BBC is not neutral. As far as your accusations about Fox News, I would recommend that you watch it instead of listening to bits of it taken out of context or material that has been re-edited.From a mixture of sources. Reading the internet, looking on various forums, checking YouTube Videos, watching the Daily Show along with various news orientated programs over here. Fox gets mentioned a lot!
There was a recent show over here, called Newswipe, which looked at the media's coverage of the G20 conference and the demonstrations around it. It concluded by showing Bill O'Reilly declaring that demonstrators wanted 'Communism everywhere, and for us to lower our weapons while Osama Bin Laden beheads people', because they were, rather loosely mind you, protesting about the economy and the war in Iraq.
So, left wing protests are nutcases, while right wingers who want Texas to leave the Union are praised by Sean Hannity.
Finally, the BBC is not left wing. It is neutral (by law). And it's neutral in content, as one can tell by the constant accusations of bias by both sides of the political spectrum.
Nonsense- the article you cite is from the Daily Mail, a rag that peddles the worst kind of gutter journalism- racist, parochial and not a little hysterical.
It's so bad, it even has it's own parody Headline generator (and believe me, after living in the UK, most of what it generates is very credible).Lets not forget the Mail is another appendage of the Murdoch/Fox Media Machine, and that man's distain for public broadcasters, coupled with active efforts to destroy or privatize them is well known.
Apart from all that, that article is three years old, during which the Beeb has moved on from that report and has since taken firm steps to reaffirm it's impartiality.
Apart from all that, that article is three years old, during which the Beeb has moved on from that report and has since taken firm steps to reaffirm it's impartiality
Fair enough. I haven't watched it in a few years so maybe it has changed since the last time I tried it.
But that's just the thing- noone's coming up with any answers as to WHY this wasn't happening during the administration. Is it as simple as not wanting to look like a traitor to the cause/party, or something more?The reason these tea parties are going on now is because the spending isn't getting any better and shows every sign of getting worse much worse. For many Americans this isn't the change we want. So while conservatives may not have been protesting in the street during the Bush Presidency doesn't mean there isn't reason to do it now.
I think your answer is in part of Locke's comments that you missed.
That said BILLIONS are much smaller than TRILLIONS and if Washington doesn't come back in line soon my great-great-grand children will be screwed too.
What was before a worry is now a dread.
Is all this tea party crap a little late to the party? Yup. Are both sides pointing fingers and trying to play this to their advantage? You betcha (thanks Sarah!). But we're losing sight of the point. The protesters, no matter what the details of their motivations, have one thing right:
WE NEED A BALANCED BUDGET...NOW.
That seems to be the one thing we can all agree on: If the United States doesn't get it's budget under control, we're screwed. Our kids are screwed. *Their* kids are screwed.
So let's quit pointing fingers and get it done. It's gonna hurt. Everyone. A LOT. But we're running out of time. If we can't figure out how to pull together and make this happen, we're finished.
Being "right" will be cold comfort when our currency craters.
|
Is all this tea party crap a little late to the party? Yup. Are both sides pointing fingers and trying to play this to their advantage? You betcha (thanks Sarah!). But we're losing sight of the point. The protesters, no matter what the details of their motivations, have one thing right:
WE NEED A BALANCED BUDGET...NOW.
That seems to be the one thing we can all agree on: If the United States doesn't get it's budget under control, we're screwed. Our kids are screwed. *Their* kids are screwed.
So let's quit pointing fingers and get it done. It's gonna hurt. Everyone. A LOT. But we're running out of time. If we can't figure out how to pull together and make this happen, we're finished.
Being "right" will be cold comfort when our currency craters.
Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats (voters, that is) cannot get their heads out of their asses long enough to know both parties are composed of criminals. Everyone is stuck on stupid about which side is "right" and which side is "wrong", when BOTH sides are about as wrong as they can be.
Oh, well, people get the government they deserve, and, apparently, Americans have decided, for the last eight and the next four years (at least) they want crap government.
|
Is all this tea party crap a little late to the party? Yup. Are both sides pointing fingers and trying to play this to their advantage? You betcha (thanks Sarah!). But we're losing sight of the point. The protesters, no matter what the details of their motivations, have one thing right:
WE NEED A BALANCED BUDGET...NOW.
