IF

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
If one political party was head and shoulders above the other with regards to ethics or accomplishments.... How would you go about illistrating or demonstrating that.

What would be an objective measure?

Because it seems to me the second that happened, the "other side" would just start claiming media bias or unfairness or make up some dirty scandal to accuse the other party with, then we would end up with a devided population once again, and the truth would be lost.
 
You mean like a certain minority party does now through their tame propagandists at Faux?
 
Jarod said:
If one political party was head and shoulders above the other with regards to ethics or accomplishments.... How would you go about illistrating or demonstrating that.

What would be an objective measure?

Because it seems to me the second that happened, the "other side" would just start claiming media bias or unfairness or make up some dirty scandal to accuse the other party with, then we would end up with a devided population once again, and the truth would be lost.
Click to expand...

It's too much a matter of opinion and value judgements.

It can never be done.

We need to have strenuous arguments daily on the public airwaves to keep giving people an idea of both sides of the argument, expose them to various perspectives, and then let them decide. what are your suggestions.
 
Objectivity is dead - in the mainstream media, in alternative media and amongst the populace.

It's kinda weird when you think about it, but that's the way it is. The country is more polarized & more partisan than it was 20-30 years ago. I still know some apolitical people, but more often, it seems like everyone has a stake.

Sean Hannity said the other day that Obama has been an "unmitigated disaster for the United States." I think he's done a pretty good job. Go figure.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's too much a matter of opinion and value judgements.

It can never be done.

We need to have strenuous arguments daily on the public airwaves to keep giving people an idea of both sides of the argument, expose them to various perspectives, and then let them decide. what are your suggestions.
Click to expand...

Well lets just pretend that there was an issue... Lets say the interpertation of a portion of the Constitution. All educated people for hundrids of years have agreed on the meaning....

Then some person with a financial interest comes around a pretends that the interpertation is something different, something that by all objective measures is silly.... Does the media have an obligation to present "both sides" of the issue equally?

If the media does present "both sides" it seems to me the uneducated masses will come out about 50/50 on the issue and we will have a fight to keep what is right. This is the problem with issue based democracy, and why we have a representative democracy.

Prior to television's manipulative power, the masses voted for a person they respected, and trusted that person to make smart decisions on particular issues that the average person did not have the capacity to understand, or did not have the time to study.

Now we have a media and corporate driven uneducated fight on our hands about every issue that becomes contraversal. This system does not seem to be working very well.
 
Last edited:
or you could be a middle of the road american and ask the question 'if someone yells 'you lie' in a room full of politicians, how do you know who he's talking to?'
 
Jarod said:
Well lets just pretend that there was an issue... Lets say the interpertation of a portion of the Constitution. All educated people for hundrids of years have agreed on the meaning....

Then some person with a financial interest comes around a pretends that the interpertation is something different, something that by all objective measures is silly.... Does the media have an obligation to present "both sides" of the issue equally?
Click to expand...
Yes.
If the media does present "both sides" it seems to me the uneducated masses will come out about 50/50 on the issue and we will have a fight to keep what is right. This is the problem with issue based democracy, and why we have a representative democracy.

Prior to television's manipulative power, the masses voted for a person they respected, and trusted that person to make smart decisions on particular issues that the average person did not have the capacity to understand, or did not have the time to study.

Now we have a media and corporate driven uneducated fight on our hands about every issue that becomes contraversal. This system does not seem to be working very well.
Click to expand...

Your opinion of "educated people" is too high. And your opinion of the masses is too low.

Handle their arguments, instead of attacking them personally with classist smears. Oh wait you can't. Maybe censorship is your only option. :rolleyes:

You sicken me.
 
Jarod said:
If one political party was head and shoulders above the other with regards to ethics or accomplishments.... How would you go about illistrating or demonstrating that.

What would be an objective measure?

Because it seems to me the second that happened, the "other side" would just start claiming media bias or unfairness or make up some dirty scandal to accuse the other party with, then we would end up with a devided population once again, and the truth would be lost.
Click to expand...


Listen, out of hundreds of republican message board posters who spent all of 2003 telling me Iraq was a grave threat to the U.S. and that we would be treated as liberators, I can't think of a single one who ever admitted in the subsequent 6 years that their Iraq war was a mistake of epic proportions. Nor was one single apology proffered, not one single genuine admission that their war was a massive mistake. Not one heart-felt moment of introspection about the hundreds of thousands of dead that resulted from their war of choice.

Listen Jarod, honor and honesty are dead. At least on political message boards. Wingnuts are emotionally invested in their failed ideology. It's like a stockholm sydrome. Some fringe leftists are probably just as blindly partisan, but it's never been on the scale of the rightwing. I've had billions of exchanges on this board with leftys, explicitly and harshly criticizing obama and the blue dog dems.
 
America did not protest the IRAQ war, which cost more than 50 years of public health insurance and only harmed us. Now President Obama proposed a health care plan and we get protests!
 
Jarod said:
America did not protest the IRAQ war, which cost more than 50 years of public health insurance and only harmed us. Now President Obama proposed a health care plan and we get protests!
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree on that one; many protested against Iraq....
 
Jarod said:
America did not protest the IRAQ war, which cost more than 50 years of public health insurance and only harmed us. Now President Obama proposed a health care plan and we get protests!
Click to expand...
Yep
 
Jarod said:
America did not protest the IRAQ war, which cost more than 50 years of public health insurance and only harmed us. Now President Obama proposed a health care plan and we get protests!
Click to expand...
It didn't cost even close to what you say. The CBO estimates put 10 years worth of HR 3200 at well over a trillion. The Iraq war still hasn't cost that. "50 years worth" would mean we spent well over 5 Trillion in Iraq, we haven't even spent 20% of that. (Which doesn't mean it wasn't costly, it just means it didn't even cost as much as 10 years worth of the crappy HR 3200 plan, not even close to "50 years worth" of a "public" health care system. Probably not even as much as 1 year of a truly public health care system.
 
Cypress said:
Listen, out of hundreds of republican message board posters who spent all of 2003 telling me Iraq was a grave threat to the U.S. and that we would be treated as liberators, I can't think of a single one who ever admitted in the subsequent 6 years that their Iraq war was a mistake of epic proportions. Nor was one single apology proffered, not one single genuine admission that their war was a massive mistake. Not one heart-felt moment of introspection about the hundreds of thousands of dead that resulted from their war of choice.

Listen Jarod, honor and honesty are dead. At least on political message boards. Wingnuts are emotionally invested in their failed ideology. It's like a stockholm sydrome. Some fringe leftists are probably just as blindly partisan, but it's never been on the scale of the rightwing. I've had billions of exchanges on this board with leftys, explicitly and harshly criticizing obama and the blue dog dems.
Click to expand...

LoL @:

1) Cypress denying the reality of many cons renouncing their support for the war.
2) The notion that someone holding an opinion Cypress thinks has been proven wrong owes him a personal apology.
3) The partisan blinders needed to be capable of making a statement like that with a straight face.
 
Damocles said:
It didn't cost even close to what you say. The CDC estimates put 10 years worth of HR 3200 at well over a trillion. The Iraq war still hasn't cost that. "50 years worth" would mean we spent well over 5 Trillion in Iraq, we haven't even spent 20% of that. (Which doesn't mean it wasn't costly, it just means it didn't even cost as much as 10 years worth of the crappy HR 3200 plan, not even close to "50 years worth" of a "public" health care system. Probably not even as much as 1 year of a truly public health care system.
Click to expand...

The CDC is wrong.
 
Damocles said:
It didn't cost even close to what you say. The CDC estimates put 10 years worth of HR 3200 at well over a trillion. The Iraq war still hasn't cost that. "50 years worth" would mean we spent well over 5 Trillion in Iraq, we haven't even spent 20% of that. (Which doesn't mean it wasn't costly, it just means it didn't even cost as much as 10 years worth of the crappy HR 3200 plan, not even close to "50 years worth" of a "public" health care system. Probably not even as much as 1 year of a truly public health care system.
Click to expand...
They have to be pessimistic, it is their job. I wonder if their estimates have been right in the past? Wasn't bird flu suppose to be bigger than it was/is?

I would like to see another estimate on this.

What are estimates for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if we stay 10 years or more?
 
Jarod said:
Well lets just pretend that there was an issue... Lets say the interpertation of a portion of the Constitution. All educated people for hundrids of years have agreed on the meaning....

You mean like the Second Amendment ? All educated people for HUNDREDS of years have agreed on the meaning.....
and the asshole leftist nitwits known as Democrats come along and insist it means something else ???
Does that fit you premise?:cof1:


Then some person with a financial interest comes around a pretends that the interpertation is something different, something that by all objective measures is silly.... Does the media have an obligation to present "both sides" of the issue equally?

If the media does present "both sides" it seems to me the uneducated masses will come out about 50/50 on the issue and we will have a fight to keep what is right. This is the problem with issue based democracy, and why we have a representative democracy.

Prior to television's manipulative power, the masses voted for a person they respected, and trusted that person to make smart decisions on particular issues that the average person did not have the capacity to understand, or did not have the time to study.

Now we have a media and corporate driven uneducated fight on our hands about every issue that becomes contraversal. This system does not seem to be working very well.
Click to expand...
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top