The truth about liberal bias
The truth about liberal bias
Eric, let me be the first to welcome you to Forum Garden...
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The truth about liberal bias
Eric Northwood wrote: I thought I'd let you in on a little secret. This may surprise you.
Liberal bias is an oxymoron.
That's right, it's true. Look up the word liberal. A liberal is someone who is in the center of the left-right political spectrum. They are neither left or right.
problem: that's the dictionary definition. it has nothing to do with how the term 'liberal' has been co-opted by left wing control freaks.
Instead, their political viewpoint is to take the best of both the left and right political views, taking some ideals from the left, and some ideals from the right.
same problem. that's what liberals used to be. not any more.
'liberal bias' is equivalent in current usage to 'left-wing bias'. when people say the media has a liberal bias, they mean a left-wing bias.
in the remainder of your post below, i'm going to replace 'liberal' with 'left wing'. see how it reads. *noting again to reduce misinterpretation: what is "quoted" below has been manipulated, so it is no longer a direct quote*!
So go ahead and accuse the media of being left-wing. That's their job. They report, you decide. That's what the media is supposed to do. If they're not on your side when they report on a scandal involving a Republican Fox newscaster sexually harrassing an employee, wait five minutes. Then you'll get your coverage of a documentary filmmaker's bodyguard carrying a gun, which is strange, because:
A: What kind of bodyguard carries a GUN? and
B: No one would want to harm a documentary filmmaker that has angered a good portion of the Christian Right!
So instead of whining about the left-wing's coverage of the news, remember that a left-winger's take on the news is a good thing, it's what you're supposed to receive out of your television set. So instead of being spoon-fed everything your government is telling you, you can sit back and try to form your own opinion.
And finally, express your own opinion, like I am doing now. Don't just surf through the internet looking for news stories that you think are vaguely interesting, and paste them on one thread after another. And another. And another.
again: when people refer to 'liberal bias' in the media, they are talking about 'left wing bias', not "a lavish, full, and unencumbered reportage of the news".
Liberal bias is an oxymoron.
That's right, it's true. Look up the word liberal. A liberal is someone who is in the center of the left-right political spectrum. They are neither left or right.
problem: that's the dictionary definition. it has nothing to do with how the term 'liberal' has been co-opted by left wing control freaks.
Instead, their political viewpoint is to take the best of both the left and right political views, taking some ideals from the left, and some ideals from the right.
same problem. that's what liberals used to be. not any more.
'liberal bias' is equivalent in current usage to 'left-wing bias'. when people say the media has a liberal bias, they mean a left-wing bias.
in the remainder of your post below, i'm going to replace 'liberal' with 'left wing'. see how it reads. *noting again to reduce misinterpretation: what is "quoted" below has been manipulated, so it is no longer a direct quote*!
So go ahead and accuse the media of being left-wing. That's their job. They report, you decide. That's what the media is supposed to do. If they're not on your side when they report on a scandal involving a Republican Fox newscaster sexually harrassing an employee, wait five minutes. Then you'll get your coverage of a documentary filmmaker's bodyguard carrying a gun, which is strange, because:
A: What kind of bodyguard carries a GUN? and
B: No one would want to harm a documentary filmmaker that has angered a good portion of the Christian Right!
So instead of whining about the left-wing's coverage of the news, remember that a left-winger's take on the news is a good thing, it's what you're supposed to receive out of your television set. So instead of being spoon-fed everything your government is telling you, you can sit back and try to form your own opinion.
And finally, express your own opinion, like I am doing now. Don't just surf through the internet looking for news stories that you think are vaguely interesting, and paste them on one thread after another. And another. And another.
again: when people refer to 'liberal bias' in the media, they are talking about 'left wing bias', not "a lavish, full, and unencumbered reportage of the news".
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
The truth about liberal bias
[QUOTE=Eric Northwood]I thought I'd let you in on a little secret. This may surprise you.
Liberal bias is an oxymoron.
That's right, it's true. Look up the word liberal. A liberal is someone who is in the center of the left-right political spectrum. They are neither left or right.
It has been my experience that the word "liberal" is now commonly understood and immediately connoted to be defined in a different context within the United states and Canada than in its actual origin and root meaning.
WOW, talk about timing! Read the current FG political forum Censorshit ... I mean 'ship', concerning misinterpereted words and assigned meanings that are incorrect!
The actual word liberal originates from the Latin word liberalis, which that is derived from its root being the Latin word liber meaning "free man".
The United States and Canada has, through time, assigned stipulitive or connoted definitions to the word, thus transforming it into being commonly understood as a far-left bleeding heart democrat. In reality, or I should say, in proper understanding, this is not the correct definition of the word, but often applied and understood to be. Consider a new born baby growing up in New York or California within a family who subscribes to the National Democratic Party platform in the U.S. That child will probably be several decades old before they learn the true meaning of the word, if they ever do learn it.
This post is so apropos to my earlier post mentioned above. I hope Lady Cop, CVX and that guy from California read this.
Did you post this because of my earlier post? Are you just quietly stirring the coals? :wah:
In either case, your point is well taken and absolutely correct!
Peace!
Liberal bias is an oxymoron.
That's right, it's true. Look up the word liberal. A liberal is someone who is in the center of the left-right political spectrum. They are neither left or right.
It has been my experience that the word "liberal" is now commonly understood and immediately connoted to be defined in a different context within the United states and Canada than in its actual origin and root meaning.
WOW, talk about timing! Read the current FG political forum Censorshit ... I mean 'ship', concerning misinterpereted words and assigned meanings that are incorrect!
The actual word liberal originates from the Latin word liberalis, which that is derived from its root being the Latin word liber meaning "free man".
The United States and Canada has, through time, assigned stipulitive or connoted definitions to the word, thus transforming it into being commonly understood as a far-left bleeding heart democrat. In reality, or I should say, in proper understanding, this is not the correct definition of the word, but often applied and understood to be. Consider a new born baby growing up in New York or California within a family who subscribes to the National Democratic Party platform in the U.S. That child will probably be several decades old before they learn the true meaning of the word, if they ever do learn it.
This post is so apropos to my earlier post mentioned above. I hope Lady Cop, CVX and that guy from California read this.
Did you post this because of my earlier post? Are you just quietly stirring the coals? :wah:
In either case, your point is well taken and absolutely correct!
Peace!
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
The truth about liberal bias
[QUOTE=Saintsman][QUOTE=Eric Northwood]I thought I'd let you in on a little secret. This may surprise you.
Liberal bias is an oxymoron.
That's right, it's true. Look up the word liberal. A liberal is someone who is in the center of the left-right political spectrum. They are neither left or right.
It has been my experience that the word "liberal" is now commonly understood and immediately connoted to be defined in a different context within the United states and Canada than in its actual origin and root meaning.
WOW, talk about timing! Read the current FG political forum Censorshit ... I mean 'ship', concerning misinterpereted words and assigned meanings that are incorrect!
The actual word liberal originates from the Latin word liberalis, which that is derived from its root being the Latin word liber meaning "free man".
Also, after referring to my handy 18 volume Oxford dictionary, the word bias originally came from the French word biasis in the sense of oblique or oblique line. The original meaning of the French word is: inclination or prejudice in favor of a particular person, thing, or viewpoint.
Thus, it can be concluded that the term "liberal bias" means to refer to a 'free man who possesses an inclination or prejudice in favor of a particular person, thing or viewpoint."
Whew! Now, of course, from an epistemological standpoint, that would be an oxymoron as one cannot be free and prejudice at the same time. He could be free (mentally) from the prejudice of opinions ... totally open-minded, or otherwise trapped or closed-minded to someone else's ideas ... making him no longer "free". But that is all that philosophy stuff. I believe the the term "free man" in its Latin form means non-slave in the physical sense, not the mental. If that is the case, "liberal bias" is NOT an oxymoron as you could have a non-slave who is prejudice ... actually most all the non-slave property owners were, indeed, prejudice!
Enough of that for now. I want to start cussing again to incite fellow members! :rolleyes:
Liberal bias is an oxymoron.
That's right, it's true. Look up the word liberal. A liberal is someone who is in the center of the left-right political spectrum. They are neither left or right.
It has been my experience that the word "liberal" is now commonly understood and immediately connoted to be defined in a different context within the United states and Canada than in its actual origin and root meaning.
WOW, talk about timing! Read the current FG political forum Censorshit ... I mean 'ship', concerning misinterpereted words and assigned meanings that are incorrect!
The actual word liberal originates from the Latin word liberalis, which that is derived from its root being the Latin word liber meaning "free man".
Also, after referring to my handy 18 volume Oxford dictionary, the word bias originally came from the French word biasis in the sense of oblique or oblique line. The original meaning of the French word is: inclination or prejudice in favor of a particular person, thing, or viewpoint.
Thus, it can be concluded that the term "liberal bias" means to refer to a 'free man who possesses an inclination or prejudice in favor of a particular person, thing or viewpoint."
Whew! Now, of course, from an epistemological standpoint, that would be an oxymoron as one cannot be free and prejudice at the same time. He could be free (mentally) from the prejudice of opinions ... totally open-minded, or otherwise trapped or closed-minded to someone else's ideas ... making him no longer "free". But that is all that philosophy stuff. I believe the the term "free man" in its Latin form means non-slave in the physical sense, not the mental. If that is the case, "liberal bias" is NOT an oxymoron as you could have a non-slave who is prejudice ... actually most all the non-slave property owners were, indeed, prejudice!
Enough of that for now. I want to start cussing again to incite fellow members! :rolleyes:
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
The truth about liberal bias
[QUOTE=Eric Northwood]Anastrophe, I have to disagree with you on that. I am a Canadian and therefore have been very heavily exposed to American media. I'm not complaining, because there is some fine entertainment to be had from the south. Especially current events.
Now, I hate to upset the applecart here and sound politically incorrect, but I hear definite tones of bias in Anastrophe's response. I get the feeling he is "wingin' it" in his answer. Now, if it is his opinion, then totally acceptable, but relying on fact ... um, I am not so sure, aye! :-3
Now, I hate to upset the applecart here and sound politically incorrect, but I hear definite tones of bias in Anastrophe's response. I get the feeling he is "wingin' it" in his answer. Now, if it is his opinion, then totally acceptable, but relying on fact ... um, I am not so sure, aye! :-3
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The truth about liberal bias
Eric Northwood wrote: Anastrophe, I have to disagree with you on that. I am a Canadian and therefore have been very heavily exposed to American media. I'm not complaining, because there is some fine entertainment to be had from the south. Especially current events.
I am also interested in the news. Not because I associate myself with any political group (politics is far too crooked for my liking), and neither do I see myself at either end of the scale. yes, but again, in common usage, 'liberal bias' is meant to express 'left-wing bias'. that a "liberal bias" vis a vis the proper dictionary definitions would be salutory, that doesn't mitigate the importance of common usage and context. for example, a particularly execrable popular term in current vernacular is "At the end of the day". in strict dictionary interpretation, when some jackass says "but you know, at the end of the day, we're all going to die", it is understood that they do not literally mean that at day's end, we will all die. in context, they simply mean "eventually we will all die". thus with 'liberal bias'.
Yes, I do think Bill O'Reilly is a hypocritical wealthy jackass, but I also know that PETA is a bunch of idiots who wish to impose their flawed logic on the rest of western society. Kerry is a coward, Bush is an idiot. I know. But I digress.i would only counterpoint that al gore is a hypocritical wealthy jackass, and that the christian right are a bunch of idiots who wish to impose their morality on the rest of western society. abu musab al-zarqawi is a coward. jessica simpson is an idiot. but i digress. :yh_silly
When I watch the news media coming from the south, I see pretty balanced media. CNN, CSpan, and MSNBC are all very fair in their reporting, and the further-left PBS channels are balanced out by FOX on the right. If you watch both sides of the scale equally, you'll be able to see that it is not as simple as just watching one side of the spectrum. You have to figure out the truth for yourself by researching the subject.certainly can't argue with that.
my problem with liberal bias in the media is in that which is less apparent at non-critical examination. CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS, etc, have distinct liberal bias - but not far left bias, and they are discrete in their peddling of it - which means that many are sucked in and *believe* they are getting an unencumbered report of daily events, when in fact an agenda is being put forward, albeit with great subtlety.
I am also interested in the news. Not because I associate myself with any political group (politics is far too crooked for my liking), and neither do I see myself at either end of the scale. yes, but again, in common usage, 'liberal bias' is meant to express 'left-wing bias'. that a "liberal bias" vis a vis the proper dictionary definitions would be salutory, that doesn't mitigate the importance of common usage and context. for example, a particularly execrable popular term in current vernacular is "At the end of the day". in strict dictionary interpretation, when some jackass says "but you know, at the end of the day, we're all going to die", it is understood that they do not literally mean that at day's end, we will all die. in context, they simply mean "eventually we will all die". thus with 'liberal bias'.
Yes, I do think Bill O'Reilly is a hypocritical wealthy jackass, but I also know that PETA is a bunch of idiots who wish to impose their flawed logic on the rest of western society. Kerry is a coward, Bush is an idiot. I know. But I digress.i would only counterpoint that al gore is a hypocritical wealthy jackass, and that the christian right are a bunch of idiots who wish to impose their morality on the rest of western society. abu musab al-zarqawi is a coward. jessica simpson is an idiot. but i digress. :yh_silly
When I watch the news media coming from the south, I see pretty balanced media. CNN, CSpan, and MSNBC are all very fair in their reporting, and the further-left PBS channels are balanced out by FOX on the right. If you watch both sides of the scale equally, you'll be able to see that it is not as simple as just watching one side of the spectrum. You have to figure out the truth for yourself by researching the subject.certainly can't argue with that.
my problem with liberal bias in the media is in that which is less apparent at non-critical examination. CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS, etc, have distinct liberal bias - but not far left bias, and they are discrete in their peddling of it - which means that many are sucked in and *believe* they are getting an unencumbered report of daily events, when in fact an agenda is being put forward, albeit with great subtlety.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
The truth about liberal bias
It seems to me rather ridiculous to apply the dictionary definition of liberal to what is obviously not being used as a common word but more as a proper noun for the Liberal Party. Just because they called themselves "liberals" does not mean they truly exemplify the concept of liberal as per dictionary definition.
The truth about liberal bias
koan wrote: It seems to me rather ridiculous to apply the dictionary definition of liberal to what is obviously not being used as a common word but more as a proper noun for the Liberal Party. Just because they called themselves "liberals" does not mean they truly exemplify the concept of liberal as per dictionary definition.
One of my biggest amusements is watching Canadian's, and Euro's falling all over themselves trying to define, catagorize, and explain American's and their politics . The humor is in their resemblance to the three blind men describing an elephant.
Keep it up folks, we need the yuk's, I do have a question though, why? :-3
One of my biggest amusements is watching Canadian's, and Euro's falling all over themselves trying to define, catagorize, and explain American's and their politics . The humor is in their resemblance to the three blind men describing an elephant.
Keep it up folks, we need the yuk's, I do have a question though, why? :-3
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
The truth about liberal bias
Der Wulf wrote: One of my biggest amusements is watching Canadian's, and Euro's falling all over themselves trying to define, catagorize, and explain American's and their politics . The humor is in their resemblance to the three blind men describing an elephant.
Keep it up folks, we need the yuk's, I do have a question though, why? :-3
Since I and Mr. Northwood are the only non Americans who have posted here and I am in disagreement with Mr. Northwood and in agreement with Anastrophe, an American and, additionally, I rarely post anything regarding politics I am unsure as to what you are implying with your statement (since you quoted me).
Keep it up folks, we need the yuk's, I do have a question though, why? :-3
Since I and Mr. Northwood are the only non Americans who have posted here and I am in disagreement with Mr. Northwood and in agreement with Anastrophe, an American and, additionally, I rarely post anything regarding politics I am unsure as to what you are implying with your statement (since you quoted me).
