SpeshilEdjukashin: Weaver95: well, it's not like the right wing in this country is exactly sane.

Is the left sane? Which is worse, complaining about a new president who is trampling the constitution, or blindly following him screaming about hope and change?

And as for the news media, Bill O'Reilly may shout a lot (I stopped watching him a long time ago because of it) but at least he's trying to represent an otherwise unrepresented group of people. The rest of the media is way too far to the left. The networks are even doing week long prime-time specials on Obama... yet late in Bush's presidency, they were telling him no when he requested a few minutes for a prime time press conference every once in a blue moon. The bias is sickening.

1) Stop repeating the blindly following him crap. Republicans said before he got in office they were going to insult his every move, and that's what they are doing, regardless of what the move actually is. This talking point is tired. Retire it.

2) Too far left of extreme right wing is going to be basically everything short of crazy people. It's going to be the same for extreme left wing.

3) I don't think that is a sign of the bias you mean, if that is accurate, it is most likely because people want to see Obama, and they didn't want to see Bush anymore near the end. A lot of people wanted to just pretend he didn't exist, and a toaster was the president. People don't like being reminded of their failures.

The press gave Bush plenty of passes, and what you mention as bias is more incompetence. The media tends to lean towards whatever their specific owner tells them, cater towards TPTB in exchange for information that is bogus 50% of the time, and keep going until they get caught or run into a wall. Look at the press corp around Bush - they reported what he wanted because if they didn't, he would have cut them off.

Bullshiat. He would cut out individual people, but he couldn't cut off the whole WH Press Corp, they just went along to keep their positions, and when it got mentioned they threw up flags of, 'well, it was that or no information at all.' So, seriously, Obama is popular now so the media is capitalizing on that while they can for ratings. It's not a conspiracy.

Is anybody in this country a moderate anymore?

(I think I am, but I could be wrong)

Overfiend:

Is anybody in this country a moderate anymore?

I'm moderately awesome.

Comparing MSNBC to Fox News is not accurate. Aside from having cable news shows where they discuss current events, there are very few similarities.

It is dishonest to say that Olbermann and O'Reilly are simply different sides of the same coin, or that Maddow and Hannity are doing comparable things. Would someone even compare Glenn Beck to Ed Schulz?

The huge difference between MSNBC and Fox News comes down to the content, accuracy, reliability, and agenda behind the information being presented.

To say that Fox News, and its mouthpieces like O'Reilly, occasionally just get things wrong is not a realistic excuse anymore. Fox and its presenters intentionally mislead and incite their audiences in the manner that Ebert laid out. Fox News is so politically connected and entwined with the GOP it's hard to distinguish them. It's also very easy to find long lists of uncorrected inaccuracies related to Fox News.

MSNBC has liberal presenters like Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, and Schulz, but the information that they present is consistently accurate. On the rare occasion that Maddow or Olbermann get something wrong, they correct that information, and provide the correct information. When Maddow or Olbermann disagree with the President, they have their say and explain why. There are not long lists of uncorrected inaccuracies reported by MSNBC, and if there are, they've likely been corrected.

In short, defending O'Reilly and Fox News by pointing at MSNBC and whining that they're doing the same thing is not an honest defense. The right wing has got to start taking some responsibility for its actions.

It's about time that more people spoke out against what is coming from Fox. It's one thing for them to have the right to say what they would like to say, to incite elements that they would like to incite, and challenge the people who they feel need challenging. It's another for them to suggest that they should be doing this unchallenged. Claiming what their doing is free speech, while also claiming that it being done to them is restricting their right to free speech? that could only make sense to their viewers, some of whom are too stupid to understand, some of whom don't seem to need much more than a flimsy justification to do or say anything.

The thing with bullies like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, is that they tend to start falling apart when they get bullied back, because they feed on the support of the crowd. They've done a pretty good job of silencing critics so far, but I think people are just so tired of the hateful rhetoric.

Hopefully, they collapse as quickly as McCarthy did once people started standing up to him.

678583: Bill O'Reilly's show is for entertainment purposes. It's just that people get really crazy when someone has the opposite view of them, they become outraged that this "filth" can even be allowed on television. In any case, it's funny how this thread has devolved into a left vs. right argument, like always. The article is actually about how both sides have insane screaming tools on television spreading propaganda.

It's just that O'Reilly encourages people to get in touch with their inner crazy and direct it at someone with the opposite view.

I disagree often, but do not object to O'Reilly's viewpoints. I almost always object to the methods he uses to promote them.

Klingon Penis: I would hope the "civil politics" movement gains steam, where one support candidates and pundits who practice civility above all else.

Barack Obama and the Democrats clearly beat John McCain and the Republicans on this score during the last election, and I'd like to believe it had some effect on voters.

You feeling okay? That seems a lot less confrontational than usual....

Kidding,kidding! I actually applaud your point.

Weaver95: Pegasus_CAG: Weaver95, where Bush farked us was when he ran as a fiscal conservative and then turned around and increased the size of government at an unprecedented rate. Obama is only guilty of taking the ball and running with it which he would have done anyway since they both seem to be operating from the same playbook.

Yeah, but my point is that we all knew Obama was gonna raise taxes. He's a Democrat President with a Democrat majority in Congress. Of *course* he's going to raise taxes. It's not a surprise to anyone here.

Bush tho...he and his buddies swore to lower taxes, cut spending and balance the budget. instead they lowered taxes, INCREASED spending and lied to us about damn near every question anyone asked them.

And now Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the others are saying that if you aren't with them then you're with the enemy.

I think they've been saying that for years. A good friend of mine is very conservative and he hated President Bush's economic record. He was constantly ripping the President for their spending and overall increase of the size of government.

So he and I are two Republicans who would agree that President Bush screwed up the economy. Ha!, there's two more for you, Weaver....

mrsirjojo

Has O'Reilly ever debated someone where he didn't get to be the moderator?

The only time I can think of is the one Meet Us at The Stick mentioned and he didn't do well there. But.....name a time when Keith Olbermann debated anyone? Or even allowed an opposing viewpoint on his show?

archichris: And WTF is up with that queer photo of him?

I got all these wierd Krishna vibes from that picture, like he was blessing my eight headed elephant or something.

Damn, you're right. I dismissed it as an add or something. I agree wtih his point that venom in public discourse makes things worse, but seriously Ebert just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Overfiend: Is anybody in this country a moderate anymore?

(I think I am, but I could be wrong)

I think I am, too - but I lean liberal; meaning I'm generally a liberal thinker, but my hair is not on fire about it.

Moderates are the swing voters who elect Presidents. The moderates voted for Obama.

SynthLord: bubbaprog: When your speech leads to people being hurt or killed, it's not protected anymore.

Should death metal bands and gangsta rappers be prosecuted when teenagers are influenced by their violent lyrics to commit suicide, murder, theft, or rape?

If those performers name names and encourage the act, then yes. Making hyperbolic rants about about groups or policies is typically protected. But when you say "Mr. XXX deserves to be killed and I think you who are listening should kill him", then YES, you are liable for conspiracy should one of your listeners act upon your words.

Dick.

Overfiend: Is anybody in this country a moderate anymore?

(I think I am, but I could be wrong)

What a stupid idea to practice moderation. No matter which extreme is in power, neither will trust you because of your lack of ideological purity. Therefore, you are tuned out as irrelevant and lacking the requisite zeal for 'the cause.'

/had a family member called an 'infiltrator' by the local RNC chair because she didn't think that Madame Palin was the next Joan of Arc
//They actually refer to Palin as the next great american Joan of Arc
///Ya rly. srsly.

All Apologies: It is dishonest to say that Olbermann and O'Reilly are simply different sides of the same coin, or that Maddow and Hannity are doing comparable things. Would someone even compare Glenn Beck to Ed Schulz?

Olbermann only exists because O'Reilly is successful. Sooner or later someone was bound to look at Rush's success (Rush really started it) and imitate it so they can make as much money as Rush does. O'Rielly, Hannity, Beck, and Olbermann are all cut from the pattern Rush created.

To the credit of the Left, successful leftist propagandists like Olbermann are rare.

Your_Huckleberry: Klingon Penis: I would hope the "civil politics" movement gains steam, where one support candidates and pundits who practice civility above all else.

Barack Obama and the Democrats clearly beat John McCain and the Republicans on this score during the last election, and I'd like to believe it had some effect on voters.

You feeling okay? That seems a lot less confrontational than usual....

Kidding,kidding! I actually applaud your point.

It's true, actually - my opinions haven't changed, I just moderate the way I express them.

My fundamentalist Christian brother and I were tweeting back and forth about abortion a little, and he called me a "typical liberal" who was "making fun of Jesus".
I wasn't, of course, and it made me see how ugly the discourse has got, if my own brother apes it.

Plus, I've been reading Jonathan Haidt, who is the author of that civil politics site and a couple of books. He had his own talk at TED, too.

Weaver95: "Not that the Democrats are any more tolerant but at least they don't lie about what it is they stand for either."

Oh, they do. Just for different reasons. One of the bits of conservative wharrgarbl that offends me is the insinuation that nobody who voted for Obama actuall had good reasons for doing so, that we're all brainwashed morons who "Drank the kool-aid".

Prior to the advent of television the way most Americans got to know candidates was by reading about their platform and hearing them speak/debate over radio. It's no coincidence that television marked the beginning of an image-obsessed, substance-free downward spiral that (hopefully) ended with Bush. We should elect candidates based upon a carefully considered interpretation of what they intend to do for us, and I say carefully considered because neither party is honest about their intentions in the run-up to an election.

When Obama waffled on marijuana I knew he intended to more towards decriminalization (as he has since being elected) he simply couldn't be forthright about it as he risked alienating the older voters. Likewise when he was deliberately vague about NASA funding my heart sunk because I knew from reading up on his platform that he would prefer to cut everything but unmanned science missions so the money could be funneled into the education system. In my vew the education system has many problems, but funding isn't one of them. The education budget dwarfs the NASA budget forty times over, but what is the money spent on? Shiny new macs for the computer lab? Digital projectors and smartboards? Wouldn't that money be better spent on higher salaries, so as to attract better qualified teachers?

Likewise McCain was dead right about a few things, one of them being his initiative to build 100 new nuclear plants in the coming years. I am staunchly in favor of nuclear power as I think it's the only way to sustain our standard of living in spite of fluctuating oil prices and climate change. One of Obama's most generous contributors is Exelon, America's biggest nuclear power company, and the CEO of General Electric is on his energy board so I imagine he'll come out for nuclear eventually but McCain was right first and he wasn't afraid to be up front about it.

In spite of this I voted for Obama, for the following reasons:

#1. I knew he'd lift restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.
#2. The transnational highspeed rail, which I believe will reinvigorate the economy.
#3. His decision to heavily fund alternative energy research and the construction of solar/wind plants.
#4. His appointment of nobel prize winner Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy
#5. Appointed Harvard physicist John Holdren as science advisor

The most urgent task right now is, in my view, weaning the nation off of coal and oil. The stimulus should have left the major automakers out in the cold so that up and coming electric automakers (such as Tesla) could step up to take their place, but other than that most of the funds were appropriately directed, especially the fat chunk of change spent on renewable energy. Despite what sandal-wearing, granola crunching types will tell you it's going to take a farkton of solar plants and windmills to cover the gap left by coal and oil (fewer if Americans would cut the NIMBY bullshiat and get behind nuclear) but it's a practical necessity in the long run, not just economically but politically as well unless you want to age into a future where we're still militarily entangled in the Middle East.

Mordant: feckingmorons considers himself to be one of the more open minded and fair participants of political discourse.

Think about that, does it really matter if we strive for a civil and peaceful society anymore ? It's already a lost cause.

A civil and peaceful human society? I just want to be clear on that point.

Zamboro: It's the strangest thing. I'm a democrat mainly because it's the party which (in practice) better supports the values that the Republican party claims to represent. At least the ones I agree with. If there were some parallel universe in which both parties actually stood for what they are meant to, I'd probably vote Republican.

So which party is going to soak up all of the disenfranchised fiscal conservatives elbowed out of the party by the fundies? My money's on the Libertarian party. Nutty in their own right, but at least they're sincere about keeping out of our lives.

I'm curious, what values would those be?

Seriously asking...

DamnYankees: Overfiend: Is anybody in this country a moderate anymore?

(I think I am, but I could be wrong)

Being a moderate doesn't make any sense - it has to be issue by issue. People are either for a certain idea or against it. I don't know what it really means to be generally "moderate".

I would agree in principle, but being moderate would mean you vary on issues. You are not just always thinking left or always thinking right. You have differing opinions.

I am liberal on most social issues, but more conservative on national defense issues. I am a christian who believes in gay marriage. I am a gun owner - but for sport. Not cause I fear that the "durn libs" are going to take away the right to own firearms. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and I also am pro-life.

I would still call myself a moderate. Am I politically insignificant? Maybe. But I don't like to label myself as a Republican or a Democrat (voted for Nader in 2000).

Current logic from the GOP/Ebert-attackers:

Bill'O: A saintly, patriotic hero who is never wrong.

Anyone who doesn't like or disagrees with him: Kill him.

If you guys really want him gone, quit paying attention.

Roger Ebert is married to a black woman.

Reoger Ebert doesn't believe in creation or intelligent design.

Two things that make far righties squirm.

nvmac: If we allow others to analyze facts and situations for us, we lose that capability ourselves.

Think, America.

/don't watch and they'll go away
//test everything, hold on to the good

Simpsons did it!

DamnYankees: No. Wrong. You see, Gore and Obama have this thing called "science" on their side.

When Al Gore says "the debate is over," he's not citing a fact, he's issuing a command. Everything is open to debate, if for no other reason than to preserve the legitimacy of a known fact.

But that's not my point: my point is that both O'Reilly and Gore -- in their respective, different ways -- don't want debate. They want you to shut up instead of questioning them.

DamnYankees: You are essentially defending the modus operendi of Creationism, but in the realm of global warming and economics. And Creationism is freaking retarded.

You're assuming a lot here: for starters, I agree, Creationism is retarded. It's just as retarded, though, for one to accept evolution -- or imminently catastrophic global warming, or any science -- on faith.

I trust in the findings of a century of scientific achievement in the evolutionary sciences, the findings of which have led to practical applications in medicine, anthropology, psychology, neurology, etc. I don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to appreciate the truth of evolution; all I need is a little knowledge of the topic and a functioning mind.

But evolution is still "debatable". They don't know everything about it yet, and as the nature of science is that newly-discovered facts can challenge previously-held truths, there exists the possibility (if not probability) for some new data to emerge and seriously challenge a lot of what scientists think they know about the origins of life. That doesn't validate Creationism; it acknowledges the nature of scientific discovery.

Al Gore doesn't want you to acknowledge that beyond what he professes to be absolute certainty. If he was talking about evolution, the issue would be moot, but he's talking about something that is being increasingly challenged by the very people he's citing as sources.

Shouldn't that at least re-open the debate?

Burn98: All Apologies: It is dishonest to say that Olbermann and O'Reilly are simply different sides of the same coin, or that Maddow and Hannity are doing comparable things. Would someone even compare Glenn Beck to Ed Schulz?

Olbermann only exists because O'Reilly is successful. Sooner or later someone was bound to look at Rush's success (Rush really started it) and imitate it so they can make as much money as Rush does. O'Rielly, Hannity, Beck, and Olbermann are all cut from the pattern Rush created.

To the credit of the Left, successful leftist propagandists like Olbermann are rare.

Alright, just ignore the rest of what was written why don't ya.

You should easily be able to produce a long list of factual inaccuracies Olbermann has produced then. Or, at the very least, give an example of each of the seven propaganda devices that Olbermann uses on a regular basis.

If you're going to make that claim, you're going to have to back that claim up, which is going to be no easy task, but go ahead.

SherKhan: So called fiscal conservatism is a fig leaf for a philosophy born from FUD. It's better called fiscal responsibility and isn't the sole purview of conservatism.

Which is why I prefer to think of myself as a fiscal conservative. It is a stance that addresses what I consider to be a matter of primary importance regardless of which party is catering to me at the moment. It prevents me from becoming too much of a blind, loyal party hack. I assure you, one of the many things that sunk the GOP in the last election was the collective voting of fiscal conservatives such as myself, who regard the Bush years as being wildly fiscally irresponsible. It caused a pretty deep schism within the right wing, wheras the left wing was utterly united.

0.02

People don't think about issues then develop a right- or left-wing ideology; people become emotionally invested in being right- or left-wing and force themselves to adopt Party opinions accordingly.

It's impossible to migrate from one ideology to another; the worse things get for their "side", the more energy they throw into attacking the "other side".

DamnYankees: Your_Huckleberry: But.....name a time when Keith Olbermann debated anyone? Or even allowed an opposing viewpoint on his show?

Well that's the point - Olbermann doesn't debate. His show isn't about that. I think he would argue that's a feature, not a bug.

Oh, I'm sure he would argue that. And I understand the idea of not being part of those shout-fests on the other channel. I like Olbermann more than the others, I really do. But I can't help but feel he's being almost cowardly in the way he puts the big stick on people and won't give them a chance to respond. Sorry, that's just my opinion.


006andahalf: Overfiend: Is anybody in this country a moderate anymore?

