Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 33 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›
   3201. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4213840)
Carter I am confident about, because I'm pretty sure that if that self righteous blowhard had cheated on his wife he'd publicly confess and whip himself over it.

What about Carter has been "self-righteous blowhard"-worthy? I honestly am unaware.

   3202. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4213841)
That wasn't addressed to me, but I want to state for the record that the last thing in the world I'd want to do would be to force Tom Akins out of his Senate race. Let the Missouri voters decide in November whether they want him to represent them.

And if the voters of Missouri were to elect Akin to office, I'm sure none of the liberal media (or liberals here) would deride the mouth-breathing right-wingers for electing an uninformed misogynist to the Senate. The election would immediately legitimize Akin just like the 1970 election supposedly legitimized Kennedy, right?
   3203. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4213842)
For better or worse, my judgment of Ted Kennedy the politician is limited to the policies he championed, most of which I agree with.
We're about the same age, so my memories of Ted Kennedy are about the same. I've shifted leftward as I've gotten older so I'm sympathetic to Kennedy's political causes, but I could never have voted for him. I'm not going to judge a man's entire life based on one terrible moment, but I don't have to vote for him.

...Joe call up the ghosts of Chappaquiddick in an attempt to condemn all Democrats from historical inception to the present second with the stain of Kennedy's action there, and it's more or less universally deployed as a tactic to defer attention from some current GOP atrocity by waving the red flag red herring of DEAD GIRL IN KENNEDY'S CAR as a distraction piece.
This. Chappaquiddick is a political weapon now. Kopechne's only invoked now by people who could care less who she was.
   3204. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4213843)
Joe has an even worse persecution complex than Ray.


...but I could never have voted for him. I'm not going to judge a man's entire life based on one terrible moment, but I don't have to vote for him.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

   3205. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4213849)
What about Carter has been "self-righteous blowhard" worthy? I honestly am unaware.


Nothing. I think this was sarcasm originally. Jimmy Carter is the sort of man who's sincere, earnest moral beliefs and his actual example of living by them make people sort of wish he were a self-righteous blowhard, rather than note glumly that it is in fact possible to live kindly, pleasantly and according to principles.
   3206. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4213852)
To the best of my knowledge, Ted Kennedy never championed any law changes that allowed for one get-out-jail free card, never supported any bill that allows for drunk driving... and I do know for a fact nothing of the sort has ever been in any Democratic platform or legislative agenda.

Todd Akin, on the other hand, didn't just "say something stupid" - he was expressing a view that is likely shared by many among the SoCon base that are his biggest supporters. The FRC has backed him up. Mike Huckabee has backed him up. And here's another key distinction - you can check the GOP platform, but their 'culture of life' LIKEWISE carries no 'rape' exclusion. The GOP VP candidate had less than two years co-sponsored legislation that sought to change the Hyde amendment's language from "rape" to "forcible rape".

Huh? Who said anything about a "get out of jail free card"?

Liberals have no problem overlooking or even forgiving Kennedy's criminal actions simply because he's a liberal, but they react with outrage to the mere words of an unknown GOP candidate. It's a clear double standard that's aided and abetted by the liberal media.
   3207. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4213853)
but some unknown GOP candidate says something dumb, and it's a total outrage that should end not only his Senate candidacy but also his political career.


I'm pretty sure that no partisan Dem wants Akins to end his Senate Candidacy- they want him to run- it's the establishment Repubs who want to toss him to the curb- desperately- it is very easy to envision a scenario now where the Senate gets split 50/50 (which gives Joe Biden the tie breaker)- and Akins staying on prevents the GOP from picking up a very reachable 51st seat.

Not only that, but Akins' "gaffe" plays right into one of the very same narratives that the Dems were already trying to sell.

From a pure political POV- a party that champions X can harbor a couple of guys who are anti-X
a party that is being accused of being anti-X will squirm if it turns out to harbor a guy who is openly anti-X.

Right now, from a polling POV the POTUS race and the races for control of the house and Senate, are amazingly unvarying flat- and have been for months- not only are the races flat- but they are close enough that both parties can actually see realistic scenarios where they walk away with POTUS and both houses. That last happened in 2004. In 2006, the Repubs were going to get reamed (and they knew it), in 2008 the Repubs were going to get reamed (and they knew it), in 2010 the Dems were going to get reamed (and they knew it).

Right now the "pros" on both sides do not know who is going to win, The Dems could retain Potus, the Senate and Pick up the House; The Dems could retain Potus, the Senate and the Repubs retain the House; the Dems could retain POTUS, the Repubs retain the House and pick up the Senate; The Repubs could retain the Senate and pickup both Potus and the House

and right now any of those possibilities looks as likely as any other one- and that has the professional campaign guys going nuts- in a "normal" election year the "pros" might be willing to see if Akins could ride this out (who knows, maybe he can), but now? In these circumstances, and with a deadline looming? They are going nuts.


   3208. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4213863)
And if the voters of Missouri were to elect Akin to office, I'm sure none of the liberal media (or liberals here) would deride the mouth-breathing right-wingers for electing an uninformed misogynist to the Senate. The election would immediately legitimize Akin just like the 1970 election supposedly legitimized Kennedy, right?


I've derided Akin as an idiot and a mouthbreather long before now - but here's the thing Joe... Pay attention: POINT coming up --

Todd Akin will be voting on legislation and bills that determine whether a woman cedes control of her body to some wholly theological definition of "when life begins", by his comments and other actions -- Akin has made pretty clear that he agrees with the GOP base that this includes something like rape. You'll notice through all his 'apologies' - he still hasn't backed off the fundamental point: If you get raped, too F'ing bad for you for the next 9 months if that egg is fertilized (I could also toss the fact that people like Akin oppose FMLA expansions, would hate for the woman to receive government handouts, and he's likewise said he wants to end school lunches).

Do you really not comprehend that it's not what Akin SAID that I find abhorrent, but it's the underlying policy that forms its bedrock?

Is that truly beyond your ability to understand?
   3209. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4213864)
NOT GOOD ENOUGH

No, it's not good enough. How come the liberal masses didn't clamor for Kennedy to resign his office and go away, like they clamor for lesser GOP offenders to go away?

"Yes, our guy killed someone and we reelected him for 40 years, but that was in the past. But your guy, who merely said something stupid, is totally unfit for office!"
   3210. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4213866)
Liberals have no problem overlooking or even forgiving Kennedy's criminal actions simply because he's a liberal, but they react with outrage to the mere words of an unknown GOP candidate. It's a clear double standard that's aided and abetted by the liberal media.


Words that form the basis of policy!

