|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt.
The poor are generally better off today than they were decades ago, so there's at least that. Progress on that front may not be as quick as some would like, but progress there is.
|
On February 21 2014 12:13 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 11:34 SnipedSoul wrote:
Pointing out that poor people in the US have it better than poor people in other countries is just sad.
Look at how much wealth the US has compared to those other countries. Liberia has 1/100 as many people as the US, but 1/9000th the wealth. That's the attitude I feel the left frames things, People somewhere else are worse off, and the successful should feel guilty about it. I take the perspective that the US is doing things right and should be a goal worth striving for, and Liberia has some self inflicted, fundamental problems that are keeping them poor.
"Self-inflicted"?
Those that study the history of economic/state development would have quite a few choice words for you.
|
As the movement to expand access to marijuana grows across the country, the Republican Party, with the exception of its kooky libertarian wing, has a bad case of reefer madness. Gov. Rick Perry, who's no stranger to moments of mental madness, equated marijuana use to murder, while Gov. Chris Christie has more or less said he’d prefer dead kids to stoned kids. During the 2012 election, Mitt Romney promised to "fight tooth and nail" against pro-marijuana legalization.
While national polling shows more than 55% of Americans support pot legalization, Republicans remains strongly opposed, and in fact, more than two-thirds of Republicans voted against legalization in Colorado and Washington.
With Republicans likely to remain opposed, marijuana could emerge as a big cultural wedge issue winner in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. The GOP holds a majority in the House of Congress and is threatening in the Senate come November, but in state elections, marijuana on the ballot has big potential to harm Republican candidates. In January, the Florida Supreme Court approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana, assuring that the initiative will appear on the state’s November ballot. The referendum on pot may, in turn, determine the winner of the state’s gubernatorial race. According to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, 70 percent of Floridians favor medical marijuana, which augers well for Democratic challenger Charlie Christ, given Gov. Rick Scott opposes the bill. There is considerable evidence that vote turnout rises when pot is on the ballot, especially for young voters who would naturally favor a candidate who supports it.
Nate Cohn, a columnist for theNew Republic, writes that assuming Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, she “would be well-positioned to deploy the issue. Her strength among older voters and women mitigates the risk that she would lose very much support, while legalization could help Clinton with the young, independent, and male voters who could clinch her primary or general election victory.”
Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in this country’s cultural war. On issues from same-sex marriage to the death penalty; from abortion to gun control; poll after poll shows a majority of Americans lean left. Pot legalization is shaping up to be another issue Democrats could apply a blowtorch to Republicans in blue and purple states, for the GOP is handcuffed when it comes to dealing intelligently on the war on drugs.
Source
|
On February 21 2014 12:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:12 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 04:30 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 23:20 nunez wrote:@wengandi 'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true. The latest rich dude to compare critiques of inequality to violent National Socialism is venture capitalist Tom Perkins – he of the $150 million yacht and the 5,500 square foot San Francisco penthouse. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal editor, this Silicon Valley billionaire bewailed supposed “parallels” between “fascist Nazi Germany’s war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews” and “the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’” Citing rising angst over tech-driven gentrification in San Francisco, he concluded: “This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” sorucei thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal. here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies. In this ongoing story (which Pando has been aggressively covering), party labels don’t really tell the whole story. For every Republican trying to wield subsidies for the GOP’s anti-union agenda, and for every Democratic official endorsing stadium subsidies and tax handouts to tech companies, there are Republican lawmakers earnestly trying to shut down the most egregious subsidies and there are Democratic lawmakers publicly berating their fellow Democrats for handing out goodies to the corporate class. source Yes, we are more radical, in the sense where radical is defined as 'striking at the root'. However, there were quite a few CL's who were far more radical than most libertarians today (e.g. Dunoyer, Bastiat, etc.). Also, what do you mean economic freedom is the end all be all? Are you saying libertarians don't hold passionate positions on other issues? For instance, libertarians started the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey), Anti-Imperialist League, protests against WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and yes, the Iraqi & Afghanistan Wars. We're bee-line staunch on all issues concerning human liberty. You'll notice that we're as much against the offenses of Nixon as we were Bush and Obama, and Wilson and Lincoln before them. We're not partisan hacks like a lot of so-called 'Progressives' and we understand the true consequences of Progressive policies like say...New Leftists (e.g. Gabriel Kolko, et. al. vis a vis Progressivism as the useful idiot for Corporate crack-down on competition and property rights). Anyways, at least you understand that both parties stand for the same non-sense. Little difference between them. Too many people pay attention to rhetoric and acting. They're conned by the shell-game and are played like rubes. Bicker between your fellow people while they steal all your property and liberties. NSA grows. CIA grows. CFR grows and the regular Joe is squeezed. Police Militarization and increased MIC largesse. Funnel money from around the country into DC and its suburbs. Meanwhile, average Joe in Montana or Idaha, or Vermont, or Maine see less of their property every pay-check. This is the real Class Warfare. Between those who live off taxation, and those who stolen from via taxation. This is the Classical Liberal idea of Class Warfare which was 'stolen' and co-opted by Marxists. Libertarians still believe in the old ideas. Of the tax-parasites, vs. the tax-payers. Between those who wield power and those who have little voice. Those who work for a living and those who live off the work of others (and no voluntary agreements are not *living off the work of others*) While I agree with much of your disdain for the status quo, your fondness for radical libertarianism based in the Austrian school seems to miss the point. Libertarianism suffers from the same defects of crony capitalism in that power is free to aggrandize and impose its will. I would ask you for some shining practicing exemplars of your philosophy but I don't think you have any. How is your view any different from a brutish Hobbesian world where might makes right? Your inability to differentiate voluntary power (consumer preference in market coordination) to involuntary power (politcs, coercion, etc.), leads you to draw erroneous conclusions. Similarly, my fondness for 'radical' libertarianism is based on ethics, morality, and logic, not some slavish deference to a certain school of economics. Not all libertarians are even Austrian. While I do prefer their body of work, methodology, and conclusions, it doesn't follow that my libertarianism comes from this. First and foremost I am a proponent of self-propriety and Non-proviso Lockean homesteading. That's the foundation of my belief, regardless of whatever you may posit as conjecture. Similarly, this means I am a non-consequentialist. While I do believe and it is important that market forces are best at alleviating human suffering and condition, that's not my zeal. I am more concerned with liberty, its ethics and moral foundation, than economic condition. For instance, I'd rather be poor and free, than rich and despotic. As for economics I also happen to enjoy some of the stuff put out by the Public Choice folks too, and hell even some Neo-classicals get it right every now-and-then. As for shining examples? Why is this important? Or, should I say, relevant? There was a time in the world where every '1st' world country had slaves, and considered them a foundation for societal enrichment. People mocked the classical liberals who espoused market principles to show to people how the human condition could be bettered both materially and spiritually (liberty) by renouncing slavery and its other institutions. At the time there were no countries who were successful without it. Would you crow to them to show you an example of a successful society without slavery? Then pounce and scoff and continue to support said institution 'because it has always been so'? This is a funny remark from Progressives (progressive...lol). Anyways, there is a continuum of liberty. For instance, legalization is preferable to criminalization, wouldn't you say? More liberty has shown to raise more people out of the dumps than less. So, there is your consequentialist argument. Also, I just have to laugh at this Hobbes non-sense. Might makes right? Lol...that's the entire premise of the State. Libertarianism is the complete opposite. You need to go to some of your local eminent domain council meetings then you might get some perspective on who is 'might makes right' and who is 'morality trumps might', folks. There's also the little fact that communists, socialists, and other 'leftists' are so quick to label the opposition for death, repression, and persecution. Let me know when you see this from libertarians. The only people we're quick to do so are the people instigating the aggression in the first place (The State and its appendiges). You're free to have communism and socialism in libertarian world, but you can't say the same for communism and socialist worlds letting libertarians have their world. Tolerance? Egalitarianism? Lol.