That seems to be the one thing we can all agree on: If the United States doesn't get it's budget under control, we're screwed. Our kids are screwed. *Their* kids are screwed.
So let's quit pointing fingers and get it done. It's gonna hurt. Everyone. A LOT. But we're running out of time. If we can't figure out how to pull together and make this happen, we're finished.
Being "right" will be cold comfort when our currency craters.
Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats (voters, that is) cannot get their heads out of their asses long enough to know both parties are composed of criminals. Everyone is stuck on stupid about which side is "right" and which side is "wrong", when BOTH sides are about as wrong as they can be.
Oh, well, people get the government they deserve, and, apparently, Americans have decided, for the last eight and the next four years (at least) they want crap government.
Well if it ain't Derek pointing out the most truthful thing so far in this thread. One of the biggest problems in talking politics today is the sense of partyism that some people just can't seem to get over. Most people that I know never look past the political party of a canidate and if you don't agree with them your'e an idiot...and thats just to stupid to be sad.
Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats (voters, that is) cannot get their heads out of their asses long enough to know both parties are composed of criminals. Everyone is stuck on stupid about which side is "right" and which side is "wrong", when BOTH sides are about as wrong as they can be.
Oh, well, people get the government they deserve, and, apparently, Americans have decided, for the last eight and the next four years (at least) they want crap government.
QFT. And once again, I have heard pundits on both sides saying, "Oh we can't have a third party, you'll just let the other side win!" I am so tired of politics as usual. This is not a sports match people, this is the continued economic viability of our country. And not just ours. If Obama decides to put protectionist tariffs in to please his union bedfellows a lot of other countries will suffer.
People, look at your party objectively. There are no fiscal conservatives left in either mainstream party. Our country is busy mortgaging itself to the Chinese. When they get tired of buying up our debt there is only one well left. The American taxpayer. Governmental money comes from somewhere. If you run the printing presses all you do is make inflation soar.
The ugly reality is we need to cut spending. Now, supposedly President Obama has pledged recently to do this. I will be watching closely to see what he does. Hopefully it isn't another partisan ploy.
Republicans, you should be ashamed of the spending done in your name these past eight years. Democrats, much as you wonder where the outrage was, look to the numbers being bruited around now. What the 'Pubs did is CHUMP CHANGE compared to the budgets being proposed. This is debt which our grandchildren will be on the hook for. If you have children you shouldn't be able to look them in the eye if you support this spendthrift crap. It's as criminal as if I took credit cards out in my daughter's name and ran them up. Shameless. And I would ask Democrats, where is all your outrage about this spending like you had when the money was going to fighting in Iraq? It's still wastefull spending, no matter where the cash is going.
Bottom line. When you are massively in debt, you DON'T SPEND MORE! That is just common sense. It's the same for governments as it is for individuals. American politics has devolved into who can grab the most cash/hire the most relatives on the payroll while in power. At some point the massive debt will cause government to cut back or go bankrupt. Hopefully it will not lead to riots and massive unrest as the welfare state collapses.
And I would ask Democrats, where is all your outrage about this spending like you had when the money was going to fighting in Iraq? It's still wastefull spending, no matter where the cash is going.
Actually that money is still going there as well as to Afghanistan.
And I would ask Democrats, where is all your outrage about this spending like you had when the money was going to fighting in Iraq? It's still wastefull spending, no matter where the cash is going.Actually that money is still going there as well as to Afghanistan.
Quite true. Didn't mean to imply it wasn't. And for that matter, where are the anti-war protesters? Still two wars going on, that ain't changing any time soon. Soldiers are still getting killed, or does that matter anymore now that the Democrats are in power?
Quite true. Didn't mean to imply it wasn't. And for that matter, where are the anti-war protesters? Still two wars going on, that ain't changing any time soon. Soldiers are still getting killed, or does that matter anymore now that the Democrats are in power?And I would ask Democrats, where is all your outrage about this spending like you had when the money was going to fighting in Iraq? It's still wastefull spending, no matter where the cash is going.Actually that money is still going there as well as to Afghanistan.
