Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShivanAngel wrote:One of the bigger issues with illegals is the feth with the economy hardcore...

They take money out of the economy via wages, they put the bare minimum back in via living expenses and food, and the rest of the money is shipped back to their families in mexico...

No surprise that you're from texas. This sentiment is completely ridiculous. Yes, SOME illegals do send money back to their home countries to their families. However, the actual amount of damage that it can do is such an extreme exaggeration. Even Greenspan agrees that they help the economy by providing services at a low cost.

In fact, your state even conducted a study and came to the conclusion that they would have been out 18 billion dollars if not for illegal immigrants.

ShumaGorath wrote:The mail service isn't really whats putting us in the red. It's a blip on the radar. What do you suggest they do to save it by the by? You sound like you want them to overhaul it to be competitive which would cause it to enter a market that it's charter never intended and which is outside of the U.S. governments role. Do you think we should let it die?

I don't really suggest saving it. There was a time when private industry wasn't willing to do what the Post Office does. At that time I can see why it was put into action. Now though I don't see why it really exists. Private industry has stepped in and is fulfilling the only roll it has left, and email has replaced it's other roll. Do we really need it?

Conservative voters vote for conservative republican politicians. Also I'm not sure how the conservative voting block is reducing governmental spending by voting for conservatives who increase government spending. Its a great shell game and reds are fantastic at controlling the media (the liberal media bias is one of their greatest creations of the last 30 years).

What alternative do Conservative voters have? Democrats? Don't give voters that much credit most of them aren't smart enough to instantly know when they've been stabbed in the back till they've walked down the block and notice the stinging pain in their spine. The Tea Party is a very visible example of the split between conservative voters and their politicians. It's been bubbling for a long time. While may Tea Party folks are independents, the movement's origins lie in the disgruntled conservative voting block which has grown tired of their politicians not representing their interests.

And you can't argue against the liberal media. It's more than blatant that mainstream media with the exception of Fox is slanted to the left. Fox on the other hand is just crazy. We haven't had good honest objective reporting from our media in decades. Hence why I stopped watching the news. The only "news" source I buy is National Enquire. We all need a good laugh here and there and some of their stuff is so hilarious .

The problem is that saying something meaningful and saying something of substantive merit are two different things. They have different meanings. It's not really Dogmas fault for being specific.

No. I'm just picky. And you can say meaningful in place of substantive merit and people will get the meaning of it from the context. We don't need to be word lawyers.

I don't really suggest saving it. There was a time when private industry wasn't willing to do what the Post Office does. At that time I can see why it was put into action. Now though I don't see why it really exists. Private industry has stepped in and is fulfilling the only roll it has left, and email has replaced it's other roll. Do we really need it?

I don't think we do, but I would like to see the funds spent on it used elsewhere to enable higher spectrum access. America has one of the worst telecommunications infrastructures in the developed world.

And you can't argue against the liberal media. It's more than blatant that mainstream media with the exception of Fox is slanted to the left. Fox on the other hand is just crazy.

Not really. MSNBC is a counterpoint to fox but it's not nearly so rabid. CNN is pretty unbiased and almost all of Rupert Murdochs holdings give a strong and clear conservative slant (all financial channels for instance). In televised media the split is pretty clean and even. In radio conservatives have sheer dominance in the political spectrum and conservative news print is every bit as common as liberal.

It's in every way a boogeyman. There is simply no leftist media bias in modern media.

We haven't had good honest objective reporting from our media in decades. Hence why I stopped watching the news. The only "news" source I buy is National Enquire. We all need a good laugh here and there and some of their stuff is so hilarious

I read a lot of BBC which has a government mandate to impartiality. I've also found that as long as you review enough media sources you will come away with a middle view of events with relatively little bias. You just have to know what to take and what to disregard.

No. I'm just picky. And you can say meaningful in place of substantive merit and people will get the meaning of it from the context. We don't need to be word lawyers.

I don't think thats Dogma being a word lawyer. I think this is just a case of you encountering relatively common terms of speech without knowing their meaning. Take this as an opportunity to increase your vocabulary instead of trying to pull others down.

ShumaGorath wrote:America has one of the worst telecommunications infrastructures in the developed world.

Definitely. A lot of our infrastructure is in bad shape. In the case of roads and bridges it's kind of falling apart

Not really. MSNBC is a counterpoint to fox but it's not nearly so rabid. CNN is pretty unbiased and almost all of Rupert Murdochs holdings give a strong and clear conservative slant (all financial channels for instance). In televised media the split is pretty clean and even. In radio conservatives have sheer dominance in the political spectrum and conservative news print is every bit as common as liberal.

