|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 13:08:22 GMT -5
Is Keith Olbermann mocking Bush, or is his indignation genuine? Genuine. He's frothing, though. It's way over the top. But I believe his passion is f'real.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 13:10:39 GMT -5
I'm not suprised that the Right is attacking Michael J. Fox, as they have no sense of empathy. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Right", but I'm definitely politically conservative. Okay, listen: I Have A Sense Of Empathy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 13:21:00 GMT -5
I'm not suprised that the Right is attacking Michael J. Fox, as they have no sense of empathy. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Right", but I'm definitely politically conservative. Okay, listen: I Have A Sense Of Empathy. The various White House operatives, the mouthpieces like Rush, etc., are NOT conservatives, at least as I see them. They are the Radical Right. Does massive government spending, nation building overseas, more citizen surveilence, more power concentrated into the hands of the Leader (President), seem conservative to you? You're right, it doesn't to me either. BTW, John Dean of Watergate fame made the original observation of Neocons lacking empathy in his recent book, "Conservatives Without Conscience". Barry Goldwater (Mr. Conservative) was going to co-write it with Dean until he got to ill to participate.
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 13:35:00 GMT -5
I would say that Rush is right, not radical right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 13:40:43 GMT -5
I would say that Rush is right, not radical right. Chicago Bob, do you mean Rush is right, as in correct? That Michael Fox was faking his Parkinson's systems?
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 13:51:56 GMT -5
I have no idea if MJ Fox was faking.
I think Rush is right center...not radical right in political thinking. I think his phlosophy is shared with many (probably most) on the right, not few as would be the case if he were "radical".
His talk radio audience is the largest in the free world.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 27, 2006 14:05:55 GMT -5
The fun thing is between 2004 and 2005, Rush's market share dropped 33% in some markets. He may have the biggest audience, but that audience in no way reflects a very large percentage of the nation. Think about it. At least 60% of the population thinks Bush is doing a bad job. An even higher percentage think Cheney is doing a bad job. I don't suspect any of those people agree with Rush who thinks they are both doing a great job. In our market, Rush is beat by the local Rap station. His audience is inflated by the fact that he is on a lot of stations but within each market, he isn't always doing that good.
But representative of the nation or the right or the far right? Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 14:11:38 GMT -5
I know Bob personally, as well as on these boards. Both experiences tell me Bob has a sense of empathy that approximates the size of his frame.
A good example of radical right would be our very own Doug. Right, Doug?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 14:15:52 GMT -5
It's an ugly argument: A desire to shrink government=lack of empathy. It's an argument against R's for umpteen years. It ignores the merits and points a bony finger at the people and says "See! They're Bad People, oh my!" Like I said, it's an ugly argument and it's being repeated umpteen times from all sides.
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Oct 27, 2006 14:46:13 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with Tom. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Savage aren't anything like center right. They and Kristol anf Cheney and the other neoconservative signatories are extremists.
If there is a center right, its to the left of Pappy Bush and John McCain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 15:09:48 GMT -5
I actually like Rush. He may be rude, and wrong at times, but overall, I agree with his politics. One thing is clear, the Fox interview does not distinguish between embryonic stem cell (unborn babies) and adult stem cell research. The destruction of unborn human life is what is at stake in the great debate. That is what should be debated, not the virtues of an actor or a talk radio personality. Opened this thread because I'm still naive to the discussions that take place here. But since this is an area that personally effects me and my family (huge history of Parkinson's, Mom, uncle, grandmother and now possibly my brother and the occasional tremors I see in my own extremities is a little scary.) I'll stick my neck out and say I side with Bob. With the exception of the 'overall', I would say 'sometimes'. Fetal Stem Cell research doesn't hold nearly as much promise as Adult Stem Cell research or Cord Blood research. I've done a lot of reading on this subject for the personal reasons I've stated and fetal stem cells are not liked by a lot of scientists because of their instability. This article touches on that. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200325.html or if you're in to scientific jargon www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nm1495.html. From my reading over the last 3 years or so, it appears to me that the majority of scientists prefer the adult stem cell arena when talking of promise for disease cures as well as other areas. There was a man in England who had, I believe, bone grown from his own stem cells to replace his jaw lost to cancer. (But don't quote me on that. I'd have to go through my long list of articles and this was over a year go.) I think what we've been led into is a debate between pro-choice and pro-life factions/politicians in order to advance their own causes without much care to what the real truth is and to further polarize the voting populace. Unfortunately science takes it on the chin because the nation gets so polarized. And for those who still think that fetal (embryonic) stem cell research is the next great hope and you don't want to give up the ship - I found this interesting. www.alterednucleartransfer.com/ Don't forget that the real issue here is what the federal government should or shouldn't fund. Any private institution or corporation is free to fund their own fetal stem cell research and some have been doing so. Interestingly, Australia funds FSC research of IVF embryos, but is now in a debate over banning cloning for FSCR. Sorry for the long post, as you can see it's a subject I've kept an eye on for some time.
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 15:14:34 GMT -5
Folks, when Fox News is No 1, Bill O'Reilly is No. 1, Rush Limbaugh is No. 1, etc. there is a rather large number of people out there who lean to the right. It is beyond dispute.
When you add up the rest, yes, there is a large number of people leaning leftward. Some of those are far left, some of them center.
Rush wants to uphold traditional American values; the rugged individualism concept. So do most Americans. Ever hear the expression "this country is upside down"?
The neoconservatives (extremeists) to me are people like David Duke, Tim Mc Veigh, etc.
Rush is straight right wing, not an extremist.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 15:16:27 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time for that post, Karlynn. That is one whale of a bunch of information that is getting overlooked because of the political mess.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 27, 2006 15:19:19 GMT -5
"Folks, when Fox News is No 1, Bill O'Reilly is No. 1, Rush Limbaugh is No. 1, etc. there is a rather large number of people out there who lean to the right. It is beyond dispute."
Rather large, sure. But nowhere near as large, say, as the overwhelming number of Americans who disagree completely with O'Reilly and Limbaugh and many of the Fox commentators on the war in Iraq, Bush's job performance and other important measuring sticks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 15:21:21 GMT -5
Wow are we in trouble. Fox news is a joke. Time to move to Italy.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 15:22:31 GMT -5
Saying Limbaugh's politics are extreme left is just an attempt to win the argument by marginalizing the opponent. "Bah, don't listen to him/her the evil Limbaugh/Hillary" etc.
We can do better by discussing.
Thanks Karlynn. That's an interesting post.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 27, 2006 15:27:14 GMT -5
No Evan not radical right or even right, just anarchist, or hard liberterian.
Anti war, unless attacked then "katie bar the door" Isolationist, treatys are only for times of war. Anti-"any government welfare. Both personal and corporate and I think that you get rid of the corporate years before personal. Believe in enforcing the highest law in the land, but if we did that we'd have to hang all 535 congress critters and most of the people that work for the feds. Not that I'm against that. No drug laws, no gun laws, no sex laws. No slavery laws of which we have many. No standing army. Standing Navy is authorized in Constitution. No airforce. No government space program.
I don't that sounds like radical right.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 15:30:36 GMT -5
Several of these "facts", while seemingly contradictory, can be equally true. For instance...
I think Fox is the current leading news media outlet -- but I also think that's because it is the alternative to a much bigger news media outlet -- everyone else. I could be wrong, but I think that if you add NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN the combined number would be bigger than FOX's.
Same with Rush. He is probably still the leading talk show host. But that's partly because Rush broke new ground and everyone who has come after is further dividing the "pie". But while Rush's audience is still the biggest, it is miniscule compared to what it used to be. I travel for a living. It used to be I couldn't drive anywhere east of the Mississippi without Rush being on multiple AM stations in every market. Now I can drive in many areas and he's not on a single station.
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 15:32:41 GMT -5
Point taken, Bill. My point is that in this culture war, the "traditionalist" is being unfairly labeled as "radical".
Karlynn, very informative. The media has spun the embryonic stem cell debate into an issue between being for or against research when it is not, in fact, the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by davidhanners on Oct 27, 2006 15:40:01 GMT -5
Make no mistake -- Rush is radical right. His positions are out of step with the political mainstream in this country, and he and his ilk seek to roll back numerous gains we have made as a society over the years. But even worse than being a member of the radical right, he is a member of the misinformed radical right. He spits out faulty statistics, half-truths and outright falsehoods like an M249 SAW spits out 45mm rounds. He may be entertaining, but he is often factually challenged.
While a conservative may be capable of individual empathy, the movement they belong to lacks any sense of collective empathy. They may give a quarter to the panhandler on the street, but they've opposed many of the attempts to stem poverty (i.e., universal health care, increases in the minimum wage, etc.) throughout the history of their movement. They may feel empathy for the unmarried pregnant teen, but they certainly don't want her to have an abortion, and once the child is born, they certainly don't advocate any type of state-supported child care so mom can finish her education or get a job with a living wage.
They may feel empathy for the individual soldier who comes back from Iraq without a limb or suffering from PTSD, but they certainly don't want to increase funding at the VA, nor do they particularly believe PTSD actually exists. (From what I've been able to discern, the only psychological theory that most conservatives buy into is "closure." They support the death penalty, in large part, because they claim it gives "closure" to the victims' families.)
An individual conservative may have empathy for an elderly friend or relative, but as a collective movement, that empathy stops cold if you have to raise taxes for fund programs like Medicare or Medicaid. In fact, instead of making necessary medications cheaper, they'd rather just let the pharmaceutical companies write the drug laws so that we pay $50 for some medicine that Canadians can buy for $10.
The individual conservative may have empathy for a local landowner whose property is polluted by some industry, but the conservative movement wouldn't consider the prospect that if we actually and effectively regulated that industry, maybe it wouldn't be polluting the environment we all have to live in.
An individual conservative may feel empathy for a kid who grows up in a rough urban area, but as a movement, they won't do anything to fund better schools or pre- or after-school activities for the kids. They've even wanted to gut programs like Head Start, which have a proven track record of helping at-risk kids. In fact, when it comes to those urban schools, the conservative movement of today would rather just see the schools dry up and blow away. They want to give everyone vouchers, as if some hoity-toity private school is suddenly going to accept a kid with behavioral problems or learning disabilities.
The list of examples goes on and on. I have no doubt that individually, folks like theevan are capable of empathy, perhaps even great and noble empathy. But as a movement, today's conservativism is devoid of empathy. They lack any sense of a "collective good," which is one of the founding tenets of this country. They think we're all capable of pulling ourselves up by our boostraps, but they don't realize that not everyone has bootstraps.
|
|