2012 Presidential Race

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

28th September 2012, 01:49
Don Capps

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

Here you go DonCapps...

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...Rules/jobs.jpg

It would be quite an understatement to say that I am very unimpressed and rather underwhelmed.

How lame and infantile.

This is political campaign fodder and not thought.

By the way, you can think, can't you?

It would be an insult to the box of rocks that one could use as a comparison to the perceived abilities you continue to demonstrate when it comes to the process of actually thinking and expressing thoughts that are either simplistic blather or the sort of mindless garbage that one parrots from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or O'Reilly.

Once upon there were conservatives whose ideas were well-thought out as well as being well-articulated. Whether one agreed with those ideas or not, one certainly did respect the fact that much thought and consideration -- and intelligence -- had gone into them. They made one think and ponder the ideas and the consequences of those ideas. They were not the sort of mindless drivel that you and others spew forth into the increasing toxic sewer that the American political process has become. While I may have rarely agreed with Bill Buckley, I certainly respected his opinions and carefully considered his ideas. The Republican Party and conservatives of all stripes were not mindless, unthinking idiots whose

Plus, you seem to have avoided providing an answer to what happens when Obama is re-elected. The Republicans secede from reality? Oh, sorry! that has already happened in many cases. As you were. The Republicans in Congress suddenly begin to embrace the concept of governing for all rather the plutocrats? The Supreme Court recognizes its error in the Citizens United case and reverses itself? Wall Street is reined in and sanity -- or something as close as can found -- returns to the financial markets? Grover Norquist is struck by lightning when Congress finally raises taxes to actually address the issue of debt rather than pander to the monied interests? The sky falls? The oceans roil? The color red disappears?

Step up your game. Man up. Show everyone you have something besides air holding your ears apart. Support Romney and the Republican campaign by providing convincing arguments -- concepts, ideas, reasons -- as to why people should be for him. Being against Obama is not the same as being for Romney, although that is the simplistic notion that seems to be operating at the moment. Use words that convince and not vitriol for a change. Defend your side for a change rather than continue to recklessly attack Obama and the Democrats -- my goodness, plankton can do that. Show that you are a cognitive being rather than someone whose brain got fried by watching too much television, especially Faux News.
28th September 2012, 02:23
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Well, I'm sure it's wrong to tar all American media with the same brush. I wouldn't say that NPR treats its audience with such contempt, for instance. And there is an extent to which a certain section of any population gets the media it deserves. This is certainly true in the UK, and, judging by some of what we see on here, for instance, it must be in the US too. How else can one explain avid consumers of Fox?

Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media, just on the other side. NPR is hardly the epitome of inbiased reporting either. They are more "liberal" than the other outlets. All of that is not new of course. Media outlets, of all stripes, have been biased for a long time.
28th September 2012, 12:34
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media, just on the other side. NPR is hardly the epitome of inbiased reporting either. They are more "liberal" than the other outlets. All of that is not new of course. Media outlets, of all stripes, have been biased for a long time.

I respectfully disagree. I have never seen any news outlet as biased to the left as is Fox, and none of which I can think is quite as — what's the word? — bonkers.
28th September 2012, 13:42
Rollo

Where one stands depends mainly on where one sits. To wit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media, just on the other side. NPR is hardly the epitome of inbiased reporting either. They are more "liberal" than the other outlets. All of that is not new of course. Media outlets, of all stripes, have been biased for a long time.

I bet if we took a straw poll of everyone on these fora who lives outside of the United States, the general suggestion would be that the entire of American politics and media generally is shifted to the right. The fact that you say that "Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media" indicates that what Americans perceive to be the centre of politics is different to the rest of the world.

The output of NPR which we get in Australia, appears on the ABC which is a government owned and run media network and even then most of what NPR still appears slightly to the right of centre. PBS Newshour, which shows on SBS in Australia which is a part-public/private venture, for the most part appears centrist when compared to the Australian media landscape.

I'd go so far as to say that the funding models of the ABC in Australia and especially the BBC in Britain would scare and be heavily resisted if they were attempted in the US.

And if it helps as far as I can make out the term "liberal" as applied in US politics and media, acts as a code word in place of "people and things I don't like". It certainly doesn't appear to have the same definition as economists have; hence the reason why the Liberal Party in Australia is named for the older definition of the word.
Incidentally the Liberal Party of Australia, the Conservative and Unionist Party of the UK (proper name) and the Republican Party of the US are all members of the International Democrat Union which is a centre-right international alliance of conservative parties; probably blurs the term even further.
28th September 2012, 14:05
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

The fact that you say that "Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media" indicates that what Americans perceive to be the centre of politics is different to the rest of the world.

A lot of right-leaning people in Europe would baulk at Fox, just as they baulk at the Republicans generally.
28th September 2012, 14:18
Don Capps

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Fox is not much more biased than the other major TV media, just on the other side. NPR is hardly the epitome of inbiased (sic) reporting either. They are more "liberal" than the other outlets. All of that is not new of course. Media outlets, of all stripes, have been biased for a long time.

I would suggest that this is an opinion that some might disagree with, or at least question how bias is defined.

One of the interesting aspects regarding NPR, which tends to have its reporting automatically labeled as "liberal," is that it is nearly always several (more like many) notches intellectually above that of the other media. This may also be applied to the PBS News Hour. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in the US.

Fox News is a media hybrid attempting to provide both news and serve as a platform for opinions reflecting that of its owner and management. Those opinons are much more pronounced and readily identified than any bias that can be found in the major networks. Although Fox News does attempt to report most news in a straight-forward manner, its selection and coverage can drift towards the ideological biases of the opinion part of the organization. The content of Fox News reflects the political views of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, none of the other news media outlets (the networks, CNN) serve as party organs; so there is bias and Bias, if you will.

