or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic. - Page 3

post #81 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well it's definitely " beyond " ( as in the real story ) the biased drival they show on FOX news. ( wink if I could )

 

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

 

 

 

FAIR is left-wing itself.  Nice try.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 207
Thread Starter 

A clear example of why we should all miss Newt Gingrich being involved in this race in some manner.

 

First he clearly notes the double standard and bias. Then he moves Democrats from offense to defense to being unwilling to even attempt to defend their positions.

 

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I'm a Planned Parenthood Democrat on the issue of choice, and I think that that is where the country should be, that is where many, many women in this country are, and I am glad there are people running for the presidency who will defend that position. Period, paragraph, end it.

 

Actually not the end of it Mr. Friedman.

 

GINGRICH: So, you think it's acceptable to have a party committed to tax-paid abortion in the eighth and ninth month? And you think that's a sustainable position in the United States?

 

FRIEDMAN: I do believe that's a defensible position, but I also believe I'm here as a journalist. I'll let the Democratic Party defend it.

 

Five second prior he was all gung-ho. It's his position. He's happy it is the Democratic position. PERIOD.

 

Gingrich frames it and suddenly, it's untouchable.

 

Someone get this man onto the messaging team for Romney, the RNC, something PLEASE!!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 207

They both are bullshit!
 

post #84 of 207
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #85 of 207

 

Color me shocked.  And who broke the story on advance notice?  The Independent...from Great Britain.  Not a U.S. source.  They simply don't care.  They'd rather spend time coordinating attacks on Mitt Romney at his press conference.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 207
Thread Starter 

Majority in U.S. Continues to Distrust the Media, Perceive Bias

 

The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year. The percentage of Americans who say the media are "just about right" edged up to 36% this year but remains in the range Gallup has found historically.

 

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #87 of 207

The media is totally covering up for Obama, it's beyond sad and pathetic.

 

How's Obama's foreign policy working out so far? I hear that the admin aired some apologetic, cowardly commercials in Pakistan recently, condemning that "awful" youtube video of course.lol.gif And on the taxpayers dime of course. I'd rather not see my money go towards funding commercials in which the weak and cowardly admin gets on it's knees and begs for forgiveness to a bunch of savage terrorists.

 

Obama is responsible for promoting that video and giving it legitimacy, by playing up the false narrative that the video is to blame. How many died in Pakistan recently because of their lame and primitive rioting again? Something like 20 peeps? lol.gif

 

Keep up the good work Obama.

post #88 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

The media is totally covering up for Obama, it's beyond sad and pathetic.

 

How's Obama's foreign policy working out so far? I hear that the admin aired some apologetic, cowardly commercials in Pakistan recently, condemning that "awful" youtube video of course.lol.gif And on the taxpayers dime of course. I'd rather not see my money go towards funding commercials in which the weak and cowardly admin gets on it's knees and begs for forgiveness to a bunch of savage terrorists.

 

Obama is responsible for promoting that video and giving it legitimacy, by playing up the false narrative that the video is to blame. How many died in Pakistan recently because of their lame and primitive rioting again? Something like 20 peeps? lol.gif

 

Keep up the good work Obama.

This just in from FOX News!lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #89 of 207

ABC news will dead and gone anyway after that beef company wins the "pink slime" case.

post #90 of 207

Mister Obama is a one time President and that is it in a nutshell.He is done completely with his snide remarks and callous ways.Adios Obama!
 

post #91 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Mister Obama is a one time President and that is it in a nutshell.He is done completely with his snide remarks and callous ways.Adios Obama!
 

You forgot to add " I wish ". You're totally ignoring what's going on but that's not atypical really.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #92 of 207

Media says 18,000 people attend Obama speech at 5,000-seat arena

 

 

Quote:
President Barack Obama is having trouble drawing large crowds on the campaign trail. At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, his campaign was forced to move his acceptance speech from the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium to the 20,000 Time Warner Cable Arena, citing weather as the excuse. But the media are always eager to help--for example, putting 18,000 people inside a 5,000-seat arena at an Obama event in Milwaukee on Saturday.
 
The contradiction was first noted by battlegroundwatch.com. Local media, including the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, reported that Obama had addressed "supporters who filled the 5,000-seat BMO Harris Pavilion, along with thousands more who sat in bleachers and stood on the pavement beyond the protection of the roof, even as wind and rain lashed down in the latter moments of the near 30-minute speech."
 
