• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era

Thanks to the current administration, we live in an era where the supposed fact checkers are also biased.


j-mac

It didn't start with Obama pal. This ****'s been going down for quite some time now.

But this is what we're talking about. The hyperpartisanship is making us stupid. We need to stop.
 
There was hardly anything elitist in that rant. I mean, if you have something actual to add; go ahead. But stupid little comments without logic to back up the claim are just that; stupid little comments. And stupid little comments do very little for advancing the debate or considering the direction. So if you have more stupid little comments, please feel free to keep them to yourselves. If you have something thought out which pertains to the subject matter at hand, then by all means contribute.

It was an entirely elitist rant. It was smug too, but that's almost beside the point.

What I'm getting is this: because of the new freedom of information, and because news companies are competing with each other (in the free market) people are freely choosing to get information through sources some people don't like, and freely choosing to, as you said, not read books about the fed or finance economy, society is going down the toilet. Key words: freely choosing. In the old days, the choices weren't available, because the media was an entirely elite-run industry, and all information came through the filter of the elite. Now the realm of ideas is truly a free market, and it irks people who don't care for the free market in the first place - but it's not just them. It also irks smug people who see that their ideology is not popular even in the free market of ideas, and end up blaming stupidity and ignorance. In this sense it's easy to see how libertarians end up espousing elitist ideas, but the contradiction is still there. Those intensely arguing for a free market in the economy are bemoaning the free market of ideas.

Have you ever thought for just one moment that if people stopped watching Hannity and reading Coulter, and started reading the books you wanted them to read, maybe they'd still have the same ideologies and vote for the same people and not much would change? Of course not - your ideology is unpopular, and therefore it must be those damn pundits and distractions that make people stupid and ignorant (i.e. disagree with you). Ironically, in today's climate of the availability of information, fact-checking has become more possible and easy than ever. In fact, from a libertarian perspective (and this is my view), the new media and availability of information is one of the greatest things to ever happen to the human race. Disinformation has become a hundredfold harder to spread than ever - because while it has always been there, even when the elite controlled information, it is now possible to discredit it. If you believe in the free market, then you'd believe in the eventual triumph of obvious truths over obvious lies, because both are available to spread now and people get to freely choose which to believe. Only elitists, and some very confused smug people whose ideology is unpopular, would see something wrong with that, and fear that people are too stupid to make that distinction. Never mind that if this is true, it is true with every free market, including the economic one.
 
I didn't say that, but if that is what you choose to believe then who am I to alter your decisions?

j-mac

Well, maybe we'll be saved if we get a Republican president again. That will make people smarter.
 
It didn't start with Obama pal. This ****'s been going down for quite some time now.

But this is what we're talking about. The hyperpartisanship is making us stupid. We need to stop.


I know that Obama's administration didn't "start" it, but they sure ramped it up. Hyper-partisanship is something that will always be present, what we need to focus on is why things like journalism slid from reporting facts, and investigating without bias changed to agenda reporting.


j-mac
 
Well, maybe we'll be saved if we get a Republican president again. That will make people smarter.


didn't say that either. but I can see that demonization is what you seem to be turning this into.


j-mac
 
It's funny how the centrists, libertarians, and moderates seem to grok this, but the hardcore conservative koolaid drinkers have their panties in a wad.

Most of them are hypocrites who blamed Obama's win on American stupidity. I'm consistently against smugness and elitism of all types, at least.


Maybe this is why...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ee-episode-glenn-beck-faith-our-founders.html

Note the lack of objectivity, the need to reinforce paradigms over honest seeking of historical information, and the inability to screen for source bias.

Libertarians, at least, have learned to think for themselves to some degree. All too many partisans are spoon-fed their opinions, and form their judgements on the basis of what the partisan hacks say.

