Please list which major Democratic candidates, official websites, or TV/radio show hosts engaged in this alleged Bush-era incitement to violence.
Also, please note that calling for a politician to be investigated and sent to jail, is quite different from "jokingly" implying they should be targeted, shot, given "second amendment remedies", etc.
Nope. In Britain its very hard for criminals to get guns from honest citizens, by purchase or theft. Which means less murder. Which is why they have so few murders, and we have so many.
In the USA, we are number 24 in the world for murder rates
Whereas Britain, where guns are basically illegal, is # 56.
This is because tools for killing people make it easier to kill people. So more tools available means more killing. Just like more gambling machines means more gambling, and more pinball machines means more pinball playing.
Quote from article: "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now. I won't lift a finger, make one phone call, nor will i EVER vote for her in the future. "
You're gonna compare a barely-read article on a single blog to a Palin map with the candidates name AND a crosshair on it, AND a Tucson-area political campaign event that combines a "shooting an M-16" with "she must be stopped"?
I have to disagree. I know that would be nice and fair in theory, but in practice the right wing really is much crazier. There is nothing to compare in rhetoric or in practice. Who is the left's Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter?
Which left politician is talking about "Second Amendment remedies" - which we all know is basically calling for assassination of politicians?
People are responsible for their own actions, and this gunman is no exception. But creating an atmosphere of fear, hate and intolerance has an effect on the imbalanced - and the right wing media refuses to acknowledge that effect because it also happens to be what gives them ratings and political power.
And there is nothing like that system on the Left at this moment. Nothing. And there hasn't been for decades, if ever.
I'm much happier because of specific things the phone can do, which required a jailbreak on the iPhone or was otherwise just blocked off. That said, I do think the iPhone has an advantage still. This will be with non-technical users who want to do some technically involved things, and don't want to troubleshoot or customize their phones.
To extrapolate a bit from my experience to the market at large, I think this does put Apple in a very good position. Basically Android's success will depend on the hardware manufacturers such as Samsung, Motorola etc. and how well they adapt the Android OS to their phones. Mine's still crashing at odd moments. Like I said I'm happy with it - but if I didn't need specific things the Droid X makes possible I'd probably prefer the latest iPhone.
What Fox is not saying is "California and Texas are both in debt, but Texas has more *good* debt." What Fox is saying is, "California is in debt - they should be more like Texas." Which is an **entirely different** statement.
We are clear on how those are separate statements, right? One is accurate, with a good point. The other is implying that while California has debt, Texas has none - which is lying by omission.
The relative merits of California vs. Texas is a separate argument. California has issues, no doubt. However, it's worth noting that the large portion Texas' debt is from investment into infrastructure and transportation that put a lot of people to work - which is *precisely* why direct stimulus spending on projects is better for economies than tax cuts.
As for Media Matters, if you don't agree with the facts they're presenting then show how those facts are wrong, or how they leave out other key facts. Since they're so biased that should be pretty easy, right?
I would like to see links for those studies. Because that's not my understanding of the field.
It's rare that a view is universally accepted in *any* field that isn't hard science, let alone economics. But from what I've seen and previously noted re: the merits of government-sponsored stimulus programs that put people directly work - there is an overwhelming majority consensus of nonpartisan experts that consider it far more effective than tax cuts.
If you have countering evidence, I would love to see that. I would like to correct my view if it's wrong.
High-speed rail projects in multiple states. Infrastructure projects in same for repairing bridges and roads, as well as Federal funding for state jobs and services. This came out to about $499 billion of $787 billion according to politifact. And in fact a major criticism of the stimulus program was not enough of this form of stimulus, and instead contained nearly 1/3 tax cuts.
I know that many who like Fox think it's just the same as other networks, just skewing to the Right.
But why don't you count the number of 9/11 truthers on MSNCB who are actually respectfully listened to as opposed to the Birthers, and compare the two?
Or let's try another yardstick. How many Democratic 2012 Presidential Candidates have *regular pundit gigs* on MSNBC, as opposed to the GOP on Fox? Currently Fox has Sarah Palin, Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich - all of whom are almost certain to run for the nomination in 2012.
So, 3 to zero, Fox "wins" here as well.
Many Fox fans really want to think Fox isn't biased, or at least is only as biased as every other network. But that's simply not the case. It's just a bias that makes these people feel emotionally comforted.
Which specific 1970's programs are you referring to?
I'm not recalling any WPA-style programs or large infrastructure projects - which are the kinds of stimulus the economists state have that multiplier effect.
