|
As for why "conservative" cable news-networks get good ratings while "liberal" or center-left networks get poor ratings, I think it's because corporate news is all about fear and "conservatives" are afraid of everything except guns. Foreigners? Afraid. Muslims? I so scared! Homosexuals and their agenda? Fabulously frightened! Government? It's coming to take everything you own. Liberals? Destroying our society from within. Conservatives seem to be afraid of just about everything and the only way to feel like they control that fear is to get more and more information about what it is they fear.
What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be. So you want to start a liberal network, you've only got one thing to talk about, really. And it doesn't seem to be something people want to spend a lot of time worrying about.
Interesting counter. He COULD have been removed because he was difficult to work with, occam's razor and all.They will just plug a different far left statist into the slot. Six of one or half dozen of the other.Maybe if they all stopped selling poor mans opinions and start showing news again, this wouldn't matter. Oh wait it doesn't. well to me anyway I never watched the guy.Oh, don't get me wrong. They axed Olbermann to send a message to Maddow and Mathews. He was the king of the MSNBC hill by a mile. And he is a complete douche (ESPN got rid of him when he and Dan Patrick were their most popular team specifically because he's an arrogant prick).
And, yeah CNN is interested. They're a shadow of their former selves, they went from over 3 million viewers to around 600k for prime time. Olbermann would give them a little more credibility (but they'd still be losing out two to one to Fox if they managed to get all of Olbermann's viewers and retain their own), desperately needed cred.
My point is that I don't really care why he or any other rich celebrity gets canned from some far left corporation. I have no real idea why they got rid of him, but I expect they will replace him with another one just like him.
Chomsky can say he's a descendant of the Enlightenment movement all he wants. I can say I'm King George all I want. Doesn't make it so.
I have to respectfully disagree. Not about you and King George, but...
The Enlightenment went a whole bunch of different ways. For example, the far left-wing of the French Revolution (inspired by the philosophes) gave birth to Gracchus Babeuf, Fillippo Buonarroti and the Conspiracy of Equals which was the inspiration for most 19th-century socialist and anarchist thought before Marx.
Also, to say that Enlightenment thinkers, or the old-school liberals looked to the individual versus the governement might be true of some of the English political thinkers, but it isn't really true of the French ones except Rousseau. Voltaire, for example, repeatedly put his faith in various absolutist monarchies vs. the Catholic church on the one hand and popular superstitious ignorance on the other. Which kept biting him in the ass, by the way.
I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of what Chomsky believes, but I think you could make a good argument at tracing the roots of his thought back to the Enlightenment.
On the other hand, Marx's antipathy to the Enlightenment thinkers wasn't based so much on the whole individual vs. government equation as it was Marx, after discovering/inventing dialectial materialism, looking down on the "crude rationalism" of the Enlightenment.
Just my 2 cps
As for why "conservative" cable news-networks get good ratings while "liberal" or center-left networks get poor ratings, I think it's because corporate news is all about fear and "conservatives" are afraid of everything except guns. Foreigners? Afraid. Muslims? I so scared! Homosexuals and their agenda? Fabulously frightened! Government? It's coming to take everything you own. Liberals? Destroying our society from within. Conservatives seem to be afraid of just about everything and the only way to feel like they control that fear is to get more and more information about what it is they fear.
What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be. So you want to start a liberal network, you've only got one thing to talk about, really. And it doesn't seem to be something people want to spend a lot of time worrying about.
I shouldn't reply to something this asinine, but I'm going to. This notion that your side doesn't engage in at least as much fear mongering as the other side is insipid on its face.
Leftist fear mongering is the basis for social security being the third rail in American politics. Any suggestion that individuals should have even the most minuscule input into how the funds for their retirement are handled results in Democrats running endless adds decrying how the GOP wants grandma to eat cat food then die.
Any discussion about how Medicare is unsustainable as costs explode is met with massive fear mongering about how the other side wants grandma to die. The GOP was guilty of this during the Obamacare debate also.
Any opposition to the latest government medical program expansion means republicans what children and grandma and puppies to die according to the left.
No discussion of left wing fear mongering would be complete without addressing the environmental movement and what ever their apocalypse of the week is. Don't worry though, if the people just surrender most of their property and freedom to a green police state then the green police state will save the poor unenlightened people.
