very low cost video production where I would question every event. After all he has no resources on the ground across the world, and he relies on what is at best heresay evidence to support his contrary view.
I'm all for contrary views, but should they be subject to the same rigid scrutiny that mainstream views are subject to?
Could you tell me why you believe this man? As it turned out Romney only just scraped in ahead of a well respected local boy with strong religious values. (Well almost local)
The religious aspect appeals to voters in Iowa.
I couldn't see any evidence of voter fraud whatsoever, and the outcome was within predictable parameters.
Do you still question the outcome, and if so why?
I should also say that Rivero relies on the support of the general populace, who have lost faith in politicians and the media, simply because he offers an alternate view.
ReplyDeleteI question whether that is enough. Is every single politician and media personality a liar, and if so do they lie on every single occasion. I think not, that becomes too stressful. Most liars do so to get themselves out of trouble, or to help them in their commercial endeavours. To lie on every occasion would in the end be suicide for them, as it increases the opportunity to be caught out, and in any case much genuine information supports their cause.
In any set of circumstances, some information will always be supportive of your views, so an intelligent person would only lie or "bend the truth" on occasions where the information didn't support their cause.
Rivero and others like him seem to "cry foul" on every issue, so what is their objective. Would a truthful commentator not occasionally admit that an enemy had got it right occasionally, even if that admission was a begrudging admission.
If we put this into a life or death scenario such as - during WW2 the allies knew that Rommel was a very intelligent and tactically clever commander, and they certainly admitted that, even if only amongst themselves. To not admit it would be to thus underestimate him, and that would have caused them to make more errors, which could have changed the outcome of WW2. If we had an ear in Rommels camp, we would also have heard him give credit to the allies for their moves at times. Real professional do that, they know when their enemy has made a clever move, just as they know when their enemy has made a blunder.
So in a real life desperate situation, sworn mortal enemies accept that each other "gets it right" on many occasions. Why then do you not hear any admission from Rivero that something credible and good actually happened occasionally? Just as no one is right on every occasion, in my experience no one is wrong on every occasion. Even chance evens up eventually.
Look forward to your views.