Deliver us from Democrats

There are idiots on both sides of the fense. I used to listen to Michael Savage on the way home from work, but I got tired of him right away. He plays tapes of politicians he doesn't like and then he talks over them so you can't hear what the politician says. He has a New York accent but he makes fun of the accents of others. And he gets angry about things and starts shouting to the point where you can hardly understand him.

0 Replies

There aren't any good progressive talk radio personalities because none of the stations, all owned by conservatives will put them on the air. It's not about profit either, it's personal. They just don't want anybody on their station that contradicts their beliefs. Alan Colmes should be on the radio in more markets. I used to listen to him when he was on in Portland before they pulled him off and turned the station into a conservative news talk format. As I recall the stations ratings plummeted when they did that, but they stuck with the conservative format anyway.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

There aren't any good progressive talk radio personalities because none of the stations, all owned by conservatives will put them on the air. It's not about profit either, it's personal. They just don't want anybody on their station that contradicts their beliefs. Alan Colmes should be on the radio in more markets. I used to listen to him when he was on in Portland before they pulled him off and turned the station into a conservative news talk format. As I recall the stations ratings plummeted when they did that, but they stuck with the conservative format anyway.

If you are right, then Air America Radio should immediately begin raking in butt-loads of money and drawing a huge listenership, since they are unfettered by this evil conspiracy of conservative radio station owners who would rather lose money that let liberal voices be heard. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Somebody asked what is a liberal.
I am asking what is a conservative?

Can you define either without referencing the other in any way?

That was me Foxfyre. The reason that I asked was because the opening post in this thread about Hannity's book used the word "liberal" 4 times, "evil" 15 times, and "devil" once.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Scrat, please, if you are going to read this book, just realize that it is completely biased. I am pretty sure you are smart enough to know that already though, whether or not you admit it here.

I have no argument with the statement that Hannity's book is biased against liberals and liberalism. The bigger question is whether he allows that bias to lead him to write things that are not true, "make up half his history" (as one coward commented here and then ran when challenged to support the statement), etc..

I have no problem with bias in-and-of-itself. I do have a problem with it when people allow their bias to lead them to ignore facts and make irrational claims that aren't supported by reality.

To be honest, I hadn't intended to get Hannity's book, because of his bias. But I like the sound of the tack he's taking on this one, and will be interested to read where it takes him.

FWIW - There are those who would call Thomas Sowell's works "biased". Sowell takes a scholarly, intelligent look at liberalism and finds it wanting. I suspect that many liberals would call his conclusions biased, without considering whether the methods by which he reached them are valid. This is how many liberals claim that simply opposing affirmative action is proof that one is a racist, where rationality would dictate that you'd need to know WHY someone opposes affirmative action to really make that call.

0 Replies

I concur with Scrat's take on this. For instance, news reports were denouncing escalated prices for motel rooms and exhorbitant prices being charged for drinking water in the aftermath of Hurrican Andrew. I was angry about it too until I read Thomas Sowell's take on that.

As an economist he pointed out that if motel rooms ran at their regular prices, a family of 6 or 8 might take two or three rooms leaving no rooms for the next guy. Make the rooms expensive, and a group would share a room leaving rooms available for tohers. Sell precious drinking water cheap and people would be buying up a lot for washing hair or other non essential purposes and exhausting supplies. Make it more costly and one person will buy only what he needs leaving a supply for the others.

While I still despise those who intentionally and unnecessarily gouge victims, Sowell gave me a whole new way of looking at it. I think a lot more of that kind of reasoning would serve us well in the debates we have here.

Bias is great so long as it isn't based on hate and blind prejudice.

0 Replies

Bias inhibits impartiality, no matter what it is based on. That isn't something that's conducive to rational objective discourse.

Of course, true objectivity might not even be possible, but that is a different debate altogether.

0 Replies

Re: Deliver us from Democrats

roverroad wrote:

Al franken's an idiot too. Hanity speaks the truth? That's news to me... Sounds like right wing gibberish to me.

yeah, its all a right wing conspiracy Rolling Eyes

Hannity makes more sense drunk than James Carville does sober.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Bias inhibits impartiality, no matter what it is based on. That isn't something that's conducive to rational objective discourse.

