question for republicans

[martha]

Hmmm.

 

[BVS]

TV Executives Admit in Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda (Exclusive Video) - The Hollywood Reporter



Just saying.

I think there's a difference between making fun of those bigoted type right wingers and "pushing" a liberal agenda.

Right wing talk show types will talk about how something like NPR having a leftwing bias because they won't have someone that represents the "climate change doesn't exist-burning fossil fuels is actually good for the environment" crowd, or the "two women getting married will destroy America" crowd. But this is not out of bias, this is because these views exist outside the realm of measureable effect. I think America needs to have a serious conversation about what is truly "left" or "right". If your view discriminates against certain groups and is ONLY based on your personal faith, then you have to ask yourself does it really deserve discussion in the PUBLIC realm? If your view doesn't stand up to any scientific process what so ever does it really does it deserve disscussion in the public realm?

 

[pcfitz80]

Exactly! You are brining up a great point! People on the right accuse the media of having a liberal bias but when you look at the issues what it really comes down to is that on a lot of these issues, like climate change, the evidence supports the liberal viewpoint. So it's really more like a "reality" bias. How terrible! - the media reporting real world problems and issues and not giving equal time to the radical right viewpoint which is largely based on a fantasy reality - the nerve of them!

I think there's a difference between making fun of those bigoted type right wingers and "pushing" a liberal agenda.

Right wing talk show types will talk about how something like NPR having a leftwing bias because they won't have someone that represents the "climate change doesn't exist-burning fossil fuels is actually good for the environment" crowd, or the "two women getting married will destroy America" crowd. But this is not out of bias, this is because these views exist outside the realm of measureable effect. I think America needs to have a serious conversation about what is truly "left" or "right". If your view discriminates against certain groups and is ONLY based on your personal faith, then you have to ask yourself does it really deserve discussion in the PUBLIC realm? If your view doesn't stand up to any scientific process what so ever does it really does it deserve disscussion in the public realm?

 

[nathan1977]

I think there's a difference between making fun of those bigoted type right wingers and "pushing" a liberal agenda.

Willful discrimination based solely on political ideology is a mite shade different than making fun of someone's politics.

I think America needs to have a serious conversation about what is truly "left" or "right". If your view discriminates against certain groups and is ONLY based on your personal faith, then you have to ask yourself does it really deserve discussion in the PUBLIC realm?

This is exactly the conversation we're having nationwide, on a variety of issues, isn't it?

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Conservative politicians seemingly want nothing more than to go back to the 1950s when America was good and clean and rich and white, so I don't really give two shits if they feel underrepresented. Fuck the tyranny of the majority.

This coming from someone who claimed to be a "moderate with an open mind" earlier in the thread?

 

[BVS]

Willful discrimination based solely on political ideology is a mite shade different than making fun of someone's politics.

This is exactly the conversation we're having nationwide, on a variety of issues, isn't it?

No Nathan we're not even close. The fact that some think THIS is the conversation is a big part of the problem.

 

[nathan1977]

No Nathan we're not even close. The fact that some think THIS is the conversation is a big part of the problem.

On the contrary. On a variety of social issues -- primarily the issue of gay marriage -- Americans are being asked to consider whether privately-held, oftentimes religious convictions are enough to define the legal status of a group of people. That's exactly the question, and it's an important one to ask.

 

[nathan1977]

Exactly! You are brining up a great point! People on the right accuse the media of having a liberal bias but when you look at the issues what it really comes down to is that on a lot of these issues, like climate change, the evidence supports the liberal viewpoint. So it's really more like a "reality" bias. How terrible! - the media reporting real world problems and issues and not giving equal time to the radical right viewpoint which is largely based on a fantasy reality - the nerve of them!

Many conservatives have no problem accepting the reality of climate change. From what I understand, the specific question is the extent to which humans are responsible for the change, the best means of addressing and changing the actions for which we are responsible, and the role of government to regulate and enforce such redressing.

The question is not reality vs. fantasy. The question is political ideology.