They did that because that "assumption" is mainstream economic theory. That multiplier effect of stimulus spending backed by numerous studies over many decades, to the point that within economics it's considered settled.
That may be ideologically uncomfortable to some, but again I prefer to go with the subject-matter experts. Unless there's a clear and obvious thing they're missing, of course.
As for a listing of unbiased economic experts, here's a partial list with their assessment of the jobs the stimulus created:
Thank you, and I invite you to think critically as well.
What Fox is not saying is "California and Texas are both in debt, but Texas has more *good* debt." What Fox is saying is, "California is in debt - they should be more like Texas." Which is an **entirely different** statement.
So, to use your metaphor, let's say California was $200,000 in the hole with a small house, and Texas was $200,000 in the hole with a bigger and nicer house.
If I were to state constantly that California was deep in debt and should be more like Texas, and I were to never mention that Texas was in any sort of a debt at all for Texas' house, that would be deceptive would it not?
That's the spin that I am talking about it. By constantly comparing California's debt to Texas, but never mentioning Texas' debt ever, Fox is lying by omission.
Once again, the difference is between *saying* and *implying by stating it as a question*.
To use an example paraphrasing Jon Stewart: it's wrong and easily disproven to say Bill's mother is a whore, period. But what if I just ask over and over if Bill's mother has sex with strangers for money?
What's wrong with that? I'm just asking a question, right?
I consider a Nobel prize, the fact that he correctly predicted the housing crash, and the fact that he correctly predicted the Obama stimulus would be insufficent and might lead to a Japanese-style lost decade - all pretty good evidence that he knows what he's talking about.
As for tax cuts being good for the economy, I guess I should have been more specific: that tax cuts are not nearly as effective on a recessed economy as a direct stimulus, i.e. government-sponsored WPA-style programs and infrastructure investment.
This is the overwhelming majority view of nonpartisan economists and economic historians, which view such programs as central to what lifted the US out of the Great Depression under FDR, and what also was largely responsible for the unparalleled prosperity of the Clinton years.
I'll be happy to post sources for you, if you disagree.
Economics is a fuzzier science than many, but it still does track effect and cause in such a way that mass events can be predictive.
And I think I am holding other broadcasters to the same standards. For example, I see 9/11 truthers on the other networks from time to time. It doesn't seem this level of doubt is ever cast on Bush/Cheney by the mass media.
And for the record, I think 9/11 being a vast conspiracy orchestrated by the Bush administration is just as silly as Obama not being born in Hawaii. But Fox treats birthers far more credibly than the rest of the mass media treats the 9/11 truthers.
The point is that Fox's hosts DON'T come out and say it. They always state it as a question. This way they get to raise the implication without ever even dealing with it being disproven.
And I can't think of a single other network that has had as many people on questioning Obama's citizenship - a fact that was already settled *during his run* back in 2008.
Hawaii's freakin' head of the Department of Health has verified Obama's birth certificate exists. AND Hawaiian state law forbids the release of this certificate to anyone BUT the person or their parents.
So even if Obama felt the need to release his original to others i.e. the press, it seems unlikely that he legally CAN. I believe the only specific exceptions in Hawaii are for court cases revolving around whether persons are entitled to reparations for land taken from the original Hawaiians.
The only thing that can explain this discrepancy between european and the broad american view on what is going on in your own country, is the tremendous influence held by misinforming "News" Corporations, such as Fox News.
I'd say that has poured gasoline on the fire. But as an American, I think the roots of the problem is a badly decentralized education system. I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the US public schools are largely controlled and funded at the local level - which means erratic standards. Wealthy areas get far better "public" schools than poor ones - and the poor ones are further susceptible specifically to poor history and don't want to challenge local sacred cows.
So the Alamo is taught as horrible unwanted aggression by Mexicans, after Texans had just happened to take a bunch of land that God really meant for them. And the Civil War's "State's Rights" aspects are exaggerated, and fighting against slavery is less connected to it. And the Spanish-American war, the US support of Battista in Cuba that led to Castro, the CIA overthrow of Iran's elected government that led to the Shah, etc. etc. is just not gone into.
So people in some areas, specifically the American South, grow up with an ideologically comfortable view of history and thus reality which is completely skewed, and ripe for manipulation by protecting that comfortable view from reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Please list which major Democratic candidates, official websites, or TV/radio show hosts engaged in this alleged Bush-era incitement to violence.
Also, please note that calling for a politician to be investigated and sent to jail, is quite different from "jokingly" implying they should be targeted, shot, given "second amendment remedies", etc.
"on order of Kos, who spends his time scrubbing his website" Right....
Oh, ok. So if I don't say anything, then the assertion stands; and if I disagree the assertion stands. Right.
By the way, the post was pulled by the *author*, of his own volition, after the congressperson was shot in the head.
But perhaps that doesn't count because I'm disagreeing. Or something.
More so than by some random dailykos blogger. The guy was clearly nuts; why should his reading list make rational sense?
Nope. In Britain its very hard for criminals to get guns from honest citizens, by purchase or theft. Which means less murder. Which is why they have so few murders, and we have so many.
In the USA, we are number 24 in the world for murder rates
Whereas Britain, where guns are basically illegal, is # 56.
This is because tools for killing people make it easier to kill people. So more tools available means more killing. Just like more gambling machines means more gambling, and more pinball machines means more pinball playing.
It's also insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a gun accident at home.
Pray it never happens to you - because if it does, you'll wish you never had a trigger to pull.
Oh freaking come on.
Quote from article: "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now. I won't lift a finger, make one phone call, nor will i EVER vote for her in the future. "
You're gonna compare a barely-read article on a single blog to a Palin map with the candidates name AND a crosshair on it, AND a Tucson-area political campaign event that combines a "shooting an M-16" with "she must be stopped"?
Wow.
I have to disagree. I know that would be nice and fair in theory, but in practice the right wing really is much crazier. There is nothing to compare in rhetoric or in practice. Who is the left's Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter?
Which left politician is talking about "Second Amendment remedies" - which we all know is basically calling for assassination of politicians?
People are responsible for their own actions, and this gunman is no exception. But creating an atmosphere of fear, hate and intolerance has an effect on the imbalanced - and the right wing media refuses to acknowledge that effect because it also happens to be what gives them ratings and political power.
And there is nothing like that system on the Left at this moment. Nothing. And there hasn't been for decades, if ever.
I'm much happier because of specific things the phone can do, which required a jailbreak on the iPhone or was otherwise just blocked off. That said, I do think the iPhone has an advantage still. This will be with non-technical users who want to do some technically involved things, and don't want to troubleshoot or customize their phones.
To extrapolate a bit from my experience to the market at large, I think this does put Apple in a very good position. Basically Android's success will depend on the hardware manufacturers such as Samsung, Motorola etc. and how well they adapt the Android OS to their phones. Mine's still crashing at odd moments. Like I said I'm happy with it - but if I didn't need specific things the Droid X makes possible I'd probably prefer the latest iPhone.
This other response is me, I logged in via my phone. FYI.
We are clear on how those are separate statements, right? One is accurate, with a good point. The other is implying that while California has debt, Texas has none - which is lying by omission.
The relative merits of California vs. Texas is a separate argument. California has issues, no doubt. However, it's worth noting that the large portion Texas' debt is from investment into infrastructure and transportation that put a lot of people to work - which is *precisely* why direct stimulus spending on projects is better for economies than tax cuts.
As for Media Matters, if you don't agree with the facts they're presenting then show how those facts are wrong, or how they leave out other key facts. Since they're so biased that should be pretty easy, right?
I would like to see links for those studies. Because that's not my understanding of the field.
It's rare that a view is universally accepted in *any* field that isn't hard science, let alone economics. But from what I've seen and previously noted re: the merits of government-sponsored stimulus programs that put people directly work - there is an overwhelming majority consensus of nonpartisan experts that consider it far more effective than tax cuts.
If you have countering evidence, I would love to see that. I would like to correct my view if it's wrong.
High-speed rail projects in multiple states. Infrastructure projects in same for repairing bridges and roads, as well as Federal funding for state jobs and services. This came out to about $499 billion of $787 billion according to politifact. And in fact a major criticism of the stimulus program was not enough of this form of stimulus, and instead contained nearly 1/3 tax cuts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/10/jon-stewart/stewart-claims-stimulus-bill-one-third-tax-cuts/
Your turn. What are you referring to in the 1970's, which had or resembled large-infrastructure projects or WPA-style programs?
I'm talking about the mass output of Fox.
I know that many who like Fox think it's just the same as other networks, just skewing to the Right.
But why don't you count the number of 9/11 truthers on MSNCB who are actually respectfully listened to as opposed to the Birthers, and compare the two?
Or let's try another yardstick. How many Democratic 2012 Presidential Candidates have *regular pundit gigs* on MSNBC, as opposed to the GOP on Fox? Currently Fox has Sarah Palin, Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich - all of whom are almost certain to run for the nomination in 2012.
So, 3 to zero, Fox "wins" here as well.
Many Fox fans really want to think Fox isn't biased, or at least is only as biased as every other network. But that's simply not the case. It's just a bias that makes these people feel emotionally comforted.
Which specific 1970's programs are you referring to? I'm not recalling any WPA-style programs or large infrastructure projects - which are the kinds of stimulus the economists state have that multiplier effect.
That may be ideologically uncomfortable to some, but again I prefer to go with the subject-matter experts. Unless there's a clear and obvious thing they're missing, of course.
As for a listing of unbiased economic experts, here's a partial list with their assessment of the jobs the stimulus created:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/17/stimulus-report-card/
Thank you, and I invite you to think critically as well.
What Fox is not saying is "California and Texas are both in debt, but Texas has more *good* debt." What Fox is saying is, "California is in debt - they should be more like Texas." Which is an **entirely different** statement.
So, to use your metaphor, let's say California was $200,000 in the hole with a small house, and Texas was $200,000 in the hole with a bigger and nicer house.
If I were to state constantly that California was deep in debt and should be more like Texas, and I were to never mention that Texas was in any sort of a debt at all for Texas' house, that would be deceptive would it not?
That's the spin that I am talking about it. By constantly comparing California's debt to Texas, but never mentioning Texas' debt ever, Fox is lying by omission.
Once again, the difference is between *saying* and *implying by stating it as a question*.
To use an example paraphrasing Jon Stewart: it's wrong and easily disproven to say Bill's mother is a whore, period. But what if I just ask over and over if Bill's mother has sex with strangers for money?
What's wrong with that? I'm just asking a question, right?
I would swap out $MY_OWN_REASONS_FOR_BELIEVING for $EXPERT_OPINIONS_OF_NONPARTISAN_EXPERTS_INCLUDING_THE_CBO .
But we'll all see what the world's own equations kick out in the next few years, won't we?
I consider a Nobel prize, the fact that he correctly predicted the housing crash, and the fact that he correctly predicted the Obama stimulus would be insufficent and might lead to a Japanese-style lost decade - all pretty good evidence that he knows what he's talking about.
As for tax cuts being good for the economy, I guess I should have been more specific: that tax cuts are not nearly as effective on a recessed economy as a direct stimulus, i.e. government-sponsored WPA-style programs and infrastructure investment.
This is the overwhelming majority view of nonpartisan economists and economic historians, which view such programs as central to what lifted the US out of the Great Depression under FDR, and what also was largely responsible for the unparalleled prosperity of the Clinton years.
I'll be happy to post sources for you, if you disagree.
Economics is a fuzzier science than many, but it still does track effect and cause in such a way that mass events can be predictive.
And I think I am holding other broadcasters to the same standards. For example, I see 9/11 truthers on the other networks from time to time. It doesn't seem this level of doubt is ever cast on Bush/Cheney by the mass media.
And for the record, I think 9/11 being a vast conspiracy orchestrated by the Bush administration is just as silly as Obama not being born in Hawaii. But Fox treats birthers far more credibly than the rest of the mass media treats the 9/11 truthers.
The point is that Fox's hosts DON'T come out and say it. They always state it as a question. This way they get to raise the implication without ever even dealing with it being disproven.
And I can't think of a single other network that has had as many people on questioning Obama's citizenship - a fact that was already settled *during his run* back in 2008.
Thank you. Would mod up if I could.
Hawaii's freakin' head of the Department of Health has verified Obama's birth certificate exists. AND Hawaiian state law forbids the release of this certificate to anyone BUT the person or their parents.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html
So even if Obama felt the need to release his original to others i.e. the press, it seems unlikely that he legally CAN. I believe the only specific exceptions in Hawaii are for court cases revolving around whether persons are entitled to reparations for land taken from the original Hawaiians.
I'd say that has poured gasoline on the fire. But as an American, I think the roots of the problem is a badly decentralized education system. I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the US public schools are largely controlled and funded at the local level - which means erratic standards. Wealthy areas get far better "public" schools than poor ones - and the poor ones are further susceptible specifically to poor history and don't want to challenge local sacred cows.
So the Alamo is taught as horrible unwanted aggression by Mexicans, after Texans had just happened to take a bunch of land that God really meant for them. And the Civil War's "State's Rights" aspects are exaggerated, and fighting against slavery is less connected to it. And the Spanish-American war, the US support of Battista in Cuba that led to Castro, the CIA overthrow of Iran's elected government that led to the Shah, etc. etc. is just not gone into.
So people in some areas, specifically the American South, grow up with an ideologically comfortable view of history and thus reality which is completely skewed, and ripe for manipulation by protecting that comfortable view from reality.