The truth about liberal bias
posted by anastrophe
yes, but again, in common usage, 'liberal bias' is meant to express 'left-wing bias'. that a "liberal bias" vis a vis the proper dictionary definitions would be salutory, that doesn't mitigate the importance of common usage and context. for example, a particularly execrable popular term in current vernacular is "At the end of the day". in strict dictionary interpretation, when some jackass says "but you know, at the end of the day, we're all going to die", it is understood that they do not literally mean that at day's end, we will all die. in context, they simply mean "eventually we will all die". thus with 'liberal bias'.
posted by der wulf
Keep it up folks, we need the yuk's, I do have a question though, why?
I too have a question how did the term liberal epitomising the very principles on which the american constitution was founded manage to become so tainted that it almost means the complete opposite? Not trying to take the **** or anything I mean it as a serious question. That's another question, why is it when discoursing with americans I always you have to make it clear you are not trying to be hostile. When did you all become so touchy.
Another word for you Newspeak from 1984, now in the common parlance of most of the english speaking world. Orwell was writing about communism but it could in just about any type of regime, control the language you can control what people think, take away the language of dissent or denegrate it and you curb dissent and the ability to think for yourself. Just a thought.
Der wulf Do you mean why do we bother or what? Frankly american internal politics are a bigger problem for you than they are for anyone else
Posted by anastrophe
my problem with liberal bias in the media is in that which is less apparent at non-critical examination. CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS, etc, have distinct liberal bias - but not far left bias, and they are discrete in their peddling of it - which means that many are sucked in and *believe* they are getting an unencumbered report of daily events, when in fact an agenda is being put forward, albeit with great subtlety.
Interesting comment, I don't get much american news beyond cnn and bits of abc,cbs. so am hardly in a position to make a judgement.
yes, but again, in common usage, 'liberal bias' is meant to express 'left-wing bias'. that a "liberal bias" vis a vis the proper dictionary definitions would be salutory, that doesn't mitigate the importance of common usage and context. for example, a particularly execrable popular term in current vernacular is "At the end of the day". in strict dictionary interpretation, when some jackass says "but you know, at the end of the day, we're all going to die", it is understood that they do not literally mean that at day's end, we will all die. in context, they simply mean "eventually we will all die". thus with 'liberal bias'.
posted by der wulf
Keep it up folks, we need the yuk's, I do have a question though, why?
I too have a question how did the term liberal epitomising the very principles on which the american constitution was founded manage to become so tainted that it almost means the complete opposite? Not trying to take the **** or anything I mean it as a serious question. That's another question, why is it when discoursing with americans I always you have to make it clear you are not trying to be hostile. When did you all become so touchy.
Another word for you Newspeak from 1984, now in the common parlance of most of the english speaking world. Orwell was writing about communism but it could in just about any type of regime, control the language you can control what people think, take away the language of dissent or denegrate it and you curb dissent and the ability to think for yourself. Just a thought.
Der wulf Do you mean why do we bother or what? Frankly american internal politics are a bigger problem for you than they are for anyone else
Posted by anastrophe
my problem with liberal bias in the media is in that which is less apparent at non-critical examination. CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS, etc, have distinct liberal bias - but not far left bias, and they are discrete in their peddling of it - which means that many are sucked in and *believe* they are getting an unencumbered report of daily events, when in fact an agenda is being put forward, albeit with great subtlety.
Interesting comment, I don't get much american news beyond cnn and bits of abc,cbs. so am hardly in a position to make a judgement.
The truth about liberal bias
koan wrote: Since I and Mr. Northwood are the only non Americans who have posted here and I am in disagreement with Mr. Northwood and in agreement with Anastrophe, an American and, additionally, I rarely post anything regarding politics I am unsure as to what you are implying with your statement (since you quoted me).
Ah, c'mon now, don't get your knickers in a knot:)
I implied nothing, I agreed with your post, and quoted you by way of attribution.
I followed that with an observation that many non Americans, seem to have a fascination about our politics. No innuendo intended
Ah, c'mon now, don't get your knickers in a knot:)
I implied nothing, I agreed with your post, and quoted you by way of attribution.
I followed that with an observation that many non Americans, seem to have a fascination about our politics. No innuendo intended
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
The truth about liberal bias
Der Wulf wrote: Ah, c'mon now, don't get your knickers in a knot:)
I implied nothing, I agreed with your post, and quoted you by way of attribution.
I followed that with an observation that many non Americans, seem to have a fascination about our politics. No innuendo intended
Alrighty then. Just checking.
The non American thing threw me off.
Attribution, huh? Cool.
I implied nothing, I agreed with your post, and quoted you by way of attribution.
I followed that with an observation that many non Americans, seem to have a fascination about our politics. No innuendo intended
Alrighty then. Just checking.
The non American thing threw me off.
Attribution, huh? Cool.
The truth about liberal bias
gmc wrote:
I too have a question how did the term liberal epitomising the very principles on which the american constitution was founded manage to become so tainted that it almost means the complete opposite? In my memory, the Democratic party have always been known as "liberals", and in fact up through the 1960's they were the party of the "blue collar" workers, farmers etc. Republicans were considered to represent the more affluent.
Someware during the 60's and 70's, as the average american became more affluent, the distinctions blurred. The Democrat's became more socialist. I don't want to get into a long discourse about why, but the Democrat's have steadly moved to the "left" of the political spectrum, and looking at the voting map, moved to the elitests, away from "middle America"
gmc wrote:
Another word for you Newspeak from 1984, now in the common parlance of most of the english speaking world. Orwell was writing about communism but it could in just about any type of regime, control the language you can control what people think, take away the language of dissent or denegrate it and you curb dissent and the ability to think for yourself. Just a thought. .If that's meant to indicate that the language of dissent is not alive and well in this country, then you have simply not been paying attention.
gmc wrote:
Der wulf Do you mean why do we bother or what? Frankly american internal politics are a bigger problem for you than they are for anyone else.Let my try this in simple declarative sentences: I have noticed that many non Americans have a large amount of interest in American politics. I find the attempts by the aformentioned people, to interperet, and catagorise our politics to be amusing. I do not see the same level of interest by Americans about the internal politics of other country's. I am curious as to why the aformentioned people are so interested in American politics, particularily when American's have so little interest in the internal politics of other country's.
No implications, no ineuendo, just simple questions, and remarks.
gmc wrote:
Interesting comment, I don't get much american news beyond cnn and bits of abc,cbs. so am hardly in a position to make a judgement .Agreed, without full exposure to our respective environments, we will each continue in our bemusements. That is exactly why that you gmc, need to spend at least 2 months over here.:-6
I too have a question how did the term liberal epitomising the very principles on which the american constitution was founded manage to become so tainted that it almost means the complete opposite? In my memory, the Democratic party have always been known as "liberals", and in fact up through the 1960's they were the party of the "blue collar" workers, farmers etc. Republicans were considered to represent the more affluent.
Someware during the 60's and 70's, as the average american became more affluent, the distinctions blurred. The Democrat's became more socialist. I don't want to get into a long discourse about why, but the Democrat's have steadly moved to the "left" of the political spectrum, and looking at the voting map, moved to the elitests, away from "middle America"
gmc wrote:
Another word for you Newspeak from 1984, now in the common parlance of most of the english speaking world. Orwell was writing about communism but it could in just about any type of regime, control the language you can control what people think, take away the language of dissent or denegrate it and you curb dissent and the ability to think for yourself. Just a thought. .If that's meant to indicate that the language of dissent is not alive and well in this country, then you have simply not been paying attention.
gmc wrote:
Der wulf Do you mean why do we bother or what? Frankly american internal politics are a bigger problem for you than they are for anyone else.Let my try this in simple declarative sentences: I have noticed that many non Americans have a large amount of interest in American politics. I find the attempts by the aformentioned people, to interperet, and catagorise our politics to be amusing. I do not see the same level of interest by Americans about the internal politics of other country's. I am curious as to why the aformentioned people are so interested in American politics, particularily when American's have so little interest in the internal politics of other country's.
No implications, no ineuendo, just simple questions, and remarks.
gmc wrote:
Interesting comment, I don't get much american news beyond cnn and bits of abc,cbs. so am hardly in a position to make a judgement .Agreed, without full exposure to our respective environments, we will each continue in our bemusements. That is exactly why that you gmc, need to spend at least 2 months over here.:-6
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
The truth about liberal bias
Der Wulf,
Your predicament has added to the bemusement.
Sheesh, huh?
Perhaps it was the liberal bias of your original comment that caused the problem?
Your predicament has added to the bemusement.
Sheesh, huh?
Perhaps it was the liberal bias of your original comment that caused the problem?
The truth about liberal bias
koan wrote: It seems to me rather ridiculous to apply the dictionary definition of liberal to what is obviously not being used as a common word but more as a proper noun for the Liberal Party. Just because they called themselves "liberals" does not mean they truly exemplify the concept of liberal as per dictionary definition.
Good Morning Koan!
The problem that I don't find quite as ridiculous is that once a practice of taking words and extending an additional meaning that has not been clearly made known to all ... or denoted to incorporate a new or expanded interpertation in our national or world dictionary, will create confusion.
Slang words and the sort will be utilized in one unconventional way and possibly only by specific people in certain areas. Pretty soon the rest of us are lost or confused because we are applying the word's original meaning. For example, I have long labored over the way a good number of the African-American population within the U.S. rearrange the language for their personal reasons or "codes" or uniqueness. This is fine, but please don't expect me to be able to follow what is being said in an intelligent conversation. Of course, I believe that is part of their mission when they are hanging out together and further establishing their unique or special brotherhood and experiences.
We could push this example to the limit and imagine people in the north applying their own meaning, people in the south a different meaning, people in the east and west yet another meaning and when we all met in the middle, people would be confused, upset, insulted and so on. Per an earlier example, if I say: My son's face has been surrounded by ***** liquid, the dictionary would say that he has an infection and that pus like liquid has formed around certain parts of his face. Or, "my wife's ***** has been very busy" yet again brings a different meaning when I am trying to tell you that my wife's cat is very active. No where in any dictionaries I have read does ***** define a female body part (unless specifically catagorized as slang and we know that slang doesn't equal the foundation or appropriate use of a word), and yet readers in my previous post assumed it to be (and I led them to believe) what they incorrectly applied to a designated interpertation where it was not justified ... my exact point.
"At the end of the day", there is a high possibility of many words being taken out of context, applied bastard definitions to that are not legitimately expressed and a gaggle of different interpertations, understandings, confusion and altered moods would occur cuasing an overall strained rapport for most all. (I inappropriately used the word gaggle above for effect!).
Lets avoid all the confusion ... unless it is your intent to confuse ... and all agree on what the word's true meaining is. Most words have been around for centuries and their meaning defined long before any of us, so why change the established practice? :rolleyes:
Cheers! (There is another word! What the heck is "cheers" truly suppose to mean in a literal context? )
Good Morning Koan!
The problem that I don't find quite as ridiculous is that once a practice of taking words and extending an additional meaning that has not been clearly made known to all ... or denoted to incorporate a new or expanded interpertation in our national or world dictionary, will create confusion.
Slang words and the sort will be utilized in one unconventional way and possibly only by specific people in certain areas. Pretty soon the rest of us are lost or confused because we are applying the word's original meaning. For example, I have long labored over the way a good number of the African-American population within the U.S. rearrange the language for their personal reasons or "codes" or uniqueness. This is fine, but please don't expect me to be able to follow what is being said in an intelligent conversation. Of course, I believe that is part of their mission when they are hanging out together and further establishing their unique or special brotherhood and experiences.
We could push this example to the limit and imagine people in the north applying their own meaning, people in the south a different meaning, people in the east and west yet another meaning and when we all met in the middle, people would be confused, upset, insulted and so on. Per an earlier example, if I say: My son's face has been surrounded by ***** liquid, the dictionary would say that he has an infection and that pus like liquid has formed around certain parts of his face. Or, "my wife's ***** has been very busy" yet again brings a different meaning when I am trying to tell you that my wife's cat is very active. No where in any dictionaries I have read does ***** define a female body part (unless specifically catagorized as slang and we know that slang doesn't equal the foundation or appropriate use of a word), and yet readers in my previous post assumed it to be (and I led them to believe) what they incorrectly applied to a designated interpertation where it was not justified ... my exact point.
"At the end of the day", there is a high possibility of many words being taken out of context, applied bastard definitions to that are not legitimately expressed and a gaggle of different interpertations, understandings, confusion and altered moods would occur cuasing an overall strained rapport for most all. (I inappropriately used the word gaggle above for effect!).
Lets avoid all the confusion ... unless it is your intent to confuse ... and all agree on what the word's true meaining is. Most words have been around for centuries and their meaning defined long before any of us, so why change the established practice? :rolleyes:
Cheers! (There is another word! What the heck is "cheers" truly suppose to mean in a literal context?
)If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
The truth about liberal bias
posted by der wulf
Agreed, without full exposure to our respective environments, we will each continue in our bemusements. That is exactly why that you gmc, need to spend at least 2 months over here.
I'm waiting till the dollar falls a bit further then I might take a month off and have a good tour around :guitarist Doesn't seem much point just for a week or so. Still have a lot of europe to see yet though. You wouldn't like my environment just now it's belting with rain.
posted by der wulf
Let my try this in simple declarative sentences: I have noticed that many non Americans have a large amount of interest in American politics. I find the attempts by the aformentioned people, to interperet, and catagorise our politics to be amusing. I do not see the same level of interest by Americans about the internal politics of other country's. I am curious as to why the aformentioned people are so interested in American politics, particularily when American's have so little interest in the internal politics of other country's.
No implications, no ineuendo, just simple questions, and remarks.
Speaking personally, and using the term you in a general sense, just because they seem so alien. A democracy yet you only have two parties seemingly vying for the presidency and money matters more than anything else. Land of opportunity yet the gulf between rich and poor seems enormous. Don't envy you your medical system or social security, like most people in this country I look and wonder why you put up with such crap. You go to war convinced of your own rightness without giving much thought to why you were attacked and we are daft enough to get sucked in, can't blame you for that but I do TB. Incredibly ignorant about the rest of the world and in some cases your own history yet you seem convinced you can put the world to rights and seem surprised when the rest of the world is antagonised by your action and seem to be incapable of realising that criticism of your govt's action does not mean you are anti american, just opposed to an action taken on your behalf by your govt. If I criticise the EEC you will not find a single european that assumes I dislike all French, germans, italians, swiss (frog eaters, squareheads, wops and toblerone eaters) etc. It's an assumption that makes no sense. Many actions you take seem to contradict much talked about principles and are taken to preserve american interests regardless.
http://www.sundayherald.com/47589
Christian fundamentalism I find fascinating because we have nothing like it here and they seem to have influence out of all proportion to their numbers. Not to put too fine a point on it they are I think nutters that given half a chance will shove their strange world view down everybody's throats and force you to conform to their moral standards whether you wnat to or not. You do daft things like insist the teletubbies have a representative black member and get one tossed off because you think it a gay role model because it's purple and carries a hand bag, apparently a new cartoon spongebob squarepants has run into diffuculty for the same kind of thing, yes the yellow sponge is gay (never actually seen it but heard the creator being interviewed, he thought it was hilarious) Films and pogrammes get altered so they don't offend the bible belt as if they couldn't just turn the TV off and let people watch what they want so I wonder why you take these kind of people seriously but you seem to.
If it were not that you are the most powerful nation on the planet with a president in charge preaching pre-emptive warfare your politics would be less interesting. I'm curious as to what you do next. How dangerous is america in its apparent lurch in to militarism and xenophobia and is it really going that way or have i just been talking to the wrong people and reading the wrong things.
Agreed, without full exposure to our respective environments, we will each continue in our bemusements. That is exactly why that you gmc, need to spend at least 2 months over here.
I'm waiting till the dollar falls a bit further then I might take a month off and have a good tour around :guitarist Doesn't seem much point just for a week or so. Still have a lot of europe to see yet though. You wouldn't like my environment just now it's belting with rain.
posted by der wulf
Let my try this in simple declarative sentences: I have noticed that many non Americans have a large amount of interest in American politics. I find the attempts by the aformentioned people, to interperet, and catagorise our politics to be amusing. I do not see the same level of interest by Americans about the internal politics of other country's. I am curious as to why the aformentioned people are so interested in American politics, particularily when American's have so little interest in the internal politics of other country's.
No implications, no ineuendo, just simple questions, and remarks.
Speaking personally, and using the term you in a general sense, just because they seem so alien. A democracy yet you only have two parties seemingly vying for the presidency and money matters more than anything else. Land of opportunity yet the gulf between rich and poor seems enormous. Don't envy you your medical system or social security, like most people in this country I look and wonder why you put up with such crap. You go to war convinced of your own rightness without giving much thought to why you were attacked and we are daft enough to get sucked in, can't blame you for that but I do TB. Incredibly ignorant about the rest of the world and in some cases your own history yet you seem convinced you can put the world to rights and seem surprised when the rest of the world is antagonised by your action and seem to be incapable of realising that criticism of your govt's action does not mean you are anti american, just opposed to an action taken on your behalf by your govt. If I criticise the EEC you will not find a single european that assumes I dislike all French, germans, italians, swiss (frog eaters, squareheads, wops and toblerone eaters) etc. It's an assumption that makes no sense. Many actions you take seem to contradict much talked about principles and are taken to preserve american interests regardless.
http://www.sundayherald.com/47589
Christian fundamentalism I find fascinating because we have nothing like it here and they seem to have influence out of all proportion to their numbers. Not to put too fine a point on it they are I think nutters that given half a chance will shove their strange world view down everybody's throats and force you to conform to their moral standards whether you wnat to or not. You do daft things like insist the teletubbies have a representative black member and get one tossed off because you think it a gay role model because it's purple and carries a hand bag, apparently a new cartoon spongebob squarepants has run into diffuculty for the same kind of thing, yes the yellow sponge is gay (never actually seen it but heard the creator being interviewed, he thought it was hilarious) Films and pogrammes get altered so they don't offend the bible belt as if they couldn't just turn the TV off and let people watch what they want so I wonder why you take these kind of people seriously but you seem to.
If it were not that you are the most powerful nation on the planet with a president in charge preaching pre-emptive warfare your politics would be less interesting. I'm curious as to what you do next. How dangerous is america in its apparent lurch in to militarism and xenophobia and is it really going that way or have i just been talking to the wrong people and reading the wrong things.
The truth about liberal bias
[QUOTE=gmc]posted by der wulf
I'm waiting till the dollar falls a bit further then I might take a month off and have a good tour around :guitarist Doesn't seem much point just for a week or so. Still have a lot of europe to see yet though. You wouldn't like my environment just now it's belting with rain.
der wulf, it is my opinion and direct experience that Scotland IS ... God's Garden of beauty and inspiration!!!!
I'm waiting till the dollar falls a bit further then I might take a month off and have a good tour around :guitarist Doesn't seem much point just for a week or so. Still have a lot of europe to see yet though. You wouldn't like my environment just now it's belting with rain.
der wulf, it is my opinion and direct experience that Scotland IS ... God's Garden of beauty and inspiration!!!!
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
The truth about liberal bias
gmc wrote:
I'm waiting till the dollar falls a bit further then I might take a month off and have a good tour around :guitarist Doesn't seem much point just for a week or so. Still have a lot of europe to see yet though. You wouldn't like my environment just now it's belting with rain..
Actually it's pelting rain in "sunny" Phoenix today, difference is you are used to it, we'll be busy saving fools from drowning in "dry" washes, and enriching the county coffers with fines from the "stupid motorist law".
Woe is me, I came to the garden this morning looking for a bright spot, and find myself surrounded by a dour Scott, a Canadian lass giggling at my "perdicament" , and two cognition challanged kiddies. Not sure how an invitation for you to visit the US turns into a commercial for Scotland, or how a disinterest in foreign politics, makes us uninterested in our own. gmc wrote:
I'm curious as to what you do next. How dangerous is america in its apparent lurch in to militarism and xenophobia and is it really going that way or have i just been talking to the wrong people and reading the wrong things.
I would'nt worry too much unless you see us attack France with something more lethal than Condi. I'm not concerned about what your reading, or hearing, I would however, really like to know what you have been smoking.
I'm waiting till the dollar falls a bit further then I might take a month off and have a good tour around :guitarist Doesn't seem much point just for a week or so. Still have a lot of europe to see yet though. You wouldn't like my environment just now it's belting with rain..
Actually it's pelting rain in "sunny" Phoenix today, difference is you are used to it, we'll be busy saving fools from drowning in "dry" washes, and enriching the county coffers with fines from the "stupid motorist law".
Woe is me, I came to the garden this morning looking for a bright spot, and find myself surrounded by a dour Scott, a Canadian lass giggling at my "perdicament" , and two cognition challanged kiddies. Not sure how an invitation for you to visit the US turns into a commercial for Scotland, or how a disinterest in foreign politics, makes us uninterested in our own.
gmc wrote: I'm curious as to what you do next. How dangerous is america in its apparent lurch in to militarism and xenophobia and is it really going that way or have i just been talking to the wrong people and reading the wrong things.
I would'nt worry too much unless you see us attack France with something more lethal than Condi. I'm not concerned about what your reading, or hearing, I would however, really like to know what you have been smoking.
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
The truth about liberal bias
Der Wulf wrote:
Woe is me, I came to the garden this morning looking for a bright spot, and find myself surrounded by a dour Scott, a Canadian lass giggling at my "perdicament" , and two cognition challanged kiddies.
I'm not concerned about what your reading, or hearing, I would however, really like to know what you have been smoking.
Like a ray of sunshine he comes to brighten the garden and expose the cobwebs of thought.
I continue to giggle now in admiration of your assessment.
Woe is me, I came to the garden this morning looking for a bright spot, and find myself surrounded by a dour Scott, a Canadian lass giggling at my "perdicament" , and two cognition challanged kiddies.
I'm not concerned about what your reading, or hearing, I would however, really like to know what you have been smoking.
Like a ray of sunshine he comes to brighten the garden and expose the cobwebs of thought.
I continue to giggle now in admiration of your assessment.
The truth about liberal bias
Saintsman wrote: Good Morning Koan!
The problem that I don't find quite as ridiculous is that once a practice of taking words and extending an additional meaning that has not been clearly made known to all ... or denoted to incorporate a new or expanded interpertation in our national or world dictionary, will create confusion.
Slang words and the sort will be utilized in one unconventional way and possibly only by specific people in certain areas. Pretty soon the rest of us are lost or confused because we are applying the word's original meaning. For example, I have long labored over the way a good number of the African-American population within the U.S. rearrange the language for their personal reasons or "codes" or uniqueness. This is fine, but please don't expect me to be able to follow what is being said in an intelligent conversation. Of course, I believe that is part of their mission when they are hanging out together and further establishing their unique or special brotherhood and experiences.
We could push this example to the limit and imagine people in the north applying their own meaning, people in the south a different meaning, people in the east and west yet another meaning and when we all met in the middle, people would be confused, upset, insulted and so on. Per an earlier example, if I say: My son's face has been surrounded by ***** liquid, the dictionary would say that he has an infection and that pus like liquid has formed around certain parts of his face. Or, "my wife's ***** has been very busy" yet again brings a different meaning when I am trying to tell you that my wife's cat is very active. No where in any dictionaries I have read does ***** define a female body part (unless specifically catagorized as slang and we know that slang doesn't equal the foundation or appropriate use of a word), and yet readers in my previous post assumed it to be (and I led them to believe) what they incorrectly applied to a designated interpertation where it was not justified ... my exact point.
"At the end of the day", there is a high possibility of many words being taken out of context, applied bastard definitions to that are not legitimately expressed and a gaggle of different interpertations, understandings, confusion and altered moods would occur cuasing an overall strained rapport for most all. (I inappropriately used the word gaggle above for effect!).
