To me, they feel a little more responsible than democrats.
This is the key strength of the Republicans; they're the party of feels. You don't need facts when you have feels. If facts contradict your feels, the facts must be wrong, or irrelevant or a trap or biased or something.
Funny, I could say the same thing about the democrats.
You could say that but we'll all refer to copious references, citations, data, studies, charts, graphs, historical facts, and then laugh at you.
Well if Bill Clinton balanced the budget I don't have a distinction, considering I lump him in with "today's democrats."
You seriously didn't know that there was a surplus for several years under Clinton?
I WAS TWO when he was first elected.
Part of being qualified to participate in political discussions (or frankly, vote in elections) is making yourself informed of the recent history of your own fucking country, to put it mildly.
To me, they feel a little more responsible than democrats.
This is the key strength of the Republicans; they're the party of feels. You don't need facts when you have feels. If facts contradict your feels, the facts must be wrong, or irrelevant or a trap or biased or something.
Funny, I could say the same thing about the democrats.
You could, but in my experience it's not as true. Look at which news media outlets represent the various sides, as an example. On the Republican side you have Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They are all very emotion-driven, with anger and fear being primary motivators.
On the Democrat side, you have MSNBC and NPR. MSNBC does have a bit of fear and anger, but a lot more cold, calculated analysis than the Republican side of things. NPR is so dry and emotionless that it might as well be Wheaties.
To me, they feel a little more responsible than democrats.
This is the key strength of the Republicans; they're the party of feels. You don't need facts when you have feels. If facts contradict your feels, the facts must be wrong, or irrelevant or a trap or biased or something.
Funny, I could say the same thing about the democrats.
when, in the last 20 years, have the facts been on the Republican's side when they didn't pertain to Clinton's dick?
Well if Bill Clinton balanced the budget I don't have a distinction, considering I lump him in with "today's democrats."
You seriously didn't know that there was a surplus for several years under Clinton?
I WAS TWO when he was first elected.
Part of being qualified to participate in political discussions (or frankly, vote in elections) is making yourself informed of the recent history of your own fucking country, to put it mildly.
Oh, but recorded history has a liberal bias; didn't you know?
*facepalm*. Nevermind, you'd dismiss any evidence I present anyway because it'd be from a partisan source.
I think you have our undivided attention right now. Well, as undivided as it can get. I'm doing about 3 other things at once. You should share your sources anyway, I'd be curious to know what they are. We would only dismiss them if they're provably wrong. Unfortunately, partisan sources like Fox News, the Washington Post, or DailyKOS tend to be full of shit more often than not.
I actually just now realized that Jack-O-Lantern = Jack124. Seriously.
Damn muppet I even posted in Random Comments about changing my name.
I will tell you all right now it will be Rush Limbaugh, and you'll tell me he's a Hack. I know how this will go.
Rush Limbaugh is a hack, it's because none of his arguments stand up to any sort of intense scrutiny. Go ahead and pick one, I'd be happy to deconstruct it in detail. Unless it's something like "The sky is blue.".
I actually just now realized that Jack-O-Lantern = Jack124. Seriously.
Damn muppet I even posted in Random Comments about changing my name.
I will tell you all right now it will be Rush Limbaugh, and you'll tell me he's a Hack. I know how this will go.
Rush Limbaugh is a hack, it's because none of his arguments stand up to any sort of intense scrutiny. Go ahead and pick one, I'd be happy to deconstruct it in detail. Unless it's something like "The sky is blue.".
Not even that, knowing this place there would be a huge philosophical discussion on the subjectiveness of colour.
I actually just now realized that Jack-O-Lantern = Jack124. Seriously.
Damn muppet I even posted in Random Comments about changing my name.
I will tell you all right now it will be Rush Limbaugh, and you'll tell me he's a Hack. I know how this will go.
Rush Limbaugh is a hack, it's because none of his arguments stand up to any sort of intense scrutiny. Go ahead and pick one, I'd be happy to deconstruct it in detail. Unless it's something like "The sky is blue.".
Not even that, knowing this place there would be a huge philosophical discussion on the subjectiveness of colour.
If Rush is your source you will fail. If Rush is your source seek out his source and read. Then seek out a source covering the same thing that holds an opposite viewpoint. Look truth somewhere in the middle.
Now find more sources.
NPR is generally a good source of information. Some of the regional shows are less good. Once you listen to a particular host long enough you will figure out their bias and properly filter what they say.
You will also begin to see that the bias in the media is not always political, sometimes it is financial or the angle you are looking for is so niche no one is covering it. Bias is only worth mentioning when it is egregious.
For example you might think it biased reporting when a scandal is not covered as deeply as you would like. If the source only covers some scandals and not others their may be bias. It might be political or it could be that they only deeply cover scandals that sell easily. Calling out someone for sleeping around is easy and gets eyeballs. Trying to explain complex scandals involving shit people don't care about? Not so much.
Rush is fine so long as his own evidence and rationale stands up to rational inquiry.
Rush is not fine because he is selective in which facts he uses as evidence. His bias is not just political but also of the omission type. A type I consider egregious.
Rush is fine so long as his own evidence and rationale stands up to rational inquiry.
Rush is not fine because he is selective in which facts he uses as evidence. His bias is not just political but also of the omission type. A type I consider egregious.
No, he is fine, because his arguments can be deconstructed on their own merits as being stupid.
Comments
Wow I got ninja'd pretty bad there.
On the Democrat side, you have MSNBC and NPR. MSNBC does have a bit of fear and anger, but a lot more cold, calculated analysis than the Republican side of things. NPR is so dry and emotionless that it might as well be Wheaties.
Edit: and I'm still at work.
I will tell you all right now it will be Rush Limbaugh, and you'll tell me he's a Hack. I know how this will go.
Note: I will not be gentle.
Now find more sources.
NPR is generally a good source of information. Some of the regional shows are less good. Once you listen to a particular host long enough you will figure out their bias and properly filter what they say.
You will also begin to see that the bias in the media is not always political, sometimes it is financial or the angle you are looking for is so niche no one is covering it. Bias is only worth mentioning when it is egregious.
For example you might think it biased reporting when a scandal is not covered as deeply as you would like. If the source only covers some scandals and not others their may be bias. It might be political or it could be that they only deeply cover scandals that sell easily. Calling out someone for sleeping around is easy and gets eyeballs. Trying to explain complex scandals involving shit people don't care about? Not so much.
Edit:I'm colourblind too btw.
EDIT: It's somewhat amusing that SquadronROE and Drunken Butler used the spelling "colourblind", but I used the spelling "color".