There's a lot of meat there but let's focus on this supposed difference between voluntary power and involuntary power. What is the difference?
|
On February 21 2014 10:41 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:33 jellyjello wrote:On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt. The so called "poor" need to get out of US and start living in other countries, especially in SE Asia. Then, they will realize what "poor" really means. Ah you're one of the smart ones aren't you. "It's worse elsewhere so why make it better here?" Impeccable logic.
|
On February 21 2014 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt. The poor are generally better off today than they were decades ago, so there's at least that. Progress on that front may not be as quick as some would like, but progress there is.
not in terms of social mobility. their 'better offness' mostly comes from technology becoming cheaper and cheaper but i am not sure that has anything to do with anti-poverty policies. having said that there is poverty in countries that are more right wing than America in their domestic polices and there is poverty in countries that are more left wing than America -- Canada for example. Its a complex issue,but iam always not surprised to find guys with right wing dudes -- not you in this case Johny -- keep bringing up the same tried and failed methods as were first innovated back in the 19th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse
|
On February 21 2014 12:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As the movement to expand access to marijuana grows across the country, the Republican Party, with the exception of its kooky libertarian wing, has a bad case of reefer madness. Gov. Rick Perry, who's no stranger to moments of mental madness, equated marijuana use to murder, while Gov. Chris Christie has more or less said he’d prefer dead kids to stoned kids. During the 2012 election, Mitt Romney promised to "fight tooth and nail" against pro-marijuana legalization.
While national polling shows more than 55% of Americans support pot legalization, Republicans remains strongly opposed, and in fact, more than two-thirds of Republicans voted against legalization in Colorado and Washington.
With Republicans likely to remain opposed, marijuana could emerge as a big cultural wedge issue winner in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. The GOP holds a majority in the House of Congress and is threatening in the Senate come November, but in state elections, marijuana on the ballot has big potential to harm Republican candidates. In January, the Florida Supreme Court approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana, assuring that the initiative will appear on the state’s November ballot. The referendum on pot may, in turn, determine the winner of the state’s gubernatorial race. According to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, 70 percent of Floridians favor medical marijuana, which augers well for Democratic challenger Charlie Christ, given Gov. Rick Scott opposes the bill. There is considerable evidence that vote turnout rises when pot is on the ballot, especially for young voters who would naturally favor a candidate who supports it.
Nate Cohn, a columnist for theNew Republic, writes that assuming Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, she “would be well-positioned to deploy the issue. Her strength among older voters and women mitigates the risk that she would lose very much support, while legalization could help Clinton with the young, independent, and male voters who could clinch her primary or general election victory.”
Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in this country’s cultural war. On issues from same-sex marriage to the death penalty; from abortion to gun control; poll after poll shows a majority of Americans lean left. Pot legalization is shaping up to be another issue Democrats could apply a blowtorch to Republicans in blue and purple states, for the GOP is handcuffed when it comes to dealing intelligently on the war on drugs. Source Really, StealthBlue? Really? AlterNet now? And to think not so long ago Kwark was up in arms on ZeroHedge?
News at 11: Democrats say that Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in the country's cultural war. Democrats think Rick Perry has moments of "mental madness" and Christie has issues he chooses "dead kids" on. What reporting! Well, on that note, here's some Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages are brought to you more and more by Crony Capitalism, Inc. and the DC Chamber of Commerce):
The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom
News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.
But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."
Proper role of government, investigating or studying private businesses and their compliance with whatever the FCC considers critical information. Further on in the article, it puts out one question that they'll seek answer to: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Government out of our bedrooms, into our newsrooms?
|
While I'm rather unfond of the government interference in it;
I would quite like to know the answer to that question.
The health of the fourth estate is important to a society; if there are concerns that it is declining, how does one address them? how does one assess that health?
|
On February 21 2014 16:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 12:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As the movement to expand access to marijuana grows across the country, the Republican Party, with the exception of its kooky libertarian wing, has a bad case of reefer madness. Gov. Rick Perry, who's no stranger to moments of mental madness, equated marijuana use to murder, while Gov. Chris Christie has more or less said he’d prefer dead kids to stoned kids. During the 2012 election, Mitt Romney promised to "fight tooth and nail" against pro-marijuana legalization.
While national polling shows more than 55% of Americans support pot legalization, Republicans remains strongly opposed, and in fact, more than two-thirds of Republicans voted against legalization in Colorado and Washington.
With Republicans likely to remain opposed, marijuana could emerge as a big cultural wedge issue winner in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. The GOP holds a majority in the House of Congress and is threatening in the Senate come November, but in state elections, marijuana on the ballot has big potential to harm Republican candidates. In January, the Florida Supreme Court approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana, assuring that the initiative will appear on the state’s November ballot. The referendum on pot may, in turn, determine the winner of the state’s gubernatorial race. According to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, 70 percent of Floridians favor medical marijuana, which augers well for Democratic challenger Charlie Christ, given Gov. Rick Scott opposes the bill. There is considerable evidence that vote turnout rises when pot is on the ballot, especially for young voters who would naturally favor a candidate who supports it.
Nate Cohn, a columnist for theNew Republic, writes that assuming Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, she “would be well-positioned to deploy the issue. Her strength among older voters and women mitigates the risk that she would lose very much support, while legalization could help Clinton with the young, independent, and male voters who could clinch her primary or general election victory.”
Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in this country’s cultural war. On issues from same-sex marriage to the death penalty; from abortion to gun control; poll after poll shows a majority of Americans lean left. Pot legalization is shaping up to be another issue Democrats could apply a blowtorch to Republicans in blue and purple states, for the GOP is handcuffed when it comes to dealing intelligently on the war on drugs. Source Really, StealthBlue? Really? AlterNet now? And to think not so long ago Kwark was up in arms on ZeroHedge? News at 11: Democrats say that Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in the country's cultural war. Democrats think Rick Perry has moments of "mental madness" and Christie has issues he chooses "dead kids" on. What reporting! Well, on that note, here's some Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages are brought to you more and more by Crony Capitalism, Inc. and the DC Chamber of Commerce): The FCC Wades Into the NewsroomShow nested quote +News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.
But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations." Proper role of government, investigating or studying private businesses and their compliance with whatever the FCC considers critical information. Further on in the article, it puts out one question that they'll seek answer to: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Government out of our bedrooms, into our newsrooms?
It's pretty funny sometimes that you argue the government is incompetent and clueless (at healthcare, weflare, other programs) and a threatening dangerous presence (climate change, FCC). I don't know what the CIN is, but there isn't much more in that editorial, which has a clear agenda, to indicate that it is doing anything more than collecting data.
That said, censorship is evil and should be fought.
|
I mean, do you want your government agencies coming in there with a clear agenda to their questions, if you know that they have no role in the business of private media. This is the FCC that not so long ago had its fairness doctrine give challenges to radio stations for not including time to the opposite opinion. If your area wanted to hear a conservative voice, you better make sure you had equal time or comparable to the opposite opinion. As an aside, I found hilarious how many stations in that time used the 10pm-4am section to broadcast tape-delayed audio of local issues and opposing viewpoints.
It would behoove someone who enjoys liberty to follow the excesses of their government. If they're walking into the newsroom asking who's getting stories shot down by management, or what "critical issues" they aren't covering, what comes next is proposed rules with a lot of talk on fairness, equality, critical issues, and breadth of topics. I mean, IgnE, you see the language they're using in the discussion ... it's about enforcing rules for the stated desire of outcomes ... which presumes they should even have the ability to enforce those kind of rules.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
The initiative, known around the agency as "the CIN Study" (pronounced "sin"), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced," says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). "I've never had any input into the process," adds Pai, who brought the story to the public's attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.
Advocates promote the project with Obama-esque rhetoric. "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens," said FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn in 2012. Clyburn, daughter of powerful House Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, was appointed to the FCC by President Obama and served as acting chair for part of last year. The FCC, Clyburn said, "must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to meeting the needs of those in varied and vibrant communities of our nation -- be they native born, immigrant, disabled, non-English speaking, low-income, or other." (The FCC decided to test the program with a trial run in Ms. Clyburn's home state, South Carolina.) second source
|
Imho it is problematic if so called news-networks clearly „paint“ or „make“ news in whichever way fits their political goals.
Don’t get me wrong, as long as humans create the programs they will lean in one or the other direction, but if a channel is calling itself or its programms « news » it should be held accountable if it willingly spreads lies, non-factual statements, creates inaccuracies or blows stuff up way beyond of what you would call factual journalism.
Now should the goverment watch over these private companies? It could, but it could also be run by some other non-profit(!) organisation.
|
On February 21 2014 18:26 Velr wrote:
Imho it is problematic if so called news-networks clearly „paint“ or „make“ news in whichever way fits their political goals.
Don’t get me wrong, as long as humans create the programs they will lean in one or the other direction, but if a channel is calling itself or its programms « news » it should be held accountable if it willingly spreads lies, non-factual statements, creates inaccuracies or blows stuff up way beyond of what you would call factual journalism.
Now should the goverment watch over these private companies? It could, but it could also be run by some other non-profit(!) organisation. Like I do time and time again, I ask, "Held accountable by WHO or WHAT group?" It's all well and good decrying poor journalism, but what mechanisms do you put in place that don't institute the same abuse or worse than the situation prior? It recalls to mind those deemed enemies of the people--from the perspective of the state, the opposition is spreading lies. I say, keep the news free, don't implant agents with their clipboards asking which the FCC deems critical the newsroom ignores. Let's not inch onto first amendment protections in the name of state-defined needs.
|
On February 21 2014 20:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 18:26 Velr wrote:
Imho it is problematic if so called news-networks clearly „paint“ or „make“ news in whichever way fits their political goals.
Don’t get me wrong, as long as humans create the programs they will lean in one or the other direction, but if a channel is calling itself or its programms « news » it should be held accountable if it willingly spreads lies, non-factual statements, creates inaccuracies or blows stuff up way beyond of what you would call factual journalism.
Now should the goverment watch over these private companies? It could, but it could also be run by some other non-profit(!) organisation. Like I do time and time again, I ask, "Held accountable by WHO or WHAT group?" It's all well and good decrying poor journalism, but what mechanisms do you put in place that don't institute the same abuse or worse than the situation prior? It recalls to mind those deemed enemies of the people--from the perspective of the state, the opposition is spreading lies. I say, keep the news free, don't implant agents with their clipboards asking which the FCC deems critical the newsroom ignores. Let's not inch onto first amendment protections in the name of state-defined needs.
My god, I'm finding myself agreeing with Danglars.
Everybody clamouring about the deplorable quality of channel X or newspaper Y: stop watching/buying it.
As for selling factually wrong bullshit as news: an ethics board, made up of journalists, should be able to deal with that just fine. The same way ethics boards work in scientific areas.
However, the last thing you should want is government interference with media. "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia".
|
On February 21 2014 16:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 12:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As the movement to expand access to marijuana grows across the country, the Republican Party, with the exception of its kooky libertarian wing, has a bad case of reefer madness. Gov. Rick Perry, who's no stranger to moments of mental madness, equated marijuana use to murder, while Gov. Chris Christie has more or less said he’d prefer dead kids to stoned kids. During the 2012 election, Mitt Romney promised to "fight tooth and nail" against pro-marijuana legalization.
While national polling shows more than 55% of Americans support pot legalization, Republicans remains strongly opposed, and in fact, more than two-thirds of Republicans voted against legalization in Colorado and Washington.
With Republicans likely to remain opposed, marijuana could emerge as a big cultural wedge issue winner in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. The GOP holds a majority in the House of Congress and is threatening in the Senate come November, but in state elections, marijuana on the ballot has big potential to harm Republican candidates. In January, the Florida Supreme Court approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana, assuring that the initiative will appear on the state’s November ballot. The referendum on pot may, in turn, determine the winner of the state’s gubernatorial race. According to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, 70 percent of Floridians favor medical marijuana, which augers well for Democratic challenger Charlie Christ, given Gov. Rick Scott opposes the bill. There is considerable evidence that vote turnout rises when pot is on the ballot, especially for young voters who would naturally favor a candidate who supports it.
Nate Cohn, a columnist for theNew Republic, writes that assuming Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, she “would be well-positioned to deploy the issue. Her strength among older voters and women mitigates the risk that she would lose very much support, while legalization could help Clinton with the young, independent, and male voters who could clinch her primary or general election victory.”
Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in this country’s cultural war. On issues from same-sex marriage to the death penalty; from abortion to gun control; poll after poll shows a majority of Americans lean left. Pot legalization is shaping up to be another issue Democrats could apply a blowtorch to Republicans in blue and purple states, for the GOP is handcuffed when it comes to dealing intelligently on the war on drugs. Source Really, StealthBlue? Really? AlterNet now? And to think not so long ago Kwark was up in arms on ZeroHedge? News at 11: Democrats say that Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in the country's cultural war. Democrats think Rick Perry has moments of "mental madness" and Christie has issues he chooses "dead kids" on. What reporting! Well, on that note, here's some Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages are brought to you more and more by Crony Capitalism, Inc. and the DC Chamber of Commerce): The FCC Wades Into the NewsroomShow nested quote +News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.
But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations." Proper role of government, investigating or studying private businesses and their compliance with whatever the FCC considers critical information. Further on in the article, it puts out one question that they'll seek answer to: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Government out of our bedrooms, into our newsrooms?
Am I the only one seeing hypocrisy in Danglars accusing Stealthblue of posting from biased news sources?
Danglars, you're pretty much the only dude who I completely ignore because there's so much bias in everything you post that I find it too tedious and tiring to actually try to get meaningful information from it. Tone back the indignation, stealthBlue is basically the only dude keeping a lot of people interested in this thread.
|
On February 21 2014 12:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:12 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 04:30 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 23:20 nunez wrote:@wengandi 'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true. The latest rich dude to compare critiques of inequality to violent National Socialism is venture capitalist Tom Perkins – he of the $150 million yacht and the 5,500 square foot San Francisco penthouse. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal editor, this Silicon Valley billionaire bewailed supposed “parallels” between “fascist Nazi Germany’s war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews” and “the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’” Citing rising angst over tech-driven gentrification in San Francisco, he concluded: “This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” sorucei thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal. here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies. In this ongoing story (which Pando has been aggressively covering), party labels don’t really tell the whole story. For every Republican trying to wield subsidies for the GOP’s anti-union agenda, and for every Democratic official endorsing stadium subsidies and tax handouts to tech companies, there are Republican lawmakers earnestly trying to shut down the most egregious subsidies and there are Democratic lawmakers publicly berating their fellow Democrats for handing out goodies to the corporate class. source Yes, we are more radical, in the sense where radical is defined as 'striking at the root'. However, there were quite a few CL's who were far more radical than most libertarians today (e.g. Dunoyer, Bastiat, etc.). Also, what do you mean economic freedom is the end all be all? Are you saying libertarians don't hold passionate positions on other issues? For instance, libertarians started the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey), Anti-Imperialist League, protests against WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and yes, the Iraqi & Afghanistan Wars. We're bee-line staunch on all issues concerning human liberty. You'll notice that we're as much against the offenses of Nixon as we were Bush and Obama, and Wilson and Lincoln before them. We're not partisan hacks like a lot of so-called 'Progressives' and we understand the true consequences of Progressive policies like say...New Leftists (e.g. Gabriel Kolko, et. al. vis a vis Progressivism as the useful idiot for Corporate crack-down on competition and property rights). Anyways, at least you understand that both parties stand for the same non-sense. Little difference between them. Too many people pay attention to rhetoric and acting. They're conned by the shell-game and are played like rubes. Bicker between your fellow people while they steal all your property and liberties. NSA grows. CIA grows. CFR grows and the regular Joe is squeezed. Police Militarization and increased MIC largesse. Funnel money from around the country into DC and its suburbs. Meanwhile, average Joe in Montana or Idaha, or Vermont, or Maine see less of their property every pay-check. This is the real Class Warfare. Between those who live off taxation, and those who stolen from via taxation. This is the Classical Liberal idea of Class Warfare which was 'stolen' and co-opted by Marxists. Libertarians still believe in the old ideas. Of the tax-parasites, vs. the tax-payers. Between those who wield power and those who have little voice. Those who work for a living and those who live off the work of others (and no voluntary agreements are not *living off the work of others*) While I agree with much of your disdain for the status quo, your fondness for radical libertarianism based in the Austrian school seems to miss the point. Libertarianism suffers from the same defects of crony capitalism in that power is free to aggrandize and impose its will. I would ask you for some shining practicing exemplars of your philosophy but I don't think you have any. How is your view any different from a brutish Hobbesian world where might makes right? Your inability to differentiate voluntary power (consumer preference in market coordination) to involuntary power (politcs, coercion, etc.), leads you to draw erroneous conclusions.
Such a differentiation cannot be made consistent, and is therefor not fully useful. It assumes a self-model which science (behavioral and neuroscience) does not agree with. It basically just boils down to voluntary (agents a like/agree with) against involuntary (agents i dislike/disagree with).
|
On February 21 2014 22:05 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 12:13 Wegandi wrote:On February 21 2014 10:12 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 04:30 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 23:20 nunez wrote:@wengandi 'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true. The latest rich dude to compare critiques of inequality to violent National Socialism is venture capitalist Tom Perkins – he of the $150 million yacht and the 5,500 square foot San Francisco penthouse. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal editor, this Silicon Valley billionaire bewailed supposed “parallels” between “fascist Nazi Germany’s war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews” and “the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’” Citing rising angst over tech-driven gentrification in San Francisco, he concluded: “This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” sorucei thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal. here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies. In this ongoing story (which Pando has been aggressively covering), party labels don’t really tell the whole story. For every Republican trying to wield subsidies for the GOP’s anti-union agenda, and for every Democratic official endorsing stadium subsidies and tax handouts to tech companies, there are Republican lawmakers earnestly trying to shut down the most egregious subsidies and there are Democratic lawmakers publicly berating their fellow Democrats for handing out goodies to the corporate class. source Yes, we are more radical, in the sense where radical is defined as 'striking at the root'. However, there were quite a few CL's who were far more radical than most libertarians today (e.g. Dunoyer, Bastiat, etc.). Also, what do you mean economic freedom is the end all be all? Are you saying libertarians don't hold passionate positions on other issues? For instance, libertarians started the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey), Anti-Imperialist League, protests against WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and yes, the Iraqi & Afghanistan Wars. We're bee-line staunch on all issues concerning human liberty. You'll notice that we're as much against the offenses of Nixon as we were Bush and Obama, and Wilson and Lincoln before them. We're not partisan hacks like a lot of so-called 'Progressives' and we understand the true consequences of Progressive policies like say...New Leftists (e.g. Gabriel Kolko, et. al. vis a vis Progressivism as the useful idiot for Corporate crack-down on competition and property rights). Anyways, at least you understand that both parties stand for the same non-sense. Little difference between them. Too many people pay attention to rhetoric and acting. They're conned by the shell-game and are played like rubes. Bicker between your fellow people while they steal all your property and liberties. NSA grows. CIA grows. CFR grows and the regular Joe is squeezed. Police Militarization and increased MIC largesse. Funnel money from around the country into DC and its suburbs. Meanwhile, average Joe in Montana or Idaha, or Vermont, or Maine see less of their property every pay-check. This is the real Class Warfare. Between those who live off taxation, and those who stolen from via taxation. This is the Classical Liberal idea of Class Warfare which was 'stolen' and co-opted by Marxists. Libertarians still believe in the old ideas. Of the tax-parasites, vs. the tax-payers. Between those who wield power and those who have little voice. Those who work for a living and those who live off the work of others (and no voluntary agreements are not *living off the work of others*) While I agree with much of your disdain for the status quo, your fondness for radical libertarianism based in the Austrian school seems to miss the point. Libertarianism suffers from the same defects of crony capitalism in that power is free to aggrandize and impose its will. I would ask you for some shining practicing exemplars of your philosophy but I don't think you have any. How is your view any different from a brutish Hobbesian world where might makes right? Your inability to differentiate voluntary power (consumer preference in market coordination) to involuntary power (politcs, coercion, etc.), leads you to draw erroneous conclusions. Such a differentiation cannot be made consistent, and is therefor not fully useful. It assumes a self-model which science (behavioral and neuroscience) does not agree with. It basically just boils down to voluntary (agents a like/agree with) against involuntary (agents i dislike/disagree with).