There are still some people protesting the war, but many of the "fair-weather" protesters have dropped out. I did see some people talking and an antiwar person was going off on how Obama was just as bad as Bush, while a Democrat campaign coordinator (or some such) was saying things like, "Well, now that Obama has the intelligence as President he of course has changed his decisions."
And for that matter, where are the anti-war protesters? Still two wars going on, that ain't changing any time soon. Soldiers are still getting killed, or does that matter anymore now that the Democrats are in power?
Code Pink has been protesting. However, they're not getting the press coverage as they did under Bush. I don't agree with them on many things but I do admire the fact that they are not partisan hacks.
Code Pink has been protesting. However, they're not getting the press coverage as they did under Bush. I don't agree with them on many things but I do admire the fact that they are not partisan hacks.And for that matter, where are the anti-war protesters? Still two wars going on, that ain't changing any time soon. Soldiers are still getting killed, or does that matter anymore now that the Democrats are in power?
What a surprise. I consider myself fairly well-informed, but I hadn't seen any coverage of any anti-war protests lately. I should have known it was a shift in media coverage.
Oh, and for those bruiting about that Fox is pulling the strings of the anti-taxation movement, I want you to consider what your reaction would have been if some Fox reporter had said this a couple years back at an anti-war rally: "I think you get the general tenor of this rally. It is anti-government, anti-Fox, since this is highly promoted by the left-wing liberal network CNN."
I am in support of these protests, and as Jon Stewart himself said, protest is good, no matter where it comes from. Those of you casting aspersions on protesters and saying they are paid stooges just because they are protesting something you are in favor of should be ashamed.
I am in support of these protests, and as Jon Stewart himself said, protest is good, no matter where it comes from. Those of you casting aspersions on protesters and saying they are paid stooges just because they are prostesting something you are in favor of should be ashamed.
The fact that (by some reports) hundreds of thousands of people could peacefully protest (lack of stories of violence might be an indication) is something we all as members of democratic countries should be proud of. Even if the whole thing was organized by Fox, it is still an amazing accomplishment by any measure. Go freedom of speech and assembly!
RPG Superstar 2013
|
From whom?I foolishly mentioned to my boss that I was watching the John Adams miniseries. He said, "Oh, that's by HBO, so it's revisionist liberal propaganda." I tried to mention that a lot of the dialogue seemed to have been taken directly out of Adams' letters, and the rebuff was, "Well, I'd be much more aware of the left-wing slant than you obviously are." I gave up after that.
To be fair..if some of us stopped giving the media a chance, it's only cause they earned it. Maybe not every word out of Couric's mouth, or Rather's mouth, is some agendized color commentary that leaves actual journalism behind, but a significant amount is. Clearly, every word out of Ohlberman's mouth is intended to insult conservatives and meet an honest opinion with ad hominem. Loved him at ESPN, but can't stand him for five minutes now, and he wroked hard to gain that level of enmity from me.
I have to hand this to HBO, who has certainly 'sanitized' their fair share of details over the year to be more entertainment friendly. They had a movie special starring...Bill Paxton?...about the Vietnam war and how the corruption there was not addressed. How American soldiers tried harder than they are given credit for to help the people they encountered there, but the reall issues weren't faced, including local corrupt adjuncts who took American supplies and then forced their constituents to pay for them. It might be the only example I can recall of facts not being washed to make for an entertaining (and self-loathing) story, but it's there so I give them recognition for it.
It might not be the only example..just the only one that comes tomind right now.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Pretty much EVERYONE wants lower taxes; they just differ on whose taxes should get lowered.
Almost everyone is opposed abortion in principle; leftists simply find its legalization to be less onerous than the old back-alley coat-hanger tragedies.
Big fan of lowering EVERYONE's taxes.
I wish I could agree with you on the abortion thing, but then there are bills like FOCA, where the possibility of being sued for choosing not to perform abortions in your practice years ago looms over a significant portion of our health practitioners. Also, the idea of making abortion a welfare entitlement is far from legalizing the practice because it's 'less onerous' than all those (exxagerated) back-alley abortions.
If everyone is against abortion, but wants to protect misguided mothers who feel they have no other choice (a noble sentiment I agree), why are abrotions increasing every year, and why are there bills in Congress that might allow a Medicaid mom to abort at the taxpayers' expense, and why is Obama considering a reduction on protections for doctors who chose at the outset of their practice to never perform an abortion?
This is hardly the trend of a nation reluctant to allow the practice.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I am in support of these protests, and as Jon Stewart himself said, protest is good, no matter where it comes from. Those of you casting aspersions on protesters and saying they are paid stooges just because they are prostesting something you are in favor of should be ashamed.
I have to disagree with Stewart here. Folks havea right to peacefully make their case, of course. But to say 'protest is good, no matter where it comes from' smacks of trite posturing. After all, if the KKK rolled out to protest the appointment of Clarence Thomas, would that be good? They have the right, but their rhetoric is reprehensible. It's like saying "it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote.' You thereby mobilize people to go draw a little line and submit their card without them having an iota of knowledge of what they've just done.
Want the American auto industry to make it? Probably should have researched how much money some union provisions was costing the company. Not so you can dissolve the union, but so that leadership can be elected (by secret ballot) and direct the union in ways that are good for the industry, the company and the laborers. Concerned about the price of milk, learn how minimum wage adversely affects poor people and unemployment before you vote. Worried about energy prices? Look into what makes those prices high before you vote for someone who's name you think you remember from one of those commercials.
It matters how you vote, and it matters how you protest. How many times has a Democrat nominee had to stop his speech because some Republican website organized an attempt to disrupt a convention? Can move-on.org claim the same level of fairness? Hate and vitriol are not a way to protest. You might not agree with me on everything, but if your little rally is peaceful, and if you have respect when it's my turn to talk, then I'll consider your point and be grateful for your chosen brand of dialogue.
The fact that (by some reports) hundreds of thousands of people could peacefully protest (lack of stories of violence might be an indication) is something we all as members of democratic countries should be proud of. Even if the whole thing was organized by Fox, it is still an amazing accomplishment by any measure. Go freedom of speech and assembly!
Have any of you heard some of the ridiculous coverage of these tea parties? Media 'journalists' have been seen interrupting gatherers because they hoped to catch some moron who didn't know what he believed, and brand everyone there as the same. One man in TUlsa was asked 'what's it like to be the ONLY black man at a Republican gathering?' Not much reason to watch the news when you know it's really just someone's opinion.
Big fan of lowering EVERYONE's taxes.
(Shrug) I'm a fan of paved roads, fire departments, police, a viable national defense. YMMV.
1. why are abrotions increasing every year, and 2. why are there bills in Congress that might allow a Medicaid mom to abort at the taxpayers' expense? 3. Also, the idea of making abortion a welfare entitlement is far from legalizing the practice because it's 'less onerous' than all those (exxagerated) back-alley abortions.
1. Abortion rates have been declining, not increasing, since 1990.
2. Possibly because the taxpayers' expense is much greater to raise the said child, often essentially parentless, and continue to support the said child as an adult if he, like so many unfortunate youths in that situation, goes on to become a long-term guest of the prison system. Moral? Maybe not; that's debatable. Conducive to lower taxes and lower crime? Statistically-speaking, quite the opposite.
3. Just how exaggerated are those procedures? Have you had one that was pleasant and safe? Or do you mean the number of them was exaggerated? Even if so, how many of them is too many? Given a choice between (a) a high likelihood of losing both mother and child, or (b) a 100% likelihood of losing the child, and almost no likelihood of losing the mother as well, which is preferrable? Even if it's only one case? There are some hard questions involved that can't always be hand-waved away.
|
|
I have to disagree with Stewart here. Folks havea right to peacefully make their case, of course. But to say 'protest is good, no matter where it comes from' smacks of trite posturing. After all, if the KKK rolled out to protest the appointment of Clarence Thomas, would that be good? They have the right, but their rhetoric is reprehensible. It's like saying "it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote.' You thereby mobilize people to go draw a little line and submit their card without them having an iota of knowledge of what they've just done.
As counter-intuitive as it may seem, yes it is good for everyone to protest.
