"grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore offers unsolicited opinion on climate change."That sounds a lot like an Onion headline. :)
It's a terrible headline, but my disdain for Clinton balances out that for Fox News. I would have made the headline even more course: "grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore offers unsolicited opinion on climate change."
grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore
You're most welcome.It's a terrible headline, but my disdain for Clinton balances out that for Fox News. I would have made the headline even more course: "grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore offers unsolicited opinion on climate change."
Good to know where you stand on objective journalism. :tup
Gosh :lol
They almost went with "Head Receiving President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America"
Well... that rapist WAS impeached... for lying under oath.
Well... that rapist WAS impeached... for lying under oath.
Well, if you're going to commit character assassination, you mind as well be funny. I'm talking to you, Fox News."grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore offers unsolicited opinion on climate change."That sounds a lot like an Onion headline. :)
I don't know if it's as good as "Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs." (https://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/05/obama-parties-chris-rock-jay-z-and-whoopi-while-rome-burns)I agree. But the fact that it generated an Onion comparison is satisfactory.
I don't know if it's as good as "Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs." (https://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/05/obama-parties-chris-rock-jay-z-and-whoopi-while-rome-burns)
I don't know if it's as good as "Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs." (https://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/05/obama-parties-chris-rock-jay-z-and-whoopi-while-rome-burns)
Guess you guys are all blind to the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC are all so far up Obama's ass that he has to take a shit for them to know what to report. I thought prog fans were supposed to be more intelligent than Green Day, A7X, GAGA fans. Whatever...
It's all going to be ok guys, just sit down and color. I know reality is a cold hearted bastard, the adults will keep you safe.
Gosh :lol
They almost went with "Head Receiving President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America"
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
I agree with all three of these.
Now what are you going on about?
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
I agree with all three of these.
Now what are you going on about?
this
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LWAgZaJakuk/S07K2K7kJZI/AAAAAAAAA1M/JPfqtWQcoVw/s400/Seabass+Cam+Neely.jpg)
Ban his ass, C. Bass!
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LWAgZaJakuk/S07K2K7kJZI/AAAAAAAAA1M/JPfqtWQcoVw/s400/Seabass+Cam+Neely.jpg)
Ban his ass, C. Bass!
I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding. So, we will start with the basics:
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
Once you get these down, let me know.
I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding. So, we will start with the basics:
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
Once you get these down, let me know.
I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding. So, we will start with the basics:
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
Once you get these down, let me know.
Looks like Angelback had nothing.I was hoping he'd start quoting Ann Coulter.
You guys don't get much compettion over here.....unless you count Andy.
He was entertaining at least.
Yeah, they don't have any. But as I said in the other journalism thread, once you figure out how to get your news from the people that the media get it from, which is very easy, cable news seems like an unnecessary evil. I still read newspapers, but now it's an exercise in critical thinking (e.g. "how does this compare to what I know about the topic?"You guys don't get much compettion over here.....unless you count Andy.
He was entertaining at least.
There's plenty of differing opinions over here.
It just turns out no intelligent posters (i.e., those who can hold civilized discussions with one another) are willing to defend Fox New's journalistic integrity. Go figure.
"rapist" :rollin
Dawg was just that: A DAWG :metal
Best president we've had, probably in 50 years, maybe more. The economy literally fucking EXPLODED under his watch. And the way it works in American politics, in case you haven't been paying attention is, if it happens on your watch, you get credit, good, bad or ugly.
Bill Clinton is pretty much my hero. I wish he hadn't cheated on his wife, because that's something I don't condone and would never do, but we, as a nation, pretty much idolize JFK and he was well known for cheating on his wife.
I won't hold President Clinton to a different standard. This country FLOURISHED under his leadership, and BOTH presidents since have, quite frankly, sucked a mile of wombat ass in comparison.
Yeah. And, then the economy IMPLODED in 2008 because of Clinton's policies. And, then there was also the little issue of ..... September 11th. I love how people completely forget the fact that 9-11 didn't just "happen" one day with absolutely no thought or preparation. The planning of 9-11 went way back into Clinton's presidency when Bin Laden threatened the U.S. on ..... get this.... CLINTON'S WATCH and.... get this.... PLANNED IT under..... get this..... CLINTON'S WATCH.
So, do you still think he was such a "great" president?
It's a terrible headline, but my disdain for Clinton balances out that for Fox News. I would have made the headline even more course: "grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore offers unsolicited opinion on climate change."
Good to know where you stand on objective journalism. :tup
Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?" not seeing it.
What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?
Wag the dog.What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?
No, that wouldn't make sense, you see, because that would be completely out of context. I was replying directly to someone who was praising Bill Clinton and talking about how the country "flourished" during his time in office. On the surface, it appeared to be good, but underneath, things were really bad and they affected us later. And, the problem is that the "flourishing" had nothing to do with Clinton while the bad things that affected us later WERE within his control - he just didn't do anything about them.
Why does Clinton get blamed for 9/11 and Bush doesn't?
Clinton had plenty of warning signs that shit was going down. The world trade center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, which was a Bin Laden job etc. I don't think either president deserves blame really. I think most of the blame should be put on the people who planned and carried out the attack.
Also, we were bombing foreign countries under the Clinton administration without declaring war on anyone so the US foreign policy that people tend to have a huge problem with didn't really start with Bush.
As for the economy. The reason it flourished under Clinton was because of the internet boom. Once that died, what was left? Clinton didn't cause the good economy that's for sure.
Even if "wag the dog" had truly been a concern for Clinton, that says to me that he didn't have a backbone.I agree with this, but that's not the point you've been trying to make. Clinton spent quite a bit of time worrying about al Qaeda, while Bush completely ignored it because he was more interested in Iraq. Bush had 10 months of PDB's, and like most things, was completely uninterested in them. Personally, I'd rank fruitless efforts light years ahead of willful negligence.
Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?" not seeing it.
The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.
Huh?
Though, hey, the guy balanced the budget regardless.
What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?
No, that wouldn't make sense, you see, because that would be completely out of context. I was replying directly to someone who was praising Bill Clinton and talking about how the country "flourished" during his time in office. On the surface, it appeared to be good, but underneath, things were really bad and they affected us later. And, the problem is that the "flourishing" had nothing to do with Clinton while the bad things that affected us later WERE within his control - he just didn't do anything about them.
Who said Bush doesn't get blamed? No one was praising Bush. However, Clinton was MORE responsible. Attack after attack happened during Clinton's time, they issued the original threat to the U.S. during his time, they planned 9-11 during his time and, to top it off, Clinton easily could have stopped it if he had a backbone, which he didn't. As far as I know, the "blame" that Bush gets is that Condi Rice received memos that planes were going to be used a weapons inside the U.S. and she didn't follow through with informing Bush or something along those lines. That's bad, but Clinton's is worse.
Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?" not seeing it.
The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.
Yeah beacuse the left leaning media outlets NEVER do that do they? LMAO.
Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?" not seeing it.
The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.
Yeah beacuse the left leaning media outlets NEVER do that do they? LMAO.
But just for shits-n-giggles lets break it down... "Impeached President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America"
Impeached President? Check
Impeached Presidenet says? Check
Impeached President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America? Check
So yup the headline is 100% factual. i will debate though the accuracy of his statement, since he lumped us all (Americans that is) together and said we are all embarrased... I for one am an American and I think there are indicators that actions of humans in general are certainly not preventing global climate change but are we causing it? Nope not doing it. Global climate change has been going on for millions of years... most of which oddly enough occurred BEFORE the advent of CFC's and the internal combustion engine. So to address Billy-Boy's statement I am not embarrased at all by those who deny we are the cause of "global warming".
However to play devil's advocate, consider this headline https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-remain-silent-for-most-of-obamas-speech/2011/09/08/gIQAy3NXDK_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-remain-silent-for-most-of-obamas-speech/2011/09/08/gIQAy3NXDK_story.html) for the most part it is not quite as obvious a rhetoric as the Fox headline, however it is also in fact 100% correct YET lends itself to the belief and position that the house republicans SHOULD have been cheering, hooping, and clapping at the pile of crap the Obama was shoveling in that speech. Not trying to sidetrack the thread mind you with another political avenue (the speech) just citing an example where rhetoric comes into play on both sides of the aisle, its just that the Dems are admittedly slicker when it comes to doing it.
Did I miss something?
Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.
Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.
Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.
Except that this isn't a thread about how great CNN and MSNBC are. It's a thread about how crappy FOX is. Others are making the point that "yeah, well, everybody else does it!"Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.
Did I miss something?
I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.
Except that this isn't a thread about how great CNN and MSNBC are. It's a thread about how crappy FOX is. Others are making the point that "yeah, well, everybody else does it!"
Rankhttps://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
News Outlet
ADA
Score
1
Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8
2
CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
56.0
3
ABC Good Morning America
56.1
4
Drudge Report
60.4
5
Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume
39.7
6
ABC World News Tonight
61.0
7
NBC Nightly News
61.6
8
USA Today
63.4
9
NBC Today Show
64.0
10
Washington Times
35.4
11
Time Magazine
65.4
12
U.S. News and World Report
65.8
13
NPR Morning Edition
66.3
14
Newsweek
66.3
15
CBS Early Show
66.6
16
Washington Post
66.6
17
LA Times
70.0
18
CBS Evening News
73.7
19
New York Times
73.7
20
Wall Street Journal
85.1
:facepalm: I so hate being conservative at times when it just seems like 90% of the conservatives who open their mouths are insane morons.
I don't. Not that I think Obama is doing such a great job, but I sure as hell won't trust any of the rest of 'em.
Man Suspected of Murdering Young Massachusetts Mom May Be In U.S. Illegally, Police Say
Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/27/man-suspected-murdering-young-massachusetts-mom-may-be-in-us-illegally-police/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZCyLgwP4
Obama's Feisty BET Interview Highlights Challenge He Faces in Rallying Black Voters
Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/27/obamas-feisty-bet-interview-highlights-challenge-sidelining-black-vote/#ixzz1ZCzRV3t7
Obama defended his policies as helping minorities even though he refuses to support programs that only target them.
On Saturday, in a speech at the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama told blacks to quit crying and complaining and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
It’s been a tough few months for President Obama, who has been the target of criticisms from his most loyal base—African-American constituents and lawmakers—who have felt like he’s not done enough to ease or even acknowledge their economic pain. But in an exclusive interview with BET News that aired Monday night, Obama finally said he understands what they’ve been experiencing and answered his critics. When asked why he has not tried to implement policy solutions that specifically target African-Americans, however, he said that’s not how America works.
https://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/09/26/obama-discusses-jobs-and-the-economy-in-an-exclusive-sit-down-with-bet
Back on topic:It's not the headline that troubles me, it's that the story is the status of the alleged killer and not the murder itself. Apparently murders are only newsworthy if the suspect is here illegally.QuoteMan Suspected of Murdering Young Massachusetts Mom May Be In U.S. Illegally, Police Say
Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/27/man-suspected-murdering-young-massachusetts-mom-may-be-in-us-illegally-police/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZCyLgwP4
What do you guys think-- forget why this story is on the frontpage to begin with. Does that information really belong in the hed? Or are Fox just doing what they always doing and trying to politicize everything?
It's like, why are we again willing to vote for a man who sweet talked us a load of bullshit four years ago? At least most of those Republican hacks are actually going to do or try to do what they say :lol And the way Barry's rhetoric is starting to shift to the left again makes it so damn obvious that he's back in campaign mode.
If you want to talk media bias just look at how the US hikers who were just released from Iran are being covered right now. Or the build up/beginning to the Iraq war.
I disagree with the conservative ideology itself
Gotta wonder why the journalist at Fox thought it was necessary to take that cheap shop.
why the journalist at Fox
the journalist at
journalist
Long-ass post
I'm not the one who made the promises. I never said I could do it.It's like, why are we again willing to vote for a man who sweet talked us a load of bullshit four years ago? At least most of those Republican hacks are actually going to do or try to do what they say :lol And the way Barry's rhetoric is starting to shift to the left again makes it so damn obvious that he's back in campaign mode.
If you want to talk media bias just look at how the US hikers who were just released from Iran are being covered right now. Or the build up/beginning to the Iraq war.
I would love to see you or anyone else here (hell, even me) sit through their first presidential briefing and realistically come up with a way of fulfilling any one of their campaign promises. And if you think any one of those Republican hacks will be any different, you don't understand the paradox of presidential power.
Supreme Court nominees
Supreme Court nominees
The power to appoint judges is perhaps the single biggest reason a left-leaning president should never, EVER be allowed to occupy the white house under any circumstances.
Aha!
Whenever I feel like I belong to a profession that has a slimey, immoral reputation, I remind myself that there are politicians and journalists in the world, and suddenly, I feel better.
Supreme Court nominees
The power to appoint judges is perhaps the single biggest reason a left-leaning president should never, EVER be allowed to occupy the white house under any circumstances.
Supreme Court nominees
The power to appoint judges is perhaps the single biggest reason a left-leaning president should never, EVER be allowed to occupy the white house under any circumstances.
Well, I've gotta say, I find this just as off-the-wall as Super Dude's "against conservatism on principle" remark.
:corn
As far as the nominees go, though, don't you think it's more of a problem that the Supreme Court has so much power to shoot down legislation to begin with?
As far as the nominees go, though, don't you think it's more of a problem that the Supreme Court has so much power to shoot down legislation to begin with? I decided Law School wasn't for me pretty early on, but I did take a Constitutional Law course and came out of it thinking "Judicial Review" itself was on pretty shakey ground in terms of being Constitutionally justified (that's playing along with this whole idea that the Constitution is scripture, which I don't subscribe).Personally, I'm a big fan of judicial review. Never really understood the contempt for it.
I mean I think it's unfair to say all journalism is dishonest, corrupt, and the like, but on the whole I agree. Let's just say when faced with either option, I say yes.
And what's wrong with rejecting a political faction on the basis of disagreeing with its philosophy? I disagree with the general way in which this faction's philosophy interprets and understands the world at large and governance in particular, therefore I will not support people or policies based around it. I don't see what's so bizarre about that.
Yes.<offtopic>
1. Make your own outlines. Then check them against commercial outlines. Don't believe any professor who says you should never use a commercial outline.
2. Don't memorize your outline. Learn your outline.
3. In answering essay questions, lay out the rule and set it off in bold, underline, whatever. Apply the facts to the rule and argue to a conclusion. Then address why another conclusion is either equally valid or not valid.
Okay, your turn.
If you are in opposition to every facet of conservatism
Because "conservatism" is such a ridiculously broad term that I don't get how someone could possibly be against it "on principle."
The same could be said of any political ideology, yet nearly everyone seems to be fine with people automatically opposing the left...
The same could be said of any political ideology, yet nearly everyone seems to be fine with people automatically opposing the left...
When did I say I was ok with anyone doing that? And who the hell is "everyone"?
This is why I hate when people use thoe terms at all. They stop attacking the issues or arguments they disagree with and they just turn it into pithy arguments against a vague, ill defined "them." And then you point out what they're doing and they use that crappy "well THEY do it too!" argument that we just got done making fun of when people use it to defend Fox.
Oh, see I limit my definition to American conservatism. Although on principle I also tend to not subscribe to ideologies/philosophies that are a couple centuries old or more because I believe they no longer have relevance after a while, and considering Confucius' are on the order of millennia, those are right out.
