Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[Procrustes Stretched]

jknowgood BlackSand NYcarbineer

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Unfair Question ... President Reagan pretty much controlled Congress (at least in his second term).

He didn't wait around for people to define him or his politics. He took the strong mandate he had (after carrying every state except Minnesota in his re-election) ... And did what he thought was best for the country (was actually a leader).

More importantly ... He never allowed the GOP to define who he was or what Conservatism was ... He told them what both were and didn't ask anyone's opinion.

.

lol, the Republicans suffered a loss in the midterms in '86 pretty close to what the Democrats lost in 2014.

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point

 

[peach174]

There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.

It's the right who are getting the kids out of the really bad ghetto schools and are giving them hope.

Giving up on people who have problems you are unwilling to deal with has nothing to do with hope, it's more of a cowardly retreat.

They are not giving up on problems. They are solving them.
They are giving hope to these kids. More are staying in school and graduating.
It is the left who keep wanting to put more money into the public schools that is not working, rather that solving the problems.

I've heard the rationalizations for killing the public schools with a thousand cuts but it still leaves a lot of kids out in the cold with a crappy education and the knowledge that they are less important than those other kids..

Maybe killing the ghetto schools but not the good public schools.
If it wasn't for the fact that i's almost next to impossible to fire bad teachers, they would not be moved into the ghetto schools to teach.

 

[BlackSand]

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point

You have no idea what I think and why ... I measure President Reagan off what he accomplished good or bad. The idea that I cannot have an opinion of President Reagan without your application of Tip O'Neil or Pat Buchanan ... Is a testament to why political leaders fail today.

Learn the difference in leading and following ... Then get back to us when you have more to offer.

.

 

[jknowgood]

1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.

Last. You're an idiot.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.

The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.

30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.

Those are indisputable facts.

They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions

Really?

Reagan didn't raise taxes?

Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?

Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?

None of those are facts according to the extreme right?

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

That's an interesting observation. In another thread the Democrats taking over Congress is being blamed for the recession in 2007.

I guess by that logic the Democrats should get credit for the expansion during the Reagan presidency.

Republicans don't have control yet, but they get blamed for Obama's failures.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point

You have no idea what I think and why ... I measure President Reagan off what he accomplished good or bad. The idea that I cannot have an opinion of President Reagan without your application of Tip O'Neil or Pat Buchanan ... Is a testament to why political leaders fail today.

Learn the difference in leading and following ... Then get back to us when you have more to offer.

.

When your opinion is contradicted by facts, you may still have your opinion, but it is one that is laughable as well as pitiful. Our founding fathers desired a nation of well educated men, not wrongly opinionated fools.

 

[BlackSand]

When your opinion is contradicted by facts, you may still have your opinion, but it is one that is laughable as well as pitiful. Our founding fathers desired a nation of well educated men, not wrongly opinionated fools.

Oh well ... Not holding my breath waiting for you to agree. Your opinion is no different than any other ... I will take results as a better indicator.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When your opinion is contradicted by facts, you may still have your opinion, but it is one that is laughable as well as pitiful. Our founding fathers desired a nation of well educated men, not wrongly opinionated fools.

Oh well ... Not holding my breath waiting for you to agree. Your opinion is no different than any other ... I will take results as a better indicator.

.

results?

You deny historical facts. You poor uneducated fool

 

[peach174]

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point

You have no idea what I think and why ... I measure President Reagan off what he accomplished good or bad. The idea that I cannot have an opinion of President Reagan without your application of Tip O'Neil or Pat Buchanan ... Is a testament to why political leaders fail today.

Learn the difference in leading and following ... Then get back to us when you have more to offer.

.

When your opinion is contradicted by facts, you may still have your opinion, but it is one that is laughable as well as pitiful. Our founding fathers desired a nation of well educated men, not wrongly opinionated fools.

There was plenty of well educated, wrongly opinionated fools back then too.

 

[BlackSand]

results?