If it weren't for new technology, we would all be spoon fed our opinions. Now we an choose where to get information from - and believe it or not, if Beck didn't exist, basically nobody's political ideology would be different. If some people choose to listen to Beck or Olbermann, so be it. That's their choice, and I see nothing wrong with it, because I'm not smug enough to believe that everyone would agree with me if it weren't for "propaganda" that some freely choose to listen to.
 
What I'm getting is this: because of the new freedom of information, and because news companies are competing with each other (in the free market) people are freely choosing to get information through sources some people don't like, and freely choosing to, as you said, not read books about the fed or finance economy, society is going down the toilet. Key words: freely choosing. In the old days, the choices weren't available, because the media was an entirely elite-run industry, and all information came through the filter of the elite. Now the realm of ideas is truly a free market, and it irks people who don't care for the free market in the first place - but it's not just them. It also irks smug people who see that their ideology is not popular even in the free market of ideas, and end up blaming stupidity and ignorance. In this sense it's easy to see how libertarians end up espousing elitist ideas, but the contradiction is still there. Those intensely arguing for a free market in the economy are bemoaning the free market of ideas.

Nobody is arguing against the free market of ideas. What is being suggested here is that we aren't keeping up with providing our kids and ourselves with the tools to NAVIGATE that free market of ideas.

Tools that help to identify the bias of a particular source. Tools that help users of information sort through the variety that is out there and figure out what information is true, and what is false.

There is a difference between, for instance, a book promoted on the Glenn Beck show that FALSIFIES QUOTES from the founding fathers to justify theocracy, and scholarship that has been peer-reviewed and held up to academic scrutiny.

You get that, right? I don't have a team in the game here. I'm saying that there are problems with this issue on BOTH SIDES. There are people here who take their talking points straight from Democratic Underground and fall into "bush-hitler mode" with the slightest provocation, and without making any sense at all. And similarly, there are the red state koolaid drinkers who think that if Glenn Beck says it on the television, it must be factually correct.

The fact is that both sides present the "facts" with their own spin. It's hard to find factual information on many topics. Climate change is a good one, for instance. Whose numbers do you use?
 
Last edited:
It was an entirely elitist rant. It was smug too, but that's almost beside the point.

What I'm getting is this: because of the new freedom of information, and because news companies are competing with each other (in the free market) people are freely choosing to get information through sources some people don't like, and freely choosing to, as you said, not read books about the fed or finance economy, society is going down the toilet. Key words: freely choosing. In the old days, the choices weren't available, because the media was an entirely elite-run industry, and all information came through the filter of the elite. Now the realm of ideas is truly a free market, and it irks people who don't care for the free market in the first place - but it's not just them. It also irks smug people who see that their ideology is not popular even in the free market of ideas, and end up blaming stupidity and ignorance. In this sense it's easy to see how libertarians end up espousing elitist ideas, but the contradiction is still there. Those intensely arguing for a free market in the economy are bemoaning the free market of ideas.

Have you ever thought for just one moment that if people stopped watching Hannity and reading Coulter, and started reading the books you wanted them to read, maybe they'd still have the same ideologies and vote for the same people and not much would change? Of course not - your ideology is unpopular, and therefore it must be those damn pundits and distractions that make people stupid and ignorant (i.e. disagree with you). Ironically, in today's climate of the availability of information, fact-checking has become more possible and easy than ever. In fact, from a libertarian perspective (and this is my view), the new media and availability of information is one of the greatest things to ever happen to the human race. Disinformation has become a hundredfold harder to spread than ever - because while it has always been there, even when the elite controlled information, it is now possible to discredit it. If you believe in the free market, then you'd believe in the eventual triumph of obvious truths over obvious lies, because both are available to spread now and people get to freely choose which to believe. Only elitists, and some very confused smug people whose ideology is unpopular, would see something wrong with that, and fear that people are too stupid to make that distinction. Never mind that if this is true, it is true with every free market, including the economic one.

What a pile of horse**** this is. Talk about smug and condescending. Damn man, I hope you didn't break your glass house trying to throw stones at me on this one.

Disinformation is very easy to spread when you hide it in emotionalized rhetoric and nationalism. People can choose whatever they want, but I told you exactly what needs to happen if your goal is to preserve the Republic. Only a fool would suggest that giving one's self up to the misinformation out there, to allow one to be pulled and pushed along the tides of hyperpartisan "news" would be a good thing. It's not a good thing.

I don't expect that everyone has the same political opinion as I do. In fact, it would be a little bothersome, I couldn't rant if everyone agreed with me. However, there is a difference in saying that people can have a different opinion and having an opinion based almost entirely off of hyperbole, spin, emotionalized rhetoric, and hyperpartisan hackery. If people read books and educated themselves and had a different opinion than me, fine. So long as it's an educated, researched opinion, I feel well better than that. It's when these opinions are born of ignorance that I start to worry. Smart people disagreeing is one thing. Misinformed people running on emotional knee jerk reactions are completely different.

So my condescending friend, it seems as if you had it all wrong. Maybe you were just making an emotional lashing out because you read something you didn't agree with. But just remember, when you're chucking stones; beware of your own glass house.
 
If it weren't for new technology, we would all be spoon fed our opinions. Now we an choose where to get information from - and believe it or not, if Beck didn't exist, basically nobody's political ideology would be different. If some people choose to listen to Beck or Olbermann, so be it. That's their choice, and I see nothing wrong with it, because I'm not smug enough to believe that everyone would agree with me if it weren't for "propaganda" that some freely choose to listen to.

Do you ever encounter leftist posters on here who have absorbed their opinions wholesale from the Daily Kos and/or Democratic Underground? Or rightist posters on here who regularly cite the Free Republic without any corroborating evidence?

That's what we're talking about here.
 
I know that Obama's administration didn't "start" it, but they sure ramped it up. Hyper-partisanship is something that will always be present, what we need to focus on is why things like journalism slid from reporting facts, and investigating without bias changed to agenda reporting.


j-mac

Well that's easy. Because we let it. We've become lazy, we aren't performing our duties as freemen. Obama "ramped it up" about the same as everyone else. As soon as they see they can get away with something, the government always takes it as far as it can go...farther in some cases. It was never supposed to be Republican vs. Democrat, Libertarian vs. Green, or any of that. It was always supposed to be The People vs. The Government. That's the battle line. All this other crap that floats around is there to make us forget that.
 
Last edited:
Do you ever encounter leftist posters on here who have absorbed their opinions wholesale from the Daily Kos and/or Democratic Underground? Or rightist posters on here who regularly cite the Free Republic without any corroborating evidence?

That's what we're talking about here.


Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.

Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.


j-mac
 
Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.

Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.


j-mac

Good god, you're serious. Did Obama say that these devices should be disabled? Did he use his powers to take the phone service offline? Did he dismantle the internet and start censoring the use of it?

Ahmadinejad did ALL OF THAT. Obama suggested that Americans need to learn to use technology more wisely. He didn't suggest TURNING IT OFF.

You understand the difference between verbally discussing something and attacking the infrastructure and taking it down, don't you?

If not, I'm not sure you're up to this discussion.
 
Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.

Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.

j-mac

The Nazis did it too. That's right. I just Godwined the thread.

633743998785490510-Nazisarguedpolitics.jpg
 
Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.

Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.


j-mac

I think the focus may have been a bit too "old man". "Kids these days and their fancy XBoxes...well back in my day...". But we shouldn't allow that to completely distract from a valid point. Because there is a valid point. Is it technology's fault? No, it's our own. We allowed ourselves to be swept up and consumed by it. Technology could in fact aid us greatly in this very topic. We have to have the resolve and understanding to use these things as aids and to not be dominated by them. The lazy path is always easier, but it ultimately leads to a much worse place.
 
:lol: dude is addicted to his blackberry,.

