127 replies to this topic

[mouse]

Really? Would it change your point of view at all if he said he was going to take away all the stuff you want, but then says he cares about them?

Frankly, I'll take that over Obama castigating those rubes who don't know what's best for themselves because they cling to their guns even with the obligatory "I care about their welfare nevertheless".

I don't agree with Reaganomics, but I think he was much closer to Obama in terms of saying I care about people with whom I neither identify nor agree. Reagan either believed or tried to sell (I'm inclined to say the former) that trickle down economics benefited everyone. Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you. I would probably vote against both Reagan and Romney, but I find it easier to support and respect Reagan, agree with him or not, than I do Romney.

[devilsadvoc8]

I don't agree with Reaganomics, but I think he was much closer to Obama in terms of saying I care about people with whom I neither identify nor agree. Reagan either believed or tried to sell (I'm inclined to say the former) that trickle down economics benefited everyone. Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you. I would probably vote against both Reagan and Romney, but I find it easier to support and respect Reagan, agree with him or not, than I do Romney.

Come on. "Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you."???

You are falling for the party propaganda. I guess its working. The difference is how to deal with entitlements. Do you make some one have work requirements or not? Do you have government sponsor your loans to go to college even though that may not benefit you?

Both parties support welfare/medicaid/etc. Its eligibility and whether the recipient has to do anything to qualify after a period of time are some major differences.

[Daniel]

I don't agree with Reaganomics, but I think he was much closer to Obama in terms of saying I care about people with whom I neither identify nor agree. Reagan either believed or tried to sell (I'm inclined to say the former) that trickle down economics benefited everyone. Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you. I would probably vote against both Reagan and Romney, but I find it easier to support and respect Reagan, agree with him or not, than I do Romney.

If that's your point of view, then it seems to me a lot of it comes down to whether someone seems like a nice guy. I mean what Romney is proposing is a lot less dramatic of a change from the status quo in favor of the "rich" than what Reagan ultimately accomplished. There are a lot of examples, but an easy one is to compare Reagan cuttting the top marginal tax rate from about 70 percent to around 30 percent if I recall correctly. The difference between what Romney and Obama are proposing differs maybe by 10 percent at most. And even for that you would have to assume that Obama really wants to stick his neck out on repealing the Bush tax cuts.

It appears that you're pretty liberal. Yet you prefer the more economically conservative guy (Reagan) over the more liberal guy (Romney) because the former appeared to "care" more about the little guy.

[Devils731]

It appears that you're pretty liberal. Yet you prefer the more economically conservative guy (Reagan) over the more liberal guy (Romney) because the former appeared to "care" more about the little guy.

Not speaking for Mouse, but I think this is a thing that happens for both parties whenever a President retains popularity over time. Both parties talk about how Reagan couldn't be a Republican now and Kennedy couldn't be a Democrat now, etc...both parties try to co-opt the other parties heroes as their own and use them to denigrate the current party members. In some cases they're probably correct in their criticisms and in some it's probably pure political BSing.

[Daniel]

I dont give a crap about any of their religions. I certainly don't care if Obama practices or not. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon, as its been pointed out many Mormons are good people and the ones that I know personally fit that bill. Heck, one of my lifelong best friends is a Mormon who has always been a great friend who I'd go to battle for without question.

What I don't want is policy and religion intermingling. I don't even think religion should be a question of the candidates. IMO its a private matter, just as sexual orientation is.



Oh c'mon. That's a flimsy argument at best. He's never practiced the religion. He attended a school in Indonesia as a young child (6-8) that was ran by Muslims and then attended Catholic school in the same country. I attended Catholic school and was baptised Catholic as a child, but I certainly dont practice it (I'm an athiest). The argument that the right try to make is that he's a practicing Muslim to this day and seem to believe that all Muslims are radical jihadists. "You could" make that argument, but it is extremely disingenuous.



When did he apologize to any of them? What I saw in the aftermath of the Libya/Cairo protests/attacks was the embassy who live and work in those countries try to quell the wackjobs, which IMO makes perfect sense since they're surrounded by these people daily. The embassy statement was not from the White House and was an immediate kneejerk response which was not well thought out or it was another intelligence failure. I don't think it makes much sense to bluster when we're being attacked/protested in a foreign country, so the embassy statement did not bother me as the people that work in that embassy are "the frontline" of that mess. Meanwhile at home, Obama and Hillary both used very strong language towards the idiots who are protesting/Libya gov't/Egypt and the ones who took advantage of a situation and attacked the Benghazi consulate. They did not apologize except to condemn the video and tell people that we do not support said video.

I personally think people like Ron Paul are exactly right in this situation. If they don't want us there, get us the F out. When we were attacked in Beirut in the 80s and we lost all those marines, Reagan got us out of Lebanon. Let those people burn their fvcking countries down over stupid crap and lets stop giving aid.



