Conquer Club

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:They will be gone any decade from now; mark my words.

The first amendment , the second amendment or the free market?

The liberally biased main stream media.

If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

What you are seeing is that the WORLD, data, has a "liberal bias".

Environmental destruction is real and significant, differences between genders are real and signifcant to daily life. Constantly blaming the poor, particularly the working poor for their plight is an old game, as is blaming immigrants. (anyone but those in power and those truly profiting from the status quo).

The bias is that the media is not blasting all those facts every day.

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

The media is "right of center" if you consider the center, on a scale of 1 to 10 to be, say a 2. I'm sorry but 3 is still left of 5.

STUDY: ALL MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS HAVE LEFT-LEANING BIAS THAT ‘DISTORTS’ MINDS

What do studies tell us about mainstream media bias?

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Or you can just follow the money ...

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Please, put down the NPR Cool Aid ... It's rotting your brain.

And back to my point; the New York Times is dying. It's not pretty watching that newspaper die; don't we already have laws on the books to prevent suicide?

The original major networks, once known for news journalism, are pretty much dying as well. Even cable news networks are undergoing chemotherapy because of the liberal cancer that is killing their ratings.

(This just in, the tumor commonly known as Ed Schultz has been contained by isolating it to the weekends.)

I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

The media is "right of center" if you consider the center, on a scale of 1 to 10 to be, say a 2. I'm sorry but 3 is still left of 5.
.

No, its "right of center" if you use any accepted pre-1981 definition of "center".
Like I said, most people today have never really heard a truly liberal position, except on homosexuality and a few other very narrow topics.

And in the case of homosexuality, the current moderate position would have been an extreme left position back then.

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

Then how will a new system come about? Any form of government is only strong as long as the people support it. If people stopped voting for the best of two bad alternatives and just withheld their vote we would soon see a change in the political climate.

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

Then how will a new system come about? Any form of government is only strong as long as the people support it. If people stopped voting for the best of two bad alternatives and just withheld their vote we would soon see a change in the political climate.

By voting for the best of the options, by starting locally to bring in and elect real alternatives, by working on referendums and education, by fighting for what is right and true, on all fronts.

I am not all that familiar with Sweden's system, but I know that in DK, they have many parties that each get some power, allocated based on the votes. Our system is just entirely different. The parties were never intended to represent any kind of ideal view, despite the rhetoric. In fact, I can remember my political science professor chuckling with some well known elected officials over that very thing... how the R vs D thing was really fiction, just a convenient way to ensure we don't have an appointment type system.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And in the case of homosexuality, the current moderate position would have been an extreme left position back then.

"Left" and "right" have no real meaning on social issues. Or rather they wrap around significantly. Many fiscal conservatives are social "libertarians" which is basically the same as social liberals but without government overreach. The late William F. Buckley Jr. was known for what many social conservatives would have considered "leftist" views towards minor drugs like pot and I suspect he would be strongly for the legalization of same gender marriage as well, were he living today.

And the definition of "center" was in fact influenced by a strongly left biased media. Only before the 1980's they had the ability to hide this by their semi-monopoly status as well as the tact not to make it exceptionally obvious. Back when there was only three major television news outlets, this was easy. It was ironic that the first "shot across the bow" was made by PBS, but at the time, their support of conservatives, like William F. Buckley Jr. was the only real place for an alternative viewpoint to the network news slanted reporting.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

Then how will a new system come about? Any form of government is only strong as long as the people support it. If people stopped voting for the best of two bad alternatives and just withheld their vote we would soon see a change in the political climate.

By voting for the best of the options, by starting locally to bring in and elect real alternatives, by working on referendums and education, by fighting for what is right and true, on all fronts.

I am not all that familiar with Sweden's system, but I know that in DK, they have many parties that each get some power, allocated based on the votes. Our system is just entirely different. The parties were never intended to represent any kind of ideal view, despite the rhetoric. In fact, I can remember my political science professor chuckling with some well known elected officials over that very thing... how the R vs D thing was really fiction, just a convenient way to ensure we don't have an appointment type system.

And what happens if no party suggests what needs to be suggested? What happens if they agree among themselves to not touch a subject? That's what's happening in Sweden. You can't vote for any of them because they all like the status quo. We actually have a pseudo democrazy over here. Plenty of alternatives, but all alternatives agree on many subjects. How are you going to lower politicians wages for example, when it takes a politician to suggest it and a majority of his colleagues to approve it? They have to agree that they earn too much lol. They'll never do that, so their wages will continue to go up and up and up. How are you going to stop them from lowering taxes when even the right alternative sneaks in taxes like congestion pricing? They all want to raise the taxes, only difference is that some wants to raise it straight up, officially, while others want to sneak in niche taxes so that the official number isn't getting bigger but they still get more taxes. Welcome to swedish politics.

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

This sounds like the conclusion of a solid "b" first year undergraduate essay.

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

That is absolutely true. However since destroying both parties and creating an entirely new system is not an option for Americans today... we have to work with what we can do. That means debating each party, while working within and outside to accomplish real goals.

Then how will a new system come about? Any form of government is only strong as long as the people support it. If people stopped voting for the best of two bad alternatives and just withheld their vote we would soon see a change in the political climate.

By voting for the best of the options, by starting locally to bring in and elect real alternatives, by working on referendums and education, by fighting for what is right and true, on all fronts.

I am not all that familiar with Sweden's system, but I know that in DK, they have many parties that each get some power, allocated based on the votes. Our system is just entirely different. The parties were never intended to represent any kind of ideal view, despite the rhetoric. In fact, I can remember my political science professor chuckling with some well known elected officials over that very thing... how the R vs D thing was really fiction, just a convenient way to ensure we don't have an appointment type system.

And what happens if no party suggests what needs to be suggested? What happens if they agree among themselves to not touch a subject? That's what's happening in Sweden. You can't vote for any of them because they all like the status quo. We actually have a pseudo democrazy over here. Plenty of alternatives, but all alternatives agree on many subjects. How are you going to lower politicians wages for example, when it takes a politician to suggest it and a majority of his colleagues to approve it? They have to agree that they earn too much lol. They'll never do that, so their wages will continue to go up and up and up. How are you going to stop them from lowering taxes when even the right alternative sneaks in taxes like congestion pricing? They all want to raise the taxes, only difference is that some wants to raise it straight up, officially, while others want to sneak in niche taxes so that the official number isn't getting bigger but they still get more taxes. Welcome to swedish politics.

Sounds like Sweden is not all that different than the US (except, of course you do have a monarchy – lol)
The first thing is to make sure that truth prevails. The internet has opened up a forum where people can basically say whatever they want, without any real check. “Truth” is more and more determined by who can create a slick website… and attract like-minded individuals who often don’t even know there IS a real opposition, never mind what it constitutes
(aka Tzor’s claim that I am a flaming liberal)

Symmetry wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

This sounds like the conclusion of a solid "b" first year undergraduate essay.

It's easy to understand but hard to truly grasp, much like chess.

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

This sounds like the conclusion of a solid "b" first year undergraduate essay.

It's easy to understand but hard to truly grasp, much like chess.

I think a B is a good grade. I would have given you a C+ at best.

thegreekdog wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought I already closed this topic. There are fundamental flaws in both parties because the system which the parties live by is flawed.

This sounds like the conclusion of a solid "b" first year undergraduate essay.

It's easy to understand but hard to truly grasp, much like chess.

I think a B is a good grade. I would have given you a C+ at best.

I like how its such a simple and obvious conclusion (thus C+ tops) yet its still how we do things? Goooooooooooooood times

Lootifer wrote:I like how its such a simple and obvious conclusion (thus C+ tops) yet its still how we do things? Goooooooooooooood times

Stuff like this, or join in:

The Campaign Legal Center
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/inde ... &Itemid=64

center for responsive politics
http://www.opensecrets.org/


The problem is dealing with those 100+ million uninformed voters...

So, then someone says, "we need education. Lots of education."

Government-provided education?

"Yes."

<groans>

Even private education can be lacking on this. The US is undergoing an ideological problem which slightly began in the 1890s but picked up steam in the 1930s and for awhile has shifted us into a more aggressive, expansionist state---with applause by the citizens all around. Since the ideology is older than most generations today, then many take the current state of affairs for granted, so change for the better and from this situation becomes neglected. Currently, there's five kinds of voters:

(1) don't care and don't understand--but "at least I got mine."
(2) care enthusiastically but don't understand,
(3) care somewhat but don't understand,
(4) care enthusiastically but do understand
(5) don't care but do understand.


There's too much #1, #2, and #3. #2 and #3 do the most damage. There's not enough and hardly any #4, and I have my doubts about #5.

www.opensecrets.org

That's a good place to start too.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you believe that, then you have no idea what real liberals even say, never mind what liberal bias sounds like. The media is pretty right of the center, with the exception of homosexuality and a couple other narrow issues.

The media is "right of center" if you consider the center, on a scale of 1 to 10 to be, say a 2. I'm sorry but 3 is still left of 5.
.

No, its "right of center" if you use any accepted pre-1981 definition of "center".
Like I said, most people today have never really heard a truly liberal position, except on homosexuality and a few other very narrow topics.

And in the case of homosexuality, the current moderate position would have been an extreme left position back then.

True. Reagan made strides in bringing conservatism more acceptable, which shifted the center-past to the center-then; "conservatism" that was formally to the right, in many issues, became a "center" position.

Similarly, a combination of Bush-hatred and Obama-love shifted the center again, so that more and more liberal positions are considered "center".

But this isn't just because of politics or the media. "The young," tend to be more liberal while "the old" tend to be more conservative.

For example, with gay marriage, a majority of young adults favor it while a majority of older adults either do not favor it at all or favor it only if called "social union" leaving the religious aspect of "marriage" intact.