The left cries out that if it isn't given even more massive regulatory control of X then X will ruthlessly victimize the people. For leftists X seems to be everything.
The right is certainly guilty of some idiotic fear mongering (GWoT for example), but to pretend that your side is as pure as the driven snow is willful ignorance on a stunning scale.
What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be.
So in other words, liberals are afraid of people thinnking for themselves.
|
|
Oh, good I have a side! Go team!
You can make a list of whatever you want, but it remains the case that so-called liberals and other non-conservatives don't tune in to cable-news and talk radio to be scared all day. It's unfortunate that philosophical conservatives get lumped in with frightened reactionaries that need constant info-fixes, but that's what happens when everyone decides there are only two sides.
And by the way, going around calling people "statists" is pretty wackadoo. FYI.
|
|
So in other words, liberals are afraid of people thinnking for themselves.What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be.
I'm not sure how you got that out of that.
What I meant is that so-called liberals will tend not to discuss certain topics or address certain issues in case it hurts the feelings of this or that beautiful snowflake special interest group.
So in other words, liberals are afraid of people thinnking for themselves.What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be.
I'm not sure how you got that out of that.
What I meant is that so-called liberals will tend not to discuss certain topics or address certain issues in case it hurts the feelings of this or that beautiful snowflake special interest group.
Huh!?!?
So in other words, liberals are afraid of people thinnking for themselves.What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be.
I tho's thas wat Lib's been t'inkin how God fearin Republican's t'ink. Or summen like dat. I t'ink is a pinko conspeeracey me own self.
Catering to a political ideology is where the money is
Sad but true.
|
|
As for why "conservative" cable news-networks get good ratings while "liberal" or center-left networks get poor ratings, I think it's because corporate news is all about fear and "conservatives" are afraid of everything except guns. Foreigners? Afraid. Muslims? I so scared! Homosexuals and their agenda? Fabulously frightened! Government? It's coming to take everything you own. Liberals? Destroying our society from within. Conservatives seem to be afraid of just about everything and the only way to feel like they control that fear is to get more and more information about what it is they fear.
What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be. So you want to start a liberal network, you've only got one thing to talk about, really. And it doesn't seem to be something people want to spend a lot of time worrying about.
That actually was the problem. All they did was attack Rush, Beck, etc. Or talked about how Rush & Beck were lying about an issue. And all you heard from '01 to '08 was "bush is a criminal". If you listened once, you'd be fine. If you listened for a week, you'd think you were in Puxtatawny reliving Feb. 2 over and over.
Leftist radio and news is like watching the same episode of Laverne and Shirley every day, except with less Lenny, Squiggy and Carmine.
At least Rush had several different non-left broadcaster subject to be an ass about every day.
Fundamentally conservatives and liberals pretty much divide on one basic question. More or less everything else derives from this "are people basically good with a few bad apples or are people basically bad with the odd exceptional individual?"
Sorry your conclusion, doesn't hold up. If "liberals" truly believed that people were inherently good, then they wouldn't see the need for the social programs in place. If people were going to use that $100 to help others, then you don't need the government to do it. No, instead your "liberals" see people as inherently selfish, greedy short-sighted individuals, that must have their money taken away like a small child and then given back and told the appropriate way to spend it.
|
As for why "conservative" cable news-networks get good ratings while "liberal" or center-left networks get poor ratings, I think it's because corporate news is all about fear and "conservatives" are afraid of everything except guns. Foreigners? Afraid. Muslims? I so scared! Homosexuals and their agenda? Fabulously frightened! Government? It's coming to take everything you own. Liberals? Destroying our society from within. Conservatives seem to be afraid of just about everything and the only way to feel like they control that fear is to get more and more information about what it is they fear.
What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be. So you want to start a liberal network, you've only got one thing to talk about, really. And it doesn't seem to be something people want to spend a lot of time worrying about.
That actually was the problem. All they did was attack Rush, Beck, etc. Or talked about how Rush & Beck were lying about an issue. And all you heard from '01 to '08 was "bush is a criminal". If you listened once, you'd be fine. If you listened for a week, you'd think you were in Puxtatawny reliving Feb. 2 over and over.
