In a nutshell, why I post about the hipocrisy regarding Palin

[BigPapaVol]

Surely you mean Warrant?

I did. Nice call.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

I've been against this war the entire time. I didn't believe they had weapons back in 2001, and I didn't believe that Hussein was any imminent threat to the US. However; I did want him out of office, but not through a war that has cost us so many lives and the Iraqi people even more.

what made you believe he had no weapons, even when Clinton and crew were convinced in the 90s and he dusted the Kurds with them?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

Largest by area, not per capita. In fact, Alaska ranks 47th in population*. So what? She's the governor of a state that is of little relevance to the rest of the US... unless you're talking about snow or drilling for oil.

There's also 1.2 people per sq. mile in Alaska...

how is Alaska of little relevance compared to...say....TN?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[allvol123]

Largest by area, not per capita. In fact, Alaska ranks 47th in population*. So what? She's the governor of a state that is of little relevance to the rest of the US... unless you're talking about snow or drilling for oil.

There's also 1.2 people per sq. mile in Alaska...

Yea, that whole energy issue is not very important at all. Exactly what is the importance of Illinois if we are comparing what states bring to the table.

 

[MG1968]

Largest by area, not per capita. In fact, Alaska ranks 47th in population*. So what? She's the governor of a state that is of little relevance to the rest of the US... unless you're talking about snow or drilling for oil.

There's also 1.2 people per sq. mile in Alaska...

what's the importance of Illinois, Delaware, Arkansas, or Vermont.

really, we can play the "my state's better than yours" pissing contest all day long.

 

[kptvol]

Outstanding:

YouTube - Sarah Palin And Republican Hypocrisy

McCain = experience
Obama = inexperienced

Thus, one is more qualified to take an inexperienced VP under his wing. Not that hard of a concept to grasp. Using Jon Stewart to back up your argument isn't helping you in the respect department.

 

[cibai]

I love when the right is caught with their pants down then the "both sides are equally guilty" argument always comes out. There is a fallacy in logic call the fallacy of the middle ground. The trick that the right has played with the media is to shift the perception of the extremes, AND imply that the middle ground must be where the truth is.

 

[volinbham]

I love when the right is caught with their pants down then the "both sides are equally guilty" argument always comes out. There is a fallacy in logic call the fallacy of the middle ground. The trick that the right has played with the media is to shift the perception of the extremes, AND imply that the middle ground must be where the truth is.

Are you denying hypocrisy from the Democratic side?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I love when the right is caught with their pants down then the "both sides are equally guilty" argument always comes out. There is a fallacy in logic call the fallacy of the middle ground. The trick that the right has played with the media is to shift the perception of the extremes, AND imply that the middle ground must be where the truth is.

who has their pants down? and why do you care being British and all?

You wanna explain for laymen like myself who are trying to understand how you've applied this lfallacy of the middle ground and made it work for you.

I'm struggling with it because those on the extremes are radically different from those right of center who are different from those closer to the center and they are regularly at odds. Hence, I'm struggling to figure out this concerted effort to imply truth in the middle ground. Those on the heavily right to far right have no interest whatsoever in agreeing that the truth is anywhere near the center. It's an absolute travesty to imply that there's any truth in your comment.

 

[cibai]

Are you denying hypocrisy from the Democratic side?

Is that the only defense against the blowhole that is Bill O'Reilly's mouth. :good!:

See, it is not so much about the fact that there is B.S. on both sides (though the scales are not balanced in any measure), but that the de facto defense is the "he did it too, Mommy" argument. It's just weak is all I am saying. k:

 

[BigPapaVol]

Is that the only defense against the blowhole that is Bill O'Reilly's mouth. :good!:

See, it is not so much about the fact that there is B.S. on both sides (though the scales are not balanced in any measure), but that the de facto defense is the "he did it too, Mommy" argument. It's just weak is all I am saying. k:

that's not all you said. You clearly said that the extreme right is playing some trick to shift everyone else toward believing the center holds the truth. While absurd, your pronouncement essentially omitted the fact that there is even an extreme left.

 

[volinbham]

Is that the only defense against the blowhole that is Bill O'Reilly's mouth. :good!:

See, it is not so much about the fact that there is B.S. on both sides (though the scales are not balanced in any measure), but that the de facto defense is the "he did it too, Mommy" argument. It's just weak is all I am saying. k:

The weakness in your argument is an underlying assumption that somehow the scales are not balance - could it be that the Dem world-view matches yours more so you don't notice the hypocrisy? Nah.



Overall, there is no defense for hypocrisy (on either side). By making a claim that "our side isn't as bad as yours" is ironically the same type BS defense.

 

[cibai]

who has their pants down? and why do you care being British and all?

You wanna explain for laymen like myself who are trying to understand how you've applied this lfallacy of the middle ground and made it work for you.

I'm struggling with it because those on the extremes are radically different from those right of center who are different from those closer to the center and they are regularly at odds. Hence, I'm struggling to figure out this concerted effort to imply truth in the middle ground. Those on the heavily right to far right have no interest whatsoever in agreeing that the truth is anywhere near the center. It's an absolute travesty to imply that there's any truth in your comment.

And here we have the "elite card."

If you think that the battle of politics is ever about the poles than you are mistaken. The battle in politics is about shifting the center. The center in American politics is well to the right. When the right organized to declare the media a "liberal media," what it was effectively doing was labeling a centrist media as liberal. There has not been a "liberal media" in the US for 35 years. What fox news implies is that they are providing a balance, when in fact, they are providing a polemic. The perceived implication of this for most Americans is not that foxnews is the "truth," but that it gives balance. In reality, what it does is shift the center to the right. The other implication is that balance equates to equality. If one side argues that the sky is blue, and the other argues that it is pink, there may be balance in that there are two sides to the argument, but both sides are not equal. The media has a duty not to pick a side, but to report on the merit of each position. If you position has few merits, that is not a media bias, that is good journalism.

 

[cibai]

that's not all you said. You clearly said that the extreme right is playing some trick to shift everyone else toward believing the center holds the truth. While absurd, your pronouncement essentially omitted the fact that there is even an extreme left.

No, what I said is that the mainstream media does not represent the extreme left. Foxnews on the other hand does represent the right. The only thing that the mainstream media represents is making money. :whistling:

 

[cibai]

The weakness in your argument is an underlying assumption that somehow the scales are not balance - could it be that the Dem world-view matches yours more so you don't notice the hypocrisy? Nah.



Overall, there is no defense for hypocrisy (on either side). By making a claim that "our side isn't as bad as yours" is ironically the same type BS defense.

Again, is your only response to my argument to attack my character? How do you know what my world-view is? Even if it is a left world-view, that does not discount my initial point.
The lack of balance is not an assumption, it can be backed up with facts.

 

[cibai]

The weakness in your argument is an underlying assumption that somehow the scales are not balance - could it be that the Dem world-view matches yours more so you don't notice the hypocrisy? Nah.



Overall, there is no defense for hypocrisy (on either side). By making a claim that "our side isn't as bad as yours" is ironically the same type BS defense.

You are confused. Saying that killing 20 people is the same as killing 1 is not a statement most people would agree with. Nor in a court could you argue your own innocence because others have committed murder too. That is my point. You are conflating two separate points.

 

[volinbham]

And here we have the "elite card."

If you think that the battle of politics is ever about the poles than you are mistaken. The battle in politics is about shifting the center. The center in American politics is well to the right. When the right organized to declare the media a "liberal media," what it was effectively doing was labeling a centrist media as liberal. There has not been a "liberal media" in the US for 35 years. What fox news implies is that they are providing a balance, when in fact, they are providing a polemic. The perceived implication of this for most Americans is not that foxnews is the "truth," but that it gives balance. In reality, what it does is shift the center to the right. The other implication is that balance equates to equality. If one side argues that the sky is blue, and the other argues that it is pink, there may be balance in that there are two sides to the argument, but both sides are not equal. The media has a duty not to pick a side, but to report on the merit of each position. If you position has few merits, that is not a media bias, that is good journalism.

Again, you are viewing this from YOUR center.

What are the appropriate boundaries for defining center? You suggest American politics as being well to the right - I presume you mean relative to European views. However, political decisions are made within the country boarders so that is the appropriate boundary.

Given these boarders, then the political center is clearly not represented by the press (either left or right). To suggest that the right's views have less merits than the left's views (within this country) simply shows you agree with one side more than the other - not that one side is more correct than the other.

 

[joevol320]

Are you commenting on Obama's "lack" of qualifications? Personally, I'd rather have someone young running for the office. Someone that has vision and carries himself like Obama does, over someone that wouldn't mind going to war at the sound of a gunshot. Palin was quoted as saying she would support a war against Russia... and you all know that McCain would be the one to get us there.

oh visions? eh, yeah we need leaders that are friends with terrorist. we need leaders with visions of socialism

 

[volinbham]

Again, is your only response to my argument to attack my character? How do you know what my world-view is? Even if it is a left world-view, that does not discount my initial point.
The lack of balance is not an assumption, it can be backed up with facts.

You've yet to show them.

I'm not attacking your character any more than you attack mine or those that suggest the "both sides do it to" argument is weak. I'm attacking your argument as suffering the same weakness.

As I understand it you claim that Republicans are more hypocritical than Democrats and therefore, "the Dems do it but not as badly" - hardly any more an intellectually stimulating argument than "everybody does it".

 

[KB5252]

Again, is your only response to my argument to attack my character? How do you know what my world-view is? Even if it is a left world-view, that does not discount my initial point.
The lack of balance is not an assumption, it can be backed up with facts.

Then you back it up then. Which media outlets are centrist, which are right and which left.

My guess is you ask ten different people to put a label beside the different option and you would get many differing opinions.

 

[cibai]

Again, you are viewing this from YOUR center.

What are the appropriate boundaries for defining center? You suggest American politics as being well to the right - I presume you mean relative to European views. However, political decisions are made within the country boarders so that is the appropriate boundary.

Given these boarders, then the political center is clearly not represented by the press (either left or right). To suggest that the right's views have less merits than the left's views (within this country) simply shows you agree with one side more than the other - not that one side is more correct than the other.

You are correct to point out that center is a relative term (but I thought that the right despised post modernist relativism?) when we are talking about a cultural identity. When we are talking about arguments and logic however, as I mentioned before, the center does not equate with validity. Journalism has no duty to "the center." Journalism has a duty to the truth of an issue. By truth of an issue, I mean, accurate reporting of the arguments AND their merits. If you look at traditional right wing policies, there is very little evidence to give arguments like supply-side economics much merit. As an economic theory, it has been fairly well debunked. Yet, it political discourse, it is still treated as an equal (read balanced) position.

 

[cibai]

Then you back it up then. Which media outlets are centrist, which are right and which left.

My guess is you ask ten different people to put a label beside the different option and you would get many differing opinions.

That would be hardly scientific. You are also being reductionistic. Do you own reading and research, I have done mine. There is no single conclusive source, there are numerous academic studies that support my position, look some up. I know of no accepted study that shows any conclusive evidence of a "liberal media bias."

 

[cibai]

Jeez, guys, I love a lively debate, but I got work to do. I will try and come back later.

 

[KB5252]

You are correct to point out that center is a relative term (but I thought that the right despised post modernist relativism?) when we are talking about a cultural identity. When we are talking about arguments and logic however, as I mentioned before, the center does not equate with validity. Journalism has no duty to "the center." Journalism has a duty to the truth of an issue. By truth of an issue, I mean, accurate reporting of the arguments AND their merits. If you look at traditional right wing policies, there is very little evidence to give arguments like supply-side economics much merit. As an economic theory, it has been fairly well debunked. Yet, it political discourse, it is still treated as an equal (read balanced) position.

Sort of like socialized medicine?

 

[KB5252]

That would be hardly scientific. You are also being reductionistic. Do you own reading and research, I have done mine. There is no single conclusive source, there are numerous academic studies that support my position, look some up. I know of no accepted study that shows any conclusive evidence of a "liberal media bias."

My point is those studies would all be subjective wouldn't they?