he fucker leans so far to the right he practically falls over.
Yet none of the Republicans like him or his ideas and pretty much voted lockstep against them for the past 2 years -- for someone "so far to the right", he certainly doesn't have many backers on the right.
He passed the health care bill the republicans proposed under gingrinch, he kept gitmo, what more do you want him to blow Rush?
Gitmo is no more "right" than the Patriot Act -- they're both federal huge power grabs supported by both parties, whether they publicly state it or not. And as far as the healthcare bill goes -- you're honestly going to tell me that the entire 906 page bill recently passed was exactly the same as that proposed under gingrich? All 906 pages? And ifnot, how can you even make a comparison? What was Gingrich's stand on pre-existing conditions, for example? And the requirement that insurance companies shoulder that risk at any time?
Face it, Obama isn't to the right -- he just cares much more about his career than he'd rather pass shitty left-leaning legislation than good "centrist" legislation. He couldn't even get his own party behind the healthcare bill 100% -- all the more "center-to-right" Democrats hated the bill whereas all the extreme left Dems supported it -- you're honestly going to tell me that tripe was "right-leaning"?
I'll tell you why I think libertarians are divorced from reality.
And why do you think this only applies to libertarians?
Because they believe in simplistic solutions to complex problems
Dems: "increase minimum wages == more money for the poor" -- seems pretty simplistic, and just as deluded.
Repubs: "less bank regulations == success"
Because they do not think through the implications of their policies
Dems: "health insurance companies are now required to accept all interested parties, regardless of pre-existing condition or risk" somehow equaling "cost savings" for the overall system?
Repubs: "tax cuts == boost in business"
Because they refuse to look at the lessons of history
Dems: Social Security & Medicare are _substantial_ proof-of-examples of failures of "large federally run social programs" -- yet they want _another_ one similarly run and bloated (aka latest healthcare bill).
People like "YOU" are very rare, if indeed really exist. The vast, vast majority of global warming deniers do not want a sustainable, progressive approach.
You're wrong. We're quite common, in fact. Or do you have actual data to back up your "vast, vast majority" claim (rather than "the circle of republicans I know"/"what i've seen on TV")? And part of the reason you seem to not notice us is as Pharmboy put it: "instead you jump on a soap box and tell everyone that either we agree with your ideas, or we just want to shit on the planet". The same mentality (unsurprisingly) applies to "sane" fans of small government and fiscal responsibility, who you immediately assume love rich megamillionaires, hate the poor, idolize Palin, eat babies, etc etc... I bet you'd be surprised to find out that a decent chunk of libertarians support universal healthcare or social safety nets at the state level? Because we're all supposed to be nutso anarchists, right? The world just isn't that black and white, nor is it that polarized -- and too much of debate is mired in assumptions and misinformation.
Or are you asserting that the Republicans are exactly as evil as I stated, but that you will defend evil if I don't condemn some other evil as well?
Nope, I'm condemning them both -- both parties don't want to give up any of their power and want nothing more than to grab as much of it as they can. Hell, the #1 complaint against ending earmarks is that they claim they'd be "giving up power to the executive branch".
The only reason party was included was because of the previous comments that were discussing party.
I dunno, it sounded more like: "The Republicans started this and forced it on us, so now we're just playing their game" -- i.e., it looked very much like you were playing the victim there, or foisting all the blame on the Republicans. Either way, it didn't seem like an acknowledgment that this partisan power grab cuts both ways, fairly equally.
If the Republicans don't like it, they shouldn't have forced it down our throats.
Ah, accusations without proof. I don't see either side salivating over 3rd party diversity -- where do you get off brushing this one off on Republicans? Hell, the last major attempt to cement the two-party system was launched by pissed off Democrats, namely by attempting to eliminate the filibuster. If you think the two-party system is bad now, see what its like if that happens.
t's also very amusing to see how the Tea Party helped the Dems retain the Senate in 2010, because if the GOP had candidates other than the wicked witch of Delaware and what's her name in Nevada, they would've won the Senate as well as the House.
It's even more amusing to see that, knowing what you just said, the Dems still think the Tea Party is some sort of covert wing actively working for the GOP.
I don't know what you guys are talking about -- we have the same thing in Maryland and my utility bill has gone way done since switching power suppliers. I think WGES is offering somewhere around 10-20% below BGE's rate, fixed for a year. I just have to make sure to terminate the contract auto-renewal or the rate will jack up after a year. It's basically the same games you play with TV/internet providers.
That the Bush Tax Cuts combined with massive military spending (two wars) and massive unpaid-for entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) are the reason we've got such a huge deficit, and national debt, right?
The Democrat controlled Congress just extended those exact same tax cuts you're complaining about. And the cost of the wars is dwarfed by entitlement expenses (but no one ever seems to take Mandatory Spending into account when talking about expenses).
Reagan TRIPLED the debt. Bush I doubled it. Bush II doubled it again. After Clinton, we were looking at surplusses as far as the eye could see,
1950 -> 1980: Deficit decrease under 3 Republican presidents and 3 Democrat presidents. In all of these situations, we had a mixed congress (most of the time two-thirds Dem).
