First of all, Rockinawsome never said "evil liberal media," it shouldn't be in quotes...
The general media is liberal. Would you agree that we shouldn't have a bias media? That seems simple enough to agree with.
Well, for some odd reason, I woke up this morning giving a damn about who won the election and come to find out we're stuck with old Bush for the next four years. Personally, I would have prefered Kerry to win, but at least this way Bush can clean up his own mess.
And since this is guarenteed to be Bush's last term, I am thinking about the future. I believe that if Hillary Clinton hasn't changed her mind about running for office four years from now, she is a shoe-in for president. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
Fox News is generally the most neutral news around. I don't trust CNN, the owners of that own MTV, BET, and the like. You think CNN is biased because the owners of it also own MTV and BET, but you don't think Fox News is biased? You do realize that its' CEO and president, Roger Ailes, was President Nixon's media strategist and President Reagan's media consultant, right? It was Roger Ailes job to try to manipulate (not intended with any negative connotation) the media to seem as positive to those presidents as possible. That's not a reflection on Ailes, that's just the nature of those positions. I don't understand why people try to argue that Fox News is unbiased. It isn't. But, look, there's nothing wrong with that. News is such a complex thing and requires so many people to produce that there is going to be a bias one way or another. I absolutely advocate watching the news thats bias most closely matches yours. But there's no need to lie about it. I hear liberals and conservatives doing it all the time. Liberals I know try to argue that NPR is unbiased and Conservatives I know argue that Fox is unbiased. If you're strongly conservative or liberal and a news station seems to be saying things you agree with then it's probably biased towards you. Bias is a spin on the news. The news delivered is still often the same. If you find Fox more palletable then watch it, or if you find CNN more palletable switch to that channel. But just because you agree with a station, that doesn't mean it's neutral. | |
Mike H wrote:
It's like saying the Clippers could win the NBA title this year. Possible in theory, but definitely not in practice. :) That isn't really a good example, because many people said that about the Pistons last year, but they, by some stroke of luck, pulled off a championship run. =/ | |
Stimulus wrote:
Mike H wrote: The Pistons were a good team, nobody disputed that. People just didn't think they were championship caliber. Oh, and I wouldn't say it was a stroke of luck, but rather good coaching and teamwork. It was a joy to watch a lesser talented team totally dismantle the Lakers in that series. Nobody disputes that the Clippers will completely suck yet again this year. *sigh* | |
He hasn't won yet. We're past the 11th hour here. It would take a MASSIVE 13th hour revelation, like half a million Ohio ballots were made of tofu, to change anything. There's probably not enough outstanding provisional ballots to make up the difference even if they're all for Kerry... and even if there are, there's definitely not enough to statistically change things. He had all but won by 1:00 a.m. last night (when about 90% of the precincts in Ohio were in and there was no real deviation in his lead), even though none of the networks were willing to call it. I accepted this early on so I could start getting to work on some really good cognitive dissonance. | |
This is where you're dead wrong. People whose morals come from religious background are the real moral relativists. If God is the basis for your morality, then your morality is propped up on a crutch. You don't believe really murder is wrong, you don't believe any sexual conduct is really wrong, you don't believe anything is wrong... except going against God. Everything is only right or wrong, relative to "God"... and I put God in quotes because it's not even God that you're basing it in, it's your idea of God which is going to change based on the environment you're raised in, the materials you personally believe to reveal the nature of God, and your interpretation of available materials.
It's all relative, it's all personal. As long as you happen to believe that God doesn't want you to kill anybody... you will act as though murder is wrong. What happens if you come to believe that God wants you to kill somebody? What happens if your linchpin faith in God gets shaken? If you can't think of a better reason not to kill somebody than "God said so"... then I don't want to stand next to you on the subway. Now there are liberals who buy into the "We must accept everybody. Nobody is wrong! Who are we to say anybody is right or wrong? We're all human!" philosophy, and I loathe them because I think that growing philosophy (which, guess what? Shows up in a lot of churches these days, too) leads inevitably to spiritual and intellectual stagnation, but they are not represenative of all liberals or all secular humanists. They're just the ones who make a lot of noise and make themselves easy targets. I believe murder is wrong, period. I do not waiver in that conviction. If God himself appeared before me and told me to kill you, I would say, "No, murder is wrong. Therefore, I do not believe that you are God. If I am mistaken and you are God, murder is still wrong. If I gave in and committed murder for you just because you are more powerful than me, than that would mean it is okay for anybody who is stronger than me to set my morality through force." Okay, I probably wouldn't be so wordy*. But you get the idea. I am liberal. I am humanist. My moral convictions do not waiver. Unlike the real relativists of the world, I do not waiver in the face of a threat of a hypothetical punishment (such as hell) or the promise of a hypothetical reward (such as heaven). I am a rock. [EDIT] *Who am I kidding? We all know I actually wouldn't be that terse. | |
Xooxer wrote:
Telling me I do not have the right to complain is saying I do not have the right to freedom of speech. Not having that right would basicly invalidate my citizenship, according to your view of things. Your basically telling me I don't deserve to be an American because I don't vote. Well ain't that sweet. I guess we don't need a president while you're here to make the rules. No, I'm really not. And by don't have the right to complain, I mean, you really shouldn't complain if you could have done something and didn't. Also, you said that "I'll say it just one more time. I DO NOT VOTE.". Look, Xooxer, if you wanted a candiate to win, why wouldn't you vote? I still don't realy get that, even assuming you're oppossed to the idea of voting. | |
That is not "forcing" your way into power, that is playing mind games with people. Forcing your way into power is pretty much hostile take over, when you force your way in you are killing everyone in your path & taking the throne basiclly.
| |
Wizkidd0123 wrote:
No, I'm really not. And by don't have the right to complain, I mean, you really shouldn't complain if you could have done something and didn't. That's your opinion. Stop saying it like it's a fact of the universe. You think I shouldn't complain. I think you're wrong. Recognize the difference between opinion and fact, and let it go. Look, Xooxer, if you wanted a candiate to win, why wouldn't you vote? Who said I wanted either man to win. All I said was I hoped Bush lost, which he didn't. My voting wouldn't have changed that. I did say I hoped Kerry stuck it out to the end, but that doesn't mean I wanted him to win either. It just means I think he should have stuck it out until the end. I still don't realy get that, even assuming you're oppossed to the idea of voting. I don't vote because I choose not to vote. I don't feel voting makes a difference, I don't think my vote counts for beans, and I won't be patronized and manipulated into feeling I am a worthy American only if I vote. I think it's all a sham, and I refuse to participate. I do not like being insulted. That's my opinion and my choice. If you don't get it, that's your problem. ~X | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
So what if neither candidate is that good? Choose the lesser of two evils. What's so wrong with that? Less evil is more good, isn't it? If someone gives you a choice of getting kicked in the shin, shot in the kneecap, or a "mystery box" with one fate or the other written inside it... you'd have no problem picking, would you? Hear hear! About "voting for Nader is a vote that Kerry doesn't get" - this is why a preferences system like Hare-Clarke (which my state, in Australia, uses) is so good. You don't just vote for one candidate; you number all the candidates in order of preference. If your number 1 candidate doesn't win, the full effect of your vote goes to your number 2 candidate. And if that candidate doesn't win, the full effect goes to number 3... and so on. Basically, this is done by making a list of the primary votes, crossing off the candidate with the least number of primary votes, and distributing those votes to the next preferenced candidate. This continues until all the votes and preferences have been distributed between the top two candidates. So you could say, for example, "I want Nader to be president, but if that doesn't happen then I'll settle for Kerry". Nader gets your support, but you're not wasting your vote simply because he won't win. | |
Jermman wrote:
That is not "forcing" your way into power, that is playing mind games with people. Forcing your way into power is pretty much hostile take over, when you force your way in you are killing everyone in your path & taking the throne basiclly. He DID kill everyone in his path. In some way or another, all his political enemies "mysteriously" disappeared | |
You know what? President Bush sucks. John Kerry all the way! Well okay,the elections over but so what? Bush is a Nazi propagandist. He should die for outsourcing jobs and lying about the war in Iraq. We don't need a president like that. He sucks sucks sucks sucks and sucks. He sat in a class room for 2 hours after being told the nation was under attack 3 times during 9/11. He sat there still after being told that. He spent his first year of his term golfing and not doing his presidential duties. How could Kerry lose? The entire country hated bush but come time to vote he wins. Electoral College please screw bush over! I cannot believe bush has won the popular vote. Say good bye to America in four years. We are fighting a war we cannot win and bush is killing our economy. Rebel! Start Anarchy! I will not take this utter crap from bush. He cant even win a debate,we have trash as our president. I mean the people at his inauguration egged his limo. People hate bush,why did the people vote for him.
~>Jiskuha | |
Kunark wrote:
Alright, now THAT was important enough to bring this monster post back to life. Well then a moderator should demolish this monster eh? ~>Jiskuha | |
I don't agree with everything Bush has done, but overall I think he has done the best he could, and moreover, I think he has an actual vision of what he can achieve with the Presidency. He's not the "chimpy moron" that some people make him out to be, nor the "evil genius" that those same people make him out to be. He's just a guy who has had his ups and downs throughout his life, and eventually he got to a point where he... gasp... GREW UP!
And, I should probably add, the President is not some maniacal puppeteer who stays awake 24 hours a day micromanaging the government. One of Bush's greatest strengths is that he understands the importance of delegating authority, and is a good enough judge of character to delegate it to people who will do the job well. Delegation is indispensable to anyone in a leadership position. Like I said, I don't think Bush is perfect, but as Presidents go, he's really not bad at all (so far, knock on wood), and he's certainly not going to establish some kind of "American Taliban" -- as I pointed out in some other post, he's a United Methodist, which is about two steps to the right of Unitarianism. In college, and for a long time afterward, I was a vehement Libertarian -- been there, done that, got the T-shirt -- and I still believe in many Libertarian ideas today, but when it comes to infringements on personal liberties, the Republicans are all bark and no bite. If the Republicans are indeed ascendant in American politics, as some commentators say, you can bet they will do everything possible to straddle the fence between the "social conservatives" and the "South Park Republicans". In short, the only people who might be in real trouble are unregenerated Marxists, and even then, the only "trouble" they face is seeing their grip on American culture slip away after roughly 70 years of riding tall in the saddle. | |
3 points here
1. I never said evil liberal media. I'm generalizing.
2. Bush was forced to spend in the protection of our country and because of the tax break that was needed to jump-start our already weakend economy. Both conservative policies. Defence, and Tax breaks. Conservative.
3. You never should have put "evil liberal media" in quotes when that isn't exactly what I said. You got to use exact references here or you have no credibility.