Lets avoid all the confusion ... unless it is your intent to confuse ... and all agree on what the word's true meaining is. Most words have been around for centuries and their meaning defined long before any of us, so why change the established practice? :rolleyes:
Cheers! (There is another word! What the heck is "cheers" truly suppose to mean in a literal context? )
What a large amount of words it took for you to say you don't like change.
The world does not require your approval, it will continue to change and it is your duty to keep up with the times if you wish to engage in legitimate conversation.
The problem that I don't find quite as ridiculous is that once a practice of taking words and extending an additional meaning that has not been clearly made known to all ... or denoted to incorporate a new or expanded interpertation in our national or world dictionary, will create confusion.
Slang words and the sort will be utilized in one unconventional way and possibly only by specific people in certain areas. Pretty soon the rest of us are lost or confused because we are applying the word's original meaning. For example, I have long labored over the way a good number of the African-American population within the U.S. rearrange the language for their personal reasons or "codes" or uniqueness. This is fine, but please don't expect me to be able to follow what is being said in an intelligent conversation. Of course, I believe that is part of their mission when they are hanging out together and further establishing their unique or special brotherhood and experiences.
We could push this example to the limit and imagine people in the north applying their own meaning, people in the south a different meaning, people in the east and west yet another meaning and when we all met in the middle, people would be confused, upset, insulted and so on. Per an earlier example, if I say: My son's face has been surrounded by ***** liquid, the dictionary would say that he has an infection and that pus like liquid has formed around certain parts of his face. Or, "my wife's ***** has been very busy" yet again brings a different meaning when I am trying to tell you that my wife's cat is very active. No where in any dictionaries I have read does ***** define a female body part (unless specifically catagorized as slang and we know that slang doesn't equal the foundation or appropriate use of a word), and yet readers in my previous post assumed it to be (and I led them to believe) what they incorrectly applied to a designated interpertation where it was not justified ... my exact point.
"At the end of the day", there is a high possibility of many words being taken out of context, applied bastard definitions to that are not legitimately expressed and a gaggle of different interpertations, understandings, confusion and altered moods would occur cuasing an overall strained rapport for most all. (I inappropriately used the word gaggle above for effect!).
Lets avoid all the confusion ... unless it is your intent to confuse ... and all agree on what the word's true meaining is. Most words have been around for centuries and their meaning defined long before any of us, so why change the established practice? :rolleyes:
Cheers! (There is another word! What the heck is "cheers" truly suppose to mean in a literal context?
)What a large amount of words it took for you to say you don't like change.
The world does not require your approval, it will continue to change and it is your duty to keep up with the times if you wish to engage in legitimate conversation.
The truth about liberal bias
koan wrote: What a large amount of words it took for you to say you don't like change.
The world does not require your approval, it will continue to change and it is your duty to keep up with the times if you wish to engage in legitimate conversation.
and when you are dead and gone, will your jargon continue on as the established order of language? I think not.
And I did so without a lot of words! Are you proud of me? Do I get a cookie? I would rather get that community dance Minks talked about! :wah:
The world does not require your approval, it will continue to change and it is your duty to keep up with the times if you wish to engage in legitimate conversation.
and when you are dead and gone, will your jargon continue on as the established order of language? I think not.
And I did so without a lot of words! Are you proud of me? Do I get a cookie? I would rather get that community dance Minks talked about! :wah:
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The truth about liberal bias
Eric Northwood wrote: And as for Der Wulf, it is funny how Americans have little interest in their own politics, while non-Americans do. I think there are a few reasons for this.
i read and hear that assessment frequently, but i don't believe it has any basis in fact. there are nearly 300 million 'americans' (United States Citizens, to be accurate). about 217 million are adults of voting age. considering the widely varying demographics in this vast land, coming up with an accurate assessment of the relative levels of interest US adults have in politics is one extremely sticky wicket. what constitutes 'interest' - mere voting? participation in advocacy groups? willingness/desire to debate issues? desire to be current on the issues, but no interest in debate, but rather an interest in independently forming opinions?
no, there's no way one can make the assessment that americans have little interest in politics, at least as anything more than as a guess, likely influenced by personal bias. there are millions of people who don't give a crap about politics. and millions of people who devote their lives to political change/reform/status quo.
i read and hear that assessment frequently, but i don't believe it has any basis in fact. there are nearly 300 million 'americans' (United States Citizens, to be accurate). about 217 million are adults of voting age. considering the widely varying demographics in this vast land, coming up with an accurate assessment of the relative levels of interest US adults have in politics is one extremely sticky wicket. what constitutes 'interest' - mere voting? participation in advocacy groups? willingness/desire to debate issues? desire to be current on the issues, but no interest in debate, but rather an interest in independently forming opinions?
no, there's no way one can make the assessment that americans have little interest in politics, at least as anything more than as a guess, likely influenced by personal bias. there are millions of people who don't give a crap about politics. and millions of people who devote their lives to political change/reform/status quo.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The truth about liberal bias
Eric Northwood wrote: I'd suggest that one way to determine interest in American politics by their own citizens is voter turnout. Something that simple to do would demonstrate at least a minor interest in federal politics.
and as you point out below - 60% of eligible voters do so. one can look at the glass as half empty, or half full. in this case, it's more than half full. it's not 100%, but it's also not an indication of apathy. the fact is, a majority of registered voters do vote, therefore, that belies apathy as being more prevalent than engagement.
And the voter turnout in the 2004 federal elections in the States was around 59.6 percent of all eligible voters. To merely drop a ballot into a box or punch a button on a computer requires no effort, so you can see that almost one-half of your population is apathetic enough, or happy enough with the federal system to not care who is in power, to vote.
or, totally disgusted with the choices we are presented with. a droning, 'liberal' elitist, pathetically wealthy (but that's okay cuz he's a democrat), or a 'reglar guy', fairly intelligent, former boozer, pathetically wealthy (but that's evil cuz he's a republican). one cleaves rather too far to the left, the other cleaves rather too far to the right. and never the twain shall meet - sadly, most of us are stuck in the twain, so neither choice is agreeable. and those who vote thus often wind up voting while holding their nose, as i did.
Again, I'm not saying a 59.6 percent voter turnout rate is bad. Here in Canada, where homosexuals run rampant around the cities preaching peace and rebellion against the American infidel dogs, our voter turnout rate is nearly the same.
not sure what homosexuals have to do with anything, but okay.
I think it's the fact that you're the most powerful nation on earth, and don't seem to care all that much that you could blow any other nation into a large steaming crater.
we've been the most powerful nation on earth, by the measure of being able to destroy earth, for some fifty odd years now, and we still haven't done it. which suggests to me, that that power is in the right hands. contrast with a fruit-loop like kim jong il.
and as you point out below - 60% of eligible voters do so. one can look at the glass as half empty, or half full. in this case, it's more than half full. it's not 100%, but it's also not an indication of apathy. the fact is, a majority of registered voters do vote, therefore, that belies apathy as being more prevalent than engagement.
And the voter turnout in the 2004 federal elections in the States was around 59.6 percent of all eligible voters. To merely drop a ballot into a box or punch a button on a computer requires no effort, so you can see that almost one-half of your population is apathetic enough, or happy enough with the federal system to not care who is in power, to vote.
or, totally disgusted with the choices we are presented with. a droning, 'liberal' elitist, pathetically wealthy (but that's okay cuz he's a democrat), or a 'reglar guy', fairly intelligent, former boozer, pathetically wealthy (but that's evil cuz he's a republican). one cleaves rather too far to the left, the other cleaves rather too far to the right. and never the twain shall meet - sadly, most of us are stuck in the twain, so neither choice is agreeable. and those who vote thus often wind up voting while holding their nose, as i did.
Again, I'm not saying a 59.6 percent voter turnout rate is bad. Here in Canada, where homosexuals run rampant around the cities preaching peace and rebellion against the American infidel dogs, our voter turnout rate is nearly the same.
not sure what homosexuals have to do with anything, but okay.
I think it's the fact that you're the most powerful nation on earth, and don't seem to care all that much that you could blow any other nation into a large steaming crater.
we've been the most powerful nation on earth, by the measure of being able to destroy earth, for some fifty odd years now, and we still haven't done it. which suggests to me, that that power is in the right hands. contrast with a fruit-loop like kim jong il.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
The truth about liberal bias
I think it's the fact that you're the most powerful nation on earth, and don't seem to care all that much that you could blow any other nation into a large steaming crater.
Eric N., I thing you are definitely on to something here! Here I use my example of President G. W. Bush ... good, bad or indifferent!
Eric N., I thing you are definitely on to something here! Here I use my example of President G. W. Bush ... good, bad or indifferent!
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
The truth about liberal bias
posted by der wulf
Woe is me, I came to the garden this morning looking for a bright spot, and find myself surrounded by a dour Scott, a Canadian lass giggling at my "perdicament" , and two cognition challanged kiddies. Not sure how an invitation for you to visit the US turns into a commercial for Scotland, or how a disinterest in foreign politics, makes us uninterested in our own.
I would take umbrage at being called dour but can't think how to do that without confirming the impression.
An American a Canadian a Scotsman and an Englishman were in a hot air balloon and to stop from falling to earth one of them had to be thrown out. How would you decide which one to throw out?
The proportion voting seems pretty much the same in all three countries-about 60%.
posted by anastrophe
and as you point out below - 60% of eligible voters do so. one can look at the glass as half empty, or half full. in this case, it's more than half full. it's not 100%, but it's also not an indication of apathy. the fact is, a majority of registered voters do vote, therefore, that belies apathy as being more prevalent than engagement.
sadly, most of us are stuck in the twain, so neither choice is agreeable. and those who vote thus often wind up voting while holding their nose, as i did.
change the wording slightly and you could almost apply it to the Uk. If only you could have a political system that somehow barred politicians.
posted by anastrophe
we've been the most powerful nation on earth, by the measure of being able to destroy earth, for some fifty odd years now, and we still haven't done it. which suggests to me, that that power is in the right hands. contrast with a fruit-loop like kim jong il.
I would actually agree with you up to a point, but you do seem rather determined to throw your weight around now, the question should maybe =be will the american people let Bush do it?
Woe is me, I came to the garden this morning looking for a bright spot, and find myself surrounded by a dour Scott, a Canadian lass giggling at my "perdicament" , and two cognition challanged kiddies. Not sure how an invitation for you to visit the US turns into a commercial for Scotland, or how a disinterest in foreign politics, makes us uninterested in our own.
I would take umbrage at being called dour but can't think how to do that without confirming the impression.
An American a Canadian a Scotsman and an Englishman were in a hot air balloon and to stop from falling to earth one of them had to be thrown out. How would you decide which one to throw out?
The proportion voting seems pretty much the same in all three countries-about 60%.
posted by anastrophe
and as you point out below - 60% of eligible voters do so. one can look at the glass as half empty, or half full. in this case, it's more than half full. it's not 100%, but it's also not an indication of apathy. the fact is, a majority of registered voters do vote, therefore, that belies apathy as being more prevalent than engagement.
sadly, most of us are stuck in the twain, so neither choice is agreeable. and those who vote thus often wind up voting while holding their nose, as i did.
change the wording slightly and you could almost apply it to the Uk. If only you could have a political system that somehow barred politicians.
posted by anastrophe
we've been the most powerful nation on earth, by the measure of being able to destroy earth, for some fifty odd years now, and we still haven't done it. which suggests to me, that that power is in the right hands. contrast with a fruit-loop like kim jong il.
I would actually agree with you up to a point, but you do seem rather determined to throw your weight around now, the question should maybe =be will the american people let Bush do it?
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
The truth about liberal bias
gmc wrote: I would actually agree with you up to a point, but you do seem rather determined to throw your weight around now, the question should maybe =be will the american people let Bush do it?
"Throw our weight around" as compared to what? Or whom? The world is comprised of the strong and the weak; it was that way long before any of us got here. So let's take this in context, and not some lovely but high-flown ideal.
As the most powerful nation on earth, how would we rate against previous empires?
"Throw our weight around" as compared to what? Or whom? The world is comprised of the strong and the weak; it was that way long before any of us got here. So let's take this in context, and not some lovely but high-flown ideal.
As the most powerful nation on earth, how would we rate against previous empires?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
The truth about liberal bias
posted by a karenina
Throw our weight around" as compared to what? Or whom? The world is comprised of the strong and the weak; it was that way long before any of us got here. So let's take this in context, and not some lovely but high-flown ideal.
As the most powerful nation on earth, how would we rate against previous empires?
from the oxford english dictionary
empire // n.
1 an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, esp. an emperor or empress.
2 a supreme dominion. b (often foll. by over) archaic absolute control.
3 a large commercial organization etc. owned or directed by one person or group.
4 (the Empire) hist. a the British Empire. b the Holy Roman Empire.
5 a type or period of government in which the sovereign is called emperor or empress.
6 (Empire) (attrib.) a denoting a style of furniture or dress fashionable during the first (1804–14) or second (1852–70) French Empire. b Brit. denoting produce from the Commonwealth.
[Middle English via Old French from Latin imperium, related to imperare: see emperor]
empire builder
empire builder n.
a person who deliberately acquires extra territory, authority, etc., seeking power for its own sake.
empire building n.
Do you think america is an empire? I would say not. Ultimately your leaders have to stand for election and can only act with the support of the people.
But you have a group in power who have stated their intention to use america's might to deal with regimes and impose democracy as they see fit and who seem to have the backing of the american people. That's what I meant by throwing their weight around and hence the reason for my question.
Throw our weight around" as compared to what? Or whom? The world is comprised of the strong and the weak; it was that way long before any of us got here. So let's take this in context, and not some lovely but high-flown ideal.
As the most powerful nation on earth, how would we rate against previous empires?
from the oxford english dictionary
empire // n.
1 an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, esp. an emperor or empress.
2 a supreme dominion. b (often foll. by over) archaic absolute control.
3 a large commercial organization etc. owned or directed by one person or group.
4 (the Empire) hist. a the British Empire. b the Holy Roman Empire.
5 a type or period of government in which the sovereign is called emperor or empress.
6 (Empire) (attrib.) a denoting a style of furniture or dress fashionable during the first (1804–14) or second (1852–70) French Empire. b Brit. denoting produce from the Commonwealth.
[Middle English via Old French from Latin imperium, related to imperare: see emperor]
empire builder
empire builder n.
a person who deliberately acquires extra territory, authority, etc., seeking power for its own sake.
empire building n.
Do you think america is an empire? I would say not. Ultimately your leaders have to stand for election and can only act with the support of the people.
But you have a group in power who have stated their intention to use america's might to deal with regimes and impose democracy as they see fit and who seem to have the backing of the american people. That's what I meant by throwing their weight around and hence the reason for my question.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
The truth about liberal bias
Fair enough, gmc. I made the leap from "most powerful nation" to "throwing weight around" to empire. I apologize for my assumption. :)It's an interesting question, and I'll ramble a bit about it indirectly. People seem to think that because we elect officials, that they will do whatever the majority says, and that this will happen pretty quickly. I have to disagree on all counts.
We cast our votes (when we can bear it!), and we "speak". But we've little way of controlling the official once we elect him/her. Sure, we've got protests, boycotts, organized marches, bad publicity, etc...but the extent of our influence is limited. If our elected officials behave in ways we don't like, we will "speak" again when the next election comes.
So, how do we interpret our collective voice, especially in light of Bush's re-election? It might appear that most of us agree with Bush's policies, but that is a narrow way of looking at it. Many do not agree with a lot of things he says/does, but in contrast to Kerry, Bush seemed to be the better choice.
What will we do if America goes after Iran, etc? Not a whole lot more than we did when we went into Iraq, I'd imagine. What could we do, really? What can you do in the UK? (Just asking, not attacking.)
You understand the answers to your questions a lot more than you let on. JMHO, of course.
We cast our votes (when we can bear it!), and we "speak". But we've little way of controlling the official once we elect him/her. Sure, we've got protests, boycotts, organized marches, bad publicity, etc...but the extent of our influence is limited. If our elected officials behave in ways we don't like, we will "speak" again when the next election comes.
