Hillary For Prez!

[esmith]

You may be right. I recall speaking with many well educated individuals and professionals back in the 80's, and we all KNEW that putting Reagan into office would be so incredibly inane and dangerous to the US. that the voting public would NEVER be that stupid.
Similar Bush Jr.

Like looking at the more savvy internet users, a more progressive vote....a vote based on science, economic realities, and at least basic understanding of politics, warfare, and facts.....is inevitable.
Unfortunately, this is NOT representative of less educated and most often MISinformed conservatives who are decieved into continuously voting against their religion's, their country's, their species', and their own personal good. :cover:

As Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying...."Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

. Doomed. ​

And you really think that the majority of the liberal/progressive voter, (that is if you consider all those that vote for Democrats to be liberal progressives),are well informed? If so, I think you might be a little delusional. The average American voter is not well informed about the majority of issues facing the country.

So, let me ask you a question. What did Regan do that was so bad for the country. Of course I realize that it is your personal opinion which sound like it is highly biased.

 

[technomage]

And you really think that the majority of the liberal/progressive voter, (that is if you consider all those that vote for Democrats to be liberal progressives),are well informed?

The folks watching CNN and MSNBC (as much as I despise the latter) are better informed than the folks watching Back or Limbaugh.

 

[esmith]

The folks watching CNN and MSNBC (as much as I despise the latter) are better informed than the folks watching Back or Limbaugh.

I assume you mean watching Beck and listing to Limbaugh. That may be your opinion, however if they are at least listing to either on of those they are at least being made aware of what is going on in the world vice not remotely involved. They listen because they agree with what is being said. Of course in your Opinion, what is being said is contrary to what you believe, fair enough; just do not demean them for what they believe.

 

[technomage]

I assume you mean watching Beck and listing to Limbaugh.

Ah, typos. They happen

That may be your opinion, however if they are at least listing to either on of those they are at least being made aware of what is going on in the world vice not remotely involved. They listen because they agree with what is being said. Of course in your Opinion, what is being said is contrary to what you believe, fair enough; just do not demean them for what they believe.

My disregard for Beck, Limbaugh, Maddox, and several others in the media has nothing to do with opinion, and everything to do with the dishonest swill they post pretending it to be fact.

 

[Reverend Rick]

All media is biased to one degree or another.

As far as education, there are many ignorant voters on both sides of the isle.

Bottom line, some folks believe the government is ths answer to everything while others want less government

 

[technomage]

Bottom line, some folks believe the government is ths answer to everything while others want less government

And some folks take a centrist view--that government is necessary for some things, unnecessary for others.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there a good reason to simply accept the extremes of Fox News and the like?

I can't really think of any.

 

[LuisDantas]

I respect your difference of opinion but the facts will bear out during this falls elections.

Luis our country is not represented correctly on the internet

One viewing the internet could assume we are much more Liberal than we actually are as a country.

Older more conservative voters are not on the internet but will be
In the voting booth

To imply that the GOP has lost its relevance is an exercise in mental masterbation

I don't particularly trust the media or the Internet.

All the same, distortion only goes so far. There are plenty of pretty uncontroversial information pieces letting me build enough of a clear picture to trust my judgement on this matter.

Surely it is not just propaganda that (say) GWB was elected twice, or that Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Condoleeza Rice have in fact said the things that both their supporters and their detractors agree that they said.


I don't think of the USA as particularly Liberal, incidentally. Were it, there would be no condition whatsoever for so much that happened since 1980 (Reagan's first term as POTUS) to happen.

If anything, I am impressed by how Conservative on the whole you are. It doesn't quite sound possible, or sustainable.

And no, I do not see any reason whatsoever to refrain from either having or stating a clear, even emphatic opinion on the matters of a country which I only visited for a couple of weeks in my entire life. That is just not a particularly relevant consideration. I keep myself well informed and I have plenty earned the right for an opinion.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

And you really think that the majority of the liberal/progressive voter, (that is if you consider all those that vote for Democrats to be liberal progressives),are well informed? If so, I think you might be a little delusional. The average American voter is not well informed about the majority of issues facing the country.

The average U.S. voter is not well informed. That we agree on. As a group, the progressives are better informed than the conservatives; on this you might disagree, but you would be wrong. -- read on. As to the majority of Progressives? I do NOT consider all Dem voters to be progressive, as many of them are just caught up in emotions and whatever culture they were raised in (like conservatives, or members of any church).

So, let me ask you a question. What did Regan do that was so bad for the country. Of course I realize that it is your personal opinion which sound like it is highly biased.

Oh My. I should counter that by asking what you think he did right. As for bias. Yes, I am biased (toward the center.)
Lets skip Iran Contra and opposition to stopping apartheid, and instead focus on the lasting mortal wounds he inflicted to the USA. Hmm?
In a word, "Reaganomics". That glorious trickle-down economic ideology, along with the sickening fantasy of "supply-side economics". Give to the rich and they (in their compassion and wisdom) will become "job creators" and employ all of the needy miserable masses.
Of course the result was his gutting of the US economy, with him upping the taxes on everybody else over the next 7 years of his term, desperately attempting to pay for all the loss of revenue he incurred. But still he refused to bring even a fraction of the windfalls of the 0.1%ers (his buds) back to the country. Infrastructure was doomed with Reagan some 40+ years ago. Schools, roads, postal service, police forces, independent research, social services, etc....etc.... Complained about schools lately? The post office? Hit a lot of potholes? Heard about bridges closing, or collapsing? Thank you Reagan.
You cannot be so foolish as to think these modern problems just sprang into being overnight. The lack of infrastructure funding Reagan foisted upon the American people is only now just starting to come to fruition. The disparity of incomes. The dissolution of the middle class..... (admittedly all made horribly worse by Bush Jr. and the Repug ADDITIONAL tax cuts for the wealthy). These are things that have been decades in the making.
Even our pathetic dependence upon foreign oil (and by extension, all that that has led to). Reagan is directly to blame. Converting to a greener energy system was a major brainchild of Carter_45_years_ago,_even to the point of putting solar panels on the roof of the White House itself. Reagan? He shredded the infant policy and had the staff rip the panels off the roof: then triple the size of the government (in classic Republican fashion), and blossomed the military/industrial machine.
And no, these are not JUST my opinion, they are also backed up by the fact that they are reality.

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

....snip...... Of course in your Opinion, what is being said is contrary to what you believe, fair enough; just do not demean them for what they believe.

:sorry: I realize that Fox-watchers really, really want to believe that their "news" agency of choice is fair and balanced. But its not.....and anyone that isn't a ditto-head knows this fact.
Also please keep in mind that Fox "News" is the subtlest and least spun/fabricated of the liars - Fox, Limbaugh, and Beck.
The Fox (and worse) followers have already debased themselves.

Does watching Fox News make you less informed?

Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests - Forbes

 

[metis]

And some folks take a centrist view--that government is necessary for some things, unnecessary for others.

The above is short but sweet.

I simply don't feel that a one-size-fits-all approach is best here, so whether we need bigger or smaller government should probably be adjusted with the times and situations.

But what we see with this current batch of Republicans is a literal attempt to gut government to make it almost inoperative, and why they're doing it is rather obvious: one is look who's in the White House and, two, by making national government less effective they then can claim the national government is too ineffective and that the states should have more power. Remember, McConnell publicly stated that their number one priority was to make Obama a one-term president-- not what's best for the country.

 

[metis]

The average U.S. voter is not well informed. That we agree on. As a group, the progressives are better informed than the conservatives; on this you might disagree, but you would be wrong. -- read on. As to the majority of Progressives? I do NOT consider all Dem voters to be progressive, as many of them are just caught up in emotions and whatever culture they were raised in (like conservatives, or members of any church).
Oh My. I should counter that by asking what you think he did right. As for bias. Yes, I am biased (toward the center.)
Lets skip Iran Contra and opposition to stopping apartheid, and instead focus on the lasting mortal wounds he inflicted to the USA. Hmm?
In a word, "Reaganomics". That glorious trickle-down economic ideology, along with the sickening fantasy of "supply-side economics". Give to the rich and they (in their compassion and wisdom) will become "job creators" and employ all of the needy miserable masses.
Of course the result was his gutting of the US economy, with him upping the taxes on everybody else over the next 7 years of his term, desperately attempting to pay for all the loss of revenue he incurred. But still he refused to bring even a fraction of the windfalls of the 0.1%ers (his buds) back to the country. Infrastructure was doomed with Reagan some 40+ years ago. Schools, roads, postal service, police forces, independent research, social services, etc....etc.... Complained about schools lately? The post office? Hit a lot of potholes? Heard about bridges closing, or collapsing? Thank you Reagan.
You cannot be so foolish as to think these modern problems just sprang into being overnight. The lack of infrastructure funding Reagan foisted upon the American people is only now just starting to come to fruition. The disparity of incomes. The dissolution of the middle class..... (admittedly all made horribly worse by Bush Jr. and the Repug ADDITIONAL tax cuts for the wealthy). These are things that have been decades in the making.
Even our pathetic dependence upon foreign oil (and by extension, all that that has led to). Reagan is directly to blame. Converting to a greener energy system was a major brainchild of Carter_45_years_ago,_even to the point of putting solar panels on the roof of the White House itself. Reagan? He shredded the infant policy and had the staff rip the panels off the roof: then triple the size of the government (in classic Republican fashion), and blossomed the military/industrial machine.
And no, these are not JUST my opinion, they are also backed up by the fact that they are reality.

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html


:sorry: I realize that Fox-watchers really, really want to believe that their "news" agency of choice is fair and balanced. But its not.....and anyone that isn't a ditto-head knows this fact.
Also please keep in mind that Fox "News" is the subtlest and least spun/fabricated of the liars - Fox, Limbaugh, and Beck.
The Fox (and worse) followers have already debased themselves.

Does watching Fox News make you less informed?

Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests - Forbes

Very well said.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I like NPR but it is biased as well

All media is biased

There was a time when the news was just reported and you could not figure out what party the reporter belonged to

 

[technomage]

There was a time when the news was just reported and you could not figure out what party the reporter belonged to

That time never existed outside of TV shows, Rick. Even Uncle Wally interjected his opinions and preferences into the news.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I try to watch a little BBC once in a while. They appear to focus solely on the news and not the spin. I've only seen bits here and there of Aljazeera. I wonder how they report the news. I may have to try them out. I usually stay away from the others.

 

[metis]

I like NPR but it is biased as well

All media is biased

But not all media is equally biased, and some media makes no attempt to be objective.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is not news it is entertainment

 

[Revoltingest]

I like NPR but it is biased as well
All media is biased
There was a time when the news was just reported and you could not figure out what party the reporter belonged to

Even back then there was bias. But it seemed to be less overt advocacy.
What grinds my gears about NPR is a feature even worse than Fox....NPR
regularly claims to be free of bias.

 

[freethinker44]

Even back then there was bias. But it seemed to be less overt advocacy.
What grinds my gears about NPR is a feature even worse than Fox....NPR
regularly claims to be free of bias.

Nobody claims to be more unbiased than Fox. Their motto is "fair and balanced". That's practically the definition of unbiased, and they put it right in their logo.

Besides, NPR has science Fridays, that has to be worth some brownie points.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Even back then there was bias. But it seemed to be less overt advocacy.
What grinds my gears about NPR is a feature even worse than Fox....NPR
regularly claims to be free of bias.

I'm truly puzzled by this. I've heard other righty extremists claim such things as NPR, or Nat'l Geographic, or Cosmos being biased to the left.
Care to provide examples of NPR blatantly lying like Fox or Limbaugh or Beck?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm truly puzzled by this. I've heard other righty extremists claim such things as NPR, or Nat'l Geographic, or Cosmos being biased to the left.
Care to provide examples of NPR blatantly lying like Fox or Limbaugh or Beck?

"Lying" is a charge oft made, but seldom evidenced. Some suppose that an opinion so obviously wrong (to the listener) must be the result of an intent to deceive. I don't think so. Advocacy which has different 'truths' (or different weight given to agreed upon truths) is typically honest. We notice bias less when it agrees with us. Example: NPR is pro gay marriage, pro gun control. I hardly notice the former, but the latter grates. The most glaring example I can think of is how NPR failed to cover any of Clinton's bimbo eruptions until he won re-election, & the political damage was greatly lessened. This was news they chose not to cover while others were. But contrast this with the Clarence Thomas affair, a story which NPR not only extensively covered, but actually originated. I see a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican, anti-Tea Party & anti-Libertarian orientation.

Even actual lies are tricky things to criticize. Did the NPR show, This American Life, lie about Apple's treatment of workers in China? They published lies, as Ira Glass admitted. But he didn't know the author, Mike Daisey, lied when the story aired. Mr Glass handled the situation properly after discovering the fraud, but it still happened. Did they fall prey to a story which comported with their somewhat anti-business leaning? Perhaps. But instead of calling NPR liars, I'll just urge healthy skepticism.

A leftish friend (Ray) once said that Rush Limbaugh lies. Asked if he listened to Rush, he said no. He learned of it from NPR.