Liberals and conservatives

[nolesaint]

Jan 27, 2014 6:06:41 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Jan 26, 2014 21:40:19 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

I don't belong to the tea party or the Republican Party. The platform for the tea party is on their site. And what I said isn't rhetoric to anyone but liberals.

www.teaparty-platform.com/

Thanks for the link Rat. Interesting! I would agree you can't argue with the apple pie and ice cream principles that they say they adhere to. Only Rand Paul is identified - strange given the others that have taken the national stage - I recall Michelle Bachmann's efforts to win various primaries, especially the nationally televised debates. I would suggest you go back and quickly navigate the site before you react to the following. Since I have repeatedly requested specifics and repeatedly received only nasty rhetoric, I was interested in the "Tea Party Ideas" page on the linked site. What I found says it all - "TeaParty.ideas.com 'My site is launching soon'" The movement was formed out of various protests in 2009 - we are now in 2014 and, like I stated earlier, there are no ideas or specifics just protests and actions to block any and all things this administration tries to do, even that stuff with some bipartisan support. Having Obama fail is the true goal, the people (despite the glowing red white and blue rhetoric of the "TeaParty Platform") be damned.

See MP here is something that you and it seems most on the left either miss or disagree with: the Tea & Libertarian parties have key principles, they do NOT have edicts. Both of those groups seem to recognize that one size does not fit all. In fact the implication in their similar principles is that if locals decide they need their local govt to put more into social programs then so be it, they just don't want the federal govt mandating it for everyone in the country. So which is it: have you missed that important distinction related to their key issues or do you simply disagree?

What "nasty rhetoric"?

Re stopping "this administration' the libertarian party first got its roots after 'the great society' effort of the left started taking foot and the Phoenix that is the Tea Party emerged first and foremost due to Bush 43's bailout of a couple too big to fail companies.

[nolesaint]

Jan 27, 2014 6:15:43 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Jan 27, 2014 4:48:07 GMT -5 @racersedge said:

www.teaparty-platform.com/

Yes this is pure insanity. What would anyone not agree with?

I guess I should be considered a #hater because I don't agree with MP or SF on politics.

The "hate" only comes from you guys - out of the frustration I know you must feel since you can't snswer our questions. See my previous post to the Rat. I don't know you well enough to learn to hate you. If that is a risk, then we can keep the separation - hate serves no good purpose, e.g., the Republican AND Tea Party hatred of all things Obama is a good metric for that statement.

One of the earlier posts pointed out that the media seems to back Obama with the exception of Fox and some radio talk shows. Said another way - the media, sans Fox and Fox outlet radio stations, report fairly - yes, fairly - all aspects of the story. They are not influenced and financed by the pure unadulterated hate embodied in Roger Ailes. Go read about the Fox puppet master. Like I've said many times before - hard to believe all but one media outlet (tv and print media included) get together on EVERY story, fabricate a common pro-Obama spin, report it that way while Fox puts out the "truth" as Roger sees it.

MP - do you honestly believe that the media outlets other than Fox report fairly? Really? Not that I think Fox is unbiased either and I wish they wouldn't cut people off on the air - we can win the debates without talking over someone.

Further, Fox & Conservative talk radio destroy their competition by like a factor of 4-1. Why do you think that is?

Although I addressed this to MP I welcome real thoughtful feedback from anyone else too...

[SaintsFan]

Jan 27, 2014 19:07:04 GMT -5 nolesaint said:

Jan 27, 2014 6:15:43 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

The "hate" only comes from you guys - out of the frustration I know you must feel since you can't snswer our questions. See my previous post to the Rat. I don't know you well enough to learn to hate you. If that is a risk, then we can keep the separation - hate serves no good purpose, e.g., the Republican AND Tea Party hatred of all things Obama is a good metric for that statement.

One of the earlier posts pointed out that the media seems to back Obama with the exception of Fox and some radio talk shows. Said another way - the media, sans Fox and Fox outlet radio stations, report fairly - yes, fairly - all aspects of the story. They are not influenced and financed by the pure unadulterated hate embodied in Roger Ailes. Go read about the Fox puppet master. Like I've said many times before - hard to believe all but one media outlet (tv and print media included) get together on EVERY story, fabricate a common pro-Obama spin, report it that way while Fox puts out the "truth" as Roger sees it.