The more people are out there making their views clear, the more people are considering and discussing them, and the better able people are to determine their ultimate worth. Contrast the value of the civil rights movements if people just demanded "more" without the response. It was in fact the response that made people stop and ask if segregation was what they really believed in and discover the answer was no.And if along the way we also become aware of just who holds views that we consider reprehensible, well that is what freedom of association is about as well.
Yes, it can go too far. When thugs start breaking up events with violence it is time to have the police step in a protect the lives of others. But silencing any protest, even from whackjobs like the KKK, rarely achieves more than sending them underground to fester and plot more significant violence.
|
|
I have to disagree with Stewart here. Folks havea right to peacefully make their case, of course. But to say 'protest is good, no matter where it comes from' smacks of trite posturing. After all, if the KKK rolled out to protest the appointment of Clarence Thomas, would that be good? They have the right, but their rhetoric is reprehensible. It's like saying "it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote.' You thereby mobilize people to go draw a little line and submit their card without them having an iota of knowledge of what they've just done.As counter-intuitive as it may seem, yes it is good for everyone to protest.
The more people are out there making their views clear, the more people are considering and discussing them, and the better able people are to determine their ultimate worth. Contrast the value of the civil rights movements if people just demanded "more" without the response. It was in fact the response that made people stop and ask if segregation was what they really believed in and discover the answer was no.
And if along the way we also become aware of just who holds views that we consider reprehensible, well that is what freedom of association is about as well.Yes, it can go too far. When thugs start breaking up events with violence it is time to have the police step in a protect the lives of others. But silencing any protest, even from whackjobs like the KKK, rarely achieves more than sending them underground to fester and plot more significant violence.
I have to agree with Sam, no matter how much it pains both of us. Let the nutters talk, that way everyone can see they're nutters. If you silence them, you give the impression you're afraid of their views and give them far more coverage than their ideas warrant. Let all the nutters speak as long as that's all they do. Obviously if they call for violence, that's a criminal matter and should be dealt with as such, but beyond that? Let them all speak. You don't have to listen.
Insert that quotation from the American President here.
But silencing any protest, even from whackjobs like the KKK, rarely achieves more than sending them underground to fester and plot more significant violence.
Yes. Eerily, that's about the 3rd time I've found myself in complete agreement with Sam in the last week or so.
|
But silencing any protest, even from whackjobs like the KKK, rarely achieves more than sending them underground to fester and plot more significant violence.Yes. Eerily, that's about the 3rd time I've found myself in complete agreement with Sam in the last week or so.
Isn't that one of the signs that the world is about to end?
Isn't that one of the signs that the world is about to end?
"Cats and dogs, living together...!"
|
|
Is all this tea party crap a little late to the party? Yup. Are both sides pointing fingers and trying to play this to their advantage? You betcha (thanks Sarah!). But we're losing sight of the point. The protesters, no matter what the details of their motivations, have one thing right:
WE NEED A BALANCED BUDGET...NOW.
Actually I would go one step further and say that we need a balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution. Otherwise we will just be going back down this road in a few years. Many states already have them. It's time the ferderal government had to live under the same financial realities as the rest of us.
Actually I would go one step further and say that we need a balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution. Otherwise we will just be going back down this road in a few years. Many states already have them. It's time the ferderal government had to live under the same financial realities as the rest of us.
Amen brother!
(apologies to those of faith :P)
I assume you are also going to tell other people, such as Nicolas Logue in this other thread, to also make aliases for political discussions, correct? Or is this just directed at certain people?
Code Pink has been protesting. However, they're not getting the press coverage as they did under Bush. I don't agree with them on many things but I do admire the fact that they are not partisan hacks.And for that matter, where are the anti-war protesters? Still two wars going on, that ain't changing any time soon. Soldiers are still getting killed, or does that matter anymore now that the Democrats are in power?
They don't get coverage anymore because it's not in anyone's interest to cover them.
CNN (the Clinton News Network) is in full support Obama mode, well except Lou Dobbs, so it doesn't help their canidate look better to be reminded he can't just end the war with a wave. And Fox gets nothing out of it because they support the war. MSN might not even know the war is going on, never mind the protests, they are oblivious.
