On 4/23/2011 4:10 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Maybe aware of everything, but not doing a good job of putting it together.


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

I've never been a rep or dem, I guess I started to see through them too
early. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and
Socialists but I was voting for the candidate, not the party.


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.

No, I mean open minded people.

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

That link gave a 404 error, is this what you meant?

http://www.gotoquiz.com/where_are_you_on_the_political_spectrum

This gave:

Moderate

"You may have achieved this result if you are not too far to the left or
right on most issues or hold close to an equal amount of extreme views
on each side of the political spectrum. "

The second seems closer. I did poorly in wingnut.


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"?

If this is a reference to Carlos Estevez, I stopped paying attention to
that circus early and I've never watched "2-1/2 Men".


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.

Sorta my reaction to MSM, especially when they start foaming at the
mouth with antigun rhetoric.



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.

Yes, you get different 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.

Its getting a bit trying to infer what you're implying, there seems to
be little consistency.


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.

NBD, Fox lies about being fair and balanced explicitly, MSM does it
implicitly.


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.

You say that like it;s a bad thing. Sounds like a recommendation to me.

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.

And you didn't even know there was such a thing as a left libertarian!
Congratulations, you've had a good day because you learned something. I
define a good day as one where I learn or teach something. The best days
I do both.

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.

Yes, and shortly after control of fire was discovered.

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.

Sure, the reps want to control my private life but hands off my money
(although increasing less so). The dems want to control my money but
hands off my private life (although increasing less so).


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.

Until 2008, when they were all looking at each other and saying "what
just happened?"

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.

University of Wisconsin, 1968, major in Tear Gas with a minor in party.

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.

Oh, c'mon, I can BS as well as any poly sci or econ grad. In fact,
better than the ones supposed to be teaching me at the time.



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.

So its bad to lie while claiming to tell the truth, but OK to lie as
long as you don't claim to tell the truth.

Got it.



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.

Uhhuh.



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.

Tell me about MSM objectivity on gun rights issues.

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.

True, he came to the office with no executive experience.

Bush was a certifiable idiot.

Actually, no, his IQ is high normal like most politicians, somewhere
between 115 and 130. His character flaws did him in, not his brains.

Obama is a very smart, very cool, character. He is running things
and he's making the decisions.

You mean he can't even blame it on his advisers?

You may not agree with them, which I would expect. But he's sure no
Bush.

Results seem similar so far.

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.

Empty suits from different tailors.

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.

Actually, no, Bush was as bad a businessman as Obama is a leader.

David