MP - do you honestly believe that the media outlets other than Fox report fairly? Really? Not that I think Fox is unbiased either and I wish they wouldn't cut people off on the air - we can win the debates without talking over someone.

Further, Fox & Conservative talk radio destroy their competition by like a factor of 4-1. Why do you think that is?

Although I addressed this to MP I welcome real thoughtful feedback from anyone else too...

Old people listen to talk radio. Older people are generally more conservative. Makes sense conservative stations would out number liberal stations.

All Media lie/bend the truth.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2014 19:07:04 GMT -5 nolesaint said:

Jan 27, 2014 6:15:43 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

The "hate" only comes from you guys - out of the frustration I know you must feel since you can't snswer our questions. See my previous post to the Rat. I don't know you well enough to learn to hate you. If that is a risk, then we can keep the separation - hate serves no good purpose, e.g., the Republican AND Tea Party hatred of all things Obama is a good metric for that statement.

One of the earlier posts pointed out that the media seems to back Obama with the exception of Fox and some radio talk shows. Said another way - the media, sans Fox and Fox outlet radio stations, report fairly - yes, fairly - all aspects of the story. They are not influenced and financed by the pure unadulterated hate embodied in Roger Ailes. Go read about the Fox puppet master. Like I've said many times before - hard to believe all but one media outlet (tv and print media included) get together on EVERY story, fabricate a common pro-Obama spin, report it that way while Fox puts out the "truth" as Roger sees it.

MP - do you honestly believe that the media outlets other than Fox report fairly? Really? Not that I think Fox is unbiased either and I wish they wouldn't cut people off on the air - we can win the debates without talking over someone.

Further, Fox & Conservative talk radio destroy their competition by like a factor of 4-1. Why do you think that is?

Although I addressed this to MP I welcome real thoughtful feedback from anyone else too...

As to your media question - I watch all the major networks except FOX and find a strong similarity in what is reported. Each has its own reporters, viewpoint, interviewees but the overall gist is the same from different viewpoints - in fact that is what the right complains about - the common reporting. FOX on the other hand only reports those things that put the President/Administration in a negative light. No holds barred. No other viewpoints. Odd that all but one see it one way and you choose to say that FOX is correct. That is a strong bias, IMO. Why anyone would think that FOX only reports the truth escapes me. Can people really be that stupid?

They flood the airwaves and sadly people, on hearing something more than once, believe it. Same with the internet - if they read it online they adopt the view, do zero research and start spewing it verbatim as fact.

[CellarRat]

I think the bias is more subtle. The story is reported too much, too little or not at all. The facts for someone that reads a lot are there. Wsj will be more conservative than say nyt. Post more so than daily news.

Fox News has straight news and the talking heads. The former is news the later opinion. People knock Fox News and they mention oreilly or hannity. Those guys are the talking heads and are open conservatives.

CNN has liberals like piers Morgan, as embarrassing as he is, I watch him often. I enjoyed the ass kicking he got from ken Shapiro. The news from cnn isn't bad.

I like Anderson cooper. I don't see her much but that Candy Crowley, she is very objective ;-).

The problem I have with cnn is the same problem I have with fox, they stop reporting the news when their team is in office- a bunch of homers.

[CellarRat]

Jan 27, 2014 18:24:14 GMT -5 th24 said:

State of Union Drinking Game!

Let's see if the pres breaks his own record for divisiveness tomorrow.

[CellarRat]

Piers Morgan destroyed again tonight by the senator from Oklahoma.

