Subject:
|
Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:38:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
463 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > Why is it that when Limbaugh, Reagan, Gallagher, Buchannan, Falwell,
> > > Robertson, Carlson, Will, O'Reilly et al spout pro-Republican invective it's
> > > called "fair and balanced reporting," but when a left-leaning commentator
> > > voices an opinion it's called demagoguery? Is that the accursed Liberal Media
> > > at work again?
> >
> > I think you have it backwards, Dave! None of the above would claim to be
> > unbiased-- they are honest and open about their conservative leanings. It's
> > the print media, the networks, public radio who disingenuously pass themselves
> > off as "fair and balanced when in actuality they are just as biased in the
> > other direction.
>
> You're injecting another issue into the discussion, which I will address
> in a moment. In any case, let's consider what you're saying:
> You're claiming that conservative talking heads can't be called demagogues
> as long as they are open about their conservatism. You're saying, in
> effect, that they're free to make up whatever lies they choose (such as, for
> instance, Clinton's cocaine smuggling or covered-up murder or sex addiction
> or real estate theivery or what-have-you, none of which has been borne out
> despite the efforts of The Conservative Machine).
I think we can agree that wackos come in all favors.
> But liberal commentators,
> according to you, are demagogues when they voice anti-conservative opinion.
> Chretien, and--more specifically--Francoise Ducros, are members of the
> Liberal Party of Canada, so according to you they must keep their mouths
> shut or at the very least keep quiet their anti-Bush sentiments; for them to
> do otherwise would be demagoguery.
I am not for silencing criticism, but I think that insults are not necessary.
How about *constuctive* criticism-- that's what I'd like.
> As far "as fair and balanced reporting" goes, that's the actual motto of
> the conservative Fox News Network, so they set the bar for themselves and
> consistently fail to meet their own standard.
I don't watch TV, much less own cable, so I don't know what the deal is at Fox.
> As for the other conservative
> commentators, I'll address Limbaugh specifically because he's the, shall we
> say, biggest target.
You know, he lost a lot of weight, so easy on the fat jokes;-)
> Limbaugh, with his Talent on Loan from God, prides himself on Excellence
> in Journalism. Therefore it's especially disappointing to see that he
> maintains no journalistic integrity re: objectivity or truth or admission of
> error or even-handedness or un-spun reality or equity in attack. So your
> defense of him as an "honest and open" republican commentator is irrelevant;
> he himself undermines that defense by alleging and then failing to uphold
> standards of journalistic integrity. Yet you bristle when Limbaugh is
> called a demagogue, even when members of his own party are on record
> referring to him as "a circus clown."
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. McCain is a disingenuous
fraud. I wish he'd just switch parties and get it over with!
> Or are you claiming that the problem is that the so-called Liberal Media
> of the U.S. is at fault? If that's the case, then which of the networks,
> all of which are owned by huge, conservative mega-corporations, qualifies in
> your opinion as a liberal news source?
> > I characterized the Canadian's astute observation of Bush's policy as
> > demogoguery because it was empty of substance and full of emotional tripe.
>
> That depends. If Ducros based her assessment on Bush's inability to speak
> in a coherent, articulate fashion, or perhaps on his inability to run any
> business successfully in his adult life, or perhaps on his inability to
> formulate a cohesive foreign policy, or perhaps on his inability to
> formulate a cohesive domestic policy, or perhaps on his inability to mount a
> credible attack on corporate greed/corruption, then I'd say her choice of
> "moron" is well-reasoned and, frankly, quite restrained.
> > You mentioned Jessica Lange (which I sniped). She "hates" Bush; it's all >>about
> > emotion and feelings with the Left-- let's see some substanitive criticism
> > instead of this tired ad hominen blather of "Dubya" and the like.
> The entirety of the Republican Platform is based on emotional appeal to
> ideology, from its mandate of pro-religion school vouchers to its
> Christian-based antiabortion agenda to its rabid anti-civil-rights policies
> to its "Christian-morality"-driven judge appointments.
So what? At least they are basing their emotion on *ideas*, rather than on
reaction *against* them.
> Now you're condeming liberals for speaking emotionally. And not just any
> liberals--a Canadian liberal and a US actor, no less, as opposed to a US
> political figure like Falwell or Robertson or Limbaugh or Bush, all of whom
> speak constantly from emotionalism, intolerance, and ignorance of science.
> Why do you hold liberal actors to a higher standard than that to which you
> hold actual cornerstones of the Republican far-right?
I'd like to hear some of their *ideas* (not really, but you get my point), not
their bile against ideas, in an attempt to influence masses by right of their
social position. They are simply political hacks.
> > So the fact that Hussein has been violating his agreement with the
> > UN for the past 10 years doesn't count as a loss for diplomacy? We should >>have
> > taken him out the first time around, but the UN would never have stood for
> > that. And now here we are, 10 years later and in virtually the same spot.
>
> You have a real problem staying on-point. Let's discuss your statement in
> several parts:
> Q. Does Hussein's defiance of treaty count as a diplomatic failure?
> A. Not really; diplomacy was never tried.
What? What do you call an unconditional ceasefire from Desert Storm?
Diplomacy saved his keister.
Military action was appropriate
> to drive Iraq from Kuwait, but there has been no serious diplomatic effort
> toward Iraq in the subsequent 10 years. UN weapons inspectors don't count,
> since they were basically a post-war enforcement brigade, not to mention
> frequent spies on behalf of the US.
Well, I lay the blame squarely on the UN. They simply choose to ignore the
problem.
>
> Q. Should we have taken out Hussein during Desert Storm?
> A. Morally? Maybe so, but only if we were willing to admit that the US
> role of weapons supplier to Iraq would have to have been explained.
They were the lesser of 2 evils at the time. Kind of an unfair assessment.
> Further, the provisions of Desert Storm did not require Hussein to be killed
> or captured, and to do so would have been stepping beyond the charter.
A flawed charter (as we are finding out)
>
> Q. Are we in "virtually the same spot"?
> A. Yes, after ten years of sanctions, embargos, and military strikes, we
> are in virtually the same spot. I'd be greatly interested to see what would
> happen in the event of actual diplomatic efforts.
> > And give me a break, Dave! The use of the term "moronic" was meant as an
> > insult, and a politically-INcorrect one at that.
>
> Well, so what?
Only that it was my whole point. It was a cheap shot, and I was commenting on
how I am tired of cheap shots that are devoid of substance.
> > > And your rhetorical point is weakened still further since you're concluding
> > > that, because diplomacy hasn't worked in one situation, it cannot work in
> > > another.
> >
> > I asked for an instance where it *has* worked in a major conflict. Can you
> > cite?
>
> You're setting an impossible task, you realize; there have been few
> instances of conflicts solved solely by diplomacy because such conflicts
> almost invariably start as exchanges of force. Therefore there no pure
> diplomatic solutions to cite.
> Can you show me an instance where pure force solved a conflict and
> maintained the subsequent peace?
Japan and Germany, 1945. Today, they are our allies. What better example?
>
> > I personally happen to believe that there would be peace between Palestinians
> > and Israelis today were it not for Islamic extremists.
>
> Maybe, but I don't think the blame can be placed solely on the extremists
> of one side or the other. I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently well-versed in
> the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to give a more elaborate response.
>
> > > By the way--what *would* Jesus drive?
> >
> > For starters, it would have to be big enough to carry him and his 12
> > disciples....
>
> John--in all seriousness and without any sarcasm, I must commend you for
> that. I've heard all manner of condemnation for this ad campaign, with
> Robertson going almost so far as to call it blasphemy. Honestly, I don't
> see the problem; if it's okay to ask the unanswerable question "What would
> Jesus do?" then surely it's okay to rephrase it into the equally
> unanswerable question "What would Jesus drive?" I'm gratified and,
> admittedly, a bit surprised to see that you have a sense of humor about it!
lol, I have a feeling that your perception of me is a lot worse than I may
deserve. I am actually quite a tolerant person. I keep telling myself that I
should refrain from discussing controversial ideas on line, because
misunderstanding is almost inevitable. It can be intellectually stimulating,
although the price can be high (namely my reputation;-)
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) I agree 100%. But the problem is that conservatives in general (and, honestly, you in particular, in OT.debate at least) tend to castigate liberal commentators for doing exactly the same things for which conservative commentators are lauded. (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) You're injecting another issue into the discussion, which I will address in a moment. In any case, let's consider what you're saying: You're claiming that conservative talking heads can't be called demagogues as long as they are open about (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
