Point taken, but today's liberal is a full blown socialist. Most of them approaching or have become flat out communists, hellbent on "fairness" in taking from the producers and giving to the consumers no matter how much damage is done to the producer's ability to... produce.
Point taken, but today's liberal is a full blown socialist. Most of them approaching or have become flat out communists, hellbent on "fairness" in taking from the producers and giving to the consumers no matter how much damage is done to the producer's ability to... produce.
Yeah, I could ramble for awhile using philosophical rhetoric i learned in a mad scramble to mix the knowledge of a bunch of 101 classes to sound intellectual, but without mentioning any specifics i'd be just a windbag moron. Like you.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,818
- 8,411
- 136
That's a bad joke. Fox is FAR more right and FAR more widespread than MSNBC.
You're talking about a network (MSNBC) that took its token liberal show, Phil Donahue, and forced him to put on two pro-war guests for every anti-war, until cancelling him.
Because despite being their top rated show, they did not want *one* anti-war show on.
They're frickin owned by one of the largest corporations - GE - a major defense contractor, and Microsoft who donated millions to elect GWB.
They have had all kinds of far right radical commentators dominating shows.
So they're going through a phase now to let some liberal content on now - Keith Olbermann, who has been the one liberal voice, and just added a second, Rachel Maddows.
That hardly makes the universally corporatized networks a 'tie' for right and left. Two shows.
A term coined by the Neocons such as Rush and Hannity.
It's a 110% bold faced lie because the majority of the media has been purchased by the Neocons such as Robert Murdock and Crap Channel.
Eskimo probably thinks NPR is "middle of the road". You arent going to win this one against blind partisans. He thinks people are born with a political disposition.
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
It pretty much is. They have a liberal and conservative guest to discuss almost any major news piece, and they frequently have administration officials and legislators on their shows. I don't listen to it that much but I do remember a show they did on the two campaigns' outreach to Evangelical Christians. The host talked first to a staffer from the Obama campaign, then a staffer from the McCain campaign, asking pointed questions of both.
Fox News often ignores news reports that in any way harm the Republican platform and concentrate on news reports that in any way benefit it.
How could you honestly believe that Fox News' commentators are the problem? The executives send memos directing which reports should be run based on a conservative political agenda. This has been proven time and time again. Anyone who claims the contrary is blatantly ignoring the evidence.
I do think that NPR is middle of the road, maybe if you tried listening to it once in awhile you would say the same. (as do peer reviewed academic studies on the subject). What's awesome is that you follow that up with a statement about 'blind partisans'. If you think NPR is liberally biased, there's a really good chance you're a blind partisan yourself.
I guess in short what I'm going to say is that if you think it's liberal, put up some peer reviewed evidence or shut your mouth.
I'm sure everyone is a communist when you're a hardcore Republican fascist.
For a few minutes, I'm going to pretend to speak for liberals everywhere. Just play along. I shouldn't have to note that these are just my observations, but some of the readers here won't be able to figure that out on their own.
Most liberals are 'live and let live' types that support liberty (thus the term liberal) and don't like being fucked by their government for no reason. Some of them are anti-gun, some of them are anti-war, but in general most of them just want a system of government that won't fuck them in the ass at every opportunity, or at least a government that uses lube (which the neocons are against for 'moral' reasons, but last I checked they used a pretty messed up definition of morality)
Economically speaking, the rich SHOULD pay a greater share, and there is strong economic reasoning behind this: the poor spend a greater percentage of their wealth. If you give a $5k rebate to every poor person in America (less than $40k/yr salary), you're effectively pumping that money directly into the economy. If you give that money to people who make $100k/yr or more, very little of that money is spent or invested in anything. Cutting the taxes of the rich has been proven by historical example to not have a positive benefit on the economy.
I'm not suggesting that the rich be made poor, I'm suggesting that cutting their taxes makes no sense from an economic point of view. Considering the greater percentage of wealth that they will simply never spend, it's far wiser to keep their taxes higher. I'm sorry, I don't want to provide disincentives for seeking wealth, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want to seek more wealth no matter how high taxes are. Besides, given our fucked up tax code, the rich actually pay much less than they like to let on. It's still a huge percentage of the government's income, but it could be much, much worse.
Most of us don't give a shit about guns, just don't let crazy people have them. If you want a fully automatic 50 cal machine gun, you're crazy. Even a 4 year-old could tell you that. None of us really know where the sanity line is for gun ownership, but it's definitely NOT there. If you really want to buy that shit, keep it in your basement or something.
Most of us don't think the government should be making moral decisions, especially regarding abortion, euthanasia, marriage, etc. etc. Leave that up to the individual, please. No one is forcing your daughter to get an abortion. Live and let live, people. I don't understand how the Republicans can fuck this up so badly.
We don't want to get involved in a war without some sort of really good reason and undeniable proof. I didn't think the conservatives were into that either, but I guess I was wrong.
We don't think we need a military budget that matches the rest of the world's combined. That's just fucking ridiculous. Let's cut some of the fat there. I'm talking about a few million here, a few million there, there has to be a lot of corrupt bullshit going on there just like any other overinflated government program.
Also, let's cut some of the fat within the government. This is insane. Keep some domestic spending programs (support kids that want a college education but can't afford it, support science, support infrastructure repair and development), but we have a lot of bullshit floating around just sucking up funds for no reason. Let's start getting rid of it. And guess what? By supporting science, you're supporting military research! Hooray, we can have our cake AND eat it, too! How did Congress fuck this up last year? Yes, I'm aware that the Democrats control Congress (by only ~ 30 seats in the House), but this is a bipartisan issue. Both sides are guilty of undercutting science and education, the two most important establishments that our nation has.
We need a REALISTIC energy plan. Drilling for oil is not the end-all solution. We need real alternative energy solutions. Biofuel is fine for the states that grow too much damn corn as it is (and a good reason to stop subsidizing corn). Let's get some big solar plants going in the southwest (anyone who argues against solar is citing problems that were solved in the early 90s) and nuclear for the rest of us. WE NEED NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS GOD DAMN IT! Every time I hear the words 'clean coal' I want to punch someone in the mouth. This may work for states like West Virginia, where coal is practically bursting from the mountains, but most of the nation needs something better (ie nuclear).
I'm sure there's a lot more that I can say, but this has been one long rambling post and should have ended 3 paragraphs ago. Anyway, the point is that people who think like Duwelon are wrong. The socialists all moved to Europe AGES ago. He doesn't realize this, but the liberals in this country are closer to the conservatives of Europe. The conservatives here are just so far from center that they don't realize where center is anymore and assume that anyone near it or on the left must be a full-blown communist.
</ShittyRant>
Using your example, O'Reilly always has a leftie and right-winger on his show to bounce things off of. I'm sure you think he is "middle of the road" then? Give me a break.
No, on NPR they actually allow their guests to talk. The shows are guest driven, not host driven. This is why O'Reilly when he has guests on from both sides is still ultra conservative (as the host spends most of the time talking) and why NPR can be neutral, because the guests are the focus.
Just admit it. NPR is not liberal unless you're on the far, far right.
That's absolutely, laughably absurd. Only a person who had no idea what a socialist or a communist is would say that about 'today's liberal'. Educate yourself on the terms before you go off on these foamy mouthed rants.
The "liberal" party in America today is center right by world standards.
By "world standards"? Ill have to tell that to a Saudi guy I work with, he'll have a good laugh.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Considering that Saudi Arabia is one of the most extreme right-wing countries on the planet, I'm sure he will.
The problem with Duwelon's insistence that today's liberals are full blown socialists is that today's liberals, just like yesterday liberals, believe in capitalist economies and private ownership. While socialism and communism, both by definition, believe in public ownership of essentially everything (with other issues making up the differences between those 2). This is an extreme philosophical difference between liberalism and socialism/communism that cannot possibly be bridged in the way Duwelon described.
Really, the only differences between modern liberal progressives and modern liberal conservatives in the US (and those are the actual labels for we shorthand call liberal and conservatives) are between calls for government intervention in economic issues and calls for government intervention in social/personal issues. Liberals tend to favor the former, while conservatives tend to favor the latter, from left to right. Just how much or how little of this government intervention they favor then makes another dimension from authoritarian/populist to libertarian (and yes, there are right-wing populists and there are left-wing libertarians).
The Democratic party in the US is centrist by world standards. It believes in free markets, private property, and privately-owned businesses. It's mildly populist on economic issues but relatively libertarian on most social issues. The party even has a sizable conservative minority.
More to the point, this thing about there being a liberal party and a conservative party in the US is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, party membership in the US relied more on geography than ideology, and there tended to be a mostly equal number of liberals and conservatives in each party. I don't think that really changed until Reagan.
And look, both parties have their fair share of wackos. If you're gonna point at some socialists on the far left who vote Dem in order to claim that the Dems are socialists, then I'll point out that Neo-Nazis and the KKK vote Republican. Unfair, you say? Well, duh.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:laugh: Another thread by a liberal trying to say the media isn't liberal.
Meh... it's not even worth the discussion because most of you wouldn't acknowledge the truth no matter what the facts are.
Meh... it's not even worth the discussion because most of you wouldn't acknowledge the truth no matter what the facts are.
Good idea...and it will save you a lot of effort to not have to invent all those facts in the first place!
If you take out the commentators from Fox News, or any cable news (morning news shows as well), and all you have are commercials. If I ever turned on one of those channels, I'd be shocked to see an actual news story.
Anything that's critical of the Bush Administration, past Republicans, their friends, their dogs, etc...
I would expect some Bush bashing at a 27% approval rating.
There were plenty of 'kids' out there bashing Jimmy Carter as well.... it has nothing to do with partisanship, but everything to do with the PISS POOR JOB he has done as pres.
Face it Duwelon.... the world is ending in a massive liberal amraggeddon!!!!!!! Get your shotgun man!
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:laugh: .... :roll:
Some of us can see reality despite our ideology. FOXNews is not centrist, just as the others are not centrist.
I wonder what these hardcore right winged blowhards on this forum consider right wing media if FOX is 'fair and balanced'
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter