Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Draconias right wing youth speakers can be as beligerant and ill-informed as left wing ones just because they're less prominent, or not as easy to find doesn't make them non-existant.

---

At 8/19/07 07:07 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Except Giuliani was charged with this and suppressing freedom of speech to the tune of 35 times.

Convicted?

I don't know. But whatever, i'm not here to defend him.

Yes, because protesting didn't change the political climate and pave way for a withdrawal from vietnam.

We militarily won in Vietnam.

The north broke their deal and invaded the South anyway.

But yes, Vietnam did that. But you also have to realize that Vietnam was the first televised war. Combine that with drugs and the counter culture movement (which is dead now... thank God!), of course it happend.

But today... no.

Yeah exactly, a constitutional right Giuliani breached through force and was charged for.

Depends on if the protestors are on private property and if they were becoming too violent.

Well I wrote dear gaius in the sentence right next to it and i also quoted his name. I suppose i couldve been more clearer but oh well.

You could've started out saying "dear gaius" before saying "you".

When you were talking about contrasting perceptions im pretty sure you meant in general. You then gave bush increasing jobs and giving tax cuts as a positive point.

Yes. That people will think of them as positive points.

Personally I wouldn't give tax cuts to the poor. I'd tell them that if they wanted it, they should rise up in ranks to get it.

It's also implied when you talked about my character, "tony only sees the bad in people, he doesnt see that bush has created jobs and given tax cuts".

Then let me rephrase: You see only the negative aspects of Republican hopefulls and republicans in general.

Even though no matter which way you go (democrat or republican) there's always going to be a positive and negative side.

Just pointing out that there's an exaggeration in the statistics presented by washington.

Of course.

It's to make them look good. It's the government. What else do they get to do all day?

God Bless America! Aint our trust in the government grand? Haha!

'Some people say' lol

Say? No. Claim? Yes.

Someone in this BBS did that, though I can't remember his name. T'was about a year ago.

Yes it would if you know, we were in the business of exporting goods and mundane services and had a significantly larger lower-class.

We're doing rather well in comparison to a lot of industrialized nations.

So i'm happy with it.

yes, it's only going to affect our standards of living

Eh... neh.

I doubt it. Our dollar value goes down and we just get paid more.

So far that little system has been working out for decades.

Well when I say he's covering his ass I'm saying he's printing money to make up for the hundreds of billions in deficits he's created.

Wouldn't that be kind of a good thing?

Just sayin'. Hey if he's lowering it in any way possible... thumbs up.

No the problem occurs when inflation rates are higher then economy growth rate. It means you have less spending money.

And that's why the government starts spending or saving in these situations so the bubble doesn't pop.

Which is why I'm not worried as it seems to be handled.

---

At 8/19/07 05:01 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: Interesting debate here. It might prove useful to define what a liberal actually is, since I consider my self to be a liberal, a classic-liberal who advocates individual rights, a true free market and a small unobtrusive government that has but one duty--to preserve the rights of the individual (think Jeffersonian politics) I take exception to the misuse of the term liberal. What are referred to today as liberals are in fact neo-liberals, an entirely different breed...

Thank god a liberal traditionalist who actually understands the original meaning of the word we may be at opposite ends of the spectrum but as a traditional republican I completely agree that the majority of Right-Left wing oriented people are in fact socialistic. It is entirely accurate that our country is a republic with democratic institutions.

I also agree that the socialistic trend is clearly perpetrated by the school system and I find that disturbing. After all if our population is taught in a pro socialist way than what's to stop that king of government on day becoming acceptable enough to be elected.

I apologize for throwing the word liberal around but I did say liberal stereotype. As for what I think the states position is well I think as a true republican the state's job is only to preserve our rights, maintain law and order, and protect it and its people.

I have said in the past that I have no problem with imperialism but only in that it's the only sure way to prevent war and make an economically prosperous nation after all this was a third world country before manifest destiny but that's entirely besides the point. I honestly can't stand fascism. State run business wile convenient during a national crisis are fraught with complications and highly prone to stagnation. Not to mention that with no free media source the potential to get a crazy, corrupt, or otherwise incompetent leader is quite high.

---

At 8/19/07 09:54 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/19/07 07:07 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Except Giuliani was charged with this and suppressing freedom of speech to the tune of 35 times.

Convicted?

I don't know. But whatever, i'm not here to defend him.

Yes, because protesting didn't change the political climate and pave way for a withdrawal from vietnam.

We militarily won in Vietnam.

Amen!
I completely agree we could have easily won Vietnam (if the blasted hippie's had the stomach for it) and we most certainly can win Iraq.

I'm voting for Giuliani because I watched the resent GOP debate an out of all the candidates I most agreed with his stance and plans which is how you should decide who you are voting for.

And as for the homeless or destitute unless there were they are for some crazy set of circumstances let them rot. Giving lazy people money isn't magically going to make them contribute to society. Talk about economy Tony do you think throwing money at a problem is smart if so please have some of your beloved cool aide.

---

Could the U . S. have won in Vietnam? Perhaps. Could the U. S. win in Iraq? Definitely. Do I think we will win in Iraq? Absolutely not. Why you might ask? I'll tell you why, the majority of Americans are wimps. Does that mean we should turn tail and run? Not just no but HELL NO! It's that attitude of bailing when the going gets rough that got us in this mess to begin with. I served my country proudly as did my father before me but there was big difference between his generation and mine. The WWII generation--my father's generation--was definitely our greatest generation because they were willing to pay any price required to preserve or way of life. He fought in WWII and many of his friends including his own brother were killed in action but did he or any of the others that survived ever give up? Never, they understood the true meaning of sacrifice, to them it wasn't just a word it was a way of life. In my opinion this is because they grew up during the great depression so they weren't a bunch of spoiled brats like the majority of Americans are these days.

Iraq isn't just another Vietnam, it is in fact another crusade. The traditions of the fundamentalist Muslims are--and have been for a thousand years--diametrically opposed to the western traditions, presently that is in regard to individualism and capitalism the very foundations of our way of life and they have sworn to bring about our destruction. And if you're a socialist, I got some bad news for you they don't like you any better than they do capitalists, to them we are all heretics.

Listen up people, it really is them or us. I know it may not seem like that to you sitting there all safe and sound with a beer in one hand and a TV clicker in the other but this isn't a new conflict that we can file away as a bad experience like we did Vietnam. This conflict has been going on for ages and it's not going to end simply because we grow weary and bring our troops home. I know these people, I've trained them, trained with them, eaten with them, stood watch through the night with them, they aren't weak or uncommitted like the majority of Americans are. They will go to any extremes to accomplish their ends--including crashing planes into buildings--they are like the Terminator "they will not rest" until they have crushed the heresy of western traditions. So I ask you, where would you prefer to engage the enemy, in Iraq and Afghanistan as we are now or here on you doorstep? I'm dead serious about this, they aren't going to give up just because we do.

Bunch of crybabies, do you know we lost more men in a week during WWII than we have total in Iraq? What's your way of life worth to you? Would you be willing to fight and kill to keep your TV and beer? And if you're one of those fools running around with a "No Fear" sticker on your 4 x 4 or any other such tripe walk your talk or loose the sticker punk, real men jump out of planes and take the fight to the enemy, they don't parade around in flashy trucks flexing their steroid inflated pecks to a bunch of...

Wow! Sorry about that last bit. I better shut up now before I say what I really think.

---

Note: the forum kept giving me false errors with the links, so a few thinks are lacking example links that should be there.

At 8/19/07 11:24 AM, tony4moroney wrote: So what youre saying is conservatives are over-represented in the polls.

No, I'm saying liberals bitch more.

that's pretty well thought out. i suppose the only flaw is that we're the ones that protest and join activist groups while old conservatives get angry about the 'crazy hippy youth'.

Your comment displays a severe misconception of conseravtism and conservatives in general. Conservatives are highly active in many areas, particularly the ones that concern them the most. For example, ever heard of the NRA? Conservatives are active, and they are powerful.

what about places like new york which are heavily liberal? are all those big buildings mcdonalds and wendys?

No, but all the small buildings around them are the Hoovervilles. Inner city regions have always been highly biased towards liberalism, partly from self-interest (free money), largely from race (minorities tend to favor the Democrats, such as the 95% of Blacks mentioned in the article), and undeniably due to some degree of ignorance. Also, in terms of the middle class, the key Big Cities have always been the regions where liberal-minded people have congregated. Remember San Francisco during the Hippy era?

except that on newgrounds most posters seem to be 15-18 yr old conservatives with the most asinine views on anything.

Based on the evidence of this thread and many like it, you're deluding yourself. Have you taken a look at the Bush Thread? Where's the Democratic Congress thread, if conservatives are so strong on Newgrounds? Congress has an even lower approval rating right now than Bush.

or maybe it's because they get enough sexy time from watching fox noise, political soundbites and talkback radio.

That's actually a good point, Talk Radio is domianted by conservatives. So yes, they do favor different channels; liberals get all of the TV media channels except for one, and conservatives get the talk radio channels (which, incidentally, Democrats were trying to wipe away by reviving the Fairness Doctrine).

from what ive seen on these forums though it appears as though the majority of people with decent/ rationalized posts are liberal and older.

There are more liberal posters. Statistical probability.

----------------------------------

At 8/19/07 11:52 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: I have a novel theory. I think it's because most teachers are liberal.

Yes, particularly at the college level. (Example, lol @ source)

Shortly after I was old enough to be aware of politics I began to resent liberals more and more and in a very short time (about a week of listening to democrats) I became highly conservative and I've yet to hear a legitimate argument from a democrat.

I know many people quickly became disgusted with the Democrat (and generally liberal) methods og argument, as well as the mudslinging of the Democratic politicians. I have the same reaction to some of the "investigations" and other political ploys I see in Congress right now.

Any way I find it disturbing that so many people have beliefs based on peer pressure I was practically ostracized for being an open republican.

That is actually a common situation for many young conseravtives. Virtually every single young conservative (from urban or suburban areas) who I have talked with for any reasonable amount of time has related a similar experience or has avoided stating their opinions during class discussions or other situations to avoid such an experience.

----------------------------------

At 8/19/07 05:01 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: Interesting debate here. It might prove useful to define what a liberal actually is, since I consider my self to be a liberal, a classic-liberal. What are referred to today as liberals are in fact neo-liberals, an entirely different breed, they are in fact left-wing socialist and left-wing socialists advocate only specific individual rights

Yeah, isn't it a tragedy that such a switch happened? Unfortunately, the vocalism of neo-liberals has almost completely erased classic-liberals.

As SmilezRoyal correctly pointed out, the public school system is largely to blame for this trend. I find it humorous and ironic that people are surprised when an inherently socialist system (public schools) produce socialist disciples.

Good point.

Note: I'm not pointing my finger at anyone or trying to incite an argument I'm simply suggesting we all learn our definitions before we begin labeling the youth or anyone else for that matter as liberals.

Sorry, but it seems to me as if you went a bit overboard on over-strict definitions there. When you go to that degree, the definition is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the intended usage at all.

----------------------------------

At 8/19/07 05:41 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: lolfuckyouasshole.

"And this, viewers, is the Wildeliberal in his natural habitat, snorting at challengers to prove his dominance!" If you have to act like that, you don't deserve a decent reply.

----------------------------------

At 8/19/07 08:19 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Draconias right wing youth speakers can be as beligerant and ill-informed as left wing ones just because they're less prominent, or not as easy to find doesn't make them non-existant.

I never said they couldn't be. Those people exist on every side and are always unusually vocal. However, I think the quoted user above this makes my point: which type are more common? Maybe that should tell you something about the group as a whole.

----------------------------------

At 8/20/07 12:41 AM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: Could the U . S. have won in Vietnam? Perhaps. Could the U. S. win in Iraq? Definitely. Do I think we will win in Iraq? Absolutely not. Why you might ask? I'll tell you why, the majority of Americans are wimps.

I believe in the strength and resolve of Americans, so I am much more inclined to believe that the situation is that the majority of liberal politicians, liberal news media, and liberal sources (like schools) are telling us that we can't win, not that Americans believe the propaganda blared at them incessantly purely through inner weakness. I think it's an intentional attempt to control opinion.

---

At 8/20/07 01:01 AM, Draconias wrote: I believe in the strength and resolve of Americans, so I am much more inclined to believe that the situation is that the majority of liberal politicians, liberal news media, and liberal sources (like schools) are telling us that we can't win, not that Americans believe the propaganda blared at them incessantly purely through inner weakness. I think it's an intentional attempt to control opinion.

I wish I could share in your rather optimistic view of "the strength and resolve of Americans' but my experience has taught me that the vast majority of Americans are spineless sheep, unfortunately that includes many who are currently in uniform. Agreed there seems to be "an intentional attempt to control opinion" but keep in mind that it was mass appeal that made that possible to begin with and it was a majority that voted those politicians into office and it was and is a popular opinion that public schools are an asset to our way of life. Bottom line is it was a majority of Americans that put those institutions and representatives into positions of power in the first place, not the other way around.

---

At 8/20/07 01:01 AM, Draconias wrote:

That's actually a good point, Talk Radio is domianted by conservatives. So yes, they do favor different channels; liberals get all of the TV media channels except for one

Yes, damn those liberals at MSNBC, ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, and all those others!

and conservatives get the talk radio channels (which, incidentally, Democrats were trying to wipe away by reviving the Fairness Doctrine).

Christ. RUN, MEMORIZE, RUN! We barely survived this last time!

Anyway, no. You're wrong. They aren't. Absolutely no resolution has been submitted to the 110th congress to re-implement the Doctrine, and the only powerless nuts who support it represent Democrats as well as Strom Thurmund represents me as a republican.

----------------------------------

At 8/19/07 05:41 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: lolfuckyouasshole.

"And this, viewers, is the Wildeliberal in his natural habitat, snorting at challengers to prove his dominance!" If you have to act like that, you don't deserve a decent reply.

I gave a decent reply to your bullshit, give a decent reply to mine. You see, I get pretty pissed off when people try to tell me I'm "middle classed", that I "leech off my parents", that "don't have a job", that I'm a "communist", or any of the other bullshit you claimed about liberal youths.

---

Because their parents raise them to be, and it just so happens that a lot of people dont like Bush so they lean thier kids towards Democratic tendencies.

---

At 8/20/07 12:41 AM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: [...]

My hat is off to you, Ragnar. You said everything that I could have hoped for on those subjects. Thank you for serving our country, and thank your father for me as well.

I like it when someone is bold enough to stand up for their convictions, and coherent enough to present logical argument.

---

At 8/20/07 03:46 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Yes, damn those liberals at MSNBC, ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, and all those others!

MSNBC:
-Plaster the US death toll in Iraq on the main page when it reached the WTC death toll.
-Enviornmental sections provides near all man-made global warming articles.
-When the president says "we've prevented terror attacks", instead of asking him after the State of the Union, we film ourselves asking sternly "where Mr. President. Where were these other terror attacks?"

ABC:
-We're going to slam to Libby for "maybe" leaking Plame's name to the press, but we're going to let everyone know about an undergoing covert operation in Iran.

CNN:
-Larry King.
There's a reason why some humorously call it the Communism News Network.

CBS? Don't know, don't care.

and conservatives get the talk radio channels (which, incidentally, Democrats were trying to wipe away by reviving the Fairness Doctrine).

Christ. RUN, MEMORIZE, RUN! We barely survived this last time!

Care to point out where I said and/or thought that?

OMG! HOLY OVEREXAGGERATIONS, BATMAN!

Anyway, no. You're wrong. They aren't.

You still seem like you have a pickle wedged up your ass because you can't deal with some democrats being in favor of applying it to radio-only.

---

At 8/19/07 05:59 AM, Reignspike wrote: ... many limits on individual leeway (like gun control), and so on.

Just a quick point; if Liberals believe in restricting individual leeway then why do a large amount support legalization of drugs? Liberals just tend to believe the safety of society sometimes overrules the personal right to choose.

Remember, you can't spell Libertarian without liberal. As one myself (both libertarian and a liberal). I've noticed that it's about half and half. Right wing governments can be just as authoritarian as left. Although looking at the current just-left-of-center Labour gov here in the UK and all their new authoritarian, anti terror laws that they've already started using on people they know are not terrorists you wouldn't know it.

---

Alright, I'm going to try and stay on the central subject this time.

Q: Why are most [American] young people liberal [actually socialists]?

A: This paradigm shift from individualism to socialist is nationwide and affects more than just the young people. The truth is the vast majority of Americans alive today are far different than their forefathers in philosophical matters. There once was a time in American when the rugged individualist was heralded as a hero and a role model, think Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett. I dare say that today most people think of those figures as nothing more than fanciful legends of lore or even condemn them as barbaric ruffians. Yes they were rough and tumble characters, they had to be to survive on the frontier. Perhaps that's why the nation has experienced such a dramatic shift in values--there is no longer a frontier.

It may be human nature to become soft and complacent once we are no longer challenged by the rigors of frontier life. Whatever the catalyst the outcome seems to be the same through human history. The primal need to survive compels us to aggression, aggression leads to conflict, conflict leads to dominance and subjugation and that establishes a cast system and we call that civilization. All civilizations ancient or modern have a common attribute--the state. The state is the institution establish to maintain the structure of that civilization. The means by which the state achieves that end determine the type of government, be it a theocracy, a democracy, a republic or whatever.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed the founding fathers had no idea what form of government they would establish to replace the oppressive kingdom they were rejecting but they were sure what they hoped to achieve--"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". To that end the Constitution was eventually adopted as the best possible solution. The Constitution established a REPUBLIC, a republic is not a democracy although our republic uses a democratic process to elect our representatives it was never intended to be a democracy. A crucial difference between the republic established in America and those that had existed elsewhere was this republic was its self governed by a law--the Constitution. Remember that, it is very important because it establishes the LAW as the supreme governing body not the republic. Take notice that the Constitution outlines the formation and proper role of the republic, nowhere except in case of treason does the LAW (Constitution) specifically restrict any individual. That's important, the founding fathers knew the real threat to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was the government, not common criminals.

The way it was intended to work was the Constitution would protect the people from their own government by restricting the politicians to a specific set of duties. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Notice the proper role of our government is clearly outlined; justice (a court system), domestic tranquility (law enforcement), defense (military), general welfare (this means providing a service that benefits all citizens such as a postal service not government handouts) and secure liberty (this was put last as a mission statement, conversely anything that doesn't secure liberty is forbidden).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct-exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils-or indirect-exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.

There you have it, you can not possibly have liberty and socialism at the same time. To engage in socialism necessarily means you must infringe on the individual's liberty and that my friends is why the politicians today insist we are a democracy, they don't want you to realize they are breaking the LAW.

Anyway, back to the main subject, if you believe the government should engage in any activity that doesn't "secure liberty (individual freedom)" then you are a socialist. That's why I insist that the vast majority of Americans--not just the youth--are socialists to one degree or another.

---

At 8/20/07 07:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 03:46 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Yes, damn those liberals at MSNBC, ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, and all those others!

MSNBC:
-Plaster the US death toll in Iraq on the main page when it reached the WTC death toll.

The war is unpopular and they chose to recognize that just as many marines died in iraq as did in the wtc's i.e self-defeating cause.

-Enviornmental sections provides near all man-made global warming articles.

what? care to clarify?

-When the president says "we've prevented terror attacks", instead of asking him after the State of the Union, we film ourselves asking sternly "where Mr. President. Where were these other terror attacks?"

Lack of journalistic integrity not liberal bias.

ABC:
-We're going to slam to Libby for "maybe" leaking Plame's name to the press, but we're going to let everyone know about an undergoing covert operation in Iran.

Makes it liberal how?

CNN:
-Larry King.

Whoa wait one guy with a show on a 24/7 network?

There's a reason why some humorously call it the Communism News Network.

What would that reason be? Would it be more well founded than simply because republicans don't get to hear what they want to hear?

CBS? Don't know, don't care.

If youre going to allege that these networks are liberally slanted at least give some reasoning behind it. You're only unhappy because they're not giving bush a blowjob after all his failures.

---

At 8/20/07 12:33 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

The war is unpopular and they chose to recognize that just as many marines died in iraq as did in the wtc's i.e self-defeating cause.

Statistically, this war is an utter success.

And what you're doing is pulling excuses out of your ass to justify their position, which ironically fits your's, even though you claim they weren't liberally bias.

Anyway...

what? care to clarify?

I have no idea how I can clarify that any more.

Lack of journalistic integrity not liberal bias.

Yeah... too bad it's from the same news media whose journalists all boo'd the president during his state of the Union.

ABC:
-We're going to slam to Libby for "maybe" leaking Plame's name to the press, but we're going to let everyone know about an undergoing covert operation in Iran.

Makes it liberal how?

"we don't like the president or anyone he's attached to. So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name (who apparently aren't the "leakers", and where Plame may or may not have had the correct qualifications to be declared covert), yet we're going to tell everyone about a currently undergoing covert operation in Iran in the middle of them defying the UN, making nukes".

See it now?

CNN:
-Larry King.

Whoa wait one guy with a show on a 24/7 network?

That was meant for humor.

What would that reason be? Would it be more well founded than simply because republicans don't get to hear what they want to hear?

Interesting... sounds a lot like you and Fox news.

If youre going to allege that these networks are liberally slanted at least give some reasoning behind it. You're only unhappy because they're not giving bush a blowjob after all his failures.

Opinion.

Wow, you're just full of exaggerations and claims not backed by any facts.

---

At 8/20/07 01:01 AM, Draconias wrote: Note: the forum kept giving me false errors with the links, so a few thinks are lacking example links that should be there.

At 8/19/07 11:24 AM, tony4moroney wrote: So what youre saying is conservatives are over-represented in the polls.

No, I'm saying liberals bitch more.

"there are more liberals in today's youth, but among the youngest voters, conservatism is actually favored"

??

that's pretty well thought out. i suppose the only flaw is that we're the ones that protest and join activist groups while old conservatives get angry about the 'crazy hippy youth'.

Your comment displays a severe misconception of conseravtism and conservatives in general.

says the guy that wrote several paragraphs of fallacies and stereotypes relating to liberals. either way there are more liberal activists and protestors then there are conservative ones as i said.
e.g anti-war, animal rights, feminists, gays, environmentalists.

Conservatives are highly active in many areas, particularly the ones that concern them the most.

Oh yah and liberals aren't?

For example, ever heard of the NRA? Conservatives are active, and they are powerful.

nra.. mm yeah would that be the association of gun fetishes?

what about places like new york which are heavily liberal? are all those big buildings mcdonalds and wendys?

No, but all the small buildings around them are the Hoovervilles.

Doesn't detract from the point made - new york is an expensive place to live it's population is wealthier then average, especially inner city which is a thorn in your assumption

except that on newgrounds most posters seem to be 15-18 yr old conservatives with the most asinine views on anything.

Based on the evidence of this thread and many like it, you're deluding yourself. Have you taken a look at the Bush Thread? Where's the Democratic Congress thread,

How many 15-18 year olds do you know that are interested in politics? There's a difference between an idiotic strongly despised president and a congress regardless of their ratings.

Also these approval ratings don't measure resentment - democrats im sure would measure in a mild to disgusted whereas approx. slightly more then 50% of people want to impeach him. Polls also say that provided the choice they'd still prefer the democratic majority congress over a republican one.

if conservatives are so strong on Newgrounds? Congress has an even lower approval rating right now than Bush.

Which they are, ever see the gun control thread? as d2k aptly put they all seem to flock in with the same asinine point "zomg 2nd amendment noobs kthxbye".

or maybe it's because they get enough sexy time from watching fox noise, political soundbites and talkback radio.

That's actually a good point, Talk Radio is domianted by conservatives.

Yes, yes thankyou.

So yes, they do favor different channels; liberals get all of the TV media channels except for one,

Wrong. Another fallacy youre propagating. The news networks aren't 'liberally biased' as youd like to think.

from what ive seen on these forums though it appears as though the majority of people with decent/ rationalized posts are liberal and older.

There are more liberal posters. Statistical probability.

No ive seen plenty of republican posters. id go as far as to say there are perhaps slightly more republican posters then there are liberal. of course both you nor i have proof of this so your appeal to statistical probability remains irrelevant.

---

At 8/20/07 12:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 12:33 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

The war is unpopular and they chose to recognize that just as many marines died in iraq as did in the wtc's i.e self-defeating cause.

Statistically, this war is an utter success.

what would these statistics be? death rates? would you happen to use them in comparison to past wars, like say the civil war? at a complete disregard for the differences in circumstance e.g the iraq war is lacking in a an oppositional force let alone resembling anything of the same magnitude as the civil war which required a draft.

in short;
Purpose of War - Reduce/ Eliminate terrorism
Status - More terrorism, civil war, destabilized region
Nope, doesn't look like a 'success' to me.

And what you're doing is pulling excuses out of your ass to justify their position, which ironically fits your's, even though you claim they weren't liberally bias.

Lack of journalistic integrity not liberal bias.

Yeah... too bad it's from the same news media whose journalists all boo'd the president during his state of the Union.

What you done was reciprocate a logical fallacy - irrelevant conclusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_e lenchi

ABC:
-We're going to slam to Libby for "maybe" leaking Plame's name to the press, but we're going to let everyone know about an undergoing covert operation in Iran.

Makes it liberal how?

"we don't like the president or anyone he's attached to.

straw-man argument

So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name

Which is what a news organization is meant to do. You know report the news? A leak is a serious issue and they sensationalized it. Nothing new, and also not proof of liberal bias.

yet we're going to tell everyone about a currently undergoing covert operation in Iran in the middle of them defying the UN, making nukes".

makes it a hypocrisy on their behalf not liberal bias.

See it now?

Nope

CNN:
-Larry King.

Whoa wait one guy with a show on a 24/7 network?

That was meant for humor.

What would that reason be? Would it be more well founded than simply because republicans don't get to hear what they want to hear?

Interesting... sounds a lot like you and Fox news.

except i actually proved several times fox news had a conservative bias including testimonies of dozens of past employees ranging from anchors to producers and the analyses of slate and fair.org

If youre going to allege that these networks are liberally slanted at least give some reasoning behind it. You're only unhappy because they're not giving bush a blowjob after all his failures.

Opinion.

Whoa wait, youre making the assertion that these networks are liberally slanted and im asking to provide legitimate examples and you call that a farce on the basis of being an 'opinion'?

Wow, you're just full of exaggerations and claims not backed by any facts.

Where? it's actually ironic that you say that considering it's exactly what you done in these past several posts and all i've done was show how wrong your examples of 'bias' were.

---

At 8/20/07 01:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

what would these statistics be? death rates? would you happen to use them in comparison to past wars, like say the civil war? at a complete disregard for the differences in circumstance e.g the iraq war is lacking in a an oppositional force let alone resembling anything of the same magnitude as the civil war which required a draft.

No.

In comparison to Vietnam, the Gulf War.

Though I could compare it to the US civil war in terms of deaths between the civilians. I could also compare their progress with that of the founding fathers taking 12 to establish a working a government, when it's only took around 2-3 years for Iraq to develop a drastically new one.

in short;
Purpose of War - Reduce/ Eliminate terrorism
Status - More terrorism, civil war, destabilized region
Nope, doesn't look like a 'success' to me.

Purpose of Iraq - Long term reduction of terrorism and major region to establish long term peace in the middle east.

Status - 4 years =/= long term. Low death rate. More provinces under our control. Low level Al Qeada members switching sides. More tips. More tribal leaders fighting along side the US. More Iraqi's joining the police force.

ANYWAY... looks like success to me.

Also, it's very much debatable if there are more terrorists now than then.

Yeah... too bad it's from the same news media whose journalists all boo'd the president during his state of the Union.

Yes. Because the same people who write and give the news to the public everyday who jump for joy at Rove resigning and have rooms full of journalists who boo the president during his State of the Union Address, isn't cause enough for concern of their bias.

What you done was reciprocate a logical fallacy - irrelevant conclusion

I wonder if you even looked up Wikipedia for this comment:

"You have just used a flawed rhetorical device. Misleading vividness. Look it up on wikipedia."

straw-man argument

Excuses.

And yet, you do the very same thing with Fox news.

So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name

Which is what a news organization is meant to do.

What the fuck?

The news is suppose to report on US covert operations which places the lives of people in danger as well as crumbles what little progress we had with near-terror sponsoring nations?

Ok pal.

There's a reason why FDR censored the media during WWII.

You know report the news? A leak is a serious issue and they sensationalized it. Nothing new, and also not proof of liberal bias.

Haha, right.

Keep telling yourself that.

makes it a hypocrisy on their behalf not liberal bias.

I bring about, once again, your stance on Fox news.

Nope

Blind.

except i actually proved several times fox news had a conservative bias including testimonies of dozens of past employees ranging from anchors to producers and the analyses of slate and fair.org

There's also a site which shows every media outlets bias on the political scale.

anyway... have fun

Where? it's actually ironic that you say that considering it's exactly what you done in these past several posts and all i've done was show how wrong your examples of 'bias' were.

Yeah... read the above link.

---

At 8/20/07 12:21 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: A: This paradigm shift from individualism to socialist is nationwide and affects more than just the young people.

I agree with this statement, and I think it's sad. However, I also believe that young people are more likely to be socialist than older people. And it's not just what I think. I cited sources. I could cite more, if you'd like.

The original reason I asked the question was to try to show everyone how biased schools and the media are. I think these sources are one of the reasons that the average person is slowly gaining that bias. I also believe that the only way to counter that bias is to realize that it IS a bias (and show everyone that this is true), and confront it for what it is.

Anyway, back to the main subject, if you believe the government should engage in any activity that doesn't "secure liberty (individual freedom)" then you are a socialist. That's why I insist that the vast majority of Americans--not just the youth--are socialists to one degree or another.

It looks to me like you are saying that this is a black or white distinction. I believe it is more of a continuum. Each action or law is more or less socialist than each other action or law. Social Security is socialist in that it takes from everyone to provide for the poor elderly, but it is less socialist than Welfare, which takes from everyone to provide for all poor (including elderly).

For what it's worth, I am not fond of a lot of the terms that might apply to what I believe. I don't like "conservative" because of the religious connotations it tends to have today, not to mention the government-to-business handout connotations and the concept that it stands for quid pro quo. I don't like "liberal" because to most people today it means socialist. And I don't like "libertarian", either, because most people associate it with Libertarian, a political party, which is generally filled with complete ding-dongs (and how I wish that were not true!).

So I consider myself a "Miltonian" or a "Free Market Advocate".

---

At 8/20/07 12:56 PM, tony4moroney wrote: "there are more liberals in today's youth, but among the youngest voters, conservatism is actually favored"

"There are more liberals in today's youth, but among the youngest voters, conservatism is actually favored"

There are more liberal-minded people below the age of 18 than there are conservative-minded people, (hence "youth"), but there are more conservative-minded voters in the 18-25 range than there are liberal-minded voters (hence "youngest voters"). This is not over-representation, it's highlighting a shift in opinion that occurs as children come into the majority, get jobs, earn their own living, and move away from many of the propaganda/pressure sources that influenced their prior political opinions.

Liberals are vocally over-represented in forums because they dominate the non-voter population, but their power is just an illusion. The conservative youth, though, has real strength because it is backed up by voting.

says the guy that wrote several paragraphs of fallacies and stereotypes relating to liberals.

Demographic characteristics are different from stereotypes. If I didn't know through personal experience that so many of the people I discussed are like that, I wouldn't have said it.

either way there are more liberal activists and protestors then there are conservative ones as i said.

More topics to complain about doesn't mean more activism. Provide some sources to back up your claims if you're gonna put that up as fact.

nra.. mm yeah would that be the association of gun fetishes?

What were we talking about with misconceptions before? That.

Doesn't detract from the point made - new york is an expensive place to live it's population is wealthier then average, especially inner city which is a thorn in your assumption

I addressed that; the Hooverville quip was more about a general urban sense. The top Big Cities have always been liberal gathering grounds. Paris is a good example of one of the "focal" cities where liberals have gathered for many different movements throughout the decades.

How many 15-18 year olds do you know that are interested in politics? There's a difference between an idiotic strongly despised president and a congress regardless of their ratings.

I'm fairly sure that all of the 15-18 year olds I see on Politics forums are interested in politics, and that population is large enough to be relevant. How much of the total teenage population cares doesn't matter, just that a significantly large portion do.

And the difference between the President and Congress? Bush is a Republican and Congress is Democrat, and it's already obvious that you are biased towards the Democrats, so you will obviously be more lenient and positive about them, even if they are worse than the President in every negative respect.

Also these approval ratings don't measure resentment - democrats im sure would measure in a mild to disgusted whereas approx. slightly more then 50% of people want to impeach him. Polls also say that provided the choice they'd still prefer the democratic majority congress over a republican one.

Is that the SourceCow I hear mooing in the distance, looking for sources to eat? Maybe you should provide some MooSources, or maybe even some normal Sources.

Which they are, ever see the gun control thread? as d2k aptly put they all seem to flock in with the same asinine point "zomg 2nd amendment noobs kthxbye".

Regardless of their idiocy or actual politicial views (they may not have been conservative at all and still had those opinions), doesn't that example reinforce my earlier point about conservative activists? They will react to what they care about. I even provided the NRA for reference.

Wrong. Another fallacy youre propagating. The news networks aren't 'liberally biased' as youd like to think.

MooooooooooooSource? I call the TV media liberally-biased through a direct examination of the news they provide and the manner in which they provide it. Other posters have cited direct examples of the liberal bias. Instead of trying to hide it behind a curtain of words, give me some real (unbiased) evidence otherwise. I am aware of some of the blatantly biased studies that have been crafted to prove it, so don't try to provide those.

No ive seen plenty of republican posters. id go as far as to say there are perhaps slightly more republican posters then there are liberal. of course both you nor i have proof of this so your appeal to statistical probability remains irrelevant.

Isn't the entire point of this thread to discuss the fact that there are more liberals? Seems kind of pointless to reject the entire basis of this thread 3 pages in just to protect one weak point you were trying to make.

@Memorize: By the way, sweet article there. Some good, detailed information, though I only have time to skim it and I could not find any convenient summaries (like a graph) that would be easy to bring directly into threads like this one.

---

At 8/20/07 01:50 PM, Reignspike wrote:

At 8/20/07 12:21 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote:

:: : A: This paradigm shift from individualism to socialist is nationwide and affects more than just the young people.

I agree with this statement, and I think it's sad. However, I also believe that young people are more likely to be socialist than older people. And it's not just what I think. I cited sources. I could cite more, if you'd like.

That's not necessary, I appreciate you efforts to shed some light on this subject by initiating the discussion in the first place.

The original reason I asked the question was to try to show everyone how biased schools and the media are. I think these sources are one of the reasons that the average person is slowly gaining that bias. I also believe that the only way to counter that bias is to realize that it IS a bias (and show everyone that this is true), and confront it for what it is.

I agree there is strong evidence of a bias, however I believe they are only appealing to the masses as it were and giving the people what the majority desires. In other words those are the products of the people's demands.

Anyway, back to the main subject, if you believe the government should engage in any activity that doesn't "secure liberty (individual freedom)" then you are a socialist. That's why I insist that the vast majority of Americans--not just the youth--are socialists to one degree or another.

It looks to me like you are saying that this is a black or white distinction. I believe it is more of a continuum. Each action or law is more or less socialist than each other action or law. Social Security is socialist in that it takes from everyone to provide for the poor elderly, but it is less socialist than Welfare, which takes from everyone to provide for all poor (including elderly).

Indeed, to me it is black and white. You either favor liberty (individual freedom) or you don't. There can be no compromise when it involves freedom, you either have it or you do not. Granted there are varying degrees of enslavement but it is still slavery. Submit to a property tax to fund a public school and you are an indentured servant, surrender a portion of your paycheck (under threat of force) to aid the needy and you are the victim of subjugation--again a slave. Bottom line is we live in a socialist state and we are all subjected to the will of the majority so we are all by definition slaves of the state. The best we can do--without resorting to violence--is look for ways of reducing the amount of control that is pressed upon us.

For what it's worth, I am not fond of a lot of the terms that might apply to what I believe. I don't like "conservative" because of the religious connotations it tends to have today, not to mention the government-to-business handout connotations and the concept that it stands for quid pro quo. I don't like "liberal" because to most people today it means socialist. And I don't like "libertarian", either, because most people associate it with Libertarian, a political party, which is generally filled with complete ding-dongs (and how I wish that were not true!).

Hmm well in case you hadn't realized it I'm both a libertarian (little" l") and a Libertarian (big "L"), not that I mind being called a ding-dong, I really don't because being an free-minded individualist in a socialist environment has hardened my skin and strengthened my resolve. In fact I'm so radical I make most libertarians look conservative by comparison. You might even call me an objectivist.

So I consider myself a "Miltonian" or a "Free Market Advocate".

Then we have much in common, as I too am a die-hard capitalist (not to be confused with pseudo-capitalists robber-barons that were in fact fascists).

---

At 8/20/07 02:24 PM, Draconias wrote:

@Memorize: By the way, sweet article there. Some good, detailed information, though I only have time to skim it and I could not find any convenient summaries (like a graph) that would be easy to bring directly into threads like this one.

Then i'll say this here and now about the link.

If you want to pass up all of the writing, just scroll down until you see a bunch of numbers lined up with news organizations.

50.1 is the centrist number. Any number above that is liberally biased. Any number below that is conservatively biased.

Also, you all may take note that the ACLU has a number of 49.8. However, this statement was in the article:

"While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell's citations, the ACLU's average score increases to 55.9."

Also in that link, they state: This evidence suggests that, if anything, our estimates are biased in the direction of making the media look more conservative than they really are. However, because the correlations are so close to zero, we believe that any bias is small."

Also, there are graphs near the bottom. There are 2 lines. One has numbers representing their bias and the other has politicians. On the side they list news agencies. The graph has a vertical line going up with numbers next to them. Off to the side are news agencies who have arrows pointing to that line. 50 is about the number that is centrist, but on that graph, only 2 scored below the 50 making them conservatively biased:

-Fox News special report with Brit Holmes
-Washington Times

17 scored above 50 making them liberally biased.

Also on that graph on the line on the right near the top is written: Average Democrat. Whereas near the botton is written: Average Republican.

The average Republican score: About 15
The average Democrat score: About 85

Neither Fox nor Washington Times ranks as low as the Average Republican. The closest is the Washington Times with a score of about 38.

Whereas the WallStreet journal is dead on 85 with the average democrat. The closest other than that is CBS Evening News about 72.

---

At 8/20/07 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 01:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

what would these statistics be? death rates? would you happen to use them in comparison to past wars, like say the civil war? at a complete disregard for the differences in circumstance e.g the iraq war is lacking in a an oppositional force let alone resembling anything of the same magnitude as the civil war which required a draft.

No.

In comparison to Vietnam, the Gulf War.

Though I could compare it to the US civil war in terms of deaths between the civilians.

i..
y-y..
..the point completely alluded you didnt it.. *sigh*..

I could also compare their progress with that of the founding fathers taking 12 to establish a working a government, when it's only took around 2-3 years for Iraq to develop a drastically new one.

That's actually a pretty decent comparison youve provided for once. But might I add iraq had a previous government wheres the founding fathers had to write up and form everything ground up and the current government in iraq is still dependant on u.s aid, the region has not stabilized or been maintained under their power i.e they're ineffective and they're still heavily dependant on our occupational forces.

ANYWAY... looks like success to me.

Also, it's very much debatable if there are more terrorists now than then.

Yeah... too bad it's from the same news media whose journalists all boo'd the president during his state of the Union.

What you done was reciprocate a logical fallacy - irrelevant conclusion

I wonder if you even looked up Wikipedia for this comment:

"You have just used a flawed rhetorical device. Misleading vividness. Look it up on wikipedia."

Actually i did and i addressed it. that was comment was made by someone else pertaining to something else and doesnt change or even relate to your point.

straw-man argument

Excuses.

no.. it's a straw-man argument not an excuse and i still addressed your point anyway.

So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name

Which is what a news organization is meant to do.

What the fuck?

The news is suppose to report on US covert operations which places the lives of people in danger as well as crumbles what little progress we had with near-terror sponsoring nations?

"So we're going to slam Libby and Rove for leaking Plame's name" - you

"Which is what a news organization is meant to do." - me

"The news is suppose to report on US covert operations which places the lives of people in danger as well as crumbles what little progress we had with near-terror sponsoring nations?" - you

you have very, very terrible comprehension skills.

There's a reason why FDR censored the media during WWII.

fdr was a tyrant. successful and popular president but still borderline dictator.

You know report the news? A leak is a serious issue and they sensationalized it. Nothing new, and also not proof of liberal bias.

Haha, right.

Keep telling yourself that.

yeah ok.. abc news reports on plame and scooter libby and you claim that's liberal bias..? ill just script this point;

you - abc news was mean to scooter which means liberal bias
me - no it isnt it's their job to report albeit it was sensationalized
you - reasons x, y, z
me - which doesnt prove liberal bias but rather a lax of journalistic integrity
you - haha keep telling yourself that

makes it a hypocrisy on their behalf not liberal bias.

I bring about, once again, your stance on Fox news.

which has nothing to do with anything

except i actually proved several times fox news had a conservative bias including testimonies of dozens of past employees ranging from anchors to producers and the analyses of slate and fair.org

There's also a site which shows every media outlets bias on the political scale.

anyway... have fun

Where? it's actually ironic that you say that considering it's exactly what you done in these past several posts and all i've done was show how wrong your examples of 'bias' were.

Yeah... read the above link.

which has nothing to do with all your past posts and how wrong they were as examples of bias.

i read the link, firstly i just wanted to let you know political science isn't actually a science and would be more appropriately named political theory.

abc and cnn scored quite centrist with nbc being slightly liberal and cbs being very liberal.

but what's interesting is these findings allege virtually all newspapers are liberally biased including the wsj (which is surprising so im curious about their criteria) which goes to show reality truly does have a slightly liberal bias. especially considering newspaper readers are the most knowledgeable about politics whereas fox viewers were amongst the most ill-informed

http://people-press.org/reports/display.
php3?ReportID=319

---

At 8/20/07 02:42 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

..the point completely alluded you didnt it.. *sigh*..

Nah.

That's actually a pretty decent comparison youve provided for once. But might I add iraq had a previous government wheres the founding fathers had to write up and form everything ground up and the current government in iraq is still dependant on u.s aid, the region has not stabilized or been maintained under their power i.e they're ineffective and they're still heavily dependant on our occupational forces.

Yeah. And I could also say that the Iraqi government has to endure terrorist activities and were once oppressed by Saddam's dictatorship.

you have very, very terrible comprehension skills.

No. I said they were liberally biased because they slammed Libby for supposabley doing (without proof) exact what THEY DID.

THEN you said: That's what the news is supposed to do.

No, it isn't.

There is no proof that libby leaked her name. Whereas when confronting ABC for posting their story about the covert operations in Iran, the best thing they could come up with was: "They didn't say 'no'".

fdr was a tyrant. successful and popular president but still borderline dictator.

And he was a great, magnificant tyrant at that.

Love the guy, to be honest.

which has nothing to do with all your past posts and how wrong they were as examples of bias.

Dude.

You claimed they didn't have liberal bias. I, unlike you, actually acknowledge bias from my own party.

So what did i do? I gave you a link that stated (just as I said), they were liberally bias just as Fox news is conservatively biased.

They base their findings on news reports.

i read the link, firstly i just wanted to let you know political science isn't actually a science and would be more appropriately named political theory.

Wow.

Just... wow.

abc and cnn scored quite centrist with nbc being slightly liberal and cbs being very liberal.

Yay!

but what's interesting is these findings allege virtually all newspapers are liberally biased including the wsj (which is surprising so im curious about their criteria) which goes to show reality truly does have a slightly liberal bias. especially considering newspaper readers are the most knowledgeable about politics whereas fox viewers were amongst the most ill-informed

So... let me get this straight.

YOU claim there is no liberal bias in media or the news papers.
I claim there is. Therefore, I provide you with a link stating there is.

YOU then claim that it doesn't prove anything.
THEN YOU acknowledge that most newspapers are liberally biased, therefore the liberals are more well-infomed.

What the fuck are you on?

---

At 8/20/07 02:34 PM, RagnarTheRaider wrote: I agree there is strong evidence of a bias, [in media] however I believe they are only appealing to the masses as it were and giving the people what the majority desires. In other words those are the products of the people's demands.

I don't think that's all there is. I believe that the media (and schools!) is more socialist than the voting population, as evidenced by the fact that Bush was elected the last two terms even in the face of, say, Michael Moore (I'd say MM is more socialist than Bush). Granted, there IS media with other bias, but socialism is more common in media than other bias, and this is more true in media than in the population at large.

:And I don't like "libertarian", either, because most people associate it with Libertarian, a political party, which is generally filled with complete ding-dongs (and how I wish that were not true!).

Hmm well in case you hadn't realized it I'm both a libertarian (little" l") and a Libertarian (big "L"), not that I mind being called a ding-dong, I really don't because being an free-minded individualist in a socialist environment has hardened my skin and strengthened my resolve. In fact I'm so radical I make most libertarians look conservative by comparison. You might even call me an objectivist.

Heh. I apologize for calling you a ding-dong, then. :) I had meant to say that most Libertarian >candidates< appear to be ding-dongs. At least, the ones on my ballots are. I can't in good conscience vote for the ones here (many of whom spout socialist ideas!?! It's more commonly xenophobic isolationism, though), so I'm generally forced to vote Republican and hope that this time they'll keep their promises. Not that who I vote for ever gets elected (rasafrackin' grbafriggin....)

Honestly, I haven't met too many people in Real Life that consider themselves Libertarian. Probably because I live in a big city, and big cities are always socialist.

---

At 8/20/07 02:57 PM, Reignspike wrote: Heh. I apologize for calling you a ding-dong, then. :) I had meant to say that most Libertarian >candidates< appear to be ding-dongs. At least, the ones on my ballots are. I can't in good conscience vote for the ones here (many of whom spout socialist ideas!?! It's more commonly xenophobic isolationism, though), so I'm generally forced to vote Republican and hope that this time they'll keep their promises. Not that who I vote for ever gets elected (rasafrackin' grbafriggin....)

lol, again i really don't mind and you are correct about certain candidates being a bit estranged from the official Libertarian platform that in no way supports socialism. As for voting for Republicans, all I can say is good luck with that... j/k Really I wish any candidate no matter their affiliation would keep their promises.

Honestly, I haven't met too many people in Real Life that consider themselves Libertarian. Probably because I live in a big city, and big cities are always socialist.

Sadly I think you're right, just as public schools produce obedient semi-literate socialist automatons so metropolitan centers attract and produce ill-informed shortsighted collectivists.

---

At 8/20/07 02:24 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 8/20/07 12:56 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

"There are more liberals in today's youth, but among the youngest voters, conservatism is actually favored"

There are more liberal-minded people below the age of 18 than there are conservative-minded people, (hence "youth"), but there are more conservative-minded voters in the 18-25 range than there are liberal-minded voters (hence "youngest voters"). This is not over-representation, it's highlighting a shift in opinion that occurs as children come into the majority

i always thought the assumption was young voters are more liberal? in any case youre wrong.
[1]
[2]

also, in the 2004 elections more people 18-29 voted kerry then bush.

Liberals are vocally over-represented in forums because they dominate the non-voter population, but their power is just an illusion.

Firstly, i never knew there was tangible political power to be had within forums. Secondly as I said on newgrounds quite apparently this isn't the case there seems to be quite a lot of republican minors posting in these forums that you steadfastly ignore.
The conservative youth, though, has real strength because it is backed up by voting.

wrong as ive shown in the previous point.

says the guy that wrote several paragraphs of fallacies and stereotypes relating to liberals.

Demographic characteristics are different from stereotypes.

No your comments were all-encompassing stereotypes that were ridiculously false and pathetic. 'demographic characteristics' in any case is a fanciful way of saying stereotyping.

If I didn't know through personal experience that so many of the people I discussed are like that, I wouldn't have said it.

yes because the people you talk to are the embodiment of all of us. what a credulous assumption.

either way there are more liberal activists and protestors then there are conservative ones as i said.

More topics to complain about doesn't mean more activism. Provide some sources to back up your claims if you're gonna put that up as fact.

alternatively considering youve made much more vindictive comments hey about you provide sources i dont recall seeing any orange font in your posts.

also i thought this was a given. more issues means more issues to protest/ become activists about. there are feminist marches, anti-war protests, animal rights activists, environmental activists. e.g groups such as now, peta, greenpeace.

nra.. mm yeah would that be the association of gun fetishes?

What were we talking about with misconceptions before? That.

you asked me whether i knew what the nra was. i gave you my answer albeit mockingly.

Doesn't detract from the point made - new york is an expensive place to live it's population is wealthier then average, especially inner city which is a thorn in your assumption

I addressed that; the Hooverville quip was more about a general urban sense. The top Big Cities have always been liberal gathering grounds. Paris is a good example of one of the "focal" cities where liberals have gathered for many different movements throughout the decades.

dude what are you talking about? this has nothing to do with the original point, seriously. i simply gave ny as an example of a heavily liberal city and state and while im at it massachusetts as well but theyre wealthy and have higher incomes then the national average.

How many 15-18 year olds do you know that are interested in politics? There's a difference between an idiotic strongly despised president and a congress regardless of their ratings.

I'm fairly sure that all of the 15-18 year olds I see on Politics forums are interested in politics, and that population is large enough to be relevant.

except many of these 15-18 year old posters you talk about when you refer to the bush thread happen to troll and are normally in the general forum, they probably felt the need to vent their frustrations after catching a glimpse of his stupidity on tv.

How much of the total teenage population cares doesn't matter, just that a significantly large portion do.

oh right yeah based on your knowledge acquired from the 20 odd people that go on this forum on an average day.

And the difference between the President and Congress? Bush is a Republican and Congress is Democrat, and it's already obvious that you are biased towards the Democrats, so you will obviously be more lenient and positive about them, even if they are worse than the President in every negative respect.

lol tell me why the democratic congress has low approval ratings, it may allude you but it's primarily related to the iraq war. bush is a fuckover and people want out, democrats get disapproved of by republicans because as you say theyre republicans and therefore biased whilst democrats disapprove of them on the basis of inaction, even so they still prefer democrats over republicans as ill show next point. i may be biased but youre just ignorant.

Also these approval ratings don't measure resentment - democrats im sure would measure in a mild to disgusted whereas approx. slightly more then 50% of people want to impeach him. Polls also say that provided the choice they'd still prefer the democratic majority congress over a republican one.

Is that the SourceCow I hear mooing in the distance, looking for sources to eat? Maybe you should provide some MooSources, or maybe even some normal Sources.

By 52% to 37%, voters say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1 16120412623296795-iHCSqUIL3_NKbcmnldfuMe lyzYE_20071018.html?mod=blogs

Which they are, ever see the gun control thread? as d2k aptly put they all seem to flock in with the same asinine point "zomg 2nd amendment noobs kthxbye".

Regardless of their idiocy or actual politicial views (they may not have been conservative at all and still had those opinions), doesn't that example reinforce my earlier point about conservative activists? They will react to what they care about. I even provided the NRA for reference.

which can be said of the people posting in the i hate bush thread. actually it applies even more so you can hate a president and not be liberal whereas if youre pro-gun at the very least that's a strong republican issue.

Wrong. Another fallacy youre propagating. The news networks aren't 'liberally biased' as youd like to think.

MooooooooooooSource? I call the TV media liberally-biased through a direct examination of the news they provide and the manner in which they provide it.

an examination which youve yet to provide and dont give me moot points you did imply youve made an examination after all.

Other posters have cited direct examples of the liberal bias. Instead of trying to hide it behind a curtain of words, give me some real (unbiased) evidence otherwise.

No you see the burden of proof lies in with the person making the claim. Ive addressed memorize's examples which were wrong and youve given none yourself.

Isn't the entire point of this thread to discuss the fact that there are more liberals? Seems kind of pointless to reject the entire basis of this thread 3 pages in just to protect one weak point you were trying to make.

no the thread starter alleges there are more liberals it doesnt mean we have to assume this is true and discuss it as such.

---

At 8/20/07 03:42 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

i always thought the assumption was young voters are more liberal? in any case youre wrong.

You know, with your logic, I could claim that because older people are generally more conservative, they are therefore much more well informed.

Geez, tony, you never sieze to amaze me.

Firstly, i never knew there was tangible political power to be had within forums. Secondly as I said on newgrounds quite apparently this isn't the case there seems to be quite a lot of republican minors posting in these forums that you steadfastly ignore.

Conservative:
Cellar
Demosthenez
Proteas
Grammar
Wolvenbear
Zoraxe7
Animehater (I think)
Me.
Him.

Liberal:
Theburningliberal
JOS
Tony (you)
Tony (the other guy)
Sajberhippien
Cappa
D2KVirus
Elfer
Fli
Dodo-man
Cheekyvincent
Ravariel
Bolo
Rethink
Brick-Top
Drakim
morefngdbs
ImmoralLibertarian
AdamRice

On this BBS alone.

Though yes, I believe i missed a few.

alternatively considering youve made much more vindictive comments hey about you provide sources i dont recall seeing any orange font in your posts.

And yet when I link to a fairly in-depth study, you still refuse to accept it... I think.

Well, first you deny it can prove liberal bias, then you claim there is liberal bias in newspapers therefore making the liberals more informed...

How you somehow did that, I'm not entirely sure.

For now, i'll wait for you to respond to my previous post.

---

it should be noted you have a tendency to omit key points ive made and my lines which makes everything incontextual.

At 8/20/07 02:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 02:42 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

..the point completely alluded you didnt it.. *sigh*..

Nah.

e.g here.
--
yes it did

you: statistically we're going good
me: if you make a comparison to other wars, but then youre not factoring in different circumstances which makes it asinine. e.g when you used the civil war.

you then went on and made connections to vietnam and specifically iraq.

d'oh

That's actually a pretty decent comparison youve provided for once. But might I add iraq had a previous government wheres the founding fathers had to write up and form everything ground up and the current government in iraq is still dependant on u.s aid, the region has not stabilized or been maintained under their power i.e they're ineffective and they're still heavily dependant on our occupational forces.

Yeah. And I could also say that the Iraqi government has to endure terrorist activities and were once oppressed by Saddam's dictatorship.

so ive given several examples of differences in setting up govt. on both sides, youve given several examples yourself which means what? you can't truly compare the iraq govt. to the founding of our one.

you have very, very terrible comprehension skills.

No. I said they were liberally biased because they slammed Libby for supposabley doing (without proof) exact what THEY DID.

THEN you said: That's what the news is supposed to do.

youre kidding me right? where do you get this from? your imagination? or did you just cut and respond to two different points? i quoted exactly what you said, my response and your response to me. i dont see how much more clear you could make it.

anyway, you said they were liberally biased for slamming libby but doing a similar thing.

firstly 'slamming' or rather, reporting on libby being convicted of perjury is their job. you might not like that but it is.

the fact that they were reporting on secret ops makes it a hypocrisy NOT A LIBERAL BIAS. use your brain man as ive said this is a logical fallacy and youve said it for the third time.

fdr was a tyrant. successful and popular president but still borderline dictator.

And he was a great, magnificant tyrant at that.

Love the guy, to be honest.

ive got mixed opinions on him even if he was an accomplished democrat - much to your astonishment.

which has nothing to do with all your past posts and how wrong they were as examples of bias.

Dude.

You claimed they didn't have liberal bias.

im saying your examples of liberal bias are wrong

I, unlike you, actually acknowledge bias from my own party.

even though it took me ten consecutive posts with several sources until you conceded that fox showed bias.

So what did i do? I gave you a link that stated (just as I said), they were liberally bias just as Fox news is conservatively biased.

except that source shows cnn as being centrist as ive always asserted they are and ive never denied nbc were slightly liberally biased. the only thing that surprised me was the wsj which makes me question the criteria they used to determine their scales.

They base their findings on news reports.

yes but what specifically? e.g how much jesus porn there is?

i read the link, firstly i just wanted to let you know political science isn't actually a science and would be more appropriately named political theory.

Wow.

Just... wow.

?

but what's interesting is these findings allege virtually all newspapers are liberally biased including the wsj (which is surprising so im curious about their criteria) which goes to show reality truly does have a slightly liberal bias. especially considering newspaper readers are the most knowledgeable about politics whereas fox viewers were amongst the most ill-informed

So... let me get this straight.

YOU claim there is no liberal bias in media or the news papers.

No i'm saying the liberal bias isn't inherent in all those news networks as you asserted it was. example cnn and abc.

I claim there is.

based on stupid examples

Therefore, I provide you with a link stating there is.

which was pretty good except a major flaw is they dont tell us anything about the criteria they used other then 'based on news reports'.

YOU then claim that it doesn't prove anything.

no i'm saying they dont give us criteria and political science isn't truly scientific. it's a social science and doesn't make full use of the scientific method or quantifiable and objective evidence.

THEN YOU acknowledge that most newspapers are liberally biased, therefore the liberals are more well-infomed.

based on the findings within the report which i don't fully acknowledge due to - don't show the criteria used to determine the scale, lack of proof of amount of research into news articles, result of wsj.

What the fuck are you on?

i dunno, it seems you cant seem to accept the reality that newspapers as alleged by your link are liberally biased and as has been shown in a test and was widely assumed - newspapers are more informative than news networks and especially fox news which is a heavily conservative outlet.

---

At 8/20/07 04:27 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

you then went on and made connections to vietnam and specifically iraq.

d'oh

D'uh, doofus.

Iraq is frequently compared to Vietnam by those who share similar views as you in order to discredit the Bush Administration.

We won militarily in Vietnam. We also won militarily in Korea.

The difference between Vietnam and Iraq:
-Vietnam had a superpower supplying the North
-500 US soldier deaths a month
-Failed South Vietnam Government
-Had to fight in a very unfamiliar territory

The similarities:
-Enemy blended in with the civilians
-Lengthy conflicts

Hell, if we won militarily in Vietnam, why would you consider Iraq a failure? Especially considering the amount of time spent in Vietnam and the amount of time in Iraq?

My point: Iraq is very successful.

so ive given several examples of differences in setting up govt. on both sides, youve given several examples yourself which means what? you can't truly compare the iraq govt. to the founding of our one.

Yeah.

Except, the Iraqi's had it a wee bit harder and still managed to pull off a democratic government system in a fraction of the time the founding fathers did.

youre kidding me right? where do you get this from? your imagination? or did you just cut and respond to two different points? i quoted exactly what you said, my response and your response to me. i dont see how much more clear you could make it.

Because I said, in 1 post, that ABC demonstrated hypocricy with the Bush Adminstration by reporting an undergoing covert operation in Iran.

And you then said: That's what the media is suppose to do.

So what then? They're supposed to report on covert operations which could threaten the lives of dozens of people?

Fascinating.

firstly 'slamming' or rather, reporting on libby being convicted of perjury is their job. you might not like that but it is.

Interesting, as they had 0 proof whatsoever that he was the leak.

the fact that they were reporting on secret ops makes it a hypocrisy NOT A LIBERAL BIAS.

And yet, according to the link, they are liberally biased.

use your brain man as ive said this is a logical fallacy and youve said it for the third time.

ooga booga!

ive got mixed opinions on him even if he was an accomplished democrat - much to your astonishment.

Yeah, I don't mind democrats.

Democrats of his day had strength, courage, valor, honor and one very important thing democrats of today don't have... a spine.

im saying your examples of liberal bias are wrong

Tell it to the link.

Better yet. Read the entire link.

I did.

even though it took me ten consecutive posts with several sources until you conceded that fox showed bias.

Never said it didn't.

In fact, I said they were as bias as every other news outlet.

What I wanted you to do was give a link to back up what you say. Which it took you forever to accomplish.

except that source shows cnn as being centrist as ive always asserted they are and ive never denied nbc were slightly liberally biased. the only thing that surprised me was the wsj which makes me question the criteria they used to determine their scales.

And yet, you claimed CBS wasn't biased in the least. Yet they're more biased than any of those.

Extremely useful information, huh?

No i'm saying the liberal bias isn't inherent in all those news networks as you asserted it was. example cnn and abc.

And what i'm saying is that all media has bias. Not that they are some liberal conspiracy, which you seem to suggest i'm saying.

Of course, that brings in the whole question of: What happend to your assertions of CBS?

based on stupid examples

Yeah, an in-depth study that could easily beat anything you throw at me sure is stupid.

which was pretty good except a major flaw is they dont tell us anything about the criteria they used other then 'based on news reports'.

They do tell you.

IF YOU READ IT

no i'm saying they dont give us criteria and political science isn't truly scientific. it's a social science and doesn't make full use of the scientific method or quantifiable and objective evidence.

Let's see then.

Me: Link-indepth study
You: No link

I win.

based on the findings within the report which i don't fully acknowledge due to - don't show the criteria used to determine the scale, lack of proof of amount of research into news articles, result of wsj.

Nevermind the mindless amount of blue text near the bottom.

i dunno, it seems you cant seem to accept the reality that newspapers as alleged by your link are liberally biased and as has been shown in a test and was widely assumed - newspapers are more informative than news networks and especially fox news which is a heavily conservative outlet.

Lol, you're such a fucking hypocrite.

"They are not biased!"

"They are not biased, well... they are, but that just means that the liberals are more well-informed!"

LOL!