Post your political debate annoyances here...[W: 585]

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

dontworrybehappy said:

Talk to Bernie Goldberg about "liberal media bias" and see if it's "the media not attacking everything liberal."

Man you must have some STRONG ass glasses or have your head DEEP in the sand to deny the liberal bias in the media.

Click to expand...

The most-watched cable news channel is Fox News. They have a liberal bias?

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

"your evidence doesn't mean anything because those guys are in a conspiracy with the people I wish to demonize"

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Deuce said:

The most-watched cable news channel is Fox News. They have a liberal bias?

Click to expand...

They aren't the main stream media. That would be NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. And yes THEY DO have strong liberal bias.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

dontworrybehappy said:

They aren't the main stream media. That would be NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. And yes THEY DO have strong liberal bias.

Click to expand...

I think Fox News has reached "mainstream" in spite of being on cable. I believe there historically has been an overall liberal bias in the media in many of the networks you mention, but the news industry has expanded with so many newcomers like Fox that their influence has been diminished. Essentially, whatever one's own particular bias is, they can find a news outlet to tell them what they want to hear.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

dontworrybehappy said:

They aren't the main stream media. That would be NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. And yes THEY DO have strong liberal bias.

Click to expand...

FOX has more viewers than anyone else does but yet is not "main stream"?

*Quizzical look*

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Extreme partisan polarization and demonstrated non-critical thinking piss me off. I hate talking to people who can't think for themselves.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

radcen said:

I think Fox News has reached "mainstream" in spite of being on cable. I believe there historically has been an overall liberal bias in the media in many of the networks you mention, but the news industry has expanded with so many newcomers like Fox that their influence has been diminished. Essentially, whatever one's own particular bias is, they can find a news outlet to tell them what they want to hear.

Click to expand...

Historically -- I mean In Ye Olden Times -- television journalists held themselves to an extremely high standard of objectivity. Checking sources, not paying people to be on camera, presenting both sides, not using inflamatory and prejudical images. THAT was Walter Chronkite, Edward R. Murrow, etc. I cannot tell you how deeply I resent it that I have to wander all over creation to build my own impressions of any big news stories.

Chronkite and Murrow both gave their own opinions only once....Chronkite on Vietnam, and Murrow on McCarthy. We used to be able to distinguish between comedians, pundits and newscasters in this country.

Now we have John Stewart, who often sounds more reasoned and balanced than anyone on MSNBC. They should all be too embarrassed to call themselves anything but media whores.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Ikari said:

Extreme partisan polarization and demonstrated non-critical thinking piss me off. I hate talking to people who can't think for themselves.

Click to expand...

Ya, me too. The Greek Chorus phenomena annoys me.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

"Socialism/communism has never existed."

"Cite every one of your sentences."

"Excessive taxation isn't stealing---it's legalized taking."

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Pinkie said:

Historically -- I mean In Ye Olden Times -- television journalists held themselves to an extremely high standard of objectivity. Checking sources, not paying people to be on camera, presenting both sides, not using inflamatory and prejudical images. THAT was Walter Chronkite, Edward R. Murrow, etc. I cannot tell you how deeply I resent it that I have to wander all over creation to build my own impressions of any big news stories.

Chronkite and Murrow both gave their own opinions only once....Chronkite on Vietnam, and Murrow on McCarthy. We used to be able to distinguish between comedians, pundits and newscasters in this country.

Now we have John Stewart, who often sounds more reasoned and balanced than anyone on MSNBC. They should all be too embarrassed to call themselves anything but media whores.

Click to expand...

They only gave their opinions once, that you know of.

What's the "right" number of times journos should give their opinion?

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

"Edited for accuracy"

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Me: Government is no more trustworthy than the corporations and banks that control it.

Lib: Proof? Where's your empirical evidence backed up by academic research with a link to a scholarly journal article?

Me: Huh? That isn't a claim that needs "proof" or "evidence." It is my opinion. Are you disagreeing that corporations and banks control government, and think that government is therefore trustworthy?

Lib: You present no evidence for anything you say. Whereas I have shown facts.

Me: There have been no "facts" shared by anyone in this entire thread. WTF are you talking about?

Lib: Facts. Evidence.

Me: (logs off)

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

"Tell that to the middle class" or anything having to do with an appeal to popularity.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Neomalthusian said:

Me: Government is no more trustworthy than the corporations and banks that control it.

Lib: Proof? Where's your empirical evidence backed up by academic research with a link to a scholarly journal article?

Me: Huh? That isn't a claim that needs "proof" or "evidence." It is my opinion. Are you disagreeing that corporations and banks control government, and think that government is therefore trustworthy?

Lib: You present no evidence for anything you say. Whereas I have shown facts.

Me: There have been no "facts" shared by anyone in this entire thread. WTF are you talking about?

Lib: Facts. Evidence.

Me: (logs off)

Click to expand...

This, all too often.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

"You don't know what __________________ (Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, --- any "ism") means, says, or it's definition".

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Economic nonsense
================
- Greed is ruining the nation! P.S. I want your money. P.S.S. You are a douche for having so much money.
- I know all about the real world and real responsibilities. (Later in a different thread) Yesterday my mom and dad took me off their insurance, I'm so mad!!
- I know all about how to run a business, taxes, etc. (Later in a different thread) I was studying for my mid-terms yesterday and....
- It's not mob rule, it's a majority voting to force you to do something, get it straight!
- Anything that includes the term "Fair Share"

Debate nonsense
--------------------
- My "evidence" (a link to some other idiot) trumps your logic and reason.
- The idea that links on the internet are necessarily evidence
- Huge posts that are basically all quoted, and not summarized or put in their own words
- I only accept "expert" opinons on this matter. (And I'll judge which ones are experts)
- It's legal therefore it's good, OK, ethical, etc.

But those are some of the more obvious ones, the really irksome ones are more nuanced, for example:

-----------------------
Refuter: Application of reduction to absurduty shows your argument is...absurd.
Reply: I never claimed what you wrote, what are you on about? Don't put words in my mouth!!
Refuter: I reduced your claim, the logical implication, to absurdity
Reply: Yeah, but I never wrote that, prove it. I never used those exact words.
Refuter: Logically it follows, as you were shown, can you prove logically it doesn't follow?
Reply: Burden of proof is on you, nice try
Refuter: I just showed it logically follows, the burden was fulfilled...is your ****ING BRAIN WORKING?????

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Reg said:

They only gave their opinions once, that you know of.

What's the "right" number of times journos should give their opinion?

Click to expand...

On air, I mean. Doubtless, off-air they opined. Doesn't everyone? A lot of people at the time thought both Murrow and Chronkite were dead wrong for what they did -- and both knew they were risking their careers as trusted newscasters by doing it.

I want the ethical journalists of my youth back....but like so much that was good about that era, I fear that time has passed. Not gonna see hats with veils on women again anytime soon, either.

So, to answer your question: on-air, when a journalist gives his opinion, he loses a great deal of his credibility when he (allegedly) returns to objective reporting. I'll never have the faith in NY Times again that I did before the Journolist scandal. Granted, the reporters expected their emails to remain private, but they discussed how to best slant the news.

They should have all been fired....it's like discovering your county judges get together to discuss how to make sure one home town law firm makes millions. It's a corruption, a breach of trust.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Ockham said:

"You don't know what __________________ (Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, --- any "ism") means, says, or it's definition".

Click to expand...

Ya, well, it's true. Far too few people DO know.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

I didn't start discussing politics on the 'net till right after Obama was inaugerated. I'd post, and get hit with all these references to Rev. Wright, etc. and when I said "who is that?", I was ridiculed. I had no idea what a "birther" was, or a "truther", etc. and people were sometimes less than patient with me, dismissing anything I had to say because I had "obviously no clue what was going on".

Same tactic, in reverse, was to ask me to defend some idiotic thing said on tv, etc. because the speaker was allegedly a liberal. Like what? There's a cathecism? A membership list? A loyalty oath?

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Pinkie said:

Same tactic, in reverse, was to ask me to defend some idiotic thing said on tv, etc. because the speaker was allegedly a liberal. Like what? There's a cathecism? A membership list? A loyalty oath?

Click to expand...

Shhhhhhhhhhh.

The first rule of Lib Club is we don't talk about Lib Club.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

- Comparing any modern politician to Hitler.

- Libertarian "slave" rhetoric.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Assuming I have no life experience relevant to the discussion. One nit-wit on another board acquired the mistaken belief that I was black, and was forever after me for my whiney, entitlement mentality.

But actually, that one was almost fun. I had used an image of Eartha Kitt as my avie for awhile, and he thought it was a photo of me.

What woman wouldn't want to be mistaken for Eartha Kitt?

LOL.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

I am going to ignore your statement and instead make the argument that you violated the rules of debate by using the following logical fallacies. By the way, I won't discuss the ideas, I will merely tell you what logical fallacy you used in order to suggest I am smarter than you and that your points are invalid.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

I will prove to you that it's raining outside by showing you (or even just claiming) that most people on DP also believe it's raining outside.

Re: Post your political debate annoyances here...

Those with massive ego's who believe that their use of "logic" and "reason" is somehow far more important than actual facts and the historical record.

And then we have a special place in the Dante Hell for Debate for those who claim that "you cannot prove me wrong". No. And if you allege that there are three inch monkeys made of flame who play professional basketball underneath the surface of Uranus, I cannot disprove that either. But the burden of proof is still on you to show there is regardless of anyones inability to disprove their existence.