thursday thread: faking your own death

[Trathena]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

Well, listen, I'm sorry if I've disappointed or angered or insulted either of you.

Sometimes I can be pretty horrible about things.

[Ars Sycro]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

I just wanted to take issue with a few of your statements, if I may.

I'm not interested in hearing the other side's justification for why single-payer health care isn't desirable.

But there are many liberals who share this same viewpoint, such as Barack Obama, who opposes a single-payer health care. You (and many other people) draw a lot of party lines where there is not truly a line. Yes, the "ones in power" may spew about their feelings on universal health-care and gay marriage and the like, but when it comes down to it, the mainstream left and right are largely minor differences in viewpoint. And there are very few people who are 100% left or right, and most are closer to the middle.

Most media feels the need to report "both sides," as if the American Right's side is worth considering. It's not, but no one will say that publicly.

Why isn't it worth considering? As a whole, there is nothing inherently wrong with their viewpoints, as it is all a matter of opinion. The right has as many bad and awful ideas as the left does, so what makes it worthwhile to consider only the left's side? A lot of people here and on the internet as a whole (which is largely a pretty liberal group) have a hatred for Fox News because it is an extension of the right. However, if Fox News became a slave to the left, would it be any better? No. News outlets and the media have a responsibility to involve all sides of the discussion. Their job is to inform us about what others are saying and doing; their job is not to tell us what to think. Reporting one side of the story -- any story -- is irresponsible. This is the reason I cannot stand to read Huffington Post (except for the few and far between articles that actually attempt to criticize their own liberals) and other blogs that lean so heavily to one-side.

When people say that Michael Moore or Al Franken are the liberal equivalent of Rush or Coulter, I think that's bullshit, simply because Moore and Franken are intelligent and rational. However, after the 2004 election, I spent a number of months feeling like the left equivalent of Anne Coulter.

I don't know much about Franken, so I won't speak to him. However, Michael Moore disgusts me. There are entire websites dedicated to the lies that have filled his documentaries (just google about it), including at least one DVD and I believe a book. In 2000, Moore went to countless cities in the US telling people that they should be supporting Ralph Nader. 4 years later, he told Nader that he had hurt the Democratic party and the nation by keeping Al Gore out of the White House, and that even though Kerry would suck as president, people should vote for him. As the time approaches for the elections this year, I would not be surprised to see Moore out actively campaigning against Nader again, even though Moore agrees with more of what Nader has to offer than any of the other candidates. Michael Moore is a pathetic man who attacks people and produces his own propaganda to upset people into agreeing with him.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

Well, listen, I'm sorry if I've disappointed or angered or insulted either of you.

you haven't.

[Ars Sycro]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

Just bumping back to the front page.

[One Second Clubber]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

Double Bumping... But for what reason?

[Trathena]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

I just wanted to take issue with a few of your statements, if I may.

Hey, Josh. Of course you can take issue, but I've derailed this great thread in a terribly rude way, and OSC is correct that there's really no reason to keep bumping it unless Knifeboy or Evasive want to take it back.

But there are many liberals who share this same viewpoint, such as Barack Obama, who opposes a single-payer health care.

I know. He's for universal health care just like 98% of the other democrats. I spit hairs between neoliberals, liberals, and leftists. I'm not a liberal and I'm not a democrat. I'm a member of the Green Party and I'm a leftist.

You (and many other people) draw a lot of party lines where there is not truly a line.

No. I was voting Green long before 2000. I, like you, voted for Nader in 2000 because I saw no difference between the two parties. I see very little difference between them now.

Yes, the "ones in power" may spew about their feelings on universal health-care and gay marriage and the like, but when it comes down to it, the mainstream left and right are largely minor differences in viewpoint. And there are very few people who are 100% left or right, and most are closer to the middle.

Agreed. But most of those in the middle inevitably vote conservatively.

Why isn't it worth considering? As a whole, there is nothing inherently wrong with their viewpoints, as it is all a matter of opinion.

Completely disagree, but I'm going to drop it.

I don't know much about Franken, so I won't speak to him. However, Michael Moore disgusts me. There are entire websites dedicated to the lies that have filled his documentaries (just google about it), including at least one DVD and I believe a book.

I've seen those sites and read them (I considered the other side!). They are written and funded by rightwing groups. There are just as many websites debunking the debunkers.

In 2000, Moore went to countless cities in the US telling people that they should be supporting Ralph Nader. 4 years later, he told Nader that he had hurt the Democratic party and the nation by keeping Al Gore out of the White House, and that even though Kerry would suck as president, people should vote for him.

I know. Extremely disappointing. I don't frequent Moore's site, but I do like and respect his films and books. He was one of the first public figures to speak out against the war and the stolen election. He was doing it when we were being called traitors for speaking out against anything. He was a brave voice in the storm. And then he broke and regretted supporting a third party. Many Greens did. Many democrats who voted for Nader did.

