How do "WE" handle discrepancies?

Do you listen to both sides without leaping in with counter arguments?

Do you try to differentiate their thoughts, feelings, and experiences?

Do "We" reserve what seems obvious to us long enough to entertain complimentary ways of looking at things?

Can "We" express our principles without judging those who don't fully share them?

Whose viewpoint do "We" find most difficult to respect?

In conclusion, the opinions/emails/and comments on our website, particularly the blog area are just that, opinions/emails/and comments by guests to our site.  "We" cannot check all the facts but we do our best to monitor all content in order to present both sides to a subject fairly. 

Thomas Sowell: Suckered by political 'Lucys'
By THOMAS SOWELL
2010-07-05 17:00:49
People who remember the old comic strip "Peanuts" will recall an often-repeated situation where Lucy offers to hold a football for Charlie Brown to kick. Then, as Charlie coming running up to kick it, Lucy snatches away the ball and Charlie Brown loses his balance and goes crashing on his backside.
The reason this same scene remained funny, despite how often it was repeated, is that in the later repetitions Charlie Brown would express suspicion at Lucy, recalling how she had tricked him before. She would then come up with some claim that she wasn't going to do that any more -- and of course she did.
There is a similar routine that has been repeated many times in Washington, over the years, with the Democrats playing Lucy and Republicans playing Charlie Brown.
It goes like this: Democrats start spending money wildly, handing out goodies to a wide range of people who they want to vote for them, while Republicans complain about deficits and the national debt. Then, when the public becomes alarmed about the debts that are piling up, the Democrats get the Republicans to vote for higher taxes to deal with the debt crisis, in the name of "fiscal responsibility."
Sometimes the deal is sweetened by the Democrats promising to make spending cuts if the Republicans vote for higher taxes, so that there can be one of those "bipartisan" solutions so beloved by the media. But, after the Republicans vote for the tax increases, and come running up to find the spending cuts, the Democrats snatch away the spending cuts and the Republicans fall right on their backsides, just like Charlie Brown.
This old trick is now being unveiled by the Obama administration, like so many other old political tricks used in this "change" administration.
In one of President Obama's many prissy little sermonettes, complete with finger wagging, he has declared: "Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits step up. Because I'm calling their bluff."
There is already a bipartisan commission set to provide political cover for the Democrats' wild spending that has increased the national debt from 63 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2004 to 83 percent in 2009 -- and official estimates of more than 90 percent this year, with more increases in sight.
Why Republicans join such transparent attempts to rescue the Democrats from the political consequences of their own actions is one of the many unsolved mysteries of human nature in general and the Republican Party in particular.
What this political game boils down to is that Democrats get all the political benefits of playing Santa Claus to all sorts of groups and special interests, while Republicans who vote to raise taxes to pay for all this are cast in the role of Frank Nitti, the enforcer for the mob.
Many elections have confirmed that Santa Claus is more popular than Frank Nitti, surprising as that may be to some people.
Republicans are not the only suckers in this game. The voting public's willingness to believe fancy rhetoric and ignore hard facts is a crucial part of this scam.
When the Obama administration said that it could provide health insurance to millions of additional people without increasing the national debt, shouldn't common sense have told you that somebody was just insulting your intelligence?
When the 2,000-page bill was rushed through Congress too fast for anybody to read it, shouldn't that have made you realize that you were being played for a sucker?
When this bill that was passed with lightning speed was scheduled to take effect only after the 2012 election, didn't that suggest that they didn't want you to find out how it works in practice in time to turn against Obama when he is up for reelection?Recent polls show that a lot of people are against Obamacare. But there are still a lot of other people, though not as many, who are for it.
Even more amazingly, there are still Republicans lured by the siren song of "bipartisanship" and apparently unaware of the difference in popularity between Santa Claus and Frank Nitti.

from "Rich"

The mainstream media does such a good job of dividing our country and pitting one side against the other. I believe the majority of people want whats right, are tired of wars, and want to help people that need help....but the mainstream media picks and chooses the topics, and of course they typically choose ones they know, that will get one side or the other fired up....Divide and Conquer!!!
Unfortunately there really isn't much difference in the two parties, it's all about who gets to be charge....I'm pretty sure it was the neocon W and his war-monging vp Dick that installed the largest tax cuts in American history...That was awesome, but then we went to war.....War??? Really??? War on terror???  Weapons of mass destruction???  Oh yeh, troops did find chemical weapons.....of course the U.S. sold those weapons to Iraq, during the Iran and Iraq war. How much money was spent(borrowed) while taxes were cut to fund the "war on terror"? Speaking of Dick, where has he disappeared to? Hospital with chest pains, really? Maybe its his aching heart from the current oil disaster in the gulf....I mean, heck, backup shut-off valves are required in Norway's offshore deep well drilling, but the oil boys(W, and Dick) signed off on NOT requiring oil companies to install the back-up shut off valves.....after all, it would have cost the oil companies $500,000 for each well?!? Who's back were they covering??  Of course, the oil wells in the gulf  aren't the only things that W and Dick did for big oil, they also EXEMPTED the natural gas industry from having to follow the epa's clean air, and the clean water regulations....Really????? EXEMPT from two pretty important regulations, REALLY????? Sure enough!!!!
I watched a documentary on HBO called Gasland...
here is a link to the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8     Something thats def. worth your time