Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: GarMan on March 20, 2012, 12:33:47 PM
-
Now, that's a perfect response...
http://www.mrctv.org/embed/111166 (http://www.mrctv.org/embed/111166)
-
My response would be...
"We already have free birth control, it is called abstinence. If you are looking for other free stuff....."
-
It's a great response for those who understand him, but you know how this will be spun.
-
My response would be...
"We already have free birth control, it is called abstinence. If you are looking for other free stuff....."
I'm not saying I really disagree with Romney on this, but really?
My wife is on birth control, because we're not ready for kids yet. Does this make her a slut? Are we freeloaders if we think our health insurance policy should cover birth control, just like it does any other medications I pick up from the Pharmacy?
-
I'm not saying I really disagree with Romney on this, but really?
My wife is on birth control, because we're not ready for kids yet. Does this make her a slut? Are we freeloaders if we think our health insurance policy should cover birth control, just like it does any other medications I pick up from the Pharmacy?
Really?
How is what you are saying even a comparison? You CHOOSE to have sex with your wife. Why the flying fuck should the government be forced to make sure that you don't have children yet???? And I am pretty sure no one is talking about "health insurance policies". We were talking about government subsidized birth control...
That is really one of the most pointless arguments I have seen you make on here...
-
And did I call her a slut? Or call you free loaders? WTF?
-
Really?
How is what you are saying even a comparison? You CHOOSE to have sex with your wife. Why the flying fuck should the government be forced to make sure that you don't have children yet???? And I am pretty sure no one is talking about "health insurance policies". We were talking about government subsidized birth control...
That is really one of the most pointless arguments I have seen you make on here...
I'm just sick of seeing this kind of rhetoric from the right on this issue.
If we're going to have government sponsored health care, which I tend to oppose, but if we are (and we are), then you're getting into governing morality again when you start pontificating would should and shouldn't be covered because it may not jive with your religious belief. If you're going to use the argument "Well, everyone who uses birth control are sluts" (i.e. the Rush controversy, and the title of this thread), you're just being an asshole. It's fallacious, and it irks me.
Viagara's for fucking. It's covered.
-
I'm just sick of seeing this kind of rhetoric from the right on this issue.
If we're going to have government sponsored health care, which I tend to oppose, but if we are (and we are), then you're getting into governing morality again when you start pontificating would should and shouldn't be covered because it may not jive with your religious belief. If you're going to use the argument "Well, everyone who uses birth control are sluts" (i.e. the Rush controversy, and the title of this thread), you're just being an asshole. It's fallacious, and it irks me.
Viagara's for fucking. It's covered.
I know you're intelligent, but your lack of wisdom and experience never ceases to amaze me. You're sick of seeing this kind of rhetoric from the right? Well, I'm sick and fucking tired of the continual entitlement mentality of those to the left of every fucking issue and non-issue. When did birth control become healthcare? And, when the fuck did it become free? This isn't a religious argument. It's a point of common sense. And, since you and other mental midgets keep missing the point, let me lay it out for you. Women who use birth control are not sluts. Women who use birth control and expect others to pay for it are skanky assed sluts. Do you see the difference there?
BTW, not all forms of birth control are covered by all insurance, and neither is Viagra. Government healthcare shouldn't include them either.
-
I'm just sick of seeing this kind of rhetoric from the right on this issue.
If we're going to have government sponsored health care, which I tend to oppose, but if we are (and we are), then you're getting into governing morality again when you start pontificating would should and shouldn't be covered because it may not jive with your religious belief. If you're going to use the argument "Well, everyone who uses birth control are sluts" (i.e. the Rush controversy, and the title of this thread), you're just being an asshole. It's fallacious, and it irks me.
Viagara's for fucking. It's covered.
You are making shit up just to argue. Nothing was said about any of the points you are making....
-
You're sick of seeing this kind of rhetoric from the right? Well, I'm sick and fucking tired of the continual entitlement mentality of those to the left of every fucking issue and non-issue. When did birth control become healthcare? And, when the fuck did it become free? This isn't a religious argument. It's a point of common sense. And, since you and other mental midgets keep missing the point, let me lay it out for you. Women who use birth control are not sluts. Women who use birth control and expect others to pay for it are skanky assed sluts. Do you see the difference there?
BTW, not all forms of birth control are covered by all insurance, and neither is Viagra. Government healthcare shouldn't include them either.
This.
-
You are making shit up just to argue. Nothing was said about any of the points you are making....
WTF are you talking about?
Romney addresses a slut...
My response would be...
"We already have free birth control, it is called abstinence. If you are looking for other free stuff....."
You're preaching abstinence and GarMan's calling her a slut because she wants birth control covered in a healthcare bill that would cover other drugs.
-
Viagara's for fucking. It's covered.
Old people don't make babies. No babies means no potential economic drain from parents who rely on the system to pay for their birth control.
What happened to personal accountability? What happened to consequences for actions and making good decisions?
-
What happened to personal accountability? What happened to consequences for actions and making good decisions?
Oh, you silly-assed old people... You're so old-fashioned. Who needs personal accountability when we have an endless supply of Obama money?
-
Oh, you silly-assed old people... You're so old-fashioned. Who needs personal accountability when we have an endless supply of Obama money?
Don't you want to earn Obama bucks?
No. In fact, I'll give you a billion Kaos nickels to go away and never talk to me again.
What's the ratio of Obama bucks to Kaos nickels?
The same as the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns.
-
Are we freeloaders if we think our health insurance policy should cover birth control, just like it does any other medications I pick up from the Pharmacy?
YES! YES! HELL YES!
If you do not want kids, then that is your choice. But don't expect all of the other participants in your plan to pick up your slack. Now if it is prescribed due to a MEDICAL condition, then maybe you have a valid argument.
-
Or you could just do teh butt sexes.
-
My wife was on birth control for medical reasons well before we were married.
Insurance covers it.
I understand the argument that if the government is going to pay for healthcare, then contraception for medical reasons should be covered. But this goes back to the root of the problem. I don't think the government should pay for healthcare.
I feel like this is a shady ploy by those who support the healthcare bill to move past its constitutionality/general acceptance and into why only the lunatic fringe opposes it based on insignificant fractions.
It's startling to see these kind of tactics, but then again, it's not unlike those on the extreme left to use bullshit argument strategies to get what they want.
"I oppose Barack Obama because he lacks experience." That's only because his skin is dark and you suffer from racist tendencies.
"I don't think the government should be doling out monthly checks to poor people especially not for a long period of time." So you're one of those looney "trickle down" Reaganists that thinks the rich should be taken care of and the poor feel the tax burden.
"I don't think the government should pay for healthcare." Oh look! Another misogynist, chauvinist pig who thinks women on birth control are sluts and only the elite should receive healthcare.
Sadly, there are no adults in the room to combat any of this.
-
I have an idea, if any of you guys want to find out what having kids are like, I'll let you kee....borrow one or three of mine. See, it be like a trial period for you and your wives; although you may never want to have sex again out of fear.
-
I have an idea, if any of you guys want to find out what having kids are like, I'll let you kee....borrow one or three of mine. See, it be like a trial period for you and your wives; although you may never want to have sex again out of fear.
I say we go into business together, renting out our kids to parents, so they can "scare straight" their teenage children into abstaining.
-
I say we go into business together, renting out our kids to parents, so they can "scare straight" their teenage children into abstaining.
That would make for some funny ass reality TV; for us anyway. I'm seeing dolla billz.
-
That would make for some funny ass reality TV; for us anyway. I'm seeing dolla billz.
I will throw in Mini-AUT1, but only at bedtime when has played all day and not got a nap in. That kid gets really pissy when he is tired.
-
WTF are you talking about?
You're preaching abstinence and GarMan's calling her a slut because she wants birth control covered in a healthcare bill that would cover other drugs.
I am "preaching abstinence"??? Really? Abstinence is a form of "free" birth control. I just stated what my answer would be.
I have a 6 month old daughter. A daughter that neither my wife or I actually planned on having. I knew when I was having sex with my wife, that there was a chance that the birth control wasn't working because she just switched birth control forms. We had sex...a lot...any way. Who's fault is it that we now have a 6 month old daughter? The drug companies because the drug didn't work fast enough? The government because they don't regulate an immediate birth control form? Nope. Ours. Because we had to have intercourse to actually conceive the child. if we would have abstained, my beautiful daughter would not be with us today.
This is why I don't post in this forum...I make one comment and now I am preaching everything I say gets twisted and turned...
-
I am "preaching abstinence"??? Really? Abstinence is a form of "free" birth control. I just stated what my answer would be.
I have a 6 month old daughter. A daughter that neither my wife or I actually planned on having. I knew when I was having sex with my wife, that there was a chance that the birth control wasn't working because she just switched birth control forms. We had sex...a lot...any way. Who's fault is it that we now have a 6 month old daughter? The drug companies because the drug didn't work fast enough? The government because they don't regulate an immediate birth control form? Nope. Ours. Because we had to have intercourse sex to actually conceive the child. if we would have abstained, my beautiful daughter would not be with us today.
This is why I don't post in this forum...I make one comment and now I am preaching everything I say gets twisted and turned...
Most of us just ignore Chizad and start quoting movies. That's the format isn't it?
-
So you're one of those looney "trickle down" Reaganists that thinks the rich should be taken care of and the poor feel the tax burden.
THIS...the myth here from the left that supply side and free market takes care of the rich. No, it takes care of those who want to achieve and be something. Sure, Reagan lowered the top tax rates. Who do these people think creates the jobs - people on welfare or that make 7.25 at McD's? NO, the rich do.
Sadly, there are no adults in the room to combat any of this.
And THIS
And Chizad, no one is saying that somone can't have birth control. MOST plans cover it and it ends up being about 4-10 bucks a month at Wal Mart or other big box pharma outlet.
The issue here is 2 fold:
1. Mandating religious orgs to have it (again, most other emps will have it like today, no difference)
2. Making them (ins comp/employer) supply it FREE. Well, nothing is free and many people have issue with that.
As WE!! said, it is subsidized. Someone else will be paying for this whether its taxpayers or other policy holders across the board. And you always have the option to purchase it out of pocket or buy your own personal insurance plan. No one is restricting a woman's right to birth control. That is PURE Propaganda to sway the female vote during an election cycle.
-
Most of us just ignore Chizad and start quoting movies. That's the format isn't it?
Don't forget about asking for video of the sex.
-
I am "preaching abstinence"??? Really? Abstinence is a form of "free" birth control. I just stated what my answer would be.
I have a 6 month old daughter. A daughter that neither my wife or I actually planned on having. I knew when I was having sex with my wife, that there was a chance that the birth control wasn't working because she just switched birth control forms. We had sex...a lot...any way. Who's fault is it that we now have a 6 month old daughter? The drug companies because the drug didn't work fast enough? The government because they don't regulate an immediate birth control form? Nope. Ours. Because we had to have intercourse to actually conceive the child. if we would have abstained, my beautiful daughter would not be with us today.
This is why I don't post in this forum...I make one comment and now I am preaching everything I say gets twisted and turned...
Dead on. Accountability is something missing today.
-
I employed a secretary once that loved to have it trickle down her chin.
-
I employed a secretary once that loved to have it trickle down her chin.
Blam blam, blam to dem all
Listen to the shots from my ni**a Doggy Dogg (pump pump)
-
Most of us just ignore Chizad and start quoting movies. That's the format isn't it?
What we need is someone around here who knows the format.
-
Sadly, there are no adults in the room to combat any of this.
THIS!
Political discourse has turned into a circus. Morons like Limbaugh and Maher don't help the matter any. The population as a whole has become accustomed to being drastically divided by party lines, and they giggle with glee at the chance to call the other party an idiot (or a slut, or a Communist, etc.).
Politicians and pundits alike (though moreso with the pundits) can't sit down and have fucking logical, intelligent discourse without resulting to insults, straw man arguments, or hyperbolic fear-mongering. And the idiot masses blindly follow along and parrot exactly what has been stated in the "news" by "commentators" and "concerned politicians" as if it's been handed down by God as the ultimate truth.
In short, politics has become a joke. Unfortunately, it's a joke that's being played on us.
-
THIS!
Political discourse has turned into a circus. Morons like Limbaugh and Maher don't help the matter any. The population as a whole has become accustomed to being drastically divided by party lines, and they giggle with glee at the chance to call the other party an idiot (or a slut, or a Communist, etc.).
Politicians and pundits alike (though moreso with the pundits) can't sit down and have fucking logical, intelligent discourse without resulting to insults, straw man arguments, or hyperbolic fear-mongering. And the idiot masses blindly follow along and parrot exactly what has been stated in the "news" by "commentators" and "concerned politicians" as if it's been handed down by God as the ultimate truth.
In short, politics has become a joke. Unfortunately, it's a joke that's being played on us.
Of course, our situation is still far superior when compared to the non-majority Socialistic quagmires of Western Europe and Canada, the religious Middle Eastern states where you're stoned to death for being raped or practicing homosexuality and the other dictatorships of the past, present and future. It's definitely a circus, but that's just a result of our free society. You don't have to like it, and you don't even have to participate. But, if you choose not to participate, don't complain when you're run over and relegated as the butt of that joke.
-
Of course, our situation is still far superior when compared to the non-majority Socialistic quagmires of Western Europe and Canada, the religious Middle Eastern states where you're stoned to death for being raped or practicing homosexuality and the other dictatorships of the past, present and future. It's definitely a circus, but that's just a result of our free society. You don't have to like it, and you don't even have to participate. But, if you choose not to participate, don't complain when you're run over and relegated as the butt of that joke.
Sure, we're not Nazi Germany, but just because we don't fall into such an extreme doesn't mean that our "mild" state of dysfunction is acceptable and shouldn't be bettered.
-
Sure, we're not Nazi Germany, but just because we don't fall into such an extreme doesn't mean that our "mild" state of dysfunction is acceptable and shouldn't be bettered.
Of course... But, apathy isn't going to better anything.
-
Of course... But, apathy isn't going to better anything.
Hopefully calling all women that inquire about handout birth control a slut will then.
-
While I understand the need to participate in the political system in order to make changes, traditional participation (voting) is becoming more and more futile. If you're sent to the circus to vote, you're only given the choice between a monkey and a dancing bear.
The whole "lesser of two evils" cliché that everyone gives when they walk away from the ballot? Yeah, the gap that determines the lesser evil is quickly closing due to the media's and the public's desire to turn politics into a childish game involving name-calling taunts that aren't intended to address underlying substantive issues. Instead, the majority seems content with seeking to elicit emotional responses which further fail to address anything substantive. The public is eating it up, and the politicians are responding accordingly.
As a whole, our nation's citizens have turned into the stereotypical mob in South Park that will "rabble, rabble" at whatever ludicrous or asinine statements that are made. Instead of attempting to intelligently address an argument that is put forth, half of the masses giggle like school children when the advocate is referred to as a slut, while the other half emotionally responds with their angry rabble-rousing. No one wants to actually address the underlying issue in an explanatory manner, but instead, they want to cheer/whine about irrelevant name-calling that should have no place in serious political discourse.
It's not that I'm suggesting that the citizens should just throw their hands up in the air and do nothing in an apathetic manner; it's merely recognition that the typical form of participation (voting) is becoming more and more useless as time goes on, because "we" as a people are doing nothing but allowing absolute morons to become the voice of America.
-
While I understand the need to participate in the political system in order to make changes, traditional participation (voting) is becoming more and more futile. If you're sent to the circus to vote, you're only given the choice between a monkey and a dancing bear.
The whole "lesser of two evils" cliché that everyone gives when they walk away from the ballot? Yeah, the gap that determines the lesser evil is quickly closing due to the media's and the public's desire to turn politics into a childish game involving name-calling taunts that aren't intended to address underlying substantive issues. Instead, the majority seems content with seeking to elicit emotional responses which further fail to address anything substantive. The public is eating it up, and the politicians are responding accordingly.
As a whole, our nation's citizens have turned into the stereotypical mob in South Park that will "rabble, rabble" at whatever ludicrous or asinine statements that are made. Instead of attempting to intelligently address an argument that is put forth, half of the masses giggle like school children when the advocate is referred to as a slut, while the other half emotionally responds with their angry rabble-rousing. No one wants to actually address the underlying issue in an explanatory manner, but instead, they want to cheer/whine about irrelevant name-calling that should have no place in serious political discourse.
It's not that I'm suggesting that the citizens should just throw their hands up in the air and do nothing in an apathetic manner; it's merely recognition that the typical form of participation (voting) is becoming more and more useless as time goes on, because "we" as a people are doing nothing but allowing absolute morons to become the voice of America.
Gaawwwlee Mr. Vandy, you use your mouth purtyer than a $20.00 whore.
-
Gaawwwlee Mr. Vandy, you use your mouth purtyer than a $20.00 whore.
That's because I'm a $25 whore.
-
That's because I'm a $25 whore.
Whatever you do, don't call anyone a slut...Chad will go nuts...
-
Hopefully calling all women that inquire about handout birth control will then.
I make no excuses for it, and I don't mind stirring the pot. I find a woman requesting handout birth control just as repugnant as being called a slut.
-
While I understand the need to participate in the political system in order to make changes, traditional participation (voting) is becoming more and more futile. If you're sent to the circus to vote, you're only given the choice between a monkey and a dancing bear.
The whole "lesser of two evils" cliché that everyone gives when they walk away from the ballot? Yeah, the gap that determines the lesser evil is quickly closing due to the media's and the public's desire to turn politics into a childish game involving name-calling taunts that aren't intended to address underlying substantive issues. Instead, the majority seems content with seeking to elicit emotional responses which further fail to address anything substantive. The public is eating it up, and the politicians are responding accordingly.
As a whole, our nation's citizens have turned into the stereotypical mob in South Park that will "rabble, rabble" at whatever ludicrous or asinine statements that are made. Instead of attempting to intelligently address an argument that is put forth, half of the masses giggle like school children when the advocate is referred to as a slut, while the other half emotionally responds with their angry rabble-rousing. No one wants to actually address the underlying issue in an explanatory manner, but instead, they want to cheer/whine about irrelevant name-calling that should have no place in serious political discourse.
It's not that I'm suggesting that the citizens should just throw their hands up in the air and do nothing in an apathetic manner; it's merely recognition that the typical form of participation (voting) is becoming more and more useless as time goes on, because "we" as a people are doing nothing but allowing absolute morons to become the voice of America.
I can agree with virtually all of that... But, just review what happened in this thread. While I may have started the thread with a controversial tone, the banter that occurred between others is exactly what happens between most people who are passionate about an issue. It quickly goes to extremes, and each assembles seemingly ludicrous straw man arguments against the other. While we tend to keep our disagreements civil in the professional world, politics has always been contentious, and what you have articulated is no different than what has occurred since the beginning of organized government. Think back to the historical accounts of the Roman and Greek empires. While they didn't have modern media to facilitate communication to the masses, they still stood in the town squares accusing their political opponents of sleeping with sheep and goats. As distasteful as you may find that, nothing has really changed other than the communication mediums of print, radio and TV. We all hear about it now, whether we want it or not... As for the futility of voting for the lessor of two evils, again, this is nothing new. There has never been a perfect candidate. Today, everybody's flaws are just going to be the next day's headline.
-
Whatever you do, don't call anyone a slut...Chad will go nuts...
Slut!!!
-
Whatever you do, don't call anyone a slut...Chad will go nuts...
Take it easy, he can't help the Saints will be soon looking for another HC.
-
I can agree with virtually all of that... But, just review what happened in this thread. While I may have started the thread with a controversial tone, the banter that occurred between others is exactly what happens between most people who are passionate about an issue.
I was moreso discussing the public statements of politicians and pundits. How people converse amongst each other regarding their political views wasn't really the subject of my rant.
You calling the woman a slut because of her stance on government provided birth control doesn't bother me. For one, I know the reason why you oppose her argument based on other posts you've made, even if you decided not to expound upon it this time around. But, more importantly, you're not a well known political commentator who influences the general public.
Don't get me wrong...Limbaugh has the freedom to say whatever the hell he wants. I'm not suggesting that he or anyone else requires censorship because of their position in the media. But it's infuriating to me that he and others abuse their persuasive positions to sway the public opinion with irrelevant, derogatory, and meaningless diatribes that aren't necessary.
"Rabble rabble rabble, stupid slut, political stance refuted." So, we shouldn't have government provided birth control because one person is a stupid slut? That doesn't address the issue at all. Yet, people will latch onto these inane statements and will vote based upon them. "Liberals are stupid sinning sluts! We need monogamy and morality!" "Conservatives are women hating misogynists! We need access to medical shit!"
There is no public discourse as to why her stance is wrong; there's just rampant reporting of her being a slut. And I will admit that most of this is driven by the public itself. If the public weren't interested in this childish shit, then it wouldn't bring in ratings and wouldn't stay around. However, America as a whole is more worried about which bitch The Situation punched on Jersey Shore this week, and thus are more likely to respond when Letterman calls Bristol Palin a whore in the midst of McCain's presidential campaign.
You and I both know that the general population (especially when they are grouped together in political parties with similar ideals) operates like a herd of mindless sheep. It's a combination of the groupthink theory and the fact that the average American is a fucking idiot. The fact that these morons with a public audience have the desire to add fuel to the retard fire is sickening. They're encouraging the public to be ignorant on political issues, and to instead vote based upon exaggerated stereotypes and straw man fallacies that they've perpetuated for their own pecuniary gain.
It quickly goes to extremes, and each assembles seemingly ludicrous straw man arguments against the other. While we tend to keep our disagreements civil in the professional world, politics has always been contentious, and what you have articulated is no different than what has occurred since the beginning of organized government. Think back to the historical accounts of the Roman and Greek empires. While they didn't have modern media to facilitate communication to the masses, they still stood in the town squares accusing their political opponents of sleeping with sheep and goats.
Again, that's why my rant not only indicated that things are getting worse, but is also why it was directed toward modern day pundits and politicians who have the technological soap box. Their reach is greater than it's ever been. So much so that their absurd commentary is becoming the focus of attention.
It's ultimately a combination of factors that have resulted in our society being the way that it is, insofar as the general public being entertained and informed by sheer nonsense, but my main point is that these individuals take advantage of their positions to spew shit that simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. Again, sure, they have freedom of speech, and the public obviously enjoys their shenanigans, but I still don't agree with their abuse of the position they're in.
-
It's very simple.....
1. The government shouldn't be funding health care.
2. Unless you have a specific medical condition, other than fuckalotolitis, said health care shouldn't be footing the bill for your birth control. Slut or not. As a couple, it is your choice to not get her tubes tide, abstain, wear 5 condoms at a time, etc. As a taxpayer, it's not my responsibility to make you two can have baby-free sex for however long you want it to be that way. That's your problem, not mine.
It isn't your responsibility to help pay for my knee surgeries. It isn't your responsibility to pay for my high blood pressure medication. It isn't your responsibility to pay for my glasses. It isn't your responsibility to pay for my wisdom tooth to be removed. That's why I have insurance for all of that shit. Insurance that more than likely does a better job than the government would do.
-
I was moreso discussing the public statements of politicians and pundits. How people converse amongst each other regarding their political views wasn't really the subject of my rant.
Actually, it really doesn't matter. They're no different from us. We don't have an elitist aristocratic class running our country.
You and I both know that the general population (especially when they are grouped together in political parties with similar ideals) operates like a herd of mindless sheep. It's a combination of the groupthink theory and the fact that the average American is a fucking idiot. The fact that these morons with a public audience have the desire to add fuel to the retard fire is sickening. They're encouraging the public to be ignorant on political issues, and to instead vote based upon exaggerated stereotypes and straw man fallacies that they've perpetuated for their own pecuniary gain.
I don't completely agree, but I understand your point. The fact is, especially in this particular situation, Limaugh went on a 15 minute rant explaining Fluke's errant logic and flawed reasoning before he arrived at the final conclusion of her being a slut. The lamestream media reported the shock jock statement, and the fucktards along with society's ignorant masses ran with it.
Again, that's why my rant not only indicated that things are getting worse, but is also why it was directed toward modern day pundits and politicians who have the technological soap box. Their reach is greater than it's ever been. So much so that their absurd commentary is becoming the focus of attention.
It's ultimately a combination of factors that have resulted in our society being the way that it is, insofar as the general public being entertained and informed by sheer nonsense, but my main point is that these individuals take advantage of their positions to spew shit that simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. Again, sure, they have freedom of speech, and the public obviously enjoys their shenanigans, but I still don't agree with their abuse of the position they're in.
Again, I understand what you're saying, but your position is a bit of a stretch.
-
Again, that's why my rant not only indicated that things are getting worse, but is also why it was directed toward modern day pundits and politicians who have the technological soap box. Their reach is greater than it's ever been. So much so that their absurd commentary is becoming the focus of attention.
It's not so much the shock jock comments that make things worse... It's the blatant dishonesty that really chaps my ass.
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=17672.0 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=17672.0)
-
Actually, it really doesn't matter. They're no different from us.
As people? No, they're not different, but my point is yet again that they are different in regard to the position they hold in our public media, and they are abusing their position as political commentators, pundits, analysts, whatever you want to call them.
I know that Limbaugh's show is intended to have shock value, and that this is why the public eats it up, but again, that's my point: So many people base their political views on this trash that it's depressing. It's permeated our society so much that we have asshats like Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly on our news programming doing essentially the same thing.
It's not as if Limbaugh's or Maher's political commentary is viewed by the general public as a specific genre of political comedy that is for entertainment purposes only; these retards who create and spread their political points of view based on irrelevant hyperbole and ad hominem insults are being trusted by the retards who comprise the American public. The fault is on both sides of the equation, but those in the media who have the ability to change this shit aren't doing a damn thing as long as the ratings remain high. We are no longer concerned with which politician will do what's right for our country; we're concerned with the drama that can be created between contending political opponents.
Herman Cain wanted to get his dick wet? Fuck the fact that he makes perfect sense; let's run his shit into the ground via the media. It gives us ratings and gives these talking heads more hateful bullshit to spew.
I don't completely agree, but I understand your point. The fact is, especially in this particular situation, Limaugh went on a 15 minute rant explaining Fluke's errant logic and flawed reasoning before he arrived at the final conclusion of her being a slut.
It wasn't a mere final conclusion or closing remark; his entire commentary was peppered with nothing but derogatory comments and making up arguments that Fluke never even posed. Oh, and that type of commentary continued for three days running.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0#noexternalembed-ws)
Aside from that, his "explanation" of her errant logic was itself errant. Paying $1,000 a year for birth control indicates that she's having lots of sex, so much so that she's going broke due to the epic sex she's having? Well, considering that you take the same amount of birth control regardless of how sexually active you are, that's a pretty silly statement which he enjoys emphatically repeating. Including birth control in a health care plan is paying women to have sex? That doesn't address the medical purposes for birth control that Fluke addressed. No government or school should pay for something which is used during a private, consensual activity? Again, doesn't address the medical aspect of birth control.
With that being said, I don't agree with Fluke's stance. Nonetheless, Rush's response was far from an informative and logical explanation of why one should disagree with her stance; it was a vile diatribe filled with personal insults.
-
As people? No, they're not different, but my point is yet again that they are different in regard to the position they hold in our public media, and they are abusing their position as political commentators, pundits, analysts, whatever you want to call them.
Do you not see why this is a silly and an absurd position? You're assigning them a level of responsibility because they have been successful in obtaining an audience based on the entertainment value of their shows, books, interviews, etc. What sort of ridiculous standard is that? Should we expect them to dedicate 20% of their show to preaching God, another 20% for teaching evolution and maybe another 20-30% for teaching right and wrong? You're assigning blame at the wrong level.
It's not as if Limbaugh's or Maher's political commentary is viewed by the general public as a specific genre of political comedy that is for entertainment purposes only; these retards who create and spread their political points of view based on irrelevant hyperbole and ad hominem insults are being trusted by the retards who comprise the American public. The fault is on both sides of the equation, but those in the media who have the ability to change this shit aren't doing a damn thing as long as the ratings remain high. We are no longer concerned with which politician will do what's right for our country; we're concerned with the drama that can be created between contending political opponents.
Again, this is just a nonsense position. Somehow, you believe that those in the media have a higher responsibility to change this. At the end of the day, it's just entertainment.
Herman Cain wanted to get his dick wet? Fuck the fact that he makes perfect sense; let's run his shit into the ground via the media. It gives us ratings and gives these talking heads more hateful bullshit to spew.
It seems that you're confusing mass media with the shock jock entertainers. John Stewart didn't destroy Herman Cain's political career. It was the lamestream media who gave defacto credibility to every slut who claimed to have had an encounter with him.
It wasn't a mere final conclusion or closing remark; his entire commentary was peppered with nothing but derogatory comments and making up arguments that Fluke never even posed. Oh, and that type of commentary continued for three days running.
Entertaining video removed...
Aside from that, his "explanation" of her errant logic was itself errant. Paying $1,000 a year for birth control indicates that she's having lots of sex, so much so that she's going broke due to the epic sex she's having? Well, considering that you take the same amount of birth control regardless of how sexually active you are, that's a pretty silly statement which he enjoys emphatically repeating. Including birth control in a health care plan is paying women to have sex? That doesn't address the medical purposes for birth control that Fluke addressed. No government or school should pay for something which is used during a private, consensual activity? Again, doesn't address the medical aspect of birth control.
I don't need to defend everything Rush said. It really doesn't matter to me, but he does routinely enjoy parroting the phrase, demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. I don't believe that your KOS video covers all of his comments regarding this made-up fiasco. And, the errant logic starts at the $1,000 per year claim by Fluke. Most people know that birth control shouldn't cost $1,000 per year unless you extend it to include condoms, sex creams, flavor gels and morning-after pills... which obviously goes along with Rush's absurd rant. That's it...
With that being said, I don't agree with Fluke's stance. Nonetheless, Rush's response was far from an informative and logical explanation of why one should disagree with her stance; it was a vile diatribe filled with personal insults.
And, those personal insults were well-deserved in my opinion... Rush isn't an evening news anchor. He's a shock jock entertainer. Once again, that's it...
-
Herman Cain wanted to get his dick wet? Fuck the fact that he makes perfect sense; let's run his shit into the ground via the media. It gives us ratings and gives these talking heads more hateful bullshit to spew.
Effing THIS ^^^^
Was a big supporter of his until he ended his campaign. Like WE!!!, I still am to an extent and would vote for him today if he got back in. Especially over the 4 up there now. I could careless what he did or didn't do 12 years ago, he knew his shit. But the hell with that, someone (either Axelrod or Rove) decided he was too popular and too dangerous so they have to dig up skeletons and yell it from the rooftops (CNN, NY Times, Fox). Just furthers your point.
-
Effing THIS ^^^^
Was a big supporter of his until he ended his campaign. Like WE!!!, I still am to an extent and would vote for him today if he got back in. Especially over the 4 up there now. I could careless what he did or didn't do 12 years ago, he knew his shit. But the hell with that, someone (either Axelrod or Rove) decided he was too popular and too dangerous so they have to dig up skeletons and yell it from the rooftops (CNN, NY Times, Fox). Just furthers your point.
Exactly. You can try to delineate between shock jocks and news outlets, but the fact of the matter is that there often isn't much delineation. The "news media" was used to circulate this irrelevant nonsense and attacks on his personal life for the purpose of destroying his political career.
No one ran him out of the political race because he was an extremist with absurd political plans; he was ran out because the "media" wanted to focus on how many women he fucked, just like Limbaugh wanted to focus on how many men Fluke fucked. In both instances, the substantive underlying material was not addressed. What was addressed was social drama which would pique the public's interest, sway their opinions, and ultimately create a desired political result.
Limbaugh and his supporters can try to hide behind the fact that he's just an "entertainer," but we all know better than that. His purpose is to promote political ideas, and he does so by barely addressing political issues and mostly focusing on derogatory dialogues. When your goal is to inform the public and affect the public's opinion, you should really have the decency to take some responsibility for your actions instead of hiding behind the veil of entertainer and feigning ignorance.
At the same time, the American public needs to take some responsibility, wise the fuck up, and stop listening to these dumbasses who simply toe their party lines by denigrating their opposition. Ultimately, however, I do place the majority of the blame on the media, because the American public is too stupid (in general) to wise up. The members of the media should know better; they're propagating a lot of this shit for a reason, so they know what they're doing, Limbaugh included.
-
You know as a nation we could just have more dookie love and solve a lot of the problem.
-
Exactly. You can try to delineate between shock jocks and news outlets, but the fact of the matter is that there often isn't much delineation. The "news media" was used to circulate this irrelevant nonsense and attacks on his personal life for the purpose of destroying his political career.
Well, as long as the "news" is something that disparages a Right-thinking person, this is definitely true of the larger media.
No one ran him out of the political race because he was an extremist with absurd political plans; he was ran out because the "media" wanted to focus on how many women he fucked, just like Limbaugh wanted to focus on how many men Fluke fucked. In both instances, the substantive underlying material was not addressed. What was addressed was social drama which would pique the public's interest, sway their opinions, and ultimately create a desired political result.
The difference is that one outlet serves a larger audience as our mainstream news source. The other is just entertainment...
Limbaugh and his supporters can try to hide behind the fact that he's just an "entertainer," but we all know better than that. His purpose is to promote political ideas, and he does so by barely addressing political issues and mostly focusing on derogatory dialogues. When your goal is to inform the public and affect the public's opinion, you should really have the decency to take some responsibility for your actions instead of hiding behind the veil of entertainer and feigning ignorance.
More nonsense... There's no doubt that Rush has fun at the expense of others. That's why he's entertaining.
At the same time, the American public needs to take some responsibility, wise the fuck up, and stop listening to these dumbasses who simply toe their party lines by denigrating their opposition. Ultimately, however, I do place the majority of the blame on the media, because the American public is too stupid (in general) to wise up. The members of the media should know better; they're propagating a lot of this shit for a reason, so they know what they're doing, Limbaugh included.
That's right... Let's blame the entertainers with their evil goals... The people are too stupid to know any better. It's not their fault. Sort of echoes the ideals and justification for a Socialist state... Is that really what you'd propose here?
-
What in the hell is going on in here? I am in agreement with VV? We are at 3 pages in and not one mention of LED's, Jury Duty or Libertarians and their weed? No movie quotes? No Skeletor pics? We also have sluts in the thread title and don't have the first pic of a slut? Am I on crazy pills?
IT'S LIKE I DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU PEOPLE ANYMORE!!!!
-
What in the hell is going on in here? I am in agreement with VV? We are at 3 pages in and not one mention of LED's, Jury Duty or Libertarians and their weed? No movie quotes? No Skeletor pics? We also have sluts in the thread title and don't have the first pic of a slut? Am I on crazy pills?
Well, if these sluts were worthy of our viewing pleasure, I'd definitely post their photos. For now, you're just going to have to picture VV in his edible thong.
-
Well, if these sluts were worthy of our viewing pleasure, I'd definitely post their photos. For now, you're just going to have to picture VV in his edible thong.
:puke: Just b/c you and AWK have doesn't mean the rest of the world should have to.
Doesn't have to be the sluts in question, just some good ole fashioned sluts.
-
Do I think that the government should hold the media responsible to meet some sort of informational standard? No. Do I think that the media should regulate itself on its informational standards, recognizing that they are viewed by our retarded public as a reliable informational source? Sure.
I mean, yeah...I could have some kids, completely brainwash them with an absurd stance, and yet not break any laws. But should I be doing that?
Ron Paul says that's like mind rape.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wl9FbDOUFFg/RlIbkcJ-IfI/AAAAAAAAAnE/hZtNNwFo0ZE/s400/rp-magneto.gif)
-
Do I think that the government should hold the media responsible to meet some sort of informational standard? No. Do I think that the media should regulate itself on its informational standards, recognizing that they are viewed by our retarded public as a reliable informational source? Sure.
I mean, yeah...I could have some kids, completely brainwash them with an absurd stance, and yet not break any laws. But should I be doing that?
Ron Paul says that's like mind rape.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wl9FbDOUFFg/RlIbkcJ-IfI/AAAAAAAAAnE/hZtNNwFo0ZE/s400/rp-magneto.gif)
Ron Paul also says the Arabs have been pissed at the world for 1400 years because of the "endless bombing" of the last 10.
Anywho, speaking of Hermain Cain - Tarheel will like this below. I like the bolded part. Guy didn't let anything stop him. HE should be an inspiration to blacks everywhere, not some rebel rouser like Al Sharpton.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/03/herman_cain_shares_desire_to_preserve_american_dream_during_visit_to_unc (http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/03/herman_cain_shares_desire_to_preserve_american_dream_during_visit_to_unc)
Herman Cain shares desire to preserve American dream during visit to UNC
By Katharine McAnarney | The Daily Tar Heel
Herman Cain gave an inspirational speech at the Medical Biomolecular Research Building at 4 pm on Thursday.
Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain visited the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus Thursday.
He used to sit at the back of a segregated bus — now he has his own. And it even has his face on it, for anyone who might doubt it belongs to him.
Herman Cain, a former Republican presidential candidate, talked Thursday about his hard upbringing, his goals and his desire to preserve the American dream.
Cain gave a speech to more than 500 people in the Medical Biomolecular Research Building. He began by talking about growing up during the civil rights movement.
“Look at me. Today not only was I able to run for president, I have my own bus out there with my picture on it.”
Cain emphasized that the American dream, though broken, can be fixed if people stay informed, involved and inspired.
“The American dream is under attack,” he said. “The good news is that we can take it back.”
Cain said his first dream was to make $20,000 a year and have two American Express cards.
Once he accomplished this goal, he went on to work for the Pillsbury Company and then Burger King, eventually becoming CEO of Godfather’s Pizza Inc.
“I had multiple dreams and multiple careers,” he said.
Cain said now that he is out of the presidential race, he wants to use the experience to get more involved in politics.
“Just because I’m no longer seeking a position does not mean I’m giving up on the mission to put the nation back on track,” he said.
-
Do I think that the government should hold the media responsible to meet some sort of informational standard? No. Do I think that the media should regulate itself on its informational standards, recognizing that they are viewed by our retarded public as a reliable informational source? Sure.
I mean, yeah...I could have some kids, completely brainwash them with an absurd stance, and yet not break any laws. But should I be doing that?
Ron Paul says that's like mind rape.
You kids with your misguided Utopian ideals... :sad:
A lot of people still think that Socialism and Communism look good on paper too. Of course, we know that in practice, they're not good for anyone.
BTW, the media does regulate itself. Olbermann eventually had to move to some no-name cable channel, and many of the others are relegated to other fee-based cable outlets and off-hours line-ups. It may not be working well-enough from your perspective, but it does work.
-
You kids with your misguided Utopian ideals... :sad:
A lot of people still think that Socialism and Communism look good on paper too. Of course, we know that in practice, they're not good for anyone.
BTW, the media does regulate itself. Olbermann eventually had to move to some no-name cable channel, and many of the others are relegated to other fee-based cable outlets and off-hours line-ups. It may not be working well-enough from your perspective, but it does work.
Thing is, it has NEVER been successful because it is not sustainable. The only times a free market economy have failed have been because it had too much Federal socialism infested in it. I.e. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979/1995 pretty much caused the entire collapse from 3-4 yrs ago. This had been coming to a head since the 80's and early 90's. Mortgage backed derivitive sell offs were merely a secondary side effect of the sub prime market being flooded with crap. Again cause by the Reinvestment Act - a very socialistic policy by nature of Carter, and later on Clinton.
-
This is one of the 10% of things I agree with Bill Maher on.
Thought it was relevant here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/please-stop-apologizing.html?_r=4&src=tp (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/please-stop-apologizing.html?_r=4&src=tp)
Please Stop Apologizing
By BILL MAHER
Published: March 21, 2012
THIS week, Robert De Niro made a joke about first ladies, and Newt Gingrich said it was “inexcusable and the president should apologize for him.” Of course, if something is “inexcusable,” an apology doesn’t make any difference, but then again, neither does Newt Gingrich.
Mr. De Niro was speaking at a fund-raiser with the first lady, Michelle Obama. Here’s the joke: “Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?”
The first lady’s press secretary declared the joke “inappropriate,” and Mr. De Niro said his remarks were “not meant to offend.” So, as these things go, even if the terrible damage can never be undone, at least the healing can begin. And we can move on to the next time we choose sides and pretend to be outraged about nothing.
When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like? In the last year, we’ve been shocked and appalled by the unbelievable insensitivity of Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried, the Super Bowl halftime show and the ESPN guys who used the wrong cliché for Jeremy Lin after everyone else used all the others. Who can keep up?
This week, President Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, described Mitt Romney’s constant advertising barrage in Illinois as a “Mittzkrieg,” and instantly the Republican Jewish Coalition was outraged and called out Mr. Axelrod’s “Holocaust and Nazi imagery” as “disturbing.” Because the message of “Mittzkrieg” was clear: Kill all the Jews. Then the coalition demanded not only that Mr. Axelrod apologize immediately but also that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz “publicly rebuke” him. For a pun! For punning against humanity!
The right side of America is mad at President Obama because he hugged the late Derrick Bell, a law professor who believed we live in a racist country, 22 years ago; the left side of America is mad at Rush Limbaugh for seemingly proving him right.
If it weren’t for throwing conniption fits, we wouldn’t get any exercise at all.
I have a better idea. Let’s have an amnesty — from the left and the right — on every made-up, fake, totally insincere, playacted hurt, insult, slight and affront. Let’s make this Sunday the National Day of No Outrage. One day a year when you will not find some tiny thing someone did or said and pretend you can barely continue functioning until they apologize.
If that doesn’t work, what about this: If you see or hear something you don’t like in the media, just go on with your life. Turn the page or flip the dial or pick up your roll of quarters and leave the booth.
The answer to whenever another human being annoys you is not “make them go away forever.” We need to learn to coexist, and it’s actually pretty easy to do. For example, I find Rush Limbaugh obnoxious, but I’ve been able to coexist comfortably with him for 20 years by using this simple method: I never listen to his program. The only time I hear him is when I’m at a stoplight next to a pickup truck.
When the lady at Costco gives you a free sample of its new ham pudding and you don’t like it, you spit it into a napkin and keep shopping. You don’t declare a holy war on ham.
I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone. That’s why we have Canada. That’s not us. If we sand down our rough edges and drain all the color, emotion and spontaneity out of our discourse, we’ll end up with political candidates who never say anything but the safest, blandest, emptiest, most unctuous focus-grouped platitudes and cant. In other words, we’ll get Mitt Romney.
-
You kids with your misguided Utopian ideals... :sad:
A lot of people still think that Socialism and Communism look good on paper too. Of course, we know that in practice, they're not good for anyone.
You seem stuck on this government regulation idea, even after I explicitly stated that I don't support government regulation of media standards. Ironically, this is very reminiscent of the media's frequent focus on straw men, hyperbole, irrelevant issues, etc.
BTW, the media does regulate itself. Olbermann eventually had to move to some no-name cable channel, and many of the others are relegated to other fee-based cable outlets and off-hours line-ups. It may not be working well-enough from your perspective, but it does work.
A car that frequently backfires may get you from point A to point B for the time being, but that doesn't mean that it works well. Eventually, it will break down completely if not repaired. The question is, do you fix it now, or wait until it's already inoperable before doing anything? You seemed against apathy when it came to politics, but apparently are apathetic to reforming political "information" in the media.
Olbermann, Beck, and others were forced out because they had said something (or several things) that the network finally deemed "over the line." In reality, they've been stepping over that line for years, but no one wants to do anything about it until it affects their ratings.
And, in fact, they simply go back to what Olbermann was doing in order to keep their ratings high. Olbermann goes out, and this guy comes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FRUPQuOVQE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FRUPQuOVQE#)
And that's self regulation? That's improving their political reporting?
-
I watched about 2 minutes of that and now have this insatiable desire to hit him in the face with a cinder block.
-
You seem stuck on this government regulation idea, even after I explicitly stated that I don't support government regulation of media standards. Ironically, this is very reminiscent of the media's frequent focus on straw men, hyperbole, irrelevant issues, etc.
Right over your head, that one went... I was mocking your "I think - I think" with a "we know".
A car that frequently backfires may get you from point A to point B for the time being, but that doesn't mean that it works well. Eventually, it will break down completely if not repaired. The question is, do you fix it now, or wait until it's already inoperable before doing anything? You seemed against apathy when it came to politics, but apparently are apathetic to reforming political "information" in the media.
Again, you're completely missing the point. As frustrating as it may seem sometimes, we're nothing like your backfiring car analogy. We're simply not doing as well as we could. And I'm not apathetic towards reforming political "information" in the media; I just don't believe that it's necessary. You're still misplacing blame for something that you deem incorrect or inappropriate. Unpopular or inaccurate speech is not the problem here.
As far as running for office... the best will never run for political office because it will never be as rewarding as the private sector. And technically, we shouldn't really ever need a perfect president in the executive branch... The federal government was never meant to be as powerful as it has become, and we have enough checks and balances to nullify (or later correct) any moonbat lucky enough to get elected. Oh, regarding your Herman Cain example... Whether any of the accusations echoed by the lamestream media or the secondary shock jock market were true or false, the fact that he didn't have the balls to stick it out, fight and win this thing would be why I would support the current environment. The way I see it, the system worked.
Olbermann, Beck, and others were forced out because they had said something (or several things) that the network finally deemed "over the line." In reality, they've been stepping over that line for years, but no one wants to do anything about it until it affects their ratings.
And, in fact, they simply go back to what Olbermann was doing in order to keep their ratings high. Olbermann goes out, and this guy comes in:
Annoying video omitted...
And that's self regulation? That's improving their political reporting?
Just for shits and giggles, how would something like this work if the government did not get involved?
-
Right over your head, that one went... I was mocking your "I think - I think" with a "we know".
Mocking...also reminiscent of the media. When can I expect you to repeatedly call me a slut?
Again, you're completely missing the point. As frustrating as it may seem sometimes, we're nothing like your backfiring car analogy. We're simply not doing as well as we could.
So you recognize the faults and admit that there's room for improvement, but basically you have no desire for it to improve at this point in time. I guess that's just where we differ.
Oh, regarding your Herman Cain example... Whether any of the accusations echoed by the lamestream media or the secondary shock jock market were true or false, the fact that he didn't have the balls to stick it out, fight and win this thing would be why I would support the current environment. The way I see it, the system worked.
Yeah, I guess Herman Cain could have toughed it out...but realistically, would it have been worth it? Would it have worked? Due to the media's ineptitude at highlighting real issues, their focus would have been on nothing but his previous adultery. How do you express your political stance to the public when your main outlet in the form of mainstream media wants to do nothing but air your dirty laundry? When liberal pundits who have devoted audiences do nothing but shout derogatory comments about your personal life?
There comes a point in time when you realize that the media has control over how it presents information, and that they are choosing to present it in such a way so as to negatively affect the political process and how the public receives its information regarding candidates. Hell, not only negatively affecting the political process, but even directing it so some degree. Do you wait until the system is so mangled that it's 1,000 times more difficult to get it back on the right track, or do you try to steer it in the right direction today? If at all possible, I'd prefer the latter.
Just for shits and giggles, how would something like this work if the government did not get involved?
I think you're missing my point. The people involved with media in this country are adults; they should know better than to belittle political issues. They should know that our country, and our politicians, need to address actual issues, and not be prattling on about whether Hank Williams, Jr. being fired was right. Lawrence O'Donnell should not be interviewing Herman Cain during his campaign only to ask questions about why he didn't have direct involvement in civil rights protests in the 1960's. These aren't questions that the public needs to hear answered if they're going to make intelligent decisions. These are questions that pundits with an agenda of swaying the public opinion would ask. And it's everywhere. Not just with Limbaugh, Beck, Maher, or any other self-proclaimed "entertainer;" it's on our news channels.
Whether they actually realize that they should take responsibility for their actions and perform the reform themselves is up to them, and no, I don't foresee them actually doing that. But it is my opinion that, as adults with a fucking head on their shoulders, they should. Because as of right now, even the news media is mainly focused on the circus aspect of things and doesn't appear interested in providing objective, relevant information.
The voting public are also adults, and yes, I do place blame with them as well. But you have to realize that the media is a very important (and almost exclusive) source of information for the general public. They should realize the position they're in and should strive not to abuse it for pecuniary means and political games. Yet they do.
How do we force the media to change without government regulation? I don't rightly know, but does the fact that I don't have a solution mean that I've inaccurately identified a problem? That would be illogical to suppose; just because I don't know how to replace a head gasket doesn't mean it's not blown.
The only potential solution that comes to mind is pressure from the public, but that's easier said than done. As mentioned, the public relies on the media for its information and views, so many don't see a problem; they're content to blindly cheer on O'Reilly, O'Donnell, etc., and have no reason to want reform. Learning about Cain's personal life is A-Okay with them, and they see no problem with basing their votes on such irrelevant and useless information. It's what the news is reporting, so it must be important, right? Surely he didn't have any sound economical recovery plans for our country, because he was obviously too busy fucking women.
Again, I don't claim to have some sort of perfect solution, but it doesn't mean I'm incapable of identifying the problem.
-
Mocking...also reminiscent of the media. When can I expect you to repeatedly call me a slut?
http://www.youtube.com/v/k80nW6AOhTs
So you recognize the faults and admit that there's room for improvement, but basically you have no desire for it to improve at this point in time. I guess that's just where we differ.
More because I see virtually as many pros to the current situation as I do cons.
Yeah, I guess Herman Cain could have toughed it out...but realistically, would it have been worth it? Would it have worked? Due to the media's ineptitude at highlighting real issues, their focus would have been on nothing but his previous adultery. How do you express your political stance to the public when your main outlet in the form of mainstream media wants to do nothing but air your dirty laundry? When liberal pundits who have devoted audiences do nothing but shout derogatory comments about your personal life?
There comes a point in time when you realize that the media has control over how it presents information, and that they are choosing to present it in such a way so as to negatively affect the political process and how the public receives its information regarding candidates. Hell, not only negatively affecting the political process, but even directing it so some degree. Do you wait until the system is so mangled that it's 1,000 times more difficult to get it back on the right track, or do you try to steer it in the right direction today? If at all possible, I'd prefer the latter.
I agree with you to an extent, but there is nothing new except for the types of media that we have available today. There is no simple, straightforward solution to this, and I would not want to completely eliminate it...
I think you're missing my point. The people involved with media in this country are adults; they should know better than to belittle political issues. They should know that our country, and our politicians, need to address actual issues, and not be prattling on about whether Hank Williams, Jr. being fired was right. Lawrence O'Donnell should not be interviewing Herman Cain during his campaign only to ask questions about why he didn't have direct involvement in civil rights protests in the 1960's. These aren't questions that the public needs to hear answered if they're going to make intelligent decisions. These are questions that pundits with an agenda of swaying the public opinion would ask. And it's everywhere. Not just with Limbaugh, Beck, Maher, or any other self-proclaimed "entertainer;" it's on our news channels.
Whether they actually realize that they should take responsibility for their actions and perform the reform themselves is up to them, and no, I don't foresee them actually doing that. But it is my opinion that, as adults with a fucking head on their shoulders, they should. Because as of right now, even the news media is mainly focused on the circus aspect of things and doesn't appear interested in providing objective, relevant information.
The voting public are also adults, and yes, I do place blame with them as well. But you have to realize that the media is a very important (and almost exclusive) source of information for the general public. They should realize the position they're in and should strive not to abuse it for pecuniary means and political games. Yet they do.
How do we force the media to change without government regulation? I don't rightly know, but does the fact that I don't have a solution mean that I've inaccurately identified a problem? That would be illogical to suppose; just because I don't know how to replace a head gasket doesn't mean it's not blown.
The only potential solution that comes to mind is pressure from the public, but that's easier said than done. As mentioned, the public relies on the media for its information and views, so many don't see a problem; they're content to blindly cheer on O'Reilly, O'Donnell, etc., and have no reason to want reform. Learning about Cain's personal life is A-Okay with them, and they see no problem with basing their votes on such irrelevant and useless information. It's what the news is reporting, so it must be important, right? Surely he didn't have any sound economical recovery plans for our country, because he was obviously too busy fucking women.
Again, I don't claim to have some sort of perfect solution, but it doesn't mean I'm incapable of identifying the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/v/WL1lfSzgcAw
I think your quest for a Utopian society is clouding your judgement and ability to reason. I really don't disagree with your examples, but the absurdity of the extremes do have a tendency to balance themselves out. You're on to something with regard to pressure from the public, but that's not going to occur overnight. People need to be educated enough to recognize these faults and push for that type of change. Our public school system doesn't do that right now, so don't expect any miracles. Intelligent people get their news and information from multiple sources. There isn't one source that's right all of the time, but if you tap enough sources, you can learn enough to adopt a rational perspective or opinion on almost anything. Again, this is nothing new...
-
I agree with you to an extent, but there is nothing new except for the types of media that we have available today.
The type of media that we have is the big difference. Random people yelling on the streets about goat fuckers RWS back in ancient Greece is completely different from modern major news networks which have developed a sense of trust with the public and have created an authoritative presence when it comes to the dissemination of reliable information. Abusing that trust is, in my mind, a problem that should be fixed.
If identifying problems and wanting them to be fixed is Utopian, then I'm one Utopian motherfucker.
Intelligent people get their news and information from multiple sources. There isn't one source that's right all of the time, but if you tap enough sources, you can learn enough to adopt a rational perspective or opinion on almost anything. Again, this is nothing new...
Sure, and again, that's where I do place some of the blame on the consumer. Afterall, they are the ones that are essentially giving media outlets the incentive to continue their shenanigans, as they keep giving them the high viewer ratings. But, ultimately, the media is taking advantage of those who aren't intelligent people, which happen to be a large portion of our society. They're relying upon the fact that these people have grown up with the television and radio as being legitimate sources of news, allowing them to use their position of apparent authority to skew things as they wish.
-
we’ll end up with political candidates who never say anything but the safest, blandest, emptiest, most unctuous focus-grouped platitudes and cant.
Bill Maher nailed it.
I wonder what happened that conjured up Captain Beatty's spirit?
-
The type of media that we have is the big difference. Random people yelling on the streets about goat fuckers RWS back in ancient Greece is completely different from modern major news networks which have developed a sense of trust with the public and have created an authoritative presence when it comes to the dissemination of reliable information. Abusing that trust is, in my mind, a problem that should be fixed.
If identifying problems and wanting them to be fixed is Utopian, then I'm one Utopian motherfucker.
It is no different. It's always been the case. It's all part of human psychology... the appeal... the scuttlebutt... the stench... Sure, they may be abusing their authoritative presence, but this is nothing new. Recall Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson? It was reported by the mainstream at that time. Again, nothing new...
Sure, and again, that's where I do place some of the blame on the consumer. Afterall, they are the ones that are essentially giving media outlets the incentive to continue their shenanigans, as they keep giving them the high viewer ratings. But, ultimately, the media is taking advantage of those who aren't intelligent people, which happen to be a large portion of our society. They're relying upon the fact that these people have grown up with the television and radio as being legitimate sources of news, allowing them to use their position of apparent authority to skew things as they wish.
All of the blame should go to that consumer. Why do you think the blogosphere has become so popular? We're looking for alternative reliable sources.
-
I couldn't help but share this...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx)
September 29, 2010
Distrust in U.S. Media Edges Up to Record High
Perceptions of liberal bias still far outnumber perceptions of conservative bias
by Lymari Morales
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% who now say this is a record high by one percentage point.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lztfj7_rhu28bf6xn8jbmw.gif)
The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.
Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.
Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/v1ebr-xil0w-iudmf_nvsg.gif)
Democrats and liberals remain far more likely than other political and ideological groups to trust the media and to perceive no bias.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pxwfdyoz60kppsv9cc2cww.gif)
Lower-income Americans and those with less education are generally more likely to trust the media than are those with higher incomes and more education. A subgroup analysis of these data suggests that three demographic groups key to advertisers -- adults aged 18 to 29, Americans making at least $75,000 per year, and college graduates -- lost more trust in the media in the past year than other groups, but the sample sizes in this survey are too small to say so definitively.
Bottom Line
Gallup's annual update on trust in the mass media finds Americans' views entrenched -- with a record-high 57% expressing little to no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 63% perceiving bias in one direction or the other. At the same time, the steady nature of these views stands in contrast to Americans' views of the three branches of government, which are all down sharply this year. Thus, in an environment in which few institutions elicit high levels of trust, it appears the media are neither gaining nor losing significant ground -- but are just managing to hold steady.
-
Two minor points:
1) "Birth Control" medications are commonly prescribed for non-reproductive, hormone-related conditions.
2) I'd rather pay for someone's birth control than their birth, post-natal care and childhood doctor's visits.
-
It is no different. It's always been the case. It's all part of human psychology... the appeal... the scuttlebutt... the stench... Sure, they may be abusing their authoritative presence, but this is nothing new. Recall Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson? It was reported by the mainstream at that time. Again, nothing new...
The topics are nothing new...or, at least, the general theme of the topics aren't anything new. But the reach of the media is far different. I'd dare say that fewer people had access to the media, or had access but didn't actually consume it, during the 18-19th centuries. Today, you can't go to the doctor or get lunch without seeing a TV, hearing a radio, etc.
Back then, people didn't really know (or care) what went on in another state. Now, we have the technology and resources to disseminate information about things occurring worldwide. Modern media and its informational abilities have captured our attention to the point that George Clooney can't take a shit without people knowing what it smells like.
The ease with which media can disseminate information (and the ease with which said information can be consumed) has caused us to be reliant upon the media for our information. While that may be laziness on the consumer's part, there is still an apparent authority there, and that authoritative presence is being abused.
All of the blame should go to that consumer. Why do you think the blogosphere has become so popular? We're looking for alternative reliable sources.
I don't personally think that all of the blame should go to the consumers. Yes, I do blame them to some degree, but again, when a sense of trust to an entity or institution has been developed, that entity or institution needs to take responsibility for that. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that corny cliché jazz.
I couldn't help but share this...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx)
Several things:
1.) The article states that a significant portion of people polled (~81%) believe that the "media" is too liberal or too conservative, and this is where their distrust of the media comes in to play. Surely these people don't think that all media is either too liberal or too conservative; while there may be a general slant one way or the other, there are obviously media figures on both sides of the fence. Those who think it is too conservative may watch O'Donnell/Maher, while those who think it is too liberal may watch O'Reilly/Limbaugh. Just because they don't trust the liberal media doesn't mean they don't blindly trust the conservative media, and vice versa.
2.) Assuming that the above is patently wrong (which is unlikely), 43% of the population is still a significant number; the proverbial wool is still successfully covering a lot of people's eyes.
3.) The poll's accompanying article basically proves my point that the lesser intelligent in our society are placing blind trust in the media. The media takes advantage of this, and should take the blame for that.
4.) While people may claim to distrust the media, it's still their primary (if not only) source of information. 57% may not trust the media, but where are they getting their information? Personal conversations with Herman Cain? Camping out in George Clooney's bathroom? Doubtful.
5.) Irony strikes again: You used a form of media (albeit in the form of a research institute's online press release) to reinforce your point, which further shows how reliant we are on the media to provide accurate information.
-
Regarding both of the last responses, I just can't accept that way of thinking. It's the same thing over and over again separating the Conservative viewpoint from everyone else. The Conservative viewpoint is always grounded in personal responsibility above all other things. If you're unwilling to accept personal responsibility, you assign blame and responsibility to others, whether it be who pays for the birth control or who is ultimately responsible for finding out the truth with a fucktard media. I refuse to live that way or let others get away with it.
-
Regarding both of the last responses, I just can't accept that way of thinking. It's the same thing over and over again separating the Conservative viewpoint from everyone else. The Conservative viewpoint is always grounded in personal responsibility above all other things. If you're unwilling to accept personal responsibility, you assign blame and responsibility to others, whether it be who pays for the birth control or who is ultimately responsible for finding out the truth with a fucktard media. I refuse to live that way or let others get away with it.
In regard to personal responsibility and accountability, we have similar views...except that I'd want to have that apply to the media just as much as it does to individuals.
-
Two minor points:
1) "Birth Control" medications are commonly prescribed for non-reproductive, hormone-related conditions.
2) I'd rather pay for someone's birth control than their birth, post-natal care and childhood doctor's visits.
Truf, but I would rather not pay for either.
-
Truf, but I would rather not pay for either.
Zackly...
I really shouldn't be responsible for subsidizing Susie Rottencrotch's expenses...