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.

Typeline wrote:This is kind of what the Republican party wants. Not actually the Republican leaders, but the 'base', the voters. It's not really anyone's fault. Every election the Republicans try to make some kind of 'grass roots' movement to electrify the 'base' of the party. To do this, they scare the gak out of them. And the things they've been using to scare the gak out of them has made the Republican 'base' very crazy in the eyes of a none zealot (I say zealot in terms of the words true definition. In this case someone who lets a political ideology rule their lives).

And the dems do the exact same thing. Zealotry is not confined to the right. The dems scream about racism and the "greedy rich" and the need for more governemnt control to ensure "fairness." This is what the Code Pink, MoveON, and other "grass roots" organizations funded by billionaires want. I'm not saying there aren't cynical people in power who manipulate the base of either side - I'm just saying both people do it. I figure they even each other out. The party out of power tends to scream louder since it's really all they can do.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Typeline wrote:This is kind of what the Republican party wants. Not actually the Republican leaders, but the 'base', the voters. It's not really anyone's fault. Every election the Republicans try to make some kind of 'grass roots' movement to electrify the 'base' of the party. To do this, they scare the gak out of them. And the things they've been using to scare the gak out of them has made the Republican 'base' very crazy in the eyes of a none zealot (I say zealot in terms of the words true definition. In this case someone who lets a political ideology rule their lives).

And the dems do the exact same thing. Zealotry is not confined to the right. The dems scream about racism and the "greedy rich" and the need for more governemnt control to ensure "fairness." This is what the Code Pink, MoveON, and other "grass roots" organizations funded by billionaires want. I'm not saying there aren't cynical people in power who manipulate the base of either side - I'm just saying both people do it. I figure they even each other out. The party out of power tends to scream louder since it's really all they can do.

I don't really think I hear it that often though. Fox News is big, and it's on cable. MoveOn is on the internet right? Just kind of a blog/news site right? I don't know what Code Pink is. Fox is just more out there in the open then any of the others. I've never met a left wing zealot before either, but I've met a lot of right wing ones. I go to school with one right now, she is an older woman and her zealotry really ruins her life.

I was also recently told NPR is considered very left wing, but I never hear any bias. Have I been brain washed already?

yes.

I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country

AHHAHAHAHA, whilst I agree that you yourself might not...... where the feth have you been for the last 40+ years.

Despite all the near constant "OHNOES STOPOICKINGON AMERICA" shouting we get in pretty much every thread, you'll notice this normally starts not long after someone tells "us" ( as all us dern foreigners are of course one great unwashed mass) how infinitely better America is at... X/Y/Z.

Don't forget this is the same board where we have had American posters claiming that "Europe" has contributed nothing to the world at all except war for about 200 years, no culture exists outside or before America seemingly.

It is mainly an American board, so it tends to be dominated by USA themed topics......

.... not least as most Americans don't go anywhere or know anything at all* about other countries.

It took 130 years for any of Presidents to go abroad.



*Italics may indicate slight hyperbole. perhaps.

Its about time you manned up and acknowledged that fact. We call that the "American Way" of course the "American Way" also involves being completely stubborn and refusing to give up your stance. But you did bash europe in giving up that fact, so you too are now an american here's your apple pie.

Elessar wrote:The majority of the media did still love Obama (does, I suppose) but there is nothing more fickle in the world than a newspaper. He knows that they can destroy his presidency with libellous claims and outright lies, no matter what he achieves. THAT's pressure.

The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).

People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.

I guess it depends on your point of view. What you might consider zealotry might seem fairly normal or just slightly right of conservative.

People bash fox all the time for being bias but never CNN or ABC or New York Time or MSNBC (probably the worst).

Here's a good example from ABC radio. Senator Kennedy is terminally ill with brain cancer. According to Massachusetts state law, should he die, there will be a 5 month special election to replace him. He pushed for that law in 2004 when it looked like John Kerry (another Massocrat) was going to win the election. He didn't want Mitt Romney (a Republican) to be able to appoint a senator as was then the law.

Now that kennedy is about to shed his mortal coil, he has written a letter to the state congress asking that the law be changed back to the governor being able to appoint someone. This has mostly to do with the fact that there is now a democratic governor in Duvall Patrick and that the dems need every vote they can get on the upcoming healthcare debate. It's clearly a naked power grab - Kennedy feels he can change state law to advance his own parties political agenda at a whim.

ABC comes into this by simply reporting that Kennedy wants to change the law. They neglect to inform the public that he already changed it once to suit his party and now wants to change it back for no other reason than political expediency. This when various local and national talk show hosts, fox news, and even local newspapers have all been screaming about this for a couple of days already. Tell me that isn't bias.

I don't listen to NPR much - I do like some of their more in depth interest pieces. When they cover the headlines - they really tend to pitch some softballs to the democrats and really challenge the republicans.

We're all shaped by the information we receive. Do I have a perfectly clear grasp of the truth? No... no one here does.

gorgon wrote:The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).

People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.

They also unbalance things. As soon as pubic opinion begins to turn, 4/5 of them jump on the bandwagon, and change public opinion even more.

gorgon wrote:

Elessar wrote:The majority of the media did still love Obama (does, I suppose) but there is nothing more fickle in the world than a newspaper. He knows that they can destroy his presidency with libellous claims and outright lies, no matter what he achieves. THAT's pressure.

The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).

People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.

Sure they do, especially when its financially beneficial to them, or their parent companies (ABC comes screaming to mind).

Orkeosaurus wrote:

gorgon wrote:The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).

People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.

They also unbalance things. As soon as pubic opinion begins to turn, 4/5 of them jump on the bandwagon, and change public opinion even more.

I'd say that as soon as public opinion turns, we get accusations of nut jobs and extremism from one part of the media or the other. IE CNN and MSNBC's cracks about "tea baggers" in reference to the tea parties held by concerned citizens. Fox News calling Patriot Act protestors 'Un-American." Keith Olbermann being a douche. The list goes on and on.

I believe that while media is in it for the money - more and more you see ideology trumping journalism in newsrooms across the nation.

Wait, I'm deeply confused.

The Green Git wrote:I don't expect dogma or any of the other hard leftists to stop defending The Messiah™ or any of the Dems long enough to hear what I'm actually saying.

Meet...

The Green Git wrote:
They will just blather on about how I'm another Right Wing nutjob and not shut up long enough to bother to make the distinction between my cynicism and criticism of government in general and Republican rhetoric.

What's really funny is those sentences were sequential.

See, I don't think you're a right-wing nutjob. I think you're a misguided cynic who uses the big, bad government as a convenient means of explaining all the ills in this nation. You remind me of me, when I was about 14.

The Green Git wrote:
Let him with ears hear: The government is not looking out for you. They are securing positions of power for themselves at your expense.

Why would you ever assume that someone arguing for government reform believes the government is looking out for him? That's a very strange induction.

And 'hard leftist'? That's an interesting judgment to make considering I spend most of my time on here critiquing the arguments of other posters.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I'd say that as soon as public opinion turns, we get accusations of nut jobs and extremism from one part of the media or the other. IE CNN and MSNBC's cracks about "tea baggers" in reference to the tea parties held by concerned citizens. Fox News calling Patriot Act protestors 'Un-American." Keith Olbermann being a douche. The list goes on and on.

I believe that while media is in it for the money - more and more you see ideology trumping journalism in newsrooms across the nation.

The effect isn't as pronounced with political stories because there are still large amounts of people who'll never change their positions. Instead you get the majority attacking side A, while the minority fervently supports side A (or the majority attacks it while the minority defends it).

reds8n wrote:

I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country

AHHAHAHAHA, whilst I agree that you yourself might not...... where the feth have you been for the last 40+ years.

Despite all the near constant "OHNOES STOPOICKINGON AMERICA" shouting we get in pretty much every thread, you'll notice this normally starts not long after someone tells "us" ( as all us dern foreigners are of course one great unwashed mass) how infinitely better America is at... X/Y/Z.

Don't forget this is the same board where we have had American posters claiming that "Europe" has contributed nothing to the world at all except war for about 200 years, no culture exists outside or before America seemingly.

It is mainly an American board, so it tends to be dominated by USA themed topics......

.... not least as most Americans don't go anywhere or know anything at all* about other countries.

It took 130 years for any of Presidents to go abroad.



*Italics may indicate slight hyperbole. perhaps.

Well, I'm generalizing and you're generalizing so while we're at it, let's generalize together.

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems weird that europeans are telling us how to run our healthcare system. Foreign policy is fair game in my mind. I'm just not going to delve into European tax structure or health care practices and start criticizing you on int.

As for the 130 years thing. You're saying from 1783 to about 1910 - no president went abroad. No president took a long ass ride across the atlantic - basically leaving the country he's supposed to run for several months to go talk to a bunch of people they didn't really get along with all that well. Not to mention that until the last few years of that time period, America was a third rate power at best. Things were openly hostile with the British until at least 1815, not to mention that whole support for the Confederacy thing.

I suppose I could ask why Queen Victoria or Napoleon or the freakin' pope didn't visit America.

Americans came to the new world to escape the old. America had (until probably the era of Teddy Roosevelt - the original american progressive) an isolationist policy. Can't remember when the monroe doctrine came out but that's basically the start of American involvement in world affairs.

I don't think anyone here is telling you how to run your healthcare system.

What does happen is "we" correct spurious assertions and out and out lies that are told ( generally by side but not always) about the way things are or aren't "over here", and from then onwards, as we are now in a debate, occasionally correct errors or lies said by other participants. Like in every other thread on dakka.

I'm sure if we having a discussion about.... hmm..... the British railway system, Scandinavian saunas or ... err..... whether "Home and Away" is better than "Neighbours" then,again, there would be many participants from many countries.
I don't see why, on a discussion board, you're amazed that people try to discuss, argue or joke about things.

Victoria was busy going to India, the rest of the Empire and, as you say, important countries.

"Americans" didn't come to the new world at all, they were already there. Many people from all over the world did go to the new world, and most brought huge amount of baggage and ties with them, too many and this caused trouble i think it could be argued but that is a whole other thread methinks.

Okay reds8n, I'm thinking that the pie wasn't enough to get you to accept your new american status, what about a game of baseball or some processed foods?

Baseball is for girls and children it has no redeeming qualities or....wait......they earn how much!

Hmm..... .

Seeing, AFAIK, I would be prohibited from entering America I fear any attempt to claim citizenship is doomed.

But that's alright, I know this muslim in Kenya who swears that he can get me....

Well, we could get you in on illegal immigrant status. Sure you won't make as much, but you don't pay taxes. If you play baseball good enough, I'm sure you can get citizenship status and make lots of money.

I've heard their healthcare coverage is a joke though, no thanks.

But it works if you can afford it...

BTW, anti-american videos are so last year. If you want to be truly original try supporting america.

You misunderstand.

It would seem that I am on a list of BAD PEOPLE with regards to the USA Govt. We've had the USA ambassador to dinner 4 times where I work and on three of those occasions my management have been told that i cannot work or attend the event as a "security issue" has arisen with me.

They have been terribly polite about it every time though, and on one occassion nothing was said at all... so .. go figure.

There's many aspects of America I do support, I hope to continue to see it return to being a progressive and forward thinking nation that actively seeks to engage with other countries.

You can keep the canned cheese though.

Well, you and cat stevens have something in common then.

You must be muslim or at least look it right? If you look like your avatar then I could also see why.


And not to brag or anything, but we do have norwegien ambassadors come to our store every once in awhile. *cleans monocle and puts it back on*

dogma wrote:Wait, I'm deeply confused.

Finally! A point we can agree on.

dogma wrote: See, I don't think you're a right-wing nutjob. I think you're a misguided cynic who uses the big, bad government as a convenient means of explaining all the ills in this nation.

So the Government is our Savior? I somehow doubt that. I don't think being suspicious of those that gleefully wield power over the populace is misguided.

dogma wrote:Why would you ever assume that someone arguing for government reform believes the government is looking out for him? That's a very strange induction.

Funny... I thought you were arguing that Federal intervention was required to right the ills of the nation. Are you arguing for government reform? Since you brought it up... how would you change our government for the better? What does dogma's paradise look like?

dogma wrote:And 'hard leftist'? That's an interesting judgment to make considering I spend most of my time on here critiquing the arguments of other posters.

Guilt by association... the left is so in love with big government and your posts seem to be leaning that way. Maybe I'm just not hearing enough.

Quick, use the right-wing method to winning arguments.

halonachos wrote:Well, you and cat stevens have something in common then.

You must be muslim or at least look it right? If you look like your avatar then I could also see why.

Nope, total atheist...was a paid up member of the Church of satan for a while but... beer money ... and people thougt I had my own church....hmmm....


guess all those murders might have been a bad idea ?

And not to brag or anything, but we do have norwegien ambassadors come to our store every once in awhile. *cleans monocle and puts it back on*

OOhhh Norway ! Pfft.. like that's a real country.

*is now lynched by hitherto unknown mass of Norwegian members*


@ Mr. Dogma : we all see you more as "cuddly" left.

The Green Git wrote:
I don't expect dogma or any of the other hard leftists to stop defending The Messiah™ or any of the Dems long enough to hear what I'm actually saying. They will just blather on about how I'm another Right Wing nutjob and not shut up long enough to bother to make the distinction between my cynicism and criticism of government in general and Republican rhetoric.

I think this is an unfair labeling and criticism of Dogma and others like him. I definitely don't agree with him among others on many issues, but many of them generally are very critical of ill-reasoned, poorly supported arguments, and I don't blame them. If you want to debate effectively as a conservative you have to stop relying on random media or statistical sources and start relying on respected, valuable mediums. My suggestions would be the Wall Street Journal and US News and World Report. The WSJ is right leaning and USN&WR is very balanced. Heck I would even suggest the NYT and the Drudge Report. Dogma, again among others, is very good about weeding out really bad arguments and showing their fallacies. If you can't handle that than that's fine, but don't complain and ridicule them.

Just my 7 cents on trying to keep things civil.

reds8n wrote:

halonachos wrote:Well, you and cat stevens have something in common then.

You must be muslim or at least look it right? If you look like your avatar then I could also see why.

Nope, total atheist...was a paid up member of the Church of satan for a while but... beer money ... and people thougt I had my own church....hmmm....

I can see why then, we americans hate those satanists. Or is it more like those "hellfire clubs" that B. Franklin enjoyed?

The Green Git wrote:

dogma wrote:Wait, I'm deeply confused.

Finally! A point we can agree on.

When you study as much random crap as I do it tends to get a bit addled.

The Green Git wrote:
So the Government is our Savior? I somehow doubt that. I don't think being suspicious of those that gleefully wield power over the populace is misguided.

Savior? No, but we're not going to escape it anytime soon. Based on what I've said I'm not really sure why you would conclude that my stance is in diametric opposition to yours.

I do agree that we should be suspicious of power, wherever is is manifest. But that doesn't mean that we should allow out opinions devolve into hyperbole.

The Green Git wrote:
Funny... I thought you were arguing that Federal intervention was required to right the ills of the nation. Are you arguing for government reform? Since you brought it up... how would you change our government for the better? What does dogma's paradise look like?

In this instance, yes, I believe government intervention would do a great deal of good. Do I think it would create a paradise? No, but mostly because I don't believe in paradise. As far as government reform: an amendment preventing members of Congress from serving consecutive terms, an established third party (not really government reform, but close), educational reform (though this is more of a state thing), and selective tax/budget modifications/reforms(close redundant military bases, shift military expenditures to the maintenance of personnel, remove the ceiling on the FICA tax, etc.)

The Green Git wrote:
Guilt by association... the left is so in love with big government and your posts seem to be leaning that way. Maybe I'm just not hearing enough.

I find it interesting that you view the world in terms of generalizations, but get upset when you think others are generalizing you.

halonachos wrote:
I can see why then, we americans hate those satanists. Or is it more like those "hellfire clubs" that B. Franklin enjoyed?

It is American. website

.. but.. sort of. It's just a "cool" way to kindof show off when you're young or really old.

Did go to a kick ass orgy once though so fair play.

reds8n wrote:
@ Mr. Dogma : we all see you more as "cuddly" left.

Cuddly like a satanist orgy, or cuddly like this oddly creepy cat?

More like a life preserver thrown to you in a sea of troubles.

We cling to you....much like this cat