The pavilion was not "filled"--a local reporter for Patch.com filmed empty seats in the bleachers at the side of the arena (see above). Nevertheless, the Journal-Sentinal played it safe, putting attendance at roughly 5,000-plus, a small but respectable turnout.
 
That's not how national media covered it. Darren Samuelsohn of Politico reported that the president addressed "a crowd the Obama campaign estimated at 18,000 in a city park overlooking Lake Michigan" in an attempt to "lock up" Wisconsin.
 
Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal--whose news section, according to UCLA professor Tim Groseclose, is the most liberal of any major mainstream outlet--repeated the campaign's 18,000 claim without even revealing the source of the official-sounding estimate.
 
Both outlets described the location of the rally as a "park," without revealing the name of the arena itself, which would have given the game away.
 
The images provided by news wires are predominantly close-up shots such as the one above, showing Obama surrounded by a small circle of supporters. Only Getty Images has a wider shot, similar to images at the left-wing message board Democratic Underground that show the inside of the arena. That's a full-ish arena, but nowhere near 18,000 people.
 
There seem to be no images at all of the 13,000 people who supposedly made up the difference outside the BMO Harris Pavilion.
 
(I'll be happy to correct this article if anyone can find any.)
 
Meanwhile, the nation is being told that Obama drew a massive crowd--nearly the size of the crowd at his acceptance speech in Charlotte--in a crucial swing state six weeks before the election is over.
 
If Obama were really doing so well, why would the media have to resort to such distortions?
 
And why would he be in Wisconsin in the first place?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #93 of 207

This seems like a good place to post a link calling out the media's (so far) lack of fact checking on at least one of Obama's claims: Obama's Fact-Challenged Tax Claim

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #94 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This just in from FOX News!lol.gif

 

Are you claiming the video was responsible for the attack?  Are you disputing this was the administration's official position?  Are you you disputing the White House's official story (a spontaneous act) directly conflicted with the Libyan President's statement?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This just in from FOX News!lol.gif

 

Are you claiming the video was responsible for the attack?  Are you disputing this was the administration's official position?  Are you you disputing the White House's official story (a spontaneous act) directly conflicted with the Libyan President's statement?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This just in from FOX News!lol.gif

 

Are you claiming the video was responsible for the attack?  Are you disputing this was the administration's official position?  Are you you disputing the White House's official story (a spontaneous act) directly conflicted with the Libyan President's statement?  

I'm disagreeing with the statement that " Obama is responsible for promoting that video and giving it legitimacy ". It sounds like a take from FOX News.  By the way Romney's not doing very well. Did you notice?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

By the way Romney's not doing very well. Did you notice?

 

Obama's not doing very well (governing) either but I suspect you haven't noticed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 207
Thread Starter 

The media bias has gotten so bad with regard to OMITTING the news rather than reporting it, that the Onion decided to have a field day with it.

 

Media Having Trouble Finding the Right Angle On Obama Double Homicide.

 

It's hilarious because the fake quotes just nailed the rationalizations so perfectly. I've heard nearly these exact words from the talking heads explaining their inability to do their job and report the news.

 

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."

 

"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?"

"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are a million different angles on this one."

 

"There's been some debate around the office about whether we should report on this at all," Washington Post senior reporter Bill Tracy said while on assignment at a local dog show. "It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the victims' families at this time. Their loved ones were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."

 

The New York Times newsroom is reportedly still undecided on whether or not to print a recent letter received from Obama, in which the president threatens to kill another helpless citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the police "stop the darkness from screaming."

"President Obama's letter presents us with a classic journalistic quandary," executive editor Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're giving him control over the kinds of stories we choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that we somehow give the nation's commander in chief special treatment."

 

You have to laugh, because otherwise, you'd cry.

 

The editors of the L.A. Times finally decided on a story criticizing Mitt Romney for rushing to judgment on Obama’s guilt based on nothing but a videotaped confession, DNA and ballistics evidence, and the testimony of 49 eyewitnesses.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #98 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

By the way Romney's not doing very well. Did you notice?

 

Obama's not doing very well (governing) either but I suspect you haven't noticed.

Hey! With this one I just disagree with you. ( wink if I could )

 

I also think he's doing a hell of a lot better job than Romney would ( or any nonexisting viable 3rd party candidate for that matter ).