We don't have a decent nation news so its best to trust none of them. The BBC is hit or miss. They seem to think by having bias reporters on both sides that brings balance, unfortunately it doesn't. What it brings is bias, and you have to guess which side the bias is on. The US networks try the same thing from time to time, but it doesn't help.
We need people more like ESPN...well sort of like them, more like SI. SI writers never give you the feeling they are pulling for one team over another, they simply tell you what happened, what is expected, and let you make your own calls on the rest.
I just want a detailed discription of what happened. Let me figure out for myself the rest. (In political news, if we are talking about science news I don't mind experts to help explain it.)
going to tell other people, such as Nicolas Logue in this other thread, to also make aliases for political discussions, correct? Or is this just directed at certain people?
1. It should be clear that I'm suggesting, not "telling."
2. Yes; it seems like bad form in general to use a "contributor" tag when contributing political opinion that may or may not be shared by Paizo itself.3. Are you getting paranoid again? "He asked a right-wing person first, so he must hate consevatives?" There's no conspiracy here; no tinfoil hats required. In fact, check the other thread.
1. It should be clear that I'm suggesting, not "telling."
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Don't get your panties in a bunch over it.
2. Yes; it seems like bad form in general to use a "contributor" tag when contributing political opinion that may or may not be shared by Paizo itself.
Very good, I will also expect you to pop up and make similar "suggestions" when ever actual Paizo staff decide to speak up in various political threads with their opinions, which they have done from time to time. I agree with you it seems less professional to do so with the extra tag.
3. Are you getting paranoid again? "He asked a right-wing person first, so he must hate consevatives?" There's no conspiracy here; no tinfoil hats required. In fact, check the other thread.
Paranoid again? So now you are suggesting that I am being paranoid for warning against hypocrisy? I am happy to see that you decided to be consistent on this. No need to make personal attacks on me though.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
But that's just the thing- noone's coming up with any answers as to WHY this wasn't happening during the administration. Is it as simple as not wanting to look like a traitor to the cause/party, or something more?The reason these tea parties are going on now is because the spending isn't getting any better and shows every sign of getting worse much worse. For many Americans this isn't the change we want. So while conservatives may not have been protesting in the street during the Bush Presidency doesn't mean there isn't reason to do it now.
Sorry that I didn't respond sooner. I can't speak 100% for everyone who was involved in the tea parties but I think the portion of my original post probably sums up a large part of it.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Don't get your panties in a bunch over it.
Very good, I will also expect you to pop up and make similar "suggestions" when ever actual Paizo staff decide to speak up in various political threads with their opinions, which they have done from time to time. I agree with you it seems less professional to do so with the extra tag.
Paranoid again? So now you are suggesting that I am being paranoid for warning against hypocrisy? I am happy to see that you decided to be consistent on this. No need to make personal attacks on me though.
Right, cause "panties in a bunch" isn't a personal attack? It is a pretty blatant way to dismiss someone without actually bothering to address their concerns. In fact, it seems pretty much on par with "you're being paranoid" to me.
And no, Kirth isn't obligated to police the messagesboards for all time in order to avoid hypocrisy.
And no, Kirth isn't obligated to police the messagesboards for all time in order to avoid hypocrisy.
I certainly have, and have had, no wish to police them ever. I made a suggestion out of desire to avoid impropriety and/or confusion, that's all.
Anyway, Pres Man and I usually get along pretty well; I ribbed him with the anti-right-wing-conspiracy-theory catch phrase "tinfoil hat," and he responded in kind with the right-wing-trademarked catch phrase "panties in a bunch." A friendly and even exchange: no harm, no foul on either side, as I see it.
|
|
And no, Kirth isn't obligated to police the messagesboards for all time in order to avoid hypocrisy.I certainly have, and have had, no wish to police them ever. I made a suggestion out of desire to avoid impropriety and/or confusion, that's all.
Anyway, Pres Man and I usually get along pretty well; I ribbed him with the anti-right-wing-conspiracy-theory catch phrase "tinfoil hat," and he responded in kind with the right-wing-trademarked catch phrase "panties in a bunch." A friendly and even exchange: no harm, no foul on either side, as I see it.
I'm just wondering when you started wearing panties. You don't even live in Montrose!
