Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:38:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
562 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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.
|
Don’t take my word for it--try reading Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias. I don’t
think anyone can make any persuasive argument for Goldberg being conservative.
He details from personal experience what happens when one questions the way that
news is reported, and it’s quite clear that his dissension was not tolerated by
these oh so open, understanding, and tolerant people.
I mean “mainstream media,” meaning media outlets where people turn for
information rather than opinion, which includes the major networks, cable news
networks, news magazines (Time, Newsweek), and newspapers. I also include Fox
in there, and properly labelled them as conservative in my post. Is that
specific enough for you? And I notice that you didn’t debate my point about the
number of liberal vs. conservative endorsees from the mainstream media. One
would think that this would have a similar distribution to the general
population, rather than strongly liberal.
So yes, using your definition, I believe that the media is indeed biased towards
a liberal viewpoint. I do not think that it is that way through conspiracy or
malicious intent, so it’s just a notation of the status quo rather than a
complaint.
We’ll give up “liberal media” if you give up “tax cuts for the rich.”
| |
| |
-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.
|
OK. Florida law required the Secretary of State to certify the voting results
by 5 p.m. on November 14th. On November 17th, the Florida Supreme Court blocked
the Secretary of State from any certification of the vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/got.here/
From a report by the Missouri Secretary of State: “The law in Missouri is clear
and firm: every qualified voter who arrives at the polls by 7 p.m. shall vote,
no matter how long it takes, but there is absolutely no provision allowing a
judge to extend the hours of voting. Only in St. Louis City was voting extended
late into the evening, in clear violation of state law.”
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/pubs/reformmandate/MandateForReform_revised%20041702.pdf
| |
| |
-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!”
|
Military vote: “Meanwhile, the controversy over military absentee ballots is
growing. More than 1500 were thrown out for irregularities. Many of those did
not have a postmark.” After all that Gore spoke about every vote counting and
divining the intentions of the voter, he tried to throw these out, showing that
his winning was more important to him than election law.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/fl_11-21.html
There were never indications that abuses had occurred. The purported reason for
the recount was that on some ballots the voter had had an intention of placing a
vote for one candidate or another and not correctly expressed their intentions
on the ballot.
| |
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?
|
Knowing the backbone of the California Republican party, it’s not being backed
up by any action, more’s the pity...
| |
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.
|
OK, see above for some examples of how the Democrats tried “whatever it takes”
to stay in power in the 2000 election directly related to the DNC and Democratic
party. I only need to demonstrate that the left-wing, Democratic side
(regardless of whether the DNC directly supports it or not) side is willing to
do “whatever it takes” to stay in power. We’re not going to reach a conclusion
anyway without establishing what “whatever it takes,” either, so it’s a stupid
point to argue about.
(Sorry I provided that particular link--it was the first one that I found with
the text of the ad. I never had any intention to compare it to the Willie
Horton ad, which was inflammatory garbage as well.)
Let’s talk about content then. Is equating the governor of a state to a
murderer acceptable content for a campaign ad?
| |
| |
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.
|
OK, I gave some examples above when you asked for them. You made an assertion,
I challenged it, now it’s your turn.
| |
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).
|
Criminal wrongdoing, whether corporate or individual, is not to be tolerated,
whether it’s by a yellow-dog Democrat or the staunchest Republican imaginable.
Can I say this any more clearly?
| |
kinda like blaming Clinton for the bad
economy in one breath, and then saying that he couldn’t actually affect the
economy in another
|
You blamed Bush for the bad economy. I pointed out that the bad economy started
in 1999, with Clinton in office, therefore, if you’re going to blame anyone then
Clinton’s your man. I then followed up by saying that I think the government
can only speed up or slow down trends in the economy, so I don’t really hold
either Clinton or Bush to be at fault for much economically either. I just
don’t think the government has much control over the economy; it’s always
reactive instead of leading change.
| |
| |
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.
|
Changing the interest rate can neither stop a sliding economy (see 2000-2003)
nor halt an advancing one (see 1996-1999), or else the economy would neither
bull nor bear, but keep on one smooth course with the steady hand of the Federal
Reserve Board at the helm. I did not state that Bush revived the economy; I
said that “it’s rebounding thanks in part to his tax cuts.” Bush is helping
things along, not singlehandedly as you seem to be wanting me to say.
Best regards,
Carl
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
