What a Cruel World

[The Voice of Reason]

We have some conservatives on this site that are quite good at defending their positions. On the other hand, we have a large number that rely (almost exclusively) on citing the worst of the ultra right outlets (i.e. Faux News, the Heritage Foundation).

When you get all of your news from such sources, you are destined to get a distorted view of the events that happen in our world. Faux News can't report a house fire without trying to put partisan spin on it.

I know that the more conservative a person is, the more they want to believe that only Faux News is unbiased, and the other 95% of the news outlets are skewed, but it just isn't so.

Please - you have to understand why everyone that isn't a Dittohead rolls their eyes when someone quotes Rush Limbaugh as a source, or uses Sean Hannity to defend their position.

I'm an agnostic, guys - but I'm praying for you to try to tune into other sources for your news. Well, okay - I'm not really praying - but you get the picture.

 

[3.14]

real news[------------/boring news\------------]fake news

 

[Investocracy]

We have some conservatives on this site that are quite good at defending their positions. On the other hand, we have a large number that rely (almost exclusively) on citing the worst of the ultra right outlets (i.e. Faux News, the Heritage Foundation).

When you get all of your news from such sources, you are destined to get a distorted view of the events that happen in our world. Faux News can't report a house fire without trying to put partisan spin on it.

I know that the more conservative a person is, the more they want to believe that only Faux News is unbiased, and the other 95% of the news outlets are skewed, but it just isn't so.

Please - you have to understand why everyone that isn't a Dittohead rolls their eyes when someone quotes Rush Limbaugh as a source, or uses Sean Hannity to defend their position.

I'm an agnostic, guys - but I'm praying for you to try to tune into other sources for your news. Well, okay - I'm not really praying - but you get the picture.

Heritage Foundation is well researched and hardly ultra right. Fox News is unbiased it spent nearly 50%/50% on Obama/McCain covering their campaigns. CNN wasn't even close, and MSNBC spent something over 90% of their campaign coverage on covering Obama. How is that fair and balanced?

Rush Limbaugh makes salient points so instead of rolling your eyes how about you actually try and refute his real arguments and not the ones you hear on CNN?

We conservatives would love to turn the dial to another news station if only they weren't so busy masturbating to Obama's portrait.

 

[J Bryson]

Heritage Foundation is well researched and hardly ultra right.

"My pastor's read other religions, so he's hardly just Christian"

Fox News is unbiased it spent nearly 50%/50% on Obama/McCain covering their campaigns.

Yes. Take a look at the quality of the coverage, and how each campaign was presented.

CNN wasn't even close, and MSNBC spent something over 90% of their campaign coverage on covering Obama. How is that fair and balanced?

See previous entry.

Rush Limbaugh makes salient points so instead of rolling your eyes how about you actually try and refute his real arguments and not the ones you hear on CNN?

How about you name a salient point of his that isn't dressed up in neocon garbage?

We conservatives would love to turn the dial to another news station if only they weren't so busy masturbating to Obama's portrait.

Sorry, our Jesse Jackson and Jane Fonda pictures were suffering from unfortunate spatter.

 

[Investocracy]

For instance Rush Limbaugh said that Obama's policies are socialist and will destroy the United States, so of course he wants Obama to fail because he wants the US to survive. What's wrong with that statement? Nothing, even Democrats are now putting-up headlines like 'We're stuck with a socialist that may be incompetent.'

Do you just not know what's going on around you? You so called rational person.

 

[Investocracy]

J Bryson just prove my point without wasting bandwidth by quoting? Why would you say that Heritage Foundation is NOT well researched? It's got numerous Ph.Ds working on numerous political problems and statisticians working hard to provide facts to policy making; just like any other number of think tanks out there.

Why is Fox News somehow 'biased' if it equally spends its time and resources (money) on covering both political candidates when other News sources are busy calling the Republican States 'the Confederacy'. Really? How is CNN and MSNBC unbaised or less biased than Fox News?

Where has Rush Limbaugh been wrong?

 

[J Bryson]

For instance Rush Limbaugh said that Obama's policies are socialist and will destroy the United States, so of course he wants Obama to fail because he wants the US to survive. What's wrong with that statement? Nothing, even Democrats are now putting-up headlines like 'We're stuck with a socialist that may be incompetent.'

Do you just not know what's going on around you? You so called rational person.

I see.

So he wants Obama to fail.

Therefore, he wants Obama's policies to not work.

Obama's policies are oriented towards providing jobs and making sure the economy gets back on its feet. It's open to debate as to whether or not it will work. However, Rush is basically coming across as stating that he hopes neither of these things happens.

In other words, it seems that he is saying that he hopes that jobs are not created, and that the economy does not get back on its feet.

I didn't agree with Bush's invasion of Iraq from the get-go, because I didn't trust him. You know what my response was to a conservative friend once our tanks started rolling across that border?

"I hope that I'm wrong."

 

[Investocracy]

I see.

So he wants Obama to fail.

Therefore, he wants Obama's policies to not work.

Obama's policies are oriented towards providing jobs and making sure the economy gets back on its feet. It's open to debate as to whether or not it will work. However, Rush is basically coming across as stating that he hopes neither of these things happens.

In other words, it seems that he is saying that he hopes that jobs are not created, and that the economy does not get back on its feet.

I didn't agree with Bush's invasion of Iraq from the get-go, because I didn't trust him. You know what my response was to a conservative friend once our tanks started rolling across that border?

"I hope that I'm wrong."

Obama's policies are oriented at expanding the Federal Government unconstitutionally; Georgia has already challenged Obama on the basis of the US Constitution and looks like it will win. Obama cannot force a state to take any federal money for any condition what-so-ever...that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So how can Obama's policies possibly work if they are Unconstitutional?

I guess you missed the memo; the US Defense Department declared just the other day after the successful Iraqi elections that 'our goal of establishing a Democracy in the Middle East is achieved, we have succeeded in Iraq.'
*edit*once believed that a peaceful and Democratic Germany was impossible; what do you have to say for yourselves 60 years after being proven wrong there too?

 

[J Bryson]

Obama's policies are oriented at expanding the Federal Government unconstitutionally; Georgia has already challenged Obama on the basis of the US Constitution and looks like it will win. Obama cannot force a state to take any federal money for any condition what-so-ever...that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So how can Obama's policies possibly work if they are Unconstitutional?

I'll leave that to the Supreme Court to decide, rather than such illustrious Constitutional scholars such as the two of us. Of course, the President himself was a Constitutional law professor, so guess who I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to? That's right....

I guess you missed the memo; the US Defense Department declared just the other day after the successful Iraqi elections that 'our goal of establishing a Democracy in the Middle East is achieved, we have succeeded in Iraq.'

And we found and destroyed the WMDs, too, right?

*edit*

Sorry, incorrect. The CAT scan proves one wrong, and my political beliefs disprove the other.

once believed that a peaceful and Democratic Germany was impossible; what do you have to say for yourselves 60 years after being proven wrong there too?

Wasn't alive 60 years ago to make this prediction, so I'm not sure what it has to do with me.

 

[Comicaze247]

For instance Rush Limbaugh said that Obama's policies are socialist and will destroy the United States,

I recall the leader of the Socialist party going on the Jon Stewart show saying that he's insulted that people think Obama and his policies are Socialist.

so of course he wants Obama to fail because he wants the US to survive.

Really? I think anyone that wants our leader, regardless of his party, to fail is pretty unpatriotic.

 

[Comicaze247]

Obama's policies are oriented at expanding the Federal Government unconstitutionally; Georgia has already challenged Obama on the basis of the US Constitution and looks like it will win. Obama cannot force a state to take any federal money for any condition what-so-ever...that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Unconstitutional, huh? Patriot Act anyone?

 

[Investocracy]

I think anyone that wants higher public debt, higher federal government interference and higher taxes is unpatriotic so I really don't give a rats butt if liberals think that Rush Limbaugh is being unpatriotic; you're only a small 30-32% of the population. As far as liberal and conservatives are concerned conservatives outnumber you by 10%.

It doesn't take a Constitutional Scholar to know that the Federal Government cannot make a state take any federal money for any reason. It is faux ambiguity like that which makes liberals seem so retarded. The Federalist Papers are cut-and-dry.

The Iraq war was first and foremost fought to secure the region against Saddam, and to establish a democracy in the Middle East - this is precisely what was voted for by Congress. WMD's maybe had a higher profile but were farther down the list of priorities in the Congressional approval of the war. Care to debate that fact too!?

 

[Investocracy]

Unconstitutional, huh? Patriot Act anyone?

Name one amendment in the Patriot Act that is Unconstitutional.

 

[Comicaze247]

Name one amendment in the Patriot Act that is Unconstitutional.

From my understanding, it allowed the government to wire tap anyone they wanted and monitor all conversations. Invasion of privacy.
From what I've read, there were also searches of people's property without warrant and without consent. Invasion of privacy.

 

[Investocracy]

From my understanding, it allowed the government to wire tap anyone they wanted and monitor all conversations. Invasion of privacy.
From what I've read, there were also searches of people's property without warrant and without consent. Invasion of privacy.

You are mistaken but not alone, the Patriot Act amended a lot of prior laws (created no new laws) in order to close gaps and loop-holes that prevented the monitoring of known terrorists in the US from being interfered with by our usual due process. It complexly tries to answer the problems of our due process traditions without infringing upon them but at the same time allowing us more flexibility in prosecuting terrorists and collecting information on their activities.

Like I tell my friends; very little of it allows changes to what is admissible in a court of law, so unless habeus corpus were suspended then whatever the Patriot Act does is unimportant. If habeus corpus were suspended then the last thing you have to worry about is the Patriot Act.

It may not be the best thing, but something had to be done; like in WW2 we interred many Japs and some Germans, during the Civil War Lincoln had 38,000 political prisoners, post 9/11 we have expanded intelligence gathering potential that doesn't effect US Citizens.

 

[Comicaze247]

You are mistaken but not alone, the Patriot Act amended a lot of prior laws (created no new laws) in order to close gaps and loop-holes that prevented the monitoring of known terrorists in the US from being interfered with by our usual due process. It complexly tries to answer the problems of our due process traditions without infringing upon them but at the same time allowing us more flexibility in prosecuting terrorists and collecting information on their activities.

It has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties, as well as being overboard in regard to its circumstances of application. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may not be the best thing, but something had to be done; like in WW2 we interred many Japs and some Germans, during the Civil War Lincoln had 38,000 political prisoners, post 9/11 we have expanded intelligence gathering potential that doesn't effect US Citizens.

So, in other words, the ends justify the means?

P.S.: "Japs" is a derogatory term, if you didn't know.

 

[Investocracy]

Japanee is a derogatory word; Japs is not, it is no different than saying "the Jews". It's not "the ends justify the means" it is "this can be done without infringing upon US values of civil society". It's a win win; the criticism that it infringes upon civil liberties is garbage; whose liberties does it infringe upon? Muslim terrorists? OK - we don't care.

 

[Comicaze247]

Japanee is a derogatory word; Japs is not, it is no different than saying "the Jews".

So saying what the people are actually called is derogatory? Because last I checked, my Japanese friends don't mind being called Japanese. And the term that was constantly used in a derogatory manner during the war isn't derogatory at all? Hmm . . .

It's not "the ends justify the means" it is "this can be done without infringing upon US values of civil society". It's a win win; the criticism that it infringes upon civil liberties is garbage; whose liberties does it infringe upon? Muslim terrorists? OK - we don't care.

And what of the people that were wrongly suspected? Were their liberties respected?

 

[Investocracy]

So saying what the people are actually called is derogatory? Because last I checked, my Japanese friends don't mind being called Japanese. And the term that was constantly used in a derogatory manner during the war isn't derogatory at all? Hmm . . .


And what of the people that were wrongly suspected? Were their liberties respected?

I didn't say Japanese, I said Japanee...I don't 'typo'. So you know.

Maybe they shouldn't have started the war in the first place...

What about the people 'wrongly suspected'? Were they denied any rights under the Constitution? No. Privacy may have been violated but it's not like they were spying in on your bedroom activities, they were spying in on your calls to Pakistan...or Iraq.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... On the other hand, we have a large number that rely (almost exclusively) on citing the worst of the ultra right outlets (i.e. Faux News, the Heritage Foundation).
When you get all of your news from such sources, you are destined to get a distorted view of the events that happen in our world.

which elicits the following response:

... Heritage Foundation is well researched and hardly ultra right. Fox News is unbiased... .... Rush Limbaugh makes salient points ...

We'll call this "Exhibit A".