Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[toastywombel]

toasty; Not answering for Jryan, or does he need anyone to, you have raised a couple interesting points.....

 

 

 

The natural comeback, would likely be, people with your views support such characters as Obama. Palin, smaller Federal Government, free enterprise, State Rights, lower taxes, on and on....Obama, MUCH larger government, take over or regulate ALL business, force States to accept stimulus money, taxing not important (yet), just spend, on and on...

 

The debate between big government vs. small government isn't the issue here. The issue is that Palin does not seem like someone capable of running a government. I base this opinion on the fact that her vocabulary seems smaller than mine, and she couldn't name a major news publication on national television. I mean come on, she dropped out of her job in Alaska and completely sold out. You seem to be attacking my argument by villainizing Obama as "a big government liberal". Platform disagreements are a different issue. I am criticising Palin because she simply does not seem mentally capable of holding an important government position. For a contrast example, I disagree with former Bush Aid/ Secretary Rice, but she seemed like a fairly intelligent capable individual to me.

 

 

Most people in the US today claim to be 'Independent', than either Democrat or Republican. however when asked if Conservative or Liberal, will say Conservative, including a good deal of Democrats. Seems, when it comes to Religion, Marriage, Education, fiscal responsibility, most folks are Conservative. Note; I've been noticing an increased interest in getting back adherence to the Federal Constitution, teabaggers.

 

I don't know that most people in the US claim to be independent. As pointed out by data that has been posted in the previous posts. The data you provided also makes a good argument that most voters are independent. That was not the argument I was making though. I was simply disputing the fact that more voters consider themselves conservative than liberal. Using the fact that there is more registered democrats, and that republicans usually fear high voter turn-outs.

 

As far as asking a person if they are conservative or liberal, that is often a misleading poll. Often people consider their lifestyles into their answers as well as political opinion. I for example would consider myself a conservative person, but I tend to have a liberal political opinion. Furthermore, liberal is a completely mis-represtented word now a-days. There are many other words that have been made "bad" by the GOP machine. For example, if you called up a bunch of voters and asked them, "Should we have a post office?"; "Should we have an army?"; "Should we have highways?"; "Do you want food inspectors to inspect your local stores?" the majority of them would answer yes, but then if you asked them, "Do you support socialism?" most would say no.

 

 

 

I don't think the BBC (British), CBC (Canadian), Russia or maybe any industrialized Nation, would agree. Factually however, of the 6.7 Billion people on this planet, China, India, the Middle East, Africa or anyplace where government controls media or religion is a factor (Hindu/Muslim/Catholic) is where most the worlds people live. No Fox or Sky News (Fox European affiliate, owned by Newscorp), short of the computer. It's also probable, your local news broadcast, will be based on local bias, not their network affiliation.

 

When we are talking about American Politics it is rather ridiculous to bring up foreign news stations. Essentially the cable news/shows in the United States are owned by four companies. AOL Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom and News Corporation. Sure there are local outlets, which are usually outlets for one of the above listed four. Here in New Mexico we have one locally owned station called the CW, but all the other local stations are outlets for one of the previously mentioned.

 

Furthermore you do realise Newscorp has outlets in Asia, India, Japan, Australia, Latin America, Germany, and as you mentioned the UK (sky news).

[Phi for All]

We do ourselves such a disservice with these liberal/conservative labels. Who wouldn't agree that our society is evolving over time and needs healthy change in some areas? And who wouldn't agree that some aspects are working well, and don't need to change? Yet we insist on painting everyone with one of two brushes.

 

So in that vein, FOX News is a one brush painter, and that shouldn't be the only way people see the world.

[jryan]

This is a particularly interesting point, btw:

 

Not to make a gross generalization, but liberals like change and change their media habits, while conservatives prefer things to stay the same and will still listen to the radio because it's old and familiar.

 

I think you may be on to something there. Obviously it's not just conservatives, and may be driven more by real-world concerns and generational differences than ideologies, but as trends go I think you're probably right. (I'm 44, and more than half of my friends still have 4:3 televisions and no digital sound. About half are on Facebook. If the sampling wasn't so small I'd say that I'm on some kind of technology cusp.)

 

Also worth considering here is young conservatives who are actively political and extremely well connected with technology. While they have been overwhelmingly Democratic in their registrations, they don't seem to like the guiding ideologies of their elders very much. There were reports in late 2008 of large numbers of youths from the religious right who were voting for Obama, for example, but even the liberal ones seem to be more in tune and empathetic with conservative concerns than previous generations. They may want marijuana legalized, but they want their guns, too. Maybe it's that video game influence.

 

Good post.

 

I agree it was a good post, but I disagree with you on the statement above. It employs the "let them eat cake" logic. Of course liberals change their viewing habits from one station to the next.. it's because they have multiple sources to choose from.

