The Misinformed Tea Party Movement

[ParanoiA]

That' date=' no. But what I asked, yes.

 

[b']Just facts to back up the claim that liberals opinion and slant dominates the networks, or even has before. [/b]

 

Must be thousands of factual tidbits laying around since it's claimed so much. I'd just like a tiny sampling of it. Not even 57 or 124 bits of fact or evidence. You know, something a little more concrete than just saying so.

 

Sorry, it's not a fact. It's an opinion I have, based on 20+ years of paying attention to politics. Just like it's an opinion that Fox news is slanted to the right. It is not fact. And asking me to source or provide evidence of my perceptions would be impossible since I have noted this since I was teenager.

 

Easy. What are the odds that it's people of questionable ethics who might've convinced you to be extremely concerned about this bill? (as you said, probably more than any other in your life) What are the odds they're legit and not just riling you up for their benefit?

 

I'd say the odds are low since there are very few people in this world that can convince me of anything. I read and gather information and reconcile that with my belief system. And the output in this case is yet another offense by the state, another encroachment of our liberty traded for security. And thus far, the only person I've heard say that, is myself.

 

 

But if that won't convince you it's fine, here's another: that claim you keep making of how liberals progressives were the first to abuse the Supreme Court in the New Deal era[/b']? That accusation is made a countless number of times in the U.S., and here by you and jackson33, however it doesn't fit reality.

 

Now we have something that can be sourced as factual. Ooops! I didn't say all that above ANYWHERE...darn, now what? Maybe you keep asking for sources because your conscience is giving you away?

 

No, the claim I made was that Inter-state commerce was not expanded to include Intrastate anything and everything until the New Deal era. I carefully laid that out for all to see. The case that expanded on the word "commerce" to include manufacturing, production and so forth was NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp, 1937, but that didn't effect intra-state anything and everything. The case that did that, was Wickard v Filburn (1942 - New Deal era) and expanded on the phrase "inter-state" to include anything Intra-state that can effect inter-state in the aggregate. That's how they can regulate marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, potatoes, tables and chairs if they wanted to.

 

ParanoiA, I'm with you on the liberties thing, and strongly oppose being forced to pay health insurance, but if you'd think I'll vote in an extremist to fix the problem, count me out.

 

Who's asking you to do that? What did I ask you to vote for?

 

Paranoia, you're intelligent. What I meant is just look deeper than a shallow outlook presented to us about reality.

 

I'm sorry, I forgot to tune into Fox news to find out what I'm supposed to think today. Let me consult Rush Limbaugh's website to get my marching orders and belief system updates and I'll respond back...

 

 

See, this is where it comes off as derisive and insulting. It's presumptuous and personal for you to claim that someone wasn't thinking when they posted. You can attack the stance but this comes off as attacking the person.

 

It really does. But I've come to expect it here, which is why I make a couple of posts and then go away for a while. You eventually learn how to handle the children's sandbox.

 

But thanks for trying. Nice to see you as an immortal again, Phi.

Edited March 24, 2010 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

Just like it's an opinion that Fox news is slanted to the right. It is not fact.

 

O'Reilly at least has repeatedly admitted Fox is conservative:

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909170041

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jon-stewart-oreilly-factor-round-two

 

But more to the point Fox is sponsoring the 9.12 Project and with it the tea party movement in general. Fox is actively involved in conservative politics.

 

If you want some opinion, mine is that without Fox News, there would be no tea party movement.

[toastywombel]

I'd say the odds are low since there are very few people in this world that can convince me of anything. I read and gather information and reconcile that with my belief system. And the output in this case is yet another offense by the state, another encroachment of our liberty traded for security. And thus far, the only person I've heard say that, is myself.

 

You do realize paranoia, that everything you know, nearly all the knowledge you have ever obtained is from people in this world. Information doesn't just grow on trees. So to say that there are few people in this world who can convince you of anything is rather ridiculous, everything you know (your belief system) was at one point something known by another person and passed onto you through some means.

 

It is great to be independent, but humans at the core are not independent creatures, we are social creatures dependent on each other.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, I'll play along. A quick google search...

 

http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/mediabias101.aspx

 

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. The data showed journalists hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. Lichter and Rothman’s book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s.

 

KEY FINDINGS:

 

• More than four-fifths of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
   
  
• “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum,” Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered"
  

 

Oh, here's one that looked cool:

 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

 

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

 

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

 

 

Is anyone really surprised? Can we move along and stop playing "what media bias?"

 

You do realize paranoia' date=' that everything you know, nearly all the knowledge you have ever obtained is from people in this world. Information doesn't just grow on trees. So to say that there are few people in this world who can convince you of anything is rather ridiculous, everything you know (your belief system) was at one point something known by another person and passed onto you through some means.

 

It is great to be independent, but humans at the core are not independent creatures, we are social creatures dependent on each other.[/quote']

 

Dude, I'm not even sure I'm human.

 

Well if we're going with the "there is nothing new under the sun" routine, well sure, I don't deny that. I don't believe there is an original thought in my head.

 

But I tend to change opinion and views based on the information itself, not the informer. I'm very aware of my attraction to argument technique, and a good wordsmith can earn my ear, but it's the reconciliation of the information with my beliefs that render the result. That's all I meant.

Edited March 24, 2010 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

Is anyone really surprised? Can we move along and stop playing "what media bias?"

 

Going from "this rather dated survey shows that journalists are generally liberals" to "the media has a liberal bias" is an ad hominem. Journalists also strain for objectivity in their work. If you want to argue that there's a liberal "media" bias (all media? really? talk radio is liberally biased too?), you have to demonstrate that their political dispositions actually carry through to their reporting.

 

You'll be hard pressed to find any other news organizations sponsoring political action groups the way Fox is sponsoring the 9.12 protests. That's substantive "bias" for you.

[toastywombel]

Ok, I'll play along. A quick google search...

 

http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/mediabias101.aspx

 

 

 

Oh, here's one that looked cool:

 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

 

 

 

Is anyone really surprised? Can we move along and stop playing "what media bias?"

 

 

 

Dude, I'm not even sure I'm human.

 

Well if we're going with the "there is nothing new under the sun" routine, well sure, I don't deny that. I don't believe there is an original thought in my head.

 

But I tend to change opinion and views based on the information itself, not the informer. I'm very aware of my attraction to argument technique, and a good wordsmith can earn my ear, but it's the reconciliation of the information with my beliefs that render the result. That's all I meant.

 

I understand that, everyone has their own unique thought process, and it is good to be skeptical. And I can relate to not being sure of being human.