Labels Matter

[maineman]

No larkinn, it isn't "right-wing spin." I was raised a liberal in a liberal family, and pretty-well indoctrinated in liberal journalism. I can see the difference between spin and reality, and I can see an issue from both sides.

The negativity and partisan hackery is real. Not saying it doesn't exist on the right, only that it's worse on the left.

I'm marvelling over the fact that you can attempt to blame the negativity on the right with its pitiful little media outlets when the overwhelming majority of them lean left.

the overwhelming majority of them may LEAN slightly left but few MSM outlets are overtly nasty, whereas the intensity and virulence of right wing talk radio more than makes up for any numerical advantage the other side may enjoy.

I don't know if you listen to conservative talk radio, but I do...nearly every day on the way home from work and I am appalled every single day by the intensity of the hatred and hateful misinformation that spews forth.

 

[Bern80]

so I only have opinions but you spew "facts"?

whatever blows your skirt up.

right back at ya

 

[Annie]

the overwhelming majority of them may LEAN slightly left but few MSM outlets are overtly nasty, whereas the intensity and virulence of right wing talk radio more than makes up for any numerical advantage the other side may enjoy.

I don't know if you listen to conservative talk radio, but I do...nearly every day on the way home from work and I am appalled every single day by the intensity of the hatred and hateful misinformation that spews forth.

May I ask, to whom are you 'listening'?

 

[Bern80]

I will deny that. Although since you said TM does not know what a liberal means (although regardless what it means, he is correct...liberal in the classical sense most people are, and liberal in the present day again, most people are)...what is your definition of liberal?

A very brief examiniation of classical liberalism on wiki reveals that the things the left advocates today are quite different from classical liberalism. In the classical sense you may be right that more people are classically liberal. Just don't tell the modern day left that because it would mean more votes for the right.

a couple of things that todays left certainly isn't interested in protecting that classical liberalism is would be free enterprise, opposition to a welfare state and lassiez fair economic policies.

I'm not sure what to make of it really, perhaps todays 'lbierals' have simply hijacked the the term or perhaps you have to grow out of your semantics nutshell and realize the meaning of words changes over time.

Whatever the case there is most certainly an element of emotion in today's left. there is no better example then your favorite, Universal healthcare. It can only be described as an emotional response of pity that clouds one from seeing what will actually happen to healthcare if it is free or even costs significantly less.

I may even have the perfect term for it, though I cant' take credit for it.
A radio talk show host in MN came up with it. Euphorianism which seeks to bring about a different country from the one we know by creating an inconvenience free life.

 

[maineman]

right back at ya

the point is: you portray this "opinion" of yours that conservatives are rational and liberals are emotional as if it were some "fact".

Newsflash: it ain't. deal with it.

 

[maineman]

May I ask, to whom are you 'listening'?

hannity

 

[maineman]

can you imagine if an MSM anchor started his nightly broadcast with "This is the stop Guiliani Express"?

the difference between "leaning" left and diving and leaping as far right as possible with the english language is pretty damned significant.

 

[Alpha1]

can you imagine if an MSM anchor started his nightly broadcast with "This is the stop Guiliani Express"?

the difference between "leaning" left and diving and leaping as far right as possible with the english language is pretty damned significant.

intensity of the hatred and hateful misinformation that spews forth.????????

"This is the stop GuilianiHillary Express"?

This is hatred and misinformation ??? Get a grip on yourself, snipe....

 

[Bern80]

the point is: you portray this "opinion" of yours that conservatives are rational and liberals are emotional as if it were some "fact".

Newsflash: it ain't. deal with it.

Wrong, you are confusing the ideology with the people who claim to be part of it. I wont argue that people claim to be conservative are not always objective. But a characteristic of the ideology is that it tackels issues from a reasoned and objective position.

 

[maineman]

intensity of the hatred and hateful misinformation that spews forth.????????

"This is the stop GuilianiHillary Express"?

This is hatred and misinformation ??? Get a grip on yourself, snipe....

Hannity states every day that liberals are aiding the enemy. the asshole calls me a traitor every single afternoon.

you need to learn how to use BBCode a little better....

but then, I know where you learned it, and I know you get laughed off of there every time you go back.

and what were you, a twidget?

 

[Larkinn]

No larkinn, it isn't "right-wing spin." I was raised a liberal in a liberal family, and pretty-well indoctrinated in liberal journalism. I can see the difference between spin and reality, and I can see an issue from both sides.

If you can see an issue from both sides, then you should be able to realize that defining an issue in such a way that one side seems wrong merely by the terms used to define it is spin.

The negativity and partisan hackery is real. Not saying it doesn't exist on the right, only that it's worse on the left.

I disagree. I consider it worse on the right, although it definitely exists as well on the left.

I'm marvelling over the fact that you can attempt to blame the negativity on the right with its pitiful little media outlets when the overwhelming majority of them lean left.

When was the last time you saw one of these liberal MSM news outlets call for the death of a US supreme? When was the last time you saw one of these liberal MSM news outlets call conservatives traitors?

Refer to my previous statement about them being not equally biased. MM has explained it (again) for your pleasure.

 

[Larkinn]

A very brief examiniation of classical liberalism on wiki reveals that the things the left advocates today are quite different from classical liberalism. In the classical sense you may be right that more people are classically liberal. Just don't tell the modern day left that because it would mean more votes for the right.

Classical liberalism does not line up neatly with either political party.

I'm not sure what to make of it really, perhaps todays 'lbierals' have simply hijacked the the term or perhaps you have to grow out of your semantics nutshell and realize the meaning of words changes over time.

The term has changed over time. Although there are many who cling to the old term.

Whatever the case there is most certainly an element of emotion in today's left. there is no better example then your favorite, Universal healthcare. It can only be described as an emotional response of pity that clouds one from seeing what will actually happen to healthcare if it is free or even costs significantly less.

1) That is only one issue.

2) I disagree that it is ruled by emotion. I replied for a long time using only facts.

I may even have the perfect term for it, though I cant' take credit for it.
A radio talk show host in MN came up with it. Euphorianism which seeks to bring about a different country from the one we know by creating an inconvenience free life.

Err not having healthcare is a bit more than an inconvenience I'd say.

 

[Gunny]

If you can see an issue from both sides, then you should be able to realize that defining an issue in such a way that one side seems wrong merely by the terms used to define it is spin.



I disagree. I consider it worse on the right, although it definitely exists as well on the left.



When was the last time you saw one of these liberal MSM news outlets call for the death of a US supreme? When was the last time you saw one of these liberal MSM news outlets call conservatives traitors?

Refer to my previous statement about them being not equally biased. MM has explained it (again) for your pleasure.

Nothing to explain. I have my opinion, you have yours. You want to accuse me of believing right-wing spin while you reference left-wing spin. You think the right is worse than the left and I believe the opposite to be true.

Obviously there is no discussing the matter with people who's "cups runneth over."

 

[Larkinn]

Nothing to explain. I have my opinion, you have yours. You want to accuse me of believing right-wing spin while you reference left-wing spin. You think the right is worse than the left and I believe the opposite to be true.

Its not all a matter of opinion. And exactly what left-wing spin did I reference?

 

[Bern80]

1) That is only one issue.

Hence why I said example. There are plenty more.

2) I disagree that it is ruled by emotion. I replied for a long time using only facts.

Sure it is. To make healthcare free is a snap decision based on the emotional response that people haveing to pay for healthcare (especially if they can't afford it) is just unfair. While yes you did site data. i also recall asking you if you beleive everyone should be entitled to healthcare to which I believe you answered yes. That is an emotional response and to accomplish said goal you came up with an equally unreasoned solution taht well we'll just make it free. Even a cursory knowledge of econ will show that if you want to improve access to healthcare, not only will you not accomplish that by makeing the price little or nothign it will most likely exacerbate the very problem you sought to solve. All because of the emotial response to the problem that haveing to pay for healthcare just isn't fair.

Err not having healthcare is a bit more than an inconvenience I'd say.

It can run the entire gammit of inconveniences from the mundane to the extremely inconvenient. Coupled with an overreaction (or overly emotional) solution for dealing with said inconveniences. The point is whether the left cares to admit it or not that is the path many policies will bring us down.

Making trans fats illegal,
makeing smoking illegal in private businesses
abortion (touchy one I know)
gun control

the list goes on and on

 

[Larkinn]

Sure it is. To make healthcare free is a snap decision based on the emotional response that people haveing to pay for healthcare (especially if they can't afford it) is just unfair. While yes you did site data. i also recall asking you if you beleive everyone should be entitled to healthcare to which I believe you answered yes. That is an emotional response and to accomplish said goal you came up with an equally unreasoned solution taht well we'll just make it free.

Incorrect, that is a moral response, not an emotional one. I believe everyone should have access to healthcare, not because I am saying shit like "omg think of the children THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"...rather I am saying that is a particular moral belief that I have.

Even a cursory knowledge of econ will show that if you want to improve access to healthcare, not only will you not accomplish that by makeing the price little or nothign it will most likely exacerbate the very problem you sought to solve. All because of the emotial response to the problem that haveing to pay for healthcare just isn't fair.

Umm, no, actually intro economics most definitely DOES say that reducing the price will increase access. And no, your description of the "emotional response" is incorrect. It is immoral for people NOT to have access to healthcare. Not that paying for it just isn't fair.

It can run the entire gammit of inconveniences from the mundane to the extremely inconvenient. Coupled with an overreaction (or overly emotional) solution for dealing with said inconveniences. The point is whether the left cares to admit it or not that is the path many policies will bring us down.

Congratulations for using an emotional response while decrying it at the same time. Will "bring us down"? How? That is a load of bullshit. You are free to disagree with everything the left does, but if you say they will "bring us down", that is emotional claptrap.

Making trans fats illegal

Please tell me how it is "emotional" to ban something that contributes to the deaths of over 100,000 people per year?

makeing smoking illegal in private businesses

Please tell me what is emotional about the belief that one should have the right to work in a smoke free environment.

abortion (touchy one I know)

Considering we have pretty much no information as to what makes a human being, and not many people have the knowledge of the intellect to delve deeply into that issue, yes its emotional. However, if you notice, it is emotional on both sides of the aisle. On the right its the old chestnut "omg you are killing kids, baby-killers", etc, etc.

gun control

Please tell me what is emotional about the belief that we should ban something that kills thousands of people per year?

Again, you seem to have confused morals with emotions. Your argument, hence, seems to be more akin to "liberals have morals behind their arguments, while conservatives have none" which is a bit amusing, if also incorrect.

 

[maineman]

Larkinn...

I think you have hit upon the distinction that has eluded me for some time now when reading Bern's rants about rational conservatives versus emotional liberals. It really has little to do with "emotion" and much to do with "morality".

Conservatives don't have much of the latter (excpet the faux righteously indignant variety), so they mischaracterize it as the former.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn...

I think you have hit upon the distinction that has eluded me for some time now when reading Bern's rants about rational conservatives versus emotional liberals. It really has little to do with "emotion" and much to do with "morality".

Conservatives don't have much of the latter (excpet the faux righteously indignant variety), so they mischaracterize it as the former.

I disagree with the last part of your sentence. Conservatives (and this is a gross generalization, but lets stick with it for a moment) do have morality. But its a very different type of morality than I have. Generally (again massive assumption) its a conservative morality...taken verbatim (sort of) out of the bible. My morality comes from a more consistent source. Much of it derives from the ideas of Mill and the idea that we should do political actions that are best for society as long as they do not overly infringe on individuals.

 

[hjmick]

gun control

Please tell me what is emotional about the belief that we should ban something that kills thousands of people per year?

Because guns, in and of themselves, kill no one. I have been a gun owner for several years and haven't even considered shooting anybody. It is the misuse and improper storage of firearms that result in the largest proportion of gun related fatalities among legal gun owners. Any parent whose child gets access to their gun, and it results in death or injury, that parent should be put in prison, period. I did not keep a gun in my house for many years. Why? Because I had small children and felt that the best way to insure that they did not harm themselves was to store them somewhere else. Any person, who in the heat of the moment, in a fit of passion, uses a gun to dispatch their spouse or loved one should go to prison (the truth of the "crime of passion" scenario is, a gun wouldn't matter, bare hands, knife, bat, 2x4, these all work just as well and are grand substitutes). Furthermore, no amount of legislation, I repeat, no amount of legislation will prevent the people who should not have guns and want guns from getting, you guessed it, guns.

Do you own a gun? Have you ever held a gun? Have you ever been to the range and fired a gun? Have you ever broken down a gun, cleaned it and re-assembled it?

Why is it that the anti-gun crowd feels the need to impose their beliefs on the rest of us? They're like the Seventh Day Adventists (or any other religious group, for that matter) coming to your door once a week passing out tracts, trying to convert the non believers. They are zealots. You don't see atheists or agnostics trying to convert anyone, and you don't see gun owners trying to impose gun ownership on anyone. You don't want to own a gun? Fine, I don't fucking care. Why the fuck do you care about my gun? Why do you want to infringe on my rights?

The gun issue is very similar to the immigration issue in that we do not need more laws, we need to have the laws already on the books enforced.

 

[Larkinn]

Because guns, in and of themselves, kill no one. I have been a gun owner for several years and haven't even considered shooting anybody. It is the misuse and improper storage of firearms that result in the largest proportion of gun related fatalities among legal gun owners. Any parent whose child gets access to their gun, and it results in death or injury, that parent should be put in prison, period. I did not keep a gun in my house for many years. Why? Because I had small children and felt that the best way to insure that they did not harm themselves was to store them somewhere else. Any person, who in the heat of the moment, in a fit of passion, uses a gun to dispatch their spouse or loved one should go to prison (the truth of the "crime of passion" scenario is, a gun wouldn't matter, bare hands, knife, bat, 2x4, these all work just as well and are grand substitutes). Furthermore, no amount of legislation, I repeat, no amount of legislation will prevent the people who should not have guns and want guns from getting, you guessed it, guns.

No...actually a gun will work much better when trying to kill someone than ones bare hands. Even in a "crime of passion".

And yes, legislation will stop SOME people from getting them. The VT shooter was a loner with no friends and no connections. I somehow doubt he could have gone into the Virginia underground and purchased a gun from somewhere.

Why is it that the anti-gun crowd feels the need to impose their beliefs on the rest of us? They're like the Seventh Day Adventists (or any other religious group, for that matter) coming to your door once a week passing out tracts, trying to convert the non believers. They are zealots. You don't see atheists or agnostics trying to convert anyone, and you don't see gun owners trying to impose gun ownership on anyone. You don't want to own a gun? Fine, I don't fucking care. Why the fuck do you care about my gun? Why do you want to infringe on my rights?

Can you possibly think of a reason why I might be uncomfortable giving you the ability to easily kill me? Just curious...if you think individuals have rights to weapons, do you think nations have the right to have larger weapons ? (WMD perhaps?)

Regardless, I am split on the gun issue. My point in addressing it was ONLY to say that you can argue against it non-emotionally. You can disagree with something while realizing that the other side is also arguing rationally.