Jesus... are you truly this dense?
   3211. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4213868)
I gotta say, this thread reads a lot better with Alan Silvestri's Avengers score.
   3212. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4213869)
For the senate, I always found it odd that we elect a different batch of senators every 2 years instead of an entirely new senate every 6 years. I'm sure its done for stability reasons, but at this point, I rather have the option to vote the bums out entirely in one sitting and then force the kids to work together for the next six years.
   3213. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4213870)
...and BTW - the only people that have thus far called for Akin to step aside are either REPUBLICANS like Karl Rove, Reince Preibus, Ron Johnson, Scott Brown, Mitch McConnell, etc and REPUBLICAN media like Sean Hannity, the National Review, etc.

Soo... you can climb down from your 'liberal media' cross, Joe - turns out, we all forgot our hammer and nails this time out.
   3214. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4213871)
How come the liberal masses didn't clamor for Kennedy to resign his office and go away, like they clamor for lesser GOP offenders to go away?
For the same reason you want the legitimate rape guy to win his race.
   3215. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4213873)
Jesus... are you truly this dense?


There is no point in this. Beat the snake with the shovel back.
   3216. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4213874)
I gotta say, this thread reads a lot better with Alan Silvestri's Avengers score.
This is going to sound cheesy, but my workout music has become just a rotation of recent superhero movie scores. Superman, Dark Knight, Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Avengers. They pump me up.
   3217. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4213876)
I'm pretty sure that no partisan Dem wants Akins to end his Senate Candidacy- they want him to run- it's the establishment Repubs who want to toss him to the curb- desperately-


Yeah. Every day "legitimate rape" is in the news cycle is a day Boston wants to kick Akins in the teeth.
   3218. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4213879)
Todd Akin will be voting on legislation and bills that determine whether a woman cedes control of her body to some wholly theological definition of "when life begins", by his comments and other actions -- Akin has made pretty clear that he agrees with the GOP base that this includes something like rape. You'll notice through all his 'apologies' - he still hasn't backed off the fundamental point: If you get raped, too F'ing bad for you for the next 9 months if that egg is fertilized (I could also toss the fact that people like Akin oppose FMLA expansions, would hate for the woman to receive government handouts, and he's likewise said he wants to end school lunches).

According to polls, fully 20 percent of pro-lifers are against abortion even in cases of rape. Akin's position is in the minority, to be sure (and it's not one I hold myself), but if that's people's problem with Akin, then Dems should argue on that basis, rather than arguing on the basis of some dumb comments he made that, while impolitic, don't actually conflict with his underlying position.

Akin doesn't seem like the smartest guy in the world and he worded his answer horribly wrong, but he seems to understand that some pregnancies occur from rape and yet he's still opposed to abortion in those cases. He might hold a poor, ill-informed political position and his choice of words was terrible, but the two aren't in conflict or reflect any sort of hypocrisy. The GOP is at least throwing Akin under the bus for naked political reasons. The Dems, meanwhile, are using a phony-baloney argument to bash someone who holds an opposing view.
   3219. CrosbyBird Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4213885)
This is an error of technologically obsessed modernity. Knowledge is a form of belief, not a separate thing from belief.

Fair enough. What I mean to say is that whether one believes in something can be independent from whether one knows it to be true, or even considers the concept of truth knowable at all. I believe things that I do not know or that I cannot prove; I cannot think of anything that I know to be true and lack belief in.

Zeus and Xenu are narrative attempts by humanity to explain that which exceeds and engulfs them, to the best of their abilities. Zeus is a better narrative formulation than Xenu, IMHO.

"Better" in the sense that the stories are more interesting, or "better" in the sense that they more competently describe the universe? Because I'd agree with the former but not the latter.

Another narrative formulation are the flavors of Abrahamic monotheism. Another narrative formulation is the presumption that only repeatably observable causality as pre- and described by the scientific method is worthy of "belief."

I think you're characterizing me as that last little bit, but I think you keep coming back to "worth," and I think worth is irrelevant. It seems more like what I'd describe as what constitutes trustworthy knowledge.

Belief, as I experience it, is not a choice. I could not believe in God if I wanted to; I could observe the rituals and pretend, but I would not feel a connection that simply doesn't exist for me. I was raised in the Jewish faith; I am the first person in my family known to me that does not believe in God.
   3220. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4213887)
He might hold a poor, ill-informed political position and his choice of words was terrible, but...

You forgot the fabricated science part.
   3221. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4213888)
...and BTW - the only people that have thus far called for Akin to step aside are either REPUBLICANS like Karl Rove, Reince Preibus, Ron Johnson, Scott Brown, Mitch McConnell, etc and REPUBLICAN media like Sean Hannity, the National Review, etc.

Soo... you can climb down from your 'liberal media' cross, Joe - turns out, we all forgot our hammer and nails this time out.

Yes, Republicans want Akin out because the media made a huge, national story out of some unknown GOP candidate's poor choice of words with regards to rape. Akin seems like a dummy, but this is a trumped-up media controversy. If Akin had simply said that he knows some women become pregnant as a result of being raped but he believes life begins at conception and is against abortion even in those cases, it barely would have made page 12 of the St. Louis paper, let alone the national news. Akin's poor grasp of reproductive science ultimately doesn't conflict one iota with his overall view on abortion. The whole controversy is trumped up.
   3222. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4213897)
Akin's poor grasp of reproductive science ultimately doesn't conflict one iota with his overall view on abortion.

Well, the people who want dinosaurs out of the textbooks in TX aren't in conflict with themselves either. So what? Do you want them in control of your kids' education?
   3223. CrosbyBird Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4213899)
I can abide less and less people who claim to know what they do not know. This is true of Christians, Muslims and rabid, brutal materialist atheists dancing beneath their gods of scientific process.

But I don't know. I don't think one CAN know. To the extent that I've ever said "God does not exist," it has a been subject to the same conditions as all statements I would make about everything. Implied is "to the best of my knowledge, on the basis of the evidence that I have seen, I believe that..." or "assuming a certain set of basic fundamental principles, the most likely reasonable position on this matter is that..."

I don't KNOW that I'm typing this post; I may very well be a brain in a jar being run through a virtual reality simulation. I just believe the former and not the latter.
   3224. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4213901)
Well, the people who want dinosaurs out of the textbooks in TX aren't in conflict with themselves either. So what? Do you want them in control of your kids' education?

Wait, I was out of bounds for mentioning Teddy Kennedy, but now we're talking about textbooks in Texas? The rules around here are so confusing.

If Akin's position on abortion — that it's wrong for all reasons — is so abhorrent, then it should have been an issue long before he made a stupid comment about reproductive science.
   3225. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4213907)
This. Chappaquiddick is a political weapon now. Kopechne's only invoked now by people who could care less who she was.


What does this mean? How am I supposed to care who she was, exactly? I didn't know her; nobody I know knew her; she was dead before I was born.

All I can "care about" is how I view Kennedy in the light of this.

I ask seriously. Am I supposed to visit her gravesite? What am I supposed to do to "care" about her?
   3226. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4213908)
Wait, I was out of bounds for mentioning Teddy Kennedy, but now we're talking about textbooks in Texas? The rules around here are so confusing.

