 sj |
||
|
||
BS: More liberal bias in the news
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: artbrooks Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM Excellent statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:22 AM Wouldn't you love to see Don debate Hannity or Limbaugh? They would surely end up cutting his mic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: mandotim Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:50 AM Don, that is a masterly analysis; scholarly without being preachy, and full of passion. It's great evidence why I should continue to love Americans and despise their present Government. (I'm a Brit, by the way). In the UK some of us feel that our Government has locked itself into the so-called 'special relationship' with Bush and company, and we are now (to some extent) reaping that particular whirlwind in that we are targets for America's enemies and isolated from our neighbours in Europe. We are also beginning to lose some of the things you cite as advantages; our brilliant state-funded healthcare system is being fragmented and opened up for predatory HMO-type organisations to make a fast buck. Keep up the great work Don. Tim from Bit on the Side |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: gnu Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:23 AM I very seldom open threads with like titles. However, a fellow 'Cat suggested I read Don's post and I'm glad she did. Don... I'm lovin it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Peace Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:51 AM Brilliant post, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:29 AM I've saved it--and intend to print it out. If you, Don, were a politician and said that in a speech, you'd have my vote for sure. If I was still living in Chicago and it was the old days, you'd have my vote two or three times--and I would be ten or fifteen dollars richer! Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 29 Mar 06 - 12:41 AM Thank you, gentlemen! I sorta worked up a head of steam writing that. Kind of enjoyed it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: michaelr Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:04 PM Thank you, Don, for your succinct analysis. I couldn't have said it better... heck, I couldn't have said it half as well! Pearls before swine, most likely, though... But you never know. Something may get through. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:17 PM Don, Brilliant! That's what I meant to say in my posts over the years here on this topic !! Thanks Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:04 PM Rarelamb, are you there? As I said (quoting The Terminator), "I'll be back!" And here I am. Pour yourself a cup of coffee or tea, or pop open a beer, lean back and prop your feet up, and settle in. This is a long one. [By the way, with the exception of a few short passages from other articles, a phrase or two here and there, a couple of quotations, and a dictionary definition, none of this is "cut-and-paste." It's all my own writing. Incidentally, I keep some of my longer posts as possible material for future articles, so I'm not just piddling my time away writing something that the intended recipient probably won't actually read.] I've been this route before, but some people just don't get it, others don't want to get it, and some folks come in late and. . . . Well, for whatever reasons, it bears repeating as often as necessary for folks to understand it, even if they don't like it. After all, it's mostly a matter of definitions. But, of course, part of the usual one-upmanship in political discussions in which the goal is to win, not to arrive at rational concept of a just and equitable government (equitable for all its citizens, not just the wealthy and powerful), is to evade, distort, or ignore what words really mean. Such as: Liberalism = fascism? I don't think so. Fascism is a bit difficult to define succinctly, because it comes in several different flavors. But it is characterized by dedication to authoritarianism (the government is all-powerful), with a strong emphasis on nationalism and militarism. It also has no qualms about riding rough-shod over any concept of individual freedom and civil rights. The private citizen has no rights. That doesn't sound like liberalism to me. But I'll get to that later. The general trend of fascist economic theory (disorganized and contradictory at best, because it distorts conventional economic theory in order to achieve the goal it desires in spite of established facts) is designed, in most cases, for the mutual benefit of government and business: augmented central planning powers, one of the main aims of which is protection of corporate interests and maximization of profits. Protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. This should come no surprise when one of the inventors of fascism in the twentieth century, Benito Mussolini, said of it that "Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' because it is the merger of state and corporate power." [The "logo" of fascism, and the name itself adopted by Mussolini, is the fasces, a bundle of sticks (the corporations) tied around an axe (the power of the State), symbolizing that they form a single unit and act together.] In short, under fascism, a revolving door exists between business and government. The interest of the government and the interests of the corporations are the same. [This should give pause to those who can see nothing wrong when the former CEO of Halliburton is the current Vice President, and one of the corporations that is making the biggest profits out of the Iraq war—through no-bid contracts—is none other than Halliburton. And Dick Cheney is not the only high-level corporate executive who is also holds a high-level office in the current government of the United States.] There is nothing inconsistent between an economic system characterized by unbridled laissez-faire capitalism and fascism. In fact, to the corporations, a government in which corporate heads write the laws and issue the executive orders is a consummation devoutly to be wished! No unions, no anti-trust laws, no minimum wages, no consumer protection, no environmental restraints—no restrictions at all. Absolute laissez faire. And if the business/country deems that it needs something from another country, such as a natural resource, and if that country proves uncooperative, economic blackmail (sanctions) or use of the military are perfectly acceptable procedures. [Sound familiar?] There is nothing compatible between fascism and democracy. True democracy—an honest plebiscite—would constitute a danger to a fascist form of government. Okay. It should be obvious from the above that any attempt to try to equate liberalism with fascism is the product of either a warped sense of humor or a complete break with the real world (or—quite probably—overdosing on the writings, both fiction and non-fiction, of Ayn Rand and her followers). But let us press on and take a look at liberals. For example: Liberals are often accused of being socialists. Under pure socialism, the economic means of production are controlled by the people. This control may be exercised either by such agencies as workers' councils or unions, or it may be exercised through state agencies. A primary concern of socialism, and one of its defining features, is to strive for social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole. A pure socialist system that advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is a bit hard-charging, and it does have its drawbacks. But you will note that there is nothing incompatable between socialism and democracy. In fact, socialism requires a democratic form of government. Without honest plebiscites, as was the case with Russian Communism, the power becomes centralized (State Socialism) rather than dispersed, hence, a distortion of the whole idea of socialism ("a betrayal of the revolution!"). Marx's prediction that "the dictatorship of the prolatariat would "wither away" was wrong. Dictatorships of any kind never "wither away." They must either be overthrown, or allowed to crumble under their own weight, as the Soviet Union did. The goal of a socialist government is the economic well-being of the populace as a whole. The goal of a fascist government, ultimately, is world domination, economic, military, or both, to control all factors in order to maximize profits for the corporate State. Individual rights are superseded by the needs of the State. Now, liberals specifically: I posted a dictionary (Merriam-Webster) definition of "liberal" above. But I will post it again, so you won't have to keep scrolling up and down. lib•er•al adj.Although there is a fairly broad spectrum in what might be described as the "liberal position," most liberals tend to favor a number of measures that some folks insist on calling "socialistic." These include universal health care, minimum wages, a solid social security program to ensure a comfortable retirement for the elderly, and a viable welfare system for the minuscule percentage of the population who are unable to fend for themselves. This is a matter of equity, and they are the marks of a civilized country. Liberals also tend to favor "socialistic" government regulatory agencies, such as —anti-trust laws (to preserve competition and its benefits),As we have seen in the past (the late 1800s-early 1900s, robber-barons, company towns, the use of the National Guard to keep striking workers in line, the "Everett Massacre" [look it up], etc.) unrestricted capitalism would simply run amok and lead the nation to something like fascism, or force it to sink back into a modern caricature of feudalism. And, as Little Hawk aptly notes above, some of the necessary functions of government include providing for and maintaining an educational system, building and maintaining infrastructure such as highways, bridges, and public transportation, and, in general, doing those things that the people cannot do for themselves. Or that it is not desirable that people attempt to do for themselves, such as law-enforcement and a military (unfortunately, still necessary in this, as yet, uncertain world), and the provision of a system of courts to oversee justice and provide a means of non-violently resolution of disputes. Without government-provided law enforcement and courts, you would have such things as a vigilante "justice" and disagreements escalating into modern variations of the 'range wars" of the Old West. Also, without government provided and maintained infrastructure, there would be no rational system of streets, roads, highways, and bridges—only a disorganized hodge-podge of toll-roads, isolated communities, and no public transportation. In short, back to medieval times! This would render commerce (which, I believe, capitalism depends on, does it not?) impossible. I do not advocate a socialist government. What I do advocate is what is usually referred to as a "mixed economy." This takes advantage of the best parts of capitalism, providing incentive to entrepreneurs and fair profits to business, but keeping it restrained from its natural tendency to go off the rails and maximize profits through dishonest practices and exploitation, while at the same time providing its citizens with infrastructure and services that they are unable to provide for themselves and that private enterprise is either not interested in providing or cannot seem to provide at reasonable cost (e.g., health insurance). It's a matter of hard-headed practicality. If you see this as "socialistic," and therefore evil, then perhaps you should take a deep breath, clear you head, and take another look at whether a little "socialism" really is all that evil. If equal before the law and equal opportunity are essential parts of the American Dream, then it is the liberals and the progressives who are dedicated to bringing that dream about for the entire population, not just the privileged few. It is interesting to note that there are European countries now extant in which the citizens chose their leaders democratically, have all the freedoms we have, have good quality universal health care (free in most countries), minimum wage laws, excellent care for the elderly, and the other social programs outlined above, and who, in addition, have laws restricting the number of hours per week a person can be required to work and mandating paid vacations of five weeks or more per year. [NOTE: this is not particularly objected to by business owners because they have seen, through their own experience, that a rested and alert employee is a much more efficient and productive employee—something employers on this side of the pond, who regularly require their employees to work many hours of overtime, seem to be a bit dim-witted about.] They also have far more enlightened drug laws and far fewer people languishing in prison for minor offenses—and no capital punishment. "But," you say, "they pay very high taxes!" Yes, their taxes are fairly high. But not as high as some would have you believe, however. Nevertheless, look what they get for their tax money! It's interesting to note some of the more-or-less intangible spin-offs of many of these dreaded "welfare societies." According to travelers I have conversed with, the citizens of these countries are generally happier, more relaxed and easy-going, and are far less driven than most Americans, have much more leisure time, and spend more time with family and friends. They may not have two cars, or a car at all, but public transportation is frequent, fast, and cheap. They enjoy life, so say my informants, a helluva lot more than most Americans (constantly pressed for time, overworked, acquisitive for things despite a mound of debt, eating on the run with a cell-phone grafter to the side of their head, and generally a bit manic). Most modern European countries have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States does (and there is a whole table of health statistics that makes the U. S. look pretty backward in comparison to most modern European countries). And the economies of these countries are sounder than ours! But there are those, friend rarelamb, who condemn them because they are "socialistic." Well—perhaps you and those of like mind should reexamine your values. [In the back of my head, I can hear that idiot cliché response to much of what I have just said: "If you think it's so much better over there, why don't you just shut your mouth and go there?" Well, because I am a patriotic American, I have what may be thought of as a naïve faith in the eventual attainment of the American Dream. I hate to see that dream turn into a nightmare of fascism—especially theocratic fascism—and I'm going to stay here and fight like hell to prevent it.] Yes, I'm a liberal. You're damn straight I'm a liberal! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:47 PM If it is there, it is a natural awakening, and a reaction to Limbaugh, Fallwell, Bush and cohorts and the other news makers. If it is there again, it's about time. Sanity and copassion might be coming to the fore! Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Mar 06 - 06:52 AM good post, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Amos Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:00 PM With all due respect, socialism CAN be a form of tyranny, and the way in which it can happen should not be forgotten. Just as autarchy or rule by a few can become tyrannical. Socialism becomes tyranny when the able are excessively burdened to provide for the less able. I say with care "excessively burdened" because SOME social care for our fellow man and especially our fellow citizen is required by the nature of the organism called a State. But when the reliance on ONE person, or the reliance on a Government, in either direction becomes excessive, the drain on individual talent and insight becomes so great that it is no longer worth it, and the individual slinks into apathy or evasion or migrates elsewhere. The chest-beating of those who think all social inventions are tyrannical is just as ill-informed as the belief of others that we all ought to be one big carefully modulated social organization. Neither extreme will work, and both are a dampener on individual liberty and individual conscience. The RIGHT balance of these things rewards genuine productivity and genuine compassion, and penalizes excesses of self-serving greed or obsessive irresponsibility. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 06 - 06:43 PM RL, What Little Hawk said and no doubt Don firth will get around to... But I will restate what LH said in saying you are wrong in equating socialism with either facism or tyranny... That's just plain bull... Where di you come up with such a distorted view of political science and history??? I guess you thought it was easier to try out a BIG LIE than to address the real observataions I made about the similarities of the way the current Bush administration has ***ruled*** (forget govern) to those components of frascism practiced my the Nazis.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:34 AM "Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States." And in Australia... but here, since Little Johnny began to thrust for power with his colleagues, the Liberal Party went WAY over to 'The Right' (the Labour Party is traditionally on 'mostly the Left') and since there were more of them over there, than the ones left behind (who became 'the Democrats') they took the name "Liberal' with them... Confused yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 26 Mar 06 - 04:20 PM Looks like Little Hawk has things well in hand, but as I say, I'll be back when I have time. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 06 - 04:10 PM Socialism can exist (and does) in democratic systems, with free elections, a free press, freedom of speech and religion, and a completely democratic bill of rights. Socialism simply involves doing something through public funding, which is to say...you pay the employees with a government paycheck. Socialism and capitalism can exist simultaneously and harmoniously in the same society, and they already DO...in every single existing democracy in the world! Any place that has public employees has (some) socialism. To have socialism does NOT mean that everything in the country MUST BE socialist! It's an not exclusive proposition. Socialism exists side by side with capitalism with absolute ease, and that is totally normal in every organized modern society in the world. Rarelamb, you are completely and absolutely wrong when you state that socialism is a form of tyranny. Where did you get such a stupid, ill-informed idea? Where do Americans get such ludicrous ideas? Do you think that just saying something totally ridiculous will work if you say it enough times? Get real. You know what is socialist? Every government-paid job from the federal down to the municipal level IS socialism. Every town has government paid jobs. Every nation does. Every city does. Those jobs are paid by our taxes. That includes federal tax, state tax, municipal tax, and sales tax. If you want to get rid of all that socialism then you will have to disband the entire government, the armed forces, most of the educational system, most of the transportation system, much of the medical and science systems, your town councils, EVERYTHING that is not a privately-owned business! And what will you have then? Anarchy and feudalism. You'll be back in the Dark Ages. You'll be serving your local warlord as a serf or a soldier and fending off attacks from the neighbouring warlord in the next town over the hill. That's tyrrany, in the form of anarchy. Tyrrany, my friend, can be accomplished equally well by either socialism OR capitalism. You just abolish freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of public assembly, and all the other rights enshrined in the US Constitution. With or without socialism, you control everything with an iron hand. With or without capitalism, you control everthing with an iron hand. Tyrrany has nothing to do with either socialism or capitalism, but it can be achieved using one, or the other, or both. Just abolish the Bill of Rights, run everything by brute force through your paid death squads, and you have tyrrany. Capitalists do it. Socialists do it. But it is not "socialism". Socialism is a neutral economic mechanism, not a moral order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 26 Mar 06 - 04:06 PM Rarelamb, the equation you're trying to make between liberalism and fascism is a total crock. Busy day here, but when I have time, I'll be back on and rip it to shreds before your very eyes. If you've been reading Ludwig Von Mises, it's no wonder you're confused. You read a lot of Ayn Rand, too? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Big Al Whittle Date: 26 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM so basically the uncooked sheepmeat character thinks its okay to malign a tradition in our democracy that has provided everything from the abolition of slavery to the national health service. there are hundreds of right wing think tanks that would welcome you like a shot people here on mudcat are nice just bugger off! please |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,Frank Date: 26 Mar 06 - 02:56 PM Rarelamb, The Drudge report has no cred because it is NeoCon bias. The mass mediais favoring the Administration Spin so it's not true about Liberal Bias. Drudge fudges. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 26 Mar 06 - 05:26 AM Bobert, my understanding of your post is that you are missing the forest for the tree. Fascism/Socialism are both forms of tyranny. They oppress people. Every facsist/socialist state has controlled their economies and controlled speech. Ideas are crushed and those that disagree with the party are illegal. Here we are not just talking about an assualt on human dignity but also policies that by their nature kill people. Liberal policies ARE socialistic policies. These policies will inevitably by their nature lead to a tyranny. That is the point. You play with dangerous ideas that oppress people. If you think this is just fearmongering than take a look at my previous post and tell me again why government is not the liberals first choice to address what they perceive to be problems? Let me also ask whether or not you think that political correctness is or is not an attempt to control speech and ideas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Bobert Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:41 PM Facism = Liberalism, RL??? Maybe you'd like to elaborate on that theory... Then maybe you would like to explain why the Bush administration has taken out so many pages of Adolf Hitler's game plan book??? (Oh, but Bobert, when you equating Bush to Nazis, you have stepped over the line.... Don't you realize that the PR folks long ago set in place a set of condition-responses that made these comparisions out-of-bounds???) Oh sure, I realize that alot of diehard partisan Republicans don't like to live up the history of their party after WWII when the Republican Party actively recruited the best minds of former Nazis and Nazi sympathatizers.... Heck, Google Heritage Coucil and look at who set it up... Almost exclusively former Nazis and Nazi sypathizers... And lets look at some components of facism: 1. Getting in bed with the industrailists.... Check... (corporate lobbiest now write most of the legislation that goes tru Congress) 2. Super-patroitism.... Check... (how many support the troops ribbons have you seen on the backs of cars lately???) 3. Manipulation of the media... Check... (Bothe the Post and NY Times have written stories about falling under a "Culture" that preveneted them from doing a better job during the mad-dash-to-Iraq...) 4. Centralization of power... Check... (Hey, can anyone argue thatthe Bush administartion hasn't grabbed as much power as it possibly could???) 5. The Big Lie... Check... (Hitler stated that the people would belive the a lie if it was big enough... WMD's, Al Qeada links, Nuclear programs???? Lets get real here... These weren't white lies... They were BIG LIES...) So, maybe RL would like to explain why it is that Democarts=Liberals are the facists here.... (But, Bobert, remmeber what Hitler said about the BIG LIE and think rarelamb here...) Oh, I get it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 25 Mar 06 - 06:16 PM The Ludwig Von Mises Institute? Well, that explains where rarelamb went off the rails. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: artbrooks Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM Well, I guess I'm a liberal...I can and do think for myself without feeling a need to fit into somebody else's definition. Of course, all liberals are different and there is no liberal box. To compare myself to rarelamb's definition of a liberal: They want national healthcare: of course. Quality healthcare should be available to everyone, and people should pay for it on a graduating scale based upon their incomes. They want national pensions: of course. President Roosevelt gave us all that years ago when Social Security came in. Anyone who doesn't want to live on that minimal income should (and does) have the right to save an additional amount themselves. They want nationally set wages: I disagree. There needs to be a minimum wage, set locally and based upon local prices and the local cost of living, that is adequate to maintain an "average sized" family at a decent standard. Most wages should be set based on the invisible hand of the market economy. They want nationally controlled land: I disagree...this is a dumb idea. Some land, such as parks (for only one example), should be owned by the government and used for the good of everyone. Limited natural resources should not be placed in private hands without proper compensation and some level of control over production. This is a tricky one. They want nationally controlled corporate profits: Another dumb idea, unless taxes on these profits is "control". As a liberal, what I don't want is national control by corporations. BTW, true socialism (which has never been practiced in the entire world except on a very small scale on some Israeli communes and in Utopian communities in 19th century America) and true fascism (which was briefly in place in early Fascist Italy) are two very different economic and political philosophies. With direct reference to the quote from the Mises Foundation article, the Nazies began with a philosophy of state control of production and distribution...appropriate to their name of National Socialist Workers' Party. They never did meet the Italian definition of Fascist which, since they invented modern Fascism, must be assumed to be the best one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Purple Foxx Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:34 AM Two questions. 1)If the LVMI Analysis is correct why did U.S. buisnesses wait until December 1941 before withdrawing their considerable investments in Nazi Germany? 2)Am I right in assuming your ommission of any references to the LVMI's assertion that America's current Government is moving towards Fascism was for reasons of space? BTW Have to be away from the computer for a while. Please DON'T make any false assumptions on the basis of that fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:15 AM Emma, I can only suspect that you mean that from a western European point of view as you are more than likely aware that the Berlin wall did in fact fall and those nations under the thumb of socialism have decided to abandon those bankrupt ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:13 AM Socialism is no different than Fascism or National Socialism. Why Socialism is Facsim "What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners. De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Emma B Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM They want national healthcare? They want national pensions? They want nationally set (Minimum?) wages? Sounds ok to me! indicates care and respect for fellow citizens IMHO Rabidlamb - do you have any idea how offensive and scary your views appear from an European perspective? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Purple Foxx Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:02 AM Socialism is Fascism. Hot is Cold. Black is white. Up is down. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 25 Mar 06 - 06:55 AM It is interesting to note the different meanings of liberal. I used the word liberal in this context as having to do with political orientation in the US as far as the two major parties. In this case liberal is to do with Democrats. I am probably more accurately liberal or in the US libertarian than I am conservative. Libertarians usually will gravitate to the main conservative party or the Republicans. Why? And why is liberal such an insult? Liberal (in this case, those having to do wiht the left or Democrats) are actually socialists/fascists and have very little to do with the common understanding of liberal in the 18th century way of looking at it. Liberals find the solution to most problems in the government. They want national healthcare, they want national pensions, they want nationally set wages, they want nationally controlled land, they want nationally controlled corporate profits, they want nationally controlled this that and the other thing. There seems to be no end to what the government can do. From this perspective they are no different from the socialists or fascists of the 20th century. These self appointed philosopher kings ignore history, logic and evidence to impose their view on everyone else. They have the arrogance to believe that they know what is better for everyone else and are willing to use the force of government to implement that vision. They also have a deep disdain for open debate as open debate has the unfortunate habit of exposing this tyranny. So they try to oppress and control speech, even when it is one of their own (ala Larry Summers). That is why liberal is such a bad word. To call someone liberal is calling someone a tyrant bent on the control of the free man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Big Al Whittle Date: 25 Mar 06 - 06:31 AM whats all this with the numbers? as private eye says, what can it all mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Mar 06 - 03:53 AM It is not necessarily bias worthy of complaint to prefer the good to the bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: michaelr Date: 25 Mar 06 - 03:27 AM "Liberal bias" is a contradiction in terms. ("Military Intelligence", anyone?) It's always been a Republican red herring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: artbrooks Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:08 PM Beardedbruce: it is exactly right that many of those on the Left are far from liberal. Those on the far left, and I think they call themselves "Progressives" these days, are not at all liberal. Tootler and Don Firth have given excellent definitions of the word "liberal". Redefining it to mean everything that people with a particular point of view are opposed to basically results in the English language being left without a way to easily express the position that "liberal" has always meant. This is not the only such situation. We really can no longer use the word gay to mean "joyous and lively" or straight to mean "upright". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Bobert Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:08 PM Define "conservative", RL... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:38 PM 01000110011101010110001101101011 00100000011011110110011001100110 00100000010100100110000101110010 01100101011011000110000101101101 0110001000101110 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:38 PM basically cos its bollocks. one bloke saying he doesn't like Bush isn't liberal bias. he's not all that likeable. his politics probably aren't that much different from his opponent. there really isn't much to dislike or like - he's a politician. Gerry Adams denied the right to speak on english tv for years. Arthur Scargil sneered at throughout the miners strike, when the situation was far more complex than the british broadcasting cocksuckers could appreciate. that was bias. why would that gang of oxbridge boors be biassed any other way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:45 PM Why is there such vehemence? I thought it was well understood that the major media outlets are biased? Shucks, conservatives have been complaining about this for decades. This individual was 'caught' exposing his real beliefs. Frankly, i'm a little surprised it doesn't happen more often. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:32 PM I worked in a newsroom of a cable network for 12 years - encompassing Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations, and the start of Juniors administration. I can tell you that the "bias" that was supposedly exhibited in that old e-mail just isn't there. If any idiot reads anything more into that e-mail, well, they are simply idiots. Fact. If for one minute you think that ANY public figure is not subjected to jokes or comments behind the scenes in a newsroom environment, you are wrong. Regardless of their political affliations, they are skewered when they deserve it. However, once the camera is on, the story is told as truthfully as possible. Not once did I see a story manipulated to underscore or overexaggerate the truth. Now, that does not mean that the "talk" shows follow the same credo. Different set of rules. Also, I never worked at Fox News so I can't speak for them. Nor would I ever want to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM Now, there's an image to conjure with! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Liz the Squeak Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:03 PM I must get my eyes tested again... I read the title as 'more liberal bras in the news'..... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:00 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:59 PM Best thing to do with Rarelamb is ignore him/it/her completely. On another thread, Gnu, me and Azizi (in that order) posted three blank posts in a row. One or two others did later on the thread. This is my last post to any of Rarelamb's thread other than blank ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Don Firth Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:13 PM lib•er•al adj. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded; c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism; d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. Liberal and proud of it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Purple Foxx Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:04 PM From Roget's Thesaurus :"LIBERAL tolerant,generous,enlightened,broadminded, lavish, charitable. Antonym CONSERVATIVE - stingy, miserly, regressive, narrowminded, reactionary,bigoted,prejudiced,biased." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 06 - 02:53 PM Tootler, "To me a liberal implies someone who is tolerant of the views of others. A liberal may disagree with those views, but accepts the right of others to hold different views and to offer alternative solutions. " By your definition, many ( most?) of those on the Left here are far from liberal.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Tootler Date: 24 Mar 06 - 02:51 PM To me a liberal implies someone who is tolerant of the views of others. A liberal may disagree with those views, but accepts the right of others to hold different views and to offer alternative solutions. Sadly the word liberal seems, in some quarters to be used as an insult. Usually, it seems to me, by people who are illiberal and who cannot tolerate others holding different views and offering alternative solutions to problems. It is those people we need to beware of as they are trying to impose their views on the rest of us, taking away hard earned freedoms. Most complex problems have more than one possible solution and it is vital that alternative viewpoints are respected as it may be one of these that holds the key to unlock an apparently intractible problem. Geoff |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Purple Foxx Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM In the U.S. the word "Liberal" denotes somebody who is on the Left. In the U.K. it denotes a centrist. In Continental Europe it denotes somebody who is on the Right. Therefore,unless qualifying clauses are included, the word communicates nothing when used in International communication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:15 AM labelling.........get real. this nutcase's predilection for cut and pasting right wing dogshit amounts to an unquenchable thirst. there is enough pollution in the world. if he has had an original thought, apart from how can I best get on everybody's tits - I have yet to see it expressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: katlaughing Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:14 PM He's only telling it like it is...there are many who are sick of his crap and feel like puking. Good question re' where did they get this supposed email? How about we get a few from the other side...you knwo, the ones that say something like "we'll puke if we don't get more bodies over there for cannon fodder!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:59 PM Actually the bias reflected here is not liberal at all -- it's RL's bile that is showing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:59 PM There's over 2200 Americans who would gladly trade being "sick" for what they got..."transfer cases"... But rarelamb doesn't seam to care about those kids... No, to rarelamb it's just one Bush apologist after another's endless drivvle about just how evil "Liberals" (what ever that means) are??? Go figure??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:57 PM You consider something you found on the internet news.... Who cares what a producers or reporters personal views are ? As long as they report impartially that's all that counts. So how did this website obtain this personal e-mail anyway ? Does that concern you at all ? Isn't this an invasion of privacy ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:59 PM The fact that Bush could gag a maggot is not news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Ebbie Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM It's about time that more people got sick of him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Rapparee Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:52 PM Please stop labeling. It's divisive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:48 PM Yeah... And? |
|
Subject: BS: More liberal bias in the news From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:36 PM Liberal bias |