I don't think it is; I just happen to think the platform and underlying philosophy is more relevant to the world we live in today.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I don't think it's the textbook definition that is at issue. I think it is more how the definition is applied in the context of 2011 U.S. politics, and what it means in that context.Oh I don't know I think the textbook definition is pretty much spot on... "...lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, strong national defense, individual finanvial responsibility..." I would say pretty much the pillars of conservative beliefs no?
And it seems to me that "every man for himself" pretty much sums it right up.I wouldn't say to the extreme, no. I would say more of smaller government, less open-ended freebie programs, governmental fiscal responsibility (balanced budget would be cool) and a strong national defense with the emphasis of enabling every man to provide for himself.
You may be right, I just wish there could have been more action taken to reverse that stuff. By doing nothing, it's like the Obama administration turned what was then right-wing crazy into bipartisan consensus.
Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.
[...]
Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.
But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.
It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.
https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story
Simply put, there is no alternative because of the nature of this terrible system we've built around us.
I agree that there are no simple solutions here, but what good is a feigned interest?As opposed to callous disregard? I'd rather have someone who at least feels compelled to pay lip service than one who's just plainly doesn't give a shit.
Yeah, I share your depression. There's really just no way for things to get better, I think. And pretty much the only difference between any potential candidates is, of course, their effect on the third branch, and that's obviously where we'll disagree the strongest. We'll both despise the system and the candidates, but quietly root for the asshole who'll appoint our types of judges.Simply put, there is no alternative because of the nature of this terrible system we've built around us.
As much as we disagree over what a "better option" would consist of, I agree with this general point absolutely, and it's quite depressing. As purely evil as the Democratic party is, the Republican party simply doesn't have anyone in the running who I would consider a good option for Chief Exec. But the problem is deeper than that. The Exec. aside, the other two major branches of the government are themselves so deeply mired in a corrupt 2-party system that it almost doesn't really matter to a high degree who is in the White House.
The fact that you think the Democratic party are "evil" is kind of weird.
I don't think it is; I just happen to think the platform and underlying philosophy is more relevant to the world we live in today.
I'd be curious to hear what that actually is.Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Not really. Honestly, it sounds like you're just trying to discount every Republican by saing the conservative way of thinking itself is inherently flawed or useless, because it's old or something. That's a jarringly black-and-white way of looking at politics, and the reason we're having the problem with government we're having now, because instead of actually working to find the common philosophical framework to meet relevant issues head-on, the intelligentsia of both parties just smugly assert the total corruption of the other from on high. It's a process that completely lacks any real philosophy at all, and instead is an endless round of semantic bickering and dishonest appeals to whatever is trendy at the moment.
But I guess I'll wait for you to answer the first question.
As purely evil as the Democratic party is, the Republican party simply doesn't have anyone in the running who I would consider a good option for Chief Exec.
But the right in America are not really composed of real Conservatives. Neocons take all the worst crap from both liberalism and conservatism and have created some sort of hybrid monster of the worst political ideas anyone has ever had.
It sometimes seems as if they are the only ones who talk about their values, but they put forward an elitist and narrow vision that largely favors the upwardly mobile, the healthy, the native-born American and the needs of the corporation.
This cold message is disguised, of course, cloaked in warm-sounding talk of solid American traditions and values.
I agree wholeheartedly with El Barto that the best way to summarize what passes for Conservatism in America today (whether it be mainstream Republicans, neocons, Tea Baggers, or self-styled "Libertarians") is "Every man for himself." That is why I, in large part, agree with Super Dude, because that philosophy is diametrically opposed to my personal sense of what is best for America and the world in general.I don't know what to make of that comment. If you think that any conservative point of view is accurately summarized by "every man for himself," then you're confused.
And lol at bosky for calling Democrats evil. If either of the two parties could be considered evil, surely it is the Republicans. And this comes from someone who is a registered voter Unaffiliated with either party. The Democrats have their share of problems, but evil isn't one of them.
