|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Aug 26, 2010 23:27:49 GMT -4
PBS has been the primary provider of liberal talk radio. But they have had to "tone down" after the national priorities shifted from supporting programming to supporting stations who in tern picked their own programs. I find it funny--or is it sad? What do you call it when you are laughing and crying at the same time?--that I can flip between Cuba's Radio Habana on shortwave and NPR and not be able to detect a difference in content.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 26, 2010 23:30:39 GMT -4
Geez, all this talk of liberal vs. conservative/Democrat vs. Republican. I wouldn't be able to tell ya who in my family is Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat - or anybody I know, even. That's how much partisan conversation goes on in these parts... I wonder what strange sort of creature I am... Canadian = Liberal Socialist? New Democrat Liberal? Canuckhead Commie? Though I lean more to "the Left" there are lots a few issues that I agree with conservatives on. Maybe thats because I quit high school? What's on the O'Reilly Factor tonight? BREAKING NEWS ..................................... Seems like Obama is losing left wing support because David Letterman made a joke about him on having lots of vacation time after his first and only term in office. Now their having a discussion about it. "Was President Obama too busy buying shrimp to attend issues about the war in Iraq?" That's deep programming, folks... EDIT: Now O'Reilly is interviewing a guy. Gosh, I'm agreeing with Billy tonight! What is going on here?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 27, 2010 0:12:07 GMT -4
So anyway I was watching this program the other day and it used a lot of clips from the Apollo Footage and stated all about how it was faked. I haven't watched all of the NASA footage myself cause I can't get it right now, but the guy that hosted the show seemed a pretty genuine guy and said a lot of things I agree with, so I'm sure he was totally fair and showed all the clips totally incontext. Then he made a really cool joke about it all, and I realised how the Goverment is always hiding thengs, I mean look at the latest Wikileaks scandel and having the founder charged with rape, so if they're always doing that then it just makes sense they told NASA to lie about everything, right?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 0:24:38 GMT -4
What's on the O'Reilly Factor tonight? BREAKING NEWS ..................................... Seems like Obama is losing left wing support because David Letterman made a joke about him on having lots of vacation time after his first and only term in office. Now their having a discussion about it. "Was President Obama too busy buying shrimp to attend issues about the war in Iraq?" That's deep programming, folks... Wait... they're criticizing Obama for taking too much time off? I remember reading about Presidential vacation days some time ago, and Obama is hardly the worst. Bush Jr. took 69 vacation days during his first year in office. Reagan took off 42 days in 1981. Obama took 26 vacation days in 2009. He would have to take 43 vacation days this year just so his first and second year total would equal Bush's first year. President Obama’s Vacation DaysSure, 26 vacation days sound like a lot to most regular people, but Presidents never really get away from their work.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 1:59:46 GMT -4
So anyway I was watching this program the other day and it used a lot of clips from the Apollo Footage and stated all about how it was faked. I haven't watched all of the NASA footage myself cause I can't get it right now, but the guy that hosted the show seemed a pretty genuine guy and said a lot of things I agree with, so I'm sure he was totally fair and showed all the clips totally incontext. Then he made a really cool joke about it all, and I realised how the Goverment is always hiding thengs, I mean look at the latest Wikileaks scandel and having the founder charged with rape, so if they're always doing that then it just makes sense they told NASA to lie about everything, right? Do you know what I've discovered? I really hate it when people insult my intelligence, and I'm not as willing to turn the other cheek as I was when I was younger. Obviously you and Archer17 think I'm too stupid to recognize when something is being taken out of context. Yeah, because when someone compares Obama to Hitler there are so many different ways that can be interpreted. Maybe they meant "Obama knows how to make a very good cup of coffee, just like Hitler did" and not "Obama is going to kill millions of people, just like Hitler did." So I'm probably wrong to assume they were fear mongering, right? I have expressed a valid concern about political donations from the media. I don't need to watch that media outlet in order to believe their donation was unethical. Just like I don't need to watch child pornography to believe that it is wrong. But using the same logic you and Archer17 are suggesting, maybe I need to watch child porn in order to fully understand the context before I'm allowed to criticize it. Maybe I'm missing something important, and by watching it I will realize I'm wrong to disapprove of it. The Daily Show may be a comedy program, but it teaches critical thinking. It teaches it's viewers not to automatically accept everything the real news media says. It is the Mythbusters of politics. Everyone should watch it, whether they are liberal or conservative.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 27, 2010 2:21:18 GMT -4
It's certainly not as though John Stewart fails to make fun of Democrats. Shoot, even the Democratic Representative who's a close personal friend. Maybe especially.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 27, 2010 3:02:53 GMT -4
So anyway I was watching this program the other day and it used a lot of clips from the Apollo Footage and stated all about how it was faked. I haven't watched all of the NASA footage myself cause I can't get it right now, but the guy that hosted the show seemed a pretty genuine guy and said a lot of things I agree with, so I'm sure he was totally fair and showed all the clips totally incontext. Then he made a really cool joke about it all, and I realised how the Goverment is always hiding thengs, I mean look at the latest Wikileaks scandel and having the founder charged with rape, so if they're always doing that then it just makes sense they told NASA to lie about everything, right? Do you know what I've discovered? I really hate it when people insult my intelligence, and I'm not as willing to turn the other cheek as I was when I was younger. Obviously you and Archer17 think I'm too stupid to recognize when something is being taken out of context. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I'm pointing out that your argument is coming from a poorly crafted foundation and is lacking sound evidence. I'd say the context matters. Was it a newsreader, or a commentator? If the second, was it someone known for making over the top sensational claims, or was it someone that is generally taken seriously and meant to be taken seriously? These things matter to whether the statement should be taken as a actual position of the station and not just the ravings of a shock jock employed as entertainment to get the ratings up. Except that in this case you are targeting a media outlet for something they didn't actually do. Fox did not donate to anyone, so there is no unethical behaviour from them. You are blaming Fox for the supposed misdeeds of their parent company in just the same manner as HB's blame NASA for the US Government's fobiles, and yet you clearly can't see the flaws in your logic over this. No, it's more like pointing out that not all photos of naked children are child porn, the context of the images matters so you shouldn't start pointing and screaming "Pervert" until you have all your facts in a row and solid ground to stand on. Perhaps by watching it you might be able to get an overall picture of the who, the what, and the why of the clips you get to see. They may have the same result as you already see them, I don't know, but then they might not either, and that's the point, without seeing them in context, how do you know? Simply assuming that they will is a poorly taken position when you are lacking the evidence to back it up. That may be so, but relying on it entirely results in having your opinions being formed based on carefully selected and edited parts of footage without consideration to the who, why, and when. That's the important part.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 27, 2010 7:34:50 GMT -4
It is also worth noting that it tends, historically, to be conservatives of one stripe or another who are trying to limit the vote to just people who think as they do.
Conservatives is a rather ill defined term, so that may be true, depending on who is include or excluded as "conservative."
Replace conservatives with Democrats and that sentence is certainly correct.
The nice thing about having given up all desire to be affiliated with the Republican party is that political discussions like this have become fun to watch. It is like the proverbial discussion on how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 27, 2010 7:51:08 GMT -4
Sure, 26 vacation days sound like a lot to most regular people, but Presidents never really get away from their work. The vacation time stuff is just partisan snarking. As you say, just being out of the Oval Office doesn't mean the President is not working. Corporate CEO's are out of the office quite often. There is a lot to be said for informal discussions and relationship building in management. There is also much to be said for the President skipping cabinet meetings, to free up discussions. Most criticism I've seen has the implicit but unstated assumption that there is some maximum number of days that a President should be on "vacation" and some violation has occurred in comparison to this hypothetical maximum.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 27, 2010 8:04:13 GMT -4
It is also worth noting that it tends, historically, to be conservatives of one stripe or another who are trying to limit the vote to just people who think as they do.Conservatives is a rather ill defined term, so that may be true, depending on who is include or excluded as "conservative." Replace conservatives with Democrats and that sentence is certainly correct. The nice thing about having given up all desire to be affiliated with the Republican party is that political discussions like this have become fun to watch. It is like the proverbial discussion on how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. Is it like a tribal thing?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 27, 2010 8:05:39 GMT -4