 

[BVS]

On the contrary. On a variety of social issues -- primarily the issue of gay marriage -- Americans are being asked to consider whether privately-held, oftentimes religious convictions are enough to define the legal status of a group of people. That's exactly the question, and it's an important one to ask.

But this is the problem Nathan, I don't see this. I don't think any of us see this. I haven't seen a conversation whether religious conviction is enough, but what I do see is a lot of people screaming "liberal communist bias" when their conviction is treated as such and not treated as a known fact. This applies to a lot of right wing stances.

I would actually respect someone who came in here and admitted that their stance is nothing but religious opinion but gave me argument why one's religious opinion should matter over others. But this isn't the case. "liberal bias" is nothing but a scape goat 97% of the time.

 

[nathan1977]

But this is the problem Nathan, I don't see this. I don't think any of us see this. I haven't seen a conversation whether religious conviction is enough, but what I do see is a lot of people screaming "liberal communist bias" when their conviction is treated as such and not treated as a known fact. This applies to a lot of right wing stances.

You don't think that a more progressive stance on long-standing socially discriminatory policies is a sign of progress and change? Such change isn't possible without people being willing to engage, discuss, and change their opinions.

I don't see a lot of people screaming "liberal communist bias." I see a few loud people screaming "liberal communist bias." Which is almost certainly a sign that their numbers are few indeed, when they have to resort to inflammatory rhetoric to try to rile up the base -- a base which, I contend, isn't dying out, but is becoming more pragmatic.

I would actually respect someone who came in here and admitted that their stance is nothing but religious opinion

Given how such people are treated in here, I would dispute that respect is hardly ever afforded such people.

 

[maycocksean]

Given how such people are treated in here, I would dispute that respect is hardly ever afforded such people.

You're right about that. . .

I think if BVS thinks about it for a moment he'd have to admit that the last thing anyone claiming strictly religious backing for their stance on gay marriage and why that backing should matter would get is respect in here.

 

[BVS]

You don't think that a more progressive stance on long-standing socially discriminatory policies is a sign of progress and change? Such change isn't possible without people being willing to engage, discuss, and change their opinions.

I don't see a lot of people screaming "liberal communist bias." I see a few loud people screaming "liberal communist bias." Which is almost certainly a sign that their numbers are few indeed, when they have to resort to inflammatory rhetoric to try to rile up the base -- a base which, I contend, isn't dying out, but is becoming more pragmatic.

Of course the change is progress, but that's a whole other point. I was just commenting on the "liberal bias" garbage. I don't think it's as small of a demographic than you think, but we can agree to disagree on that point.

Given how such people are treated in here, I would dispute that respect is hardly ever afforded such people.

I cannot think of any single FYM poster that ever came in with this stance(and stuck to it).

And the reason is obvious, it would be shut down immediately. All you would have to do is ask why they don't push for legislation based on their other religious convictions such as divorce, adultery, or any other Levitical law that they believe in? The debate would have been over years ago. But no one ever comes in with that stance, or they come in with it but then change it when they realize how flimsy it is. Which tells me one of two things, it's purely based on bigotry, or it's disingenuous.

BUT I would respect the fact that they stuck to their original stance no matter how much I thought it was theologically wrong.

The bigger problem is that THIS is how the far right handle many social issues or any issues dealing with science. And far too many of them whine "liberal bias" when their 'nothing but opinion' stance gets treated as such.

 

[BVS]

You're right about that. . .

I think if BVS thinks about it for a moment he'd have to admit that the last thing anyone claiming strictly religious backing for their stance on gay marriage and why that backing should matter would get is respect in here.

Hopefully I explained what I meant by that in my previous post. ^^^

 

[maycocksean]

Hopefully I explained what I meant by that in my previous post. ^^^

 

[PhilsFan]

This coming from someone who claimed to be a "moderate with an open mind" earlier in the thread?

Absolutely, and I say that without a hint of irony.

 

[kramwest1]

42% is exactly what the poll shows in 1994 too. Proving nothing creates conservatives like 2 years of liberal Democratic control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.

Um, no it doesn't.

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals