Be a Supporter!

rightward media bias

  • 1,198 Views
  • 47 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 09:55 AM Reply

Obama has come under fire from the center right and rightward for getting Osama Bin Laden and using it as part of his campaign. The short story is that once upon a time Mitt Romney said finding Osama Bin Laden was a waste of money and the POTUS put it in an advertisement. The right, of course, went nuts and a lot of media is carrying their water for them right now:

Media saying its wrong for Obama to tout the killing of Osama.

Remember way back in 2004? When we had this sort of thing going on: Politics of Fear.

Where is the line drawn? Why is it ok, even expected, for republicans to be the foreign policy party and that no matter what they do its ok, but if a democrat does it its meant to divide the country?

I mean, there's a right way to lead this country. We can either waste our time and resources and grow our deficit in places like Iraq. Or we can do the smart thing and pay a s**t ton less the way we did in Libya. (I concede that there's also the Ron Paul option of do nothing)

But, I'm just confused as to why our media spends its time calling out a president on campaigning this way when it is at least truthful. Last decade our leaders lied right to our faces, tried to scare us into submission, and wasted trillions of our dollars while letting the economy go to hell.

My position on this is that our media is totally out of whack. They aren't a liberal organization. If anything their commitment to "balance" has made them out to be conservative, since they seem to be completely unwilling to actually point the finger where it belongs.

When you get down to it, no one in the media is calling out republicans nearly as much as they should be. And the people calling out Obama now, are the same people who completely ignored or cheer leaded our way into Iraq.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 10:43 AM Reply

At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
My position on this is that our media is totally out of whack. They aren't a liberal organization. If anything their commitment to "balance" has made them out to be conservative, since they seem to be completely unwilling to actually point the finger where it belongs.

Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.

For instance: You're still a fucking idoit.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 10:45 AM Reply

At 5/1/12 10:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.

Right, you resort to ad hominem attack and don't post on topic. See, things don't change at all. :D


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 11:33 AM Reply

Meh. This is nothing other than simple politics.

If I can read numerous different sources and have some articles be too conservative and others be too liberal that means that media definitely is not stilted only to the right.

Frankly, if the media is stilted anywhere, it's to the vapid. I see more articles pandering to the stupid and those of short attention span than I see articles clearly leaning left or right.

In the end, there ARE people going after those who are being hypocritical on both sides. You just need to look in the right place. Chris Matthews and John Stewart are two places you can look if you're trying to find people skewering the Right when conservatives contradict themselves or their past policy.

At 5/1/12 10:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.

Like how you compensate for your inability to make a cogent point by randomly and indiscriminately insulting those who disagree with you?

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 12:10 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Like how you compensate for your inability to make a cogent point by randomly and indiscriminately insulting those who disagree with you?

Only to people who are truly as stupid as the both of you.

The world doesn't need jackasses who are either ignorant or selective with their beliefs.

Like you, who supports Government funding for something not in the Constitution, but actively campaigns against funding for something that is.

Or Gum here who still believes the media tilts overall to the right when numerous studies (that have been repeatedly posted to death) have indicated heavily otherwise.

The funny part is, he's seen ALL of these studies before in all the years we've been here, and he still ignores it simply because he doesn't like the facts.

It has nothing to do with him having an opinion. It has to do with his opinions being blatantly retarded.

If 2 + 2 = 4 and he runs around saying it really equals 5 and that it's his "opinion"; then his "opinion" is both wrong and stupid.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 01:40 PM Reply

You know we have a rightward media bias when the media has convinced us that Obama is a liberal president.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Kidradd
Kidradd
  • Member since: May. 20, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 01:54 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 12:10 PM, Memorize wrote: The world doesn't need jackasses who are either ignorant or selective with their beliefs.

Like you, who supports Government funding for something not in the Constitution, but actively campaigns against funding for something that is.

Or Gum here who still believes the media tilts overall to the right when numerous studies (that have been repeatedly posted to death) have indicated heavily otherwise.

The funny part is, he's seen ALL of these studies before in all the years we've been here, and he still ignores it simply because he doesn't like the facts.

It has nothing to do with him having an opinion. It has to do with his opinions being blatantly retarded.

If 2 + 2 = 4 and he runs around saying it really equals 5 and that it's his "opinion"; then his "opinion" is both wrong and stupid.

its nice how you just come here only to post about a personal grudge you have against someone and offer nothing to the actual discussion. who is the jackass here, again?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 04:04 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 01:40 PM, MrFlopz wrote: You know we have a rightward media bias when the media has convinced us that Obama is a liberal president.

Well, when the comparison is people like Santorum, Ryan, Bachmann, Perry and so on...

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 04:32 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 04:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/1/12 01:40 PM, MrFlopz wrote: You know we have a rightward media bias when the media has convinced us that Obama is a liberal president.
Well, when the comparison is people like Santorum, Ryan, Bachmann, Perry and so on...

This assumes that a liberal position is subjective and not a quantitative set of positions. Obama is not liberal. He's a "New Democrat" that basically means a centrist that likes big business but still wants to protect big government. He doesn't actually govern from a liberal standpoint with any consistancy, though he does occasionally campaign on those principals.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Kidradd
Kidradd
  • Member since: May. 20, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 04:36 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 04:32 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
At 5/1/12 04:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/1/12 01:40 PM, MrFlopz wrote: You know we have a rightward media bias when the media has convinced us that Obama is a liberal president.
Well, when the comparison is people like Santorum, Ryan, Bachmann, Perry and so on...
This assumes that a liberal position is subjective and not a quantitative set of positions. Obama is not liberal. He's a "New Democrat" that basically means a centrist that likes big business but still wants to protect big government. He doesn't actually govern from a liberal standpoint with any consistancy, though he does occasionally campaign on those principals.

the point is he is "to the left of republicans" but when using this scale, with the rise of libertarianism and the tea party and traditional establishment conservatives, he's either a radical socialist or a standard middle ground republican, depending on who you're comparing him to.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 04:45 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 04:36 PM, Kidradd wrote: the point is he is "to the left of republicans" but when using this scale, with the rise of libertarianism and the tea party and traditional establishment conservatives, he's either a radical socialist or a standard middle ground republican, depending on who you're comparing him to.

Then you need to be far more specific or what you say is relatively useless perhaps could lead to confusion.

IE, I could say the sky 6'9'' instead of saying its really really big. And while its true that 6'9'' is bigger than I am when speaking in terms of height, it has absolutely nothing to do with the sky and conflates the meaning of 6'9''


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 04:46 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 04:32 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: This assumes that a liberal position is subjective and not a quantitative set of positions. Obama is not liberal. He's a "New Democrat" that basically means a centrist that likes big business but still wants to protect big government. He doesn't actually govern from a liberal standpoint with any consistancy, though he does occasionally campaign on those principals.

You're missing one vital component here, and perhaps the biggest gap between the current left and right. Obama is very socially liberal for politicians.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 04:58 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 04:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You're missing one vital component here, and perhaps the biggest gap between the current left and right. Obama is very socially liberal for politicians.

Maybe for elected politicians, but in the spectrum of actual politics, he's not very liberal at all. Again, if you want to make this subjective its going to lose its meaning and be a useless term.

You're welcome to point out all of Barack's liberal ideas though. Good luck. Most of the policy implemented in the last 4 years has been discarded heritage foundation junk, including, but not limited to, the so-called "obama care."


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 06:39 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 04:58 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
You're welcome to point out all of Barack's liberal ideas though. Good luck. Most of the policy implemented in the last 4 years has been discarded heritage foundation junk, including, but not limited to, the so-called "obama care."

Obamacare
Stimulus
Auto Bail out
Bank Bail out
Expanding wars in Middle East
Increased border bombings in Middle Eastern Countries
Renewal of the Patriot Act
Claims and has targeted Americans for assassination (including a 16 yr old)
Against gay marriage
Continued Support of Drug war

A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.

The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?

Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 08:01 PM Reply

I feel like I'm this guy:

(Except you guys are having a rational debate on this, so I mean no offense)

rightward media bias


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 1st, 2012 @ 08:26 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 06:39 PM, Memorize wrote:
At 5/1/12 04:58 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
You're welcome to point out all of Barack's liberal ideas though. Good luck. Most of the policy implemented in the last 4 years has been discarded heritage foundation junk, including, but not limited to, the so-called "obama care."
Obamacare

Heritage Foundation

Stimulus

Worked out under Bush

Auto Bail out

Hardly liberal and barely socialist in nature. Keynesian, maybe, but everyone was Keynesian up until recently.

Bank Bail out

Really not liberal the way it worked out. In fact it was just way to friendly towards the banks. Not enough oversite or anything, just a hand out of money. It was a centrist half move.

Expanding wars in Middle East

If anything this could be a war hawk movie, but you'd have to get into more of the why & how it happened. I'd certainly say that the Libyan war was more liberal than the iraq war in execution; BUT, I wouldn't call it liberal.

Increased border bombings in Middle Eastern Countries

Again, not a liberal policy at all. Its just a security policy, one that even Bush might have made. It has nothing to do liberal ideas, but instead the progression of the war.

Renewal of the Patriot Act

Very un-liberal. In fact, its down right conservative.

Claims and has targeted Americans for assassination (including a 16 yr old)

Again, very un-liberal. Its a very rightward move.

Against gay marriage

Again, a very right side of the aisle position, although for his sake its mostly personal. I don't believe he'd actually veto a gay marriage bill if it came across his desk, even if he agreed with the people who wanted him to veto it on a personal level.

Continued Support of Drug war

Most liberals are considered hippies, and drugster hippies at that. I don't get what you're saying.

A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.

Um no. Big Government =/= liberal. There's conservative big government as well. It generally takes on McCarthiest shades. It generally supports wars of aggression or choice. And generally, it has to do with implementing religious styled values that suppress minorities.

The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?

Obama is considered a "Great Guy" because he goes about the implementation in a different way. He doesn't our allies off, he's not combative, he doesn't flex his muscles for show, and he's generally an intelligent guy.

However, in the liberal community people aren't exactly happy with him. We'd rather have a real liberal in charge who advanced a liberal agenda. That said, we'd rather have Obama, even if he is republican-light over someone as crazy as McCain or Palin, and certainly over someone who is openly pro-business and anti-small guy the way Romney is.

I could list a bunch of things Obama has done wrong or insufficiently and many of them are in the list above, but also include the lowering of taxes, the inability to tax the rich at a rate comparable to the rest of us, the inability to put secure financial regulation back in place, the failure to progress the sciences, and the failure to really support equal rights for the LGBT community outside of don't ask, don't tell (perhaps the most liberal thing he has supported).

Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.

Not really. Bush is fairly moderate as far as republicans go in my opinion as well. He's just an idiot, which is why a lot of people don't like him. A lot of his policies which were definitely right of moderate, but more moderate than what many republicans would have instituted were the cause of this horrible crash. Obama's very centrist position has only stabilized the country, it hasn't done much if anything to fix our woes and cause a comeback.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 12:44 AM Reply

At 5/1/12 06:39 PM, Memorize wrote:
A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.

wrong on that one chap, the correct term is STATIST. The media has a statist bias, they always favour giving the government more power while constantly whine and beg people not to allow the government to relinquish power.


The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?

the [idiots] who called Bush terrible call Obama great, and the [idiots] who called Obama terrible call Bush great. What always has been will always be.


Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.

There is no centre, there is no left or right, only right and wrong, free and unfree.

Here is what a Liberal REALLY looks like. But people have long since abandoned the notion of using words PROPERLY. I haven't, but that seems to be causing a lot of troubles for me.

rightward media bias


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 02:03 AM Reply

Any way you can link to that survey Iron Hampster? I wouldn't mind taking it.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:36 AM Reply

At 5/1/12 08:26 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Heritage Foundation

Don't care.

Getting the Government more involved in Healthcare is a liberal position.

Worked out under Bush

Yeah, because that Stimulus to prevent the economy from crashing sure did keep the economy from crashing.


Auto Bail out
Hardly liberal and barely socialist in nature. Keynesian, maybe, but everyone was Keynesian up until recently.

Corporatism, which is a form of socialism.

Although I do like how you only call bank bail outs "friendly."

I love it when two of the exact same policies are treated so differently in tone.

Really not liberal the way it worked out.

LOL

In fact it was just way to friendly towards the banks. Not enough oversite or anything, just a hand out of money. It was a centrist half move.

Certainly explains how with a Republican President that more of them would support it.

If anything this could be a war hawk movie, but you'd have to get into more of the why & how it happened. I'd certainly say that the Libyan war was more liberal than the iraq war in execution; BUT, I wouldn't call it liberal.

I like how you consider getting Congressional authorization to attack a country that posed no threat a "hawk move", but by-passing congress to get permission from the Arab League to be "more liberal."

They're both basically the same, and they're both stupid.

Though the gullibility from you leftist types who actually believed Obama would be different, truly amuses me.

Again, not a liberal policy at all. Its just a security policy, one that even Bush might have made. It has nothing to do liberal ideas, but instead the progression of the war.

Convenient excuse to cover the ass of your Messiah.

Very un-liberal. In fact, its down right conservative.

Even though all the liberals voted for it at the time.

Again, very un-liberal. Its a very rightward move.

A move that no one on the right (or even Bush) claimed to have.

In fact, the only people I see defending it are liberals.

Don't get me wrong, I'd imagine the right doing the same if Bush did it.

Again, a very right side of the aisle position, although for his sake its mostly personal. I don't believe he'd actually veto a gay marriage bill if it came across his desk, even if he agreed with the people who wanted him to veto it on a personal level.

Despite ordering the Justice Dept to file against the Judge's motion to get rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' when a GAY REPUBLICAN GROUP won it.

Most liberals are considered hippies, and drugster hippies at that. I don't get what you're saying.

That the ban on pot started under FDR and all 4 of the liberal justices on SCOTUS ruled against a woman who grew pot in her own yard in a state where it was legal.

Um no. Big Government =/= liberal.

You're right.

But Liberals claim to want bigger Government, while Conservatives claim to want a smaller one.

I'm only going by what you claim to want.

There's conservative big government as well. It generally takes on McCarthiest shades. It generally supports wars of aggression or choice.

The irony of you using McCarthy when it was Lyndon Johnson who lied about Vietnam and got us into a war getting over 66,000 soldiers killed.

Obama is considered a "Great Guy" because he goes about the implementation in a different way.

You know what I said about being gullible before...

He doesn't our allies off, he's not combative, he doesn't flex his muscles for show, and he's generally an intelligent guy.

And yet he invades other countries, increases illegal drone strikes, renews the Patriot Act, claims he can assassinate American born citizens, all while refusing to take the nuclear option off the table for a piss poor, half baked nation like Iran who doesn't even have 1 nuke.

No, that's not flexing!


However, in the liberal community people aren't exactly happy with him.

No shit.

I didn't expect any consistency from you very people who only pretended to give a shit about civil rights, torture, and dying soldiers in pointless wars.

But I guess their lives were only worth getting a black guy elected.

After all, if you people truly cared, you'd still be protesting and demanding impeachment for getting more troops killed in his first 2 years in office than Bush did in all of his two terms.

We'd rather have a real liberal in charge who advanced a liberal agenda. That said, we'd rather have Obama, even if he is republican-light

See, this is why you're a fucking retarded, little bastard.

Practically everything Bush did was centered around big Government and more centralized Power. You people should absolutely love at least half of those things from Prescription Part D to federalizing Education.

The only reason why fucking stupid people like you can get away with calling other people "Extreme Republicans" is because your stupid ass considers him to be a moderate to begin with, when in reality he's a big Government, left wing, Republican.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 09:54 AM Reply

At 5/2/12 08:36 AM, Memorize wrote: Getting the Government more involved in Healthcare is a liberal position.

No.

Worked out under Bush
Yeah, because that Stimulus to prevent the economy from crashing sure did keep the economy from crashing.

The stimulus was meant to reverse the acceleration of the economy, which it did do. So, no.

Corporatism, which is a form of socialism.

Socialism: The state takes control of private property and distributes it as it sees fit.
Corporatism: Wealthy individuals with stakes in coorporations control everything. Plutocracy.

What you say does not compute.

I like how you consider getting Congressional authorization to attack a country that posed no threat a "hawk move", but by-passing congress to get permission from the Arab League to be "more liberal."

Don't believe I ever said that. You just did though. And it sounded stupid when you said it.

Even though all the liberals voted for it at the time.

There really aren't any liberals in congress who aren't named Bernie Sanders, and he's not liberal in every facet of what he does.

A move that no one on the right (or even Bush) claimed to have.

Except that by doing this Obama moved to a more conservative-hardline-authoritative position. That doesn't mean liberalism suddenly becomes something else, it means Obama does.

Obama (Anakin) sought out the dark-side. Liberals (Yoda & Obi-Wan) are still light side.

Again, a very right side of the aisle position, although for his sake its mostly personal. I don't believe he'd actually veto a gay marriage bill if it came across his desk, even if he agreed with the people who wanted him to veto it on a personal level.
Despite ordering the Justice Dept to file against the Judge's motion to get rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' when a GAY REPUBLICAN GROUP won it.

Because he believed he had to order the government to try and defend the laws since that's what the executive branch is supposed to do. The judicial and legislative branches are responsible for over turning piss-poor laws.

Its a morally shitty thing to do imo, but its constitutionally correct. Either way, its not a very liberal direction to take.

That the ban on pot started under FDR and all 4 of the liberal justices on SCOTUS ruled against a woman who grew pot in her own yard in a state where it was legal.

Because SCOTUS only cares about the constitutionalism of things. You don't and never did understand our government. Go back to Australia or Austria or where ever it is you live. Or am I thinking of Sadistic-Monkey? I never could tell the two of you apart sometimes.

But Liberals claim to want bigger Government, while Conservatives claim to want a smaller one.

Liberals want bigger government in some areas, but not in others. Liberals, for instance, hate the patriot act as much as libertarians, and that's because modern-day liberals are a splinter off of libertarianism that care a little bit more about social justice.

And conservatives may claim to want a smaller government, but you know they've never practiced what they preached.

The irony of you using McCarthy

This isn't tit for tat. McCarthy was staunchly authoritarian. It doesn't matter what other people did or do. He was an example. There is no irony here.

I didn't expect any consistency from you very people who only pretended to give a shit about civil rights, torture, and dying soldiers in pointless wars.

*yawn* its like you're insulting some phantom of who you think I am. I really don't care. You aren't pissing me off, but you're certainly wasting our time.

The rest of what you had to say I'm not even going to read. Too much garbage for me to bother trying to parse it. But you're right, things have changed much at all. Enjoy ranting while I stop replying to you. :)


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 10:58 AM Reply

At 5/2/12 09:54 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: No.

Actually, getting the government more involved is a liberal policy point. It has been for a long time.

The stimulus was meant to reverse the acceleration of the economy, which it did do. So, no.

The stimlulus actually did slow downt he crash of the economy. The political climate was not willing to swallow the amount of stimulus it would have taken to actually halt the crash.

Socialism: The state takes control of private property and distributes it as it sees fit.
Corporatism: Wealthy individuals with stakes in coorporations control everything. Plutocracy.

Maybe he's mixing up the words "socialism" with "socialite".


Except that by doing this Obama moved to a more conservative-hardline-authoritative position. That doesn't mean liberalism suddenly becomes something else, it means Obama does.
Obama (Anakin) sought out the dark-side. Liberals (Yoda & Obi-Wan) are still light side.

This point of view actually quite annoys me. When I hear this I imagine a guy and a girl sitting in a Stumptown Coffee (Starbucks is too mainstream) the guy adorned with everything REI, except for his shorts and kneehigh scoks under sandals, with his full beard and pea green beanie. The Girls wearing the newest American Apparel/Urban Outfitters (those companies aren't corporate at all) get up with unwashed hair and a knit cap. Well, these two in between vegan meals, are chatting over a 15 word coffee concoction about how the world would only be so much better had corporations never been concieved. They also rant about how the average American is too dumb to understand what OWS is all about and that is why the movement is underground (cause it sure didn't fail).

What I'm getting at here, it that this whole "Obama isn't liberal enough" smacks of someone who's bbeen in a cocoon for that past decade and has little connection to political reality. These people see massive opposigtion to the lighter liberal things Obama has done and don't see how Obama couldn't have forged ahead with the hispter delight dream politics.

Seriously, get your head out of the clouds and into reality.

Because he believed he had to order the government to try and defend the laws since that's what the executive branch is supposed to do. The judicial and legislative branches are responsible for over turning piss-poor laws.
Its a morally shitty thing to do imo, but its constitutionally correct. Either way, its not a very liberal direction to take.

Obama's doing something the SCOTUS Justices cannot seem to do; He's being an attorney first, and a liberal (or conservative for the 4.5 Justices) second.

Because SCOTUS only cares about the constitutionalism of things. You don't and never did understand our government. Go back to Australia or Austria or where ever it is you live. Or am I thinking of Sadistic-Monkey? I never could tell the two of you apart sometimes.

Legalization of marijuana isn't necessarily a lberal topic. There is a large devide within the liberal ranks. Apathy (live and let live) would be a better description of the liberal view on this subject.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 12:42 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, getting the government more involved is a liberal policy point. It has been for a long time.

Depends on the issue.

The stimlulus actually did slow downt he crash of the economy. The political climate was not willing to swallow the amount of stimulus it would have taken to actually halt the crash.

Right, I agree with you. But the stimulus wasn't enough and was bankrolled right and targeted a lot of things it shouldn't have, such as lowering taxes.

Maybe he's mixing up the words "socialism" with "socialite".

I think he's just inept, ignorant, and perhaps incapable of learning.

This point of view actually quite annoys me. When I hear this I imagine a guy and a girl sitting in a Stumptown Coffee (Starbucks is too mainstream) the guy adorned with everything REI, except for his shorts and kneehigh scoks under sandals, with his full beard and pea green beanie. The Girls wearing the newest American Apparel/Urban Outfitters (those companies aren't corporate at all) get up with unwashed hair and a knit cap. Well, these two in between vegan meals, are chatting over a 15 word coffee concoction about how the world would only be so much better had corporations never been concieved. They also rant about how the average American is too dumb to understand what OWS is all about and that is why the movement is underground (cause it sure didn't fail).

What I'm getting at here, it that this whole "Obama isn't liberal enough" smacks of someone who's bbeen in a cocoon for that past decade and has little connection to political reality. These people see massive opposigtion to the lighter liberal things Obama has done and don't see how Obama couldn't have forged ahead with the hispter delight dream politics.

W/e. While I acknowledge the political reality, that doesn't mean I have to be happy with what we got just because the right is ass backwards and this country forgot what liberalism really means.

Obama's doing something the SCOTUS Justices cannot seem to do; He's being an attorney first, and a liberal (or conservative for the 4.5 Justices) second.

Right, which is why I'm not hugely offended by the whole thing. Its not like he went around appointing judges in a political fashion the way Bush did.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 03:16 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Remember way back in 2004? When we had this sort of thing going on: Politics of Fear.

It's only "politics of fear" when it's inaccurate. The typical democrat position on foreign policy and counterterrorism in 2004 was to run away from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, repeal domestic security initiatives, even if they worked, and start treating terrorist detainees like normal soldiers. Regardless of whether you think these policies may have had other benefits, none of them furthered US security.

Where is the line drawn? Why is it ok, even expected, for republicans to be the foreign policy party and that no matter what they do its ok, but if a democrat does it its meant to divide the country?

When has it ever been ok? Don't you remember back in 2003 and 2004 how media people asked Bush or his spokesman if casualty reports weakened their resolve? Or how three or four reporters asked Bush if he had made any mistakes (ie "was going to Iraq a mistake") during that one press conference?
I myself haven't noticed any real difference in the war coverage, but I don't think it's bias for some reporters to question the wisdom of politicizing bin Laden. I don't think it's so easy to draw the line between what Bush did that helped get bin Laden and what Obama did. And I doubt voters will think it was a "gutsy call" to launch the raid (why have special forces at all if not for missions like that?).
Coupled with those stupid web ads suggesting that Romney wouldn't have gone after bin Laden, I don't think you have to be anti-Obama to point out the risks of seeming to take undue credit for his death.

Kidradd
Kidradd
  • Member since: May. 20, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 03:54 PM Reply

it's interesting that people still think republicans want small government and democrats want big government when if you look at the past 20 or so years this has clearly not been the case with the rise of neoconservatism (bush) and neoliberalism/new democrats (clinton, obama)

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:24 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 03:54 PM, Kidradd wrote: neoconservatism (bush) and neoliberalism/new democrats (clinton, obama)

These terms are annoying. Particularly because they falsely assume that poltics and social opinion isn't fluid.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:45 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 03:16 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Remember way back in 2004? When we had this sort of thing going on: Politics of Fear.
It's only "politics of fear" when it's inaccurate. The typical democrat position on foreign policy and counterterrorism in 2004 was to run away from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, repeal domestic security initiatives, even if they worked, and start treating terrorist detainees like normal soldiers. Regardless of whether you think these policies may have had other benefits, none of them furthered US security.

No, its not the truth value of something that makes the politics of fear wrong. In fact it was usually that the politics of fear weren't to scale of the problem.

Nor were we under direct threat of attack from some huge army. And Iraq was not even part of the terroristic network we were after. There has never been any proof that that country was involved. Invading Iraq did nothing to improve US security.

It is also contestable that the patriot act improves our security without simultaneously destroying our individual security.

I myself haven't noticed any real difference in the war coverage, but I don't think it's bias for some reporters to question the wisdom of politicizing bin Laden. I don't think it's so easy to draw the line between what Bush did that helped get bin Laden and what Obama did. And I doubt voters will think it was a "gutsy call" to launch the raid (why have special forces at all if not for missions like that?).

Gates was against the move initially and they only had a 50/50 confidence on the issue. When you look at the consequences of failed moves like this into someone else's territory (The bay of pigs for instance lead up to our stand off with russia and the verge of nuclear war) it actually is a very gutsy move.

The war coverage has largely turned negative as the populace has grown tired of it, that's the main change. But the coverage of Obama has pretty much gone entirely negative. This is just one example.

Coupled with those stupid web ads suggesting that Romney wouldn't have gone after bin Laden, I don't think you have to be anti-Obama to point out the risks of seeming to take undue credit for his death.

Romney did say he didn't want to go after Romney. In fact, he was assaulted by almost every other republican at the time he said it because they all knew it was a stupid thing to say. Within a month he was back tracking the comments, but only because of the negative reaction. Willard moves with the wind.

At 5/2/12 04:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/2/12 03:54 PM, Kidradd wrote: neoconservatism (bush) and neoliberalism/new democrats (clinton, obama)
These terms are annoying. Particularly because they falsely assume that poltics and social opinion isn't fluid.

If the definition of words are too fluid they become useless. Better to define new categories and words to describe those categories to define a fluid situation than to corrupt historical texts by destroying the words in those texts.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 06:18 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: No, its not the truth value of something that makes the politics of fear wrong. In fact it was usually that the politics of fear weren't to scale of the problem.
Nor were we under direct threat of attack from some huge army.

9/11 wasn't caused by some huge army. The nature of a serious threat has changed since WWII.

Invading Iraq did nothing to improve US security.

Only if you think WMD proliferation has no impact on US security.

It is also contestable that the patriot act improves our security without simultaneously destroying our individual security.

After 9/11, I'd put the threat of a terrorist attack miles above the threat of some secret government conspiracy to blackmail me over what I whack off to or "disappear" me to Guantanamo.