[nolesaint]

Jan 27, 2014 9:03:54 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Glen, I respect your differing opinions. The ability to have and voice them is the cornerstone of this great nation. Can you point out the actual flaws in the Obamacare plan for me? The rollout was a disaster, no disagreement there but that was due to inept planning re such a large multi-state on-line system and not due to any of the actual elements of Obamacare as I see it. Many of the features were implemented a year or so ago and no complaints on any of that. We keep hearing the inflammatory "redistribution of wealth" characterization - coined to be a hot button icon. Allocation of collected taxes to areas where there is a need is the reality (although one can debate ad nauseum the "need" definition) but it doesn't garner the "flavor" the fiscal conservatives seem to relish. CellarRat talks about socialism and that Obamacare is a further expansion of Government. Well, Medicare is certainly a socialistic-like program and you don't hear many complaints about it. One of my favorite quotes from an opponent of Obamacare was - don't let the Government mess with my Medicare. Laughable while at the same time very sad and an indictment of how ill informed many are. I paid over my career for Medicare and pay for it now and it works fine. Obamacare is not a government run program it ia s program mandated by the government to provide closure in the many costly holes in our health care system. There are no Government run Murder Boards or Government workers reviewing health insurance claims. They are still being reviewed as they always were by the insurance company bean counters albeit with some restrictions on what they can do to the insured.

I completely agree with you on public sector unions. The private sector unions have over the years gone from being very necessary to protect workers to being self-serving and destructive - how many manufacturing jobs have we lost due to unions being unwilling to make any necessary concessions to maintain a company's viability? The answer - Too many. The public sector unions have contributed to the significant decline in our education system, IMO. Unions rule the classrooms. Lousy teachers are protected and maintained in their positions. Mandating political contributions to any degree at all is just not right. I believe union membership should be optional and, if that happened, you'd see a decline in the number of members and the union's overall control of the employment landscape.

So many things that need fixing yet we spend time worrying about insignificant issues with jazzy political appeal.

I'm guessing we won't see any bullets from the Rat. The only bullets he might have are likely in the AK-47 or AR-15 on his mantle. Those are the weapons are forefathers envisioned as being necessary to protect our citizens from the Government they designed and implemented. There is probably a picture of Adams or Jefferson on the mantle next to the pile of loaded magazines.....

O'care actual flaws:
"If you like your plan...."
"If you like your Dr......"
Compelling people to healthcare facilities to provide services they object to...
Death panels are in fact buried in the plan even though the left laughed at folks about this issue earlier.
There's a lot more I could point out, they may be used as talking points by opponents but these are simple factual quick hits that you can not honestly argue against.
Now please let me say that I am more conservative than liberal, in case that wasn't already evident, yet I support a base line universal healthcare system. We could still have a private market for all additional services. We don't need medicaid, medicare, and the several other lesser known govt healthcare programs.

Unions are such a disappointment. But I guess we can say the same about just about any human run organization. They started with a great ideal/cause/goal but in the end greed drives them to their own ruin.

[indian82]

Wow - I have a lot to catch up on here as well.

Glen - I agree with so much of what you say and, and almost more importantly, how you say it. Will you run for office?

Although I agree with how you would like to open up new opportunities by extracting the vast gas reserves we are sitting on, I agree with somebody who said that is a political minefield on its own, battling local politicians, NIMBYs and the environmentalists (including some Hollywood elites who flout their popularity). I will admit , though, as much I would like to take advantage of that gas, I do have concerns about any impacts. I would like to see this tried on an experimental basis with some kind of strict oversight (also seems like we should be able to objectively see how this has affected areas where it is already happening, PA, Dakota, etc). We are talking about the health of citizens and would not want to see that jeopardized by cost-cutting. With the technology we have I would hope that we could extract this in a relatively safe manner. (I had heard of some technology that uses propane instead of water in the process that is supposed to leave much less residual after-affects. I'll have to see if I can find a link.) Overall, we just need to get creative to do this effectively and smartly for all involved.

[indian82]

Re: the media. It has changed so much since say the mid-90's. I do think there generally is a left-bias. I think the big 3 networks try to put on a neutral face but it's the omission/downplaying of stories that I think is critical. And it's those 3 networks that I look for more objective, hard-hitting reporting. (Will we ever see a Woodward & Bernstein again, or even a Sam Donaldson asking tough questions of the President?).

I know Fox is bad from the right, but MSNBC seriously is the worst IMHO. Do they even have a 'news' show anymore? He's been a grating presence since I first heard about him in the Tawana Brawley case, but I can hardly believe Al Sharpton has a show. Have you heard some of the Youtube clips of statements he has made at rallies in the past? If any right-leaning commentator had made similar remarks they wouldn't have lasted a week on the air. And the personalities on MSNBC either scream at you (Sharpton and Chris 'Thrill Up My Leg' Matthews) or are so condescending (Hayes & Maddow). It's not much better on the Fox side, but O'Reilly frequently does have intelligent conversations with people with opposing views and occasionally takes the middle ground or even agrees with a view from the left. He gives the air of being a conservative with a thoughtful consideration for an opposing view which is more than I can say for Hannity. I'm sure some will say this is my conservative bias here and that's probably true but I do think I can see both sides of an issue and that is how I view most of the media. (I haven't watched much CNN recently, I should go back to that. Although Piers Morgan is an obnoxious Brit that I can't believe is given air-time).

[indian82]

One of the worst things I remember Obama saying was his comment about businesses when he said. "You didn't build it." To me that was a slap in the face to all business owners (mostly small) that take the risks to try to take the American Dream to the next level and which provides so many jobs to others. Yes, they obviously had some kind of help along the way, but regardless, they did build it.

I just think that was a big Freudian slip where he really let us know how he feels about people who take the initiative and the risk to try to make something in this country . It really kind of brought out his true colors and makes me all the more concerned of where he really wants to take this country.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2014 21:37:35 GMT -5 nolesaint said:

Jan 27, 2014 9:03:54 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Glen, I respect your differing opinions. The ability to have and voice them is the cornerstone of this great nation. Can you point out the actual flaws in the Obamacare plan for me? The rollout was a disaster, no disagreement there but that was due to inept planning re such a large multi-state on-line system and not due to any of the actual elements of Obamacare as I see it. Many of the features were implemented a year or so ago and no complaints on any of that. We keep hearing the inflammatory "redistribution of wealth" characterization - coined to be a hot button icon. Allocation of collected taxes to areas where there is a need is the reality (although one can debate ad nauseum the "need" definition) but it doesn't garner the "flavor" the fiscal conservatives seem to relish. CellarRat talks about socialism and that Obamacare is a further expansion of Government. Well, Medicare is certainly a socialistic-like program and you don't hear many complaints about it. One of my favorite quotes from an opponent of Obamacare was - don't let the Government mess with my Medicare. Laughable while at the same time very sad and an indictment of how ill informed many are. I paid over my career for Medicare and pay for it now and it works fine. Obamacare is not a government run program it ia s program mandated by the government to provide closure in the many costly holes in our health care system. There are no Government run Murder Boards or Government workers reviewing health insurance claims. They are still being reviewed as they always were by the insurance company bean counters albeit with some restrictions on what they can do to the insured.

I completely agree with you on public sector unions. The private sector unions have over the years gone from being very necessary to protect workers to being self-serving and destructive - how many manufacturing jobs have we lost due to unions being unwilling to make any necessary concessions to maintain a company's viability? The answer - Too many. The public sector unions have contributed to the significant decline in our education system, IMO. Unions rule the classrooms. Lousy teachers are protected and maintained in their positions. Mandating political contributions to any degree at all is just not right. I believe union membership should be optional and, if that happened, you'd see a decline in the number of members and the union's overall control of the employment landscape.

So many things that need fixing yet we spend time worrying about insignificant issues with jazzy political appeal.

I'm guessing we won't see any bullets from the Rat. The only bullets he might have are likely in the AK-47 or AR-15 on his mantle. Those are the weapons are forefathers envisioned as being necessary to protect our citizens from the Government they designed and implemented. There is probably a picture of Adams or Jefferson on the mantle next to the pile of loaded magazines.....

O'care actual flaws:
"If you like your plan...."
"If you like your Dr......"
Compelling people to healthcare facilities to provide services they object to...
Death panels are in fact buried in the plan even though the left laughed at folks about this issue earlier.
There's a lot more I could point out, they may be used as talking points by opponents but these are simple factual quick hits that you can not honestly argue against.
Now please let me say that I am more conservative than liberal, in case that wasn't already evident, yet I support a base line universal healthcare system. We could still have a private market for all additional services. We don't need medicaid, medicare, and the several other lesser known govt healthcare programs.

