On 4/21/2011 1:12 AM, Hawke wrote:

What's wrong with fair and balanced?


Fair and balanced is very good. What's bad is when people claim to be
fair and balanced and instead act biased. Reverend Moon's newspaper, the
Washington Times, is undoubtedly a biased newspaper. Fox is not fair and
balanced either. So the wrong is claiming something they are not. If
only they were fair and balanced we'd all like them. As it is now only
right wing people do.

So the problem is that the right leaning media claims to be fair and
balanced when they aren't, while the left leaning media don't bother to
pretend to be fair and balanced.

Got it.

David

On 4/21/2011 4:53 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/21/2011 1:12 AM, Hawke wrote:

What's wrong with fair and balanced?


Fair and balanced is very good. What's bad is when people claim to be
fair and balanced and instead act biased. Reverend Moon's newspaper, the
Washington Times, is undoubtedly a biased newspaper. Fox is not fair and
balanced either. So the wrong is claiming something they are not. If
only they were fair and balanced we'd all like them. As it is now only
right wing people do.

So the problem is that the right leaning media claims to be fair and
balanced when they aren't, while the left leaning media don't bother to
pretend to be fair and balanced.

Got it.

David


Well, at least you're getting the idea of what honesty is. Not
pretending to be something you're not is one good example of it. It's
true that you just don't hear the "liberal" media going around saying
they are neutral. They at least acknowledge a left leaning position.
Conversely, Fox pretends they are not a right wing station. With people
like Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck as your main prime time
line up you'd have to be a liar to say your network isn't completely
committed to the right wing agenda.


As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is all made up
of liberal people so it's no wonder they are biased to the left. Just be
fair and admit the same thing about Fox. Everyone working there, or damn
near everyone working there is a registered republican or a libertarian.
So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox right wing.
Just admit it and be done with it. But they keep pretending they are
"fair and balanced". Which is bull****.

Hawke

On 4/21/2011 2:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/21/2011 4:53 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/21/2011 1:12 AM, Hawke wrote:

What's wrong with fair and balanced?


Fair and balanced is very good. What's bad is when people claim
to be fair and balanced and instead act biased. Reverend Moon's
newspaper, the Washington Times, is undoubtedly a biased
newspaper. Fox is not fair and balanced either. So the wrong is
claiming something they are not. If only they were fair and
balanced we'd all like them. As it is now only right wing people
do.

So the problem is that the right leaning media claims to be fair
and balanced when they aren't, while the left leaning media don't
bother to pretend to be fair and balanced.

Got it.

David


Well, at least you're getting the idea of what honesty is. Not
pretending to be something you're not is one good example of it. It's
true that you just don't hear the "liberal" media going around
saying they are neutral. They at least acknowledge a left leaning
position. Conversely, Fox pretends they are not a right wing station.
With people like Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck as your
main prime time line up you'd have to be a liar to say your network
isn't completely committed to the right wing agenda.

Yet the lefty media seem to spend a lot of time complaining about the
righty media not being fair and balanced, and imply by doing so that the
lefty media are.


As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is all made
up of liberal people so it's no wonder they are biased to the left.

Sorry, guy, but you establishment lefties are quite a bit to the right
of me.

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.

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


Everyone working there, or damn near everyone working there is a
registered republican or a libertarian.

You say that like you consider libertarians to to be conservative. Are
you really that ignorant?

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

So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox right
wing. Just admit it and be done with it.

That would require me to care.

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

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

David

On 4/21/2011 9:03 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Well, at least you're getting the idea of what honesty is. Not
pretending to be something you're not is one good example of it. It's
true that you just don't hear the "liberal" media going around
saying they are neutral. They at least acknowledge a left leaning
position. Conversely, Fox pretends they are not a right wing station.
With people like Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck as your
main prime time line up you'd have to be a liar to say your network
isn't completely committed to the right wing agenda.

Yet the lefty media seem to spend a lot of time complaining about the
righty media not being fair and balanced, and imply by doing so that the
lefty media are.

Maybe you think so but that doesn't make it so. If I say Bernie Madoff
is a thief that doesn't imply I'm one too, does it? It's clear that Fox
is very biased toward the republican party but they claim they aren't. I
don't think making that observation says anything about who made it.
After all it is true so pointing that out doesn't imply anything.



As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is all made
up of liberal people so it's no wonder they are biased to the left.

Sorry, guy, but you establishment lefties are quite a bit to the right
of me.

So you're saying your an extreme left leaning liberal?

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?


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? If you think she's not telling you the facts about the
days events then why would you keep watching?


Everyone working there, or damn near everyone working there is a
registered republican or a libertarian.

You say that like you consider libertarians to to be conservative. Are
you really that ignorant?

It's not me that considers libertarians to be conservative. The
consensus among political scientists is that they are. So what is your
idea? You think libertarianism is a political position that is on the
left side of the political spectrum?


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

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



So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox right
wing. Just admit it and be done with it.

That would require me to care.

No it wouldn't. All it would require from you is that you have an
interest in fairness. Do you think you're a fair minded person? If you
do then you would believe that what's good for the goose is good for the
gander.


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. 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?

Hawke

On 4/22/2011 12:44 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/21/2011 9:03 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Well, at least you're getting the idea of what honesty is. Not
pretending to be something you're not is one good example of it.
It's true that you just don't hear the "liberal" media going
around saying they are neutral. They at least acknowledge a left
leaning position. Conversely, Fox pretends they are not a right
wing station. With people like Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hannity,
and Beck as your main prime time line up you'd have to be a liar
to say your network isn't completely committed to the right wing
agenda.

Yet the lefty media seem to spend a lot of time complaining about
the righty media not being fair and balanced, and imply by doing
so that the lefty media are.

Maybe you think so but that doesn't make it so. If I say Bernie
Madoff is a thief that doesn't imply I'm one too, does it?

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

It's clear that Fox is very biased toward the republican party but
they claim they aren't. I don't think making that observation says
anything about who made it. After all it is true so pointing that
out doesn't imply anything.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is all
made up of liberal people so it's no wonder they are biased to
the left.

Sorry, guy, but you establishment lefties are quite a bit to the
right of me.

So you're saying your an extreme left leaning liberal?

Nope, too much self respect to be liberal. More like an Adams-Trotsky
Constitutional Revolutionary.


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?

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


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.


If you think she's not telling you the facts about the days events
then why would you keep watching?

She's telling some of the facts, I don't rely on one source.



Everyone working there, or damn near everyone working there is a
registered republican or a libertarian.

You say that like you consider libertarians to to be conservative.
Are you really that ignorant?

It's not me that considers libertarians to be conservative. The
consensus among political scientists is that they are.

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

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.

Check these out:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

This one might tax your short attention span:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


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.

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.

So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox right
wing. Just admit it and be done with it.

That would require me to care.

No it wouldn't. All it would require from you is that you have an
interest in fairness. Do you think you're a fair minded person? If
you do then you would believe that what's good for the goose is good
for the gander.

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

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?

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.

David

On 4/22/2011 6:49 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Yet the lefty media seem to spend a lot of time complaining about
the righty media not being fair and balanced, and imply by doing
so that the lefty media are.

Maybe you think so but that doesn't make it so. If I say Bernie
Madoff is a thief that doesn't imply I'm one too, does it?

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's clear that Fox is very biased toward the republican party but
they claim they aren't. I don't think making that observation says
anything about who made it. After all it is true so pointing that
out doesn't imply anything.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

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.


As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is all
made up of liberal people so it's no wonder they are biased to
the left.

Sorry, guy, but you establishment lefties are quite a bit to the
right of me.

So you're saying your an extreme left leaning liberal?

Nope, too much self respect to be liberal. More like an Adams-Trotsky
Constitutional Revolutionary.

Hmmm, can't find that one anywhere. Made up a party for yourself, huh?
That's novel. Unfortunately, a few minutes taken answering some
political questions and you would find that you fit nicely in one of the
more common categories. But then having your own makes you special,
doesn't it? You and Charlie Sheen are special.



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.


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

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.

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.


If you think she's not telling you the facts about the days events
then why would you keep watching?

She's telling some of the facts, I don't rely on one source.



Everyone working there, or damn near everyone working there is a
registered republican or a libertarian.

You say that like you consider libertarians to to be conservative.
Are you really that ignorant?

It's not me that considers libertarians to be conservative. The
consensus among political scientists is that they are.

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.


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.

Check these out:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

This one might tax your short attention span:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


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.



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.


So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox right
wing. Just admit it and be done with it.

That would require me to care.

No it wouldn't. All it would require from you is that you have an
interest in fairness. Do you think you're a fair minded person? If
you do then you would believe that what's good for the goose is good
for the gander.

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.

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.



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 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?

Hawke

On 4/22/2011 4:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/22/2011 6:49 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Yet the lefty media seem to spend a lot of time complaining
about the righty media not being fair and balanced, and imply
by doing so that the lefty media are.

Maybe you think so but that doesn't make it so. If I say Bernie
Madoff is a thief that doesn't imply I'm one too, does it?

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.


It's clear that Fox is very biased toward the republican party
but they claim they aren't. I don't think making that observation
says anything about who made it. After all it is true so pointing
that out doesn't imply anything.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

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.


As you righties like to point out, the mainstream media is
all made up of liberal people so it's no wonder they are
biased to the left.

Sorry, guy, but you establishment lefties are quite a bit to
the right of me.

So you're saying your an extreme left leaning liberal?

Nope, too much self respect to be liberal. More like an
Adams-Trotsky Constitutional Revolutionary.

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.

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.

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

In different ways. Money and mania, mainly.



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.


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

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?

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.



Everyone working there, or damn near everyone working there
is a registered republican or a libertarian.

You say that like you consider libertarians to to be
conservative. Are you really that ignorant?

It's not me that considers libertarians to be conservative. The
consensus among political scientists is that they are.

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.


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.

Check these out:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

This one might tax your short attention span:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


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.



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.


So by the same logic that makes CBS liberal that makes Fox
right wing. Just admit it and be done with it.

That would require me to care.

No it wouldn't. All it would require from you is that you have
an interest in fairness. Do you think you're a fair minded
person? If you do then you would believe that what's good for the
goose is good for the gander.

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.


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.

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.

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.

David

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

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