RE: Left wing media.

RE: Left wing media. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SirKenin -> RE: Left wing media. (9/22/2006 8:51:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SubNY278 Umm, unless you think I've been living under a rock, I know very well what both Google and Wikipedia are. Problem is, neither of them are primary sources. Other problem (as far as your argument is concerned) is that on Google, you can find any sort of crackpot argument you want and any source, left or right-leaning, you want. So anyone that wants to argue anything can do a Google search and find something that'll back them up. You'll have to do a lot better than that. That depends on how you use Google. As we have seen by numerous "crackpots" on here, as you say, you can find arguments that Sept 11, 2001 was some huge conspiracy theory. You can also find the facts. Soooo.. What I do is examine evidence from both sides and find the common ground. Yeah, it is is work, but if you are truly interested in a subject and you truly want to come across like you know what you are talking about (which we could use a lot more of in here), then you do your research. Read, read and more read. Google is your best friend combined with Wikipedia. Those are not My only sources, of course, but a magician never reveals his secrets.

SubNY278 -> RE: Left wing media. (9/22/2006 8:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Some friendly advice SirKenin ... you might want to look up who casts tie breaking votes in the United States Senate, prior to telling everyone else how poorly informed they are. [;)] I already know exactly who it is, and that advice is literally meaningless. As President of the Senate, the President or Vice President of the United States casts the tie breaking vote. But with a vote of 77-23 in favor of sending the USA to war, of what meaning is your advice? That is not even close to a tie. Would you like to know how many tie-breaking votes Bush has cast during his tenure? None. You know why? Because interestingly enough it is Dick Cheney who is President of the Senate. Um, your point is? You just contradicted yourself...no one ever said that it was close to a tie. You're the one spouting off about people knowing their facts, before stating that the President casts the tie-breaking vote. No, the President does not ever cast the tie-breaking vote, the Vice President does. The President has nothing to do with that. I think Cheney has had to cast a vote maybe once in six years....it's not just on the war vote that he did not cast a vote. Wasn't his only, or one of his very few Senate appearances the time he told a Senator the "f-word"? Perhaps you could look that up in Wikipedia or Google.

caitlyn -> RE: Left wing media. (9/22/2006 8:58:03 PM)
My advice was only to help you look a little less like a man masterbating by pulling on his toe. I seem to have failed you ... but at least I tried.[;)]

SirKenin -> RE: Left wing media. (9/22/2006 9:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SubNY278 quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Some friendly advice SirKenin ... you might want to look up who casts tie breaking votes in the United States Senate, prior to telling everyone else how poorly informed they are. [;)] I already know exactly who it is, and that advice is literally meaningless. As President of the Senate, the President or Vice President of the United States casts the tie breaking vote. But with a vote of 77-23 in favor of sending the USA to war, of what meaning is your advice? That is not even close to a tie. Would you like to know how many tie-breaking votes Bush has cast during his tenure? None. You know why? Because interestingly enough it is Dick Cheney who is President of the Senate. Um, your point is? You just contradicted yourself...no one ever said that it was close to a tie. You're the one spouting off about people knowing their facts, before stating that the President casts the tie-breaking vote. No, the President does not ever cast the tie-breaking vote, the Vice President does. The President has nothing to do with that. I think Cheney has had to cast a vote maybe once in six years....it's not just on the war vote that he did not cast a vote. Wasn't his only, or one of his very few Senate appearances the time he told a Senator the "f-word"? Perhaps you could look that up in Wikipedia or Google. I said the President of the Senate, not President of the United States. I will admit that I did put Bush in a post instead of Cheney. I do not know how I managed to screw that up, but the point was still very clear. As of 2006, Cheney has broken seven ties since he first took the position in 2001. EDIT: These votes are as follows: April 3, 2001 S. Amdt. 173 (Grassley Prescription Drug Reserve Fund Amendment) to H.Con.Res. 83 (2002 budget) Yea: 51-50 Agreed To April 5, 2001 S. Amdt. 347 (Hutchison Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination Amendment) to H.Con.Res. 83 (2002 budget) Yea: 51-50 Agreed To May 21, 2002 Motion to table S. Amdt. 3406 (Allen Mortgage Loan Amendment) to H.R. 3009 (Trade Act of 2002) Yea: 50-49 Tabled April 11, 2003 H.Con.Res. 95 (2004 budget) Yea: 51-50 Enacted May 15, 2003 S. Amdt. 664 (Nickles Dividend Exclusion Amendment) to S. 1054 (Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) Yea: 51-50 S. 1054 incorporated into H.R. 2 (see below), which is enacted as Public Law No. 108-27. May 23, 2003 H.R. 2 (Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) Conference Report Yea: 51-50 Enacted. Public Law No. 108-27. December 21, 2005 S. 1932 (Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act of 2005) Yea: 51-50 Passed. Bill sent to conference committee

Kedicat -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 12:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn In my opinion, the only bias that exists in American media, is bias towards selling advertising time/space. Hmmmm agree with qualifications. More and more advertising is disguised as news and shows.

Kedicat -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 12:25:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Funny how we all tend to view ourselves as rather close to center, LOL hehe. Of course. The insane always think they are the sane ones [:D]

Kedicat -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 12:27:22 AM)
So we watched Zombie Honeymoon. Now to watch Why We Fight. A good balanced media night. Oh. And work on the solar panel. How many trees and acres of strip mining go to make copper pipe for a panel? Green is tough.

NorthernGent -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 12:52:38 AM)
Amazing that someone can claim war is a necessary evil and then lay claim to the "considered" ground devoid of right or left wing politics. The school of thought that war is a necessary evil is a right-wing notion as old as the hills - it's not a reflective, thought-provoking stance. It's simply more of the same, tired, old propaganda that the elites have used for centuries as a tool of persuasion. To anyone with an ounce of common sense, war is exploitative and completely inhumane. You don't have to idenifty with a particular ideology to denounce war on humanitarian grounds. You either hold this as a value or you don't (regardless of political affiliation). Regards

SirKenin -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:08:15 AM)
No, sometimes war is a must. Sometimes the use of force is all that is left when all other options have been exhausted. This is an indesputable fact. I believe in peace keeping. Sometimes, and it is unfortunate, war is necessary to keep the peace, as strange as that might sound, but it is true. This is the centrist point of view. The right wing does not view war in the same light I do. They view war as a solution to everything that ails, but they do so only when it is of financial benefit to them or as a way to protect their interests.

NorthernGent -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:14:12 AM)
Kenin, "War is necessary to keep the peace". There is a contradiction in terms in there somewhere. Think about it, take the meat off the bones, remove all the politics and packaging, and what is necessary to keep the peace is mutual respect (and killing people based on international politics does not fall into this category). Regards

meatcleaver -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:16:16 AM)
True and when the left make up the elites, they too use it.

SirKenin -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Kenin, "War is necessary to keep the peace". There is a contradiction in terms in there somewhere. Think about it, take the meat off the bones, remove all the politics and packaging, and what is necessary to keep the peace is mutual respect (and killing people based on international politics does not fall into this category). Regards I told you it sounds strange but true, did I not? Look at Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Do a little bit of research. That is all I am going to say. Oh, and by the way, we are respected the world over for our military position as peace keepers.. Unlike the United States. I wonder why that is?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:21:13 AM)
War may be inhumane....but does that mean it is unnecessary ? What should the Soviet Union have done when invaded by Germany in WW2 ? Having seen comments on the BBC by my fellow transatlantacists?? I can tell you that its coverage of political affairs is so biased it beggers belief. We now have news and opinion mixed on the 6 oclock evening news in a disgraceful way. For the Brits...Paxman appears to be going insane judging from last nights performance. He behaves like a tin pot autocrat!

SubNY278 -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin No, sometimes war is a must. Sometimes the use of force is all that is left when all other options have been exhausted. This is an indesputable fact. I believe in peace keeping. Sometimes, and it is unfortunate, war is necessary to keep the peace, as strange as that might sound, but it is true. This is the centrist point of view. The right wing does not view war in the same light I do. They view war as a solution to everything that ails, but they do so only when it is of financial benefit to them or as a way to protect their interests. I agree in principle, but is what's happening in Iraq keeping the peace? Even Afghanistan, at this point? How about with Israel and Lebanon...all those civilians dead and in the end, the two Israelis are still being held, Hezbollah's position within the Arab world is stronger and legitimized to a larger extent, and of course, the damage and the dead left behind. And is the situation there any more peaceful now than it was last spring? I'd venture to say it's probably less peaceful, after the war.

NorthernGent -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:26:53 AM)
History has borne out that self-proclaimed "left-wing" governments have had a crack at imperialism. But, do you really consider, say, the old Soviet Union to be left-wing? They may have proclaimed themselves to be the people's Government but for my money they were as fascist and totalitarian as Nazi Germany. The ideals of the Soviet Union were far removed from the ideals of the revolutionaries. Proclaiming themselves Communist served the purpose of creating a myth they were a people's Government and it suited the West because it gave us a bogeyman. However, regardless of political ideology, humanitarianism, internationalism, and social justice are constant ideals of the left. I would suggest that those who don't share these core values are far more in tune with the right but can't admit it to themselves (possibly because of the extremist factions in the right that they do not want to identify with, but, better to have principles than to live a lie). Regards

SirKenin -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:27:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave War may be inhumane....but does that mean it is unnecessary ? What should the Soviet Union have done when invaded by Germany in WW2 ? I was going to cite WW II as an example, but I figured that Afghanistan would be sufficient. But now that you mention it, look at Canada's involvement there as well. Was it to go in and occupy? Was it to go in and save the oil from the savages? Was it to establish a Canada-friendly government? Was it so we could strengthen our economy? Or was it to save innocent countries from a mad man (albeit a brilliant man) and restore peace and order? Those are rhetorical questions of course.

SubNY278 -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:29:27 AM)
That might not be Canada's rationale, but what about other countries?

Kedicat -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:32:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Amazing that someone can claim war is a necessary evil and then lay claim to the "considered" ground devoid of right or left wing politics. The school of thought that war is a necessary evil is a right-wing notion as old as the hills - it's not a reflective, thought-provoking stance. It's simply more of the same, tired, old propaganda that the elites have used for centuries as a tool of persuasion. To anyone with an ounce of common sense, war is exploitative and completely inhumane. You don't have to idenifty with a particular ideology to denounce war on humanitarian grounds. You either hold this as a value or you don't (regardless of political affiliation). Regards I'd only qualify that with, declaring unprovoked war as not always right wing, but desperate. Often a right wing or extreme government declares unprovoked war. Seldom does a true left wing or moderate government attack another. Defencive war is right out of left or right arguement. But some governments disguise offensive war as defence.

SirKenin -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SubNY278 I agree in principle, but is what's happening in Iraq keeping the peace? See, you will note that Canada is not involved there. The Canadian government refused, much to the US' chagrin. They wanted us there for our special forces, which are superior to theirs, and our Halifax class frigates, which are also superior to anything they have in the water. Bush was pissed when Chretien said no. He never talked to him again after that. It was not until Martin took office that Bush ventured any communication. quote: Even Afghanistan, at this point? Canada is still fighting there with several other countries to restore peace and order. The rebels are still fighting. They have to be stopped unfortunately. I agree with Canada being there. quote: How about with Israel and Lebanon...all those civilians dead and in the end, the two Israelis are still being held, Hezbollah's position within the Arab world is stronger and legitimized to a larger extent, and of course, the damage and the dead left behind. I know very little about that war, so I have no official position on it, but I do note that Canada has not stepped in. I believe that they should if called upon to patrol the borders between the two. quote: And is the situation there any more peaceful now than it was last spring? I'd venture to say it's probably less peaceful, after the war. Ahhh, but as a centrist I never said that I supported that war. See My previous comments.

NorthernGent -> RE: Left wing media. (9/23/2006 1:35:31 AM)
What should the Soviet Union have done when invaded by Germany in WW2 ? Seeks, you have to keep an event in its context i.e. not isolate it and then try to explain it. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were two aggresive nations that harboured designs on imperialism. If either were anything like anti-war they would have been persuing other policies rather than spending years arming themselves to the teeth in order to carve up places like Poland. War is never justified and is always a result of a cycle of international politics designed to gain the economic upper-hand. Forget the packaging and the politics for a second and think about core human needs - not the malfunctioned version of human wants we have today. Regards

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875