|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 13:06 fusionsdf wrote:Iman - Somali supermodel (shown with husband David Bowie) Iman was the first major fashion model from Northeast Africa. Beautiful Somali, Ethiopian, and Sudanese models are becoming common, since many have the extremely elongated body shape that the gay men who dominate the fashion industry have decreed is the ideal womanly image lolololol awesome link
yeah, that was pretty funny
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
|
i think we can agree that iman is really hot
|
On December 07 2008 07:20 iloveBankai wrote:
Look this is just because republicians have really stupid policies.
In particular in this election...
you have Sarah Palin as VP..... how can you expect anyone with half a brain to give you favourable coverage
Palin was the dumbest pick ever, and I don't mind seeing the media expose her as such. What bothers me is article after article about deregulation as the demon behind the whole meltdown while ignoring the role of legislation encouraging sub-prime lending (the Community Reinvestment Act) which must take some of the blame alongside the popular bugaboo Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Obama used CRA to sue banks to force risky loans. This and the contributions by Fannie and Freddie to many politicians (most heavily to the Democrats, Obama in particular with the second most during his time in office) to keep the status quo is mostly ignored.
This to me is not a case of favorable coverage going to the correct ideas, but rather of blame being incorrectly apportioned. The public becomes aware of some policies that failed, but is left ignorant of other contributing factors, and is lead to elect someone who had quite a role in said contributing factors. This does us a disservice. Now I don't think there were a lot of politicians around here who were blameless in this mess, but to pretend the president elect is one of them is not truthful.
Some will argue that the meltdown would not have happened with more regulation. Others will say it would not have happened or been as severe if banks were allowed to refuse loans to people who presented risks. The side that blames deregulation gets all the press and the side that thinks there was (in at least one area) too much regulation gets little.
Whichever is right, it becomes very hard to tell if one side gets the press because it is correct, or because the press likes it. Having a press all to ready to lean one way makes it hard to tell the difference, to our detriment.
|
On December 07 2008 13:07 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 12:55 QibingZero wrote:On December 07 2008 12:36 HnR)hT wrote:Of course liberals have their own equivalent of Intelligent Design: the denial of human biodiversity. Not that you have any rational reason for bringing that up in this thread, but what on earth are you trying to say there? lol Didn't expect you to understand, but here you go: It is an incontrovertible empirical fact that different human races and ethnic groups took different evolutionary paths starting from the last 50,000 years or so, and that these differences are large and significant enough to have repercussions for living in modern Western societies.
I assume you want me to agree with this before you actually get to your point.
All I can think of is that sealab episode about fast-twitch muscle fiber. Is this some veiled trolling attempt? Haha...
|
On December 07 2008 12:36 HnR)hT wrote:Of course liberals have their own equivalent of Intelligent Design: the denial of human biodiversity.
ROLF this link is made of gold.
I hope it is a joke.
|
Obviously people, cultures, and genetics are different, but whats your point.
|
HT is using some weak shit there. What are the repurcussions? It alludes to a justification of racism. But... because of our ability to reason and logic allows us to rise above primitive behaviors and instincts, meaning that any "scientific" justification of outright racism is just a cop out.
Of course, it's this same faculty that allows scientists to launch little car sized objects off the surface of this planet so that they travel 7 planets away and orbit around said planet, and then return home. So it's funny that our brilliance is ignored by the right, especially when it suits a particular cause
|
On December 07 2008 13:26 dream-_- wrote:
Obviously people, cultures, and genetics are different, but whats your point.
WE SHOULDNT HAVE VOTED FOR AN HORRIBLE WHITE-BLACK MIXED GUY
That's obvious. ( + he is muslim and a commie )
:>
He is also a terrorist don't forget.
|
On December 07 2008 13:26 Louder wrote:
HT is using some weak shit there. What are the repurcussions? It alludes to a justification of racism. But... because of our ability to reason and logic allows us to rise above primitive behaviors and instincts, meaning that any "scientific" justification of outright racism is just a cop out.