 

Also, I'm not convinced that were CNN to become more harsh towards conservatives that many liberals would tune out. Like their conservative counterparts they would view the crack down on the opposition as justified. Arguments toward that end have been made in this very thread, actually.

 

Also, I would not classify Fox as "damaging every minute it is on the air", nor would I feel the same for MSNBC. There is great benefit to the public discourse to have the more radical wings of the left and the right voiced openly and debated openly... where we suffer is when the Becks and Olbermanns of the political spectrum perform their machinations in private.

 

Lastly, this notion that is often put forward by more liberal people that conservatism is about status quo is incorrect, and should be set straight. I have argued this topic for years and have come up with a fairly simple phrase that seems to help the discourse a bit. I think it fairly demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of both ideologies:

 

"Conservatives judge new ideas through the lens of history. Liberals judge new ideas through the lens of posterity."

[Mr Skeptic]

"Conservatives judge new ideas through the lens of history. Liberals judge new ideas through the lens of posterity."

 

Or, "Conservatives are fearful, and liberals are calm"

 

As measured by strength of reaction to loud sounds, or disturbing images. Measured via such things as blink response or sweating.

 

This is also why there is so much fearmongering done by Fox News and Republicans. And much of it is not history based, but rather slippery slope fallacy which is a future based, but also fear-based, reaction. This again is why conservatives avoid new things: new is scary. It's not necessarily a bad thing; this is just the sort of personality that one would want for, say, a nuclear regulations official.

[jryan]

Or, "Conservatives are fearful, and liberals are calm"

 

As measured by strength of reaction to loud sounds, or disturbing images. Measured via such things as blink response or sweating.

 

This is also why there is so much fearmongering done by Fox News and Republicans. And much of it is not history based, but rather slippery slope fallacy which is a future based, but also fear-based, reaction. This again is why conservatives avoid new things: new is scary. It's not necessarily a bad thing; this is just the sort of personality that one would want for, say, a nuclear regulations official.

 

That's not a very helpful or illuminating analysis and does nothing but contribute to the ongoing derisive nature of the ideological discourse between conservatives and liberals.

[Mr Skeptic]

Personally, I find facts to be very helpful and illuminating.

[swansont]

does nothing but contribute to the ongoing derisive nature of the ideological discourse between conservatives and liberals.

 

Between some conservatives and some liberals.

[jryan]

Personally, I find facts to be very helpful and illuminating.

 

Of course, but they don't elevate your opinion above the level speculation or the point of your statement above simple derision.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Between some conservatives and some liberals.

 

Good clarification. I was simply trying to elevate the discussion above the "some".

Edited February 22, 2010 by jryan
First statement needed proper target designation

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, it's not an opinion. That should have been clear when I talked about how it's measured. It was a study published in Science. Here they talk about it, here the actual study.

 

If you interpreted the way I explained it earlier in an insulting matter, perhaps I can clarify. Fearful people exhibit what is known as a "fight or flight" response. This does not make them cowards, it makes them physically able to better respond to threats. A coward will use this ability to flee; a hero will use it to fight. A fearless person will not activate this involuntary response, though he can also choose to calmly flee or calmly fight.

 

Consider this example: there is a group of soldiers who have been very tense as they have been under threat of attack all week. Your buddy is standing sentry, and you think it will be very funny to sneak up to him and shout "Boo!". The circumstances described increase the reaction to stimuli, activating a stronger fight-or-flight response. Your buddy of course is no coward, and doing as described above could easily earn you a bullet to the face. This is an example of an over-reaction to a non-threat due to activating the fight-or-flight response. If done under calmer circumstances, you might only have ended up with a gun in your face and you could both have had a good laugh. On the other hand, if what triggered the fight-or-flight was a real threat, say an enemy soldier stepping on a twig, the calm sentry may take just a little too long to respond, an example of an under-reaction due to being calm in the face of danger.

 

This sort of thing is a fact of life, and not necessarily "good" or "bad"; they are better or worse in different circumstances. And it has nothing to do with courage; courage just says what you do about it. When threatened, you really do want the jittery hyper-vigilant sentry to stand guard. When not threatened, the same guard could be a liability.

 

However, even in warfare sometimes the fight-or-flight response can be a liability. While for a soldier sprinting to the trenches it would be crucial, for a sniper it would be horrible. We like our snipers to be stone cold fearless, not just courageous.

 

As to the application to politics: Who do you think we would choose as a president when we feel threatened? Or, more cynically, who benefits when we do feel threatened? Which is better when we are threatened?

[jryan]

Well, it's not an opinion. That should have been clear when I talked about how it's measured. It was a study published in Science. Here they talk about it, here the actual study.

 

Well, the study, in essence, connected subjects to a lie detector and suffers the same attribution problems when attempting to link the response to actual real world causation.

 

 

If you interpreted the way I explained it earlier in an insulting matter, perhaps I can clarify. Fearful people exhibit what is known as a "fight or flight" response. This does not make them cowards, it makes them physically able to better respond to threats. A coward will use this ability to flee; a hero will use it to fight. A fearless person will not activate this involuntary response, though he can also choose to calmly flee or calmly fight.

 

I think you may be looking at this a little skewed, but I can see what you are getting at. In my estimation the answer is not a matter of "fearful" versus "calm" but rather "careful" versus "impulsive"... at least in politics... or to soften that a bit, as I said before, a matter of measuring the change against history versus measuring a change based on the desired outcomes.

 

I can certainly see where "fear" and "calm" could be interpreted from those reactions.

 

Also, I was trying to show that "liberal" and "conservative" are both necessary. There is an old saying that I like a lot that says "Conservatism is the worship of dead liberals". There is a lot of truth in that.. but where liberals interpret that incorrectly is they believe it says "conservatism is the worship of ALL dead liberals", which isn't the case. Most new ideas are junk and should be treated as such.

 

Consider this example: there is a group of soldiers who have been very tense as they have been under threat of attack all week. Your buddy is standing sentry, and you think it will be very funny to sneak up to him and shout "Boo!". The circumstances described increase the reaction to stimuli, activating a stronger fight-or-flight response. Your buddy of course is no coward, and doing as described above could easily earn you a bullet to the face. This is an example of an over-reaction to a non-threat due to activating the fight-or-flight response. If done under calmer circumstances, you might only have ended up with a gun in your face and you could both have had a good laugh. On the other hand, if what triggered the fight-or-flight was a real threat, say an enemy soldier stepping on a twig, the calm sentry may take just a little too long to respond, an example of an under-reaction due to being calm in the face of danger.

 

The more interesting question for me is who was the guy shouting "Boo!"? By your argument it is more likely a liberal.

 

This sort of thing is a fact of life, and not necessarily "good" or "bad"; they are better or worse in different circumstances. And it has nothing to do with courage; courage just says what you do about it. When threatened, you really do want the jittery hyper-vigilant sentry to stand guard. When not threatened, the same guard could be a liability.

 

Oddly enough, your approach to guarding would better be described as reactionary.

 

 

However, even in warfare sometimes the fight-or-flight response can be a liability. While for a soldier sprinting to the trenches it would be crucial, for a sniper it would be horrible. We like our snipers to be stone cold fearless, not just courageous.

 

I've known a lot of snipers in my life and career and I wouldn't count "liberal" as among their more common characteristic.

 

As to the application to politics: Who do you think we would choose as a president when we feel threatened? Or, more cynically, who benefits when we do feel threatened? Which is better when we are threatened?

 

That depends on the threat, doesn't it?

Edited February 22, 2010 by jryan
narrowing argument

[Pangloss]

Also, I would not classify Fox as "damaging every minute it is on the air", nor would I feel the same for MSNBC. There is great benefit to the public discourse to have the more radical wings of the left and the right voiced openly and debated openly... where we suffer is when the Becks and Olbermanns of the political spectrum perform their machinations in private.

 

There is something to the notion that public airing is beneficial, but the current political uprising of American voters is media-lead, if not media-driven, and this is demonstrated by the fact that much of what it wants is either mislead or inappropriately misapplied. People are capable of getting upset about spending on their own, but instead they're being lead into the traps of single-issue, media-driven "problems" and "solutions".

 

In short, Glenn Beck isn't qualified to tell the American people what they can do about the stupidity in Washington. And when he does so, he makes the problem worse, not better.

 

That having been said, I must admit that we Americans rarely get to the right answers in a straight line. (shrug)

[jryan]

There is something to the notion that public airing is beneficial, but the current political uprising of American voters is media-lead, if not media-driven, and this is demonstrated by the fact that much of what it wants is either mislead or inappropriately misapplied. People are capable of getting upset about spending on their own, but instead they're being lead into the traps of single-issue, media-driven "problems" and "solutions".

 

In short, Glenn Beck isn't qualified to tell the American people what they can do about the stupidity in Washington. And when he does so, he makes the problem worse, not better.

 

That having been said, I must admit that we Americans rarely get to the right answers in a straight line. (shrug)

 

"The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives." - Winston Churchill

 

 

Also, Glenn Beck isn't the only person out their driving single-issue politics. According to Obama we really just need universal health care...

[Pangloss]

Well, it's not an opinion. That should have been clear when I talked about how it's measured. It was a study published in Science. Here they talk about it, here the actual study.

 

Yes it is. The study is evidence that supports your opinion, not unequivocal proof. You're also putting the cart before the horse -- it says that people select their ideologies based on their psychological dispositions, not that certain ideologies produce better dispositions.