What I find as troubling as all of this BS in the Middle East right now (and its barely being paid attention to) are the anti-Japanese protests going on in China. War rhetoric is ramping up because of the South China Sea. If China decides to show some might, we're in serious trouble in that region. We will be drawn into the conflict espc if the Phillipines get involved since we have a defense treaty with them, not to mention how key the trading lanes in that body of water are to this country. IMO that's going to be the flashpoint to a world wide conflict, and less so the Middle East/Syria/Iran. The Iranians will not be the first to launch as they know they will get their asses kicked, but they will take the opportunity to damage Israel and create a widespread regional conflict. If it kicks up in the Middle East, it will be us and Israel that start it, or Turkey will because of the border issues they have with Syria. In the Pacific, it will be China.

I guess you're missing the point. I didn't care to get into a debate about whether he's a Muslim or whether he's handled this or that crisis effectively. The whole point is that the whole line of argument that look at what the crazy people who don't like Obama believe is really a distraction.

[Jerrydevil]

I am a conservative and I did not like Romney's 47% comments. He's such a mediocre politician. I don't care who the audience is, Romney should always be about persuading people to vote for him, or at least against the mainstream media's Chosen One. Writing off a huge chunk of the population as hopelessly devoted to Obama is a loser move.

It's not even a right argument. Among the 47% who pay no income taxes is a swath of Republican voters (such as retired people). Make the argument about how the explosive growth of the welfare state has weakened the U.S. morally and financially. Don't diss voters, win the argument.

[MantaRay]

Squishy, you are clearly forgetting the Fox News leads in CABLE news, their rating have yet to touch the "Big 3" who are clearly controlled by and advocate for the left, as they have done for decades.

LOL. The liberal media myth is starting to play like the boy who cried wolf.

[Daniel]

LOL. The liberal media myth is starting to play like the boy who cried wolf.

The liberal maintstream press is virtually incontrovertable. Something like 80 percent of producers (the people that actually write network news) that work for the major networks regularly vote democrat. The figure for major newspapers, is even higher, the WSJ being one of the few exceptions. (Can anyone say with a straight face that the New York Times is not a left-wing publication?)

Jimmy's right, Fox News is tiny in comparison. That's why I find it humorous to watch a liberal's head explode when the very name is mentioned.

That said, this doesn't really bother me all the much. While I'd prefer television and print media be more open about their biases, it's not too difficult to snuff out. (No liberal believes Fox News is "fair and balanced" and no conservative believes the New York Times contains "all the news that's fit to print").

[MantaRay]

The liberal maintstream press is virtually incontrovertable. Something like 80 percent of producers (the people that actually write network news) that work for the major networks regularly vote democrat. The figure for major newspapers, is even higher, the WSJ being one of the few exceptions. (Can anyone say with a straight face that the New York Times is not a left-wing publication?)

Jimmy's right, Fox News is tiny in comparison. That's why I find it humorous to watch a liberal's head explode when the very name is mentioned.

That said, this doesn't really bother me all the much. While I'd prefer television and print media be more open about their biases, it's not too difficult to snuff out. (No liberal believes Fox News is "fair and balanced" and no conservative believes the New York Times contains "all the news that's fit to print").

Incontrovertable? It's a fallacy. There is no evidence that the media has a bias. This myth was invented back in the 80's when a republican congressmen witnessed how his son's coach played a ref at a high school basketball game. Complaining, and complaning until he started getting more favorable calls from the ref.

Now, it's used as a red herring, distraction and also a thought control device where you basically train people NOT too look for information. The New York Times as a left wing publication is a great example.

[squishyx]

The liberal maintstream press is virtually incontrovertable. Something like 80 percent of producers (the people that actually write network news) that work for the major networks regularly vote democrat. The figure for major newspapers, is even higher, the WSJ being one of the few exceptions. (Can anyone say with a straight face that the New York Times is not a left-wing publication?)

Jimmy's right, Fox News is tiny in comparison. That's why I find it humorous to watch a liberal's head explode when the very name is mentioned.

That said, this doesn't really bother me all the much. While I'd prefer television and print media be more open about their biases, it's not too difficult to snuff out. (No liberal believes Fox News is "fair and balanced" and no conservative believes the New York Times contains "all the news that's fit to print").

I don't know why we are going down this road but food for though:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Also there exists no meaningful comparison between Cable and Network news in terms of viewership because Network news is on what, 2, 3 times a day at the most for an hour long? Cable News run 24/7 so their viewer share is diluted over the course of a day.

[Daniel]

I don't know why we are going down this road but food for though:



Also there exists no meaningful comparison between Cable and Network news in terms of viewership because Network news is on what, 2, 3 times a day at the most for an hour long? Cable News run 24/7 so their viewer share is diluted over the course of a day.

I don't want to go down the road either, but suffice it to say, I find no value in a study that says whether someone is "tough" on a reporting subject.

Like I say though, it's a minor annoyance. You had presidents elected from both parties when the news was virtually controlled by three networks.

[Devils731]

A quick chart of a study done in 2004, as more food for thought

http://www.freakonom...-is-your-media/

http://www.timgrosec...anation-of-sqs/

Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

ABC Good Morning America
56.1

ABC World News Tonight
61.0

CBS Early Show
66.6

CBS Evening News
73.7

CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
56.0

Drudge Report
60.4

Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume
39.7

Los Angeles Times
70.0

NBC Nightly News
61.6

NBC Today Show
64.0

New York Times
73.7

Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8

Newsweek
66.3

NPR Morning Edition
66.3

Time Magazine
65.4

U.S. News and World Report
65.8

USA Today
63.4

Wall Street Journal
85.1

Washington Post
66.6

Washington Times
35.4

Link to the paper itself

http://www.sscnet.uc...s/MediaBias.pdf

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received
a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And
a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening
News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the
center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the
outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to
the editor from our sample.

[MantaRay]

I don't know why we are going down this road but food for though:



Also there exists no meaningful comparison between Cable and Network news in terms of viewership because Network news is on what, 2, 3 times a day at the most for an hour long? Cable News run 24/7 so their viewer share is diluted over the course of a day.

There was also the UCLA/University of Missouri study that attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models. The research highlighted surprising conclusions: the news pages of The Wall Street Journal are more liberal than The New York Times.

[Jerrydevil]

There was also the UCLA/University of Missouri study that attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models. The research highlighted surprising conclusions: the news pages of The Wall Street Journal are more liberal than The New York Times.

A university study about media bias. RED FLAG! RED FLAG!

[squishyx]

A quick chart of a study done in 2004, as more food for thought

http://www.freakonom...-is-your-media/

http://www.timgrosec...anation-of-sqs/

Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

The Drudge report is a 60? The Wall Street journal is an 85? (Where 0 = conservative and 100 = liberal) Not really sure what to make of that.

Interesting study, I like that they attempted to quantify bias, it's a start. As I said before though in my opinion this type of analysis is lacking "weight". You need some kind of measure of how many people actually consume the news from the sources. Something to account for the difference of having just two news shows in a day and a 24/7 cable coverage. If 10 million people watch CBS evening news and 10 million people watch foxnews throughout the day but only 1 million tune into Brett Hume, then according to these results you could infer that "liberal bias" is affecting 10x as many people as "conservative bias".

[squishyx]

A university study about media bias. RED FLAG! RED FLAG!

Why didn't you call D731's source out as a red flag then?

"Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA"


Edit: After looking at Manta's comment and my previous one, it's probably the same study. Not to pick on you, I am sure I do the same "the source of facts are solid when they support me, and questionable when against".

Edited by squishyx, 20 September 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Jerrydevil]

Why didn't you call D731's source out as a red flag then?

"Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA"


Edit: After looking at Manta's comment and my previous one, it's probably the same study. Not to pick on you, I am sure I do the same "the source of facts are solid when they support me, and questionable when against".

I was just kidding around.

[devilsadvoc8]

I'll have to find it, but I was reading the comments posted by the author of that graph that recently made the rounds that had Obama with only 1.8% spending increase vs Bush at 7-8% year over year. The author had their content published on Forbes. That author stated something along the lines of "of course MSNBC is the most left leaning news outlet out there, just like Fox leans to the right".

Here is a simple test: Was Dan Quayle treated the same way as Biden? Biden says some really really really dumb sh!t but you need to search for it. Quayle was exposed as a dope all the time.



Edit: The contributor to Forbes is Rick Ungar. Here is the link : Linky and here is the quote:

I completely agree that MSNBC leans over to the left the same way Fox leans over to the right.

Yes just one man's opinion. I do however disagree with Ungar's analysis. Numbers may be right but it is flawed.

Edited by devilsadvoc8, 20 September 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[Devils731]

Drudge is at 60 because of his libertarian leanings, I'm guessing. Stuff like medical marijuana and anti govt spying type stuff.

[mouse]

It appears that you're pretty liberal. Yet you prefer the more economically conservative guy (Reagan) over the more liberal guy (Romney) because the former appeared to "care" more about the little guy.

Like I said, the chances of me voting for either are pretty low. I'm talking about personal respect, which I feel for Reagan. I disagree with his policy, but believe he sincerely had the best interest of the country at heart, whether his policy was right or not. Romney seems like a selfish, entitled person, who wants power. I don't respect him for that. Similarly, I agreed with John Kerry and Al Gore's policies, but never liked either. I accept that politics and ideals are miles apart. It doesn't mean I can't try to figure out whom I can stand on an ethical level.