Conservatism And The Republican Party

[musicman]

I disagree. Can you deny aspects of it regarding points that were being made?

As I was saying earlier, Doc - if "my nakedly partisan anti-conservative editorial hit piece doesn't contain any outright, provable lies" is the benchmark by which we're going to measure journalistic integrity, we're in a world of hurt. We're not in a world of hurt, though (not on this score, at least). Many Americans are not stupid, and will rightly dismiss tripe like this for the bald propaganda it is.

 

[Dr Grump]

As I was saying earlier, Doc - if "my nakedly partisan anti-conservative editorial hit piece doesn't contain any outright, provable lies" is the benchmark by which we're going to measure journalistic integrity, we're in a world of hurt. We're not in a world of hurt, though (not on this score, at least). Many Americans are not stupid, and will rightly dismiss tripe like this for the bald propaganda it is.

Then the piece shouldn't be too hard to disprove point by point. Take your time....

What I find amazing with conservatives is that they never find the middle ground. Ever. Bush is living proof of that. During his first term he wanted a bipartisan congress and then set about making it the exact opposite, but by saying what he wanted, tried to make out the Dems as the bad guys. Saying you want to work with people and actually meaning it are two different things. Same with the media. I can see both the pros and cons of left leaning sources and realise there are good and bad. The fact you can't see that with Fox astounds me, not so much because you are far too intelligent not to see it, but because of that very fact. And I see your mindset on the matter the same as Dubya "wanting" congress to get along. You knowing it is biased, yet refusing to acknowledge it, is why the US is going down the shitter and there is no middle ground. Say what you want about liberals, but they generally acknowledge the faults of their party - GoPers NEVER do...and conservatives on this board are a great sample of that tragedy...

 

[Annie]

Then the piece shouldn't be too hard to disprove point by point. Take your time....

What I find amazing with conservatives is that they never find the middle ground. Ever.

You mean like civil unions over gay marriage? You mean like leaving it up to the states whether abortion procedures such as partial birth abortion being legal or not? You mean most saying something like 'creationism' has no place in science, but might fit into an elective in comparative religions or philosophy? You mean the vast numbers that criticize the administration for not communicating with the electorate in meaningful ways? What exactly do you mean by 'never'?

Bush is living proof of that. During his first term he wanted a bipartisan congress and then set about making it the exact opposite, but by saying what he wanted, tried to make out the Dems as the bad guys. Saying you want to work with people and actually meaning it are two different things.

see above.

Same with the media. I can see both the pros and cons of left leaning sources and realise there are good and bad. The fact you can't see that with Fox astounds me, not so much because you are far too intelligent not to see it, but because of that very fact. And I see your mindset on the matter the same as Dubya "wanting" congress to get along. You knowing it is biased, yet refusing to acknowledge it, is why the US is going down the shitter and there is no middle ground. Say what you want about liberals, but they generally acknowledge the faults of their party - GoPers NEVER do...and conservatives on this board are a great sample of that tragedy...

Funny thing and I'm not saying there is NEVER bias at FOX, what strikes me over and over again is the amount of calling out of FOX, without examples, meaning 'video' or 'radio' or 'website articles posted by' of the bias. Yet there are literally hundreds of examples of MSM bias posed in all the above formats.

 

[musicman]

First of all, Dr Grump, let me thank you for the general tenor of your post. You're a gentleman, as always. Now, let's go to work, shall we?

Then the piece shouldn't be too hard to disprove point by point. Take your time....

As I've stated elsewhere in the thread, the terminal cuteness (read: would-be "sneaky" bias - actually, as subtle as a bare ass on a flagpole) of a piece like this leaves me disinclined to plow through it, looking for what might actually be a point or two. I'm not a fool, don't appreciate being thought one, and will certainly not support the efforts of "journalists" who proceed from the assumption that I am one. Trying to present one's personal prejudices as assumptions of fact is as bad as lying; as a living witness to the thirty-year MSM/DNC monopoly on the dissemination of information, I am acutely sensitive to the stench of the lie in ALL its forms. Maybe you're too young to have experienced the endless stream of lies that was journalism in the latter half of the last century; maybe it all seems reasonable to you because you largely agree with what traditional media are saying. But, it's a reflex with me; as soon as I sense that some devotee of Manhattan elitism is trying to play me, I become angry.

What I find amazing with conservatives is that they never find the middle ground. Ever.

Where is this "middle", Dr Grump? And, who sets those parameters - you?

Bush is living proof of that.

President George Bush is not only not a conservative - he is a traitor to the cause of conservatism. **** President George Bush.

During his first term he wanted a bipartisan congress and then set about making it the exact opposite, but by saying what he wanted, tried to make out the Dems as the bad guys. Saying you want to work with people and actually meaning it are two different things.

This is absolute conjecture, colored by your personal biases. Perhaps you should consider a career in traditional media.

Same with the media. I can see both the pros and cons of left leaning sources and realise there are good and bad.

Try a steady, thirty-year diet of it. It has been my observation that they couldn't report a story straight if their lives depended on it. That's because they truly believe that what they're writing - and the way thy're writing it - is reasonable. But, when you've cut your teeth in the average American school of journalism - and the heroes to whose efforts you aspire are Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and Pinch Sulzberger - your idea of reasonableness is going to differ greatly from that of mainstream America. And, I suspect you start by believing you're better and smarter than mainstream America.

The fact you can't see that with Fox astounds me, not so much because you are far too intelligent not to see it, but because of that very fact.

Well, thanks for the good thoughts. But, I should tell you that Fox News is largely a matter of indifference to me. I don't even have cable TV any more, and don't miss it. I like movies and sports, and might dig a little talk radio on my way to work. But, I know well enough what's going on - I don't need it screamed at me 24/7 by some talking head.

That said, I thank God every day that Fox News, talk radio, and the Internet have broken the back of the liberal monopoly. It's no use my trying to explain it to you if you weren't there, Doc. We were living, effectively, under an information blackout. It was de facto censorship.

And I see your mindset on the matter the same as Dubya "wanting" congress to get along. You knowing it is biased, yet refusing to acknowledge it, is why the US is going down the shitter and there is no middle ground.

We've got open discourse, Doc. You and I are enjoying one of its benefits right now. I almost feel like someone trying to explain the world before electricity. You don't know enough to be glad, because you can't picture the world any other way.

Say what you want about liberals, but they generally acknowledge the faults of their party - GoPers NEVER do...and conservatives on this board are a great sample of that tragedy...

If the GOP fails to absorb the lessons of 2006, it is dead, and deservedly so. I, for one, will dance on its grave.

 

[bush lover]

I think these kinds of nasty articles (I won't say treasonous) are against our President, America and our Troops. I support our President and his policies because he is keeping us safe from Bin Laden and his fanatical followers. If our President needs to curtail our freedom and borrow some more money to keep us safe, I'm all for it. God bless our President, that's all I can say. Hillary would sit in the corner and cry if she had to face up to the terrorists who hate our freedom.

 

[musicman]

Wow, bush lover - you're so clever. We're all so fooled. Have you ever considered giving that one-trick pony of yours a high colonic? Posting something substantive? Getting a life?

 

[Dr Grump]

Musicman

Man, you're too much of a cynic! Has it really been that bad? Really?

I'm a journalist by trade and have worked on a few rags in my time, so I know what you mean re bias.

To put it all in perspective, I'm not American, so I kinda feel we're not as cynical. Our media traditionally has not been ruled by the mighty dollar, but over the past decade or so, I am definitely noticing a lot more editorialising, especially by the television media.

 

[musicman]

Musicman

Man, you're too much of a cynic! Has it really been that bad? Really?

I'm a journalist by trade and have worked on a few rags in my time, so I know what you mean re bias.

To put it all in perspective, I'm not American, so I kinda feel we're not as cynical. Our media traditionally has not been ruled by the mighty dollar, but over the past decade or so, I am definitely noticing a lot more editorialising, especially by the television media.

That's interesting, Doc - I had no idea! Where y'all from?

I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with Diuretic, too - whom, I believe, is an Aussie. I suspect he thinks I'm over the top on this at times, but, honestly, man - if you weren't here, being bombarded by what passed for objective journalism, from the 1960s to the end of the century, you just can't know how bad it was. If airwave discourse gets heated and noisy at times, it is still, to me, a joyful noise. It is the sound of the faint beginnings of balance.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's interesting, Doc - I had no idea! Where y'all from?

I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with Diuretic, too - whom, I believe, is an Aussie. I suspect he thinks I'm over the top on this at times, but, honestly, man - if you weren't here, being bombarded by what passed for objective journalism, from the 1960s to the end of the century, you just can't know how bad it was. If airwave discourse gets heated and noisy at times, it is still, to me, a joyful noise. It is the sound of the faint beginnings of balance.

Personally, I find the concept of "balance" in reporting to fall far below the value of veritas. Whenever NASA sends a probe to the moon, CNN doesn't bring on the President of the Flat Earth Society to claim how the supposed feat is impossible in the name of balance. Sometimes bullshit is bullshit, and it needs to be recognized as such.

 

[Diuretic]

That's interesting, Doc - I had no idea! Where y'all from?

I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with Diuretic, too - whom, I believe, is an Aussie. I suspect he thinks I'm over the top on this at times, but, honestly, man - if you weren't here, being bombarded by what passed for objective journalism, from the 1960s to the end of the century, you just can't know how bad it was. If airwave discourse gets heated and noisy at times, it is still, to me, a joyful noise. It is the sound of the faint beginnings of balance.

Point taken MM, Mr Conley - well said sir.

 

[musicman]

Personally, I find the concept of "balance" in reporting to fall far below the value of veritas. Whenever NASA sends a probe to the moon CNN doesn't bring on a member of the Flat Earth Society to claim how the supposed feat is impossible in the name of balance.

Ah, but I'm not talking about some artificial, nanny state-enforced, guaranteed equality of outcome, Fairness Doctrine pipe dream; it was the domination of that mindset that put things so badly out of whack to begin with. The faint whisperings of balance - the balance of which I speak - have occurred naturally, and out of necessity. You don't seriously deny that , do you?

Sometimes bullshit is bullshit, and it needs to be recognized as such.

And - amid the cacophony - IS being recognized as such, now that the information blockade is broken.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's interesting, Doc - I had no idea! Where y'all from?

I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with Diuretic, too - whom, I believe, is an Aussie. I suspect he thinks I'm over the top on this at times, but, honestly, man - if you weren't here, being bombarded by what passed for objective journalism, from the 1960s to the end of the century, you just can't know how bad it was. If airwave discourse gets heated and noisy at times, it is still, to me, a joyful noise. It is the sound of the faint beginnings of balance.

A little south east of Diuretic - NZ...

 

[Gunny]

Then the piece shouldn't be too hard to disprove point by point. Take your time....

What I find amazing with conservatives is that they never find the middle ground. Ever. Bush is living proof of that. During his first term he wanted a bipartisan congress and then set about making it the exact opposite, but by saying what he wanted, tried to make out the Dems as the bad guys. Saying you want to work with people and actually meaning it are two different things. Same with the media. I can see both the pros and cons of left leaning sources and realise there are good and bad. The fact you can't see that with Fox astounds me, not so much because you are far too intelligent not to see it, but because of that very fact. And I see your mindset on the matter the same as Dubya "wanting" congress to get along. You knowing it is biased, yet refusing to acknowledge it, is why the US is going down the shitter and there is no middle ground. Say what you want about liberals, but they generally acknowledge the faults of their party - GoPers NEVER do...and conservatives on this board are a great sample of that tragedy...

Quite the selective memory you have there, Grump. The Democrats made themselves the bad guys. Bush was used to bipartisan government. You don't get to be Republican governor of Texas without it. He went to DC with idea of having the same government. He didn't fully-understand the level of partisan BS in DC FAR surpasses anything we have here.

For some reason, us dumb, hick Texans believe what is best for all comes first. Can't imagine why.

GOPers don't acknowledge the fault of those within the Republican party? Then how do you explain Republicans forcing Republicans to step down/resign, and conservatives on this board saying if they committed a crime they need to go?

Yet when and where have Democrats accused of crimes stepped down? WHICH liberal on this board admits to Democrats being dirty?

I don't know what show you're watching, but the one I've been watching has the Republicans eating their own while the Democrats pretend they don't know what anyone's talking about when it comes to unethical behavior.

You say conservatives have no moderates, and I have to ask you if your idea of "moderate" is Harry Reid, Pelosi, and/or Kucinich?

 

[Diuretic]

Bipartisanship in Texas politics? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_warrant

I was in Texas for a few weeks in 1996 when Bush was in the Governor's Mansion in Austin. A friend of mine took me past the Mansion and explained exactly how Bush operated. My conversation with him was the first time I'd heard Rove's name mentioned. They did a hell of a number on Ann Richards.

 

[Gunny]

Bipartisanship in Texas politics? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_warrant

I was in Texas for a few weeks in 1996 when Bush was in the Governor's Mansion in Austin. A friend of mine took me past the Mansion and explained exactly how Bush operated. My conversation with him was the first time I'd heard Rove's name mentioned. They did a hell of a number on Ann Richards.

I've lived here off and on all my life, not just a few weeks. Nobody had to do a number on Ann Richards. She did a number on herself.

Texas Governors who don't do well don't do more than one term. Bush did two, abdicating his second to run for President.

 

[Diuretic]

I've lived here off and on all my life, not just a few weeks. Nobody had to do a number on Ann Richards. She did a number on herself.

Texas Governors who don't do well don't do more than one term. Bush did two, abdicating his second to run for President.

Sorry Gunny it doesn't matter how long you've lived in Texas or whether I was there for a few weeks only, both points are irrelevant to the facts known.

Ann Richards, a heterosexual grandmother, was subjected to Rove's smear campaign. The Texas Democrats who were threatened with arrest show me that Texas politics is as dirty or dirtier than DC politics. Maybe now Bush and Rove have left Austin things might have gotten a bit cleaner though, I'll give you that.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry Gunny it doesn't matter how long you've lived in Texas or whether I was there for a few weeks only, both points are irrelevant to the facts known.

When you base your argument on spending a few weeks here, it is quite relevant.

Ann Richards, a heterosexual grandmother, was subjected to Rove's smear campaign. The Texas Democrats who were threatened with arrest show me that Texas politics is as dirty or dirtier than DC politics. Maybe now Bush and Rove have left Austin things might have gotten a bit cleaner though, I'll give you that.

And Bush was subject to Richard's smear campaign, not to mention she ran one of the dirtiest campaigns ever run here to get elected to begin with. That's the way politicians run for office nowadays. Acting as if Bush was somehow worse for playing the game is disengenuous.

You can support your allegation that democrats were threatened with arrest with factual evidence, I presume?

My comments were in the context of Bush being governor, not running for office. I also did not say Texas politics were squeaky-clean. But they've got NOTHING on DC. Not even close.

 

[Diuretic]

And Bush was subject to Richard's smear campaign, not to mention she ran one of the dirtiest campaigns ever run here to get elected to begin with. That's the way politicians run for office nowadays. Acting as if Bush was somehow worse for playing the game is disengenuous.

You can support your allegation that democrats were threatened with arrest with factual evidence, I presume?

My comments were in the context of Bush being governor, not running for office. I also did not say Texas politics were squeaky-clean. But they've got NOTHING on DC. Not even close.

No Gunny I didn't base my argument on my being there for a few weeks. I pointed to the smear campaign against Ann Richards, all that's needed is a quick Google search and there it is. I can see the attraction in taking a shot at me for only being there for a few weeks. But it's a classic ad hominem (a real one).

I won't bore you with why I was there, who I was there with, whom I met and where I went (except to say I did meet - as he then was - State Senator Jerry Patterson in Pasadena - an interesting man, I liked his F-4 photographs) but they were all Democratic Party people so yes, I got a biased view.
But aside from that, the facts speak for themselves.


On the threats to arrest the Democrat legislators - http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/15/texas/index.html?pn=2

I'll concede your point about Tx politics being relatively cleaner than DC.

 

[Gunny]

No Gunny I didn't base my argument on my being there for a few weeks. I pointed to the smear campaign against Ann Richards, all that's needed is a quick Google search and there it is. I can see the attraction in taking a shot at me for only being there for a few weeks. But it's a classic ad hominem (a real one).

I won't bore you with why I was there, who I was there with, whom I met and where I went (except to say I did meet - as he then was - State Senator Jerry Patterson in Pasadena - an interesting man, I liked his F-4 photographs) but they were all Democratic Party people so yes, I got a biased view.
But aside from that, the facts speak for themselves.


On the threats to arrest the Democrat legislators - http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/15/texas/index.html?pn=2

I'll concede your point about Tx politics being relatively cleaner than DC.

I was in Texas for a few weeks in 1996 when Bush was in the Governor's Mansion in Austin. A friend of mine took me past the Mansion and explained exactly how Bush operated. My conversation with him was the first time I'd heard Rove's name mentioned. They did a hell of a number on Ann Richards.

This is your statement. I responded to what your statement says and implies. Nothing ad hominem about it at all.

That statement is quite clearly implying that you learned all about Bush and Rove doing a number on Richards during your few weeks in 1996. If your opinion is not based on that visit, then clearly that statement does not belong within the context of your post.

I don't need ad hominem attacks, and as far as I know, I have no reason to want to attack you anyway ... do I? I was merely responding to your post.

 

[Diuretic]

This is your statement. I responded to what your statement says and implies. Nothing ad hominem about it at all.

That statement is quite clearly implying that you learned all about Bush and Rove doing a number on Richards during your few weeks in 1996. If your opinion is not based on that visit, then clearly that statement does not belong within the context of your post.

I don't need ad hominem attacks, and as far as I know, I have no reason to want to attack you anyway ... do I? I was merely responding to your post.

I know you don't do the personal attack thing Gunny, what I meant by ad hominem was referencing something factually irrelevant. I mentioned the context of my thinking but pointed to other sources. I was taught that an ad hom was the sort of situation where, let's say someone's arguing for more ethical treatment of farm animals and the other person asks and confirms that the first person eats meat - it's not relevant to the substance of the argument.

Anyway I never did like that philosophy lecturer so I could have that wrong (he was an arrogant prick).

Back to my visit. I was given a heads up. The discussion didn't go much further than a discussion at dinner one night with a group of political workers (not activists, they had previously worked on Democratic presidential campaigns - I did say up front where they were at politically speaking). I found a lot of things out in the following years for myself.