In his speech on Tuesday Fred Thompson talked to the people and exposed the emptiness of the myriad promises of the left.
Tuesday night was a night of heavy hitters at the Republican convention. Independent - some would say traitor - Democrat Joe Lieberman was the obvious star attraction. Getting a member of the opposing party to stand up and condemn their policies and endorse your candidate is always a winner, even if it's a mealy-mouthed endorsement from an unappealing stooge like Joe Lieberman. Yet it turned out that the real star, who upstaged Lieberman in every way, was former Senator and Presidential candidate Fred Thompson.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Jordan Richardson
There sure is a strong perception of liberal media bias. That counts for something.
Yeah. And the left has a strong perception of conservative bias. That also counts for something, doesn't it?
Check out sites like Media Matters and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for more information on biases that cover both spectrums. The Media Research Center is also good for this purpose. You can Google those to see for yourself.
If the frequent perception of bias is always in the same direction
It's not.
then it kind of tells you that there is something to it even if you somehow don't see it
If by "something to it" you mean standard political deflection from the real issues to the ever-popular "blame the media" crap, you're right. If by "something to it" you mean that the allegations are actually truthful, you're wrong.
Simple politically correct (anti white guy) bias is suffocatingly prevalent in media.
Oh yeah. Considering the old white guys that own most of the media outlets in America, that bias is all over the place. Are you serious? Did you forget the Hurricane Katrina coverage from almost all of the major networks? The "Chocolate City" crap? I've got scores of more recent examples if you like and I can assure you that while the right-wingers may crow about "political correctness," America is far from it.
My 14 year old noticed the other day that a nausiatingly frequent public service advertisement against drunk driving featured 4 white guys in the role of drunk drivers while the arresting officers were a black male and a white female.
So?
27 - Jordan Richardson
The one that airs here in California has five or six male drivers (all white) being questioned by exclusively male cops (I think one of the cops is black). It bugs the hell out of me, and I don't think it's just because of the bad acting.
In the United States, there's a Multigrain Cheerios commercial.
In Canada, we have the same commercial. And we had it before it aired in America. The only difference is, of course, that the original voices on the commercial had British accents. So Cheerios overdubbed the commercial with "normal" accents so that Americans could understand it.
Now that bugs me.
28 - Dan
America (USA) may be "far from it" from a Canadian perspective. And that's a good thing.
The left doesn't complain about media bias. They mostly try to explain it away. Are you kidding?
Katrina is an excellent example of left wing bias. I can't tell you why though. Can't examine underlying causes.
By all means though, feel free to produce examples of the "scores" of right wing bias "old white guys" who own "most of the media outlets" have loosened upon the unsuspecting.
"So?" (in response to example of media portraying 4 drunk driving white men arrested by white female and black male.)
so the odds of this being a random sample of reality would be .35*.35*.35*.35 (possibility of 4 white men selected at random from general population...generous estimate). Just with those four, it's already at 1.5% chance. Throw in the arresting officers, and it's nill. Randomly selected, it might happen every one hundred years.
29 - Dan
"The one that airs here in California has five or six male drivers (all white) being questioned by exclusively male cops (I think one of the cops is black). It bugs the hell out of me, and I don't think it's just because of the bad acting."
Thank you Dr. Dreadful. I like to know that it's not just me.
30 - Clavos
The "Chocolate City" crap?
Ray Nagin (African American) coined it.
while the right-wingers may crow about "political correctness," America is far from it.
You have heard of speech codes on college campuses, haven't you?
31 - Jordan Richardson
Dan, I apologize, but I'm not really sure what to make of your post. I can't quite comprehend what you're trying to say. Still, I'm going to take the best shot I can and see what happens...
America (USA) may be "far from it" from a Canadian perspective. And that's a good thing.
No, political correctness (rightly applied minus absurdities, naturally) is a good thing. The idea behind it - meaning the sense to minimize offense to gender, racial, disabled, aged, cultural, and other identity groups - is actually quite admirable in theory. The only problem with most theories is that they end up fucking up once applied to human nature. So while sensitivity and awareness of our differences and an effort to not offend others is an inherently good philosophy, the notion of PC has largely been taken to extremes, used as a political tool, and so on. Now it's basically a pejorative term.