Of course, it's this same faculty that allows scientists to launch little car sized objects off the surface of this planet so that they travel 7 planets away and orbit around said planet, and then return home. So it's funny that our brilliance is ignored by the right, especially when it suits a particular cause
Obviously a justification of racism is what he is getting at, but I wanted to hear him say it.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
thank god louder showed up and owned this thread. in general the united states is becoming more liberal and tolerant which is a good thing. there are a lot of things wrong with conservative ideologies and i don't expect huge chunks of the world to be embracing them in the late future. bush definitely got a lot of shitty coverage from most of the media, but that's not because of some liberal bias, that's because he was a shitty president.
similar to conservatives whining about being ousted and not receiving equal positive coverage is the creationist movement being pushed out of the scientific community. philosophically many parts of conservationism are old fashioned and not pragmatic just as many parts of creationism are not scientifically justified.
|
On December 07 2008 13:40 MyLostTemple wrote:
thank god louder showed up and owned this thread. in general the united states is becoming more liberal and tolerant which is a good thing. there are a lot of things wrong with conservative ideologies and i don't expect huge chunks of the world to be embracing them in the late future. bush definitely got a lot of shitty coverage from most of the media, but that's not because of some liberal bias, that's because he was a shitty president.
similar to conservatives whining about being ousted and not receiving equal positive coverage is the creationist movement being pushed out of the scientific community. philosophically many parts of conservationism are old fashioned and not pragmatic just as many parts of creationism are not scientifically justified.
As always, Tasteless, you rule.
|
when you say conservative ideologies, are you talking about social conservatism or political/economic conservatism?
|
On December 07 2008 13:59 benjammin wrote:
when you say conservative ideologies, are you talking about social conservatism or political/economic conservatism?
no one in this thread knows, it took 20 fucking pages for anyone to even recognize the difference.
|
On December 07 2008 13:59 benjammin wrote:
when you say conservative ideologies, are you talking about social conservatism or political/economic conservatism?
I just assumed from lack of discussion on political and economic conservatism that it was already ceded that that was the correct viewpoint.
|
Ron Paul was really the only candidate that I would consider conservative.....and the obvious bias against him in the media really proves the OP's position in my mind.
Also, I think the self-proclaimed liberals who are of the point of view that conservatism is invalid and wrong, and their philosophy is based completely on logic and conservatives are simply ignorant are the worst people of all. At least many conservatives admit they base their life around belief and faith. No one is really rational, basic psychology proves this. In fact scientists are some of the most biased people there are. The differences between institutional science and institutional religion are much smaller than most people think.
"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal." and conservatism can be defined as "keeping the status quo".
In a strange way, it would appear that Ron Paul is a liberal and the Republican and Democratic parties are conservative. Lets see if the president elect, the most liberal senator, gives us some of our freedoms back eroded over the last 8 years.
Besides, the current republican party and fox news aren't conservatives, they are neoconservatives. Read this:
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3599/1/3599.pdf
Overall this is not a back and white thing...our very definitions are being twisted and things are being based on false premises (does that make me a conservative?).
|
I assumed from the lack of discussion about the flying spaghetti monster that it was already ceded that that was the correct viewpoint.
and the obvious bias against him in the media really proves the OP's position in my mind. Okay, so the republican party is now a tacit endorser of liberal media bias.
|
On December 07 2008 13:40 MyLostTemple wrote:
thank god louder showed up and owned this thread. in general the united states is becoming more liberal and tolerant which is a good thing. there are a lot of things wrong with conservative ideologies and i don't expect huge chunks of the world to be embracing them in the late future. bush definitely got a lot of shitty coverage from most of the media, but that's not because of some liberal bias, that's because he was a shitty president.
similar to conservatives whining about being ousted and not receiving equal positive coverage is the creationist movement being pushed out of the scientific community. philosophically many parts of conservationism are old fashioned and not pragmatic just as many parts of creationism are not scientifically justified. Wanna be specefic?
|
The conversation has turned interesting and I hate to spoil the party, but getting back to the point of the thread, I would like to point out that no counter argument has been brought up showing that there is NO liberal bias. There has not been any counter data presented, just a few opinions without backup.
Last call for anyone who has any counter data to present it....
Unless some good counter data are presented, tomorrow I will simply join into the fray about conservative vs liberal (which I am bound to win BTW) and we can have a good off topic brawl.
|
Savio, I am liberal.. and the news I choose to watch simply happens to have a slight liberal bias in the United States, I really don't care though... does it really matter anyways ? If people base their views off of just what the media on television tells them, then that's their own problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
