|
| Thread: News and Bias |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 06, 2010 03:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, NEWS are just NEWS, while COMMENTS are NOT.
"Today, the president of the US of A authorized the start of a new offensive of the Allied troops in Iraq" is News. "... to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X", is BIASSED COMMENT. ....
That's not a biased comment. If that's what the president has stated is the motivation for his decision, reporting that is not news bias. The media can report on the opinions of "important" people without being biased; bias occurs when the media picks specific opinions and important people to report on specifically because they (the opinions/important people) are in line with a specific philosophy or agenda held by the person reporting the news. In the case given above, in fact, specifically not reporting the president's stated motivations because you (the reporter) don't want the public to hear them would constitute bias. Just as intentionally leaving out the contrary opinions of other important people (such as, for instance, a congressman who disagrees with the president's motivation) connected with the story would constitute bias.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 04:45 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
You should read more thoroughly and beware of falling for things. Nothing in the passage you quoted says, that it's the reasoning of the president. If the sentence ends at that point. It's presented as a fact. It might LOOK like the president cited that as reasoning for the decision - but you may just as well become victim of some hidden propaganda thing.
It seems, it's not as obvious as I thought - which is alarming in its own way.
@ Ohfor
German public TV is NOT government funded and NO government enterprise. It's funded by a forced fee, specifically cashed in, and is a public organization controlled by several boards and agencies. In essence it's a role model of how the government should operate as well.
The government has absolutely no say about it, and it's obligedby law to be neutral.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 05:46 PM |
|
|
We have something like that in Denmark. The media known as DR, short for danish radio, getting money through government and in turn have some commitments to live up to.
They do radio and television.
I find the concept horrible though. It can be really awesome of course, and I don't know how biased their news are, but one thing I know is that they use money from the people to make entertainment shows, which, in my opinion, have never been the purpose of the state and therefore not something the state should give money to.
Also there's the part that they create unfair competition, because no matter if they get high or low viewing numbers they're certain to get the money, eventhough they still focus on that, because they somehow thinks that popularity=success. Whereas the channels that are free, and gets money from advertising, needs to be popular, otherwise they'd not be able to get money through advertising, they suffer from this.
If DR in stead of focusing on popularity would focus on educational programs and in stead of just sending it all out through a fixed schedule make people able to choose from different possible programs that they could get on their TV, then I'd not mind it.
Also in stead of getting money through taxes, they get money through something else, so everyone has to pay the same amount, not taking into consideration that it's harder for the average person to have to pay than for the rich guy and even harder for the somewhat poor guy.
Also they demand money even if you don't have TV or radio, but merely internet access.
In my opinion they should have just taken it through taxes and then only support if DR would focus on education in stead of popularity.
I mean look at the universities, many seem to be fixated upon a learning method from medival times, I don't mind lectures, but when a lecture can be seperated into:
The same monologue as every year + the opportunity to asks questions, I'd honestly say that people would be much better of with the lecture being put on video tape and then transmitted through something like DR and the possibility to ask questions could be done anonymously on forums (of DR/university) and/or e-mail, whereby you'd also have your answer on written form and not just verbal.
Likewise with modern technology, a lot extra can be added to lectures, no more is it only sound and an attempt of showing through figures, direct 3D figures illustrating exactly how the professor wants the students to look at it can be made through such medias.
Oh well, I think I went off an off topic tangent there.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 08, 2010 05:16 PM |
|
|
About the Bush vs. Obama, lack of critique from medias thing.
My opinion is that it's the wrong perspective on things. I say let the people employed to a given job do their job and justified upon that, not upon the lack of something. However as the government in principle are hired by the people as it's the people who pays, I'd say as many affairs as possible should be displayed to the public! So people in the public can see what their money is used for and the information required to actually critisize is available.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2010 08:54 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 20:59, 10 May 2010.
|
El:
Quote:
The answer to bias in the media is the free market system. When networks go to far in one direction they will eventually begin to lose audience. The media will then either move back towards the center, go out of business, or become a niche market.
I certainly don't want government regulating "bias." Then it becomes government controlled media. Who would certify the government beaurocrat "bias free?"
Actually I find there is no answer. Th larger a country is the more people there are that want to watch a channel (any of them really) that reinforces their beliefs. This results in networks getting more polarized and playing to their bases and leaving out actual facts. All channels are guilty of this because they are all simply profit generators making the most incendiary comments they can about the dish of the day to bring in viewers and ratings. Basically, the media is already free market.
But the large media monopolies conglomerates (Disney, News Corp, GE, etc) keep independant and moderate voices quiet and off the air whenever possible. So anybody reasonable is generally forced to watch the drivel all while the media (fake left and fake right wing both) conveniently omit whatever important facts they don't want you to know that could impact their parent companies while promoting books, movies and various other entertainments as free advistisement for their parent companies. That's how the free market works. There's money all around except for the people who actually have anything important to say. (I mean, money for every lobby to get their say)
Bix:
Quote:
About the Bush vs. Obama, lack of critique from medias thing.
My opinion is that it's the wrong perspective on things. I say let the people employed to a given job do their job and justified upon that, not upon the lack of something. However as the government in principle are hired by the people as it's the people who pays, I'd say as many affairs as possible should be displayed to the public! So people in the public can see what their money is used for and the information required to actually critisize is available.
Accountability is important. I believe all government spending should be brought into account and every organization that receives government money should be audited yearly (defense contractors, contracted labour, political campaigns, smaller governmental bodies provided money by the federal government, the federal reserve, etc).
The only way to please people who are being taxed is to show them the money is actually being used for something better than million dollar toilet seats.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 12:00 AM |
|
|
erm... Shyranis?
are you refering to me or Binabik?
I don't remember commenting on the obama vs bush media attention or lack of there of either way...
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 02:22 AM |
|
|
@ Shyranis
The free market system is working just like I said with regard to media. The leftist media has gone way to far in campaigning for Obama and pushing his agenda and is paying the price by losing audience. CNN losing 40% in the last year as I quoted previously, for example. There are liberal newspapers on the verge of going out of business and Dems talking about bailing them out.
The liberal media will continue to lose audience and become a nich market or go out of business unless they move more to the center and stop try not to be so biased.
Like I said beore, if the leftist media were profit-driven they would have already changed their biased reporting. But they are agenda driven.
FOX is dominating the ratings becuse they are more fair and balanced than the other networks.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 03:39 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 03:45, 11 May 2010.
|
Elodin, you're injecting your own bias also. You are making statements about cause and affect when you have provided no evidence to indicate that. All you have done is shown correlation, not causation. (and I'm just taking your word for it that FOX really is gaining market share) There can be, and are, many other things that affect viewership.
Back to JJs example.
Quote:
"Today, the president of the US of A authorized the start of a new offensive of the Allied troops in Iraq" is News. "... to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X", is BIASSED COMMENT
I was going to say pretty much the same thing as Corribus, but it was late and I called it quits for the night.
JJ, what you did was create a bias in your own mind by using a hypothetical example that wasn't really hypothetical. If this really was a hypothetical news announcement and was isolated, then you MIGHT have a point.
However, what you did was use an example that was real, not hypothetical. There really was an attack with a high profile public debate beforehand. In a situation like this the reasons were well known, so stating the reasons in a news broadcast would not be biased, even if they did not provide a direct quote or a source.
To paraphrase a quote is not biased as long as the meaning is not changed. To quote or paraphrase an official spokesmen is also not bias as long as that person has authority to make official statements on behalf of some party. Or in a case like you cited, if an issue has had a public debate or the "facts" are otherwise well known, then there is no bias by reporting those "facts" without citing a source.
Yes, in all of the above cases it's possible to be biased, but in none of them can you assume bias without some further evidence.
In the US, the media would not easily get by with making a statement like "to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X" unless SOMEBODY actually said it. And that "somebody" would have to be someone with some type of authority to make statements like that. To totally fabricate something like that, or rely on a low level source with no authority would likely get the network in trouble.