I would disagree about CNN. I think some of the reporters are less biased but CNN as a whole has a left slant. I will however agree that none of the liberal media sources are anywhere near as crazy as Fox. Those guys are scary. I've never watched financial channels. I read books for that. I think conservative radio is just more well known than liberal radio. When you have a wonderful personality like Rush, it's hard to get ahead. I disagree about print media. There are a lot of conservative news prints but the biggest ones are all liberal slanted. Not that print media is lasting much longer.

I read a lot of BBC which has a government mandate to impartiality. I've also found that as long as you review enough media sources you will come away with a middle view of events with relatively little bias. You just have to know what to take and what to disregard.

Pretty much what I do. The internet rocks

I don't think thats Dogma being a word lawyer. I think this is just a case of you encountering relatively common terms of speech without knowing their meaning. Take this as an opportunity to increase your vocabulary instead of trying to pull others down.

It has nothing to do with putting people down or not knowing the definition. I just don't see the point in using such a term when a more common and simpler one can reach the same end and be more easily understood. And I was refering to you not dogma as a word lawyer. Dogma just used a word. You went into semantics over an issue I described as an espoused notion of my own because the definitions aren't homogeneous and as a result no human being can differentiate through context the intent of what was expressed. /end exaggerated sarcasm

Grignard wrote:He was making a comment about his beliefs in the deleterious effects of certain aspects of social welfare spending. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't racist.

Dude, he said initiative had been bred out of most of a race of people. He said a specific character trait had been bred out of a race of people. That's pretty much what racism is.

I tell you, sometimes I think you're obsessed with racism on these forums.

I think there's a lot of unexamined privilege going on in this forum, but not a lot of outright racism.

But to answer the question, no, I'm not at all uncomfortable with that.

No, and nor would it bother me, to be honest. The form of things doesn't really matter compared to the substance. I mean, the Queen is notionally our head of state, but what really matters is that she plays absolutely no part in our politics, and she never will. Reciting a pldege in the morning, with or without God, doesn't mean anything if that's as far as it goes. As you said, something like inviting people in assembly to come down to make a public statement is much more worrisome.

My point really, is that while form doesn't worry me, it certainly worries other people. While it wouldn't be a cause I'd ever throw a lot of effort into, I get why other people, religious or not, do not believe in having 'under God' in the pledge. I'm a little puzzled at the number of people who aren't just indifferent, but actively in favour of including the line, despite the clear belief in the US of a seperation between Church and State.

What is the Oz pledge, " Your hood ain't crap Britain, F you for sending me here"? Just kidding, no offense meant there.

We don't have a pledge, at least I don't think we do. We're not really a pledging kind of people. We do have a really crap anthem, though, 'our home is girt by sea.' Just dreadful.

I don't think that is what he's saying, he's saying how things are, I think. I'm not sure how I read his posts though.

But he's not saying how things are. He's worrying about fantasies.

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

Sure, it's important that people working basic jobs aren't paid very high salaries, to provide the incentive for people to train and work harder to move into higher paying jobs. But there is a big, big difference between a meagre income that is enough to live on while still encouraging a person to seek a higher income, and an amount of money that isn't enough to live on.

In Australia the minimum wage is $15, that works out at around 13.50 in USD. The US rate is $7.25, and while it's higher in some states it never gets higher than around $8.50. So it's about 60% higher here, and we still have historically lower rates of unemployment, and a lot smaller portion of our population on the minimum wage. This is largely because paying someone a living wage allows them the time and savings to acquire new skills, and move out of the poverty trap.

There really is no sound economic reason to have a stupidly low minimum wage, it's driven by ideology over economics, and by spite.

Stormrider wrote:I'm still waiting for some figures regarding median income.

What would it matter? If it was higher you'd declare the US minimum wage alright because it was only rich countries that can afford higher minimum wages. If it was lower than the US you'd just declare that evidence that a lower minimum wages is better fro the economy. Both answers would be crap.

BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.

Then where did you get the idea that a smaller sample has some kind advantage. What is that? Seriously?

Frazzled wrote:Prior to Katrina storms were state issues. FEMA came after to help with support. It wasn't meant to be an emergency and long term recovery entity. Emergency response was local and state level issue. Its just that Nagin and Louisiana responded so ineptly they needed the Republican fed agency to blame.

That's incredibly not true. Did you just decide to believe that, or did someone tell it to you? Because if someone told you that they were lying. The primary purpose of FEMA is to provide disaster relief when the impact of a disaster is too great for local and state resources to cope with - this is explicit in the founding charter of the department.

Indeed, one of the biggest complaints against Blanco's management of the situation was that she didn't contact FEMA early enough.

LordofHats wrote:That depends on whether you're talking about the actual military or military spending. The US Military is extremely efficient.

No, the US military, like all militaries, is not efficient. It's an organisation designed to be very adaptable, and with many, many levels of redundancy. All that costs big dollars.

It is certainly effective. It is not efficient.

That only works in a economic situation like that in the US, where everything strives from the consumers wasting money on company A's useless gizmo for whatever reason Company A puts in its advertising.

No, it doesn't. There are wide range of economic situations in which varying levels of inefficiency can be accepted. None of them have anything to do with consumers buying based on advertising. That's just crap you just made up.

Seriously, economics is important, and not just something you can make up to fit with whatever you want to believe right now.

I would personally prioritize the health of the group over the individual liberties of peoples wallets.

I might agree, except that I don't see how prevantative care will help with obesity. These people already know it's unhealthy. We can't send Jillian Michaels to all of their houses.

The other options are the sorts of collectivist control that's talked about, saying what foods can and can't be sold, etc. etc. If this gets extreme enough, it's a terrible precedent to set. I'd rather just pay for fat people to be fat than to give the government the impression that it's wise for them to exert that level of control.

We were just talking about Reagan... He had success with deficit spending. Let somebody reduce costs by controlling what we're allowed to eat, and next thing you know all the Delta Minuses that follow will be trying to think of other freedoms they can take to better the country.

I'd like to see them forced to pay more taxes, but I'm sure they'd get around that by not having any money, plus crying about it.

Blaming it on obama is foolish, it was simply the reality of what was needed to stem a new depression. I fully expect spending levels to normalize and begin to drop over the next 14 years regardless of who is in the chair. The times simply demand it.

The necessity is debateable. I won't say you're wrong, but I also don't think it's at all emperical that you're right. If nothing else, you're treating a topic of legitimate debate as a closed case, which is not really something a lad of your lofty intellect should be doing. In fact, I dogma's very signature recommends against it, and he's your role model.

In any case, the $790B stimulus is not all that Obama did to increase spending. He's insanely reckless.

I also expect spending levels to drop, but watching Obama's casual regard for reality, and realizing he's probably the best we have to offer right now, I wonder if anybody will have the intellect or courage to deal with it.

MSNBC is a counterpoint to fox but it's not nearly so rabid.

I think Keith Olbermann would beg to differ.

Honestly, I think it's important to bear in mind personal perspective on these types of judgements. What seems reasonable to you will seem rabid to somebody with a conflicting ideology. My impression from reading your posts is that you're one of these urban liberal types who aren't totally convinced that conservatives are real.

It's that whole "but I don't even KNOW anybody that voted for Bush" attitude that a lot of liberals have. They think that conservative Americans are a fiction, when in reality they're the majority. They just don't frequent urban coffee shops and art galleries.

My problem with MSNBC isn't so much with MSNBC as with the fact that nobody really admits what it is. You hear CONSTANT prattle about how evil Fox is. If there was a voice out there saying that MSNBC was just the left's version of it, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation.

There is simply no leftist media bias in modern media.

That's just completely false.

The only way I can imagine that it'd not be false, is if you're using a different left-right continuum, or if you're doing some sort of odd inclusion of AM radio. American media is not to the left of the political center of the entire first world, but they're certainly to the left of the American center.

Virtually all major print publications are left leaning, the same for all the major television news outlets are as well. The only exceptions are the WSJ, Washington Times, New York Post and FOX. And AM radio.

On the other side of the scale you've got ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all the other major papers, Hollywood, etc. etc. etc.

It's just not even close.

This whole thing with Journo-List should really tip you off.

Now, that's not to say that these organizations are all Communists. On the contrary, I find most of them to be moderate liberals, but very, VERY convinced of their own correctness, viewing it as a favor to the world to educate them on the truth.

Basically the mainstream media is Hillary Clinton. Moderate liberals with a progressive social agenda and a fondness for big business that's only slightly colored with anti-corporate suspicion.

By comparison, I think Obama and virtually all of his inner circle are to the left of the mainstream media.

I read a lot of BBC which has a government mandate to impartiality.

They also don't have a dog in the fight, so they're a lot less liable to follow strictly partisan patterns.

I recall reading a SCATHING article on Hillary Clinton witten by a British commentator, possibly in the Economist. I wish I could find it, but google doesn't seem to know where it is. Probably a conspiracy.

That said, they're also from a country that lives to the left of the US, so their perspective is going to favor the American left. What's reasonable to a British journalist is "liberal" to the American center.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The primary purpose of FEMA is to provide disaster relief when the impact of a disaster is too great for local and state resources to cope with - this is explicit in the founding charter of the department.

You're being a bit hyperbolic here... It's not "incredbily not true." As Frazz says, FEMA is there to extend the capabilities of the state in question, and in fact the policy in place is that the state itself (ie. Blanco) is to request the assistance of FEMA. It would actually be a usurpation of state power for Bush to have sent in Federal agencies without a request from Blanco.

[/qI might agree, except that I don't see how prevantative care will help with obesity. These people already know it's unhealthy. We can't send Jillian Michaels to all of their houses.

People being fat doesn't cause anything and preventative care significantly reduces the chances of becoming diabetic or experiencing heart disease. Thats how preventative care helps. By preventing the problem, which are the diseases being fat causes, not being fat. Being fat doesn't really do much but drive down productivity but drive up consumer spending which ends up being kind of a wash.

The necessity is debateable. I won't say you're wrong, but I also don't think it's at all emperical that you're right. If nothing else, you're treating a topic of legitimate debate as a closed case, which is not really something a lad of your lofty intellect should be doing. In fact, I dogma's very signature recommends against it, and he's your role model.

About what part? The spending normalisation or the stimulus? I don't know the future so I can't really say much in the way of certainty for normalisation, but the stimulus was passed without much resistance and followed the bank bailouts which were conservative in nature. Had the break happened in 2007 it's quite likely that bush would have written the second stimulus bill of his presidency. We didn't have that happen though and it's amazing how many conservatives jumped off the stimulus train once it got through so that they could seem like populist outsiders when they helped write it in the first place.

In any case, the $790B stimulus is not all that Obama did to increase spending. He's insanely reckless.

What else did he do? The auto bailouts? Those were politically risky but at this point look to have been a wash with the more financially sound of the automakers pulling through and paying back the loans (as opposed to going under and costing the U.S. more via unemployment).

I also expect spending levels to drop, but watching Obama's casual regard for reality, and realizing he's probably the best we have to offer right now, I wonder if anybody will have the intellect or courage to deal with it.

What the hell is a casual regard for reality?

I think Keith Olbermann would beg to differ.

And the Glenn Beck get off my phone you pinhead mixtape dances that disagreement into the fething dust. Olberman is a shadow of O'Rielly or Beck. He's got nothing on the insanity of foxes infotainment section.

Honestly, I think it's important to bear in mind personal perspective on these types of judgements. What seems reasonable to you will seem rabid to somebody with a conflicting ideology. My impression from reading your posts is that you're one of these urban liberal types who aren't totally convinced that conservatives are real.

I'm convinced they're usually stupid, but I'm pretty sure they're real. Some of my formative role models were outspoken conservatives.

It's that whole "but I don't even KNOW anybody that voted for Bush" attitude that a lot of liberals have. They think that conservative Americans are a fiction, when in reality they're the majority. They just don't frequent urban coffee shops and art galleries.

I know like 20 people that voted for bush. I lived next to the northeasts largest naval airstation for 20 years and wargamers are an oddly conservative bunch.

My problem with MSNBC isn't so much with MSNBC as with the fact that nobody really admits what it is. You hear CONSTANT prattle about how evil Fox is. If there was a voice out there saying that MSNBC was just the left's version of it, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation.

They are left slanted. I said that in the last post. They aren't really a mirror of fox though, fox isn't even a legitimate news network. It does yellow journalism. It doctors stories, it doctors photographs, it hires biased journalists, it fires unbiased journalists, and it's owned by one of the richest and most outspoken conservatives on the planet. It was created by one of the richest conservatives on the planet. Its the mouthpiece for the GOP. It keeps glenn beck in ugly sweaters, it keeps sarah palin on it's hundred thousand dollar talking head list, and it's sponsored republican conventions and was the media wing of the tea party protests.

hat's just completely false.

The only way I can imagine that it'd not be false, is if you're using a different left-right continuum, or if you're doing some sort of odd inclusion of AM radio. American media is not to the left of the political center of the entire first world, but they're certainly to the left of the American center.

I'm stating that the media isn't left biased, not that left bias doesn't exist in the media. I'm saying that it's a pretty balanced field.

Virtually all major print publications are left leaning, the same for all the major television news outlets are as well. The only exceptions are the WSJ, Washington Times, New York Post and FOX. And AM radio.

Fox is counterpointed by msnbc
CNN is neutral
The new york times is countered by the washington post
No one reads the washington times
The wall street journal is thriving
The economist is thriving
Newsweek is going out of business

No, print media doesn't have a universal leftist slant.

On the other side of the scale you've got ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all the other major papers, Hollywood, etc. etc. etc.

ABC CBS and CNN combined equal Fox and local foxes ratings. You're already wrong about "all the major papers" and hollywood is biased towards making money with the vast majority of hollywood films being about talking animals or aliens attacking us. Next.

Now, that's not to say that these organizations are all Communists. On the contrary, I find most of them to be moderate liberals, but very, VERY convinced of their own correctness, viewing it as a favor to the world to educate them on the truth.

I think you need to be aware of your bias when your calling the vast majority of all media left leaning. Maybe you're just right leaning and disagree with reality.

Why not look up some media bias studies by US universities?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not look up some media bias studies by US universities?

Universities are liberally biased.

People being fat doesn't cause anything

Seriously? Yes it does. There are countless health issues that arise with obesity. The most obvious is probably diabetes, but there are myriad others. Being proactive in dealing with these issues certainly reduces the long term cost of them, but the fact is you can't prevent them all.

Of course I'm talking about obesity. Merely being overweight is far less of an issue, and the standards for "overweight" are actually pretty easy to meet.

The spending normalisation or the stimulus?

The stimulus. It's unclear if it was necessary.

He's got nothing on the insanity of foxes infotainment section.

That's just false. He certainly doesn't have the audience, but when it comes to vitriolic hatred, he's far, FAR worse than any of the conservatives. Even the right-wingers at SNL have acknowledged that in the composition of their skits.

He's a raving madman.

hollywood is biased towards making money with the vast majority of hollywood films being about talking animals or aliens attacking us.

I can see that there's no point in even trying to debate this. You're completely out of phase with reality. Name one movie with a right-wing bias, and I'll show you how it's not, and then find ten that are liberal biased. And I can do it all day. It's because EVERY movie out of Hollywood is liberal biased.

But let's not even bother with Hollywood. Let's stick to journalism. It's pretty much accepted fact that journalists are left of center politcally:

http://www.journalism.org/node/2304

Then there's this:

"There is also some evidence of an ideological divide in media usage. Republicans, for example, are more likely to regularly tune into the Fox News Channel, and Democrats more likely to set the remote for CNN."

And you're claiming CNN is neutral. It's just laughable.

So, whatever. You can have your opinion. But NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations disagree with you.

Universities are liberally biased.

Yeah, and they STILL admit the media has a liberal bias.

Olberman is a shadow of O'Rielly or Beck. He's got nothing on the insanity of foxes infotainment section.

I actually kind of feel sorry for O'Rielly. He's a much more reasonable guy than Beck and Rush, who are completely off their rockers. Granted he's still super conservative despite his attempts to appear moderate (no spin zone, funny), but he's no where near the Beck and Rush league of crazy.

As for the Tea Party, I actually think Fox makes them look worse than they really are. There was one at my university last year, and it was actually pretty tame compared to other rally's we'd had the year prior around election time.

Fox is like the Westboro Baptist Church. They make all conservatives look bad It is indeed yellow journalism. Probably the best example of it available right now. Though I wouldn't say they fabricate as much as take something and blow it completely out of proportion and wrap it in some crazy conspiracy theory that doesn't make much sense.

I'm convinced they're usually stupid

That's a little unfair. Most people are stupid, regardless of political ideology. I know people who still can't do 2 + 2 (seriously). I suck at math but not that badly. Both sides have a tendency of finding the dumbest examples of the other they possibly can and then they milk it for all its worth.

hollywood is biased towards making money with the vast majority of hollywood films being about talking animals or aliens attacking us.

I think he was referring to how Hollywood as a group tends to espouse left leaning ideals, both in film and out of it. Not every films does so. A lot are as you say just films. But there are a lot of films produced that thinly line themselves with left leaning rhetoric.

Maybe you're just right leaning and disagree with reality.

So, because he disagrees he's out of touch with reality? That doesn't seem biased to you (and I saw your comment too Phyx same goes for you)? A lot of people would argue your out of touch with reality, and then we end up in the endless debate of what truths and facts constitute reality. Arguing about what reality is is a pointless line of discussion as it relates to anything but an actual discussion on reality. EDIT: I'm actually pretty sure that's a logical fallacy...

People being fat doesn't cause anything

Seriously? Yes it does. There are countless health issues that arise with obesity. The most obvious is probably diabetes, but there are myriad others. Being proactive in dealing with these issues certainly reduces the long term cost of them, but the fact is you can't prevent them all.

Please stop misquoting me. This is what I actually posted.

People being fat doesn't cause anything and preventative care significantly reduces the chances of becoming diabetic or experiencing heart disease. Thats how preventative care helps. By preventing the problem, which are the diseases being fat causes, not being fat. Being fat doesn't really do much but drive down productivity but drive up consumer spending which ends up being kind of a wash.

Stop doing that.

The stimulus. It's unclear if it was necessary.

Yes, people have said that about every single stimulus bill in the countries history.

That's just false. He certainly doesn't have the audience, but when it comes to vitriolic hatred, he's far, FAR worse than any of the conservatives. Even the right-wingers at SNL have acknowledged that in the composition of their skits.

He's a raving madman.

No. This is a raving madman. If you can't tell the difference then you need mental help.

I can see that there's no point in even trying to debate this. You're completely out of phase with reality.

Yes. I'm the one.

It's pretty much accepted fact that journalists are left of center politcally:

http://www.journalism.org/node/2304

There there's this:

"There is also some evidence of an ideological divide in media usage. Republicans, for example, are more likely to regularly tune into the Fox News Channel, and Democrats more likely to set the remote for CNN."

And you're claiming CNN is neutral. It's just laughable.

So, whatever. You can have your opinion. But NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations disagree with you.

You only posted one non partisan organization and NUMEROUS non-partisan organizations also DISAGREE with you. I said that there was an even slant though, so I'm not sure what kind of magic juice your on. Please stop misquoting me.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505110005


Interestingly enough, the political leanings of journalists do not part in parcel reflect the political leanings of popular media. The book whose information you are siting "The American Journalist in the 21st Century: US News People at the Dawn of a New Millenium" used a sample of of 1,500 journalists from "Print, news, and online journalism". Thats a terrifically small sample size for any sort of accurate appraisal of the political leanings of a highly dispersed industry. It's findings are also misleading, political views within journalists to not necessarily abjectly effect coverage and goes along with advertising and corporate bias which are just as powerful on the editors table.

The propaganda model posits that advertising dollars are essential for funding most media sources and clearly have an effect on the content of the media. For example, according to Fair, ‘When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.”[6] Furthermore “an internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates…. The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America.”[7]

I know it's fun to report on the liberal bias, but it's funny how you never hear the corporate bias being reported.

Yeah, and they STILL admit the media has a liberal bias.

I was being sarcastic and if you're going to make a blanket assertion support it with a link or something. Or does that still make you sick?





Automatically Appended Next Post lord hat lord hat lord hat:

That's a little unfair. Most people are stupid, regardless of political ideology. I know people who still can't do 2 + 2 (seriously). I suck at math but not that badly. Both sides have a tendency of finding the dumbest examples of the other they possibly can and then they milk it for all its worth.

And how many films are out there exposing/blowing up the communist threat? Or have leftist megalomaniacs attempting to take over the world? Hollywood films tend to have a populist leaning which typically emphasizes the fight against corporate greed, environmental destruction, rampant militarism, or dogmatic and violent idealism. These aren't really conservative points though. Movies/documentaries like bowling for columbine certainly do have a leftist slant, but in the same vein shows like 24 have a conservative one. Movies appear to have a leftist bias but thats largely attributable to the concepts of progressivism and utopianism as they relate to movies. Avatar wasn't liberally biased, it just hated militarism and corporate greed, which I'm pretty sure is part of the tea party platform checklist of things it hates.

So, because he disagrees he's out of touch with reality? That doesn't seem biased to you (and I saw your comment too Phyx same goes for you)? A lot of people would argue your out of touch with reality, and then we end up in the endless debate of what truths and facts constitute reality. Arguing about what reality is is a pointless line of discussion as it relates to anything but an actual discussion on reality.

I was most responding to his assertion that I was out of touch with reality. We do that to eachother a lot.

And how many films are out there exposing/blowing up the communist threat? Or have leftist megalomaniacs attempting to take over the world? Hollywood films tend to have a populist leaning which typically emphasizes the fight against corporate greed, environmental destruction, rampant militarism, or dogmatic and violent idealism. These aren't really conservative points though. Movies/documentaries like bowling for columbine certainly do have a leftist slant, but in the same vein shows like 24 have a conservative one. Movies appear to have a leftist bias but thats largely attributable to the concepts of progressivism and utopianism as they relate to movies.

Most of the things you listed are typically considered part of the liberal platform, so I don't really see how portraying those things constantly isn't a left lean. Though I see your point that it may be more populist related than an effort on part of Hollywood to be liberal.

which I'm pretty sure is part of the tea party platform checklist of things it hates

It's a little premature for that. The Tea Party movement is too young and too varied at the moment to make any concrete statements about it's ideology or beliefs beyond the most basic elements of the movement; fiscal conservatism and anti-incumbent sentiment. I honestly doubt we'll see any real push for a unified platform for Tea Partiers until after the november elections, when the movement either makes or breaks. A lot of groups right now claim to represent the entirety of the Tea Party but there are just too many individual bands and in some cases mobs. I've been saying since last year when they first started showing up that we're going to need to wait for mid-2011 to really see what path the TP is going to take in the long hall if it lasts that long.

LordofHats wrote:

And how many films are out there exposing/blowing up the communist threat? Or have leftist megalomaniacs attempting to take over the world? Hollywood films tend to have a populist leaning which typically emphasizes the fight against corporate greed, environmental destruction, rampant militarism, or dogmatic and violent idealism. These aren't really conservative points though. Movies/documentaries like bowling for columbine certainly do have a leftist slant, but in the same vein shows like 24 have a conservative one. Movies appear to have a leftist bias but thats largely attributable to the concepts of progressivism and utopianism as they relate to movies.

Most of the things you listed are typically considered part of the liberal platform, so I don't really see how portraying those things constantly isn't a left lean. Though I see your point that it may be more populist related than an effort on part of Hollywood to be liberal.

which I'm pretty sure is part of the tea party platform checklist of things it hates

It's a little premature for that. The Tea Party movement is too young and too varied at the moment to make any concrete statements about it's ideology or beliefs beyond the most basic elements of the movement; fiscal conservatism and anti-incumbent sentiment. I honestly doubt we'll see any real push for a unified platform for Tea Partiers until after the november elections, when the movement either makes or breaks. A lot of groups right now claim to represent the entirety of the Tea Party but there are just too many individual bands and in some cases mobs. I've been saying since last year when they first started showing up that we're going to need to wait for mid-2011 to really see what path the TP is going to take in the long hall if it lasts that long.

Yes, but I dont think their platform is going to be pro corporate greed or rampant militarism. My point was that these aren't left or right ideological points. No ones really a fan of corporate exploitation or genocide, nor is anyone a fan of overt non sensical military force. If conservatives see themselves represented in such villainous events thats on them. Also the reduction of militarism and anti corporate greed are on the tea party platform, it's just not really a very sensical platform and it tends to change depending on which tea partier you are talking too. They seem to hate all "bad" things, even when those things conflict with one another.

I probably could have used a different example then avatar. Both the Island and Irobot were exploratory films into the dangers of progressivism and technology while critiquing the out of control corporate entity at the same time. The small government movement is very well represented in films alongside the anti corporate line.

My point was that these aren't left or right ideological points. No ones really a fan of corporate exploitation or genocide, nor is anyone a fan of overt non sensical military force. If conservatives see themselves represented in such villainous events thats on them.

I think its that they view what seems to them a constant outpouring of films where corporate executives are evil by their own nature as an assault on the idea of free market capitalism and liberal propaganda, and that films portraying US troops doing bad things as unpatriotic and an assault on the troops. It's part of the storm of rhetoric that is overwhelming US politics where one side automatically reacts to what the other one does even without thinking. Whether or not that is the case isn't really registering to them as they live in a country that is slowly moving away from the ideals the beliefs they hold true, leaving them with a feeling of isolation and that the government doesn't care about them. It's probably one of the factors that contributes to how well Fox does in the ratings. Conservatives feel as if all these factors are being stacked against them, and Fox tells them that it's true in a very fantastic manner.

Kind of like a group think daddy doesn't love me complex that's been building over the past 20 years.

Also the reduction of militarism and anti corporate greed are on the tea party platform, it's just not really a very sensical platform and it tends to change depending on which tea partier you are talking too. They seem to hate all "bad" things, even when those things conflict with one another.

Hence why it's too early to make any statements. They haven't reached a level of organization to have a Tea Part platform. They're at the stage where they're going back and forth with each other about what the problems are and natural selection will gradually cut everything is bad down to an actually platform. The movement has to last for that to happen, and independent voters are very fickle people.

ShumaGorath wrote:

How much of your lifestyle was funded by your parents or the government? Also when was this? 1935?

1359?
.
.
.
.
BC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vene wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?

Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

I did a degree at evening classes while I worked full time as a mid-level manager.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vene wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vene wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?

Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

Explain to me how having a degree in chemistry makes me stupid. Oh, and just to be clear, I do make more than min. wage in the States, but min wage in some other industrialized nations is greater than my pay.

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.

No offense, but it really doesn't appear that way.

This from the gym manager...

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.

Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.

Grignard wrote:

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.

Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.

1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.

(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.

Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.

1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.

(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)

I'm not good at this, are you being facetious or serious? I have difficulty picking up on that face to face and certainly over text.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.

Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.

1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.

(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)

I'm not good at this, are you being facetious or serious? I have difficulty picking up on that face to face and certainly over text.

Serious. I always bring a ray on sunshine to every thread.

To the topic. You can't compare salaries across countries (or regions for that matter-technical tip guys!) unless you compare costs of living. It has to be an apples to apples comparison.

but assume thats correct. So what? Again what are you going to do about it? You have two options: 1) Whine and bitch, or 2) improve your condition. No one is going to help you. Baby Jebus loves you but no else cares.

I agree with Shuma, the media is about 50/50, but Fox News is all kinds of crazy.

Ive been following them for years actually, i kinda stalk them. Ive seen all the videos, and that one Shuma posted is funny gak as well. I kinda got fascinated with them when i lived over in the US because i think the right wing media is truly ludicrous over there.

Im right wing myself, i mean, i love the military, im sick of immigrants, i hate hippies and pinkos... but gak, the USA has all kinda of crazy mo fos polluting their airways. And having only the BBC over here i have always found them US style guys to be great viewing!

But because they are ludicrous, so ludicrous that i find it hilarious.

My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.

Anyway, this makes me think though...

Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?

mattyrm wrote:I agree with Shuma, the media is about 50/50, but Fox News is all kinds of crazy.

