Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:34:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
690 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
| |
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.
|
One book may be a revelation, or it could be a disgruntled whiner. It may be
correct for the situation he was in, but not for the industry at large. It may
even be correct for the industry at large, but by itself, it would be hard to
draw that conclusion. For the point of debate, let me note that I have utterly
no doubt that instances of bias can be found, in either direction, human nature
being what it is.
| |
I mean “mainstream media,” meaning media outlets where people turn for
information rather than opinion, which includes the: major networks...
|
Fox, conservative.
Generally don’t watch them, but anything that called it “America’s War” and made
it sound like a marketing campaign, sounds pretty darn conservative to me (as
noted by other Lugnetters previously).
| |
news magazines (Time, Newsweek)...
|
National Review, conservative.
Orange County Register, way conservative.
| |
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.
|
Yes, you were specific, but you left a lot uncovered, nor have I heard Time and
Newsweek singled out as “liberal” before. You may be right, I don’t read them
on a regular enough basis to form an opinion - but there is a tendancy among
conservatives to identify anything not specifically conservative as liberal (get
in that pre-emptive strike alleging bias, just in case).
As to the point about endorsees, I simply didn’t challenge you to provide
evidence of such because I thought it would go down a tedious route - locally of
the two biggest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times will recommend both liberals
and conservatives, the Orange County Register only conservatives, so my local
experience does not support your claim (not that it represents a valid sample).
Anyway, I take it you have a headcount to have made your claim, so quote the
source and lets take a look at the evidence.
| |
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.
|
No, it’s not a notation of the status quo: the term “liberal media” is an
attempt by conservatives to try and dismiss any criticism of them by claiming
bias. An example would be to call newspapers liberal, but then trumpet how
newspapers claimed that Bush would have won the recount in Florida (which is the
exact point this conversation began with), or use the “liberal media” (i.e. the
“mainstream media”) to bash Clinton over and over again. It’s not the bashing I
mind so much, as the hypocrisy of doing so while claiming the “liberal” media is
out to get them.
| |
We’ll give up “liberal media” if you give up “tax cuts for the rich.”
|
Why? The one has nothing to do with the other. A better suggestion is to keep
the term “liberal media”, or don’t quote how newspaper claim Bush would have won
a recount. Give up one or the other since they are mutually exclusive.
| |
| |
| |
-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/
|
I already noted that Gore accepted the Supreme Court’s decision, so quoting
anything about Florida is fairly useless (a point that as I recall, you agreed
to). But be that as it may, since you have laid it on the table” the Florida
Supreme Court is not part of the Democratic party, so I don’t see where you have
a point.
| |
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.”
|
Judge: not democratic party, so again, there is no point. But to adress it
anway, I take it you (or your source) is paraphrasing, because I sincerely doubt
that the law is written the way you quote it: who the heck would write into a
law “there is no provision allowing a judge to extend the hours of voting? They
would say, “the hours of voting may not be extended under any circumstances” and
if that was what was written, I firmly believe that is what would have been
quoted (but wouldn’t change that a judge could review the law). Anyway, what
you quote is stated as a spin. I can probably safely restate it to say: there is
no provision prohibiting a judge from extending the hours, and I suspect I would
be correct. Further, judicial review of laws is well-established (i.e. just
because there is a law, doesn’t make it legal).
| |
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!”
|
|
Your reply below doesn’t really address what I said above (but then, I didn’t
really address the military claim, I do so below).
| |
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
|
(deleting the reply I wrote as I realize that...) You need to establish that
Gore was behind the military ballot problems. You have currently simply
juxtaposed the two and implied a connection. Perhaps you felt it obvious, but I
need my memory jogged, alas.
| |
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.
|
Of course there were indications that abuses occured - they may or may not have
been the reason for the recount request that you are refering to, but they were
there. So, oops! - forgive me if I sloppily connected the two.
| |
| |
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...
|
So...the claim was not backed up by any action (i.e. your accusation is not
supportable by the facts as they currently stand)?
| |
| |
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.
|
Ummmmm, if that’s the way you feel, why the arguement? But in any case, yes you
do have to tie it to the Democratic party, because the whole point is that the
Republican Party, from the top of the power structure is coordinating the effort
against the Democrats. The NAACP is not the Democratic inner circle.
| |
(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?
|
Ummmmm, where did an ad say that? (to save the inevitable response, no the ad
you refered to made no such claim - however, the site you just disavowed did)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And I said your challenge is meaningless: if some other company was able to
abusively act in the fashion Enron did via coddling by The Powers That Be, then
we are still at the same point (i.e. I don’t find the Tit for Tat Defense, or
The Two Wrongs Make it Okay Defense as valid). So, again, yes or no. Again,
feel free to append explanations after the yes or no, but we really can’t
proceed until you actually answer. If yes, Bush and Co. did clear the path for
Enron’s excesses, then we have reached a conclusion on this point (beyond any
rationalizations or explanations that you feel may be mitigating - your point
about other companies getting the same treatment would fall into this category).
If no, then we can proceed to the evidence that indicates otherwise.
| |
| |
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?
|
Yes, you can say it more clearly, by matching deed to word. If it must not be
tolerated, then to prevent it the roots of the problem must be explored. If the
answer is: well, the roots can be explored, but if it gives ammunition for
liberals to rightly criticize Bush (assuming that’s where the evidence goes),
then no, the roots shouldn’t be explored, then your real answer is: Yes,
wrongdoing is to be tolerated, as long is it done by people I politically
agree with.
And to temporize the seeming harshness of that last statement, let me say that
it is more of a trap that anyone can fall into, often without realizing it, than
a planned response.
| |
| |
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.
|
Equating a downturn, and a long term failure of the economy on someone else’s
watch is not particularly supportable. Further, you don’t believe your own
argument, why should I?
| |
| |
| |
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),
|
It didn’t try to halt an advancing economy, the intent was to stop it spiraling
out of control and having disaster strike a a later point because of it. Sorry
for the interruption....
| |
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.
|
You are splitting hairs with the “in part”. You claim he can’t be blamed for
the downturn, but he can at least help the (alleged) upturn? Do you wish to
amend that he can at least be blamed in part for the downturn (in theory, if you
like)?
-->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
|
|
|
|