Yes, sometimes a reporter will fabricate something, or not take the most rudimentary steps to verify a source, but it doesn't happen all that often, and somebody usually gets in trouble for it. Also, I would not even consider something of this nature as bias, I'd call it outright lies which falls into a different category.
I usually consider bias to be things more subtle than that. Consider the following.
If Bush actually says "We will invade Iraq to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X"
And the news reporter says "The president has announced that we will invade Iraq for the stated purpose to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X". Here, the word "stated" can imply that the "stated" purpose and the "real" purpose are not necessarily the same. That's subtle, but it's there. Now if the reporter were to actually place emphasis on the word "stated" it becomes VERY bias and expresses an outright opinion rather than news.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 03:57 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 03:59, 11 May 2010.
|
Quote:
Elodin, you're injecting your own bias also.
Correlation? Causation?  Don't you know that when you repeat something six times in one thread it becomes true?
Quote:
The liberal media is losing audience while FOX is gaining audience.
Quote:
If the media were only about profit the liberal media would be changing its tune and presenting stories from a more conservative point of view. Liberal networks and newpapers are losing audience.
Quote:
if the media is only about money then why are not the leftist networks/newspapers changing to report the news from a more conservative slant since the liberal networks and newpapers are losing audience?
Quote:
Yet the leftists are not changing even though they continue to lose their audience.
Quote:
When networks go to far in one direction they will eventually begin to lose audience. The media will then either move back towards the center, go out of business, or become a niche market.
Quote:
The leftist media has gone way to far in campaigning for Obama and pushing his agenda and is paying the price by losing audience.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 04:19 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:27, 11 May 2010.
|
Quote:
Elodin, you're injecting your own bias also. You are making statements about cause and affect when you have provided no evidence to indicate that. All you have done is shown correlation, not causation. (and I'm just taking your word for it that FOX really is gaining market share) There can be, and are, many other things that affect viewership.
I hardly see how me giving an analysis of what is happening is me injecting a bias. You are free to explain why FOX news is dominating and the liberal networks are losing audience if you wish.
Actually if you look back a few pages you will find where I gave evidence, a couple of links discussing the audience share of FOX vs liberal media. FOX is number 1 for a reson. One can chose to believe the reason is that an elephant passed gas somewhere in Africa if that is what he wishes to believe. 
Now, I will link to another article that shows that most Americans believe the media is biased to the left.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/11/liberal-media-bias-oped-cx_kb_1215bowman.html
Quote:
Public opinion research on the media agrees with Halperin. By a substantial margin, the American public believed it favored Obama throughout the campaign.
The Pew Research Center reported in October that 70% of Americans thought that "most newspaper reporters and TV journalists" wanted to see Obama win the presidential election. Just 9% said they thought the media supported John McCain.
The public's perception of the media's Democratic slant has appeared in Pew questions about the candidates for the past four elections, though it has not been so extreme.
......
Not only do Americans perceive a Democratic tilt, but they also think the media are too liberal in general. In a 2008 Gallup survey, 47% described the media as too liberal, 36% as just about right and only 13% said it was too conservative. The results on this question have been stable since Gallup started asking it in 2001.
The public also sees dangerous changes in the quality of the media's reporting. In the early 1970s, nearly seven in 10 told Gallup that they had a great deal or a fair amount of "trust and confidence" in the mass media (newspapers, TV and radio) "when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Around three in 10 had not very much or no confidence and trust at all.
Gallup's 2008 results show that trust and confidence have fallen off a cliff. Just 43% had high confidence in 2008 while a solid majority, 56%, had low confidence--including 21% (a record high) who had no confidence at all. Three in 10 Republicans, 23% of independents and 10% of Democrats had no confidence in the media.
In 1985, in another Gallup question, 55% said news organizations usually get their facts straight. But only 36% gave that response the last time Gallup asked about it.
@Vlad
Sure, I've repeated some ideas, as others have repeated their ideas several times.
But I've provided links to back my claims I also addressed the repeated claim that media is only about money. That premise does not make sense since the leftist media is losing audienc and yet still reporting with a liberal bias.
If you wish to take the position that the media is all about money, expalain why th liberral media is still reporting with a liberal bias even though it has cost them audience. So far no one who has said that media is all about money has presented a reason why the liberal media has not changed to bring in more audience, hence more money.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 04:34 AM |
|
|
Sorry Bix, I meant OhFor.
Anyway. It's never been about Liberal or conservative. All of these stations just inject hyper-political rhetoric to try to hide the fact that they're really super long infomercials. That's where the real money is. None of these stations care to keep you actually informed and would rather keep you angry about the horrible attrocity by President A, then roll over and applaud President B to rile up supporters of President A and create controversy, all while selling piles of Disney Princess Merchandise, or Avatar Blu-Rays, etc. It's a huge money-maker to draw people in with political fluff and sell them on unrelated useless junk.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 04:44 AM |
|
|
Another article/study about liberal bias in the media and public opinion.
Clicky
Quote:
Voters agree that big money talks in politics but apparently not as loudly as big media.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of U.S. voters continue to think that media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions, identical to the finding in August 2008.
Thirty-two percent (32%) say big contributions are the bigger problem, but that’s down four points from the previous survey. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.
....
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters say media bias is the bigger problem in politics, a view shared by just 37% of Democrats. The plurality (46%) of Democrats says campaign contributions are a bigger problem.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100115034154.aspx
Quote:
Only 20% of all voters say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of a political campaign. Seventy-two percent (72%) say most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win....
....
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans and a plurality (49%) of unaffiliated voters believe the average reporter is more liberal than they are, a view shared by just 24% of Democrats. But 80% or more of all three groups trust their own judgment over that of the average reporter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 05:04 AM |
|
|
I don't think media bias is a major problem, simply because mass media is unwatchable. They have so much sensationalist nonsense that I'd rather have something biased, but newsworthy, than the trash they report on. "Missing girl! Huge rabbit! Drew Petersen! Someone is gay!" Seriously, who cares? It's not newsworthy. I'd prefer to hear stuff about nuclear non-proliferation, trade deals, foreign politics, and better coverage of existing topics. (For example, the coverage for immigration is currently something like, *shows a white person* "Those Mexicans are coming and taking our jobs." *shows a Hispanic* "My children are scared of this law." *person in a suit* "This law might promote racial profiling." We really need better coverage than that.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 05:16 AM |
|
|
Elodin, are you incapable of reading what people say? I've been saying throughout this thread that the media was liberal. All I said to you is that you provided no evidence whatsoever that FOX is gaining market share BECAUSE of it. You keep stating it as if it's fact, but provide no evidence.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 06:03 AM |
|
|
Not to mention statistics mean nothing. 'Statistics' can be made to say whatever you want them to say. Now lets look at these 'loony liberals' shall we? They are such terrible people, I mean wanting to change things and all that...absolutely awful.
The people like the founding fathers should have just left everything alone! Dang liberals. I mean how dare they want to change things! Oh wait..people don't realise that the revolution, done by the founding fathers was a LIBERAL (This is partly where we get LIBERTY from) action.
Now some might come saying "They were conservative because they had x moral value, or y yada yada" which has nothing to do with anything. They fought for CHANGE of the status quo of the time, they were liberals. Liberal is not a bad word. It just means that you want something to change.
I have a few liberal values, a few conservative values, and a few values that would fall somewhere in the middle. Still because I am very open minded I am considered a 'liberal'. Meh, so be it.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 06:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, are you incapable of reading what people say? I've been saying throughout this thread that the media was liberal. All I said to you is that you provided no evidence whatsoever that FOX is gaining market share BECAUSE of it. You keep stating it as if it's fact, but provide no evidence.
Yes, Binabik, I can certainly capable of reading. Are you capable of putting 2 and 2 together?
If you disagree with my analysis, present your view of why FOX dominates and the audience of the liberal media is forsaking them.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html
Quote:
A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.
Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.
There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.
More people trust FOX than trust the lefist media. It is logical to deduce that becaus the leftist media has been getting more and more leftist and more and more biased it has lost audience to FOX, who more Americans see as being more fair and balanced. 
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 06:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There are liberal newspapers on the verge of going out of business and Dems talking about bailing them out.
If by "liberal newspapers" you mean "all newspapers" there's a reason for that which has nothing to do with political bias. There's four main reasons:
1. Readers have been steadily switching to reading the paper online and online advertising doesn't command the same rate that print advertising did.
2. Newspapers used to have a monopoly on the bulletin board type information like classifieds. Especially after consolidation in the 80's and 90's they could charge whatever they wanted. That's completely gone now thanks to Craigslist and Ebay.
3. The recent recession eliminated as much as 90% of advertising revenue during the worst period and is still heavily in effect.
4. Many newspapers borrowed a ton of money right before the dawn of the internet age. Yes it was extremely foolish.
For a libertarian who carries disdain for any type of bailout, which I'm pretty sure you are, then a newspaper bailout would be anathema anyway so there's no need to invoke the flawed reasoning that it should abandoned because it is losing customers from political bias. (check number one on the list again, same number of readers, only they're online now)
If you've ever supported any type of bailout at any time though then you must agree that the first three strictly economic reasons cited above would justify a bailout while the industry restructured itself.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 06:56 AM |
|
|
@Mytical
No, the founding fathers could not be considered liberal. They have little in common with today's liberals other than they too were human beings.
The Founding Fathers said human rights come from God and the government's powers are derived from the people. Libs are more likely to say the rights of the people come from the State, that there are no inherent human rights.
The founding fathers believed in free speech. Just look at how speech is censored on today's liberal college campuses. Also, libs have sought for years to squelch talk radio because the conservative talk shows dominate and no liberal talk show has been popular enough to go national.
Most of the FF also believed in a limited, small governemnt. Libs tend to want large and powerful, intrusive governemnts. A good example of intrusiveness supported by libs is illegally requiring all US citizens to buy health insurance. No one in their right mind and any knowledge of the writigs of the FF could argue that the founding fathers would support the federal goernemnt having the power to demand you buy anything.
Libs think the Constitution is a living document that changes meaning over time as interpreted by the whims of loony liberal judges. Yet the founders said the Constitution was to be changed through ammending it.
The founding fathers said it is the right and duty of all citizens to be at all times armed yet many liberals reject the right of citizens to keep and bear [carry] arms.
Oh yeah, the founders wanted low taxes, while libs can't seem to get enough of goernment taxation.
Lberals believe in a cradle to grave government care. The founders fathers believed people should rely on themsleves and God. Loony libs claim the "common welfare" phrase lets them do whaever they want to do but the founding fathers said that is hogwash.
Clicky
Quote:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
Quote:
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 07:07 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 07:23, 11 May 2010.
|
BWAHAHAHA. Sure Elodin, if you say so. Only..you do realise that liberal is more defined as somebody who values individual liberties then anything right? Which last I checked the founding fathers were all for. If not, they wouldn't have made a demorcracy, but a dictatorship?
You seem to have a very warped veiw of liberals. I am a 'liberal', and do not think that the state defines rights. Sure I don't think YOUR god determines my rights, but this is not the thread to debate that.
Let me explain this, as I think there might be some confusion.
Let us take for example gay marriage. The liberal (Ie me) would prefer that the government butt out of it. Ie give the individual more freedom to do what they desire. Ie LESS government. Since the government treats married people SPECIAL over just 'lovers'..what the liberal asks for is that everybody be treated equal, not special.. ie that the government butt out and treat all 'lovers' the same if they want to get married.
However, the 'conservatives' do not want this. They want MORE government to tell people that "YOU CAN'T DO THAT." To bend people to the governments will on what is and is not considered a marriage. Ie MORE government. Lol...weird huh? Oh I forgot, I see things a bit weird..pay no mind to the crazy person.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 07:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't you know that when you repeat something six times in one thread it becomes true?
You're right of course. If you repeat things enough times, sooner or later you will be the last one to post on the subject. Since nobody made a counter argument then obviously your point was so strong that you won the debate, duh!
|
| |
|
|