[jackson33]

The debate between big government vs. small government isn't the issue here. The issue is that Palin does not seem like someone capable of running a government. [/Quote]

 

toasty; Agree, but if you want to establish a difference between two people, Obama/Palin in this case, Palin had a track record in Alaska, shrinking government, shrinking the overall tax burden and had been in business, understanding their problems. I'll add she had an overall 70+% approval rating into her second year, of those she governed, until she aliened herself with a Progressive Moderate Republican (self professed) McCane.

 

Since we elected Obama, for a comparison we need to look at his only executive experience. Government is growing at rates unknown in the past, department budgets were up in the 2010 budget and on average up 15% each in the 2011 proposed budget. He has never been in business, obviously knows nothing about where private sector jobs come from and taxes are going to go up. I'll add into his 2 year of governing and from those being governed has a 45% approval rating, this morning.

 

toasty, I hope Palin does NOT run for President, in 2012, 2016 or maybe ever. I think she would make a fine Cabinet Member in any Administration and can influence any State or National election, doing fine for her Country and as she puts it "The Palin Family". After Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama, I think we need a rest from polarizing figures running the Federal Government, an objectively oriented Congress with a concern over fiscal responsibility and a rest from what's been dividing Americans in general. As did Ms. Clinton, Palin could move to any number of States, run for Congress and be effective in this way...Yes Secretary of State, Rice was well qualified with too many different talents not to be intelligent.

 

I was simply disputing the fact that more voters consider themselves conservative than liberal. [/Quote]

 

Most folks that deal in politics, from any party would say, they feel the National Attitude over all, is right of center and conservative on one or more issues. When talking welfare of the general public, no doubt most people would be classified liberal to the point of their personal limits. That is no one want's to see people dying on the streets, from homelessness, starvation or any person lacking opportunities for education or the needed opportunity for some success. On the other hand most people, want government to act and be responsible in the same manner they are held to. Most all States have established law for their Congress to maintain a balanced budget, for instance, that's conservative.

 

I for example would consider myself a conservative person, but I tend to have a liberal political opinion. Furthermore, liberal is a completely mis-represented word now a-days.[/Quote]

 

Your probably correct, technically; However it's the word the Democratic Party has used since neither progressivism or socialism, would not work in the American Traditional Culture today and both tried. Above I mentioned far left to far right of (center). Make your own list of issues, then define a far left or far right view of each issue. What you'll find are Marxist/Communist/Populism/Progressive/Democratic stances on one side, with extreme opposites on the other, Conservative/Capitalist/Conventionalist/arguably Republican. Moderate either part today being near center. By the way, when these words were used and failed, it was from Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Berry Goldwater and John McCain, progressive.

 

http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/chapter/?vgnextchannel=093a2ef11ac65110VgnVCM100000a7c3d240RCRD&chapterchannel=beb078fd108eb110VgnVCM10000075c1d240RCRD

 

Classic Liberalism;

 

Another use of the phrase is by libertarians, who use it to mean a form of liberalism in which the government does not provide social services or regulate industry and banking. Libertarians often claim that this belief was shared by the American Founding Fathers.[7] Libertarian classical liberalism is also called laissez-faire liberalism.[8]

 

The philosophy of classical liberalism in the libertarian sense of the phrase includes a belief in rational self-interest, property rights, natural rights, civil liberties, individual freedom, equality under the law, limited government, and free markets. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual liberty.[2] Liberals are very diverse in their specific views depending on their understanding of liberty, although most liberals support fundamental ideas like liberal democracy, written constitutions, free and fair elections, equality of opportunity, free markets, free trade, and secular society. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Furthermore you do realise Newscorp has outlets in Asia, India, Japan, Australia, Latin America, Germany, and as you mentioned the UK (sky news).[/Quote]

 

Yes, I've followed and read quite a bit, on Rupert Murdoch. Think he also has holdings in New Zealand and has offices/reporters throughout Europe and Sky News is available via satellite throughout Europe.Thanks for acknowledging how extensive Newscorp (FOX NEWS) coverage is, worldwide.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes it is. The study is evidence that supports your opinion, not unequivocal proof. You're also putting the cart before the horse -- it says that people select their ideologies based on their psychological dispositions, not that certain ideologies produce better dispositions.

 

They correlate well, as I said. I never said which causes which.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, the study, in essence, connected subjects to a lie detector and suffers the same attribution problems when attempting to link the response to actual real world causation.

 

Lie detectors work (barely if at all) on the premise that people are more stressed when lying and that they can tell the difference. This study measures stress, not lies, so this is not a problem. So you must be thinking of a completely different problem.

 

I think you may be looking at this a little skewed, but I can see what you are getting at. In my estimation the answer is not a matter of "fearful" versus "calm" but rather "careful" versus "impulsive"... at least in politics... or to soften that a bit, as I said before, a matter of measuring the change against history versus measuring a change based on the desired outcomes.

 

I can certainly see where "fear" and "calm" could be interpreted from those reactions.

 

Fearful vs Calm, or Careful vs Impulsive, mean largely the same thing, though in different contexts. If you are jumping at shadows, you are fearful. If you are ignoring real dangers you are impulsive. As I implied, you as a conservative are more likely to chose the context of danger, hence careful vs impulsive. I chose the context of safety, and I'm more liberal.

 

Also, I was trying to show that "liberal" and "conservative" are both necessary.

 

And I agree with that. I've been saying the same thing.

 

There is an old saying that I like a lot that says "Conservatism is the worship of dead liberals". There is a lot of truth in that.. but where liberals interpret that incorrectly is they believe it says "conservatism is the worship of ALL dead liberals", which isn't the case. Most new ideas are junk and should be treated as such.

 

Most old ideas are junk too, although they have at least been more tested. So long as we can, why not test ideas that look good and then chose the best? Of course there is usually a cost to that, and a risk that it will be worse, wasteful, etc. So then the fearful/careful on one side stick with the stuff that is tried and known, and the calm/impulsive don't mind experimenting.

 

The more interesting question for me is who was the guy shouting "Boo!"? By your argument it is more likely a liberal.

 

That is completely irrelevant to the example, and if you thought that was the more interesting question then you don't know how to think in generalities. Anyone trying to scare a jittery solider is a retard, whatever his political leanings. If you are just trying to ignore the meat of an argument and take a cheapshot on irrelevant details, that is par the course for Fox News types, no?

 

Oddly enough, your approach to guarding would better be described as reactionary.

 

 

 

 

I've known a lot of snipers in my life and career and I wouldn't count "liberal" as among their more common characteristic.

 

The funny thing about statistics is that it doesn't always apply. Liberal people don't much care for war anyways, so I wouldn't expect soldiers to be liberal.

 

That depends on the threat, doesn't it?

 

Exactly. In an atmosphere of danger, conservatives are preferred, and in an atmosphere of safety, liberals are preferred. There are of course "safe" dangers like poor health, and "dangerous" dangers like terrorists and enemy nations.

[jryan]

Lie detectors work (barely if at all) on the premise that people are more stressed when lying and that they can tell the difference. This study measures stress, not lies, so this is not a problem. So you must be thinking of a completely different problem.

 

You miss my point. Both "lie detectors" and your articles study test stress, and both fail in trying to turn subjective interpretations of the meaning of the response into some objective measurable.

 

I think they both fail on that ground.

 

Fearful vs Calm, or Careful vs Impulsive, mean largely the same thing, though in different contexts. If you are jumping at shadows, you are fearful. If you are ignoring real dangers you are impulsive. As I implied, you as a conservative are more likely to chose the context of danger, hence careful vs impulsive. I chose the context of safety, and I'm more liberal.

 

Rather we are more likely to consider repercussions of our actions before moving forward. I think you and I disagree in that I think no large problem can be solved by conservatives of liberals alone. And it's the large problems that politics is really meant to address.

 

And I agree with that. I've been saying the same thing.

 

Sort of, between saying that I am fearful and more likely to shoot pranksters in the face.

 

 

Most old ideas are junk too, although they have at least been more tested. So long as we can, why not test ideas that look good and then chose the best? Of course there is usually a cost to that, and a risk that it will be worse, wasteful, etc. So then the fearful/careful on one side stick with the stuff that is tried and known, and the calm/impulsive don't mind experimenting.

 

Ah, but see we look back at all the old junk ideas and get to see how they turned out. Liberals aren't very good at taking our advice that it has indeed been tried before and failed.

 

 

 

That is completely irrelevant to the example, and if you thought that was the more interesting question then you don't know how to think in generalities.

 

No man, I was making a joke at your expense given the flood of generalities you have thrown at conservatives way based on a stress test on 46 test subjects in Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

 

Anyone trying to scare a jittery solider is a retard, whatever his political leanings. If you are just trying to ignore the meat of an argument and take a cheapshot on irrelevant details, that is par the course for Fox News types, no?

 

Do smilies mean nothing to you? I thought it telegraphed the joke rather obviously.

 

The funny thing about statistics is that it doesn't always apply. Liberal people don't much care for war anyways, so I wouldn't expect soldiers to be liberal.

 

Funny thing about war though, it finds you whether you like it or not. It is the existent of the hyper-vigilant that gives us civilians the opportunity to consider liberal ideas.

 

Exactly. In an atmosphere of danger, conservatives are preferred, and in an atmosphere of safety, liberals are preferred. There are of course "safe" dangers like poor health, and "dangerous" dangers like terrorists and enemy nations.

 

Let's accept your hypothesis for a moment: Now find me a time in human history that is absent of either of your proposed sources of danger.

[Mr Skeptic]

You miss my point. Both "lie detectors" and your articles study test stress, and both fail in trying to turn subjective interpretations of the meaning of the response into some objective measurable.

 

I think they both fail on that ground.

 

Funny thing about facts, is they don't care what you think.

 

Rather we are more likely to consider repercussions of our actions before moving forward. I think you and I disagree in that I think no large problem can be solved by conservatives of liberals alone. And it's the large problems that politics is really meant to address.

 

Well I never said that. We're not going to solve problems by getting in each other's way as our silly politicians are so fond of doing, and although each side could solve problems on their own in practice they ought to work together.

 

Sort of, between saying that I am fearful and more likely to shoot pranksters in the face.

 

Well I don't see you denying it!

 

More likely to react more strongly to threatening stimuli, whether or not it is justified. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not. Liberals would be likely to react less strongly to threatening stimuli, again whether such a small reaction is justified or not.

 

Ah, but see we look back at all the old junk ideas and get to see how they turned out. Liberals aren't very good at taking our advice that it has indeed been tried before and failed.

 

The real world has a lot of variables. You can't have tried everything under all circumstances, so sometimes history just can't guide you. Many times "it has been tried before and failed" requires a gross over-generalization. If you know why it failed you can consider whether the new suggestion will fail in the same way, but history won't tell you that.

 

No man, I was making a joke at your expense given the flood of generalities you have thrown at conservatives way based on a stress test on 46 test subjects in Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

I made exactly one generalization based on that. Presumably one well-justified by the facts and statistically significant.

 

Do smilies mean nothing to you? I thought it telegraphed the joke rather obviously.

 

Perhaps, but if your joke is also worded as an attack, and is your only comment on a section, you can expect it will be responded to. Also, the "evil eye" smiley is not often used for sarcasm.

 

Funny thing about war though, it finds you whether you like it or not. It is the existent of the hyper-vigilant that gives us civilians the opportunity to consider liberal ideas.

 

Some people find more wars than others. When's the last time any nation attacked us? How many wars have we started since then?

 

Let's accept your hypothesis for a moment: Now find me a time in human history that is absent of either of your proposed sources of danger.

 

There isn't, but one is a "safe" peacetime danger and the other is a more "dangerous" violent danger. When's the last time sickness activated your fight-or-flight response? Do you think fight-or-flight style response will help with medicine? We attack sickness peacefully at our own pace, in a lab full of chemicals, with the mind rather than the body. (Except pandemics) We deal with medicinal threats by experimenting with new things, not shooting something full of holes.

[bascule]

Lastly, this notion that is often put forward by more liberal people that conservatism is about status quo is incorrect, and should be set straight.

 

Your right... arguing they're in favor of the status quo is giving them too much credit. The majority of conservatives are living in the past. Conservatives love their talk radio and liberals love their Intarwebs. The majority of conservatives are members of an older generation and the majority of liberals are members of the younger generation.

[Pangloss]

Your right... arguing they're in favor of the status quo is giving them too much credit. The majority of conservatives are living in the past.

 

In a sense, but it seems like you're throwing that like an insult, and I think it's actually just an observation of what's going on. It's not bad that they're less techno-savvy, or "living in the past". What's bad is that they're unfamiliar with the issues that are of greatest import.

 

I don't care if they're so busy or focused on their kids that they buy an HDTV and forget to order HD service from Comcast. What I care about is that I need them to be up to speed on the issues that are paramount and that they can have an impact on, and not getting faulty information from sources that have their own agendas.

[jryan]

In a sense, but it seems like you're throwing that like an insult, and I think it's actually just an observation of what's going on. It's not bad that they're less techno-savvy, or "living in the past". What's bad is that they're unfamiliar with the issues that are of greatest import.

 

I don't care if they're so busy or focused on their kids that they buy an HDTV and forget to order HD service from Comcast. What I care about is that I need them to be up to speed on the issues that are paramount and that they can have an impact on, and not getting faulty information from sources that have their own agendas.

 

That can be leveled at any those on any side of an issue, Pangloss. A person can be up to speed on the latest 9/11 Truther conspiracies too, but that doesn't make them any better informed.

 

What the extremes are lacking is wisdom.

 

Bascule's comment comes off less as an insult against conservatives and more as an assertion on his part that the past doesn't have lessons to teach us. He followed this comment two minutes later by another "living in the past" comment tossed my way over in a game thread in general discussions. Though I would assume that even Bascule can find some moments in history that he finds valuable as instructive examples.

[bascule]

Bascule's comment comes off less as an insult against conservatives and more as an assertion on his part that the past doesn't have lessons to teach us. He followed this comment two minutes later by another "living in the past" comment tossed my way over in a game thread in general discussions. Though I would assume that even Bascule can find some moments in history that he finds valuable as instructive examples.

 

On the contrary (for perhaps the 10th time this thread), I think knowledge of history gives one a proper appreciation of the present. I would instead contend that those who idealize the past often don't have a proper understanding of it. It's easy to conjure up pastoral scenes of a simpler life, but that ignores the constant threat of death by disease or injury amidst a life of constant toil and backbreaking labor.

 

Let me bring this thread back on track and return my comments to their proper context: talk radio is a staple of conservative information sources, and not a particularly good one compared to more modern sources like the Internet.

[jryan]

On the contrary (for perhaps the 10th time this thread), I think knowledge of history gives one a proper appreciation of the present. I would instead contend that those who idealize the past often don't have a proper understanding of it. It's easy to conjure up pastoral scenes of a simpler life, but that ignores the constant threat of death by disease or injury amidst a life of constant toil and backbreaking labor.

 

Which is the exact opposite of what I am arguing. I am arguing that history can teach up through it's mistakes. It was horrible in many ways, filled with hard lessons that we today seem intent to ignore.

 

The music was better, though.

 

Let me bring this thread back on track and return my comments to their proper context: talk radio is a staple of conservative information sources, and not a particularly good one compared to more modern sources like the Internet.

 

Which is a goofy argument because you can probably name off the top of your head 5 websites you feel are right wing propaganda while also bemoaning the persistence of numerous scandals due to right wing bloggers (climategate, health care reform, etc.). So I wouldn't really say that liberalism completely dominates the internet information sources either.

Edited February 23, 2010 by jryan

[Mr Skeptic]

Well radio at least has the saving grace that it can be listened to while doing other things. TV on the other hand, requires your full attention (audio and visual) and is more location limited, which in my opinion makes it the clear loser compared to the internet, which also has these properties but has more information in a format more easily searched.

[Pangloss]

That can be leveled at any those on any side of an issue, Pangloss. A person can be up to speed on the latest 9/11 Truther conspiracies too, but that doesn't make them any better informed.

 

Absolutely.

 

I would instead contend that those who idealize the past often don't have a proper understanding of it. It's easy to conjure up pastoral scenes of a simpler life, but that ignores the constant threat of death by disease or injury amidst a life of constant toil and backbreaking labor.

 

Absolutely.

 

talk radio is a staple of conservative information sources, and not a particularly good one compared to more modern sources like the Internet.

 

Well I understand what you meant to say here, but I think your slight gaff here illustrates an important point -- it's difficult to determine what a good source of information is. People who aren't experienced in seeking information are often mislead to accept bad sources, and that's true whether the recipient is liberal or conservative. The greater acceptance of technology by liberals (a premise I generally accept, but believe to be more attributable to age and parenthood) is a bit of an aid here, but I've seen liberals flock to some pretty stupid web sites too.

 

We just need to work on getting everyone more objective information, that's all. And I think that's what we're actually doing right now, right here -- we talk about the issues, we blog and we Facebook and we talk to our friends. It makes a difference.

[toastywombel]

toasty; Agree, but if you want to establish a difference between two people, Obama/Palin in this case, Palin had a track record in Alaska, shrinking government, shrinking the overall tax burden and had been in business, understanding their problems. I'll add she had an overall 70+% approval rating into her second year, of those she governed, until she aliened herself with a Progressive Moderate Republican (self professed) McCane.

 

I rarely indulge myself in long extended political debates on this forum, largely because I see not point in arguing politics with someone who I am unable to convince to my side .

 

I don't think it is because she aligned herself with a progressive moderate republican, nor would I describe John McCain as progressive. During his campaign he sold out on everything one could consider progressive to try and plead with the base.

 

Furthermore, what does shrinking government really mean. I find it a ridiculous argument just by simply saying she shrunk government, because it begs the question what government did she shrink. If by shrinking the government you mean as cutting local projects (here), then you have to ask yourself if that is a good thing. She herself declared that Alaska needed to become less dependent on Federal Dollars. Since she cut construction money, she cut possible jobs, and cut possible infrastructure re-improvements, which always brings business. I think it would be best to analyze what exactly Palin cut, as opposed to just saying she shrunk the government.

 

As governor yes she had a high approval ranking and she did cut the budget as I cited above.

 

As for relieving the tax burdens, you do realise there is no sales tax or income tax in Alaska, I think they are plenty relieved from tax burdens.

 

However in that same wikipedia article you will find she had numerous

ethics complaints. Also I have some serious policy disagreements with her that follow this paragraph, from the same article.

 

"In August 2008, Palin signed a bill authorizing the State of Alaska to award TransCanada Pipelines—the sole bidder to meet the state's requirements—a license to build and operate a pipeline to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Continental United States through Canada.[121] The governor also pledged $500 million in seed money to support the project.[122] It is estimated that the project will cost $26 billion.[121]"

 

This

 

"On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing,[148] the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten.[149] The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."[150] The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."[150][151]"

 

and this

 

"In 2007, Palin supported a 2003 Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from the air as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose and caribou populations for subsistence-food gatherers and other hunters.[124][125] In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs, in five areas of Alaska. Six-hundred-and-seven wolves had been killed in the prior four years. State biologists wanted 382 to 664 wolves killed by the end of the predator-control season in April 2007. Wildlife activists sued the state, and a state judge declared the bounty illegal on the basis that a bounty would have to be offered by the Board of Game and not by the Department of Fish and Game.[124][126]"

 

That last one is kinda sick to me, hunting wolves from the air. Why not tranquillisation and relocation? Furthermore, hunting from the air is hardly proper or honorable hunting.

 

Here is some more on Sarah Palin when she was mayor of Wasilla, you know, so we can note her executive experience. :

 

As mayor:

"$27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor" here.

 

"The city's long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million due to $15 million for the sports complex, $5.5 million for street projects, and $3 million for water improvement projects. The Wall Street Journal characterized the project as a "financial mess".[64] A city council member defended the spending increases as being caused by the city's growth during that time." here and here.

 

Since we elected Obama, for a comparison we need to look at his only executive experience. Government is growing at rates unknown in the past, department budgets were up in the 2010 budget and on average up 15% each in the 2011 proposed budget. He has never been in business, obviously knows nothing about where private sector jobs come from and taxes are going to go up. I'll add into his 2 year of governing and from those being governed has a 45% approval rating, this morning.

 

Well, I think it is terribly misinformed to compare the approval rating of President Obama in his second year, to then Governor Palin's 70% approval rating in her second year. Being a popular governor in a state like Alaska, which despite Palin's cuts still receives the largest amount of earmark spending per-capita, is not as challenging as being a popular president while having to deal with being the first black president, inheriting a debt, a broken financial system, a broken healthcare system, an underachieving education system and two wars.

 

Furthermore, to diminish Palin's faults by comparing her to another political figure is not a valid argument. Often these types of arguments lead to arguments essentially saying, well she did bad, but this guy did worse. Lets avoid that.

 

Also I would like to note that I received a tax cut under president Obama, so the tax issue is really a non-issue with me. It is kinda hard to convince me otherwise, since actual results of Obama's "increased government takeover" have effected me in a positive way.

 

As I think I mentioned somewhere else, two of my family members have gotten construction jobs from federal stimulus money. They are re-paving nearly all the major roads in my community. We really needed it too. There are quite a bit of jobs being created in my community because of the stimulus dollars or as you might call it "big government".

 

toasty, I hope Palin does NOT run for President, in 2012, 2016 or maybe ever. I think she would make a fine Cabinet Member in any Administration and can influence any State or National election, doing fine for her Country and as she puts it "The Palin Family". After Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama, I think we need a rest from polarizing figures running the Federal Government, an objectively oriented Congress with a concern over fiscal responsibility and a rest from what's been dividing Americans in general. As did Ms. Clinton, Palin could move to any number of States, run for Congress and be effective in this way...Yes Secretary of State, Rice was well qualified with too many different talents not to be intelligent.

 

 

 

Most folks that deal in politics, from any party would say, they feel the National Attitude over all, is right of center and conservative on one or more issues. When talking welfare of the general public, no doubt most people would be classified liberal to the point of their personal limits. That is no one want's to see people dying on the streets, from homelessness, starvation or any person lacking opportunities for education or the needed opportunity for some success. On the other hand most people, want government to act and be responsible in the same manner they are held to. Most all States have established law for their Congress to maintain a balanced budget, for instance, that's conservative.

 

 

 

Your probably correct, technically; However it's the word the Democratic Party has used since neither progressivism or socialism, would not work in the American Traditional Culture today and both tried. Above I mentioned far left to far right of (center). Make your own list of issues, then define a far left or far right view of each issue. What you'll find are Marxist/Communist/Populism/Progressive/Democratic stances on one side, with extreme opposites on the other, Conservative/Capitalist/Conventionalist/arguably Republican. Moderate either part today being near center. By the way, when these words were used and failed, it was from Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Berry Goldwater and John McCain, progressive.

 

http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/chapter/?vgnextchannel=093a2ef11ac65110VgnVCM100000a7c3d240RCRD&chapterchannel=beb078fd108eb110VgnVCM10000075c1d240RCRD

 

Classic Liberalism;

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

 

 

Yes, I've followed and read quite a bit, on Rupert Murdoch. Think he also has holdings in New Zealand and has offices/reporters throughout Europe and Sky News is available via satellite throughout Europe.Thanks for acknowledging how extensive Newscorp (FOX NEWS) coverage is, worldwide.

 

Well I don't have the time to respond to the rest, but I hope you enjoy my counter-argument, I enjoyed reading yours. I would just like to note it seems that you are in favour of an almost laissez fair government stance?