Before we go any further, we need to set some parameters here.1) I am not a republican.
2) I am not a fan of Fox news
3) I am fully capable of observing the world around me and come to my own conclusions without being influenced by 1) and 2), as both are irrelevant to me.OK, fair enough. My fault if I wasn't giving you enough credit for that.
To your point about NBC/CBS/ABC making Republicans come off looking less than ideallic, I'd posit that that's less their fault and more the fault of the party platform. Those evening news broadcasts are designed to be watched by millions of people of various classes, income levels, and educational backgrounds. When the message seems to be "screw the little guy, let's help the big guy and assume he'll give the little guy some scraps under the table", the message is not likely to look good in broad daylight. It takes a fair amount of spin from Fox to make it look palatable, but they do an admirable job of it. In short, it's the message that stinks, not the telephone.
And man, Fox news is evil and is responsible for a lot of problems in this country today. If you don't believe that's the case, that's fine, because we're all entitled to our opinion. But, on the other hand, I'm going to continue to trot them out as evidence of ham-fisted curmudgeonly partisanship, because in my opinion, that's precisely what they are. It's not because they don't agree with the left. If they were a liberal station, I'd still think they were evil due to the amount of vitriol that they poison the water with and the way they conduct themselves on-air. There's just no place for it.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have been distorting the news for about a quarter of a century. They have systematically distorted the news in the favor of massive and corrupt government for at least as long, IMO. That is not a misstep or anomaly; that is an institutional bias that spans decades. This is not an occasional goof, but a series of choices that spans decades. They have vomited hate and lies from the far left for decades, and people got sick of it, and they went elsewhere with their patronage. They made Rush and his ilk multi-millionaires because of their vast bias. Overall they make fox look good, and that takes a whole lot of work. If FOX is evil, I don't know what adjective to apply to the consistently wretched and vile propaganda that ABC, NPR, CBS, NBC, CNN, and so on vomit forth on a daily basis. It seems to me that a mass media machine that is a propaganda organ for massive and corrupt government and corporations is responsible for a lot of the problems in this country today.
If you don't believe that's the case, that's fine, because we're all entitled to our opinion.
Don't let the truth confuse you.
he blamed Bush for Chavez coming into power (he came in power in '98
I thought it was well understood that mismanagement of the Texas Rangers directly catapulted Chavez into his current position.
In all seriousness I'd be interested in seeing the quote on that -- because I think you could make a strong argument that Chavez managed to increase his profile and power by attacking Bush and positioning himself as a foil to Bush. Without seeing exactly how he framed it I can't say if that's a mistake or worse or not.
Or maybe he was blaming Bush Sr. in some way. Who knows.
*facepalm*
|
he blamed Bush for Chavez coming into power (he came in power in '98I thought it was well understood that mismanagement of the Texas Rangers directly catapulted Chavez into his current position.
In all seriousness I'd be interested in seeing the quote on that -- because I think you could make a strong argument that Chavez managed to increase his profile and power by attacking Bush and positioning himself as a foil to Bush. Without seeing exactly how he framed it I can't say if that's a mistake or worse or not.
Or maybe he was blaming Bush Sr. in some way. Who knows.
I actually got that off a youtube video of his speeches. He specifically said "come into power". Obama is so busy blaming Bush for everything from the economy to the recent uptick in puppy kicking that I doubt he thinks Bush HAS a father.
I think he assumes Bush rose, fully formed, from the depths of hell.
Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?
Is this a sign of sanity returning to the airwaves?
Doubtful.
Maybe he'll apologize for being hateful to Tea Party types before he goes on that grand swim in the ocean, too.
just agreeing with the 'doubtful' part
|
Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
Don't bet on that. There are different types of intelligence. Bush for all his faults, and there were many, was not stupid.
|
|
Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
So, you're saying he's in the 90+ range? Not terribly inspiring.
Personally, I think the guy's intelligence is overrated. No one has seen his Harvard transcripts, he won't release them. All he has demonstrated to this point is that he's a better speaker than Bush, but that means jack. I know people who are off the charts that can't string three words together without stumbling over them.
I met some scary smart people that fit that description to a T.
Don't bet on that. There are different types of intelligence. Bush for all his faults, and there were many, was not stupid.Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
Yeah, as a kind of obvious example, consider when Sir Paul was visiting.
Which given the fact that Bush was a notorious book reader just proved how good some of the "Bush is dumb" was.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have been distorting the news for about a quarter of a century. They have systematically distorted the news in the favor of massive and corrupt government for at least as long, IMO. That is not a misstep or anomaly; that is an institutional bias that spans decades. This is not an occasional goof, but a series... They have vomitted hate and lies from the far left for decades
While I wouldn't even think to disagree about the equally s!#*ty reporting that emanates from all of the major television channels, it's the last sentence that makes me pause.
The far left? Really?
A) The Democratic Party is far to the right of where it stood from 75 to 50 years ago. I was reading the other day about how Richard Nixon tried to get some form of universal health care back during the seventies (it got quashed by Teddy Kennedy, who wanted that to be his issue--this was pre-Chappaquidick), so it might be fair to say that the Dems are standing roughly where the Republicans were 40 years ago.
B) More importantly, really? The FAR left? I'm sorry, I've been on the far left my entire adult life and not once have I ever seen my opinion expressed on any news program.
Expropriate the banks, factories, railways and airports with no compensation to their current owners and run them by democratically-elected workers' councils? Never heard it advocated on the nightly news.
Institutionalize free education and free health care? Haven't heard that being discussed either.
For immediate cessation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and withdrawal of American troops from, well, everywhere? Maybe Jesse Ventura or Cindy Sheehan mentioned that once...
The Far Left consists of: communists, socialists, anarchists, people like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Norman Finkelstein, Alexander Cockburn, etc., etc.
It DOES NOT consist of: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, liberal Democratic politicians or anyone who writes for Newsweek.
The lies stemming from the FAR left are much different from the lies stemming from any talking head on any corporate news channel. Please learn to differentiate between the two!
I removed a post.
I'm not calling him dumb. I'm saying I think people overstate how intelligent he is. He's probably ahead of the curve, but he hasn't demonstrated any reason for me to think he's exceptionally so.
Even if it was, some how, demonstrated that he was exceptionally smart it'd not likely matter. Politics is a game where smart does not help that much. To much is basically opinion without really being able to find all the answers. McNamara, for an example of a policy maker, was off the charts smart, that did not save him from making some of the worst foreign policy mistakes in American history.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have been distorting the news for about a quarter of a century. They have systematically distorted the news in the favor of massive and corrupt government for at least as long, IMO. That is not a misstep or anomaly; that is an institutional bias that spans decades. This is not an occasional goof, but a series... They have vomitted hate and lies from the far left for decadesWhile I wouldn't even think to disagree about the equally s%**ty reporting that emanates from all of the major television channels, it's the last sentence that makes me pause.
The far left? Really?
A) The Democratic Party is far to the right of where it stood from 75 to 50 years ago. I was reading the other day about how Richard Nixon tried to get some form of universal health care back during the seventies (it got quashed by Teddy Kennedy, who wanted that to be his issue--this was pre-Chappaquidick), so it might be fair to say that the Dems are standing roughly where the Republicans were 40 years ago.
B) More importantly, really? The FAR left? I'm sorry, I've been on the far left my entire adult life and not once have I ever seen my opinion expressed on any news program.
Expropriate the banks, factories, railways and airports with no compensation to their current owners and run them by democratically-elected workers' councils? Never heard it advocated on the nightly news.
Institutionalize free education and free health care? Haven't heard that being discussed either.
For immediate cessation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and withdrawal of American troops from, well, everywhere? Maybe Jesse Ventura or Cindy Sheehan mentioned that once...
The Far Left consists of: communists, socialists, anarchists, people like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Norman Finkelstein, Alexander Cockburn, etc., etc.
It DOES NOT consist of: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, liberal Democratic politicians or anyone who writes for Newsweek.
The lies stemming from the FAR left are much different...
Let me see if I can clarify. While I don't think the current one dimensional model of left versus right is very useful at all, and I only find the two dimensional social and financial left versus right model to me marginally more useful, I tend to use left as statist and right as individual freedom for shorthand. My shorthand is as bad as the above models in terms of being a blunt instrument. In spite of being an active Republican for over two decades I fall firmly into the minarchist camp of libertarianism philosophically.
I don't see how anarchism falls into the left on these models, so I have to disagree with you there, but I suspect we would agree that the current left versus right models are dreadfully blunt instruments.