But he hates technology Reverend! He wants to take your iPhone and shut it off! That is what he wants to do! Don't you see? By saying you shouldn't try WND and instead maybe read the Economist he's telling you he will shut off your interwebz!1111!!! Eleventy One!
 
There are opinions, misinformed and otherwise, and there are facts, supporting and undermining opinions. There is another class of information people use as well. That is political philosophy or ideology. People can interpret the same facts differently, based upon their ideology, when forming their opinions.

People on the left tend to hold an ideology that government can improve peoples lives and it must be funded to do so and pass policy that allows them to do this. The recent healthcare bill is a good example where taxes will rise, but a significant number of people will have free healthcare. Another example is how to solve the debt and deficit problem. People on the left tend to want to raise taxes.

People on the right think increased government social programs increase dependence and damage individual freedoms. Wealth redistribution is an unfair practice and people who are struggling need to support themselves through hard work and perseverance. Regarding the case of solving the debt and deficit, people on the right want to reduce spending.

Each group filters the facts through their ideological lens which inform their opinions. I think that what Obama is saying is that we need to be cognizant of our ideology and how that causes us to interpret facts. Even better is to be aware of the other side's ideology and how they interpret facts.

Solving the debt and deficit should prove enlightening. I don't think they are going to be able to do it, personally. Hello Greece.
 
Good god, you're serious. Did Obama say that these devices should be disabled? Did he use his powers to take the phone service offline? Did he dismantle the internet and start censoring the use of it?

Ahmadinejad did ALL OF THAT. Obama suggested that Americans need to learn to use technology more wisely. He didn't suggest TURNING IT OFF.

You understand the difference between verbally discussing something and attacking the infrastructure and taking it down, don't you?

If not, I'm not sure you're up to this discussion.


America is in no way in the same place that Iran is, but it is interesting that certain notions of these birds of a feather carry forth in different degrees. Iran, cracks down, while Obama just demonizes. How big a step is it really?

You're not sure I am up for this discussion? are you?


j-mac
 
America is in no way in the same place that Iran is, but it is interesting that certain notions of these birds of a feather carry forth in different degrees. Iran, cracks down, while Obama just demonizes. How big a step is it really?

You're not sure I am up for this discussion? are you?


j-mac

Obama is demonizing technology? Hyperbolic tonight aren't we?
 
I think the focus may have been a bit too "old man". "Kids these days and their fancy XBoxes...well back in my day...". But we shouldn't allow that to completely distract from a valid point. Because there is a valid point. Is it technology's fault? No, it's our own. We allowed ourselves to be swept up and consumed by it. Technology could in fact aid us greatly in this very topic. We have to have the resolve and understanding to use these things as aids and to not be dominated by them. The lazy path is always easier, but it ultimately leads to a much worse place.


I am not in total disagreement with you, or Catz, or Obama for that matter. My questioning of it is purely in who controls the method of discerning the information. We must take into account that this Progressive lurch to the left in today's politic was instituted decades ago by the very same "hippy" class of far leftists that realized that violence was not the way, then proceeded to take over the education system. Take a look, Ayers sits on the board that decides ciriculum [sic] for the nations high schools for God's sake!


j-mac
 
Iran, cracks down, while Obama just demonizes. How big a step is it really?

A huge one. First off, Obama wasn't DEMONIZING technology. He was urging that people to rationally examine the information that they take in from a variety of sources. Are you opposed to that? You're opposed to people being encouraged to use their own common sense???
 
Last edited:
Take a look, Ayers sits on the board that decides ciriculum [sic] for the nations high schools for God's sake!

So does David Barton, the man who created fraudulent quotes and then attributed them (falsely) to the founding fathers in order to further his own paradigms about Christian control of government.

Does that concern you, that a man who is so lackadaisical about ideological ethics that he created false statements, is controlling what high schoolers in Texas and other states learn about the history of this country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom