On 4/23/2011 6:00 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

A better analogy would be to say "If I say Bernie Madoff is a thief
that implies I'm NOT one.

No that wouldn't. Pointing out the obvious, that Bernie Madoff is a
thief, doesn't imply anything about the person making the
observation. To imply something that isn't there is creating it on
your own, and that is far from objective. So saying Madoff is a thief
would not imply you are not one. It says nothing about you.

It doesn't to you, but you're not known for catching subtle inferences.

You're the only person who has that idea. Most people think I'm very
aware of everything. You're just seeing things because you want to. I'm not.

There's a matter of degree here. The worst offender in the biased
media network belongs to Foxnews. They're blatantly pro republican.
Many of the other media networks to one degree or another favor the
Democrats. But none of them is like Fox. So once again, pointing out
the truth about Fox isn't the same thing as saying all the other
networks are the same but biased to the left. There is a big
difference in degree.

It seems the difference to you is more a question of one telling lies
you agree with while the other doesn't.

Sorry but I don't accept lies from anyone. At one time in life I was a
republican and a Democrat. Now I'm neither. So I don't care. It just
seems to me I get more truth everywhere but at Fox


Hmmm, can't find that one anywhere. Made up a party for yourself,
huh?

No party, just a broad identification.

That's novel.

Not really unusual among people who don't need a party to tell them what
to think.

You mean people like me.

Unfortunately, a few minutes taken answering some political questions
and you would find that you fit nicely in one of the more common
categories.

Not that I've seen so far.



Try this website. You answer the questions and it tells you where you
are on the scale.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/pol...-spectrum-quiz


But then having your own makes you special, doesn't it?
You and Charlie Sheen are special.

In different ways. Money and mania, mainly.

How about "winning"?


Just be fair and admit the same thing about Fox.

Can't say, I've never actually watched Fox network news, the
local Fox station doesn't carry it.

So you're ignorant about Fox and how they operate having no
personal experience with the network? Then where did you get your
information about the station?

And you know so much about their programming because that's what
you watch?

Of course I've watched it, plenty. If I hadn't I wouldn't be
qualified to comment on it.

Seems a bit masochistic, exposing yourself to both sides lies and
prevarications. Not to mention wasting a lot of time.

It's just one media network. I look at all of them at times although
I've really gotten away from watching the regular network news. I used
to watch Fox more but it's so bad I can hardly take it. Every chance
they get they just push, push, push, the republican agenda. It get old
fast when you think that agenda is a disaster.



Or do you just watch the MSM uncritically and believe what they
want you to?

Hardly. But I do find the number of outright lies is far less from the
MSM than from Fox. You get a liberal point of view but not the lies.

Since I just said I watch Fox that means I don't just watch the MSM.
I'm also critical of everything I see or hear in the media, whether
you believe it or not is irrelevant.

Then why bother to mention it?

Only to say where I stand. Otherwise you might think I'm implying
something different.

I watch Katie Couric because I guess someone should, alas, soon
to be replaced by another newsclown.

What is that supposed to mean? You can't believe what she says
on the news? Or can you?


With all sources, I believe little of what I see and look for the
part of the story not being told. I realize it's hard for you to
understand that all media must be viewed critically, so much easier
for you to trust them to know what you need to know.

Your believing I don't view things critically is just an obvious
error on your part due to ignorance. If anything I am more critical
of the media than you are. The difference is that it doesn't matter
to me what the political leaning of the source is. I treat what they
put on the air the same. I use the same exacting standards no matter
the source.

Yet you still can't get beyond the simplicity of MSM = GOOD, Fox = BAD.

Hardly. It's the people on the right who see everything in black and
white. I sure don't. Besides, since when is Fox not part of the MSM?
They are as mainstream as any other station. They can pretend all they
want but they're still part of the MSM. Like I said, Fox is just the
most blatant by far in its bias. That doesn't mean the others don't have
bias too. It's not as bad and they aren't pretending to be fair and
balanced. That hypocrisy is part of what I dislike about Fox.


Really? Would that be your own group of bar buddies? Can you direct
me to a source that shows this consensus?

Any chart showing where the different political views fall on the
political spectrum can show you that. Libertarianism has always been
on the far right of the spectrum. Just because there are some newer
methods of categorization that have a north south
libertarian/authoritarian element to them doesn't change where
libertarianism has traditionally been on the normal left right
spectrum.

A common error, like so many of yours. Most libertarians you see, like
those running for office, represent the libertarian right. The
libertarian left, which I sort of identify with, tend to be a bit
anarchistic.

Sounds like a cult to me. Any group that small hardly even qualifies as
a political entity. Numbers actually do mean something. Funny thing
though. I took the test on the website I put up above. It had me as a
left moderate social libertarian.



So what is your idea? You think libertarianism is a political
position that is on the left side of the political spectrum?

YES! You ARE that ignorant! Libertarian/Authoritarian is a totally
different axis from liberal/conservative or left/right.

It is now but in the past when there was only a single line where
political positions were placed it didn't have where libertarian or
authoritarian was. It was thought anyone along the spectrum could be
either one of them. You could be a communist authoritarian or a fascist
one. But your political position was somewhere on the one axis.

I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment who I was responding to. Yes,
you are that ignorant.

Compared to whom?

You actually think politics is only a Left/Right division and you
can ask that? It is to laugh.

Is that right? Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm well aware of the
authoritarian/libertarian axis. Did you know that before that axis
was invented there was still a place on the older left/right spectrum
where Libertarianism sat? Apparently you didn't. If you did you would
know where Libertarianism had its traditional place. That's way to
the right end of the scale.

Before the axis was invented? Or before it was pointed out? There has
always been a conflict between the authoritarians and the libertarians,
long before those labels existed. I share more with the left than the
right, but both the Dems and the Reps want to run our lives far more
than anyone needs.

That's a sweeping generalization and I don't believe it's true. Some in
both parties do want to run our lives too much but not all of them. Of
the two parties I think you make a mistake when you label them that way.
Sometimes they are like that but not always.




You think you're an expert in politics? What makes you think so?
Got any credentials?

Sure, 61 years of paying attention to what's going on. Try it some
time.

Ha, that's a good one. I'll see your 61 years of paying attention and
raise it by a college education in the field. So you lose.

OOOOHHH, he has a degree in a soft "science". I took some poly sci
courses at college, until I realized the courses could be aced with BS
and the intellectual level of the instructors and profs made them unable
to answer my questions about contradictions.

Calling it a soft science doesn't reduce it's value except maybe in your
mind. Economics is a soft science too and you notice everyone seems to
think highly of economists. I don't know where you went to school but it
must have been long ago. I guarantee if you went to a good school today
you wouldn't find passing all the poly sci classes to be such a breeze.
Because it's not.

But the point is that someone educated in political science knows more
about the subject than a layman does. In this field I'll wager that is
you, a layman.


Sure fine whatever. The point was that neither is fair or balanced.
One is lying about it by statement, one is lying by implication.

You may not see that as a difference but I do. I compare that to a
married Christian man cheating on his wife compared to a single
atheist having sex outside of marriage. Both are having sex outside
of marriage. One made a big deal about it. He's a hypocrite.

This analogy is totally irrelevant.

Maybe to you but to me that's how I see it. You make a big fuss about
your values and integrity and then get caught violating them, to me
that's a big deal. If you didn't then you're not violating your own
rules. But that's just my value system.



Fox is the most biased station and makes a show about being fair and
balanced. The MSM may well be biased too but at least they aren't
pretending to be something they're not. Besides, the other stations
aren't all as biased as Fox is. Some are but not all of them.

So a lot of Fox bias is bad, but the rest of the media outlets' bias is
OK. Uhhuh.

Bias is okay. You can't expect them to be perfect. Some bias is
acceptable. What's not is to be wildly biased and then make a big thing
about being objective. That is hypocrisy in my book.


But they keep pretending they are "fair and balanced". Which
is bull****.

Of course, what else do you expect from the left/right media?

Since that's about the only media there is I expect to get the
facts from them.

Why? Have you ever been involved in a local news event that went
national? Have you noticed that the further it gets away from the
local, the more distorted the story gets?

As a matter of fact I have. You're right. Every story that goes into
the newspaper has things wrong with it. There are always things the
reporters get wrong. They make mistakes. I've seen it when they wrote
stories about people I personally knew. Actually, they get a lot
wrong. But that is why you don't take what you see on TV or in the
papers as gospel. At least I don't.

I'm not talking about simple factual errors. There is also political
spin that wasn't an issue at the local level.

That depends completely on the issue. A story about a tornado doesn't
usually have a political angle to it, it's just weather. But you can
inject politics into anything you want, which is what Fox does
constantly, and I'm not just talking about the things their name
commentators say. They do it all day long. Constantly injecting
Christianity, anti Democrat rhetoric, anti Obama tirades, and promotion
of republicans and their causes. It's not like that on the other networks.


I sure don't think blogs or the internet is where the facts lie.
But if you don't expect fair and balanced from the left/right
media then where would one find it?

I have no answer that would work for you, since it requires the
ability to examine critically what you're told.


That's very humorous coming from someone like you. Even if you could
examine something critically you couldn't say anything about it that
was objective. You probably think Obama was born in Kenya too,
right?

I've seen online the official copy of his birth certificate, it seems
similar to the one I needed to get my passport. The county seat where I
was born has no copy of the one issued when I was born (I have the
original, BTW) and they don't need it, the document on record, like
Obama's, is the only existing official one. I think the whole birther
nonsense is a distraction from the damage being done by the fact that
he's in way over his head and getting bad advice about what to do. This
is similar to GWB's plight.

There is no doubt that Bush had no idea what he was doing and got lots
of bad advice, which he took. But Obama is nothing like Bush. Bush was a
certifiable idiot. Obama is a very smart, very cool, character. He is
running things and he's making the decisions. You may not agree with
them, which I would expect. But he's sure no Bush. I don't agree with
everything Obama has done either. But it's clear from his record and
from Bush's who is doing a better job. No comparison at all really.
Things have been tough from day one for Obama but things are improving.
Bush left us in a real mess. So for me it's not even a contest between
Bush and Obama. Bush never even belonged in the game. He should have
stuck to business.

Hawke