To shift the discussion to another track: It could be suggested that people are suffering from Campaign Fatigue. The overly long, seemingly endless crawl to the Republican nomination with its endless and intellectually vacant debates, ersatz issues, inept candidates, and mind-numbing rhetoric has probably worked against Romney. It is more that Romney stumbled to the nomination, surviving the winnowing of a field that, frankly, was not only weak, but devoid of anything remotely resembling the sort of folks one could imagine being in the White House other than being on a tour. That Romney flipped and flopped and did what was convenient to capture a nomination that was, given the opposition, his for the asking, resulted in a Romney that is far removed from the Romney that once existed. By drifting so far to the right and away from many of his former positions during the process of gaining the nomintion, it may be that Romney forfeited any real chance of victory in November.

Under normal circumstances, this election should not even be close, yet it is becoming clear that Romney and the Republicans may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Indeed, one question that occurs to me is just what happens to the Republican Party after the election when -- not if as one might have suggested several weeks ago -- Romney loses? The question becomes even more interesting if the margins of the Republicans in the House and Senate are reduced significantly. Will they give in to the urge to be even more disruptive or begin to grasp the concept of governing by finding mutual solutions through compromise? One tends to think it will be the former, but stranger things have happened. There is still the question of whether the Republicans will continue their slide to the right or being to move back towards the middle. As a party composed largely of whites and opposed almost by reflex to the concept of the commonwealth, the notion of there being interests greater than own own, how the Republicans face the future is going to determine its role in shaping the way forward. If the GOP continues to drift to the right and reject/ignore the reality of a changed American culture, one senses that it will be shaken up by forces that will either fracture the party or pull it together.

The leanings of the GOP towards a theocratic philosophy of governance is certainly at odds with what the Founding Fathers envisioned, should one care to take the time to examine the record. Few do, of course. Similarly, that the GOP has embraced plutocracy as a pillar of its beliefs, despite many in its numbers being the victims of the greed that results, suggests that there may be disconnects within the party that might be a latent factor leading to discord in the future. Even lemmings have mavericks.

Someone once observed that Sacred Cows make the best burgers. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are going to have to both accept that each will have to toss some of their sacred cows on the barbeque grill in the coming years. Raising taxes and cutting/reducing programs seem to be blinding flashes of the obvious to even The Untrained Eye. Doing so at all, much less wisely, seems beyond the ability of the American political system at the moment. That should be a sobering thought to one and all, yet we stumble along bickering and arguing over what are really petty issues. Then again, this has been going on for some time, with sufficient blame to spread around so that no one is spared, which does mean that some do not deserve more than others, of course. That said, the Blame Game is easy, governing is hard.

So it goes.
28th September 2012, 15:18
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Capps

One of the interesting aspects regarding NPR, which tends to have its reporting automatically labeled as "liberal," is that it is nearly always several (more like many) notches intellectually above that of the other media. This may also be applied to the PBS News Hour. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in the US.

I couldn't agree more, and I wouldn't apply this trend solely to the US. There is definitely a certain section of opinion on the right that would dismiss the likes of NPR as being 'liberal', or 'left-wing', merely because of that more intellectual approach. Leaving aside how the BBC is funded, which is, of course, often a target for the right, the more rigorous, questioning nature of the best of its current affairs programming leads on occasion to the same criticisms. It's nonsense, of course.
28th September 2012, 15:27
BDunnell

In fact, regarding the BBC, it could be argued that in recent times it has become ever more of a mouthpiece for whatever the government of the day might be, so afraid is it now to offend, but this is another issue entirely.
28th September 2012, 15:32
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Capps

I would suggest that this is an opinion that some might disagree with, or at least question how bias is defined.

The term "yellow journalism" goes back to the 19th century and is an example of media bias then. Not the first instance here either. Various media like newspapers (then) and electronic forms always reflect to some degree the opinions and agendas of their owners.

Quote:

One of the interesting aspects regarding NPR, which tends to have its reporting automatically labeled as "liberal," is that it is nearly always several (more like many) notches intellectually above that of the other media. This may also be applied to the PBS News Hour. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in the US.

Some would say "intellectualism" others "eliteism".

Quote:

Fox News is a media hybrid attempting to provide both news and serve as a platform for opinions reflecting that of its owner and management. Those opinons are much more pronounced and readily identified than any bias that can be found in the major networks. Although Fox News does attempt to report most news in a straight-forward manner, its selection and coverage can drift towards the ideological biases of the opinion part of the organization. The content of Fox News reflects the political views of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, none of the other news media outlets (the networks, CNN) serve as party organs; so there is bias and Bias, if you will.

One of Fox's primary objectives is entertainment. Including the so called news departments. They succeed very well, given their ratings. I'd also note that you just contradicted yourself in your last sentence where you say Fox serves as a party organ after saying they "reflect the political views". One implys being part of that party as opposed to just agreeing with the party.

Quote:

To shift the discussion to another track: It could be suggested that people are suffering from Campaign Fatigue.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote:

Someone once observed that Sacred Cows make the best burgers. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are going to have to both accept that each will have to toss some of their sacred cows on the barbeque grill in the coming years. Raising taxes and cutting/reducing programs seem to be blinding flashes of the obvious to even The Untrained Eye.

Again, agree.
28th September 2012, 15:38
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Some would say "intellectualism" others "eliteism".

Why the problem with 'intellectualism'? This is a positive trait, surely? It only translates into 'elitism' if people can't be bothered to try and understand.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page