Gates was against the move initially and they only had a 50/50 confidence on the issue. When you look at the consequences of failed moves like this into someone else's territory (The bay of pigs for instance lead up to our stand off with russia and the verge of nuclear war) it actually is a very gutsy move.

This wasn't the Bay of Pigs. Special forces teams had been operating in and out of Pakistan for years, often with Pakistan's tacit consent. Even killing Pakistani security forces by accident hasn't fundamentally changed our relationship, I doubt a raid that turned up empty handed would have somehow been more damaging.

Romney did say he didn't want to go after bin Laden.

No, he didn't. He said, "itâEUTMs not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," and he's right. We aren't in Afghanistan solely to get bin Laden. It's a nice symbolic accomplishment, but it doesn't change our real objectives.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 06:35 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 06:18 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 5/2/12 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: No, its not the truth value of something that makes the politics of fear wrong. In fact it was usually that the politics of fear weren't to scale of the problem.
Nor were we under direct threat of attack from some huge army.
9/11 wasn't caused by some huge army. The nature of a serious threat has changed since WWII.

No, it really hasn't. A serious threat to national security is a large invading force. Terrorists have always been around, have always caused problems, and have never been cause to revoke freedoms on a national level from ordinary citizens.

Invading Iraq did nothing to improve US security.
Only if you think WMD proliferation has no impact on US security.

Right, because we found tons of WMDs in Iraq. The only thing that even fell into the WMD category was a class of missile that could reach slightly further than it should have. The yellow cake (completely unprocessed) they found had all been registered by the U.N. and nothing had been done with it since. Even the chemical weapons had been put on a halt since the last war.

WMD proliferation might be a reason to go against Iran or North Korea, but certainly not Iraq. And that begs the question of whether we should invade every country just because they are thinking about making a nuke.

"We don't want a conflict with you, so we'll just annihilate you now. Sounds great."

Sounds to me like horrible policy.

It is also contestable that the patriot act improves our security without simultaneously destroying our individual security.
After 9/11, I'd put the threat of a terrorist attack miles above the threat of some secret government conspiracy to blackmail me over what I whack off to or "disappear" me to Guantanamo.

And yet, there was tons of warrant-less wire tapping and abuses were found in investigations largely related to political activity of the non-terrorist sort.

Gates was against the move initially and they only had a 50/50 confidence on the issue. When you look at the consequences of failed moves like this into someone else's territory (The bay of pigs for instance lead up to our stand off with russia and the verge of nuclear war) it actually is a very gutsy move.
This wasn't the Bay of Pigs. Special forces teams had been operating in and out of Pakistan for years, often with Pakistan's tacit consent. Even killing Pakistani security forces by accident hasn't fundamentally changed our relationship, I doubt a raid that turned up empty handed would have somehow been more damaging.

Then you don't understand foreign policy very much. When we botch something up in Pakistan, the Pakistani's stop our convoys and help set up raids on our service men. Attacking a compound that way was way over the lines of anything we'd previously done (drone attacks) and set off a fire storm of criticism from inside Pakistan even though we got the man we wanted. Would have been great if we'd attacked civilians, I can tell you.

Romney did say he didn't want to go after bin Laden.
No, he didn't. He said, "itâEUTMs not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," and he's right. We aren't in Afghanistan solely to get bin Laden. It's a nice symbolic accomplishment, but it doesn't change our real objectives.

We were there to root out Al Qaeda. That was the motivator. He was in charge of the group. Taking out or capturing the leader of that group was of the highest priority if we wanted to actually destroy Al Qaeda.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:59 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 03:54 PM, Kidradd wrote: it's interesting that people still think republicans want small government and democrats want big government when if you look at the past 20 or so years this has clearly not been the case with the rise of neoconservatism (bush) and neoliberalism/new democrats (clinton, obama)

you used the term "neoliberalism" wrong. Both the Republicans and Democrats are closer to NeoConservatism. Neoliberalism is more like Libertarianism.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:01 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 02:03 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Any way you can link to that survey Iron Hampster? I wouldn't mind taking it.

oh sorry for double post I'll gladly deliver http://www.politicaltest.net/ its kinda long but not too crazy.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature