What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Foxfyre]

Bias <> Inaccurate.

Fox lacks the far left slant that other news agencies have. As such, we can say they have a center or right bias. They present things in ways that may not always be supportive of the democratic party. This sets them apart from CNN and MSDNC, but does that make them "inaccurate?" Is accuracy determined by how well a story serves the party? CBS certainly thinks so, but I'm not convinced.

Bias does not equate with 'inaccurate' or hype-partisanship.

When you have learned that a particular potting soil grows bigger, healthier, more robust and/or productive plants, you will develop a strong bias for that particular potting soil. It may or may not be the best there is, but you will look for it and buy it at Lowe's or Home Depot. The bias does not create inaccuracy. It only cxreates a preference for a particular product. If a better product is presented to us, our bias will likely change.

When you get past the minutiae and anecdotal stories and diversions involved with government policy, dedicated study, critical thinking, and objective analysis will produce conclusions that trigger a bias for or against particular government policies. That bias creates principles that guide us. Principles that may or may not be grounded in fact.

Example: if we conclude that local charities more often do a better job of helping people out of their unsatisfactory situations than big government programs do, and they do that far more efficiently, effectively, and economically than what big government programs can do, we will develop a strong bias in favor of local charities over big government programs to solve many different kinds of problems. Until somebody can show us that our bias is misplaced, that bias does not create inaccuracy. And it is that kind of bias that contributes to right wing ideology. Rejection of that concept contributes to leftwing ideology.

I can defend and support the rightwing ideology on that issue. I cannot defend and support the leftwing ideology on that issue. I don't think anbyody else can either. Therefore, on that issue, I am a rightwinger.

The left will look at Fox and think it is serving a particular party or candidate or whatever. I look at Fox and see a perspective presented in a different way--in the way I see it--as opposed to what I can get from the left leaning media who does not provide that perspective. If presenting a fact as a fact is inconvenient to the leftwing bias/perspective, it is nevertheless a fact and not at all dishonest or even necessarily biased.

Init sees that as dishonest. He has not provided any examples of such dishonesty, but his own bias does not seem to allow him to see it any other way.

I see Fox news reporting as some of the most balanced and fair that you can find anywhere. And they are the ONLY mainstream television news outlet that makes any effort to give the conservative point of view a fair hearing. Those with leftist bias hate them for that. Many hate them so much that they would destroy them and drive them off the air if they could.

But still facts are facts. If those facts are inconvenient to the particular ideological bias of somebody, it makes them no less facts. And if you present a fact as a fact, there is no other alternative to that. There is only alternatives in how the consequences of the fact will be interpreted.

 

[koshergrl]

The left cannot distinguish between censorship, false reporting, and lack of journalistic integrity, and editorial commentary.

They engage in the first...censorship, making up stories, inadequate (or fraudulent) sourcing...and when they are caught at it, they point at news sources like Fox, where the editorial bias IS right-leaning, and proclaim, "we're just doing what they do!"

No, you're not. You're LYING and presenting it as fact.

That is not the same as broadcasting OPINION that is offered to the public AS opinion.

They don't get it. They have no character, no integrity, and they're liars. It's so ingrained in their being, they will never understand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The left cannot distinguish between censorship, false reporting, and lack of journalistic integrity, and editorial commentary.

Great point.

Since the LA Times runs editorials on the front page with no designator, the left thinks that stories on the editorial page are no different than the news section.

Since the Wall Street Journal runs moderate to conservative editorials, they must alter the news to fit their bias. After all, the NY Times does, so everyone must..

Journalistic integrity is something the left simply cannot fathom.

They engage in the first...censorship, making up stories, inadequate (or fraudulent) sourcing...and when they are caught at it, they point at news sources like Fox, where the editorial bias IS right-leaning, and proclaim, "we're just doing what they do!"

No, you're not. You're LYING and presenting it as fact.

That is not the same as broadcasting OPINION that is offered to the public AS opinion.

They don't get it. They have no character, no integrity, and they're liars. It's so ingrained in their being, they will never understand.

Altering the Zimmerman tapes should end MSDNC as a source, yet notice how the left defend not only MSDNC, but the actual act?

 

[Foxfyre]

The left cannot distinguish between censorship, false reporting, and lack of journalistic integrity, and editorial commentary.

Great point.

Since the LA Times runs editorials on the front page with no designator, the left thinks that stories on the editorial page are no different than the news section.

Since the Wall Street Journal runs moderate to conservative editorials, they must alter the news to fit their bias. After all, the NY Times does, so everyone must..

Journalistic integrity is something the left simply cannot fathom.

They engage in the first...censorship, making up stories, inadequate (or fraudulent) sourcing...and when they are caught at it, they point at news sources like Fox, where the editorial bias IS right-leaning, and proclaim, "we're just doing what they do!"

No, you're not. You're LYING and presenting it as fact.

That is not the same as broadcasting OPINION that is offered to the public AS opinion.

They don't get it. They have no character, no integrity, and they're liars. It's so ingrained in their being, they will never understand.

Altering the Zimmerman tapes should end MSDNC as a source, yet notice how the left defend not only MSDNC, but the actual act?

And still it was MSNBC who ran prominent clips of Alan Dershowitz stating that the prosecutor had too thin a case to prosecute Zimmerman. (I give credit where credit is due. That was a newsworthy clip.) And CNN also did some decent investigative journalism in exposing how the Left is promoting Zimmerman using the word "coon" when in fact he was saying 'cold'. Again I give credit where credit is due.

And yes, the WSJ has a long history of conservative slant on its editorial pages. At the same time it has had a somewhat left leaning slant in its news stories. But unless you can show where either has been altered to use dishonest information to fit the slant, the bias is not necessarily dishonest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And still it was MSNBC who ran prominent clips of Alan Dershowitz stating that the prosecutor had too thin a case to prosecute Zimmerman. (I give credit where credit is due. That was a newsworthy clip.)

After they digitally altered the 9-11 clip to add "coon," they will have no credibility on anything with me.

MSDNC is a reprehensible, racist, propaganda source. They are the "Truthmatters" of the media.

And CNN also did some decent investigative journalism in exposing how the Left is promoting Zimmerman using the word "coon" when in fact he was saying 'cold'. Again I give credit where credit is due.

They ran the story after it was exposed. CNN is biased, but doesn't engage in fraud the way NBC does.

And yes, the WSJ has a long history of conservative slant on its editorial pages. At the same time it has had a somewhat left leaning slant in its news stories. But unless you can show where either has been altered to use dishonest information to fit the slant, the bias is not necessarily dishonest.

That's the point, the WSJ keeps editorials separate from news stories. New sources with integrity do. The NY and LA Times do not. George Skelton is on today's front page - no disclaimer saying "this is leftist hackery, not news." The Los Angeles Times has zero journalistic integrity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually it was NBC, not MSNBC, that edited the conversation between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher to make Zimmerman look like he had profiled Martin. They have subsequently acknowledged and apologied for the edit--and here is where bias comes in for me in that I do not believe for a minute they would have acknowledged or apologized for the edit if they had not been called out for it. And, even after the truth came out, the dishonest bloggers, board posters, and unchallenged commentary in the media continue the myth. Here we have truly dishonest activity and from at least some, they KNOW it is dishonest and therefore are promoting lies.

The "coon" characterization was portrayed and reported by numerous media sources, even Fox, until CNN, followed by others, did their excellent investigative work and enhanced the poor quality of the tape until the word "cold" was obvious. That was a case of perhaps an unintentional lie being exposed and at least that particular issue has quieted down.

Do I still believe that leftwing sources are less reliable and less honest in their reporting of events and issues? Yes I do. And I believe my opinion on that to be objective and informed based on a bit of expertise in what constitutes honest reporting and long observance.

And it is my opinion that those who see Fox News as more dishonest do so out of bias, even hyper-partisanship, and not due to any objective analysis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually it was NBC, not MSNBC,

MSNBC is a division of NBC News.

that edited the conversation between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher to make Zimmerman look like he had profiled Martin. They have subsequently acknowledged and apologied for the edit

They did what they set out to do. They slandered Zimmerman and most of the mob continue to hold it as gospel truth that Zimmerman called Martin a "fucking coon."

--and here is where bias comes in for me in that I do not believe for a minute they would have acknowledged or apologized for the edit if they had not been called out for it. And, even after the truth came out, the dishonest bloggers, board posters, and unchallenged commentary in the media continue the myth.

You are correct,

Here we have truly dishonest activity and from at least some, they KNOW it is dishonest and therefore are promoting lies.

But Sallow aside, a lot of ignorant people have learned the meme.

The "coon" characterization was portrayed and reported by numerous media sources, even Fox, until CNN, followed by others, did their excellent investigative work and enhanced the poor quality of the tape until the word "cold" was obvious. That was a case of perhaps an unintentional lie being exposed and at least that particular issue has quieted down.

It's been beat down on this board, it is still posted as unmitigated truth on ThinkProgress and the other hate sites.

Do I still believe that leftwing sources are less reliable and less honest in their reporting of events and issues? Yes I do. And I believe my opinion on that to be objective and informed based on a bit of expertise in what constitutes honest reporting and long observance.

I agree.

And it is my opinion that those who see Fox News as more dishonest do so out of bias, even hyper-partisanship, and not due to any objective analysis.

Agree again - rep coming.

 

[Bfgrn]

"The difference really comes in the fact that rightwingers/conservatives can generally analyze and discuss such concepts separately from ideology or partisanship I find very few leftwingers/liberals who can."

I find the exact opposite to be true. I find that is easier to find hyper-partisanship on the right

Can you read over this thread and honestly say that?

Let's put it to the test.

EXAMPLE: Drawing from memory a 'conservative' observation from the President's thread:

FDR's social security program provided some relief from hardship encountered by many seniors and was almost certainly intended as a compassionate measure requiring little mandatory contribution from society as a whole. But though it started out very modestly, it has been a significant factor in discouraging families and individuals from saving for retirement and has been a factor in families no longer feeling obligated to care for the well being of their most senior members. And as it has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

I agree with the above paragraph and all the observations described in it.

What say you? And if you disagree with it, for what reason do you disagree?

Social Security is solvent and has been since it was passed. Future demands caused by the baby boom generation can be easily fixed by eliminating or raising the income cap.

WHY are so many LIES a part of your so called intellectual argument Foxfyre? It is second only to your condescending self righteousness.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHY are so many LIES a part of your so called intellectual argument Foxfyre? It is second only to your condescending self righteousness.

Lies are necessary to maintain the rightist myth; facts conflict with conservative dogma, and are consequently replaced with lies.

The sad thing is they’re not even aware of it.

 

[J.E.D]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating

They use facts

 

[Wiseacre]

"The difference really comes in the fact that rightwingers/conservatives can generally analyze and discuss such concepts separately from ideology or partisanship I find very few leftwingers/liberals who can."

I find the exact opposite to be true. I find that is easier to find hyper-partisanship on the right

Can you read over this thread and honestly say that?

Let's put it to the test.

EXAMPLE: Drawing from memory a 'conservative' observation from the President's thread:

FDR's social security program provided some relief from hardship encountered by many seniors and was almost certainly intended as a compassionate measure requiring little mandatory contribution from society as a whole. But though it started out very modestly, it has been a significant factor in discouraging families and individuals from saving for retirement and has been a factor in families no longer feeling obligated to care for the well being of their most senior members. And as it has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

I agree with the above paragraph and all the observations described in it.

What say you? And if you disagree with it, for what reason do you disagree?

Social Security is solvent and has been since it was passed. Future demands caused by the baby boom generation can be easily fixed by eliminating or raising the income cap.

WHY are so many LIES a part of your so called intellectual argument Foxfyre? It is second only to your condescending self righteousness.

That's your answer to everything, isn't it? Make the rich people pay for everything, you name it. Funny isn't it, why the dems didn't raise taxes on the rich or increase the capital gains tax when they had the majorities in Congress?

Hell, the SSA administrators that run the damn thing say that it's insolvent, it's gonna run out of money cuz not enough money is coming in compared to going out. Especially since we've cut the tax rates for both employers and employees paying into the system. Hard to believe you don't know that, but you're not really worried about it are ya? Just one more thing to make the rich guys pay for.

 

[Lakhota]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Not having enough brainpower to understand their superior intellect?

 

[007]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Not having enough brainpower to understand their superior intellect?

Show some first, ass wipe.

 

[Lakhota]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Not having enough brainpower to understand their superior intellect?

Show some first, ass wipe.

Does this board now have any sane mods, or are they all wingnuts like you?

 

[007]

Not having enough brainpower to understand their superior intellect?

Show some first, ass wipe.

Does this board now have any sane mods, or are they all wingnuts like you?

Are you a wing nut?

 

[007]

WHY are so many LIES a part of your so called intellectual argument Foxfyre? It is second only to your condescending self righteousness.

Lies are necessary to maintain the rightist myth; facts conflict with conservative dogma, and are consequently replaced with lies.

The sad thing is they&#8217;re not even aware of it.

And we'll all wait with baited breath for you to post all those LIES you claim the rightist are guilty of.

Top 5 Democrat Lies &#8211; Economic Collapse By Design:

When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program
.
Under Johnson, another Democrat, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

http://www.morningliberty.com/2010/09/11/top-5-democrat-lies-economic-collapse-by-design/

 

[Interpol]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Everything you're talking about makes for a great discussion but I think there is something more here, which is a divide that has brought someone like me to this site.

I think you're reflecting your own views and maybe not the views by the elected Republicans in Washington.

As fiscally conservative as you and I are, the House doesn't seem too much to care about passing a transportation bill. I mean, that stuff used to pass in everybody's sleep, didn't matter who was in charge.

My conservative friends might take offense to this, but it's my feeling that Washington Republicans seem to now hold the view that all gov't is bad, it must be stopped from spending except on tax cuts and defense and making gov't just small enough to get in our bedrooms.

I find there's a disconnect between some of us conservatives with the ruling conservatives.

I don't think I'm a bad Republican because I think helping to make our infrastructure work in a way that grows our economy is a good thing to do presently. I mean, this is a historically bi-partisan thing. One of Ike's biggest achievements was highways!

They're great for business! In real life, me and my conservative friends seem to be in agreeance on this stuff, but the folks in Washington appear to feel that all domestic spending is wasteful pork.

I just disagree, and I want them to pass something together.

I can't really comment so much on the "frustration with arguing with liberals", because I'm happy to argue with anybody and anybody who can give me more than just talking points gets my respect, left, right or center.

I mean, anyone stuck in talking points or in absolutes or extremes is frustrating to argue with because that person is bigoted, and bigotry is a word that has no party affiliation, imho.

 

[koshergrl]

What I find particularly annoying about liberals is their schizophrenic code of conduct. They have very high standards of conduct for other people...but none for themselves.

Hypocrisy, thy name is libtard. AKA bdboop et al...

 

[007]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Everything you're talking about makes for a great discussion but I think there is something more here, which is a divide that has brought someone like me to this site.

I think you're reflecting your own views and maybe not the views by the elected Republicans in Washington.

As fiscally conservative as you and I are, the House doesn't seem too much to care about passing a transportation bill. I mean, that stuff used to pass in everybody's sleep, didn't matter who was in charge.

My conservative friends might take offense to this, but it's my feeling that Washington Republicans seem to now hold the view that all gov't is bad, it must be stopped from spending except on tax cuts and defense and making gov't just small enough to get in our bedrooms.

I find there's a disconnect between some of us conservatives with the ruling conservatives.

I don't think I'm a bad Republican because I think helping to make our infrastructure work in a way that grows our economy is a good thing to do presently. I mean, this is a historically bi-partisan thing. One of Ike's biggest achievements was highways!

They're great for business! In real life, me and my conservative friends seem to be in agreeance on this stuff, but the folks in Washington appear to feel that all domestic spending is wasteful pork.

I just disagree, and I want them to pass something together.

I can't really comment so much on the "frustration with arguing with liberals", because I'm happy to argue with anybody and anybody who can give me more than just talking points gets my respect, left, right or center.

I mean, anyone stuck in talking points or in absolutes or extremes is frustrating to argue with because that person is bigoted, and bigotry is a word that has no party affiliation, imho.

Good post... however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY." We have seen that for the last decade or more. It's time for conservatives to take control away from the leftists because they have screwed things up under obama so bad in the last three years that it will take conservatives another decade to straighten it out.

#1... REPEAL OBAMACARE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Not having enough brainpower to understand their superior intellect?

Okay, dude, seriously. Someone really should have told you that masturbating online is not good for your keyboard. That much spooge is only going to make your keys stick.