White House Drive by Shooting

Our perception of all propaganda being wrong is what is wrong. It is only relatively recently that the word "propaganda" has become so emotionally charged. And I disagree that you are not trying to link the shooter to "right wing propaganda" or that you are trying to have any meaningful discussion at all about what you perceive as "right wing propaganda" through comparing it in any meaningful way to "left wing propaganda." Your characterization of "right wing propaganda" as "bs" and as intentional attempts to " instill panic, fear, and hate among it's listeners" without making any similar judgments about the other side reveals your agenda. Show me evidence that either side is any more virulent than the other and I will believe you--but it has to be evidence from peer-reviewed journals and not from think tanks from either side. I personally feel that the ugliness espoused by the liberal media is far worse than that espoused by the conservative media, but that's my opinion. And seriously, Anderson Cooper? Since when has he *ever* been a journalist?

 

That pretty much sums it up. Compromise these days is spend more and tax less. On both sides, really, if you get past the rhetoric and look at the actual big compromises on the tax cuts, debt ceiling, govt shutdown, ect.

Look at our 'Debt Super Committee'. The 'best' and 'brightest' chosen to find what amounts to 150 billion dollars in savings a year. How hard is that really when the federal budget is around 3.5 trillion and we have 400 billion of annual, ever renewing, 'temporary' tax cuts? 150 billion in savings is actually peanuts when we have a debt of 15 trillion and an annual deficit of 1 trillion. Yet, our 'Super Committee' is going down to the wire and may completely fail.

I think we could lock Moen and David in a room with a copy of the federal budget and a copy of the tax code and they could find 150 billion dollars in well under a week, let alone a couple months.

 

Heck give me (or any ordinary citizen) a copy of the federal budget and a red pen and I'd have both sides crying like babies in a week. The problem has less to do with the budget than it does to do with the politicians' egos and their concerns for being re-elected.

 

And I would add...their fear of making the big money lobbyists angry.

 

Yeah, okay I gottcha. But two things. One, is that it wasn't just made up by some coordinating committee and sent down the ranks as the the official slogan apropos of nothing more than it sounded good and seemed to fit the bill. The idea of the One Percent vs the rest of us has been around and discussed for a good deal longer than OWS has been in existence. It was something that they adopted rather than created.

The other is that groups like this do tend to be all things to all those people who for one reason or several are opposed to or feel victimized under a certain status quo or political establishment. There are almost always a number of different grievances involved but only one general forum in which to give voice to them so a real or perceived lack of consistent focus goes with the territory.

 

Your angry because you think I'm attacking all Republicans, I'm not. You're taking my opinions personally, when what I'm arguing about is for the bs to stop... and since it's my opinion that the political commentary on FOX is the major violator, I targeted them... not you... them. Why you want to defend them is something you should think about. "Right-wing" and "left-wing" bs propaganda (you missed where I called left-wing bs propaganda... probably 'cause you were too angry to pay attention... so look again) comes from what I call the "no-compromise" corners of each Party. Those people are heavily involved in politics and try to shape information to make the other side look bad... and I don't like that. They are the voice that is heard, but only because they are the most obnoxious... and they don't necessarily represent the entirety of their Party either... though they certainly want the Party to follow them.

As far as me providing evidence that has been peer-reviewed... like who? Who would these peers be? Journalists? If so, I bet I could find it eventually... if I was interested in convincing you. IMHO, it's not worth the effort. It's my opinion, it's my belief, you can disagree all you want... just try to not take it so damn personally.

 

You think I'm angry because that suits your agenda, when the truth is that I typed that post with no more and no less emotion than I typed anything else. Regardless of whether I missed you refer to left wing bs propaganda (and I did), the fact remains that you have consistently attempted to paint the "right wing" as being the evil hate-mongers from which all horrible things emerge and have consistently attempted to paint the "left wing" as being the logical and affable "kindly uncles" from whom all good things are given.

As to the peer-reviewed journals, I would be happy to see research in journals of psychiatry/psychology, sociology, or politics. I'm sure that you'll find something if you look hard enough, if such research exists.

 

I have seen reports at least suggesting that conservatives are more generous than the liberals, more intelligent than the liberals and happier.

 

It's obvious here for sure!

 

Here's my agenda... for the slllloooowwwww ...I intend to call out the lies that the right-wing spreads to instill hate and fear in the gullible people who listen to 'em. If the left-wing tries to instill hate and fear into the gullible people who listen to them, I intend to call them out as well. And again... you believe I am calling all Republicans and Conservatives "right-wing"... I'm not. I've stated several times that I consider the right and left-wing people who engage in this type of propaganda as the "far-corners" of their Party... and they do not necessarily represent their respective parties.

So, ohhhhhh-sooooo-slllllowwwww-one... when you say I consider the "left wing" as "kindly uncles", when I have never said anything of the sort... ever... that's you attempting to villify me in your own mind... so that you can call any of my opinions or comment bs on that basis. Go ahead! By my *poof*ing guest! I intend continue to call out the lies that people on either side make... that I find the "right wing" lying far more often, and intentionally, to cause an unwarranted fear and hate against Obama, the Occupy Movement, Democrats, and Liberals in general is because the "right wing" does lie more often. Ignore it all you want, that's your choice, I'm not ever going to.

I intend to stay right where I am (somewhat left of center politically) and continue to judge everyone else as I see fit too... and I find you sllllloooowwwwwww.

I don't need "peer-reviewed' information. I'm not a journalist and I don't need someone else to tell me what's happened since I've already seen it. Now, I heard you write, so if that's your field then you can go fish for the information yourself.

 

That's fine. I don't live and die by your approval. That you had to resort to personal insult, though, reveals the weakness of your argument.

I'm sorry that you prefer to inform yourself on anecdotal evidence. I'm not a journalist, either, but I do consider myself a scholar (and a cracking good one, despite your labeling me "slow"). I think that if you are going to make the kind of statements that you have, then you need facts, not anecdotal evidence, to back it up. If you don't, then in my opinion you lose credibility. Just because you've seen something doesn't mean it's the same all over.

 

I really don't care if you, rlm, David, or Coin... or anyone else like-minded... does not find me credible. I'm not asking for credibility, I'm calling out liers. Now, since I'm certain you didn't understand the point: The reason you feel I call-out FOX commentors, and the "right-wing", far more often than the left-wing's commentors is because the "right-wing" lies far more often... and does so maliciously, with the intent of formenting an irrational fear and hatred against the Democrats, Liberals, or anything they bloody-well want to in their more gullible followers. Again, and in simpler terms, since I doubt that actually got through: I find that the right-wing lies more often. That's my opinion, and unless I see the right-wing lie less... or the left-wing lie more...I'm sticking with it. AGAIN: IF THE LEFT-WING LIES I HAVE NO PROBLEM CALLING THEM OUT TOO.

Now, I called you slow because you ignored what I was talking about... you were slow in that you didn't seem to understand what I was saying. I'm not the enemy here, I have only one bloody-motive: To call-out lies. The question is: Are you listening?

 

In your opinion.

 

Then try this: Type in "FOX apologizes" into your search engine (mine was Google).
I tried and found nearly 600,000 hits. I then tried "CNN apologizes" (CNN is what I watch) and got a bit over 100,000. I then tried "MSNBC apologizes" and had just over 50,000 hits.

Now, you and rlm (and other like-minded fools) may argue that just because FOX received more hits isn't an indication of guilt so much as an indication of how often they apologize... or maybe that more sites create more stories when FOX apologizes... there's your argument.

I, for one, have looked at all those possibilities and after applying the idea of 'what is more likely' have found FOX guilty. And I'm not the only one who believes that, I mean... it's not like this is 'breaking news' here... but then again, neither is the denials coming from FOX supporters. And for the record: FOX can do news without resorting to lying, I just believe they enjoy it too much to stop entirely. My proof there is in the searches I looked up... the type of lies they apologized for.

 

In your opinion.

 

How interesting. When I search "fox apologizes" (quotes included) I only get 13,700 and a lot of the are such as Fox sports, Megan Fox, Vicente Fox, etc. However, when I search "CNN apologizes" (again quotes included) I get 11,800 and there are no Megan CNN's.

 

I just got for
FOX apologizes About 3,130,000 results (0.17 seconds)

 

How interesting. I found 1,800 hits under the "fox apologizes" (quotes included), and 3,860 hits for "CNN apologizes" (quotes included)... so gee, CNN must be bad huh?

I notice you had to include the quotes... and have to wonder if you had tried without them. I also noticed you used small letters for "fox" and caps for "CNN"... purely insignificant, right?

Now, you either made an honest mistake, by including the quotes and using small letters for "FOX"... or you are trying to be cute. While your mother and select friends may think of you as 'cute'... I don't, even having never seen you I don't. However, I don't believe you're honest either... way too much evidence to the contrary for me to consider you that... so, my ugly adversary... what else could possibly be your motivation? Could it be you willfully misrepresenting information... again? Or are you trying to be cute? It really isn't working for you by the way. Or did you actually make an honest mistake?

Nah, you're guilty lol

 

All search engines I know of treat both small and capital letters the same although there are some that allow you to make your search case sensitive. Try it before you go off on a meaningless tantrum.

BTW, when I searched CNN I actually typed cnn.

 

"Denial is one of the most common defense mechanisms that we all use, pretending that an uncomfortable thing did not happen."

...so it's not that river in Egypt.

Accepting (in ourselves) that we tend to deny uncomfortable things is a quality that is difficult to learn but saves all of us from a lot of bs. Accept the truth about yourself, deal with it, and use it for your own good, as well as for others.