(I think I am, but I could be wrong)

What a stupid idea to practice moderation. No matter which extreme is in power, neither will trust you because of your lack of ideological purity. Therefore, you are tuned out as irrelevant and lacking the requisite zeal for 'the cause.'

/had a family member called an 'infiltrator' by the local RNC chair because she didn't think that Madame Palin was the next Joan of Arc
//They actually refer to Palin as the next great american Joan of Arc
///Ya rly. srsly.

I had a family member call me a 'Rino' once, and I'm fairly certain the topic had something to do with religion.

Say what you will about FOX: They don't have Nancy Grace.

DamnYankees: Burn98: Olbermann only exists because O'Reilly is successful. Sooner or later someone was bound to look at Rush's success (Rush really started it) and imitate it so they can make as much money as Rush does. O'Rielly, Hannity, Beck, and Olbermann are all cut from the pattern Rush created.

Ahhhh, vagueness. It can make anyone resemble anyone.

OK, let me be more specific. They all tend to use propaganda techniques to push their audiences toward their point of view.

That does not mean the there are an absence of facts in their presentations. Far from it. Propaganda can not be successful unless most of it can be verified.

What it does mean is that the facts are presented selectively. Supporting facts are repeated using an excited voice.
Opposing facts are omitted, partially omitted, or mentioned once in a subdued or "what do you expect" tone of voice.

The use of emotion, especially the manufacture of outrage, is a key feature.

GAT_00:

So, because someone else has killed in the name of God, you get to kill in the name of God all you want? All right, so one nut doesn't do it. How many do you want? When does the violence become acceptable, or are you just going to keep moving the goalposts?

Not to threadjack but I think it's safe to say, given your choice of deity, or none, it's perfectly fine to hope/pray that the FPK (Fred Phelps Klan) doesn't go on a bender one day and shoot up his neighborhood. All in the name of God. Those would be some high numbers before the paramedics could even get out of the garage.

Your_Huckleberry: "I'm curious, what values would those be?

Seriously asking..."

Individual rights mainly, the conviction that the state ought to stay out of personal affairs as much as possible. I also think it'd be possible (and desirable) to scale down the existing government if the appropriate changes were made. There are merits and demerits to big governments, but I think there are ways of reducing size and waste while retaining most of the services that large governments are thought to be necessary for.

Understand that I'm also the sort of person who fully expects a gradual descent into thinly veiled corporatism but who isn't convinced it'll necessarily be a bad thing. Even so, we might give some consideration to a wall of separation between private industry and state, to complement the church/state barrier. I won't be able to decide either way until I can get a better sense of how the increasingly rapid adoption of sophisticated robotic automation is affecting the people-powered industries which employ something like 70% of Americans.

It all makes sense if you get me drunk and give me a soap box to stand on, I swear.

fireclown: Say what you will about FOX: They don't have Nancy Grace.

Well, sometimes I think about what it would be like to bag Nancy Grace during a drunken weekend in a cheap Myrtle Beach motel.

I never imagine that about Bill O'Reilly.

fireclown: Say what you will about FOX: They don't have Nancy Grace.

Yet.

feckingmorons: A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.

THE ONE!

*chug*

DamnYankees SherKhan: HONDOWAYNE:

About as much as liberalism has done for this country.

Except for epic wrongness, you'd be right. Everything conservatism has allegedly achieved has been done within a framework built of liberal ideals.

We had a thread on this a while ago - how every great thing this country has done was considered "liberal" at the time it was proposed. The absolute closest anyone can come to great conservative things was the deregulation of the 80s.

which would make sense, the whole point of conservatism is opposing change, it would seem.

and true neo-conservatives don't even deal with domestic policy, it's all about hegemony.

Barakku: "I am not interested in discussing Bill O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society"

Isn't that like saying "Alright, I don't want to be a gay-basher or anything, I'm just concerned that all the dick you're sucking might cause a black hole and collapse the galaxy"? I hate when people use quasi-logical statements to sound smart. I don't want to get into the author's writing, I'm just concerned his self-felating writing style might spell death for half the planet.

That's taking it a bit far, and you know it. The article was NOT about O'Rielly's politics, but rather how he conducts himself on television. There are left-wingers who do the same.

And the whole POINT is that the shouting-match-bullying-asshat method of "interviewing" people is detrimental to the spread of information and ideas. Sure, you can disagree with ideas, but when discourse is pushed aside in favor of shouting matches? That's not good for anyone.

Of course, then we wouldn't have gems like THIS