|
On December 08 2008 01:12 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 17:31 Savio wrote:
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.. there is probably some liberal bias in the media; and that's a good thing. as i said previously in my other post, the modern american definition of conservatism is a dying ideology. One of the most pushed issues with conservatives is stopping gay marriage. That's a belief dunked in bigotry and then deep fried in hate. Yes conservationism has received a bad beat from the media but it doesn't deserve a good one. Most of the people in this thread are probably what you would label as liberal, yet i doubt they'd have a big problem with that. what worries me is that you think their ideas were birthed entirely from liberal media control.
No, I don't think that the liberal media bias has done all that by itself. Everybody has their own reasons for adopting whichever political ideology they choose. But I think it is important for bias among people responsible for filtering and presenting information to us should at least be recognized so we can better judge it.
did you know most college graduates are more liberal than conservative? does that mean that the college system is poisoned with liberal propaganda? did you know that according to the economist, every country in the world but one was in favor of obama being elected over mccain? does that mean that the world has a liberal bias? maybe you should drop the word bias completely.
Yes, the world is much more liberal than the US, but this is just one more reason to love your country. 
i also find it childish you would claim to be "bound to win" a fray of conservationism versus liberalism debate. do you want to discuss things or do you just want to win the arguments?...
That was obviously meant to be a light hearted challenge considering the kind of posters here on this thread (as if any of us will ever "win" ANY argument over the internet--think MBS)
|
On December 08 2008 01:40 aRod wrote:
Racism is defined as the belief that race results in differences in human character. Find a post where HT implies, directly states or insinuates this, and he is a racist by definition or someone pretending to be a racist which just as bad.
There is no good reason to take US norms of what define liberal and conservative slants and use them to justify that the USA is inherently biased in either direction. We have already seen some post from europeans who think media in the USA is inherently biased towards conservative views due to the nature of news in their countries. I imagine some chinese would find US news reports inherently liberal compared to the structure of news they're presented. But if we narrow our focus and entertain the notion that it is valid to dissmis what the rest of the world thinks and focus in on America and what we think about terms liberal vs conservative in the American media, then Savio has a point. The major news networks like CNN, and ABC and CBS have a degree of liberal bias based on our norms. The conservatives base this notion on the idea that giving the war in Iraq negative news coverage, the Palin pick negative news coverage, and anything that can be construed to support that democrats as bias by definition.
Just very briefly, I want to critique why negative vs positive coverage towards either normative belief set is a close minded way to talk about bias. The standards Americans use to determine bias in the media are laughable ethnocentric political manifestations. My view is it is stupid to define critiques of the Palin pick or critiques of the war in Iraq as negative news coverage against the conservatives. Why? Because there is a good chance that both these subjects deserve the recieved press considering they were both political and international nightmares. I don't think most Europeans would define critiquing a war or critiquing the qualifications of a Vice-Presidential candidate as bias. I don't see the logic of exclusively focusing on popular American opinion and using these to determine bias. What about the rest of the world and their opinions of politics?
Ultimately my point is it's just as easy to say the American news is biased towards conservatives from a global or european perspective as it is to say the American news is biased towards the liberals from American standards.
Good post, but cosider that the studies finding bias take in 20 years of US political history and found a consistent liberal slant. So even if the Palin affair and the Iraq war were natural targets for negative coverage, so was the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the Edwards adultery, and a host of long gone political stories.
We are talking about 5 major networks over a 20 year period of time, not just the last election. Differences in "blips" or disasters given such a large sample of data should have evened out unless you want to assume that democrats do more "good things" that are newsworthy and the Republicans less. That would be a bold claim though considering the 20 years time span.
|
No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race.
And yet, Obama and the now fully Democratic controlled congress are expected to renew it and continue it.
Is your faith shaken?
|
On December 09 2008 05:21 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 05:08 Louder wrote:On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote:Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned?  Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed. And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change. So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist. If you are so far to the left that you consider mere opposition to affirmative action as racist, then we have nothing to talk about.
And didn't the election thread reveal that Obama himself was actually against race-based affimative action?
It came up when I pointed out that multiple states are ending affirmative action and they are roughly equal numbers of red and blue states.
Affirmative action is simply not needed, or useful right now. Maybe it was needed before, I don't really know but growing numbers of both conservatives and liberals are embracing its end. It shouldn't really be considered to be a liberal vs conservative issue anymore. Its simply whether you are for it or against it.
|
You just posted four times a row. What the fuck.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i counted seven, as if he's snow white dueling the seven dwarfs in turn. can't let one jab go by unanswered!
|
On December 09 2008 12:15 oneofthem wrote:
i counted seven, as if he's snow white dueling the seven dwarfs in turn. can't let one jab go by unanswered!
lol,
Actually, I was catching up on 10 pages of an amazingly off topic brawl.
|
On December 09 2008 12:03 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race. And yet, Obama and the now fully Democratic controlled congress are expected to renew it and continue it. Is your faith shaken?
It failed as bad as it did because it was underfunded.
The idea isnt bad, but there was no follow through, and a few things should be changed in it.
|
Funding is the least of NCLB's problems.
|
On December 09 2008 12:03 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race. And yet, Obama and the now fully Democratic controlled congress are expected to renew it and continue it. Is your faith shaken?
I explicitly said I don't think the Democratic party is liberal enough in a previous post. And at no point did I say that I view a Democratically controlled Congress, Senate and White House as instant savior.
|
You know, personally, I agree with Savio's recent posts. He's making sense.
I'm interested to know your opinions on gay marriage and weed smoking.
|
On December 09 2008 18:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
You know, personally, I agree with Savio's recent posts. He's making sense.
I'm interested to know your opinions on gay marriage and weed smoking.
My thoughts on gay marriage are founded on my thoughts on heterosexual marriage. Without any government involvement, the issue would be moot, but marriage has a lot of legal perks including tax benefits.
So here it is:
One role that government plays in our society is in giving subsidies (extra tax benefits or just plain old cash) to things that they view as beneficial to society such as alternative fuel development. Heterosexual marriage is subsidized by the government in the sense that 2 unmarried people living together are not treated the same under our tax code as 2 married people living together. I think that part of this is that marriage is good for society because it leads to having children which increases the economy and potential of the country. Its also good for kids to be born into family's with both parents, they are less likely to fall into crime and so forth compared to single parent families.
So society decided long ago that heterosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. The question we are trying to answer now is whether homosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. There is no debate over whether homosexual behavior should be constrained...no reasonable person thinks government should do that. The question is only if they should receive a government subsidy for their union.
This is where personal opinion comes in. My personal opinion is that children are BEST off when they are born to a father and a mother. Since that leads to the best outcome, it is worth subsidizing. Not every has that, but since it is optimal, it is worth subsidizing. So I am not for subsidizing homosexual marriage.
Finally, one more point: Regarding hospital visiting rights, inheritance, confidentiality (and there are probably a few more), I think that ANYONE should be able to set up a legal status with anyone to share these, whether they are a homosexual couple, or just best friends or whatever. If I am not wrong, this has already been done in most states under one name or another.
Thats my view of the issue.
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
|
On December 09 2008 12:53 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 12:03 Savio wrote:No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race. And yet, Obama and the now fully Democratic controlled congress are expected to renew it and continue it. Is your faith shaken? It failed as bad as it did because it was underfunded. The idea isnt bad, but there was no follow through, and a few things should be changed in it.
I'm not sure that they are gonna change it though. I think it is just gonna be a straight renewal.
I am against it because the conservative view is anti-NCLB. It is federal government involvement in education which should be left up to the states whose responsibility education is and who can do it much more efficiently.
Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed.
|
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
|
On December 10 2008 03:44 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers. I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
|
On December 10 2008 03:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 03:44 Mindcrime wrote:On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers. I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
hi
|
And you're right; it's not a conservative/liberal issue, at least not in the modern American use of those terms. But is a libertarian/authoritarian issue.
|
Are you a libertarian? If so, how do/did you vote?
/genuinely curious
|
Norway28704 Posts
On December 10 2008 03:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 03:44 Mindcrime wrote:On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers. I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies. All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
hm the view that government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in what people can put into their bodies is actually not that uncommon of a view. that is, virtually everyone believes in some kind of regulation, but some are opposed to making anything _illegal_. it is uncommon amongst politicians however, but this is not because none of them believe it : it is because stating it is political suicide for any person who wants a position of power.
for a small government conservative, opposition to legalization of weed most certainly is inconsistent with your other views.
|
On December 07 2008 11:19 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 10:58 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote:
Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
Sources or it didn't happen.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief.
/facepalm could you explain why you are a social conservative? I know you are mormon, so Im assuming it has to do with your religion.
Thats a super complicated question that requires a lot of introspection.
But if you think about the 3 main social issues: abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, you see that one of these is addressed by the constitution and the other 2 are omitted. Yet all 3 are being fought in courts. The one with a constitutional basis is defended by conservatives and attacked by liberalsand the two that are not based in the constitution are defended by liberals and attacked by conservatives.
An entire amendment is dedicated to gun ownership and an entire amendment is dedicated to saying that if there are things not addressed by the constitution, those should be determined by the STATES.
Tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The only one of those three that should be fought on a national level is keeping the right to bear arms. The other two, should be decided by the states individually.
That is one good reason to be a social conservative. You are in line with what the constitution actually says. And I think its a pretty good document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