You deny historical facts. You poor uneducated fool

Yadda-yadda-yadda ...

You have nothing to point to as results in regard to anything I have mentioned ... If you feel like beating your head against the wall and acting like it makes you look smart ... Beat a little harder.

.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Your premise is ironic considering it's nothing more than a reflection of your own bias. Liberals, like conservatives, are riddled with bias and inconsistencies in their beliefs. Neither group believes in protecting civil liberties or defending people's Constitutional rights in full, only when it fits your agenda. At the end of the day you both have the same goal and that is to control the thoughts and behaviors of the populace.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point

You have no idea what I think and why ... I measure President Reagan off what he accomplished good or bad. The idea that I cannot have an opinion of President Reagan without your application of Tip O'Neil or Pat Buchanan ... Is a testament to why political leaders fail today.

Learn the difference in leading and following ... Then get back to us when you have more to offer.

.

When your opinion is contradicted by facts, you may still have your opinion, but it is one that is laughable as well as pitiful. Our founding fathers desired a nation of well educated men, not wrongly opinionated fools.

There was plenty of well educated, wrongly opinionated fools back then too.

Thomas Jefferson for one -- yes, agreed

but how does this address the facts of the well documented struggle of Reagan/Tip ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

results?

You deny historical facts. You poor uneducated fool

Yadda-yadda-yadda ...

You have nothing to point to as results in regard to anything I have mentioned ... If you feel like beating your head against the wall and acting like it makes you look smart ... Beat a little harder.

.

really?

jknowgood BlackSand NYcarbineer

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Unfair Question ... President Reagan pretty much controlled Congress (at least in his second term).

He didn't wait around for people to define him or his politics. He took the strong mandate he had (after carrying every state except Minnesota in his re-election) ... And did what he thought was best for the country (was actually a leader).

More importantly ... He never allowed the GOP to define who he was or what Conservatism was ... He told them what both were and didn't ask anyone's opinion.

.

lol, the Republicans suffered a loss in the midterms in '86 pretty close to what the Democrats lost in 2014.

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Your premise is ironic considering it's nothing more than a reflection of your own bias. Liberals, like conservatives, are riddled with bias and inconsistencies in their beliefs. Neither group believes in protecting civil liberties or defending people's Constitutional rights in full, only when it fits your agenda. At the end of the day you both have the same goal and that is to control the thoughts and behaviors of the populace.

If you truly believe this it is a sad commentary of the system and people around you

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.

Last. You're an idiot.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.

The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.

30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.

Those are indisputable facts.

They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions

Really?

Reagan didn't raise taxes?

Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?

Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?

None of those are facts according to the extreme right?

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Who signed those tax increases and massive spending bills?

 

[BlackSand]

really?

jknowgood BlackSand NYcarbineer

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Unfair Question ... President Reagan pretty much controlled Congress (at least in his second term).

He didn't wait around for people to define him or his politics. He took the strong mandate he had (after carrying every state except Minnesota in his re-election) ... And did what he thought was best for the country (was actually a leader).

More importantly ... He never allowed the GOP to define who he was or what Conservatism was ... He told them what both were and didn't ask anyone's opinion.

.

lol, the Republicans suffered a loss in the midterms in '86 pretty close to what the Democrats lost in 2014.

Reagan and Speaker O'Neil fought tooth and nail. I heard this fact at the home of one of Tip's closets and most trusted advisers (Leo Diehl). We were right down the street from Tip's home and that of his son Tommy -- here is an article by Tom

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/frenemies-a-love-story/?_r=0

People like BlackSand have swallowed revisionist history whole. Just watch Pat Buchanan on shows when people mention how well Reagan and TIp worked together. Pat get's apoplectic and protests how difficult they had to fight the Speaker on every little point​

Better go back and re-group nitwit ... Just a heads-up.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberals are supposed to agree with a conservative just because he's black? lol

How many liberal black men do you agree with?

Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.

.

But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?

Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.

You are focused on the symptom and not the cause because it is easier to blame "big government spending" rather than to deal with the reason why we are spending trillions on enriching the Koch bros and the corporate special interests.

Which side is trying to get the tax code changed that would stop most of the big corporations in their lobbing for lower taxes?
It isn't the left.

Then why did the right just push through more deregulation for big corporations in the latest spending bill?

 

[jknowgood]

1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.

Last. You're an idiot.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.

The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.

30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.

Those are indisputable facts.

They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions

Really?

Reagan didn't raise taxes?

Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?

Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?

None of those are facts according to the extreme right?

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Who signed those tax increases and massive spending bills?

Reagan did what he had to do, and didn't whine like Obama does. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies big time.

 

[jknowgood]

Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.

.

But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?

Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.

You are focused on the symptom and not the cause because it is easier to blame "big government spending" rather than to deal with the reason why we are spending trillions on enriching the Koch bros and the corporate special interests.

Which side is trying to get the tax code changed that would stop most of the big corporations in their lobbing for lower taxes?
It isn't the left.

Then why did the right just push through more deregulation for big corporations in the latest spending bill?

Their not fully in charge yet, they will be in January. Good things are fixing to happen.

 

[Bfgrn]

We live with politicians who when asked to cut 1% of Federal Spending can't do it. They can't even freeze spending at current levels.

It a bounch of shop a haulics with an unlimited credit card. They refuse to cut anything unless it's something they don't like the military.

Your side yells and screams like the spoiled brats you are anytime ANYONE wants to cut up the credit cards. Exploding the debt and saying the rich need to give all their money to you so you can pay for your bloated spending.

Conservatives are always pushing for cutting the spending of Gov't, To live within our means, and please don't sample the current crop of Rhino's in the GOP party. As they are freaking spoiled brats as well.

The current crop of borrow and spend Republicans are the problem, not the tax and spend Democrats. NONE of the Republicans voted for PAYGO.

The Budget Process: What is PAYGO?
PAYGO, which stands for “pay-as-you-go,” is a budget rule requiring that, relative to current law, any tax cuts or entitlement and other mandatory spending increases must be paid for by a tax increase or a cut in mandatory spending. The legislation must be paid for over two time periods: 1) the period of the current year, the budget year and the ensuing four fiscal years, and 2) the period of the current year, the budget year and the ensuing nine fiscal years.

January 28, 2010
Senate passes pay-go rule on party-line vote

The Senate voted along party lines on Thursday to adopt statutory pay-go rules in a party-lines vote.

60 Democratic senators voted to adopt the pay-go measure (short for "pay-as-you-go"), which would require that new spending measures be offset in the budget by other funds, typically raised through tax increases or cuts to spending.

Republicans have said that by installing the rule, pay-go would become an excuse for tax hikes, since spending cuts are frequently unpopular.

All Democrats voted for the measure, and all 40 Republicans voted against it. The House adopted such a rule in a 265-166 vote last July.

President Barack Obama urged senators to move forward with the new rule in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night.

"When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s," he said.

Obama's remarks came within the context of a broader effort toward deficit reduction, in addition to a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending, and a commission on deficit reduction established by executive order.

Update, 1:37 p.m.: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) points to no fewer than five instances in which some of the GOP senators who opposed PAYGO today had voted in favor of its restoration in the past. Check out the following votes:

Senate Vote #38, 3/14/06
Senate Vote #340, 11/13/05
Senate Vote #283, 11/3/05
Senate Vote #53, 3/16/05
Senate Vote #38, 3/10/04
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/78533-senate-passes-paygo-rule-in-party-lines-vote

 

[Derideo_Te]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.

The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.

30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.

Those are indisputable facts.

They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions

Really?

Reagan didn't raise taxes?

Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?

Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?

None of those are facts according to the extreme right?

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Who signed those tax increases and massive spending bills?

Reagan did what he had to do, and didn't whine like Obama does. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies big time.

Your inability to refute the facts has been confirmed. Your baseless claim in null and void. Have a nice day.