[shooz]

The right has more in common with Fascism and Naziism than with democracy.

To them anything that isn't, is communism. That's how they frame the opposition.

[redrockcoulee]

I think it's not so much the framing as what they are framing.
The Right sells fear. Nothing else.
Their concepts are framed in such a way as to make receptive minds afraid.
Then they set themselves up as the protectors, thereby drawing said receptive people to them.
It's sad though, how many people the right has, and continues to, hurt by needlessly selling fear to people as a means to an end.
All the Right cares about is being in authority, being in power, so that they can continue to sell their message of fear and continue to build a power base of people who are easily led.
Historically, it's what any of the many evil dictatorships we've seen throughout the years have done.
The right has more in common with Fascism and Naziism than with democracy.

Conservatism in the traditional way was a different approach to making society better and it could still be. The problem is that certain groups have hijacked the agenda for their own means and are using the above described means not only of governing but also controlling the right wing party. Think Peter Lougheed (he became premier the very first election I was able to vote and was so glad to get rid of the religious and even more right wing Social Credit (Mike they were and still are one of the most right wing party to ever governed a province even with the name Social in them same as National Socialist Party was right winged) Robert Standfield, Joe Clark and even Brian Mulronney who had more vision for this country than Chrietien ever did.

Fascism and Nazism are both extreme right wing doctrines same as Communism is one of the extreme left wing ones and hence your last statement is only partially ture in terms of where they all fit on the political spectrum but to lump all supporters or even all elected officials of the right wing parties as anti democracy is more than stretching the truth.

I just wished that those who strongly believe in conservatism would jump on those who are pushing their anti rights, anti poor and anti democracy agendas and throw them out on their ears, ignoring that these people who wrap themselves up in law and order, patarism and religion are not the least bit interested in either other people nor their country's best interest, they just want to make the country reflect what they think people should be allowed to do and think and not have any opposition to their crazier ideas. Seldom read Mikemike or JohnInIndy attacking these extremists who have taken over their ideolgical party and driving it to an extreme position that truely is harmful to most people and more importantly in my mind, to the environment in its widest definition (includes the attitudes of people as well as clean air water and a respect for others including wildlife and the homeless)

[mikemike]

There is no evidence of this bias. NONE. Yet you keep repeating it. Why?

Every media outlet has a bias, some are more straightforward about it than others and some try to conceal it but they all have a bias. For example fox has a conservative bias and MSNBC has a liberal bias. When you get down to print and radio you can read it and hear it too, but there is no point in disputing it or arguing about it. You can find it if you look for it. Same thing with judges and court decisions.

Besides ask mike, it was named by some liberal scientist.

If you are looking for someone who is anti-intellectual, you don't need to look further than a mirror. You seem to have a problem when anyone says anything smart or clever which doesn't fit into your own world view and try to criticize them for being smart, well studied, having a decent vocabulary, or being able to do math. You come across like someone who reviled at studying in high school and made fun of people for paying attention in school or actually going to college. How is that working out for you?

[shooz]

Every media outlet has a bias

Still no proof.

You come across like someone who reviled at studying in high school and made fun of people for paying attention in school or actually going to college. How is that working out for you?

Shallow attempt at an insult. Using a line created for Sarah Palin too.

Honestly mike. You have rejected everything that doesn't fit in your zeitgeist, even with proof galore, and then claim I'm anti-intellectual.
Talk about trying to control spin.

---

Last edited by shooz; 08-30-2011 at 11:20 AM.

[Nesster]

Lakoff:
"Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as
its highest value helping individuals who need help."

I am more or less a "Liberal" and I don't see it that way at all.

That's because you don't buy into the conservative re-definition of Liberal as having the redistribution of wealth as the highest calling.

Lakoff:
"It's a matter of asking 'What are the central ideas of progressive
thought from a moral perspective?' "

The best point he made - what are the underlying basic moral principles
that inform your political views?

We often go on and on about the minutiae of policy complete with data,
graphs and charts but never seem to express where we are coming from
morally in the first place.

Left or Right - what is the basic moral foundation that you believe
makes you a Liberal or a Conservative?

There is no correct answer just your answer.

Inquiring minds want to know.

I believe that classically the Liberal and Conservative political philosophies go back to Locke and Burke, and at base have differing views about human nature and what to do about it, in society.

Namely: we agree that the common people, and the uncivilized areas, are lazy, unproductive, prone to drugs, sex, rock and roll, etc. People steal, rob, rape, murder, beat each other up, cheat, drink, set fire to things, and so on.

Is this a fixed condition, one that cannot on the average be improved upon (i.e. humans are by nature prone to acting as above). Or is this something that can be improved upon (i.e. humans can learn to behave better)?

If human nature is fixed, then shouldn't society be set up with strong institutions - government, police and judiciary, church, etc - that are there to a) keep people in line and minimize the stealing etc and b) to safeguard that what is best about our civilization, those truths and memories that cannot be entrusted to the mob?

If human nature is changeable, then shouldn't social institutions aim to educate and improve conditions, so that the common human can a) be educated, cleaned up, and have values instilled and taught and b) by improving social conditions (environment) we can to a good degree overcome nature?

Liberalism has produced some very ugly, racist behaviors, e.g. the British colonial rule, and other 'civilizing' efforts by the White Man.

[redrockcoulee]

Every media outlet has a bias, some are more straightforward about it than others and some try to conceal it but they all have a bias. For example fox has a conservative bias and MSNBC has a liberal bias. When you get down to print and radio you can read it and hear it too, but there is no point in disputing it or arguing about it. You can find it if you look for it. Same thing with judges and court decisions.

I used to watch a fair amount of MSNBC as not much else to watch right after supper and that is the time period that our late dog and now are aging cat liked to just sit with us. Liberal bias on MSNBC? Yes but not once did I ever hear them call themselves a news station or that the evening programs had news coverage. They make it plain and clear both verbally and in text that they are left leaning and they are also pretty critical of your president as he is not.

Fox News on the other hand claims to be fair and balanced and a news channel but are neither. No one watchs MSNBC for news and their slogan is not Fair and Balance but are 1) Lean Forward and 2) About Politics. Therefore I do not think it is a fair or truthful comparision to compare Fox and MSNBC completely anymore than it would be to compare Fox and the Daily Show. Slants and Bias but different types of shows.

At one time I watched PBS Newshour and not sure why I do not anymore, it seems very fair and they certainly have their fair share of right of centre spokepeople with ample time to give their points of view.

AS far as court decisions when you elect judges one expects bias

[Jodokast96]

You have rejected everything that doesn't fit in your zeitgeist, even with proof galore, and then claim I'm anti-intellectual.

And that's not every post you make? Seriously, your about as batshit crazy as the most extreme Libertarian.

[mikemike]

Many judges are appointed or elected in non-partisan elections where they are not identified with any party on the ballot and cannot run under a party banner. With press, it is a very subtle clues like word choices (ie an article about unemployment benefits could either describe the program as welfare or a social safety net). Other clues are article length and prominence. For example, if you are reading an article on the latest sex scandal involving a member of congress some outlets will make that a front page headline with a color picture some will put it as a one paragraph blurb buried between advertisements. Some will identify the congressman as Willy Wonka or Willy Wonka from Loompa Land or Willy Wonka (Republican - Loompa Land) who ran on a family values platform in the last election depending on how the author or the editor's political allegiances lie.

Does that prove anything? No
Does that give the audience an impression about which way the publication leans? Yes

[shooz]

And that's not every post you make? Seriously, your about as batshit crazy as the most extreme Libertarian.

Prove it.

[mikemike]

Prove it.

Prove me wrong - Encyclopedia Dramatica

[Parallax]

Let's tone down the personal stuff, guys. I don't want to close another thread for it.

[redrockcoulee]

Many judges are appointed or elected in non-partisan elections where they are not identified with any party on the ballot and cannot run under a party banner. With press, it is a very subtle clues like word choices (ie an article about unemployment benefits could either describe the program as welfare or a social safety net). Other clues are article length and prominence. For example, if you are reading an article on the latest sex scandal involving a member of congress some outlets will make that a front page headline with a color picture some will put it as a one paragraph blurb buried between advertisements. Some will identify the congressman as Willy Wonka or Willy Wonka from Loompa Land or Willy Wonka (Republican - Loompa Land) who ran on a family values platform in the last election depending on how the author or the editor's political allegiances lie.

Does that prove anything? No
Does that give the audience an impression about which way the publication leans? Yes

Actually the bit about unemployment (we now call it employment insurance) insurance it would be part of a saftey net if they are collecting their insurance , it is not welfare as premiums were paid in same as crop insurance, mortgage insurance , theft insurance on your Pentax.

And there is difference in scandals depending on what a person stands for. Some one who runs on family values and yet has affairs or beats his dog is a bigger story than some one who never mentioned it. Some one who runs on an anti gay agenda turns up having a same sex affair is news whereas some one who runs on a pro gay agenda and does the same may not be news at all. Why is every time that Al Gore and the environment is mentioned the number of light bulbs his house has is mentioned but the same does not hold true for Glenn Beck or Dick Cheney, because even with spin there is no connection.

A Study years ago I think in Canada but in might of been in the UK did question the focus group and those who supported one party thought the story was too harsh on their party and too easy on the other party and yet with the same story those supporting the second party thougth the identical thing. In other words the precieved bias agaist was against what they supported regardless of what they supported. This is what I suspect is happening in most of your media, you see a liberal bias because subconsiously you expect all articles to promote your conservative views and to find fault with the liberals and their views and if they don't then it is a bias article. Fox News and MSNBC would be obvous exceptions as they have deliberate biases.

My experience in watching and reading Canadian media and to a lesser extent American ones is that scandals are scandals and sell papers, TV ads etc and an outlet that does not cover it is not a media outlet in my mind. And again if some one for example was running on gutting the entire social saftey net and then it was found out that he or she was collecting from it that would be story however if they person was collecting benefits and stayed quiet on the issue at the political level than there is no story. That is not bias that is news

[newarts]

It is easier for conservatives to frame their message because it is a simple one opposed to change, compared to liberals or progressives who propose changes even though they might not work (hence are harder to defend)..

[shooz]

Hmmmm, the conservative policies were a miserable failure, yet they refuse to change.
They just change the language. They offer nothing new.

[shooz]

Let's tone down the personal stuff, guys. I don't want to close another thread for it.

Unsubstantiated Insults from part time posting conservatives don't bother me.
So don't close it on my account.