EPTOn October 03 2012 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Then what do you think does explain it?
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg)
Then what do you think does explain it?
truth in sentencing is a big part of it.
you get more years for the same crime. creates an increase in prisoners.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 614
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
truth in sentencing is a big part of it. you get more years for the same crime. creates an increase in prisoners. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On October 03 2012 04:10 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Either Romney has been fooling everyone in the world for the past year or he's just as incompetent as we all expect and it will be probably one of the worst debate thrashings ever. Only time will tell :D To be fair, President Obama was never the strongest debater, and Romney has been campaigning for quite awhile now. He has much more recent live debate experience than the president, even with the quality of opposition, that counts for something. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
"Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?" Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?" Exaggeration is always fun, but I don't think I've ever seen a debate that wasn't implicitly biased in the majority of questions. People just don't realize liberal bias in the moderation because that is simply their world view, they can't see around it. They don't realize you can phrase any question about a hundred different ways, and they inevitably come from the liberal perspective. For example, you can say: "Mr. Romney, how can you cut government benefits that people depend on?" "What do you expect seniors to do when their medicare is reduced?" You won't ever hear a question phrased: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" Or, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for more (blank)?", or "Since all the experts agree that the current system is unsustainable, what is the best way to untangle it?" It's all basically asking the same thing, but the framing of the question is absolutely everything. I think in the ideal system, the moderators wouldn't have any leeway at all in framing the question. I think their role should be reduced to simply naming topics. "The Economy. Go." Or, if that is too vague, "Social Security." I guess the problem with this format is that the politicians will be able to say whatever they want and we won't have the interesting "GOTCHA!" moments that the media is looking for. But we could reduce this by allowing a much more free back and forth between the candidates. Let them respond to each other, and our only goal would be to simply prevent it from turning into a shouting match. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10979 Posts
Half your fucking country is voting for reupblicans, the most viewed "newsprogram" in your country is so far rightwing it needs assisting wheels to not fall over.... And you scream bias? You gottra be kidding me. You got the majority in the house and you were in power for the longest time... You are the guys that let the system blow up like that.. WTF... How can you just shut your eyes when reality hits you with a stick? Btw: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" The answer is: To pay the people with a job enough so they actually can sustain a decent live from it and pay taxes themselves instead of getting exploited on their workplace while still needing goverment support despite working 100%. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On October 03 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: These debates... Especially the "townhall" style format, my god... I just might throw a brick at my television when I hear the questions. "Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?" Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?" Exaggeration is always fun, but I don't think I've ever seen a debate that wasn't implicitly biased in the majority of questions. People just don't realize liberal bias in the moderation because that is simply their world view, they can't see around it. They don't realize you can phrase any question about a hundred different ways, and they inevitably come from the liberal perspective. For example, you can say: "Mr. Romney, how can you cut government benefits that people depend on?" "What do you expect seniors to do when their medicare is reduced?" You won't ever hear a question phrased: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" Or, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for more (blank)?", or "Since all the experts agree that the current system is unsustainable, what is the best way to untangle it?" It's all basically asking the same thing, but the framing of the question is absolutely everything. I think in the ideal system, the moderators wouldn't have any leeway at all in framing the question. I think their role should be reduced to simply naming topics. "The Economy. Go." Or, if that is too vague, "Social Security." I guess the problem with this format is that the politicians will be able to say whatever they want and we won't have the interesting "GOTCHA!" moments that the media is looking for. But we could reduce this by allowing a much more free back and forth between the candidates. Let them respond to each other, and our only goal would be to simply prevent it from turning into a shouting match. And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:03 Velr wrote: Sooo... Now the whole world and everyone, even questions in general, are biased against conservatives/republicans? You gottra be kidding me. "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" The answer is: To pay the people with a job enough so they actually can sustain a decent live from it. Which is also a pretty liberal standpoint if you think about it... There is also basically no other answer except like "release the hounds"... I was referring to the media, not to the whole world and everyone. I don't think reasonable people would disagree with the presence of bias. That was practically the whole reason the so-hated Fox News came about, because the existing media wasn't doing their job and weren't reporting in an unbiased fashion. Now we've all thrown any hope for objectivity out the window and become more partisan. I don't care about this point honestly, or the question. I merely offering examples of how bias in the other direction would sound. But I do think it's sort of funny that your answer to reducing dependence is to increase government support. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:04 farvacola wrote: And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind. Read the Powell Memo. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10979 Posts
It is to "force" job creators actually paying decent wages (which is basically just common sense, it's a shame that it seems like something like this has to be forced on the oh so holy job creators... So Goverment does not need to jump in to help the poor.. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:12 Velr wrote: it isn't at all? It is to "force" job creators actually paying decent wages (which is basically just common sense, it's a shame that it seems like something like this has to be forced on the oh so holy job creators... So Goverment does not need to jump in to help the poor.. ... This makes little sense. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On October 03 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: These debates... Especially the "townhall" style format, my god... I just might throw a brick at my television when I hear the questions. "Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?" Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?" | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:04 farvacola wrote: And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind. Well, so far as I can tell most people only seek opinions which reinforce their own. They read books that support their own beliefs. They make friends with people who agree with them. They watch media that supports their perspective. I've always tried to do the opposite, I've read Chomsky and Rothbard, Vonnegut and Friedman, etc. Obviously I'm not immune to bias but it can at least help me have a greater awareness of opposing perspectives. As to your second point, I'd like to hear your opinion on what percentage of Hollywood you would call Democrat or Liberal, just as an example. You can't say less than 70%. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
Having taken a number of classes on media studies, I'm well aware of the memorandum in question. It still does not prove any sort of monolithic media presence, as there are huge amounts of monied and corporate influence on both the liberal and conservative side of things. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10979 Posts
This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence. So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it". Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ). | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On October 03 2012 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Then what do you think does explain it? Most of it is the War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing guidelines. It's pretty messed up that a nominally free country imprisons more of its people than the Gulag did. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:18 jdseemoreglass wrote: Well, so far as I can tell most people only seek opinions which reinforce their own. They read books that support their own beliefs. They make friends with people who agree with them. They watch media that supports their perspective. I've always tried to do the opposite, I've read Chomsky and Rothbard, Vonnegut and Friedman, etc. Obviously I'm not immune to bias but it can at least help me have a greater awareness of opposing perspectives. As to your second point, I'd like to hear your opinion on what percentage of Hollywood you would call Democrat or Liberal, just as an example. You can't say less than 70%. Hollywood is surely a liberal stronghold, the arts always have been. But what is important in this case is the obviousness of Hollywood's liberalness. Since the golden age of film, Hollywood has stood as an obvious liberal establishment with which conservatives are able to solidify their counterpunctual agenda, with McCarthyism being the most extreme and prominent example. Furthermore, Hollywood is not the media. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:18 farvacola wrote: Having taken a number of classes on media studies, I'm well aware of the memorandum in question. It still does not prove any sort of monolithic media presence, as there are huge amounts of monied and corporate influence on both the liberal and conservative side of things. ? I don't mean to be rude, but it's obvious that most of the media has a rather liberal tilt to it. Even some of the most moderate such as CNN have a bit of a lefty tilt. The exceptions of course are Fox News and Talk Radio which are both far to the right. Even among "fact checking" and "research organizations", it is easy to figure out which ones are not independent. As Powell notes, this bias can be seen in the aggregate yet not explicitly contributed to one factor simply because it's such a gradual creep. I'll grant you that it could be changing morals -- however there are many media individuals who push these viewpoints at the current time. If you don't feel equally dirty watching Rachel Maddow as you do when you watch Fox News, you're drinking the Kool-Aid and just not noticing. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:08 aksfjh wrote: I find it funny that empathy is treated as a liberal slant. I find it funny when liberals slant empathy, example: Mitt Romney opposes abortion. The slant: "War on women". How come he doesn't have empathy for women? What they leave out: He has empathy for an unborn baby. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
“I don’t even like the word politics,” Jay-Z told MTV News. ”It implies something underhanded and I think we need less government.” Despite his support for the President, Jay-Z’s “less government” viewpoint is more in line with Obama’s opponents on the right, such as Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who also calls for smaller government. But his stance on smaller government aside, Jay-Z is all in for the president’s re-election. “I support Barack because I gotta respect that sort of vision. I gotta respect a man who is the first black President ever,” he said. “To have that sort of vision and dream, I have to support that.” So he thinks we need less government, but he is still raising money for Obama...lol. http://v103.cbslocal.com/2012/09/27/jay-z-supports-barack-obama-but-thinks-we-need-less-government/ | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence. So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it". Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ). You are really reinforcing my point about people being unable to see beyond their own biased perspective. Especially when you throw out absurd either/or fallacies, such as, "either we increase public support, or we let people starve to death." Those are not the options, I could offer plenty of other possibilities. Also you are assuming everyone who needs support are people who have jobs and just aren't making enough to "survive." Let me at least offer a little anecdotal evidence here to the contrary. I have a relative right now who doesn't work. She doesn't work, because she CHOOSES not to work. She is not on the verge of starvation, in fact she is overweight. The government gives her subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, WIC, and who knows what other benefits. She actually lives in a better home and drives a nicer car than my wife and I who work. She's been in this state for years, and will continue to be, because she has no incentive to change. If the government suddenly pulled her support, sure, she would have a hard time. But that's because the system has created dependence that wouldn't exist in the absence of the support. Now somewhere between your extreme and the extreme I offered, there is a point that comes pretty close to "common sense" good governing. | ||
| ||
