![74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power](http://ag.christianbook.com/g/tiny/7/74325.gif "74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power")
Another Example of Liberal Hypocrisy
Liberals are hypocrites. There is literally not enough time in my day to recount all the times that Leftists have cried foul when something is done by conservatives… and then try to use sleight of hand in order to get you, the good and honest American, to forget when they do it themselves.
Take THIS recent revelation made public by FoxNews. A contributor to various and multiple liberal campaigns is awarded a highly lucrative contract… in a no-bid process.
How’s that for a sweetheart of a deal!
Ben – Give. Me. A. Freaking. Break. POLITICIANS are hypocrites. I could literally write a 2000 page novel full of conservative hypocrisy: Starting with your hero Rush not wanting anyone to use drugs but himself (in fact, the first five chapters can be about Rush’s hypocrisy alone), use all the conservative politicians and clergy men with their GAY sex scandals as filler among other things, and ending with when and when-not conservatives think recklessly spending goo-gobs of money is acceptable. The answer: when one POTUS.
Oh, I’m not limiting the discussion to moral failures. But the irony is that the liberal, relativistic, mindset really has no room for a sense of moral failure because such implies a moral standard. And liberals’ only standard is power.
No, I’m talking about anything and everything. When a conservative screws up – or doesn’t screw up, but still does something unpopular – the Left lambasts them. But when THEY do it, oh no… people on the right are just HATEFUL to bring it up. No, the people on the left are the biggest hypocrites, and they have an elitist double standard.
Speaking of liberals and their hypocrisy… I’m sure a guy like you has it chronicled… can you name what Republican POTUS in the 20th Century, while filling that office, engaged in power hungry extramarital affairs? I’m having a hard time recalling that. But, on the other hand, all of the “BIG HEROES” of the Left were loose. But of course, since they’re on your side… it doesn’t matter, does it? Speaking of double standards, which party has a member who for years was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan? Oh, yeah, we’re supposed to forget that. On and on, page after page.
From Rosie O’Donnell using her public pulpit to lambast gun owners (while employing armed guards!) to Reid getting a pass… the Left – not just those in political office – live in a world where they get exemption from the rules and they get to do what they want while they impose their agenda on us little people. No, the left is evil. Evil. And they want to rule you. You and your liberties are a threat to them.
You’re right. The right doesn’t lambaste the left at all for what they do or do not do. It’s only the left. I hope you’re sensing my sarcasm, as I’m laying it on pretty thick.
I’m not sure what Clinton’s affair had to do with hypocrisy, or how a President getting… pleasured… by a fat GIRL is a grab for power, so I’ll move on to the KKK. Does the name David Duke ring a bell? No? How about Ted Poe? Reid said President Obama was a well spoken Negro and the right was in an uproar. Were you, and your colleagues, that furious when Rush sang “Barrack the Magic Negro?” I bet not. In fact you probably had a good chuckle. Have you seen some of the signs at the tea party rallies? Have you seen the founder of the tea party movement? (http://64.13.129.136/pics/up-NAMILGKUORA9KN3L)I don’t think that most republicans are racist, but I do think that most racists vote republican.
And liberals’ only standard is POWER? What? My questions are these: Why do republicans, most of whom are middle or lower class, fight so hard to protect the ULTRA rich? And why do you classify intelligence as elitism? You rally around MISCREANTS like Bush and Palin! Why? As dumb as they are, they don’t understand you or your ails. In fact, they don’t care. So why?
Just a few examples of liberal brainwashing from your post to prove my point:
1. David Duke. Ah yes, thanks for making my point. See, he was a Republican and he got BLASTED out of the water by the folks on the left. BUT… lets not talk about their Byrd. Oh, no! He’s different! That’s the point I’m making.
2. “Barack the Magic Negro.” You repeatedly put your ignorance out on display regarding this. If you know the origin of that phrase, you’d know why the song is considered satire rather than racism. But no, you can’t have that.
3. “A President getting… pleasured… by a fat GIRL is a grab for power.” Get the liberal mush out from between your ears, bub. I wasn’t JUST talking about Clinton (because he had more than one…), I was refering to such liberal stalwarts as FDR and JFK. Who, even now, their transgressions are all but laughed at by those on the Left. And it wasn’t a grab for power. It was a demonstration of their power having given them arrogance that they can have whatever and whomever they want without recourse. And you leftists are such bigots… calling people “fat?” My my my.
Baxter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Bub, you’re just talking to talk now (or typing to type). David Duke was one of three examples racist republicans, and you’re still stuck on Byrd. Their is no difference between dirt bags like Byrd and Duke. Don’t sit there and try to pretend, however, that the left still embrace the likes of Byrd simply for the fact that he is a liberal.
