Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 85334 times) |
|
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14, '23
# 5
Posts: 3340
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #475 on: Oct 25th, 2012, 7:58pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Oct 25th, 2012, 7:27pm, StegRock wrote:I got to get this one off my chest... The "carving up"  of our nation for political purposes is driving me nuts...  It is actually from my "comments" feed over at YouTube from some time ago...
Mind you, I am not anti-abortion, but that is not based on a woman's "right to choose"... Let's be clear... The so-called pro-"choice" position logically boils down to nothing more than this...
A woman's right to an unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's right to... A LIFE!
What a noble position!  What a wonderful guiding principle on which to base your politics!  Abortion may be a "necessary" evil based on modern-day socio-economic, politico-religious circumstances, but it is nothing to pride ourselves on. It is not really indicative of human progress, indeed, perhaps quite the contrary if you think it through. |
|
I think you simplified a little too much:
Don't you kind of state the argument yourself.....does a FETUS have rights? The US Supreme Court deemed it did not.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2012, 8:16pm by DirkDiggler » |
 Logged |
"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
 
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #476 on: Oct 26th, 2012, 12:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 25th, 2012, 7:58pm, DirkDiggler wrote:I think you simplified a little too much:
Don't you kind of state the argument yourself.....does a FETUS have rights? The US Supreme Court deemed it did not. |
|
Exactly! A fetus has no legal rights in America. But, I am talking morality, not mere legality. I have simplified nothing. Indeed, the circumstance is worse: legality is trumping morality.  Nevertheless, I will simplify...
A woman's unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's... LIFE!
Though, I like the original formulation more...
A woman's right to an unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's right to... A LIFE!
It is just that, as you state, the situation is actually even worse than that for the unborn. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #477 on: Oct 27th, 2012, 8:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I had a sort of epiphany lately that gives articulation to something many have sensed but has not been well stated... Let's think this through... 
In governance, generally speaking, if you have at heart the best interest of the country as a whole, that is to say, ALL citizens, you are inevitably eventually going to have to make decisions and institute policies that are not so good for a particular group. That is just kind of the nature of the beast. If you have the whole country's best interest at heart, not every decision or every policy is going to please every group every time.
Not that such a philosophy cannot be abused. It surely can, though it must be noted that there is "quid pro quo" partisan abuse on both sides. In any event, generally speaking, we have one party that tries to govern the whole, and, then, we have another reactionary party which opportunistically and exaggeratedly advocates for the groups whom the policies and platforms of the other party do not (seem to) favor... As for which party is which, the proof is in the pudding. This is a quote from a recent ad in support of Obama: "He's not standing up for all Americans, but he's standing up for women." Yikes! The White House is supposed to be inhabited by a President of the United States, not an advocate or lobbyist for a group.
Though the actual positions, policy proposals and theoretical bases can be argued and debated, for sure,...
On immigration, Republicans are not against Mexicans; they are for all Americans.
On economics, Republicans are not against the poor and middle class; they are for all Americans.
On abortion, Republicans are not against women; they are for all Americans.
On education, Republicans are not against teachers; they are for all Americans.
On marriage, Republicans are not against gays; they are for all Americans.
On terrorism, Republicans are not against Muslims; they are for all Americans.
On voter identification, Republicans are not against anyone; they are for all Americans.
Again, whether their specific positions are for better or for worse can be debated. But, rhetoric such as "war on women" or "war on minorities" is demagoguery and only serves to obfuscate the real debate.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 610
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #478 on: Oct 28th, 2012, 2:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 26th, 2012, 12:43am, StegRock wrote:
Exactly! A fetus has no legal rights in America. But, I am talking morality, not mere legality. I have simplified nothing. Indeed, the circumstance is worse: legality is trumping morality. Nevertheless, I will simplify...
A woman's unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's... LIFE!
Though, I like the original formulation more...
A woman's right to an unwanted impregnation trumps a fetus's right to... A LIFE!
It is just that, as you state, the situation is actually even worse than that for the unborn. |
|
My two cents here: although I acknowledge that prudence plays a role in determining one's platform, I am nevertheless distraught that the Republican presidential platform is not opposing abortion in cases of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother.
If one maintains that abortion is wrong because murder is wrong -- and I assume that is the ultimate gist of any argument against abortion -- then it is impossible to maintain, at the same time, that there are various situations in which abortion is not wrong. Why then does the Romney/Ryan ticket allow for these exceptions? I can think of only these answers:
1. perhaps they think that announcing they are completely opposed to abortion will hurt their chance at election -- in which case, this tells us something about the increasingly disastrous state of American mores, i.e., that we are living in a country in which, it would seem, one must tolerate the murder of some of the people by others of the people in order to be electable.
2. or maybe, while they are opposed to abortion in most cases, they in fact are not opposed to abortion in those three instances -- in which case their moral reasoning is not, in fact, reasoning.
Not good either way.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14, '23
# 5
Posts: 3340
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #480 on: Oct 28th, 2012, 9:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
Now, putting ALL of this into perspective, I had a very in depth political conversation with a Chilean who grew up under Pinochet. The shit we argue about as Americans is relatively small vs what the rest of the world is dealing with. The right to life under Pinochet could be taken away from you for looking at someone the wrong way or thinking the wrong thing. You could not tell who was your 'friend' and who was not. Pretty amazing what he had to deal with - both personally and his family. I've never had a gun pointed at my head for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I never had to worry if I was going to come home and someone from my family be taken away. It really put life into perspective.....and in some cases, reminded me how embarrassed I should be as to what Americans (and sometimes myself) take for granted.
People across the glode are fighting for democracy or some form of the right to vote. The right to be heard and be represented. Yet our country's % of eligible voters who actually VOTE is pathetic. During the presidential election it is around 40-45% the past few elections. During gubenatorial races, it is MUCH lower. And the lower the office, the less it it will be. So here we are, the right to choose as to whom we want to represent us in government, and 55%-60% of Americans do not even utilize their rights.
People across the world are literally fighting, being jailed, or even dying for a right that over 55% of Americans are not taking advantage of.
 | I DIGRESS...
On a side note - he also had some very interesting thoughts on our electoral college which I will be the first to admit that is not perfect. However, it gave me the chance to explain why it exists and why major changes will not come anytime soon. I am pretty sure most Americans do not even understand why it exists.
Taking it even more off topic....there is an electorial college tie....the House would probably Romney President and the Senate would vote BIDEN vice president. Taking it a step further....there is even a chance that the HOUSE could not reach a decision - that BIDEN could become president as Vice President. Crazy system........with many imperfections, but one that maintains the checks and balances of states powers.
|
|
|  |
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 28th, 2012, 9:22am by DirkDiggler » |
Logged |
"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 610
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #481 on: Oct 28th, 2012, 2:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 28th, 2012, 8:50am, DirkDiggler wrote:When it comes to morals in politics.....why are the same people opposed to abortion so pro-death penalty? And those so prochoice so anti death penalty? Morally they do not seem to go hand in hand.
|
|
I don't think this is the case. Murder is the taking of innocent human life -- murder is not identical with killing. That is, sometimes killing is not only permissible but necessary, e.g., in self-defense. So I take it that the death penalty is morally permissible in analogous situations, viz., when it's a matter of self-defense. Thus, if someone has made himself an enemy of the state, and incarceration will not sufficiently protect the people from him, then the state has the right, because it has the duty, to execute him. In our day and age, that situation seems awfully rare -- if we had jailed Bin Laden, that may have been such a situation -- but such situations were surely more common in earlier days (and even as late as the late 19th century on the Western frontier).
So while abortion is intrinsically immoral, the death penalty is sometimes immoral and sometimes moral.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 28th, 2012, 2:18pm by Travistotle » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #482 on: Oct 28th, 2012, 8:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I am really just seconding Travis's response...
This position is consistent...
on Oct 28th, 2012, 8:50am, DirkDiggler wrote:| ... people opposed to abortion so pro-death penalty... |
|
It is this one that is not...
on Oct 28th, 2012, 8:50am, DirkDiggler wrote:| ... those so prochoice so anti death penalty... |
|
Think it through...
The fact that we have the logic on this bass-ackwards is indicative of political brainwashing and social engineering.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 28th, 2012, 8:38pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #483 on: Nov 4th, 2012, 1:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
To hear light being made of Obama's characterization of voting as "revenge" is sickening. It is such a revealing choice of words. In Obama's second term, expect us to be more divided than ever before! Nietzsche spoke of the "spirit of revenge", its basis in resentment and the slave morality, the distinctive "virtue" of which is pity, that emerges from it. This is where we are headed with Obama.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2013, 3:59am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14, '23
# 5
Posts: 3340
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #484 on: Nov 4th, 2012, 7:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 4th, 2012, 1:13am, StegRock wrote:| To hear light being made of Obama's characterization of voting as "revenge" is sickening. It is a such a revealing choice of words. In Obama's second term, expect us to be more divided than ever before! Nietzsche spoke of the "spirit of revenge", its basis in resentment and the slave morality, the distinctive "virtue" of which is pity, that emerges from it. This is where we are headed with Obama. |
|
Geez us. He made the comment one time in response to a crowd booing Romney.
