EPTI don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable".
I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read.
GOP staffer quits, writes tell-all - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Papulatus
United States669 Posts
I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable". I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read. | ||
|
Zeri
United States773 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong. I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable". I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read. Probably because Beck isn't a former 30-year member of the Democratic Party. But what the hell do I know? | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 08 2011 07:37 Arrian wrote: No matter how what's going on in Washington is framed, I think the basic results speak for themselves, and that's essentially that the Democrats have done squat to create jobs, though they have created an overabundance of debt, and we're even worse off than we were when Bush was in office, which I basically didn't think was possible, so congratualtions Mr. Obama, for doing the impossible: we are worse off than we were under Bush. This is a misunderstanding. Obama inherited the financial crisis, revenues are lower because of the depressed economic circumstances(obviously) and the increased unemployed and impoverished also increased payouts of unemployment benefits and food stamps. Deceased revenue + increased costs = more debt. These are all due to policies and events (largely) outside of the control of Obama. Its not like he pushed through legislation to increase unemployment and food stamp programs. Yes he extended some unemployment benefits, but as a percentage of total US gdp these were miniscule relative to real contributors to debt (war, although you could argue obama contributed to this as well. and bush era tax cuts) There is a severe misconception that one person has the ability to undo a decade of of economic buildup and consequences. So yes, government debt increased while Obama was in office, but BECAUSE of him? No. edit: Although Obama pushed legislation of health care reform, A. this was to actually REDUCE individual health care costs in the long run, and B. Do you have universal health care yet? No. any spending associated with this has yet to kick in to a significant degree. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 08 2011 10:12 snotboogie wrote: What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole. The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around! ..? What? They are completely founded on Biblical verses, there's countless Biblical verses that state you're glorifying God when you make money and that God rewards good followers with wealth. That's what the Puritans were completely based on - being wealth driven. This was a different mentality from the previous Catholic dominated paradigm that wealth --> worldly --> leads to temptation and distraction from God. There are also many studies that show the average income of a Protestant is higher than the average income of a Catholic, and countries that were predominately Catholic are the Great Schism tended to have weaker economies than countries that were predominately Protestant the following centuries. Are these the only reasons? No. Is it even the main reason? Probably not, there are a ton of variables, but to say that it's heresy or out of the norm is a little odd, it's definitely been a mentality for a while and at the same time is very much so supported through Biblical verses. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:15 Papulatus wrote: I don't get how sources like this are any different than linking to a article from Beck exposing something that the democratic party is doing wrong. I don't get why people are so quick to crucify the right using articles such as these, but throw out anything from the right as "biased" or "unreliable". I guess its just the target audience of forums that I read. It is quite simple really. Actually writing an OP that attempts to be balanced, or at least distanced, is harder than just copying a page from the ocean of crap that swills around the internet. Why put in the effort if you aren't going to be called on it? I've said it already but if you want a decent discussion, write a decent OP. The only thing we can do is try and provide some substance to the thread. Edit: On September 08 2011 11:20 Zeri wrote: Probably because Beck isn't a former 30-year member of the Democratic Party. But what the hell do I know? I think you miss his point. It is not so much about the reliability of the source, but the tone in which in the source is written. If you put together an OP which clearly has an agenda, do you really expect balanced responses? | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
| ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:28 Probulous wrote: It is quite simple really. Actually writing an OP that attempts to be balanced, or at least distanced, is harder than just copying a page from the ocean of crap that swills around the internet. Why put in the effort if you aren't going to be called on it? I've said it already but if you want a decent discussion, write a decent OP. The only thing we can do is try and provide some substance to the thread. How can you compare Beck to the author? Yes maybe you can argue that they are both just trying to push their political views, but Beck screams of extremism and demagoguery. Even FOX dumped him because his extremism was scary away corporate advertisers. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:26 FabledIntegral wrote: ..? What? They are completely founded on Biblical verses, there's countless Biblical verses that state you're glorifying God when you make money and that God rewards good followers with wealth. That's what the Puritans were completely based on - being wealth driven. This was a different mentality from the previous Catholic dominated paradigm that wealth --> worldly --> leads to temptation and distraction from God. There are also many studies that show the average income of a Protestant is higher than the average income of a Catholic, and countries that were predominately Catholic are the Great Schism tended to have weaker economies than countries that were predominately Protestant the following centuries. Are these the only reasons? No. Is it even the main reason? Probably not, there are a ton of variables, but to say that it's heresy or out of the norm is a little odd, it's definitely been a mentality for a while and at the same time is very much so supported through Biblical verses. Actually, you're completely wrong. The Prosperity Gospel is not biblical. Please go to 10 of your local churches in your area and poll the lead pastors and congregations. You'll find that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding main stream christian beliefs. I think you'll find most Christians will agree God can bless you, but being good Christian does not lead to wealth, nor does wealth mean you were a good Christian. There is no casual relationship there. And it's a dangerous theology to preach as biblical fact. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
Stuff like this happens. Worse stuff happens. Everyday. On all sides. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:31 cskalias.pbe wrote: How can you compare Beck to the author? Yes maybe you can argue that they are both just trying to push their political views, but Beck screams of extremism and demagoguery. Even FOX dumped him because his extremism was scary away corporate advertisers. Seriously people is it really that hard to see. This author has an agenda that he is clearly pushing. The OP pushes it further with his selection of quotes and thought bubbles. If you want a decent discussion, leave out as much bias as possible. I am not holding up Beck as some model of balance, neither am I saying this author is somehow unreliable. I am merely stating that these political threads descend into crap because the discussion is framed as me against you. How do you discuss with someone when they don't even attempt to be balanced? | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:32 Chargelot wrote: Did anyone think politics was a tea party? Stuff like this happens. Worse stuff happens. Everyday. On all sides. Stuff like the debt ceiling debate does not happen everyday. There is HARDLY "worse stuff" than the US defaulting on its national debt. You just don't understand in the slightest the sheer enormity of the ensuing financial crises that would have followed. People like you would argue: well, we got good legislation out of it that would have cut our deficit! Maybe, but this is like taking 10 thousand people, and telling the president that you are going to have them starve unless him and congress do what you tell them to, and if he doesn't agree, it's all the presidents fault Not only that, but Obama's plan would have reduced the deficit even further, but nevermind that. Clearly he's out to get us. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote: The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts. Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. | ||
|
mangomango
United States265 Posts
 ) It just makes me more angry. The people who hold their beliefs on the right and do so honestly from their heart I assign no blame. Each of us chooses to be informed from the sources we choose. If some choose the Bible so mote it be. I say we can agree to disagree. Let the peaceful public discourse begin.The people who ruffle my feathers are the ones who step on your neck to reach your wallet. They know they are standing on your neck. They just don't care. The Eric Cantors (R Virginia) of this world. The Jason Altmires (D Pennsylvania) who claim that health care for everyone is just too expensive. The K Streeters. Who believe that God blesses the rich with money so that they may hold sway over the rest of his less favoured (read poor) children. Because God hands out a report card and it looks just like a bank statement to these guys. Oh well. Good luck to us all. Rich and poor alike. Because who will carry water for them and shine their Bentleys when all the poor are gone? It's a class war. Pure and simple. | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:35 Probulous wrote: Seriously people is it really that hard to see. This author has an agenda that he is clearly pushing. The OP pushes it further with his selection of quotes and thought bubbles. If you want a decent discussion, leave out as much bias as possible. I am not holding up Beck as some model of balance, neither am I saying this author is somehow unreliable. I am merely stating that these political threads descend into crap because the discussion is framed as me against you. How do you discuss with someone when they don't even attempt to be balanced? I didn't even read the OP. You can ignore the thought bubbles and his opinions remain well thought out. He makes every attempt to be balanced. former republican, clearly indicates that he feels democrats make many of the same mistakes, but that the republicans just go too far. But even then, i'm not looking for a "balanced" article. I'd rather learn about natural selection than how we need to "balance" our education system with natural selection and creationism (for example). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 08 2011 11:48 Senorcuidado wrote: Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers. | ||
|
Exempt.
United States470 Posts
| ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
People don't understand that just because their are problems with government that doesn't mean the problem is government. T.T | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On September 08 2011 07:55 HoldenR wrote: What strikes me as odd is that there are actually people, who are assumingly not upper-elite class, defending the republic party. It only takes a sliver of insight to be able to see that this is the party of the wealthy. Since politics is run by money, they do everything to get in power and look after the interests of their financial backers. So, how are a bunch of middle and lower class people on forums defending these people? How do you justify destroying your own financial security, TL Republicans? Based on ideals thinking that if you'd worked harder, you'd have been part of the upper class of society? I'm not terribly educated on this subject, and I've been through enough of the general forum to know that everyone seems to hate fox news and republicans. Can someone please explain why? I can't really weigh in on this article because no one has given me a relatively unbiased tutorial. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
Yes the Democrats are in the pocket of corporations as well, but at least they nominally support policies which are good for society, as opposed to actively promoting the fiction that global warming isn't real and that our taxes are anything but historically low. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On September 08 2011 12:05 xDaunt wrote: Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers. Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think? | ||
| ||