Saying conservatism means "every man for himself" is like saying progressive r or liberal thinking means "every man for the state."
I'm not confused, although most of the prominent Republicans/Tea Baggers seem to be.I agree wholeheartedly with El Barto that the best way to summarize what passes for Conservatism in America today (whether it be mainstream Republicans, neocons, Tea Baggers, or self-styled "Libertarians") is "Every man for himself." That is why I, in large part, agree with Super Dude, because that philosophy is diametrically opposed to my personal sense of what is best for America and the world in general.I don't know what to make of that comment. If you think that any conservative point of view is accurately summarized by "every man for himself," then you're confused.
And lol at bosky for calling Democrats evil. If either of the two parties could be considered evil, surely it is the Republicans. And this comes from someone who is a registered voter Unaffiliated with either party. The Democrats have their share of problems, but evil isn't one of them.
The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.Then they need better PR people.
The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.Then they need better PR people.
The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.Then they need better PR people.
I think the thing is that its not a super easy thing to see how the common man will benifit from hands off government. Its a much quicker and easier thing to let the mind agree with the thinking "oh govt welfare = helping the poor". It takes some thinking and studying about how incentives effect people, and how economics work to realize how things work quite the opposite.
Its the same as minimum wage, its easy to say "oh it helps those making little money" but its not easy to see how it has caused such a high unemployment rate in the teenage, minority, and low skilled worker communities...
The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.Then they need better PR people.
I think the thing is that its not a super easy thing to see how the common man will benifit from hands off government. Its a much quicker and easier thing to let the mind agree with the thinking "oh govt welfare = helping the poor". It takes some thinking and studying about how incentives effect people, and how economics work to realize how things work quite the opposite.
Its the same as minimum wage, its easy to say "oh it helps those making little money" but its not easy to see how it has caused such a high unemployment rate in the teenage, minority, and low skilled worker communities...
I studied economics. Your argument is false.
I studied economics. Your argument is false.Doesn't say much. There are people who have studied economics who have come to a different conclusion.
Indeed. Minimum wage helps those people on the low end of the wage scale, IF they still have a job. It hurts those who consequently lose their job or are unable to acquire one.I studied economics. Your argument is false.Doesn't say much. There are people who have studied economics who have come to a different conclusion.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hq2qZ.jpg)Shit... that's funny! :rollin
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...When you're a major news outlet? Yeah, I'd say it's fairly important.
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...When you're a major news outlet? Yeah, I'd say it's fairly important.
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...When you're a major news outlet? Yeah, I'd say it's fairly important.
You'd be surprised at how fast these graphics get whipped together.No I wouldn't.
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...
That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.
That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.
I mean, I wouldn't say they are hiding anything. The numbers are clearly printed for all to see.
That obviously wasn't a mistake. They did that purposely to hide the fact that unemployment is supposedly the lowest it's been in the graph. They can't have Obama looking good ever.
I mean, I wouldn't say they are hiding anything. The numbers are clearly printed for all to see.
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...Yes
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...
When you have a very strong and very reoccurring theme of having such "errors" always fall inline with a certain ideology, I'd say it means something. It's like how whenever a Republican does something very "bad," they "accidentally" label him a Democrat in their news footage.
In Britain, they call Murdoch's crap tabloids, in America, we call it News.
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...
You think it doesn't? Really? Come on, man. I know you're not liberal, but really?
Well, I strongly disagree that it's a "minor issue"
So...the line on the graph doesn't exactly match up with the number, and...that means something. Okay...
You think it doesn't? Really? Come on, man. I know you're not liberal, but really?
Not much, no. I look at it this way: If it was an accident, it's the kind of thing that happens all the time, on every major news outlet. So, in that case, I don't see why the finger-pointing at Fox. If it was done on purpose, it's the kind of thing that happens on the time, on every cable news outlet. So, in that case, I don't see why the finger-pointing at Fox. Either way, it doesn't really jump out at me as being a significant issue. And I understand that it's easy to write off my opinion because I am a "conservative" defending a "conservative news network." But, honestly, that's not it. First off, I don't watch Fox news, and couldn't care less what they broadcast. Second, it's just such a minor issue, and I would feel the same if it were MSNBC doing the same thing to a conservative president (if there was such a thing). If people want to bash Fox News, I get it. But there are such better arguments than something as insignificant as this. It would be like someone making the argument that "The Nazis were bad [okay, I'm with you so far] because their grey uniforms were so drab looking [wait...you lost me there]." I just don't see the big deal.
Okay. I'm just saying it doesn't bother me much. I mean, does it bother me that we have a corrupt and unreliable news media (as a whole, on both sides of the aisle, IMO)? Yeah. But I take that for granted. And given that, even assuming this was done on purpose (which I don't know), it just strikes me as such a small, insignificant drop in the bucket that it doesn't really phase me.Both sides of the aisle? Please. There is no left mainstream media, and no true conservative mainstream media either. They're all biased in favor of corporate interest (Fox News being the worst of them all because they're very partisan). There are some exceptions in some places though, MSNBC has surprisingly good political commentators, Fox Business host both Freedom Watch and Stossel.
The one HUGE downside to being the forum admin is that I can't put people who fail to grasp the most simple, straightforward points on an ignore list.Let's not go confusing the difference between failing to grasp and just finding utterly bogus.
I get what Bosk is saying in some sense. It doesn't seem like a huge deal because it's just not surprising anymore that this stuff happens.
That doesn't make it OK, though.
MSNBC has surprisingly good political commentators
The one HUGE downside to being the forum admin is that I can't put people who fail to grasp the most simple, straightforward points on an ignore list.
What. For being mainstream media. You would've expected a lot worse from corporate overlords.MSNBC has surprisingly good political commentators
Oh, Jesus. :rollin
-J
Of course not. No one is. I'm just saying, that among the bigger US news outlets, they're the lesser evil.
I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding. So, we will start with the basics:
1. There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.
Once you get these down, let me know.
Relative? Maybe, but MSNBC is definitely not objective in terms of political commentary.
Unless you weren't meaning to imply that they're objective?
Relative? Maybe, but MSNBC is definitely not objective in terms of political commentary.
Unless you weren't meaning to imply that they're objective?
Can be biased, but still intelligent and have an opinion worth hearing. Fox news is biased, and just downright factually wrong.
Relative? Maybe, but MSNBC is definitely not objective in terms of political commentary.
Unless you weren't meaning to imply that they're objective?
Until you can show an example of someone besides Fox doing shit like this, I'll maintain that yeah, they're a bit more malicious than the other networks:That's hilarious :rollin
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fox-20080702-steinberg.jpg)
https://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
Relative? Maybe, but MSNBC is definitely not objective in terms of political commentary.
Unless you weren't meaning to imply that they're objective?
Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, and so on may be annoying, and they all have their biases; but I really do think they all have enough pride in their work no to throw an intentionally tampered with graph up on the screen. Fox, on the other hand, seems more like the place where everyone's actively doing things that fly in the face of journalistic integrity. And considering all the things happening to Murdoch's empire everywhere, I really wouldn't be surprised if we find out Fox is the scummy organization all sane people know it to be after all.
(https://chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/31219e2a-a78a-403c-8823-218586e16371.jpg)
It's not just Fox news. It's all of the MSM's major headlines. The major headlines are the same regardless of which Network you watch. These headlines also trickle down to local affiliates. This is why we haven't heard squat in the MSM about the indefinite detention bill that just passed.
The Republican candidates were debating about which European country to nuke first.
Are there even any countries in Eastern Europe continuing under anything resembling the former USSR's system, let alone Lenin's original ideals regarding communism? ???I don't think communism has been a legitimate issue since the cold war, no. In other words,
Why is communism such a commonly thrown-around word in US politics?