|
Post by Queen E on Feb 9, 2008 20:36:54 GMT -5
My favorite talking heads are on ABC's Sunday Morning news show: George Will for the right, and George Stephanopolous for the left. Both are smart and know how to make an argument and give you food for thought. And Sharky, you are a sharp, smart guy who would never be chum, in any waters. And I hope you will stick around, because the more diverse opinions, the more fun, IMO. I think that as we go along and get used to each other, the waters will be safe and warm and fine for anyone interested in civil discourse. But, if you aren't comfy, you aren't comfy. It is definitely up to you. Stop in often, sometimes, or never - whatever makes your board experience best for you. Well, we'll see. I grew up in the house of a union organizer with a mother who started life in a welfare colony. I feel strongly that people should help one another, and give as I can to help others. But, I believe that politicians of both stripes view government-directed philanthropy as their means to gain and maintain power. Most politics boil down to "take from those who would never vote for you and give to those who will." You make an interesting point...and the infiltration of lobbiest, who are a thread away from writing legislation, corrupts the process even more. It makes me very sad. It's also sad, to me, to see some of the biggest decriers of "no more government handouts" are ones who have rarely if ever been off the government payroll... Being in England, it's fascinating how so many of my English classmates are invested in this election, and watching it just as closely as the Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Feb 9, 2008 20:38:24 GMT -5
I don't see an "echo chamber", here - while it's true that most of us are of similar political stripe, just to choose an obvious example - Vlad and I differ in several areas, politically. I myself would never have voted for Ron Paul, but I have respect for those who will. I just don't happen to be a libertarian, myself, and thus disagree with most of what Paul has to say. Except the bit about the war. We're only an echo chamber if we deliberately try to exclude other opinions or chase them out. I don't know from Olberman, because I make a practice of watching as little of the "news" networks as possible. Al Franken is a bit shrill at times, ayup. Bill Maher is much more balanced than Al Franken. I have been both incensed by, and in complete agreement with, Bill Maher over the years. Back when he was doing Politically Incorrect, Ann Coulter was one of his most frequent repeat guests, and he was very civil to her, even when he clearly disagreed entirely. John Stewart is a satirist, not a political commentator, persay. The fact that a large segment of America considers him a more reliable news source than the actual news speaks a lot about the news media itself, I think. As for his bias; yes, it's true that he's left of center, and doesn't hide it. However, I was watching Stewart during the Clinton years, too, and while now the harshest stuff is reserved for the right (and mostly the President), the same was true back then - the President took most of the heat from Jon Stewart. Thing is, though, as others have said, he's civil and respectful of nearly everyone who does a guest appearance on his show. He allows opinions to be heard, without shouting them down. So, yeah, if "civility of discourse" is the issue, then I think that Stewart and Maher have both got Coulter and Limbaugh beat, hands down. I dunno. Coulter is a provocatuer, and I've found her pretty harsh. Limbaugh plays to an audience that feels the same about him as the left feels about Stewart. They prefer to get their news from him. I've heard him lampoon many Republicans, but, yeah, he's a conservative.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 9, 2008 20:41:48 GMT -5
Well, we'll see. I grew up in the house of a union organizer with a mother who started life in a welfare colony. I feel strongly that people should help one another, and give as I can to help others. But, I believe that politicians of both stripes view government-directed philanthropy as their means to gain and maintain power. Most politics boil down to "take from those who would never vote for you and give to those who will." You make an interesting point...and the infiltration of lobbiest, who are a thread away from writing legislation, corrupts the process even more. It makes me very sad. It's also sad, to me, to see some of the biggest decriers of "no more government handouts" are ones who have rarely if ever been off the government payroll... Being in England, it's fascinating how so many of my English classmates are invested in this election, and watching it just as closely as the Americans. What kind of opinions have you been hearing from your classmates?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 20:42:57 GMT -5