That said I clearly place the left and far left differently than you. I don't accept corporatism, fascism, and national socialism as right wing because I see them as authoritarian (or statist). This is a minority view that many socialists find odious. Likewise some positions of the religious right I tend to view as left wing because they are authoritarian; this is a very uncommon view that reflects my uncommon take of left being statist and right being for individual liberty. Statist is a more accurate descriptive term as is minarchist, but people often attach odd meanings to these terms, so they often seem to cause more confusion that they are worth in the context of internet boards.
I think Bush, Dole, W (in particular), and McCain were all socialists (or more accurately statist/corporatist) in some degree. I think Democrats and most of the mainstream media are even farther to the "left" in my view. That doesn't make Pelosi Stalin per se, but I would see her as closer than somewhat less statist corrupt politicians than say W, for instance.
My use of the terminology is less a function of ignorance than it is of writing laziness or expedience, I think. I suppose better descriptors and more clear definitions would be helpful, but that can be a challenge.
Does that help to qualify how I throw around "left" and "far left"?
Does that help to qualify how I throw around "left" and "far left"?
Your definition is clear, but unfortunately is at odds with the prevailing ones in some places. But that's more or less inevitable, given that people insist on using a linear scale for nonlinear issues. I mean, by your definition, federally-mandated teacher-led prayer in schools would be a "far left" or "liberal" policy, even though it's espoused mainly by social conservatives and is as illiberal a thing as one could easily imagine.
I try to skirt around these sorts of problems by describing myself as "socially anti-authoritarian" and "fiscally hard-headed," but then no one knows what the hell I'm talking about.
Does that help to qualify how I throw around "left" and "far left"?Your definition is clear, but unfortunately is at odds with the prevailing ones in some places. But that's more or less inevitable, given that people insist on using a linear scale for nonlinear issues. I mean, by your definition, federally-mandated teacher-led prayer in schools would be a "far left" or "liberal" policy, even though it's espoused mainly by social conservatives and is as illiberal a thing as one could easily imagine.
I try to skirt around these sorts of problems by describing myself as "socially anti-authoritarian" and "fiscally hard-headed," but then no one knows what the hell I'm talking about.
LOL!
If I say I'm a minarchist I'm likely to get that "deer in the headlights" look.
If I say I'm basically libertarian some of my fellow Republicans reply with, "You're an anarchist?". I've had young college liberal Democrats ask me, "Is that like a neo nazi?". They weren't trying to be cute either; they were genuinely baffled.
If I try to use statist as a descriptor people tend to take offense.
It reminds me of how big the "What conservatives believe" thread got. There are lots of folks who self identify as conservatives who have vastly different beliefs.
I don't object to labels per se, but I'm really starting to think that left/right liberal/conservative have almost entirely outlived any usefulness they might have once held.
I guess I'm part of the problem, because I'm guilty of using the same clumsy and non descriptive labels.
Bitter Thorn: You have your own political terminology. Duly noted.
The problem with inventing your own language, of course, is that you will tend to be misunderstood.
That being said, I find the equation of socialism with statism/corporatism (as in, "Bush/Dole/W are socialists") a little on the ridiculous side. If socialism refers to anything, it refers to a collectivized economy in which the means of production are owned in common. This, in my opinion, prima facie rules out all Republicans and 99.99% of Democrats from being considered socialists.
Anyway, as I said earlier, being a "far leftist" myself, I chafe under the idea that the New York Times, or CNN or any other major American media outlet expresses my views. Because they don't.
I try to skirt around these sorts of problems by describing myself as "socially anti-authoritarian" and "fiscally hard-headed," but then no one knows what the hell I'm talking about.LOL!
If I say I'm a minarchist I'm likely to get that "deer in the headlights" look.
Yeah, I get the same responses when I tell people I'm a Trotskyist.
|
|
Yeah, I get the same responses when I tell people I'm a Trotskyist.I try to skirt around these sorts of problems by describing myself as "socially anti-authoritarian" and "fiscally hard-headed," but then no one knows what the hell I'm talking about.LOL!
If I say I'm a minarchist I'm likely to get that "deer in the headlights" look.
[in jest]What they don't point fingers at you and yell pinko?[/in jest]
[[in jest]What they don't point fingers at you and yell pinko?[/in jest]
Because they would have to make the connection first. And when I do that for them, they usually do.
Ah so my giggling is ok then? ;)[[in jest]What they don't point fingers at you and yell pinko?[/in jest]Because they would have to make the connection first. And when I do that for them, they usually do.
Listen, buddy, I'm not the one calling myself the CRIMSON Jester. (Although I did have a long-lived and much beloved bard named the Crimson Masque.)
Listen, buddy, I'm not the one calling myself the CRIMSON Jester. (Although I did have a long-lived and much beloved bard named the Crimson Masque.)Ah so my giggling is ok then? ;)[[in jest]What they don't point fingers at you and yell pinko?[/in jest]Because they would have to make the connection first. And when I do that for them, they usually do.
It's just conservative crimson not commie crimson. :P
It's just conservative crimson not commie crimson. :PListen, buddy, I'm not the one calling myself the CRIMSON Jester. (Although I did have a long-lived and much beloved bard named the Crimson Masque.)Ah so my giggling is ok then? ;)[[in jest]What they don't point fingers at you and yell pinko?[/in jest]Because they would have to make the connection first. And when I do that for them, they usually do.
Oh, are you a Harvard man?
What I don't understand is how "liberal" and "conservative" became opposites, because realistically they shouldn't be, because the're measures on totally different scales.
"Liberal" should be the opposite of "authoritarian."
"Conservative" would then be the opposite of "progressive" (and the latter shouldn't be a synonym for "liberal," even though it's used that way).
And none of those describe fiscal measures, which should get two more scales ("tax-and-benefit" vs. "spendthrift" and also "corporate freedom" vs. "citizen and worker protection").
Bitter Thorn: You have your own political terminology. Duly noted.
The problem with inventing your own language, of course, is that you will tend to be misunderstood.
That being said, I find the equation of socialism with statism/corporatism (as in, "Bush/Dole/W are socialists") a little on the ridiculous side. If socialism refers to anything, it refers to a collectivized economy in which the means of production are owned in common. This, in my opinion, prima facie rules out all Republicans and 99.99% of Democrats from being considered socialists.
Anyway, as I said earlier, being a "far leftist" myself, I chafe under the idea that the New York Times, or CNN or any other major American media outlet expresses my views. Because they don't.
In theory the people own the means of production and the apparatus of the state in most socialist models, but it seems to me that in the history of socialism in practice the state rather than the people own or control the means of production. In theory power should be decentralized away from an authoritarian bureaucracy at some stage of the revolution, but in practice the party and the state seem to retain and increase their own power in the name of the people while rendering the people and the individual increasingly powerless. Therefore I view socialist and communist models as being just as statist as fascist and corporatist models in practice if not in what they espouse. In spite of their proclaimed philosophy or values it seems to me that there was little practical difference between living under Hitler versus Stalin or a right wing third world dictator versus a left wing third world dictator. I think this has been a serious failure of the left versus right liner model for a long time.
I tend to agree with the premise that government control of the means of production still tends to fall into the category of socialism even if the state does not "own" the means of production per se.
So while I understand your objection to my more general use of the term socialist. I would tend to agree with many self identified socialist that they are indeed socialists while you would not. Of course their political philosophy wouldn't sound much like your, so it's understandable that you would chafe at socialist being applied to all of you.
It annoys me that big government neocons who start preemptive wars like W are called conservatives and people assume I have the same values as him.
I'm not sure what best fix is, but I will endeavor to be more descriptive.
What I don't understand is how "liberal" and "conservative" became opposites, because realistically they shouldn't be, because the're measures on totally different scales.
"Liberal" should be the opposite of "authoritarian."
"Conservative" would then be the opposite of "progressive" (and the latter shouldn't be a synonym for "liberal," even though it's used that way).And none of those describe fiscal measures, which should get two more scales ("tax-and-benefit" vs. "spendthrift" and also "corporate freedom" vs. "citizen and worker protection").
It doesn't help at all that so much of the political terminology in our history is intended to mislead rather than be descriptive or precise.
It annoys me that big government neocons who start preemptive wars like W are called conservatives and people assume I have the same values as him.I'm not sure what best fix is, but I will endeavor to be more descriptive.
I fail to see what the problem is with Libertarian or Minarchist with an explanation that Minarchist is like a Libertarian that still believes in some minimal government for those that don't know what it is. I mean if the problem is that people don't know what your talking about then its hardly improved by you making up your own lingo that does not jive with what people presume you mean.
If you stick to labels like Libertarian or Minarchist at least those that do know what your talking about can follow along - or they can look the terms up on Wikipedia and then follow along.
Yeah, I get the same responses when I tell people I'm a Trotskyist.I try to skirt around these sorts of problems by describing myself as "socially anti-authoritarian" and "fiscally hard-headed," but then no one knows what the hell I'm talking about.LOL!
If I say I'm a minarchist I'm likely to get that "deer in the headlights" look.
Me, I'm a Tolkienist.
It annoys me that big government neocons who start preemptive wars like W are called conservatives and people assume I have the same values as him.I'm not sure what best fix is, but I will endeavor to be more descriptive.
I fail to see what the problem is with Libertarian or Minarchist with an explanation that Minarchist is like a Libertarian that still believes in some minimal government for those that don't know what it is. I mean if the problem is that people don't know what your talking about then its hardly improved by you making up your own lingo that does not jive with what people presume you mean.
If you stick to labels like Libertarian or Minarchist at least those that do know what your talking about can follow along - or they can look the terms up on Wikipedia and then follow along.
I'll see what I can do for you, but it's hardly like there is some universal precise linguistic standard that I violated and made up some whole new set of terminology out of whole clothe. Right and left as well as conservative and liberal mean different things in different times and places. What we call classic liberals in the US are what used to be called liberals before contemporary liberals (who we just call liberals now) co-opted the term. The term liberal also has significantly different meanings in Canada, the UK, and Australia as I understand.
I believe I have made a good faith effort to explain different views and uses of these political terms as well as how I view and use some of this political terminology. Mine may be a minority view, but I'm not making all of this up out of the blue.
DA says, "This, in my opinion, prima facie rules out all Republicans and 99.99% of Democrats from being considered socialists."
I understand his objection, but tens of millions of Americans disagree with his strict definition of socialism, and they would find his narrow definition silly. That doesn't mean his objection is not reasonably grounded in political science, but its practical usefulness is limited.
Likewise I think G W Bush is a socialist because he expanded programs I believe are socialist and he bailed out failing enterprises and partially nationalized trillions in assets IMO. Many tens of millions of Americans disagree with my use of the term socialism, and they probably think I'm just throwing bombs (metaphorically), but a few million American agree with me. That doesn't mean that I can't make a cogent argument that GW is a socialist that is grounded in political science.
I will try to be more descriptive, but I'm hardly making this up out of whole clothe.
The original objection by DA was that (virtually?) none of the major American media outlets or politicians are far left. I disagree and many tens of millions of American disagree. If definitions are driven by common usage then this seems relevant.
I don't mean to seem defensive, but I didn't exactly violate a mathematical formula.
I do plead guilty to some lazy writing and imprecise expression.
Have I explained were I am coming from in a reasonably clear way? I get the feeling that I may not be doing a great job, and I really am trying.
It doesn't help at all that so much of the political terminology in our history is intended to mislead rather than be descriptive or precise.What I don't understand is how "liberal" and "conservative" became opposites, because realistically they shouldn't be, because the're measures on totally different scales.
"Liberal" should be the opposite of "authoritarian."
"Conservative" would then be the opposite of "progressive" (and the latter shouldn't be a synonym for "liberal," even though it's used that way).And none of those describe fiscal measures, which should get two more scales ("tax-and-benefit" vs. "spendthrift" and also "corporate freedom" vs. "citizen and worker protection").
Like progress versus congress? ;-)
It annoys me that big government neocons who start preemptive wars like W are called conservatives and people assume I have the same values as him.I'm not sure what best fix is, but I will endeavor to be more descriptive.
I fail to see what the problem is with Libertarian or Minarchist with an explanation that Minarchist is like a Libertarian that still believes in some minimal government for those that don't know what it is. I mean if the problem is that people don't know what your talking about then its hardly improved by you making up your own lingo that does not jive with what people presume you mean.
If you stick to labels like Libertarian or Minarchist at least those that do know what your talking about can follow along - or they can look the terms up on Wikipedia and then follow along.
BTW Libertarians are not anarchist.
Like progress versus congress? ;-)It doesn't help at all that so much of the political terminology in our history is intended to mislead rather than be descriptive or precise.What I don't understand is how "liberal" and "conservative" became opposites, because realistically they shouldn't be, because the're measures on totally different scales.
"Liberal" should be the opposite of "authoritarian."
"Conservative" would then be the opposite of "progressive" (and the latter shouldn't be a synonym for "liberal," even though it's used that way).And none of those describe fiscal measures, which should get two more scales ("tax-and-benefit" vs. "spendthrift" and also "corporate freedom" vs. "citizen and worker protection").
Poly-ticks ;)