How the left forgets

[Dan T 8]

No spin zone, anyone?

well that tagline i admit is misleading, but theres no way in hell you could watch 5 minutes of the leprechaun and not know what party his rooting for

Edited April 2, 2010 by Dan T

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

well that tagline i admit is misleading, but theres no way in hell you could watch 5 minutes of the leprechaun and not know what party his rooting for

fair and balanced? we report, you decide? It's not just Bill's tagline, it's the entire organization misrepresenting who and what they are. And there are a load of dumbfcuks out there buying it. It's hard to believe that's the case.

[Dan T 8]

fair and balanced? we report, you decide? It's not just Bill's tagline, it's the entire organization misrepresenting who and what they are. And there are a load of dumbfcuks out there buying it. It's hard to believe that's the case.

and you feel sorry for anyone who expects unspun pure reporting of facts from anyone who makes their living off ratings and ratings only? damn thats pretty naive of you

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and you feel sorry for anyone who expects unspun pure reporting of facts from anyone who makes their living off ratings and ratings only? damn thats pretty naive of you

I don't feel sorry for anyone that exposes him or herself to Faux's mindfcukery and then suffers brain damage from that exposure. What led you to that conclusion?

[Dan T 8]

fair and balanced? we report, you decide? It's not just Bill's tagline, it's the entire organization misrepresenting who and what they are. And there are a load of dumbfcuks out there buying it. It's hard to believe that's the case.

i guess if you omit the dumbf and use something less pejoritive here it takes on a different meaning. Also it sounds like youre accusing foxnews of perpetrating this dumbing down of people. No more so the walter kronkite was. it wasnt straight news back then either. hell yellow jounalism predates america if we're really being honest here. i never considered the leprechaun a news reporter (neither are any of talk radio from limbaugh to shultz) the way i did wolf blitzer or ammanpour when cnn was the only game in town and theyre no straight shooters by any stretch. and as long as we're talking bias you maddau has to be near the top of the list. i expect nearly all news sources, even the bbc, to be slanted one way or the other. thats why i think its more important to decide on whats important to you and have your self-defined values be solid before you attempt to process the validity of any information you consume.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Also it sounds like youre accusing foxnews of perpetrating this dumbing down of people.

Yes I am. That's the business they're in.

[_Simpson_ 250]

i think it would be much more useful to study the tea party movement by their own propaganda instead of through the filter of their opponents in the leftist state run media. anything you read in the nyt wash post et all or watch on abc, nbc, cbs is always going to provide more entertainment than actual facts. its a disgrace that they call themselves a news agency. at least fox news wears their political slant on their sleves at all times.

Fox is what it is and I have never hesitated to point out that it panders to the right. The problem I have is that no one on the left wants to talk about the other media and who it panders to.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does anyone here have Link TV? There's a lot of good programming although a lot of it is left leaning. Last night I watched a little bit of a documentary on Howard Zinn, and I honestly have not listened to much of him before. There was a clip of him giving a speech at an anti-war rally in 2004 and he used the word 'tyrant' to describe Bush. He also said that we don't have a democracy in this country anymore and talked about 'taking back America.'

So I can see the similarities with today's Tea Party rallies. However, there are some significant differences - most notably, the anti-war crowd were endorsing peace, while many of the Tea Party crowd endorse violence as a means for political change. IMO, they are both wrong in thinking that democracy doesn't exist in this country, or that it is no longer functioning. I do understand that part of that rhetoric from the Left during Bush's presidency was because many felt (and rightly so) that the election was not just. Then, Bush took us to war even when it wasn't popular among the people. Bush also came in with an agenda that pretty much reversed everything that Clinton had done, so many Americans felt their views were not even being considered - it felt like Bush and his cronies were giving us the finger.