So, how do we interpret our collective voice, especially in light of Bush's re-election? It might appear that most of us agree with Bush's policies, but that is a narrow way of looking at it. Many do not agree with a lot of things he says/does, but in contrast to Kerry, Bush seemed to be the better choice.
What will we do if America goes after Iran, etc? Not a whole lot more than we did when we went into Iraq, I'd imagine. What could we do, really? What can you do in the UK? (Just asking, not attacking.)
You understand the answers to your questions a lot more than you let on. JMHO, of course.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
The truth about liberal bias
posted by a karenina
What will we do if America goes after Iran, etc? Not a whole lot more than we did when we went into Iraq, I'd imagine. What could we do, really? What can you do in the UK? (Just asking, not attacking.)
Good question. One difference between our systems is parliament is supposed to be sovereign, with the prime minister and the cabinet as executive running the country but answerable to parliament. The prime minister is supposedly first amongst equals and does not have the same kind of presidential authority. In practice we have prime ministerial government with parliament rubber stamping policy but parliament can still stop them cold if enough MP's decide to vote against them. Whether they do or not depends how woried they are about getting reelected.
I can see TB getting in again simply because the alternative (i.e. the tories are so bad) We might see the liberal democrats making headway which would be a major shift in UK politics-with Proportional representation we would not have a labour govrnment at the moment, and would not have had Maggie Thatcher for so long either. If Labour lose seats labour MP's might be more ready to take the hint and stop TB. It's not just Iraq there are domestic issues as well that people are unhappy about in a major way.
Scotland is wholly labour but the domestic issues (like the NHS) are a major factor in how people vote and many don't like what TB is doing many don't want to see it privatised even by the back door. George Brown's constuency is firmly labour but old labour i.e. more socialist in outlook I still think he'll get back in. But to many diehard labour supporters TB is a public schoolboy who is wrecking the labour party. We did have a scottish socialist party that might have taken away some seats from labour but like most far left parties they have ended up squabbling amongst themselves and are going nowhere so the protest vote might go elsewhere but probably not to the tories. Disbanding all the scottish regiments hasn't won many friends either. English politics I am even less in a position to offer an opinion about than Scots.
The Iraq war caused public demonstrations like the UK has not seen since the poll tax riots. I doubt anyone will believe him this time around so if he tries to get us to back you with Iran I would be inclined to think the opposition will be intense.
There is an election in May so we shall see.
You understand the answers to your questions a lot more than you let on. JMHO, of course.
Don't know what you mean but I'll take is as complimentary
What will we do if America goes after Iran, etc? Not a whole lot more than we did when we went into Iraq, I'd imagine. What could we do, really? What can you do in the UK? (Just asking, not attacking.)
Good question. One difference between our systems is parliament is supposed to be sovereign, with the prime minister and the cabinet as executive running the country but answerable to parliament. The prime minister is supposedly first amongst equals and does not have the same kind of presidential authority. In practice we have prime ministerial government with parliament rubber stamping policy but parliament can still stop them cold if enough MP's decide to vote against them. Whether they do or not depends how woried they are about getting reelected.
I can see TB getting in again simply because the alternative (i.e. the tories are so bad) We might see the liberal democrats making headway which would be a major shift in UK politics-with Proportional representation we would not have a labour govrnment at the moment, and would not have had Maggie Thatcher for so long either. If Labour lose seats labour MP's might be more ready to take the hint and stop TB. It's not just Iraq there are domestic issues as well that people are unhappy about in a major way.
Scotland is wholly labour but the domestic issues (like the NHS) are a major factor in how people vote and many don't like what TB is doing many don't want to see it privatised even by the back door. George Brown's constuency is firmly labour but old labour i.e. more socialist in outlook I still think he'll get back in. But to many diehard labour supporters TB is a public schoolboy who is wrecking the labour party. We did have a scottish socialist party that might have taken away some seats from labour but like most far left parties they have ended up squabbling amongst themselves and are going nowhere so the protest vote might go elsewhere but probably not to the tories. Disbanding all the scottish regiments hasn't won many friends either. English politics I am even less in a position to offer an opinion about than Scots.
The Iraq war caused public demonstrations like the UK has not seen since the poll tax riots. I doubt anyone will believe him this time around so if he tries to get us to back you with Iran I would be inclined to think the opposition will be intense.
There is an election in May so we shall see.
You understand the answers to your questions a lot more than you let on. JMHO, of course.
Don't know what you mean but I'll take is as complimentary
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
The truth about liberal bias
It is definitely a compliment.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
The truth about liberal bias
gmc wrote: posted by der wulf
I would take umbrage at being called dour but can't think how to do that without confirming the impression.
Problem is that if I called you delightful, none of us would know of whom I was speaking.
gmc wrote:
An American a Canadian a Scotsman and an Englishman were in a hot air balloon and to stop from falling to earth one of them had to be thrown out. How would you decide which one to throw out?
That one is simple, t'would be the one in a kilt, the rest of course, would fervently hope that the kilt would form a proper parachute. We would of course, hold your bottle, and money belt, in order to help keep your weight minimized.
Sorry to go so far back in the thread, but after posting about the pelting rain, we received 4 days worth. Our annual rainfall average is 8", we received 4", and another storm predicted to be about the same is due in Wednesday.
Bad things happen in the desert when faced with such an onslaught, worst for me being no phone service for 4 days --- and the cell phone won't get me to the garden. :-5
I would take umbrage at being called dour but can't think how to do that without confirming the impression.
Problem is that if I called you delightful, none of us would know of whom I was speaking.
gmc wrote:
An American a Canadian a Scotsman and an Englishman were in a hot air balloon and to stop from falling to earth one of them had to be thrown out. How would you decide which one to throw out?
That one is simple, t'would be the one in a kilt, the rest of course, would fervently hope that the kilt would form a proper parachute. We would of course, hold your bottle, and money belt, in order to help keep your weight minimized.
Sorry to go so far back in the thread, but after posting about the pelting rain, we received 4 days worth. Our annual rainfall average is 8", we received 4", and another storm predicted to be about the same is due in Wednesday.
Bad things happen in the desert when faced with such an onslaught, worst for me being no phone service for 4 days --- and the cell phone won't get me to the garden. :-5
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
The truth about liberal bias
posted by der wulf
[QUOTE]Problem is that if I called you delightful, none of us would know of whom I was speaking.
Naturally we would assume a karenina :-3
posted by der wulf
That one is simple, t'would be the one in a kilt, the rest of course, would fervently hope that the kilt would form a proper parachute. We would of course, hold your bottle, and money belt, in order to help keep your weight minimized.
Nope, it's a well known fact that scots make the best engineers and it might break down so you need to keep him, besides how would he be able to see where he was going to land unless he felkl head first.
It's a hot air balloon so you might need more hot air. The question is which of the three windbags is least full of it :sneaky:
Sorry to go so far back in the thread, but after posting about the pelting rain, we received 4 days worth. Our annual rainfall average is 8", we received 4", and another storm predicted to be about the same is due in Wednesday.
Bad things happen in the desert when faced with such an onslaught, worst for me being no phone service for 4 days --- and the cell phone won't get me to the garden.
I want snow
[QUOTE]Problem is that if I called you delightful, none of us would know of whom I was speaking.
Naturally we would assume a karenina :-3
posted by der wulf
That one is simple, t'would be the one in a kilt, the rest of course, would fervently hope that the kilt would form a proper parachute. We would of course, hold your bottle, and money belt, in order to help keep your weight minimized.
Nope, it's a well known fact that scots make the best engineers and it might break down so you need to keep him, besides how would he be able to see where he was going to land unless he felkl head first.
It's a hot air balloon so you might need more hot air. The question is which of the three windbags is least full of it :sneaky:
Sorry to go so far back in the thread, but after posting about the pelting rain, we received 4 days worth. Our annual rainfall average is 8", we received 4", and another storm predicted to be about the same is due in Wednesday.
Bad things happen in the desert when faced with such an onslaught, worst for me being no phone service for 4 days --- and the cell phone won't get me to the garden.
I want snow