Franken & Mahr are no better than Coulter when it comes to a pompous, self-righteous style. I don't know Olberman. Stewart is neither pompous nor self-righteous in style, and is respectful of his guests. Agree he doesn't belong on this list. That said, I want to acknowledge that his show has a clearly liberal bias - not saying that is wrong (it is OK for a show to have a bias, of either variety). If I had to pick someone on the left that I think is as wildly bias and full of themselves as Coulter, it would be Michael Moore. I agree with you on Moore, but didn't bring him up because I was responding directly to Sharky's question of those specific 4 guys. Tho' I did mention Hannity and O'Reilly, but that was only for an example and the fact they are both doing the same jobs. Moore is a film maker. And I agree with you, bias is perfectly okay on an opinion based talk show, which is what all these guys do. But being bombastic? Being uncivil? I guess they have a right to it, this is hte US. It doesn't mean I have to like or watch them, or not to stand up to them when I think they are doing us all harm. Vlad Yes - it's the pompous, nasty stuff that I just turn off, I don't care what opinion the person has. On O'Reilly: What kills me about him is how he call his show a "no spin" zone. C'mon, bud. Of course there's a spin! Just acknowledge it and get on with it. My bro-in-law is a Michael Moore fan, and we once had this exchange, when he was singing his praises: ME: I just don't like to watch his stuff, usually, because I don't think he provides all the facts. I get the impression that he goes in with his mind already made up, then puts together something to prove he is right. He MAY be right, but I can't tell from what he's showing me. BIL: Well, there's no law that says he has to show all the facts! ME: And I'm not saying he should be arrested. I'm just saying it is not what *I* prefer to watch. He really surprised me with his reaction - like my point was about what Moore should do, instead of what *I* like to watch. Does Ann Coulter or Bill Mahr or anyone else have to speak or write or live in a way to please me? Gosh, no - unless they are living in my house without paying rent, they don't have to follow my rules, not to any extent whatsoever. And I think it is safe to say I'd never let Ann or Bill live in my house (for any amount of money).
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Feb 9, 2008 20:45:01 GMT -5
And while I'm in the posting mood, my biggest problem with the conflation of religion and politics, aside from the obvious constitutional one, is the fact that when "religion" is used in a political context, it only ever seems to be used as a way to legislate morality in a one-sided fashion. So you hear a lot about how something like gay marriage or homosexuality in general is against God's plan (with the requisite quoting of Leviticus), and, somehow, never seem to hear about all that groovy New Testment stuff about not judging and caring for the hungry and weak and needy. So says this lapsed Catholic agnostic.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 20:45:08 GMT -5
I think continuing the discussion along THOSE lines would actually avoid the hurt feelings and badness. Personally, I don't know anybody who objects to Wally-world who doesn't think that unionizing them would cure a multitude of Wally-sins. Well, except for the anti-union folks! I agree. It's a valid topic and approached with respect to our fellow discussers, a good one. Vlad Yeah, I said "personally"
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Feb 9, 2008 20:47:51 GMT -5
You make an interesting point...and the infiltration of lobbiest, who are a thread away from writing legislation, corrupts the process even more. It makes me very sad. It's also sad, to me, to see some of the biggest decriers of "no more government handouts" are ones who have rarely if ever been off the government payroll... Being in England, it's fascinating how so many of my English classmates are invested in this election, and watching it just as closely as the Americans. What kind of opinions have you been hearing from your classmates? Well, it's mostly just their opinions of the candidates, which, given the area that I'm getting my PhD in, tends to be more focused on the left than the right.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 20:53:05 GMT -5
My favorite talking heads are on ABC's Sunday Morning news show: George Will for the right, and George Stephanopolous for the left. Both are smart and know how to make an argument and give you food for thought. And Sharky, you are a sharp, smart guy who would never be chum, in any waters. And I hope you will stick around, because the more diverse opinions, the more fun, IMO. I think that as we go along and get used to each other, the waters will be safe and warm and fine for anyone interested in civil discourse. But, if you aren't comfy, you aren't comfy. It is definitely up to you. Stop in often, sometimes, or never - whatever makes your board experience best for you. Well, we'll see. I grew up in the house of a union organizer with a mother who started life in a welfare colony. I feel strongly that people should help one another, and give as I can to help others. But, I believe that politicians of both stripes view government-directed philanthropy as their means to gain and maintain power. Most politics boil down to "take from those who would never vote for you and give to those who will." See, Sharky, you have someone that agrees with you here quite a bit on that statement. As Rachael pointed out, I came out of the closet in the first page as a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with him down the line, but he's honest (check out his voting record for over 20 years of serving over 30 years) and he points to what is so alarming about our politics and our economy. We can't keep borrowing fake money and putting ourselves deeper and deeper in debt to fund what are often very redundant programs. So many things could and should be handled at the state level, in my opinion. Not only for cost, but also so that the will of the people is one step closer to what, if anythign, should be handled by the government. People don't complain so much about being taxed (reasonably) as to the fact their money is not going to pay for important necessary things. I too grew up in a union family. And I believe in the concept of "union." Unfortunately the reality of most unions as it is now is it's simply middle management for the companies themselves and doesn't actually stand up for its members. It's been corrupted. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 20:56:18 GMT -5
And while I'm in the posting mood, my biggest problem with the conflation of religion and politics, aside from the obvious constitutional one, is the fact that when "religion" is used in a political context, it only ever seems to be used as a way to legislate morality in a one-sided fashion. So you hear a lot about how something like gay marriage or homosexuality in general is against God's plan (with the requisite quoting of Leviticus), and, somehow, never seem to hear about all that groovy New Testment stuff about not judging and caring for the hungry and weak and needy. So says this lapsed Catholic agnostic. Yes, exactly so. And it brings up my, "Dude, if there IS a god, the likes of us presuming we know his/her/its mind and that he/she/it cares about our individual behaviors...is sort of wildly arrogant, don't you think?" In fact, the whole obsession with sexual behavior is just weird, to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 20:58:27 GMT -5
I agree with you on Moore, but didn't bring him up because I was responding directly to Sharky's question of those specific 4 guys. Tho' I did mention Hannity and O'Reilly, but that was only for an example and the fact they are both doing the same jobs. Moore is a film maker. And I agree with you, bias is perfectly okay on an opinion based talk show, which is what all these guys do. But being bombastic? Being uncivil? I guess they have a right to it, this is hte US. It doesn't mean I have to like or watch them, or not to stand up to them when I think they are doing us all harm. Vlad Yes - it's the pompous, nasty stuff that I just turn off, I don't care what opinion the person has. On O'Reilly: What kills me about him is how he call his show a "no spin" zone. C'mon, bud. Of course there's a spin! Just acknowledge it and get on with it. My bro-in-law is a Michael Moore fan, and we once had this exchange, when he was singing his praises: ME: I just don't like to watch his stuff, usually, because I don't think he provides all the facts. I get the impression that he goes in with his mind already made up, then puts together something to prove he is right. He MAY be right, but I can't tell from what he's showing me. BIL: Well, there's no law that says he has to show all the facts! ME: And I'm not saying he should be arrested. I'm just saying it is not what *I* prefer to watch. He really surprised me with his reaction - like my point was about what Moore should do, instead of what *I* like to watch. Does Ann Coulter or Bill Mahr or anyone else have to speak or write or live in a way to please me? Gosh, no - unless they are living in my house without paying rent, they don't have to follow my rules, not to any extent whatsoever. And I think it is safe to say I'd never let Ann or Bill live in my house (for any amount of money).LOL! You and your principles! See, toss me a couple million and you can HAVE my house to live in. I don't care if you are Rush, Al, Bill, Ann or Osama Bin Ladin. (Tho' in the latter case, I am sure there would be an anonymous tip to teh FBI, CIA or NSA to the fact. ) Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Feb 9, 2008 21:02:47 GMT -5
People don't complain so much about being taxed (reasonably) as to the fact their money is not going to pay for important necessary things. I too grew up in a union family. And I believe in the concept of "union." Unfortunately the reality of most unions as it is now is it's simply middle management for the companies themselves and doesn't actually stand up for its members. It's been corrupted. Vlad I'm a consumption tax fan myself, with food, clothing, healthcare, and charitable giving being tax-exempt. This seems to me to be progressive, while giving people some level of control. Unions can counter abusive management, but some means to counter unions have to exist, too. I'm an open-shop guy.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 9, 2008 21:04:11 GMT -5
I agree with you on Moore, but didn't bring him up because I was responding directly to Sharky's question of those specific 4 guys. Tho' I did mention Hannity and O'Reilly, but that was only for an example and the fact they are both doing the same jobs. Moore is a film maker. And I agree with you, bias is perfectly okay on an opinion based talk show, which is what all these guys do. But being bombastic? Being uncivil? I guess they have a right to it, this is hte US. It doesn't mean I have to like or watch them, or not to stand up to them when I think they are doing us all harm. Vlad Yes - it's the pompous, nasty stuff that I just turn off, I don't care what opinion the person has. On O'Reilly: What kills me about him is how he call his show a "no spin" zone. C'mon, bud. Of course there's a spin! Just acknowledge it and get on with it. My bro-in-law is a Michael Moore fan, and we once had this exchange, when he was singing his praises: ME: I just don't like to watch his stuff, usually, because I don't think he provides all the facts. I get the impression that he goes in with his mind already made up, then puts together something to prove he is right. He MAY be right, but I can't tell from what he's showing me. BIL: Well, there's no law that says he has to show all the facts! ME: And I'm not saying he should be arrested. I'm just saying it is not what *I* prefer to watch. He really surprised me with his reaction - like my point was about what Moore should do, instead of what *I* like to watch. Does Ann Coulter or Bill Mahr or anyone else have to speak or write or live in a way to please me? Gosh, no - unless they are living in my house without paying rent, they don't have to follow my rules, not to any extent whatsoever. And I think it is safe to say I'd never let Ann or Bill live in my house (for any amount of money). Michael Moore is definitely opinionated and biased, but I really like his style and some of the stunts he's done have been brilliantly funny while exposing the rougher edges that The Man tries to hide.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Feb 9, 2008 21:04:42 GMT -5
Yes, exactly so. And it brings up my, "Dude, if there IS a god, the likes of us presuming we know his/her/its mind and that he/she/it cares about our individual behaviors...is sort of wildly arrogant, don't you think?" In fact, the whole obsession with sexual behavior is just weird, to me. Yup, we religious folk are weird.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 21:07:17 GMT -5
Yes - it's the pompous, nasty stuff that I just turn off, I don't care what opinion the person has. On O'Reilly: What kills me about him is how he call his show a "no spin" zone. C'mon, bud. Of course there's a spin! Just acknowledge it and get on with it. My bro-in-law is a Michael Moore fan, and we once had this exchange, when he was singing his praises: ME: I just don't like to watch his stuff, usually, because I don't think he provides all the facts. I get the impression that he goes in with his mind already made up, then puts together something to prove he is right. He MAY be right, but I can't tell from what he's showing me. BIL: Well, there's no law that says he has to show all the facts! ME: And I'm not saying he should be arrested. I'm just saying it is not what *I* prefer to watch. He really surprised me with his reaction - like my point was about what Moore should do, instead of what *I* like to watch. Does Ann Coulter or Bill Mahr or anyone else have to speak or write or live in a way to please me? Gosh, no - unless they are living in my house without paying rent, they don't have to follow my rules, not to any extent whatsoever. And I think it is safe to say I'd never let Ann or Bill live in my house (for any amount of money).LOL! You and your principles! See, toss me a couple million and you can HAVE my house to live in. I don't care if you are Rush, Al, Bill, Ann or Osama Bin Ladin. (Tho' in the latter case, I am sure there would be an anonymous tip to teh FBI, CIA or NSA to the fact. ) Vlad Oh sure, they could have my house to live in. I just wouldn't let them LIVE WITH ME - alone or together (though together could be kinda entertaining).
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 21:13:07 GMT -5
LOL! You and your principles! See, toss me a couple million and you can HAVE my house to live in. I don't care if you are Rush, Al, Bill, Ann or Osama Bin Ladin. (Tho' in the latter case, I am sure there would be an anonymous tip to teh FBI, CIA or NSA to the fact. ) Vlad Oh sure, they could have my house to live in. I just wouldn't let them LIVE WITH ME - alone or together (though together could be kinda entertaining). Actually, it might not be pretty. I think Bill has a thing for Ann.
|
|