Don't be such a ####### child.


If Akin's position on abortion — that it's wrong for all reasons — is so abhorrent, then it should have been an issue long before he made a stupid comment about reproductive science.

Well, for a hell of a lot of people, it was.
   3227. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4213909)
Wait, I was out of bounds to mention Teddy Kennedy, but now we're talking about textbooks in Texas? The rules around here are so confusing.

Yeah, relevance is such a difficult concept to comprehend. I wish things weren't always so HARD.
   3228. CrosbyBird Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4213912)
The Dems, meanwhile, are using a phony-baloney argument to bash someone who holds an opposing view.

I'm not a Democrat, but Akin is worthy of contempt because he made a profoundly false claim that betrays either an ignorance or rejection of basic reproductive science in furtherance of a political position. The consequences of his political position are significant enough that he cannot excuse his behavior with ignorance; any person who would seek to represent the country has a responsibility to self-educate on matters in which one intends to take a position. Such ignorance can only be characterized as willful. We should not be electing any leaders who are willfully ignorant.

The alternative, that Akin knows better but is deliberately speaking falsely in order to support his position, would be even more contemptible.
   3229. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4213916)
I just got one of those scare e-mails a minute ago asking me to contribute $50.00 to help defeat Akin, and the hook was that he was still a point ahead in the latest poll.

Since without Akin in the race, the Republicans would probably be about 15 points ahead, I say let's just let nature take its course.
   3230. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4213917)

According to polls, fully 20 percent of pro-lifers are against abortion even in cases of rape. Akin's position is in the minority, to be sure (and it's not one I hold myself), but if that's people's problem with Akin, then Dems should argue on that basis, rather than arguing on the basis of some dumb comments he made that, while impolitic, don't actually conflict with his underlying position.

Akin doesn't seem like the smartest guy in the world and he worded his answer horribly wrong, but he seems to understand that some pregnancies occur from rape and yet he's still opposed to abortion in those cases. He might hold a poor, ill-informed political position and his choice of words was terrible, but the two aren't in conflict or reflect any sort of hypocrisy. The GOP is at least throwing Akin under the bus for naked political reasons. The Dems, meanwhile, are using a phony-baloney argument to bash someone who holds an opposing view.


What phony-baloney argument?

His view is that if you are raped and get pregnant as a result, that's YOUR problem. Set aside the insulting nonsense about degrees of rape, and that's still the inexorable endgame.

You're wrong - they DO reflect his underlying position... that having a uterus means you have a duty to carry to term, however that conception occurred. I don't even need to explore where Akin believes some rapes are worse than others to arrive at that conclusion. Given his position on various other issues - I'm quite certain he doesn't believe that the "state", even acting as proxy for a church ought to compensate said woman for having her uterus as state-owned property for 9 months. I'm likewise sure he doesn't believe the state, again acting as proxy for a church, ought to provide said rape victim with publicly funded prenatal and neonatal care to discharge the duty he's decided the state is fit to thrust upon her. Based on his own statements, we do know that he doesn't feel this kid - now almost certainly born to a single mother who just spent at least some time out on uncompensated maternity leave, ought to get anything like a free school lunch or free daycare.

I AM arguing about his position and being on a number of left-leaning mailing lists -- it's the same argument I'm getting from the DSCC, DCCC, DNC, and elsewhere.

He's got an anachronistic view of the liberty of an entire gender. All 'legitimate' is in this case is a 'tell' indicating his hand. We can beat his hand open -- but politics is not a card game played with an open hand, so you're damn right I'll use his tell to scream to everyone else at the table what's in his hand.
   3231. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4213920)
What does this mean? How am I supposed to care who she was, exactly? I didn't know her; nobody I know knew her; she was dead before I was born.
The moment Legitimate Rape Guy became news, Joe K busted out Chappaquiddick. We weren't talking about Kennedy, or the politics of the 60s or 70s. It's a completely unrelated issue to Legitimate Rape Guy. That's the point: Chappaquiddick is a weapon and a distraction now.

"Don't look at Legitimate Rape Guy because Chappaquiddick!"

"All liberals are scum forever because Chappaquiddick!"

"We shouldn't/have-to talk about this because Chappaquiddick!"

Chappaquiddick is political-talk for "I don't want to talk about what liberals are talking about. Let's change the subject."
   3232. DA Baracus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4213921)
United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has Todd Akin on it but not actual rocket scientist Rush Holt. Let that sink in for a minute.
   3233. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4213925)
Here's the e-mail I got from the DNC:

In a year that has brought us no shortage of stunningly backward statements from Republicans on issues affecting women's health, the GOP Senate nominee from Missouri may have just taken the cake.

This morning, Rep. Todd Akin, explaining his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, said that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

What exactly, Rep. Akin, is an "illegitimate" rape? And what are these unnamed "ways" women have of avoiding pregnancy after being (legitimately) raped?

Now, Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here. The real issue is a Republican party -- led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan -- whose policies on women and their health are dangerously wrong.


I'm outraged at the Republicans trying to take women back to the dark ages -- if you agree, join me in taking a stand for women.

Really, it's deeply concerning that Republicans continue to support legislation that is, quite literally, dangerous for women.

Mitt Romney famously says he would "get rid of" federal funding for Planned Parenthood if he had the chance. His running mate, Paul Ryan, was one of more than 200 Republican cosponsors of a piece of legislation that would have narrowed the definition of rape.

Can you imagine -- the same Republican House that refuses to pass a jobs bill jumped at the opportunity to make life harder for victims of rape?

And what do Romney and Ryan think of Akin's latest statement? They've been trying to distance themselves from it -- but Congressman Ryan has already partnered with Akin on a whole host of issues that restrict women's ability to make their own health care decisions.


Quote - "Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here".

   3234. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4213938)
You're wrong - they DO reflect his underlying position... that having a uterus means you have a duty to carry to term, however that conception occurred. I don't even need to explore where Akin believes some rapes are worse than others to arrive at that conclusion. Given his position on various other issues - I'm quite certain he doesn't believe that the "state", even acting as proxy for a church ought to compensate said woman for having her uterus as state-owned property for 9 months. I'm likewise sure he doesn't believe the state, again acting as proxy for a church, ought to provide said rape victim with publicly funded prenatal and neonatal care to discharge the duty he's decided the state is fit to thrust upon her. Based on his own statements, we do know that he doesn't feel this kid - now almost certainly born to a single mother who just spent at least some time out on uncompensated maternity leave, ought to get anything like a free school lunch or free daycare.


Agree 100%. This kind of stuff is what drove me away from the Republican party once I became a parent. It's not that I don't want free stuff that he opposes. It's that the party has been taken over by covertly anti-family demagogs masquerading as some sort of Family Values group. Whenever I hear "Family Values", all I hear is "All rich white male, all the time."

Think about it Joe (not that you will), but oppositions to abortions for any reason coupled with no FMLA, no subsidized day care or medical care, no school lunch programs. How much more anti family can you get?
   3235. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4213941)
The GOP is at least throwing Akin under the bus for naked political reasons.


One of the naked political reasons being this:

1: "According to polls, fully 20 percent of pro-lifers are against abortion even in cases of rape. Akin's position is in the minority, to be sure"

2: The National GOP's party platform includes plank seeking to ban all abortion- even in cases of rape.incest- and has had such plank the two prior Presidential Elections.

3: That plank is there to appease that 20 percent faction, the GOP does not want it publicized to anyone else, it can't be removed because those 20 percent are fanatical, and they are a good 40-50% of the GOP base

4: Dems are now referring to that GOP party plank as the "Akin Plank," - the plank CANNOT be removed,but Akin can, so Akin has to go.

All political parties have parts of their planks/agendas/platforms that are unpopular among the general populace, they are usually there because some segment of the party base wants them- but eth Parties generally do not want those parts of the platform aired at primetime so to speak.

   3236. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4213942)
United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has Todd Akin on it but not actual rocket scientist Rush Holt. Let that sink in for a minute.


Careful, if you connect enough dots even Joe K might catch on to the relevance of the schoolbook comment above.
   3237. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4213951)
Yeah, relevance is such a difficult concept to comprehend. I wish things weren't always so HARD.

So Teddy Kennedy's criminal actions were irrelevant to his fitness to hold office, but Todd Akin's dumb-but-not-inconsistent words are relevant. Got it.

***
I'm not a Democrat, but Akin is worthy of contempt because he made a profoundly false claim that betrays either an ignorance or rejection of basic reproductive science in furtherance of a political position.

"Worthy of contempt" seems overly harsh. It's one thing to dislike his position on abortion, but considering him "contemptible" merely for being wrong seems a bit much.

The consequences of his political position are significant enough that he cannot excuse his behavior with ignorance; any person who would seek to represent the country has a responsibility to self-educate on matters in which one intends to take a position. Such ignorance can only be characterized as willful. We should not be electing any leaders who are willfully ignorant.

I agree. It disgusts me that Congress is full of liberals who are willfully ignorant about basic economics.
   3238. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4213955)
Quote - "Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here".

You could have fooled the rest of us. From what I can tell, Akin's had the same position on abortion for decades, and yet he was anonymous until a few days ago.

He's got an anachronistic view of the liberty of an entire gender. All 'legitimate' is in this case is a 'tell' indicating his hand. We can beat his hand open -- but politics is not a card game played with an open hand, so you're damn right I'll use his tell to scream to everyone else at the table what's in his hand.

Oh, boy. Here we go.
   3239. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4213957)
Here's the e-mail I got from the DNC:


If I ever got an email from the DNC or RNC the first thing I would do is adjust my spam filter, and if that didn't work, get a new email address.

A guy I work with has the same name as a reasonably prominent (well, maybe 5-10 years ago) Democratic campaign "consultant," this guy is a dedicated liberal (the guy I work with, his name doppelganger is likely amoral scum like most other campaign operatives), well starting about 5 years ago, my co-worker started getting all sorts of emails, regular mail, etc from first the RNC, then just about every right leaning PAC, think tank, whatever, you can think of.

Apparently at some point someone at the RNC thought it would be fun or something to mail that crap to their campaign adversaries...
   3240. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4213959)
"Worthy of contempt" seems overly harsh. It's one thing to dislike his position on abortion, but considering him "contemptible" merely for being wrong seems a bit much.


I think its his belief that there is such a thing as "legitimate" rape (i.e., forcible rape) that really got the ball rolling, the bit about rape not leading to pregnancy was more an item of derision than anything else, the bit about him being pro-life/ no exceptions, well he's not the only Pol who holds that view, but this is convenient time to point out that it's in the Party's platform.

But, I'm speaking for myself, as I don't view being pro-life/anti-abortion as being contemptible, and I do not like the knee jerk reaction of many on the left to accuse anyone who does not believe in abortion on demand as being a misogynistic reactionary monster.
   3241. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4213963)
Quote - "Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here".


You could have fooled the rest of us. From what I can tell, Akin's had the same position on abortion for decades, and yet he was anonymous until a few days ago.


Anonymous?

He was ensconced in safely red seat his entire career - Democrats have been trying to make national hay of that 20% forever... but they never get any oxygen because most statewide and national candidates dance around the question.

Believe it or not, Joe -- someone of us actually participate in this politics thing because we care about the issues and policies these guys vote on, just because the so-called "Liberal Media" doesn't see fit to highlight the policy position of a significant part of the GOP base and likewise doesn't aid us in explaining to the rest of the nation that even if plenty of the GOP collectively might disagree with said rump base, the rump base still gets its way... well...

I wish the "liberal media" did exist - Akin wouldn't have been so anonymous. However, the sensationalist media DOES exist - and it provides a prime vehicle to expose that 20% and the power they hold within the GOP caucus.
   3242. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4213965)
I agree. It disgusts me that Congress is full of liberals who are willfully ignorant about basic economics.

Thank god the conservatives have always, ALWAYS been right on economic issues. At least they're in power some of the time!


From what I can tell, Akin's had the same position on abortion for decades, and yet he was anonymous until a few days ago.

As I said already, and you ignored, whole hell of a lot of people have been against him for quite awhile. Just not enough. You want to blame someone for his current lack of anonymity, I'm sure Akin's address is somewhere online.

   3243. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4213970)
Anonymous?

Yes, anonymous. He's been in Congress for 12 years, but how often was he on national TV before he said something stupid about rape?

He was ensconced in safely red seat his entire career - Democrats have been trying to make national hay of that 20% forever... but they never get any oxygen because most statewide and national candidates dance around the question.

Ah, so Akin's decades-long position on abortion is so incredibly odious that ... no one has been able to make hay of it in election after election.

Believe it or not, Joe -- someone of us actually participate in this politics thing because we care about the issues and policies these guys vote on, just because the so-called "Liberal Media" doesn't see fit to highlight the policy position of a significant part of the GOP base and likewise doesn't aid us in explaining to the rest of the nation that even if plenty of the GOP collectively might disagree with said rump base, the rump base still gets its way... well...

I know, I know. You liberals care so much more than us heartless right-wingers, who only participate in politics because we've grown bored with our yachts and mansions.
   3244. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4213972)
But, I'm speaking for myself, as I don't view being pro-life/anti-abortion as being contemptible, and I do not like the knee jerk reaction of many on the left to accuse anyone who does not believe in abortion on demand as being a misogynistic reactionary monster.


Isn't 'abortion on demand' itself a knee-jerk reaction to those who support a pro-choice view?
   3245. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4213975)
I know, I know. You liberals care so much more than us heartless right-wingers, who only participate in politics because we've grown bored with our yachts and mansions.


No, I don't think all Republicans participate in politics because you get bored with your yachts and mansions -- I think some of you care very deeply about ensuring those uppity wimmenfolk remember whose rib they came from.
   3246. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4213982)
Ah, so Akin's decades-long position on abortion is so incredibly odious that ... no one has been able to make hay of it in election after election.

And you're complaining because he's now Democratic fundraising fodder?

Tell you what, Joe. You arrange to give us access to one of those Adelson or Koch Brothers slush funds, and you can have back your Mr. Right-to-Coathanger to do with him whatever the hell you want. You can put him on a cardboard replica of the USS Missouri and point him in the general direction of Patagonia, and we won't tell a soul.
   3247. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4213988)
Isn't 'abortion on demand' itself a knee-jerk reaction to those who support a pro-choice view?


I think abortion is bad, I do not think it is or should be a value neutral elective procedure like rhinoplasty. I would be fine with banning non-medical (i.e, physical health related) abortion after the 1st trimester. That position is greatly at odds with what the pro-choice activists want.

I wouldn't entirely ban abortion, there are cases where it is certainly medically required, and while I think abortion is bad, before a certain point in gestation its really no different than some forms of birth control, I do not think broth control should be banned (unlike Rick Santorum), so a line should be drawn somewhere in my POV, that line is somewhere after conception and sometime before birth, indeed before "viability"

I do not claim to know where that line is, I do not claim to stand with those who want all abortions banned- or indeed all post conception forms of birth control banned.
   3248. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4213992)
You arrange to give us access to one of those Adelson or Koch Brothers slush funds,

You still peddling this delusion? What's the matter, George Soros' latest $20 million check a couple days late?
   3249. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4213995)
I just like to point out that this situation with Akins started out because he was doing an interview with a local TV station in Missouri. The interviewer asked what Akins views on abortion and specifically his views on abortion in regards of women who were raped. (So it was an issue before this event, btw.) It was Akins who then shared his views. This wasn't a 'gotcha' moment, this wasn't edited to make him appear to say something he didn't actually say. So the whole idea that the media is out to get Akins is frankly wrong.

As for the national parties using it to their advantage, well, yeah. That's politics.

   3250. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4214003)
It was Akins who then shared his views. This wasn't a 'gotcha' moment, this wasn't edited to make him appear to say something he didn't actually say. So the whole idea that the media is out to get Akins is frankly wrong.

I never claimed the media targeted Akin, just that they blew the whole thing massively out of proportion relative to his prior relevance in the national political scene.
   3251. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4214012)

I never claimed the media targeted Akin, just that they blew the whole thing massively out of proportion relative to his prior relevance in the national political scene.


Like everything else these days? The top story for a week was Mitt Romney tying his dog on the top of his car, or Michelle Bachman's husband running Pray the Gay Away Camps. Don't get me started on the ####### annual "War on Christmas specials" on Fox News around X-mas time.

The difference is that Akin's viewpoints on abortion is relevant to the people of Missouri (Which is why it was asked by the interviewer) and whether he should be elected as the next senator of Missouri.
   3252. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4214013)
I do not think broth control should be banned


That's just what you'd expect from somebody in the pocket of Big Soup.
   3253. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4214017)
"Better" in the sense that the stories are more interesting, or "better" in the sense that they more competently describe the universe? Because I'd agree with the former but not the latter


I'm not sure any of our narratives "competently describes the universe." We live in a culture which values the world as existing or potential technology. We have a terribly difficult time seeing things outside of the rigorous application of that technological end. As such, we have constructed a theory of truth which self-defines as a theory of technical utility. I don't believe this is particularly more or less "competent"* than other narrative formulations that ascribe, describe and prescribe the world; I believe it's simply the gravity well we happen to live in, and seeing beyond the event horizon is really difficult.

*I find your decision to define value as "competence" - itself a subset of utility and techne, to be telling.
   3254. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4214020)
I wish the "liberal media" did exist


Whenever someone uses the phrase "liberal media" to refer to the media as a whole, rather than specific, left-leaning media outlets, that's a sure sign they are not to be taken seriously.
   3255. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4214023)

I think abortion is bad, I do not think it is or should be a value neutral elective procedure like rhinoplasty. I would be fine with banning non-medical (i.e, physical health related) abortion after the 1st trimester. That position is greatly at odds with what the pro-choice activists want.

I wouldn't entirely ban abortion, there are cases where it is certainly medically required, and while I think abortion is bad, before a certain point in gestation its really no different than some forms of birth control, I do not think broth control should be banned (unlike Rick Santorum), so a line should be drawn somewhere in my POV, that line is somewhere after conception and sometime before birth, indeed before "viability"

I do not claim to know where that line is, I do not claim to stand with those who want all abortions banned- or indeed all post conception forms of birth control banned.


But therein lies the problem --

Abortion is only 'bad' if you have room for some grey area on 'when life begins'... I suspect that in a vacuum, the pro-choice activists and the 'great middle' that finds abortion somehow 'distasteful' but ought to not be banned probably could reach a set of guidelines that they'd accept.

But - there's still that 20% - and for them, there is no compromise.

It's not a theoretical slippery slope, either -- Mississippi recently passed a law solely intended to backdoor outlaw abortions -- it required any physician practicing any form of 'reproductive health' to be a member of a hospital group... and of course, no hospital in Mississippi will accept a physician who will perform abortions. You can look at the state constitutional amendment that was up (and lost, but only by a few points) in South Dakota. You can look at the war on Planned Parenthood. You can look at the HR3 bill that passed the House in 2010 which sought specifically to change the Hyde language from 'rape' to 'forcible rape'.

On the other end of the spectrum, though -- has there been any state-level law or even push for a law that has expanded pro-choice rights?

It's hard for me to blame the pro-choice crowd for digging in their heals -- there's no compromise possible with the 20% and the slippery slope has been used to whittle away the basic idea that a woman isn't a state-owned-by-church-proxy incubator the moment she conceives (however she conceives).

Just read Joe -- at least, the small time he actually addressed the issue ("Akin's position is in the minority, to be sure (and it's not one I hold myself)") -- he certainly isn't willing to cast aside that 20% because he needs their votes... and when those votes manage to come up, even when they're just slicing away, inching ever closer to ultimately outlawing abortion - the dynamics of a two-party system all but ensure one caucus will line up almost wholly in favor, while the other lines up against.

If you were a woman, and you were offended by the idea that your body is only yours up until you engage in sex -- what do you do? That 20% isn't going away, they're loud, they're organized, and they have enough true believers IN office -- and enough other pseudo-believers that are afraid of them -- and they're not even going to stop at "first trimester". They just won't.

Do you continue inching towards them in the hopes that they'll change their minds?
   3256. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4214025)
Whenever someone uses the phrase "liberal media" to refer to the media as a whole, rather than specific, left-leaning media outlets, that's a sure sign they are not to be taken seriously.

Yep.
   3257. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4214026)
I have been gone for a week on vacation and I finally caught up. Of all the conversations I guess I'll just comment on one.

I am an atheist, but I guess it would be considered a "soft atheist". I have no "faith in my heart" - I don't personally believe in God. What other people believe is largely irrelevant to me, since this is a metter of faith I don't think there is much to prove. I am sure of my belief, but I acknowledge that my belief does not have much relevance to whether there really is a God or not.

I think fanatics or all sorts are annoying, especially when they try to tell me what to think. There are more religious folks then atheists, so there are more religious fanatics, but I suspect the ratio is about the same.

And I have known people for years who have no idea my beliefs. My kids know, and they also know that they should decide for themselves what they believe. For the record the ex-spouse does believe, but also thinks the kids should decide for themselves.

Oh yeah - welcome back Andy!
   3258. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4214027)
This wasn't a 'gotcha' moment, this wasn't edited to make him appear to say something he didn't actually say. So the whole idea that the media is out to get Akins is frankly wrong.


The right wingers will cling to their 'liberal media' bogeyman as tightly as little Zebediah clings to that raptor he's riding at the creationist museum.
   3259. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4214033)
The right wingers will cling to their 'liberal media' bogeyman as tightly as little Zebediah clings to that raptor he's riding at the creationist museum.

Part of the "our ideology never fails, but is constantly failed by institutions beyond its control" theme.
   3260. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4214038)
It's hard for me to blame the pro-choice crowd for digging in their heals -- there's no compromise possible with the 20% and the slippery slope has been used to whittle away the basic idea that a woman isn't a state-owned-by-church-proxy incubator the moment she conceives (however she conceives).


I'll begin with a caveat; I respect people who admit that they don't allow for rape/incest exceptions more than I do people who claim to be "pro-life" but then hedge on rape/incest. They have the courage of their convictions.

The convictions that underlie the "pro-life" position is that anything from zygote forward is a "human being" with "human rights." This is predicated on the idea that "life" begins when Little Baby Jesus reaches into a woman's baby-factory and breathes a divine soul into Daddy's Sacred Sperm, just as the little fella is winning YHWH's Holy Interuteran Swim Meet. If you believe "life" begins at conception, and you believe that all life must be protected because all life has "human rights", then you must by definition believe that the conditions of conception are irrelevant to the rights of the zygote-fetus-baby-thingamabob.

"Pro-lifers" don't think they're hating on women. They think they're protecting babies from murderers. Yes, this is stupid. But at least the folks who admit as much, without the hedging caveat "but if the super sacred divine life was conceived in icky conditions I'll pretend like it's not really 'life' this time," provide a clarity to the position at hand.
   3261. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4214039)
Whenever someone uses the phrase "liberal media" to refer to the media as a whole, rather than specific, left-leaning media outlets, that's a sure sign they are not to be taken seriously.

I figured the lefties here would bash the MRC link I posted yesterday, but I guess they prefer to pretend the data on the liberal media doesn't exist at all. In their world, a media that admittedly votes for liberals over 90 percent of the time is totally neutral. Move along, nothing to see, etc.
   3262. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4214041)
I think fanatics or all sorts are annoying, especially when they try to tell me what to think. There are more religious folks then atheists, so there are more religious fanatics, but I suspect the ratio is about the same.


While I concur, I do think it ought to be noted that the atheists fanatics tend to drive towards policies that really have little impact on me -- whether a student has to say the 1950s-added line about 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether a nativity scene should be up on the lawn of the town hall, and whether the word 'God' should be on money, or whatever... While I intellectually agree with the atheist side, I really don't give a crap about those things enough to actively do anything about them. If they want to file a suit, have at it -- my life won't change much based on what silliness a courthouse puts on its lawn.

On the hand, being single, enjoying sex even while single, using contraception during that sex, and even having that sex explicitly for purposes beyond procreation -- well... religious fanatics in power WOULD have an impact on my life - well before we even got into whether my language was appropriate for punishment, what I can read or watch on TV, etc.... Of course, I guess I'd never have to sit through another Da Vinci code movie again - so maybe there's an upside to everything.
   3263. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4214042)
You arrange to give us access to one of those Adelson or Koch Brothers slush funds,

You still peddling this delusion? What's the matter, George Soros' latest $20 million check a couple days late?


Feeding facts to you is like feeding a cheeseburger to an observant Jew, but while Soros has pledged $2,000,000 to the Democrats this year, Adelson alone is fast approaching $100,000,000 in what he's already given or pledged to give to candidates from Gingrich to Romney.
   3264. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4214052)
Adelson alone is fast approaching $100,000,000 in what he's already given or pledged to give to candidates from Gingrich to Romney.

I'm not sure which I love more, capitalism or free speech. Thanks to Citizens United, I don't have to choose!
   3265. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4214053)
It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far left as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even conservative. It's an outgrowth of the childish notion that they are the center of the universe, the ground around which all else must move.

Part of the "our ideology never fails, but is constantly failed by institutions beyond its control" theme.


You'd think people who keep advocating the same policies and political models that failed from the 40s and 60s would see the irony, but nope. The failures of liberalism can only be fixed by doing more of what failed the first time.
   3266. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4214054)
I figured the lefties here would bash the MRC link I posted yesterday, but I guess they prefer to pretend the data on the liberal media doesn't exist. In their world, a media that admittedly votes for liberals over 90 percent of the time is totally neutral. Move along, nothing to see, etc.


Since I'm bored, I'll engage in the pointlessness of responding...

I know it's hard for you to believe, what with the view from up on the cross obscuring reality and all, but it is possible for someone to hold ideological opinions that come in conflict their job duties. Having worked for a legal publisher under 2 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, 3 years of Obama and a variety of congresses -- I do it all the time.

Your study is no different from me tossing out studies that show liberalism, to be, on average more associated with higher IQs or levels of education and then inferring from those studies that liberalism is smarter. It's the same sort of assertion.

   3267. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4214055)
I'll give the "liberal media" bogeyman a little more CGI than anyone else than Joe here, but the real question for me is: why should I care, at all?

If the country is as divided as it seems down the middle with the recent close elections and STILL the right can't come up with a more objective media outlet, I honestly can't be bothered to care. Not only that, the liberal bias is - as far as I'm concerned - about as liberally biased as Obama himself, being solidly center-left and ignoring things I'd rather they didn't quite frequently.

If you are going to whine and cry as Joe is about the liberal media and STILL the best anyone who does so can come up with is the bald-faced liars that are FOX, other than questioning what I hear and ignoring MSNBC, I'm not sure what else there is to do about it from over here.


The failures of liberalism can only be fixed by doing more of what failed the first time.

Unlike the failures of conservativism. They totally never repeat themselves, those innovative SOBs.
   3268. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4214057)
I wandered over to Townhall, and got sidetracked by an article full of Sarah Palin quotes... to tell the truth some were actually pretty good such as:

15) There were times (during my early campaigns) when I thought, “You know what I could really use? A wife.”


Only dead fish go with the flow.


1) They say the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.


... and it doesn't look like they are defending Akin...

   3269. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4214059)

You'd think people who keep advocating the same policies and political models that failed from the 40s and 60s would see the irony, but nope. The failures of liberalism can only be fixed by doing more of what failed the first time.


Define failure.

Medicare and Social Security have been pretty successful programs -- the passage of Social Security dovetails with a marked drop in senior poverty, while the health of seniors collectively in the US has improved markedly since the introduction of Medicare. Both programs are popular enough that it's a very rare politician who just wishes to flat out damn them out of the national fabric.

What specific programs have failed -- and which have been resurrected in the same form?
   3270. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4214060)
You'd think people who keep advocating the same policies and political models that failed from the 40s and 60s would see the irony, but nope.


So the answer is to advocate the same polices that failed in the 1890s and 1920s? Which failures lead to the 40s and 60s policies in the first place?

   3271. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4214063)
So the answer is to advocate the same polices that failed in the 1890s and 1920s? Which failures lead to the 40s and 60s policies in the first place?

Precisely. What could go wrong?
   3272. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4214067)
Define failure.

How's that Great Society working out?
   3273. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4214068)
I figured the lefties here would bash the MRC link I posted yesterday, but I guess they prefer to pretend the data on the liberal media doesn't exist. In their world, a media that admittedly votes for liberals over 90 percent of the time is totally neutral.


"Conservative research organization proves liberal media bias." Shocking.

While the politics of people who work in newsrooms skews left, the politics of media owners skew right. None of this is new information to anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes researching the subject. The structural constraints and conditions of commercial media exert a far greater influence than the political leanings of individual actors in the system. The American ideal of "objective journalism" is pursued almost to a fault by contemporary media, and more importantly, it's taught in journalism schools. But I'm sure you'll dismiss all of the research on journalistic culture, socialization, and the political economy of media based on the "study" you cited by the conservative media research organization.

Plus, Fox news and AM radio are overwhelmingly and uncontroversially skewed conservative. Apparently, you think those organizations are not part of "the" media.


   3274. asdf1234 Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4214072)
Don't be such a ####### child.


Lassus has the red ass this week.

Whenever someone uses the phrase "liberal media" to refer to the media as a whole, rather than specific, left-leaning media outlets, that's a sure sign they are not to be taken seriously.

Yep.


It's also useful to tune out anyone who uses radical as a condemnation, as bad, brainless polemic is sure to follow. "Protecting our freedoms" is another good one. Irony-free use of Kochsuckers, Kochtopus, and The 99% are way up there.
   3275. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4214082)
How's that Great Society working out?


Which parts?

Like I said, Medicare has worked out quite well.
   3276. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4214091)
You arrange to give us access to one of those Adelson or Koch Brothers slush funds,

You still peddling this delusion? What's the matter, George Soros' latest $20 million check a couple days late?

Adelson alone is fast approaching $100,000,000 in what he's already given or pledged to give to candidates from Gingrich to Romney.

I'm not sure which I love more, capitalism or free speech. Thanks to Citizens United, I don't have to choose!


I have to admire the speed with which you can bring up Soros's name in one wannabee "gotcha" post, and then drop him like a hot potato as soon as some inconvenient facts are introduced into the conversation.

OTOH if you stopped doing things like that and decided to conduct yourself in a less eelish posting manner, I'd suspect that you'd suddenly transformed yourself into one of those pod people. That might make for a better dialogue but would still be a bit unsettling.
   3277. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4214092)
It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far left as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even conservative.


Perceptions of media bias are in the eye of the beholder-- if you're right-wing, you'll select stories that seem to present a left-wing slant on an issue, and if you're left-wing, you'll select stories that present a right-wing framing of an issue. It's a classic case of confirmation bias, and why discussions of a general left- or right-lean in the media are pretty worthless. Don't let that stop you from characteristically sounding like a pompous jackass on the subject.

The structural issues are real, and they are substantial, but they don't reduce to a simple left/right political mapping.
   3278. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4214095)
Unlike the failures of conservativism. They totally never repeat themselves, those innovative SOBs.


Of course they do, because that's what people do. It's the embarrassing lack of self-awareness of some of the lefties here that merits my mockery.

How's that Great Society working out?


Outta sight my man! High five!

"Conservative research organization proves liberal media bias." Shocking.


If the research is wrong, you should be able to provide some evidence other than handwaving. It's Ok, we'll wait. We've been waiting a few decades now, no rush.
   3279. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4214096)
We've been waiting a few decades now

Where "waiting" means "making sh!t up."
   3280. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4214104)
As if on cue, Jake Tapper admits the obvious:

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, White House reporter Jake Tapper said that the media is failing the country.

"A lot of people are hurting out there. Unemployment is 8.3 percent. That doesn’t even take into account the underemployed,” he said, arguing that too much time has been spent not talking about the economy.

Tapper also criticized the media for not giving enough attention to the war in Afghanistan.

"We are spending a lot of time in the last few weeks, those of us in the political world, political journalists and also politicians, talking about things other than the economy," said Tapper. "[A] lot of people are hurting out there. I’d like to see more action taken and more emphasis given to this issue.”

Tapper also said he relates to Mark Halperin's recent comments about the media. Over the weekend, Halperin said, "I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this."

"I have said before… [that I] thought the media helped tip the scales. I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hilary Clinton or John McCain," Tapper said.

On the 2008 coverage, he noted, "Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, [the] campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage."
   3281. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4214106)
If the research is wrong, you should be able to provide some evidence other than handwaving. It's Ok, we'll wait. We've been waiting a few decades now, no rush.


Step 1: Make up bogeyman.
Step 2: Make up "study" that shows bogeyman is totally fer reals, man.
Step 3: Chastise others for failing to prove bogeyman is not real.

We're still waiting for you to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist.
   3282. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4214107)
Where "waiting" means "making sh!t up."


Evidence talks, bullshit walks. Still waiting for some of the former.
   3283. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4214110)

How's that Great Society working out?


As zonk notes, the parts that were actually enacted worked rather well. The Great Society as passed focused on poverty among seniors, which decreased markedly as a result. The overall U.S. poverty rate declined from 22.5% in 1959 to 12.5% in 1971.
   3284. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4214117)
As zonk notes, the parts that were actually enacted worked rather well.

What about the non-senior aspects of the War on Poverty?

The overall U.S. poverty rate declined from 22.5% in 1959 to 12.5% in 1971.

The poverty rate was already in steep decline before the so-called War on Poverty began.
   3285. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4214121)
Evidence talks, ######## walks.


You confuse "evidence" with \"#### we made up to confirm our own assumptions." You also confuse the proof of a negative with proving something positive.
   3286. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4214124)
If the research is wrong, you should be able to provide some evidence other than handwaving.


A study that says journalists vote Democratic is not evidence that the media those journalists produce leans left. And when that study refers to journalists as "the media elite", it's hard to take it's author seriously, because it shows a real lack of understanding of how news stories get produced. The structure of a news outlet usually trumps the agency of the individual actors operating within it. Journalists are employees of news companies-- it's not the other way around. And journalistic socialization specifically teaches that to succeed in American journalism means factoring your own subjectivity out of the stories you report, because of the ideal of objectivity that informs US news coverage.*

*Except for Fox and MSNBC.
   3287. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4214125)
Those Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act thingies seem to have been pretty good too. I'm kind of a fan of the consumer and environmental protection deals as well.
   3288. steagles Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4214133)
3265. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4214053)
It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far left as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even conservative.
i love the astonishing lack of self-recognition here. just to change a few words:

It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far right as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even liberal.


well, admittedly, you've blown right past the thought of a neutral media, so i guess it's not entirely analogous, but still i can't help but think that, when you believe everyone else is a hardcore liberal, it's probably not because they're hardcore liberals (especially since there really is no such thing as a hardcore liberal in america), but more likely, it's because you, yourself, are a hardcore....

you know, i hate using the word conservative here, because you really aren't conservative, but i guess that'll have to do.


   3289. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4214136)
you know, i hate using the word conservative here, because you really aren't conservative, but i guess that'll have to do.


The term you are looking for is "reactionary." American right wingers are reactionaries, not conservatives.
   3290. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4214142)

What about the non-senior aspects of the War on Poverty?


There wasn't much. A lot of things ended up on the table. But what there was provided many benefits.

The poverty rate was already in steep decline before the so-called War on Poverty began.


Due to Social Security, another liberal program. Surely you aren't making a simplistic extrapolation based on past trends and asserting that the trend would have continued absent any intervention?
   3291. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4214144)
Those Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act thingies seem to have been pretty good too.

Interesting to see you cite two laws that got higher percentages of GOP votes than Dem votes. I presume this was an error on your part.
   3292. Tilden Katz Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4214148)
Interesting to see you cite two laws that got higher percentages of GOP votes than Dem votes. I presume this was an error on your part.


Those southern Democrats sure were liberal heroes!
   3293. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4214150)
A study that says journalists vote Democratic is not evidence that the media those journalists produce leans left. And when that study refers to journalists as "the media elite", it's hard to take it's author seriously, because it shows a real lack of understanding for how news stories get produced. The structure of a news outlet usually trumps the agency of the individual actors operating within it. Journalists are employees of news companies-- it's not the other way around. And journalistic socialization specifically teaches that to succeed in American journalism means factoring your own subjectivity out of the stories you report, because of the ideal of objectivity that informs US news coverage.


So no evidence, we're just supposed to take your word for it that the overwhelming majority of journalists being Democrats/liberals is meaningless.

And if 90% of journalists were members of the KKK, would you be so sanguine about their ability to cover racial issues fairly? If not, why not? Surely their "journalistic socialization (lol)" would override their thoughts, beliefs and ideologies, right?

You confuse "evidence" with \"#### we made up to confirm our own assumptions." You also confuse the proof of a negative with proving something positive.


The dominance of the mainstream media by liberals/Democrats is a fact, it's not open to debate. But to admit that this benefits the Democratic Party/liberalism both grants legitimacy to the claims of the other side, and weakens that of your own. You do realize you're doing exactly what you like to accuse Joe of doing? Letting your lizard brain spin desperately for your side, in full contradiction of reality, because to do otherwise would display weakness and vulnerability. Go have a shower and think about what you've done here.
   3294. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4214155)

Interesting to see you cite two laws that got more GOP votes than Dem votes. I presume this was an error on your part.


Doesn't that show that aspects of the Great Society were in fact, popular then?
   3295. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4214156)
The dominance of the mainstream media by liberals/Democrats is a fact, it's not open to debate.

Those words, "dominance" and "fact"? I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
   3296. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4214158)

Interesting to see you cite two laws that got more GOP votes than Dem votes. I presume this was an error on your part.


Doesn't that show that aspects of the Great Society were in fact, popular then?
   3297. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4214159)
Due to Social Security, another liberal program. Surely you aren't making a simplistic extrapolation based on past trends and asserting that the trend would have continued absent any intervention?

Well, it was a reach to suggest the U.S. needed a War on Poverty when the poverty rate was already in steep decline. But using the same logic, are we to presume that the breakdown of the family had nothing to do with the dependence fostered by many Great Society programs? There's a stronger link between the Great Society and the breakdown of the family than there is the Great Society and the relatively minor subsequent (and temporary) decline in the poverty rate.

Despite an almost 50-year War on Poverty, the U.S. has more people in poverty now, both in number and percentage, than it did in the '60s. The liberal solution to this is, of course, even more of the same policies and spending.
   3298. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4214160)
Despite an almost 50-year War on Poverty, the U.S. has more people in poverty now, both in number and percentage, than it did in the '60s.
There are about seven different things comically wrong with this statement, but I'll take two.

1) The characterization of American policy post-Reagan as 30 years of a "war on poverty".
2) The comparison of the poverty rate during a deep recession to the poverty rate during the late 60s boom

Joe Kehoskie is either uninterested in or incapable of intelligent conversation about political topics.
   3299. Spahn Insane Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4214162)
Yes, Republicans want Akin out because the media made a huge, national story out of some unknown GOP candidate's poor choice of words with regards to rape.

He's not "some unknown GOP candidate." He's the GOP candidate for the Senate seat that's probably more likely to flip from D to R than any other this cycle.

Preemptive Cokes as required...
   3300. Spahn Insane Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4214165)
The dominance of the mainstream media by liberals/Democrats is a fact, it's not open to debate.

Those words, "dominance" and "fact"? I do not think they mean what you think they mean.


And, for that matter, "liberals."
Page 33 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2819 - 1:36pm, Sep 17)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(187 - 1:35pm, Sep 17)
Last: Conor

NewsblogJoe Girardi: ‘Pitch the right way’
(1 - 1:34pm, Sep 17)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(48 - 1:33pm, Sep 17)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(64 - 1:33pm, Sep 17)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-17-2014
(15 - 1:23pm, Sep 17)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogBryan Cranston’s One-Man Baseball Play Inspired By ‘Looney Tunes’ Is Incredible
(53 - 1:21pm, Sep 17)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(46 - 1:20pm, Sep 17)
Last: dlf

NewsblogRyan Zimmerman Watches Nats Celebrate From Afar
(3 - 1:15pm, Sep 17)
Last: Bourbon Samurai in Asia

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(251 - 1:01pm, Sep 17)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(246 - 12:56pm, Sep 17)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogChris Davis Rescues Man Pinned Under Truck
(39 - 12:54pm, Sep 17)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(50 - 12:30pm, Sep 17)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(31 - 12:23pm, Sep 17)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(827 - 11:59am, Sep 17)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Page rendered in 1.1601 seconds
52 querie(s) executed