As a Left leaning person, IMO, President Obama moving forward needs to continue showing a willingness to listen to all sides of the issues. I think he's done that on many issues (offshore drilling most recently), but when it came to health care, he stood firm on his convictions on key issues as he promised in his campaign. He also had to fight a propaganda machine from the insurance lobby that spent millions of dollars in trying to defeat HCR. He won a difficult and hard fought battle on an important domestic issue that impacts our economy, which compared to the costs of starting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the cost of American lives, makes people getting angry and talking about government overthrow over HCR look silly and trite. At least the anti-war protesters were standing on real principles and not just being politically expedient.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[scandal 951]

Does anyone here have Link TV? There's a lot of good programming although a lot of it is left leaning. Last night I watched a little bit of a documentary on Howard Zinn, and I honestly have not listened to much of him before. There was a clip of him giving a speech at an anti-war rally in 2004 and he used the word 'tyrant' to describe Bush. He also said that we don't have a democracy in this country anymore and talked about 'taking back America.'

So I can see the similarities with today's Tea Party rallies. However, there are some significant differences - most notably, the anti-war crowd were endorsing peace, while many of the Tea Party crowd endorse violence as a means for political change. IMO, they are both wrong in thinking that democracy doesn't exist in this country, or that it is no longer functioning. I do understand that part of that rhetoric from the Left during Bush's presidency was because many felt (and rightly so) that the election was not just. Then, Bush took us to war even when it wasn't popular among the people. Bush also came in with an agenda that pretty much reversed everything that Clinton had done, so many Americans felt their views were not even being considered - it felt like Bush and his cronies were giving us the finger.

As a Left leaning person, IMO, President Obama moving forward needs to continue showing a willingness to listen to all sides of the issues. I think he's done that on many issues (offshore drilling most recently), but when it came to health care, he stood firm on his convictions on key issues as he promised in his campaign. He also had to fight a propaganda machine from the insurance lobby that spent millions of dollars in trying to defeat HCR. He won a difficult and hard fought battle on an important domestic issue that impacts our economy, which compared to the costs of starting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the cost of American lives, makes people getting angry and talking about government overthrow over HCR look silly and trite. At least the anti-war protesters were standing on real principles and not just being politically expedient.

David Brooks yesterday on NPR, talking about how the GOP has moved to the hard right and has not made any room for centrist views within the party:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125510908

Mr. BROOKS: Thank you. I have a friend who's a Republican, a moderate member of Congress and he wanted to propose what he was going to call a moderate agenda and he wanted people to sign on so there could be Republican moderates. He found out that for his colleagues in the House, you can't use the word moderate. So he called it a suburban agenda because the word moderate is no good.

And so, it's just a bad word. And it's a bad word for a whole bunch of reasons having to do with redistricting where the money is in the party, where the energy. But to me, fundamentally, it's a problem of intellect. The centrists in this country, both in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, just have not put together the sort of coherent body of ideas, the left to the right.

There are two great moderate traditions in the party, a communitarian tradition which believes in community and social groups and then a sort of a Hamiltonian group of limited government to enhance social mobility. Those ideas haven't been put together coherently. And as a result, the people on either end are just dominating.

[Danno 1,228]

David Brooks yesterday on NPR, talking about how the GOP has moved to the hard right and has not made any room for centrist views within the party:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125510908

Trust me there are... and will remain "centrist" in the GOP, that said we are long over due to weed many out as they have for to long been more than just a "view" but a crippling voting block which consistently allied with the parties overall agenda.

A "correction" is long over due ... if not, the GOP should simply advertise its self as "democrat-lite".

As for David brooks, he is a puppet pretending to be a conservative when in fact he is ...Democrat-lite himself (which is why he is useful on NPR).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Trust me there are... and will remain "centrist" in the GOP, that said we are long over due to weed many out as they have for to long been more than just a "view" but a crippling voting block which consistently allied with the parties overall agenda.

A "correction" is long over due ... if not, the GOP should simply advertise its self as "democrat-lite".

As for David brooks, he is a puppet pretending to be a conservative when in fact he is ...Democrat-lite himself (which is why he is useful on NPR).

That illustrates the problem the GOP has quite well. What you consider "moderate" is actually the left end of the right fringe which is still far to the right of the right end of the centrists. No moderation in your world whatsoever, Danno.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[_Simpson_ 250]

Does anyone here have Link TV? There's a lot of good programming although a lot of it is left leaning. Last night I watched a little bit of a documentary on Howard Zinn, and I honestly have not listened to much of him before. There was a clip of him giving a speech at an anti-war rally in 2004 and he used the word 'tyrant' to describe Bush. He also said that we don't have a democracy in this country anymore and talked about 'taking back America.'

So I can see the similarities with today's Tea Party rallies. However, there are some significant differences - most notably, the anti-war crowd were endorsing peace, while many of the Tea Party crowd endorse violence as a means for political change. IMO, they are both wrong in thinking that democracy doesn't exist in this country, or that it is no longer functioning. I do understand that part of that rhetoric from the Left during Bush's presidency was because many felt (and rightly so) that the election was not just. Then, Bush took us to war even when it wasn't popular among the people. Bush also came in with an agenda that pretty much reversed everything that Clinton had done, so many Americans felt their views were not even being considered - it felt like Bush and his cronies were giving us the finger.

As a Left leaning person, IMO, President Obama moving forward needs to continue showing a willingness to listen to all sides of the issues. I think he's done that on many issues (offshore drilling most recently), but when it came to health care, he stood firm on his convictions on key issues as he promised in his campaign. He also had to fight a propaganda machine from the insurance lobby that spent millions of dollars in trying to defeat HCR. He won a difficult and hard fought battle on an important domestic issue that impacts our economy, which compared to the costs of starting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the cost of American lives, makes people getting angry and talking about government overthrow over HCR look silly and trite. At least the anti-war protesters were standing on real principles and not just being politically expedient.

Often the ant-war protesters hide behind the peace flag but many of the protests that took place were not peaceful or civilized.

At the time a majority of the people supported the Iraq war, so to say it wasn't popular I dont think is accurate. We went to war because we thought eventually we would have a worse incident than 9/11 and preventing that was necessary. If the intel had been accurate many would of found the war justifiable. We were going on notion from a lesson we learned on 9/11, we can just sit around and let these thing fester anymore. I mention all this because you just blew past all that by saying Bush started two wars, I think when discussing this it is important that we remember that aspect of what happened.

Edited April 3, 2010 by _Simpson_

[Dan T 8]

i think all of these discussions illustrate why political parties serve little real purpose and why the terms liberal and conservative are a hoax. Id much rather be a red vs green vs purple vs blue vs orange than simply red vs blue. i have a huge problem picking the gop as a home because on some things I am quite red, on others i am deep blue and on still other issues I think both extreme ends belong in the loony bin. as it relates to reporting though I view everyone as a propagandist of sorts the only difference is how much and to what side. i am suspicious of any "news source" when their survivor ship depends on how many people are watching because if the viewer/listener base ever drops presentation will always always always trump reporting facts. If I am aware of someones motivations, and on fox news I am very clear of their motivations before I hear a single word(same is true of the radio guys from limbaugh to dobbs to shultz), and most of the time(excluding religion) I am on their side. This does not mean I think they are always giving me true facts or that they are being honest with me the viewer but it does mean I agree with the pre existing outlook they bring to the table. for people who cannot distinguish between spin and fact I say let them rot and stop poluting the human genome with their waste.

[Dan T 8]

As a Left leaning person, IMO, President Obama moving forward needs to continue showing a willingness to listen to all sides of the issues. I think he's done that on many issues (offshore drilling most recently), but when it came to health care, he stood firm on his convictions on key issues as he promised in his campaign.

i think bho is very good at fooling people into thinking he is listening to all sides, but at the end of the day he is nothing more than a pretty faced, articulate, brainwashed disguised as educated puppet for the brothers emmanuel, rev right, and mr weather underground. on his own though i think he hates this country, hates our constitution and has no solidly held convictions of his own creation. the appearance that he cares one iota for bipartisan input is pure fantasy.

[Dan T 8]

Yes I am. That's the business they're in.

news flash, most people are born dumb, they dont need any help from fox news or ed shultz