And now, I'm going to take a break from all of this. I don't like how I came across last night. I don't like reading those words I wrote. That I could have possibly offended you or auto-de-fe or anyone else here bothers me and gives me pause and a reason to take some time and think about things.

My husband recently told me that if I keep staring at the Bush adm., eventually it'll stare back at me.

----------------
Listening to: Silverchair - Emotion Sickness

[AnewKINDofFEELING]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

When people say that Michael Moore or Al Franken are the liberal equivalent of Rush or Coulter, I think that's bullshit, simply because Moore and Franken are intelligent and rational. However, after the 2004 election, I spent a number of months feeling like the left equivalent of Anne Coulter.

That's where you lost me. Moore is one of the biggest bullshit artists in this country and uses grossly misrepresented information to make his points.

AnewKINDofFEELING added 11 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

As for global warming, it's just a catch phrase for Al Gore to build his "carbon market." Check out his investments and you'll see where Gore's alliances are.

The problem with global warming is that it's grossly overstated and the media has a history of impending global doom from climate change. 30 years ago, people thought there was an impending ice age.

There are plenty of places where you can learn about the falacies of global warming. You just have to be open-minded enough to read them. I'm not claiming that we haven't affected the climate, but it is being greatly overstated to match certain groups' agendas.

We have plenty of reasons to reduce emissions, and most of them are not based on half-truths and known unknowns. However, global warming is a favorite talking point, so why would we want to base our decisions on having better air to breathe or less birth defects?

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

[Ars Sycro]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

I've seen those sites and read them (I considered the other side!). They are written and funded by rightwing groups. There are just as many websites debunking the debunkers.

But many of them also have solid sources from fairly respected publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and [to a much lesser extent] USA Today.

This is a fairly good read and does offer citations for almost all of the claims: http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fift...Election_Night

And now, I'm going to take a break from all of this. I don't like how I came across last night. I don't like reading those words I wrote. That I could have possibly offended you or auto-de-fe or anyone else here bothers me and gives me pause and a reason to take some time and think about things.

I cannot speak for auto, but you did not offend me in any way. I simply agreed with auto that it was probably best not to argue with most of what you said, as it would simply turn into what could be viewed as a shouting match that goes nowhere.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

I cannot speak for auto, but you did not offend me in any way. I simply agreed with auto that it was probably best not to argue with most of what you said, as it would simply turn into what could be viewed as a shouting match that goes nowhere.

pretty much agree with this.

[Trathena]

Re: thursday thread: inter-racial relationships

That's where you lost me. Moore is one of the biggest bullshit artists in this country and uses grossly misrepresented information to make his points.

Well, look, I'm certainly no apologist for Moore. I don't feel strongly enough about him to be one. Like I said I admire him and what he tried to do.

As for global warming, it's just a catch phrase for Al Gore to build his "carbon market." Check out his investments and you'll see where Gore's alliances are.

Well, I'd call it more a "co-opted" phrase. But yeah, I've read all about Gore's questionable conflicts of interest. I never bought into the carbon points bullshit for two reasons: (1) I'm a Green Party member and we had already educated ourselves on why that won't help, and (2) I read numerous essays about "green washing" and Gore's wastefulness on that bastion of partisan pandering website Alternet.

We have plenty of reasons to reduce emissions, and most of them are not based on half-truths and known unknowns. However, global warming is a favorite talking point, so why would we want to base our decisions on having better air to breathe or less birth defects?

It's a shame that you feel like you have to spell this out to me. Clearly, I've misrepresented myself here, or I've not articulated what I mean well enough. Maybe a better word for what I'm talking about is "sustainability."

But many of them also have solid sources from fairly respected publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and [to a much lesser extent] USA Today.

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are not what I consider unbiased or non-conservative sources, especially post-Sept. 11. They are beyond useless. Dave Kopel works for the Cato Institute and the National Review. He's not unbiased, and he wrote that with an agenda, and, no, I don't trust anything he'd say, and, yes he's part of that "other side" that I will not read.

But look, like I said, I don't want to defend Michael Moore. I simply said that, though he and Franken are definitely biased, I find their work more informed, more fair, and infinitely more rational than Rush or Anne Coulter. But I'd never say that they aren't unbiased. They're political pundits after all. And I'm not unbiased either.

I cannot speak for auto, but you did not offend me in any way. I simply agreed with auto that it was probably best not to argue with most of what you said, as it would simply turn into what could be viewed as a shouting match that goes nowhere.

When you both commented to say that you weren't going to comment, it worried me. I would hope that any disagreement between us would never turn into a shouting match. I'd try to make sure that never happened. I'd quit the discussion before that happened, and I feel that way about everyone here.

Damn. I should have just plagiarized from Evasive and said, "I win!" :-)

[Lye In Your Eye]

Re: thursday thread: faking you own death

Just curious you know... not in case I'm looking into it. Got any advice?

[evasivetear]

Re: thursday thread: faking your own death

read up on andy koffman on wikipedia.

really weird you bring this up...as i was reading about him and his alleged faking of his death a few hours ago.

way to do work at work...wait....