No, I just think the media overall, with all the sources, is balanced because we have the left and the right wings which keep it balanced, much in the way the CBS hoax was found.

The CBS hoax was revealed because of bloggers had nothing to do with balance.

I am proud to be liberal, Just not to be compared to Hitler which I have been. I think George Soros is doing a good deed by the way, as is Michael Moore, though I don't personally adore them.

If anyone *ever* deserved to be called an "extreme left-wing liberal" it's these two. George Soros is trying to subvert the American election process! And Michael Moore is a lying truth-twisting JERK!

Reply #26 By: Silver_and_Jade_Tears - 10/8/2004 5:54:04 PM Yes, but I don't consider them (with the exception of PBS) to be so severley biased. I admit CNN is left leaning, but ABC and NBC are pretty straight No they're not. They are as left leaning as the rest. They wouldn't miss a *chance* to bash Bush. but then, who wouldn't

ME!!!

If you are racist then you are racist, it is not limited to being conservative. Some conservatives are racist though, because of the fact that affirmative action and other things that are anti-racist are liberal ideas, forcing them to become conservatives.

No, conservatives are called racist even if they aren't just because of the policies they support or oppose, such as affirmative action. Sure, some might be racist, just like some liberals are against supporting Israel because they hate Jews. What's your point?

Reply #26 By: Silver_and_Jade_Tears - 10/8/2004 5:54:04 PM Yes, but I don't consider them (with the exception of PBS) to be so severley biased. I admit CNN is left leaning, but ABC and NBC are pretty straight No they're not. They are as left leaning as the rest. They wouldn't miss a *chance* to bash Bush. but then, who wouldn't ME!!!

It was sarcasm...only sarcasm. I am tired of all the rhetoric that has come the righters, and the lefters...it's become a bore. "Bush did this, Kerry said that...blah blah blah." Give me some new info for once.

No they're not. They are as left leaning as the rest. They wouldn't miss a *chance* to bash Bush. but then, who wouldn't ME!!!

I will. Heres my bush bash of the day (not a republican bash mind you)

Now Im stealing from the new york times, but I read this and it was hilarious and I want to use it, so please go along with me.

"If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia- where it ends up with mullahs who build Islamic religious schools that preach intolerance- that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our deficit and finance our schools. In fact, the bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind . Our own No child left behind program has not been fully financed because the tax revenue isn’t there. But thanks to the bush-Cheney energy policy, No Mullah Left Behind has been fully financed and is now the gift that keeps on giving: terrorism".

"If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia- where it ends up with mullahs who build Islamic religious schools that preach intolerance- that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our deficit and finance our schools. In fact, the bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind . Our own No child left behind program has not been fully financed because the tax revenue isn’t there. But thanks to the bush-Cheney energy policy, No Mullah Left Behind has been fully financed and is now the gift that keeps on giving: terrorism".

LoL!!

"If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon."

Wait, wait.. you can't see through that?

The demand for gas hasn't dampened despite average prices over $2.00, but somehow a gas tax, probably not raising the price as much as it is now, would have dampened demand? So people wouldn't have been willing to pay a higher gas tax, but the insane price of gas hasn't dampened demand...

Please, please tell me you can see how transparently poorly-thought out that point is... Maybe I am just slow, elaborate for me...

Dr. Guy, you yourself said I shouldn't be having a problem. Then, today this is what you said to me:

get a Grip! Next you will be seeing black helicopters in your back yard! The only ones who believe this nonsense are paranoid idiots, and Kerry Syncophants.

You really need to get a life. The sky is not falling.

Sounds pretty rude to me. Not that I'm offended, but who needs to get a life? Not I.

Reply #34 By: sandy2 - 10/8/2004 6:41:05 PM Dr. Guy, you yourself said I shouldn't be having a problem. Then, today this is what you said to me: get a Grip! Next you will be seeing black helicopters in your back yard! The only ones who believe this nonsense are paranoid idiots, and Kerry Syncophants. You really need to get a life. The sky is not falling. Sounds pretty rude to me. Not that I'm offended, but who needs to get a life? Not I.

That's okay there :Scarecrow"! (Oz reference)

Okay, here are a few laws of politics
1) People are free to speak, but it is an "outrage" when they speak out in the opposite direction you do
2) Everyone thinks that the media is biased the opposite way they are
3) "liberal" has somehow become a dirty word--you don't see Kerry ads telling people that Bush is just another "far-right Texas conservative out of the mainstream," but you do see it the other way around
4) The Republicans seem to be better at the name-calling game.
5) There is always someone or something you can use as a reference to someone of a certain political leaning (Left=Stalin, Castro, Michael Moore (though I do like his movies), Commie, etc. Right=Hitler, Nazi, racist, KKK, etc.)
6) Truth is not objective. Left truth=Bush is a stubborn moron who is destroying America. Right truth=Bush is a strong leader with strong convictions who is keeping America safe. Take your pick.
7) There is always an alternate media source if you think one is biased. Don't like CNN? Go to FOX news. Don't like that? Buy a ticket to Fahrenheit 9/11. Don't like Michael Moore? Turn up the Rush Limbaugh. Don't like him? Change the station to Al Franken. A diverse media with diverse opinions is what makes democracy work.
8) Most importantly, you will NEVER agree, so how about we just agree to some civility on both sides

Oh, and by the way, I am a proud leftie canuck who thinks Bush is a moron, the USA is losing in Iraq, there is nothing to fear from gay marriage, affirmative action is racist and should be based on poverty instead of race, Howard Dean should be president, and Michal Moore ROCKS. So all the neo-cons out there can either call me a pinko Hollywood liberal and compare me to Joseph Stalin, or we can just agree to disagree with a tad of civility.