The left doesn't complain about media bias. They mostly try to explain it away. Are you kidding?
Seems to me like you're having an argument with yourself here, so I'll leave you to it. What I did say was that the left, too, has a strong perception of media bias. Perhaps you should examine some of the sites I provided for more information. If you're not going to, let me know so that I can drop this portion of the discussion.
Katrina is an excellent example of left wing bias. I can't tell you why though. Can't examine underlying causes.
Okay...
By all means though, feel free to produce examples of the "scores" of right wing bias "old white guys" who own "most of the media outlets" have loosened upon the unsuspecting.
I will if you promise to do the opposite. Provide and produce examples of left wing bias in the media. There's no sense in my running around online (especially when I've already cited three websites of media watchdog groups, one right-wing and two left-wing, for you to examine) if you aren't going to be a part of the full discussion.
And the last thing that television commercials purport to be are "random samples of reality." Come on.
32 - RJ Elliott
Media bias is real.
This is just one study. I could cite quite a few.
33 - Jordan Richardson
Ray Nagin (African American) coined it.
True enough, Clav. I had gotten the Chocolate City confused with Wolf Blitzer's "they are so poor and so black" comment.
You have heard of speech codes on college campuses, haven't you?
An example of a good theoretical concept taken to the extreme, which is my point. American is not politically correct by any extent when it censors its people. And the folly in the administering of PC ideas comes in the fact that those passing regulations or censorship ideas typically aren't from the supposed "offended party." So you have white Americans, for instance, upholding PC crap on behalf of Native Americans (the NCAA's banning of Amerindian names comes to mind) or deciding what is and isn't offensive to another people group. It would be like a group of whites deciding that the term "nigger" is or isn't offensive.
Again, I'd argue (and have before quite successfully) that the concept of political correctness, applied properly and efficiently, can be good for producing a more inclusive society.
34 - Jordan Richardson
This is just one study. I could cite quite a few.
Please do.
The study is from 2005, which is fine, but I'm a little unsure as to the basis of their research. The paragraph that explains how they did the study basically talks about what citations a particular media outlet is prone to do and how it lines up with how a lawmaker votes, I think. The idea in the study seems to be to measure the amount of times that a particular think tank or group is mentioned. There is no mention of overarching philosophies or leanings, but rather examples of citations from particular sources.
If I don't have this right, perhaps somebody could fill me in with more simplistic terms as to how the study was performed.
Also, bear in mind that I'm not denying media bias. I'm suggest that it goes both ways. The findings of the report seem to support that notion, too. At least it did in 2005. RJ, if you could provide a slightly more recent study, that would be great.
Thanks.
35 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, you have to question the methodology of a study that flags Brit Hume as 'centrist'...
36 - Jordan Richardson
Let me just raise a few more points:
The media, especially in America, seems to have a sort of "either/or" bias as well. You are either left or right. Other political parties or ideologies are given little to no coverage, with socialism and libertarianism essentially seeming like bad words for MSM outlets. And when Ron Paul winds up with over 10,000 supports at his own convention during the GOP convention, why is there no coverage of that? Or no MSM coverage of the Green Party? Or of the independents?
And what do we make of the Program of International Policy Attitudes poll from 2003 that asked people their top media source and then asked vital questions about the war in Iraq. As we all know, higher numbers of FOX viewers had more misconceptions about the war. There's no question that the study raises some serious issues.
But I'm less concerned about whether the media has a left or right bias and much more concerned about the media's function as a propaganda machine. With what amount to systematic biases from a combination of factors, including economic causes, corporate ownership, and ad revenue, the MSM certainly doesn't answer to the public trust. Independent sources are tossed aside as meaningless, for instance, and U.S. corporate interests take hold. This leads to the concept of self-censorship, as media outlets claim up for fear of offending the corporate base. They're all biased and when deception and hiding facts is the order of the day, it's really irresponsible to be mostly concerned about whether the media is biased in the direction of your party or your opponents.
In other words, there are much bigger fish to fry than whether the media is liberal or conservative. As I said, it's both. And it shouldn't be trusted for a fucking second.
37 - RJ Elliott
Journalists support Democrats:
Again, I can go on.
38 - RJ Elliott
Or you could just read this.
It really laughable to suggest that the media doesn't have a liberal/left bias. But I realize that liberal/left types will continue to refuse to admit this. It's almost funny, if it wasn't so serious.
39 - RJ Elliott
And then, opinions from the actual consumers of news:
This is from about 45 days ago. Recent enough?
40 - RJ Elliott
So. From the four citations I've provided, we can conclude the following:
- MSM journalists are overwhelmingly liberal/left
- MSM journalists overwhelmingly support liberal/left candidates/parties with their money
- Most news consumers believe that the MSM has a liberal/left bias
- An objective analysis of major news outlets shows an overwhelming liberal/left bias in news coverage.
But, I'm sure this left-wing bias is all in our heads. We must be delusional.
41 - Dave Nalle
RJ, you should take all this, with the links and write it up as an article. It would be a good thing to have here on BC to point to when people start trying to tell us it ain't so.
Dave
42 - Silas Kain
Thanks, RJ. Great references to back up what I've been saying for a while now about MSNBC. And to go a step further we really need to start looking at FEC filings more closely. I'm working on an article now that yield some very interesting results about certain members of Congress in leadership positions. And for every Democrat cited there's a Republican to back it up. Talk about fair and balanced!
43 - Christopher Rose
Of course, bias is present in all people, so why wouldn't it be present in the media? Absolute objectivity simply isn't possible for humans.
There's nothing wrong with bias, particularly if people are aware of their bias. However, there is a lot wrong with prejudice, such as the view that one particular group is always wrong or another always right. This is a phenomenon which seems to permeate the thinking of people such as Messrs Elliott and Nalle...
44 - Jordan Richardson
It's interesting to note that nobody in this discussion, at least to my knowledge, has claimed that there is no left-wing bias in the MSM. I'd repeat my #36 for the likes of RJ and Nalle, but they seem more contented to make a left/right point than they do with getting at any actual issues.
45 - Dave Nalle
Jordan, you make yourself look foolish by repeating things which Chris Rose says. He is a bundle of unreasoning prejudices. For example, what have I said in the discussion of bias in the media which developed here to suggest that I am making any point at all about right vs. left or anything else in the media.
You and he both throw my name into the discussion when the only comment I've made is to suggest that RJ write his thoughts up as an article. I haven't made a 'left/right point' or any other point at all. I haven't participated in the discussion at all. Rose is just showing his biases by mentioning me and some made up opinion he ascribes to me in the context of this discussion I'm not involved in and by aping him you look twice the fool that he is.
If you want my opinion on bias in the media I'll gladly give it, but the two of you would be best served not to try to guess what I think on a topic which I haven't discussed. Unless you like looking like idiots, of course.
Dave
46 - Jordan Richardson
Forgive me, Sir Dave.
47 - bliffle
The MSM is solicitous of good opinion from the administration, whatever political bent it represents.
Journalists are predominantly left, but media owners are predominantly right. To keep his job, perhaps even to prosper, a journalist has to be sensitive to the opinions of his masters. Perhaps he is even aware of cases of outright coercion or censorship.
The right has been conducting an incessant campaign of branding the MSM as 'liberal' for over 30 years, mostly starting in the Nixon administration. Looks a lot like scapegoating.
I was astounded at the deference the MSM has shown to McCains constant trumpeting of his POW experience and delicate deference to Palin. Even PBS was running RNC videos to completion almost as if it was news.
No one, as near as I can tell, even noticed Palins frequent references to "Minneapolis" as the site of the RNC convention.
It's as if EVERYONE is afraid to say a word about Palin for fear it may appear rude and arouse the rage of every one of Americas feminists.
But I'll be brave and say something rude about Palin: she's NOT good looking. Her head is too big and she's short. My god, she's as short as McCain!
What is this, are midgets taking over America?
Patriots! Arm yourselves!
Randy Newman warned us about this.
48 - handyguy
The coverage of the conventions on CNN and MSNBC seemed to cover a lot of ground and give time to a lot of different viewpoints. Chuck Todd, David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell, in particular, seem to be pretty good at presenting multiple sides of arguments. There are strong conservative commmentators [William Bennett, Ed Rollins) to balance strong liberal voices [Rachel Maddow, James Carville]. Not to mention Pat Buchanan, however one classifies him.
On the nights of the Palin and McCain speeches this past week, it seemed to me that the commentators were so cautious about seeming biased that they ended up over-praising both speeches.
The negative coverage of Palin in the preceding days was driven primarily by bloggers and tabloids. 'Mainstream' [dare I call them centrist?] outlets like the NY Times and CNN framed their stories as reports about the reporting, rather than sensationalistic exposes.
I haven't watched Fox or the broadcast networks as much during the conventions. I did note that Fox commentators' assessment of the Obama acceptance speech was grumpy and reflexively negative.
RJ can continue to cite studies for the hyperbolic myth of liberal bias if he chooses. But the real proof is in the actual news coverage [not the opinion pages, and not in journalists' private views and behavior]. There are many very good, very professional journalists who keep their opinions out of their work.
There are also mountains of strong conservative rhetoric being pumped into the national conversation through talk radio and the blogosphere. There is still not a liberal counterpunch of the same size, although Keith Olbermann, the truly brilliant Rachel Maddow, and Jon Stewart may help us get there. Don't pretend that this doesn't influence what gets talked about.
The perpetual whine from the right about being treated unfairly by the press remains mostly hot air. Your side has been running the country for most of the past decade, and has failed miserably. This deserves to be reported and rooted out. If journalists feel falsely obliged to "fairness," and if that causes them to do their jobs more timidly and less honestly, then shame on them. Fairness, schmairness.
49 - Dr Dreadful
Dead on, Handy. What right-wingers tend to forget is that one of the duties of the media is to hold those in power accountable - and since those in power in recent times have tended to be Republicans, it shouldn't be surprising that the magnifying glass is focused more on them.
The same thing happens in the UK, where the most respected media provider, the BBC, is mandated by its charter to be politically neutral. The party in power invariably complains that BBC journalists are biased in their coverage, and are giving the opposition a free ride. They overlook the fact that they are the ones formulating policy, and that it is the BBC's job to examine that policy critically. They do this quite zealously, whether it is a Labour or a Conservative government.
In fact, dear Americans, if you watch a British government minister being interviewed on BBC World News on PBS or BBC America, you'll be aghast at the bluntness and (in some cases) downright rudeness of some of the questioning, and may realize just what an easy ride politicians (of all stripes) get from the US media.
50 - Jordan Richardson
In fact, dear Americans, if you watch a British government minister being interviewed on BBC World News on PBS or BBC America, you'll be aghast at the bluntness and (in some cases) downright rudeness of some of the questioning, and may realize just what an easy ride politicians (of all stripes) get from the US media.
Same goes up here and I love every minute of it.
51 - Christopher Rose
You have to excuse Nalle. He suffers from a deeply rooted set of delusions that lead him to believe he sees things more clearly than most people - despite all the evidence to the contrary that he posts here on a daily basis. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragically persistent.
52 - Dave Nalle
Weak, as usual. Do you eve have anything useful to say, Rose?
Dave
53 - Christopher Rose
Right back at you Dave.
Perhaps you could take time out from your petty remarks to state which part of my perfectly reasonable observations about 1) the general pervasiveness of bias or 2) your insistence that certain perspectives are entirely lacking in value?
I'm also still waiting for you to come up with your understanding of my political views, that you were so busily insulting me for several days ago. As I said then, I don't think you can do it, simply because you don't know what they are.
54 - Jet
No Chris, deep down inside-we still love the big-lug despite this point of view now don't we?
55 - handyguy
I won't get too deeply involved in this intramural tiff, except to say that Christopher is very witty and often makes a lot of sense.
56 - Jet
Sometimes he's omnipotent and scary and yet aloof
57 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps you could take time out from your petty remarks to state which part of my perfectly reasonable observations about 1) the general pervasiveness of bias or 2) your insistence that certain perspectives are entirely lacking in value?
Chris, I have neither been following nor have I been commenting on this thread, except when I was erroneously mentioned. I have not read your observations, nor have I said anything about them, so how do you conclude that I think they are lacking in value?
I'm also still waiting for you to come up with your understanding of my political views, that you were so busily insulting me for several days ago. As I said then, I don't think you can do it, simply because you don't know what they are.
Quite right. I have no idea what they are, except that they seem to cause you to disagree with most elements my constantly evolving viewpoint, or I assume they do since you frequently harass me with little or no substance to your attacks. When "several days ago" was I insulting you, except to comment that you are a eurocentrist, which is a very general and quite accurate observation. Maybe you think that being a eurocentrist is a bad thing and an insult?
Perhaps if you'd like to lay out your worldview in a nice concise statement I'll tell you if I think it's wisdom or bollocks and why.
Hey, we could each write a short position statment and then separately critique each others statement as a pair of contrasting articles. That might be marginally amusing.
Dave
58 - RJ Elliott
Dave (#41),
Thanks, but I really don't have the time/motivation right now to write up a decent, full-length article on the subject. But you (or anyone else here) certainly have my blessing to use the sources I cited to write up an article of your own.
- RJ
59 - RJ Elliott
McCain up 4:
The McCain/Palin ticket wins 49.7% support, compared to 45.9% backing for the Obama/Biden ticket, this latest online survey shows. Another 4.4% either favored someone else or were unsure.
Heh.
60 - RJ Elliott
More from the same link:
McCain's favorability rating increased from 50% favorable last week to 57% favorable now, a significant jump that indicates the GOP convention was a success. Among independent voters, 61% now have a favorable impression of him, compared to just 49% who said the same a week ago.
Nearly half - 49% - said they had a favorable opinion of Barack Obama, while 50% they had a negative impression of him. Among independent voters, 47% gave him favorable marks, compared to 46% who said the same thing last week.
Among the vice presidential candidates, 54% said they now hold a favorable view of Palin, while 42% hold an unfavorable view. While 49% have a favorable opinion of Joe Biden, 47% hold an unfavorable view of him.
B O U N C E
61 - Dave Nalle
The "Chocolate City" crap?
Ray Nagin (African American) coined it.
For the record, the term goes back decades and refers to Washington DC.
Dave
62 - Dave Nalle
RJ. Zogby's online polls tend to work from a demographic which is younger, more liberal and more independent than the general population, so the numbers probably skew even more towards McCain/Palin in the general population.
And for those who reject anything that's an online poll - with good reason - Zogby's polls are not like the kinds of online 'polls' where anyone can vote. They're like traditional scientific polls just run through the internet.
Dave
63 - Dave Nalle
RJ, it's not just Zogby. Over at The New Republic they're reluctantly admitting that Obama's bounce disappeared very quickly and McCain is up about 4.3 points overall from a combined analysis of a number of polls.
Dave
64 - Christopher Rose
Dave, I'm seriously beginning to think you are schizoid.
From this thread -
#57: I have not read your observations, nor have I said anything about them, so how do you conclude that I think they are lacking in value?
#45: Jordan, you make yourself look foolish by repeating things which Chris Rose says. He is a bundle of unreasoning prejudices.
From Clavos' "Hockey Mom" piece, 4 days ago I observed
#7 I thought Palin's speech was terrible. She came across as a small-minded small town woman, shrill, stupid and hateful.
I'm not currently into party politics as it seems impossible to find an attractive set of policies on either side of the aisle or the ocean but if the USA chooses this type of person it doesn't bode well.
Your response came in #10: Chris, from your perspective as a European elitist, it was inevitable that you would find Palin off-putting and incompatible with your peculiar view of government and society.
To which I reasonably responded in #12: As I have told you many times, although your programming prevents you from absorbing it, I'm not an elitist.
As a self professed elitist pig who had to set up your own little republic of Dave, you are though, which makes your defence of this small town mentality particularly odd.
Having called me a "European elitist", that's when I asked you to state what exactly you think my views are.
Then, again in your #57 above, you say I have no idea what they are and except to comment that you are a eurocentrist.
This is typical Nalleism. You say one thing, then pretend it was something else.
The reasons I regularly criticise your views are 1) that I find them to be full of prejudice which, unlike bias, is always wrong and 2) you consistently try to position yourself as a thoughtful and reasonable person with rationally considered positions.
Yet you routinely make sweeping statements saying that, to choose just a few of your pet peeves, ALL Democrats, Socialists, Europeans, and people opposed to the excessive prevalence of weapons are wrong about everything.
Indeed, you regularly give the impression that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or insane, despite your own limited thinking.
You do this with such persistent hostility that many people become enraged by your dishonest tactics, at which point you retreat to a voice of "apparent" reason and attack people for being so angry.
If, as you have indicated above, you don't know what my views are, a rational person wouldn't make statements characterising those views. The fact that you do and then try to wriggle out of it shows the real you.
As I wrote the other day and repeated above, I don't subscribe to party politics for the simple reason that, like all faithist creeds, no party is right about everything, often most things given the poor state of politics these days.
There are good ideas to be found all around the political spectrum, just as there are good ideas in both pure capitalist or even communist ideology.
Similarly, you are committed to the idea of the supremacy of the individual, despite the obviousness of idea that many times the needs of the many are more important. Note that is many times, but not always.
You seem to always dismiss everything from the left and champion the right, then bail out on that position by describing yourself as a libertarian. Maybe you think that is nuanced but I for one certainly don't.
65 - bliffle
Is McCain a liar or just a flip-flopper when he described his torture? Was McCain lying when he said it was only after long torture that he 'broke' and gave a statement?
Or did he make statements to the NV within days of capture? On his own volition?
Let's ask John McCain:
May 14, 1973 in U.S. News and World Report
I think it was on the fourth day that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size, shape and color of a football. I remembered that when I was a flying instructor a fellow had ejected from his plane and broken his thigh. He had gone into shock, the blood had pooled in his leg, and he died, which came as quite a surprise to us"a man dying of a broken leg. Then I realized that a very similar thing was happening to me.
When I saw it, I said to the guard, "O.K., get the officer." An officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as "The Bug." He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." He left and came back with a doctor, a guy that we called "Zorba," who was completely incompetent. He squatted down, took my pulse. He did not speak English, but shook his head and jabbered to "The Bug." I asked, "Are you going to take me to the hospital?" "The Bug" replied, "It's too late." I said, "If you take me to the hospital, I'll get well."
"Zorba" took my pulse again, and repeated, "It's too late." They got up and left, and I lapsed into unconsciousness.
Sometime later, "The Bug" came rushing into the room, shouting, "Your father is a big admiral; now we take you to the hospital."
I tell the story to make this point: There were hardly any amputees among the prisoners who came back because the North Vietnamese just would not give medical treatment to someone who was badly injured"they weren't going to waste their time. For one thing, in the transition from the kind of life we lead in America to the filth and dirt and infection, it would be very difficult for a guy to live anyway. In fact, my treatment in the hospital almost killed me.
Apparently his treatment after the hospital saved him.
How did he get special treatment? What were the statements that he made days after his capture?
What did other POWs think of McCain?
What McCain statements does the DoD have?
What McCain material do the NV have that has never been released?
Anyone who's curious and really impartial can find out with simple google searches.
Do we know the real McCain or only the fable that he and his supporters push at us relentlessly?
66 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, why don't you do the google searches and spare us your repetition of someone else's smear campaign?
Dave
67 - Jet
Hey, just because McCain served in the National Guard with Bush is no reason to be bitter.
68 - troll
perhaps we should consider something akin to Goodwin's...the first to suggest google searches rather than sourcing loses
another problem type is those who cite stats from say the B of Labor Statistics and when asked for a source give a link to the site's home page
69 - Dave Nalle
Your response came in #10: Chris, from your perspective as a European elitist, it was inevitable that you would find Palin off-putting and incompatible with your peculiar view of government and society.
To which I reasonably responded in #12: As I have told you many times, although your programming prevents you from absorbing it, I'm not an elitist.
A statement which you make in the context of this prior statement:
"#7 I thought Palin's speech was terrible. She came across as a small-minded small town woman, shrill, stupid and hateful."
A statement which shows blatant elitist prejudice, which if not strictly demonstrating a eurocentric attitude in this case certainly shows a cosmopolitan bias.
As a self professed elitist pig who had to set up your own little republic of Dave, you are though, which makes your defence of this small town mentality particularly odd.
The ad hominem is one of the most offensive and simplistic forms of invalid argument. The fact that you don't get the irony of a libertarian calling himself an elitist just speaks to your humorlessness.
Having called me a "European elitist", that's when I asked you to state what exactly you think my views are.
I think that your views are prejudiced in favor of things cosmopolitan and European. Beyond that I can just speak to specific examples like the statement quoted above. If you'd like to prove me wrong you'd need to stop being derisive and dimissive of the culture and values of rural people, small town people and Americans in general.
Then, again in your #57 above, you say I have no idea what they are and except to comment that you are a eurocentrist.
This is typical Nalleism. You say one thing, then pretend it was something else.
Ok then, you're a eurocentric elitist. I don't see the two as being all that far apart in your case.
Yet you routinely make sweeping statements saying that, to choose just a few of your pet peeves, ALL Democrats, Socialists, Europeans, and people opposed to the excessive prevalence of weapons are wrong about everything.
Except that you cannot provide examples of such broad statements, except possibly in the case of private gun ownership where we are dealing with a single specific issue where there is evidence involved and my position would be that those who oppose gun rights are wrong on that specific issue based on the evidence.
The broad statements condemning large groups just because of who they are remain a figment of your imagination which you cannot support with examples.
Indeed, you regularly give the impression that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or insane, despite your own limited thinking.
So again, unable to provide any proof you resort to a personal attack on my intellectual capacity and choice of phrasing.
You do this with such persistent hostility that many people become enraged by your dishonest tactics, at which point you retreat to a voice of "apparent" reason and attack people for being so angry.
Again, a personal attack which is utter bullshit. Give me an example of these 'dishonest tactics', or perhaps you'd like to just admit upfront that viewpoints you don't agree with are ones which you automatically class as dishonest?
And if daring to challenge someone's prejudices and ridiculous assumptions makes them angry, then that merely shows their inability to defend their position rationally, a weakness you repeatedly demonstrate.
If, as you have indicated above, you don't know what my views are, a rational person wouldn't make statements characterising those views. The fact that you do and then try to wriggle out of it shows the real you.
Except that in this case as you yourself demonstrated, I was responding to a specific quote which supported the characterization which I made. I don't keep track of your more specific views, but that doesn't mean that I haven't noticed your general attitude.
Similarly, you are committed to the idea of the supremacy of the individual, despite the obviousness of idea that many times the needs of the many are more important. Note that is many times, but not always.
Among libertarians I am regularly criticized for being too willing to accept compromises with and promote ideas which temper libertarianism with consideration of the needs of society as a whole.
You seem to always dismiss everything from the left and champion the right, then bail out on that position by describing yourself as a libertarian. Maybe you think that is nuanced but I for one certainly don't.
In America - which you're disinclined to make any effort to understand - libertarianism is a philosophy primarily of the political right, though it includes beliefs which many on the right consider to be 'liberal' or left-leaning, especially on social issues. So being a libertarian and defending what you view as 'the right' is not inconsistent.
Whether it is a 'nuanced' position or not means nothing to me. It is what it is. A political philosophy does not have to be 'nuanced' to be valid. But the libertarian perspective does have the characteristic of not falling into the strict limits of the traditional left or right in American politics.
As for your assessment of my beliefs it seems to be so selective that I can't give it much credence. That you have missed my defense of gay rights, my opposition to organized religion and my general hostility towards anything which fits with a rightist social agenda suggests that you really aren't paying much attention and are leaping to conclusions based on ignorance, or perhaps you just made assumptions about me based on very little evidence and have since then ignored all of the evidence which contradicts your assumptions.
So maybe it's time to open your mind just a little bit and not be ruled by your misconceptions.
Dave
70 - Dave Nalle
another problem type is those who cite stats from say the B of Labor Statistics and when asked for a source give a link to the site's home page
To be fair, troll, if you use the dynamic charts tool at the BLS it's impossible to link back to the temporary chart you created and it kicks any links that worked when you were there to the homepage instead.
Dave
71 - troll
true dat Dave
72 - bliffle
Nobodys smear campaign, McCains own words.
McCains interview 2 weeks after capture
73 - Silas Kain
Perhaps folks should listen to your radio show, Dave. You're the most progressive conservative I know from Texas and deserve a lot of credit for maintaining common sense in this era of cynical, uninformed debate.
74 - Dave Nalle
Thanks Silas. Sadly most people can't be up at 2am central. Hell, it was 3am your time when you called in. What keeps you up so late?
Dave
75 - Clavos
@#72,
Now there's an irrefutable, believable and unbiased source:
A translation of a news dispatch filed by a Communist North Vietnamese "correspondent" to a Communist Cuban newspaper.
Yep, a lot of credibility there.
If that weren't so pathetic, it would be risible.