The Worst Congress Ever

[The_Meach]

exaggeration isn't a very good word to describe what he is talking about. The writer is being colorful in a way to sway opinion. He throws in little tidbits that are kind of like comparing apples and apples, oranges and oranges, except one is a plain orange and the other is dressed like a clown.

exp;

I think that if the Framers went to Capitol Hill today

It has become this sad session of members sitting down and drinking Kool-Aid delivered by Karl Rove

his eyes wide and full of astonished, impotent rage, like a rape victim. His skin is as white as the belly of a fish; he hasn't seen the sun in seven years.

pee in their faces

James Sensenbrenner Jr., an ever-sweating, fat-fingered beast....perhaps to beat prostitutes to death.

It's pretty obvious on the last one. He tells you that Sensenbrenner is beast and beats prostitutes to death before you learn about any of his real misdeeds. He is leading the reader. Half the time it is with factual info, which is good, but he stops along the way to lead them with colorful phrases, which is bad.


But whatever. Lets not derail the thread talking about writing style. It has been made clear in previous threads that you enjoy this writing style, and some of us do not.

I was seriously impressed to see you post this. Seriously. Good form.

[sethsez]

It's an opinion piece. Though it uses facts to back up its opinion, the very title of the article (using an unquantifiable term such as "worst") should tip people off to the fact that it's an opinion piece. Thus, it's going to have opinions in it. What matters is whether he backs those opinions up.

And I think someone on Something Awful summed it up best: "people these days don't take a political article seriously unless it's more dry than translated stereo instructions."

[youandwhosearmy]

Lets assume 90 percent of the article is based in reality and true (which it is), you cannot expect an article in any magazine to stay unbiased and clear of opinions. Especially about this administration, where so much negativity and evil now exists as cold hard fact that is being completely "IGNORED" by in your face news stations which leaves those with that knowledge scrambling to find a way to present it to the American people so they understand just how poorly this country is being run.

Either way, its Rolling Stone. Take it as it is, but do not ever expect the mainstream 20 minute media to ever replace their story about "Dogs eating hotdogs at the county fair" with "One party rule ruins America."

It ain't gonna happen.


Also, something else. If your not a supporter of this administration, I have some advice for you. Never, ever, let the other side bring up semantics with you. Never let them question details or give them any room between the lines to interpret. If you let them go there, you will stay there, all the way to the ruin of your argument. They hate issues. They hate being questioned, and their response to any accusation of failure from their parties ideas (even when those ideas are no longer what they think they are) is to make you get emotional and trap yourself.

Hugs and Kisses,

Yawa

[Fe 26]

And I think someone on Something Awful summed it up best: "people these days don't take a political article seriously unless it's more dry than translated stereo instructions."

I see nothing wrong with that.

[Fe 26]

Also, something else. If your not a supporter of this administration, I have some advice for you. Never, ever, let the other side bring up semantics with you. Never let them question details or give them any room between the lines to interpret. If you let them go there, you will stay there, all the way to the ruin of your argument. They hate issues. They hate being questioned, and their response to any accusation of failure from their parties ideas (even when those ideas are no longer what they think they are) is to make you get emotional and trap yourself.

plz elaborate