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #99 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey! With this one I just disagree with you.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I also think he's doing a hell of a lot better job than Romney would

 

I'm not grading on curve here or even speculating against what Romney may or may not do.

 

Doing a "hell of a lot better than" X doesn't mean good.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

( or any nonexisting viable 3rd party candidate for that matter ).

 

Just brilliant! lol.gif He's doing better than anyone could not matter who we'd name. Priceless.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #100 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey! With this one I just disagree with you.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I also think he's doing a hell of a lot better job than Romney would

 

I'm not grading on curve here or even speculating against what Romney may or may not do.

 

Doing a "hell of a lot better than" X doesn't mean good.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

( or any nonexisting viable 3rd party candidate for that matter ).

 

Just brilliant! lol.gif He's doing better than anyone could not matter who we'd name. Priceless.

You just don't seem to get the fact that I'm not seeking or caring about your approval ( especially when you interpret for me what I'm saying ) on my views.


Edited by jimmac - 9/25/12 at 2:34pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #101 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You just don't seem to get the fact that I'm not seeking or caring about your approval ( especially when you interpret for me what I'm saying ) on my views.

 

That's possibly one of the most bizarre things you've said. What makes you think that I think you are?! It's quite odd that you think I think that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You just don't seem to get the fact that I'm not seeking or caring about your approval ( especially when you interpret for me what I'm saying ) on my views.

 

That's possibly one of the most bizarre things you've said. What makes you think that I think you are?! It's quite odd that you think I think that.

Every time you answer in a condescending fashion. I'm not here to be taught by you and I don't view you as superior. I do agree with some of your views but as to others I wonder if you really believe them yourself. I'm just not impressed by your bluster or pretentiousness. You're welcome to your views and are free to express them or offer explanation of them. I just don't share all of them nor do I seek guidance so that I would. But as they say whatever.


Edited by jimmac - 9/25/12 at 3:29pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Every time you answer in a condescending fashion.

 

I'm sorry you thought my response was condescending.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm not here to be taught by you and I don't view you as superior.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I do agree with some of your views but as to others I wonder if you really believe them yourself.

 

Huh. Which of my views do you wonder if I really believe them myself?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm just not impressed by your bluster or pretentiousness.

 

Good for you.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're welcome to your views and are free to express them or offer explanation of them.

 

Gee, thanks.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I just don't share all of them nor do I seek guidance so that I would.

 

Okay.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #104 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Every time you answer in a condescending fashion.

 

I'm sorry you thought my response was condescending.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm not here to be taught by you and I don't view you as superior.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I do agree with some of your views but as to others I wonder if you really believe them yourself.

 

Huh. Which of my views do you wonder if I really believe them myself?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm just not impressed by your bluster or pretentiousness.

 

Good for you.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're welcome to your views and are free to express them or offer explanation of them.

 

Gee, thanks.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I just don't share all of them nor do I seek guidance so that I would.

 

Okay.

 

Quote:

Huh. Which of my views do you wonder if I really believe them myself?

 

 

The anarchy ones.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The anarchy ones.

 

And why don't you think I really believe them? Seems like a curious thing to say.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #106 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The anarchy ones.

 

And why don't you think I really believe them? Seems like a curious thing to say.

Well I did say " I wonder " as they don't really make sense to me. You seem like an intelligent fellow. However the world's a big place with lots of views. I just don't believe in anarchy as a viable way for a civilization to conduct itself. Like I've said I do agree with some of views ( like some of the wars we conduct and Gitmo ) . Just not all.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #107 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I did say " I wonder " as they don't really make sense to me. You seem like an intelligent fellow. However the world's a big place with lots of views. I just don't believe in anarchy as a viable way for a civilization to conduct itself.

 

I was just curious why you would say that you wonder whether I really believe some of the things I believe. It guess it's just that because you don't accept or believe them, you cannot understand why I would. OK.

 

As to the specifics of anarchy: You don't believe people can or will conduct themselves in a civilized manner without governmental authority (i.e., an institution of coercion) over them?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I did say " I wonder " as they don't really make sense to me. You seem like an intelligent fellow. However the world's a big place with lots of views. I just don't believe in anarchy as a viable way for a civilization to conduct itself.

 

I was just curious why you would say that you wonder whether I really believe some of the things I believe. It guess it's just that because you don't accept or believe them, you cannot understand why I would. OK.

 

As to the specifics of anarchy: You don't believe people can or will conduct themselves in a civilized manner without governmental authority (i.e., an institution of coercion) over them?

Not all of them nope. Sorry but as I've said before I view humans as a work in progress. We may get to that place someday where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated. We're just not there yet.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #109 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not all of them nope.

 

OK. So what percentage, would you guess, won't or can't get along without the threat of government coercion hanging over their heads?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry but as I've said before I view humans as a work in progress. We may get to that place someday where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated. We're just not there yet.

 

OK. I see. So you think that even though this human race is still " work in progress" and not yet at the point where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated, you still feel it's a good idea to give some of those people the power of coercion over other people?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #110 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not all of them nope.

 

OK. So what percentage, would you guess, won't or can't get along without the threat of government coercion hanging over their heads?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry but as I've said before I view humans as a work in progress. We may get to that place someday where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated. We're just not there yet.

 

OK. I see. So you think that even though this human race is still " work in progress" and not yet at the point where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated, you still feel it's a good idea to give some of those people the power of coercion over other people?

There's no way to accurately measure what percentage but I'd bet it's higher than I want to believe ( and I'm an optimist ). Taking the chance at outlining some codes of conduct and giving some control to govern over us ( according to those laws ) with some restrictions is better than nothing in my book.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

There's no way to accurately measure what percentage but I'd bet it's higher than I want to believe ( and I'm an optimist ).

 

 

I didn't ask you to measure it (or even whether it could be measured). I asked you to give me your guess.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Taking the chance at outlining some codes of conduct and giving some control to govern over us ( according to those laws ) with some restrictions is better than nothing in my book.

 

So you think that even though this human race is still a "work in progress" and not yet at the point where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated, you still feel it's a good idea to let some of those people to "outline some codes of conduct" and give some of those people the some power of coercion and control over other people?

 

OK.

 

What should be the limit of these "codes of conduct" and what should be the limit of this control?

 

How do we know that the people we give the responsibility and control and power are not part of the percentage of the human race that is still a "work in progress" and that portion that is not given to treating their fellow man as we'd all like to be treated?


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/25/12 at 7:17pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

There's no way to accurately measure what percentage but I'd bet it's higher than I want to believe ( and I'm an optimist ).

 

 

I didn't ask you to measure it (or even whether it could be measured). I asked you to give me your guess.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Taking the chance at outlining some codes of conduct and giving some control to govern over us ( according to those laws ) with some restrictions is better than nothing in my book.

 

So you think that even though this human race is still a "work in progress" and not yet at the point where we all treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated, you still feel it's a good idea to let some of those people to "outline some codes of conduct" and give some of those people the some power of coercion and control over other people?

 

OK.

 

What should be the limit of these "codes of conduct" and what should be the limit of this control?

 

How do we know that the people we give the responsibility and control and power are not part of the percentage of the human race that is still a "work in progress" and that portion that is not given to treating their fellow man as we'd all like to be treated?

I'd guess at least more than 50%. As to the rest I really don't understand what you're getting at by " What's the limit ". That varies from culture to culture. It's better than nothing because throughout history there's examples of what happens when you don't have some laws and some control ( They don't call it the " Wild West " for nothing ). I went over this with my wife who said " If we didn't have those laws and control I'd be afraid to walk down to the store by myself like I just did ". I agree. Also we just had an example of what can happen when the banking industry hasn't enough regulation.

 

Now to be sure those in control can abuse their power. Or there can be a law that you don't feel is fair or takes advantage. That's where civil disobediance comes in. It's not absolute nor is it perfect. What is? It's still better than nothing. Because when you have nothing the bullies will rule. It's as simple as that.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #113 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd guess at least more than 50%.

 

OK.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As to the rest I really don't understand what you're getting at by " What's the limit ".

 

I'm asking if what limits you think ought to exist on these people who've been given the power you think they ought to be given. Do you think they ought to have any limits? Should there be any limits to the so-called "codes of conduct" (laws)? What should these limits be?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That varies from culture to culture.

 

Perhaps. You think there are no absolutes here? If the culture you live in has those in power declare certain codes of conduct that people over the age of 55 should not post in discussion boards on the web, would that be acceptable? Why? Why not?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's better than nothing because throughout history there's examples of what happens when you don't have some laws and some control

 

Which examples are you referring to?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They don't call it the " Wild West " for nothing

 

Actually, according to the real history of this so-called "wild west" they do call it that for nothing. The "wild" west is a myth.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If we didn't have those laws and control I'd be afraid to walk down to the store by myself like I just did

 

Why? Is it because you assume that more than 50% of the people cannot be trusted to cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also we just had an example of what can happen when the banking industry hasn't enough regulation.

 

Actually, we have an example of what will happen when the heavily regulated and government protected banking cartel knows it will be bailed out, by the government (forcibly extracting money from other people), if it screws things up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now to be sure those in control can abuse their power. Or there can be a law that you don't feel is fair or takes advantage.


Indeed. In fact, given your estimated percentage, reason would suggest it is actually highly likely.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's where civil disobediance comes in.

 

So, we need to have laws created and enforced by a population that is more than 50% consists of people who cannot or will not cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads, but since these people sometimes make laws and use force in a way that is wrong we should sometimes disobey these laws and evade this control in these situations. Is that right?

 

So, on what basis do we determine which laws to disobey?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's not absolute nor is it perfect. What is?

 

I'm not claiming anything is.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's still better than nothing. Because when you have nothing the bullies will rule. It's as simple as that.

 

Actually, it's not as simple as that. You have not made you case to support this claim. In fact, much of what you have said suggests that the bullies would actually end up being the ones that end up being in control, having the power and writing the laws.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #114 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd guess at least more than 50%.

 

OK.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As to the rest I really don't understand what you're getting at by " What's the limit ".

 

I'm asking if what limits you think ought to exist on these people who've been given the power you think they ought to be given. Do you think they ought to have any limits? Should there be any limits to the so-called "codes of conduct" (laws)? What should these limits be?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That varies from culture to culture.

 

Perhaps. You think there are no absolutes here? If the culture you live in has those in power declare certain codes of conduct that people over the age of 55 should not post in discussion boards on the web, would that be acceptable? Why? Why not?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's better than nothing because throughout history there's examples of what happens when you don't have some laws and some control

 

Which examples are you referring to?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They don't call it the " Wild West " for nothing

 

Actually, according to the real history of this so-called "wild west" they do call it that for nothing. The "wild" west is a myth.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If we didn't have those laws and control I'd be afraid to walk down to the store by myself like I just did

 

Why? Is it because you assume that more than 50% of the people cannot be trusted to cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also we just had an example of what can happen when the banking industry hasn't enough regulation.

 

Actually, we have an example of what will happen when the heavily regulated and government protected banking cartel knows it will be bailed out, by the government (forcibly extracting money from other people), if it screws things up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now to be sure those in control can abuse their power. Or there can be a law that you don't feel is fair or takes advantage.


Indeed. In fact, given your estimated percentage, reason would suggest it is actually highly likely.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's where civil disobedience comes in.

 

So, we need to have laws created and enforced by a population that is more than 50% consists of people who cannot or will not cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads, but since these people sometimes make laws and use force in a way that is wrong we should sometimes disobey these laws and evade this control in these situations. Is that right?

 

So, on what basis do we determine which laws to disobey?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's not absolute nor is it perfect. What is?

 

I'm not claiming anything is.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's still better than nothing. Because when you have nothing the bullies will rule. It's as simple as that.

 

Actually, it's not as simple as that. You have not made you case to support this claim. In fact, much of what you have said suggests that the bullies would actually end up being the ones that end up being in control, having the power and writing the laws.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd guess at least more than 50%.

 

OK.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As to the rest I really don't understand what you're getting at by " What's the limit ".

 

I'm asking if what limits you think ought to exist on these people who've been given the power you think they ought to be given. Do you think they ought to have any limits? Should there be any limits to the so-called "codes of conduct" (laws)? What should these limits be?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That varies from culture to culture.

 

Perhaps. You think there are no absolutes here? If the culture you live in has those in power declare certain codes of conduct that people over the age of 55 should not post in discussion boards on the web, would that be acceptable? Why? Why not?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's better than nothing because throughout history there's examples of what happens when you don't have some laws and some control

 

Which examples are you referring to?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They don't call it the " Wild West " for nothing

 

Actually, according to the real history of this so-called "wild west" they do call it that for nothing. The "wild" west is a myth.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If we didn't have those laws and control I'd be afraid to walk down to the store by myself like I just did

 

Why? Is it because you assume that more than 50% of the people cannot be trusted to cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also we just had an example of what can happen when the banking industry hasn't enough regulation.

 

Actually, we have an example of what will happen when the heavily regulated and government protected banking cartel knows it will be bailed out, by the government (forcibly extracting money from other people), if it screws things up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now to be sure those in control can abuse their power. Or there can be a law that you don't feel is fair or takes advantage.


Indeed. In fact, given your estimated percentage, reason would suggest it is actually highly likely.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's where civil disobedience comes in.

 

So, we need to have laws created and enforced by a population that is more than 50% consists of people who cannot or will not cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads, but since these people sometimes make laws and use force in a way that is wrong we should sometimes disobey these laws and evade this control in these situations. Is that right?

 

So, on what basis do we determine which laws to disobey?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's not absolute nor is it perfect. What is?

 

I'm not claiming anything is.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's still better than nothing. Because when you have nothing the bullies will rule. It's as simple as that.

 

Actually, it's not as simple as that. You have not made you case to support this claim. In fact, much of what you have said suggests that the bullies would actually end up being the ones that end up being in control, having the power and writing the laws.

 

Quote:

Do you think they ought to have any limits? Should there be any limits to the so-called "codes of conduct" (laws)? What should these limits be?

Sure and it varies according to the situation.

 

 

 

Quote:

 If the culture you live in has those in power declare certain codes of conduct that people over the age of 55 should not post in discussion boards on the web, would that be acceptable? Why? Why not?

Well according to most cultures it would not. Most cultures have a sense of fair play and unless you can show a good reason for your law it usually gets overturned.

 

 

Quote:
Which examples are you referring to?

How we treated the American Indian for example. We did have laws to protect them but we broke everyone of them. So I could say this is an example of the bully ruling because they can. It's also a good example of how even though you have laws and control that can be abused. Like I've said nothings perfect.

 

 

Quote:
Actually, according to the real history of this so-called "wild west" they do call it that for nothing. The "wild" west is a myth.

Are you really trying to tell me there aren't horrific examples in the Old West ( if you want ) where the strong terrorized the weak in ways that have less of a chance of happening now because of laws? Really? Yes the Wild West as a Saturday afternoon serial is a myth. People did really live in the west in America as a culture however. And there plenty of examples of how " Wild " it was.

 

 

Quote:

So, we need to have laws created and enforced by a population that is more than 50% consists of people who cannot or will not cooperate peacefully without the threat of government force hanging over their heads, but since these people sometimes make laws and use force in a way that is wrong we should sometimes disobey these laws and evade this control in these situations. Is that right?

You're educated. You must have heard of or read David Thoreau?

 

 

 

Quote:

I'm not claiming anything is.

Then why are you framing your questions to me in the implied nature of an absolute or extreme? Why do you act like it needs to be perfect to be valid?

 

 

Quote:

Actually, it's not as simple as that. You have not made you case to support this claim. In fact, much of what you have said suggests that the bullies would actually end up being the ones that end up being in control, having the power and writing the laws.

Actually I haven't said that. Sure there's more of a chance of that happening with such a large percentage but it doesn't mean it's always that way. Once again not absolute or perfect.

 

Also you haven't made a case for anything else ( this is a conversation isn't it? ).

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #115 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sure and it varies according to the situation.

 

Well according to most cultures it would not. Most cultures have a sense of fair play and unless you can show a good reason for your law it usually gets overturned.

 

You keep speaking in vague and ambiguous generalities. Can you be more specific?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How we treated the American Indian for example. We did have laws to protect them but we broke everyone of them. So I could say this is an example of the bully ruling because they can. It's also a good example of how even though you have laws and control that can be abused.

 

By "we" you are speaking of the US government of course, because that's who, primarily, so badly mistreated the native Americans. And by "an example of the bully ruling" you are speaking of the US government of course, because it is that entity which, primarily, bullied the native Americans. Yes, sometimes at the behest of private interests, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact of who was doing the bullying and mistreatment.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Are you really trying to tell me there aren't horrific examples in the Old West ( if you want ) where the strong terrorized the weak in ways that have less of a chance of happening now because of laws? Really? Yes the Wild West as a Saturday afternoon serial is a myth. People did really live in the west in America as a culture however. And there plenty of examples of how " Wild " it was.

 

Then you should have no problem citing them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're educated. You must have heard of or read David Thoreau?

 

I have. Are you going to answer my question?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why do you act like it needs to be perfect to be valid?

 

I'm not. I'm trying to show you some of the deep and fundamental flaws in what you're claiming which, ultimately and historically and (it appears presently) lead to tyranny.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Actually I haven't said that.

 

I didn't say you said it, I simply said much of what you have said suggests it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sure there's more of a chance of that happening with such a large percentage but it doesn't mean it's always that way.

 

So you don't see any logical or rational flaws or risks with your mutual contentions that more than 50% of the people are incapable of cooperating and getting along peacefully without the threat of government coercion and force hanging over their heads and the people who would write the laws and do the enforcing being drawn from that same population?

 

You also haven't explained how we would know when people from the bad 50% (or more) are the ones who've gotten this power.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also you haven't made a case for anything else ( this is a conversation isn't it? ).

 

Actually, I believe I am. The first step is to see and understand why your claims of the necessity of having the state may be flawed, even deeply so.

 

The fact is I believe it's not very hard at all to look around and find plenty of examples of people conducting themselves cooperatively, peacefully, voluntarily and in a civilized manner without any particular thought of the threat of force against them if they do not and that the examples of nefarious conduct are relatively rare and very often have, at their root, the state (or its actions and laws) as an instigator in some form or fashion. Granted, sometimes you have to look deeper than the surface to see that, but it is very often there.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you believe there is any absolute moral basis for for what the state can and cannot do or should and should not do? This returns to the question of what its limits ought to be.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #116 of 207
Thread Starter 

The weights of the polls has gotten so bad that it is starting to filter up into the news itself.

 

Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% Independent.

Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39% Democrat, 28% Republican, 27% Independent.

Somehow a D+7 split has turned into D+11 split, and Republicans’ share of the electorate is nine percentage points less than they were four years ago.

 

Florida 2008 exits: 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, 29% Independent.

Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.

Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.

 

The media is making the news rather than reporting it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #117 of 207

trumptman - you talk about "weights of the polls." Do you believe that pollsters pick how many Rs and Ds to survey? And that the polls are wrong because they're intentionally surveying too many Ds? And that this is part of the liberal media bias?

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, I feel bad for you guys if that's what you think - honestly, not even sarcastically (OK maybe a little sarcastically) - because many Ds convinced themselves of the same thing in 2004. I've been there, man. We have amazing defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from the truth.

post #118 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

trumptman - you talk about "weights of the polls." Do you believe that pollsters pick how many Rs and Ds to survey? And that the polls are wrong because they're intentionally surveying too many Ds? And that this is part of the liberal media bias?

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, I feel bad for you guys if that's what you think - honestly, not even sarcastically (OK maybe a little sarcastically) - because many Ds convinced themselves of the same thing in 2004. I've been there, man. We have amazing defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from the truth.

 

They aren't wrong because they survey too many of one thing or another. However they can be wrong when they choose the wrong weights to apply to that poll to correct for what they declare to be under or over represented sub-groups. However if your sample consistently samples in a manner that tilts too far away from the known results in reality, shouldn't one question if they should adjust their methodology for obtaining the sample? In the other thread I noted that Silver had criticisms about the Rasmussen methodology. If your sample can't seem to find the group you are seeking the views of, you cant adjust the weights (which they are actually going in the wrong direction with and making it even more Democratic) but errors are going to be magnified as well.

 

This isn't about a defense mechanism.

 

All told, we see a statistically significant relationship between Obama's margin and the Democratic advantage in partisan identification. In other words, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of the polls. They are not converging around a single point. Instead, some (notably Rasmussen, Purple Strategies, Survey USA, and Mason-Dixon) see Obama ahead by just 1 to 3 points in the key swing states, while others (notably the Washington Post, Fox News, PPP, and NBC News/Marist) see an Obama lead that ranges between 4 and 8 points. And the difference looks to be built around how many Democrats are included in the polling samples.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #119 of 207

Of course it's a defense mechanism. It sucks to be losing, and Romney right now is in worse shape than McCain was before he lost by 7%.

 

And of course polls that show a slightly larger Obama lead also show a slightly greater Democratic identification. I love it that this writer thinks he discovered something interesting with that.

 

Here's some biased liberal polling for you:

 

post #120 of 207
Thread Starter 

Aside from being a snapshot, what does the chart show?

 

It shows Carter's support collapsing and Reagan gaining 10 points in a month. It shows that it understated Bush's strength and lead against Dukakis by twice the actual amount of that it actually was in the final outcome. It shows that Dole gained 7 points in a month against Clinton when the economy was about as strong as it possibly could be.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your post.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.