RE: Where do you get your news?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Where do you get your news?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Where do you get your news?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 6:11:41 AM

StrongButKind

Posts: 136
Joined: 10/15/2004
Status: offline

If you start from only one site, make it http://www.aldaily.com/.

If you read only one publication, make it the Economist.

If you watch only one channel, don't make it one with news.

< Message edited by StrongButKind -- 8/8/2006 6:17:24 AM >

(in reply to MmakeMme)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 6:18:40 AM

MissTlTTYMilk

Posts: 142
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline

i have been spending way too much time on collarme lately. i get all my news from Latigress--is that wrong? ::shugs::

< Message edited by MissTlTTYMilk -- 8/8/2006 6:22:30 AM >

(in reply to StrongButKind)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 10:10:32 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

NG,

quote:

You're doing your best to swerve this one but feel free to explain what is going wrong in the US, why such high levels of serious crime?

Didn’t you like my last answer? Social engineering and excuse making is a direct cause. Ongoing arbitrary enforcement of laws on the books is another. I have a high regard for people’s intelligence, especially the youth. I find they are very capable of logic. If they see no consequence to action, they take advantage of it. If they see selective enforcement of laws, they apply that to their activity. When they see a President who defends illegal immigration and no penalties for businesses hiring these illegal employees they apply that arbitrary enforcement to their chances of being caught. If they see people giving them excuses, they’ll use those excuses to rationalize their failure to achieve. People live up to the expectations placed upon them. Most low expectations are defined by liberal left social engineering programs.

quote:

So, you're saying that words speak louder than actions in this case - i.e. words shape society rather than policy. Is there any evidence you can point to for this one? As requested, feel free to provide examples of left-wing Democrat policies that have shaped the US - I'm curious about just how left-wing the Democrats are.

No, I’m saying that their words when put into place result in a conclusion they didn’t consider. I’m also saying that it is common for a liberal to assume bad intent by a conservative. The fact that a conservative can have the same altruistic goal is never considered. Case in point, if you argue against Affirmative Action programs you must be racist and prejudicial. I believe that self loathing prejudicial attitude is more prevalent on the left, because even after the failure of their programs they still don’t consider any other possibility.

I don’t identify the Democratic Party as “left wing”. They tend to lean left wing due to their misguided goal of trying to generate a national majority from the disenfranchised fringe single issue “left wing” groups, but I don’t believe the party to be left wing. I wouldn’t consider Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton left wing, although I would define President Carter liberal. President Clinton was very conservative in his policies, more so than President Bush in his fiscal policies.

But if you want to reduce this debate to semantics or academic exercises comparing two disjointed national sovereignties, I resign. I see no point in it. Although it does allude to a common tactic by the liberal left wing. It's implied that when you can’t use facts to make your point resort to feelings and obtuse comparisons.

I find most interesting that a couple of statements I made didn’t go challenged. They are much more important than any philosophical aspect of this discussion and I have to assume that they weren’t addressed because even the liberal/left side of the debate couldn’t address them.

quote:

There is not one liberal or left policy that doesn’t result in taking something from another group. Work hard for the things you desire in life and its not your success that’s used as an example to others but your excess is pointed to, mocked, and taxed. Liberals are the least freedom and liberty oriented than any other group.

The first concerns goals. Is there anything more self centered than a liberal? Is there any group more selective of what they identify as a “right” or “freedom”? Hell was I on a debate team I’d be able to come up with some counter argument even if it was rationalized. Yet instead of direct response we debate philosophy and rhetoric. It seems to prove the point.

More concerning and pointed is this challenge.

quote:

Would a brave liberal ever admit to leftist government or regime being corrupt? It there any evil worth fighting that is not “right wing”? Accepting and welcoming are not liberal attitudes. Neither is their any room from compromise or alternative views

The lack of response is damning, especially when you consider the raw numbers. In the Lebanon/Israel war less than 500 people have been killed. (Source: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/27/israellebanon_confli.html)
In Darfur, sometimes that many die in a day, yet the liberal world largely ignores it. It’s a challenge to find any daily information regarding the state of Darfur. An internet search bears out the lack of focus. Search for “Death toll in Lebanon” and it generates 7,110,000 hits. Search Death toll in Darfur and the total is 624,000. (Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12485-2005Apr23.html) Where’s the daily outrage from the Liberal left? Why are the majority of postings concerning Darfur on coming from the Conservative right? I want a challenge to my position that the reason for this is because since the protagonists are Muslim a left leaning liberal can’t protest. In this case, I can’t come up with any argument rationalized or other.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 11:06:49 AM

Daddy4UdderSlut

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

For in-depth and objective information about complex issues, I like:
- NPR's On Point
- PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer
- The Christian Science Monitor

These sources tend to interview experts on issues, or people with firsthand experience with events, and not politicians or radicals. Care is given to provide fair presentation of multiple viewpoints. Coverage tends to be extensive, with ample time for reviewing the facts and hearing discussion and (sometimes) argument. Journalists do not editorialize, or tell me how to think about the story. They allow the experts to present the issues, and work principally to ask questions to be sure that important points come out on all sides, and to check preaching and ask for facts to support what may be unfounded assertions. Otherwise, they largely stay out of the way, as they should - after all - what do they know?

For brief, topical news , I like
- Reuters on the web
- NPR News Hour on the radio

I find most news sources:
- trivial in their depth of coverage
- too brief in their length of coverage
- biased in both their guests and their treatment of them
- allowing too much editorializing by a journalist who has strong opinions, but little knowledge or experience in the subject - you can get that level of dialogue in any bar from any drunk, but it's not worth listening to.

< Message edited by Daddy4UdderSlut -- 8/8/2006 11:22:29 AM >

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 12:33:46 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

MercnBeth,

You keep ignoring the fact that liberals are not left-wing (you keep linking the two in one sentence which tells a story about exactly how much you know about liberalism and left-wing politics). Also, you previously based one of your entire posts on Democrat policies as evidence of the failures of left-wing politics yet in your last post you say you do not consider the Democrat Party to be left-wing. Some actual examples of left-wing politics would be useful here (vague terms like social engineering are not required).

Your "points going unchallenged" statement - come on, if we were to analyse a whole post and reply to every point in it we'd be here until 2045 - I'm sure you appreciate there is a whole world away from this message board. I'm sure I could write a book on the points of mine you have not responded to so let's not get silly.

Can you put some meat on the bones of why you believe social engineering and excuse making to be the direct cause of the high levels of crime in the US. As someone who lives outside of the US I'm genuinely interested to hear about this. What exactly do you mean by social engineering and excuse making? when did these programmes begin? what were the programmes actually known widely as in the US? who was/were the Government/s of the time? what were the consequences? have these programmes been the norm in US society over the last 50 years? anything factual will be much appreciated.

I've posted plenty of actual examples of British and US conservatism in practice and how it is destructive i.e. actual domestic and foreign policy that has governed our two countries. I have also given you more than enough to go at in regards to left-wing values and policy (actual policy). For reasons only known to you you prefer to come back with "I resign if it boils down to semantics" when there is plenty of examples of actual policy to get your teeth into.

As for your Muslim left leaning liberals challenge. You'll find that the Middle East is the big news story around the world for various reasons - hence the attention it receives. Out of interest, have you interviewed every "left-leaning-liberal" (whatever one of those is) to understand their points of view and draw your conclusion? I'm not sure why I'm replying to this but as far as I'm concerned there is no excuse for slaughter and the politics pales into insignificance when people are being killed. And, if it helps, everyone I know who is vaguely political would never back any sort of Government corruption nor would they support any sort of genocide and they can cite plenty of so-called left-wing Governments that have been up to their eyes in corruption.

Regards

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 12:58:37 PM

girl4you2

Posts: 1622
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline

bbc, ny times, the post, the monitor, varied news agencies around the globe for local takes on things, npr, and for a lighter spin, the daily show and colbert report. cnn and fox make me nuts.

sorry for the late response; i was out of town, but reading the post daily.

< Message edited by girl4you2 -- 8/8/2006 12:59:39 PM >

_____________________________

maireann croí éadrom i bhfad. is maith an scáthán súil charad. is leor nod don eolach.
got shoes?

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 1:48:34 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

You keep ignoring the fact that liberals are not left-wing (you keep linking the two in one sentence which tells a story about exactly how much you know about liberalism and left-wing politics). Also, you previously based one of your entire posts on Democrat policies as evidence of the failures of left-wing politics yet in your last post you say you do not consider the Democrat Party to be left-wing. Some actual examples of left-wing politics would be useful here (vague terms like social engineering are not required).

I don't believe that to be true anymore than you including right-wing conservative together in your sentences. I know the left wing by their actions. Darfur is a blatant example of a blind eye to a problem much larger than the focus on Lebanon.

I don't think the being left and liberal used to mean the same thing. I believe that to be apparent now. It's a feeling based approach to a problem able to linger because by its nature it has no goal. What is the goal of a liberal agenda? How does it differ from a left wing agenda?

I said, for the third time, that the association of liberal, and left wing with Democrats is a function of their vote gathering strategy. I won't try to explain what this means again if you didn't get it the first 2 times.

quote:

You'll find that the Middle East is the big news story around the world for various reasons - hence the attention it receives. Out of interest, have you interviewed every "left-leaning-liberal" (whatever one of those is) to understand their points of view and draw your conclusion?

I would bet all I own that I've spoken to many more left oriented and liberal oriented people then you have ever spoken to from the other side of the aisle. The incongruity of these two sentences again speaks to distraction versus response to the direct challenge of why there is no liberal or left wing attention given to the Darfur situation.

quote:

What exactly do you mean by social engineering and excuse making? when did these programs begin? what were the programmes actually known widely as in the US? who was/were the Government/s of the time?

I'll provide one example and hope you will reciprocate to identify a similar anti-productive right wing program.

Currently the California school systems are bogged down because a minority, albeit a large minority, of students don't have English as their first language. Instead of total immersion into English they get remedial education considering their language problem. These are government programs paid by tax dollars. Forms and instructions are printed bi-lingual. Yet when they get out into the workforce most public sector companies need people capable of functioning in English. Outside of California, the requirement is stronger. In an attempt to "help" these students they've excused their situation, enabled them to "not fail" in a school environment, but cause their failure to succeed in the work environment.

The intent was good. The result is a worthless education paid by tax dollars. Compare this situation to the EU policy where recently it was a requirement that all graduating students be functional in English and the bi-lingual policy makes even less sense.

Care to site an example of a right wing or conservative policy that was so counter productive for the US and the people it supposedly wanted to improve? Which brings us to this.

quote:

Your "points going unchallenged" statement - come on, if we were to analyse a whole post and reply to every point in it we'd be here until 2045 -

How about one? How about this one? Is there anything more self centered than a liberal? Is there any group more selective of what they identify as a “right” or “freedom”? Hell was I on a debate team I’d be able to come up with some counter argument even if it was rationalized. Yet instead of direct response we debate philosophy and rhetoric. It seems to prove the point.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/8/2006 4:07:41 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: girl4you2

bbc, ny times, the post, the monitor, varied news agencies around the globe for local takes on things, npr, and for a lighter spin, the daily show and colbert report. cnn and fox make me nuts.

sorry for the late response; i was out of town, but reading the post daily.

No penalty shall be given for lateness . Thanks for the answer.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to girl4you2)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/9/2006 10:50:32 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Mercnbeth,

The three central points of your post:

Your understanding of political ideology.
Your California schools example.
Your request for examples of destructive US Conservative policies.

Your understanding of political ideology:

To be frank, you’re assumptions are incorrect. Liberalism is not left-wing but Conservatism is right-wing. Liberalism is based on free-market economics and privatisation. In this sense, Liberalism has a lot more in common with Conservatism than with the left. The bedrock of Conservative doctrine is preserve the status quo and ignore a progressive society and this puts Conservative policies firmly in the right-wing.

Your California schools example. You're argument is flawed for the following reasons:

a) You're assuming that a lack of good English automatically means "failure".
b) You're assuming that forcing people to speak English rather than embracing cultural differences is beneficial for society.
c) You're assuming that minorities succeed in the workplace because they are given an advantage. It’s plausible that minorities succeed despite an inferior grasp of English.
d) It takes decades to adjust a social and cultural structure. You will not see results in the short-term. Rather like any strategic policy.

US Conservative politics. A few to keep you busy:

a) The death penalty:

A barbaric act practiced in the US but not in the rest of the developed world. This policy is borne out of the refusal of the right to accept that social inequality breeds crime. The result is that the root causes of crime are never understood and so the cycle of inequality, crime and destruction continues. This is rather convenient for the right and Conservatives as is it means they can spend taxation on military expenditure and economic colonisation to feather their own nests rather than address the imbalance in society.

b) The lack of free healthcare:

In line with the principles of the 1800s the US Government believes that only those with money are entitled to basic human necessities such as health care. Low social welfare provision is a cornerstone of Conservative policy and effectively helps to write off a section of society and give them little chance of escaping the cycle of poor education/poverty/crime.

c) Heavy expenditure on military armaments:

Every nation taxes and spends. The difference between nations is who do they tax and what do they spend it on. Spending huge sums on military capability in order to line the pockets of the establishment when there is a massive homeless problem is in keeping with the Conservative notion that it is every man for himself and social equality does not matter.

d) Phone tapping:

An example of a US Conservative Government impinging on civil rights. The issue here is the paranoia of the right and the fear of everything that does not conform to their norms.

e) The constant invasions:

The current Conservative US Government is dragging us all back 200 years to the age of imperialism. The bedrock of these invasions is nationalism and exploitation that serves two purposes for the right. Firstly, false security in a militarily powerful nation in order to overcome personal insecurity. Secondly, the love of personal wealth.

f) Zero tolerance campaigns towards the homeless:

The tried and tested right-wing philosophy is if you belong to the lowest socio-economic groups in society it is your own fault and you don’t deserve society’s help. As said earlier, a Conservative Government could never sanction actually trying to understand the imbalance in society because it would take time and money and this would reduce their own personal wealth.

g) Protectionist policies in the agricultural industry:

Again, this is dictated by the love of personal wealth that can’t allow for internationalism. This policy of the US Government is indirectly starving much of Africa as it means Africa is unable to compete in the staple industry.

h) Unilateral policies e.g. walking out of conferences such as Kyoto:

The walk-out of the US Government was dictated by the refusal of business to accept that they have a duty towards environmental practice. Again, the issue here is the Conservative alliance of big-business and the US Government and, together, they will never accept environmental costs because of their love of personal wealth.

I could go on and mention other things such as the censorship of communication but I’m starting to bore myself. You’ll find it is a pretty damning indictment of the US Conservative regime (especially when you consider I have nowhere near the knowledge of the American left who actually live in the place – I’m sure they could write a whole volume of texts on this subject).

Time to step out of this discussion, I have a plane to catch on Friday and have to get ready for the trip.

A pleasure as always :-)

Regards

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/9/2006 10:58:31 AM

Daddy4UdderSlut

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
g) Protectionist policies in the agricultural industry:

Again, this is dictated by the love of personal wealth that can’t allow for internationalism. This policy of the US Government is indirectly starving much of Africa as it means Africa is unable to compete in the staple industry.

That's a fact, but western European governments practice precisely the same type of protectionism for their agricultural 'industry'. Pisses me off to no end. The only feasible route to development in Africa goes, initially anyway, through agricultural exports. That road though, has been blocked by western nations who don't want any low cost competition to their agricultural industry.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 110

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/9/2006 11:10:21 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Daddy,

A short reply. Agreed. The French Government in particular refuses to give up the agricultural subsidy. It is not an issue in the UK because a) we don't have a large agricultural industry b) our Government couldn't give a flying one about us anyway - if anyone is getting subsidised in Britain it is the monarchy :-)

Regards

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)

Profile

Post #: 111

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/9/2006 12:05:37 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

To be frank, you’re assumptions are incorrect. Liberalism is not left-wing but Conservatism is right-wing. Liberalism is based on free-market economics and privatisation. In this sense, Liberalism has a lot more in common with Conservatism than with the left. The bedrock of Conservative doctrine is preserve the status quo and ignore a progressive society and this puts Conservative policies firmly in the right-wing.

Are you dizzy from that spin? You're belief does not make it so. If Liberalism is based upon free-market economics and privatization, label me Liberal. It won't change my beliefs but it you need a label, I'll subscribe to your definition, although I haven't met any other liberal who also uses that definition. What the hell - I'm LIBERAL! YEAH!

quote:

Your California schools example. You're argument is flawed for the following reasons:

a) You're assuming that a lack of good English automatically means "failure".
b) You're assuming that forcing people to speak English rather than embracing cultural differences is beneficial for society.
c) You're assuming that minorities succeed in the workplace because they are given an advantage. It’s plausible that minorities succeed despite an inferior grasp of English.
d) It takes decades to adjust a social and cultural structure. You will not see results in the short-term. Rather like any strategic policy.

It's as flawed as believing that the ability to speak English is not an easier if not essential element of success. Take it out of the CA school context. Why does the EU feel embracing English is essential? In the future, I believe Chinese will replace English as the language of business. Until then, my position speaks of factual reality.

My blanket response to the issues you identify as "conservative" is that they aren't. Instead they are the law of the US because the majority of the people voted for representatives that made these laws laws. There is a long time period that overlaps between Democratic and Republican administrations.

Again "problems" naked of solutions. What should I, as a new member of the "free market" liberal community do to solve these things?

However, this one in particular merits direct response.

quote:

g) Protectionist policies in the agricultural industry:

Again, this is dictated by the love of personal wealth that can’t allow for internationalism. This policy of the US Government is indirectly starving much of Africa as it means Africa is unable to compete in the staple industry.

Herein lies the issue. You, and the world look to the US as the cause of all the world's ills. You look to us for a solution, yet the solution you seek would destroy the reason that the US is capable of providing assistance. This speaks volumes.

I have no desire as a US citizen to take responsibility for the world. Maybe I'm alone in this thought.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 112

RE: Where do you get your news? - 8/9/2006 3:53:13 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

Liberal, or what's now called "classical liberalism", once meant an outlook that is now called libertarian. I think the term liberal, in much of Europe, is still primarily is seen as what we call libertarian.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to Mercnbeth)