Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:28:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
422 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
So I expect to never, ever hear the phrase “liberal media” out of you,
right, since it sided with Bush? :-)
|
No matter how hard I try, I can’t swallow conspiracy theories--including
“liberal media.” It’s too ingrained in human nature to blab for any
conspiracy to long endure!
I believe that the media is largely composed of liberals (just check
editorial endorsements around election time and compare the number of liberal
candidates being endorsed to the number of conservative candidates being
endorsed). Thus, much news is provided with a liberal viewpoint. (As a
counter-example, Fox News, which has more conservative journalists, provides
more conservative viewpoints.) Do the “liberal media” members sit around
wondering how to provide the liberal view? Nah. That’s just how it is: not
a deliberate thing, just what happens.
|
I think you misunderstand me: the term “liberal media” is used to try and claim
a bias in news reporting against conservatives. That’s it - it’s not a term
dependent on there being a specific organized conspiracy. You are effectively
using the term while simultaneously claiming that you aren’t. You are also
using the standard term of “media”, which includes magazines, internet, and
radio, when you seem to mean newspapers and television network news (as in NBC,
ABC, and CBS, but somehow Fox doesn’t count). If you don’t mean “media” please
don’t repeat the term. It is simply a mantra that is used as the Universal
Excuse.
| |
| |
“We all know that election laws don’t matter when Democrats are on the
losing side...” Okay, back that up. Give some examples.
|
Okay, from the 2000 election:
-Deadlines required by law aren’t deadlines (FL Supreme Court, “extended
polling hours” in heavily Democratic areas of St. Louis).
|
You don’t give the reasons for this incident at all, so one can hardly judge.
| |
-Equal protection provided by the 14th Amendment isn’t (“every vote must
count” except the military (i.e., conservative) ones, and recounts
only took place in heavily Democratic areas with Democratic election
commissions).
|
Same deal. Anyway, if abuses took place to block votes in a heavily Democratic
area, why wouldn’t having a recount there make sense? It’s kinda like, “How
dare you catch me cheating! If you demand that there be an accounting for me
cheating, then you are a cheat because you didn’t call me to account in the
places I didn’t cheat!”
| |
| |
As to Gore, he accepted the final ruling, so that would not constitute an
example.
|
True, but you said:
| |
Judicial fiat is how we have Bush as president
|
and I was providing an alternate viewpoint, not providing an example to
bolster my original argument.
|
Just anticipating and trying to save us some time. :-)
| |
| |
Mediation is usually to avoid an actual court appearance - there is nothing
in and of itself illegal about it. Perhaps if you laid out the entire
scenario a little more thoroughly, I could better understand your position.
|
But mediation isn’t part of the judicial check and balance for legislation!
Judicial review is very explicitly detailed at federal and state levels, and
it does not include mediation.
|
Then judicial review should strike down the mediation if it is illegal, so I
don’t see the problem. Has it been struck down, proving it illegal? Or is it
at least in a court battle at the moment? Or is it just a wild claim not backed
up by any action?
| |
| |
Actually, I’d say that was the best line. It has been the age old standby,
kill a white person, get executed, kill a black, oh, maybe a slap on the
wrist. But I rather imagine that it is as I said, payback for the Willie
Horton thing, which your site does not spend one word on deploring. One was
a straight racist appeal, the other was a complaint about letting racism
continue (remember, Republicans like to pretend they are the “law and order”
party). So, no, they are not directly comparable, but if they are, why
aren’t you expending even more effort on the ad that is the root cause?
|
Hey, you argued:
| |
the right-wing Republicans are doing whatever it takes to actually achieve
theirs
|
|
...via the central Republican committee, as I pointed out before. Which means
to draw a parallel you have to go to the Democratic central committee.
| |
I countered with that ad as an example that both sides are willing to do
whatever it takes to gain power. It’s beyond the purview of this discussion
(though if you want to start one I’ll be happy to join!) to discuss the ad
content...
|
Uh, no, your example doesn’t involve the Democratic party, much less the
national organizing committee. Further, you drew an example that compares a
racist ad with one that complains about racism and equated them as the same, and
have avoided adressing that after I pointed it out. It is not beyond the
purview of this discussion to discuss the ad content, it is simply inconvient
for your argument to discuss it. If the ad content cannot be discussed, then
you have utterly no point (you literally can’t make your claim of both sides are
willing to do whatever it takes without discussing the ad content, so you
provide the refutation to your own argument).
| |
| |
Yes, they tried to bribe anyone, yes, when the cold light of day struck, the
cockroaches pretended like they didn’t know them. So what? The bottom line
is that they were protected and sheparded by Bush and his buddies every step
of the way except the last (i.e. the main cupability for Enron getting out
of hand lies squarely on Bush). Just say, no they weren’t and we can go
from there, or admit that they were instead of these sound bite defenses.
And yes, it did do them a lot of good (in the short run, and some still
now): many of those weasels running Enron made millions at other’s expenses.
|
I’m afraid I lost you with “the main cupability for Enron getting out of hand
lies squarely on Bush;” can you provide examples of special treatment that
they received over and above what other companies did?
|
Don’t need to. I said, “The bottom line is that they were protected and
sheparded by Bush and his buddies every step of the way except the last.” And
now I’m going to repeat, just say yes they did (and feel free to append whatever
you want after that) or say no they didn’t.
It’s just a bad
| |
corporation run amock. Bush didn’t cook their books, lie to investors, and
ruin the lives of employees.
|
He made it easier for them to do so, however.
| |
IMO, there’s no defense possible for the blatant fraud that Enron did. The
Enron execs who wilfully cheated millions of investors and employees should
not only be in prison (and not a country club one either, but kinda like the
HBO show Oz), but their lifestyle should be ruined so that even if they get
out they have to be just like the rest of us working stiffs. It was
sickening when Ken Lay’s wife was weeping about having to sell one of their
houses.
|
Then wouldn’t it follow that you should want to prevent reaccurances of this
problem, and understand how and why it happened? If the response is yes, but
not if it gives liberals a chance to attack conservatives successfully, then
your answer is actually no, and you will have just diagreed with what you wrote
above (i.e. there is an excuse).
| |
| |
Is it? I must admit I haven’t had a regular newpaper the last few weeks,
but I haven’t really seen evidence of this. Anyone with some reports (and
please, regular news or business sites, not conservative or liberal
propaganda sites)?
|
DJIA, consumer confidence, and consumer spending are all improving.
Actually, anyone *know* any sites that aren’t propagandizing in some form or
fashion?
|
It depends on what you mean by propagandizing - active distortion or supression
of facts to support your case, or using arguments that the writer doesn’t
believe in, but uses anyway (kinda like blaming Clinton for the bad economy in
one breath, and then saying that he couldn’t actually affect the economy in
another)? Anyway, I think you know what I mean: sites that are grinding an axe
and don’t even take an stab at balance.
| |
| |
Hmmmm, I don’t know where we seem to be disagreeing that much: you site
nothing to blame Clinton, so it would seem to be on Bush’s head, and if it
is recovering, then it must have been down. All that we seem to differ on
is that it is going back up, and time will either prove your right or not,
regardless of what it appears like at the moment.
|
You talked about:
| |
the bad economy in general (same culprits ed: Bush/Cheney)
|
I believe that the president and government has little effect on the economy
other than at the level of the individual consumer--and more precisely, how
much money that consumer has to spend, whether it’s through tax rate or
interest rate changes. The government can accelerate or retard trends, IMO,
but not much more.
|
The Federal Interest Rate springs to mind, and that has a great effect on the
economy, whether it is on the individual consumer ot not. Your basically saying
that there is no effect except for where there is an effect. Further, you
credit Bush for reviving the economy via taxes - either this is another you
don’t believe the argument but you’ll use it pieces of propaganda, or you have
successfully provided the counter to yourself.
| |
(If the government had that amount control over the economy, we’d be
communist instead of capitalist.)
I provided examples to support my argument, and hopefully did a decent job of
demonstrating that neither Bush nor Clinton is particularly to blame for the
economy. (Hop-Frog said they were mere figureheads, but the downside of
being a figurehead is that you also get to be the fall guy when things go
bad.)
|
Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see where you made your case at all.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 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
|
|
|
|