And no, Kirth isn't obligated to police the messagesboards for all time in order to avoid hypocrisy.I certainly have, and have had, no wish to police them ever. I made a suggestion out of desire to avoid impropriety and/or confusion, that's all.
Anyway, Pres Man and I usually get along pretty well; I ribbed him with the anti-right-wing-conspiracy-theory catch phrase "tinfoil hat," and he responded in kind with the right-wing-trademarked catch phrase "panties in a bunch." A friendly and even exchange: no harm, no foul on either side, as I see it.
Then I'll bow out.
Sorry, it's just that "panties in a bunch" has always struck me as a simplistic bit of glibness that borders on the misogynistic.
Sorry, it's just that "panties in a bunch" has always struck me as a simplistic bit of glibness that borders on the misogynistic.
Naw, it's just one of the catch-phrases that people in the U.S. on the political right have claimed as theirs and feel compelled to use whenever possible, along with "I don't drink the kool-aid!" and "strawman much?" and "why do liberals hate America?"
People on the left spout things like "It's time for change," so it all evens out.|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
A little catching up, fellas:
I appreciate the web site with the claim on number of abortions. It's worth looking into for me. Though 1.2 million abortions per year is an absurd and shameful number, and itself a stat that defeats a lot of argument for why taxpayers need to pay for them or why women aren't safe without them. However, I acknowledge that I was in the habit of lamenting that abortions were on the rise every year for a long time (becasue it was true), and I never realized the number had started to slip down some. Praise God.
May I say 'Praise God' and still have a Contributor tag? I have yet to see anyone alter their identity as such during political conversations. Also, given that some of my best friends in gaming are HUUUGE lefties, I wouldn't think anyone could make the mistake that I speak for Paizo, since none of them remove their Contributor or staff tags when they post. I want to appreciate your concern, but I think maybe the operative word here was 'trifle'.
Sorry, it's just that "panties in a bunch" has always struck me as a simplistic bit of glibness that borders on the misogynistic.Naw, it's just one of the catch-phrases that people in the U.S. on the political right have claimed as theirs and feel compelled to use whenever possible, along with "I don't drink the kool-aid!" and "strawman much?" and "why do liberals hate America?"
People on the left spout things like "It's time for change," so it all evens out.
Okay, understand that I want to be friends with everyone, and you can still play at my table any time. But this is classless and uncalled for. If you wonder why we respond with phrases like 'straw man' and 'ad hom', perhaps you should examine your own rhetoric. Not to speak for anyone's political affiliations, but have you yet heard me or Sam or Derek mention kool-aid?
Please please PLEASE reconcile examples of liberal nonsense hate speech masked as journalism with this: video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=garofalo&um=1&ie=UTF-8& ;sa=N&tab=wv#q=garofalo+ohlbermann&hl=en&emb=0
or this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0&feature=player_embedded
Hey, believe what you want to. But don't deny this kind of treatment exists. And don't say it's equal on both sides of the aisle without linking up some equally heinous examples of non-opinion conservative reporters talking like this.
But this is classless and uncalled for. If you wonder why we respond with phrases like 'straw man' and 'ad hom', perhaps you should examine your own rhetoric. Not to speak for anyone's political affiliations, but have you yet heard me or Sam or Derek mention kool-aid?Just to pull out one example from these boards of what was a deluge of similarly-phrased comments:
It amazes me that people are drinking the Kool-aid on this. Every single election cycle someone shows up saying they want to change the way Washington is run
Sam, use ad hominem attacks? Never! (That's sarcastic, by the way. I like Sam, but he does tend to go a bit overboard when it comes to accusing people who disagree with him of being stupid, deluded, or flat-out liars).
Derek is a friend of mine IRL. We've discussed pet peeve "catch phrases" before, which might be why we steer clear of them in these messageboard discussions?
Finally, if social conservatives were so obviously noble, virtuous, and awesome, as compared with those evil, conniving, sneaking, vicious liberals... well, there would be no liberals. I think Derek and most others will agree with me wholeheartedly that both sides are equally guilty of a wide variety of senseless ass-hattery.
|
|
Sam, use ad hominem attacks? Never! (That's sarcastic, by the way. I like Sam, but he does tend to go a bit overboard when it comes to accusing people who disagree with him of being stupid, deluded, or flat-out liars).
As opposed to the number of people who call me stupid, deluded, or a flat-out liar?
If you do not like such rhetoric, do not employ it.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sam, use ad hominem attacks? Never! (That's sarcastic, by the way. I like Sam, but he does tend to go a bit overboard when it comes to accusing people who disagree with him of being stupid, deluded, or flat-out liars).As opposed to the number of people who call me stupid, deluded, or a flat-out liar?
If you do not like such rhetoric, do not employ it.
Please...stop...I can't laugh anymore...
My pony!!!!!
Dessert?
My pony!!!!!Dessert?
Hey! Don't bogart my alias!!! It's all I have in this world.
Hey! Don't bogart my alias!!! It's all I have in this world.
I'll show you who is the alien brain-eater around here!
WOOPLE! WOOPLE! WOOPLE!
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Finally, if social conservatives were so obviously noble, virtuous, and awesome, as compared with those evil, conniving, sneaking, vicious liberals... well, there would be no liberals. I think Derek and most others will agree with me wholeheartedly that both sides are equally guilty of a wide variety of senseless ass-hattery.
Finally, if social conservatives were so obviously noble, virtuous, and awesome, as compared with those evil, conniving, sneaking, vicious liberals... well, there would be no liberals. I think Derek and most others will agree with me wholeheartedly that both sides are equally guilty of a wide variety of senseless ass-hattery.
To be sure, there are a number of conservatives I would like to take behind the wood-shed and..erm...lecture. Then there are the conservatives that use the moniker to get elected, but aren't really dedicated to conservative principles at all (I'm looking at you, McCain). We have ourselves some housecleaning to do, and no one can deny that.
But, while 'senseless ass-hatery' might exist on both sides of the aisle, I do not accept that the state of political dialogue in this country is equally dismal on both sides of the aisle.
Any five-minute period of Ohlbermann's show makes it clear he has an opinion, he hates Republicans, and he doesn't need the slightest bit of evidence to justify the insulting things he says. In the media, things are said over and over again as if true, and then when a Republican says 'I don't think now is the time to force car companies to spend billions more on reducing emmissions that might not be hurting us', they are treated as if they just crawled out of a cave.
I have heard Republicans say it's worth talking about, I have never heard a Democrat say 'this global warming thing might be a hoax, let's investigate.'
George Bush once said regarding abortion (specifically partial birth abortion) 'there are good people on both sides of this issue'. I have never heard someone in liberal leadership make that claim. He spoke reverently at Coretta Scott King's funeral, of her hopes, the remarkable life she lived, etc. A large number of liberals got on that same stage and talked about illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction. What did she have to do with that? They owe her estate an apology.
Dick Cheney said in an interview on a conservative talk radio show 'If you're going to release records to make my administration look bad, release them all. Make sure you tell the American people about the attack that didn't happen in Los Angeles.' He also remarked 'What this administration is doing is dangerous. They are tipping are hand to the enemy, and I don't think that makes us more safe.'(paraphrases).
AL Gore responded by saying it was unheard of that a former vice-president involved himself in partisan disagreements with an existing administration.
"He betrayed this country...he played on our fears."
The list goes on and on. Just like my decision to become a Christian, I didn't choose and then believe. I am reminded daily that (while poor sports exist in my own camp), liberal attacks vastly outweigh liberal reasoned dialogues.
Note that I don't ascribe that dialogue to the liberal on the street, unless I hear him earn it. I mean the folks on tv or the folks in the media or the tired insults you can find on move-on.org or the huffington post. I see a lot more Garofaloes out there than there are Liebermans.
And hopefully you'll agree that 'kool-aid' and 'racists' are not the same level of dismissive rhetoric. If I say kool-aid (and I don't), I am making the point that someone should have thought for themselves, and instead have accepted the claims of a politician based on charisma. It happens a lot, on both sides of the aisle. But when someone says Republicans don't know anything about taxation and are just a bunch of racists, they aren't using a common (and admittedly insulting) term to make an argument, they are just insulting people without addressng any arguments.