Leftist radio and news is like watching the same episode of Laverne and Shirley every day, except with less Lenny, Squiggy and Carmine.
At least Rush had several different non-left broadcaster subject to be an ass about every day.
Yes but Rush was being an Ass everyday. Two wrongs you know...
A rule of thumb for me, personally:
If someone's yelling an opinion at me and continually masquerading it as a fact, and interrupting me every time I try to get a word in edgewise, I'm A) A guest on Fox News B) Being lied to, or C) Both.
I guess Chris Matthews falls into (B), LOL.
|
|
Chomsky can say he's a descendant of the Enlightenment movement all he wants. I can say I'm King George all I want. Doesn't make it so.
I have to respectfully disagree. Not about you and King George, but...
The Enlightenment went a whole bunch of different ways. For example, the far left-wing of the French Revolution (inspired by the philosophes) gave birth to Gracchus Babeuf, Fillippo Buonarroti and the Conspiracy of Equals which was the inspiration for most 19th-century socialist and anarchist thought before Marx.
Also, to say that Enlightenment thinkers, or the old-school liberals looked to the individual versus the governement might be true of some of the English political thinkers, but it isn't really true of the French ones except Rousseau. Voltaire, for example, repeatedly put his faith in various absolutist monarchies vs. the Catholic church on the one hand and popular superstitious ignorance on the other. Which kept biting him in the ass, by the way.
I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of what Chomsky believes, but I think you could make a good argument at tracing the roots of his thought back to the Enlightenment.
On the other hand, Marx's antipathy to the Enlightenment thinkers wasn't based so much on the whole individual vs. government equation as it was Marx, after discovering/inventing dialectial materialism, looking down on the "crude rationalism" of the Enlightenment.
Just my 2 cps
Yeah, we're not going to see eye to eye, since I see Chomsky as being a little disingenuous in his lip service to the Enlightenment.
But I enjoyed the debate, it was a fun read. :D
Sorry your conclusion, doesn't hold up. If "liberals" truly believed that people were inherently good, then they wouldn't see the need for the social programs in place. If people were going to use that $100 to help others, then you don't need the government to do it. No, instead your "liberals" see people as inherently selfish, greedy short-sighted individuals, that must have their money taken away like a small child and then given back and told the appropriate way to spend it.
That's a pretty big straw man even for a political discussion.
Try looking at it this way: let's say we set up a program that insures that you get to eat if, through no fault of your own, you can't afford food.
Are people
A) likely to only use that if they really need it?
B) Or are people who don't need it likely to abuse it?
If you think more people fall into A than B, you're probably a liberal. If you think more people fall into B than A, you're probably a conservative.
FEAR SELLS.
Turn off the TV. Go outside and meet your neighbors. And if you're going to read a book, don't read one "written" by the host of a political talk show.
*sigh*
Oh, good I have a side! Go team!
You can make a list of whatever you want, but it remains the case that so-called liberals and other non-conservatives don't tune in to cable-news and talk radio to be scared all day. It's unfortunate that philosophical conservatives get lumped in with frightened reactionaries that need constant info-fixes, but that's what happens when everyone decides there are only two sides.
And by the way, going around calling people "statists" is pretty wackadoo. FYI.
When have I ever argued that there are only two sides? I don't think the left versus right binary political model is valid. You are the one arguing that conservatives are driven by fear of everything except guns and liberals are only afraid of conservatives, and you seem to be sticking to that absurdly simplistic caricature. I haven't made this a binary left versus right debate. I have pointed out a few of the big government tendencies of both parties. The binary view I am most likely to be guilty of is state power versus individual liberty, and I concede that government is a necessary evil that I would like to see minimized.
I think there is plenty of statism in both major parties, and I think this is largely why a two party system fails us so badly.
You are free to try to marginalize the position of individual liberty over state power as "wackadoo", and that is the standard it seems, but I don't think it makes the argument for ever expanding state power any more valid.
FEAR SELLS.
Turn off the TV. Go outside and meet your neighbors. And if you're going to read a book, don't read one "written" by the host of a political talk show.
*sigh*
+1
What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives.
If you ever need medical treatment you will go broke unless THE GOVERNMENT saves you. Government is all that stands between you and a poverty-stricken sick house.
If you are a minority, GOVERNMENT is the only thing that stands between you and racist destruction of you status, if not your very life.
If the government doesn't take radically action NOW the entire world will, literally, END!!!!!
If the government doesn't provide food, people will starve in the streets.
If the government doesn't decide when people have "made enough money", the rich will get it all.
If government doesn't stop it, someone might put a Christmas tree in a public park.
It is hard to list left wing policies that are NOT fear based.
Conservatives fear that government will control our lives too much. Liberals fear it won't.
Sorry your conclusion, doesn't hold up. If "liberals" truly believed that people were inherently good, then they wouldn't see the need for the social programs in place. If people were going to use that $100 to help others, then you don't need the government to do it. No, instead your "liberals" see people as inherently selfish, greedy short-sighted individuals, that must have their money taken away like a small child and then given back and told the appropriate way to spend it.That's a pretty big straw man even for a political discussion.
Try looking at it this way: let's say we set up a program that insures that you get to eat if, through no fault of your own, you can't afford food.
A)You believe that the program is necessary because people will selfishly not share with the person in need, or
B)You believe that the program is not necessary because people will generously provide their own programs to help those in need.
Which is the liberal?
Fundamentally conservatives and liberals pretty much divide on one basic question. More or less everything else derives from this "are people basically good with a few bad apples or are people basically bad with the odd exceptional individual?"Sorry your conclusion, doesn't hold up. If "liberals" truly believed that people were inherently good, then they wouldn't see the need for the social programs in place. If people were going to use that $100 to help others, then you don't need the government to do it. No, instead your "liberals" see people as inherently selfish, greedy short-sighted individuals, that must have their money taken away like a small child and then given back and told the appropriate way to spend it.
Wow, everyone's on a "bash the other side spree" today. Don't you know you can't have one of those without me?
Some functions can't reasonably be handled by individuals. Liberals and conservatives disagree on the extent of those functions. Liberals and conservatives also seem to disagree on how real the concept of a meritocracy is in practice. Only the fringes habitually vilify their fellow man (poor people or rich people, take your pick).
My advice? If you find yourself repeating the talk show hosts ("Liberals hate work and want to take all your money! Conservatives hate the poor or anyone who isn't white!") then stop talking, because you're being used.
|
|
Huh!?!?So in other words, liberals are afraid of people thinnking for themselves.What are so-called liberals afraid of? Conservatives. And that's about it. They are not allowed to be afraid of anything else, even if they should be.
I'm not sure how you got that out of that.
What I meant is that so-called liberals will tend not to discuss certain topics or address certain issues in case it hurts the feelings of this or that beautiful snowflake special interest group.
Ok, I guess I haven't been clear.
Let's say a journalist does a rational and factual story about high crime rates among an illegal immigrant community. So-called conservative outlets like FOXNews might blow the scariest elements of that reporting out of proportion and turn it into a big flashy story about Real America being under threat and Glenn Beck has a good on-air cry about it.
Now, a so-called liberal outlet might be so afraid of saying or implying anything racist or xenophobic that they downplay the reporting or don't even mention it at all.
A)You believe that the program is necessary because people will selfishly not share with the person in need, orB)You believe that the program is not necessary because people will generously provide their own programs to help those in need.
Which is the liberal?
False dichotomy there, chief.
Try this one:
A) You believe some people are poor through no fault of their own and deserve help.
B) You believe poor people are poor because they're lazy and they deserve to starve.
Which is the conservative?
Hint: Neither A nor B. Just like in your question...
|
|
A rule of thumb for me, personally:
If someone's yelling an opinion at me and continually masquerading it as a fact, and interrupting me every time I try to get a word in edgewise, I'm A) A guest on any currentNews program B) Being lied to, or C) Both.
CNN normally doesn't conduct itself in that manner (yes there are exceptions, no need to point them out, I'll concede them).
That aside, other than CNN, there really are no noteworthy liberal news channels. So, back to my original point...
A)You believe that the program is necessary because people will selfishly not share with the person in need, orB)You believe that the program is not necessary because people will generously provide their own programs to help those in need.
Which is the liberal?
False dichotomy there, chief.
Try this one:
A) You believe some people are poor through no fault of their own and deserve help.
B) You believe poor people deserve to starve.
Which is the conservative?
Hint: Neither A nor B. Just like in your question...
So, you believe that "liberals" (whatever those are) believe that programs to give food to others are needed because ... of what? People are TOO generous and will GIVE TOO much help to others and the government needs to be there to rein them in? Or some other reason? It is easy to say something is wrong, give the correct interpretation if you know it?
Also, remember to use the assumptions originally presented, that "liberals" believe people are inherently good and "conservatives" believe people are inherently bad. Don't jump in the middle without going back to the original assumptions.
|
|
Chomsky can say he's a descendant of the Enlightenment movement all he wants. I can say I'm King George all I want. Doesn't make it so.I have to respectfully disagree. Not about you and King George, but...
The Enlightenment went a whole bunch of different ways. For example, the far left-wing of the French Revolution (inspired by the philosophes) gave birth to Gracchus Babeuf, Fillippo Buonarroti and the Conspiracy of Equals which was the inspiration for most 19th-century socialist and anarchist thought before Marx.
Also, to say that Enlightenment thinkers, or the old-school liberals looked to the individual versus the governement might be true of some of the English political thinkers, but it isn't really true of the French ones except Rousseau. Voltaire, for example, repeatedly put his faith in various absolutist monarchies vs. the Catholic church on the one hand and popular superstitious ignorance on the other. Which kept biting him in the ass, by the way.
I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of what Chomsky believes, but I think you could make a good argument at tracing the roots of his thought back to the Enlightenment.
On the other hand, Marx's antipathy to the Enlightenment thinkers wasn't based so much on the whole individual vs. government equation as it was Marx, after discovering/inventing dialectial materialism, looking down on the "crude rationalism" of the Enlightenment.
Just my 2 cps
Actually, DeToqueville was very much in the vein of Rousseau. So that's two. And Voltaire just got the ball rolling; the first of anything is usually a dog.
He's a self described anarcho-socialist. The philosophy, espoused by dudes like Mikhail Bakunin, was non-state socialism (the workers owned production, not the state). They are opposed to private ownership of any business or means of production, everything is collective (again, antithetical to generally accepted Enlightenment philosophies, but prominent in Marx).
An argument can be made that, since Chomsky doesn't necessarily trust government, there is a connection to the Enlightenment in that sentiment, but I think he gets that from Bakunin and that line of thinking, not from the English/American minds. And Bakunin isn't a descendant of the Enlightenment, he's more like an anti-Statist Marxist (19th century philosophies get muddy as hell, too much new stuff at once, mixed willy nilly with the old stuff).
I'm just not buying Chomsky really agrees with anything the Enlightenment guys were saying. We're just going to have to agree to disagree there, I think.
|
|
I guess Chris Matthews falls into (B), LOL.A rule of thumb for me, personally:
If someone's yelling an opinion at me and continually masquerading it as a fact, and interrupting me every time I try to get a word in edgewise, I'm A) A guest on Fox News B) Being lied to, or C) Both.
Yes, he does!
Although: Please don't bother using MSNBC as evidentiary proof of anything. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, then who the hell cares if it made a sound?
|
|
A rule of thumb for me, personally:
If someone's yelling an opinion at me and continually masquerading it as a fact, and interrupting me every time I try to get a word in edgewise, I'm A) A guest on any currentNews program B) Being lied to, or C) Both.
CNN normally doesn't conduct itself in that manner (yes there are exceptions, no need to point them out, I'll concede them).
That aside, other than CNN, there really are no noteworthy liberal news channels. So, back to my original point...
MSNBC blows CNN away in the ratings. CNN is the irrelevant station of the Big Three on cable.
And NBC, ABC and CBS are most definitely liberal news organizations, so...
A)You believe that the program is necessary because people will selfishly not share with the person in need, or
B)You believe that the program is not necessary because people will generously provide their own programs to help those in need.
Which is the liberal?
It'd be a false dichotomy, because B is just factually wrong.
I mean, yes, people do give to charity -- but someone who believes that this means that no non-lazy non-cheating-the-system person ever starves or goes without is wrong. Not, of a different philosophy, but believing something that is clearly, demonstrably at odds with reality.
Sorry your conclusion, doesn't hold up. If "liberals" truly believed that people were inherently good, then they wouldn't see the need for the social programs in place. If people were going to use that $100 to help others, then you don't need the government to do it. No, instead your "liberals" see people as inherently selfish, greedy short-sighted individuals, that must have their money taken away like a small child and then given back and told the appropriate way to spend it.That's a pretty big straw man even for a political discussion.
Try looking at it this way: let's say we set up a program that insures that you get to eat if, through no fault of your own, you can't afford food.
Are people
A) likely to only use that if they really need it?
B) Or are people who don't need it likely to abuse it?
If you think more people fall into A than B, you're probably a liberal. If you think more people fall into B than A, you're probably a conservative.
I think your response is a false choice.
I don't accept the notion that the "Are people basically good or evil?" question fits a left versus right or a state versus individual model very well at all. Whether one thinks people are basically good or bad can support any of these positions. For example the religious right can argue that people are basically bad and need vice laws to protect them from their base nature. Likewise the left can argue that people are basically bad and irresponsible, and they need regulation and social safety nets to protect them from themselves. Libertarians can argue that people are basically bad and giving a few people power over a lot of people magnifies the opportunity for people to do bad. Conversely statists can argue that people are basically bad and require a strong state to guide and protect them. There are opposing arguments in all of these examples based on the good versus bad question as well. The federalist papers and the anti federalist papers are very good reading in this regard. I don't think the good versus bad question informs the left versus right or the state versus the individual debates very well at all.
So, you believe that "liberals" (whatever those are) believe that programs to give food to others are needed because ... of what? People are TOO generous and will GIVE TOO much help to others and the government needs to be there to rein them in? Or some other reason? It is easy to say something is wrong, give the correct interpretation if you know it?
I will answer you under the assumption you want to have a conversation. I am fully prepared to be wrong.
I believe it's a matter of public record that insufficient food is donated to meet existing need. Further, I believe those who disagree are willfully ignorant. The evidence isn't hard to find it you look. It's not cynical to observe that more needs to be done. Nor is it liberal. Or conservative.
I also believe that liberals and conservatives disagree about the causes of hunger, but that's another debate. But it's one that we're never going to have as long as we're busy attacking caricatures of one another.
|
|
When have I ever argued that there are only two sides? I don't think the left versus right binary political model is valid. You are the one arguing that conservatives are driven by fear of everything except guns and liberals are only afraid of conservatives, and you seem to be sticking to that absurdly simplistic caricature. I haven't made this a binary left versus right debate. I have pointed out a few of the big government tendencies of both parties. The binary view I am most likely to be guilty of is state power versus individual liberty, and I concede that government is a necessary evil that I would like to see minimized.
I think there is plenty of statism in both major parties, and I think this is largely why a two party system fails us so badly.
You are free to try to marginalize the position of individual liberty over state power as "wackadoo", and that is the standard it seems, but I don't think it makes the argument for ever expanding state power any more valid.
Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I was selling anxiety, which is what corporate news does, then I would make much more money selling it to reactionary conservatives than I would so-called liberals. That's not to say that all conservatives live in fear or that liberals aren't afraid of anything. It's just what the ratings and the marketplace seem to be telling us.
And I don't have an issue with people wanting minimal government; most people want that, I think. But I take issue with people demonizing government, and saying things like "statist" I find odd.
If someone came up to me on the street and asked if I was a Statist, I would probably look at him the same way I would if he asked me if I was a witch.
A)You believe that the program is necessary because people will selfishly not share with the person in need, orB)You believe that the program is not necessary because people will generously provide their own programs to help those in need.
Which is the liberal?
False dichotomy there, chief.
Try this one:
A) You believe some people are poor through no fault of their own and deserve help.
B) You believe poor people are poor because they're lazy and they deserve to starve.
Which is the conservative?
Hint: Neither A nor B. Just like in your question...
Ninja'ed! I think our replys are saying similar things.
A rule of thumb for me, personally:
If someone's yelling an opinion at me and continually masquerading it as a fact, and interrupting me every time I try to get a word in edgewise, I'm A) A guest on any currentNews program B) Being lied to, or C) Both.
CNN normally doesn't conduct itself in that manner (yes there are exceptions, no need to point them out, I'll concede them).
That aside, other than CNN, there really are no noteworthy liberal news channels. So, back to my original point...
MSNBC blows CNN away in the ratings. CNN is the irrelevant station of the Big Three on cable.
And NBC, ABC and CBS are most definitely liberal news organizations, so...
+1
Ninja'ed! I think our replys are saying similar things.
Agreed, at least as far as I went. You continued into some more stuff I don't fully understand.
I don't accept the notion that the "Are people basically good or evil?" question fits a left versus right or a state versus individual model very well at all.
Well, right. That's why I personally framed it a little differently as: how they think people will treat government social programs. Do you think a program like welfare is more full of people who are currently in need and may someday not be in need, or do you think the program is more full of cheats and leeches?
|
|
Oh, good I have a side! Go team!
You can make a list of whatever you want, but it remains the case that so-called liberals and other non-conservatives don't tune in to cable-news and talk radio to be scared all day. It's unfortunate that philosophical conservatives get lumped in with frightened reactionaries that need constant info-fixes, but that's what happens when everyone decides there are only two sides.
And by the way, going around calling people "statists" is pretty wackadoo. FYI.
"Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
Well, right. That's why I personally framed it a little differently as: how they think people will treat government social programs. Do you think a program like welfare is more full of people who are currently in need and may someday not be in need, or do you think the program is more full of cheats and leeches?
How about this...I don't care that much.
That is, I'd be happy helping one of the former if it meant subsidizing two of the latter. Though at some point the answer changes (I suspect the point differs for each of us), I don't see a good deal of evidence that living off welfare is enticing enough that we've yet reached that point FOR ME.
I've been on food benefits before. I'm no paragon of motivation, but I wouldn't choose to go back just to avoid holding down a job.
"Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
Then I am a statist, as I believe that environment oversight is necessary. It's just too tempting (and easy) to externalize production costs. Tragedy of the commons and all that.
I think we should build a space helicopter.
|
|
"Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
I understand that it is descriptive, but it's also odd.
You can get away with that kind of thing on the internet or maybe a classroom, but you say that in the real world and you reveal that you are walking around dividing up people into "statists" and "non-statists" and carrying a rather intense ideology in your head.
A)You believe that the program is necessary because people will selfishly not share with the person in need, or
B)You believe that the program is not necessary because people will generously provide their own programs to help those in need.
Which is the liberal?
It'd be a false dichotomy, because B is just factually wrong.
I mean, yes, people do give to charity -- but someone who believes that this means that no non-lazy non-cheating-the-system person ever starves or goes without is wrong. Not, of a different philosophy, but believing something that is clearly, demonstrably at odds with reality.
Do you understand that your response in a classic straw man argument?
You say that B is factually wrong. pres man never said the program is not necessary because because private charity never lets anyone slip through the cracks.
Private charity is not perfect, and the social safety net has massive failures and inefficiencies. We can debate the causes of poverty and the efficacy private versus public, but no one that I know of on this thread is making the argument that private generosity is perfect.
SPACE HELICOPTER RULES!
|
|
MSNBC blows CNN away in the ratings. CNN is the irrelevant station of the Big Three on cable.
Fox News beats the combined viewership of CNN and MSNBC in most evening time slots, almost every day. CNN and MSNBC are both irrelevant, because liberals largely don't watch news on TV. It is for this reason that the whole Sarah Palin "lamestream media" argument (also articulated as the conservative "woe is me, all the media is left-biased" argument) fails. If nobody is listening, who cares what they say?
And NBC, ABC and CBS are most definitely liberal news organizations, so...
Not sure what evidence you're basing that on, sounds like an opinion to me. My guess is, as I pointed out earlier, you're letting Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly dictate what classifies a station as liberal. If they're not talking ad nauseam about the same exact things that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are talking about ad nauseam, it doesn't mean they're liberal. They could be centrist. Heck, they could be middle-right and just not matching Fox's level of paranoia for the day.
As someone who espouses liberal ideologies, I find NBC, ABC, and CBS to be pretty much dead-center. Probably because if they're too liberal, they'll drive viewership off their actual programming, which they can't afford to do. Sure, they'd probably like to be more liberal; in my book, though, that desire does not make them liberal in and of itself.
You say that B is factually wrong. pres man never said the program is not necessary because because private charity never lets anyone slip through the cracks.
Really? It looks like he said that to me.