Unions are such a disappointment. But I guess we can say the same about just about any human run organization. They started with a great ideal/cause/goal but in the end greed drives them to their own ruin.

Death panels!!!! www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp

Can you back up your claim that they do exist in the law (not talking about insurance company practices that have always existed).

I addressed your first two flaws - they are both resultant from the failure to recognize the existence of substandard policies that I discussed earlier.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2014 22:33:49 GMT -5 indian82 said:

Re: the media. It has changed so much since say the mid-90's. I do think there generally is a left-bias. I think the big 3 networks try to put on a neutral face but it's the omission/downplaying of stories that I think is critical. And it's those 3 networks that I look for more objective, hard-hitting reporting. (Will we ever see a Woodward & Bernstein again, or even a Sam Donaldson asking tough questions of the President?).

I know Fox is bad from the right, but MSNBC seriously is the worst IMHO. Do they even have a 'news' show anymore? He's been a grating presence since I first heard about him in the Tawana Brawley case, but I can hardly believe Al Sharpton has a show. Have you heard some of the Youtube clips of statements he has made at rallies in the past? If any right-leaning commentator had made similar remarks they wouldn't have lasted a week on the air. And the personalities on MSNBC either scream at you (Sharpton and Chris 'Thrill Up My Leg' Matthews) or are so condescending (Hayes & Maddow). It's not much better on the Fox side, but O'Reilly frequently does have intelligent conversations with people with opposing views and occasionally takes the middle ground or even agrees with a view from the left. He gives the air of being a conservative with a thoughtful consideration for an opposing view which is more than I can say for Hannity. I'm sure some will say this is my conservative bias here and that's probably true but I do think I can see both sides of an issue and that is how I view most of the media. (I haven't watched much CNN recently, I should go back to that. Although Piers Morgan is an obnoxious Brit that I can't believe is given air-time).

Haven't watched MSNBC in quite awhile. Agree with your assessment of some of their "personalities". The 3 majors have to cull out some stories to fit their 30 minute format - on major stories they do put the emphasis there and occasionally extend to an hour. Hard to compete with the 24/7 cable outlets. I agree Al Sharpton is a total whacko and a disgrace and cringe when he says something that gets widespread coverage. Hate the way he and The Reverend Jackson position their mugs in any coverage of a story with a hint of racial undertones - they are both bigots and racist IMO. You mentioned Hannity but omitted the other legs of the FOX media outreach - Limbaugh and until recently Beck. He has undergone a phony metamorphis since he is establishing his own network and needs some credibility to attract sponsors, other programming - sick how he went from fomenting revolt to apologizing for splitting the country apart. Gives an indication of how serious those on the extremes really are (I am including both sides of the political spectrum). I disagree that the majors don't take on both sides - watch Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CNN - they always follow up with the tough questions - they just don't go automatically to one side as a major story breaks. The Benghazi story is a prime example - the right creamed their jeans when they saw an opportunity to crucify the State Department for not characterizing the attack as a planned terrorist event. Turns out they were right - I wonder if FOX carried the most recent facts that debunked the Al Quaeda linkage. The only way to get at the truth is to go to more than one source, not just accept how a story is reported if it lines up with your belief systems or discard it if it doesn't. Unfortunately, we all seek validation in our beliefs and resist the effort to actually evaluate other opinions and facts.

[glen]

Jan 27, 2014 21:59:51 GMT -5 indian82 said:

Wow - I have a lot to catch up on here as well.

Glen - I agree with so much of what you say and, and almost more importantly, how you say it. Will you run for office?

Although I agree with how you would like to open up new opportunities by extracting the vast gas reserves we are sitting on, I agree with somebody who said that is a political minefield on its own, battling local politicians, NIMBYs and the environmentalists (including some Hollywood elites who flout their popularity). I will admit , though, as much I would like to take advantage of that gas, I do have concerns about any impacts. I would like to see this tried on an experimental basis with some kind of strict oversight (also seems like we should be able to objectively see how this has affected areas where it is already happening, PA, Dakota, etc). We are talking about the health of citizens and would not want to see that jeopardized by cost-cutting. With the technology we have I would hope that we could extract this in a relatively safe manner. (I had heard of some technology that uses propane instead of water in the process that is supposed to leave much less residual after-affects. I'll have to see if I can find a link.) Overall, we just need to get creative to do this effectively and smartly for all involved.

Yes, to all who pointed out that it isn't as simple as that, you're correct. It wasn't simple siting a chip fab in Luther forest either but it got done. All I'm saying is that there ARE options for attracting business to the state sans major handouts and there ARE options to compete with low wage competition. Additionally, in the rural southern tier I doubt the NIMBY's would be as much of a problem as the eco-lobby.

Misspractice- I read your post re: the media. Basically you're saying that the unified message of the major networks proves that Fox is the whacko of the group. You've heard of journolist right? I'm not saying Fox is completely unbiased but if you take an honest look you're more likely to hear competing opinions on Fox than ANY of the other majors.

[CellarRat]

Jan 28, 2014 5:54:27 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Jan 27, 2014 22:33:49 GMT -5 indian82 said:

Re: the media. It has changed so much since say the mid-90's. I do think there generally is a left-bias. I think the big 3 networks try to put on a neutral face but it's the omission/downplaying of stories that I think is critical. And it's those 3 networks that I look for more objective, hard-hitting reporting. (Will we ever see a Woodward & Bernstein again, or even a Sam Donaldson asking tough questions of the President?).

I know Fox is bad from the right, but MSNBC seriously is the worst IMHO. Do they even have a 'news' show anymore? He's been a grating presence since I first heard about him in the Tawana Brawley case, but I can hardly believe Al Sharpton has a show. Have you heard some of the Youtube clips of statements he has made at rallies in the past? If any right-leaning commentator had made similar remarks they wouldn't have lasted a week on the air. And the personalities on MSNBC either scream at you (Sharpton and Chris 'Thrill Up My Leg' Matthews) or are so condescending (Hayes & Maddow). It's not much better on the Fox side, but O'Reilly frequently does have intelligent conversations with people with opposing views and occasionally takes the middle ground or even agrees with a view from the left. He gives the air of being a conservative with a thoughtful consideration for an opposing view which is more than I can say for Hannity. I'm sure some will say this is my conservative bias here and that's probably true but I do think I can see both sides of an issue and that is how I view most of the media. (I haven't watched much CNN recently, I should go back to that. Although Piers Morgan is an obnoxious Brit that I can't believe is given air-time).

Haven't watched MSNBC in quite awhile. Agree with your assessment of some of their "personalities". The 3 majors have to cull out some stories to fit their 30 minute format - on major stories they do put the emphasis there and occasionally extend to an hour. Hard to compete with the 24/7 cable outlets. I agree Al Sharpton is a total whacko and a disgrace and cringe when he says something that gets widespread coverage. Hate the way he and The Reverend Jackson position their mugs in any coverage of a story with a hint of racial undertones - they are both bigots and racist IMO. You mentioned Hannity but omitted the other legs of the FOX media outreach - Limbaugh and until recently Beck. He has undergone a phony metamorphis since he is establishing his own network and needs some credibility to attract sponsors, other programming - sick how he went from fomenting revolt to apologizing for splitting the country apart. Gives an indication of how serious those on the extremes really are (I am including both sides of the political spectrum). I disagree that the majors don't take on both sides - watch Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CNN - they always follow up with the tough questions - they just don't go automatically to one side as a major story breaks. The Benghazi story is a prime example - the right creamed their jeans when they saw an opportunity to crucify the State Department for not characterizing the attack as a planned terrorist event. Turns out they were right - I wonder if FOX carried the most recent facts that debunked the Al Quaeda linkage. The only way to get at the truth is to go to more than one source, not just accept how a story is reported if it lines up with your belief systems or discard it if it doesn't. Unfortunately, we all seek validation in our beliefs and resist the effort to actually evaluate other opinions and facts.

Can you provide a link regarding the "recent facts" on Benghazi?