Of course, true objectivity might not even be possible, but that is a different debate altogether.

Both reasonable comments. Now, what do you do when you are trying to be impartial, and your view of an issue puts you opposite someone who is very partisan. That person tends to see your position as equally partisan, and very often ignores the possibility that you are being impartial and have reached the opposite opinion. What chance do you have of real discourse?

For example, you could take a look at the discussion on the fate of the Gitmo detainees. Based on my reading of the available information I had seen, I believed the coalition point of view had merit. I was consistently labeled a blind partisan for this point of view. At some point, I read a section of the Geneva Convention that speaks to what to do when a prisoner's status is in question. This was new information to me, and upon discovering it I changed my mind. You see, my position was NEVER one of blind support for Bush, the coalition, or against the detainees; it was ALWAYS based on the best and most unbiased view I could give the information I had available. (And I has sought out and read quite a bit on the issue.)

(My theory on this is that if you lack the ability to be unbiased you assume others lack it too.)

0 Replies

Kickycan writes:

Quote:

Bias inhibits impartiality, no matter what it is based on. That isn't something that's conducive to rational objective discourse.

Of course, true objectivity might not even be possible, but that is a different debate altogether.

Bias takes two forms:
1) That arising from ignorance and blind prejudice and
2) That produced from study, thought, reason, and logic.

There is a third false bias that is born of expediency--that for which there is no conviction but is adopted to achieve a particular social, economic, or political status.

Bias arising from ignorance and blind prejudice is sadly too often evidenced in some posts in these political forums. When somebody persistently spouts insults, hate messages and the standard 'party' line but is unable to explain how s/he came to those conclusions, I am pretty sure we are dealing with this kind of distorted bias. Kickycan is 100% right that this kind of bias inhibits impartiality. I might say it makes it impossible.

The second form of bias--that produced from study, thought, reason, and logic--is essential. At some point people of principle have to take a stand and decide what is best, what isn't, what is right, what is wrong, what is necessary, what isn't. Once we form an opinion about these things, we will be biased in favor of the position we have chosen.

And I might add, speaking as an old debate coach, people of principle, no matter how biased, hear and understand opposing points of view and can competently argue the opposing view without being insulting or condescending or patronizing.

0 Replies

Great comments, Foxfyre!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Everybody accuses anything supporting Bush of being drivel, BS, and lies. But with few exceptions, nobody says why they are.

Hannity is drivel because.

Quote:
Hannity says we face moral choices between good and evil every day. If we make excuses for evil - Hitler was a "madman," a pedophile priest was "weak" or, as philandering actor Ethan Hawke recently advised us, Bill Clinton "suffered from" infidelity - soon we cease being able to distinguish good from evil at all. (I would add to the excuses for evil, "It's just about sex.") With each choice we make, large and small, we take a step closer to the devil or a step closer to God.

If you can not see the point, nothing I can say will change your mind.

Ahhhh... Hannity sees the world in terms of MORALS, and that means he's a whack-job. Got it. Gee, it's so clear once you point it out like that.

No, it is not that he sees the world in terms of morals that makes him a whack-job (your term). A moral code is a necessary part of any civilized society. It is that he sees the world in terms of black and white (good and evil) morals dredged from the OT.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Great comments, Foxfyre!

Yes, that was a good post. It also helps explain why I often have difficulty telling when Foxfyre is serious or just playing the debate game.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Great comments, Foxfyre!

Yes, that was a good post. It also helps explain why I often have difficulty telling when Foxfyre is serious or just playing the debate game.

That woudl be bias #3, right? Wink

I work with some guys who are arguing against a new program that's being implemented. I was talking to the program owner yesterday, and I told him I supported his program even if my co-workers didn't. He pointed out that my co-workers wouldn't even be affected by the new program. He thought they argued against it just because they enjoy arguing. I couldn't disagree with that.

Bias is unavoidable. Impartiality is okay if you're a judge or a quality assurance inspector, but the rest of us need bias. For example, I'm biased in favor of my family, my country, and my company. I know all three of them are good, and worthy of my support. And I will support my company before I support other companies, etc. The same for liberal vs. conservative. I've looked at both sides, and I choose to support conservative causes and candidates, because I believe they are better for my company, my country, and my family.

0 Replies

Tarantulas,
I agree with most of what you said there until the part about liberals and conservatives. I think we can get in trouble generalizing those terms in the context of our two party system. If I was to generalize about one thing, I think our country has always been better off when one party did not have all the power.

0 Replies

You're right about that. I get the impression from what I'm reading that the Democrats these days are trying to become Socialists. The label "Progressive" that they're starting to use supposedly came from the website of the American Socialist Party. Republicans today are like what the Democrats used to be years ago. I don't know which direction they're moving. But it is better off to have a balance between liberal and conservative so you get the best of both worlds, and the excesses of both worlds are voted down.

As a side notion, I think the two party system we have is better than the hodge podge of multiple parties and non-parties that you see in some other governments. It seems like other countries are always having changes of leadership and "no confidence" votes and all kinds of turmoil. I'm glad we don't have that here. It would be impossible to get any work done. Although I hear "It's not that bad" from some of my overseas friends.

0 Replies

mesquite - Okay, if your complaint is with Hannity's "black and white" morals, give me an example of espousing "grey-scale" morals that doesn't ultimately amount to holding to no morality at all.

Tarantula - Bias may be unavoidable, but surely individuals can choose to set their bias aside and try to take an unbiased look at issues. It may be impossible for me to avoid being angered by certain things, but I am still capable of controlling how I respond to or out of that anger. Surely it must be the same with bias. ???

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Tarantula - Bias may be unavoidable, but surely individuals can choose to set their bias aside and try to take an unbiased look at issues. It may be impossible for me to avoid being angered by certain things, but I am still capable of controlling how I respond to or out of that anger. Surely it must be the same with bias. ???

I suppose whenever something happens to you, you look at it and decide whether it makes you angry or not. It would be the same with bias, for me, anyway.

Usually a news story is reported on TV in a 15 or 30-second clip, with not much information given. You can't decide how you feel about the issue based on that information, unless it's something extreme like murder. So you have to go looking for more information to understand it first. If you find out more information, you also need to consider whether the source is biased or not. Maybe you can find more information from a source that's biased in the other direction. After all the information is available, then you can make up your mind whether you agree or disagree.

Or if you're strapped for time, you can just go ask a liberal what he thinks about it and then pick the other side. Laughing

0 Replies

I can't fault Mesquite for not wanting to see everything in absolute black or white as I back off from extreme positions as well.

For instance those who see our president as perfect in every word and action simply haven't paid attention. Bush has made mistakes--a couple of big ones I think--but I continue to support him because I think he is a good man and, on balance, I know he has done a good job. Those who can't think or say anything good about him I have to put in the 'blind prejudice' category.

Conversely, I think those on the right who can find absolutely nothing to praise in Clinton are also in the 'blind prejudice' category.

But a thought here--this is not criticism of Mesquite's position but an honest question in my mind--is Hannity unacceptable to the left because he sees things in black and white or is it because his bias is generally on the side of what is considered 'right wing'? Is it the 'right wing' that is the enemy?

I have been accused by several in this forum of being intensely partisan, but rarely do those accusing me refer to themselves as partisan. Is it possible that some think 'right wingers' are partisan but 'left wingers' are not?

I wonder if there would be a list of writers/columnists/authors/commentators/talk show host etc. that both the left and right in this forum would accept as credible and acceptable?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

For instance those who see our president as perfect in every word and action simply haven't paid attention.

Do you actually believe these people exist? Do you know of one? I don't. Nor do I think I know anyone who didn't recognize that Clinton was a fallible man, whether they liked him, voted for him, whatever.

These charicatures of people aren't real people, and I don't know any real people who resemble them. If you do, you might want to travel in different circles. :wink:

0 Replies

Deliver us from Democrats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know