I still wanna know how a gas tax of a few cents would "dampen demand" and yet gas prices over $2.00 a gallon hasn't...

Oh, and by the way, I am a proud leftie canuck who thinks Bush is a moron, the USA is losing in Iraq, there is nothing to fear from gay marriage, affirmative action is racist and should be based on poverty instead of race, Howard Dean should be president, and Michal Moore ROCKS. So all the neo-cons out there can either call me a pinko Hollywood liberal and compare me to Joseph Stalin, or we can just agree to disagree with a tad of civility.

You blow your view of civility out of the water when you call someone a moron in your argument or should we only be civil when it comes to certain things?

- GX

Anyone who doesn't think the mainstream media (CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times) to have a left wing bias is either being dishonest, ignorant, or so far left of center that they have lost any sort of grip on objective reality.

And Sandy2, you are a leftie. Your posts are consistently very liberal. Labels are a pragmatic thing in life. We use them all the time. I'm called a conserative, a "right winger" and so forth. It's just something you'll have to learn to deal with as long as you're espousing political opinions of a particular ideology.

sandy2:

First, any label given to someone is done so by someone too infantile in their outlook and behavior to be given any credibility. I was recently called a blind ideologue by someone and my respect for them was cut by almost 100%. People who do this are frustrated with your arguments and must resort to pandering to demons to justify their own sense of "rightness".

Second, if you are looking for support, I have been reading your stuff for a long while now and find your writing to be intelligent and interesting. As a matter of fact, most of the writers on JU fit roughly along the normal curve for being respectful of each other (if not the current Presidential candidates and their respective parties).

It is okay that people disagree as long as the discussion is centered around ideas and not personalities. Bush or Kerry is a __________ because he wants to ___________ is a point of debate and worth discussion. You're a ______________ because you support _______________ isn't worth the time to write it.

"First, any label given to someone is done so by someone too infantile in their outlook and behavior to be given any credibility."

And yet you just labeled people as infantile for labeling people. This is a circular arguement. You don't like people saying something because they don't like you saying something so you call them something because they called you something... ... ...

This stupid "labels" thing is getting out of hand. If you are Liberal grow a damn backbone like everyone else and embrance it. If I call you a Liberal and you think you aren't, put up or shut up. Kerry shied away from the Liberal label tonight and it just made him look cowardly. If I were a Liberal and saw that I would have felt betrayed. I don't know many people at all who are so eclectic in their beliefs that they don't lean one way or another. People have much more respect for someone that will accept who they are and what they believe, even if they disagree with them, than they do people who refuse to accept what they are...

BakerStreet:

Behavior is infantile. It is not a label like fascist or communist. It describes a behavior and no one was mentioned as the receiver of the criticism. I certainly am not saying this about you and hope you know this. I am liberal in some ways, conservative in others, even undecided about others (mostly when they don't directly effect me). You don't have to have a position on an issue just because others do. I'm like that on gay rights, for example. I'm not gay and can't know how a gay person feels or what they believe. I am for equal rights as far as that goes but undecided about a "strict interpretation" of law by some gay friends who say if the word used isn't "married" they are reduced to second class citizenship.

Let me ask you something (in a friendly manner). You and I have never met and the chances that we will are probably small. So we can be nothing more than voices to one another. What do you care if the voice comes from someone rich or poor, thin or fat, or any other label? How about "the voice of CrispE" who is trying to sort out this mess we call life just like everyone else?

Nah, I don't think you are talking about me, and I don't care if you are rich or poor or thin or fat. You have to accept, though, that we have a political system, not a collection of 290 million individuals. People bind together with unified agendas.

We don't have a Liberal party in America, but many nations do. The word is not an insult, it is a statement on a person's political perspective. I would call you Liberal, and if you differ at times with that I would temper how Liberal I think you are. That's why we also have Left and Right and Middle. It allows a lot more personalization. I can be just Right of center, or I can be Far left. On the whole, though, you have formed a definition in my mind based upon your stated ideas. That isn't something that I call you, like "infantile", that is what you are.

If I decide that I don't like being called human, I can't call people infantile for assuming I am human. Liberal is a real word, with a real definition, like Conservative, or Capitalist. Sure, some people spit them like insults. Capitalist Pig is an insult, as is Pinko LIberal Commie Bastard. What makes them insults is the judgement made about the ideology, not the word that we use to refer to the ideology.

So, you could say "I'm basically Liberal", or you could give everyone you meet an itemized list of all your views and let them decide. In the end, though, they'll almost always come to a concusion that leads to a label, whether you like it or not.

the simple difference between Lefties and Righties is that LEfties think of everyone and Righties think of themselves. I could go into more detail issue-by-issue, but this overly-simplistic analysis applies pretty well to every issue.

Case-in-point: Abortion - in the abortion debate, Lefties may have a problem with abortion (and many do) but we do not try to impose out vies on others because we care about the liberty of people to know their own life situations better and make the right decisions for themselves. The Righties, who never seem to want to provide any education, health or other assistance to people once they are walking around in the planet, care about their own morality and views on the world and want to feel good themselves by making decisions for others that have NO BEARING ON THEIR LIVES!!!

BakerStreet:

Well, if you think that Liberal as a label is the same where I live as it is in say California, or Texas, or North Carolina than I would ask that you explore that deeper. You know, in statistics one of the prime principles is that "statistics apply to a group, not an individual." So, in other words, a label for a group of Kerry supporters might better be liberal than say Democrat but to pick out one from the group and say he is liberal on any given issue is incorrect because someone could vote for Kerry for many reasons, even to protest against something Bush has done.

So I reject labels completely. Behavior can be classified and if what you think I have written in a given instance is one thing or another that's fine, but telling me back what that label is with such statements as "Boy was that leftist clap trap" is offensive because either a) I knew that when I wrote it or I felt it was the proper way to make whatever argument was being put forward.

Finally (not to highjack the thread), you can see that we are best in discussion and debate when it isn't emotional. We can agree to disagree. We can agree to continue discussion. But getting angry and blacklisting as many do is really counterproductive to any growth for either of us.

You know CrispE, the only reason you can even post your blindly ideological claptrap here is because I allow you to. If you left here, I would be the first to say not to let the door hit your ass on the way out. So feel free to leave any time.  It really irritates me to no end to have people like you completely take for granted that someone like me is putting considerable effort into enabling them a public place to voice their opinions without any appreciation of how tolerant of other points of view one must be to actually pay money to allow those who have beliefs they find repugnant be able to spread those beliefs.

So when you start talking about how little respect you have for people like me, you really make me start to question why I should put up with people like you at all.  I don't ask that you agree with my opinions. I do ask that you show some respect however. Even if you don't feel I'm being "fair" or whatever in return, it doesn't matter. We're not equals here. I'm the owner, you're the user. If you find that unacceptable, leave.  Since I am one of those people who consider people ideologically blind at times (such as you) I know that your comment on "respect" and infantilism is directed at me.

Labeling someone as left wing or conservative or right wing or liberal or whatever is not "infantile". It's basic pragmatism.  Groups of people with similar beliefs band together into groups or get grouped together because it's the only way to practically talk about things. Generalization is a simple reality.

Dahveed - I'm conservative and pro-choice.  Also, there's really no basis in reality to say that conservatives only think of themselves and liberals think of everyone. That's way too broad a brush.

You know CrispE, the only reason you can even post your blindly ideological claptrap here is because I allow you to. If you left here, I would be the first to say not to let the door hit your ass on the way out. So feel free to leave any time. It really irritates me to no end to have people like you completely take for granted that someone like me is putting considerable effort into enabling them a public place to voice their opinions without any appreciation of how tolerant of other points of view one must be to actually pay money to allow those who have beliefs they find repugnant be able to spread those beliefs. So when you start talking about how little respect you have for people like me, you really make me start to question why I should put up with people like you at all. I don't ask that you agree with my opinions. I do ask that you show some respect however. Even if you don't feel I'm being "fair" or whatever in return, it doesn't matter. We're not equals here. I'm the owner, you're the user. If you find that unacceptable, leave. Since I am one of those people who consider people ideologically blind at times (such as you) I know that your comment on "respect" and infantilism is directed at me. Labeling someone as left wing or conservative or right wing or liberal or whatever is not "infantile". It's basic pragmatism. Groups of people with similar beliefs band together into groups or get grouped together because it's the only way to practically talk about things. Generalization is a simple reality.

Draginol why are you attacking CrispE? When did he/she say anything against you? And how can you attack him/her based on the fact that you are the "owner", and thus better? So its ok for you to attack people then?

Choose whatever adjective you choose Sandy but I make no pretense to fairness.   If you want to create your own utopian blog community on your own servers with your own time and resources and set up a panel of objective elders to create and enforce rules then that is your perogative.  I wouldn't kick CrispE off for what he said but I feel more than entitled to rip into him for his thinly veiled attack.

But to answer your question - I don't like passive aggressives. I know CrispE was referring to me as being "infantile" and losing "respect" because I accused him of being ideologically blinded.  It doesn't matter whether he named me or not.

Draginol:

Respect is something a person earns by their behavior and conduct. Ownership of the site is something I do respect. But it doesn't entitle you to say anything without others being able to comment on it. I make it very clear that infantile is an indication of behavior. I do not mention you by name or even refer to the time that it was said. That is information you have provided, not me.

So let me make clear my position so that there is no doubt in your mind. If you believe I have broken some code of conduct then please e-mail me at [email protected] and in private I will discuss with you what your objections are. There was no intent on my part in my post in this thread to demean or embarass you.

If you want to discuss it further, you know where I am.