Ratcheting back a notch or two?

[The Voice of Reason]

When liberals compare Bush to Hitler there is no outcry about liberals being 'divisive' or 'extreme' ...

I missed this earlier.

I don't know what world you lived on during the years 2000 to 2008, but here on earth, the right wing went nuts when Bush was criticized. Faux News went absolutely ballistic in their efforts to defend Bush and the neocons, and the policies that they enacted.

Your claim reminds me of the line that used to get floated during the Bush era, where the conservatives would say "Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of corruption and hypocrisy, but when a Republican is exposed, we vote him out of office".

No matter how often a lie is repeated, it does not become the truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

As for the war, Obama has put withdrawal orders for both Iraq, which is happening, and Afghanistan which last I heard is supposed to start happening next year. Although many people have been calling back when Bush was still in office that Iraq will become a long term outpost like South Korea.
As for the expanding government, it really depends on how you see it. The Patriot Act is one of the worst bills signed in under Bush, and I was very disappointed that Obama didn't completely kill it off. As for the health care bill, personally I don't see so much as an over sized government as I do the government taking care of it's citizens. After all, we should get more than just laws and taxes from our elected officials. As for the health care bill that was passed, the insurance companies need reform. As for the auto industry, the government may have become the majority stock holder for some of the companies, but those companies were quickly destroying themselves and are very vital to the American economy. I don't like it, but like the original round of bail outs things would have gotten so much worse if it didn't happen.


They need to quit opposing everything the Democrats propose just because it's what the Democrats proposed. The childish "us vs. them" mentality that the GOP Congress has is going to destroy this country quicker than anything else can.

Bush & Obama both planned to get out of the wars, yet here we are, still in them. I don't buy the notion that Repubs oppose everything
the Dems propose just out of partisanship. I can see very good reasons for disliking our march towards bigger government, wasteful
spending, the nanny state & higher taxes. We must face the fact that there are different values in addition to partisanship.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm a foreigner that relies on the Internet for forming opinions about USA politics, you know.

But since you invited me to pitch in on this matter... from what I have read it seems that the GOP isn't taking the loss of the presidential elections at all well. It is currently driven with a surprising determination to paint itself as quite at odds with Obama, apparently without realizing or caring what that does to the country. As a result, changes have been disappointingly slow (mainly due to congress obstruction) and criticism (teabaggers and the like) has been impressive, not the least due to its general lack of coherence.

The GOP itself is perhaps mortally wounded. It has lost any traces of a true leadership and is now listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I was surprised that it bothered with proposing a candidate in the 2008 elections, I am surprised now that they bother to go on at all. Far as I can tell, it is now a curious and dying mix of old horses who don't want to be forgotten and dangerous, inflamatory climbers who see some sort of opportunity in the general sense of insecurity and loss.

Congress, from what I have read, is mainly interested in posing to electors right now. Many of its members seem to interested above anything else in lying their hearts out in a very dramatic way, so that votes remember their names and confuse them with some sort of courageous "rogue" worth voting on.

Yet for all their failures, those two interconnected groups are still needed for anything of political significance to be done at the Federal level in the USA. IMO the current situation is a strong signal that some structural change in the model of representation is called for. Unfortunately, such a change would have to come from a grassroots level, which makes it either unlikely, slow or painful. Probably a bit of each.

Even though your post is opinion, and it comes from outside our system, it is (in my opinion) a very astute recap of the current status of one aspect of our political plight.

I had to frubal it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I blame Mark Evanier, Voice. And Slate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I had to Google up Evanier. I'll have to find some of his work, as I do love me some humor.

 

[LuisDantas]

news from me

I read it every day. For about six years now IIRC.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Or you could back up your own statement. I guess that's too much to ask, though, huh?

LOL! Someone in this thread made the comparison for me. Look at that evidence.

Because it's stupid to compare either of them to Hitler. That's why I would expect someone to care.

I am not responsible for other people's stupidity.

Whatever helps you continue to be a conservative, I guess.

When a liberal president admits that the media is liberal I believe that is pretty good evidence. This doesn't have anything to do with me being a conservative.

Yes, you are. You're arguing that the media is liberal and that therefore there's a conspiracy to give much more airtime to liberal activists than conservative ones.

Not much I can say when you tell me what I believe even though I specifically don't believe what you ascribe to me. The media covers more liberal protests than conservative protests. Not a conspiracy, just an observation. And part of the reason is that until very recently (the Tea Party protests) liberals simply protested more.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The media covers more liberal protests than conservative protests. Not a conspiracy, just an observation.

You wouldn't have any stats or studies to back up that claim, would you. You know - something other than anecdotal claims.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't buy the notion that Repubs oppose everything
the Dems propose just out of partisanship.

There have been multiple bills in which all the Republicans have opposed a bill that Obama has proposed. With the financial reform bill they even went as far to call it a bail out bill.

The media covers more liberal protests than conservative protests. Not a conspiracy, just an observation.

The Tea Party has gotten alot of media attention, both from Conservative and Liberal outlets. And Fox News is a rather large media outlet, and even the blind can see the Conservative bias of Fox News.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
LOL! Someone in this thread made the comparison for me. Look at that evidence.

I'll try again, can you give us some examples of people doing this with Bush? If not, I'll be happy to witness you're retraction of the statement.

I am not responsible for other people's stupidity.

No, you're not responsible for it. However, other people's stupidity can easily affect you and the rest of us, whether or not we're responsible for it.

When a liberal president admits that the media is liberal I believe that is pretty good evidence.

I'm sure it is, but then again, that's because you really want to believe that's the case in the first place. Since I don't really care one way or the other, I'd prefer real evidence.

This doesn't have anything to do with me being a conservative.

I'm sure if you keep repeating this to yourself, you'll convince yourself. Then at least it'll sound more convincing to the rest of us.

Not much I can say when you tell me what I believe even though I specifically don't believe what you ascribe to me. The media covers more liberal protests than conservative protests. Not a conspiracy, just an observation. And part of the reason is that until very recently (the Tea Party protests) liberals simply protested more.

So, if something happens more, wouldn't you expect them to cover it more? You just shot down your own argument. Covering a liberal event more than a conservative event only makes the news outlet liberal, if both events happen at the same frequency.

 

[Magic Man]

You wouldn't have any stats or studies to back up that claim, would you. You know - something other than anecdotal claims.

Look it up yourself! Jeez, you liberals are so lazy! How can you expect poor Joe to actually back his claims up?

 

[Revoltingest]

Look it up yourself! Jeez, you liberals are so lazy! How can you expect poor Joe to actually back his claims up?

Your post reminded me of this exchange:

Originally Posted by Revoltingest
How much total income tax do American Corporations pay vs how much net income do they have? I'd prefer a quantitative argument.
VOR:
"I have no idea what the totals are. I'm sure that there is a significant difference between the mega corporations and the average to small businesses. As for a quantitative analysis, it won't come from me. I have neither the inclination, nor the time to dig that up."

The lack of time to do research afflicts all sides.
I don't recall that any of my evidence ever satisfied you anyway. There was always some flaw....like an inconvenient conclusion.

 

[Magic Man]

Your post reminded me of this exchange:

Originally Posted by Revoltingest
How much total income tax do American Corporations pay vs how much net income do they have? I'd prefer a quantitative argument.
VOR:
"I have no idea what the totals are. I'm sure that there is a significant difference between the mega corporations and the average to small businesses. As for a quantitative analysis, it won't come from me. I have neither the inclination, nor the time to dig that up."

The lack of time to do research afflicts all sides.

It's not a lack-of-time issue. The issue is making a claim that you refuse to back up. And for the sake of this thread, we can leave that exchange between the two of you out, since it is irrelevant. Nice try, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a lack-of-time issue. The issue is making a claim that you refuse to back up. And for the sake of this thread, we can leave that exchange between the two of you out, since it is irrelevant. Nice try, though.

Refused to back up a claim? Please show me where I did that.
My exchange with VOR is relevant...it's just that you fail to understand how.
I forgive you this.

 

[Magic Man]

Refused to back up a claim? Please show me where I did that.

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to Joe Stocks. The "you" there was the general one, not specifically you.

My exchange with VOR is relevant...it's just that you fail to understand how.

No, I understand how you think it's relevant, but it's not. What you're doing is just "Oh yeah? Well, he did it, too!".

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis and TVOR,

New Media A Weapon in New World Of Politics - washingtonpost.com

But he said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.


"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

----------------------------

Here Clinton says that liberals naturally treat the establishment media as their allies. He also mentions how this is changing as new forms of media in tha last twenty years are challenging the liberal monopoly on media that they had for so long (such as Fox news, talk radio and Drudge).

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

The GOP itself is perhaps mortally wounded. It has lost any traces of a true leadership and is now listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I was surprised that it bothered with proposing a candidate in the 2008 elections, I am surprised now that they bother to go on at all. Far as I can tell, it is now a curious and dying mix of old horses who don't want to be forgotten and dangerous, inflamatory climbers who see some sort of opportunity in the general sense of insecurity and loss.

The comedic stylings of Luis here. And this mix of dying horses is poised for big gains in the mid-terms. Pretty good for a dying party.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TVOR,

I don't know what world you lived on during the years 2000 to 2008, but here on earth, the right wing went nuts when Bush was criticized. Faux News went absolutely ballistic in their efforts to defend Bush and the neocons, and the policies that they enacted.

Let's do the math together. Fox News on the right and NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC on the left. That's 6 to 1.

You wouldn't have any stats or studies to back up that claim, would you. You know - something other than anecdotal claims.

No studies, just some very uncontroversial observations. Since 1980, 20 of the 30 years there was a Republican president in office. And the rent-a-mob mentality of the left (unions can whipup a protest in mere minutes it seems, it really puts the tea partiers to shame). And I have some experience with the pro-life movement where pro-life rallies (or protests) get pretty much zero media coverage from the major networks while pro-choice rallies do get covered by the major networks.

 

[Revoltingest]

The comedic stylings of Luis here. And this mix of dying horses is poised for big gains in the mid-terms. Pretty good for a dying party.

I recall back when the Dems thought they could never win the White House again.
But the party in power will always eventually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

I'll try again, can you give us some examples of people doing this with Bush? If not, I'll be happy to witness you're retraction of the statement.

Hey genius, a person in this thread compared Bush to Hitler. Read the entire thread and get back to me.