| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2009 08:43:15 AM · #76 |
Rush has no legislative achievement whatsoever. He is a conservative right-wing talker / entertainer.
Fox news is a somewhat amateurish "right-wing" news source that many conservatives find has less of a liberal slant than some others. Whether they present more or less of the facts than other media outlets is up to you to decide.
My guess is you don't really watch it, do you? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:02:17 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
My guess is you don't really watch it, do you? |
I have watched it, but no I don't watch fox news. I much prefer their other cartoons. ;)
seriously though, I can't stand to hear their spins when I already know they are off the mark. I really just wish that the far right and even the far left to some degree would work together more to make better policies.
I miss Bill, remember back when the deficit was almost under control? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:05:13 AM · #78 |
Well, socialism is different in that people's individual taxes are astronomical relative to taxes in a non-socialist nation. I personally am not looking forward to turning over even more of my paycheck than I do now to the government -- for entitlement programs that sound good and humanitarian in theory but get horribly abused and don't work! I prefer to be able to keep my money, and know that even the evil rich people can keep theirs -- since they are the ones that keep the economy going.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:09:29 AM · #79 |
As someone who is currently living in a socialist country, I'd like to point out that when the population of the socialist country accepts its responsibilities, it actually works very well. This could be a problem in the US where attitudes of entitlement (the government owes me!) and self-preservation (what's mine is mine!) prevail. But I do have to say to see it in action here makes it very attractive.
And just to be fair, I am now reading my news on CNN, Fox, and NPR. Many stories are the same word for word. And some are along the lines of "Monkey wins lottery! Green boy hit at fair!"
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 09:10:01. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:10:48 AM · #80 |
| Although you're right, it would be nice if we could all work together, there really isn't any way that will happen. As a previous poster noted, the right leans toward individual rights, and the left toward society as a whole...the right toward individual liberty and resposibility, the left toward collective social "justice", which often means pressure on individual liberties. They are mutually exclusive ideals. The best we can hope for is to not have one side get everything it wants. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:11:29 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Look this isn't "rocket surgery". If you are a right winger then your going to think Fox is the only one giving the whole story. If you are close to the middle then your going to laugh at fox. The difference is Fox will use a sliver of fact. Most of the others will report using more factual stories(less oppinion). When I hear someone say that fox is the only one telling the whole story, they lose all credibility. Usally followed by "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Would someone please inform me(seriously) legislation wise, what is Rush's crowning achievement? |
Flying down to Puerto Rico with a bottle of Oxycotin and an urge to knock boots with latino lady boys. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:21:04 AM · #82 |
Deb, just as a curiosity, I wonder what is the pay scale relative to that in the U.S. -- or the average net pay received by the citizens working and paying taxes over there. I wonder if it is as disappointing (for lack of a better word) of a contrast as my friend in the medical profession in Canada who talked to me about it?
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 09:21:21. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:25:59 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
I can read. Who said "mainstream media"? |
JB did. Repeatedly. It was the whole point of his post— "mainstream liberal media" or even just "liberal media" are common phrases, and equally absurd. Fox News is a major component of the media, and radio talk shows are dominated by particularly radical conservatives, so the media as a general term cannot honestly be considered liberal. It's like calling DPC "Pro-Nikon."
If Fox News has the "conservative pH" of nitric acid, then MSNBC would be like diluted ammonia. Greenpeace is a more comparable analog to Fox as a liberally biased source of information. The rest are generally much more centered along the ideological spectrum. Ironically, any source that ISN'T conservative enough is considered biased by the very absence of bias. For example, if Factcheck says that conservative-backed ads against healthcare reform or vaccination programs are wildly exaggerated or outright lies, then some people would consider them liberally biased even if they're just reporting objective truth.
Oooh... nicely illustrated:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Fox news is a somewhat amateurish "right-wing" news source that many conservatives find has less of a liberal slant than some others. |
Yeah, and many muslims find that Osama bin Laden has a less Western slant than some others. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 09:32:48. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:31:25 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Rush, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Colmes and O'Reilly are like spoiled children who, when they don't get their way, just yell louder and louder. They all need a whippin' and a lesson in civility.
I'm all for debate and spirited, rational discussion of the issues, but the name-calling, vitriol and "I'm louder and more obnoxious, so I'm right" attitude from these folks is ridiculous. |
Just for the record, Colmes is a liberal. |
Fox may have called Colmes a liberal, but on many issues, like the supporting the use of so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques, endorsing Guiliani for mayor of NYC, etc. he was definitely in the right wing camp. Colmes even characterized himself as a moderate. So, compared to a right wingnut like Hannity, Colmes might appear liberal, but the reality is that he's anything but. |
So Alan Colmes is too "right" for you? And you lump him in the same group as Rush, Beck, and Hannity? I can seee that you are very centered... Is Olberman, Maddow, Mathews, and Shultz too "right" also? Or are they more middle of the road? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:46:30 AM · #85 |
It appears to me that whatever you wish not to be so is "absurd". As per my Mrs. Clinton example, liberal bias does exist, in average, everyday, middle-of-the-road-as-you-call-it media, whatever you wish to the contrary. And any media that maintains that Rush Limbaugh is/was a full-time supporter of GW Bush just ain't tellin' it from a "idealogically centered" perspective, seems to me.
Because the leanings of your "centered" media agree with your personal point of view, you don't see any leanings at all, and that's understandable, and equally absurd from my point of view. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:53:32 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Rush, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Colmes and O'Reilly are like spoiled children who, when they don't get their way, just yell louder and louder. They all need a whippin' and a lesson in civility.
I'm all for debate and spirited, rational discussion of the issues, but the name-calling, vitriol and "I'm louder and more obnoxious, so I'm right" attitude from these folks is ridiculous. |
Just for the record, Colmes is a liberal. |
Fox may have called Colmes a liberal, but on many issues, like the supporting the use of so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques, endorsing Guiliani for mayor of NYC, etc. he was definitely in the right wing camp. Colmes even characterized himself as a moderate. So, compared to a right wingnut like Hannity, Colmes might appear liberal, but the reality is that he's anything but. |
So Alan Colmes is too "right" for you? And you lump him in the same group as Rush, Beck, and Hannity? I can seee that you are very centered... Is Olberman, Maddow, Mathews, and Shultz too "right" also? Or are they more middle of the road? |
I never said he was too right for me, he's just one more talking head. He's more liberal than Hannity, for sure, but even he refers to himself as a moderate, not a liberal. He's certainly nowhere near as liberal as Hannity is conservative. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:01:19 AM · #87 |
I highly doubt most people that bash Rush, Hannity, Beck... ever really listen to them other then select sound bites and clips. They just repeat what their liberal sources say, or make assumptions. Note that all these guys have 3 hour shows (but maybe 1 hour of talking after commercials). if you hear a couple seconds here and there that was cut to make them look as bad as possible is it fair to judge them on it?
If you did that to Obama you'd think he went to a church that hates America and is so dumb he doesn't realize there are actually only 50 states.
(Note: I'm not defending Rush, Hannity, Beck... I have my opinions of them and not all are favorable. I'm just pointing out that most people bashing them are talking out of their ass) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:06:28 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never said he was too right for me, he's just one more talking head. He's more liberal than Hannity, for sure, but even he refers to himself as a moderate, not a liberal. He's certainly nowhere near as liberal as Hannity is conservative. |
I think he would disagree with you. Check out his web site :)
//www.alan.com/ |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:17:04 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I highly doubt most people that bash Rush, Hannity, Beck... ever really listen to them other then select sound bites and clips. They just repeat what their liberal sources say, or make assumptions. Note that all these guys have 3 hour shows (but maybe 1 hour of talking after commercials). if you hear a couple seconds here and there that was cut to make them look as bad as possible is it fair to judge them on it?
If you did that to Obama you'd think he went to a church that hates America and is so dumb he doesn't realize there are actually only 50 states.
(Note: I'm not defending Rush, Hannity, Beck... I have my opinions of them and not all are favorable. I'm just pointing out that most people bashing them are talking out of their ass) |
Correct. Thank you. and LOL. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:20:33 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He's more liberal than Hannity, for sure, but even he refers to himself as a moderate, not a liberal. He's certainly nowhere near as liberal as Hannity is conservative. |
Sort of like Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad— considered political opposites within their world, but not really so far apart. Educate yourself.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I highly doubt most people that bash Rush, Hannity, Beck... ever really listen to them other then select sound bites and clips. |
I have, several times. Each was painful, sad and comical... flubbing basic information and logic like a drunken Miss South Carolina. It's embarrassing for this country that so many are willing to accept and spread disinformation and hatred. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:23:48 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I highly doubt most people that bash Rush, Hannity, Beck... ever really listen to them other then select sound bites and clips. They just repeat what their liberal sources say, or make assumptions. Note that all these guys have 3 hour shows (but maybe 1 hour of talking after commercials). if you hear a couple seconds here and there that was cut to make them look as bad as possible is it fair to judge them on it?
If you did that to Obama you'd think he went to a church that hates America and is so dumb he doesn't realize there are actually only 50 states.
(Note: I'm not defending Rush, Hannity, Beck... I have my opinions of them and not all are favorable. I'm just pointing out that most people bashing them are talking out of their ass) |
But some of us actually do listen to them (or at least have). When in the car I prefer talk radio, and when I lived in Atlanta for 13 years there wasn't much choice. I probably listened to a total of over 1000 hours of Rush & Hannity, if not more. I found that in the 90's Rush seemed to simply be on another side than me, and while he had a pretty ugly personality I could listen to it in the guise of "opposition research." Yes, he only presented one side, but for the most part he stuck with blustery rhetoric and pomposity. However, increasingly after 9/11 (which was about when I started listening to Hannity as well) they both seemed more than happy to actually twist facts, completely leave out contradictory evidence and work up themselves & their audiences about complete falsehoods. They allow their callers to state utter inanities without correction as long as it supports their views. Perhaps it was the competition as more right-wing entertainers got more and more attention, but they both seemed perfectly willing to step up their game to match idiots like Beck.
eta: back to the OP's point, I think someone else already brought up Mary Matelin & James Carville as an example of how two people on opposite sides can agree to disagree. Watch a couple of Jon Stewarts together and discuss - I think humor can help almost any situation!
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 10:30:46. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:30:28 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I highly doubt most people that bash Rush, Hannity, Beck... ever really listen to them other then select sound bites and clips. |
I have, several times. Each was painful, sad and comical... flubbing basic information and logic like a drunken Miss South Carolina. It's embarrassing for this country that so many are willing to accept and spread disinformation and hatred. |
And I regularly listen to Maddow and Shultz and have the exact same opinion of them. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:53:22 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Deb, just as a curiosity, I wonder what is the pay scale relative to that in the U.S. -- or the average net pay received by the citizens working and paying taxes over there. I wonder if it is as disappointing (for lack of a better word) of a contrast as my friend in the medical profession in Canada who talked to me about it? |
Sales tax (on everything except food) is 19% and is incorporated in the prices, not added at the end of the transaction. Income tax (yes, on top of the sales tax) is around 40% I think. There are fewer "poor" people here and yet there are still quite a few "rich" people. I would say the middle class is well off. The work week is 38.5 hours; everyone gets Sunday off with some exceptions (and those get another day off); people do not seem rabidly displeased with their government but they do have the usual politics and to some extent whining. I would also wager that in general they seem far more content with their lives. There isn't as much "MUST HAVE MORE!" mentality here. "Things" are not worshipped as highly as time, people, and activities. People tend to buy quality over quantity - ie they buy something that will last instead of buying the cheapest with full intention of buying another one in a few months or a year.
A key difference is the people here understand they need to do their part. They take pride in their jobs, their responsibilities. At least this is the way I see things from my somewhat limited (I'm an American who lives in the community but doesn't watch TV) perspective. Health care is good. My neighbor needed surgery on the veins in his legs. He did have to wait for an appointment - about six months - but it was not a critical or life-threatening condition. When he did get his appointment, he went to a clinic that specialized in that operation, was treated like a king, was home in two days. He's been back for a follow up. He's currently seeing a doctor daily for another issue which requires in-office treatment. Not life-threatening, but one requiring more immediate attention - attention which he promptly received.
As I said, from my observations, "socialism" as practiced in Germany is not some evil namby-pamby welfare state kinda thing. It's actually very civilized and efficient.
But yeah, we all get to complain about road repairs blocking lines and tieing up traffic - I think that is universal! :-) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 11:02:58 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never said he was too right for me, he's just one more talking head. He's more liberal than Hannity, for sure, but even he refers to himself as a moderate, not a liberal. He's certainly nowhere near as liberal as Hannity is conservative. |
I think he would disagree with you. Check out his web site :)
//www.alan.com/ |
He might now, however, during his time with Hannity, he was quoted in USAToday, saying "I'm really quite moderate". Not to mention his failure to ask guests tough questions or to dispute false claims made by his co-host or their conservative guests. Maybe he's trying to atone for his past sins. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:28:52 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
He is more and more cynical every time I see him. He sounds sometimes as racial as they seem to be. Cynicism and racism are the two most ugly traits that I find in a man and now I am suddenly married to a cynic. |
One word: Podcasts
I have an iPod and that's all I listen to. At work and on the road. He'll be able to get more than what's on the radio. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:15:13 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Well, socialism is different in that people's individual taxes are astronomical relative to taxes in a non-socialist nation. |
And yet it's (a portion of) the citizenry of the USA which complains so bitterly about being overtaxed that it has spawned the "TEA party" movement. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:39:02 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SandyP:
Well, socialism is different in that people's individual taxes are astronomical relative to taxes in a non-socialist nation. |
And yet it's (a portion of) the citizenry of the USA which complains so bitterly about being overtaxed that it has spawned the "TEA party" movement. |
I'd say that for the average citizen, the standard of living is much higher in those "socialist" countries than here in the U.S. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:41:21 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
I can read. Who said "mainstream media"? |
If Fox News has the "conservative pH" of nitric acid, then MSNBC would be like diluted ammonia. ;-) |
: )
I have many wonderful things to say about my country, but would not bring it up as an example of socialist system at its finest. I look to the Scandinavians for that. However, I very much agree with Scalvert on this point. If I go to any news stand, the political range is much broader. Starting with the communist papers with the hammer and sickle displayed, to the 'leftist, conservative and nationalist. MSNBC would be on the right side of that spectrum.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 17:42:31. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:56:02 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SandyP:
Well, socialism is different in that people's individual taxes are astronomical relative to taxes in a non-socialist nation. |
And yet it's (a portion of) the citizenry of the USA which complains so bitterly about being overtaxed that it has spawned the "TEA party" movement. |
I'd say that for the average citizen, the standard of living is much higher in those "socialist" countries than here in the U.S. |
Of course you would. How much higher, and who is the "average" citizen?
Or is that just a sales pitch?
And most of the outrage that spawned "Tea Party" movement was not so much the amount of taxes as the waste, fraud, vote-buying, and promises of even more of the same. Good government costs money, we all agree. It's just when getting re-elected tops the list of reasons to distribute taxpayer $$$ that some of us get a little irked.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 18:51:09.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:09:46 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SandyP:
Well, socialism is different in that people's individual taxes are astronomical relative to taxes in a non-socialist nation. |
And yet it's (a portion of) the citizenry of the USA which complains so bitterly about being overtaxed that it has spawned the "TEA party" movement. |
I'd say that for the average citizen, the standard of living is much higher in those "socialist" countries than here in the U.S. |
Of course you would. How much higher, and who is the "average" citizen?
Or is that just a sales pitch?
And most of the outrage that spawned "Tea Party" movement was not so much the amount of taxes as the waste, fraud, vote-buying, and promises of even more of the same. Good government costs money, we all agree. It's just when getting re-elected tops the list of reasons to distribute taxpayer $$$ that some of us get a little irked. |
"Average" is anyone who's middle class or lower.
That's the selfish attitude among the right, they don't give a shit for those that are lower than them.
Have you ever lived in one of those countries? Do you know how many bankruptcies they have due to medical expenses? Do you know how many there are in the US? Why should getting sick mean losing your house? your savings? everything? Why should getting laid off mean that getting sick forces a choice between the mortgage, food and medical care?
The attitude there is that the rich should help care for the poor as part of belonging to the society. Here, the attitude among the right is to "let them eat cake". As long as they get theirs, fuck the rest.
If the US is supposedly the most advanced country in the world, then why are we falling behind in quality of life measures like life expectancy? We're a first world nation with a third world health care system...unless you're one of the haves. |
|