This is an excellent point and it gets at the heart of the ideology's inconsistency.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
libertarian conception of self and will are basically conceptual primitives that are built in, rather than shaped through empirical investigation. it's a bunch of deontic moral intuitions about property and sovereignty, which fi you observe any social animal, you'd know is a primitive aspect of morality. this is coupled with the similarly naive conception of agency.
it's not so much that libertarians are ideologically disposed to being uncaring or dumb etc. not at all. this is not a moral failure but a failure of the primitive conceptual system that they have to work with, a closed loop of naive, evolutionarily built up concepts that are woefully inadequate for all social thinking
|
|
|
On February 21 2014 21:55 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 16:10 Danglars wrote:On February 21 2014 12:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As the movement to expand access to marijuana grows across the country, the Republican Party, with the exception of its kooky libertarian wing, has a bad case of reefer madness. Gov. Rick Perry, who's no stranger to moments of mental madness, equated marijuana use to murder, while Gov. Chris Christie has more or less said he’d prefer dead kids to stoned kids. During the 2012 election, Mitt Romney promised to "fight tooth and nail" against pro-marijuana legalization.
While national polling shows more than 55% of Americans support pot legalization, Republicans remains strongly opposed, and in fact, more than two-thirds of Republicans voted against legalization in Colorado and Washington.
With Republicans likely to remain opposed, marijuana could emerge as a big cultural wedge issue winner in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. The GOP holds a majority in the House of Congress and is threatening in the Senate come November, but in state elections, marijuana on the ballot has big potential to harm Republican candidates. In January, the Florida Supreme Court approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana, assuring that the initiative will appear on the state’s November ballot. The referendum on pot may, in turn, determine the winner of the state’s gubernatorial race. According to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, 70 percent of Floridians favor medical marijuana, which augers well for Democratic challenger Charlie Christ, given Gov. Rick Scott opposes the bill. There is considerable evidence that vote turnout rises when pot is on the ballot, especially for young voters who would naturally favor a candidate who supports it.
Nate Cohn, a columnist for theNew Republic, writes that assuming Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, she “would be well-positioned to deploy the issue. Her strength among older voters and women mitigates the risk that she would lose very much support, while legalization could help Clinton with the young, independent, and male voters who could clinch her primary or general election victory.”
Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in this country’s cultural war. On issues from same-sex marriage to the death penalty; from abortion to gun control; poll after poll shows a majority of Americans lean left. Pot legalization is shaping up to be another issue Democrats could apply a blowtorch to Republicans in blue and purple states, for the GOP is handcuffed when it comes to dealing intelligently on the war on drugs. Source Really, StealthBlue? Really? AlterNet now? And to think not so long ago Kwark was up in arms on ZeroHedge? News at 11: Democrats say that Democrats are already winning ideological clashes in the country's cultural war. Democrats think Rick Perry has moments of "mental madness" and Christie has issues he chooses "dead kids" on. What reporting! Well, on that note, here's some Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages are brought to you more and more by Crony Capitalism, Inc. and the DC Chamber of Commerce): The FCC Wades Into the NewsroomNews organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.
But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations." Proper role of government, investigating or studying private businesses and their compliance with whatever the FCC considers critical information. Further on in the article, it puts out one question that they'll seek answer to: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Government out of our bedrooms, into our newsrooms? Am I the only one seeing hypocrisy in Danglars accusing Stealthblue of posting from biased news sources? Danglars, you're pretty much the only dude who I completely ignore because there's so much bias in everything you post that I find it too tedious and tiring to actually try to get meaningful information from it. Tone back the indignation, stealthBlue is basically the only dude keeping a lot of people interested in this thread.
I like Danglars, he keeps abreast of the developments on the far-far right and keeps me from having to click through Michelle Malkin so no dirty money for her from my reading.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