What's on the O'Reilly Factor tonight? BREAKING NEWS ..................................... Seems like Obama is losing left wing support because David Letterman made a joke about him on having lots of vacation time after his first and only term in office. Now their having a discussion about it. "Was President Obama too busy buying shrimp to attend issues about the war in Iraq?" That's deep programming, folks... Wait... they're criticizing Obama for taking too much time off? I remember reading about Presidential vacation days some time ago, and Obama is hardly the worst. Bush Jr. took 69 vacation days during his first year in office. Reagan took off 42 days in 1981. Obama took 26 vacation days in 2009. He would have to take 43 vacation days this year just so his first and second year total would equal Bush's first year. President Obama’s Vacation DaysSure, 26 vacation days sound like a lot to most regular people, but Presidents never really get away from their work. Yeah. I think the reporter said it was Obama's sixth vacation this year or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 27, 2010 8:31:55 GMT -4
Yeah, because when someone compares Obama to Hitler there are so many different ways that can be interpreted. Maybe they meant "Obama knows how to make a very good cup of coffee, just like Hitler did" and not "Obama is going to kill millions of people, just like Hitler did." So I'm probably wrong to assume they were fear mongering, right? Obviously. Just like one member of this board, who after a few rounds of playing the if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-nazi game, crafted the rather disingenuous argument that there was really nothing special or unusual about the nazis, he just chose them as the basis for his comparison for no reason in particular. So they're probably just comparing him to Hitler because Hitler was so ordinary, not exceptional in any way at all.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 11:38:04 GMT -4
Interesting. Lunar Orbit, it seems in berating Fox for comparing Obama to Hitler you are comparing their news coverage to child porn.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 11:46:20 GMT -4
Oh, and you might want to look into the actual writing of the Founding Fathers, because they actually were pretty big into the idea of a ruling class. Most of them thought the people of this country were too dumb to make decisions about their own lives; it's one of two reasons the Electoral College exists and why it took a Constitutional amendment to have Senators chosen by direct election, not by the state representatives. Yes and no. Yes they wanted some restrictions on the ability of the people to rule directly, just as they built many restrictions into government power because they didn't trust the government either. However, they also did not think favorably on the idea of a permanent ruling class, with career politicians. Before the 16th ammendment how Senators were elected was left to the discretion of the states. Some did elect them through popular elections. Others appointed them through state legislatures. So it's not entirely accurate to say it was required to permit popular votes for Senators. As someone already pointed out, it depends on how you define conservatives. Certainly "conservative" southern Democrats fought tooth and nail against letting blacks vote equally, but the Republicans won that fight. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Whoever writes the exam would have control over who can be elected.
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Aug 27, 2010 11:54:57 GMT -4
Spare me the bullcrap LunarOrbit. I'm not the one that said you didn't even get the channel. I said I don't get the channel, that doesn't mean I've never seen FOX News. I don't get NASA TV either, that doesn't mean I've never seen a Shuttle launch. Tell me, just because you see Shuttle launches does that make you qualified to judge NASA-TV? Your opinions of FOX are based on what The Daily Show decides to show you. It would be like someone trashing this board and linking to various posts to reinforce whatever it is they're shoveling and another person forming their opinion based on that. Have I ever supported FOX here? I'm not downplaying their "crap," I'm just calling you out for trashing them without watching them. I'd do the same if someone trashed The Daily Show based on Bill O'Reilly clips. Non-Muslim strip clubs? I'll let that slide and assume it is a strip club that doesn't employ Muslims to make my next point. The answer then would be yes. Not necessarily because of bigotry, but because Islamic mosques remind people of what happened. They weren't Buddhists that wielded those box-cutters that dark day so let's dispense with the PC bull crap as to why this mosque would be considered insensitive, shall we? Let's take your strip club that discriminates against Muslims and ask ourselves what if a radical group of prostitutes were behind 9/11? What would we be seeing? We'd see that people probably wouldn't object to a mosque as much as to a strip joint. That strip joint would be a reminder of 9/11 and garner the same level of opposition as this proposed mosque does. That doesn't mean that those opposed to the strip joint necessarily consider all prostitutes terrorists, does it? Being a liberal doesn't mean you have to approach things in an "all-or-nothing" manner. I think building that mosque would be "insensitive" and I don't equate all Muslims with the terrorists. Miss USA Rima Fakih, a Muslim, has spoken out against the mosque as well. Is she bigoted? Not me. I'm just pointing out what I believe is flawed reasoning here. As far as AQ's goal, why don't you switch off Jon Stewart for a minute and look it up yourself. There's only one so all this "build a mosque and they won't come" butt-kissing is unnecessary. They'll still come if they can. As are Muslims I suppose. I think the clouded judgment here doesn't belong to most conservatives, some liberals, or some Muslims, it belongs to those like yourself that lack the ability to understand that everything is not black or white. Folks don't have to be bigots to oppose the mosque.
|
|