Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Print Page - [BLOG] Fear and Loathing

I Read This

I Drew This => Today's Editorial => Topic started by: SanitysRequiem on October 13, 2008, 01:37:13 EDT



Title: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: SanitysRequiem on October 13, 2008, 01:37:13 EDT
http://www.idrewthis.org/2008/10/fear-and-loathing.html


Sometimes it's important to take a step back.

Today's blog post brought up some thoughts I had been having lately about John McCain.

I am a fervent, hardcore and well-informed supporter of Barack Obama. I know he's the better man for the job of president and will work toward making the US and the world a better place. But I keep having this twitch in the back of my head, something that keeps telling me, "What if I'm wrong? What if 25+ years in the US congress, the Abramof digging, the initial lack of support for the Bush tax cuts...what if..."

But then I realize again what my REAL mental block is. I hate President George W. Bush and his ilk, and I do not hate John McCain and what he represents.

I was only 14 when dubya stole the election, and was fairly ignorant of the goings on in the world, I followed the election and I was sad when dubya was given the office, but by the time the primaries in '04 rolled around and I could register to vote (you can register for the primaries at 17 as long as you'll be 18 by the general election) I was angry, I was incensed, I couldn't stand the thought of that chimp being in office another 4 years.

When the '08 election really started this summer, I wanted to hate John McCain, like I hate Bush. But I have to pull myself back, I hated what George Bush and the republicans did for the last 8 years. I honestly respect John McCain, if this were the more rational and honestly independent John McCain, I would have to think about it more, I would have to think about whether I favor slower diplomacy and government intervention or free market and pre-emptive international action. I would have to think about the issues. The mainstream media wants me to make an emotional decision, think about it in terms of "US" vs "THEM" who do I like as a person?

I know that's wrong, I have to use logic and what I know about history, about 1929 and Hoover's mistakes, about the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall. I have to think, not react, because fear induced gut reactions is what got Bush re-elected. 


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Manufacturing Dissent on October 13, 2008, 01:46:19 EDT
Editted to include link and proper blog tags.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Blue Boy from Red Country on October 13, 2008, 09:50:21 EDT
http://www.idrewthis.org/2008/10/fear-and-loathing.html


Sometimes it's important to take a step back.

Today's blog post brought up some thoughts I had been having lately about John McCain.

I am a fervent, hardcore and well-informed supporter of Barack Obama. I know he's the better man for the job of president and will work toward making the US and the world a better place. But I keep having this twitch in the back of my head, something that keeps telling me, "What if I'm wrong? What if 25+ years in the US congress, the Abramof digging, the initial lack of support for the Bush tax cuts...what if..."

But then I realize again what my REAL mental block is. I hate President George W. Bush and his ilk, and I do not hate John McCain and what he represents.

I was only 14 when dubya stole the election, and was fairly ignorant of the goings on in the world, I followed the election and I was sad when dubya was given the office, but by the time the primaries in '04 rolled around and I could register to vote (you can register for the primaries at 17 as long as you'll be 18 by the general election) I was angry, I was incensed, I couldn't stand the thought of that chimp being in office another 4 years.

When the '08 election really started this summer, I wanted to hate John McCain, like I hate Bush. But I have to pull myself back, I hated what George Bush and the republicans did for the last 8 years. I honestly respect John McCain, if this were the more rational and honestly independent John McCain, I would have to think about it more, I would have to think about whether I favor slower diplomacy and government intervention or free market and pre-emptive international action. I would have to think about the issues. The mainstream media wants me to make an emotional decision, think about it in terms of "US" vs "THEM" who do I like as a person?

I know that's wrong, I have to use logic and what I know about history, about 1929 and Hoover's mistakes, about the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall. I have to think, not react, because fear induced gut reactions is what got Bush re-elected. 

I certainly agree with you that it is important to analyze each candidate calmly and with reason; McCain is, in all fairness, not just another Bush. In other circurmstances (i.e. no blatantly dishonest campaigning, no predecessor that left things sorely in need of change, no fractured party supporting him) I might be willing to accept him as President.

That said, I don't think that supporting a political candidate should or could be a strictly logical choice. First, the election season is too short for those without the time or energy to research candidates to be properly informed. More importantly, however, many traits that are generally seen as important for a leader - honesty, integrity, trustworthiness - cannot be assessed by pure logic.

The key, I believe, is to be empathetic... to recognized that your choosing a leader for an entire nation and not just yourself. This doesn't mean people shouldn't support candidates with policies they agree with, but it does mean to be cautious not to support someone who only cares about their own agenda without respecting others.

The problem I believe (as highlighted in the blog), is that there are too many who support a candidate because he or she comforts them and feeds their ego by drawing clear cut lines for them. This discourages empathy and breeds antagonism, which in turns stalls the democratic process by creating mindless, unyeilding opposition. (Its a major reason I look so poorly upon social conservatism; it preserves ignorance not values.)


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 13, 2008, 09:53:05 EDT
I don't really understand the point Liberal Eagle is making.  Sure each side does not consider the other fit to govern, what of it?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 13, 2008, 19:55:50 EDT
He's pointing out that bad/lazy journalism is rampant, and that "Iraq has WsMD" is not equivalent to "I did not have sex with that woman".

To which, I say it's about time someone with enough of an audience spoke out. This kind of lazy journalism is a major problem.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Heq on October 14, 2008, 00:16:30 EDT
Yay Krugman, I use his textbooks!

I disagree on some of his points to a small extent, but I doth love the Kruger.  I do however, disgaree that a lot of dems don't see the world in us and them systems as well.  It's more aggressive, and I hate to say this, more fun.

We like to slay the demon, whatever side we're on, and it's easier to want someone gone when youare certain your side is in the right on everything and they are evil.  We, as a species, really like clean ordered lines.  The real world often lets us down though, and we find ourselves having to doubt things, and doubt is rarely a pleasurable emotion, so instead we give into mob mentality and wave our bone clubs above our heads and shout war cries.

The problem usually arises after winning like that.  We like to humiliate the defeated.  That was what made Clinton a very special leader, he wasn't interested in mocking and destroying the 'pubs as much as getting things done.  This is part of what makes me scared at night with Obama, I don't know how he'll handle victory, or what he really believes.

Being gracious in defeat is easy, being gracious in victory is suprisingly hard.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 14, 2008, 01:31:38 EDT
The problem usually arises after winning like that.  We like to humiliate the defeated.  That was what made Clinton a very special leader, he wasn't interested in mocking and destroying the 'pubs as much as getting things done.  This is part of what makes me scared at night with Obama, I don't know how he'll handle victory, or what he really believes.
If he is MLK's followup, as pointed out in the Art thread earlier, the solution will be NOMNOMNOM.  Which is awesome.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bocaj Claw on October 14, 2008, 02:35:23 EDT
In my fanfic of the occasion, he takes their forelocks as trophies and then defeats a team-up between Maleficent and Ares, God of Poorly Handled War, by finding and wielding the Master Sword and mastering the Hadoken.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 14, 2008, 03:35:58 EDT
In my fanfic of the occasion, he takes their forelocks as trophies and then defeats a team-up between Maleficent and Ares, God of Poorly Handled War, by finding and wielding the Master Sword and mastering the Hadoken.
Well I'm not sure anyone can add anything as truly deep and meaningful as that post, but I'll give it a shot anyway. 

I am not sure if I hate George W. Bush.  I have, hammered into my subconscious, a socially-programmed aversion to the word and concept of hate.  My programming says that hating something is bad.  Even if you feel it must be destroyed utterly, you should avoid HATE because hate leads to passionate responses and poor judgment in executing your plan for execution.  I also hesitate to call him the "wurst president evar" because the real question is how the ripples and waves of his legacy will affect the flow of history.  Reagan's legacy was a monstrous failure but he is considered a mighty success, his greatest failures were not even directly affected by his policies, but rather indirectly affected by his demeanor and "style over substance, endless fear and war rather than peace and development." 

As for McCain, I simply feel pity.  The man is a broken shell, trading his integrity, his ideals, his reputation, and his service for one shot at the blaze of glory, the seat he has coveted for so long.  He did some good things, he did try to "reach across the aisle" but when push came to shove and he lost the 2000 election he became the "reformed maverick" and began to walk the party line. 

As for Eagle's point, the left seems less likely to have rabid haters than the right, but whether or not that is true, the rabid hateful right gets FAR more screen time than the "Yellow-dog Democrats."  Name 3 hateful pundits who have suggested violence against the "them" in "us vs. them" and you will be hard pressed to add even one leftist to the list.  You might be able to dig up some obscure Micheal Moore quote, but you can dig up TONS of shit from Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, etc. 


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 14, 2008, 06:40:25 EDT
He's pointing out that bad/lazy journalism is rampant, and that "Iraq has WsMD" is not equivalent to "I did not have sex with that woman".

To which, I say it's about time someone with enough of an audience spoke out. This kind of lazy journalism is a major problem.
I understand that, but I don't understand how the exchange he quotes has anything to do with it.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 14, 2008, 09:18:49 EDT
Roberts, having nothing better to reply to Krugman with, pulls out the good old "Yeah, but you do too!" for a fallacy double threat, with a side order of lazy journalism.

Ignoring for a second the tu quoque fallacy, when you compare Krugman pointed out to what Roberts is trying to make equivalent to the follies of the Republican party, it doesn't stack up. It's deceiving to list the two side by side, because they're not equivalent. Roberts lies when he tries to make them so, and suffers from lazy journalism because the Democratic party is not too far from being an easy target.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 14, 2008, 10:13:03 EDT
Roberts, having nothing better to reply to Krugman with, pulls out the good old "Yeah, but you do too!" for a fallacy double threat, with a side order of lazy journalism.

Ignoring for a second the tu quoque fallacy, when you compare Krugman pointed out to what Roberts is trying to make equivalent to the follies of the Republican party, it doesn't stack up. It's deceiving to list the two side by side, because they're not equivalent. Roberts lies when he tries to make them so, and suffers from lazy journalism because the Democratic party is not too far from being an easy target.
But they are not comparing the follies of the Republican party to the Democratic party.  They are pointing out how opposed factions in those parties are to governance by the other side.  And both of them are right.  There are in fact many in the Democratic party who responded this way to Bush's presidency, there still are.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 14, 2008, 10:50:52 EDT
But they are not comparing the follies of the Republican party to the Democratic party.  They are pointing out how opposed factions in those parties are to governance by the other side.  And both of them are right.  There are in fact many in the Democratic party who responded this way to Bush's presidency, there still are.
Whereas the Republicans were basically in open insurrection and were able to more or less completely wreck a good half or more of Clinton's policies, Democrats have signed the Patriot Act, supported the Iraq War initially, and gone along with quite a few of Bush's policies, even though Bush policies are far more to the Right than Clinton's were to the Left.

In short, there is quite obviously no equivalence.  Accusing a candidate for murder with no real evidence supporting such and accusing a candidate for murder after they start a war on false grounds that results in the bloody death of half to a full million civilians are NOT the same thing, and even then influential mainstream Democrats aren't willing to be that accusatory, whereas influential mainstream Republicans were quite happy to do so.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Heq on October 14, 2008, 14:15:36 EDT
I think part of why the democrats come across as less spiteful is because, well, there are an awful lot of democrats who do double-time as absolute cowards.

I would also hesitate to overlap non-violence with a lack of hatred, violence is not neccessarily an act of hatred, and exists to a large part on a totally different axis from it.  There are quite a lot of people on the left who would never enact physical violence, this makes them pascifists not saints.  There are similarly many Nietzschians who are okay with physical violence, and enacts upon each other in friendship and with a degree of glee.  Most skilled fighters greatly appreciate thier opponents.

The question is how many democrats would willingly sue someone into oblivion, as that seems to be the non-violent version of punching someone in the lip.  It's much more cowardly in my opinion, and the cowardice of the democratic party physically and spiritually is something I would have a hard time squaring with.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 14, 2008, 15:18:59 EDT
Or it's just a belief in law and order. 

But that's just crazy talk. 


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 14, 2008, 18:27:15 EDT
I think part of why the democrats come across as less spiteful is because, well, there are an awful lot of democrats who do double-time as absolute cowards.
As Boring7 said, it is in party a willingness to value law and order over crushing the opposition.  Whereas the Republicans chose to literally grind the government to a halt rather then compromise on a budget back when Clinton was in charge.

Also note that the media supports the conservatives.  As such, even though Democrats choose to crush far less than the Republicans despite having far better justification to do so than the Republicans, the media still tries to depict them as just as bad.  If the Democrats gave the Republicans the crushing they deserve, let alone a crushing on the same ratio of crush to justifiability that Republicans use, the media would sink them happily.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 14, 2008, 19:30:01 EDT
Roberts, having nothing better to reply to Krugman with, pulls out the good old "Yeah, but you do too!" for a fallacy double threat, with a side order of lazy journalism.

Ignoring for a second the tu quoque fallacy, when you compare Krugman pointed out to what Roberts is trying to make equivalent to the follies of the Republican party, it doesn't stack up. It's deceiving to list the two side by side, because they're not equivalent. Roberts lies when he tries to make them so, and suffers from lazy journalism because the Democratic party is not too far from being an easy target.
But they are not comparing the follies of the Republican party to the Democratic party.  They are pointing out how opposed factions in those parties are to governance by the other side.  And both of them are right.  There are in fact many in the Democratic party who responded this way to Bush's presidency, there still are.


Poor phrasing, sorry.

In more detail, Krugman's pointing out that Republican voters stated that Clinton was an illegitimate president. That is, he didn't earn the job through fair means. Roberts says the same thing of Democratic voters. While true on the surface, there's no basis to the Republican claim. The Democratic claim is backed by the fiasco in Florida. Thus, tu quoque, lies and lazy journalism. And this kind of equivalence is common in US journalism. By conservatives the world over, if my local conservative rag is any indication.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 14, 2008, 21:06:24 EDT
I also hope that its realized that Democrats and Republicans are NOT static blocs, and have a wide variety of individuals within them.  If any third party were to be elected to Congress or the Presidency, they would end up playing the same politician game that the current parties do.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 15, 2008, 05:32:45 EDT
Roberts, having nothing better to reply to Krugman with, pulls out the good old "Yeah, but you do too!" for a fallacy double threat, with a side order of lazy journalism.

Ignoring for a second the tu quoque fallacy, when you compare Krugman pointed out to what Roberts is trying to make equivalent to the follies of the Republican party, it doesn't stack up. It's deceiving to list the two side by side, because they're not equivalent. Roberts lies when he tries to make them so, and suffers from lazy journalism because the Democratic party is not too far from being an easy target.
But they are not comparing the follies of the Republican party to the Democratic party.  They are pointing out how opposed factions in those parties are to governance by the other side.  And both of them are right.  There are in fact many in the Democratic party who responded this way to Bush's presidency, there still are.


Poor phrasing, sorry.

In more detail, Krugman's pointing out that Republican voters stated that Clinton was an illegitimate president. That is, he didn't earn the job through fair means. Roberts says the same thing of Democratic voters. While true on the surface, there's no basis to the Republican claim. The Democratic claim is backed by the fiasco in Florida. Thus, tu quoque, lies and lazy journalism. And this kind of equivalence is common in US journalism. By conservatives the world over, if my local conservative rag is any indication.
But aren't they talking about what various groups *think*, not what the facts are?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 15, 2008, 08:43:55 EDT
Nope. They're talking about how groups have acted.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 15, 2008, 09:12:11 EDT
Nope. They're talking about how groups have acted.
Krugman says "for a long time we have had a substantial fraction of the Republican base that just does not regard the idea of Democrats governing as legitimate", he is talking about what people think, their regard.

Then Roberts says "I think that you've also had a huge number of Democrats who think that the Republicans are illegitimate".

That said neither of them are being particularly coherent.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Andrei on October 15, 2008, 09:47:17 EDT
Quote from: Current
But aren't they talking about what various groups *think*, not what the facts are?
One cannot dissmiss facts altogether.

If one group thinks the earth revolves around the sun, and another thinks it's the other way around, they both *think* relatively similar things, but one cannot assume it means the two groups are similar or believe these things for the same reasons... nor can one deduce an equivalence between the two beliefs.

I belive that was both Krugman's point and Eagle's.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Heq on October 15, 2008, 11:48:50 EDT
Really, so the dmeocrats are a brave and stalwart party who stands up for their beliefs?

Thank god, I thougt I'd heard on the news they had yet to defund the war, and kept getting steamrolled into appoving insane legistlation because they have no spine.  Good to know that was all right-wing lies and they have actually managed to defend the constitution and fundemental human decency.

(I think when you say democrat you mean Kucinich, who is awesome in all ways, not, say, most of congress)


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 15, 2008, 12:10:52 EDT
Quote from: Current
But aren't they talking about what various groups *think*, not what the facts are?
One cannot dissmiss facts altogether.
No, but if you're not talking about facts then they aren't really relevant are they?

If one group thinks the earth revolves around the sun, and another thinks it's the other way around, they both *think* relatively similar things, but one cannot assume it means the two groups are similar or believe these things for the same reasons... nor can one deduce an equivalence between the two beliefs.

I belive that was both Krugman's point and Eagle's.
Well maybe.  I think though the point the two pundits are discussing is what things are going to look like after the election.

Krugman correctly point out how hostile some republicans are to the democratic party holding power.  Roberts mentions that similarly the many democrats are hostile to republicans holding power.  Surely when discussing how ugly things will be after the election the reasons that each group have this hostility is not so relevant?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 15, 2008, 18:49:05 EDT
Really, so the dmeocrats are a brave and stalwart party who stands up for their beliefs?

Thank god, I thougt I'd heard on the news they had yet to defund the war, and kept getting steamrolled into appoving insane legistlation because they have no spine.  Good to know that was all right-wing lies and they have actually managed to defend the constitution and fundemental human decency.

(I think when you say democrat you mean Kucinich, who is awesome in all ways, not, say, most of congress)
With Republican control of the Presidency, the Supreme Court, enough of the Senate to filibuster, and the Media, Democrats are hardly in a position to fight off Republican policies.  The best they could achieve is a stalemate, and since Republicans have control over the media, all the blame for the consequences of the stalemate will be heaped on the Democrats.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Schmorgluck on October 15, 2008, 23:32:26 EDT
Christopher Buckley is mentioned in the article, and his endorsement of Obama. I had never heard of this guy until just a few days ago, when I randomly found his column for the Daily Beast in which he expressed his position: Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama).

When I retrieved this article for linking it here, I went on to reread it: Buckley's views are interesting, and his writing style is great. I encourage you to read it.

When I was finished, I found a link that wasn't there initially, a link to another article, published today, in which he details the consequences of the previous: Buckley Bows Out of National Review (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired). It's sad, a bit frightening and, it seems to me, relevant to the discussion we have at hand.

Well maybe.  I think though the point the two pundits are discussing is what things are going to look like after the election.

Krugman correctly point out how hostile some republicans are to the democratic party holding power.  Roberts mentions that similarly the many democrats are hostile to republicans holding power.  Surely when discussing how ugly things will be after the election the reasons that each group have this hostility is not so relevant?
The point is that never the Dem camp did give Bush shit of the same tremendous magnitude than that which Clinton had to face. And Obama is already facing a tremendous amount of shit as well.
The reasons why it is so, of this difference in attitude, are a matter of interest by themselves.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Current on October 16, 2008, 04:55:57 EDT
Christopher Buckley is mentioned in the article, and his endorsement of Obama. I had never heard of this guy until just a few days ago, when I randomly found his column for the Daily Beast in which he expressed his position: Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama).

When I retrieved this article for linking it here, I went on to reread it: Buckley's views are interesting, and his writing style is great. I encourage you to read it.

When I was finished, I found a link that wasn't there initially, a link to another article, published today, in which he details the consequences of the previous: Buckley Bows Out of National Review (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired). It's sad, a bit frightening and, it seems to me, relevant to the discussion we have at hand.
Well, W.F.Buckley was never quite like other conservatives.

Well maybe.  I think though the point the two pundits are discussing is what things are going to look like after the election.

Krugman correctly point out how hostile some republicans are to the democratic party holding power.  Roberts mentions that similarly the many democrats are hostile to republicans holding power.  Surely when discussing how ugly things will be after the election the reasons that each group have this hostility is not so relevant?
The point is that never the Dem camp did give Bush shit of the same tremendous magnitude than that which Clinton had to face. And Obama is already facing a tremendous amount of shit as well.
The reasons why it is so, of this difference in attitude, are a matter of interest by themselves.
Well, I see what you mean if they're talking about the congressional parties.  But are they talking about that?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 16, 2008, 14:01:42 EDT
It is a question of objectivity and truth.  In the past 16 years, when their party was the "loser" of the two:

-Democrats made up motives for actions, Republicans made up actions and motives. ("blood for oil" vs. "committed murder/rape")

-Democrats screeched and railed about legitimacy with a marginal election, Republicans screeched about sexual misconduct.  (Florida and Monica)

-republicans held an impeachment over a blowjob, democrats did not hold an impeachment over a war.

-the republican mainstream talks about Obama being a secret muslim operative.  The left "crazy guy with lazy eye" talk about McCain being some Vietnamese "Manchurian Candidate." 

-Ann Coulter calling for murder is "the same thing" as Micheal Moore calling for people to elect someone else. 

Both sides have hostility, but both the reasons and the level of hostility are better on the democrat's side than the side of the republicans.  The right has more hate, the hate is more irrational, and the negative effects of that hate are greater. 

On an unexpected tangent, does anyone know if there has been a presidency that actually did "reduce government"?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: joshbrenton on October 16, 2008, 14:07:41 EDT

Both sides have hostility, but both the reasons and the level of hostility are better on the democrat's side than the side of the republicans.  The right has more hate, the hate is more irrational, and the negative effects of that hate are greater. 

On an unexpected tangent, does anyone know if there has been a presidency that actually did "reduce government"?

Levels aside, I think the hatred is pretty irrational on both sides. For example, back in 2006 when Joe Lieberman ran to keep his Senate seat as an independent, some radical democrats angry with him made horrible comments along the lines of "Lieberman should have been sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz", and portrayed him in blackface. That's pretty hateful to me. And the problems are worst with those on the far right (Coulter, Limbaugh) and those on the far left (Olbermann, Moore). Rational people in both parties I think are wise enough to ignore the bullshit.

In response to your tangent, the answer is sadly no. The only way we'll ever have a presidency that will cut back on government spending and interference in our lives is to vote for a libertarian president. Sorry, but that's the way it is.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bringerofpie on October 16, 2008, 16:09:46 EDT
In response to your tangent, the answer is sadly no. The only way we'll ever have a presidency that will cut back on government spending and interference in our lives is to vote for a libertarian president. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I wouldn't count on anyone who wants to office of president to reduce the size of government.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bocaj Claw on October 16, 2008, 16:21:51 EDT

Both sides have hostility, but both the reasons and the level of hostility are better on the democrat's side than the side of the republicans.  The right has more hate, the hate is more irrational, and the negative effects of that hate are greater. 

On an unexpected tangent, does anyone know if there has been a presidency that actually did "reduce government"?

Levels aside, I think the hatred is pretty irrational on both sides. For example, back in 2006 when Joe Lieberman ran to keep his Senate seat as an independent, some radical democrats angry with him made horrible comments along the lines of "Lieberman should have been sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz", and portrayed him in blackface. That's pretty hateful to me. And the problems are worst with those on the far right (Coulter, Limbaugh) and those on the far left (Olbermann, Moore). Rational people in both parties I think are wise enough to ignore the bullshit.

In response to your tangent, the answer is sadly no. The only way we'll ever have a presidency that will cut back on government spending and interference in our lives is to vote for a libertarian president. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I don't really see an equivalence between Coulter and Olbermann. Olbermann may be an angry, verbose commentator but as far as I know he has never done the equivalent of calling for the New York Times office to be firebombed.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 16, 2008, 20:43:14 EDT
some radical democrats
And that is the difference.  The republican MAINSTREAM is known for spewing out the kind of madness that the only "crazy guy with lazy eye" types in the democratic party can match.

You can't compare the radical fanatics of one party to the leading representatives of the other.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 17, 2008, 10:10:08 EDT
some radical democrats
And that is the difference.  The republican MAINSTREAM is known for spewing out the kind of madness that the only "crazy guy with lazy eye" types in the democratic party can match.

You can't compare the radical fanatics of one party to the leading representatives of the other.
Pretty much.  We seem to be following a pattern here:

Side A: "The right has crazy people who advocate/do bad and destructive things."

Side B: "Well both sides have crazy people so they're the same." 

Side A: "They are not the same, the nutters on the right are statistically relevant and/or damaging while the crazies on the left are almost entirely ignored or only given token screen time by their enemies."

Side B: "Both sides have crazy people so they're the same." 

Side A: "But the sides are objectively different, one is small and mildly annoying while one is widespread and dangerous." 

Side B: "Both sides have crazy people so they're the same." 

It's kind of like how, since the entire country has a bias towards Obama winning right now, most of the mainstream media is tepidly endorsing him (or not endorsing his opponent), including the historically right-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times) (and crazy as three drunk monkeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon)) Washington Times (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/10/4/is-the-washington-times-for-barack-obama-.html).  This does not make the demented honking of "lie-brul media!" from Fox news correct, it merely points out that most media sources know when it's time to jump ship.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Heq on October 17, 2008, 11:58:07 EDT
I'm sorry, I reject the premise of powerless without the president.

The congress controls to purse strings, they are not required to fund anything.  Stopping the war is relatively easy if you stop funding it, you don't need to pass a bill, you just need to not-pass a spending bill.  They don't want to be called unmilitarisitic, so they book and run.  That is what is known as being cowardly.  They then rail about the administrations coninued abuse of power, but keep passing spending bills so that power can be abused.  I don't fault them for not getting bills passed, i fault them for passing a whole hell of a lot of really, really bad legislation because they were bullied.

boring, I'm not sure the nutters on the left -are- not influential.  I stay with that both sides are bad, but not equal.  The right is more dangerous, because they tend to actually believe things and act cohesively, but the nutters on the left are more "evil" in that they know better.  I don't think Sean Hannity knows what he is talking about, so I let him some slack for ignorance.  I do not give the same level of tolerance for someone flinging out false numbers on the left (just because they are in the news, let's pick ACORN).  They are knowingly lying, and obfuscating it with degrees and numbers so as to seem legit to people who lack a background.

It may just be too much Christianity in my youth, but I feel deliberate obfuscation by the knowledgable is perhaps the worst cancer within a society.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 17, 2008, 12:09:29 EDT
(just because they are in the news, let's pick ACORN)

You picked a bad example. ACORN were the ones being defrauded, and by their employees.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bocaj Claw on October 17, 2008, 12:17:08 EDT
And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: rogue-kun on October 17, 2008, 12:46:50 EDT
And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.

Nor the fact President Bush's "interesting" use of 'line item' vetoes, to let a bill pass, like a funding bill, and vetoing only the restrictions in it that he does not like. so the bill is NOT returned congress as it "passed"


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 17, 2008, 13:41:50 EDT
I'm sorry, I reject the premise of powerless without the president.

The congress controls to purse strings, they are not required to fund anything.  Stopping the war is relatively easy if you stop funding it, you don't need to pass a bill, you just need to not-pass a spending bill.  They don't want to be called unmilitarisitic, so they book and run.  That is what is known as being cowardly.  They then rail about the administrations coninued abuse of power, but keep passing spending bills so that power can be abused.  I don't fault them for not getting bills passed, i fault them for passing a whole hell of a lot of really, really bad legislation because they were bullied.
What part of any stalemate/lockdown in the political machine will be blamed on the democrats by the conservative supporting media do you not understand?  Or that because we only have a pitiable and uncohesive majority that is in no way able to neither fight filibusters, vetoes, or supreme court rulings, such stalemates/lockdowns will occur basically constantly if the democrats try advocating for their policies?

boring, I'm not sure the nutters on the left -are- not influential.
Huh, so the nutters on the left also have a news channel for them to discuss their views in a favorable light, and that is more watched than any other news channel? 

I stay with that both sides are bad, but not equal.  The right is more dangerous, because they tend to actually believe things and act cohesively, but the nutters on the left are more "evil" in that they know better.  I don't think Sean Hannity knows what he is talking about, so I let him some slack for ignorance.  I do not give the same level of tolerance for someone flinging out false numbers on the left (just because they are in the news, let's pick ACORN).  They are knowingly lying, and obfuscating it with degrees and numbers so as to seem legit to people who lack a background.

It may just be too much Christianity in my youth, but I feel deliberate obfuscation by the knowledgable is perhaps the worst cancer within a society.
Actually I think people who can believe the lies they advocate are far more dangerous than those who say them for political reasons.

Also, do remember that we have far better grounds.  Saying Clinton is a mass murderer is significantly more extreme than saying that Bush is a mass murderer, seeing as one started a war on false pretenses that has lead to the death of a million people, and the other got a blowjob.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Schmorgluck on October 17, 2008, 19:05:51 EDT
Also, do remember that we have far better grounds.  Saying Clinton is a mass murderer is significantly more extreme than saying that Bush is a mass murderer, seeing as one started a war on false pretenses that has lead to the death of a million people, and the other got a blowjob.
Won't somebody please think of the sperms?


Sorry, I had to.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 17, 2008, 21:47:16 EDT
And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.

Nor the fact President Bush's "interesting" use of 'line item' vetoes, to let a bill pass, like a funding bill, and vetoing only the restrictions in it that he does not like. so the bill is NOT returned congress as it "passed"

Wait... is that legal?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: rogue-kun on October 17, 2008, 22:15:55 EDT
And you ignored the fact that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority.

Nor the fact President Bush's "interesting" use of 'line item' vetoes, to let a bill pass, like a funding bill, and vetoing only the restrictions in it that he does not like. so the bill is NOT returned congress as it "passed"

Wait... is that legal?

Bush declared it was. "To fight pork projects"


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 18, 2008, 03:14:29 EDT
Its probably unconstitutional, but it hasn't been challenged yet.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 18, 2008, 13:09:29 EDT
Brings us back to the "democrats are toothless" thing. 

They are spending all their time afraid that hitting Bush will cost them the election (and/or the nation is tired of impeachments) or, more seditiously, thinking that they can "get 'em back" if Obama will use those powers too.  Congress is at that William Wallace speech from Braveheart, and the question is whether they will fight for their freedom and possibly lose or just "run away and live, for a while."  I think they are wrong to run away, but that *is* a separate issue. 

As for ACORN...yeah.  ACORN is neither "on the left" (ask the 2006 McCain (http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/mccain-attended-acorn-rally)) nor at fault for horrible democracy-undermining evils.  ACORN works in the cities, which are more likely to have democrats as workers and targets (see "small town elitism") but it registers republicans too.  ACORN is one of those "we aren't trying to make a profit, we just have a cause" organizations that tries to get the voting numbers higher than American Idol viewership.  Since they ask for volunteers or people willing to work for chicken feed, they will get people with other motives, (fill the rolls with fakes for a bonus, fill the rolls with fakes that could vote fraudulently) in the same range as the republicans who call up registered voters and try to convince them it is illegal/dangerous for them to vote because they might get arrested or they "got purged from the voter rolls, so they shouldn't bother" or whathaveyou. 

ACORN's goal of "more voters" is more valuable than it's cost of "another venue for fraud."  This relative value is determined by the fact that it plays within the rules enough to not be sued out of existence.  They do their best to yank out the fraudsters, and call me a pessimist if you must but I always assume a little bit of individual fraud is going to happen from whatever sides *cough*2000 election*cough*.  This is also part of why I assume a presidential election has a "margin of error" because aside from individual cases of fraud slipping by, ballot boxes can get into car accidents when driving to the voting places, etc. 

Oh, and I mixed up the Washington Post and the Washington Times above.   my bad. 


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Heq on October 19, 2008, 11:35:31 EDT
Well, consider me chastised, though I still find they are at least culbable in the same way that a negligent parent in culbable if their child falls down the stairs (I'm actually okay with that, children are coddled too much), that being said, i disagree with their goals, but then again, I'm not for a total 1-to-1 democracy (I think the weak and stupid should have a lesser vote then the strong and intelligent).

Also, Obermann and Maddow have shows, and they are rather, well, very left of centre, and I get sick of the whining about the media bias.  The media is stupid and lazy, not really so much biased.  The republican dominance has more to do with their ability to make a cohesive and simple story then outright media favouratism.  From what I can tell, MSNBC has the express goal of being a left-leaning Fox copycat.

Wodan, that's exactly what I mean.  They are afraid that, say, defunding the war will cost them an election and so continue the war.  Being in power is not about winning the next election, it -should- be about doing what you consider is right and then leading others to see why you think it is right.  If this is not why you're in power, either you are A: so far out of the mainstream you know your views will be unpaltable, but are trying to do they best you can fro the people anyway, or more likely B: A coward.

People do not like to be ruled by cowards, so oddly, by being cowardly one avoids the short death but signs a more certain long term certificate.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Laserlips on October 24, 2008, 13:19:24 EDT
Clinton lied directly to the american people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it.  If he had said that he had a gluten allergy while eating white bread, the lie would still have been a lie--and he still would deserve to lose trust.

On the other hand, nobody has ever proved that Bush lied.  In fact, the person many people say was responsible for the "lie us into war" just endorsed Obama.  Food for thought.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: rogue-kun on October 24, 2008, 13:39:36 EDT
Clinton lied directly to the american people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it. 

Actually he did not, it was found he had not lined in the impeachment presded, he was Censored, but otherwise found NOT GUILTY"

the Republicians got to Define what "Sex" was in the context of the hearing, their definition did not include a blow job.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 24, 2008, 13:43:22 EDT
Clinton lied directly to the american people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it.  If he had said that he had a gluten allergy while eating white bread, the lie would still have been a lie--and he still would deserve to lose trust.

On the other hand, nobody has ever proved that Bush lied.  In fact, the person many people say was responsible for the "lie us into war" just endorsed Obama.  Food for thought.
Let me flip that around with an opposite subjective double-standard:  

Quote from: a mirror image
Bush lied directly to the American people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it.  He told numerous lies about "the terrorists" and Al-qaeda being with Saddam Hussein.  

On the other hand, Bill Clinton didn't actually lie because according to dusty old law tomes "eatin' ain't cheatin' " as the kids say and fellatio is not legally defined as sex.  
Objectively speaking, Clinton lied about a blowjob and was brought up on charges, Bush lied about a whole lot of things that would kill people and got...a bad approval rating.  The scale was different, the punishment was different, and the two seem to have been reversed.  Were the news media inclined towards professionalism and/or truth this would all be well-known and obvious.  Instead they let "experts" who specialize in partisan hackery do the analysis and talk to anyone who will get their ratings up (usually a crazy person) and constantly bounce from distraction to distraction like a child with ADD.  

Butterfly!  *chases after butterfly*


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Laserlips on October 24, 2008, 18:11:45 EDT
Ooh, pretty butterfly...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that with a Democratic majority and an approval rating of the President which approached the single digits (although never as low as Congress), that the reason Bush has never been impeached is because of the Republicans?

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?  Why, when whoever-it-is brings up his biannual "Impeach Bush" bill, is it defeated by a Democratic congress?  What possible motivation does the legislature have to protect Bush, when they and their leaders vehemently despise him?

Could it possibly be that the evidence does NOT support their accusations?  Could it be that they are all talk and no substance?  Could it be that "Bush lied, people died" is a nice effective ad campaign and nothing more?

If Congressional Democrats had ANY evidence, Bush would have gone through the same thing Clinton did.  Moreover, if they had any real and compelling evidence, I would be happy to see him kicked out of office--or strung up by his neck for treason.

There is no such evidence, and I've never been convinced that he and his "cronies" could possibly have destroyed it all.  The best evidence is when one member of his cabinet made a lot of money by writing a book about how Bush was just as bad as everyone said, but who still gave no evidence--and all of his colleagues flatly denied his witness.  That's the BEST evidence.  That's why Bush is still in office--because the rule of law is still more important, even to our immensely corrupt legislature, than blind hatred.

Clinton's impeachment should never have BEEN about Lewinsky.  It should have been about unfaithfulness.  He was unfaithful to his wife and dishonest to the American people.  I'm glad he wasn't impeached because he can't have been a worse president in his last few years than Gore would have been.  But he has no respect or trust from me, and I'm funny in that I expect the person who represents me to the world to be trustworthy and respectable.  Clinton helped precipitate our current economic crisis, and he sent our troops to war WITHOUT congressional approval, and he lied to us and expected us not to forgive him but to pretend he hadn't done anything wrong because hey, it was just a blowjob!


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 24, 2008, 20:41:52 EDT
Ooh, pretty butterfly...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that with a Democratic majority and an approval rating of the President which approached the single digits (although never as low as Congress), that the reason Bush has never been impeached is because of the Republicans?

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?  Why, when whoever-it-is brings up his biannual "Impeach Bush" bill, is it defeated by a Democratic congress?  What possible motivation does the legislature have to protect Bush, when they and their leaders vehemently despise him?
Remember, the media is incredibly warped to the conservative's favor.  We'd be depicted as mean petty elitists who want to kill anyone we don't like.  Double standards are awesome.

Could it possibly be that the evidence does NOT support their accusations?  Could it be that they are all talk and no substance?  Could it be that "Bush lied, people died" is a nice effective ad campaign and nothing more?

If Congressional Democrats had ANY evidence, Bush would have gone through the same thing Clinton did.  Moreover, if they had any real and compelling evidence, I would be happy to see him kicked out of office--or strung up by his neck for treason.

There is no such evidence, and I've never been convinced that he and his "cronies" could possibly have destroyed it all.  The best evidence is when one member of his cabinet made a lot of money by writing a book about how Bush was just as bad as everyone said, but who still gave no evidence--and all of his colleagues flatly denied his witness.  That's the BEST evidence.  That's why Bush is still in office--because the rule of law is still more important, even to our immensely corrupt legislature, than blind hatred.
Ya right.  Reagan openly admitted to committing treason on tv, and he wasn't even tried, cause he said he was sorry.  Oliver North was tried, but he just put on a military suit at the trial and played up the patriotism till the trial made the OJ Simpson trial look fair and balanced by comparison.  In my opinion, they both should have been tried, convicted, and executed.  Specifically bypassing congressional authority to sell weapons to an enemy nation in order to finance terrorists, and you are a dead man in my books.

As for evidence, there is more than enough evidence from reliable sources that any court would consider sufficient to indicate that Bush gave deceptive and misleading information.  Bush may not have lied, but only because he believes the falsehoods he blares out to the world, and that is little better if not much worse.

Clinton's impeachment should never have BEEN about Lewinsky.  It should have been about unfaithfulness.  He was unfaithful to his wife and dishonest to the American people.  I'm glad he wasn't impeached because he can't have been a worse president in his last few years than Gore would have been.  But he has no respect or trust from me, and I'm funny in that I expect the person who represents me to the world to be trustworthy and respectable.  Clinton helped precipitate our current economic crisis, and he sent our troops to war WITHOUT congressional approval, and he lied to us and expected us not to forgive him but to pretend he hadn't done anything wrong because hey, it was just a blowjob!
Gore has been far more trustworthy and respectable than Bush ever was.  Remember when Bush denied saying stay the course even after he made it a catchphrase?


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Medivh on October 24, 2008, 21:51:54 EDT
What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?

Cheney. Can't get both of them at the same time, and Cheney is worse than Bush.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Heq on October 24, 2008, 22:01:24 EDT
Cheney is probably the most dangerous man in America right now, and has been since Bush cracked during 9/11

He's also very, very bright, much more so then Pelosi (who seems to be intellectually far out of her league).  Reid is a partisan to the nth degree, but seems to have an intellectual handle on many issues, but congresspeople are often cut from a different cloth.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing -McCain volunteer charged in attack hoax
Post by: rogue-kun on October 24, 2008, 23:42:06 EDT
McCain volunteer charged in attack hoax

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350530/111
Quote
PITTSBURGH - A young campaign volunteer for John McCain made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter "B" scratched on her face in what she had said was a politically inspired attack by a black man, police said Friday.

Race has been a sensitive issue in the presidential campaign, as Democrat Barack Obama would be the first black U.S. president if he wins the Nov. 4 election.

Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from Texas, admitted Friday that the story was false, including the claim that the "B" stood for "Barack," said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division.

Todd was charged with making a false report to police, and Bryant said police doubted her story from the start.

Dressed in an orange hooded sweat shirt, Todd left police headquarters in handcuffs late Friday and did not respond to questions from reporters. The mark on her face was faded and her left eye was slightly blackened when she arrived in district court.

Todd was awaiting arraignment Friday on the misdemeanor false-report charge, which is punishable by up to two years in prison.

Mental health issues'
She will be housed in a mental health unit at the county jail for her safety and because of "her not insignificant mental health issues," prosecutor Mark Tranquilli said.

Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM on Wednesday night when a 6-foot-4 black man approached her from behind, put a knife blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.

Todd, who is white, told investigators she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car. She said the man punched her in the back of the head, knocked her to the ground and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.

Police said Todd claimed the man told her that he was going to "teach her a lesson" for supporting the Republican presidential candidate, and that she was going to become an Obama supporter.

Todd told police she didn't seek medical attention, but instead went to a friend's apartment nearby and called police about 45 minutes later.

Todd could provide no explanation for why she invented the story, police said. The woman told investigators she believes she cut the "B" onto her own cheek, but did not provide an explanation of how or why and said she doesn't remember doing so, police said.

Police said that the woman reported suffering from "mental problems" in the past and that they do not believe anyone put her up to the act.

Tranquilli said Todd will remain jailed over the weekend pending a psychiatric evaluation, which won't happen until Monday at the earliest.

The Associated Press could not immediately locate Todd's family.

Bryant said somebody charged with making a false report would typically be cited and sent a summons. But because police have concerns about Todd's mental health, they are consulting with the Allegheny County District Attorney.

College Republican worker
Todd worked in New York for the College Republican National Committee before moving two weeks ago to Pennsylvania, where her duties included recruiting college students, the committee's executive director, Ethan Eilon, has said.

"We are as upset as anyone to learn of her deceit, Ashley must take full responsibility for her actions," College Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ashley Barbera said in a statement.

Police reported Todd's claims Thursday, as a photo of her injuries made it onto numerous blogs and news sites. By Friday, police said they had found inconsistencies in Todd's story. They gave her a lie-detector test, but wouldn't release the polygraph results.

Police interviewed Todd after she contacted police Wednesday night and again on Thursday, Bryant said. They asked her to come back Friday, ostensibly to help police put together a sketch of the man. Instead, detectives began interviewing her.

"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth," Bryant said.

Police suspected all along that Todd might not be telling the truth, starting with the fact that the "B" was backward, Bryant said.

"We have robbers here in Pittsburgh, but they don't generally mutilate someone's face like that," Bryant said. "They just take the money and run."


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bocaj Claw on October 25, 2008, 03:29:59 EDT
This incident isn't funny. Watching blogs u-turning from "that goddamn black man" to "that lying whore" is at least interesting.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Laserlips on October 28, 2008, 09:30:19 EDT
I guess I just don't see a right-wing bias in the mainstream media.  Talk radio, sure, and there's plenty of right-wing commentary shows on networks like Fox and even CNN, but as far as I can see the people who claim to be giving "the news" are in the pocket of the Left.

I'm not sure there's an objective way to measure this.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: wodan46 on October 28, 2008, 10:41:47 EDT
There is.  It has been done.  It supports our conclusions, not yours.  Specifically, it involves doing things like checking the number of positive and negative news stories put out by given news channels, with positivity measured by unbiased individuals grabbed by Pew and the like.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bocaj Claw on October 28, 2008, 10:57:18 EDT
I recall that when the study found that the media did have a bias towards the left in 2006, O'Reilly praised the guy doing the study. When he later performed the same study again and found that the media had a bias toward the right in 2008, O'Reilly called the man an idiot. Good times.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Laserlips on October 28, 2008, 22:32:27 EDT
I would truly appreciate a link to that study, without any sarcasm involved.  I'd really like to read it.  And by the way, everyone else here seems to know a lot more about what O'Reilly has said than I do.  I've never watched the show.


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: Bocaj Claw on October 28, 2008, 22:50:31 EDT
Sarcasm is basically all I can do.

The study I am talking about was done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/), a non-partisan group that studies the news and entertainment media.

The 2006 study: http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/06sepoct.pdf
The July 2008 study: http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm
The October 2008 study: http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%2010_14_08.htm - reverse of July one.

Article talking about O'Reilly's reaction: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/30/oreilly-lichter-study/


Title: Re: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing
Post by: boring7 on October 29, 2008, 01:39:19 EDT
This incident isn't funny. Watching blogs u-turning from "that goddamn black man" to "that lying whore" is at least interesting.
I find it hilarious, but I have been told I am a monstrous sociopath with the moral compass of a rabid animal. 

Interesting to note, along with the "I don't know how this happened, I made it all up" she apparently worked for the Ron Paul Campaign and was fired.  Too crazy for the Paulestinians?  Yikes. 
</cheapshot>
But apparently a few weeks later she called them up and told a similar story about being robbed/vandalized because of her ties to the Ron Paul Revolution. 

Are you honestly trying to tell me that with a Democratic majority and an approval rating of the President which approached the single digits (although never as low as Congress), that the reason Bush has never been impeached is because of the Republicans?

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?  Why, when whoever-it-is brings up his biannual "Impeach Bush" bill, is it defeated by a Democratic congress?  What possible motivation does the legislature have to protect Bush, when they and their leaders vehemently despise him?
A fair question, the democrats are a rather cowardly crop, playing too cautiously, and I suspect it will cost them.  The alternative theory is that they are "giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with," but I think that hanging has already taken place.  Still the reason that the democratic congress won't IMPEACH is much simpler and has nothing to do with Cheney. 

They would lose. 

Clinton was found innocent, but after dragging the country through the CIRCUS of the impeachment not only was the nation very tired and stressed out, they were sick of the bastards playing these games.  Unsurprisingly "Newtie and the blowhards" who got the most screen time trying to deal the final blow (hurrrrrr) to Clinton were the ones who got booted from office.  The democrats, aside from some TINY sense of concern for the nation and avoiding such an asinine embarrassment, don't feel like repeating Mr. Gingrich's mistakes. 

Could it possibly be that the evidence does NOT support their accusations?  Could it be that they are all talk and no substance?  Could it be that "Bush lied, people died" is a nice effective ad campaign and nothing more?

If Congressional Democrats had ANY evidence, Bush would have gone through the same thing Clinton did.  Moreover, if they had any real and compelling evidence, I would be happy to see him kicked out of office--or strung up by his neck for treason.
Sort of.  See you're making the obvious mistake most folk make of confusing law and justice.  You know and I know that Bush told a bunch of obscene lies about secret nukes and hidden ties to terrorists.  They KNEW that there were no weapons and that Saddam hated volatile fundies, but he said "we have intelligence" (bad intelligence) and "we have to act before bad things happen."  It is well-known (and actually proven, your commentary about "evidence" aside) that the intel was "massaged" and "cherry-picked."  And plenty of lies were of quality, Saddam and Al-qaeda had links, they asked him to ally with them and he told them to bugger off.  That's the secret "link" that Cheney continues to claim exists but refuses to explain.  It's impossible to prove what went on in Dubya's head, and that he was criminally lying instead of criminally stupid.  And even if it could be proven that he knew what he was shoveling came from a bull's back end, you'd have to prove that was treason or a crime since I don't think anyone previous thought it was something that needed to be codified into law. 

But this is getting tangetial.  The point was, originally that the right simplifies things until they are completely wrong, and the media let's them declare it "balanced" when "Obama is a secret muslim terrorist socialist plotter" is set opposite to "McCain is so old he doesn't know what's going on with his campaign." 

To be balanced, you would have to match "Barack, Hussein Obama, did he go to a radical Islam school and learn to be a deep cover agent planning to destroy America?" with "John McCain, is he just an angry jerk with daddy issues" or perhaps, "Is he secretly a Manchurian candidate serving his Vietcong masters?"  Feel free to guess which one the media DIDN'T play. 

Now I find it fairly easy to divorce myself from bias towards the media (I just have trouble WATCHING it, it being so mind-numbing) but to do that I find it most important to know how the bias works. 

First, the media isn't right-wing, it's conservative.  What is the difference you ask?  Conservative means opposition to change in the status quo, right-wing means changing things towards the (unrealistic) status of the 1950s, "only better."  That means the media does not seek to promote Right-wing agendas, it seeks to keep things where it can handle them, with manufactured crises that don't matter, constant appeals to conventional wisdom, and a desire to avoid the dreaded "Liberal bias" by giving even the most dishonest right-wing claptrap equal time. 

Second, bias is not in attacking or punishing but in forgiving.  Two people say, "Detroit's a mess 'cuz o' them darkies," one of them is a young qhite guy with a shaved head and a confederate-flag-emblazoned white tank top and the other is Grandma, can you HONESTLY say you would say/think the same things about both? 

Third, bias NOT in who gets more negative press, but what that press is about. 

Fourth, ask yourself if you would feel the same way were the situations reversed. 

Obama was hit harder than Hillary or McCain in the primaries, but when he kept WINNING the media became obsessed with the guy.  When he went "on tour" to give McCain what he kept harping on (i.e. go to other countries and prove you can talk to them) the media practically ignored the McCain campaign.  Was this bias against McCain, or bias against Obama?  Studies of the time showed that while they talked about him a lot more, it was a lot more negative than McCain coverage (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story). 

Why was it more negative?  Because he was "popular" not because of what he said. 

Now McCain is getting FAR more negative stories about him, is it because he's "unpopular"?  No, it is because of what he, and perhaps more importantly what SHE has said.  Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were both put in "gotcha" interviews where they were asked respectively, "Is Obama going to be a socialist?" and "Are people who bomb abortion clinics terrorists?"  Biden gave vague-but-honest platitudes about progressive taxation.  Palin said, "well, Ayers, ayers, ayers, I'm not sure you could call abortion-bombers terrorists." 

Flip that around, it would be as if Biden had said, "yes, we're socialist," and Palin had said, "well they're a different kind of terrorist, crazy and unstable instead of cognizant and dangerous."  Also, the Biden interview was a lot more hostile, it would have been like asking Palin, "you are a member of an evangelical group, as are abortion bombers, does that mean you are grouped with terrorists?" 

I probably had more, but I'm very sleepy now.