More black Americans took offense to “Barrack the Magic Negro” than they did with Reid saying that President Obama is a well spoken, light skinned Negro. Heck, Reid is the man who first encouraged Obama to even RUN for President! So that’s not ignorance, that’s just fact. But since you are not a member of the black community, coupled with the fact that you’re a staunch, Rush parroting republican, it’s easy to see why you don’t get that.
And I’m not even gonna honor your last paragraph with an in depth response. I’ll just say that some men cheat on their wives. At least us libs do it with WOMEN!
Rev Nev Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Since you obviously weren’t going to look up the “Magic Negro” reference: Check the date on this piece from the LA Times.
“But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro.”
Rush didn’t invent the idea. He just made fun of the idea that Obama was the “Magic Negro” who could save everyone.
Ugh. I feel bad for giving it to you. You must learn to investigate for yourself.
Baxter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Look, RevNev. Black Americans didn’t and don’t care about the origins of the term “Magic Negro”. Stuff like that I’m not going to waste my time investigating where it came from or who first coined the phrase. The simple idea of a “Magic Negro” is offensive to most black Americans by itself. What, are all black people trying to make a difference in America “Magic Negro’s”? It’s a stupid term!
Rev Nev Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:32 PM
You obviously do care about it. You called it offensive. You should be offended at the way the left uses race to manipulate you into supporting Democrat candidates. But you won’t be because you don’t think it matters. It’s like I always told you: words have meanings and those meanings matter.
Baxter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:39 PM
You’re right. I don’t care. I just said I don’t care. Neither do any other black Americans.
And the right does’nt use race for manipulation? Really? Do you think if McCain won Micheal Steel would be in the position he’s in now? No he would not. The reason I can say this with certainty is because republicans are already tired of him!
Ben Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 4:44 AM
RevNev,
You should n’t have given it to him. He is a typical leftist and watching him parade his ignorance is illustrative…
Yet again I find an example of the Left’s hypocrisy: They love to label those on the right as being racist and bigoted, etc…. but what do they do? They’re the ones always playing the race card. For example, a black journalist writes an article essentially implying that white people are racists and that because Obama was “not very black” he provides white people with an opportunity to soothe their aching consciences. How’s that for racist and judgemental – that he would just smear the majority group in the US.
Ben Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 4:49 AM
Fact: The left made Duke’s past (among others) portrayed as unpardonable, he couldn’t have changed, his policies don’t matter because of his heinous past, etc…. while not holding their own to the same standard of unforgivability. That’s the double standard I’m talking about. Of course, you’re a part of it, so you refuse to see he hypocrisy.
Because you’re blind.
Baxter Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 9:56 AM
On the contrary, Ben. I see very clearly. And I see that you have no point so I’ve proved nothing on your behalf. And I also see that, once again, you are being willfully dense for the sake of debate.
In my last few posts I have repeatedly acknowledged that hypocrisy comes from the left. I actually wrote “There is no difference between dirt bags like Byrd and Duke.” And you respond with nonsense like “But the left IS hypocrisy”, or, “but the right gets nailed for it while the left gets a pass”. How can you say something like that with a straight face after providing a link to an article nailing President Obama’s hypocrisy? That doesn’t even make sense. I’ll give you this: you’re right concerning Byrd. Democrats should have thrown him in front of the bus and let it drag him underneath, as far as I’m concerned. Let me say this plainly: Robert Byrd is a racist jerk and I can’t stand him and wish he were never born. He gets no pardons from me. Is that clear?
With that being said, you say that the left made Dukes’ past unpardonable. So why didn’t the right do the same thing with Byrd that the left did with Duke? If they really had a problem with Byrd and his racist past, why not make a big deal about it and demand that he step down?
And since we are on the subject of racists in America, answer this: Who on Fox News condemned the idiots at the Tea Party rallies parading posters of our POTUS dressed like an African Bushman with a bone through his nose. Who on Fox has interviewed Dale Robertson, the tea party leader toting a sign dropping the “N- Bomb” referring to President Obama? Yes, there are racists on both sides. But as an independent, I’m not going to start leaning right because there are a hand full racist democrats. I don’t lean left because I feel like democrats are more racially sensitive than the right.
The left is not hypocrisy: HUMANITY is hypocrisy.
Most important graph of the article from Fox News:
“I think the administration should explain what the decision was based on, and why a no-bid contract was given in this case, particularly given that Mr. Obama came in on a pledge of ‘no more no-bid contracts,’” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.”
Exactly! Obama came in promising to have the most transparent administration ever. He even claims to have accomplished it in interviews which can only mean one of two things: either he is deluded and delusional or lying bold-faced to the American people. Stories like this come out and prove what a farce his claims are. If he has any integrity, he will call for a special investigator to look into this decision. But don’t hold your breath.
Baxter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:33 PM
You know, W… bah! Why bother. You’ll remember what you want to and make up the rest.
“9/11 didn’t happen under Bush’s watch.” Give me a break!
Rev Nev Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:36 PM
It’s like you’re frothing at the mouth now. What’s this about?
Baxter Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Sorry. It’s just irritating to hear stuff like “liberals are hypocrits”, and then when I point out conservative hypocrisy it’s like “well that’s okay because of this or that”. Or, “stuff like that doesn’t matter to you though because he’s on your team”, but the stuff I point out doesn’t matter to you guys because the guys are on your team. But I’m a hypocrite for no reason other than I’m a liberal?
Rev Nev Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:55 PM
Understandable, Baxter. It’s true there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle. That’s one reason the “culture of corruption” label stuck to the Republicans in 2006. But if you’re going to demonize your opponent and claim the moral high ground, you ought to at least try to live there before you sink to such depths. Sometimes people think I criticize BO for merely being a Democrat. In reality, he has lived up to precious few of his promises and that deserves to be called out. The left-wing media won’t do it. Can you truly say you are pleased with the deals approved by BO in the last month?
But the left IS hypocrisy. There are hypocrites on the right, but the point that Baxter refuses to see is that the right gets nailed for it, while the left gets a pass.
The left is fueled by and driven by a deep sense of being able to do what it wants. At every level they are hypocrites.
Baxter: My point stands… when someone on the Right does something “objectionable”, there’s fire and commotion. When Someone on the Left does it… nothing. When the Republican Sen Majority Leader says something racist, he has to resign. When the Dem Sen Majority Leader does the same… nothing.
Leftists are a joke.
Baxter Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Well, Ben, while I find your point of view to be warped and silly, I’ll defend to the death your right to have it.
Ben Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Baxter –
I thank you for your willingness to die for my right to hold and promote a view that you believe to be warped and silly.
I must say, however, that given the Leftist propensity towards squelching opposing views – whether it be by shunning and refusing tenure in the academy, by simply not reporting news in the media, even trying to impose legislation to make it too expensive for radio stations to broadcast conservative talk radio – given that Leftist propensity, I must say that this is awful conservative sounding of you!
See, you’re not ALL liberal! To employ a Star Wars analogy… You’re not like the Emperor. He’s gone. You’re kind of like Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi… he’s evil, but down inside there remained a bit of his old decent self. Well, you’re liberal… but deep down inside there’s a bit of conservative still residing. We’ve got to bring him out and make him the dominant part of your personality and thinking!
vitamin k Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 6:02 PM
“My point stands… when someone on the Right does something “objectionable”, there’s fire and commotion. When Someone on the Left does it… nothing. When the Republican Sen Majority Leader says something racist, he has to resign. When the Dem Sen Majority Leader does the same… nothing.”
i find this incredibly hard to believe, and i think it’s because some key stuff is left out. when someone on the left does something objectionable, no one does anything? you mean to tell me that people on the right just grin and bear it, they don’t call attention to the thing? they don’t point out the flaw of the other party? we KNOW this isn’t the case. further, it seems like you’re telling me that when someone on the right does something objectionable, then people on the right call out their own, pull them though the ringer, hold them accountable for their stupidity.
now, that’s just b.s. it’s modern politics to call out the follies of your rival and overlook the follies of your own. in fact, it’s more than modern politics, it’s life in general. we even have a term for it – the self-serving bias. it is the tendency to attribute positive outcomes to qualities within oneself or to one’s own actions and to attribute negative outcomes to external forces. conversely, when observing others, there is a tendency to attribute positive outcomes of others externally and to attribute negative outcomes of others to internal qualities.
anyways, the point being that when the left (or the right) makes a mistake, it’s not attributed to the fault of one of its own, but external forces, if the folly is acknowledged at all. but the other side will be quick to point out the fault, because that’s really the only way it can be seen, according to the self-serving bias.
the only problem with that, eric, is that you’ve been bashing obama since the day after election day. he wasn’t even in office to deliver or fail on any of his campaign promises.
maybe it’s not because he’s democrat, but because he’s liberal, or perhaps some other unbeknownst reason. but it can’t entirely be for failure to deliver on campaign promises within your preferred time frame. plus, man, let’s be real for a second – you’ve got to be at least a little happy about his lack of delivery, since i know you weren’t all for many of said promises to begin with.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 8:41 PM
True, I did criticize Obama from even before he was elected and it was for his liberal policies. Some things never change.
However, there are some pledges, like transparency in government that BO made because he knew they played well with everyone. These were the first to go. Everyone should be upset by that no matter your political stripe.
i don’t even know why i’m chiming in here. maybe because i’m bored, maybe because i’m peaved, and maybe it’s because this he said/she said/so-and-so did this or that is making my head spin. i really wish i could post some magic words that would make everyone open their eyes, but the fact is, no one will change their minds here, thus it’s pointless to try. the only mind i can change is my own, and to do so, i must ask some questions.
first, what is leftist and rightist. i’ve read all these posts, and i’ve even seen eric spew what he calls conservative, rightist principles all over his facebook page and this site, but what IS conservatism, what IS republican, what IS the right? conversely, what the heck is liberalism? the leftists? democrats?
the first rule of argumentation is to clearly define your terms. since esoteric terms such as the ones mentioned above resist any clear definition, then it makes little sense to use them as a foundation for any kind of argument.
another thing that confuses me – ben, you assert that the left is hypocrisy (which is a statement that makes very little sense, if at all), but that the right has hypocrites. so does that mean that people on the right that are hypocrites are really just spies for the left? i just don’t understand, really, how you can insist that such a position is viable. so when baxter says your opinion is warped, this, i believe is what he means. you don’t clearly make your point whatsoever. maybe you do to people who already agree with you, but to anyone else, it really is just nonsense.
you want a good example of real hypocrisy? here ya go – insisting that people that don’t agree with you are ignorant. sure they may be ignorant of your position, but that’s because it’s ridiculous to many people. they are well aware of what you think, and don’t agree with it. and contrary to your elitist belief, they have good reason to disagree. but you have to label them ignorant so you don’t have to consider their position, no matter how reasonable it is. doing so allows you to ignore inconvenient arguments and facts. that, my friend, is true ignorance.
but, back to my point. you all use these words so confidently, surely you can tell me what they mean. both ben and eric know me personally. i s’pose they might be called liberal, perhaps leftist, i don’t know. i’m certainly not religious, so i guess that excludes me from the right. i’m also registered democrat. so, then, fellas. tell me a little bit about myself. tell me what i believe. tell me how i AM hypocrisy. more importantly, tell me what the conservative right actually is (can there be a conservative left?), and tell me why it has the claim to the moral high ground.
lastly, i feel compelled to dispel the notion of liberal media. i don’t know where this term became popularized, but it’s complete bupkis. there have been countless studies done that almost unanimously indicate that most journalist are, in fact, liberal. but a major study done by the group ‘fairness and accuracy in reporting’ in conjunction with virginia commonwealth university concluded that most journalists, while being liberal on social issues almost always lean substantially to left of the general public on issues regarding foreign policy, economics, health care, and labor.
further, the sources on which these journalists rely for foreign and economic policy issues nearly disregarding consumer groups and john q public. bottom line, when it come to sources of information, liberal bias just doesn’t exist, regardless of the personal views of the journalist.
interesting how a thread pointing bashing hypocrisy is so full of contradictions, the biggest of which being its mere existence.
Ben Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 8:02 PM
vitamin k –
I’m only going to respond to this last post because by the time I got through it I was laughing pretty hard. Thank you for putting liberal pseudo-intellectualism on display.
Your comments about trying to dispel the notion of liberal media. Read what you wrote. Carefully. HA HA HA!!! I don’t have to say anything else. HA HA HA!!!
When I say that liberalism IS hypocrisy and then agree that conservatives can be guilty of hypocrisy, what I mean is that while that vice can be found outside of leftist circles, it is a fundamental characteristic of the liberal worldview.
Oh, and you say that you know me personally? Really? I believe in keeping my friends close and my enemies closer, but either way, I don’t think I know you…
vitamin k Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 5:14 AM
well, ben, i will admit that i did make a typo, i typed left of the public when i meant right. i think anyone who approaches the conversation with a genuine willingness to understand would have immediately seen that typo and read it for what it was. s’pose that would be expecting too much being as you chose to laugh at and belittle someone who was willing enough to try and understand your perspective to not only read your post, but to register with the site and attempt to engage in a meaningful conversation about it. probably because you’re not confident enough in your own rationale to defend it reasonably. no doubt you’re full of self confidence (read arrogance), but i’m not convinced you fully understand what it is you’re saying. i hope you can prove me wrong. i had always thought better of you.
since you seem bent on technicalities, i never said i knew you personally, i said you knew me. and you do, lest you forget the years in youth group we spent together and the national retreat we went to. i even recall you challenging kay’s dad’s assertions on masturbation, insisting that one could masturbate while thinking of a flower and it wouldn’t technically be lusting.
since you are not a liberal (i’m assuming), it is pretty elitist to insist that you know the fundamentals of a liberal world view. fact is, the best you can do from you conservative podium is project your own misconceptions about what it is to think liberally. it may seem that liberals are hypocrites, but in reality, most liberals don’t adhere to a dogmatic way of thinking which allows for some fluidity in belief. depending on the particular slant you wish to put on that ability, it can be seen as weak, perhaps even hypocritical, particularly by one with such obvious detest for opposing viewpoints, but those that support the liberal mindset think of it as being adaptable. truth be told, i really don’t trouble myself with labels that result in such antagonistic polarization. i prefer to look at people as people rather than try to fit them into predefined categories that don’t actually exist, save for the lines that needlessly get drawn between people. pretty christian thinking for a non-christian, really. more christian than most christians, sadly.
anyways, pretty classic move for people coming from the right to ignore the actual content of an argument and degrade it as pseudo-intellectual. what is pseudo-intellectual is how carefully you dance around a pretty straightforward question, choosing to attack the person rather than touch the logic. is defining your position so much of a challenge that you have to resort to pseudo-intimidation?
so, ben, i ask you again, since you seem to know so much about what is to be liberal or conservative, left or right. please, enlighten me, because i really don’t know, and i would love to be able to really understand what it is you are trying to say. so, are you going to attempt a rational answer, or will you hide your lack of any real knowledge on the subject at hand behind your belittling, napoleonic personality?
Ben Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 6:31 AM
vitamin k –
I reject the liberal drivel that to understand a view you have to hold it. Or, stated differently, that if you call yourself something then you automatically get to define the larger body to which you describe with the effect being that we create our own meaning.
No, I know far more about Roman Catholic dogma, practice, and the theology of their symbolism than virtually every Catholic I know – including many priests. I know far more about Judaism than most Jews. I know far more about Islam than most Muslims. Indeed, I know more about liberalism than most liberals. Now, I’m certain that everything I’ve just written will strike you as arrogant – but the arrogance of liberalism is to claim private knowledge that cannot be truly learned or shared with another. If you read about something and study something from all the angles… trust me, you can get a thorough knowledge of it.
There are plenty of places you can go on the web if you don’t know what “left,” “right,” “liberal,” or “conservative” means. Do your own homework.
vitamin k Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 1:59 PM
no, ben, i’m not going to go to the web and search for definitions of things. that burden is on you to tell me how you’re using those terms if you wish to be understood. webster’s and what-not will tell me nothing about what you mean when you throw those labels around. and me looking it up misses the entire point of the exercise, which is to point out that these categories may exist rhetorically, but in the real world, they don’t. you will never see a dictionary case of a liberal in the real world. people are much more complex than that. what you’re proving to me here is that you truly don’t know what you’re talking about or you don’t care enough about your potential audience to be sure you’re understood. truth is, you want people to understand you more than people want to try and make sense of your views, otherwise you wouldn’t be writing for the web in the first place. so the burden of clarity is on you. but if you don’t care, then your readers certainly won’t either.
and as far your body of knowledge on the catholic church, i don’t doubt that you know more about their dogma than the average practicing catholic, especially since i believe it’s your area of study (i could be wrong). but i would say that even though you know more of the dogma as it is written, but when it comes to practice, you just can’t know more than someone who practices it regularly. that is just common sense, and it’s kind of arrogant to say to say that you know more about someone’s practice than the practitioner themselves.
as far as liberalism goes, i’m sure you do know a thing or two about what liberals think, but i’m willing to bet it comes more from an opposition perspective. by that i mean, you are conservative, basically the antithesis of liberal, so it’s easy to define liberalism in relation to its polar opposite. and since you probably know conservatism pretty well, it makes sense that would be more familiar with liberal rhetoric than the average self-proclaimed liberal. however, to suggest that you know more about the practice of liberalism because you’ve read a few books is pretty damn naive.
so yes, you can have an academic knowledge of certain perspectives, but if you do not share that perspective, the best you can do is project your own assertions onto the -ism rather than speak from it.
your attitude reminds me of many doctors i’ve met along the way that insist that they know more about cystic fibrosis than i do. which to some degree might be true. they would know more about the mechanisms and effects of cf, but to insist that they have any inkling of what it is like to live with the disease, how it feels, and how it affects your decisions is total arrogance. the best they can do is speculate on how i might feel, how i might react. your argument on liberalism is the exact same thing. no matter how much you study, read, and observe liberalism, any attempt to use that knowledge to insist that you know better how a practicing liberal will respond, react, or feel about a given subject immediately shuts you off from any meaningful understanding of one’s perspective. it will always be little more than your take on someone’s thoughts. to insist that you know more about someone than they do is pretty inconsiderate at the very least. but i know that actually trying to understand people as opposed to label them isn’t your strong suit. you’d much prefer to talk than listen, which is why this is going nowhere, and i’d venture to say you’ll find it difficult to be successful at convincing anyone of anything more than your disregard for others.
it is polite to answer questions when they’re asked. i mean, it’s just the personable thing to do. instead you basically tell me buzz off, which seriously undermines anything of value you might have to say, no matter how true it may be.
it’s pretty clear that your aim with your writing is not to educate, not enlighten, not to engage, but to belittle, badger, and judge. i, for one, don’t fancy talking to brick walls, much less read anything they might have to say. some key components to communication is to listen, to recognize that the person with whom your are communicating is equally as relevant as you are, and their position deserves to be considered. further, a rational human being would recognize that people have their own areas of expertise that should be respected on some level. so far you’ve shown no quality that makes you worth engaging with, especially since you refuse to acknowledge any valid point i may have or respond to straightforward questions. which, i’m sure you would say that i have no valid points because i’m liberal, and since you already know everything there is to know about where i’ve been, what i believe, and how i live and think, i guess we have nothing more to talk about. not that we were ever talking in the first place. talking requires listening and engaging someone on a common ground, which you refuse to grant me. i’m forced to leave this…whatever it is…with the belief that you don’t really know squat and just love to judge and complain. good luck with that, and good riddance, “friend.”
Rev Nev Reply:
January 26th, 2010 at 8:46 PM
Kev – Studies by the media on the media for the media are hardly credible. If you think there is no media bias after 2008 you are a hopeless cause.
More recently, take the Acorn scandal. The “mainstream media” didn’t touch it for days after it was clear Acorn employees were unwilling to throw out a guy obviously dress as a pimp who claimed he was setting up a brothel with children from South America. Why not? Because Acorn is closely tied to Obama who they support.
not sure where you got the idea that this was a study on the media for the media by the media. FAIR is a media watchdog group, not a mediated entity. their overall goal is to break up large media conglomerates, so i can hardly call this organization as being “for the media” either.
so whether you agree with their findings or not, the organization and its study are credible.
further, i never said there was no media bias. of course there is, but the generalization of the media as liberal is a false notion. most television and advertising along with a handful of news outlets are conservative in nature. certainly plenty of content is blatantly slanted towards liberalism, but that hardly justifies the claim that the media are liberal.
in fact, hollywood film industry from the 1930s into the 60s was dominated by the hays code which regulated the kinds of things that could be depicted in film. this code was created and enforced largely by the catholic church and reflected its principles censoring anything that they perceived to be a threat to catholic ideology. this resulted in marginalized representations of non-catholic perspectives.
it is the now defunct hays code that largely informed the fcc in determining what was appropriate for radio and television programming, including newscasts. of course, modern media bears little resemblance to media of yesteryear, but the basic tenets of what is appropriate for family viewing is still largely steeped in this traditionally conservative value system, with liberal programming being dubbed progressive by liberals and digressive(?) by conservative.
the point being that historically speaking, media has been highly conservative. the pendulum might be swinging the other way in the modern day, but conservative ideology is still prominent much of the programming today.
lastly, i don’t know much about the acorn scandal, but it’s not in the least surprising. actually, what would be surprising is if that stuff never happened. although i have no examples of such happening on the conservative end (mostly because these aren’t the things im looking for, i’m more of a content analysis person), i’m certain they exist. different media outlets have aligned themselves with different ideological perspectives and will seek to protect them.
not really sure what 2008 has to do with anything, this kind of thing has been going on long before obama hit the airwaves. to counter your assertion, if you think there was no media bias prior to 2008, then you, my friend, are the hopeless cause. unless we’re talking about something more specific, in which case i may need it spelled out for me. i am on a ton of meds right now, after all.
to recap and clarify, there is no doubt in my mind that a media bias exists. media outlets tell us what is important and often suggest how you should feel about it. pure objectivity in journalism is impossible. the point being THE media is biased, but not necessarily one way or the other, but specific media entities and instances (a tv program, a magazine, a newspaper article, etc) can easily carry a bias.
my b.a. is in media studies, and it is pretty well understood that liberal media outlets tend to not fair as well as conservative outlets, mostly because conservative programming tends to tap into its audience’s dogma, practically guaranteeing a sustainable audience, so long as it can avoid offending them. conversely, because of the liberals lack of rigid ideology (except maybe the ideology of hypocrisy, as per ben), liberal audiences tend to be flakier and demonstrate less conviction towards their media sources. liberal media, however, is conducive to proliferation since the liberalism tends to be more accepting of opposing viewpoints, which leads to more internal squabbling, thereby making liberal media outlets less stable and ultimately less sustainable.
what that actually means for us, i really don’t know. but it’s late, the pain meds are working, and i expect the respiratory therapist to be waking me up in less than three hours.
Ben Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 6:40 AM
vitamin k – that is a bold faced lie. only liberal media insiders tyring to propagandize themselves to a largely conservative nation would try to say that they have a conservative bent. To any of the good, honest, hard working, paying for your gvoernmental aid with their taxes, Americans… what you just said would be laughable were it not such an insidiuos lie.
Dear Reader – look at this – see how this guy shows up claiming to have a degree in media studies, he’s liberal as they come, and he wants to tell you that the media is ACTUALLY conservative leaning! Just like the now busted wide open lies about global warming, just like the myth of all these people dying for lack of insurance (it’s fatal!), just like the expose showing that “stimulus money” has been spent almost twice as much in Democratic districts WITHOUT REGARD TO NEED… liberals are liars. They lie, lie, lie and then they’ll lie some more. The biggest mistake you can make is to listen to their nonsense. Remember: EVERYONE has something to say. People seem to forget that. But everyone has something to say for their actions. Ever read Mein Kampf? I have. And let me tell you, Hitler had a lot of fine sounding arguments. Ever read Marx? I have. He had a lot of arguments. I could go on. Don’t listen to their drivel… because the proof is in the pudding.
vitamin k Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:49 PM
oh my god, ben. are you for real with this? what have i said that is a bold-faced lie? i didn’t make up that study, it was done, you can check it out for yourself. if you want references, i’ll gladly provide them, but i would like you to substantiate the claim that i’m a liar. calling me a liar, but offering no proof of such is propaganda at its best, a potential felony at its worst. so, for starters, please point out my lie. i’d like to know if you have any clue what i (or you for that matter) am talking about. i will provide you with the study in question. funny how the best you as a conservative can do is attempt to use strong language to undermine facts. who are these liberal media insiders you’re talking about? i never mentioned them, you just kind of..made them up, insofar as i can tell.
people do die because of a lack of insurance. it almost happened to me personally. and i personally know someone who did die because of a lack of insurance 2 years after a double lung transplant. his name was paul mooney, and he was denied coverage on account of his pre-existing condition (the transplant) for which he needed life sustaining medication that he could not get. that is a fact, not a bold faced lie. he was and is a very close friend of mine. he may have been legendarily brilliant, but a myth he was not.
and really, to say that global warming has been debunked? id’ like to see some credible information that, too. seems to me that only the christian right seems to believe global warming isn’t a reality. all of the empirical data shows pretty clearly that the world climate is climbing and that more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. wait, we ARE still talking about earth, right? i’m assuming that we talking about the same planet. but that’s besides the point. the evidence for warming and fatal insurance denials is abundant, unless, of course you choose to ignore it, which is your choice. if you would like to provide any proof or studies or rationale for those claims, i’m open, but i know that’s not your style. you’re clearly one of those “i’ve done absolutely no research on this matter, but dammit, this is the way it is!” people. i’m sure you have your area of expertise, but this clearly isn’t one of them.
anyways, i’m kinda tired of the name calling, which is all you can seem to do.. you’ve provided no real argument, stated no position, and offered no credible counter-proof. if all you can do is attack the person (which you’ve shown time and again, even in your original article) then it pretty much proves that you don’t have any real point. i’m tired of taking the time to think about what i have to say, check my information, and gather credible sources if all you’re going to do is sit in your easy chair with your dick in your hand and call people liars, hypocrites, and liberal (which i know you mean as an insult, but it’s so unoriginal, THAT’S what’s laughable about all of this – ben has shown zero original thought in all of this, and this “dear reader” paragraph, says nothing. an entire paragraph dedicated to trying to trying to bash my person as opposed to my reasoning. i mean come on – “this guy shows up claiming to have a degree in media studies, he’s liberal as they come, and he wants to tell you that the media is ACTUALLY conservative leaning!” you’re insinuating that i don’t actually have that degree, that i’m a liar on that front, and you have zero basis for that statement. further, i’ve offered an empirical study that showed the media to have a rightist slant. granted, it is but one study, but it’s 100% more than you’ve offered to support your b.s. that shows, ben, that you can’t touch my logic. the best you can do is attempt to discredit the speaker. i’m sure your cronies are all up your a$$ on this, but i bet a total stranger would be more likely to side with me, even if they didn’t agree, simply because, ben, you have no position here. i’ve effectively kept you on the run, bringing you down to the level of attacking the person. maybe i give myself too much credit. you were probably that low long before we met again.
Ben Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 4:49 PM
vitamin k – yes, what you said was a bold faced lie. I’m not saying that you created it, but you’re willingly led along by it and you willingly advocate it.
I went to that FAIR group’s website. An independent watchdog group? Are you kidding me? I read their positions, a handful of their articles (and headlines for countless more), and the bottom line is that this is such a far left group that it is almost unbelievable.
I was watching the tv while I worked out at the gym today and they had our POTUS talking about the spending freeze… and they played a handful of clips of him deriding (not just rejecting!) that very thing mere months ago all the way back to the campaign. If and when a conservative changes course, oh, there is an outcry! But when the left does it? Oh, well, that’s different.
I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking what you stand for, and what you stand for is bad news… and as for attacking the person, you spend an entire paragraph going off on me personally. This is what libs do, and when leftists do it, it is ok. But when a conservative says, “I’m game.” Oh, he’s low class! What hypocrisy.
Throughout this thread I’ve given a number of instances of liberal hyporcisy or double standard. And the essential response has been, “You’re mean spirited to say that!” or “Everyone is hypocitical!” (Which, by the way, is not true. But the leftist relativist mindset makes equivocation inevitable.) These responses have succeeded in the typical liberal subterfuge tactic: Scream and have a hissy fit and tell everyone they’re mean and not listening…. and repeat until folks back off. But I won’t back off.
HEY!!! Who’s this Vitamin K guy?!?!? I’M revnev.coms’ local leftist! Just kidding, K. While I absolutely had no problem taking on Nev and Ben at the same time (skim through some older posts), it’s refreshing to have at least ONE person that doesn’t think I’m criminally insane for not thinking the same way they do. Good job. You’ve held down the fort nicely in my absence. On this particular topic, though, I’ve said all I have to say. I’m tired of running around in circles and not getting anywhere with Ben.
Just on this topic though.
Ben Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Baxter,
If it is any consolation… I don’t think you’re criminally insane.
Ben
Rev Nev Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 11:10 PM
LOL!
okay, i put this away to focus a little on my health for a couple days, and was really tempted to just leave it, but some stuff is still really bothering me.
you say that spent a parapraph personally attacking you, and i don’t really recall doing that. when i say personal attack, i mean that instead of trying to address my logic or reasoning, you’ve often opted to undermine my arguments by discrediting me by villainizing my perspective. such as in this passage:
“Dear Reader – look at this – see how this guy shows up claiming to have a degree in media studies, he’s liberal as they come, and he wants to tell you that the media is ACTUALLY conservative leaning!”
in a rational discussion, my being a liberal should have no bearing on the validity of the claims i make. i’m not gong to scour this entire thread for wehre i’ve done that to you, but if i have, i apologize for doing so; it’s something i adamantly try to avoid.
that said, you also attempted to undermine my evidence in the same manner. in this passage concerning the study i referenced, you state:
“I went to that FAIR group’s website. An independent watchdog group? Are you kidding me? I read their positions, a handful of their articles (and headlines for countless more), and the bottom line is that this is such a far left group that it is almost unbelievable.”
granted, it IS good practice to consider the agenda of such agencies, but being a leftist group alone shouldn’t be enough to disqualify evidence. though it is pretty typical of conservative chris- well, you get the point, i hope.
but since this seems to be your preferred method of establishing credibility, could you please point me to the objective, independent agency that has “busted wide open [the] lies about global warming” and the one that has uncovered “the myth of all these people dying for lack of insurance?” it would really help paul’s parents, i think, to know that their son did, in fact, have to die; that having insurance wouldn’t have helped him, anyway; he had no business needing a transplant in the first place.
and, personally, i would love to not feel so guilty about driving to the corner store instead of walking, since i only have 50& lungs. some real objective proof of these lies would really help out my mental state.
what’ll be really great, though, is if those sources turn out to be as conservative as rush limbaugh and bill o’reilly’s heterozygous clone; since ideologic affiliation has been your basis of discredibility AND you would have used conservative sources to prove conservative righteousness in a thread about liberal hypocrisy.
just sayin’, yo.
Ben Reply:
January 31st, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Kevin –
I am truly sory to hear of your health issues. Some of what you say here deserves a response, but alas, I am too busy right now. I’ll respond later.
vitamin k Reply:
January 31st, 2010 at 4:31 PM
it’s cool, man. take your time. i prefer it that way.
give my best to your family. it’s been too long.