1981 -> 1987: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency + two-thirds congress
1987 -> 1993: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency. Dems control two-thirds congress
1993 -> 2001: Deficit decrease. Democrats controls presidency. Republicans control two-thirds congress
2001 -> 2005: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency + two-thirds congress
2007 -> 2009: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency. Dems control two-thirds congress
2009 -> current: Deficit increase. Democrat full control. This is also the largest deficit increase ever.
And that often-cited meme that Obama "trippled the deficit"?
I don't know what the exact number is, but it's the largest ever: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/20/news/economy/total_stimulus_cost/index.htm
I might add that TARP, although proposed by Bush, was very heavily voted against by Republicans in Congress -- it only passed due to a substantial majority of Democrat voting. AND it has pretty much been 100% paid back and then some (unlike Obama's stimulus).
The biggest lie ever told (and bought by too many people) is that Republicans are in any way financially conservative or fiscally responsible.
No, the biggest lie ever told is that either party is fiscally responsible when they control all branches of government. The second biggest lie is that the actions of literally a handful of presidents in office somehow define an entire party or its agenda, with full ignorance of any other aspect of the political or economic circumstances.
At least when Democrats spend money, Americans benefit
So Americans are benefitting from the 1+ Trillion we spend annually on Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid? From what I've head, no one has any retirement money and our healthcare here is pisspoor. AND we're damn near bankrupt because of it. And I dare you to show me how "war spending" in any way equals 1 Trillio
Historically, they have.
Look at the post-war period. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and at least one house of congress.
Firstly, economic growth shouldn't be the measure of a good government -- there's too many variables in play to correlate the two. For instance, the dotcom boom and bust was in no way a factor of government, yet politicians in office at the time benefited/suffered from the budget surpluses/deficits.
Secondly, I think you're confusing "Democrat control" with "mixed congress".
Government has historically had the most success under mixed governments, where no single party has full control. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove only the two-thirds Democrat case.
It seems as though it bothers you that some people treat the Daily Show as a source of news, as well as entertainment. Why is that?
Quite the opposite. It bothers me that they claim the Daily Show is only entertainment when people try to claim Stewart isn't a political pundit. The world seems to have different standards for sites that proclaim themselves as "news" sites -- it often appears as if Stewart has tried in the past to dodge criticism and inconsistencies under the guise of "hey, we're just a comedy show." I'm just saying that Stewart should be held to the same standards as the Glen Becks and other pundits of the world, that's all. As should the show itself -- I mean, saying the Daily Show isn't a political news show just because it has comedy is like saying that Mad Money isn't a financial/stocks news show just because it has comedy.
Oh, I didn't realize you came to that conclusion about Moore.
By "one is entertainment", were you referring to the Daily Show/Colbert Report? Because at this point in our TV evolution, I don't believe that can be said. A large majority of TV viewers get the bulk of their political knowledge from those two shows alone -- hell, they've sparked massive political rallies. At this point, they're more than just comedy (despite however much Stewart likes to claim he's "just a comedian")
Well you may not have used it as such, but from my debates with universal healthcare proponents, it's typically their #1 argument. And it's frustrating as hell. Trying to draw simple parallels between the healthcare systems of two widely differing nations with different cultures with different lifestyles with thousands of variables is an apples-to-battleships comparison. It's insane.
The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.
And you think that any other 'news' shows are any different?
Yes, I do. I don't think that other news shows' editorial staff makes specific decisions on the wording to be used on every story
Ah, "spun", we meet again. I do find it rather ironic that you are opposed to specific types of "presentation" of material by Fox News after we just debated the same topic with response to Michael Moore: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1910092&cid=34551510
"government-run" is a fact, not a lie -- the public option would have been a government-run plan. So in this particular case, Fox News is not lying -- and the only objection you have is the manner in which they're presenting it.
So, with that said, can you explain to me how Michael Moore is not propaganda, but Fox News is? And once again for the record, I hate them both.
P.S. I'd also debate Daily Show/Colbert Report to be "news shows", and they do a fair amount of "framing" topics of their own (often for comic effect). I agree with the OP that this tactic is hardly unique to Fox News -- although they're likely one of the biggest offenders.
OK, I've seen this Libertarian objection to the new Health Care law before, and I have a question about it. What do you consider the viable alternative?
Ugh, where do I start?
People get sick or injured. Often out of the blue, and occasionally seriously.
Sounds just like the case for _any_ insurance. Auto insurance covers fatal liabilities that occur out of the blue. Home insurance covers fatal liabilities that happen on your property out of the blue. Yet neither of these require a federal mandate to be effective or affordable. Why? Does anyone know? Has anyone even _tried_ to know? Let's do some comparisons:
1) Large government influence. Neither home insurance and auto insurance have federal mandates behind them. This leaves the states to do as they please on these issues. As such, many states require people to get insurance and stay the hell out of the way in all other regards. Which leads me to my second point...
2) Overhead, red tape, and bureaucracy. My home got robbed not too long ago. I called my auto insurance agent to file a theft claim. He said "sure, just send me a list of the stuff that was taken with replacement value price quotes and I'll send you an insurance check". Simple, just like that. Same with auto insurance -- I run into someone, my insurance company cuts them an check -- my car's value is looked up in a book and reimbursed -- simple. Medical care on the other hand...ERISA, HIIPA, COBRA, HMOs/PPOs, Medicare, Medicaid, negotiated rates, provider networks, ties to employment, etc, etc. I never even see a bill until it has gone through multiple middle-men (doctor -> insurance company -> government (medicare claim) -> insurance company -> me). Hell, even to acquire insurance, I have to go through middle men (my employer), which takes me to #3
3) Choice. In auto/home insurance, I can choose between hundreds of insurance companies. Let's just do a smattering of the auto case: GEICO, Progressive, Nationwide, Liberty Mutual, Esurance, TheGeneral, Travelers (to name a few). How many companies can I choose between for medical insurance? ONE (maybe a handful if you have an employer w/ good benefits). And of my ONE company to choose from, I can choose from about 3 or 4 policies. And then I'm seriously screwed if I lose my job or have to change jobs because my damn medical is tied to it.
4) Targeted premiums. Young people pay higher premiums for auto insurance. People who get in accidents pay higher premiums for auto insurance. With medical, everyone pays the same rate whether you're a smoker, base jumper, volcano luger, whatever.
5) Insurer options. Auto insurance companies can drop expensive insurees. Medical insurance companies soon will not be able to do this (anymore). Additionally, auto insurance companies can refuse to provide insurance to anyone they please. Medical companies insurance will not be able to do this (anymore). So the proposed "healthcare for everyone" forces insurance companies to accept all risk at any time and provides no way to cut expensive clients (that second part is a good thing and a necessary evil -- the first part is ludicrous and destroys the entire concept of "insurance").
6) What is Covered. Auto insurance covers expensive catastrophes. Home insurance covers expensive catastrophes. Medical insurance covers EVERYTHING. And since I have no choice of competition (see #3) and can't switch insurance due to my job ties (see #3), that only guarantees that the cost of all my medical care is being negotiated by people who have no fear of competition and no fear of losing me as a customer. As such, they can charge me whatever the hell they want with little to no downside. And you want everyone to be enrolled in this? The entire deal sounds Mafia-esqueue , akin to "protection" money. How does enrolling everyone in a doomed and flawed system in any w
All words are from a biased source. Even the choice to report or not report on something indicates bias.
To some extent, I believe that's splitting hairs. It's like saying true altruism is impossible because you always get something out of it, even if it's just an emotional high. Of course it's impossible to be 100% right-down-the-middle truly impartial, but I believe you can get close -- or at least far closer than the Fox News's of the world. When I say to get facts from a "non-biased source", perhaps I should instead say "far less partisan" source. Because I do believe there's quite a few people in the world that truly want to seek and tell real truth, instead of merely the truths of whatever side they happen to be politically allied with. Perhaps these are the moderates of the world.
Not all "sides" are equally valid.
True that, but in the absence of supporting data that a particular belief is truly based upon faulty premises, assumptions should not be made.
There is only one reality, and it is the same for everyone.
Heh, some philosophers would disagree with that statement. And it's also very easy to distort reality in one's mind. Haven't you ever been in situations where you swore it went down one way and another person swore it went down another way, and you're both certain your memory is not failing you? Alot of times we see what we want to see, choose to remember what we want to remember -- in as such, "reality" (at least as perceived through the eyes of emotional human beings) should be assumed to be somewhat malleable when discussing our views on it.
Some "sides" are at least loosely based in reality. Some are not. Do you look at both sides of the moon landing "debate?"
And this I entirely concur with -- religion is another fine topic that always ventures into this realm of non-debate. But I guess the important distinction that I'd like to make is that: given a random argument and a random opponent, they should not immediately be assumed to be of "moon landing"-type intelligence simply because they disagree with you or because they happen to share a belief with loons.
Take the Tea Party for instance. Conspiracy theories aside about it being a Republican front, it's a valid political movement with quite a few relatively sane ideas. And there's quite a few Tea Party proponents who are thinking, intelligent people who care only about small government and not a lick about religion or any of the other fringe stuff. However, center stage are a bunch of braindead loons who not only run under the Tea Party label, but in fact lead political demonstrations under the group's name. Now if you were to debate an individual who admitted to identifying with the Tea Party, would you give him the benefit of the doubt, or would you assume he's as loony as the ones making all the racket in the media? If he made a cogent argument with valid points, would you immediately recognize it or would you key in on the group identification and summarily dismiss his opinions? That's the issue with most of these hot-button debates. No one can have an opinion about anything without getting summarily lumped into some kind of group and then judged against that group. Broad-sweeping assumptions are simply far too common and rarely have any business in debate -- because if one truly values facts, why assume anything about an opponent's stance or beliefs?
While it is important to check your biases, there is no true neutral position on anything. Trying to achieve neutrality or impartiality is impossible.
True, but one can try. And I believe that taking proponents of misinformation and deceit with a huge grain of salt to be a good start (regardless of their intentions)
Perhaps I feel that way about Moore because I had already learned of the things he was trying to say, through other sources, and he was not telling me anything I did not already know.
Well I'm sure alot of that has to do with the fact you agree with him -- and the sources you get your news/facts from probably align with your views as well. I mean I doubt you're reading FoxNews daily. It's probably primarily Daily Show/Colbert Report and a smattering of left-leaning websites (just to throw out a common segment -- not trying to pigeonhole ya or anything). And we, as fallible humans, try ten times as hard to disprove that which we don't agree with than what we do agree with -- it's very easy just to gloss over fact-finding when everything sounds so right. But conservatives do the same thing with Hannity and the like. They're so certain of the facts, and the conclusions they've drawn from those facts that they never seek additional evidence, counterpoints, or possible alternate explanations. It's far easier to dismiss the opponent as "beneath you" than it is to attempt to view the world from their eyes. We all do it to some extent or another.
And it's rather sad too -- they're quite a few things I agree with Moore on, and I would be much more receptive to him if he provided it fairly, without resorting to such spin tactics. Deceptive presentation weakens a position for anyone other than those who already strongly agree with your material. Because a person has to first trust the source because they can trust the facts.
Anyways, there's three main axioms I live by:
1) Trust no words from a biased source or someone with an agenda -- 9 times out of 10, there's more sides to the story you aren't hearing because they know it would weaken their position. This goes double for politicians. 2) Spend twice as long looking for counters to your arguments than support. 3) Don't be quick to lump a person into a "category" or "group" -- there's more shades of gray out there than people are willing to see
Between the three of these, I manage to at least check my own biases somewhat. Though I'm probably guilty of #3 right now, as I've made quite a few assumptions about you. But I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
which can cause cognitive dissonance in most people. People do not like the feeling of having their world view invalidated
Or perhaps they're just not fans of cognitive bias?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're a global warming proponent. How'd you feel when ClimateGate came out? Did you feel cognitive dissonance? Was your world view invalidated? Hell no, you got pissed off that a bunch of morons ignored 95% of a document, instead focusing on the 5% that supported their own conclusions. They sensationalized the news and used an appeal to authority (a handful of scientists admitting to falsifying data to support their conclusions) to imply a trend. They generated doubt, uncertainty, and "what-ifs" in the general populace, all based on 100% factual truth. However, the presentation was such that people were led to believe their "evidence" was far stronger and far more closely tied to causal effects than it actually was. Moore is the same way, and I'm sorry you don't see that. You're so quick to dismiss the anti-Moore crowd as "just not 'self-aware' enough to recognize their own bias" that you completely fail to see your own.
That's certainly news to me. From what I've heard, both personally and in the news, his works are widely hated and/or discredited by the right, widely loved by the left, and generally ignored as sensationalist bias by the middle (the same people that ignore Fox News, HuffPo, and all the other biased sources)
What the hell, man?
How is someone going to prove anything to you when you just handwave/dismiss attempts to mislead as "moviegoer's perogative" instead of intent. If he was being honest with facts, he wouldn't have to splice clips and juxtapose seemingly random information in a manner that implies correlation. He clearly attempts to spin and distort, to get people to try to draw conclusions or make connections where there are none.
You ask for "examples" when even the most trivial of searches, a simple Wikipedia lookup, shows dozens (emphasis mine):
Bowling for Columbine:
Moore's agents, under the pretext of "doing a story on unique businesses across America," are accused of convincing bank employees to have his rifle presented to him on camera the morning after filming his account opening. Further, they counter that contrary to the film's supposition that the bank kept hundreds of guns on their premises, the gun which was handed to Michael in the film was shipped overnight from a vault in their Upper Peninsula branch "300 miles away." Moore emphatically denies that this sequence was staged but admits the timing was compressed for production reasons.
Fahrenheit 9/11:
Christopher Hitchens criticized the film for not mentioning the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.[13] Hitchens writes, "in this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism.
Capitalism: A Love Story
Moore criticizes Wal-Mart for "dead peasant" policies, all 350,000 of which were cancelled in 2000. However, Moore notes that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits.
I don't know if these examples are even relevant to you, as you appear to have your mind made up already. But what Moore does is akin to what those medical ads do to hide side-effects (small-print/rapid phrases). Or, even more accurately, what the robo-callers do to attempt to discredit politicans. For instance, you get a phone call that says "would you still support candidate X if you found out they cheated on their spouse?" No lies were spoken -- it's merely a question...however, it's a leading question that attempts to mislead and draw conclusions. It's one of the reason leading questions are illegal in court hearings. Suggestive questions (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Suggestive_question) are the same concept.
Hell, just look at the subject material of Sicko -- that's one gigantic false dichotomy right there. The entire argument hinges on the assumption that the only possible choices are "universal healthcare" or "capitalism", and seemingly ignores the fact that comparing two extremely different countries involves so many variables that any apples-to-apples comparison should be seen as tentative at best, especially when the specific topics of comparison are cherry-picked. I could cherry-pick a handful of facts (completely true ones) that make the US healthcare system look like it's the best in the world.
If I may make my movie moment:
American's commitment to extensive medical testing and diagnosis is second to none! The US has the highest rate of MRI and CT scans per capita (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/01/doctors-united-states-order-ct-scans-mri-tests.html). Canada performs less than half the same amount of tests in attempts to determine whether a patient is sick or not. [cut to film splice of canadian cancer patient in waiting room]. [overlay sound clip of interview with american cancer survivor: "how satisifed are you with the level of medical testing here in the US?"][f
How can you blame Republicans (single-handedly, apparently) for killing single-payer when you couldn't even get your own party united behind it?
And then I will watch insurance companies burn.
How are you any different than the so-called "obstructionist" Republicans you rail against who are content to watch the country burn so long as the other side suffers? You acknowledge an ineffective bill, yet support it (cheerfully at that) simply because you (and/or your "side") benefits from it and/or you get to "stick it" to the other side. I agree with the AC:
this is good for the country why? Because you get to potentially fuck some insurance companies? But hey, at least you get your free lunch out of it.
Talk about FUD...car insurance is not mandatory in the USA. It's mandatory in many states by state law, but not federally. And, also unlike health insurance, it:
1) covers _very_ specific catastrophic things
2) ensures that I individually pay higher premiums for my auto mistakes (rather than everyone)
3) can be revoked without fatal consequences
It's a fantastic example of something handled on a state level working exactly as it should -- it, however, is a poor comparison for health insurance.
But if we addressed any of those things and passed a reasonable bill, Dems wouldn't get the joy of watching the country suffer while blaming it on "obstructionist" Republicans. It's much more important to pass a bill that gives a few thousand new people insurance rather than cut costs for hundreds of millions, right? At least then we get to give the finger to rich people and fuck insurance companies in the ass. Yes we can. Big win for the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet none of the Republicans like him or his ideas and pretty much voted lockstep against them for the past 2 years -- for someone "so far to the right", he certainly doesn't have many backers on the right.
Gitmo is no more "right" than the Patriot Act -- they're both federal huge power grabs supported by both parties, whether they publicly state it or not. And as far as the healthcare bill goes -- you're honestly going to tell me that the entire 906 page bill recently passed was exactly the same as that proposed under gingrich? All 906 pages? And ifnot, how can you even make a comparison? What was Gingrich's stand on pre-existing conditions, for example? And the requirement that insurance companies shoulder that risk at any time?
Face it, Obama isn't to the right -- he just cares much more about his career than he'd rather pass shitty left-leaning legislation than good "centrist" legislation. He couldn't even get his own party behind the healthcare bill 100% -- all the more "center-to-right" Democrats hated the bill whereas all the extreme left Dems supported it -- you're honestly going to tell me that tripe was "right-leaning"?
And why do you think this only applies to libertarians?
Dems: "increase minimum wages == more money for the poor" -- seems pretty simplistic, and just as deluded.
Repubs: "less bank regulations == success"
Dems: "health insurance companies are now required to accept all interested parties, regardless of pre-existing condition or risk" somehow equaling "cost savings" for the overall system?
Repubs: "tax cuts == boost in business"
Dems: Social Security & Medicare are _substantial_ proof-of-examples of failures of "large federally run social programs" -- yet they want _another_ one similarly run and bloated (aka latest healthcare bill).
Repubs: Bank deregulation
Dems: Billionaire Democrat: Warren Buffet. Billionaire: George Sorros. Sergey Brin, Democrat, Billionaire. Larry Page, Democrat, Billionaire Charles Koch, Democrat, Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, Democrat, Billionaire Abigail Johnson, Democrat, Billionaire Ballmer, Steven, Democrat, Billionaire
(source: Yahoo Answers)
Repubs: Too many to count
Dems: ThinkProgress, Digg, Twitter, etc, etc
Repubs: FoxNews, Hannity, Rush, etc, etc
Something uniquely libertarian certainly would be nice as you've so far listed nothing that doesn't mar all politics/politicians across the aisle.
You're wrong. We're quite common, in fact. Or do you have actual data to back up your "vast, vast majority" claim (rather than "the circle of republicans I know"/"what i've seen on TV")? And part of the reason you seem to not notice us is as Pharmboy put it: "instead you jump on a soap box and tell everyone that either we agree with your ideas, or we just want to shit on the planet". The same mentality (unsurprisingly) applies to "sane" fans of small government and fiscal responsibility, who you immediately assume love rich megamillionaires, hate the poor, idolize Palin, eat babies, etc etc... I bet you'd be surprised to find out that a decent chunk of libertarians support universal healthcare or social safety nets at the state level? Because we're all supposed to be nutso anarchists, right? The world just isn't that black and white, nor is it that polarized -- and too much of debate is mired in assumptions and misinformation.
Nope, I'm condemning them both -- both parties don't want to give up any of their power and want nothing more than to grab as much of it as they can. Hell, the #1 complaint against ending earmarks is that they claim they'd be "giving up power to the executive branch".
I dunno, it sounded more like: "The Republicans started this and forced it on us, so now we're just playing their game" -- i.e., it looked very much like you were playing the victim there, or foisting all the blame on the Republicans. Either way, it didn't seem like an acknowledgment that this partisan power grab cuts both ways, fairly equally.
Wow, tinfoil hat much? This is almost as good as that "mastermind" GWB setting up 9/11.
It's called the Tea Party.
Ah, accusations without proof. I don't see either side salivating over 3rd party diversity -- where do you get off brushing this one off on Republicans? Hell, the last major attempt to cement the two-party system was launched by pissed off Democrats, namely by attempting to eliminate the filibuster. If you think the two-party system is bad now, see what its like if that happens.
It's even more amusing to see that, knowing what you just said, the Dems still think the Tea Party is some sort of covert wing actively working for the GOP.
I don't know what you guys are talking about -- we have the same thing in Maryland and my utility bill has gone way done since switching power suppliers. I think WGES is offering somewhere around 10-20% below BGE's rate, fixed for a year. I just have to make sure to terminate the contract auto-renewal or the rate will jack up after a year. It's basically the same games you play with TV/internet providers.
The Democrat controlled Congress just extended those exact same tax cuts you're complaining about. And the cost of the wars is dwarfed by entitlement expenses (but no one ever seems to take Mandatory Spending into account when talking about expenses).
Terrible comparisons that ignores all factors except "who controls the presidency." You ignore not only who is controlling the other branches of office, but also the general state of the economy (boom/bust/etc) that is generally unrelated to government. As you can see from this chart: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cGw2iu1drOQJ:uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a and this chart https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.png):
1950 -> 1980: Deficit decrease under 3 Republican presidents and 3 Democrat presidents. In all of these situations, we had a mixed congress (most of the time two-thirds Dem).
1981 -> 1987: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency + two-thirds congress
1987 -> 1993: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency. Dems control two-thirds congress
1993 -> 2001: Deficit decrease. Democrats controls presidency. Republicans control two-thirds congress
2001 -> 2005: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency + two-thirds congress
2007 -> 2009: Deficit increase. Republicans control presidency. Dems control two-thirds congress
2009 -> current: Deficit increase. Democrat full control. This is also the largest deficit increase ever.
I don't know what the exact number is, but it's the largest ever: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/20/news/economy/total_stimulus_cost/index.htm
I might add that TARP, although proposed by Bush, was very heavily voted against by Republicans in Congress -- it only passed due to a substantial majority of Democrat voting. AND it has pretty much been 100% paid back and then some (unlike Obama's stimulus).
No, the biggest lie ever told is that either party is fiscally responsible when they control all branches of government. The second biggest lie is that the actions of literally a handful of presidents in office somehow define an entire party or its agenda, with full ignorance of any other aspect of the political or economic circumstances.
So Americans are benefitting from the 1+ Trillion we spend annually on Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid? From what I've head, no one has any retirement money and our healthcare here is pisspoor. AND we're damn near bankrupt because of it. And I dare you to show me how "war spending" in any way equals 1 Trillio
Firstly, economic growth shouldn't be the measure of a good government -- there's too many variables in play to correlate the two. For instance, the dotcom boom and bust was in no way a factor of government, yet politicians in office at the time benefited/suffered from the budget surpluses/deficits. Secondly, I think you're confusing "Democrat control" with "mixed congress". Government has historically had the most success under mixed governments, where no single party has full control. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove only the two-thirds Democrat case.
Quite the opposite. It bothers me that they claim the Daily Show is only entertainment when people try to claim Stewart isn't a political pundit. The world seems to have different standards for sites that proclaim themselves as "news" sites -- it often appears as if Stewart has tried in the past to dodge criticism and inconsistencies under the guise of "hey, we're just a comedy show." I'm just saying that Stewart should be held to the same standards as the Glen Becks and other pundits of the world, that's all. As should the show itself -- I mean, saying the Daily Show isn't a political news show just because it has comedy is like saying that Mad Money isn't a financial/stocks news show just because it has comedy.
By "one is entertainment", were you referring to the Daily Show/Colbert Report? Because at this point in our TV evolution, I don't believe that can be said. A large majority of TV viewers get the bulk of their political knowledge from those two shows alone -- hell, they've sparked massive political rallies. At this point, they're more than just comedy (despite however much Stewart likes to claim he's "just a comedian")
Well you may not have used it as such, but from my debates with universal healthcare proponents, it's typically their #1 argument. And it's frustrating as hell. Trying to draw simple parallels between the healthcare systems of two widely differing nations with different cultures with different lifestyles with thousands of variables is an apples-to-battleships comparison. It's insane.
Ah, "spun", we meet again. I do find it rather ironic that you are opposed to specific types of "presentation" of material by Fox News after we just debated the same topic with response to Michael Moore: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1910092&cid=34551510
"government-run" is a fact, not a lie -- the public option would have been a government-run plan. So in this particular case, Fox News is not lying -- and the only objection you have is the manner in which they're presenting it.
So, with that said, can you explain to me how Michael Moore is not propaganda, but Fox News is? And once again for the record, I hate them both.
P.S. I'd also debate Daily Show/Colbert Report to be "news shows", and they do a fair amount of "framing" topics of their own (often for comic effect). I agree with the OP that this tactic is hardly unique to Fox News -- although they're likely one of the biggest offenders.
*sigh*
That is not an argument.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Proof_by_example
Ugh, where do I start?
Sounds just like the case for _any_ insurance. Auto insurance covers fatal liabilities that occur out of the blue. Home insurance covers fatal liabilities that happen on your property out of the blue. Yet neither of these require a federal mandate to be effective or affordable. Why? Does anyone know? Has anyone even _tried_ to know? Let's do some comparisons:
1) Large government influence. Neither home insurance and auto insurance have federal mandates behind them. This leaves the states to do as they please on these issues. As such, many states require people to get insurance and stay the hell out of the way in all other regards. Which leads me to my second point...
2) Overhead, red tape, and bureaucracy. My home got robbed not too long ago. I called my auto insurance agent to file a theft claim. He said "sure, just send me a list of the stuff that was taken with replacement value price quotes and I'll send you an insurance check". Simple, just like that. Same with auto insurance -- I run into someone, my insurance company cuts them an check -- my car's value is looked up in a book and reimbursed -- simple. Medical care on the other hand...ERISA, HIIPA, COBRA, HMOs/PPOs, Medicare, Medicaid, negotiated rates, provider networks, ties to employment, etc, etc. I never even see a bill until it has gone through multiple middle-men (doctor -> insurance company -> government (medicare claim) -> insurance company -> me). Hell, even to acquire insurance, I have to go through middle men (my employer), which takes me to #3
3) Choice. In auto/home insurance, I can choose between hundreds of insurance companies. Let's just do a smattering of the auto case: GEICO, Progressive, Nationwide, Liberty Mutual, Esurance, TheGeneral, Travelers (to name a few). How many companies can I choose between for medical insurance? ONE (maybe a handful if you have an employer w/ good benefits). And of my ONE company to choose from, I can choose from about 3 or 4 policies. And then I'm seriously screwed if I lose my job or have to change jobs because my damn medical is tied to it.
4) Targeted premiums. Young people pay higher premiums for auto insurance. People who get in accidents pay higher premiums for auto insurance. With medical, everyone pays the same rate whether you're a smoker, base jumper, volcano luger, whatever.
5) Insurer options. Auto insurance companies can drop expensive insurees. Medical insurance companies soon will not be able to do this (anymore). Additionally, auto insurance companies can refuse to provide insurance to anyone they please. Medical companies insurance will not be able to do this (anymore). So the proposed "healthcare for everyone" forces insurance companies to accept all risk at any time and provides no way to cut expensive clients (that second part is a good thing and a necessary evil -- the first part is ludicrous and destroys the entire concept of "insurance").
6) What is Covered. Auto insurance covers expensive catastrophes. Home insurance covers expensive catastrophes. Medical insurance covers EVERYTHING. And since I have no choice of competition (see #3) and can't switch insurance due to my job ties (see #3), that only guarantees that the cost of all my medical care is being negotiated by people who have no fear of competition and no fear of losing me as a customer. As such, they can charge me whatever the hell they want with little to no downside. And you want everyone to be enrolled in this? The entire deal sounds Mafia-esqueue , akin to "protection" money. How does enrolling everyone in a doomed and flawed system in any w
To some extent, I believe that's splitting hairs. It's like saying true altruism is impossible because you always get something out of it, even if it's just an emotional high. Of course it's impossible to be 100% right-down-the-middle truly impartial, but I believe you can get close -- or at least far closer than the Fox News's of the world. When I say to get facts from a "non-biased source", perhaps I should instead say "far less partisan" source. Because I do believe there's quite a few people in the world that truly want to seek and tell real truth, instead of merely the truths of whatever side they happen to be politically allied with. Perhaps these are the moderates of the world.
True that, but in the absence of supporting data that a particular belief is truly based upon faulty premises, assumptions should not be made.
Heh, some philosophers would disagree with that statement. And it's also very easy to distort reality in one's mind. Haven't you ever been in situations where you swore it went down one way and another person swore it went down another way, and you're both certain your memory is not failing you? Alot of times we see what we want to see, choose to remember what we want to remember -- in as such, "reality" (at least as perceived through the eyes of emotional human beings) should be assumed to be somewhat malleable when discussing our views on it.
And this I entirely concur with -- religion is another fine topic that always ventures into this realm of non-debate. But I guess the important distinction that I'd like to make is that: given a random argument and a random opponent, they should not immediately be assumed to be of "moon landing"-type intelligence simply because they disagree with you or because they happen to share a belief with loons.
Take the Tea Party for instance. Conspiracy theories aside about it being a Republican front, it's a valid political movement with quite a few relatively sane ideas. And there's quite a few Tea Party proponents who are thinking, intelligent people who care only about small government and not a lick about religion or any of the other fringe stuff. However, center stage are a bunch of braindead loons who not only run under the Tea Party label, but in fact lead political demonstrations under the group's name. Now if you were to debate an individual who admitted to identifying with the Tea Party, would you give him the benefit of the doubt, or would you assume he's as loony as the ones making all the racket in the media? If he made a cogent argument with valid points, would you immediately recognize it or would you key in on the group identification and summarily dismiss his opinions? That's the issue with most of these hot-button debates. No one can have an opinion about anything without getting summarily lumped into some kind of group and then judged against that group. Broad-sweeping assumptions are simply far too common and rarely have any business in debate -- because if one truly values facts, why assume anything about an opponent's stance or beliefs?
True, but one can try. And I believe that taking proponents of misinformation and deceit with a huge grain of salt to be a good start (regardless of their intentions)
And yet it is, in so many simpl
Well I'm sure alot of that has to do with the fact you agree with him -- and the sources you get your news/facts from probably align with your views as well. I mean I doubt you're reading FoxNews daily. It's probably primarily Daily Show/Colbert Report and a smattering of left-leaning websites (just to throw out a common segment -- not trying to pigeonhole ya or anything). And we, as fallible humans, try ten times as hard to disprove that which we don't agree with than what we do agree with -- it's very easy just to gloss over fact-finding when everything sounds so right. But conservatives do the same thing with Hannity and the like. They're so certain of the facts, and the conclusions they've drawn from those facts that they never seek additional evidence, counterpoints, or possible alternate explanations. It's far easier to dismiss the opponent as "beneath you" than it is to attempt to view the world from their eyes. We all do it to some extent or another.
And it's rather sad too -- they're quite a few things I agree with Moore on, and I would be much more receptive to him if he provided it fairly, without resorting to such spin tactics. Deceptive presentation weakens a position for anyone other than those who already strongly agree with your material. Because a person has to first trust the source because they can trust the facts.
Anyways, there's three main axioms I live by: 1) Trust no words from a biased source or someone with an agenda -- 9 times out of 10, there's more sides to the story you aren't hearing because they know it would weaken their position. This goes double for politicians. 2) Spend twice as long looking for counters to your arguments than support. 3) Don't be quick to lump a person into a "category" or "group" -- there's more shades of gray out there than people are willing to see
Between the three of these, I manage to at least check my own biases somewhat. Though I'm probably guilty of #3 right now, as I've made quite a few assumptions about you. But I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
Or perhaps they're just not fans of cognitive bias?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're a global warming proponent. How'd you feel when ClimateGate came out? Did you feel cognitive dissonance? Was your world view invalidated? Hell no, you got pissed off that a bunch of morons ignored 95% of a document, instead focusing on the 5% that supported their own conclusions. They sensationalized the news and used an appeal to authority (a handful of scientists admitting to falsifying data to support their conclusions) to imply a trend. They generated doubt, uncertainty, and "what-ifs" in the general populace, all based on 100% factual truth. However, the presentation was such that people were led to believe their "evidence" was far stronger and far more closely tied to causal effects than it actually was. Moore is the same way, and I'm sorry you don't see that. You're so quick to dismiss the anti-Moore crowd as "just not 'self-aware' enough to recognize their own bias" that you completely fail to see your own.
That's certainly news to me. From what I've heard, both personally and in the news, his works are widely hated and/or discredited by the right, widely loved by the left, and generally ignored as sensationalist bias by the middle (the same people that ignore Fox News, HuffPo, and all the other biased sources)
You ask for "examples" when even the most trivial of searches, a simple Wikipedia lookup, shows dozens (emphasis mine):
Bowling for Columbine:
Moore's agents, under the pretext of "doing a story on unique businesses across America," are accused of convincing bank employees to have his rifle presented to him on camera the morning after filming his account opening. Further, they counter that contrary to the film's supposition that the bank kept hundreds of guns on their premises, the gun which was handed to Michael in the film was shipped overnight from a vault in their Upper Peninsula branch "300 miles away." Moore emphatically denies that this sequence was staged but admits the timing was compressed for production reasons .
Fahrenheit 9/11:
Christopher Hitchens criticized the film for not mentioning the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.[13] Hitchens writes, "in this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots , children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism.
Capitalism: A Love Story
Moore criticizes Wal-Mart for "dead peasant" policies, all 350,000 of which were cancelled in 2000. However, Moore notes that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits. I don't know if these examples are even relevant to you, as you appear to have your mind made up already. But what Moore does is akin to what those medical ads do to hide side-effects (small-print/rapid phrases). Or, even more accurately, what the robo-callers do to attempt to discredit politicans. For instance, you get a phone call that says "would you still support candidate X if you found out they cheated on their spouse?" No lies were spoken -- it's merely a question...however, it's a leading question that attempts to mislead and draw conclusions. It's one of the reason leading questions are illegal in court hearings. Suggestive questions (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Suggestive_question) are the same concept.
Hell, just look at the subject material of Sicko -- that's one gigantic false dichotomy right there. The entire argument hinges on the assumption that the only possible choices are "universal healthcare" or "capitalism", and seemingly ignores the fact that comparing two extremely different countries involves so many variables that any apples-to-apples comparison should be seen as tentative at best, especially when the specific topics of comparison are cherry-picked. I could cherry-pick a handful of facts (completely true ones) that make the US healthcare system look like it's the best in the world.
If I may make my movie moment: American's commitment to extensive medical testing and diagnosis is second to none! The US has the highest rate of MRI and CT scans per capita (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/01/doctors-united-states-order-ct-scans-mri-tests.html). Canada performs less than half the same amount of tests in attempts to determine whether a patient is sick or not. [cut to film splice of canadian cancer patient in waiting room]. [overlay sound clip of interview with american cancer survivor: "how satisifed are you with the level of medical testing here in the US?"][f
How can you blame Republicans (single-handedly, apparently) for killing single-payer when you couldn't even get your own party united behind it?
How are you any different than the so-called "obstructionist" Republicans you rail against who are content to watch the country burn so long as the other side suffers? You acknowledge an ineffective bill, yet support it (cheerfully at that) simply because you (and/or your "side") benefits from it and/or you get to "stick it" to the other side. I agree with the AC:
Talk about FUD...car insurance is not mandatory in the USA. It's mandatory in many states by state law, but not federally. And, also unlike health insurance, it:
1) covers _very_ specific catastrophic things
2) ensures that I individually pay higher premiums for my auto mistakes (rather than everyone)
3) can be revoked without fatal consequences
It's a fantastic example of something handled on a state level working exactly as it should -- it, however, is a poor comparison for health insurance.
But if we addressed any of those things and passed a reasonable bill, Dems wouldn't get the joy of watching the country suffer while blaming it on "obstructionist" Republicans. It's much more important to pass a bill that gives a few thousand new people insurance rather than cut costs for hundreds of millions, right? At least then we get to give the finger to rich people and fuck insurance companies in the ass. Yes we can. Big win for the country.