Ive been following them for years actually, i kinda stalk them. Ive seen all the videos, and that one Shuma posted is funny gak as well. I kinda got fascinated with them when i lived over in the US because i think the right wing media is truly ludicrous over there.

Im right wing myself, i mean, i love the military, im sick of immigrants, i hate hippies and pinkos... but gak, the USA has all kinda of crazy mo fos polluting their airways. And having only the BBC over here i have always found them US style guys to be great viewing!

But because they are ludicrous, so ludicrous that i find it hilarious.

My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.

Anyway, this makes me think though...

Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?

Frankly I don't like any political commentator like that regardless of politics. I don't like Hannity, I can't stand Michael Moore ( hypocrite ), and I think Glenn Beck is almost dangerous. I can tolerate Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but I don't make a point of listening to them.

Also, wing politics are probably different between the U.S. and Europe.

My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.

Agreed. I like OReilly because I respect holes, but can't stand most commentators, left or right. I hate Beck and Hannity with a passion. Anyone on MSNBC makes me want to hunt them Predator style.

I do like Beyond the Beltway and Fox's Sunday morning. I used to love Meet the Oppressed (Tim Russert was a titan among dwarves).
http://www.beyondthebeltway.com/

Oh i remember Tim Russert, i think i was stateside when he kicked the bucket.

Frazzled wrote:
Serious. I always bring a ray on sunshine to every thread.

To the topic. You can't compare salaries across countries (or regions for that matter-technical tip guys!) unless you compare costs of living. It has to be an apples to apples comparison.

but assume thats correct. So what? Again what are you going to do about it? You have two options: 1) Whine and bitch, or 2) improve your condition. No one is going to help you. Baby Jebus loves you but no else cares.

Alright, I'll give you that, but is it unreasonable to compare salaries across countries with similar costs and standards of living to ours.

First off, I'm not unhappy about my condition. I consider myself very fortunate to have what I have. I realize, that everything good could disappear at a moment's notice. A storm could level my house. I could come down with cancer. I could be laid off ( I doubt that where I work, but it is possible ). I realize that there is a certain responsibility to prepare for those things. I have insurance on my home, and fortunately I get insurance from my employer for my health ( This has been critical for my family, and since I know others don't have this, this is why I support public option health coverage), and I keep my resume up to date. There are some things, however, no one can reasonably prepare for. This is why we have the social safety net. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to give up a little so that everyone has some degree of security.

How are people supposed to improve their condition if they can't get money to start with. For instance, you know a whole lot better than I do that if you have 400000$ spread out in, say, no load mutual funds, high yield CD's, and muni's, just to use an example, you're going to make a lot more money than my measly 4000 dollars in Fidelity Contrafund. It isn't just a matter of return, you're going to be able to do things like have collateral to borrow to increase your holdings. If you're in poverty, none of that has any practical meaning to you, if you understand it at all.

Yes, whining and bitching is an option. That is what people do when they see something wrong. If I order a Big Mac at McDonalds, but I get one of those thin crappy cheeseburgers, I'm going to complain about not getting what I paid for.

The fact that I'm doing ok has made me look out and see that things are not just. I am going to moan and bitch and try to do something about things that aren't right.

Whining an bitching is an option, but at the end of the day it doesn't improve your condition.

Whining and pitching that the other guy has more money doesn't improve your condition. Again life sucks. They won life's lotto and you (and I) didn't. We can't do anything about where we started, but we can influence where we end up, and more importantly where our children start.

Now of course if you are taking steps to improve your condition or, more importantly, the lives of your children, then its ok to whine and bitch, as long as it doesn't distract you.

Hey, the grass always seems greener....

I know from my point of view, I look at a lot of other countries and think 'I would give my right arm to live there', like New Zealand, Australia and the US - I find myself envious of the lifestyle, culture and weather.

But when you actually consider emigration and go into it in some detail, you actually find out that you aren't as worse off as you think.

Frazzled wrote:Whining an bitching is an option, but at the end of the day it doesn't improve your condition.

Whining and pitching that the other guy has more money doesn't improve your condition. Again life sucks. They won life's lotto and you (and I) didn't. We can't do anything about where we started, but we can influence where we end up, and more importantly where our children start.

Now of course if you are taking steps to improve your condition or, more importantly, the lives of your children, then its ok to whine and bitch, as long as it doesn't distract you.

No, no, that isn't really what I'm trying to say. This isn't about worrying about how much money the other guy has, nor is it crying about not being able to afford a new big screen TV. It's about whether the other guy can eat and feed his family. In terms of self interest, its about knowing that everything good in your life can disappear, and the desire to give up a little now to insure that there is something for everyone to fall back on.

How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?

Grignard wrote:

How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?

Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?

Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.

That doesn't answer the questions. What makes that not the U.S.? I don't understand what you're getting at here, isn't this why we vote?