Romney defined marriage as the union of "a man and a woman and a woman" once.
I think the bigger issue to focus on if looking at campaign quotes is that Romney paid 14% taxes, doesn't give a rats ass about 47%, and would repeal healthcare.
And I think the best REVENGE will come on Tuesday for Obama.
Do we all agree that if Romney does not win, that the Repluplican party might as well cease and desist?? They should totally reform themselves. Catering too much to the right is screwing them!
|
|
Logged |
"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 610
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #485 on: Nov 4th, 2012, 2:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 4th, 2012, 7:16am, DirkDiggler wrote:
I think the bigger issue to focus on if looking at campaign quotes is that Romney paid 14% taxes, doesn't give a rats ass about 47%, and would repeal healthcare.
Do we all agree that if Romney does not win, that the Repluplican party might as well cease and desist?? They should totally reform themselves. Catering too much to the right is screwing them! |
|
I think the problem is, actually, that the Republican party is becoming more and more indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. Both are embracing the progressivist despotism of the nanny state, which de Tocqueville warned us 170 years ago was the most likely and to-be-feared outcome of democracy when the people lose sight of freedom by their demands for equality. The Republicans have no hope in trying to be more "progressive" -- their only hope is to go back to the "right," by which I mean the principles of the Founding Fathers -- limited government and states' rights (principle of subsidiarity), religion as the necessary foundation of both private and public life, etc.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #486 on: Nov 4th, 2012, 10:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 4th, 2012, 7:16am, DirkDiggler wrote:Geez us. He made the comment one time in response to a crowd booing Romney.
Romney defined marriage as the union of "a man and a woman and a woman" once.
I think the bigger issue to focus on if looking at campaign quotes is that Romney paid 14% taxes, doesn't give a rats ass about 47%, and would repeal healthcare.
And I think the best REVENGE will come on Tuesday for Obama.
Do we all agree that if Romney does not win, that the Repluplican party might as well cease and desist?? They should totally reform themselves. Catering too much to the right is screwing them! |
|
There are many a gaffe on the campaign trail. You take Obama's "revenge" to be a gaffe. I do not! I take it to be a revealing choice of words, and your response here serves as a sort of proof in the pudding. What does Romney's personal income tax rate have to do with anything? The only value of that talking point that I can see is to facilitate a sense of class warfare. Whether you have been influenced by MSNBC or not, you are right on point with their talking points. Anyway, factoring in charities, Romney gives about 30-35% of his earnings (why we are even talking about this, I do not know, but...). If of his earnings that is all he would give away anyway, which seems reasonable, then more taxes just means less charity and vice-versa. On another hand, it is that 14-or-so% of the income taxes of the Romneys of America that make up roughly 80% of government revenue. Mind you, there is so much more relevant to this analysis on the Obama-Biden side I am not bringing up because I do not want to engage in mere tit-for-tat talking points.
The thing is "revenge" fits the motif. "Women, seek revenge for your oppression! The poor and middle class, seek revenge for your oppression! Minorities, blacks and hispanics especially, seek revenge for your oppression! Gays, seek revenge for your oppression!" This is not a mere gaffe! This is the mindset! And, it matters! We have gotten to a sad point, enabled greatly by lawyers mind you, where, not absolutely but to an ill-fatedly high degree, rights mean revenge.
As for the 47% comment, I think Romney surely overestimated the number and, in any event, did not do himself a service, politically. But, there is a bigger-picture point at issue, to which his comment does, I think, not totally unwittingly speak. If we ever get to the point where 51% of the population is on the government dole, the party of the government dole gains an advantage that is unfair and, worse yet, ensconced because it is based on a conflict of interest that is supported by the majority. YIKES! This is mass collusion and the path to socialism. We really will have gone from "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," to "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."
Bottom line, right down to your last line about the state of the Republican party, I am not seeing reasoned positions. I am just seeing (MSNBC-esque) talking points, that is to say, smug trash talk as in when you say, "Do we ALL agree", followed by hyperbolic partisan rhetoric. No, we do not! So, that question/comment is either deluded or arrogant or both and, in any case, comes off as nothing more than partisan up-talk.
on Oct 28th, 2012, 2:59am, T-Rave wrote:My two cents here: although I acknowledge that prudence plays a role in determining one's platform, I am nevertheless distraught that the Republican presidential platform is not opposing abortion in cases of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother.
If one maintains that abortion is wrong because murder is wrong -- and I assume that is the ultimate gist of any argument against abortion -- then it is impossible to maintain, at the same time, that there are various situations in which abortion is not wrong. Why then does the Romney/Ryan ticket allow for these exceptions? I can think of only these answers:
1. perhaps they think that announcing they are completely opposed to abortion will hurt their chance at election -- in which case, this tells us something about the increasingly disastrous state of American mores, i.e., that we are living in a country in which, it would seem, one must tolerate the murder of some of the people by others of the people in order to be electable.
2. or maybe, while they are opposed to abortion in most cases, they in fact are not opposed to abortion in those three instances -- in which case their moral reasoning is not, in fact, reasoning.
Not good either way. |
|
My question for you, T, is, how do you find holding such a position in an America now full of socially-engineered drones whose positions are not grounded in reasoned argumentation, but timely factoids and statistics and clever one-liners and, worse yet, come with an ironic moral indignation and the oft-employed tag line that they are on the right side of history, that is to say, more specific to the case at hand, drones who have been socially-engineered to believe that a woman's right to choose is the "ethical" bottom line and to disagree with that is to be on the wrong side of history? They reject challenges to their positions without even taking the time to understand the argument against them. You would be labeled as being a part of the "war against women" and, thus, presenting a position not even worth hearing out. I mean, social engineering dictates, unlike true ethics, that to do the right thing, you have to believe the right thing. This makes people who believe differently, contrary to the tolerance they proclaim, absolute enemies, whose reasoning is not even worthy of acknowledgment, no less engagement. In this case, that is you. Mind you, T, I am just pressing you. Remember I am not pro-choice. I am provisionally not anti-abortion. Anyway, the question...
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 4th, 2012, 10:49pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #487 on: Nov 6th, 2012, 5:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Of course, I, none of us, have the time to concentrate on this stuff, and so it has taken all the way to Election Day for this fairly organized thought to hit me. As late as it is, I am still going to share it (because, to speak frankly, I think, on this little corner of the internet, this is one of the best, most concise and straightforward, presentations on the matter). It has to do with what the government can generally, but directly do with respect to the economy.
In relation to the economy the government can take the following general, but direct measures:
1) Decrease government spending.
2) Facilitate private-sector growth.
3) Increase government spending on public-sector, that is, government jobs, entitlement programs and/or subsidies by ...
a) ... raising taxes, fees and penalties.
b) ... borrowing from other countries (e.g. China).
c) ... printing money.
d) ... (see 2 above).
It seems that our current President, whose resume is filled largely with just leftist activism, does not know how to do 1, 2 and (therefore) 3d, the ones that take effort and resolve and are not easy. He only knows how to do 3a, 3b and 3c, none of which really require "creativity" and all of which increase government (influence) and are relatively easy (socialistic) ways out that just about anybody with a half a brain can take. He only seems to understand "government" solutions. Bottom line, if Obama is reelected and, in any event, if Obamacare stands "as is" without any reform, expect more of 3a, 3b and 3c and little to no 1, 2 and 3d.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #489 on: Feb 10th, 2013, 5:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
TRUE American courage,...   if you search for it, it can still be found... But, unfortunately, you gotta search... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTdtL-hirRg!
on Aug 10th, 2011, 11:39pm, StegRock wrote:
Does this stuff even get a whisper in the mainstream media?
Au contraire, we are now in a country that prefers Obama-supporting f-bombs from Hollywoodites, especially if they are Black Panther-ish or white guilt-ridden. 
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 16th, 2013, 7:10am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #491 on: Jun 22nd, 2013, 7:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Anybody with a YouTube account want to help me here? Two well-reasoned, very mildly caustic posts I made were SCRUBBED! I cannot repost them because I have been BLOCKED! Talk about the "dog whistle" as an un-self-reflective Chris Matthews would say... This m.o. extends from the very top to the very bottom (YouTube videos with 400 views  ). This is not theory. This is fact, and the fact that the drones just do it without direct orders "from the top" is -- think it through -- scarIER!
Anyway, here is a link to screen shots of the YouTube pages from which I have been BLOCKED to post. (The "blocked" message you can see came up after I tried to repost the messages.)
http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/LibCensorship.htm.
Here are the two posts...
This first post went with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5TIr67jnU.
To follow this guy's logic through,... with Nixon, Republicans did set aside partisanship and do the right thing, but Democrats are not doing that now. MSNBC is for mental midgets.
This second post went with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46R6BLc7aHE.
Yea, but it was already (mis)interpreted as "primarily"! This does not serve to answer why only conservative groups were targeted while 501(c)(4) [and, for that matter, (3)] status was readily being granted to left-wing groups, including, but not limited to, the PRESIDENT's very own "Organizing for Action", MoveOn.org and "The Barack H. Obama Foundation", which was founded by Obama's Kenyan half-brother. Mr. O'Donnell misses the point,... tendentiously of course.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 22nd, 2013, 7:15pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #493 on: Jul 8th, 2013, 11:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
So, I flick MSNBC on today to see how they are presenting the Zimmerman trial. ALL that is presented is shades of guilt. They have a four-person/lawyer panel. The first claims that, while the case for second-degree murder is not so strong, the case for manslaughter is a slam dunk! The second thinks that the prosecution has been terribly weak and that Zimmerman will, and I quote, "unfortunately" not be convicted of anything! (So, even the contrarian on the panel is in the tank!) The third, and I quote, "hopes" for a conviction so that justice is done! The fourth takes the self-proclaimed "surprising" position that the prosecution has done an excellent job of proving second-degree murder.
Are you f'n kidding me?
If you are an MSNBC watcher, STOP NOW! Stop polluting your head with this garbage! This maintenance of the liberal/leftist narrative is destroying the U.S.
At the very least, try to watch something that challenges your views and makes you think, and then go back to MSNBC with a fresh set of eyes and a clear head and see what you think (for yourself)!
Fox News's reportage of the Zimmerman trial, leftist demonization "not-with-standing", is light-years more fair and balanced. On all of their shows, even their more explicitly conservative ones (like Hannity), they have people who cross the spectrum of arguing for Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. By and large, they end up somewhere in the middle, that is, perhaps guilty of manslaughter or perhaps not guilty because nothing is really provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Update...
So, I flick on MSNBC's Chris Hayes! He admits he is a leftist during the segment. He has the "anti-racist educator" Tim Wise (who is a complete idiot) on along with an African-American Studies professor. Gee, this is going to be fair and balanced!  They also have a lawyer on who ultimately recommends that the Martin family should plan to sue the State of Florida for their poor prosecution. That was the panel. Are you kidding me? They end up, tendentiously, with righteous indignation, and, worst of all, in a way that literally divides the American people, talking about the politics of it: how the defense is playing politics (???) and about how politicians are aligning themselves (and this matters how?). Meanwhile, it is much more cogently argued that the very prosecution itself is politically motivated! But, whatever in the echo chamber of the left, right? Lockstep for the narrative! Who watches this garbage and takes it seriously?
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 9th, 2013, 12:16am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 805
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #494 on: Jul 9th, 2013, 10:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
You may be right, I haven't watched either channel. But I am curious what a left or right political persuasion has to do with the Zimmerman trial. What is the connection? If anything, wouldn't a liberal favor the defense in theory? Just wondering...
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #496 on: Jul 10th, 2013, 12:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 9th, 2013, 10:46am, DB wrote:| You may be right, I haven't watched either channel. But I am curious what a left or right political persuasion has to do with the Zimmerman trial. What is the connection? If anything, wouldn't a liberal favor the defense in theory? Just wondering... |
|
D, really? You are betraying your intellectual sophistication. Mind you, you are right that politics should not have anything to do with it. But, you are thinking too idealistically. If Zimmerman was not indicted, (the contention is that) there would have been riots in the streets (or so that was the threat), and, if he is not convicted (of a crime that does not put him in prison for a long time), (the contention is that) there will be riots in the streets (or so that is the threat). Insofar as that is true, that is mob rule infusing itself into our legal system! Politics explicitly come into play because one of our political parties in particular is electorally beholden to this mob. Put another way, the party that plays race politics does have something at stake in this trial, D, because they are supposed to be on the side of this mob and want those potential riots (and a very sticky situation) averted, and only one thing guarantees that: a guilty verdict (which, to segue, Double D, like a bit player in a "narrative", would gladly hand them from afar, indeed, in the harshest form).
on Jul 9th, 2013, 7:35pm, DirkDiggler wrote:This is the first time I think Fox News has even been accused of being "lights years more fair and balanced" 
MSNBC caters to the left and Fox News caters to the right. I cant stand either one of them/ And then there is CNN that has CONFIRMED reports of totally made up news.
On a personal note, I can not wait to see what happems to Zimmerman . By the letter of the law, it seems he may get away with it. In my opinion, he is a guilty muther who deserves to go to prison. He NEVER should of been in that position, carrying a gun. I hope he at least gets a few years...... |
|
Well, Double D, you get D.C.-area news and/or listen to NPR, Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert, all of which are, at least, leftist-leaning, MSNBC lite, and I do not want to get into debating the trial here, but your verdict is, at least, evidence and, at worst, confirmation of that.
The deal with the cable news channels is a matter of degree, which you do not mention. But, whatever, your take on the channels is uninformed or tendentious or, worse yet, both. You basically admit to the former, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and leave it at that. However, their lineups are not even close in terms of fairness and balance. Here is how I would line each up next to his or her ideological counterpart...
Bill O'Reilly - Chris Matthews
Brett Baier/Shepard Smith/Megyn Kelly - Martin Bashir
Greta Van Susteren - Laurence O'Donnell/Chris Hayes
Sean Hannity - Rachel Maddow/Al Sharpton/Ed Schultz
In terms of reportage and editorialization, if you actually pay attention, it is NOT EVEN CLOSE as to which side of that list is more objective/reasonable/intelligent! Indeed, I would personally say (and I am guessing you would probably say that I am not a babbling idiot; I am even thinking you think quite the contrary) that Fox News is to the right as mainstream media news sources, including CNN and NPR, are to the left. That is to say that Fox News is to the right (a little more to the right of center-right) to the degree that the mainstream media is to the left (a little more to the left of center-left). MSNBC is fairly far left. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are somewhere between the mainstream and MSNBC, and it is a shame that I actually have to include them here, but the fact of the matter is that a good portion of our population does, indeed, get their news (and their opinion of Fox News) from them.
Bottom, bottom line, scrap all this, and, if they allow you to over there on the left,  read some Alexis de Tocqueville.  That would be a good start at least.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 10th, 2013, 4:48pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 805
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #497 on: Jul 11th, 2013, 2:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I guess I viewed it as a minority/minority thing but I guess not everyone views it that way.
As for the presentation of the trial by the media, which was your initial point Steve, I find it funny to hear people I know of the opposite political persuasion than you say the exact opposition thing about the coverage.
With that said, I'm probably closer to you on this one that I normally would be. As for the trial, seems to me like prosecution evidence is certainly well short of murder 2 though I would not be shocked to see a guilty verdict on the lesser count. Looking forward to hearing replay of closing arguments when I get home tonight.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #498 on: Jul 11th, 2013, 5:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 11th, 2013, 2:16pm, DB wrote:| As for the presentation of the trial by the media, which was your initial point Steve, I find it funny to hear people I know of the opposite political persuasion than you say the exact [opposite] thing about the coverage. |
|
Not that I question your characterization, D, but exactly how so?
I would like you to respond thoughtfully to that general question, but, in particular, what "opposite" could be said with respect to the potential for violence in relation to the verdict?
My main concern, which I know you understand, is not so much about this case itself, but mainstream media bias. Point being, I do not want the bigger-picture truth of the subtly destructive consequences of mainstream media bias to get obfuscated by generalizations, uninformed or, worse yet, misinformed opinions and, well, outright lies. I cite specifics!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #499 on: Jul 12th, 2013, 11:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Bottom, bottom line, if all the facts of this case and what we know based on what has been presented were exactly the same but the roles were reversed, that is, that it was, again all things equal, Trayvon Martin in his late 20's who took the life of a teenage George Zimmerman, would the same people protesting now for "justice for Trayvon" in the form of demanding Zimmerman's conviction not be protesting for "justice for Trayvon" in the form of demanding Trayvon's acquittal?
You do not have to answer this for me, mind you. This question is a soul searcher. Its importance is as a rhetorical question. Just be honest! Then, perhaps, ask yourself, are you on the side of this mob?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
